Applying Bloom's Taxonomy to Learning the Mandolin

[draino]

You guys just make the "knowing" so complicated. And you seem to leave out the hearing part. Very early on, I have my students who like most everyone knows the Do-re-mi thing, put their finger at any fret and play do-re-mi. They have learned a scale and it doesn't take long. Put your finger anywhere and sing the arpeggio or do mi sol and find the notes.

Mike: thank you for your useful contribution to this thread. I don't think we're making knowing how to find a 1-3-5 pattern on a fingerboard complicated. We're simply suggesting that going from being able to find it on the fingerboard to . . . being able to apply that pattern in the middle of an improvised break is quite difficult, and additional excercises might be needed to bridge that gap. Excercies, such as you just suggested.

[pickloser]

So it's one lesson for the major scales, one for the minors, one for the arps, and then you cut 'em loose to learn tunes by ear?

What's your approach for arpeggios? I think you probably do more than Maria did in the Sound of Music. Those kids did pick it up fast though.

[JonZ]

Some people pick these things up faster than others.

[Mike Bunting]

Mike: thank you for your useful contribution to this thread. I don't think we're making knowing how to find a 1-3-5 pattern on a fingerboard complicated. We're simply suggesting that going from being able to find it on the fingerboard to . . . being able to apply that pattern in the middle of an improvised break is quite difficult, and additional excercises might be needed to bridge that gap. Excercies, such as you just suggested.

Sorry to intrude, I should know better.

[Brent Hutto]

It sure seems like over analyzing a very simple process to me. It's not hard to learn a scale, it's not hard to apply numbers to the notes of the scale, it's not hard to read in a theory book that chords and thus arpeggios of the basic triad are made up of the 1 3 and 5 notes of said scale. It's not hard to learn the names of the notes on the fingerboard and thus it's not hard to play all kinds of scales and arpeggios allover over the 'board. So why all the talk?

I agree completely with Mike's asssessment.

It is difficult for a discussion initiated with the title "Applying Bloom's Taxonomy..." to include any approach that does not involve taxonomy and an extremely intelluctual, cognitive approach to the subject. That does not mean such an approach is needed. One of the worst mistakes a teacher can make is to try and create in the mind of a student a recapitulation of the teacher's entire thought process about teaching.

It would be useful to consider the distinction between the amount of intellectual overhead needed to design a curriculum for a classroom full of students to use versus the amount of intellectual effort required for an individual to acquire a skill.

[Mike Bunting]

Thanks Brent. To intrude again, I think that a good way to study arpeggios in action would be to analyze a few Monroe solos, so many of his melodies revolve around chord tones and the interesting part is what cool ways one can devise for getting from chord tone to chord tone.

[Brent Hutto]

Mike,

We haven't gotten to the point of analyzing any particular player's solos but in my own lessons we do discuss things like where chord tones fall in tunes I'm learning and conversely where are the places where stacking other chord tones will make interesting double-stops or separate (chordal or arpeggiated) accompaniment lines.

The idea is the same, though. These arpeggios arise all the time and working from the music to the associated arpeggios is a good way to "motivate" (in both senses of the word) study of arpeggios. Arpeggio study doesn't have to be viewed as a station of the cross that must be endured because it is part of a larger grand plan.

[Mike Bunting]

Yes. Also, as Tiny Moore pointed out, the chord tones fall on the strong beats.

[Brent Hutto]

Several years ago someone on the Telecaster forum suggested an interesting exercise. Go through a piece of sheet music and mark the rhythm made by chord tones (vs. non-chord tones) in solos or improvisations by various guitar players. These patterns tend to be somewhat distinctive for a given player whether it Tony Rice, David Grier or someone like Mark Knopfler or Eric Clapton. Some players use on-the-beat non-chord tones or chord tones in a particular off-the-beat spot much moreso than others. It's a bit of a fingerprint thing for a player.

[Mike Bunting]

Cool.

[JonZ]

Brent or Mike--

I started with Bloom as one model of learning to get discussion going. It worked.

You might be right that it is overkill for the task at hand, but it does appear that some people found the discussion of Bloom beneficial.

No one has suggested "creat[ing} in the mind of a student a recapitulation of the teacher's entire thought process about teaching." The participants in this thread are discussing a variety of ways to think about teaching and learning.

I am trying to fill in a few incremental steps between Knowing arpeggios and Creating with arpeggios. I don't really care if they fit anyone else's taxonomy or hierarchy or homespun wisdom.

If you have a method that works, I would like to understand it. But so far I am not quite clear on what you do to address the task under discussion. Is it something you can lay out step by step?

[JeffD]

JeffD: "no longer thinking about it" is the goal -- Bloom's taxonomy is simply a tool used to figure out what you need to "practice" in order to acheive that goal.

If, as it seems to me, that Bloom is more geared towards acquiring an intellectual skill, then what we have is something like "this is what you have to think about in order to get to the point where you no longer have to think about it", which has my head spinnig.

[JeffD]

Well, that's not really the topic of conversation. The topic of conversation is improvising music. .

I am not sure, but I think you are right. "Create" means create.

That leaves me out. I don't do much of that step at all, I create very little, (and the truth is I have very little interest in creating.)

Its traditional music and tunes and classical music and country and bluegrass as far as the eye can see, and while I certainly create my own music, in the general sense, I don't create my own tunes, I don't compose, and when I improvize its very close to the tune. My breaks can be intense perhaps, but they are technically fairly obvious.

Where arpeggio practice helps is that I find I have the muscle memory to jump into and quickly sight read and learn a lot of tunes that use arpeggio forms. Its there when I need it, without having to think about it much. But in terms of creatively creating, I am using developed tools in standard and programmed ways, not creating.

So does that step in Bloom apply at all to me?

[JonZ]

Yes. If you are incorporating some of your own ideas into breaks, you get the blame for creating them... or credit.

I think Bloom can be applied to various aspects of learning music. Each "level" can be applied to some aspect of music. But it is not a path from point A to Z for learning a skill.

[JeffD]

Yes. If you are incorporating some of your own ideas into breaks, you get the blame for creating them... or credit..

Perhaps its a less conscious thing. I don't really have any musical ideas. Certainly no original ones. I just know the tune, where its going, and find a way to get there that isn't the melody. (Aim for the melody and miss??)

[mandotim1955]

Just to throw in another idea; I wonder if the concepts of Gestalt and unconscious cognition have relevance here? I was out playing last night, and found myself asked to take breaks on original songs I had never heard before. I managed ok, but on the way home I started thinking about how that was possible. I played guitar for years, but could never really improvise a break in the way I can on mandolin. I think it has to do with the conscious or unconscious recognition and extrapolation of patterns; the patterns formed by the chordal and rhythm structures of the song, and the patterns or shapes formed by musical sequences on the mandolin fretboard. Over time these patterns become part of the unconscious, in the same way that a learner driver no longer needs to look at their feet when controlling a car. The patterns on the mandolin are logical, and repeat all over the fretboard; this limits the amount of learning necessary, as all you really need are the templates. What seems to come next is the ability to flex the patterns into originality, and incorporate two or more patterns together. This is where the Gestalt comes in; the brain tends to 'fill in the gaps' of the basic structure of the world to create our own sense of reality, or in this case, a hot break.
This discussion has really made me think hard about my own playing, and where it comes from. I'm an 'instinctive' musician, but I'm starting to realise that there is more than instinct here; perhaps more to do with unconscious learning?
Tim

[Bertram Henze]

I used to teach emotionally disturbed kids. When they throw their workbooks at you, it provides a good insentive to analyze your methods!

Sound like a perfectly normal consultant's everyday job

[Brent Hutto]

If you have a method that works, I would like to understand it. But so far I am not quite clear on what you do to address the task under discussion. Is it something you can lay out step by step?

No it's not something I can lay out step by step. Lots of things are learned without forming a step-by-step prescription and then following it. I didn't have a step-by-step plan in mind when I learned to sing a tune as a child. Or when I learned to read musical notation. Or any number of other skills. Because it would have been distracting and frustrating to try and form such a plan.

I have a fairly useful but simplistic idea of where "arpeggios" fit into the music. Enough so that I can keep myself aware of them when they occur and can even stop and develop skills concerning them when it fits into what I'm trying to do musically. And I have a teacher who is following my progress and making suggestions to ensure I don't go off and practice the wrong thing somehow. That is as detailed as my meta-knowledge of "how to learn arpeggios" will ever be.

At various junctures the music teachers that have worked with me were likely working from some sort of planned-out curriculum. Presumably. But as a learner I don't need to know how to be a teacher. That's my only point to contribute to the discussion. There are several participants here who want to figure out as learners all this cognitive, abstract stuff that tries to describe the process of learning. Nothing wrong with that curiosity but I'm pointing out that talking or thinking about this from a Bloom's Taxonomy level of abstraction is not part of the process of learning. It's meta-learning.

Life is short and crowded with competing interests and demands on our time and attention. Someone who wants to become a competent or even brilliant improviser does not need to understand the theories of brilliant educational theorists who've made a deep study of the process of acquiring knowledge. Nothing wrong with devoting time and attention to that but it is a distraction from and competing activity with the actual process of becoming musically competent.

[pickloser]

all you really need are the templates. What seems to come next is the ability to flex the patterns into originality, and incorporate two or more patterns together.

Well said, Mandotim1955. I'm not so up on Bloom's Taxonomy, and I rarely use gestalt in a sentence, but taking the patterns I've learned, "flexing" and "incorporating" them into improvisation is my interest. I am using various scales, chords, double stops, and "licks" to improvise. I am trying to incorporate arpeggios. They sound clunky and patterned and interrupt rather than add to the flow of my breaks--kind of like how my gear changes were when I learned to drive a stick shift.

I think the OPs interest is in finding a best or at least efficient way to help a student learn to incorporate and flex using arpeggios. I know if I keep at it, I can fold in the arpeggios with the other patterns. If someone has good ideas about how to accomplish that more quickly, I am very interested.

Someone who wants to become a competent or even brilliant improviser does not need to understand the theories of brilliant educational theorists who've made a deep study of the process of acquiring knowledge.

I don't think the point is to have students learn education theory. I think the OP was intended to find out if others thought a certain education theory had application in forming an approach to imparting mandolin knowledge.

[Brent Hutto]

I don't think the point is to have students learn education theory. I think the OP was intended to find out if others thought a certain education theory had application in forming an approach to imparting mandolin knowledge.

And that's an interesting discussion to have, if you're into that. Can't speak for Mike but for my part I would not want to derail that discussion. I was simply pointing out an important distinction that in my experience frequently gets lost in online discussions of this sort. Namely, that the discussion is in fact about theory of teaching rather than how a learner himself or herself should approach the subject. Meta-learning as distinct from learning.

[pickloser]

And that's an interesting discussion to have

I'm not that interested in discussing educational theories. I was following the thread for applications to my playing. I think, however, neither mandolin teaching nor playing, past the most basic principles, is as simple as Do Re Mi, except maybe in a meta-sense.

Now when asked where I am wrt arpeggios, I can say the "Gestalt and unconscious cognition" stage. I'm looking forward to the looks.

[JonZ]

Brent--

We are all aware that talking about learning the mandolin is not the same as learning the mandolin, and that you do not have to understand education theory to learn the mandolin.

The fish cannot explain how he learned to swim. We get it.

I do not understand why you are wasting your time with meta-meta-analysis of our meta-analysis.

You complain that the analytical nature of the OP excludes other methods from the discussion, but then you are unable to describe your own methods. While I am glad that you have found a way that works for you, your methods are useless to anyone else, if you cannot articulate them.

Your comments are actually kind of irritating for some one searching for specific suggestions to attain a specific goal.

[Bertram Henze]

Despite my making fun of much of theory about instrument teaching, I have a rather serious (and sad) background on that, having received violin lessons for 9 years long ago. I guess method choice heavily depends on target decisions, e.g.:

1 - should some presentable result be produced, even if the student should have not enough hearing to tell right from wrong notes, at all costs? or... should the student's existing talents be exploited to maximum excellence, cutting out any weak points? This choice tells you, for instance, if everybody gets a standard instrument fitted and tortured until he can play Pachelbel's Canon in D, or if there is an examination phase and possible rejection of the student (or the instrument in favor of another). There are possible reasons for both.

2 - what is the driving force supposed to be - the teacher's authority or the student's motivation? Many teachers see themselves as guides, not as sherpas. OTOH even the most motivated student might hit a plateau and need some support, which makes it harder for the teacher because it requires him to get emotionally involved.

3 - whatever other preconditions come to mind

I am not suggesting anybody's looking for the hammer that makes everything look like a nail, I just wanted to point it out once more, taking one step back to look at what the biggest problems faced by teachers and students have always been in my experience.

[Brent Hutto]

Jon,

I'm sorry you have found my comments irritating. I will not irritate you any farther, be assured. Not a mistake I will repeat in the future.

[JonZ]

Thanks. Less irritation is good.