Applying Bloom's Taxonomy to Learning the Mandolin

[swampy]

I'm a fan of both Kolb and Bloom. I teach middle school and both have great ideas that I apply often. The main thing is that these are not super rigid models or black and white. Learning is too complex to be attacked simply using science. A music educator friend of mine once told me the key to learning any instrument, and to me it totally relates to most aspects of learning.

1. Imitate
2. Emulate
3. Create

One of the things I like most about bluegrass vs. most other forms of music is the emphasis on playing songs as soon as possible. I've gotten bands up and running with teenagers with no musical experience in almost no time. I tended to teach them what to do and save the explanation and analysis for later.

[Bertram Henze]

Who said talking about music is like dancing about architecture.

I think it is a quote by Elvis Costello.
A simple reconfiguration makes it make sense: architecture dancing about is what you see during an earthquake.

[JeffD]

Okay, here is my attempt at teaching a major triad. Just a rough sketch, mind you.

At what point is "practice it until you nolonger think about it"

[Andrew DeMarco]

Well, I am a bit agnostic about these models of learning, because I haven't given them a look over in depth as they relate to musical learning (despite sharing that article, lol).

But I do have to say, Jon, I gotta give you props for helping generate this type of discussion. Yes it's theoretical by definition and can be rather tedious to some (myself included!) but as someone who works with theories a lot of the time, I find myself weighing in on the side of yes this type of discussion can be substantive and useful, rather than dismissing it as dancing about architecture (then again, I'm not an architect, is there a "dancing" step in architecture?).

Thanks Jon

From the discussion up to now, it seems like think the hard part is operationalizing the verbiage attached to these models, specifically as they relate to doing/learning music.

I'd like to ask some specific questions as food for thought. First, what specifically do you see as the limitations of Bloom's model in this context? And second, it seems to me that a lot of these steps are intuitive/natural. What specific steps/aspects of these models are not intuitive (and thus potentially especially worthwhile to pay attention to)?

[draino]

draino; excellent explanation. Makes perfect sense.
This also points out how the stages aren't exclusionary from one another, and how all this is happening simultaneously to some extent.
Thanks.

Also, Bloom's taxonomy isn't "this is what someone SHOULD do when they are learning." Its "I've watched thousands of people learn lots of different stuff, and a walk away seeing a trend in the way that most people learn, regardless of what they are learning. I'll now try to describe the steps that I see most people using when learning something new." The idea here is "okay, Bloom's taxonomy tells me how people generally learn, so can I structure specific assignments and tasks to fit with how a person naturally learns?" If one is already familiar with Bloom's taxonomy, there really isn't a whole lot of "intellectulizing" involved with developing practice excercises and routines around it. As you can see from the thread, in less than 24 hours, and a matter of about three posts, we've gone from "hey, I wanna start learning arpeggios, what's a good approach?" to a couple of proposed systematic approaches. If learning mandolin in this way isn't fun for you, then by all means don't learn it this way. But if you've been struggling to get where you want to be, rather than simply learning new scale patterns, or new arpeggios, and thinking that those patterns will some how make you a better player/msuician, maybe take a step back and think "what is my final goal? What are the things I need to know and/or be able to do in order to reach that goal? Is there an order in which I should acquire each of those skills/knowledge bases?" Once you've done that, pick the first skill or piece of knowledge and break it down -- with your final overall goal of making music in mind. This thread is about seeing if Bloom's taxonomy is a useful tool for breaking things down into bite-sized, digestible steps.

To me, this approach isn't about itellectualizing, its just about setting a goal, and then being sensitive and self-reflective enough to know what *I* need to do in order to acheive that goal. I think we all do that, even with music -- heck, I even do that in acheiving goals of the most family-friendly nature. Bloom's taxonomy is simply one tool that can be used to make plotting the path to that goal take shape a little more quickly. I'm sure plenty of people could come up with a great course of study without using Bloom's taxonomy -- but for those of us that are used to working with it already, it simply gives us a rubric that allows us to develop a sound approach more quickly than recreating the wheel from scratch every time.

[draino]

And second, it seems to me that a lot of these steps are intuitive/natural. What specific steps/aspects of these models are not intuitive (and thus potentially especially worthwhile to pay attention to)?

The models seem intuitive/natural because . . . they are basically words placed over the steps that most humans naturally take when learning something new. The idea is, if I gave somebody who had never heard of an arpeggio before a big book of music theory and said "in five weeks I'm going to come back and I want you to be able to play a solo using arpeggios," the person would likely naturally do the these steps -- first remembering what an arpeggio is, then applying that information to build some arpeggios, then analyzing how the arpeggios fit into music, and finally creating a solo. The challenge is that the student has to dive blindly into that big thick book of music theory and work all of that out himself. If instead of just giving him a big book of music theory you gave him a systematic set of lessons, you take out a lot of wasted effort. Some like the wasted effort (I certainly do in certain pursuits -- you stumble into things you didn't know you wanted to learn about), others want a streamlined approach. Different strokes for different folks.

[draino]

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.

[JonZ]

I am not convinced that Bloom is the best model for learning an instrument. Or maybe I am just misunderstanding it. In my example, Evaluate does not seem to fit in. Taxonomy is the science of classification, so it really is addressing different types of learning, and not necessarily functioning as a pathway.

The problem that I am interested in is how to most effectively break down the process that takes you from knowing information about (for example) arpeggios, and having the ability play the patterns, to being able to create with them. From what I have read, a lot of people seem to get stuck at "Man, I am really good at playing these arpeggios".

When someone gets stuck trying to learn something, it often indicates the process needs to broken down further.

Either that, or motivation is lacking--it's not fun. Motivation isn't necessarily "the student's problem", you can change the learning process to make it more enjoyable. For example, with kids, adding a social component almost always creates more enthusiasm.

Motivation is a different topic though. I like to practice. I am just a little frustrated with trying to get from Knowing to Creating.

[Ed Goist]

The two 800 pound gorillas in this room are talent and dedication to practice.
No amount of intellectualizing will substitute for these things.
The impact of raw Talent on learning the mandolin, most especially, tends to be an unmentioned thing in our discussions here. I am sure this is because this is something a person either has or doesn't have.
Well structured training can only go so far...

[draino]

JonZ, my thought is that if your goal is to make music, then you need to make sure that your exercises based on arpeggios incorporate analysis of music, not just arpeggios.

So my thought is that the next step after "man, I'm really good at playing these arpeggios" needs to focus on listening for arpeggios in recorded music. The ideal exercise would be a series of recordings, begin short and simple, and progressively getting more complex, where the student is tasked to identify any arpeggios he hears. Starting off with "hey, I hear an arpeggio there!" Increasing complexity to "hey, that person is playing a G-major arpeggio over a G-major chord - and it sounds like that is the key of the tune" and "okay, I heard an ascending arpeggio there and it seemed like the player used it to kinda transition from a melodic idea played low to a repeat of that melodic idea played an octave higher" type analysis. Since the goal is "making music" and not simply "playing apreggios", the student would need to evaluate music that incorporates arpeggios. "It sounds really lame when the player just plays a three octave arpeggio -- like he ran out of melodic ideas", "it was really cool the way the soloist highlighted the tension of that chord change by focusing on chord tones/arpeggios through that part" etc. etc.

[draino]

Ed: I actually considered mentioning "talent" earlier. I think these kinds of step-wise approaches are MOST important for those with less talent. For the folks with great ears that can transcribe a solo in less than an hour without use of any slowdowner software -- they likely don't need to structure their practice as much -- they are born knowing how to swim so tossing the deep end works. For those of us with less than good relative pitch, however, breaking it down into micro-steps pays HUGE dividends in developing the talent we didn't realize we had. Its also why folks that have been playing since they were sittin' on grandpa's knee, or those with a really good ear don't understand this kind of structured approach...why would they want to waste all that energy? But for those of us with less talent, we need to spend more energy to get to a similar point.

"Some folks got and some don't" isn't the answer. The answer is "set a goal that is reasonable, do everything you need in order to acheive that goal." I think making a joyful and reasonably tuneful noise on an instrument is a reasonable goal for ANYONE...even those that "just don't have a musical ear."

[Ed Goist]

Draino; another fine post.

The fact that all of us are on different points on the talent continuum is one thing that makes teaching such a challenge, particularly in a group setting. We have all seen it, the very talented (in anything) becoming quickly bored in a group learning environment.

As someone who is very much lacking in the musical talent department, I really appreciate this particular sub-forum, and I make a particular point of investing a little more time "in this room" of the Cafe.

Thanks to all those with more experience and talent who graciously contribute here!

[JonZ]

Ed--I disagree. Dedication to correct practice is what is important. I am not interested in becoming the world's best Bile dem Cabbage Down player.

Innate talent is out of my control--no need to discuss.

So the question becomes are you content to just log hours (stuffing your money into a mattress), or do you want to maximize your return?

I was once discussing the design of education materials with a world-class violinist. Coincidentally, arpeggios was the topic. I was asking him if he thought that using different colors to differentiate between the scale positions of the notes would make it easier to remember, or if fretboard diagrams are easier to remember than notation, or if there were mnemonics that could be used to learn them. His response was "It's just hard", and that he was a "Master Teacher", and I should not be questioning his methods.

Improvements in methodology that can add a few percent more efficiency to your practice will have a huge payoff over your life. I realize that for some people just practicing is what they enjoy, and that becoming the best player they can be is not the point. I also realize that people are BUSY, and it is all they can do to take their mandolin out of the case once a day. I think some people are busy, but would like to practice more efficiently, if it was already set up for them. I am hoping to put some materials together that will address these issues.

Perhaps I am not becomming the best mandolin player that I could be because I don't spend all of my free time practicing, but thinking about this stuff is my other hobby. Both playing and teaching theory are fun for me.

[Ed Goist]

Jon; another fine post.
I agree with all of your points, so I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about.
I will say that for me, in my current mandolin situation, too much focus on the technical aspects of my technique and skill can interfere with the pleasure I derive out of playing.
I'm now trying to walk that fine line between playing for fun and practicing for improvement.
Oh, one other thing: I do think it is important to bring talent into this discussion because talent creates bridges and shortcuts between Bloom's steps for some and not for others. Therefore, the progression between steps will vary from person to person based on the talent of each.

[JonZ]

Thanks Ed--

Fun is definitely a big element. As we become more goal-oriented and disciplined, we can tolerate less fun to reach our long-term goals. Still, the more fun, the better. In certain types of problems--puzzles, games, etc.--a certain amount of frustration is part of the fun. But too much frustration is not good either. I think you have to find the right balance. You want to create increments that are not frustrating, but not spoon feeding either. I know that many people seem frustrated with the leap from "I can play the arpeggio" to "I can create music with the arpeggio".

Lately I have been thinking that practicing arpeggios over just two chords is the missing link in a lot of materials. They jump from "here are the patterns" to harmonized scales, circle of fifths, or songs.

Every chord progression is just a succession of two-chord changes. There are a lot of practical two-chord changes, but the permutations of possible patterns increase exponentially when you start adding more chords. So getting those two-chord changes to become automatic seems like a good intermediate step to take out some of the frustration.

[Lou Giordano]

This is a great post.

I can't seem to learn much of anything until I get some idea of what is making it work. I spent a lot of time trying to figure that out. I am not smart enough to understand these techniques completely, but after reading Jon's original post I am little more hopeful.

Thanks to Jon and all the folk posting. Long Live the Cafe!!

[JonZ]

I am not all that smart Lou; I just had a lot of training and practice in education. Bloom's Taxonomy is Ed. 101.

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

[JonZ]

The other intermediate step that I think would be helpful is learning to play an arpeggio, given only some basic information:

Chord: G
String: 2
Start Finger: 2
Pattern: Ascending

Since you are not given the pattern, you have to engage your memory, or figure it out, which will help you gain facility.

I realize that these two suggestions--practice two-chord changes, and recall the pattern given limited information--are not huge leaps forward in music education. They are just a couple of intermediate steps that I have not seen in other materials.

[Mike Bunting]

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?
Creating is a whole other matter, just play with this stuff and see what happens, it's up to your imagination.

[draino]

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?
Creating is a whole other matter, just play with this stuff and see what happens, it's up to your imagination.

Mike -- I am curious as to what age you began playing mandolin? My guess is that all of these things are much more difficult for those of us that are attempting to dive into this at an older age.

[Lou Giordano]

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?
Creating is a whole other matter, just play with this stuff and see what happens, it's up to your imagination.

Well, one of my favorite expressions is, everything is easy when you know how.

[Mike Bunting]

Draino, I've been playing for 40 years and should be a lot better at it! I cannot believe that is difficult at any age to learn a simple diatonic scale e.g. C D E F G A B C.

[draino]

Draino, I've been playing for 40 years and should be a lot better at it! I cannot believe that is difficult at any age to learn a simple diatonic scale e.g. C D E F G A B C.

Well, that's not really the topic of conversation. The topic of conversation is improvising music. If learning to improvise music was as simple as sitting down and playing with it creatively...then a whole lot of music instructors and instructional material publishers are nothing more than snake oil salesmen.

[pickloser]

It's not that simple at all. First, there's the whole, whole, half thing, which changes depending on the type of scale. Then there's the minor third, major third thing for the chord, and you have to remember where you are in the triad to know which size jump comes next. Then there's the fact that the scale folds over on itself--starts on one string and moves to another, and remembering where you are in that WWH thing and whether you've skipped the note already. Then there's the fact that you get the same note five frets going one way and seven frets going the other. Then there's not being able to look, and even if you look, there's no time to count frets. So it becomes a size and shape thing, which changes depending on where you are on the fretboard. Where the related arpeggios are change, depending on what note you're on on the previous arpeggio and on what note you want to start the next. That's a lot of information vying for attention in my head, which has not had 40 years to make the connections. If it were so simple, no one would be paying teachers or buying DVDs. I can play arpeggios very well now, especially those written in nice little exercises; it's the instant recall in the instant I need it that continues to require work. I think I'll get it soon, but it's not simple.

I agree with Lou, "everything is easy when you know how."

[Mike Bunting]

I agree with Lou, "everything is easy when you know how."

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.