Self-given grades

We have discussed in class how grades are not always accurate. Sometimes, teacher cannot truly assess how much a student has learned. So, what if students gave themselves grades? Only the person doing the learning can truly know how much he or she has learned. The are the only ones with access to that information. There would be no need to "prove" through tests, projects, class participation, etc, what he or she has learned. However, there is a problem with honesty. Especially with younger students, you may see students giving themselves better grades than they deserve. However, if a real desire to learn was instilled in students, then they would want to give themselves accurate grades so, if they are not understanding the material, they can identify what they need to work on. I think in order for this to work, grades should not be something that can hurt students. In other words, grades should be nothing other than a self-assessment of what has been learned; there are no report cards, and parents should not have access to grades. Grades shouldn't be something the student gets praised or reprimanded for.

Question: Can the honesty problem be worked around with this idea?

Learning Through Games

In class, Becky brought up the example of learning US state capitals as something that you need a test for to ensure students are retaining information. This reminded me of something I had completely forgotten about: the way I learned the US state capitals in fifth grade. My class played a competitive game every day to help us memorize the state capitals. We were divided into two teams: The Capital Connoisseurs and The National Know-It-Alls. Each team would send up a representative to the front of the room, and my teacher would name a state. The first person to say the capital of the state got a point. We kept score every day, and at the end, the winning team got their name put on a big trophy our teacher had bought. This was such a fun and effective way to learn something pretty mundane. Everyone had learned the capitals within a few weeks, because we all wanted to win. The winning team didn't get a better grade; this was just a game. We retained this information better than we would have if we had taken one test on it and moved on. Not only that, but we loved playing that game, so learning the capitals became something fun. Most humans enjoy friendly competition, so I think this is a great way to teach kids something that might otherwise be boring to them.
Question: Have you ever used games as a way to learn something?

"Choosing the Best Answer"

Multiple choice tests often implement a "choose the best answer" policy. This can be very frustrating for the test-taker. The ability to choose the best answer is not always the same thing as choosing the right answer. What is the value in choosing the best answer out of a few not-so-great answers? This may teach students some problem-solving techniques, such as how to choose the best possible solution to a problem where there is no perfect solution, but it does not accurately assess a student's knowledge of a subject. For example, when I was in sixth grade, I had to take a nutrition class. One of our test questions was:
Which of the following should one eat? a)a healthy meal b) a healthy diet.
My teacher argued that the best answer was "a healthy diet" because one healthy meal wont do much for you in the long run, unlike a healthy diet, which is more beneficial. However, this question confused me as an eleven-year-old because you can't eat a healthy diet without eating healthy meals. Eating a healthy diet includes eating healthy meals. Maybe there was a best answer, but both answers were right. Sometimes neither answer is right, even if there is a "best" answer. These kinds of questions seem unnecessarily tricky and confusing.

Improvisation in Music

I played an instrument for 9 years in school, and we were never once faced with the opportunity for improvisation. For me, this is probably a good thing because I know that, while I was pretty good at playing my instrument, I would probably freeze up if ever asked to improvise. I've been thinking about why this is. At first, I thought that it was because I was never exposed to the concept of improvisation in music. However, I think it has more to do with the environment I played music in: school. Schools are very focused on performing tasks as close to perfectly as possible, and following rules as closely as possible. In some respects, this is a good thing. But, because of this, music class was like any other class: a place where students strive for perfection. So, how could a music student feel comfortable ignoring the rules and just playing? We are so rarely given the opportunity to just abandon all the rules and let our emotions guide us in this society.
Question: Do you think the environment affect one's ability to improvise?

Improvisation

The article we read for this week's Q&A on improvisation provoked a lot of questions for me. I understand that improvisation can make music (or art, or public speaking, or teaching) better. In fact, I think it may be essential. I remember learning in Philosophy of Music that if a computer plays a song 100% perfectly, it is not pleasing to listen to as humans (I could be remembering this wrong so please correct me if I am mistaken). There is a human element that makes music pleasurable, and that element may be improvisation, even if it is not done consciously. However, I am wondering just how much improvisation is enough, and how much is too much. Deviating from the rules (both explicit and implicit) can make something more interesting, but deviating too much could be confusing and unpleasant. How much improvisation is too much? Is there a fine line or do you simply know it when you hear it?

Response to Mike, "Music and Education"

Should students be required to take music education? Or should it be an elective to those that are interested?


I am inclined to agree with you that, while music education certainly can be beneficial for students, it should not be required, as music is something one should have a passion for if they are going to dedicate their time learning about it. However, you could say the same thing about any school subject. Why should all students have to learn about history if only some are passionate about it? I think that young people should be exposed to a little bit of everything, so they know what is out there and can see for themselves what they are interested in. That is why we teach them a variety of things that may never be beneficial to them in their life. Maybe it would make more sense to expose young students (like elementary school age) to as much of a variety of subjects as possible, and as they get older, they can choose what they want to learn based on their interests. We already technically use this model in our society, but you pretty much have to wait until college to pick your own classes, and even then, there are many required classes. Maybe middle-schoolers should be allowed to start creating their own schedules.
Question: At what age should students be allowed to decide what they want to learn and what they don't want to learn?

Response to Becky, "Why Music Education Is Important"

Becky maintains that teaching music in schools is beneficial to students. While I agree with the arguements made in favor of music (it increases self esteem, encourages teamwork, increases understanding of math, etc), I haven't seen a convincing argument for requiring music education. I definitely think students should have the option to learn music, but I don't see why they should have to, anymore than they should have to play on a sport time, learn to paint, or write a novel. These are all very beneficial things, that can increase self-esteem, teach valuable lessons, and be very intellectually stimulating. But, why should these things be required classes in school? If something is valuable, does that alone mean everyone should learn it?
I think the question of "What makes something worth learning" needs to be addressed first. In this post, I have argued that music education doesn't seem to be something that ought to be required in schools. But then again, why are students required to take Math, Science, English, and Social Studies? Why were these subjects deemed the most worthy of learning?