by Rachel Matthews, DMA, NCTM

Of course, change has been very much on my mind of late! The World As We Knew It has changed rapidly, right before our eyes, in ways that would’ve been unthinkable not so long ago - and the long list of things that have changed certainly includes my own practice of the art of teaching.  So I was curious to hear this perspective.  And I found it provocative, offering much that rings true for me while also bringing a number of critical questions to the forefront of my mind.

My first challenge in keeping an open mind was to get past the opening reference to Donald Rumsfeld….  But the general idea of “known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns” transcends the context in which our former Secretary of Defense used it, so: fine!  I’m in, and I will be first to acknowledge that I don’t know what I don’t know.  He’s talking about technology, of course!  Shifflet’s idea is to expand our “sphere of knowledge,” using a sort of R&D thinking and a willingness to reach into uncharted territory, to include a recognition of the ways the world—and our students’ brains—have changed.  Although there are no specific studies cited, he asserts that the thoughts, feelings, and even dreams of children are shown to be different today, as well as their memory, attention and sleep patterns.  They face a level and intensity of distraction previously unheard of.  Rates of attention deficit disorders have skyrocketed.

The challenge Shifflet lays out for us—a course presumably more productive than complaining about the inexorable deterioration of civilization under the influence of cellphones—is to question our own attitudes and methods.  Yes, our beloved & trusted methods that have been in use for hundreds of years! Here again I struggle to keep an open mind. I reflect on the long, extraordinary lineage on one human being in a room transmitting the art of music to another, across the generations, linking my students and me back to Beethoven and beyond.  I am loathe to let it go, and I cherish the ability to do something with my own two hands, causing a box made of wood & strings to vibrate in these magical ways that soothe our souls as a MIDI keyboard never could.  BUT—I am Keeping An Open Mind!  The necessity and urgency of challenging our traditional ways, he tells us, is that over half of students who attempt music lessons “fail.” (Failure here is not defined, but I presume he is talking about students who quit before proficiency is reached.)  From here, he goes on to extrapolate that students who “succeed” (and we ourselves, who have succeeded in our studies and now teach) are “not normal.” He is looking for an approach that will meet the needs of The Normal.  I must recognize that that category (“normal”) in this framework does not include my own students.  As a group, they skew towards the lucky among us whose brains still work - no, Rachel, keep an open mind! - whose brains work in a way which still resonates with my own, who can and do succeed by entering the stream of lineage and tradition and who, in doing so, keep the tradition alive.  But my students do not represent the mainstream - and I believe passionately in the availability of the best possible musical education for everyone - so, I take Mr. Shifflet’s point.  And I acknowledge that my own brain does not work in the technology-related ways that it seems all kids’ brains do.

Fifty years ago, the technology we have now, says Shifflet, would have fallen absolutely into the category of “unknown unknowns.”  The changes this technology have wrought on young human minds would’ve been equally unforeseeable.  The changes we must make must involve a major re-ordering of how we teach. This is where his views come more readily and naturally into alignment with my own.  Citing a study of teacher priorities, Shifflet points out that (according to this study at least)  many teachers are emphasizing, in this order: theory; technique; repertoire; method books; sight-reading; how to practice; fun.  He suggests a near-reversal of that list, and for the most part I agree!  The point is made that often, what teachers want for our students does not align with what they want for themselves.  Put differently, we prepare a path for them that “looks good on paper”—but does not in fact lead to student engagement which leads to lasting learning.  “When we are teaching to the test, we are focused on things that look good on paper.  When we are teaching students the joy of music we are focused on their needs.”  Shifflet argues that moving things like theory and sight-reading lower on the priorities list does NOT mean they are less important…. but by moving things like FUN up on the priorities list = more motivation to learn hard things, (such as theory and sight-reading) = more learning in the long run. The wisdom of this is strongly evident to me in my own teaching.

The remainder of the presentation (which is offered in a slick and watchable video format with lots of graphics - this one is not someone sitting in their living room speaking in a monotone into the camera) focuses on Shifflet’s Piano Marvel projects.  That part I will leave the reader to explore, except to say that I downloaded the Piano Marvel ipad app and tried out their sight-reading tool, which works even with an acoustic piano and which will, I believe, be a wonderful way for some kids to build their skills.  I look forward to trying it out with some of them this week. Although in my heart of hearts I will always be old-school on this, I must admit that here is one specific example of a way in which applying this technology may in fact produce better results in less time, making sight-reading “more fun” and… readying kids to have EVEN MORE fun at the piano when they switch that ipad off!

Is it possible to prioritize the student’s own engagement, personal expression and pleasure without using technology?  In my experience, yes, absolutely!  Is theory inherently FUN and magical, and can those qualities be part of how it is taught?  In my opinion, YES!  So, two main issues arise in this presentation.  1. what ARE our teaching priorities, and why? Do they fit our students today?   and 2. what tools do we choose to use for maximum effectiveness towards those ends?  Do we teach the way we were taught, because “it worked for us,” or do we seek out new tools to address our students’ changing mental/emotional/attentional needs (tools which may include technology)?  On the first point, I agree and appreciate what Shifflet says.  On the second point, I consider my “sphere of knowledge” increased a bit, and in the spirit of R&D, more questions than answers swim in my mind and I’m ready to stretch and experiment.  I will continue to prioritize an open mind.