Guest Reflection: Jacobo Nitzsch
Mr. Jacobo Nitzsch’s presentation was intriguing and unique. It was interesting to hear about music programs in Guatemala and what Mr. Nitzsch has accomplished as an individual there. He is part of a successful band, and reaches at a music school. He is an innovator in music education in Guatemala, and is working avidly to introduce music to his country in new and exciting ways. Hearing him speak about his ideas and passion for both music and education was wonderful to hear. I enjoyed learning about a different culture and the steps they are taking to improve musical education.
He said that Guatemala is starting to “think about new ideas”. Music is one of the mediums through with they have begun exploring these new concepts. Mr. Nitzsch briefly discussed a ‘composition in jail’ project that he is part of. This is a beautiful idea, reaching out to those who are likely in a tough, perhaps dark, place in their lives. A few months ago, I learned of groups who bring music therapy to people in jail. Hearing Mr. Nitzsch talk about giving adolescents in jail the opportunity to write music helped me to think further about the importance of helping others engage in music, despite their position in life. Is that not one of the key purposes of music education? One of the phrases Mr. Nitzch used is important to remember: “music is not a cure, but a tool”. If music is used as a tool in society, available to everyone, I believe it can do wonders for many individuals. I would like to explore this topic more; I am interested in music therapy and the effects it has on people who do not have musical training or experience. It is a beautiful thing, to see people discover abilities they never knew they had, and experience music in a different way than they ever have.
Mr. Nitzsch also talked about ‘divergent thinking’. Instead of approaching music in ways that are familiar to most people, we should try to think of new and creative ways to introduce music to students. Mr. Nitzsch has done this, both in the school where he teaches, and in the “composition in jail” project that he takes part in. His visit to London helped in the movement to be ‘divergent thinkers’; we learned about ideas and projects in Guatemala, and he learned about ideas and projects in Canada. This communication between people involved in music education in different parts of the world encourages ideas to be shared, which allows people to think in a new light than before.
I enjoyed Mr. Jacobo Nitzsch’s presentation very much. It was both inspirational and informative. It will be interesting to hear about how music education in Guatemala grows and develops in the future.
Mr. Jacobo Nitzsch’s presentation was intriguing and unique. It was interesting to hear about music programs in Guatemala and what Mr. Nitzsch has accomplished as an individual there. He is part of a successful band, and reaches at a music school. He is an innovator in music education in Guatemala, and is working avidly to introduce music to his country in new and exciting ways. Hearing him speak about his ideas and passion for both music and education was wonderful to hear. I enjoyed learning about a different culture and the steps they are taking to improve musical education.
He said that Guatemala is starting to “think about new ideas”. Music is one of the mediums through with they have begun exploring these new concepts. Mr. Nitzsch briefly discussed a ‘composition in jail’ project that he is part of. This is a beautiful idea, reaching out to those who are likely in a tough, perhaps dark, place in their lives. A few months ago, I learned of groups who bring music therapy to people in jail. Hearing Mr. Nitzsch talk about giving adolescents in jail the opportunity to write music helped me to think further about the importance of helping others engage in music, despite their position in life. Is that not one of the key purposes of music education? One of the phrases Mr. Nitzch used is important to remember: “music is not a cure, but a tool”. If music is used as a tool in society, available to everyone, I believe it can do wonders for many individuals. I would like to explore this topic more; I am interested in music therapy and the effects it has on people who do not have musical training or experience. It is a beautiful thing, to see people discover abilities they never knew they had, and experience music in a different way than they ever have.
Mr. Nitzsch also talked about ‘divergent thinking’. Instead of approaching music in ways that are familiar to most people, we should try to think of new and creative ways to introduce music to students. Mr. Nitzsch has done this, both in the school where he teaches, and in the “composition in jail” project that he takes part in. His visit to London helped in the movement to be ‘divergent thinkers’; we learned about ideas and projects in Guatemala, and he learned about ideas and projects in Canada. This communication between people involved in music education in different parts of the world encourages ideas to be shared, which allows people to think in a new light than before.
I enjoyed Mr. Jacobo Nitzsch’s presentation very much. It was both inspirational and informative. It will be interesting to hear about how music education in Guatemala grows and develops in the future.
Guest Reflection: Dr. Elizabeth Gould
During her lecture, Dr. Elizabeth Gould expanded on the topic of progressive education and was to rethink pedagogy. She shared interesting ideas, and introduced them with clarity. She began her lecture by speaking about theory building. She explained that theory building occurs when one assumes there is a problem. When this problem is addressed, a theory is contracted. I appreciated that Dr. Gould began by defining ‘theory’, to avoid confusion once she started the main portion of her lecture. This showed that she was prepared; she had planned her lecture and organized her thoughts in advance.
Next, Dr. Gould introduced her theory, that teaching is “impossible”. She defined the words ‘impossible’, ‘teaching’ and ‘pedagogy’. Again, the definitions she provided helped to maintain clarity throughout her presentation. She then began discussing the Strouse article that she had asked each of us to read. It was interesting to hear her comments and thoughts regarding the article. It helped that I had researched the words and terms in the article; I was able to follow along with her lecture better having done this.
Dr. Gould’s explanation of progressive education was interesting to hear. She stressed the importance of taking a student’s natural curiosity into account. I think this is easy to forget when one gets caught up in ‘getting a job done’. For a long time, the idea that teaching is only acceptable when a teacher follows a strict curriculum and shoves facts at a student, has been the ‘norm’. I am glad that the idea of progressive education is being discussed more often and considered more carefully now. Even if classrooms engage in a mixture of progressive and ‘traditional’ classroom learning, I think this will improve education systems in all learning environments. In my own experience, a little bit of both approaches works well. For some, book learning is better. For others, a full-time hands-on experience works better. This is why it is important for education facilities to encourage teachers to be as adaptable as they can. It is more difficult to do this in a classroom than with private students, but an effort should be made to incorporate it in both situations.
There were not many opportunities to participate during this lecture. I think I would have taken more from her visit if it had have been more interactive. For the most part, Dr. Gould talked at us. She did not include us in a discussion, which in my opinion, helps to liven any presentation. I understand that Dr. Gould’s lecture time was limited, so she probably did not feel that there was enough time to ask questions or make comments.
I enjoyed listening to Dr. Gould speak about progressive education and pedagogy. It is an exciting, refreshing topic, and I would like to investigate it further. While her lecture was not as inclusive as I would have liked, it was informative and thought-provoking.
During her lecture, Dr. Elizabeth Gould expanded on the topic of progressive education and was to rethink pedagogy. She shared interesting ideas, and introduced them with clarity. She began her lecture by speaking about theory building. She explained that theory building occurs when one assumes there is a problem. When this problem is addressed, a theory is contracted. I appreciated that Dr. Gould began by defining ‘theory’, to avoid confusion once she started the main portion of her lecture. This showed that she was prepared; she had planned her lecture and organized her thoughts in advance.
Next, Dr. Gould introduced her theory, that teaching is “impossible”. She defined the words ‘impossible’, ‘teaching’ and ‘pedagogy’. Again, the definitions she provided helped to maintain clarity throughout her presentation. She then began discussing the Strouse article that she had asked each of us to read. It was interesting to hear her comments and thoughts regarding the article. It helped that I had researched the words and terms in the article; I was able to follow along with her lecture better having done this.
Dr. Gould’s explanation of progressive education was interesting to hear. She stressed the importance of taking a student’s natural curiosity into account. I think this is easy to forget when one gets caught up in ‘getting a job done’. For a long time, the idea that teaching is only acceptable when a teacher follows a strict curriculum and shoves facts at a student, has been the ‘norm’. I am glad that the idea of progressive education is being discussed more often and considered more carefully now. Even if classrooms engage in a mixture of progressive and ‘traditional’ classroom learning, I think this will improve education systems in all learning environments. In my own experience, a little bit of both approaches works well. For some, book learning is better. For others, a full-time hands-on experience works better. This is why it is important for education facilities to encourage teachers to be as adaptable as they can. It is more difficult to do this in a classroom than with private students, but an effort should be made to incorporate it in both situations.
There were not many opportunities to participate during this lecture. I think I would have taken more from her visit if it had have been more interactive. For the most part, Dr. Gould talked at us. She did not include us in a discussion, which in my opinion, helps to liven any presentation. I understand that Dr. Gould’s lecture time was limited, so she probably did not feel that there was enough time to ask questions or make comments.
I enjoyed listening to Dr. Gould speak about progressive education and pedagogy. It is an exciting, refreshing topic, and I would like to investigate it further. While her lecture was not as inclusive as I would have liked, it was informative and thought-provoking.