Applying Bloom's Taxonomy to Learning the Mandolin

[JonZ]

Bloom's Taxonomy is a hierarchy of learning. It can be useful for planning lessons and instructional material. The basic idea is that you break down a difficult task into the steps of the hierarchy.

Here is the taxonomy:

Remembering: can the student recall or remember the information?
The student will... define, duplicate, list, memorize, recall, repeat, reproduce state, etc.

Understanding: can the student explain ideas or concepts?
The student will... classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, recognize, report, select, translate, paraphrase.

Applying: can the student use the information in a new way?
The student will... choose, demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, operate, schedule, sketch, solve, use, write.

Analyzing: can the student distinguish between the different parts?
The student will... appraise, compare, contrast, criticize, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test.

Evaluating: can the student justify a stand or decision?
The student will... appraise, argue, defend, judge, select, support, value, evaluate.

Creating: can the student create new product or point of view?
The student will... assemble, construct, create, design, develop, formulate, write.


I have been thinking about learning arpeggios lately, and how this taxonomy would, or would not, apply. I think it is obvious that I have to Remember the arpeggios first, and, ultimately, I would like to use them to Create.

The question is, given the subject of arpeggios, how would you approach moving from Remember to Create? What steps do and do not apply to learning arpeggios? Are there different steps that would be more appropriate to learning music? How would you teach or practice arpeggios with each step of your hierarchy?

I know that some people will be thinking "God, man! Just play your #$%& mandolin and stop over-thinking it".

Sorry--that's what I do.

I know that this is a lot to think and write about, so thank you in advance to anyone who would like to take a shot at it.

[mandotim1955]

I think Kolb's model of experiential learning might be a better fit for learning mandolin. Try here; http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/ldu/sddu_...kolb_flash.htm
Tim

[draino]

Here's maybe a little different approach:

Remembering: remembering the intervals involved in making each kind of arpeggio
Understanding: being able to (rather quickly) construct an arpeggio in any key and play it on the fingerboard
Applying: Take a tune you know and for which you have a backing track prepared. Play the chord changes as arpeggios along with the backing track; play the melody line along with the backing track; finally, replace bits of the melody with an appropriate arpeggio.
Analyzing: Listen to recordings; identify when arpeggios are being played. Attempt to determine what arpeggio is being played, how it relates to the tonic of the tune in question, and how it relates to the specific harmonic background over which the arpeggio is being played.
Evaluating: Repeat analyzing and decide for yourself which uses of arpeggios you like

[Andrew DeMarco]

Jon,

Interesting idea!

A brief review of the literature (i.e. the scientific journals) shows that Bloom's Taxonomy received a revision about a decade ago. A pretty recent article (2007) discusses its implications for musicians

See the inline attached PDF for the article. Neat stuff!

[JonZ]

Andrew--Thanks for the article. I will read it. I think I referenced the new taxonomy above. The link I provided shows old and new side by side.

mandotim1955--Kolb's is interesting. Why do you think it would be more appropriate, and how would you apply it to the arpeggio task?

[Ryan Zerby]

I've been actively getting into arpeggios, myself (finally got to that part in the FFcP book

I think I'd apply the taxonomy more like this:

Remembering: Remembering the actual notes of the arpeggio. CMaj = CEG, GMaj=GBD.

Understanding: Why are those notes the arpeggios? (because they are the notes of the chord). Identify the arpeggio for an arbitrary arpeggio (Dbm7?). Possibly do it in Nashville Numbering.

Applying: Given a I-IV-V chord progression in the key of C, play the basic arpeggiation.

Analyzing: What chord would fit an F-A-C-D arpeggio?

Evaluating: Upon hearing an apreggiation, explain why it works or doesn't work in context (for example, Playing B-G-E-C-B is an C7 arpeggio, but sounds non-major to my ears).

Creating: Produce arpeggiation on demand, without having to think about it.

[SincereCorgi]

I don't know if a format like that works for arpeggios, unless they treat arpeggios as one component before moving upward, i.e. 'step one: learn various patterns for turning chords into melodic shapes, step two: practice them until they can be executed in isolation, step three: incorporate them into improvisation, step four: challenge devil to mandolin contest'.

You might look into the system they use in the UK (and some countries in Europe, although I know less about those), which is a comprehensive graded music education process with juries at every level where, to advance, the individual has to demonstrate proficiency on a series of scales and solo pieces. They also have something comparable for music theory, with sight-singing and chord identification and other fun stuff. I lived there for a year and was initially puzzled when people kept asking 'what grade' clarinetist I was.


Also, to play devil's advocate, this guy present an interesting case for a different approach: http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

[JeffD]

I don't know. Bloom seems to apply to the acquisition of an intellectual skill, not a mechanical one.

Bloom would help one to learn math, or paragraph writing. But not, I don't think, catching a ball.

So, is learning arpeggios more like learning to write a paragraph or more like learning to catch a ball?

I kind of learned arpeggio forms. Finger patterns in closed position, closed position anchored high, closed position anchored low, or for when there is an open string below, or an open string above. Major and minor. Similar to what Pickloser has done with double stops, (but not nearly as well thought out.) The point is that I didn't learn the specific notes in any given chord or arpeggio, and while I can figure it out when ever I need to recite it, that knowledge doesn't have any part in my playing. To me it seems much more a positional and mechanical thing, kind of like recognizing the pattern of dots on the face of a standard die without having to recite the actual number of dots.

But thats me.

[JonZ]

SincereCorgi--I am guessing that the graded system that you describe does not have improvisation as a goal. So, it might not address the Create level, unless there is a composition component.

JeffD--I am not advocating for Bloom. It is just one model. I am interested in the best way to break down the long-term goal of "Create" into a logical progression.

I know for a lot of people the answer is to have the patterns available to look at and just start jamming with some chords, jumping right ahead to Create. There could be a whole pro and con discussion about which approach is better. I assume that a balance is best.

I compare a lot of music learning ideas to basketball learning ideas, because my kids are on teams. You deffinately see that they need plenty of time to play, but they also need the fundamentals broken down an taught to them.

[draino]

I don't know. Bloom seems to apply to the acquisition of an intellectual skill, not a mechanical one.

Bloom would help one to learn math, or paragraph writing. But not, I don't think, catching a ball.

So, is learning arpeggios more like learning to write a paragraph or more like learning to catch a ball?

I kind of learned arpeggio forms. Finger patterns in closed position, closed position anchored high, closed position anchored low, or for when there is an open string below, or an open string above. Major and minor. Similar to what Pickloser has done with double stops, (but not nearly as well thought out.) The point is that I didn't learn the specific notes in any given chord or arpeggio, and while I can figure it out when ever I need to recite it, that knowledge doesn't have any part in my playing. To me it seems much more a positional and mechanical thing, kind of like recognizing the pattern of dots on the face of a standard die without having to recite the actual number of dots.

But thats me.

Jeff, I agree there is not a 1:1 correlation here, and the muscle memory aspect of finger positions may be outside the scope of Bloom's taxonimy. However, in terms of internalizing the sound of the arpeggios, how they function in actual music, and how you can apply them to your own playing, I think there is good reason to attempt to put some order into how one gets from "knowing finger positions" to "Man that guy can play a tasteful break."

[Toycona]

Very interesting thread!

[mandotim1955]

Hi Jon
I think Kolb is helpful for two reasons; the first is that the model was developed specifically around the concept of adult learning, whereas Bloom and the later revisions were less specific in this regard. The second reason is that Kolb does not differentiate between the acquisition of knowledge and the development of skills. Bloom is primarily concerned with knowledge. Playing the mandolin (for me, at least) is a combination of knowledge acquisition, retention of knowledge, development of motor skills to a point of unconscious competence, social adjustment (playing with others), experience, judgement, motivation and personal expression. There is something else; I'm always impressed by Kenneth Gardner's ideas about multiple intelligences; he suggests that there might be a specific 'musical intelligence' that can be developed or in-born. He doesn't develop this idea as much as he does some of the others (verbal, spatial, reasoning, interpersonal etc) but it's an interesting thought.

[JonZ]

So how would you break down the arpeggio task using Kolb?

[JonZ]

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

Remember
Given a note, locate its position on any string.
Given a fretboard position, name the note.
Given a major chord, name the notes
Given a diagram of a movable arpeggios, identify the starting finger.

Understand
Explain the relationship of the notes in a major chord to the major scale.
Explain how open and closed patterns can be moved to make different arpeggios.

Apply
Given a chord, play a variety of sequences for each arpeggio pattern.
Given two chords, transition between two arpeggio patterns, using a variety of sequences

Analyze
Demonstrate how arpeggios can be played over a variety of major chord progressions
--ascending the fretboard
--descending the fretboard
--in first position, second position, etc.

Create
Improvise creatively using a variety of positions and sequences over several major chord progressions.

Evaluate does not seem to apply.

[Ed Goist]

Shouldn't Understanding come before Remembering, especially with something like an arpeggio exercise?
If one understands the concepts/rules behind the form, the form becomes easier to remember.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Quote from JonZ - "I know that some people will be thinking "God, man! Just play your #$%& mandolin and stop over-thinking it".
Sorry--that's what I do." Then STOP DOING IT !!!.

Charlie Brown,Linus & Rerun are all lying on their backs on a small hill,looking up at the clouds. Charlie Brown says 'these clouds remind me of Beowulf's last stand against the invading hordes'. Linus says 'they remind me of the ride of the Valkyries,the warrior daughters of the God Wotan - what do they remind you of Rerun ? - a small pause for thought,then 'a horsie & a ducky'.
I'm most definitely a 'horsie & a ducky' guy. Over-intellectualising what ''for me'', is an enjoyable pursuit, destroys the whole objective. Sorry about that Jon - but for me,'simplification' is all,other folk may differ,
Ivan

[Bertram Henze]

It's one of humanity's oldest dream - to control a process by modelling it:

And the dream lives on, in countless business process models covering the walls and computer screens of the corporate world (I have drawn many of them myself).

But that's just what it is - a dream. An illusionary representation detached from reality. A very minor subset of the information reality holds in store.
To control a process, you must live it. Those ancient cavemen probably survived because they actually killed those beasts, not because they painted them. And those who had to learn to hunt certainly did it by hunting, not by studying the paintings.
Modelling is like winning a million in the lottery and then writing a book on how to get rich - it does not work well the other way round. Modelling is an rationalization of what you did right a posteriori, it's no good for teaching others what to do right a priori.

Once you get your arpeggios right, you'll find it difficult to explain how you did it, because playing is controlled by parts of your brain optimized for speed and flexibility, but without resources wasted for explanation. All of nature works without providing or needing explanation - it is just humans who make plans to fail at.

[SincereCorgi]

Beautifully said, Bertram.

[draino]

...and engineers really should learn how to build skyscrapers by just doing it...and chemists really should just throw expensive and possibly dangerous reactants together and just see what happens...

Buisness models never work because you're working with a system that is too complex to model -- too many interacting variables, many of which are unpredictable. I'm sure the pre-historic people chatted and/or grunted with each other a bit before they went out on a hunt -- I'm sure they SYSTEMATICALLY TAUGHT THEIR CHILDREN HOW TO HUNT -- and didn't just all run out into a field firing arrows hoping one of them would land a buffalo. But there are a lot of models that work wonderfully. The periodic table is an amazing model of elemental properties. There are mountains and mountains of literature showing that a structured approach to teaching/learning works much better than just flying by the seat of your pants. Structure is not required . . . but it sure gets you from point A to point B a lot faster.

All of us take a theoretical approach to learning something new on the mandolin, whether we develop that theory conciously or unconciously. Some merely think that polishing the f-holes of their theoretical approach might yield sonic improvements.

The negative posts on this thread all assume that JonZ never actually plays his mandolin. But the trend I've seen is that he posts a question like this, discusses it for a day or three, and then he goes away for a few weeks. It appears to me that in the intervening time he is actually PLAYING his mandolin. Its not like he just sits around thinking about how one should learn the mandolin but never bothers to learn it. If the average poster (myself included) put half as much time into developing a theory regarding how they can learn to play the instrument as he puts into developing far-fetched and baseless theories on how the construction of a mandolin affects its tone, we'd all be Thile-level players

[draino]

Shouldn't Understanding come before Remembering, especially with something like an arpeggio exercise?
If one understands the concepts/rules behind the form, the form becomes easier to remember.

Ed, there has to be some base level of remembering before understanding can take place.

"What am I develping a concept about again? Oh, major arpeggios. What's an arpeggio again? Oh, right. What's the major scale again? Oh, okay."

The "remembering stage" isn't the traditionally denograted task of "memorizing" -- it doesn't mean "ingrain in long term memory so deeply you'll never forget" it means "placing the initial facts needed for conceptulizing in your short-to-mid-term memory so that you have something to work with."

[Ed Goist]

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.

[Bertram Henze]

...and engineers really should learn how to build skyscrapers by just doing it...

Since modelling is a thinking technique, it is always good for other thinking processes. However, when I play mandolin, my thinking is much too slow for that. I could mention other processes where thinking won't help, but this is a family forum.

...and chemists really should just throw expensive and possibly dangerous reactants together and just see what happens...

Apparently that's what they do


Don't get me wrong: I am aware of the fact that this discussion really seems to be a lot about teaching and understanding what goes on inside the trainee's head, and that a teacher has a much bigger task to do than a player. But if I am teaching myself, I don't think I have to switch roles and think like I was two persons in one. I am building that skyscraper all alone with considerably less paperwork (and it does collapse sometimes, yes, that's all part of the fun).

[draino]

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

Remember
Given a note, locate its position on any string.
Given a fretboard position, name the note.
Given a major chord, name the notes
Given a diagram of a movable arpeggios, identify the starting finger.

Understand
Explain the relationship of the notes in a major chord to the major scale.
Explain how open and closed patterns can be moved to make different arpeggios.

Apply
Given a chord, play a variety of sequences for each arpeggio pattern.
Given two chords, transition between two arpeggio patterns, using a variety of sequences

Analyze
Demonstrate how arpeggios can be played over a variety of major chord progressions
--ascending the fretboard
--descending the fretboard
--in first position, second position, etc.

Create
Improvise creatively using a variety of positions and sequences over several major chord progressions.

Evaluate does not seem to apply.

JonZ, in reading this I only have one concern: it still seems like you're leaving a pretty big leap from the "analysis" section to the "create" section. In the analysis section you're merely playing finger patterns, and then in the "create" section you're asking the student/yourself now to make a leap to improvising melody over a chord progression. I would suggest either placing a much narrower and specific limit on what you mean by "improvise creatively," or provide more complexity to your "analysis" section (which is basically a repeat of the "apply" section, except this time the arpeggios are being played over the chord progression). For example, perhaps the "create" section could be "develop variations on three melodies the student already knows by replacing one or more portions of the melody with an appropriate arpeggio."

[AlanN]

Ai yi yi. Who said talking about music is like dancing about architecture. Wayyyy too much yakking about picking the mandolin, for me.

For those that like this stuff, carry on (I know you will )

[draino]

Ai yi yi. Who said talking about music is like dancing about architecture. Wayyyy too much yakking about picking the mandolin, for me.

For those that like this stuff, carry on (I know you will )

This quote never made any sense to me. Talking about music is not like dancing about architecture. Talking about music is like talking about architecture, which is done all the time. And I'm sure teachers of architecture talk about how best to teach budding architects, too.