Applying Bloom's Taxonomy to Learning the Mandolin

[draino]

Does anyone remember the Roy Clark Big Note Guitar Songbook? I remember seeing this advertised after Hee Haw each week. I had to Google it to make sure I wasn't making this book up, but on many occasions I have used this method as an example of how I visualize notes, scales, and chords. It contained a page of colored stickers you put on the fretboard to hep you see where to put your fingers to play a chord. I have always felt like that is how it is for me. I practice playing a chord, a scale, and arpeggio, and when I go to use it, especially when using them as a reference for finding chord tones, the notes light up like little LEDs or Roy's red and green stickers.

Sort of the old school version of the Fretlight guitar system, Chip: http://fretlight.com/

I doubt they'll be making a mando version of that system anytime soon though (not to mention the fact that it seems to me that although the system could reap huge initial rewards, I'm not convinced that its really the correct path to get to where one sees an un-lighted fingerboard "lit-up in the brain" the way Chip does).

I'm glad this conversation has progressed. What I'm taking away from this conversation is that I've been leaving half the good stuff on the plate during a lot of my practice time: focusing my attention completely on internalizing the finger pattern and paying too little attention to the "sound pattern" that corresponds to that finger pattern.

Now to go back and over-intellectualize how I can use that take-away message to make my practice time more useful

[farmerjones]

To take it one step more, i imagine to hold the neck differently for every key. Goes along the lines of being a tactile learner, because my vision is not good.

Yes, i have read the whole thread. Mr. McGann should be recognized as a Worldwide Treasure, or Sainted, or some such.

[JonZ]

What I'm taking away from this conversation is that I've been leaving half the good stuff on the plate during a lot of my practice time: focusing my attention completely on internalizing the finger pattern and paying too little attention to the "sound pattern" that corresponds to that finger pattern.

That's interesting. For me the sound patterns become quickly internalized. When people say to sing the patterns, it does not really ring a bell with me. I think it is because I have done a lot of singing, and it is easy for me to pick up a melody, or sound pattern.
I seem to need more work on connecting the sounds to how they function within the harmonic framework of a song.

[catmandu2]

That's interesting. For me the sound patterns become quickly internalized. When people say to sing the patterns, it does not really ring a bell with me. I think it is because I have done a lot of singing, and it is easy for me to pick up a melody, or sound pattern.
I seem to need more work on connecting the sounds to how they function within the harmonic framework of a song.

IMO, this is a tremendous advantage for you--perhaps more than any other factor.

If you are already proficient with singing--then it is simply a matter of analyzing what it is you are already doing, so that you can understand it--conceptualize it. Generally speaking, this is the easy part--cognition, since it is basically a matter of doing your homework; in your case, a matter of the brain catching up with the ears, et al...usually, the brain catches on faster than ears, hands, fingers, etc. You've already got "an instrument" under your fingers (coordinating sound with physical movement) which is usually the hard part--taking the longest amount of time to develop. Now, you break it down to see what the elements are doing to form music. As John said, there are only 12 notes in a chromatic scale--a very finite exercise...especially compared with the technique of playing. Typically, the task of acquiring a basic understanding of color theory and ocular perception is acquired faster than learning how to paint.

[SincereCorgi]

Maybe a lot of this discussion comes from not exactly knowing your goal, Jon- what exactly do you want to do with the arpeggios?

[John McGann]

Yes, i have read the whole thread. Mr. McGann should be recognized as a Worldwide Treasure, or Sainted, or some such.

Wow, thanks, I am really happy to help; I'd settle for solvency :rimshot:

[JonZ]

I want to get in on that Jedi action that John McGann mentioned.

I am at the level where I know the arpeggio patterns, and can find them on the fretboard. I think my next step is to be able to move them around the fretboard and over chord changes at higher speed, and also to have an awareness of what the notes and scale positions are that I am playing as I play them. I would like to see the patterns on the fretboard, as Catmandu mentioned.

The next level would be to be able to use them as the basis for improvisation, eventually at full speed.

I understand that improvisation that is all chord tones is not the goal. But as John McGann says, you have to KNOW your arpeggios.

[Lou Giordano]

Looks like a happy ending here. Cool!!! Lots of good stuff.

Also thanks John McGann.

[catmandu2]

Here's the link, Jon:

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f44/

FWIW...this bass site has good forums--particularly in theory and pedagogy. There's a whole lot of great info on theory all over the place here. For improv-related questions, check out the "Jazz Technique" forum..

[JonZ]

I found an interesting guitar discussion that deals with some nuts and bolts triad learning techniques.

http://www.tdpri.com/forum/archive/i.../t-224507.html

[Paul Cowham]

Interesting thread, and echo the thanks to John McGann's posts espacially no. 80

I'm not convinced that Bloom is a great model for learning music, but I quite like Kolb (incidentally I suspect that Kolb's theorists and reflectors and more likely to enjoy this thread than activists or pragmatists!)

A learning curve model that I really like though and can be useful when thining about learning music is a 4 stage process:

1 subconcious incompetance (when you start to learn something you don't know what you don't know and what you need to learn)
2 concious incompetance (after much practice you realise what you don't know and can't do)
3 concious competance (after much more practice you can do what you are trying to but you really have to think about it)
4 subconcious competance (after much more practice you can do what you have been trying to and don't need to think about it)

For music to sound good I think the 4th stage has to have been reached (to make instrument a vehicle for communication you can't be thinking too much about what you are doing). I would rather listen/watch simple music played subconciously competantly than complicated music played conciously competantly..

[John McGann]

I would rather listed/watch simple music played subconsciously competently than complicated music played consciously competently..

Yeah, the art is to conceal the art (or the effort!)

[JeffD]

A learning curve model that I really like though and can be useful when thining about learning music is a 4 stage process:

1 subconcious incompetance (when you start to learn something you don't know what you don't know and what you need to learn)
2 concious incompetance (after much practice you realise what you don't know and can't do)
3 concious competance (after much more practice you can do what you are trying to but you really have to think about it)
4 subconcious competance (after much more practice you can do what you have been trying to and don't need to think about it)
..

I saw something like this in a management training program. But it ranked them differently

1 - you're not good at it and you don't know why
2 - you're not good at it and you do know why
3 - you're good at it and you don't know why
4 - you're good at it and you know why

In management class mastery included knowing what you were doing right and why it worked.

Management class was the single greatest influence in my decision to never, if I can possibly avoid it, never ever be a manager.

[Marcus CA]

Yeah, the art is to conceal the art (or the effort!)

For me, the art is to conceal the science with artistry.

[John McGann]

For me, the art is to conceal the science with artistry.

Well put!

[HddnKat]

This is a fascinating thread - applying education theory to self- teaching -and it really requires you to step outside of yourself and try to analyze exactly what it is that you are doing as you learn - apply those metacognitive skills. Back to the original question, though - if you are working to learn arpeggios - what will be your criterion of success? Must you be able to improvise an arpeggio in a given key ascending or descending in a closed position, etc? Or is the goal to be able to use that to produce an improvised melody over a set of changes? I agree there is a certain tension between the skill and mechanical ability to produce the arpeggio, and the artistry of producing something that sounds good and goes along with the melody in question. so to throw a different educator into the mix - do what Stephen Covey says and begin with the end in mind.

[Pete Hicks]

I'm not sure that understanding precedes remembering. Years ago, I learned 'Well You Needn't", by Monk by memory. I could only play it well one way. Over the years, I came to understand what Monk was up to. Now that I understand it better, I can improvise and make sense of it.
On the main subject, I think Bloom's Taxonomy is very applicable to music learning. It has been used for years in language teaching. Music and language both involve aquisition of knowledge and applying that knowledge through performance, i.e. speaking, singing, or playing. The taxonomy is a nice organised approach to learning.

[Brent Hutto]

The taxonomy is a nice organised approach to learning.

Is it an approach to learning? Or to teaching? Or to teaching about teaching?

[draino]

Is it an approach to learning? Or to teaching?

In the present context, one would hope that these are synonymous.

[Brent Hutto]

One might hope but hoping doesn't necessarily make it so.

But I've said too much. Forgot which thread this was for a moment. Sorry.

[draino]

One might hope but hoping doesn't necessarily make it so.

But I've said too much. Forgot which thread this was for a moment. Sorry.

This thread is aimed at self-guided learning. How do you propose that teaching and learning can be separated in this context?

Moreover, you seem to accept that Bloom's taxonomy may provide "a nice organized approach to teaching". If it does that, then it inherently provides "a nice organized approach to learning" because the learning comes from the teaching.