Chvonne's Reading and Thinking Notes 11/4
Brain Rules #10: Study or listen to boost cognition
Brain Rule 10 is my favorite by far because my favorite thing in the world is music. Before deciding to become an English Major, I wanted to be a musician. I originally wanted to go into Music Business or Recording as my major. My parents were very supportive, but I did not want to take the risk, so I decided to major in English and focus on music journalism. Somewhere in the 4 years of undergrad, I decided that I did not want to pollute the thing I loved by making it my career.
This chapter of brain rules discusses the impact of musical training on intellectual skills. The chapter specifically points out the different benefits of musical training versus listening to music, noting that musical training has a variety of effects from social cognition to empathy skills. These effects can be witness in people of all ages. The author make sure to point out that research in this area has not proven the connections, partly because there is no agreed upon definition of music or an understanding of why music exists. The author points out that the actual results of whether music is associated with increased academic performance is not as concrete or positive as many people believe. There is a very low association between the two areas. However, there are some positive effects of taking music and listening to music. In regards to musicians, the author notes that musicians are better listeners and better at detecting emotion
Music training/lessons boosts language skills, improve social skills, and make kids more empathetic. It is also shown that music impacts mood; “music can induce hormonal changes” (215). The specific hormones are dopamine, cortisol, and oxytocin. The research presents that there is “a mechanism whereby music makes people happy, calms them down, maybe even makes them feel close to each other” (217). Music has been used as medicine for ages. It has helped head-trauma patients recover speech, improved the recovery rates for stroke victims, and aided those with Parkinson’s and cerebral palsy. Music has also aided prematurely born infants. Researchers are not sure why this happens. The author suggests schools do longitudinal studies about the benefits of music training to academic performance.
Knox, Jeremy, Jen Ross, Christine Sinclair, Hamish Macleod, and Sian Bayne. “MOOC Feedback: Pleasing All the People.” Invasion of the MOOCs: The Promise and Perils of Massive Open Online Courses.” Eds. Steven D. Krause and Charles Lowe. Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press, 2014. 98-104. Print.
The authors of this chapter from Invasion of the MOOCs problematize student feedback. Feedback surveys and evaluations are a regular part of course development. However, for MOOCs this process is complicated by scale. The number of participants in MOOCs is so large that it makes “such customary procedures rather more challenging” (98). Due to the size of MOOCs and their open nature, it can be difficult to establish the who, what, and how of a MOOC. The who is difficult in that a variety of different types of people enroll in MOOCs. Furthermore, “the identification of what the course is for, and indeed how one might teach it” are also complicated. The flesh out the complexity of feedback, the authors use their EDCMOOC taught via the Coursera platform as an example. The course was non-traditional for MOOCs in the sense that it was “more in the way of self-directed study than the average MOOC” (99). The authors MOOC did not utilize pre-recorded video lectures and were intentionally “less specific about guiding student activities” (99). After the course ended, the feedback from the participants was mostly positive, with 82.8% of participants responding that they had a good, very good, or excellent experience in the course. The specific feedback, however, ranged from “praise for the innovation and creativity, to criticism for unorthodox course design” (100). Basically, there was a group of students who wanted more direction and a group that enjoyed the flexibility of the course.
With this information, the course designers decided to “include strategies to manage the massiveness and video introductions to each week” (101). The authors note that this was not an easy decision to make. The opinions about the course were so vast that it is impossible to address the concerns of one group without negatively impacting the other group. The authors argue for “listening to participant feedback—as much of it as possible, as often as possible—while retaining a skeptical and reflective stance towards it” (101). The authors posit that the only way to address the concerns noted in the feedback would be to design a course that allowed for both methods of participation. Is this actually possible? MOOCs focus on or tout student-centered learning, which is provided through flexibility and empowerment. Students are expected to judge the educational experience they have participated in and “perceive precisely what it is that they have or have not learned” (102). The authors recommend humility from instructors and students. They present that both groups have to move past the idea of enjoyment and satisfaction from the educational experience. The authors argue: “Enjoyment is an antiquated outcome of the educational experience, not a measure of it, and neither should ‘dissatisfaction’ indicate a failure of course design—discomfort and disequilibrium can be vital to learning” (102). Satisfaction is a poor measure. There is “futility of engaging exclusively with such feedback” (102). It is possible for a student to enjoy the course experience but not have a worthwhile learning experience. It is okay for students to have a love/hate relationship with a course as long as they learned something. Teachers should still respond to both negative and positive feedback received from students. However, they should work towards “contextualizing the feedback to understand how it also might relate to learning experiences in indirect ways” (103). In conclusion, the authors present that MOOCs highlight vital areas of course development. They also show that there is no universal or correct way. Trying to find this universal one way “risks diluting the convictions that bring education into new territory int he first place” (103). Education cannot and should not be deducted to a popularity contest or to satisfactory entertainment.
This week’s readings were my favorite, so far. I think because both of these areas are very familiar to me. My roommate in undergrad was a music therapy major, and I already expressed my love for music. I have spent a substantial amount of time researching MOOCs over the past year. These readings were also interesting because one of the first and most popular MOOCs was about music history. All that aside, I have been working towards integrating music into composition for a few years. I once helped with a workshop on sound and freshman composition. The workshop focused on introducing students to concepts related to music, such as recording, sampling, and mixing. It also explored having students write about music and create playlists. I think this chapter from Brain Rules connects with the previous week’s reading about stimulating the senses to aid in learning and memory. I have often considered playing music for my students while they write or work in groups. I know that I cannot write without music. A quite room is a perfect way to keep me from writing one word. I do not function well in silence. I go to sleep with music. I am having a difficult time understanding why all of this information that could improve public education is being ignored. I know resources are limited. What keeps those in higher education from pushing these boundaries?
Brain Rule 10 is my favorite by far because my favorite thing in the world is music. Before deciding to become an English Major, I wanted to be a musician. I originally wanted to go into Music Business or Recording as my major. My parents were very supportive, but I did not want to take the risk, so I decided to major in English and focus on music journalism. Somewhere in the 4 years of undergrad, I decided that I did not want to pollute the thing I loved by making it my career.
This chapter of brain rules discusses the impact of musical training on intellectual skills. The chapter specifically points out the different benefits of musical training versus listening to music, noting that musical training has a variety of effects from social cognition to empathy skills. These effects can be witness in people of all ages. The author make sure to point out that research in this area has not proven the connections, partly because there is no agreed upon definition of music or an understanding of why music exists. The author points out that the actual results of whether music is associated with increased academic performance is not as concrete or positive as many people believe. There is a very low association between the two areas. However, there are some positive effects of taking music and listening to music. In regards to musicians, the author notes that musicians are better listeners and better at detecting emotion
Music training/lessons boosts language skills, improve social skills, and make kids more empathetic. It is also shown that music impacts mood; “music can induce hormonal changes” (215). The specific hormones are dopamine, cortisol, and oxytocin. The research presents that there is “a mechanism whereby music makes people happy, calms them down, maybe even makes them feel close to each other” (217). Music has been used as medicine for ages. It has helped head-trauma patients recover speech, improved the recovery rates for stroke victims, and aided those with Parkinson’s and cerebral palsy. Music has also aided prematurely born infants. Researchers are not sure why this happens. The author suggests schools do longitudinal studies about the benefits of music training to academic performance.
Knox, Jeremy, Jen Ross, Christine Sinclair, Hamish Macleod, and Sian Bayne. “MOOC Feedback: Pleasing All the People.” Invasion of the MOOCs: The Promise and Perils of Massive Open Online Courses.” Eds. Steven D. Krause and Charles Lowe. Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press, 2014. 98-104. Print.
The authors of this chapter from Invasion of the MOOCs problematize student feedback. Feedback surveys and evaluations are a regular part of course development. However, for MOOCs this process is complicated by scale. The number of participants in MOOCs is so large that it makes “such customary procedures rather more challenging” (98). Due to the size of MOOCs and their open nature, it can be difficult to establish the who, what, and how of a MOOC. The who is difficult in that a variety of different types of people enroll in MOOCs. Furthermore, “the identification of what the course is for, and indeed how one might teach it” are also complicated. The flesh out the complexity of feedback, the authors use their EDCMOOC taught via the Coursera platform as an example. The course was non-traditional for MOOCs in the sense that it was “more in the way of self-directed study than the average MOOC” (99). The authors MOOC did not utilize pre-recorded video lectures and were intentionally “less specific about guiding student activities” (99). After the course ended, the feedback from the participants was mostly positive, with 82.8% of participants responding that they had a good, very good, or excellent experience in the course. The specific feedback, however, ranged from “praise for the innovation and creativity, to criticism for unorthodox course design” (100). Basically, there was a group of students who wanted more direction and a group that enjoyed the flexibility of the course.
With this information, the course designers decided to “include strategies to manage the massiveness and video introductions to each week” (101). The authors note that this was not an easy decision to make. The opinions about the course were so vast that it is impossible to address the concerns of one group without negatively impacting the other group. The authors argue for “listening to participant feedback—as much of it as possible, as often as possible—while retaining a skeptical and reflective stance towards it” (101). The authors posit that the only way to address the concerns noted in the feedback would be to design a course that allowed for both methods of participation. Is this actually possible? MOOCs focus on or tout student-centered learning, which is provided through flexibility and empowerment. Students are expected to judge the educational experience they have participated in and “perceive precisely what it is that they have or have not learned” (102). The authors recommend humility from instructors and students. They present that both groups have to move past the idea of enjoyment and satisfaction from the educational experience. The authors argue: “Enjoyment is an antiquated outcome of the educational experience, not a measure of it, and neither should ‘dissatisfaction’ indicate a failure of course design—discomfort and disequilibrium can be vital to learning” (102). Satisfaction is a poor measure. There is “futility of engaging exclusively with such feedback” (102). It is possible for a student to enjoy the course experience but not have a worthwhile learning experience. It is okay for students to have a love/hate relationship with a course as long as they learned something. Teachers should still respond to both negative and positive feedback received from students. However, they should work towards “contextualizing the feedback to understand how it also might relate to learning experiences in indirect ways” (103). In conclusion, the authors present that MOOCs highlight vital areas of course development. They also show that there is no universal or correct way. Trying to find this universal one way “risks diluting the convictions that bring education into new territory int he first place” (103). Education cannot and should not be deducted to a popularity contest or to satisfactory entertainment.
This week’s readings were my favorite, so far. I think because both of these areas are very familiar to me. My roommate in undergrad was a music therapy major, and I already expressed my love for music. I have spent a substantial amount of time researching MOOCs over the past year. These readings were also interesting because one of the first and most popular MOOCs was about music history. All that aside, I have been working towards integrating music into composition for a few years. I once helped with a workshop on sound and freshman composition. The workshop focused on introducing students to concepts related to music, such as recording, sampling, and mixing. It also explored having students write about music and create playlists. I think this chapter from Brain Rules connects with the previous week’s reading about stimulating the senses to aid in learning and memory. I have often considered playing music for my students while they write or work in groups. I know that I cannot write without music. A quite room is a perfect way to keep me from writing one word. I do not function well in silence. I go to sleep with music. I am having a difficult time understanding why all of this information that could improve public education is being ignored. I know resources are limited. What keeps those in higher education from pushing these boundaries?
| Previous page on path | Chvonne Parker Bio, page 20 of 24 | Next page on path |
Discussion of "Chvonne's Reading and Thinking Notes 11/4"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...