Script & Score

February 2, 2009 at 11:35 pm (1st Year Experience, learning)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today’s class was fairly straight forward as we had planned and set up most of it yesterday evening. The students had been asked to find a short speech from a movie or theater that they liked and sheet music of a song they admired. They were to work in pairs and in their own time, blocking and learning the scripts. This served a number of outcomes, the most obvious being an appreciation of the performance process and to provide a scenario for their partners to cue from. It also provided a ‘small team’ scenario, which up until this point hadn’t been tested.

After a brief introduction on how to place cues into a script, we forged ahead with the first series of teams. I was impressed on the amount of work had been done and the commitment the students showed to the exercise. I had picked up through their blogs that their workload was proving to be stressful to most of the cohort, which made thier commitment all the more significant. Calum came along again and we agreed that he should run the afternoon session, where we would swap to cueing from a score.

All went well. Each student (and the one that was next in line) received instruction on how to use the prompt desk and encouragement was given wherever needed. Calum sat on cans to monitor how communications were between the DSM and the operators. It was great to have him around again and I looked forward to handing the session over in the afternoon, though I still wasn’t sure what my role would be.

I must also look at the brief for this project as there still seemed to be a little confusion about certain aspects of the day, I shall attend to it shortly, but all it requires is a little more detail.

The morning was highly enjoyable and most of the students coped very well with both performing in front of their peers and calling the mini productions. This cohort have little reservations about trying new skills and face up to challenges well. There was no formal assessment attached to today, which removed that kind of pressure and allowed the students to relax and enjoy the experience. This in turn, I believe, also improved overall performance and was more conducive to learning.

After lunch Calum talked through placing cues into a musical score, reiterating similarities between the two processes and giving one to one tuition, along with myself, whenever required. My only criticism of my own class was that there was a lot of sitting around by those who weren’t (or had) cueing. My next improvement would be to engage the others with a project as they waited their turn.

Every morning, before classes began, I had organised a member of the music school to lecture the P1/2 students in score reading. In a way this afternoons exercise was the culmination of these sessions, though with the lightest of touches. We filled the venue with smoke, in order to see the light beams and make it a little more dramatic. Afterwards, we discussed the differences between the two processes and summed up the week with a small discussion. As always, the group responded well and all agreed the week had been a positive experience.

Every night I persisted in reading each students blog and committed myself to comment on each one, it was a long process but an important one. I wanted to encourage the cohort by showing direct involvement with their reflections. If their was no obvious reason to provide formative feedback then I would leave encouragement, I had managed to get them all reflecting on WordPress and Twitter and needed to keep the momentum going.

Moodle also came into it’s own for me during this week. Having ecome an site-wide administrator has been excellent, I feel able to experiment with activities with confidence. This sense of VLE ‘freedom’ has already reaped a few significant benefits to my practice. I set up the Peer Generated Quiz on Moodle and it’s now posted and I await a response, along with an ATTL (Attitudes Towards Thinking & Learning) survey which is designed to help  evaluate individuals attitudes towards thinking and learning.

Over the week I think I have succeeded in implimenting a blended approach to learning, using elearning, practical workshops, instruction and peer teaching to good effect. And not one did the Powerpoint projector and laptop get dusted off….

2 Comments

Opera

December 23, 2008 at 11:06 am (learning)
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

I have an issue developing in Stage Management, one which always has the potential of rearing up. One of our student electives for Stage Management is the option to either Stage Manage (SM) or Deputy Stage Manage (DSM) an Opera. There are no restrictions on this elective e.g. no prerequisites such as the ability to score read etc… However, score reading skills are all but essential to an Opera DSM and important to an SM. There are crude ‘work arounds’ which give the students some chance of getting through an Opera process but all of them fall short of ideal e.g. using a stop watch and concentrating extremely hard.

My question is, should we be offering this as an elective to non-score readers in the first place? or should it be left open and classes in score reading be offered up as a solution? The Opera process contains elements of professional practise that are of a high educational value, these elements aren’t currently available in any other form within the Academy at the time being. I would be reluctant to altogether remove the opportunity for non-score readers  for this reason alone. Unfortunately, score reading classes aren’t free. I know you’re thinking One Academy and global budgets etc. which works as an ideal but has a different ‘shop floor’ face, especially when it comes to money. I have managed to secure a total of 10 hours score reading tuition (for 1st and 2nd years) from the music school, but this is woefully inadequate and only touches on the provision required. Along with further sporadic tuition from a graduate music student.

All of this is operational mumbo-jumbo. The real matter that lies at the heart of the issue is the age old problem of using TPA students as production support and not identifying them as learners in thier own right. The Opera traditionally expects that all DSMs and SMs be score readers of a certain quality, we see the Opera’s as an arena to test our students etc… My opinion is somewhat different. I feel the Opera (and any RSAMD production) should be a place of learning. An elaborate classroom, where students can learn and try out newly found knowledge, either by trial and error or by tuition. This is where they learn the necessary skills, whether it be which knots to use in a particular scenario, or how to score read in context. By removing this opportunity from non-score reading Stage Managers we are partially removing the right to student centred learning. Knowing how to score read on an Opera could be considered an example of ‘best practice’ within the industry, but removing the option of student centred learning in this instance, from an educational institution could, in contrast, be considered as being ‘poor’ practice.

This would not be a problem if only the score readers within Stage Management opted to choose Opera’s as their elective choice, but they aren’t. Over the next two terms I have 2 students wishing to SM and DSM and Opera each, neither can score read. They have agreed to attend both 1st and 2nd year score reading classes, though I feel that these are only token gestures on the Academy’s behalf.  The other option is to deal with this on a cases by case scenario and create provision as required, after all if a student doesn’t want to partake in an Opera then it is their choice not to, this would truly be exercising their right to student centered learning and the Opera will have to look elsewhere for their Stage Managers.

2 Comments

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.