There is a debate among vocologists that suggests that voice science is important for teachers to know, but that sharing it with students diminishes the student’s capacity to learn. It would seem to me that the idea stems from past voice teaching practices rather than from what learning theory teaches us.
Logically speaking, lack of knowledge, or simply put, "not knowing" is a debilitating factor in learning. So, how can “not knowing” help a vocalist advance?
Knowledge can inhibit learning when preoccupation with knowing supersedes the implementation of action. The knowledge of action, therefore, or "body knowledge", becomes a paramount consideration. Rather than replace conscious knowledge, however, why not find ways to integrate the two?
Logically speaking, lack of knowledge, or simply put, "not knowing" is a debilitating factor in learning. So, how can “not knowing” help a vocalist advance?
Knowledge can inhibit learning when preoccupation with knowing supersedes the implementation of action. The knowledge of action, therefore, or "body knowledge", becomes a paramount consideration. Rather than replace conscious knowledge, however, why not find ways to integrate the two?
Body knowledge cannot replace conscious knowledge, which is so often the instigator of learning. This takes us back to my previous comment about past teaching practices. Rote imitation represents one of the primary occasions where body knowledge occurs without conscious knowledge. Rote imitation, however, depends upon a learning process which imbalances power toward the teacher, creating a dictatorial learning model that subverts the student's understanding, and places the burden of learning upon the person whose body will never actually execute what is being learned.
Although body knowledge must be trained through means appropriate to physical/neurological memory, the body needs the guidance of intention. From my experience, when that intention comes from the person whose body must integrate the learning, it advances the learner’s capacity. Even football down linemen, who are arguably most dependent upon complete mental clarity and advanced body knowledge, study tapes and discuss their role in the system. They know "why" even as their bodies know "how", and they regularly check in to assess their physical responses.
This is not to say that repetition and imitation are unimportant. Learning depends upon establishing targets, and repeatedly executing tasks with clear assessment. Those same down linemen spend the majority of their time reacting to the physical stimuli that they will encounter in the game, as vocalists must spend the majority of their time habituating the reactions they rely on from their voice.
This is not to say that repetition and imitation are unimportant. Learning depends upon establishing targets, and repeatedly executing tasks with clear assessment. Those same down linemen spend the majority of their time reacting to the physical stimuli that they will encounter in the game, as vocalists must spend the majority of their time habituating the reactions they rely on from their voice.
The presence of a dictatorial learning model may reflect a long-standing reality, but that doesn’t mean that it makes the most sense for learning. Equally, to replace measured execution with conscious thought about execution disallows the body to become knowledgeable toward the desired goal. We can hear Bob Marley singing to us across time “Who feels it, knows it”. A learning process that involves an evenly-paced acquisition of knowledge by the student such that they learn how to create targets based in knowledge while learning to assess them empowers the learner to participate in their own growth. The instructor’s role becomes that of guiding the student in this process, which also means that there are moments when instruction leans on imitation, but it allows for imitation to be one tool in the box, rather than the full paradigm.
RSS Feed
