Today we had Dr. Hopkins come in to talk to our class. Both the reading and what he spoke about were on what the class should be taught, and how. I thought it was interesting that both were on the same thing unless this is common in this course? I personally preferred Dr. Hopkins approach on how we should still keep the elements in what is being taught. I found throughout his lesson I was engaged and interested the entire time. After he finished there wasn't a lot of time for questions and there was one thing I wanted to ask. His primary focus on the curriculum sounded like students new to music in grade 9. I have been playing instruments since grade 4 and learning to read notes since then as well. It was at my school everyone learned the recorder at that age. I am curious if he were to change his course of action for grade 7's learning a new instrument. Would he continue with reading notes in the class or would he go with approach of not looking at notes for a while just learning the first 5 notes of the Bb concert scale and doing some improvisation and composition. I personally really thought this was a really cool approach to a new curriculum and I am curious of how it changes the musicians in Nova Scotia. I am very interested in why the shift in music in high schools has gone from playing instruments to being "creative" and "expressive". I also would like to know how schools in Europe teach as they are generally known for having some of the best orchestras. I want to know this because I have heard that in the states they focus very heavily on being a good player on their instruments, playing more difficult repertoire in comparison to Canada. I am most curious about what is the ultimate goal out of his curriculum. Is it to create thoughtful people who can explore their fullest potential? In doing this will it be harder for students to become as skilled in comparison to those focusing heavily on technique?