This article was downloaded by: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] On: 1 February 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 902156990] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Music Education Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713438964

Innovations in piano teaching: a small-group model for the tertiary level Ryan Daniel a a James Cook University, Queensland, Australia Online Publication Date: 01 March 2004

To cite this Article Daniel, Ryan(2004)'Innovations in piano teaching: a small-group model for the tertiary level',Music Education

Research,6:1,23 — 43 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/1461380032000182911 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1461380032000182911

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Music Education Research Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2004

Innovations in piano teaching: a small-group model for the tertiary level Ryan Daniel*

Ryan DanielJames Cook University College of Music Visual Arts and Theatre Vincent Campus 2 Ronan St. Vincent Queensland 4814 Australia [email protected]

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

James Cook University, Queensland, Australia

This article outlines the rationale for and development of a small group piano teaching approach for application in the higher education environment. The influences on and the rationale for current preferences in the piano teaching field are considered, prior to an investigation of the literature, which reveals a number of issues of concern in relation to the efficacies and efficiencies of existing practices. Reflections obtained during in-depth interviews are then analysed to create a view of the current state of piano teaching. Questionnaire data obtained from tutors who engage in advanced student group-teaching are also examined. The development of the small group structure and learning environment is subsequently outlined, as is evaluation data gathered from participating students over the 4-year trial. The paper concludes by discussing a number of implications and possible directions for instrumental teaching at the tertiary level.

Introduction The teaching of piano performance has, for many centuries, taken place predominantly within a one-to-one context, and often according to the master–apprenticeship relationship. However, this has not been the exclusive approach, and other forms of teaching such as the master class and group instruction have been in existence for some time. In general, however, the master class and group teaching appear to be adopted as additional forms of tuition to the one-to-one model, rather than as a principal methodology. In the twenty-first century in Australia, the majority of tertiary institutions and teachers employ one-to-one tuition as the crux of the learning environment. Master classes are occasional additions to the learning process, whilst group teaching is traditionally used for the teaching of basic keyboard skills to beginner students, rather than as a model of learning for advanced piano students. While it is logical and indeed imperative that students are guided by an experienced and qualified mentor, it is less obvious as to what research evidence supports the rationale for these current preferences. *James Cook University, College of Music, Visual Arts and Theatre, Vincent Campus, 2 Ronan St, Vincent Queensland 4814, Australia. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1461-3808 (print)/ISSN 1469-9893 (online)/04/010023-21  2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1461380032000182911

24

R. Daniel

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Investigating the status quo The literature reveals that approaches to piano teaching often emerge from personal experience, and several authors reflect upon the fact that experience of instrumental teaching is a major influence on the choice of teaching approach (Kennell, 1992; Persson, 1994; Jørgensen, 2000). Mills and Smith (2003) give evidence of this in a recent study involving 134 instrumental teachers, 57% of whom stated that the primary influence on their teaching approach was the way they were taught. This view is further supported in recently introduced courses for instrumental teachers, developed as a result of the fact that ‘this responsible and important job is often undertaken with little or no training … [and many] teach in the way they were taught’ (University of Reading, 2003, p. 6). The apprenticeship learning style of earlier centuries appears to remain prevalent in higher education (Keraus, 1973; Madsen, 1988; Jørgensen, 2000). Zhukov (1999) argues that one-to-one teaching has ‘not changed a great deal from the apprenticeship model of the earlier centuries’ (p. 248). This may be partly due to resistance to change, which according to Swanwick (1996), ‘most often comes from those who have come through music schools and conservatoires where the one-toone ratio is jealously preserved and no other alternative seems feasible’. Renshaw (2002) supports the quest for change, arguing that higher education music institutions must readdress their purpose and direction, and no longer hide behind ‘institutional inertia, intransigence and limited vision’. At the same time, there is a recent move in some institutions to challenge the dominance of one-to-one teaching, ‘not merely on pragmatic or financial grounds, but also in terms of effective teaching and learning’ (Young et al., 2003). One of the emerging issues, when investigating instrumental music teaching, is the lack of educational theory applied to the discipline. On the one hand, the literature related to teaching methods and theories within the music classroom is both extensive and recent (e.g. Philpott & Plummeridge, 2001; Mark, 2002; Spruce, 2002; Jørgensen, 2003). However, theoretical underpinnings as applied to the one-to-one, master class or group learning environments are not only limited, but tend to emerge from existing practice rather than consideration, analysis or comparison of the educational outcomes of the various approaches (Persson, 1994; Hallam, 1998; Rostvall & West, 2001). This may be due to the individual nature of the field, indeed Swanwick (1996) argues that instrumental teaching is a ‘very haphazard affair with idiosyncratic extremes, depending on the individual teacher’. This view is also supported by Persson (1994) who states that instrumental teaching ‘largely rests on the basis of tradition and self-devised commonsensical strategies’.

Benefits of alternative models While the one-to-one approach appears to dominate the instrumental teaching environment, group teaching plays a prominent and very successful role in several educational settings, most notably at the beginner and school levels. One of the most well-known and successful approaches is the Suzuki method (Campbell, 1991;

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Innovations in piano teaching

25

Colwell & Goolsby, 2002), which relies on extending the learning environment to incorporate other students and/or parents. The majority of instrumental tuition in the public school system in Queensland, Australia takes place via small group learning, and numerous benefits of this process are reported (Clinch, 1983). Additional group learning approaches include the Junior Strings project at the Royal Northern College of Music, which was awarded a Queen’s anniversary prize in 1998, and the ‘Halifax, Nova Scotia, String Project’, referred to by Rabin (2000) as an ‘excellent example of … group practice [which] has produced outstanding string performers by teaching students exclusively in instrument groups’. In terms of beginner group piano methods, several practitioners refer to the benefits of such procedures, including Kowalchyk and Lancaster (1997), and Cheek (1999, 2000). There are indeed a number of reported benefits of teaching instruments in groups. Swanwick (1996) suggests that these include the social context created, and the opportunity to observe others and to engage in performance assessment. Hallam (1998) supports this view and proposes that group work can be more stimulating, fun and may foster a greater level of independent learning. Others who argue the advantages of group work include Duckworth (1999) and a number of additional participants at recent conferences of the Music Teachers National Association (1999, 2000). One of the key principles to emerge in relation to group work is the necessity for teachers to be well prepared and to create a structured and progressive learning environment. What is also revealed is that while group approaches are in operation at the beginning and/or junior levels, group teaching at the advanced level, particularly in the higher education sector, is limited. Research on instrumental music teaching To date, systematic research concerning models of instrumental teaching has largely concentrated on one-to-one instruction, and has explored such issues as the use of time; personality and behaviour influences; and teaching and evaluation strategies (Kennell, 2002). Indeed, there is minimal published research that explores the efficacies and efficiencies of the one-to-one environment, particularly in terms of comparisons with alternative methods (Persson, 1994; Kennell, 2002). While there is an increasing interest in instrument teaching at the higher level, recent research acknowledges the significant complexities and challenges associated with a field of teaching that often relies more on the individuals involved than tested educational practice or theory (Zhukov, 1997; Hallam, 1998; Young et al., 2003; West & Rostvall, 2003; Mills & Smith, 2003; Creech & Hallam, 2003). West and Rostvall (2003) do, however, offer new insights into the one-to-one approach, via an in depth analysis of video footage of 11 lessons, nine of which were one-to-one and two of which were group lessons (nine students in each group). The authors highlighted several striking issues in relation to this sample, in that the teacher would control the interaction, students would generally play in a testing manner, and the majority of utterances were teachers’ instructions. Indeed the authors state that the teachers had great power and control, and they expressed concern that some ‘often ignored and sometimes even ridiculed students’ verbal

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

26

R. Daniel

initiatives with sarcastic comments’ (p. 21). Teacher domination in such settings is also referred to by Jørgensen (2000) and Persson (1994), who argue that this scenario has the potential to hamper the development of students’ independence. On the other hand, the analysis conducted by West and Rostvall (2003) revealed shared power within the group lessons, which ‘puts the students in a stronger position, with a more dynamic interaction’. While there have been studies which consider the efficacies of one to one compared to group instruction, the majority of these concern beginning level students, and Kennell (2002) reveals that these research studies and investigations to date have ‘failed to reveal conclusive evidence in support of either class or private instruction’. One research study, which compares advanced students taught in groups and individually, is that by Seipp (1976), who examined the progress of trumpet majors across one academic year. Seipp (1976) divided the first-year sample of trumpet majors into eight students taught individually and eight taught in two groups of four. At the beginning and end of the academic year, Seipp (1976) tested six areas, including performance skill, interpretive judgement and sight-reading. The results revealed minimal differences between group and individually taught students in all but the area of sight-reading. Seipp (1976) discovered that group-taught students progressed more rapidly in this area than those taught individually, as a result of the additional ensemble activities made available in the group sessions. What is also interesting is that Seipp (1976) comments that some of the grouptaught students perceived that they were disadvantaged as a result of not having individual lessons, although their progress compared to individually taught students was of insufficient difference to warrant objective statements regarding the superiority of one method. Investigating the literature—reflections on piano pedagogies An investigation of the literature reveals a number of reflections on models of piano teaching, and whilst largely anecdotal, suggests that there are a number of issues of concern in relation to the one-to-one approach in particular. These issues of concern, sampled in detail in Appendix A, can be synthesized as: • • • • •

Time inefficiencies and time serving; Conservatism and tradition; Monocular learning and cloning; Imitation and repetition; and The potential for rebellion and frustration.

These identified issues of concern suggest an urgent need to scrutinize existing approaches, and in particular the one-to-one environment. Further evidence of this need is revealed via a number of reflections that challenge the perceptions of the superiority of one-to-one teaching, and which are sampled in Appendix B. These issues can be synthesized as: • The argued benefits of group learning environments compared to one to one; and • The possibilities for exploring alternative models.

Innovations in piano teaching

27

The concerns identified, in addition to the issues and challenges raised, suggest that a number of questions might thus be posed:

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

• To what extent does the one-to-one approach offer the most beneficial learning environment for advanced/higher education students? • Are higher education institutions perpetuating the one-to-one approach simply because of a conservative, territorial and perception-based approach to teaching? • To what extent have alternative instrumental teaching approaches been adequately explored? As a result of these challenging questions, the teacher as researcher set out to investigate the area of instrumental teaching at the tertiary level, and to consider whether the development and trial of a new approach may lead to a more beneficial learning environment for students. Investigating piano pedagogies: individual interviews and questionnaire data The research study began with establishing some baseline data through individual interviews. Two groups of individuals were targeted: (i) committed learners—those currently in tertiary piano study, and (ii) post-tertiary individuals—those who had progressed beyond tertiary studies in piano. Questions for committed learners were designed to reveal prior experiences and perceptions of piano pedagogies, in addition to their current experiences and perceptions as tertiary students. Questions for post-tertiary individuals were designed to reveal experiences and perceptions of piano pedagogies at both the pre-tertiary and tertiary levels, detail of their current activities, and reflections on the current state of tertiary music training. Interviews with six committed learners were conducted at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama in London. The sample chosen was to reflect different genders and year levels as well as countries of origin. Interviews with the six post-tertiary individuals were conducted in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia. Again, the interview sample was chosen to reflect different genders, ages and post-tertiary activities. All had completed tertiary music study with a focus on piano. All of the interviews were completed in the year 2000 and subsequently transcribed and checked for accuracy with a research assistant, prior to analysis. An investigation of the interview data reveals a number of general principles in relation to experiences of piano pedagogies: • One-to-one remains the primary piano learning model; • The reported advantages of one-to-one teaching predominate on the basis of subjective rather than objective data; • The reported disadvantages of one-to-one learning environments are similarly subjective and relate to perceptions of an authoritarian pedagogical style and limited possibilities for interaction; • Master classes are seen as additional to one-to-one teaching and are viewed as offering most value in terms of performance experience and exposure to additional teachers; and

28

R. Daniel

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

• Knowledge and experience of small group methodologies is virtually non-existent. Table 1 presents a sample of the interviewee comments of relevance in column 1, with the identified issue presented in column 2. Given that those interviewed had minimal knowledge of group teaching, it was deemed necessary to attempt to locate and identify the existence of group teaching approaches as applied to advanced students. The most appropriate method for gathering data was determined to be the written questionnaire, and a format was prepared. The questionnaire was divided into three sections and designed to probe personal details, pre-university or college studies and current teaching methods. A list of teachers was created based on an extensive search for those who might engage in advanced student group teaching. Email and/or postal addresses were located via Internet searches, and these individuals were contacted to ascertain their suitability for the study and their willingness to participate. Questionnaires were sent to 12 teachers in the USA, six of whom returned the questionnaires, presenting a return rate of 50%. One of the teachers appears to have misunderstood the purpose of the questionnaire and in fact completed it with a focus on their work in the group teaching of beginner students. Analysis of the questionnaire data reveals the following general principles in relation to advanced student group teaching: • Students who participate in regular and structured group learning environments implement such strategies as teachers; • Advanced student group teaching models vary in size according to the choice of the teacher, although they usually involve between three and six students; • Teachers who adopt group teaching methods report the considerable benefits of such practices for students; • Identified disadvantages of group teaching relate more to institutional or timetabling issues or student adherence to one-to-one practices than demonstrated pedagogical or learning deficiencies; and • Teachers who adopt advanced-student group teaching models at the tertiary level argue either the sole use of group teaching over one-to-one models, or at least the incorporation of such practices alongside other models. One of the most relevant areas of data is the considerable number of reported advantages of group teaching, which far outweigh the perceived disadvantages. Table 2 presents these reported advantages and disadvantages. Developing an alternative environment for learning Emerging from the literature review, the interview and questionnaire data, but not yet subjected to trial and evaluation within a research framework, are the following benefits of group methods: • Opportunity for increased levels of interaction and critical analysis; • Potential for a holistic learning environment;

Innovations in piano teaching

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Table 1. Sample interviewee observations/comments Interviewee reflections or comments of relevance

Identified issue

‘What is most helpful is that you perform in front of somebody’ (Committed Learner) ‘Other people can listen to what you are being taught in a master class’ (CL) ‘It teaches you how to perform and it combats nerves’ (CL) Master classes are ‘a great experience for a student to play for someone in that sort of setting’ (Post Tertiary Individual) ‘They were useful experiences. You get to listen to other people playing the same piece’ (CL) ‘I’ve only ever had one to one teaching so I can’t really compare. If I had to make a choice of what I thought was better or not, I would choose one to one, only because that’s what I’ve experienced. I can’t say that a group teaching model wouldn’t work because I haven’t been in that situation’ (PTI) ‘I do think there is a realism now about the need for a well-rounded education and the need to be useful in many spheres and not to just think in terms of travelling and playing the Grieg concerto’ (PTI) ‘I don’t think there is any substitute for a wide-ranging, artistically stimulating, multi-skilling approach’ (PTI) ‘I’m so used to just being dependent on teachers’ (CL)

Benefits of the master class models

‘You can guide people in the right direction but anything of note they find out about playing the piano they find out themselves’ (PTI) ‘At Uni, where you are handfed, you’re prepared with a knowledge of an area, but they can’t help you with everything’ (PTI) ‘Spoon feeding is very common … there is a lot of spoon feeding going on here’ (CL) ‘I took a lot of her techniques of how to teach and the way she was teaching me to my own studio’ (PTI) ‘I took from every one of my teachers everything they had’ (PTI) ‘Her way of teaching is the copying way of teaching and as a result all of her students, apart from a few exceptions, play the same way’ (CL) ‘I find musicians are not approachable, more introverted because of their instrument and because they’re used to being locked away for hours practising’ (PTI) ‘I didn’t have the knowledge or experience to know any different. I had to put my trust in this person. One would assume that it is the correct way to be done’ (PTI) ‘You had to do it one way and one way is correct … [They are] a teacher, a lecturer, so they must know what they are talking about’ (PTI) ‘When I think about it, a lot of [one to one teaching] was a waste of time’ (PTI)Time inefficiencies

The need to revisit existing methods

Dependence/ Independence

Imitation

Monocular learning

29

30

R. Daniel

Table 1. (continued)

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Interviewee reflections or comments of relevance ‘I don’t think I learnt anything from [one of my teachers] at all’ (PTI) ‘I suppose, I would have been the best teacher, myself. Did the Uni course help me? I don’t think so, because for the last two years I was self-instructed’ (PTI) ‘He wasn’t really much use to me at all’ (CL) ‘My previous teacher would sometimes focus on one bar for the whole lesson’ (CL) ‘I find that if you’re a good student the teacher tends to want to hold onto you’ (CL) ‘By the time I finished University, I could have been quite happy never to touch or play a piano again’ (PTI) ‘The attitude in the first half of this century was if you could teach you must be wonderful’ (PTI)

Identified issue

Frustration and rebellion

Conservatism and tradition

• Constructive peer competition and interaction; • Opportunity for more varied activities; • Exposure to additional oral and aural experiences. These identified benefits provided a logical starting point for the development of a trial learning model. The next step was to establish those factors and considerations relevant to formulating a group approach, for application at the tertiary level. The perceived benefits, implementation requirements, critical foci, potential constraints and other considerations, and the implications and relevant decisions made are presented in Table 3. For four academic years, all James Cook University piano majors have been allocated to small groups of three or four, on the basis of ability level, an initial diagnostic evaluation of skills, experience of group teaching, and applying the principle of heterogeneity. All of the teacher’s students who enrolled in the traditional (classical) studies strand have been involved in the trials, which to date, have included 18 participants at each of the three undergraduate year levels and involving domestic and international students. One of the fundamental goals is the development of a structured, focussed and progressive program of study, in an environment which should be at all times interactive and engaging, to avoid simply re-creating the ‘master class’ environment. A curriculum of technical work, repertoire, performance analysis, sight-reading, quick studies, ensemble work and additional activities was developed for each group. The activities for each week were planned to provide students with weekly goals in terms of work to be prepared both from week to week and throughout the academic

Innovations in piano teaching

31

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Table 2. Pedagogues’ reported advantages and disadvantages of group learning for advanced piano students Name

Group learning—advantages

Nicole

• Expand knowledge of repertoire • Observe teaching techniques • When not on ‘hot seat’ as performer, even more perceptive to concepts presented to classmates • Better preparation for group lesson because of peer pressure • Transfer of concepts to one’s own repertoire (of those taught to classmates). • Interaction • Students hear other repertoire • Interesting as a teacher to say what I want instead of playing the piece as I would do a lot of in a private lesson • Cooperative learning skills • Lots of performance practice • Hearing lots of repertoire and how to teach it • Appreciation of different learning styles and individual strengths • Opportunities for functional skills (improvisation, sight reading) • Leadership development • Close bonding with other students • Exposure to other group members’ repertoire, technical strengths and weaknesses, reading abilities, sensitivities, questions, ways of thinking and speaking, priorities, ways of ordering and organizing knowledge. • Witnessing how the teacher works with the other group members on similar problems. • Opportunity to perform for others, and to experience opportunities for leadership within group activities. • Excitement of working with (and making discoveries with) others • Number of pairs of ears to give feedback • Constant playing before others • Constant involvement (even when not playing) • Opportunities for ensemble work

Hilda

Rachel

Indiana

Joseph

Group learning—disadvantages

None

None

Main problem is schedule conflicts. Also, students are often wary of group lessons. And sometimes it is difficult to address specific needs and details in a group.

There are no major disadvantages. It is often difficult to schedule them in a university setting, and to schedule a two-hour group lesson is often impossible due to the many conflicts between individual student schedules at most hours of the day.

None

year. As the program became progressively differentiated and advanced at higher year levels, it both promoted and relied on greater student independence in the choice and preparation of repertoire, as well as the balancing of a program for performance and examination. The teaching approach relied on the structuring of an appropriate curriculum for each group, which was influenced by the level and skills of the students involved.

• Small group which is pedagogically manageable and which encompasses a range of learning experiences • Opportunity for students to engage regularly in self and peer evaluation Development of technique, musicality, interpretation and critical skills with a global application and emphasis on multi-skilling • Grouping of students to promote healthy, insightful and rewarding competition and interaction • Interactive pedagogy which promotes peer interaction and peer teaching Specified tasks requiring critical analysis, peer collaboration and goal setting and which develop extra-musical skills • Regular performances and interaction processes for the purposes of enhancing student experiences of performance • Students to engage in indepth analysis, comparison and interpretation of all student presentations of work studied

• Group environment

Opportunity for increased levels of interaction and critical analysis

• Interactive group environment

Constructive peer interaction and competition

• Group performance and feedback environment

Exposure to additional oral and aural experiences

• Complementary curriculum

Introduction of additional tasks and group work activities to promote diversity

Opportunity for more varied activities

• Facilitation of critical discussion between members

A variety of learning experiences in a climate of group acceptance

Potential for a holistic learning environment

• Critical framework

Critical foci

Implementation requirements

Perceived benefits

• Workload to provide room for adequate group discussion and interpretation

• Student level and prior learning format experiences

• Students’ ability to engage in interactive processes towards constructive outcomes Time constraints and relation of piano studies to overall study program

• Number of students to allow adequate exchange of performance and group work

• Students’ ability to engage in self and peer reflection and analysis Level of students in group, goals of group members, setting of appropriate tasks and activities

• Number of students vis `a vis access to equipment

Potential constraints and other relevant considerations

Table 3. Considerations in developing a model for the group process

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

• Students to study set work across year time frame

• Students to engage in a number of practical presentations

Structured tasks and activities which develop skills in specific areas

• Structuring and monitoring of peer interaction

• 3–5 students of same year level

Heterogeneous mix of students with commonality of materials studied with room for own choice work

• Structuring of critical analysis processes

• 3–5 students of same year level

Implications and decisions

32 R. Daniel

Innovations in piano teaching

33

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Preparation was vital to the operation of the group environment, in order to ensure that the class proceeded with students involved at all times, regardless of whether they were active as performers. Student-led activities played a critical role in the flow of the sessions, most notably in terms of self and peer assessment, but also in terms of encouraging students to prepare the weekly work requirements to as high a level as possible, in order to allow the group members to engage in detailed discussion and analysis. While attendance itself offered the potential for students to learn via an observation role, it was deemed critical to engage students directly in the interaction and learning process by having them: • Follow the score for all peers’ performances; • Make general or specific comments (verbal and/or written) to the performer at the conclusion of the performance and prior to the teacher’s comments; • Provide feedback on feedback, particularly in terms of those students receiving the feedback and to question and/or clarify comments made; • Demonstrate and test particular technical and/or musical skills and discuss variations and similarities between and across students’ work; • Demonstrate, discuss and compare students’ practice/rehearsal strategies in order to consider the means by which to enhance individual work profiles between sessions; and • Where appropriate, lead proactive discussions in a ‘teaching’ role in order to require students to articulate views and attitudes and to enhance independence. In addition, further strategies were adopted in order to require students to engage in self-assessment of their practice via three methods: (i) self-critical analysis (via written report) of video recordings of their concert practice performances, (ii) the maintenance of a practice journal which required that they plan, document and reflect upon their weekly practice strategies and (iii) self-analysis of productivity, contribution and progression within weekly sessions. Each of these three methods of self-assessment not only enabled the student to be reflective and to map their progress over time, but allowed the teacher to probe each student’s development and understanding of the various processes relevant to piano performance.

Evaluations of the learning environment At the end of each academic year, students engaged in a process of formal evaluation of the group method. Specifically designed questionnaires, which were adjusted to suit the different groups and each student’s number of years in the trials, were designed to probe the following areas: • Student background and prior experiences of piano pedagogies (new students only); • Reactions to group processes and requirements; • Evaluation of structure, curriculum, format and time factors related to the model; • Evaluation of productivity and progression as individuals and as a group;

34

R. Daniel

• Evaluation of interaction processes and atmosphere; and • Recommendations in terms of enhancing the model.

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

The data collected was then analysed in order to consider the emerging principles in relation to the yearly trials, and over the four years. While the volume of data prevents detailed presentation of the four years of students’ evaluations, a number of key aspects are presented here. One of the complications with this particular series of trials was the extent to which the teacher’s role impacted upon students’ views of the group environment. In order to consider this, students were asked to identify the dominant roles that the teacher adopted during group sessions. Students’ reflections to date include: • • • • • • • • •

‘Evaluator and provider of critical comments’ (first year) ‘Suggests practice strategies’ (first year) ‘Chooses and discusses repertoire’ (second year) ‘Teaches skills’ (second year) ‘Motivating, flexible, expressive’ (third year) ‘Enables us to put our self-analysis into practice’ (third year) ‘Trains me to become an independent learner’ (third year) ‘Encourages peer and self evaluation’ (third year) ‘Gives advice as to stage craft and dealing with performance anxiety’ (third year)

While the teaching strategies identified above are potentially applicable in any piano teaching situation, there is evidence of a varied and shared learning process, and an emphasis on developing independence and critical assessment skills. One of the key benefits of the group environment is the opportunity for the teacher to encourage students to interact with their peers. Comments to date that highlight the benefits of the peer assessment interactions include: • ‘We learn from each other, correct ourselves by hearing from others, exchange ideas to get experience communicating’ (first year) • ‘The fact that performances can be discussed allows [me] to take all comments and learn from them’ (first year) • ‘Critical comments are shared’ (first year) • ‘You learn off other students’ experiences, by discussing aspects of your music, others may pick up on the same aspects in their own music’ (second year) • ‘Can learn from others, the way they play, advice, their willingness to listen’ (second year) • ‘It helps to have opinions and comments from people of your own peer level’ (second year) • ‘It improves your ability to critique or assess’ (third year) • ‘The variety of comments you can receive, the option of asking questions about your performance’ (third year) In addition to the benefits of peer interaction, evaluations to date include numerous identified advantages of working within the structure of a small group environment: • ‘Feedback on playing, open and friendly nature of classes, more opinions than just the teacher, improves your ability to critique and assess’ (first-year student)

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Innovations in piano teaching

35

• ‘Being influenced by other group members in a way that makes you work harder to keep up with them’ (first-year student) • ‘I feel I don’t need to depend on a teacher as much now as I used to and I’ve become more comfortable playing in front of others’ (first-year student) • ‘Hearing others play and learning from what they are doing as well as what you are doing’ (second-year student) • ‘The variety of feedback, the ability to play in front of a small, critical audience, and mostly the opportunity to hear other students play and give them feedback’ (second-year student) • ‘Being able to hear what peers are learning, to actively take part in self-critical and peer-critical analysis, and therefore learning to be an independent learner’ (thirdyear student) • ‘Learning skills of self-evaluation and evaluation of others’ (third-year student) • ‘You see/hear students and interact with them, which can help by seeing how they’ve solved problems that you have had’ (third-year student) These advantages not only support those identified in the literature and questionnaire data, but suggest that the group model offers a more holistic learning environment than the one-to-one approach. Indeed one of the significant advantages of the group process is that it offers, and is perceived by students to offer, a considerably greater level of interaction when compared to the traditional apprenticeship model. The one-to-one approach generally promotes the transmission of information from teacher to student. At best, this is extends to interaction of teacher and student. In the group approach, three-way interaction is generated: teacher to student, student to student and student to teacher. Students are therefore at all times required and indeed encouraged to become critical and to take an active role within the group setting, and which becomes an efficient means of developing self-teaching skills and independence in learning. In addition to the increased levels of interaction and subsequent learning experiences for the students, there are numerous advantages of the group learning approach from the teacher’s perspective. These include: • Having students study set works or styles facilitates in-depth discussion and comparison of interpretations as well as freedom within stylistic disciplines; • Having a set program of study encourages students to maintain pace with their peers in the preparation of work for each session, in an environment of responsible and positive peer competition; • Peer feedback and self-assessment are highly effective means of monitoring and shaping individual student growth and the development of analysis and critical assessment skills in both verbal and written formats; • Students are placed in several different challenging and interesting roles: performer, listener, analyst and assessor; • Students develop a greater ability to critique their own and other performances in ways crucial to their continuing musical development; and

36

R. Daniel

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

• The teacher does not have to repeat basic concepts to every individual student, therefore allowing for greater efficiencies in teaching and room for additional activities such as ensemble work, style analysis, and investigation and comparison of students’ practice strategies. While there are a number of reported advantages, some students experience problems in moving from the relative comfort of the one-to-one ‘zone’ to the more interactive group environment, and in particular, the requirement to perform regularly in front of their peers and to articulate their views on the various aspects covered in sessions. Given the fact that each student participating in the trials had previously experienced one-to-one tuition only, this is not surprising. There is evidence, however, of an increasing comfort within the group model over subsequent years, as students become accustomed to the requirements of the sessions and working with their peers. A small number of students reported a desire for greater individual attention; however, data obtained from questionnaires and self-assessment mechanisms reveals that these students acknowledged a poor work ethic as having a direct influence on their preparation for and productivity in sessions, as well as their progress over time, hence the validity of this view is questionable.

Directions and implications This research study reveals the considerable advantages of small group teaching for advanced piano students. The delineation of these benefits within a research framework, involving a range of piano students of different backgrounds and year levels, suggests the need to set up similar trials to not only develop the work undertaken as part of this study, but to involve different teachers, instruments and student samples, and also consider the relevance of group learning environments for postgraduates. While the current study proposes a number of directions in the area, additional research is essential, given the fact that one teacher was involved in the trial and the sample was limited to piano students at one institution. At the same time, the findings of the research add further weight to the need to subject the one-to-one model to further research scrutiny, not only to consider the extent to which the current preference for this approach is educationally and economically valid, but also to consider its potential role within a holistic learning framework. Indeed further research is needed in terms of a systematic comparison of one-to-one and group teaching approaches at the advanced level, in order to examine the various outcomes presented by each model, and to propose the most beneficial learning scenario for students. There is insufficient research evidence to date to propose either the sole use of one-to-one or of group teaching, or even a combination of the two, as the most effective learning environment. Nevertheless the validity of perpetuating past approaches to instrumental teaching remains questionable.

Innovations in piano teaching

37

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Notes on contributor Ryan Daniel holds the degrees of Bachelor of Music Honours (Class I—James Cook) and Master of Music (Cape Town). His current Ph.D. research focuses on the development, trial and evaluation of a small group-teaching environment for tertiary level undergraduate piano majors. Recent publications include those for the British Journal of Music Education (2001), Tertiary Teaching IV (2001), Ars Nova (1999/2000) and Piano Pedagogy Forum (2000). Recent conference presentations include papers at the Australian Association for Research in Music Education (2002), Australasian Piano Pedagogy Conference (2001), the Musicological Society of Australia (2001) and the Musicological Society of Southern Africa (1999). References Banowetz, J. (1995) The college piano major, in: J. Bastien (Ed.) How to teach piano successfully (San Diego, CA, Kjos). Berman, B. (2000) Notes from the pianist’s bench (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press). Brandt, T. (1986) A review of research and literature concerned with private and class instruction in instrumental music, Journal of Band Research, 22(1), 48–55. Brown, C. (1978) Group teaching of the piano, Music in Education, 42(391), 120. Camp, M. (1981) Developing piano performance: a teaching philosophy (Chapel Hill, Hinshaw). Campbell, P. (1991) Lessons from the world: a cross-cultural guide to music teaching and learning (New York, Macmillan). Cheek, S. (1999) Misconceptions about group teaching, Roland Keyboard Educator, 3(4), 8–9, 14. Cheek, S. (2000) History of group teaching. Available online at: http://www.morethanpiano.com/ (accessed 20 August 2002). Clinch, P. (1983) Some aspects of instrumental tuition in Australia, The Australian Journal of Music Education, 2, 1–2. Colwell, R. & Goolsby, T. (2002) The teaching of instrumental music (3rd edn) (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall). Comte, M. (Ed.) (1992) Doreen Bridges: music educator (Parkville, Australian Society for Music Education). Creech, A. & Hallam, S. (2003) Parent–teacher–pupil interactions in instrumental music tuition: a literature review, British Journal of Music Education, 20(1), 29–44. Curzon, C. (1981) Epilogue, in D. Gill (Ed.) The book of the piano (Oxford, Phaidon). De Haan, S. (2001) Music education in a changing society, Bravura, 4(1), 13–18. Dubal, D. (1985) The world of the concert pianist (London, Victor Gollancz). Duckworth, G. (1999) Why do you advocate ‘three or more’ group teaching?, Music Teachers National Association, Pedagogy Saturday III (Cincinnati, Music Teachers National Association). Evans, C. (1999) A model for learning, Music Teacher, 78(10), 19–21. Gillies, M. (1990) Bartok remembered (London, Faber). Gipson, R. (1978) An observational analysis of wind instrument private lessons. Ed.D. thesis, Pennsylvania State University. Hallam, S. (1998) Instrumental teaching: a practical guide to better teaching and learning (Oxford, Heinemann). Hutcherson, R. (1955) Group instruction in piano: an investigation of the relative effectiveness of group and individual piano instruction at the beginning level. Ph.D. thesis, State University of Iowa. Jefferson, M. (1983) The piano group in the context of human relationships, Music and the Teacher, 9(1), 3–7.

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

38

R. Daniel

Jefferson, M. (1987) Group piano teaching: a two-part survey of group teaching methods, Music Teacher, 66(3), 19–24. Jørgensen, E. (2003) Transforming music education (Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press). Jørgensen, H. (2000) Student learning in higher instrumental education: who is responsible? British Journal of Music Education, 17(1), 67–77. Kennell, R. (1992) Toward a theory of applied music instruction, The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 5–16. Kennell, R. (2002) Systematic research in studio instruction in music, in: R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds) The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (New York, Oxford). Keraus, R. (1973) An achievement study of private and class Suzuki violin instruction. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester. Kieran Harvey, M. (1999) Playing to please? Bravura, 2(1), 11–13. Kohut, D. (1992) Musical performance: learning theory and pedagogy (Champaign, IL, Stipes). Kowalchyk, G. & Lancaster, E. (1997) Group piano (Los Angeles, CA, Alfred). Kuhn, W. (1962) Instrumental music: principles and methods of instruction (Boston, MA, Allyn & Unwin). Madsen, C. (1988) Senior research award acceptance address, Journal of Research in Music Education, 36(3), 133–139. Mark, M. (Ed.) (2002) Music education: source readings from ancient Greece to today (London, Routledge). Mills, J. & Smith, J. (2003) Teachers’ beliefs about effective instrumental teaching in schools and higher education, British Journal of Music Education, 20(1), 5–27. Music Teachers National Association (1999) Pedagogy Saturday III (Cincinnati, Music Teachers National Association). Music Teachers National Association (2000) Pedagogy Saturday IV (Cincinnati, Music Teachers National Association). Neuhaus, H. (1973) The art of piano playing (K. Leibovitch, Trans.) (London, Barrie & Jenkins). Pace, R. (1999) The essentials of keyboard pedagogy: a series of monographs on basic elements of piano instruction. First topic: sight-reading and music literacy (New York, Lee Roberts). Persson, R. (1994) Control before shape—on mastering the clarinet: a case study on commonsense teaching, British Journal of Music Education, 11, 223–238. Philpott, C. & Plummeridge, C. (Eds) (2001) Issues in music teaching (London, Routledge Falmer). Rabin, M. (2000) Contribution in ‘Four views of one-one-one and three-or-more teaching’, Proceedings from Pedagogy Saturday IV (Cincinnati, Music Teachers National Association). Renshaw, P. (2002) Remaking the Conservatorium agenda, Music Forum, June/July, 24–29. Rostvall, A-L. & West, T. (2001) Interaction and learning: a study of music instrument teaching. Published Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm, Royal College of Music. Schnabel, A. (1961) My life and music (London, Longman). Seipp, N. (1976) A comparison of class and private music instruction. Ph.D. thesis, West Virginia University. Spruce, G. (2002) Planning for music teaching and learning, in: G. Spruce (Ed.) Aspects of teaching secondary music (London, RoutledgeFalmer). Swanwick, K. (1996) Instrumental teaching as music teaching, in: G. Spruce (Ed.) Teaching music (London, Routledge). Tannhauser, R. (1999) Questioning the effectiveness of learning strategies and practice in the instrumental studio towards the new millennium, in: Australian Society for Music Education, Australian Society for Music Education XII National Conference Proceedings (Parkville, Australian Society for Music Education). Thompson, K. (1983) An analysis of group instrumental teaching: principles, procedures and curriculum implications. Ph.D. thesis, University of London.

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Innovations in piano teaching

39

University of Reading (2003) Qualifications in music teaching in professional practice (course outlines). West, T. & Rostvall, A-L. (2003) A study of interaction and learning in instrumental teaching, International Journal of Research in Music Education, 40 (in press). Wexler, M. (2000) Teaching music students to make music for love, not for a living, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available online at: http://chronicle.com (accessed 15 August 2000). Young, V., Burwell, K. & Pickup, D. (2003) Areas of study and teaching strategies in instrumental teaching: a case study research project, Music Education Research, 5(2), 139–155. Zhukov, K. (1997) Excellence in teaching instrumental performance: a literature review, in: Australian Society for Music Education, Australian Society for Music Education XI National Conference Proceedings (Brisbane, Australian Society for Music Education). Zhukov, K. (1999) Problems of research into instrumental music teaching. in: Australian Society for Music Education, Australian Society for Music Education XII National Conference Proceedings (Parkville, Australian Society for Music Education).

40

R. Daniel

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Appendix A. Examples of reflections on piano teaching identified in the literature Author

Year

Evidential base

Dominant practice

de Haan, S.

2001

Teacher-centred pedagogy

Berman, B.

2000

Cheek, S.

1999

Pace, R.

1999

Tannhauser, R.

1999

Kieran Harvey, M.

1999

Evans, C.

1999

Swanwick, K.

1996

Comte, M.

1992

‘Classically-trained musicians have generally undertaken their training in a closed environment, in which the teacher is perceived as the master’ (p. 14) Argues that ‘the teacher may be tempted to present himself as the only keeper of the ultimate truth’ (p. 199) Argues that the ‘idea of private piano lessons sprang from financial and cultural necessity, not because effective education demanded it’ (p. 8). Refers to experiences of teaching at Julliard and how ‘instruction was geared more toward memorizing pieces (turning out products) than building sight-reading skills (developing processes)’ (p. 2) Argues that repetition ‘still appears as a major “practice method” for teachers and learners alike, and seems to be responsible at the same time, for the inordinate length of practice for many musicians’ (p. 194) Argues the danger of ‘excessive rigidity in traditional approaches simply to protect territory’ (p. 12) Teacher gave lesson at same time as knitting with ‘thick, wooden knitting needles which also doubled as torture devices’ (p. 19) Argues that some of the ‘most disturbing teaching [he] has witnessed has been in the instrumental studio [and in the] one-to-one relationship’ (p. 233). Quotes Doreen Bridges’ reflection that ‘one never questioned one’s teachers, nor initiated discussion of technical and musical problems, but sat at their feet absorbing all they had to offer and relying completely on their judgement’ (p. 3)

Teacher-centred pedagogy

Perpetuation of untested model

Monocular learning

Repetitive pedagogy practice

Perpetuation of ditional methods

tra-

Learning by fear

Questionable teaching

Authoritarian pedagogy

Innovations in piano teaching

41

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Appendix A. (continued) Author

Year

Evidential base

Dominant practice

Gillies, M.

1990

Repetitive pedagogy

Dubal, D.

1985

Camp, M.

1981

Curzon, C.

1981

Gipson, R.

1978

Bartok made his students repeat passages until he ‘could hear back his own conception exactly’ (p. 135) Quotes Claudio Arrau as stating that imitation ‘is a very great danger … The moment one notices that the student is imitating the teacher, the teacher should encourage the student to go his own way and try to find himself’ (p. 31). Refers to the 19th century ‘direct imitation’ pedagogical approach and argues that instead of ‘promoting transfer of learning, the imitative approach actually retards or precludes it. Many—let’s face it, most—teachers still use this approach’ (p. 1). ‘A typical lesson was: “Just play it through again; now bring me something else for next week”. That was the lesson.’ (p. 259). ‘Seldom are music educators trained in the techniques of private lesson instruction, their only experience gained from instruction offered them in their private lessons’ (p. iii).

Imitative learning

Imitative pedagogy

Sounding the repertoire

Experientially driven pedagogy

42

R. Daniel

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Appendix B. Sample of reflections which challenge traditional attitudes and perceptions of piano teaching Author

Year

Evidential base

Identified issue

Berman, B.

2000

Benefits of the master class environment

Cheek, S.

2000

Wexler, M.

2000

Duckworth, G.

1999

Banowetz, J.

1995

Kohut, D.

1992

Jefferson, M.

1987

Brandt, T.

1986

Master classes can be ‘exciting and gratifying not only for the teacher and the student but for observers as well … I find this electrifying way of teaching very useful, especially for shaking off a student’s self-consciousness and inhibitions’ (p. 209). Argues that ‘well-managed and welltaught groups are a more effective way of teaching than well-taught private lessons’ (p. 1) Argues that ‘the time has come to reexamine and discard the old performance-studies paradigm in favor of a more contextual, integrated approach … to educate a nationwide cadre of inspired musicians rather than churn out disgruntled specialists for a market that doesn’t exist’ (n.p.) Argues that ‘teaching becomes more effective and easier when teaching is in a group’ (p. 78). Argues that group learning ‘can be invaluable for absorbing teaching methods, in analyzing other’s problems, and in being exposed to a wide repertory’ (p. 257). ‘Some would have us believe that musicians are much too conservative, and even foolhardy, in ignoring the rapid changes being made in the teaching of other disciplines, while theirs remains essentially the same’ (p. 13) After commencing as a one to one teacher, states that she found ‘group work much more congenial [and] having started by accident … continued for preference’ (p. 19) In reference to systematic research of models of pedagogy, states that ‘investigations have produced inconclusive and divided results which have failed to suggest which type of instruction appears best suited for individual students’ (p. 48)

Argued benefits of group compared to one-to-one Need to revisit course programmes and requirements

Benefits learning

of

group

Benefits learning

of

group

Conservative attitude towards existing models of pedagogy

Evidence of experiential influence on attitudes to models of pedagogy

Challenges perceptions regarding pedagogical models

Innovations in piano teaching

43

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009

Appendix B. (continued) Author

Year

Evidential base

Identified issue

Clinch, P.

1983

Benefits of structured group programs

Thompson, K.

1983

Jefferson, M.

1983

Brown, C.

1978

Neuhaus, H.

1973

Kuhn, W.

1962

Schnabel, A.

1961

Argues that ‘the educational advantages of teaching in groups far outweigh those of one-to-one when the correct programs are set up and taught with skill’ (p. 1) Argues that ‘group teaching is a viable alternative to solo lessons’ (p. 2) Argues that the ‘group succeeds because of the number of pupils in it, not in spite of them’ (p. 4) Group lessons ‘give pupils more confidence in performance than individual lessons’ (p. 120). Used the master class model and ‘work which in essence was individual, became collective’ (p. 199) Argues that group instruction ‘has definite advantages over individual instruction’ (p. 98). Argues that the ‘most productive way of higher teaching in music is to have all pupils present at lessons’ (p. 125)

Hutcherson, R.

1955

Benefits of group learning Benefits of peer interaction Enhanced ance skills

perform-

Benefits of interaction Argued benefits group teaching

of

Argued benefits of group teaching at the advanced student level ‘Experimental evidence to support Need to subject existclaims of the superiority of [group or ing models to further one to one] is insufficient to merit the research scrutiny unqualified approval or condemnation of class piano’ (p. 2)

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 00:36 1 February 2009