Bringing the Outside In

Abstract

Through the lens of hospitality, we explored the meanings that members constructed about their experiences within a blended formal/informal college music ensemble. The focus in this ensemble was not on competition and musical excellence but on independent musicianship and praxis. The bandleader had his roots in tradition but his heart in socially relevant pedagogy and favored a less autocratic teaching and learning style. The makeup of the ensemble also included students from both formal and informal backgrounds. Conducting gesture was casual, bandstand formation was loose and free, outfits were expressive of the individual, and tone and balance were more a reflection and celebration of individuals and less of a whole or single sound. Much of the music was performed from standard notation but was chosen collectively, often related to popular contexts, and the overall emphasis was not on uniformity but on individuality and student creativity. Musical decisions often were made democratically, and opinions from within the ensemble were affirmed in the process. The ensemble consisted of a group of approximately 13 members whose experience ranged from beginner to over 30 years and who played everything from violin to iPad. Themes that emerged were inclusivity, autonomy, and affirmation.

Keywords

formal informal hospitality affirmation autonomy

As students get older, they increasingly perceive a disconnection between school music and music experienced outside of school (De Vries, 2010; Greer, Dorow, & Randall, 1974; Hargreaves, Comber, & Colley, 1995; McPherson & Hendricks, 2010). In contrast to music experienced outside of school, some scholars have suggested that school music can be inhospitable (Higgins, 2007a, 2007b, 2012), undemocratic and noncreative (Allsup, 2003; Georgii-Hemming & Westvall, 2010; Green; 2002; Jaffurs, 2004), not conducive to the development of independent and self-directed learners (Lebler, 2007), and not affirming of students’ musical interests and skills (De Vries, 2010; McPhail, 2013). It is not that students dislike music; many of them just do not like school music (McPherson & Hendricks, 2010; Seifried, 2006; Shah, 2006; Temmerman, 1993). In fact, Temmerman (1993) reported that Australian students found school music experiences to be among the worst musical experiences of their lives, citing autocratic teaching practices, unsafe learning environments, and socially irrelevant content.

Many within our profession have called for school music to become more socially relevant (Boyle, Hosterman, & Ramsey, 1981; Campbell, 1995; Jaffurs, 2004; Jones, 2007; Kratus, 2007; Regelski, 2013; West & Clauhs, 2015; Williams, 2007). These calls for relevance can be seen as far back as the mid-20th century, when scholars argued that school music education had not evolved with contemporary American society (Stanton, 1966), that music education should reflect society’s musical values (Fisher, 1933), and that contemporary music should be included in school music programs (Kent, 1958). More recently, scholars such as Green (2002) have suggested that school music educators utilize informal learning practices that more closely resemble the ways popular musicians learn.

Informal Music Learning

In contrast to many formal school music education contexts where curricula are often highly notation based, carefully sequenced, and teacher directed, countries such as Scotland (Byrne & Sheridan, 2000), Sweden (Georgii-Hemming & Westvall, 2010), and Finland (Väkevä, 2006; Westerlund, 2006) largely have embraced curricula that are based on the ways musicians learn music outside of formal school contexts, such as playing by ear, creating original music, and operating in seemingly haphazard student-directed cooperative learning environments (Feichas; 2010; Green, 2002; Johansson, 2004). While informal music learning practices, such as those described by Green (2002), often are situated within popular music contexts, it is important to note that informal learning is neither inherent to nor restricted to any particular style of music. Rather, the term informal is one that many scholars have used to describe ways musicians learn outside of formal school environments.

Defining Informal Learning

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, education is the action or process of teaching or being taught. Its derivation is from the Latin educere, which means to draw out, in many cases, something hidden, latent, or dormant. In English contexts, educe means to bring out or bring forth and/or develop the capacities, abilities, and aptitudes that already potentially exist in the student (Folkestad, 2006). One also might interpret this bringing forth as a form of promotion into and within a system of knowledge. Whether this system of knowledge is formal, informal, or some variation of both, music pedagogues might consider implications for all possible contexts. As informal learning relates to teaching and transmission, Green (2002, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2014) explained that informal learning is “where the student is,” and a teacher must become a facilitator and sharer of students’ knowledge. Folkestad (2006) suggested that in formal learning situations, the minds of both the teacher and the students are directed toward learning how to play/make music, whereas in informal learning practices, the mind is directed toward playing/making music. Informal educational practices also require a retracted teacher role, a decentering of expert authority, and the potential empowerment of students to take active roles in their learning. Ziehe (1986) noted that the informal learner experiences learning without an awareness that he or she is learning.

Problematizing Informal Learning

Folkestad (2006) explained that even though the learning situation can be both formal and informal, teaching is always formal.

Teaching is always teaching, and in that sense always formal. As soon as someone teaches, as soon as somebody takes on the role of being a teacher, then it is a formal learning situation. Even if there is no structure that is the structure. (Folkestad, 2006, pp. 142–143)

The delimitations between and among formal and informal modes of learning and teaching are complex. Buckingham (2005) explains, “An easy opposition between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ learning tends to obfuscate the issue of how people learn” (p. 16). So, if we are to make sense of this often oversimplified and quite commonly referenced dichotomy, Folkestad (2006) urges us to call upon the wisdom of Hegel, who described a dialectical triad: thesis–antithesis–synthesis. To put this triad into a music education context, formal music education would be the thesis, informal music education would be the antithesis, and a blend of the two would be the synthesis.

Blending Formal and Informal

Several scholars have noted ranges between formal and informal on a continuum that, when viewed as such, allows for a broader understanding of music teaching and learning possibilities. According to Green (2002, 2008), informal learning practices can be developed in formal contexts. Similarly, Folkestad (2006) referred to the formal–informal dichotomy as two poles of a continuum, where both interact within themselves to various degrees. Smith (2013) challenged what he described as outmoded formal–informal–nonformal learning distinctions and, taking a dynamic and nuanced view of learning in all contexts, reconceptualized them as hybridized learning, where learners learn in a mixture of ways. Henze (1992) explained that the processes and structures are never dichotomous; features of learning exist on a continuum between formal and informal educational processes. Saar (1999) noted that formal and informal teaching and learning are never static but, rather, shift continuously. Similarly, Feichas (2010) explained that formal and informal seem to be opposed forms of learning, but both can live together in harmony.

The quest for harmony between formal and informal approaches to learning music has led groups such as the Instrumental Music Teacher Educators organization (IMTE) to call for research addressing how our profession might negotiate the tensions between our traditional model of music education and the need for school music to become more culturally and socially relevant (IMTE, 2014). To address this balance, a growing number of scholars have called for research on blended models of music education that incorporate both formal and informal teaching practices and include students from both formal and informal backgrounds (Feichas; 2010; Georgii-Hemming & Westvall, 2010; Green, 2006; Isbell, 2015; McPhail, 2013; O’Flynn, 2006). We recently observed one such blended formal/informal college music ensemble that we suggest holds implications for school music education.

Setting

The ensemble we observed rehearsed at a small state college over the course of the 2013–2014 academic year. Through two campuses in central New York, the college offers 22 bachelor’s degrees and a wide variety of associate degrees in agricultural subjects, such as equine science, as well as other more conventional college subjects, such as computer information technology. The college did not have a music program, and the ensemble was funded through the student activities office; thus, it operated more like a club than a typical college music program. Ensemble members were recruited across campus through postings and word of mouth. There were no requirements for membership; anyone was welcome regardless of his or her instrument/voice, experience, or ability to read notation. Similarly, there were no predeterminations regarding what style(s) of music would be learned and performed.

The ensemble consisted of approximately 13 members (this is an approximation because the membership varied from week to week), whose experience ranged from beginner to over 30 years (see Table 1). The makeup of the ensemble included students from both formal and informal music backgrounds; many were products of school music programs, but others were entirely self-taught. The bandleader, Doug, was a formally educated school music teacher with an interest in hospitable music education approaches. He surveyed students regarding their musical interests and arranged music to fit the makeup of the group. Members of the ensemble collectively decided to rehearse and perform mostly jazz, pop, and rock tunes.

Table 1.

Ensemble Participants.

Name	Years Experience	Favorite Genres/Bands	Background	Ensemble Role(s)
Tasheka^a	0	Rock	Informal	Vocals
Pamela	2	R&B, hip-hop, funk, soul, blues	Informal	Vocals, harmonica
Raul^a	4	Hip-hop, funk, blues, rock, metal	Informal	Guitar
Colt	5	Funk, blues	Formal	Trumpet
Gareth	6	Jazz, rock	Both	Drums
Ben	6	Jazz, pop	Informal	Vocals, iPad
Lucy	7	Hip-hop, funk, country, rock, pop	Formal	Saxophone
Kate^a	7	Jazz, hip-hop, country, pop, folk	Formal	Vocals, trombone
Jimmy	7	Anything	Formal	Trumpet
John^a	7	Rock	Informal	Vocals, piano, guitar
Tim^a	8	Rock, Latin, solo drumming	Both	Drums
Cindy^a	9	Jazz, funk, soul, classical	Formal	Violin
Mike	30+	Chicago, Earth Wind & Fire	Formal	Trumpet
Doug^a	20+	Jazz, pop, concert band	Formal	Bandleader

Note: R&B = rhythm and blues.

Denotes that the participant was interviewed.

The rehearsal space resembled that of a traditional band, with instruments arranged in sections in graduated riser fashion facing the bandleader’s podium. The ensemble included traditional school instruments, such as trumpet, trombone, and violin, as well as nontraditional school instruments, such as drums, bass, guitar, piano, and iPad. The group rehearsed twice a week for 2 hours in the evenings in the student union building, where students walking by could, and often would, stop in and listen.

Theoretical Framework

The lens through which we examined this blended formal/informal college music ensemble was what Higgins (2007a, 2007b, 2012), drawing from the work of French philosopher Jacques Derrida, described as acts of hospitality. In describing degrees of hospitality, Higgins likened the concept to hosting a party. In contrast to a more hospitable party host, who opens his or her house to everyone with no preconditions, a less hospitable party host might invite specific guests, select the music to be played, and perhaps even hide the CDs and protect the wooden surfaces with tablecloths (Higgins, 2012). Put into a music education context, in contrast to a more hospitable bandleader, who opens his or her program to everyone with no preconditions, a less hospitable bandleader might teach only students who play certain prespecified instruments, select the music to be played, and preserve the masterworks by passing them on to members of the next generation.

It should be noted that Derrida believed that pure acts of unconditional hospitality are impossible and unattainable ideals since the very notion of hospitality implies some kind of limit upon where the other can trespass. Derrida noted that the host, by his own restrictions, could never be entirely hospitable (unconditionally hospitable) because the host and the recipients of the hospitality (the hosted) are naturally positioned as such. In order to be hospitable, one must first have the power to host and have some kind of control over the people who are being hosted. A bandleader might strive for unconditional hospitality by providing a welcoming open invitation that is intrinsically linked to an unforeseeable future based upon no preconditions or predeterminations for instrumentation, literature, or experience levels. One might in contrast strive toward greater structure, control, and more conditional hospitality with limits regarding who participates, how power structures are defined, and how musical decisions are negotiated. The key is to understand that acts of hospitality might manifest in different ways depending on contexts.

Higgins suggests that Derrida’s acts of hospitality can apply to music contexts, where the teacher, the bandleader, or, in Derrida’s words, “the host” might provide varying levels of hospitality between the unconditional and conditional binary. Higgins’s adaptation of this framework to music contexts fits well with this study in that the pedagogies employed in the ensemble we observed hinged directly on the acts of hospitality that the bandleader provided. In this study, we examined the data through the lens of hospitality to better understand its impact on pedagogies, student perceptions, and overall music learning within this particular ensemble.

Definitions

Although for the purposes of this study we were mostly interested in nuanced, blended approaches of formal and informal music education and learning, it can be helpful to consider each independent of the other so as to create greater clarity and distinction between concepts. We use the term formal to refer to what Fornäs, Lindberg, and Sernhede (1995, p. 230) have described as a learning process that is goal oriented with readymade aims, curricula, and study plans. We use the term informal to refer to what Campbell (2001) has described as a learning process that is nonlinear, cooperative, and controlled by a social group rather than by an individual. We use the term nonlinear to describe what Feichas (2010), Campbell (2001), and Green (2008) have referred to as learning that does not follow structured, prescribed, molded, predetermined curricular goals and instead favors student-driven learning contexts determined by the ebb and flow of a social group invested within the learning environment.

We use the term blended formal/informal to describe an approach that scholars (Feichas, 2010; Georgii-Hemming & Westvall, 2010; Green, 2006; Isbell, 2015; McPhail, 2013; O’Flynn, 2006) have called for that incorporates both formal and informal practices and includes students from both formal and informal backgrounds. Finally, we use the term hospitality (Higgins, 2007a, 2007b, 2012) to contextualize the kind of environment the bandleader curates for music making and learning.

Purpose Statement and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to explore, through the lens of hospitality, the meanings that ensemble members constructed about their experiences within this blended formal/informal college music ensemble. The research questions were the following: (1) How did students describe their experiences? (2) How were these experiences different from, or the same as, their experiences in school ensembles? and (3) How did these experiences impact their development as musicians?

Method

We used a qualitative case study design (Merriam, 2009). As in other qualitative designs, qualitative case studies explore meanings and understandings of experiences. Using an inductive investigative strategy where the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection, the end product is richly descriptive (Merriam, 2009, p. 39). Merriam (1998) described some key philosophical assumptions in qualitative research, such as that qualitative research is based on the view that individuals interacting with their social worlds construct reality:

Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding [italics in original] the meaning people have constructed, that is, how they make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world. . . . It is assumed that meaning is embedded in people’s experiences and that this meaning is mediated through the investigator’s own perceptions. (p. 6)

In particular, this study is what Creswell (2007) refers to as a collective case study, in that multiple cases (N = 7) of members within the group were selected for examination to better understand the unit of analysis: the meanings that these members have constructed about their experiences within this blended formal/informal college music ensemble.

Participant Selection

Purposeful sampling of interview participants allowed the researchers to intentionally select information-rich, illuminative cases for in-depth study. Participants were selected who were what Patton (2002) describes as typical cases within the group to “illustrate or highlight what is typical, normal, average” (p. 243). We interviewed participants who we felt reflected the diversity of the ensemble, including members who had varying degrees of experience from both formal and informal backgrounds (see Table 1).

Data Collection

Creswell (2007) recommends that multiple sources of data be collected. In this study, we collected data from three (2-hr) in-person rehearsal observations, observation field notes, seven semistructured participant interviews (ranging from 20 minutes to an hour each), and artifacts, including recruiting materials, music transcriptions, director-recorded rehearsals, and roster information. Artifacts were collected and observations were conducted in person at 3-week intervals in the fall 2013 semester. Interviews were conducted via videoconferencing software in the spring 2014 semester and were transcribed verbatim.

In the semistructured interviews, participants were asked open-ended questions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) about their perceptions and experiences in the ensemble and were asked follow-up questions aimed at uncovering deeper layers of meaning from their initial responses. Initial interview questions included the following: (a) What made you want to join the group? (b) What do you enjoy about the group? (c) What do you think of the literature? (d) How is this different from/same as your experience in high school ensembles? (e) Do you like the structure or would you rather just jam out in an unstructured way? (f) How much of the experience is social versus musical? (g) How did participating in the group impact your self-confidence as a musician? (h) Did you make friends in the group and how did those relationships evolve? and (i) Do you identify as a better musician now after participating in the group?

Analysis

We followed a three-part analysis approach recommended for collective case studies: within-case analysis (detailed description of themes within each case), cross-case analysis (thematic analysis across cases), and assertions (interpretation of the meanings of the case; Creswell, 2007, p. 75). Using HyperRESEARCH qualitative data analysis software, each researcher independently coded the interview data and researcher field notes. The most salient codes that emerged were the following: (a) community, (b) differences, (c) relevance, (d) expression, (e) fluidity, (f) enjoyment, (g) informality, (h) musicianship, (i) ear-playing, and (j) respect. The researchers then met three times to discuss the initial analysis, identify emergent themes, and interpret meanings from the individual cases. After this within-case analysis, the second author then wrote a cross-case narrative describing the setting, participants, and group interactions according to the themes that emerged and based on his observations of the rehearsals and examination of the artifact data. The first author then inserted interview findings into the cross-case narrative that supported the themes and reflected our observations. Finally, the researchers sent drafts of the findings to external reviewers to get feedback and better understand the areas of focus.

Trustworthiness

We used several techniques to ensure trustworthiness, including (a) triangulation, (b) member checks, (c) adequate engagement in data collection, and (d) researcher’s position or reflexivity (Merriam, 2009). We spent two semesters purposefully looking for variation in the understanding of the phenomenon until we began to see and hear the same things with no new information surfacing. This allowed us to provide readers with what Merriam (2009) has referred to as rich thick description of the setting and the participants, from which readers can determine the extent of transferability of the findings to similar contexts. Using two researchers to independently collect and analyze data constituted one form of triangulation and allowed us to discuss the findings from different perspectives. Collecting multiple data sets constituted another form of triangulation and allowed us to compare what an individual said in an interview with our rehearsal observations, artifacts, and researcher field notes. Last, the document was sent to all interview participants as a form of member checking, where participants were asked to review our interpretations and suggest any changes that might better capture their perspectives.

Because the researchers’ biases and judgments become a research tool with which to analyze and interpret the data, Merriam (1998) has suggested that researchers explore and explicitly provide a critical self-reflection regarding their assumptions, worldviews, biases, theoretical orientation, and relationship to the study that may affect the investigation. The first author is an instrumental music teacher educator at a largely undergraduate institution. His background as a student and his experience as a teacher are very much rooted in a traditional school band setting, but his current interest lies in socially relevant contemporary music education practices. The second author is a vocal/general music teacher educator at a largely undergraduate institution. In contrast to the first author, much of his experience growing up involved informal learning experiences, and his pedagogies as a music teacher largely reflected these experiences. His cultural background, extensive experience teaching in diverse urban contexts, and ongoing civic engagement with marginalized communities bring his focus, like the first author, toward socially relevant and culturally responsive music education. Epistemologically, both authors consider themselves to be social constructivists.

Findings

Findings are presented below according to the following three emergent themes: (a) inclusivity, (b) autonomy, and (c) affirmation.

Inclusivity

It was interesting to observe the blue-collar, muddy boot–wearing, horse-training students trade fours with some of their more cosmopolitan band member counterparts; cultures comfortably collided, melted, interplayed, and related to each other. One singer who did not wear shoes joked, “We should have synchronized singers” as she high-fived the other female singers in the band. As they discussed the wardrobe for the concert, she asked, “Do I have to wear shoes?” and admitted, “I have my barn shoes and another pair.”

We observed that new players would sometimes enter the group from week to week, notably, an older, gray-haired trumpet player as well as a new singer, a young, stylishly dressed African American female, Tasheka. While the drummers worked out the ending to “Pick Up the Pieces,” Doug (the bandleader) looked at Tasheka and said, “Thanks for joining . . . you sound great.” After the drummers finally got the ending of the song, they laughed and appeared validated by the fact that they could now play it.

Doug created a hospitable and inclusive environment, where he welcomed any and all members regardless of their previous musical experience, instrument/voice, or note-reading ability. He described how this process, though intentional, was a gamble: “Right off the bat, I had two drummers, two guitar players, two bass players, a piano player, a horn section, and singers. It could have been worse—I could have had 12 drummers and a violinist.”

More students were drawn into the experience simply by leaving the door open to the rehearsal space and allowing curious students in the nearby student center to poke in and out. Ensemble members liked it when this happened and sought approval from everyone within their sonic space when these opportunities presented themselves. Doug described how this also was intentional: “We had an open-door policy. I had students join the ensemble 2 weeks before our concerts, and I just welcomed anybody; I had a lot of students join that way.” Kate, an experienced vocalist and trombonist, noted, “There are kids coming in all the time, and they’re like, ‘Can I play piano?’ They’re just kids who you see walking across campus, and you never think, ‘Oh they might have a musical talent.’” Tasheka, one of the students who joined after walking by and hearing the group, said, “I really loved how welcoming the group was. I enjoyed how I wasn’t denied entrance and was able to join as late as I did.” Raul, another student who joined as a result of the open-door policy, described how that was the first time he had ever played with a group of people: “Before, I had only played by myself in my room.”

This hospitality and inclusivity extended not only to new members but also to existing members, who were free to fill different roles within the ensemble, leading to an even more fluid instrumentation from week to week. Kate recalled one of these instances: “Doug was like, ‘Does anyone want to sing this?’ And I was like, ‘I’ll sing it!’ And I sang it and he was like, ‘Why are you playing trombone?’ I was like, ‘Because we need a trombone.’ So I told him this semester, ‘I’ll do trombone and sing.’”

Autonomy

As with any rehearsal, mistakes were made, such as wrong chords, missed entrances, and other musical errors. In one such instance, the keyboard player admitted he forgot to put on the string patch and was playing just piano, which resulted in giving the violin player a solo on “Stand by Me.” Doug commented, “Sometimes mistakes are the best moments” and asked the keyboard player what he did differently. The keyboard player responded, “I like it . . . I think it sounds good,” to which Doug replied, “Then do it that way . . . the choice is up to you.” The violin player smiled as this gave her an opportunity to shine. Doug created a nonthreatening musical environment by often initiating laughter at mistakes and reminding students that they have creative musical agency in the group. Kate described one of these instances:

One time, we all messed up at the end—one instrument went out, a second instrument went out, and then they just all floated out at the end. And [Doug] was like, “That was pretty cool!” And we all sat back and laughed and said, “That was pretty awesome.”

When individuals in the group ran into challenges, Doug would try a much less conventional pedagogical approach. First, he would admit that he did not know how to play it on their instrument but then would wave his arms around wildly, try to sing it a little, and then play a recording while shrugging and squinting, providing support as best he could while encouraging students to be agents of their own learning. Contrasted with what many members experienced in their school ensembles, Cindy recalled how “in high school, the teacher is strict and waving her baton thing, but [Doug] doesn’t have that, he just snaps his fingers and does his thing.” Despite Doug’s loose conducting style and often retracted teaching approach, it is important to note that the members of the group held each other accountable to high musical standards. We observed band members correcting errors and asking for opportunities to clean up challenging parts of the arrangements. At one point, one of the horn players suggested that the singer was singing the wrong notes and apologized: “Sorry to call you out on that.” Doug reminded the group that “This is a safe environment” and it is “OK to offer help.”

Doug’s teaching methods included ear-based learning and mimicking sounds on recordings, similar to how musicians might learn informally outside of traditional school rehearsals. He encouraged students to practice on their own and at their own pace with a backing track. In the rehearsals, Doug would often refer to the sheet music, but it appeared to be more of a road map than a rigid set of performance instructions. Whereas some of the musicians appeared to rely heavily on the printed notation, others rarely looked at it. Doug noted,

A lot of the students learned to play their part from the recording. Especially in the rhythm section—the guitarists, the drums, the bass, the singers—a lot of them learned just by listening over and over again. The sheet music was just a way to keep us all on the same page in rehearsal and so I could say, “Let’s start at the bridge, which is letter C,” and everyone can kind of look at their part.

The music was chosen collectively, often related to popular music contexts, such as rock and other contemporary genres, and the overall emphasis was not on uniformity but on individuality and student creativity. Raul described how “everyone had their own say in what they wanted to hear and how they wanted to play it. I mean, it wasn’t like, ‘This is how it is. This is how it must be done.’” Doug explained how he intentionally tried to cultivate a space for autonomy and creative decision making:

I would often call on students and say, “Show us what you’re doing there, now let’s listen to that, let’s try to recreate that, let’s try to talk about that.” A group of students would go over to the piano player and say, “Oh, do you know this song by the Fugees?” and he’d say, “Yeah, sure!” and they’d start playing and singing and working out an arrangement together.

Affirmation

As Kate made her way to the front of the ensemble to sing Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas,” everyone stopped talking and playing for the mike check. Admiring her Ford belt buckle, which she continued to massage as she sang, she seemed eager to showcase her talents. While Doug often conducted and rehearsed the group from the front of the ensemble near a pseudo podium, conducting gesture was less precise and more casual, bandstand formation was loose and free, outfits were expressive of the individuals, and tone and balance were more a reflection and celebration of individuals and less of a whole or unified sound. By having input regarding what tunes they would perform, members’ musical tastes were affirmed. Kate noted, “In high school, I was like, some of these pieces are really cool, but I’m not able to express myself in ways that I want to.” Raul, one of the self-taught guitar players, recalled, “[In high school] all we did was sing do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, mi [sic], do. I don’t know all that stuff. It was twice a week and we just sang whatever the teacher had for us.” Kate described the difference between the music she learned and performed in high school versus in this group:

In chorus, we were given a piece to look at, sometimes we were given a solo in high school, but it was never anything big because they didn’t want to showcase anybody. In chorus in high school, we never were able to sing out on our own like that. We all had to match and be a group of altos or a group of sopranos, but here I get to be my own voice.

Interestingly, it was between structured rehearsal activities that the most insightful observations were made. We often noted that drummers and singers would emote flourishes as a means of showing off and seeking affirmation. The bandleader created space for student communication where we observed a community at play: students forging bonds, working on musical ideas, and exchanging ephemeral energies. During rehearsals when Doug would focus on one instrument or on a technical challenge, the others in the group would take advantage of that sonic space to explore the social milieu surrounding them. Tim explained, “Even though playing in a group is really about playing music, there were lots of times we just talked and shared, especially at the end of the rehearsal when we were just jamming out together.”

Tasheka described how the group’s affirming atmosphere led her to refine both her musical and extramusical identity:

Musical expression is a form of vulnerability in one. If you can truly express yourself musically in front of someone, then you trust and know them. Everyone was so hospitable and we really trusted each other. This group helped me find a home not just to make music in, but to be a part of a family.

Discussion

Despite its usefulness with respect to creating dialogue in scholarly music education discourse, the formal-informal dichotomy, we suggest, is problematic and overly simplistic. It fails to capture the nuanced and vastly unique teaching and learning contexts in which a global village of dynamic music educators and learners engage. Moreover, it is reductionist to assign formal learning exclusively to institutional settings and informal learning to contexts outside school. They might harmoniously coexist, borrowing from each other depending on contexts, including but not limited to where the teaching/learning takes place, the sorts of musics involved, and the specific types of learning processes favored by the students. The blending of formal with informal pedagogy was not premeditated by the bandleader but instead was a byproduct of his acts of hospitality. His blending of formal and informal approaches emerged naturally from his desire to build an ensemble that was hospitable to all participants regardless of their backgrounds or the group’s instrumentation. The bandleader’s ideas were just some among many, and through inviting students to be part of the knowledge-building community, he created what Partti (2012) has described as a space where learning is communal and explorative.

In many music contexts, a more restrictive and conditionally hospitable approach often is applied in which participation is limited to students who play particular instruments, who can read music notation, who have the means to support private study, and who want to, or are acquiescent to, learn and perform the specific kinds of musics offered. In the case we observed, the absence of prerequisite restrictions led to a blending of pedagogies, which empowered students through autonomous learning experiences that were self-navigable and self-governed, effectively transferring power from the host to the hosted. The bandleader’s acts of hospitality required him to refocus his teaching strategies in ways that were directed toward the individualized and diverse learning styles of all the members of the band, thus providing the opportunity for him to affirm students’ musicianship.

We are not suggesting that pedagogues operating in formal contexts are necessarily inhospitable; they might very well be hospitable, regardless of their formal pedagogical approaches. Likewise, we are not suggesting that informal pedagogues are necessarily models of hospitality; they may in fact be quite inhospitable, operating in ways that do not promote inclusivity and open access. In each of these cases, the restrictive nature of the reductive binary fails to capture blended possibilities along a continuum. The degree of hospitality facilitates opportunities for blending pedagogies. If a bandleader allows for less restrictive, more inclusive, and hospitable contexts for music making and learning, then he or she might then adjust to the students and provide a blending of formal and informal approaches. If the bandleader’s acts of hospitality enable pedagogic possibilities, we suggest that the degree of hospitality, which begins at the time of recruitment, might be the first and foremost consideration when assembling a music ensemble.

Less hospitable music teachers who shape sounds and determine musical decisions from the podium do so, we suggest, not to trump the perspectives and mute ensemble member voices but out of a genuine desire to cultivate a beautiful and blended sound; in order to achieve that aesthetic standard, the director might restrict his or her hospitality by limiting group membership and assuming all of the creative decision-making power. Conversely, the more hospitable music teacher, who provides opportunities for students to cultivate their own sound and make individual creative choices, might not necessarily lead his or her students to her predetermined aesthetic experience. The question that follows is what kinds of musical outcomes might a music teacher seek. While students in high-control and less hospitable music environments might experience conformity, precision, and excellence (all valuable and important to music-making), students in the group we observed experienced inclusivity, autonomy, and affirmation, which we suggest might serve them well in contexts outside of this particular ensemble.

Conclusion

In the context we examined in this study, it was first the acts of hospitality and then the blended formal/informal pedagogies of the bandleader that fostered an environment of inclusivity, autonomy, and affirmation. It was also the blending of the large-ensemble model with this process that enabled strong group cohesion and investment in the ensemble. While the findings from this study describe a vivid mutuality of formal/informal learning, suggesting that the formal/informal operates more as a reciprocal relationship than a dichotomy, there still may be value in examining them as opposites. Perhaps it is through such an examination that music educators may come to a comingled, blurred, or blended approach of formal/informal education/learning practices. This blended mode might engender learner inclusivity, autonomy, and affirmation, which in turn might enable contexts for nonlinear development of musical knowledge and skills from and alongside the teacher, who may alternate between directing the learning and participating as a member of the community of learners.

While in the current study we examined a college ensemble, we wonder whether it would be feasible for a middle school or high school program to abolish some preconditions regarding instrumentation, experience, or style of music to be learned and performed. Some might argue that this would lead to chaos and poor musical quality and that younger students would not have the musical or personal maturity to be successful in such a setting. However, while high-control, restrictive, and conditionally hospitable practices operating within many school music education programs have led to high-performing bands, orchestras, and choirs, they have done so only for the small percentage of those who reside within the margin of hospitality offered. We suggest that it might be feasible to redirect teacher control and abolish more preconditions in school settings but acknowledge that doing so would require a shift in how success is measured and how teacher/student roles are conceived. Authors of future research might explore how such an approach might look in a school setting and to what ends it might lead. The professional music teaching community may not yet be ready for such radical shifts, but as we look to bring more music opportunities to greater numbers of students, we might strive toward cultivating more inclusive, autonomous, and affirming experiences through acts of hospitality that eliminate some conditions for participation in school music ensembles.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Chad West is an assistant professor of music education at Ithaca College. His research interests include contemporary music teacher preparation and socially relevant music education practices.

Radio Cremata is an assistant professor of music education at Ithaca College. His research interests are related to marginalized and alienated music learning populations, technology-based and emerging music education practices, and relevancy in music education.

References

Allsup

R. A.

(2003). Mutual learning and democratic action in instrumental music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 24–37. doi:10.2307/3345646

Boyle

Hosterman

G. L.

Ramsey

D. S.

(1981). Factors influencing pop music preferences of young people. Journal of Research In Music Education, 29, 47–55. doi:10.2307/3344679

Buckingham

(2005). Schooling the digital generation: Popular culture, new media and the future of education. London, England: Institute of Education, University of London.

Byrne

Sheridan

(2000). The long and winding road: The story of rock music in Scottish schools. International Journal of Music Education, 36, 46–57. doi:10.1177/025576140003600106

Campbell

P. S.

(1995). Of garage bands and song-getting: The musical development of young rock musicians. Research Studies in Music Education, 4, 12–20. doi:10.1177/1321103X9500400103

Campbell

P. S.

(2001). Unsafe suppositions? Cutting across cultures on questions of music’s transmission. Music Education Research, 3, 215–226. doi:10.1080/14613800120089269

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage. doi:10.1177/1524839915580941

De Vries

(2010). What we want: The music preferences of upper primary school students and the ways they engage with music. Australian Journal of Music Education, 1, 3–16.

Feichas

(2010). Bridging the gap: Informal learning practices as a pedagogy of integration. British Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 47–58. doi:10.1017/S0265051709990192

10.

Fisher

W. A.

(1933). Music in a changing world. Music Supervisors Journal, 19(4), 16–17, 62–64. doi:10.2307/3383885

11.

Folkestad

(2006). Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs formal and informal ways of learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 135–145. doi:10.1017/S0265051706006887

12.

Fornäs

Lindberg

Sernhede

(1995). In garageland: Rock, youth and modernity. London, England: Routledge. doi:10.2307/2945800

13.

Georgii-Hemming

Westvall

(2010). Music education: A personal matter? Examining the current discourses of music education in Sweden. British Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 21–33. doi:10.1017/S0265051709990179

14.

Green

(2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

15.

Green

(2006). Popular music education in and for itself, and for “other” music: Current research in the classroom. International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 101–118. doi:10.1177/0255761406065471

16.

Green

(2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

17.

Green

(Ed.). (2011). Learning, teaching and musical identity: Voices across cultures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

18.

Green

(2014). Hear, listen, play! How to free your students’ aural, improvisation and performance skills. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

19.

Greer

R. D.

Dorow

L. G.

Randall

(1974). Music listening preferences of elementary school children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 22, 284–291. doi:10.2307/3344766

20.

Hargreaves

D. J.

Comber

Colley

(1995). Effects of age, gender, and training on musical preferences of British secondary school students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 242–250. doi:10.2307/3345639

21.

Henze

R. C.

(1992). Informal teaching and learning: A study of everyday cognition in a Greek community. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

22.

Higgins

(2007a). Acts of hospitality: The community in community music. Music Education Research, 9(2), 281–292. doi:10.1080/14613800701384441

23.

Higgins

(2007b). The impossible future. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 6(3), 74–96. Retrieved from http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Higgins6_3.pdf

24.

Higgins

(2012). Community music: In theory and in practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777839.001.0001

25.

Instrumental Music Teacher Educators. (2014). 2015 call for proposals. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/document/d/11BcmHz4J3lfFussnuxxFUG9Z-FIPPRRlu5VFUMU1beI/edit?pli=1

26.

Isbell

(2015). Formal and informal music experiences. In Burton

Snell

(Eds.), Engaging musical practices: A sourcebook for instrumental music. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

27.

Jaffurs

S. E.

(2004). The impact of informal music learning practices in the classroom, or how I learned how to teach from a garage band. International Journal of Music Education, 22, 189–200. doi:10.1177/0255761404047401

28.

Johansson

K. G.

(2004). What chord was that? A study of strategies among ear players in rock music. Research Studies in Music Education, 23(1), 94–101. doi:10.1177/1321103X040230011101

29.

Jones

P. M.

(2007). Music education for society’s sake: Music education in an era of global neo-imperial/neo-medieval market-driven paradigms and structures. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 6(1), 1–28.

30.

Kent

(1958). Popular music. Music Educators Journal, 45(2), 52–54. doi:10.2307/3389069

31.

Kratus

(2007). Music education at the tipping point. Music Educators Journal, 94(2), 42–47. doi:10.1177/002743210709400209

32.

Lebler

(2007). Student-as-master? Reflections on a learning innovation in popular music pedagogy. International Journal of Music Education, 25(3), 205–221. doi:10.1177/0255761407083575

33.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

34.

McPhail

(2013). The canon or the kids: Teachers and the recontextualisation of classical and popular music in the secondary school curriculum. Research Studies in Music Education, 35(1), 7–20. doi:10.1177/1321103X13483083

35.

McPherson

G. E.

Hendricks

K. S.

(2010). Students’ motivation to study music: The United States of America. Research Studies in Music Education, 32(2), 201–213. doi:10.1177/1321103X10384200

36.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

37.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

38.

O’Flynn

(2006). Vernacular music-making and education. International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 140–147. doi:10.1177/0255761406065475

39.

Partti

(2012). Learning from cosmopolitan digital musicians: Identity, musicianship, and changing values in (in)formal music communities. Helsinki, Finland: Sibelius Academy.

40.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Regelski

T. A.

(2013). Re-setting music education’s “default settings.” Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 12(1), 7–23.

42.

Saar

(1999). Musikens dimensioner: En studie av unga musikers larande [The dimensions of music: A study of young musicians’ learning]. Gothenburg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

43.

Seifried

(2006). Exploring the outcomes of rock and popular music instruction in high school guitar class: A case study. International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 126–131. doi:10.1177/0255761406065478

44.

Shah

(2006). Popular music in Malaysia: Education from the outside. International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 132–139. doi:10.1177/0255761406065474

45.

Smith

G. D.

, (2013). I drum, therefore I am: Being and becoming a drummer. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

46.

Stanton

(1966). A look at the forest. Music Educators Journal, 53(3), 37–39.

47.

Temmerman

(1993). School music experiences: How do they rate? Research Studies in Music Education, 1, 59–65. doi:10.1177/1321103X9300100107

48.

Väkevä

(2006). Teaching popular music in Finland: What’s up, what’s ahead? International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 126–131. doi:10.1177/0255761406065473

49.

West

Clauhs

(2015). Strengthening music programs while avoiding advocacy pitfalls. Arts Education Policy Review, 116(2), 1–6. doi:10.1080/10632913.2015.1007831

50.

Westerlund

(2006). Garage rock bands: A future model for developing musical expertise? International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 119–125. doi:10.1177/0255761406065472

51.

Williams

D. A.

(2007). What are music educators doing and how well are we doing it? Traditional large-group performance may not be the best goal of music education when the way society experiences music is changing. Music Educators Journal, 94(1), 18. doi:10.1177/002743210709400105

52.

Ziehe

(1986). Ny ungdom: Om ovanliga laroprocesser [New youth: On uncommon learning processes]. Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedts.