The Effect of Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Peer-Assisted Learning Structures on Music Achievement and Learner Engagement in Seventh-Grade Band

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of two different reciprocal peer-assisted learning (PAL) arrangements on music achievement and learner engagement in the secondary instrumental music classroom. Using a quasi-experimental design, students from six separate seventh-grade bands from one large urban/suburban school district (N = 261) were randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions: symmetrical PAL, where students of like ability were paired together, and asymmetrical PAL, where students of divergent ability were paired together. Students worked in pairs over the course of four weeks and took turns being the “learner” and the “teacher” to improve sight-reading ability and music theory knowledge. Student pairs were allowed to determine their own rules for interaction, turn taking, and the amount of material to be covered in each session. Three pre-/posttest outcome variables were assessed: sight-reading performance, music theory knowledge, and learner engagement. Additionally, individual socioeconomic status (SES) and motivation orientation were compared as potential moderating variables. Hierarchical linear regression analyses indicated that regardless of PAL pairings, there were significant gains for each of the outcome variables. Moreover, interaction effects were found between learner engagement, method of instruction, and SES.

Keywords

peer-assisted learning secondary ensembles SES engagement

Peer-assisted learning (PAL), defined as “the acquisition of knowledge and skill through active-helping and supporting among status equals or matched companions” (Topping, 2005, p. 631), is a unique form of collaborative learning that can be a powerful tool for music teachers to increase student achievement, engagement, and general commitment to learning. In secondary large ensemble contexts, however, the rich tradition of ensemble performance has depended largely on the expertise and prowess of the ensemble director, which often reduces opportunities for individual student engagement and collaboration between peers (Allsup, 2003; Green, 2008; Wis, 2002). Despite the fact that collaborative learning practices including PAL have shown to be productive and increase student achievement in a wide variety of learning contexts (e.g., Alexander & Dorrow, 1983; Goodrich, 2007; Johnson, 2013; Roscoe & Chi, 2007; Topping & Ehly, 2001), large ensemble instruction has historically relied on teacher-determined performance goals and less on collaborative learning models (Jones, Palinscar, Ogle, & Carr, 1987; Shively, 2004). While a balanced approach to secondary music instruction includes both teacher- and student-centered models, the danger of promoting a completely teacher-centered learning model is that

students are not being given the opportunity to develop the individuality and responsibility required to be an artist . . . while producing results quickly, this [didactic instruction] leaves students dependent on the teacher, when what is desired is the development of musical independence. (Reimer, 2000, p. 48)

To better understand how PAL can help ensemble leaders balance opportunities for individual learning while maintaining large-group instructional integrity and efficiency, an investigation of PAL in varied contexts may reveal opportunities for ensemble directors to foster a rich learning environment beyond what is possible with teacher-led instruction alone. Furthermore, an examination of the established body of PAL research highlights many important trends that may impact the application of PAL in large ensembles.

Meta-Analyses of PAL Literature

Meta-analyses suggest that PAL can increase academic and social achievement gains alike in a variety of subject areas (e.g., Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Ginsburg-Block, Rohrbeck, & Fantuzzo, 2006; McMaster, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2006; Robinson, Schonfield, & Steers-Wentzell, 2005; Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo, & Miller, 2003; Roscoe & Chi 2007). The most commonly discussed trend in PAL literature is the comparison of symmetrical versus asymmetrical design. Asymmetrical arrangements are characterized by clearly defined roles for novice and expert, whereas symmetrical interaction assumes relative egalitarian social and cognitive ability. While both approaches have been seen to be effective, the relative effectiveness of each instructional approach is not entirely conclusive. However, regardless of approach, students in urban schools tend to outperform students in suburban or rural schools (Rohrbeck et al., 2003), economically disadvantaged students tend to outperform their higher socioeconomic (SES) counterparts (e.g., Ginsburg-Block et al., 2006; Rohrbeck et al., 2003), and student autonomy during PAL tends to increase performance achievement (Roscoe & Chi, 2007). Notably, reciprocal symmetrical approaches tend to promote higher levels of achievement when compared with traditional teacher-led instruction (e.g., Robinson et al., 2005).

PAL in Music Education

Researchers in music education have also found peer-based instruction to produce positive achievement results (Alexander & Dorrow, 1983; Darrow, Gibbs, & Wedel, 2005; Goodrich, 2007; Johnson, 2013; Lebler, 2007). Reciprocal, same-age PAL has been shown to be effective in increasing achievement among elementary general music students (Darrow et al., 2005) and at-risk high school band and choir students (Johnson, 2013). Nonreciprocal PAL models at the elementary level have also yielded positive results in achievement and behavior modification (e.g., Alexander & Dorrow, 1983; Madsen, Smith, & Feeman, 1988). Socially, increased levels of musical independence and engagement and a greater awareness of leadership opportunities have been observed in secondary instrumental music contexts (e.g., Berg, 1997; Fodor, 1998; Goodrich, 2007; Scruggs, 2009). Hypothetically, motivation orientation and learner engagement are important factors when considering PAL (Topping & Ehly, 2001). Findings relating to learner engagement in music generally suggest that the degree of student autonomy, input in the instructional process, and a sense of social relatedness with peers promote higher levels of engagement (Finney & Tymoczko, 2003; Lamont, Hargreaves, Marshall, & Tarrant, 2003; Rusinek, 2008). Recent findings in the realm of motivation theory suggest that many music students at the secondary level tend to possess mastery motivation orientations (Miksza, 2009; Schmidt, 2005; Smith, 2005), flourish in social task-involving climates (Matthews & Kitsantas, 2007), and use more varied practice strategies when they hold mastery orientations (Schmidt, 2005; Smith, 2005). It remains unclear, however, if an individual’s motivation orientation impacts achievement or how learner engagement may change as a result of PAL.

Need for the Study

Despite the fact that collaborative learning arrangements such as PAL can result in higher levels of student achievement (e.g., Cohen et al., 1982; McMaster et al., 2006; Robinson et al., 2005; Roscoe & Chi, 2007), there is a dearth of empirical research regarding the impact of PAL on student learning in secondary music contexts, including ensemble classes. Comparisons of instructional configuration have also been limited to the effect of PAL versus teacher-led instruction and have not compared the effects of reciprocal symmetrical and asymmetrical PAL configurations on achievement and engagement outcomes. Moreover, PAL research in music education has been limited to demographically homogeneous samples, and more research is needed to understand how socioeconomic status may influence PAL in the secondary large ensemble classroom.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of peer-assisted learning on student achievement and engagement in the secondary middle school instrumental music classroom. Two different instructional arrangements were compared: reciprocal PAL, where students were paired in symmetrical dyads, and reciprocal PAL, where students were paired in asymmetrical dyads. Specific research questions were as follows: (1) What is the effect of method of instruction (symmetrical PAL vs. asymmetrical PAL) on sight-reading achievement, basic music theory knowledge, and learner engagement? and (2) Is the effect of method of instruction on outcome variables (sight-reading achievement, music theory knowledge, learner engagement) moderated by individual difference variables (SES and motivation orientation)?

Methodology

Participant Sample

Two-hundred sixty-one seventh-grade band students from six middle schools within one large urban metropolitan school district in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States were selected to participate based on the following criteria: (a) grouping students by grade level, (b) the existence of only one seventh-grade band per school, (c) non-charter status, and (d) teachers who had been in their current position for more than one year. While given the option, no students opted out of the study. Each school had a total of one seventh-grade band with an average enrollment of 43 students (range, 31–63). In this district, students voluntarily begin instrumental music in sixth grade. Ninety-two percent of participants reported no engagement in musical activities outside of school or musical activities at school other than band (87%). On average, student participants had been playing their band instruments for 14.67 months (SD = 1.13).

Six intact seventh-grade bands in six separate schools participated in this study. Each band consisted of wind, brass, and percussion students that met during the same period of the school day at their respective schools. Teacher participants had an average of 15.3 years of teaching experience (SD = 6.59). All procedures in this study received institutional review board approval, and informed consent from participants and parents/guardians was obtained for all participants in this study.

Design

Each of the six seventh-grade bands was assigned randomly to one of two comparison groups: symmetrical or asymmetrical reciprocal PAL. Using the combined average of both sight-reading and music theory achievement scores, students in the symmetrical PAL group were matched with a partner of relatively equal ability (i.e., starting with the lowest ranked case, each student was paired with the next lowest ranked student). Students in the asymmetrical PAL group were paired with a student of divergent ability (i.e., the lowest scoring student below the median rank was paired with the lowest scoring student above the median rank).

Measures

Dependent variables

Sight-reading achievement was assessed using two equivalent 16-measure researcher-composed études electronically scored (0%–100%) for rhythm and pitch accuracy using the SmartMusic (2012) assessment feature (Make Music Inc.). The pre- and posttest études were restricted to concepts taken directly from the seventh-grade band curriculum in the school district: the first five pitches of the concert B♭ major scale and syncopated rhythms in common time employing half-, quarter-, and eighth-note rhythmic values. Each étude was performed at the same tempo (78 bpm). A high degree of concurrent validity (.84–.91) has been established by comparing the scores of independent judges with computer-generated SmartMusic scores (e.g., Karas, 2005; Lee, 2007; Sidwell-Frame, 2009). During this study, daily test-retest reliability was consistently high (.81–.88) and comparable with previous reports (e.g., Buck, 2008; Karas, 2005).

Music theory achievement was assessed using pre- and posttest versions of a researcher-constructed paper-and-pencil test where students demonstrated their knowledge of the following items: the order of flats and sharps, identification of major key signatures, and knowledge of the circle of fifths. Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 reliability analyses showed a high degree of internal consistency (.91) for music theory achievement test scores.

Student engagement was assessed using a researcher adaptation of the Engagement Vs. Dissaffection With Learning Scale developed by Wellborn (1991). This 20-item self-report measure assesses behavioral and emotional engagement in classroom activities with Likert-type responses (e.g., 1 = not at all true of me, 2 = slightly true, 3 = moderately true, 4 = very true of me). Similar to previous studies, responses to items representing each engagement domain were combined to yield a single engagement score (e.g., Van Ryzin, Gravely, & Roseth, 2009). Reliability analyses were consistent with previous reports (e.g., Furrer & Skinner, 2003), with a moderately high reliability coefficient for the measure as a whole (Cronbach’s α = .74) in addition to each of the four subscales (α = .71–.76).

Moderating variables

Participants’ motivation orientation was assessed using the 2 × 2 achievement goal orientation instrument developed by Elliot and McGregor (2001) and adapted by Miksza (2009). The 12-item questionnaire is composed of 3 items for each of four motivation orientation domains presented in random order. Participants respond to each item using a 5-point rating scale (e.g., 1 = not at all true for me, 3 = somewhat true of me, 5 = very true of me). Reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) were moderately high for the mastery-approach subscale (.81), adequate for mastery-avoid and performance-approach subscales (.75 and .77, respectively), and low for the performance-avoid subscale (.56).

Individual SES was assessed using the component measure of SES (Ensminger et al., 2000) adapted by Miksza and Austin (2010). The adapted six-question composite self-report measure includes a three-level rating scale for each of the following six domains: father’s employment, mother’s employment, father’s education, mother’s education, family structure, and school lunch subsidy (excluding food stamps and aid to families with dependent children). The possible response range for subscales is 0 to 3, with higher scores representing higher levels of SES. The average of all components creates a single SES score for each student, and the average of all individual scores creates a picture of SES for an entire group (in this study, each school’s seventh-grade band).

Instructional Materials and Teacher Training

The researcher-constructed written instructional materials emphasized reciprocal PAL interactions. Materials were organized in two main categories (sight-reading achievement and knowledge of music theory) and were aligned with school district curriculum. The classroom teacher stored instructional materials after each PAL session. During one 3-hour, researcher-led session, teachers were trained in PAL techniques using materials adapted from Peer Assisted Learning: A Practical Guide for Teachers (Topping, 2001). Teacher training focused on reciprocal peer interaction, the characteristics of symmetrical and asymmetrical pairing, and how to foster student autonomy. Teachers were provided with a script for training their students and also large posters to hang on the wall in their classrooms indicating the intervention schedule and question prompts for each activity.

Testing and Treatment Schedule

Prior to the beginning of the study, each student completed the pretest achievement and learner engagement measures and then the motivation and SES questionnaires (pretest only). Once the researcher assigned student pairs, teachers trained their students in PAL techniques during one 30-minute in-class session. All students engaged in a total of 240 minutes of PAL during the intervention period, a 4-week window where students engaged in 12 PAL sessions averaging three sessions per week. Each PAL session consisted of a 5-minute “transition/getting settled” period followed by 20 minutes of PAL. To ensure consistency, teachers recorded a time log sheet that was collected by the researcher each week. Students completed both the achievement and engagement measures at the end of the 12th PAL session.

Data Analysis

Hierarchical linear modeling techniques (HLM) were used to examine the effect of method of instruction on changes in outcome variables in addition to how individual difference variables of interest might impact outcome variables at different levels. Specifically, SAS PROC MIXED (statistical analysis software) was used to examine the data and ideally is suited to examine school effect models where data on individuals are nested within naturally occurring hierarchies (Singer, 1998).

HLM is a class of multilevel modeling techniques in which traditional linear regression is manipulated to allow for nonindependence due to school-level groups. As a result, variation both between students within schools (Level 1) and between schools (Level 2) can be assessed by examining random and fixed effects (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). A fundamental assumption of HLM—as compared to traditional regression—is that a single linear model is not appropriate for the analysis of data across multiple hierarchical levels. If the traditional regression approach were used with such nested groups, the independence assumption would likely be violated. Thus, a hierarchical multilevel model was specified that examines variation in the outcomes between individual students (Level 1) and variation in the outcomes between schools (Level 2) (Singer, 1998).

Results

Factor Analyses for Engagement and Motivation Orientation

Factor analyses for engagement

Participant responses to the measure assessing learner engagement were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis. Principal axis extraction with Promax rotation yielded a single factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 that accounted for 58% of the total variance in student engagement. Because the Engagement Vs. Dissaffection With Learning Scale consists of two dimensions and four subscales, additional factor analyses with alternative forms of oblique (oblimin) and orthogonal (varimax) rotation were conducted to further explore the dimensionality of student engagement. In both instances, and similar to the findings of Van Ryzin et al. (2009), single-factor solutions emerged. Therefore, student engagement was treated as a unidimensional construct with composite scores serving as one major dependent variable.

Factor analyses for motivation orientation

Participant responses for the measure assessing achievement goal orientation also were analyzed using exploratory factor analyses. Principal axis factor with Promax rotation produced a four-factor solution that accounted for 52% of the cumulative variance in achievement goal orientation. The pattern of factor loadings corresponded to a 2 × 2 framework by which contemporary notions of mastery and performance goal orientations involve classical approach and avoidance patterns. However, only mastery-approach subscale scores were used in further analyses on the basis that (a) mastery-approach items accounted for nearly half of the proportion of the total variance (24%) in achievement goal orientation, (b) mastery-approach items yielded the highest levels of reliability and internal consistency (α = .89), and (c) previous research in motivation has shown a mastery-approach orientation to be associated with high achievement and engagement (e.g., Elliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001).

Individual Difference Variables

Socioeconomic status

Results for the composite measure of SES developed by Ensminger et al. (2000) and adapted by Miksza and Austin (2010) were as follows: School 1 M = 2.73, SD = .56; School 2 M = 2.56, SD = .75; School 3 M = 2.74, SD = .59; School 4 M = 2.71, SD = .55; School 5 M = 2.5, SD = .83; School 6 M = 1.87, SD = .72. Mean scores are on a 3-point scale, with higher scores indicating higher SES.

Achievement-goal orientation

Results for mastery motivation orientation were as follows: School 1 M = 14.4, SD = .94; School 2 M = 12.9, SD = 2.7; School 3 M = 13.5, SD = 1.7; School 4 M = 13.9, SD = 1.48; School 5 M = 13.4, SD = 3.13; School 6 M = 12.3, SD = 2.31. Range is from 0 to 15, with higher values representing higher levels of mastery orientation.

Analysis of Method of Instruction Effects

Achievement and engagement

Means and standard deviations for each outcome variable across asymmetrical and symmetrical treatment conditions are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Outcome Variables by Treatment Group.

	Treatment Group
Outcome Variable	SymmetricalM (SD)	AsymmetricalM (SD)	Overall Mean
Sight-reading pre	29 (15.6)	29.6 (16.2)	29.3
Sight-reading post	37 (17.1)	40.3 (18.1)	38.7
Sight-reading difference	8	10.7	9.4
Theory pre	6.9 (4.1)	6.6 (4.2)	6.7
Theory post	15.9 (6.9)	14.9 (6.3)	15.4
Theory difference	9	8.3	8.7
Engagement pre	67.4 (5.8)	66.5 (6.8)	66.9
Engagement post	67.9 (4.9)	67.7 (4.6)	67.8
Engagement difference	0.5	1.2	0.9

HLM techniques were used to examine the effect of method of instruction on changes in outcome variables in addition to how moderating variables of interest might impact outcome variables at different levels.

Level 1 and Level 2 effects

Variation due to school groupings (Level 2) for all outcome variables was nonsignificant. According to the assumptions of HLM (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992), between-school (Level 2) comparison of treatment effects is unnecessary as no significant difference in the distribution of error existed between schools. A significant amount of variance among individuals (Level 1) was present on pre/posttest change for each outcome variable: sight-reading achievement (z = 11.26, p < .0001), music theory knowledge (z = 11.3, p < .0001), and learner engagement (z = 11.38, p < .0001). See Appendix A in the online version of the article for supplemental data tables.

Pre-/posttest changes for outcome variables

As displayed in Table 1, no significant individual differences were found between the two types of PAL instruction for the three outcome measures: sight-reading achievement, music theory knowledge, or learner engagement. However, significant changes in pre- to posttest changes in sight-reading achievement (t = 7.7, p < .01) and music theory knowledge (t = 11.38, p < .001) were observed regardless of treatment condition for the entire sample. Differences in pre-/posttest learner engagement scores were not statistically significant (t = 1.68, p = .09).

Analysis of Moderating Effects for Motivation and SES

Motivation

No significant interaction effects were found between method of instruction and mastery-approach motivation orientation on pre/posttest changes in sight-reading (t = −.47, p = .64), music theory knowledge (t = .89, p = .40), or learner engagement (t = −.80, p = .46).

SES

No significant interaction effects were found between method of instruction and SES on pre-/posttest changes in sight-reading (t = −1.72, p = .085) or music theory knowledge (t = −1.62, p = .109). However, comparisons of each treatment condition at the average level of SES, pre-post changes in sight-reading (t = 9.31, p < .001) and music theory knowledge (t = 10.89, p < .001) are significant.

A significant interaction effect was found between SES and pre/posttest learner engagement change when controlling for treatment condition (t = −3.23, p = .001), indicating that as SES increases by one standard deviation, pre-/posttest learner engagement decreases by .52 points (see Figure 1). This relationship is also true in the opposite direction (i.e., as SES decreases by one standard deviation, engagement increases by .52 points).

Figure 1.

Interaction effect of treatment group and socioeconomic status on pre-/posttest change in learner engagement

Discussion

Achievement Outcomes

Results pertaining to achievement outcomes indicate that, overall, students made significant gains and improved their sight-reading ability and music theory knowledge regardless of treatment condition. An examination of the spread in sight-reading and theory pretest scores reveals a large range in average ability for each school. Despite this fact, students in all schools experienced relatively similar pre-/posttest improvements, suggesting that PAL may be an effective way to improve achievement in these domains.

Upon examining the moderating effects of SES and motivation (mastery-approach orientation) on achievement outcomes (i.e., sight-reading and music theory), the impact was found to be nonsignificant. These findings suggest that regardless of the type of PAL, level of SES, or degree of mastery motivation orientation, students still made gains in their sight-reading performance and knowledge of music theory.

Learner Engagement Outcomes

Results indicate that students experienced small gains in learner engagement across all schools. However, while trends across all schools show positive growth, a comparison between pretest and posttest scores indicates the difference in scores to be nonsignificant. Empirically, this result is not surprising given the fact that pre-/posttest changes were minimal and the variability in scores when comparing pre-/posttest standard deviations were relatively equal.

SES was found to significantly moderate the effect of method of instruction on change in learner engagement while level of motivation (mastery-approach orientation) did not impact this relationship. Specifically, students from high and average levels of SES experienced decreases in learner engagement while students of low SES experienced increases in learner engagement as a result of asymmetrical PAL. This interactive effect is of particular interest given that all students in the symmetrical condition experienced gains in learner engagement regardless of SES. These findings suggest that symmetrical PAL might promote improved engagement for students of varying SES while asymmetrical PAL may actually be detrimental to engagement for students with moderate to high SES.

Previous research in education has revealed that students who are economically disadvantaged make more pronounced achievement gains as a result of PAL when compared to middle- and high-SES students (e.g., Ginsburg-Block et al., 2006; Rohrbeck et al., 2003). However, in the present study, learner engagement gains varied by SES to the greatest extent in the asymmetrical condition. One hypothesis is that low and high SES students exhibit differences in knowledge and understanding because they are not advantaged equally with respect to resources and access to specific learning tools that may explain engagement differences in academic discourse and school-related learning (Payne, 1998). However, to substantiate this argument, further examination of the discourse patterns for students with varying levels of SES who engage in varied PAL structures is needed to further explain this phenomenon.

PAL Grouping

Given that symmetrical and asymmetrical PAL has proved beneficial across a wide variety of contexts and outcomes (e.g., Topping, 2005), it is not surprising that the findings of this study confirm improvements in music achievement and learner engagement are also possible when applying PAL in the secondary instrumental music context. A unique and important finding, however, is that middle school band students benefitted equally in terms of sight-reading and music theory achievement regardless of the type of ability grouping (e.g., symmetrical or asymmetrical). It is somewhat puzzling that music achievement gains were equal for students in both groups, especially since some previous research has revealed that asymmetrical PAL often produces higher achievement gains than symmetrical arrangements (e.g., Roscoe & Chi, 2007). However, other studies have found relatively equal achievement gains when comparing symmetrical and asymmetrical conditions (e.g., Cohen et al., 1982; Robinson et al., 2005). Similarly, both arrangements have been successful in music education contexts (e.g., Alexander & Dorrow, 1983; Darrow et al., 2005; Goodrich, 2007; Johnson, 2013). The success of both models in this study, however, may be a result of applying a reciprocal format to both symmetrical and asymmetrical arrangements. This approach is somewhat unique in that asymmetrical PAL is typically fixed role, meaning that partners do not take turns being the teacher and student. In this study, however, students acted as both helper and helped regardless of the ability of their partner. Given the prior studies that have investigated reciprocal PAL in music at the elementary level (e.g., Darrow et al., 2005) and high school level (Johnson, 2013), this finding also expands the evidence of success using reciprocal PAL at the middle school level to improve music achievement, especially those where students with varying abilities are grouped into one class.

These results suggest that PAL may be implemented flexibly as a supplement to traditional instrumental music instruction in an effort to enhance achievement outcomes whereas improvements in learning engagement are dependent on the type of arrangement and students’ level of SES. While it is clear that SES impacts engagement differently in symmetrical and asymmetrical PAL arrangements, the context of the secondary instrumental music classroom must be considered. It may be the case that middle school students with moderate to high SES find it hard to sustain reciprocal teaching interactions with peers who are not of their ability level whereas working in a reciprocal teaching fashion with students at an equal ability level presents a less threatening environment regardless of SES.

Implications for Teaching

The results of this study suggest that PAL can successfully be integrated alongside teacher-led large ensemble at the middle school level. Given that PAL was successful for both like- and divergent-ability student pairs, a variety of PAL arrangements are available for teachers to consider. However, results indicate that teachers need to consider the characteristics of the population they are working with when choosing how students are paired.

First, when working with moderate- to high-level SES students, symmetrical arrangements may yield greater gains for learner engagement. Conversely, results indicate that both symmetrical and asymmetrical models yielded positive results in learning engagement for low-SES students. Thus, it is important for teachers to carefully consider the students’ achievement levels specifically related to the concepts intending to be learned as part of PAL. Second, it is important to consider students’ previous knowledge of concepts that they will be working on in PAL groups. Specifically, sight-reading and music theory achievement outcomes were not brand new concepts for students in this study. What this suggests is that PAL may be an effective way for students to deepen and expand their understanding of concepts that have been introduced first during large group, teacher-led instruction.

Informal teacher feedback

Teachers anecdotally reported that the vast majority of students jumped into activities with their partner and continued for several sessions before any evidence of disinterest appeared. However, teachers did report that many students initially approached activities in a “division of labor” fashion (i.e., assigning tasks to be completed independently). This reluctance to adopt a stance of interdependence may be a result of students being more familiar with cooperative learning arrangements where students are responsible for “parts of the whole” rather than working together during every step along the way. Teachers also reported that while some students were initially reluctant to adopt a collaborative approach, a majority of the reluctant students did begin to work together after several sessions. These findings also are noted by Goodrich (2007) and Darrow et al. (2005), who suggest that all students do not readily adopt PAL. Teachers also indicated that PAL might be even more successful if experiences were reduced in frequency and spread out over a longer period of time. Furthermore, all teachers mentioned that composition exercises were among the students’ favorite activities; therefore, teachers might strategically introduce composition activities to maximize engagement.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

Further research using a variety of methodologies is needed to establish a more complete understanding of PAL in the secondary instrumental music context. First, given the relatively narrow ability range used to establish asymmetrical arrangements, it is necessary to compare a wider variety of asymmetrical arrangements such as cross-age designs within and between middle school and high school levels. This is especially true in light of a body of research indicating that asymmetrical arrangements tend to promote higher levels of achievement. Second, it is necessary to explore PAL using random rather than purposive samples, including a larger sampling of secondary schools from multiple school districts, levels of SES, ethnicities, and geographical regions. Third, as the examination of associated psychological factors is a relatively new development in the PAL music education literature, future research should continue to explore multiple constructs such as agency, engagement, self-concept, and self-efficacy in a variety of PAL arrangements. Moreover, given the complexities inherent to measuring motivation, future approaches that examine the existence of “motivation profiles” representing multiple domains using cluster and exploratory factor analyses might provide a more nuanced approach to understanding how motivation impacts PAL in the music environment. Last, given the exploratory status of PAL in the secondary music education context, more research is needed that compares various types of PAL to teacher-led instruction, especially those that involve large-group ensemble-based instruction.

Threats to internal validity

Potential history effects were minimized by sampling groups from schools that had only one teacher, had one seventh-grade band, began band study in sixth grade, and grouped students by grade rather than ability. However, while all teachers submitted weekly logs that documented that the agreed-on schedule relating to PAL activities was followed, the time of day in which classes met could not be controlled. To minimize maturation effects, the intervention timeframe was delimited to a 4-week period. However, some individual pre-/posttest differences may have been in part due to regression to the mean, especially for students with particularly high or low pretest scores. To minimize the “John Henry” effect, students were not informed that other schools were participating in the study until after the treatment period ended. However, this effect could not be minimized for students within classes who may have felt the need to compete with other student pairs.

If collaborative learning structures such as PAL are used in conjunction with teacher-led instruction, music educators may find PAL cultivates student interest and knowledge between peers. While a teacher has much to give, the benefits to students who can organize and take responsibility for their own learning abound. A fundamental assumption of PAL is that knowledge becomes more valuable and better understood when it is shared and discussed. The goal of preserving the richness of the large ensemble tradition is important; however, allowing room for a variety of instructional models—especially those that can be accomplished through peer interaction—can help to develop and promote a lifetime of musical learning, enjoyment, and fulfillment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Supplemental Material

The Appendix is available in the online version of the article at .

Author Biography

Erik Johnson is an associate professor of music education at Colorado State University. His research interests include peer-assisted learning, music teacher identity development, and music theory pedagogy.

References

Alexander

Dorrow

L. G.

(1983). Peer tutoring effects on the music performance of tutors and tutees in beginning band classes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 33–47. doi:10.2307/3345108

Allsup

R. E.

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

Berg

M. H.

(1997). Social construction of musical experience in two high school chamber music ensembles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Bryk

A. S.

Raudenbush

(1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Buck

(2008). The efficacy of SmartMusic® assessment as a teaching and learning too. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS.

Cohen

P. A.

Kulik

J. A.

Kulik

C. L. C.

(1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248. doi:10.3102/00028312019002237

Darrow

A. A.

Gibbs

Wedel

(2005). Use of classwide peer tutoring in the general music classroom. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 24, 15–26.

Elliot

A. J.

(1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3

Elliot

A. J.

McGregor

H. A.

(2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501

10.

Ensminger

M. E.

Forrest

C. B.

Riley

A. W.

Kang

Green

B. F.

Starfield

Ryan

S. A.

(2000). The validity of measures of socioeconomic status of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(3), 392–419. doi:10.1177/07 43558400153005

11.

Finney

Tymoczko

(2003). Secondary school students as leaders: Examining the potential for transforming music education. Music Education International, 2, 36–50.

12.

Fodor

(1998). Critical moments of change: A study of the social and musical interaction of precollegiate jazz combos (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

13.

Furrer

Skinner

(2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148

14.

Ginsburg-Block

M. D.

Rohrbeck

C. A.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

(2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 732–773. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.732

15.

Goodrich

(2007). Peer mentoring in a high school jazz ensemble. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 94–114. doi:10.1177/002242940705500202

16.

Green

(2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. London, England: Ashgate Publishing.

17.

Johnson

(2013). The effect of peer-based instruction on rhythm reading achievement. Contributions to Music Education, 38(2), 25–42.

18.

Jones

B. F.

Palinscar

A. S.

Ogle

D. S.

Carr

E. G.

(1987). Learning and thinking. Strategic Teaching and Learning: Cognitive Instruction in the Content Areas, 13(2), 3–32.

19.

Karas

(2005). The effect of aural and improvisatory instruction on fifth grade band students’ sight reading ability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

20.

Lamont

Hargreaves

D. J.

Marshall

N. A.

Tarrant

(2003). Young people’s music in and out of school. British Journal of Music Education, 20, 229–241. doi:10.1017/S0265051703005412

21.

Lebler

(2007). Student-as-master? Reflections on a learning innovation in popular music pedagogy. International Journal of Music Education, 25, 205–220. doi:10.1177/0255761407083575

22.

Lee

(2007). A study of the effect of computer assisted instruction, previous music experience, and time on the performance ability of beginning instrumental music students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

23.

Madsen

C. K.

Smith

D. S.

Feeman

C. C.

(1988). The use of music in cross-age tutoring within special education settings. Journal of Music Therapy, 22(1), 34–51. doi:10.1093/jmt/25.3.135

24.

Matthews

W. K.

Kitsantas

(2007). Group cohesion, collective efficacy, and motivational climate as predictors of conductor support in music ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(1), 6–17. doi:10.1177/0022429407 05500102

25.

McMaster

K. L.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(1), 5–25. doi:10.1080/105735605002 03491

26.

Miksza

(2009). Relationships among impulsivity, achievement goal motivation, and the music practice of high school wind players. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 190(1), 9–27.

27.

Miksza

Austin

J. R.

(2010). Eyes wide open: High school student reflections on music teaching experiences within a pre-collegiate recruitment program. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 191(2), 7–20.

28.

Payne

R. K.

(1998). A framework for understanding poverty. New York, NY: RFT Publishers.

29.

Reimer

(2000). Performing with understanding: The challenge of the National Standards for Music Education. Reston, VA: MENC.

30.

Robinson

D. R.

Schofield

J. W.

Steers-Wentzell

K. L.

(2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 327–362. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-8137-2

31.

Rohrbeck

C. A.

Ginsburg-Block

M. D.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

Miller

T. R.

(2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240–267. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.240

32.

Roscoe

R. D.

Chi

M. T.

(2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534–574. doi:10.3102/0034654307309920

33.

Rusinek

(2008). Disaffected learners and school musical culture: an opportunity for inclusion. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(1), 9–23. doi:10.11 77/1321103X08089887

34.

Schmidt

C. P.

(2005). Relations among motivation, performance achievement, and music experience variables in secondary instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 134–147. doi:10.1177/0022429 40505300204

35.

Scruggs

B. B.

(2009). Learning outcomes in two divergent middle school string orchestra classroom environments: A comparison of a learner-centered and a teacher-centered approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta.

36.

Shively

(2004). In the face of tradition: Questioning the roles of conductors and ensemble members in school bands, choirs, and orchestras. Questioning the Music Education Paradigm, 11, 179–190.

37.

Sidwell-Frame

(2009). The effect of SmartMusic on the attitudes and achievement of 5th grade students (Unpublished thesis). Viterbo University, La Crosse, WI.

38.

Singer

J. D.

(1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23(4), 323–355. doi:10.3102/10769986023004323

39.

Smart Music [Computer software]. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.smartmusic.com

40.

Smith

B. P.

(2005). Goal orientation, implicit theory of ability, and collegiate instrumental music practice. Psychology of Music, 33(1), 36–57. doi:10.117 7/0305735605048013

41.

Topping

K. J.

(Ed.). (2001). Peer assisted learning: A practical guide for teachers. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books.

42.

Topping

K. J.

(2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172

43.

Topping

K. J.

Ehly

S. W.

(2001). Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 113–132.

44.

Van Ryzin

M. J.

Gravely

A. A.

Roseth

C. J

. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 1–12.

45.

Wellborn

J. G.

(1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and measurement of motivation in the academic domain (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

46.

Wis

R. M.

(2002). The conductor as servant-leader. Music Educators Journal, 89(2), 17–23.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB