Abstract
‘Master’ and ‘apprentice’ are terms more commonly coined than explained in the literature focused on instrumental teaching and learning. This theoretical paper explores apprenticeship as a way of understanding the practice of studio-based instruction, beginning with a brief historical overview, and going on to examine the assumptions lying behind references to the term in the research literature. It is argued that, while our understanding of apprenticeship may be richly textured and ambiguous, it is this complexity that makes it so useful in understanding a richly-textured and complex practice.
Introduction
Our use of words, in discussing music, musical skill and the acquisition of musical skill, encapsulates a good deal about our understanding of these concepts. Musical phenomena do not consist in words, and discussing them is notoriously difficult; and yet musicians do discuss them, and with some confidence, often in language particularly adapted to the purpose: ‘special jargons in which recondite, mostly inarticulate procedures and traditional lore find verbal expression that is as fragmentary as it is pointed’ (Howard, 1982, p. 5). Our traditional lore, the ‘folk psychology’ in which the language is nested, itself represents ‘the culturally-shaped notions in terms of which people organize their views of themselves, of others, and of the world in which they live’ (Bruner, 1990, p. 137).
Much of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations (1953) is devoted to demonstrating how language is naturally embedded in the active lives of its speakers, and by examining the common use of words clarifies ‘the grammar of our concepts’ (McGinn, 1997, pp. 14, 40). In this paper the tacit theories underlying our understanding of instrumental teaching and learning, as embedded in the language we use to discuss it, are examined in terms of apprenticeship.
The range of possible meanings and implications of apprenticeship is intriguingly broad and rich. The terms ‘master’ and ‘apprentice’ are often coined in the literature focused on instrumental teaching and learning, but they are rarely systematically defined, and the assumptions implied in their usage are rarely examined. The paper begins with a brief overview of apprenticeship in history, before identifying features that continue to resonate with modern approaches to instrumental teaching and learning, and the language used to contextualize it.
Apprenticeship in history
The notion of apprenticeship seems to be at least as old as the notion of education. Egan and Gajdamaschko name it as ‘the first, and most ancient, conception of the educator’s task’, being ‘the most common in human cultures across the world and . . . almost the exclusive mode of instruction in hunter-gatherer societies’ (2003, p. 83). In medieval Europe formal apprenticeships were established by the 14th century in a range of occupations, and normally involved indenture to a master, who provided bed and board as well as workplace training. The social structure of the apprenticeship system was typically formalized in guilds, which were granted by charter and associated with civic privileges and duties (Baillie, 1956, p. 6).
Although apprenticeships were chiefly characteristic of manual pursuits, it is significant to their modern descendents in professional and technical training that they were also characteristic of professions such as medicine and law (Aldrich, 1999, p. 15). In addition, the arts in medieval Europe were not normally distinguished from crafts. Thus, in discussing apprenticeship, Polanyi uses the terms art and craftsmanship interchangeably, referring to both skill and connoisseurship (1958, pp. 49–55). An outstanding example of this rather undifferentiated view of practice is the experience of Leonardo da Vinci who spent ten years from the age of 14 as pupil, apprentice and assistant to Verrocchio, before setting up his own studio. His apprenticeship ‘was certainly an education, though it took place in a workshop rather than an ancient university, it taught skills rather than intellectual accomplishments, and it was conducted in Italian rather than Latin’ (Nicholl, 2004, p. 54). Even so – and particularly in the Italian renaissance – the division between manual skills and liberal arts was not rigid. Hence Lorenzo Ghiberti in 1450: ‘It is fitting that the sculptor and painter have a solid knowledge of the following liberal arts – grammar, geometry, philosophy, medicine, astronomy, perspective, history, anatomy, theory, design and arithmetic’ (Nicholl, 2004, pp. 54–55).
In addition to the incorporation of a broad range of skills and knowledge, guilds often retained a mixed social and trade character in their membership. In medieval England for example the Guild of Parish Clerks was granted its full charter in 1444, but had previously existed as a social and religious fraternity – the Company of Parish Clerks – since 1240. Its mixed membership included men and women, musicians and non-musicians, and even interested members of the nobility: in short, the patrons of church music as well as the craftsmen producing it (Baillie, 1956, pp. 6–7).
Trade guilds declined very gradually from the mid-16th century onward (Aldrich, 1999, p. 14) and equally gradually, art and craft, trade and profession became distinct from one another. Sociologists Frederickson and Rooney (1990) assert that, until the 17th century, music was participation-oriented, with patrons among the nobility frequently taking part in early ballets and music dramas. From this point on, however, it became increasingly performance-oriented, with performers separated from an audience whose role was now to listen attentively. As ‘aesthetic standards of listening’ were established, the practice of 18th-century opera audiences meeting socially, chatting and even dining during performances died out. In spite of these general trends, Frederickson and Rooney argue that the distinction between professional and amateur has never become entirely clear, and that this is one of the features demonstrating that music never became a ‘profession’ in the modern sense (1990, pp. 192–193).
The rise of the conservatories in the 19th century was associated with the further specialization of musicians’ skills, and balanced the decline of musical apprenticeship as a formal institution (Weber, 2008). The decline of apprenticeship generally was similarly balanced by the rise of schools of technical education, as ‘it became apparent that some elements, for example basic scientific and technical knowledge necessary for [various] forms of apprenticeship, could be supplied more efficiently in the classroom than in the workplace’ (Aldrich, 1999, p.19).
In modern educational institutions the role of the traditional master has been ‘[dispersed] into a combination of college-based modules, institutional training and workplace experience’ (Gamble, 2001, p. 185). Although the conservatory may in some ways be seen as an example of this general trend, musical training retains features of traditional apprenticeship which make it unique. An obvious example is the continuing emphasis on the master–apprentice dyad, found in both conservatories and university music departments. A similar dyad is arguably to be found in the architect’s practicum and other settings for professional training, as described by Schön (1987). However, although music and other professions share an orientation toward doing, rather than knowing, musical performance retains a craft orientation in being evaluated by its product, whereas the professions, having become more standardized in their approach to training, are evaluated by their methodology (Frederickson & Rooney, 1990, pp. 10–11).
What this very brief sketch of apprenticeship in history suggests is that the picture of apprenticeship is by no means cohesive. The traditional roots of instrumental teaching and learning clearly lie within the apprenticeship approach, and this is likely to have implications for many of the concepts involved in the practice. These include the master–apprentice dyad; the nature of the subject matter, viewed in terms of either art or craft, or both; the nature of the skills involved, and whether these are acquired in a single setting or separated among several; and social aspects of both the practice and the performance of music.
Apprenticeship in music research literature
In the literature on instrumental teaching and learning, the terms ‘master’, ‘apprentice’, or the two combined are widely accepted. Jørgensen, for example, reports that the ‘master–apprentice relationship’ is historically predominant in instrumental instruction (2000, p. 68), Callaghan describes traditional vocal instruction as ‘an oral, master/apprentice process’ (1998, p. 25), while Persson applies the term ‘master-apprenticeship relationship’ generally to lessons ‘in, but not limited to, a conservatory setting’ (2000, p. 25).
The wide use of the term, however, does not reflect close agreement on its meaning, and none of these authors seeks to offer a definitive account of it. Indeed, ‘master–apprentice’ is not always clearly distinguished from other terms that might describe the relationships found in music and music education settings. For Persson, ‘master’ is elided with ‘maestro’, and his paper, subtitled ‘Deconstructing the Myth of the Musical Maestro’, blurs the distinction among ‘master performers’, teachers and conductors (2000, p. 26). For Schön, discussing what he describes as a ‘master class in musical performance’, the terms ‘master teacher’, ‘master’, ‘coach’ and ‘teacher’ are interchangeable (1987, pp. 175–176).
It may seem that a term so loosely used can have little meaning in this context. However, while music researchers and theorists have not often given their direct attention to the term itself, the fact that it is so often used suggests that there must be assumptions – perhaps common assumptions – made about its relevance. It must therefore be important to examine the ways in which apprenticeship is characterized in the context of instrumental teaching and learning, in order to identify any generally-accepted features. In the following sections, salient features are extracted from references to apprenticeship in the literature on instrumental teaching and learning, and briefly contextualized in terms of the broader literature.
Apprenticeship and the development of experiential knowledge
One assumption common among writers on instrumental teaching and learning seems to be that experiential knowledge is an essential feature of apprenticeships, in which skills rather than propositional knowledge are to be cultivated. This assumption is clear, for example, in Callaghan’s discussion of the nature of teaching and learning within the bel canto tradition of vocal training, influential since the early 17th century:
That tradition was an oral, master/apprentice process based on shared knowledge of musical form and vocal style. Because many components of the vocal mechanism could not be seen, teaching relied on expert practitioners conveying experiential knowledge to students through demonstration and description of the results to be achieved and of the accompanying sensations. (Callaghan, 1998, p. 25; italics added)
Historically, as noted previously, formal systems of apprenticeship have covered a wide range of occupations, chiefly based on crafts and professions, with music arguably representative in some ways of both. The clear emphasis on experiential knowledge tends to be associated with physical skill in crafts and trades, while the professions are associated with what Polanyi describes as connoisseurship, also to be regarded as a skill, since for example ‘the medical diagnostician’s skill is as much an art of doing as it is an art of knowing’ (1958, p. 54). Polanyi insists that such an art can only be passed on by master to apprentice: by example, not by precept (pp. 53–54).
The etymology of ‘apprenticeship’ casts some light on the acquisition of skill that it is taken to involve. From the Latin root apprehendere – to seize, or lay hold of – come two distinct verbs, apprehend and appraise. Webb explains the implications of each:
In apprehending something, properly, we learn not only to do something (as we might through instruction, mimed copying, repetition, practice), but [through appraisal] we learn also to understand the principles of operation together with that shaped knowledge which informs what we are doing. (Webb, 1999, p. 101)
Essentially, then, the skill acquired through apprenticeship involves both doing and knowing.
Apprenticeship through demonstration and imitation
Both Polanyi (1958) in his general discussion of skill acquisition, and Callaghan (1998) in her discussion of bel canto training, touch on another commonly assumed feature of musical apprenticeships: the use of demonstration and imitation. This is also clear in Jørgensen’s description of the master–apprenticeship relationship as one ‘where the dominant mode of student learning is imitation’ (2000, p. 68). In the more general literature, Polanyi describes the apprentice ‘watching the master and emulating his efforts in the presence of his example’ (1958, p. 53), and Bruner explains that know-how is acquired by imitative learners, through a modelling process that is ‘the basis of apprenticeship’ (1996, p. 53).
Accordingly, the master in instrumental teaching is expected to demonstrate a high level of expertise: thus Persson’s maestro ‘gains prominence by virtue of outstanding musical skill’ (2000, p. 25). Nerland and Hanken, describing the ‘apprenticeship-like’ education in a Norwegian higher music academy, elaborate on this point:
Students are linked directly to a teacher of a principal instrument who is, or in some cases has been, a professional musician at the highest level. Interaction with their teacher gives students the opportunity to observe and participate in profession-related practices under the supervision of an experienced ‘master’ of the discipline, thus providing them with access to crucial knowledge and standards of the discipline. (Nerland & Hanken, 2002, pp. 168–169; italics added)
‘Observe and participate’ have been highlighted here because of their significance to the issue of imitation. The nature of imitation has been much discussed in terms of instrumental teaching and learning and in learning theory generally; it seems that imitation might be represented as a continuum between a relatively passive process of direct copying, and a highly active conception of participation in a community of practice. Imitation has further implications in performance as a re-creative art, in which individuality is highly valued, and it is likely to give rise to mixed feelings among practitioners. For these reasons, some further consideration of imitation will be made parenthetically here.
Learning through imitation
It might be assumed that imitation would be indispensable in the teaching and learning of music as an aural art and a non-verbal skill. Hallam, investigating the practice strategies employed by young instrumentalists, asserts that ‘knowledge of appropriate strategies and their implementation is not useful in increasing the effectiveness of practice unless appropriate aural schemata have been developed to enable the monitoring of errors’ (2001, p. 20). Although an internal aural model may be developed in part when ‘the sounds are simply absorbed’ by the pupil, it is the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that such a model is acquired. In spite of this obvious and basic use of modelling and imitation, musicians sometimes betray anxiety about the idea of copying. Nielsen, interviewing students at a Danish conservatoire, reports:
From the interviews it was possible to trace ambivalence due to some of the students who, on the one hand, saw imitation as part of the learning process, while on the other hand, there was some resistance or reservations about imitation as a core mode of learning. In the students’ community of practice it is seen as embarrassing to copy one’s teacher. Several of the students stress that one ought not to copy one’s teacher. This gives the concept of imitation another status as something that the students negotiate among themselves, and from which, in general, they distance themselves. (Nielsen, 2006, p. 9, n. 6)
This apparent ambivalence in student attitudes toward imitation might perhaps be clarified by specifying what is to be imitated. Accuracy in rhythm and notation, tonal quality and certain aspects of technique can be quite specific in nature and it seems possible that they can be learned in no more effective way than by imitating a model. Even aspects of interpretation, such as the use of expressive gestures, can be usefully acquired, initially, in this way, though they will eventually be incorporated into the individual learner’s own expressive vocabulary. But in broad terms, individuality of interpretation is highly valued in musical performance, particularly by the time students have reached the level of higher education (Mills & Smith, 2003, p. 9; Nerland, 2007, p. 409). Although expert performers are able to incorporate aspects of masterly interpretations into their own performances, more or less consciously (Lisboa, Williamon, Zicari, & Eiholzer, 2005), it seems possible that undergraduates, still in the process of adopting professional values, might feel self-conscious about doing so.
In addition to broadening the possible applications of imitation, the understanding of the process of imitation might also be broadened. Vygotsky sought to distinguish imitation from copying, to reflect his theoretical position that ‘imitation is possible only to the extent and in those forms in which it is accompanied by understanding’ (Chaiklin, 2003, pp. 51–52). Thus conceptualized, imitation is part of a collaborative process with the more expert other. Later theorists have taken Vygotsky’s ideas further, and have variously characterized the learning process in terms of internalization and participation (Matusov, 1998, in Daniels, 2001, p. 40), apprenticeship, guided participation, and participatory appropriation (Rogoff, 1995, p. 141) and legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Any of these could arguably be situated within a musical apprenticeship.
The master as representative of a community of practice
However the learning process is characterized in the apprenticeship situation, some features of the role taken by the master would seem to remain relatively consistent. While the master’s personal expertise is given considerable emphasis by Nerland and Hanken (2002), it also seems important that the master may be regarded as a representative of, and link to, the professional community. Complementing this, too, Persson asserts that the maestro ‘legitimizes his or her instructional behaviour based on historical tradition’ (2000, p. 25). By entering the ‘practice’ of the master, the apprentice is thus given access to both the state and the history of the art. This two-dimensional effect is explained by Howard, who takes care to distinguish between ‘practice’, by which he means the art itself, and ‘practise’, which refers to the active engagement of practitioners:
The rituals of art, science, technology, and education have a similar function. Practising their rituals simultaneously exemplifies the practices of those fields and becomes a way for others to learn them – and to surpass them. Accordingly, we may distinguish the cross-sectional, ‘synchronic’ instructional pay off of practising particular facilities from the longitudinal, ‘diachronic’ pay off of traditional practices. The latter teach across historical time, as it were, from one generation to the next. The former is more a matter of identifying with the practices of a given field or discipline, of taking them into oneself, of mastering them for the sake of competency. That is very like a process of initiation into a tradition by aspiration, demonstration, and precept. (Howard, 1992, p. 103; italics original)
In the broader literature on learning as a social practice, such issues are discussed in terms of the learner’s access to a community of practice. This access might be viewed from the perspective of either the master or the apprentice: the apprentice gains access to the practice, through the master’s (present) skill and (past) experience, while the master’s sponsorship confers legitimacy on the apprentice as a newcomer to the practice. Wenger notes the parallel between this aspect of the master–apprentice relationship and that between university tutors and their doctoral students seeking entry to academic communities (Wenger, 1998, p. 101).
The apprenticeship as a source of identity
Clearly related to the notion of entering a practice is the development of the learner’s personal identity which is often assumed in discussions of musical apprenticeships. One of the most fully described examples comes from Manturzewska (1990), who uses the term ‘master–student relationship’ to characterize a stage in the lifespan development of professional musicians, reaching a peak at 18–20 years of age and typically ending with graduation from a higher music academy. Manturzewska’s research makes a study of 165 professional musicians in Poland, aged 21 to 89, and her findings are no doubt specific, to some extent, to their own cultural traditions. Even so, the stage of development she describes clearly has some resonance with Sosniak’s study of 24 American concert pianists, for whom ‘[t]he most critical step in the transition from being a talented teenage pianist to becoming a professional performing soloist seems to be that of moving to a master teacher’ (1985a, p. 59). The ‘master–teacher’ is given central importance in Manturzewska’s description of this stage:
An important factor in the optimal artistic and professional development of musicians . . . is the personality, musical competence, and personal culture of the teacher. The future musician’s personality now develops within the ‘master–student’ relationship. This relationship is paramount for the entire future career. In this stage of life the musician usually forms deep friendships, lasting the rest of his or her life. The teacher–master (if the musician was lucky enough to find one) does not only concentrate on the technical side of the student’s performance, but steers the development of the entire personality. The master helps choose books, not only on music; passes on his or her professional and non-professional experience, and together with the student studies the musical literature and discovers the beauty of the world of music. He or she accompanies the student to concerts and auditions, lets the student sit in at lessons with other students, steers the student’s initiation in the world of musical values and conventions, introduces the student into professional circles, and helps him or her enter the professional market and international arena. He or she often helps the student to make personal decisions. Within this ever-deepening ‘master–student’ relationship the personality, aesthetic attitudes, life philosophy, professional standards and attitudes toward his or her own artistic and professional activity and the role of musician in contemporary society are developed in the future musician. (Manturzewska, 1990, pp. 134–135)
It is interesting that Manturzewska’s description of the master’s role moves so far beyond purely musical issues, and it seems that the master’s considerable authority and influence extend to the development of the student’s career and cultural sense, as well as – perhaps most importantly – identity. Of course, the students in her study had become professional performers, and we might wonder whether the amount and nature of attention they had received from their masters could be enjoyed by all instrumental and vocal students; Manturzewska herself allows that even these highly successful students had to be ‘lucky enough to find’ the kind of master she describes. In principle, however, the notion of identifying with the master seems common enough, with Jørgensen in his brief characterization of apprenticeship remarking that the master is ‘usually looked at as a role model and a source of identification for the student’ (2000, p. 68).
The master–apprentice relationship
The personal and even emotional nature of the relationship between master and apprentice is often emphasized. Nerland and Hanken discuss the ‘apprentice-like organization’ of teaching in terms of ‘close ties and intimacy’, with a ‘mentor or even parental role that many principal instrument teachers tend to acquire for their students’. This is associated with the nature of the subject matter: ‘Working with the music implies that both student and teacher must expose themselves emotionally, and therefore they grow closer to each other on a personal level’ (2002, p. 180). The emotional attachment to music recalls Kingsbury’s comparison of an American college of music to a seminary, inspiring a sense of commitment that ‘seems more personal, moral, and emotional than professional or economic’ (1988, pp. 19–20).
There is little or no reference to emotional commitment in the historical studies of apprenticeship, perhaps because the affective aspect of learning is very much a modern concern; but there is an interesting parallel to be found in a recent study of apprenticeship among Kyrgiz nomads in central Asia, who explain the mastery of traditional crafts in terms of ‘birth talent’, and for whom skill might not necessarily be connected with economic activities:
Many essential features of nomadic high culture [such as the making of special felt wedding carpets known as shyrdak] are not connected with trade. The motivation for making such work and for becoming skilful is uncomplicated by profit motives. This shows an important dimension to being skilful and to apprenticeship that is often overlooked – the love of being skilful and of making – the love of the job and the desire to give. (Bunn, 1999, p. 82)
The intrinsic motivation in students of music, along with the notion of talent, are fundamental assumptions in the practice of instrumental performance. Thus Jørgensen, in an overview of research into the motivation of student music teachers in America, cites the ‘love of music’ as a strong influence for ‘nearly all’ of the students (2009, p. 70). The person of the master, however, may also be described as a source of motivation for the student. Uszler, referring to piano lessons in particular, characterises the master in this way, and depicts a dominating figure:
The master is the model who demonstrates, directs, comments, and inspires. The apprentice is the disciple who watches, listens, imitates, and seeks approval. Although the authoritarian position assumed by the master is open to question and criticism, notably by those who advocate learner-oriented teaching and by proponents of adult education, the presence of a master model is a powerful, universal motivating force. (Uszler, 1992, p. 584)
The authority of the master
The master’s authority is clearly related to the issue of power relations which, according to Lave and Wenger, characterizes ‘every concrete case’ of apprenticeship (1991, p. 64). According to Nerland and Hanken, authority is ‘a crucial and productive resource in the teacher–student interaction’ (2002, p. 168), and ‘such dominant authority . . . is not only accepted, but also desired and even sought after among the students’ (p. 172).
The dominance of the master in an apprenticeship situation is, however, not always assumed. Nielsen, preparing a background to his discussion of teaching and learning in a Danish academy of music, points out that the characteristics of apprenticeship vary in the traditions of different countries:
Apprenticeship is translated differently in Scandinavia and Anglo-Saxon countries. In Anglo-Saxon countries, focus is placed on how apprentices learn from being a part of a community of practice. However, in Scandinavia apprenticeship can be translated as ‘master learning’ (mesterlæ) and focus is placed on how the apprentice learns from working with the master. (Nielsen, 2006, p. 3)
The Anglo-Saxon interpretation of the term is shared by Schön, who distinguishes between an apprenticeship, in which the novice enters a genuine practice that is not designed for her education, and a practicum, ‘designed for the task of learning a practice’ (Schön, 1987, p. 37). In the practicum, the student is engaged with an approximation of ‘real-world projects’, in ‘simulated, partial or protected form’. Guidance is provided by the ‘studio master’, whose role is not necessarily a dominant one; Schön envisages instead an environment in which learning may be stimulated through group participation:
From time to time, these [studio masters] may teach in the conventional sense, communicating information, advocating theories, describing examples of practice. Mainly, however, they function as coaches whose main activities are demonstrating, advising, questioning, and criticizing. Most practicums involve groups of students who are often as important to one another as the coach. Sometimes they play the coach’s role. And it is through the medium of the group that a student can immerse himself in the world of the practicum – the all-encompassing worlds of a design studio, a musical conservatory, or psychoanalytic supervision, for example – learning new habits of thought and action. Learning by exposure and immersion, background learning often proceeds without conscious awareness, although a student may become aware of it later on, as he moves into a different setting. (Schön, 1987, p. 38)
Although Schön considers the musical conservatory, here, as an example of a general type of educational setting, his description has some resonance with Sosniak’s study of American pianists, which draws attention to the role played by other student members of the master teacher’s class:
[I]t wasn’t until they began working with a master teacher that they shared the company of others with aspirations and abilities similar to theirs day after day . . . The ‘group’ of young pianists provided exciting comradeship and frightening competition. The pianists used the group to compare notes about what they were being asked to do and how they were going about learning to do it, and occasionally to commiserate with each other about the abuse they were taking from their teachers. They shared gossip and tidbits of knowledge about competitions, performances, and other such experiences. They went to hear important performances together, and they went to movies or played cards together. (Sosniak 1985a, p. 64)
The communal learning found – if not often noted – among students of classical music may be far more significant in non-classical genres. In a detailed questionnaire study of 244 adult musicians, Creech et al. (2008) found that the developmental profiles of students varied with the genre involved:
Classical musicians tended to have begun to engage with music at an earlier age and were influenced musically by parents, instrumental or vocal teachers and formal groups. Conversely, non-classical musicians tended to be slightly older in their formative musical encounters and report that they typically were most influenced by well-known performers and informal groups. (Creech et al., 2008, p. 230).
This impression is supported by Lebler (2007) who offers some reflections on the teaching and learning of popular music in higher education, and reports that students’ previous experience is often based on learning ‘through informal means and peer-based experiences rather than under the tuition of a personal expert mentor’ (p. 208). In contrast to the traditional approach to the principal study area in conservatoire training, he describes a conception of popular music studies in terms of a ‘masterless studio’ rather than individual lessons (p. 207).
There is apparently a range of views then about the level of authority that might be represented by the master, which presumably varies with the characteristics of individual participants as well as musical genres. The variety might also be explained by distinguishing between group and individual settings. Whereas participation in group activity as described by Schön would seem to imply a relatively decentralized organization, Nerland and Hanken assert that ‘great authority’ in masters is associated not only with their professional status but with the one-to-one relationship developed in individual instrumental lessons (2004, p. 4). Sosniak, interestingly, describes students in groups of a supportive social character, but also adds that master classes, where individual students are taught with an audience of peers, were ‘[p]erhaps the most anxiety-provoking situations’ (1985a, p. 64). It seems that, in such situations, the presence of fellow apprentices might actually reinforce the master’s authority.
The role of the apprentice
Broadly, it seems that instrumental lessons can be considered at once representative of ‘real-world’ practice, through the figure of the master, and separate from it, in being designed for learning. The extent to which the apprentice is regarded as participating in genuine practice, therefore, is variable. Kingsbury, in his study of a ‘conservatory cultural system’, emphasizes the relatively advanced standing of many of its students:
[P]rofessions such as law, medicine and nursing are regulated by governmental licensing agencies, and students in law schools, for instance, are precluded from practising law until after finishing school and obtaining the appropriate license. By contrast, many students come to the conservatory as already developed performing musicians, and conservatory students are frequently engaged at least part-time as wage-earning performers, and have a certain self-image as ‘professional’ musicians. (Kingsbury, 1988, p. 19)
Nerland, studying ‘cultural practice’ in a Norwegian academy of music, also identifies specific connections between educational practice within the institution and professional practice beyond it. The education of professional musicians is described generally as ‘apprenticeship-like’ (2001, p. 1), but beneath that general title some subtle distinctions are made among the approaches taken by teachers through a careful consideration of individual case studies. The practice of one teacher is described as being framed by concert performance, with the lesson to some extent a simulation of one. Thus, within the lesson, the student takes a position ‘as on a stage’, while the teacher positions himself as ‘critical audience’ five metres away; instruction is driven by the performance product rather than by the process of preparation represented by the student’s individual practice (p. 5). In contrast, a second teacher explicitly prepares his students for an orchestral career, with instruction focused more on their individual practice:
The teacher sees it as important not to organize his teaching as a ‘blind institution’. . . but rather to open up the boundaries between the practice in his teaching studio and the other activities in which the students participate. As an effect of this style of reasoning, the students are encouraged to bring in repertoire and problems they are working on in other situations into the teaching situation. (Nerland, 2001, p. 9)
It seems that although the practice of instrumental performance in higher education brings with it some of the older traditions of apprenticeship, particularly in the distinction between expert and novice, there is also some scope for softening that distinction and for viewing participants as members with varying degrees of expertise in a decentralized community of practice.
The apprenticeship setting
Although the instrumental tutorial may be designed for learning, it is also expected to exhibit features of ‘real-world practice’, or close simulations of it. Folkestad (2005, 2006) argues that, in considering learning, there need not be a clear cut dichotomy between informal settings and settings designed specifically for education. He suggests, as an alternative, a continuum based on five sub-concepts of music education proposed by Jorgensen (1997). The continuum begins with schooling, and in which ‘the idea is that the student develops from novice to expert as a result of a sequenced exposure to teaching’ (Folkestad, 2006, p. 139). At the opposite end of the continuum are socialization and then enculturation, in which the learning is ‘socially contextualized . . . within a specific domain or practice’ and ultimately within ‘isolated traditions or considerable blocs of custom’ (p. 139). Folkestad concludes that the distinction between formal and informal learning need not be dependent on whether it takes place within an institutional setting (p. 142).
The institutional setting of course cannot be expected to exhibit a single cohesive practice, particularly given the hybrid nature of traditions contributing to it. Apprenticeship has been examined here chiefly in the light of the western classical tradition, but other musical styles such as jazz, folk and popular music are often characterized in terms of apprenticeship, and these are well represented, particularly in modern university music departments. Alongside the variety of attitudes among musicians of classical and non-classical traditions, identified by Creech et al. (2008), research focused on individual lessons in the university setting has revealed distinct patterns of behaviour associated with the traditions of ‘conservatoire’ and ‘non-conservatoire’ instruments, and in instrumental as distinct from vocal tuition (Burwell, 2006).
If the institution itself is taken to be a community of practice, then, it should also be acknowledged that it will draw upon and overlap with many others. Wenger discusses this in terms of boundary processes – asserting that learning communities must push their own boundaries to interact with others – and multi-membership, through which various traditions of practice should be reconciled within the institution (1998, p. 274).
Theorizing apprenticeship
The description of the features of apprenticeship offered in this paper is intentionally indefinite. Paraphrasing Wittgenstein, defining apprenticeship could only succeed with reference to a circumscribed region of it, and not for the whole of what we are attempting to describe (Wittgenstein, 1953, p. 3; italics added). The very multiplicity of meanings attached to apprenticeship is what persuaded Lave and Wenger to avoid the term, rather than ‘rescue’ it (1991, p. 29), and their theory of situated learning, broadly focused on learning as an everyday aspect of communities of practice, is instead described as legitimate peripheral participation. Because of the ‘long and varied train of historically and culturally specific realizations’ associated with apprenticeship (p. 31), Lave and Wenger argue that the use of the term with reference to learning theory would be metaphorical.
Apprenticeship as metaphor is found in the work of Rogoff (1995) who names it as one of three inseparable layers in sociocultural activity: in this theoretical model, apprenticeship, guided participation and participatory appropriation are planes of focus accounting for the institutional, the interpersonal, and the personal, respectively (p. 141). In keeping with the notion of situated learning, the idea of apprenticeship is broadened so that it may be applied to everyday practice rather than limited to educational settings:
This metaphor extends the idea of craft apprenticeship to include participation in any other culturally organized activity, such as other kinds of work, schooling, and family relations. The idea of apprenticeship necessarily focuses attention on the specific nature of the activity involved, as well as on its relation to practices and institutions of the community in which it occurs – economic, political, spiritual, and material. (Rogoff, 1995, p. 142)
The consideration of apprenticeship-like situations in terms of everyday social practices is by no means irrelevant to instrumental teaching and learning, and indeed Nielsen, in a study set in a Danish academy of music, adopts the terms of situated learning in order to investigate circumscribed regions of the practice: specifically, ‘how apprentices learn with little being taught’ (1999, p. 2). Nielsen describes apprenticeship as a ‘frame of inspiration’ which need not be considered ‘mediaeval, concrete and context-bound’ (p. 232), and he uses the frame to draw attention to transparency, imitation and scaffolding as theoretical features of apprenticeship.
Of course, no study or theory can account for every aspect of instrumental teaching and learning, given the flexibility, complexity and dynamism in the practice. The same description might be made, however, of apprenticeship, and this is what makes it so apt a way of understanding instrumental teaching and learning. The features described in this paper are often variable and ambiguous, amounting to family resemblances that are likely but not guaranteed to be present in any specific case. So long as we keep the variety and ambiguity in mind, apprenticeship may provide us with valuable and meaningful access to the dimensions of music education.
Apprenticeship and instrumental teaching and learning
It would seem that, given the complex nature of skills involved in the subject matter of instrumental teaching and learning, apprenticeship may offer a suitably complex way of understanding how such teaching and learning takes place. Apprenticeship has been historically associated with the fostering of musical performance skills, preceding the development of the conservatoire model. Historical apprenticeships traditionally embraced a wide range of skills, from art to craft, and from skill to connoisseurship. A background of mixed social and trade character coincides with the notion that, in music, professional and amateur have never been sharply divided; and the master–apprentice dyad remains characteristic of most instrumental teaching and learning today, whether it takes place within institutions or in other settings.
An examination of references to apprenticeship in literature focused on instrumental teaching and learning reveals some common assumptions about what it entails: these include the acquisition of experiential knowledge or skill; the use of demonstration and imitation; the master positioned as representative of the practice, with a high level of expertise; the apprenticeship as a source of identity for the learner; and the important and rather particular nature of the master–apprentice relationship.
These historical features and assumptions will presumably vary in each concrete case, and would seem to comprise a loosely related set of possibilities rather than a well-formed and specific social institution. Elements such as the affective aspects of learning and the roles that might be taken by the apprentice will vary with individuals as well as settings, though there is some evidence to remind us that the ‘love of the job’ is a source of motivation shared by ‘almost all’ students of music. In addition, the place of the educational institution in each individual case may overlap with and influence the traditional frameworks of apprenticeship. In spite of the variety exhibited among specific instances, apprenticeship would seem to offer researchers a set of related issues that might help to contextualize interactions with the instrumental lesson.
The assumptions behind terms associated with apprenticeship, which tend to be coined rather than explained in the literature specific to instrumental teaching and learning, have been examined in terms of historical precedents and general usage, as well as applications in music education research. Many of the features of apprenticeship have resonance with modern practice, and it seems well worth reviewing them in order to appreciate their multidimensional nature. Imitation is an important example in that it can refer to copying, something that music students are likely to see as embarrassing and to be resisted (Nielsen, 2006, p. 9, n. 6). In the context of learning the complex skills of musical performance, however, imitation, demonstration and experiential knowledge are closely entwined, and the usefulness and perhaps indispensability of imitation depends on what is being imitated. Conceiving of the learning situation as a social practice, too, supports the interpretation of imitation as a far broader activity that depends on the learner’s current and potential understanding, and may involve participation in collaborative behaviour.
Similarly, the presence of power relations in the apprenticeship setting is a feature exhibiting several dimensions. It is often associated with a highly commanding position occupied by the master. Thus the master–teacher described by Manturzewska (1990) seems to take command of almost every aspect of the student’s life – ‘personality, aesthetic attitudes, life philosophy, professional standards and attitudes’ (p. 135) – while in the lesson behaviour described by Uszler the master ‘demonstrates, directs, comments, and inspires’ (1992, p. 584). Not all of these characteristics sit comfortably with the aims and learning outcomes espoused by the modern university. Even less palatable is the power abuse implied in Sosniak’s account of an American master teacher, whose student found him an impossible and intimidating taskmaster (1985b, p. 421). In contrast, however, it has been argued that the master’s authority can be an invaluable resource for teaching and there is evidence suggesting that students actively seek and maintain it (Nerland & Hanken, 2002, p. 172).
Authority as sought by students must be related to the position of the master as representative of the professional discipline; it touches on the affective aspects of learning, given that an emotional investment is likely to be made by the musical apprentice, and it serves to emphasize the perceived importance of a high level of expertise, and the ability to demonstrate it. The issue is complex, but in spite of a rich and ambiguous texture, or perhaps because of it, authority, like apprenticeship itself, would seem to provide a meaningful sense of context for instrumental teaching and learning as a rich and complex practice.