Developing student autonomy in the one-to-one music lesson

Abstract

As a practitioner in both the classroom and in the instrumental studio, I am interested in how one educational context might inform the other. Within an action research paradigm, I gave a violin lesson in front of colleagues as a means to gain feedback and to open up discussion on the concept of student autonomy within the one-to-one lesson. The enquiry was informed by recent literature within the music education field that calls for a new emphasis on informal learning principles and pedagogy for engaging students. I consider some of the key concepts of informal music learning from the influential Musical Futures classroom project as a means to reflect on the potential for developing student autonomy within the instrumental teaching context. Forms of knowledge and the distinction between knowledge content (the curriculum or “the what” of teaching) and the pedagogy (“the how”) are identified as significant conceptual distinctions for theorizing and realizing teachers’ work in the one-to-one context. I suggest that while traditional instrumental teaching models can be enhanced by informal and constructivist approaches to pedagogy, there are limits to the application of these principles because of the nature of the knowledge required in this learning context.

Keywords

action research instrumental pedagogy music teacher development one-to-one music teaching student autonomy

In the paper “Crossing boundaries: sharing concepts of music teaching from classroom to studio” (McPhail, 2010), I reported on the analysis of my violin teaching in relation to theoretical propositions and criteria derived from the literature on both one-to-one music teaching and general education. In that paper, I reported that the traditional model of teaching in the individual instrumental lesson is characterized by a teacher-dominated transmission of knowledge (Daniel, 2006). Current discourses in education however emphasize the importance of what is broadly termed constructivism – an approach to teaching where teachers and students “construct” and contextualize learning together (Fosnot, 1996; Golding, 2011; Larochelle, Bednarz, & Garrison, 1998; Stalhammar, 2000). This evolution towards involving the student in the process of curriculum construction, and the blurring of the distinction between curriculum and pedagogy, creates particular challenges for instrumental music teachers who have a considerable body of pre-determined technical and musical knowledge to impart; an apparent inherent instructivist emphasis. As a result of a review of the literature in the earlier paper (McPhail, 2010), it was suggested that instrumental teachers needed to consider ways to increase student ownership as a means of enhancing a broader educational purpose for the one-to-one instrumental lesson at pre-tertiary level. Some concepts from general classroom research were transferred to the one-to-one lesson with the aim of enhancing student ownership through developing more autonomous approaches to learning. This article continues the exploration of the cross-over of knowledge between the classroom and studio by considering the potential application of the principles of what has become known as informal learning (Folkestad, 2006). The principles of informal music learning as theorized and reported by Green (2002, 2008) are utilized as a focus because of the wide and growing influence of the Musical Futures program in music classrooms around the world (Allsup, 2008; Wright & Kanellopoulos, 2010). It is likely that instrumental teachers’ work can be enhanced by awareness of different pedagogical models (the “how” of teaching) that may be helpful in developing and sustaining student engagement in the instrumental learning process (Daniel, 2006; McPhail, 2010). The central question asked is how might curriculum and pedagogy be enhanced and made more “horizontal” within a necessarily “vertical” knowledge discourse (Bernstein, 2000).

The first part of this discussion considers the concept of autonomy as an educational aim. I then outline the principles of informal music learning as realized in the Musical Futures classroom program (Green, 2008) in which a high level of autonomy is given to students. These principles are considered in relation to Bernstein’s (2000) constructs of vertical and horizontal knowledge forms. I suggest that the distinction between knowledge (the curriculum content) and pedagogy (teaching strategies and approaches) is a significant factor in theorizing how a constructivist approach to pedagogy might be compatible with a vertical, largely pre-determined, and necessarily sequential curriculum. While “curriculum” can be seen as a multi-dimensional concept (Jorgensen, 2002) in this context (one-to-one instrumental teaching), I use the term in a somewhat narrow sense to describe the content of lessons, predominantly the sequence of musical repertoire and technical material as planned by the teacher and experienced by the student. Pedagogy on the other hand is the means through which students engage with the curriculum (Young, 2010). Extracts of a violin lesson given in front of colleagues as part of a professional development forum are discussed as a means to promote discussion on how some facets of student autonomy might be realized in practice.

Theoretical considerations

One-to-one teaching and student autonomy

That education is not an affair of “telling” and being told, but an active and constructive process, is a principle almost generally violated in practice as conceded in theory. (Dewey, 1916/2007, p. 49)

The development of student autonomy as an educational aim has a long history, as the quote above from John Dewey illustrates. Green (2008) suggests that a belief in the value of personal autonomy has “entered into the commonsense assumptions of educational policy and practice in a number of areas” (p. 103). Autonomy is a key ingredient, for example, in the development of intrinsic motivation in self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and in a more general sense the term has gained prominence in recent literature concerned with effective pedagogy (see for example Alton-Lee, 2003). In this article, I use the term in relation to the development of self-regulation and navigation in learning, or what Wright and Kanellopoulos (2010) describe as “the deliberate process of searching for and reflecting upon the rules of musical practice” (p. 84). Skills such as diagnostics, strategizing, and evaluation contribute to intrinsic self-regulation in musical learning (McPherson & Zimmerman, 2002). The focus is on the method or the how of self-regulation following Hallam’s argument that “practice will only become purposeful and self-determined when a student acquires a range of task-oriented strategies to draw on” (Hallam, 1997, cited in McPherson & Zimmerman, 2002, p. 333). The development of autonomy is a scaffolded process whereby students increase their levels of skill in self-monitoring, strategizing, and taking responsibility for and ownership of the learning process (Hallam, 2001b). Meta-analyses from the classroom literature suggest that the key ingredients for instructional success and improving student outcomes include active participation by students in challenging and clearly defined tasks, combined with explicit evaluative criteria and targeted feedback (Alton-Lee, 2003; Hattie, 2009; Muller & Gamble, 2010; Rosenhine, Froehlich, & Fakhouri, 2002). Within the context of instrumental tuition, where older students are generally responsible for monitoring their own practice in the days between lessons, the development of autonomy is particularly significant.

Informal learning – a model for instrumental teaching? The concept of informal learning and its place in the music education of both students and trainee teachers has become a prominent theme in the literature in recent times (Davis & Blair, 2011; Feichas, 2010; Finney & Philpott, 2010; Folkestad, 2006; Wright & Kanellopoulos, 2010). Campbell (2001) has described informal learning as socially-controlled, non-linear, cooperative learning and this approach has been researched and realized extensively in classroom contexts in the Musical Futures program (Green, 2008). The question asked in this article is how might instrumental teaching begin to draw on informal “horizontal” learning practices (Bernstein, 2000) as well as the literature on teacher effectiveness? Autonomy within the Musical Futures approach allows students to work in self-selected groups and have control over the selection of curriculum content (the songs chosen to learn to play), and aspects of pedagogy such as sequencing and pacing of learning. Autonomy is seen as students being given the opportunity to “direct their own learning practices” (Green, 2008, p. 102). The role of the teacher is one of facilitator, guide, and model as student needs determine, and learning by ear is the predominant medium.

Adapting such an approach within the necessarily sequentially structured discipline of instrumental learning is likely to be problematic since the focus is on an individual learning an instrument within the accepted norms and conventions of specific musical practices, a sort of musical apprenticeship that “serves as a crucible for teaching music to each new generation of students” (Kennell, 2002, p. 252). Nevertheless the implications and success of Green’s (2008) work warrants consideration in relation to instrumental teaching. For example, student repertoire choice could be introduced within parameters such as choosing between a number of teacher selected pieces or occasional choice of music by the student.¹ Learning by ear is not foreign to all classical approaches but reading at the expense of musical encounters is often an outcome of much instrumental tuition to the detriment of student engagement (Swanwick, 2002). Other dimensions of musicianship foregrounded in informal learning such as improvising, composing, and appreciating feel over technical perfection can be readily integrated into instrumental lessons (Harris & Crozier, 2000; Marks, 2004; Regelski, 2007). However the broader findings from student interviews in Green’s work (2008, p. 102) which relate primarily to pedagogy rather than curriculum may have more direct transference as guiding principles for the instrumental teacher:

Enjoyment is lessened where learning is perceived as carrying out instructions from teachers.

Students liked working things out for themselves with resulting higher levels of satisfaction.

Students valued having control over pace, structure and progression.

Students suggested that the informal learning approaches be interspersed with more formal approaches.

These findings suggest that a pedagogy that provides students with some autonomy within the necessarily more formal structures of the individual lesson is likely to be a productive approach. Perhaps the most problematic part of the informal music learning approach from the instrumental teaching perspective is that of a student-directed sequence of skill development and repertoire choice. Given the longer term commitment involved in instrumental learning there are clear benefits for utilizing pre-developed approaches and repertoire which have evolved in the field over time. The foundations, particularly technical, laid in place at the outset, should enhance the potential for later musical progress. There is necessarily a strong link between sequential skill development and repertoire.

Distinguishing between curriculum and pedagogy

Green (2008) suggests that both content (the curriculum) and pedagogy are significant factors in increasing levels of student engagement within classroom music but that pedagogy has the greater impact. Young (2010) too argues that the conceptual distinction between curriculum and pedagogy is a significant one: “the curriculum needs to be seen as having a purpose of its own: the intellectual development of students” (p. 24), whereas pedagogy “refers to the activities of teachers in motivating students and to helping them engage with the curriculum” (p. 23). The curriculum content of music learning within the traditions of classical instrumental paradigm is necessarily less flexible than a music classroom program can be. The trajectory of learning an instrument within the traditional model has an in-built verticality. In this regard the knowledge required exhibits characteristics of what Bernstein (2000) terms a vertical discourse where students are introduced to the systemized theoretical concepts and content they need to progress to higher-order thinking and skill acquisition within clearly defined disciplinary boundaries.

Instrumental music teaching, however, also resembles Bernstein’s definition of a horizontal discourse in that it often sits outside formal schooling institutions in a recreational community context and involves a high level of skill acquisition through concrete doing, bringing it close to Martin’s “horizontal discourses of a specialised kind” (cited in Gamble, 2010, p. 123) and Muller and Gamble’s (2010) understanding of horizontal discourses as “understood experientially and through the senses” (p. 505). However reviews of the literature clearly suggest that one-to-one teaching practices within the Western instrumental paradigm are highly verbal and conceptual despite the ultimate goal being a sonic one (Daniel, 2006; Kennell, 2002). Unlike transmission practices in craft or informal arenas of music learning which are largely tacit, it appears that much one-to-one music tuition crosses the horizontal–vertical boundary by its reliance on language and the explicit development of concepts (Gamble, 2010).²

The next section summarizes the main concepts to emerge from the violin lesson mentioned in the introduction of the article. The lesson was informed by the theoretical discussion above and aimed to incorporate aspects of student autonomy. In particular Green’s four findings listed above were guiding concepts for practice and analysis and were integrated into the teaching goals.³ The lesson was given in front of a group of instrumental teachers at a professional development forum with the aim of gaining feedback from colleagues and stimulating discussion in relation to developing student autonomy.

A violin lesson as action research

Within the broad interpretivist paradigm action research provides a mechanism for practitioners to theorize and to evaluate their own work and then to instigate immediate action based on a new critical awareness of their practice (Cain, 2010; McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead, 2002). Action research can provide a semi-formal means through which to ask questions related to practice and to relate these to broader concerns within the field. In this case, the questions being asked are “am I engaging the student in autonomous practices?” and “are there aspects of informal music learning principles which might be applicable to my instrumental teaching?” Despite criticism within the literature that action research is only likely to produce “little k knowledge” (Cain, 2010) the position taken here is that there is the potential for practitioners to relate small-scale projects to “big K knowledge,” that is, knowledge that is generated “cumulatively . . . and passed from one generation to the next through the institutions of formal education” (Garvey & Williamson, as quoted in Cain, 2010, p.163). This can be an important part of professional reflection at the level of practice within a community.

Opportunities for professional development and dialogue for instrumental teachers who work privately within their communities in New Zealand are quite limited. I was able to utilize a professional development session for instrumental teachers organized by ABRSM to share ideas on developing student autonomy. I presented a summary of the principles of informal music-learning (Green, 2008) and concepts from the general education literature on teacher effectiveness (Alton-Lee, 2003; Hattie, 2009). With these concepts from the literature in mind, I conducted a lesson with a violin student asking the observers to reflect on what they saw and to critique this after the lesson. This undertaking was exploratory in the sense that that there was not a series of interventions within a cycle of investigation, but the session provided the opportunity to present some theoretical ideas and to gain immediate feedback from colleagues in a community of enquiry (Cain, 2010). Within the action research paradigm, this could be seen as a form of peer validation (McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead, 2003); a critique of practice with colleagues as “critical friends.” The purpose of including the lesson in the seminar was to see if practice might be guided by these principles (see literature discussed above) and in what ways colleagues might see enhancements or limits to the applicability of these principles in the one-to-one teaching context. A sound recording was made for later analysis in relation to an overarching regulative “action ideal” (after Regelski, 2004) and more detailed criteria derived from both the general education literature on teacher effectiveness and informal learning principles (see Note 3).

Observations and discussion

The student in the lesson (who we will call Susan) is a 15-year-old girl with whom I have had an established teaching relationship for some years. This lesson was observed by a group of instrumental music teachers and this has some obvious effects on the lesson’s authenticity; nevertheless we attempted to give a snap-shot of a lesson that is typical for us. The lesson aimed to illustrate the use of pedagogy to encourage student autonomy through co-construction of the lesson structure and some aspects of the content. The points noted here were brought up in discussion with teachers and have been related back to the literature where appropriate links can be made.

Student choice within curriculum parameters

Susan is familiar with the teacher-devised categories of activity that provide a possible structure for her lessons and for home practice, and she is able to make a choice for how she wants the lesson to begin. Possible activities include warm-ups, problematic technical extracts (“boxes” for use in “practice mode”), review of established pieces (“performance mode” in which established pieces are played from memory), and a mixture of technical study material and new repertoire. The concept of working in either “practice” or “performance” mode (McPhail, 2010) provides a macro structure for the lesson and for home practice, while relatively constant technical components (progressing vertically) and relatively fluid musical components (adding varied knowledges) provide content at the micro level. Awareness of these structures enabled Susan to make choices about how she wanted the lesson to unfold.

In the discussion with teachers, a number of practical ways in which student autonomy could be further encouraged and developed were discussed. Of note was a procedure aimed at providing more student choice in repertoire selection. The suggestion was that the teacher or student finds a piece (in any style, with or without a recording and score), and the student undertakes the initial learning stages completely unsupervised, bringing the piece to a lesson when ready for input from the teacher. If the piece is student-chosen, then some teacher input into checking an appropriate balance between technical challenge and achievability may be required so the undertaking is not demotivating. The task could be undertaken not only to develop and demonstrate autonomous learning skills but also to enhance music reading if the piece chosen has a score, or working by ear, if the student is working from a recording rather than a score. The exact nature and appropriateness of such a learning project would depend, and vary, according to the age and stage of the student.

Deliberate practice strategies – diagnosis and action

Colleagues noted that there was considerable reliance in the lesson on prior knowledge built up over time between the teacher and pupil, in particular the idea of using specific practice techniques as a means to solving technical problems. There was also an expectation that the student was able to recognize the areas requiring attention and then utilize from a “tool kit” of techniques some apposite approaches to overcome the particular challenges. An explicit use of such strategies is a means through which autonomy in practice can be developed. The use of a structure, largely tacit in this lesson, comprising the establishment of a clearly defined task, choice of technique to work at the task, and then consideration of a way of measuring the progress, was observed and discussed. In summary, this involves recognizing errors and/or identifying difficulties and challenges, assessing requirements for working at these challenges, taking appropriate action by choosing deliberate practice strategies from a repertoire of techniques (which also involves matching the right tool for the problem), and finally monitoring progress. This broadly aligns with Zimmerman’s three phases of self-regulation: forethought, performance control, and self-reflection (cited in McPherson & Zimmerman, 2002, p. 340) and Hattie’s (2009) conception of feedback (task, process, and self-regulation) which he describes as “one of the most powerful influences on achievement” (p.173). The explicit utilization of such structures through naming them is enabling for both student and teacher (Gamble, 2010). Such approaches also reduce the amount of instruction from teachers and students are encouraged to perceive activities as problem-solving undertakings where they have some control over pace, structure, and progression (Green, 2008, p. 102).

For the main part of the lesson, Susan chooses to play an Allegro movement from a Handel violin sonata. I then ask her if she would like to go into “performance mode” and do “a lap” of the piece. A lap can be begun at any point with the aim of playing through to the starting place with no stops. This is a diagnostic exercise to ascertain how things are going overall.

T (Teacher):

We’ll both make a mental list of any troublesome bits – there might not be any.

S (Susan):

[Plays the movement from the beginning with some errors of continuity]

After playing through the piece, I guide Susan to reflect on aspects that need attention, utilizing various practice strategies:

Good work. Some very fine tone and accurate intonation. Let’s pretend you are home, I’m not here, and you’ve played the piece just like that. What happens next?

I check out the spots that went wrong.

Show me what you are going to do first?

Probably these areas [the student indicates a few bars on the music].

Do they have a similarity?

Fast notes.

Fast notes. Show me the first spot. Is it just a fast note problem? Can you look at the pattern and see if you can actually see another problem?

[pause] String changing?

Yes, string crossing, so it’s not so much that the notes are hard for you it’s the string crossing. Can you give me two ways to practice these two bars?

Changing rhythms and doubles.

Yes, and slurred and also playing without the notes, just open strings would be very useful.

Oh, yes.

Because of the string crossing the rhythm change makes you have to get to the new string quicker than normal and that will be really useful. This makes it harder to practice but easier in the long term. [S plays with some help from T] Good, this is a technique we call “making it harder to make it easier.” So there are four ways. My suggestion is four ways for four days and then…

“The 7-stages of misery”?⁴

Yes. That’s your measure of how things are going.

Classification and framing

By placing listening as a central activity in the learning of a new piece, students build and utilize an aural schema (Hallam, 2001a). This listening also develops familiarity with the expected norms of practice within the genre as students hear mature playing of recording artists or the teacher as a model for development. In Bernstein’s terms, the knowledge is strongly classified through evaluative criteria (there is a clear standard of musical practice in sight or “in ear”), but in this lesson, this was accompanied by weaker (negotiated) framing of hierarchical relations (a more personalized and less hierarchical pedagogic relationship) and pacing (providing time and student choice). Muller and Gamble (2010) reported that such a mixed modality approach to pedagogy is more likely to enhance student learning. In relation to the instructional discourse there was also a sense that the lessons were part of a broader instructional picture, one where the student was being inducted into the knowledge base required for the development of musicianship (which includes technical competence) in this particular field of practice. There were clear implications for what Christie (2002) has described as “future pedagogic activity” (p. 96). This particular lesson was part of an overall journey of development underpinned with a sense of progression, development, and purpose.

Developing reflection and action

One example of Susan developing reflection in action was seen in her choice of how to begin the lesson and her ability to reflect on her progress. She chose to utilize a warm-up from a “repertoire” of possible exercises that develops a number of skills simultaneously by playing double stops. The teacher observes as the student makes constant evaluations on “how things are going.” Each chord of the exercise is played at least twice to confirm the intonation choice. If the student is satisfied, she moves on to the next interval, if she is not, she repeats the chord and transition to the chord until she is satisfied. She can also check with the teacher if she us unsure:

What I like about that exercise is that I get to watch you make decisions without saying a word. How do I do that?

You are watching me change the position of my hand each time and deciding whether to go on or not.

Can you remind me why we invented this exercise?

It’s good for tuning and for tone and the bowing point of contact, and straight bowing. When you are doing two strings you can get the tone right.

Built into this exercise (curriculum) is an approach (pedagogy) that encourages the student to self-appraise and make decisions for herself. She is also aware of the purpose of the exercise and is therefore more likely to assess its effectiveness. Colleagues also suggested that periodic “practice lessons” should be included where the student models her home practice for the teacher to comment on. The teacher observers suggested that, in keeping with the aims of the lesson (see Note 3), the lesson demonstrated evidence of student self-monitoring and strategizing (Alton-Lee, 2003).

From technique to musicianship – concrete knowledge and abstract knowledge

One teacher noted the concrete nature of much of the lesson content and asked how more abstract concepts associated with the development of musicianship might be approached. It was suggested in discussion that a similar approach could underpin the development of musical concepts but that listening to recordings, comparing recordings, modeling by the teacher, and attending concerts to hear musicians in action are likely to be key ways to develop these less tangible aspects of musicianship. The musical concept of phrase endings for example could be explored through listening to a variety of approaches (a mini research project) and then devising a task, technique, and measure to facilitate its development.

Conclusion

Within a pedagogic relationship such as one-to-one instrumental tuition, that is necessarily founded on vertical knowledge content, learning autonomy and informal learning approaches can only be developed up to a certain point otherwise the entire foundation of the curriculum and presumably the point of learning the instrument with its associated “music world” is called into question. This is particularly so in relation to a sequence of music most suited to developing the vertical acquisition of technical and musical skills – Elliott’s (1995) progressive musical problem-solving. Where informal learning principles can be more readily adapted and applied is in the area of pedagogy rather than curriculum. Aspects such as learning by ear, student choice of repertoire, flexibility with sequence, pacing, and goals within the learning parameters are areas for negotiation with the student. In keeping with more constructivist approaches to pedagogy it has been argued here that students should be given a wide range of learning experiences and choices to develop self-regulation in learning, and also the tools to evaluate these learning choices intelligently within the accepted and evolving norms of practice of the musical field of practice. This leaves the epistemic integrity of the knowledge content in place while opening the learning process to more participatory models which are more likely to develop intrinsic motivation levels.

A strong argument can be made then for the necessary predominance of one-to-one music tuition’s vertical components, particularly where teacher pedagogy aims to explicitly develop metacognitive approaches and strategies rather than undertaking teaching as a form of supervised rehearsal that merely monitors mechanical skill acquisition – where the pedagogic discourse is conceptualised as “educative” rather than a process of “training” (Bowman, 2002). In this form, instrumental learning can be described as “embodied principled knowledge,” the term Gamble (2010) uses to describe craft. The development of musical concepts such as form, shape, expressivity, and particular performance practices, although realized in a sonic medium, carry the potential to take students’ thinking and conceptual awareness, learning skills, and cognitive development well beyond the specific bounded context of a horizontal discourse.

The demonstration lesson and subsequent discussion with teachers helped make explicit various aspects of my teaching approach and provided a stimulus for further exploration towards the aim of developing student autonomy. Within this context the observers were able to relate this to their own work. This was a “live” form of what Stake (1995) terms naturalistic generalisations, where readers, or in this case observers and listeners, are stimulated from the researcher’s description and assertions to generalize in relation to the case from their own knowledge and experience. In this way, little k knowledge is created. A strong connection was also made between theory and practice.

In relation to the concept of autonomy, one teacher contributed “there would be a spectrum wouldn’t there. Let’s just say this lesson would be around the centre and autonomy could go either side of what we just saw?” (Teacher observer). A comment near the end of the discussion with teachers was also a timely reminder that the while focusing on the minutiae of the instructional discourse (the curriculum and our chosen means to engage students with it) we should not lose sight of the fact that it is music which provides the unique ingredient in this form of educative interaction. It is music’s sonic qualities that engage a student’s imagination and we must remember to engage in music-making as much as possible right from the start (Swanwick, 2002):

I really loved the way you played with her at the end of the lesson. It’s a means for them to develop musicality; picking up on your gestures, your musical ideas. I think it is tremendously underrated that in a music lesson we should play music. (Teacher participant)

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Author biography

Graham McPhail was for 21 years a secondary school music teacher and currently works as a lecturer in the School of Critical Studies in Education, at the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, New Zealand. He is also a violin teacher, President of the New Zealand Suzuki Institute (NZSI), a member of the baroque ensemble Extempore, and artistic director of New Zealand’s original instrument orchestra NZ Barok. He has recently published in Music Education Research, the British Journal of Music Education and the New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies and has a paper forthcoming in Research Studies in Music Education.

Abstracts

References

Allsup

R. E.

(2008). Creating an educational framework for popular music in public schools: Anticipating the second-wave. Visions of Research in Music Education, 12, 1–12.

Alton-Lee

(2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Report prepared for the Ministry of Education. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515/5959

Bernstein

(2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity (Rev. ed.). New York and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bowman

(2002). Educating musically. In Colwell

Richardson

(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 63–84). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cain

(2010). Music teachers’ action research and the development of Big K knowledge. International Journal of Music Education, 28(2), 159–175.

Campbell

P. S.

(2001). Unsafe suppositions? Cutting across cultures on questions of music’s transmission. Music Education Research, 3(2), 215–226.

Christie

(2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. London, UK: Continuum.

Daniel

(2006). Exploring music instrument teaching and learning environments: Video analysis as a means of elucidating process and learning outcomes. Music Education Research, 8(2), 191–215.

Davis

Blair

(2011). Popular music in American teacher education: A glimpse into a secondary methods course. International Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 124–140.

10.

Dewey

(2007). Democracy and education. Charleston, SC: Bibliobazaar. (Original work published 1916)

11.

Elliott

(1995). Music matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

12.

Feichas

(2010). Bridging the gap: Informal learning practices as a pedagogy of integration. British Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 47–68.

13.

Finney

Philpott

(2010). Informal learning and meta-pedagogy in initial teacher education in England. British Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 7–19.

14.

Folkestad

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

15.

Fosnot

(Ed.) (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

16.

Gamble

(2010). Exploring the transmission of moral order as invisible semiotic mediator of tacit knowledge. In Singh

Sadovnik

A. R.

Semel

S. F.

(Eds.), Toolkits, translation devices and conceptual accounts: Essays on Basil Bernstein’s sociology of knowledge (pp. 121–141). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

17.

Golding

(2011). The many faces of constructivist discussion. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5), 467–483.

18.

Green

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

19.

Green

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

20.

Hallam

(2001a). The development of expertise in young musicians: Strategy use, knowledge acquisition and individual diversity. Music Education Research, 3(1), 7–3.

21.

Hallam

(2001b). The development of metacognition in musicians: Implications for education. British Journal of Music Education, 18(1), 27–39.

22.

Harris

Crozier

(2000). The music teacher’s companion: A practical guide. London, UK: ABRSM.

23.

Hattie

(2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

24.

Johnston

(2002). The practice revolution. Canberra, Australia: PracticeSpot Press.

25.

Jorgensen

(2002). Philosophical issues in curriculum. In Colwell

Richardson

(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 48–62). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

26.

Kennell

(2002). Systematic research in studio instruction in music. In Colwell

Richardson

(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 243–256). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

27.

Larochelle

Bednarz

Garrison (Eds.). (1998). Constructivism and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Marks

(Ed.). (2004). All together: Teaching music in groups. London, UK: ABRSM.

29.

McPhail

(2010). Crossing boundaries: Sharing concepts of music teaching from classroom to studio. Music Education Research, 12(1), 33–45.

30.

McNiff

Lomax

Whitehead

(2003). You and your action research project. Abingdon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.

31.

McPherson

Zimmerman

(2002). Self-regulation of musical learning. In Colwell

Richardson

(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 327–347). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

32.

Muller

Gamble

(2010). Curriculum and structuralist sociology: The theory of codes and knowledge structures. In Peterson

Baker

McGraw

(Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 505–509). Elsevier Science. Available at: https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/B9780080448947000907

33.

Regelski

(2004). Teaching general music in grades 4–8: A musicianship approach. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34.

Regelski

(2007). Amateuring in music and its rivals. Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 6(3). Available at: http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Regelski6_3.pdf

35.

Renwick

McPherson

(2002). Interest and choice: Student-selected repertoire and its effect on practising behavior. British Journal of Music Education, 19(2), 173–188.

36.

Rosenhine

Froehlich

Fakhouri

(2002). Systematic instruction. In Colwell

Richardson

(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 299–314). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

37.

Ryan

Deci

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

38.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Stalhammar

(2000). The spaces of music and its foundation of values – music teaching and young people’s own music experience. International Journal of Music Education, 36, 35–45.

40.

Swanwick

(2002). Instrumental teaching as music teaching. In Spruce

(Ed.), Teaching music in Secondary school; a reader (pp. 193–208). London and New York: The Open University and Routledge Farmer.

41.

Wright

Kanellopoulos

(2010). Informal music learning, improvisation and teacher education. British Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 71–87.

42.

Young

M. F. D.

(2010). The future of education in a knowledge society: The radical case for a subject-based curriculum. Pacific Asian Education, 22(1), 21–32.