Peer mentoring in an extracurricular music class

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore how high school students mentored beginning fifth-grade students in an extracurricular music class for double-reed instruments. In this study, I investigated the role of peer mentoring with how high school mentors shared their knowledge and experiences, and the role of the teacher in this process. The following questions guided this study: How did the participants share their knowledge and experiences during peer mentoring? How did the teacher serve as a guide for the student participants during peer mentoring? Data collection included observations and interviews during one semester of instruction, and analysis of the data collected involved a system of coding from which two themes developed: mentoring concurrent with director teaching and learning while mentoring. In addition, findings indicated that the participants used knowledge learned from outside sources, they reinforced content presented by the teacher, and they drew on their own musical knowledge during the process. Under the guidance of the teacher, the participants also learned how to share their knowledge that in turn helped elevate their individual levels of musicianship. Implications for music teachers suggest the use of peer mentoring to help create meaningful learning experiences in their classrooms and increase interaction among students.

Keywords

Peer mentoring reinforcing knowledge sharing knowledge teacher as guide

In many classrooms, teachers are the sole authority and have both the power and responsibility to make decisions about repertoire, pedagogical techniques, and how learning will occur (e.g., Freire & Freire, 1997). As participants in this learning environment, students often play a passive role in their education (Topping et al., 2017). This feature of passivity however is counter to what Dewey believed the learning process should be: an active exercise where students contribute to the knowledge being shared in the classroom. When teachers guide students in sharing what they know with each other, students then move from passive to active roles and may find music-making experiences more meaningful (Dewey, 1938). In this study, I explored how the instructional technique of peer mentoring helped students share what they knew with each other, and established how the teacher served as a guide.

In addition to arguing that learning should be an active process, Dewey (1938) also pointed out that students “do have experiences” that they can bring to the classroom (p. 27). These experiences provide continuity, where students share knowledge that embodies a “formation of attitudes” (p. 35). In these interactions, teachers should emphasize the quality of experiences being shared, or what Dewey referred to as “internal factors” (p. 42). When students share their knowledge and contribute to their learning, the teacher is no longer the sole authority of knowledge in the classroom, but rather “takes on that of leader of group activities” (p. 59).

Teachers play a critical role in structuring peer mentoring opportunities for their students (e.g., Darrow et al., 2005; Johnson, 2015). Situated within Dewey’s concepts of shaping learning experiences for students is the responsibility of the teacher. Mullen (2005) referred to this function as setting up and maintaining sociocultural learning conditions that include activities “conducive to sustaining mentoring arrangements” (p. 2). Peer mentoring however requires additional time and effort for the teacher (Darrow et al., 2005; Taylor, 2016). Teachers engaged in peer mentoring assume tasks that include setting goals for learning (Johnson, 2015), setting expectations for self-directed learning (Lebler, 2008), helping students reflect upon their learning (Johnson, 2015), and guiding students through the process of how to mentor and be mentored (Goodrich, 2007). Teachers should also model how to mentor for their students (Darrow et al., 2005; Johnson, 2015). For example, teachers can act in the role of a student mentor and demonstrate peer mentoring (Johnson, 2015); the teacher can also have students model peer mentoring for each other (Darrow et al., 2005). The teacher’s role facilitating modeling can lead to greater success with peer mentoring experiences (Ensergueix & Lafont, 2010).

Student mentors use prior knowledge when sharing information and experiences with each other (e.g., Webb, 2015). In addition, they can learn from each other when sharing knowledge while peer mentoring (Goodrich, 2007; Odegard, 2019; Scruggs, 2008). Peer mentoring can help elevate comprehension of learning music (Johnson, 2013), by increasing knowledge about musical fundamentals (e.g., Goodrich, 2007), improving sight-reading skills, and learning music theory (Johnson, 2017). Research indicates that students retain information more easily from their peers than from their teachers (Darrow et al., 2005; Scruggs, 2008), and students together can improve their attitudes toward learning (Goodrich, 2007; Johnson, 2011; Shields, 2001). Peer mentoring can help students with organization of content for learning (Darrow et al., 2005), with running sectionals and mentoring peers individually (Hebert, 2005), and can help them to stay focused on learning (Darrow et al., 2005; Scruggs, 2008). Webb (2015) studied three high school participants who constructed knowledge when mentoring sixth-grade students in private lessons. The high school students applied what they learned from private teachers and in prior rehearsal experiences to inform what they shared with the sixth graders about how to listen for intonation and count rhythms. The mentors reported that sharing knowledge helped to reinforce their own understanding of musical concepts.

Researchers have found socialization to be an important part of peer mentoring (e.g., Darrow et al., 2005; Goodrich, 2007, 2018; Madsen, 2011). The socialization that occurs during peer mentoring helps to develop the mentor’s leadership skills. In learner-centered music classrooms, mentors who develop leadership skills still depend on the supervising teacher for advice regarding pedagogy (Scruggs, 2008). Student leaders engaged in peer mentoring can help the teacher with musical decisions (Hebert, 2005) and aid in classroom management (Goodrich, 2007). Johnson (2015) discovered that teachers who allow flexibility for student leaders to contribute their input in making musical decisions improve the learning that occurs. During the process of socialization, students share knowledge both verbally and nonverbally (Goodrich, 2016; Van Weelden et al., 2016). In Strand (2005), students had a more thorough understanding of how to compose music after explaining their own composition process to their mentees. As students socialize, they verbally share what they know about music fundamentals, like articulations, style, and dynamics (Goodrich, 2007). Verbal interactions during socialization can create some problems, such as the use of peer pressure that can inhibit the learning process (Johnson, 2013), sarcasm (Fodor, 1998), and challenges to classroom management (Goodrich, 2007). In positive nonverbal interactions, researchers have found that students share knowledge while listening to each other (Goodrich, 2018). Students often are not aware that they are mentoring each other during these nonverbal interactions (Green, 2002).

Embedded within socialization is the concept of students sharing knowledge by modeling and imitation (e.g., Bandura, 1989; Vygotsky, 1978) that includes musical sounds (e.g., Fodor, 1998; Goodrich, 2007) and behaviors (e.g., Bandura, 1989; Byrne, 2015). Modeling and imitation play an important role with peer interactions when learning, and Vygotsky (1978) posited that social interactions with a more knowledgeable peer aids with greater comprehension of learning subject matter for student learners. D’Arripe-Longueville and Gernigon (2002) discovered that modeling was an important component of how high school students learned new subject matter, and Byrne (2015) found that the modeling behaviors of mentors can influence how mentees engage in the learning process.

Definition of peer mentoring

For the purposes of this study, peer mentoring refers to a peer with more knowledge (the mentor) who shares what they know with a peer who is considered to be less knowledgeable (the mentee) as they work toward musical and pedagogical goals (Webb, 2015). The optimum outcome for peer mentoring is that both the mentor and the mentee learn (Webb, 2015). The teacher guides the learning while mentors share their knowledge to contribute to this learning (e.g., Scruggs, 2008). In addition to nonmusical abilities, learning “life skills” (Colvin & Ashman, 2010, p. 126) takes place by way of socialization (e.g., Goodrich et al., 2018; Johnson, 2013, 2015). Peer mentoring in this study is both formal, that is, structured by the teacher with specific tasks (Mullen, 2005), and also informal with “spontaneous and self-directed” efforts by the peer mentors (Mullen, 2005, p. 21).

Purpose of the study and research questions

A study that explores how students share their own knowledge and experiences with younger students and what knowledge they share could suggest insights for music teachers in understanding their role in making learning more meaningful for their students. The purpose of this study was to explore how teacher-supervised participants shared their knowledge and experiences in an extracurricular music school class. In this study, I investigated how the participants contributed their knowledge and experiences to learning when they mentored younger members of the class, and the role of the teacher in this process. Research questions guiding this study were as follows:

Research Question 1: How did the participants share their knowledge and experiences during peer mentoring?

Research Question 2: How did the teacher serve as a guide for the student participants during peer mentoring?

Method

I selected an instrumental case study design (Stake, 1995) to explore how peer mentoring helped participants share their knowledge with each other. Bounded to one semester of instruction, the case in this study involved a group of student mentors and their teacher in an extracurricular music class. The instrumental case study design allowed me to explore how the instructional technique of peer mentoring provided opportunities for the participants to share their knowledge, including their prior knowledge, and to reinforce knowledge from the teacher. The design also helped me investigate the role of the teacher in this process. I received approval from the Institutional Review Board of my university to conduct this study. The names of participants and the site in this study have been changed to maintain confidentiality.

Site selection

I used chain sampling to locate a group for studying peer mentoring (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Selection criteria included a teacher who valued and used peer mentoring and a small group of students who actively engaged in peer mentoring; the size of the group would allow me to explore in depth how they engaged in the process. I sought an information-rich site to begin my chain sampling and asked area music teachers who they knew that actively supported and used peer mentoring with their students (Patton, 2002). My questions led me to a private-lesson teacher who informed me that her students spoke frequently about their band director who was using peer mentoring in the school band program. This band director taught in a middle school (Grades 5–8) in a suburb of a large metropolitan area in the Northeast United States. The band director used peer mentoring in a double-reed sectionals class (N = 10; 3 mentors and 7 mentees) that was part of an extracurricular music program held on Saturday mornings at the school. In this music program, high school students served as interns who mentored beginning band students.

Participants

Participants in this study included the teacher and three high school students (N = 4). The teacher, Susan, was an oboist who had taught and used peer mentoring at the middle school for 16 years. The high school students included Emily, a ninth grader who began playing the oboe in fourth grade and participated in an audition-only area youth orchestra and wind ensemble; George, a ninth grader who began playing the oboe in fourth grade and also played trombone in the high school marching band; and Charles, a ninth grade bassoonist who began playing in the fifth grade and also performed with two area youth orchestras, a wind ensemble, and in a jazz ensemble on saxophone. All three student interns were enrolled in private lessons and for their participation received community service hours as part of their high school graduation requirements. Emily, George, and Charles had previously attended this middle school and had participated in this extracurricular music program. At the time of this study, George and Charles attended the public high school in the area, and Emily attended a private school.

Data collection

To investigate the various ways peer mentoring took place in this music class, I collected data by way of observations and interviews during one semester of instruction. I collected primary data through observations, which allowed me to see in real time how peer mentoring occurred during class sessions; here my only role was one of observer (Creswell & Poth, 2017). I conducted 14 observations during one semester of instruction (14 weeks) for every class session, which occurred once per week. For the observation protocol, I indicated the date, class meeting time, and location of each observation at the top of a word document. During the observations, I wrote field notes into the word document on a laptop that included descriptive notes and reflective comments. Descriptive notes allowed me to record and “observe the workings of the case” of when participants engaged in peer mentoring (Stake, 1995, p. 8). Reflective comments provided me with opportunities to write down my thoughts about what I saw, including any questions I had, and to make note of my biases during the observation process. I used a system of short hand to aid with capturing peer mentoring as it occurred, including what was being said, and I fleshed out field notes within 2 hr upon conclusion of each observation session while events were still fresh in my memory. During observations, I strove to frame them within the context of my framework to aid with focusing on how participants shared their knowledge and experiences, and the role of the teacher during peer mentoring.

For the observations, I sat in the back of the room approximately 6 feet behind the students. From this vantage point, I could observe both verbal and nonverbal interactions, such as hearing what students said to each other and how they modeled musical sounds. This helped me with “finding good moments to reveal the unique complexity of the case” (Stake, 1995, p. 63) in addition to “maintain[ing] vigorous interpretation” (Stake, 1995, p. 9). I recorded events as they occurred in my field notes so that I could “let the occasion tell the story” (Stake, 1995, p. 62) as I focused on the social interactions between participants when they engaged in peer mentoring. Because there were only three interns, I was able to observe and write events in my field notes so that I could “thoroughly understand” the role of peer mentoring in this class (Stake, 1995, p. 9). I made the determination of whom to observe based upon the peer mentoring that was going on at that particular time. I strove to follow through with observations of peer mentoring from class-to-class to observe for any continuity with peer mentoring, and also for depth with observations of peer mentoring during class sessions.

Interviews included a formal interview and informal conversations with each participant before and after class sessions. I conducted one formal interview with each participant at the school. I used separate open-ended interview protocols for the students (see Supplementary File 1) and teacher (see Supplementary File 2) to allow for flexibility with follow-up questions as needed (Creswell & Poth, 2017). The questions helped me explore their “unique experiences [and] special stories” growing out of their roles in peer mentoring (Stake, 1995, p. 65). I wanted to find out what knowledge the student participants shared with each other and where they had learned it. In talking with the teacher, I wanted to discover why she implemented peer mentoring, how she did so, and what her perspectives were on the role of the student mentors. I audio-recorded interviews on a Sony MP3 IC Recorder ICD-UX200 digital recorder. Interviews were then uploaded onto a MacBook Pro laptop and transcribed verbatim into a word document. The informal conversations occurred before and after class sessions throughout this study. They varied in length from class-to-class, and “offer[ed] maximum flexibility to pursue information in whatever direction appear[ed] to be appropriate, depending on what emerge[d] from observing a particular setting or from talking with one or more individuals in that setting” (Patton, 2002, p. 342). I took field notes during informal conversations and immediately following them I fleshed out the field notes to “portray a written facsimile, with key ideas and episodes captured” (Stake, 1995, p. 66).

Data analysis

Data analysis involved reading through transcriptions of interviews and field notes to look for any patterns of sharing, reinforcing, and learning that had occurred during peer mentoring (Stake, 1995). To help organize the data analysis process, I converted the word document into two columns. The left-hand column included the data and the right-hand column was blank to allow for space to insert codes. In the observation data, I sought out data that pertained to occurrences of sharing of knowledge and experiences during peer mentoring, the interactions of the participants, and Susan’s role during this process. In the interview data, I focused on data that pertained to the participants’ perspectives about sharing knowledge and experiences during peer mentoring, where they learned their knowledge, and Susan’s role as a facilitator. During analysis, I began to sort data by identification of major codes and subcodes (Glesne, 2016). An example of a major code included SK (Sharing Knowledge), and examples of subcodes included SK: PM: MK (Sharing Knowledge: Peer Mentors: Musical Knowledge) and SK: PM: IK (Sharing Knowledge: Peer Mentors: Instrument Knowledge).

I began to develop a master code list based upon the observation and interview data, and the use of the codes and subcodes helped in organizing the data (Glesne, 2016). I then conducted a second analysis of the data to look for confirming and contradicting examples and indicated when data appeared to be related to the literature reviewed for this study and the framework. From these codes, two major themes developed that included mentoring concurrent with director teaching and learning while mentoring. I began to write the manuscript and used these themes as headings in the “Findings” section.

To aid with establishing trustworthiness of the study, I prepared researcher memos that helped me to keep track of what I observed, noting any questions I had about what I saw, and registering my biases (Creswell & Poth, 2017). My biases included prior experience with peer mentoring among students in kindergarten to university-level classroom and ensemble settings and prior research studies I had conducted on various aspects of peer mentoring. Researcher memos helped me reflect on my expectations and the personal biases I brought to the study and also evaluate what I had observed: was I actually seeing the student participants contribute to learning when peer mentoring? To further establish the trustworthiness of the study, I invited a colleague familiar with both peer mentoring and qualitative research to conduct an audit check to review my coding and themes (Patton, 2002). The colleague noticed that much of the data involved the students sharing their knowledge and experiences and recommended that “sharing knowledge” become a major code to aid with organization of the data. I also asked all of the participants if they wanted to review transcripts of their respective interviews, and they declined.

Findings

The participants in this study engaged in peer mentoring in a variety of ways during the course of this study. They reinforced knowledge from the teacher while they mentored the younger students. During this process, they themselves learned while mentoring the beginners and being guided by the teacher. I present the findings based upon the themes that developed as part of the analysis of data: (a) mentoring concurrent with director teaching and (b) learning while mentoring.

Mentoring concurrent with director teaching

During rehearsals, the interns often reinforced what Susan taught and contributed additional knowledge to her instruction. Susan was aware that the interns shared their knowledge, and she explained, “I can’t hear everything wrong. You’re counting on the interns to hear, and say to the beginners, ‘oh, play an F#.’”

Mentoring for fundamentals

While Susan led the rehearsals, the interns mentored for musical details that included key signatures, fingerings, and breathing. Charles would often help beginners with bassoon fingerings and reinforced what Susan taught the students. For example, when Susan introduced the key of A flat major, Charles had the young bassoonists play each flatted note and double-checked their fingerings. For George, “she’s trying to work on everyone playing together as an ensemble and can’t be looking at everyone’s fingers as well.” Emily viewed her role more as one who was “just being there to help.” Occasionally Emily experienced frustration with peer mentoring. In one rehearsal, while Susan rehearsed the bassoonists, a beginning oboist continued to question why they had to keep playing the correct fingerings when Emily tried to show her how to play a left E flat on the oboe. Emily reassured the student that this was the correct way to finger an E flat and pointed out that “if you do it another way they’ll think you don’t know the technique right.” At other times, the interns would mentor on their own initiative. Charles often got up from his seat to help bassoonists with fingerings, such as using the whisper key on bassoon.

When reflecting on mentoring fundamentals, George noted, “when you’re with the kids, you look at their fingers and see if you can help them with anything like going to half holes, like D’s and E-flat’s.” George had learned this information from his private oboe teacher and also from his experiences playing in an area wind ensemble. He connected what he already knew with what he was mentoring, but he was also aware that he had to filter what he shared with the beginners. For example, he had practiced breathing techniques for playing advanced music but realized they would not work with the beginners. “I am working on how breathing can help with fast technical passages, but if I did this with a beginner, his mind would explode!”

As far as Emily was concerned, one of the pluses of mentoring beginning band students was the memories it brought back from her own experience when the mentees finally played something correctly. “It just reminds me why I like to play. They get a quarter note right and they’re, like, ‘I did it!’ and it’s, like, that’s why we play!” Charles shared a similar viewpoint when he remarked, “I think the highlights are when they get something finally and they smile.”

Social mentoring

Susan was aware that the interns’ help “was not all about music.” “To really learn the oboe,” she remarked, “you need to study with a master and be the apprentice.” She added with double-reed instruments “there aren’t many kids on them” so “if there’s an older student that can play with them, they’ll progress along more quickly.” Although Susan encouraged active mentoring, she found that the interns were of help in the class “even just sitting next to the beginners and playing along.” For Susan, “the interns are more important in my class than maybe others because we make it kind of a club. As a result, mentoring takes on a bigger role than simply performing the music.” According to Susan, “the older kids make these instruments cool to the beginners, who see there’s other people playing the same instrument. That shows a younger student that’s just started, ‘wow, this is something I want to do!’”

Mentoring during this study also involved audition talk. Auditions for the interns included trying out for the high school and area bands and orchestras, and the subject was discussed frequently by the interns prior to class sessions. In one rehearsal early in the semester, one of the beginner oboists confessed they were nervous about an approaching audition. Charles responded, “Yeah, you’re in a room alone with someone listening to you.” Emily chimed in, “It’s totally normal to get nervous. My oboe teacher has me run up and down stairs to get my heart rate up before I play an excerpt so it’ll be like when I audition. You should try it.” In these conversations, interns often compared audition experiences and shared their experiences with the beginners to help them prepare for their own auditions. In this way, the interns encouraged the beginners and helped them gain confidence prior to an audition. The interns shared what they knew with the beginners: how to deal with nerves and what the overall audition experience was like. In addition, interns shared which ensembles were fun and musically worth playing in and which ensembles the beginners should avoid.

Learning while mentoring

Peer mentoring helped the interns develop their musicianship. During peer mentoring, the interns learned from the beginners and from Susan. This resulted in the interns’ reinforcing what they had already learned about playing their instruments, learning new musical knowledge, and learning how to mentor from Susan.

Learning while mentoring beginners

Through the process of mentoring, the interns reflected on their own learning and current performance skills. For Charles, peer mentoring “pushes you to learn your instrument more.” He reported that he had reflected on his “past struggles” when learning to play the bassoon and “I try to see what the beginners are having trouble with and teach them the proper way.” With Emily, peer mentoring “makes me more aware of small mistakes I might make.” George appreciated the opportunity to play along with the beginners, for “going at slower tempos” helped him to “focus on the basics instead of always playing the advanced stuff.” With this process, the interns reinforced what they already knew when they had to explain it to one of the beginners in the class.

Susan accommodated the style of each mentor and understood their limits. For example, when Emily mentored, Susan observed, “she’s having to assess a student. And all of a sudden you’ve got to explain something and you’re, like, ‘I get it now.’” With George, however, “He doesn’t always know what his role is and he gets nervous, so I don’t push him too much.”

The beginners’ questions would sometimes trigger reflection among the interns. “Sometimes when I’m talking to little kids, they’ll point something else out and I’ll think, ‘oh, that’s a different way to look at it,’” Emily explained. Susan was aware of the reflection process and valued it as an integral part of mentoring. “Once you teach somebody else, you open your ears and you think much more critically about what’s going on in the room than you did as a student.” She viewed the role of the intern as one that required a heightened responsibility. “When you’re an intern, it’s your job to keep the beginners engaged,” and she added, “It helps them to learn and listen; it’s invaluable for them” and through this process, “they become much better musicians.”

Learning from Susan

During peer mentoring, the interns learned new knowledge from Susan, who not only taught them music fundamentals but also coached them on how to mentor; she called it giving them “kind guidance.” Although Susan did not consider her work with the mentors to be formal, throughout the mentoring process, Susan noted that the interns were “starting to learn what it’s like to be a leader.” According to Susan, developing mentors involved a process in which “we do a lot of teaching of being a human during the school year, as they get older.” Although the interns considered their roles as peer mentors important, sometimes Susan had to be hard on them, especially when she did not think they were living up to their responsibilities. Occasionally the interns “just need a little guidance,” she explained, especially because they sometimes “just sit there and they’re part of the class and having a good time, and they forget that they’re actually there to help us.”

Discussion

Through the first research question, I wanted to understand how the participants shared their knowledge and experiences when engaged in peer mentoring. Peer mentoring in this study covered knowledge shared by the interns with the beginners before, during, and after rehearsals. Dewey (1938) posited that students can contribute knowledge to the classroom, and they should share this information with each other to aid with learning.

The interns shared knowledge that included music fundamentals, such as correct fingerings, and reported that sharing their knowledge with the beginners during peer mentoring helped them to reinforce their prior knowledge of musical concepts. As the interns shared their knowledge, they also learned while they mentored the beginners. Researchers have found that students can learn from each other during peer mentoring (Odegard, 2019; Scruggs, 2008), and based upon my observations and interviews, the interns learned from mentoring the beginners. George, for example, benefited from having to explain breathing concepts to beginners, similar to participants in Strand (2005) who demonstrated a higher level of understanding of the composition process after explaining it to their peers. As the three interns shared prior knowledge, they began to learn what knowledge to share and how to share it. George was aware that he could not really share the musical concepts he was personally working on with the beginners, for he considered the level too advanced, but having to explain basic concepts helped him to reinforce his knowledge of the fundamentals of playing oboe. Mentoring the beginners created opportunities for him to reflect on his learning, similar to the student mentors in Darrow et al. (2005), who elevated their knowledge of key signatures when explaining them to their peers. Sharing knowledge and experiences via peer mentoring served as a conduit for learning for the interns during the course of the study.

Throughout this study, socialization helped the interns share their knowledge and experiences with the beginners. Goodrich (2007) and Scruggs (2008) have investigated socialization that occurs during rehearsals, and Madsen (2011) found socialization an important component of the peer mentoring process. Socialization that occurred during this study when sharing experiences, however, usually occurred prior to rehearsals when the interns elaborated on their experiences, such as coping with the audition process. Susan supported these student interactions before rehearsals, and considered them to aid with the learning process for the beginners. She was aware that all three of the interns had experiences with auditioning and were able to convey their experiences to the beginners. These moments in peer mentoring were similar to what Dewey (1938) referred to as “the organic connection between education and personal experience” (p. 25). Although the interns did share a sense of camaraderie when they discussed auditions or shared gossip and perspectives about area music ensembles, I did not observe any friendships emerging or developing between the interns and the beginners, one of the components of socialization found in Madsen (2011). In this study, then the sharing of experiences did not always occur during class. Instead of always grouping sharing of knowledge and experiences together as components of the learning process, a distinction can be made between sharing knowledge or sharing experiences in terms of when they occur.

In this study, learning for the interns during peer mentoring also involved reflection. According to Johnson (2015), peer mentoring helps students reflect on their learning, and the reflection process serves as a critical part of learning. Charles reflected on his past struggles playing the bassoon, and he tried to share that information with the beginners. In her reflection, Emily acknowledged that beginners would sometimes ask questions that caused her to rethink how she plays the oboe. Although the interns reported that peer mentoring helped them reflect on their own knowledge and learning, it was, based on my observation, an informal part of the process. I did not observe any official reflection process by more formal means such as group reflection, nor journaling or meetings with Susan before or after classes to discuss reflection.

For the second research question, I wanted to understand how the teacher served as a guide for the students when they engaged in peer mentoring. Mullen (2005) viewed the role of the teacher as one who sets up mentoring that can be sustained for learning, and researchers in music education have explored the role of the teacher with setting up peer mentoring to aid with musical goals that include elevating musical knowledge (Johnson, 2015; Taylor, 2016). For Susan, peer mentoring was an extension of the master–apprentice relationship, and she was always mindful that the interns were there to aid with instruction. Although Susan considered peer mentoring helpful with elevating knowledge about musical performance skills, she also considered the role of peer mentoring to be vital to establishing a community of double-reed players. For Susan, then peer mentoring went beyond learning about music: it provided a conduit for creating this community. She reported that as the beginners get older, they become interns, which makes the system self-perpetuating. Peer mentoring in this study therefore helped in maintaining the sociocultural learning conditions espoused by Mullen (2005). This community helped with what Dewey (1938) referred to as the “formation of attitudes” among students (p. 33). Researchers have found that peer mentoring can improve student attitudes toward learning and provide encouragement for their learning (e.g., Goodrich, 2007; Johnson, 2011). In this study, the formation of attitudes began with Susan, who worked with the interns so they knew not only how to share their experiences when they were peer mentoring the beginners, but to also help with retention to keep students in the music program.

A unique aspect of sharing knowledge and experiences in this study was that teaching and peer mentoring functioned as a partnership between Susan and the interns. Whereas Dewey (1938) posited that students have knowledge and experiences to share with each other, and the teacher serves in the role of a facilitator, the roles of the interns and Susan superseded this delineation. For example, the interns mentored concurrently while Susan taught the class. Although Hebert (2005) found that student mentors can help the music teacher with making musical decisions, the roles of the interns and Susan, however, were fluid in that Susan did not always lead the learning for an entire class, nor did the interns. Thus, Susan’s role was one of teacher and facilitator, and delivery of instruction was a combined effort that blended Susan’s teaching with the interns mentoring the beginners.

A significant concern when using peer mentoring is that mentors will share misinformation (Johnson, 2015), what Dewey (1938) referred to as the potential for learning experiences to be “mis-educative” (p. 25). Based upon my observations though, even though the interns did not always know how to react in certain situations, the knowledge shared by Emily, George, and Charles did not “mis-educate” their mentees. The interns sought help from Susan when needed, similar to participants in Scruggs (2008) who depended upon their music teacher for pedagogical advice. While Susan allowed the interns to share their knowledge and experiences on their own volition, she still paid close attention to their music modeling and verbal directives to the beginners. Another major concern with peer mentoring is that the music teacher may model bad teaching habits (Johnson, 2015), so that when students engage in peer mentoring, the potential exists for reproducing less-than-desirable teaching traits. Based upon my observations throughout the course of this study, Susan’s teaching provided meaningful learning experiences for the students in the class.

Not only did participants reinforce their musical knowledge and learn from mentoring the beginners, they also learned the art of mentoring from Susan. Susan played an active role with modeling peer mentoring for Emily, George, or Charles, and this aided the mentors when sharing knowledge to provide meaningful learning experiences for the beginners. For Dewey (1938), a primary component of student learning involved the quality of experiences, and the participants in this study shared quality experiences that directly related to the learning. Based upon my observations, this level of quality resulted from the value that Susan put on mentoring. She believed it promoted engagement and staying on task. In her primary role as teacher, Susan guided the beginners through the process of learning the oboe and bassoon. The additional time necessary to include peer mentoring in her program supports Darrow et al.’s (2005) assertion that peer mentoring requires time from the teacher. Johnson (2015) recommended that teachers need to set goals for learning, and Susan’s additional responsibilities included setting up a peer mentoring system with goals for how knowledge would be shared. As she indicated, however, even within this structure, she still allowed participants a great deal of flexibility. Based on my observations, peer mentoring under Susan’s guidance allowed for quality sharing of knowledge that allowed for meaningful learning experiences.

Implications

During the course of this study, peer mentoring helped provide meaningful learning experiences for the participants. Based on the findings of this particular study, music teachers may want to consider implementing peer mentoring to support music learning, student engagement, and establishing a community of musicians. In this study, peer mentoring helped reinforce existing knowledge. Music teachers may want to consider using peer mentoring as an opportunity for more advanced students to share their knowledge with less advanced students; in this way, they both learn from this arrangement. Not only can student mentors reinforce their existing knowledge and elevate their own performance skills, they can contribute to a higher level of performance for an entire ensemble. Peer mentoring in this study also provided a chance for the interns to share knowledge learned from other teachers that enhanced understanding and provided more depth in learning. Bringing in outside knowledge could also extend to learning in ensembles where the teacher may not possess knowledge about a particular musical style or genre, such as in popular music and indigenous music ensembles. However, music teachers should consider monitoring the knowledge shared by students to avoid mis-educative experiences (Dewey, 1938) and mis-information (Johnson, 2015).

A salient finding from this study entailed the interns sharing their experiences about the audition process, usually prior to rehearsals. Based upon the findings from this study, music teachers may want to consider organizing peer mentoring so that peer mentors share their knowledge during class and share their experiences prior to class. Doing so could aid with making class time more efficient, where the focus is typically on sharing knowledge to help elevate musical performance skills. Sharing experiences that usually involve verbal mentoring could occur before class and potentially reduce the number of distractions that may be caused by peer mentors.

Susan indicated that she spent considerable time throughout the school year guiding the interns through the processes of peer mentoring. Music teachers need to be aware of the time commitment required to instruct students with how to mentor their peers. Based upon Susan’s efforts with establishing and maintaining peer mentoring, music teachers may want to consider allocating additional class time to model peer mentoring for their students, and also time to meet with students individually to help them reflect on what and how they are learning during peer mentoring.

For Susan, peer mentoring transcended musical goals and helped with student engagement. Susan viewed peer mentoring as an opportunity for student ownership in the class. For her, peer mentoring set the interns up to be actively involved and subsequently engaged in the learning process. Although Susan led the class, she structured the peer mentoring with rigid flexibility to give the interns autonomy with making mentoring decisions on their own volition. Teachers may want to consider using peer mentoring as a way to keep students actively engaged in the learning process and to help give them ownership with their learning.

In this study, Susan viewed double-reed instruments as less popular instruments for students to play. She used peer mentoring as a way to increase student interest in these instruments and to heighten the appeal for participating in the group. Although Susan used peer mentoring in her class of players of less popular instruments, the practice is certainly not restricted only to this situation. In general, music teachers may want to expand their thinking to consider peer mentoring as a way to help with student recruitment and retention regardless of instrument selection.

Future research

The site for this study was in an affluent suburb. Researchers may consider exploring how peer mentoring functions in school music programs with students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, where, for example, private lessons are out of reach for much of the school population. Studies such as these could illuminate how peer mentoring functions across a diverse array of settings and potentially highlight effective mentoring practices for all students regardless of the economics of the surrounding community. In addition, this study also occurred in a predominantly White suburb. More studies are needed to investigate how peer mentoring functions among students in underrepresented minorities. These types of studies could help with understanding how peer mentoring could potentially be available to a diversity of students.

One of the primary nonmusical reasons Susan used peer mentoring was to assist in recruitment and retention among the students who played double-reed instruments in the school music program. This study involved one semester of data collection, and additional studies could involve longitudinal investigations into how peer mentoring can aid with retention among students over the course of several years. Although one of the questions involved exploring how the participants shared their knowledge while peer mentoring, researchers may want to consider measuring what knowledge students gain as the result of peer mentoring. More studies such as Johnson (2017) are needed where the outcomes of knowledge were measured after students engaged in peer mentoring.

Researchers in music education typically investigate what musical knowledge students learn during peer mentoring (e.g., Goodrich, 2007; Odegard, 2019), including measuring learning outcomes (e.g., Johnson, 2017) and how they learn (e.g., Hebert, 2005; Scruggs, 2008). In this study, the interns often shared their experiences before rehearsals when they socialized with each other and with the beginners. Researchers may want to continue investigating socialization during peer mentoring, but consider focusing on the socialization that occurs before, and even after, rehearsals. Studies such as these could provide additional insights into how students share their experiences, and combined with studies on how students share musical knowledge, could help provide a more thorough understanding of how socialization aids both mentors and mentees with learning.

For this study, I focused on the perspectives of the mentors and the teacher. Future research may include investigation of peer mentoring from the perspective of the mentee to provide a more holistic portrait of the particularities of how learning occurs as students share their knowledge and experiences with each other. Further inquiries into peer mentoring hold the potential to inform both research and practice in how school music teachers can guide students toward sharing their knowledge and experiences in peer mentoring for more meaningful learning experiences. Researchers could continue to explore how students reinforce and elevate musical knowledge, as well as in how peer mentoring can aid with establishing learning goals, expectations, traditions, and recruitment and retention among students in school music programs.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-ijm-10.1177_0255761420988922 – Supplemental material for Peer mentoring in an extracurricular music class

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-ijm-10.1177_0255761420988922 for Peer mentoring in an extracurricular music class by Andrew Goodrich in International Journal of Music Education

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-ijm-10.1177_0255761420988922 – Supplemental material for Peer mentoring in an extracurricular music class

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-ijm-10.1177_0255761420988922 for Peer mentoring in an extracurricular music class by Andrew Goodrich in International Journal of Music Education

Footnotes

Author’s note

This study was conducted with approval from the Boston University Institutional Review Board.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Andrew Goodrich

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Bandura

(1989). Social cognitive theory. In Vasta

(Ed.), Annals of child development (pp. 1–60). JAI Press.

Byrne

(2015). The give and take of peer review: Utilizing modeling and imitation [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3718254)

Colvin

J. W.

Ashman

(2010). Roles, risks, and benefits of peer mentoring in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring, 18(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611261003678879

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.

D’Arripe-Longueville

Gernigon, C

. (2002). Peer-assisted learning in the physical activity domain: Dyad type and gender differences. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(3), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.3.219

Darrow

A. A.

Gibbs

Wedel

(2005). Use of classwide peer tutoring in the general music classroom. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 24(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/87551233050240010103

Dewey

(1938). Experience and education. Collier.

Ensergueix

Lafont

(2010). Reciprocal peer tutoring in a physical education setting: Influence of peer tutor training and gender on motor performance and self-efficacy outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25(2), 222–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-009-0010-0

Fodor

D. B.

(1998). Critical moments of change: A study of the social and musical interactions of precollegiate jazz combos [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9913792)

10.

Freire

A. A.

(1997). Pedagogy of the heart. Continuum.

11.

Glesne

(2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Longman.

12.

Goodrich

(2007). Peer mentoring in a high school jazz ensemble. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(2), 94–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242940705500202

13.

Goodrich

(2016). Peer mentoring in a university jazz ensemble. Visions of Research in Music Education, 28, 1–27. www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v28n1/visions/Goodrich_Mentoring_in_Jazz_Ensemble.pdf

14.

Goodrich

(2018). Peer mentoring and peer tutoring among K-12 students: A literature review. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 36(2), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123317708765

15.

Goodrich

Bucura

Stauffer

(2018). Peer mentoring in a university music methods class. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 27(2), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083717731057

16.

Green

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

17.

Hebert

(2005). Music competition, cooperation, and community: An ethnography of a Japanese school band [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3163382)

18.

Johnson

E. A.

(2011). The effect of peer-based instruction on rhythm reading achievement. Contributions to Music Education, 38(2), 43–60. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/24127190

19.

Johnson

E. A.

(2013). The effect of symmetrical and asymmetrical peer-assisted structures on music achievement and learner engagement in the secondary large ensemble [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3561981)

20.

Johnson

E. A.

(2015). Peer-teaching in the secondary music ensemble. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i5.906

21.

Johnson

E. A.

(2017). The effect of symmetrical and asymmetrical peer-assisted learning structures on music achievement and learner engagement in seventh-grade band. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429417712486

22.

Lebler

(2008). Popular music pedagogy: Peer learning in practice. Music Education Research, 10(2), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461300802079056

23.

Madsen

C. K.

(2011). Music teacher education students as cross-age reading tutors in an after-school setting. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20(2), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083710371441

24.

Mullen

C. A.

(2005). Mentorship primer. Peter Lang.

25.

Odegard

(2019). Dialectic dialogues: A discourse analysis of everyday talk between adolescent guitarists learning music with a peer outside of school [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 13857099)

26.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE.

27.

Scruggs

B. B.

(2008). Learning outcomes in two divergent middle school string orchestra classroom environments: A comparison of a learner-centered and a teacher-centered approach [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3371516)

28.

Shields

(2001). Music education and mentoring as intervention for at-risk adolescents: Their self-perceptions, opinions, and attitudes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345712

29.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.

30.

Strand

(2005). Nurturing young composers: Exploring the relationship between instruction and transfer in 9–12 year-old students. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 165, 17–36. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40319268

31.

Taylor

(2016). Peer mentoring within the middle and high school music department of the international school of Kuala Lumpur: A case study [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 10135020)

32.

Topping

Buchs

Duran

van Keer

(2017). Effective peer learning from principles to practical implementation. Routledge.

33.

Van Weelden

Heath-Reynolds

Lehman

. (2016). The effect of a peer mentorship program on perceptions of success in choral ensembles: Pairing students with and with-out disabilities. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 35(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123316675480

34.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

35.

Webb

R. S.

(2015). An exploration of three peer tutoring cases in the school orchestra program. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 203, 63–80. https://doi.org/10.5406/203.0063

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

0.03 MB