The self-directed learning of adult music students: A comparison of teacher approaches and student needs

Abstract

Adult music learners may expect to be more independent and therefore more inclined to engage in self-directed learning than younger learners; however, adults may not feel encouraged or supported to self-direct. In this qualitative study, the relationships between six adult instrumentalists and their teachers were examined using Grow’s Staged Self-Directed Learning (SSDL) Model to determine if there was congruence or a mismatch between individual student learning needs and their teachers’ strategies. Teachers reported a willingness to accommodate the self-direction needs of their students. Even in cases of teacher–student mismatch, more direction from the teacher was welcomed when they encountered technical difficulty or an unfamiliar style. Students who reported that they had little experience playing were more inclined to have low to moderate levels of self-direction, whereas more advanced players reported intermediate to high levels of self-direction. Cultural expectations were found to play an important role in determining if students desire to be self-directed learners. The quality of the teacher–student relationship and communication were both found to be an important determinant of successful collaboration. These findings suggest that the theoretical application of the SSDL model could provide teachers a means to assess and discern their adult students’ learning needs.

Keywords

Adult instrumental instruction adult learning needs adult music learning adult music teaching self-directed learning Staged Self-Directed Learning model

Adults may expect to be more independent in their learning and more inclined to engage in self-directed learning than younger learners (Knowles, 1970). Roulston et al. (2015) found that adult learners engaged in private instrumental instruction were self-directed and were able to diagnose, plan, and evaluate their learning, as well as set goals and determine learning activities. However, adults may not feel encouraged or supported to self-direct in all contexts. For example, Chen (1996) found that little self-directed learning occurred during adult piano instruction even though a majority of students indicated that they were interested in improving their ability to self-direct. Similarly, Mizok-Taylor (2008) found that few adult piano courses provided adequate scaffoldings to foster self-directed study. These discrepancies suggest that more needs to be understood about the needs of adult learners who wish to engage in self-directed learning.

Considerable research has examined adult music learning in group contexts such as community large ensembles (Goodrich, 2019; Mantie, 2012), in beginner programs such as New Horizons programs (Coffman, 2009; Jutras, 2011; Rohwer, 2005, 2012; Tsugawa, 2009), and in community music contexts (Waldron & Veblen, 2009). In most of these studies, adult music learning was viewed within a social context, or was theorized as a socially embedded phenomenon (Dabback, 2006). Furthermore, an extensive review of the adult music literature (Creech et al., 2013) highlights the prevalence of music engagement in social settings. However, less is known about self-directed learners who engage independently or with the support of a teacher.

Theoretical framework

According to Grow (1990, 1994), adults participate in self-directed learning across four distinct stages. The first stage, low self-direction, is one where learners need “explicit directions, external motivation, and external reinforcement” (Grow, 1990, p. 58). In the next stage, moderate self-direction, learners are “‘interestable’, responsible, and ready to learn” (p. 59). In the following stage, intermediate self-direction, learners are “participants in their own education” and “able to explore a subject with a guide” (p. 59). The final stage, high self-direction, is one where learners “set their own goals and standards” and “make use of experts, institutions, and other resources” to pursue their goals (p. 60). With each stage, learners are thought to have different learning needs, which implies that educators take different roles and implement different strategies as they support adults in any particular stage.

Teacher considerations of adult learning needs

According to Grow (1990), good teaching occurs when “(1) the teacher matches the learner’s level of self-direction, and (2) the teacher prepares students for greater self-direction” (p. 60). In order to match a learner’s level of self-direction, teachers can assess a student’s learning stage by monitoring the student’s behavior and listening to their reported needs, and then make appropriate accommodations while being mindful that learners may vacillate between stages (Grow, 1990, 1994). Mismatches can occur between the teacher’s approach and the students’ learning stage which can be either detrimental or helpful (Grow, 1994), with the worst mismatches occurring “between independent learners and directive teachers,” and between “non-directive teachers and dependent learners” (Grow, 1990, p. 61). This potential for mismatch highlights the need for teachers to be willing and able to apply different teaching strategies, and for students to assert their self-direction needs.

Teacher disposition and compassion have also been found to be important. Rohwer (2005, 2008) suggested that teachers work to create a more relaxed environment by using humor, praise, respect, and lightheartedness in lessons. Rohwer (2012) found it important for teachers to break things down and move step-by-step without causing adults to feel as though they are being treated like children. Overall, in addition to musical competence, a teacher’s personality and capacity to be compassionate is critical for their success as an adult music educator (Rohwer, 2008, 2012; Tsugawa, 2009).

Adult expectations for learning

Adult learners inhabit different learning contexts due to their career or social position, and therefore may have different comfort levels and experience with self-direction. For example, Tsugawa (2009) found that the older adult learners in a New Horizon’s ensemble were motivated to join and participate as a means to enjoy their free time by partaking in a self-driven and long-term learning opportunity, focused more upon the process than the outcome. Roulston (2010), who applied Houle’s (1961) andragogic ideologies to explain more universal underlying motivators, found that adult learners were goal-oriented, activity-oriented, or learning-oriented.

Utilizing teaching materials suitable for adult learners, such as repertoire and warm-up exercises, can also help to convey respect by meeting students where they are both musically and personally (Roulston, 2010). Rohwer (2012) found that teaching adults also required great flexibility in teaching style to accommodate both auditory learners who prefer to “hear it first” and visual learners who prefer to learn through notation, and to maintain respect and uphold a more learner-centered teaching approach. Adult music learners were found to appreciate process-based instruction rather than the “musical training” approach often found in schools, encouraging the idea of a “musical journey” (Rohwer, 2005). Based upon these findings and resulting suggestions, a willingness to listen to learners’ needs and accommodate may be a valuable quality in the teaching of adult learners.

Research problem

Adult music students are often taught by teachers who primarily work with children (Pike, 2001) and as a result, may be more accustomed to working with learners who are more dependent and less inclined toward self-direction. In addition, pre-service music education curricula are more focused upon pedagogy than andragogy (Pike, 2001) and as a result many teachers are more prepared to deliver teacher-directed lessons. Considering that adults are likely accustomed to self-direction in their everyday lives (Knowles, 1970, 1984), some may require opportunities to engage in self-directed learning to be successful. Consequently, more needs to be known about how the roles and strategies of private music teachers align with the learning needs of adult music students at low, moderate, intermediate, and high stages of self-direction. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to investigate the relationship between learners at various self-directed learning stages and the corresponding roles and strategies of their teachers.

The research questions are as follows:

How and in what ways do teacher roles and strategies align with the self-directed learning status of adult music learners?

In cases where there is a perceived mismatch between the learning status and the roles and strategies of the teacher, how tolerant, willing, or aware are adult learners when their needs are not being met?

In cases where there is a perceived mismatch between the adult learning status and the educator’s comfort level with appropriate roles and strategies, how willing are teachers to adapt to roles and strategies outside of their comfort level or experience?

Participants and methods

Six instrumentalists (see Table 1) were recruited from the Northeast region of the United States through purposeful sampling. The authors, an instrumentalist music teacher educator and an instrumental instructor both with experience teaching adult students, established contacts with regional music instructors known by reputation for working with adult students, and through collegial recommendations from those teachers. All of the teachers worked with both children and adult students. Teacher–student dyads were recruited to compare both student and teacher perspectives. Student participants were at least 18 years of age and currently or recently enrolled in lessons with the corresponding teacher.

Table 1.

Participant Profiles.

Participant	Gender	Age	Instrument	Experience level	Style/genre	Teaching/learning style (aural/visual)
Elaine, teacher	F	Older-adult	Piano	Teaching 10+ years	Mixed	Written Notation
Elliot, student	M	Older-adult	Piano	~10 years of lessons	Mixed	Written Notation
Al, teacher	M	Older-adult	Piano (teaches many instruments)	Teaching 10+ years	Mixed	Written Notation
Anna, student	F	Middle-aged adult	Piano	~5 years of lessons	Mixed	Written Notation
Jeff, teacher	M	Middle-aged adult	Saxophone (teaches all woodwinds)	Teaching 10+ years	Mixed	Written Notation
Julia, student	F	Older-adult	Clarinet	<1 year of lessons	Mixed	Written Notation
Jacob, student	M	Middle-aged	Saxophone	2 years of lessons	Mixed	Written Notation
Mila, teacher	F	Middle-aged	Piano	Teaching 10+ years	Classical	Written Notation
Mey, student	F	Middle-aged	Piano	~7 years of lessons	Classical	Written Notation
Margot, student	F	Middle-aged	Piano	10+ years of lessons	Classical	Written Notation

The age groups are based upon stages of lifespan development in which Emerging Adulthood includes ages 18 to 25, Early Adulthood includes ages 26 to 40, Middle Adulthood includes ages 41 to 65, and Older Adulthood includes adults 66 and older (Lally & Valentine-French, 2019).

Data were collected through two confidential semi-structured interviews per teacher–student dyad, one with each teacher and one with each student, which took place in-person or over the phone. Interviews were 30 to 60 min in duration, and all interviews were transcribed. Students were asked to describe their level of desire for self-direction, the role that they expected their teacher to play in learning, if they felt that their teacher’s strategies were ever misaligned with their expectations, and if their teacher had ever adjusted their approach upon their request for better alignment. Teachers were asked the extent to which they encouraged students to be self-directed, were comfortable sharing decision-making, if their students desired to be self-directed, if there were conflicts or misalignments in expectations, how they managed communication, what roles they were most comfortable, what strategies they used, and if their pre-service education prepared them adequately to work with adults. The data were analyzed by applying Grow’s (1990) levels of self-direction as a priori codes to identify the level(s) of each of the students, the level(s) that the teacher was most comfortable or likely to implement, and to make comparisons between each. A cross-case analysis of the teacher–student dyads was conducted to identify similarities and differences between each, and member checks were conducted by asking the participants to verify the accuracy of this report. Seven of the 10 participants confirmed that they were fairly portrayed. Three did not respond.

Findings

Below a depiction of the teacher–student dyads describes the nature and extent of self-directed activity they collectively reported. Dyads that were well-aligned presented responses that corroborated levels of self-direction between student and teacher reports while mismatches did not. Following these teacher–student depictions are findings from the cross-case analysis that further explain instances of (a) alignment/mismatch and (b) student tolerance and teacher accommodation.

Elaine and Elliot

Elaine reported evidence of scaffolding toward moderate or intermediate levels of self-direction. She indicated she was supportive of students who desired to learn specific styles of music or particular pieces (if the level was realistic). Elaine also expressed a level of comfort with more experienced students playing in a way “which works for them.” Elaine also described herself as a teacher who provided plenty of specific instruction and external motivation, more aligned with the needs of learners inclined toward lower levels of self-direction. In her interview, she referenced the ways her students “expected [her] to lead them” by teaching them specifically “how to touch the key” or “how to practice properly.” Elaine also mentioned that she tried to help her students to “realize they have much more ability than they expected.”

Elliot, who had two piano teachers before Elaine, reported that his previous teachers primarily implemented strategies consistent with low self-direction, by which he eventually became frustrated. However, in his experience with Elaine, Elliot shared evidence of intermediate self-direction. Although Elliot had clear expectations that Elaine should help direct the path of his learning, he also anticipated that they would engage in an ongoing discussion and negotiation. For example, Elliot reported,

from time to time we’ll have a piece that not only is difficult, but is unappealing to me, and she doesn’t have any problem . . . we may move on to another piece of the same genre, in the same difficulty, but more aesthetically pleasing to me.

Elliot also indicated instances of high self-direction as he communicated his personal goals. Although he professed that he did not aspire to be a professional pianist, he did aim to have pieces well-learned and memorized for moments he might encounter a piano in a public space. He wanted to have the ability to “sit down with no music . . . and play a respectable piece.” For Elliot, it was important to have a teacher supportive of his goals and willing to help guide the overall progression of his lessons.

Elaine and Elliot’s teacher–learner relationship appeared to be symbiotic: The balance of Elaine’s willingness to hear and respond appropriately to her student’s goals and needs—while bringing a level of rigor to their lessons—matched Elliot’s desired outcome for his lessons. Perhaps equally important, however, was Elliot’s willingness to communicate his goals. Because Elliot felt comfortable enough with Elaine to disclose that he would like to work on memorization or that he wanted to add some popular style music to his repertoire, Elaine was able to respond appropriately with support.

Al and Anna

In this teacher–student dyad, Al reported that he aimed to scaffold his adult students toward increased self-direction over time and described his role as that of a “consultant, coach and guide” who acts like a “big brother.” He reported that he wanted his students “to be able to think on their own feet” and that he worked incrementally to help his students become more autonomous. He described his teaching approach as “flexible” and “non-disciplinary,” further stating that he “rolls along with different personality types” due to his various student’s individual learning needs. He reported modeling solutions and being more directive in cases where students could not remedy issues through their own self-directed efforts, and helping students to focus on issues they would not otherwise self-identify. In terms of repertoire, Al explained that he was happy to allow students to select their own music, but he reported that he sometimes redirected students who selected music that was too difficult.

Al’s student Anna, a self-proclaimed procrastinator, reported that she had no aspiration to “become a concert pianist” and just wanted to learn to “play a little bit.” Anna’s description of her learning consistently fell within the low self-direction stage. For example, she stated that “I basically need a babysitter. If I have to report to someone, even to just go to a lesson, I’m more likely going to do it than if I . . . self-teach.” However, when she described what adult learning should be about, she consistently depicted an intermediate-level of self-direction and indicated that she would do better with someone who would let her “find her way.” Reporting that “hierarchical structures” are not “conducive to learning as an adult,” and that it was important that her teacher be flexible in terms of assigning an appropriate amount of work given other demands in her life, Anna’s aspirational descriptions contrasted from her earlier statements about needing a babysitter.

The relationship between Al and Anna was such that Al may not have been able to implement supports that aligned with Anna’s low level of self-direction, because Anna may have advocated for a higher level of self-direction. In her interview, she vacillated between low and intermediate descriptions of self-direction and there was evidence to suggest she may have also communicated to Al with similar mixed messages. According to Al, he did not hold Anna to task for preparing for her lessons and when she became too busy to prepare, he suggested she schedule lessons bi-weekly. When that did not work, he suggested monthly lessons. Anna’s own ambivalence about what she needed to succeed may have made it difficult for her to continue with lessons. Anna had just recently dropped piano lessons at the time of her interview.

Jeff, Julia, and Jacob

Jeff recommended lower levels of self-direction while students were learning basic technical skills, and based upon what he (and his students) reported, Jeff exhibited an ability to oscillate between varying levels of self-direction in response to student’s needs. For students like Julia, who displayed low levels of self-direction, he implemented a clear curriculum, and then scaffolded toward moderate levels of self-direction by asking “what kind of music do you enjoy?” Jeff also spoke about how he prompted students to self-evaluate by asking them to identify “something positive you just played.” By helping students form habits of self-evaluation and reflection, Jeff encouraged intermediate levels of self-direction. For students who exhibited higher levels of self-direction, Jeff recognized the importance of respecting learner’s previously acquired knowledge and personal goals. When Jeff spoke about Jacob (a professional musician), he recognized that he had a “wide range of knowledge about all styles” and was “coming in with songs that he wanted to learn and accomplish.”

Jeff’s student Julia began her interview by stating, “It’s clarinet and I have no idea what I am doing.” As a beginning clarinetist, Julia reported that she was still working on learning the basics of the instrument and showed evidence of a low level of self-direction. She expressed how much she enjoyed learning from Jeff and reported, “I want to know what he thinks, I need to know because I trust him.” Julia continually affirmed her trust in Jeff throughout the interview. When talking about how much she found pleasure in practicing, she finished her thought by saying, “If I can’t get it . . . I feel confident that Jeff will be able to tell me what I am doing wrong and I’ll figure it out.” However, Julia displayed some evidence of moderate self-direction by communicating to Jeff that she would enjoy playing a particular piece. Jeff responded supportively and transposed the piece so that she could play it more easily, encouraging Julia to increase her current level of self-direction.

Jacob, a saxophone student and accomplished guitarist, began to take lessons with Jeff after a failed attempt to learn from online sources, which demonstrated evidence of a high level of self-direction. Jacob came to the realization that he needed expert advice. During lessons, however, Jacob relayed that despite his teacher’s expertise, Jeff did not necessarily control the direction of his learning. According to Jacob,

I can come in there and say, “hey, listen, I was working on this this whole past week and . . . I don’t know what I’m doing wrong . . . ” And I’ll play it for him and he says . . . “just do this instead” . . . and we have an instant fix. There’s a lot of give and take in that respect.

Through this “give and take,” Jacob was given the opportunity to take the lead in his learning experience, while Jeff acted as a resource, offering advice based upon Jacob’s current goals.

Mila, Mey, and Margot

Mila had been educated in a rigorous and very structured classical approach, and although she mentioned that she aimed for her students to be “self-navigated,” she consistently reported that she had a particular “plan for them” to bring out their full potential. Mila seemed a bit skeptical of higher levels of self-direction, stating that it was important that students not go beyond the “borders of good taste” or play something “outrageous.” These comments may indicate that she lacked sufficient trust that her students would be able to discern stylistic norms on their own or that they would select repertoire with which she preferred. When working with adult students, Mila recognized that she needed to be “very gentle” in moments where there was disagreement. However, she stated that she believed that her students respected her when she would “defend and [could] stand on [her] point.” Perhaps Mila was able to take such a strong and directed approach at times because she worked to understand and remain “flexible” with her students. She described listening to what they actually said during lessons, but also intuited what they wanted to communicate: “Sometimes they don’t even say something but you can hear what they want to say.” In such instances, she reported that she would “back up a little bit and give more freedom.”

Although Mila consistently described aspects of the “plan for her students,” she also spoke about wanting to know her students’ goals and being willing to tailor her approach. She also stated that it was important to be “transparent about her own goals” for her students. For example, she shared that some of her adult students did not want to perform in public, but rather learn the piano just for individual enjoyment. Mila noted this aim was different than a performance-focused program where there is “no mercy” in regard to expectations for public performance, yet she mentioned that she still encouraged students to perform for friends and in low-stress situations indicating that she may have not completely agreed with her students’ personal goals to not perform publicly.

Mila’s comments further supported the idea that she fostered a moderate level of self-direction, when she discussed repertoire selection and stressed the importance of learning “the character and musical tastes” of each of her students. In order to help her students to achieve their playing goals, she reported that she insisted upon a “very strict diet of certain pieces.”

Mey described learning in a way consistent with a low level of self-direction, with occasional aspirations toward moderate self-direction. Somewhat contrary to what Mila reported, Mey indicated that she had “no say” about what pieces she played, but that she felt that Mila typically selected pieces she would like. However, later in the interview, she reported that Mila sometimes assigned works that she did not like at first, but after preparing it she “end[ed] up loving it.” Mey may have tolerated Mila’s teacher-centered approach because she needed Mila to offer clear direction due to cultural expectations she held about the role of a teacher. For example, she stated that “I’m Chinese and I’m very compliant as to what a teacher wants to do.” Mey went on to say of Mila, “she is very good at picking my weakest point and I prefer she just tell me what it is, like the passage, or deciding which hand is too heavy [or] too loud, or ‘you should be really this way.’”

Mey attributed her need for more teacher-directed instruction to her status as a beginner. Although she acknowledged that some adult students might like more self-direction, she said, “I knew really nothing and I started from [the] very beginning.” At the time of this study, however, Mey had been studying with Mila for “six-seven years” and reported that, for the most part, she knew what Mila expected from her during lessons:

I usually listen and try to do whatever she wants. So, I don’t have a separate idea [for] what should be. I just learn all the notes and think [about] how it should be. And I play for her. And sometimes I listen to myself on the recorder and then, you know, bring that to her and just do whatever she says. . . . I’m there to do whatever she said, in a way I really trust her.

Mey’s use of a recorder during her at-home practice provided some evidence that she occasionally engaged in a moderate level of self-direction; however, she reported a lack of confidence in her ability to self-assess her achievement. This was made clear when she explained that she “can’t tell the difference” always if she is playing correctly and that she sometimes had questioned Mila when she made statements like, “Oh, you already sound better.” Listening to recordings of her playing caused Mey to doubt that she was playing correctly, and she reported that she relied upon Mila to determine what was “right” even in cases when she doubted Mila’s assessment. This suggested that, although Mey was attempting to become more self-directed, she may not yet have been willing or able to take on the increased responsibility typical of a moderate level of self-direction.

Margot consistently described her learning in ways consistent with a moderate level of self-direction. Margot reported that she appreciated Mila’s advice, but brought “her own ideas.” She reported that repertoire selection was a “back-and forth-dialogue” and that she trusted her to suggest pieces because she found them to be “very, very, good.” However, she also described how on her own she was self-directed in that she “plays and sight-reads a lot, and she is willing to bring in pieces that she wants to play.”

Also consistent with a moderate level of self-direction, Margot relied upon Mila to help her to focus at times when she was “out of sync” with her practice schedule and as a result went to lessons unprepared and in need of “a little pushing.” Similarly, Margot found it helpful when Mila would direct her focus upon musical phrasing, which she felt helped her to get out of such a “narrow focusing upon technique.” Margot reported that she looked to Mila for direction in terms of stylistic interpretation because she realized that she “took liberties that she shouldn’t,” although she did not seem totally convinced of Mila’s directions because she stated that she thought that Mila was “probably right.” She followed by mentioning that a good teacher would not take “away from my need to express or approach something in a certain way” but would ensure she was executing the proper stylistic approach. With these statements, it is clear that Margot asserted more in lessons than Mey. However, both of Mila’s students aligned with her own comfort with low to moderate levels of self-direction among her students.

Alignment between teacher strategies and student self-direction level

In most cases, we found that teachers reported that they utilized strategies that aligned to some extent with the self-directed learning status of their students. For example, Jeff, who described strategies for an intermediate-level self-direction, intended for both Julia and Jacob to become self-directed at least at an intermediate level, but adjusted by providing more direction in instances when Jacob (high) could not solve playing issues independently and more teacher-directed strategies for Julia (low). Elaine and Elliot were perhaps the most aligned in that Elaine strove for her students to develop intermediate levels of self-direction, although she was perhaps more comfortable supporting students at low and moderate levels. Elliot (moderate-intermediate) had advanced beyond teachers who had used strategies appropriate for a low level of self-direction and therefore felt supported by Elaine. Although Mila stated she wanted her students to be “self-navigated,” according to her students, she provided consistent teacher-directed strategies. These strategies aligned well because both Mey (low) and Margot (low-moderate) seemed to expect or welcome Mila’s approach. In the case of the Al–Anna dyad, Al was more comfortable with students who were capable of an intermediate level of self-direction, but Anna (low) was ambivalent stating that she wanted a teacher to be a “guide” (intermediate) and a “babysitter” (low).

Student tolerance of mismatches and teacher willingness to accommodate self-direction

Detrimental mismatches (Grow, 1994) between the learning status of the student and the roles and strategies of the teacher were found in the case of Al and Anna, and to some extent between Mila and Margot. Al was an example of a “non-directive teacher” who reported having a strong aim to promote self-direction among his students, while Anna, although ambiguous about her learning needs, was likely a “dependent learner” (Grow, 1990, p. 61). It was unclear whether this mismatch was the driver of the severed teacher–student relationship, or if as Anna stated, that other demands upon her time were the primary reason for ending lessons.

Although Mila reported that she aimed for an intermediate level of self-direction for her students, both of her students reported that she took a more authoritarian approach. Mey reported that she expected this approach; however, Margot reported that at times she would have preferred more opportunities to select repertoire, or more freedom in terms of musical interpretation. Whereas most of the teachers reported being willing to adapt their roles and strategies, with Mila there were limits to the extent to which she was willing to accommodate Margot. This provides some evidence there was a somewhat detrimental mismatch between a “directive teacher” and a more “self-directed” student in this case (Grow, 1990, p. 61).

Discussion

All of the teachers reported a willingness to accommodate the self-direction learning needs of their students and suggested that they made ongoing adjustments depending upon the learning situation. Even in the cases of teacher–student mismatch, the teachers and students reported that learners were able to be more self-directed when engaged in relatively simpler musical passages. Conversely, the learners reported that more direction from the teacher was welcomed when they encountered technical difficulty or were less experienced with a particular genre or style. Rohwer (2005, 2012) also acknowledged the importance of teacher accommodation of student needs, recommending that teachers reconsider traditional modes of instruction and adapt to the needs of the learner.

Students who reported that they had little experience playing were more inclined to have low to moderate levels of self-direction, and more advanced players reported intermediate to high levels of self-direction. This finding is consistent with Grow’s (1991) suggestion that less experienced learners may resist self-direction and need sufficient scaffolding and encouragement to become self-directed learners. However, as shown in the case of Mey, cultural expectations could play an important role in determining whether students desire or assert themselves as self-directed learners. This is consistent with Nugraha (2005) who found that cultural differences impacted women’s expectations and ability to engage in informal and self-directed learning opportunities. Similarly, cultural expectations may limit the extent to which some teachers are willing for their students to become self-directed, as was possibly the case with Mila who was not willing for students to surpass “borders of good taste” or play something “outrageous” insisting upon a “strict diet” of training literature.

The quality of the teacher–student relationship and the resulting level of communication between the two were found to be an important determinant of successful collaboration. A lack of consistent communication between Anna and Al may have led to Anna discontinuing lessons. In Elliot’s case, he had previously discontinued lessons with teachers who he stated were not aligned with his learning needs, and described that he maintained excellent communication with his current teacher, Elaine. Learners consistently reported that they communicated their needs directly to their teachers and that teachers responded by changing their approach. One exception was the case of Margot, who stated that Mila was not always willing to accommodate her needs, but that she usually acquiesced to Mila’s expertise. Teacher–student mismatches have also been recognized in related literature. For example, Rohwer (2012) offered a variety of situations in which mismatches may occur and cautions that the outcome can result in “misunderstandings and discomfort” (p. 51). Roulston et al. (2015) also affirmed the importance of communication for a successful student–teacher collaboration, contending that teachers may better serve their students and meet their needs by knowing them well.

Implications and future research

Students might require more direction when learning new techniques or styles of music that they feel unknowledgeable. Conversely, students who have developed more experience technically or stylistically may desire to explore literature in a more self-directed manner. Improving the teacher–student relationship may help to foster more direct communication about self-direction needs, especially in situations where there is a mismatch between teacher strategies and student self-direction level or where the cultural expectations of the teacher and/or student lead to conflicting expectations.

During the course of this study, neither the teachers nor the students were provided Grow’s (1990) Staged Self-Directed Learning (SSDL) model. It is possible that educating teachers about the stages of self-direction might provide teachers with a theoretical model to better assess and discern their students’ learning needs. The model might also help teachers become more aware of their comfort or preference to work with students at lower or higher levels of self-direction in order to carefully select students who align with their approach, or to develop strategies to accommodate those that do not. In addition, more needs to be understood about how teacher inflexibility influences attrition in cases where, as Grow (1990) stated, there is a detrimental mismatch between “independent learners and directive teachers, and between non-directive teachers and dependent students” (p. 61). An examination of adult students who have discontinued music study, particularly regarding their experiences with instructors, might reveal important insights regarding mismatch and alignment of self-direction goals and their impact on adult student retention.

Footnotes

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

Kaitlyn S Leahy

References

Chen

H. L.

(1996). An investigation of self-directed learning among non-music major adult piano learners in one-to-one piano instruction (Publication No. 9635962) [Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Coffman

D. D.

(2009). Voices of experience: Lessons from older adult amateur musicians. In Kerchner

J. L.

Abril

C. R.

(Eds.), Musical experience in our lives: Things we learn and meanings we make (pp. 331–346). Rowman & Littlefield.

Creech

Hallam

McQueen

Varvarigou

(2013). The power of music in the lives of older adults. Research Studies in Music Education, 35(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X13478862

Dabback

(2006). Toward a model of adult music learning as a socially-embedded phenomenon (Publication No. 3249214) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Rochester]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Goodrich

(2019). Spending their leisure time: Adult amateur musicians in a community band. Music Education Research, 21(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2018.1563057

Grow

(1990). Higher-order skills for professional practice and self-direction. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 45(4), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769589104500410

Grow

(1994). In defense of the staged self-directed learning model. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(2), 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369404400206

Houle

(1961). The inquiring mind. University of Wisconsin Press.

Jutras

P. J.

(2011). The benefits of New Horizons Band participation as self-reported by selected New Horizons Band members. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 2011, 65–84. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/41162324

10.

Knowles

(1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. Association Press.

11.

Knowles

(1984). Andragogy in action. Jossey-Bass.

12.

Lally

Valentine-French

(2019). Lifespan development: A psychological perspective. Open Education Resource. http://dept.clcillinois.edu/psy/LifespanDevelopment.pdf

13.

Mantie

(2012). A study of community band participants: Implications for music education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 2012, 21–43. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.191.0021

14.

Mizok-Taylor

R. J.

(2008). Promoting self-directed learning in adult piano instruction (Publication No. 2870) [Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University]. Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports.

15.

Nugraha

S. P.

(2005). Self-directed learning among wives of international students at the Florida State University (Publication No. 3183100) [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

16.

Pike

(2001). Leisure piano lessons: A case study of lifelong learning (Publication No. 3018335) [Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Oklahoma]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

17.

Rohwer

(2005). Teaching the adult beginning instrumentalist: Ideas from practitioners. International Journal of Music Education, 23(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761405050929

18.

Rohwer

(2008). Health and wellness issues for adult band musicians. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 23(2), 54–58. https://search-proquest.com/docview/1403417?accountid=9676&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

19.

Rohwer

(2012). Going to the source: Pedagogical ideas from adult band members. Journal of Band Research, 48(1), 45–5774. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1266691714

20.

Roulston

(2010). “There is no end to learning”: Lifelong education and the joyful learner. International Journal of Music Education, 28(4), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761410381822

21.

Roulston

Jutras

Kim

S. J.

(2015). Adult perspectives of learning musical instruments. International Journal of Music Education, 33(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415584291

22.

Tsugawa

(2009). Senior adult music learning, motivation, and meaning construction in two New Horizons Ensembles (Publication No. 3392131) [Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

23.

Waldron

Veblen

(2009). Learning in a Celtic community: An exploration of informal music learning and adult amateur musicians. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 2009, 59–74. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40319320