Problem-Based Learning in a Woodwind Methods Course: An Action Research Study

Participants

Participants in this study were undergraduate music majors (N = 6) in music performance and music education degree tracks. The class had a total enrollment of 10; all students enrolled in the class participated in PBL activities throughout the course, regardless of their participation in the study. The students in the class ranged from freshman to master’s students enrolled in music education, music performance, and music composition programs. Of those who agreed to take part in the study, two were freshman and two were sophomores, in addition to one junior and one senior. All participants (five males and one female) were between 18 and 22 years old. Three played a woodwind as their primary instrument, while three played brass. Four had prior experience with brass, percussion, and/or string SIM courses. Four of the participants had prior experience teaching private lessons, and three had participated in teaching episodes in public schools as part of other classes, as volunteers, or during band camps.

Context

The first author was the instructor of the woodwind methods course, while the second author collected consent documents and conducted interviews; both authors analyzed the data. In the course, students were provided opportunities to develop performance skills, pedagogical skills, and general teaching techniques. Based on the first author’s experience teaching woodwind methods courses at different institutions over the past five years, we conceived of this course as a laboratory for exploring teaching methods. This was in response to the fact that many students struggle to address instrument-specific problems with instrument-specific solutions. For example, many students will turn to rhythmic or musical issues (e.g., phrasing) rather than addressing issues of embouchure formation, articulation, or specific techniques (e.g., flicking on bassoon). When questioning students about their approaches, they have often told the first author they are not comfortable with specific knowledge on secondary instruments, so they turn to broader musical principles to solve the problem. This suggests that when preservice teachers are not sufficiently confident in their problem-solving abilities, they will turn to indirect strategies in an attempt to help their students, even if these solutions prove to be ineffective. Thus, we sought a method to help students solve problems head-on, and to feel capable of finding information relevant to solving problems for themselves.

Class Structure

The class itself was a one-semester woodwind methods course, designed to teach pedagogical and performance skills for flute, oboe, clarinet, saxophone, and bassoon. Instruction was heterogeneous, and the students switched instruments every 3 weeks, with one to three students on each instrument at a time. The class met four times per week in 50-minute sessions. The course included performance of exercises from a variety of method books, brief lectures, teaching demonstrations, class discussions, teaching assignments (as described in the PBL activities section), readings, teaching observations, video assessments, in-class written tests, out-of-class performance tests, and a comprehensive course notebook compiled by each student over the course of the semester. This course also had a co-requisite instrumental laboratory component meeting once per week with a brass methods class. The course had no prerequisites. Because there was some specific content that we wanted all students to experience in the same way, we incorporated non-PBL activities (in the form of brief lectures and/or teaching musical examples) into the course as we felt appropriate for student learning. Thus, while the majority of class time was PBL-based, there was some direct instruction in most classes.

PBL Activities

For the PBL components of this course, we used a variety of problem sources: video cases (videos found on YouTube and videos created by the students in the class), live cases (when students brought someone to teach in front of the class), emergent cases (when students encountered a performance problem in class), and written cases (class assignments and test questions). For video examples, we presented students with a prompt adapted from Millican’s (2014) study on pedagogical content knowledge requiring them to identify teaching priorities, possible causes of observed problems, and possible strategies for those problems. Students wrote down their thoughts while watching the videos, and then formed groups to discuss strategies. The class worked together to decide what information they needed to teach effectively, and how they would go about helping the student. Students typically worked together to find information in approved sources, then brought their findings back to the whole class.

With live case examples, students invited someone with no woodwind experience and taught them to make their first sounds in front of the class. The rest of the class observed and took notes throughout the teaching episode. When the teacher came upon a problem they were unable to solve, the students would break into PBL groups and work through the same prompt as the video examples. Similarly, when students in the class encountered a performance problem during normal class activities, the class would break into groups for problem-solving activities.

When formally assessing students through the use of written cases, we presented them with instrument-specific questions that could have multiple viable solutions. This was a PBL-like activity, designed to use the thinking processes encouraged by PBL, but it departs from the method in two ways: The students were unable to look up information they did not already know, and the students worked independently. For example, one of the early tests in the course included the following question about a common issue for beginner saxophonists: “Q. You have a saxophone who is producing an extremely ‘honky’ sound. What could cause this problem? How could you help the student solve this problem?” This question invites several plausible solutions, and thus, students received a grade based on their ability to propose plausible causes, to devise viable solutions, and to demonstrate their comprehension of specific strategies presented in class.

Data Collection

As an action research study, the formal data collection dictated three research spirals. During Research Spiral 1 (RS1) and Research Spiral 3 (RS3)—Weeks 4 and 13 of the course, respectively—participants completed two anonymous open-ended question sets. During Research Spiral 2 (RS2)—during Week 8 or 9 of the course—participants took part in an in-person interview with the second author. ¹ The purpose of the first question set was to address the students’ early impressions of PBL, the direction of the course and proposed changes, the students’ confidence in their ability to teach woodwinds, and the perceived helpfulness of course activities. The second question set addressed students’ later impressions of the PBL approach, its perceived helpfulness for their future teaching, and their overall confidence to teach woodwinds after the course. In the semistructured interviews, we asked participants to describe any examples of PBL they experienced in other courses, their confidence in teaching concepts from class, their confidence in solving student problems in multiple ways, and their perceptions of how a problem-based course structure affects motivation, engagement, and retention.

After each of these data collection events, the second author compiled the responses and worked with the first author to decide how to proceed with the class until the next data collection event. Additional data sources included assessments, informal open-ended question sets conducted throughout the course, and classroom assignments. These additional data sources were used to triangulate with the interview and anonymous open-ended question sets, providing additional support for the validity of our findings (Creswell, 2014). The first author also kept a detailed daily journal of class activities, changes or improvements in teaching, and thoughts for improving the study.

Data Analysis

Data were used both formatively (to inform specific changes in the class, which are described in the findings) and summatively (presented as themes in the “Findings” section) (Mills, 2007). Consistent with action research practices, after each of the data collection events (both anonymous open-ended question sets and the interviews) the authors met to discuss the emerging findings and changes for the next research spiral in an ongoing analysis process.

For the summative analysis, the authors imported interview transcriptions and question sets (both comprised entirely of open-responses) into Nvivo (qualitative data analysis software) to organize and code the data using an emergent coding procedure (Creswell, 2014). We coded students’ formal assessment by hand to gauge their use of the PBL model and comprehension of course materials. Triangulation across multiple data sources helped ensure validity and determine areas of agreement or conflict (Creswell, 2014). Daily researcher journaling and analyses at the end of each research spiral provided opportunities to collect, study, and reflect on the data throughout the study. At the conclusion of the study, the first author coded the data, which was independently checked by the second author. The authors then met and discussed coding discrepancies until they reached consensus.

Teaching Confidence

It was clear that students perceived a positive impact on their teaching confidence from learning in this PBL environment. The theme of confidence in problem-solving skills was prevalent across all data forms and in all three research spirals. For example, one student mentioned the development of thinking skills and its impact on teaching efficacy: “I feel much more confident to teach beginning woodwinds after taking a problem-based course because it taught me to think critically and analytically” (Sophomore 1, RS3). This statement may imply that these thinking skills were either not addressed elsewhere in the students’ education, or they were unaware of attempts to cultivate such skills in their coursework. Another student mentioned confidence in trying multiple solutions to an unfamiliar problem: “If something doesn’t work with a student, I’d feel comfortable trying it from a different angle to see if I could fix it” (Junior, RS1). As an approach, PBL helped students to think through a problem in a systematized way, which increased their confidence to solve problems on their own. Particularly, the opportunity for application of these thinking skills in authentic teaching contexts was a particular strength of the PBL approach. In contrast to other approaches, PBL provides a specific structure for thinking and the opportunity to work with problems multiple times in a low-stakes environment, which allows for the development of teaching confidence over time.

The concept of flexibility or adaptability is apparent in the above quotes and suggests confidence in unforeseen circumstances. Students noted dealing with unanticipated teaching situations that fostered adaptability: “It has given me hands on experience with dealing with unforeseen issues and given me the ability to adapt to them on the fly” (Sophomore 2, RS3). Another student echoed this sentiment, writing: “I feel like I can deal with a lot more of what’s thrown at me, just because I’ve had to figure it out here” (Freshman 1, RS1). Students felt they were capable of being flexible, and that they could find solutions for problems they will encounter in their careers. Particularly, PBL’s emphasis on both authentic experiences and developing solutions tailored to each unique teaching situation seemed to help students feel capable in new teaching situations.

Some students mentioned how PBL helped change their thinking regarding how they would approach problems with their own students, which increased their teaching confidence. One participant, a performance major, recounted less successful teaching experiences before taking this course, and a newfound adaptability:

I’m a performance major, so I really didn’t have any experience with teaching before. . . . I’d hit a wall. . . . Because, you know, I’m a performance major. It doesn’t make sense not being able to do it. But now, I’d say I have a better ability to adapt and get around those blocks to a certain extent. Even if it’s coming at it from the same direction, but having a different way to say things, or a different way to get them to do the same thing. (Sophomore 2, RS2)

Since this was the student’s first experience with any form of instrumental pedagogy, it is unsurprising that exposure to pedagogical principles in this course would affect the student’s teaching positively. But, the confidence found in flexibility described by students is suggestive of increased teaching confidence for problem solving fostered by a PBL approach.

Students also mentioned their teaching confidence in relation to basic skills for teaching woodwinds across all data forms and in all three research spirals. Students said the following regarding their confidence: (a) “I’m confident that this one class will give me adequate preparation to teach” (Freshman 2, RS1), (b) “I’d be comfortable setting up beginning students with a first lesson. I now have a pretty detailed understanding of how to play these instruments that I’ve never touched before, and in only like three weeks of playing them” (Sophomore 1, RS2), and (c) “This course provides the resources necessary for me to prepare myself to enter the classroom” (Senior, RS3).

Though these quotes suggest an increase in teaching efficacy, students mentioned teaching broad, general topics or skills much more frequently than instrument-specific skills. When asked to describe types of skills they would be confident teaching, one student said: “I would be confident, very confident teaching a lot of the basics that kind of apply across the board with all instruments” (Junior, RS3). Note that this quote mentions skills that are not instrument-specific, which may point to discomfort with instrument-specific competencies. While many participants mentioned instrument-specific skills they would be comfortable teaching, they were generally comfortable with broad musical concepts, and particularly if those concepts applied to their own instrument.

Student Engagement, Intrinsic Motivation, and Ownership of Learning

Intrinsic motivation to learn became a consistent theme throughout the data, and particularly in the student interviews. Students mentioned that having the autonomy to learn materials through problem-based activities sparked curiosity, which was motivating. One participant mentioned the pursuit of knowledge as a motivator:

I don’t do this in other classes, but especially in this class, I’m not working for a grade, I’m working for the knowledge that I get . . . So, and especially in this situation, I think we’re motivated to get the knowledge, and have this curiosity [to] learn things. (Senior, RS2)

Another student mentioned autonomy as a motivating force: “I think us being able to ask our own questions and sort of formulate our own experience in that class makes it very motivational” (Junior, RS1). One participant suggested that satisfying curiosity was a side effect of a PBL approach: “I can learn things that I’m curious about, and then I want to learn more” (Sophomore 1, RS3). Students perceived the ability to shape one’s own experience in a PBL approach as a strength.

PBL also presents informal assessment opportunities, for both student and teacher that can motivate student learning. For example, another participant mentioned appreciation for opportunities for self-evaluation and class-wide interactions:

I’m definitely more motivated for this class. Like I said, I enjoy this type of learning much, much better, because it forces you to interact on a daily basis. It gives you a chance to kind of test and quiz yourself . . . you know, the more you do something, the better you get at it. (Sophomore 2, RS2)

Students expressed a desire to learn, test themselves, and expand their teaching abilities.

One of the goals of this approach was for students to feel in charge of their learning. By guiding students through a thinking process that encourages them to self-assess, students felt comfortable seeking out additional information. For example, one student noted: “Motivation wise, I think it’s [PBL] great because it makes me feel more in charge of my own education and my own success in that class, and in teaching in general” (Freshman 1, RS3).

Students also mentioned how this approach let them guide their learning and helped them to think critically about the course content: “I’m always thinking, what do I want to learn? I didn’t just go there, sit there, and suck up information. I am actually thinking, what do I want to learn? Why am I learning this? How does this apply?” (Senior, RS1). Another student echoed this sentiment: “. . . being able to ask our own questions and formulate our own experience in this class makes it very motivational. It makes us feel independent and in charge, for sure” (Freshman 2, RS2).

Several participants mentioned their enthusiasm for the experiential, self-directed learning this approach fosters. For example, one student said PBL learning was more active than a teacher-centered class: “Rather than being taught everything from the teacher, we were actively learning through experiencing” (Sophomore 1, RS3). Another student said: “The obvious answer is we’re more engaged because we’re learning about things we want to learn about” (Freshman 2, RS2). Because PBL allows for individualization, students felt able to decide what was of most value to them.

However, an emphasis on student-directed activities is not without drawbacks. Students perceived the possibility to engage in less in-depth work if they were not motivated. For example, the following student described a classmate who was less invested in the course:

There’s a student in the class who isn’t an education major, and he doesn’t really care for the information, so he doesn’t bother too hard to learn it. And the structure of the class kind of allows him to slide in that regard. But, the people who are going to be educators, like me, who understand the importance of learning information, have a great opportunity. (Senior, RS2)

For students who felt the material was of value to them, a PBL approach provided them with opportunities to learn and engage with materials they felt were valuable; for those who did not, an emphasis on self-direction allowed for a lack of engagement and ownership as well.

Authentic Context Learning

The primary reason for choosing a PBL approach was to help students solve real-life problems they will likely encounter in their teaching. With regard to using realistic scenarios, videos, or live examples, students said the following: (a) “It has provided real-life scenarios that are very possible occurrences in future teaching” (Freshman 1, RS3); (b) “Problem-based learning has done a good job of cementing the information I’ve learned, because I’ve been forced to apply that knowledge to real life scenarios” (Sophomore 2, RS2); and (c) “It’s really connecting to the real world that is the drive for me” (Junior, RS1). Students also mentioned how this approach was valuable because it approximated real-life scenarios, without requiring them to work with “real” students. For example, one student highlighted apprehension about teaching beginners and how this approach helped them to feel confident in teaching a one-to-one lesson:

It’s a very scary thing, having a new student . . . there’s a lot of pressure there. And this is one of the few times when you don’t have to feel nervous about it at all, because one, most of these people are never going to touch the instrument again, and two, your teacher and classmates are there to help you do it better. For the person giving the lesson, it’s an incredibly enlightening experience . . . it gives a nice application of everything you’ve learned, to see if I could apply the things that I knew in a slightly pressured situation. (Sophomore 2, RS2)

For this student, PBL provided a bridge between prior knowledge of teaching and working with “real” students outside class, helping the student to feel prepared for future teaching.

One of the goals of PBL is to provide students with opportunities to engage with problems in authentic contexts. Regarding opportunities to practice teaching, students expressed the importance of this experience for their learning. For example, one student mentioned the importance of applying learning immediately: “We’re learning how to actually apply various concepts to teaching” (Freshman 1, RS1). Another student mentioned appreciating the active aspect of practice teaching: “[We] all teach and remedy each other which lets us all learn by doing, which is the best way to learn” (Junior, RS2). By practicing teaching, students felt able to apply concepts learned in class time. All participants expressed appreciation, in multiple forms of data, for opportunities to practice teaching.

Implementation Challenges

Students—and we as researchers—noted some challenges to implementing a PBL approach. The most prevalent disadvantage of this approach was that it could feel unfocused, haphazard, and unstructured. Several students made similar comments: (a) “It’s kind of a side-effect of the nature of problem-based teaching itself, is that it tends to be a little bit improvised, a little bit not on a schedule” (Junior, RS2) and (b) “I feel like lessons can be a little bit scatterbrained and get a little bit off topic” (Freshman 2, RS3). Because the students’ PBL processes could not always be accurately predicted, some improvisatory teaching was necessary. While we worked to improve this throughout the semester with increasingly structured PBL activities, it remained an ongoing challenge.

Students also expressed a desire for more examples of good teaching: “I’d love to see [first author] giving mock teaching examples, that we should sort of mirror in our own form . . . any videos, teaching examples online, or that she can provide of her own . . .” (Junior, RS2). When asked to describe how they would teach their own woodwind methods class, another student said the following: “I would probably want to give more examples for my students that they could comment on or steal from” (Sophomore 1, RS3). Some students saw value in having their own experiences but felt the need for more models before they felt comfortable on their own. In response to this comment, we provided additional teaching examples in class, suggested YouTube videos of quality teaching, and suggested specific teachers whom they may ask to observe.

Making enough time for other important activities was also a challenge. Students mentioned that actually playing the instruments was not always emphasized as much as they would like: “I would like us more consistently playing. . . . Sometimes we’re doing so many things that the playing kind of gets put on the backburner” (Freshman 2, RS1). Because the students switched instruments every three weeks, students viewed an emphasis on nonplaying activities as a loss of time to learn the instruments. Since performance proficiency is often the primary purpose of SIM courses, it is possible that students felt less emphasis on playing, which resulted in less playing proficiency. In response to this challenge, we experimented with starting each class with some playing (typically 20 minutes), which helped students make consistent progress.

From a teaching perspective, the amount of time needed for PBL activities was a consistent concern. In the researcher journal, one of the most common statements was “we ran out of time today.” Structuring class time to accomplish specific curricular tasks, while simultaneously allowing flexibility for the time needed for PBL activities, was an ongoing challenge. In response to these challenges, we experimented with structuring specific time for non-PBL activities (e.g., a brief lecture on a specific topic, a specific amount of time for performance activities, or student presentations).

Though not necessarily a problem, the number of questions this approach elicited was also a challenge. As the course progressed during the first spiral, for example, questions from students became so numerous that they could derail the topic of the day. In response to this challenge, we created a “question box.” The question box allowed students to write down questions (that were relevant in some way to the course content, but not urgent) during the class for review later. The first author reviewed those questions after class and either answered directly in the next class or incorporated them into further PBL activities in subsequent classes.