Self-Examination of Music Methods Teaching in a Reggio Emilia-Inspired Learning Community

Abstract

Music teacher educators have taken different approaches to enrich teaching-specific reflective practice through peer collaboration. In this study, three music teacher educators examined their experiences with the process of pedagogical documentation, a form of collaborative professional development from the Reggio Emilia Approach (REA). They met via video conferencing over the course of a semester to review key concepts related to the REA, share student artifacts, and discuss teaching contexts and considerations. Through this collaboration, participants found space for sharing successes, supporting personal reflection, troubleshooting, and revisiting ideas related to teaching and learning. They deepened their attunement to how teaching contexts continually shift and the affordances and challenges of incorporating the hundred languages (a concept from REA) in higher education.

Keywords

music educator professional development pedagogical documentation Reggio Emilia

Music teacher educators looking to critically examine teacher preparation methods face systemic challenges due to relative isolation in their positions, physical distance from peers who might be interested in collaborating on reflective practice, and perceived need to appear as experts (Stanley & Conway, 2015). Some have mitigated those issues by engaging in collaborative self-study with graduate students, coinstructors, or other music faculty at their institutions (Conway et al., 2010; Conway et al., 2016; Pellegrino et al., 2019; Stanley & Grossman, 2014, as cited in Stanley & Conway, 2015). Others have formed mentoring or peer mentoring communities that met virtually to address a myriad of needs, including but not limited to critical reflective examination of teaching practices (Bond & Koops, 2014; Draves & Koops, 2011; Kuebel et al., 2019; Pellegrino et al., 2014).

By engaging in this collaborative work, some music teacher educators found a space to examine anxieties related to teaching (Bond & Koops, 2014) and identify their origin (Pellegrino et al., 2019). They found opportunities to share teaching resources and strategies (Draves & Koops, 2011; Kuebel et al., 2019; Pellegrino et al., 2019), remind themselves of their own teaching beliefs (Bond & Koops, 2014), and support critical self-reflection of teaching practices for congruence with individually held teaching philosophies (Draves & Koops, 2011; Pellegrino et al., 2019). Sometimes, participants experienced difficult emotions related to reflective practice, and they found much needed support and comfort in their groups (Pellegrino et al., 2014; Pellegrino et al., 2019). While engaged in collaborative professional development, music teacher educators adjusted their teaching practice and developed confidence in their teaching and developed confidence in their teaching and roles (Bond & Koops, 2014; Conway et al., 2016; Kuebel et al., 2019; Pellegrino et al., 2014; Pellegrino et al., 2019).

Pedagogical documentation is a specific form of collaborative professional development (Edwards et al., 1998) that originated within the Reggio Emilia Approach (REA) to early childhood education. The REA was founded in principles of democracy, demonstrating respect for individual learners, and a social environment (Cagliari et al., 2012). Initially, the REA was designed for preschool children, but because the approach can be molded to the strengths, interests, and needs of learners, teachers have successfully adapted practices to different settings, including secondary (Soble & Hogue, 2010) and postsecondary education (Wolfe, 2020). Through the REA process of pedagogical documentation, a small group of teachers and a pedagogical coordinator share student artifacts in order to better understand student learning, interrogate current teaching practices, and plan alterations to the learning environment. Often, teachers create a visual display of student artifacts with descriptions of students’ and teachers’ related experiences and understandings. The pedagogical coordinator is tasked with fostering a democratic sharing of ideas in which each participant is valued as coming with their own strengths and knowledge basis, and all participants contribute, rooting discussion in pedagogical theory and experience (Edwards et al., 1998).

Researchers have qualitatively examined teachers’ experiences collaborating on the process of pedagogical documentation as a form of professional development in early childhood and secondary settings, and at one school site or spread across many (e.g., Goldhaber, 2007; Kersting, 1995; Soble & Hogue, 2010). These teachers faced challenges learning the skills necessary to implement pedagogical documentation. With time, practice, and in some cases the support from an external pedagogical coordinator, however, teachers began to value the collaborative process of pedagogical documentation, use it to support each other through challenges and celebrate each other’s successes, and apply it to positively redesign the classroom environment and adjust their teaching approach by including more open-ended projects and adopting a pedagogy of listening from the REA (Goldhaber, 2007; Kersting, 1995; Soble & Hogue, 2010).

The process of pedagogical documentation traditionally occurs within a specific teaching and learning context framed by the REA. Key ideas from this framework include adopting a pedagogy of listening and creating opportunities for students to engage with concepts through the hundred languages (Gandini, 2015). Adopting a pedagogy of listening facilitates students’ engagement with the hundred languages because educators “respond to what they see by asking questions, initiating face-to-face exchanges, redirecting activities, and modifying the way or the intensity of their interaction with particular children” (Malaguzzi, 1998, p. 69). The hundred languages do not denote a specific quantity, but reflect “all those ways of communicating through which human thinking is brought to reflect, dig deeply, ask questions and make interpretations in different areas” (Vecchi, 2010, p. 18). In other words, the hundred languages are a wide variety of symbolic systems through which humans can develop understanding and communicate. Individual languages push thought development and support communication with different degrees of effectiveness for different concepts and contexts. Teachers encourage students to craft representations in multiple modalities: “Let children make visible drawings of sounds, or make music sounds of things that are visible. These are called cross-modal representations and they can bring new perspectives and insights to light” (Edwards et al., 1998, p. 462). In light of this, teachers may create space for students to engage in what Falter (2018) termed symbolic translations, in which the students take one idea and engage with it through multiple self-chosen or teacher-recommended languages, thus maximizing the different affordances of different languages (Edwards et al., 1998; Edwards et al., 2012).

Due to its context-flexible nature, aspects of REA have been adapted for a wide variety of settings. Some researchers have examined music within generalist Reggio Emilia-inspired learning environments (e.g., Bond, 2012, 2015; Reynolds & Filsinger, 2013; Reynolds & Waters, 2014; Waters, 2015; Westlake, 2015), while others have examined implementation of REA teaching practices in music classrooms (Gould, 2006; Smith, 2011; Yanko, 2015) and music education courses in higher education (Wolfe, 2020), but none has focused on the process of pedagogical documentation. Music teacher educators engaged in collaborative professional development have found value in such experiences and offered suggestions for others who would undertake similar activities (e.g., Bond & Koops, 2014; Conway et al., 2010; Conway et al., 2016; Draves & Koops, 2011; Kuebel et al., 2019; Pellegrino et al., 2014; Pellegrino et al., 2019). We believed that the process of pedagogical documentation, as a form of professional development, could be a useful way to frame a learning community focused on critically examining and refining music teacher preparation methods, and that there were enough congruencies between our teaching philosophies and the REA to make pedagogical documentation an appropriate fit.

Method

The purpose of this instrumental case study (Stake, 1995) was to examine the experience of three music teacher educators collaborating in the Reggio Emilia-inspired process in the pedagogical documentation (Edwards et al., 1998) as a form of professional development. We bound this case study by the time period of one semester – Spring 2019 – and our online collaborative reflections pertaining to methods course teaching at two of our institutions (Barrett, 2014). Ellie served as the pedagogical coordinator and actively valued the knowledge and experiences of instructors Angela and Heather while fostering democratic sharing of ideas. We asked ourselves two research questions: How did engaging in pedagogical documentation focus our reflection on student learning and our own needs? To what extent did we see value in engaging in pedagogical documentation as a form of collaborative professional development?

Study Context

Ellie (they/them) was in their first year teaching at a small liberal arts university and had three semesters experience teaching elementary general music methods there and as a doctoral student. Their experience with the REA included incorporating components in their own teaching in P–12 music and pre/inservice teacher education, studying the approach in Reggio Emilia, and conducting multiple related research studies. Based on these experiences, Ellie believed pedagogical documentation could be a good fit for professional development among any teachers who were willing to incorporate some open-endedness in their teaching. They were interested in supporting peers and obtaining a more detailed picture of how others approach teaching similar courses, so they recruited Heather and Angela as collaborators for this study. Many manifestations of pedagogical documentation in the United States include only teachers, but in Reggio Emilia, teachers work with a pedagogical coordinator who does not bring artifacts from their own teaching. Ellie was curious if this slightly outsider role could be beneficial and elected to undertake it.

Heather (she/her) had been teaching one or two sections of methods courses (elementary, secondary, and classes focused on diverse school settings and classroom instruments) for three years at a mid-sized teaching university. Prior to participating in this study, she was already quite familiar with the REA, having engaged in music interactions and research in a Reggio Emilia-inspired preschool. During her interactions with preschool children at this school, she experienced how adopting a pedagogy of listening and using pedagogical documentation facilitated young children’s creative multimodal expression. She had made some small attempts at utilizing pedagogical documentation with her undergraduate students previously, and wanted to continue to explore the potential of the REA with adult learners because documenting and revisiting learning had the potential to spark additional learning. Heather viewed pedagogical documentation as an opportunity to formalize her process for interpreting student work in her methods course and to be more intentional in how she guided students in revisiting their work.

Angela (she/her) had been teaching general music methods at a mid-sized research university for 2 years, and had taught similar courses during her PhD program. Her methods course, which was part of a three-course sequence, was the only one focused specifically on general music teaching, so Angela strove to provide an in-depth overview of teaching and learning in elementary music classes. Angela began the study with minimal knowledge of the REA beyond reading a few articles and informal conversations with colleagues. Based on her limited experience with REA, she was intrigued with the ideas of the hundred languages and the process of pedagogical documentation. Through participating in this study, she and her students could simultaneously learn about REA and make connections throughout the semester through pedagogical documentation.

Based on our collective knowledge of the REA, we believed pedagogical documentation as a form of collaborative professional development had the potential to support each of our individual goals. Ellie’s goals were to examine the feasibility of pedagogical documentation in higher education and possible roles of a pedagogical coordinator, how others approach methods teaching, and ways that the REA might positively inform methods teaching. Heather was interested in exploring ways to expand the processes of pedagogical documentation beyond preschool contexts, and to delve more deeply into the relationship between teachers and a pedagogical coordinator. Angela wanted to further her experience with the REA and engage in collaborative self-reflection on her professional practice as part of a learning community.

The three of us collaborated in the process of pedagogical documentation. Ellie acted as pedagogical coordinator to facilitate a group exploration of student learning and teaching practices in Angela’s and Heather’s methods courses. We met via video conferencing five times throughout the semester. During the first three, Ellie reviewed literature addressing documentation in the classroom, the hundred languages, and possible ways to display pedagogical documentation. Angela and Heather shared student artifacts in each meeting. Before the start of the study, we obtained permission from the institutional review boards at each university, and Angela and Heather obtained informed consent from students enrolled in their methods courses. Students were not study participants, but Angela and Heather obtained their informed consent so they could use student work as artifacts.

Ellie organized pedagogical documentation meetings with a responsiveness to relationships between participants and our varied backgrounds with REA, promoting reflection on teaching rooted in student observation and artifacts as well as the constraints and affordances of meeting and sharing artifacts online. The three of us knew each other as colleagues and friends before the start of the study. Meetings began and sometimes ended with social talk. We also interspersed work with moments of humor, such as through referring to an old shared joke (“Words are hard!”) or laughingly replying “Okay, boss!” to Ellie. The warmth of the collaborative community was seen in genuine and freely given compliments like “I think it’s beautiful!” or welcoming Ellie’s or Angela’s young children when they appeared on screen. By welcoming children in meetings, we also created more flexibility for scheduling. There was an additional consideration related to relationships: democratizing power. At the start of the study, Heather was skeptical about structuring the group so that there was a pedagogical coordinator who was not also teaching and bringing artifacts for reflection. She was concerned that a coordinator in this position might not be able to effectively facilitate deeper levels of understanding and that they might inadvertently establish a hierarchy within the group with the possible perception of required “reporting” back to a coordinator. Ellie also worried about unintentionally minimizing the power of Heather’s and Angela’s voices as they shared student artifacts and engaged in collaborative reflection. However, Heather discovered that having an “outside” pedagogical coordinator was extremely useful in terms of asking probing questions and facilitating deeper levels of clarity and reflection within the group. Moreover, Ellie felt they successfully structured meetings to ensure each participant was able and felt expected to share their responses to information about the REA and student artifacts.

The three of us came to the study with varying knowledge of and experience with the REA. Ellie and Heather both had extensive knowledge through reading, practice, and research. In contrast, Angela had not studied the approach formally beyond a few readings and seeing separate presentations by Ellie and Heather. Because of this knowledge differential, Ellie—as pedagogical coordinator—presented information on the REA. Through sharing this information for Angela’s benefit, there was also an unexpected positive outcome in providing opportunity for Ellie and Heather to confirm a shared understanding of the REA.

Structural contexts also affected the group’s community. Each of us works in a different region of the United States, and none of us has visited and observed at the other’s institution. Because of this, none of us knew the other’s teaching context intimately. Heather and Angela needed to regularly spend time describing their teaching contexts in order to explain influencing factors on their teaching and their students’ work. Our physical distance also meant that meetings needed to be online. Though we found ways to be sociable in a video conference, managing virtual discussion was a relatively unpracticed skill for us in 2019.

Data Collection and Analysis

Angela and Heather selected from all available student artifacts based on what they believed would contribute to the understanding of the learning community (the three researchers). Data consisted of video recordings of the five pedagogical documentation virtual meetings (totaling 3 hours), meeting agendas, researcher journals to aid communication and reflection between meetings (collectively 2,700 words), and the artifacts Angela and Heather chose to share. Those artifacts included their syllabi and different forms of work that students turned in (lesson plans, arrangements, presentation slide shows, handbook/curriculum projects, and written reflections) and created or presented in class (photos of student drawings, hand-written notes, and 3D creations; video of formal/informal presentations).

Ellie reviewed all available data multiple times, and near the end of the study, began generating and assigning traditional, written word inductive codes for first level coding (Saldaña, 2016). Subsequent analysis consisted of Ellie creating analytic memos and developing a uniquely situated “hybrid coding scheme” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 74) that incorporated both written word and visual art. Ellie’s decision to expand beyond written word coding was inspired by symbolic translation (Falter, 2018) and allowed for deep and complicated understanding, for example, on how contexts changed throughout the study.

Angela and Heather each reviewed all data and wrote a summary focused on features that were most salient from their own experiences. In an email response to Angela and Heather about their summaries, Ellie shared, “both of your writings mirrored what I am seeing, though in different ways from each other.” Angela, Heather, and Ellie each chose artifacts and examples from the data they thought would best illustrate each preliminary theme. The three engaged in further discussion and refinement of findings through the processes of preparing, presenting, and debriefing on the presentation of this research at a conference, and in writing and editing this article. Trustworthiness of findings was established, in part, through Ellie analyzing data alone and then engaging Heather and Angela in member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), and by collectively writing with thick description (Geertz, 1973) to allow music teacher educators to draw implications for their teaching practices and for creating similar collaborative working groups.

Findings

Through the process of pedagogical documentation, Angela’s and Heather’s discussions regularly illuminated that they were working within teaching contexts that had finite resources. Both wanted to prioritize ideas congruent with the REA: openness, depth, and a process orientation in their teaching. Although they felt limited by the teaching context, the process of pedagogical documentation gave space for sharing successes, supporting personal reflection, collaborating on troubleshooting, and revisiting ideas. Below we discuss our experiences engaging in pedagogical documentation, pivoting to focus on the hundred languages and then on our takeaways from our collaboration.

Making Learning Visible

Both Angela and Heather felt limited in their ability to display student artifacts—a common component of pedagogical documentation so students can revisit previous ideas and work for deeper reflection—because they were teaching in shared classrooms. Heather compared this with her experiences in a Reggio Emilia-inspired preschool:

We had space where we could post on the wall. There were folders. There were bins. There were all these things to pull something back out. So when I bring things back out [in the university setting] I need to lug them back into the room and it’s just—logistically it doesn’t feel quite as free because I can’t just refer to something that we drew or this poster board or things up on the wall.

Heather tried to preemptively mitigate this constraint prior to the study, but no solution felt perfect. Invigorated by our discussions, Heather decided to give students opportunities to write ideas on sticky notes, which they could put on tri-fold poster boards that were fairly easy for her to bring back and forth to class. In her journal, she noted an affordance of this approach: “There’s something about handwritten responses on physical paper—perhaps a more direct connection to the person writing?” The following day, she added in our meeting that “It’s just easier to connect to [an artifact] when it’s like, oh here is this physical thing. We’re looking at this.” Our meetings and the shared researcher journal served Heather as a place to revisit and recommit to mitigating teaching context constraints in favor of a specific teaching practice.

Angela had less experience with REA, so she learned a lot about pedagogical documentation from hearing Heather comment on classroom constraints. Like Heather, Angela shared her teaching space, but Angela also enjoyed more flexibility due to experiencing different shared expectations within the physical classroom space: “I really can’t leave a whole lot up in the room but I know another class does sometimes.” Because some group drawings for a composing project were “on just one large sticky note paper,” she felt able to leave work from two groups on the walls for a few weeks. “I kind of liked that then there’s going to be some chamber string quartet practicing and there’s going to be these weird pictures and they’re wondering what it’s all about, you know?” Pushing against the constraints had a benefit because “a few weeks later one of [the students] did reference this picture in particular, relating it to something else that we were talking about.”

Through the collaborative process of pedagogical documentation, Heather continued to revisit her students’ needs and use of learning made visible through the sticky notes on the tri-fold boards. Though at first she felt this tool met some of her students’ needs, Heather later wrote in a journal that students began to show less flexibility and creativity in how they demonstrated their thinking:

Using the tri-fold boards to post ‘visible learning’ has been successful in terms of being able to revisit ideas. However, it’s decreased creativity in terms of variety of responses. . . . Prior to bringing the boards in, they would often speak, draw, act out an idea dramatically, or even sing something. The boards have literally boxed them in a bit, so I have mixed feelings about using them.

Through further reflection, Heather worked to meet students’ shifting needs. She wrote, “I’d like to now make these boards more interactive, so I’m going to ask students to respond to at least two other students’ comments this week and see if we can get a sort of visual dialogue going.”

As Heather’s response to the constraint on posting student work demonstrates, teaching contexts were further complicated by shifting student needs, as represented visually by Ellie’s painting in the online supplemental file. The process of pedagogical documentation created a space for instructors to remain open and curious, intentionally observe, and reflect to note these changes in contexts. Spurred in part by collaborative reflection, Angela and Heather moved along different spectra throughout the semester, such as teaching through more structure or openness, addressing a topic with more breadth or depth, or using a primarily product- or process-orientation. Their decisions were based on (a) the type and amount of content to cover; (b) demonstrations of understanding, skill, and flexible thinking in student work; and (c) students’ willingness to be “silly.” They sometimes planned immediate change (e.g., Heather observed students restricting themselves to responding to prompts in written form and encouraged them to explore other languages) and other times to change later in the semester (e.g., Angela used sticky notes to prompt student reflection after hearing Heather’s use of them) or for future semesters.

Use of the Hundred Languages

Angela and Heather each encouraged their students to engage with course material through different languages. Some were traditional in teacher education (e.g., writing lesson plans). Others were music-specific and perhaps not uncommon ideas in music teacher education. For instance, Angela not only assigned students to arrange a folk song, she provided students with an opportunity to perform each other’s arrangements and make edits based on the experience and peer feedback. Other languages may be less common in music methods courses, as when Heather’s students represented their thinking about the relationship between students and the curriculum using play dough. Engaging through multiple languages seemed to give students opportunities to develop deeper understanding.

We discussed a related trend during meetings; when students used nonverbal languages, they then translated their work through writing or speaking. Both Heather and Angela shared artifacts in which students expressed their work through nonverbal languages. When Angela shared students’ listening maps, she realized that students also verbally explained their thought process. In some cases, the students felt the need to explain how to read their map, and for others Angela prompted some explanation. Heather also noted that when her students represented their ideas nonverbally, they often appeared compelled to also offer a verbal description. For example, when her students sculpted using play dough, she did not ask for a verbal explanation of the meaning of their sculptures, but all the students offered an unprompted verbal explanation on the meaning of their visual art. Heather reflected, “ . . . it just sort of had me thinking that I love the representation in this way, but without the written word, I don’t necessarily know what the picture represents.”

Through sharing and analyzing student artifacts that represented more languages than writing and speaking, we sometimes felt self-consciously and even uncomfortably aware of how our interactions were limited when viewed through the lens of the hundred languages. Some of this was due to time constraints. It was already challenging for Heather and Angela to set aside time to choose an artifact and bring it to meetings. In order to implement a symbolic translation of ideas from an observation of students, an instructor would need to take additional time to explore and create based on their developing understanding. Ellie was able to set aside time to create and share visual art as part of data analysis after the semester. In the spirit of pedagogical documentation, Ellie resisted sharing only a finished product, instead sharing drafts of drawings in sequence with Angela and Heather, and used gestures and words to help explain how the visual representation could continue if it could move beyond two and three dimensions.

Participant Reflection on Growth

Ellie found that engaging in pedagogical documentation in higher education was not without its challenges, but it was feasible and having a pedagogical coordinator in a noninstructor role proved beneficial. As pedagogical coordinator, they were able to make space for others to share, ask questions from a different perspective, and dedicate the time necessary to prepare, facilitate, and follow-up on meetings. Ellie also began to view their own teaching (outside the study) through a new lens, specifically examining the balance between more close-ended learning experiences with their open-ended counterparts.

Heather experienced success adapting additional elements of the REA to adult learners. She valued the increased connections across course content that she perceived were due to additional layers of reflection afforded by the pedagogical documentation processes she and her students used. Also, by deliberately increasing her focus on adopting a pedagogy of listening, she perceived that she was more successful in facilitating her students’ creativity and sparking additional inquiry. Despite her initial skepticism at having an outside pedagogical coordinator, ultimately she viewed this role as beneficial in facilitating deeper layers of meaning through increased accountability.

Through this project, Angela increased her knowledge and experience with the REA and its application to higher education. Reflection on pedagogical documentation through the hundred languages added depth to her students’ experiences and connections across course content. Additionally, she grew professionally through collaborative inquiry with colleagues. Intentionally choosing student artifacts to share for pedagogical documentation encouraged her to more closely examine student responses and in turn, her instruction.

Discussion and Implications

In this study, we examined our experiences engaging in a Reggio Emilia-inspired pedagogical documentation learning community while two of us taught music education methods courses. Findings are not meant to be generalizable. However, through our descriptions, readers may find helpful lessons for creating their own pedagogical documentation learning communities or consider additional ways of developing a “shared culture of inquiry” (Stanley & Conway, 2015, p. 127) within and beyond their institutions. Viewing pedagogical documentation as a process (Goldhaber, 2007) and communicating via multiple “languages” (Edwards et al., 1998; Edwards et al., 2012) contributed to a meaningful professional development experience and perceived growth as educators (similar to Kersting, 1995; Soble & Hogue, 2010). Together, we explored how learning and teaching processes affected student learning (Edwards et al., 1998), but also expanded those approaches to address our own learning and growth. This growth may have been possible through other means, but the process of pedagogical documentation gave us dedicated time and space for emergent and focused reflective practice. In essence, we adopted a pedagogy of listening (Gandini, 2015) within our professional development group. Using multiple lenses uncovered additional layers of depth and complexity in our experiences and created space to recognize shifts in influences on teaching decisions.

The hundred languages wove throughout our work. Angela and Heather reported rich learning when students could spend more time with a concept and revisit it through symbolic translation (Falter, 2018). To successfully engage in nonverbal languages, students needed to feel able to be “silly”— to be playful or engage in play. In a similar vein, Koops and Taggart (2010) recommended that music teacher educators actively (re)teach their students to play. Of note, Heather’s students began the semester already willing to be silly—developed in previous coursework—but later showed a willingness to rely on verbal languages when Heather altered the structure of student idea sharing with sticky notes and tri-fold boards. Similarly, we often fell back on verbal languages except when we actively set aside time to engage in nonverbal languages. Rooted in the core REA principle that people develop more complex understanding by engaging via multiple languages, we recognized that our enculturated tendency not to engage in symbolic translation ourselves was potentially limiting. As it was important to cultivate a supportive environment for students, we needed to do the same for ourselves within our group.

A key component of this collaborative professional development was our sense of community because this made the necessary space for vulnerability related to sharing and critical reflection. Similar to Pellegrino et al. (2014), we worked to create a safe space, share personal stories, recognize commonalities, utilize humor, and ask questions to support self-discovery. Another important component of community was welcoming each other’s children and pets when they joined us. This supportive community allowed us to find solidarity and inspiration to share teaching resources and strategies (Draves & Koops, 2011; Kuebel et al., 2019; Pellegrino et al., 2019), remind ourselves of our teaching beliefs (Bond & Koops, 2014), and alter teaching practice through discussing contextual similarities, differences, constraints, and student strengths. Together, we supported each other through challenges and helped each other celebrate successes (Goldhaber, 2007). Despite coming to the project with varied levels of REA knowledge and experience, our work was strengthened as we dedicated time to sharing literature on the REA and discussing key concepts within and outside of Angela’s and Heather’s teaching contexts.

Reggio Emilia-inspired teachers facilitate student engagement with the hundred languages to help students complicate and communicate their understanding (Edwards et al., 1998; Edwards et al., 2012). Given our findings, we suggest symbolic translation was valued as a structure for deepening and developing student understanding, but nonverbal languages were translated by Angela, Heather, and their students to feel confident about the accuracy of communication. Students and instructors alike spent a great deal of time and energy learning and relying on verbal communication. They may need more practice with nonverbal languages to develop adequate comfort and confidence. Consistently translating understanding into speech may limit opportunities to develop skills in communication through nonverbal languages.

Based on our experiences forming, engaging in, and researching our own pedagogical documentation learning community, we offer the following recommendations for P–12 music teachers and music teacher educators interested in starting their own. First and foremost, we suggest actively creating a supportive, inviting, and playful community in which individuals are welcomed, valued, and expected to contribute positively. To this end, we found it important to take some time every meeting for social connection and to positively acknowledge each other’s children and pets when they appeared on screen or could be heard. We also recommend designating one member as the pedagogical coordinator. In this role, Ellie was able to share literature and ideas for practice, facilitate discussion, and actively avoid creating a hierarchy among members. A person in the role could also facilitate reflection through nonverbal languages. Video conferencing makes collaboration possible at a distance, but participants must avoid responding to the medium by overstructuring discussion instead of inviting openness. In favor of practicality, instructors might choose student artifacts, but sometimes students could have a hand in selecting them as well. And lastly, we want to suggest that those engaged in pedagogical documentation contextualize the artifacts they share to help their peers make meaning of student experiences over time.

Future Research

This research represents findings from one particular context. Researchers might study participants from similar institutions or within a geographical area with varying levels of REA experience and different course responsibilities. Instead of examining the experience more holistically, researchers might focus more specifically on one REA concept, such as the hundred languages. Alternatively, researchers could consider whether and how the process of pedagogical documentation affects teachers’ ability to be mindfully present, make connections between the hundred languages and play, or realize important benefits.

Supplemental Material

sj-png-1-jmt-10.1177_10570837211038034 – Supplemental material for Self-Examination of Music Methods Teaching in a Reggio Emilia-Inspired Learning Community

Supplemental material, sj-png-1-jmt-10.1177_10570837211038034 for Self-Examination of Music Methods Teaching in a Reggio Emilia-Inspired Learning Community by H. Ellie Wolfe, Angela Munroe and Heather D. Waters in Journal of Music Teacher Education

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 iDs

H. Ellie Wolfe

Angela Munroe

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Barrett

J. R.

(2014). Case study in music education. In Conway

C. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research in music education (pp. 113–132). Oxford University Press.

Bond

V. L.

(2012). Sounds to share: The state of music education in three Reggio Emilia- inspired North American preschools (Publication No. 3516146) [Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Bond

V. L.

(2015). Created in context: A comparative case study of the use of music in two Reggio Emilia-inspired schools. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(2), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-014-0639-4

Bond

V. L.

Koops

L. H.

(2014). Together through transitions: A narrative inquiry of emergent identity as music teacher educators. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 24(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083713494012

Cagliari

Filippini

Giacopini

Bonilauri

Margini

(2012). The pedagogical coordinating team and professional development. In Edwards

Gandini

Forman

(Eds.) The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia experience in transformation (3rd ed., pp. 135–146). Praeger.

Conway

C. M.

Eros

Pellegrino

West

(2010). The role of graduate and undergraduate interactions in the development of preservice and music teacher educator identity: A self-study in teacher education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 183, 49–64. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/27861472

Conway

C. M.

Palmer

C. M.

Edgar

Hansen

(2016). Learning to teach graduate students: A self-study by students and a faculty member. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 34(2), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314553130

Draves

T. J.

Koops

L. H.

(2011). Peer mentoring: Key to new music teacher educator success. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20(2), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083710375538

Edwards

Gandini

Forman

(Eds.). (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—advanced reflections (2nd ed.). Ablex.

10.

Edwards

Gandini

Forman

(Eds.). (2012). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia experience in transformation (3rd ed.). Prager Press.

11.

Falter

H. E.

(2018). An examination of elementary general music teaching practices for congruence with the Reggio Emilia approach [Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado Boulder]. CU Scholar. https://scholar.colorado.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/kw52j9098

12.

Gandini

(2015). The amusement park for birds: Emergence and process of a project. In Gandini

Hill

Cadwell

Schwall

(Eds.), In the spirit of the studio: Learning from the atelier of Reggio Emilia (2nd ed., pp. 23–42). Teachers College Press.

13.

Geertz

(1973). Thick description: Towards and interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.

14.

Goldhaber

(2007). The development of an early childhood teacher research collaborative. Theory Into Practice, 46(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840709336551

15.

Gould

(2006). Dancing composition: Pedagogy and philosophy as experience. International Journal of Music Education, 24(3), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761406069639

16.

Kersting

B. F.

(1995). The study of the change process in teachers through the implementation of the Reggio Emilia approach (Publication No. 9543332) [Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

17.

Koops

L. H.

Taggart

C. C.

(2010). Learning through play: Extending an early childhood music education approach to undergraduate and graduate music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20(2), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083710373578

18.

Kuebel

Svec

Waters

Falter

H. E.

(2019, May). An academia support group: Peer-mentoring for doctoral students and early-career faculty in music education. Poster presented at the 2019 Mountain Lake Colloquium, Pembroke, VA.

19.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

20.

Malaguzzi

(1998). History, ideas and basic philosophy: An interview with Lella Gandini. In Edwards

Gandini

Forman

(Eds.), The Reggio Emilia approach—advanced reflections (pp. 49–97). Ablex.

21.

Pellegrino

Beavers

J. P.

Dill

(2019). Working with college students to improve their improvisation and composition skills: A self-study with music teacher educators and a music theorist. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 28(2), 28–42. http://doi.org/10.1177/1057083718787825

22.

Pellegrino

Sweet

Kastner

J. D.

Russell

H. A.

Reese

(2014). Becoming music teacher educators: Learning from and with each other in a professional development community. International Journal of Music Education, 32(4), 462–477. http://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413515819

23.

Reynolds

A. M.

Filsinger

(2013). Co-constructing a music environment in a preschool setting. Research paper presentation at the Eastern Division National Association for Music Education Conference, Hartford, CT.

24.

Reynolds

A. M.

Waters

H. D.

(2014). Adults and children at play: A second year co-constructing music in a preschool setting. Research paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

25.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

26.

Smith

A. P.

(2011). The incorporation of principles of the Reggio Emilia approach in a North American pre-school curriculum: An action research. Visions of Research in Music Education, 17, 1–22. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v17n1/visions/article6

27.

Soble

Hogue

(2010). From display to documentation to discourse: The challenge of documentation in a high school. Theory Into Practice, 49(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840903436061

28.

Stake

R. E.

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

29.

Stanley

A. M.

Conway

C. M.

(2015). Creating a culture of inquiry in music teacher education: Collaborative self-study approaches in music. In Pithouse-Morgan

Samaras

A. P.

(Eds.), Polyvocal professional learning through self-study research (pp. 127–143). SensePublishers.

30.

Stanley

A. M.

Grossman

(2014, April). Do Re ME: Finding our reflection in the collaborative self-study of a music education course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.

31.

Vecchi

(2010). Art and creativity in Reggio Emilia: Exploring the role and potential of ateliers in early childhood education. Routledge.

32.

Waters

H. D.

(2015). Adults and young children as music co-researchers: Narratives from a play-based, Reggio-Emilia-inspired preschool (Publication No. 3703102) [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

33.

Westlake

E. A.

(2015). Co-constructing music in a Reggio-inspired preschool (ID No. TETDEDXWestlake-temple- 0225M-12126) [Master’s thesis, Temple University]. Temple University Electronic Theses & Dissertations. https://digital.library.temple.edu/digital/collection/p245801coll10/id/328228/rec/1

34.

Wolfe

H. E.

(2020). A case study of preservice music teachers’ experiences with play in a general music methods course. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 30(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083720940301

35.

Yanko

(2015). Reggio arpeggio: An autoethnographic tale of a music teacher's exploration with Reggio Emilia [Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia]. UBC Research. https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0135709

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

0.45 MB