Peer learning in specialist higher music education

Abstract

Research on peer learning in higher education indicates that learning from and together with peers can benefit students in a number of ways. Within higher music education in Western, classical music, however, the master–apprentice tradition with its dominant one-to-one mode of tuition focuses predominantly on knowledge transmission from teacher to student. The role students can play in one another’s learning processes is often less articulated. In this essay peer learning is discussed based on experiences from projects carried out at the Centre of Excellence in Music Performance Education, which explore peer learning as part of the students’ principal instrument study. Peer learning in music academies is not restricted to students, however. Teachers can also benefit from engaging in collaborative learning with their fellow teachers. Drawing on experiences from a series of international seminars for teachers in higher music education, the potential and challenges of peer learning among conservatoire teachers are also discussed.

Keywords

Group teaching higher music education instrumental tuition music performance education peer learning

Introduction

Students in higher music education can draw from many resources to facilitate their learning processes, their principal instrument teacher being an obvious example. To complement this, another learning resource that has been attracting increasing attention during the last decades is the peer group of fellow students. In this essay, I will consider the possible benefits of peer learning in higher music education. The discussion is based on personal experience as a teacher, leader and researcher in a specialist higher music education institution. I will draw on examples of peer learning projects that principal instrument teachers have carried out within the Centre of Excellence in Music Performance Education or CEMPE (www.cempe.no) where I have been the director, based at the Norwegian Academy of Music.

In these CEMPE projects, peer learning has played an important role between students, and also between teachers involved. I will, therefore, discuss these different contexts, including peer learning between conservatoire teachers stimulated through a series of international seminars for teachers.

Peer learning in specialist higher music education – what research tells us

There is now a substantial body of research which indicates that learning from peers and together with peers can be beneficial in many ways for students in higher education studying diverse disciplines (see for example Hmelo-Silver et al., 2013). Falchikov’s extensive research review, published in 2007, pays early testimony to the growing research interest in this field. This review also provides a strong research-based argument for the benefits of peer learning. It is, therefore, not surprising to see that many universities have implemented various strategies to enhance peer learning in practice.

Within higher music education, however, peer learning has only come onto the research agenda in recent years. In a review from 2001, Luce observes, “A scant three articles were identified for this literature review” (p. 24). Between then and 2013, very few articles were published specifically addressing peer learning in music performance education on a tertiary level (Latukefu, 2009; Lebler, 2008). However, there are an additional few articles which discuss peer learning in the context of peer assessment, for example Latukefu (2010), Lebler (2007) and Searby and Ewers (1997). Furthermore, there is a focus on peer learning in some articles on instrumental teaching in groups (see, for example, Daniel, 2004), and in articles discussing one-to-one teaching (Gaunt, 2008, 2010). The total research output on peer learning in music performance education increased significantly when Collaborative learning in higher music education was published (Gaunt and Westerlund, 2013a). In this extensive anthology, there are more theoretical contributions on collaborative learning in higher music education as well as chapters where practitioners – including principal instrument teachers themselves – describe and discuss their efforts to implement collaborative learning in different ways. Since the publication of this anthology, several more articles have emerged (see Bjøntegaard, 2015a, 2015b; Ferm, 2014; Johansson, 2013).

Why this lack of research interest?

Why, then, has peer learning in music performance education received so little research interest? One answer could be that, with some notable exceptions, there is generally little focus on peer learning in teaching and learning practices in these contexts. The all-important subject of principal instrument study in Western classical music is often described as rooted in a master–apprentice tradition, which has existed for hundreds of years (Burwell, 2005; Gaunt, 2008; Gaunt et al., 2012; Nerland, 2007; Nielsen, 1998). We can see how the label itself underlines the understanding that the transmission of knowledge takes place in a vertical line from master/teacher to apprentice/student in a teaching situation, which often takes place one-to-one. The role that peers – the fellow students – can play in one another’s development in a more horizontal line, is often neither articulated nor encouraged. The all-pervasive role of the principal instrument teacher takes over, and this is perhaps illustrated by the fact that students in many cases apply for a place at a music academy because they want to study with a specific teacher; the reputation of the institution itself and of its students is of less importance.

The vertical line of knowledge transmission is apparent even when tuition in the principal instrument does not take place one-to-one. Some teachers regularly schedule classes where all their students are present, but it is my impression, based on many years of work experience in specialist higher music education that the fellow students normally just observe one another being taught; they are rarely invited to give feedback or to discuss each other’s performances in depth. This impression is supported by Gaunt’s study of instrumental and vocal teachers and their students at a conservatoire (2008), where the few teachers who did organise group lessons reported that they teach these lessons in a masterclass style with relatively little interaction between the students themselves. The students interviewed in the same study (reported in Gaunt, 2010) were aware of the importance of interaction with fellow musicians, but they were not proactive in learning from and supporting each other: “The peer group was generally perceived more as a fact of life than as a learning resource …” (Gaunt, 2010: 200).

The role of peers in learning by apprenticeship

Looking more closely at learning by apprenticeship, it becomes apparent that there is ample potential for peer learning in this context too. Through their anthropological studies, Lave and Wenger (1991) demonstrate how apprentices learn by taking part in “communities of practice”. According to the authors, learning results from participating in social practices more than it results from direct teaching and transfer of knowledge. One learns to become a tailor by participating in the practice in the tailor’s workshop, one learns to become a musician by taking part in the practices of the profession such as ensemble rehearsals, concerts, giving and receiving feedback within a community of fellow musicians, etc. Newcomers are offered “legitimate peripheral participation” but have less responsibility and exposure than the more advanced students. They nevertheless have access to all the learning resources present in the community of practice, including their peers. Lave and Wenger (1991: 94) label this as a decentred apprenticeship model, where the focus is on how apprentices learn by having access to and taking part in a community of practice. Traditionally, however, understanding of learning by apprenticeship has focussed more on the role of the master (see for example, Polanyi, 1958; Schøn, 1987). In this context, the concept of learning by apprenticeship from a decentred perspective illustrates how peer learning is, and indeed always has been, an integral part of the master–apprentice tradition; it is not something new or alien. The challenge is rather to enable teachers and students alike to increase their awareness of the ways in which students learn from each other, and to support and enhance peer learning in different ways. There may be many reasons why peer learning has traditionally been less emphasised in specialist higher music education, but issues concerning power and authority have certainly played a part. Consequently, when fellow students become more highly valued as important and valid resources in the learning process, existing dynamics of power may be challenged, and the position of the teacher as the sole authority shifts.

Learning from peers in instrumental tuition: Three examples

Having been awarded a Centre of Excellence in Education in 2014 by The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, the Norwegian Academy of Music decided that one of the focus areas for its Centre of Excellence in Music Performance Education (CEMPE) would be group teaching and peer learning in principal instrument study. Several teachers at the Academy had at that point already started to explore group teaching (see Bjøntegaard, 2015a, 2015b), and there was much interest in making more systematic efforts within the framework of CEMPE. The following sections present three examples of projects undertaken in 2014–2015. I have acted as a research colleague in the first and third project described, observing classes and interviewing teachers and students. In the third project, I also had access to journals written by the teacher and students where they reflected on the peer learning process throughout an academic year. These projects focused on elaborating and documenting already existing excellent practices. The second project described in the following was a new peer learning initiative, where the teacher herself has documented the process through videos, interviews with the students and her own journal notes throughout the academic year.

Peers as resources in class lessons

Professor Morten Carlsen organises a class lesson for all his viola and violin students each week. Here all his nine students, who range in experience from the first year of the bachelor degree to the second year of the Masters programme, come together to perform, and to engage collaboratively in giving feedback to each other, debating and reflecting on diverse issues that emerge from the performances. How does Professor Carlsen create the degree of involvement from the students that is so evident in his classes? By observing some of the classes, I have noticed that he is never the first to comment on a performance; rather he deliberately keeps himself in the background. He nevertheless facilitates the process in different ways, for example, by asking open questions, ensuring that no student dominates, and by encouraging quieter students to give their input. He also demands increasingly more articulate feedback from the students as they progress, by asking them to elaborate on their initial comments and suggestions, or by asking them for clarification and examples when needed. This illustrates how a teacher can help newcomers move from legitimate peripheral participation to full participation (Lave and Wegner, 1991). Carlsen also encourages students to perform pieces in these class lessons while they are still in the process of learning the music; there is no expectation of polished performance. This can be beneficial for the student performing as they get input while in the middle of the development process.

Equally, the process can also be useful for the other students, a way of seeing “that everyone is struggling with something”, as Carlsen says in an interview I conducted with him. This echoes Bandura’s (1997) discussion about how a person’s sense of self-efficacy can be enhanced while observing others. He suggests that this is best enabled if the instructive function of the observation is underlined, while the comparative, evaluative function is minimised; it is not about who is the best musician, but about what they can all learn from the performance and the feedback process that follows. Since students also perform pieces while they are still learning them, they provide what Bandura (1997) labels “coping modelling”. This means that the students in the class can observe a fellow student working his/her way through difficulties, gradually overcoming them through determined effort. This can foster an understanding of learning as a gradual process, consisting of many steps (Falchikov, 2007). Observing how perseverance and focused effort can lead to improvement demonstrates that hard work is the key to success. This can help the students to develop an understanding that a less than perfect performance reflects limited experience or insufficient effort rather than lack of “talent”. In the interview, Carlsen says that by observing each other’s learning efforts, the students “realise that they are all in the same boat”. He, therefore, emphasises how he frames the class lessons as an arena for inspiration and cooperation, not for competition and envy. From interviews with the students, it is apparent that they also seek one another’s advice and support outside the class, indicating that they have realised that learning from peers can be fruitful and has the strong support of their teacher.

Providing useful feedback to peers

Associate Professor Kristin Kjølberg has devised a project where she is exploring peer learning in a larger group, in her case consisting of 10 classical vocal students. The students have one-to-one tuition with different teachers, only a few of them with Kjølberg. They all study on the four-year bachelor programme in music education, where performance is integrated with music education in a single degree. Kjølberg wanted to provide an arena where these students could explore and experience their artistic competencies collaboratively.

In the 2-h class lessons every 3rd week, two of the students perform each time and they all discuss the performances using Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process (Lerman and Borstel, 2003). This is a method designed to structure a feedback process on any kind of work in progress, consisting of four steps: first, the facilitator (teacher) asks the listeners/responders to express what they find meaningful in the performance. In a conference presentation Kjølberg (2015) reports that the students have initially found it difficult to formulate descriptive rather than normative statements, because they are so used to feedback being about good/bad or right/wrong. However, they have quickly discovered that the change in approach has led to interesting discussions about different perceptions of meaning and about the artist’s intentions.

The second step consists of the performer asking questions about issues on which s/he wants feedback or opinions. Kjølberg has found that the students initially asked very few artistic questions: “It was as if they did not have or did not trust their own ideas. Most of them said that they found it hard to define their artistic goals and ambitions” (Kjølberg, 2015). She quotes from an interview with a student who said, “I feel uncomfortable when I must make choices. I am so used to being told what to do, so when someone asks me what I want, I become insecure. I don’t know what to say” (Kjølberg, 2015). She has also noted that the students’ ability to pose their own artistic questions has improved with each session; and the students have begun to report that through the process of discussing their artistic ideas with their peers they have gained more confidence in their ability to make artistic decisions.

The third step in the Critical Response Process consists of the responders posing open and neutral questions to the performer. These questions should not implicitly contain an opinion but rather should aim to challenge the performer to reflect on his/her artistic ideas. Kjølberg suggests that the students have found this step to be the most difficult because they are so used to a teaching model where suggestions and directions are simply given to them by the teacher. They have, therefore, had to practise formulating questions that might help the performer to reflect more deeply him/herself on artistic choices as an alternative to telling him/her what to do.

In the fourth step, the responders can offer opinions to the performer, but they must ask for permission to do so, as there may be situations where the performer does not need or feel ready for an opinion on a particular issue. Kjølberg has reported that this step is often perceived as redundant because the previous steps have drawn out everything they want to say: “It feels good when we get to step four and see that we don’t have to come up with suggestions because the artist has figured out his or her direction” (Kjølberg, 2015).

Researchers (Hultberg, 2010; Johansson, 2013) emphasise the importance of enabling students to establish a sense of ownership as learners and artists. This has been an important issue for the music education students taking part in Kjølberg’s project, since several of the students have reported a lack of freedom previously and a feeling of dependence on their teachers. One important result of this project, according to Kjølberg, is that the students gain a greater sense of ownership and autonomy as learners and as artists. One of the students describes in an interview how she has now started to think differently about her future artistic career:

It is extremely hard to be in charge, because I have always received feedback from my teacher on what to perform and on what (repertoire) is suitable for me. I have always followed my teachers' directions. In the past I didn’t reflect on what I wanted to do. What I now feel deep inside goes against what my teacher recommends. The thought of listening to my own ideas has grown on me this semester. I will not tell my teacher yet, but I am slowly beginning to figure out what I want to do. (Kjølberg, 2015)

Several of the students comment that they have gained more self-esteem and security in their role as singers by taking part in the peer learning that the Critical Response Process has offered. They experience the group as a safe and trusting learning environment, where they feel free to experiment and share work in progress with each other. They now feel part of a learning community, which is particularly helpful for students in their first year.

Students as teachers

Ownership of learning and student autonomy have also been high on the agenda in Professor Jens Harald Bratlie’s project within CEMPE. This represents an interesting illustration of how far one can go with peer learning in principal instrument studies: the students become one another’s teachers.

Bratlie arranges weekly lessons with a group of three piano students. One is a first-year master student, and two are second-year bachelor students. In addition, they have weekly one-to-one lessons with him. In the group lessons, the three students sit around the grand piano and take turns performing pieces they are working on. When a student has performed a piece, the other two give feedback, ask questions and discuss different technical or musical solutions, which are then tried out in a workshop-like setting. Sometimes one of the students has the full responsibility for giving feedback and advice, but s/he will normally involve the other students in the discussions. During the group lessons, Bratlie positions himself in a corner of the rather large studio. This is a deliberate choice so that the students can feel a sense of ownership of the lesson and become independent of him; they are the ones responsible for both teaching and learning in these group lessons.

Bratlie rarely interferes in the process, but he may occasionally ask a question or encourage them to go deeper into an issue. He says in an interview that he will never correct anything a student says or does during a group lesson, because that would destroy their sense of authority and ownership; these lessons and everything that takes place during them should be the responsibility of the students. He will rather address any disagreement in the subsequent one-to-one lesson. Bratlie underlines his belief that by taking on this responsibility, the students will grow as independent musicians; they will develop their ability to reflect and to articulate their artistic choices in relation to their own playing, and when advising and cooperating with other musicians.

The students were asked in an interview I conducted with them about what role Bratlie actually plays in the group lessons. Acknowledging that he rarely says anything, they nevertheless emphasised that his presence makes them more confident in expressing their views and giving suggestions to their fellow students. They trust that he will adjust or correct anything he deems necessary at some point. The students also confirmed that through this process they have become more reflective and independent. At the same time, they have learned to become more open to other musicians’ understanding of music, and to benefit from being confronted with diverse ideas. Through their journal entries and in the interview with me they clearly voice how important these group lessons are. The fact that they all attend, even though the group lessons are voluntary, is also testimony to how the students value the lessons. They underline how listening and giving feedback to each other has made them listen more actively both to their own playing and to the performances of other musicians. Furthermore, they emphasise how they learn to articulate their opinions and to give constructive feedback – skills they deem important as future professional musicians. One of the students sums this up in a log entry:

Last time [we had a group lesson] I understood that these lessons have changed me fundamentally as a human being and musician. I have learned to listen, try to understand, and express my opinion clearly. [Names of fellow students] are people I can learn from. I feel deep respect for them.

In his project, Bratlie addresses the challenge of helping students become independent learners and independent musicians. Several researchers (Burwell, 2005; Gaunt, 2008, 2010; Jørgensen, 2000; Persson, 1994) have pointed to the fact that principal instrument teachers expect their students to become independent. However, the predominant one-to-one teaching situation seems to make the transition to independence more difficult. These three cases illustrate that extended use of peer learning might be one possible avenue in generating greater independence and ownership. This does not make the teacher redundant – quite the opposite – but the role widens and embraces the roles of facilitator and mentor.

Peer learning among teachers

Peer learning in specialist higher music education is not restricted to students. Teachers can also benefit from engaging in collaborative learning with their fellow teachers. One interesting observation when engaging principal instrument teachers in the different CEMPE projects is that the meetings in the project groups have also functioned as arenas where teachers can learn from each other. The teachers participating frequently comment on how fruitful and motivating these peer discussions are.

During the last few years, several initiatives have been launched promoting peer reflection and learning amongst higher music education teachers. The reasoning behind such initiatives is the challenges these types of institutions face concerning knowledge exchange among teachers and the development of their teaching practices. Gaunt (2013) has elaborated on these issues in an article. One such challenge is the isolation of the principal instrument teachers. “Instrumental and vocal teachers for the most part teach alone, rarely observing each other’s studio practice or receiving peer feedback on their own.” (p. 51). She also points to the fact that specialist higher music education institutions generally have few structures for professional development in place where teachers can consider and evolve their pedagogical practice, either individually or collaboratively with their colleagues. Furthermore, many of the principal instrument teachers are employed on small fractional or sessional contracts. Gaunt concludes that these factors can all conspire against the development of reflective practice, particularly at a collaborative level.

One initiative addressing some of these issues is the Innovative Conservatoire, first established in 2006 by four conservatoires working in collaboration. It consists of a series of seminars for teachers in higher music education, now funded by 23 conservatoires across Europe and beyond. Each seminar focuses on a theme that is key to the education of performing musicians, such as one-to-one and small group teaching, practising, masterclass teaching, or assessment and feedback. The teachers participating are engaged in a variety of working formats, which integrate research, practical exploration and articulation of tacit knowledge through reflection. Improvisation, both musically and verbally, is used extensively. Gaunt (2013) refers to results of an evaluation of the first two seminars, which highlights several positive outcomes such as increased knowledge and understanding, stimulating the growth of the community of practice as well as spin-off projects including networks and research projects. Previous initiatives on peer learning among teachers are feeding into the Innovative Conservatoire collaboration (see for example, van Zelm, 2013), and new initiatives have emerged as a consequence of seminal peer learning experiences among the participants (see for example, Zanner and Stabb, 2013).

These practices indicate that establishing and making good use of a community of music teaching practitioners can bring music performance teachers out of their isolation and act as a valuable support for lifelong professional development.

Coda

Evidence is slowly emerging to indicate that peer learning can be invaluable in specialist higher music education. Students can benefit in ways that complement their learning within a one-to-one teaching context. Different types of group lessons, therefore, seem to be an invaluable supplement to regular one-to-one lessons. Equally, teachers can benefit by sharing knowledge, supporting and inspiring each other, becoming a reciprocal sounding board for one another in ways that are familiar in many professional arenas as an integral part of continuing professional development. The good news is that these resources, through fellow students or colleagues, are already in place. Furthermore, facilitating them may not need huge extra costs in additional teaching hours, or the considerable expense that employing consultants inevitably involves.

At the same time, introducing peer learning in specialist higher music education is no quick fix; it involves a change of both structures and mindsets. This can be challenging considering the fact that few teachers have experienced explicit approaches to peer learning themselves, either as students or in professional practice. Furthermore, engaging students in peer learning may be perceived as uncomfortable and perhaps threatening for both teachers and students alike, since it challenges established roles on each side. Discussing your teaching practices with your colleagues can also be challenging if you are used to the privacy of your studio. These obstacles need careful consideration, but should not stop us from a concerted effort to catalyse peer-learning practices.

It is also clear that there is a need for systematic research into peer learning both between students and between teachers. Initiatives, such as the ones discussed in this essay, show promising results, but there is also anecdotal evidence of less fruitful experiences of peer learning. In-depth case studies and more large-scale research studies are needed to provide reliable knowledge about the dimensions of fruitful peer learning and the factors that enable them. One obvious example here is that we need more knowledge about how the role(s) of the teacher can facilitate and promote peer learning among students.

Gaunt and Westerlund (2013b: 1–2) point to the paradox that while music as an art form is to a great extent collaborative in nature, “these collaborative elements have largely remained on the fringes, under-utilized by educational practitioners, and similarly little explored by researchers in music education.” It is now time for higher music education institutions to address this paradox.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

Author Biography

Ingrid Maria Hanken is a professor of Music Education at the Norwegian Academy of Music, where she served as Vice Principal 2007–2013. Since 2014, she has been the Director of the Centre of Excellence in Music Performance Education. Her main research interest is teaching and learning in higher music education.

References

Bandura

(1997) Self-efficacy. The exercise of control, New York: WH Freeman and Company.

Bjøntegaard BJ (2015a) A combination of one-to-one teaching and small group teaching in higher music education in Norway – A good model for teaching? British Journal of Music Education 32(1): 23–36.

Bjøntegaard

(2015b) Instrumental group tuition at conservatoire level. A project involving teachers and students at the Norwegian Academy of Music, Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Music, NMH-publikasjoner, pp. 6.

Burwell

(2005) A degree of independence: Teachers’ approaches to instrumental teaching in a university college. British Journal of Music Education 22(3): 199–215.

Daniel

(2004) Peer assessment in musical performance: The development, trial and evaluation of a methodology for the Australian Tertiary environment. British Journal of Music Education 21(1): 89–110.

Falchikov

(2007) The place of peers in learning and assessment. In: Boud

Falchikov

(eds) Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education, London: Routhledge, pp. 128–143.

Ferm

(2014) Learning among critical friends in the instrumental setting. Update 32(2): 60–67.

Gaunt

(2008) One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: The perceptions of instrumental and vocal teachers. Psychology of Music 36(2): 215–245.

Gaunt

(2010) One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: The perceptions of instrumental and vocal students. Psychology of Music 38(2): 178–208.

10.

Gaunt

(2013) Promoting professional and paradigm reflection amongst conservatoire teachers in an international community. In: Gaunt

Westerlund

(eds) Collaborative learning in higher music education, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 49–61.

11.

Gaunt

Creech

Long

Hallam

(2012) Supporting conservatoirestudents towards professional integration: One-to-one tuition and the potential of mentoring. Music Education Research 14(1): 25–43.

12.

Gaunt H and Westerlund H (eds) (2013a) Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education. Farnham: Ashgate.

13.

Gaunt

Westerlund (2013b) Prelude. The case for collaborative learning in higher music education. In: Gaunt

Westerlund

(eds) Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 1–9.

14.

Hmelo-Silver CE, Chinn CA and Chan KK (eds) (2013) The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning. New York: Routhledge.

15.

Hultberg

(2010) Vem äger lärandet? (Students 'ownership of learning), Stockholm: Myndigheten för nätverk och samarbete inom högre utbildning.

16.

Johansson

(2013) Undergraduate students’ ownership of musical learning: Obstacles and options in one-to-one teaching. British Journal of Music Education 30(2): 277–295.

17.

Jørgensen

(2000) Student learning in higher instrumental education: Who is responsible? British Journal of Music Education 17(1): 67–77.

18.

Kjølberg K (2015) Vocal pedagogy students’ artistic identity development through peer learning. Paper presented at the symposium ‘Peer learning in music academies’ The Reflective Conservatoire Conference GSMD, London, UK, 26 February–1 March.

19.

Latukefu

(2009) Peer learning and reflection: Strategies developed by vocal students in transforming tertiary setting. International Journal of Music Education 27(2): 128–142.

20.

Latukefu

(2010) Peer assessment in tertiary level singing: Changing and shaping culture through social interaction. Research Studies in Music Education 32(1): 61–73.

21.

Lave

Wenger

(1991) Situated learning – legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Lebler

(2007) Student-as-master? Reflections on a learning innovation in popular music pedagogy. International Journal of Music Education 25(3): 205–221.

23.

Lebler

(2008) Popular music pedagogy: Peer learning in practice. Music Education Research 10: 193–213.

24.

Lerman

Borstel

(2003) Critical Response Process: A Method for Getting Useful Feedback on Anything You Make, From Dance to Dessert, Tacoma Park: Liz Lerman Dance Exchange.

25.

Luce

(2001) Collaborative learning in music education: A review of the literature. Update – Applications of Research in Music Education 19(2): 20–25.

26.

Nerland

(2007) One-to-one teaching as cultural practice: Two case studies from an academy of music. Music Education Research 9(3): 399–416.

27.

Nielsen K (1998) Musical apprenticeship. Learning at the academy of music as socially situated. PhD Dissertation, Aarhus University.

28.

Persson

(1994) Concert musicians as teachers: On good intentions coming short. European Journal for High Ability 5(1): 79–91.

29.

Polanyi

(1958) Personal Knowledge, London: Routhledge and Kegan Paul.

30.

Schøn

(1987) Educating the reflective practitioner – Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions, London: Jossey Bass.

31.

Searby

Ewers

(1997) An evaluation of the use of peer assessment in higher education: A case study in the School of Music, Kingston University. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 22(4): 371–383.

32.

Van Zelm

(2013) From competitors to colleagues: The experience of devising a peer-learning environment in a vocal department. In: Gaunt

Westerlund

(eds) Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 179–185.

33.

Zanner

Stabb

(2013) Singers, actors and classroom dynamics: From co-teaching to co-learning. In: Gaunt

Westerlund

(eds) Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 231–236.