Popular,Informal,and Vernacular Music Classrooms: A Review of the Literature

Creativity

Researchers have found that popular music can be a vehicle to teach creativity at the middle school (Byo, 2018), high school (Tobias, 2015), and college level (Isbell, 2016; Pulman, 2014). At a middle school in the United States, whose music program was exclusively composed of modern rock band ensembles, students felt successful learning basic notation, playing-by-ear, improvising, and composing (Byo, 2018). In a similar study, Tobias (2015) found that high school students in a songwriting and technology class used popular music as inspiration to write their own songs. Rather than just imitating other composers, “students might be thought of as, or as having the potential to become, young musicians” (p. 32). In a study of rock bands at British universities, Pulman (2014) examined the pedagogy and perceptions of 10 tutors and 16 bands during rehearsals. The tutors in this study functioned as mentors and directors—providing various levels of decision making and support for the groups. Students and tutors agreed on important skills such as arranging, improvising, and playing-by-ear. While many of the studies seemed to focus on composition for instrumentalists, researchers have found collegiate a cappella choirs benefited from developing skills that allowed them to arrange and compose their own music (Berglin, 2015; Paparo, 2013).

In spite of possible benefits, many music educators feel unprepared to teach popular music. For example, Springer (2016) reported that while 90% of U.S. music teachers perceived popular music to be more effective for learning outcomes related to analyzing and describing music than classical music, they had not taken a popular music class in college. To help preservice teachers “develop their vernacular musicianship,” Isbell (2016) designed a course for undergraduate and graduate music education students (pp. 30–31). The students learned all music by ear, which the undergraduates in particular found uncomfortable. They enjoyed the experience and most had improved their musicianship skills. However, a majority suggested that they would not feel comfortable completing a similar activity with their own students. Perhaps the fact that only 6% “indicated that they had played in a garage band or wrote their own music” explained their apprehension (p. 31). In a similar study between preservice music teachers in the United States and England, Randles and Smith (2012) found that both groups appeared to value composition and creativity; however, U.S. teachers reported feeling less prepared to teach composition. The researchers speculated that this finding may have been a result of English schooling and their tendency to compose at an earlier age.

Variations in skills and opinions have been observed in other parts of the world. In New Zealand, McPhail (2013) discussed knowledge differentiation, which he divided into theoretical knowledge that is associated with classical music and socially contextualized knowledge that is associated with popular music. One teacher in the study indicated that classically trained musicians might struggle to improvise with rock musicians and rock musicians might struggle with a concerto, but he considered both skills necessary.

Collaboration

In addition to creativity, the theme of collaboration continually emerged from the research. Byo (2018) and Isbell (2016) found that there existed a perceived disorder in vernacular classrooms; however, in time, students learned to collaborate with one another for mutual gains. In a performance-oriented rock band, members at British universities demonstrated collaboration and equal participation from every band member (Pulman, 2014). Group collaboration can also be valued in other settings, such as choir. Berglin (2015) described how members of a female a cappella choir contributed their individual talents. They encouraged “a system where the women feel comfortable contributing their skills and working toward their development” (p. 64).

Researchers have addressed collaboration in popular music ensembles involving university students (Berglin, 2015; Isbell, 2016; Pulman, 2014). However, Byo (2018) identified the idea of teamwork and cooperation as common values in his study of a middle school modern rock band. Both the students and the teacher promoted the collaborative environment. Byo described the teacher as

a “one-man swarm,” in almost constant motion, in and out of the set-up, making individual and small group contacts, alternately looking and sounding like a rock musician and a teacher. He pivoted “on a dime” from instruction and feedback to dancing to the beat of the music, air playing the drums and guitar, and singing while the students performed. (p. 265)

Byo (2018) found that successful collaboration can occur at the secondary level with a teacher who constantly engaged with the students. However, Cremata (2017) found that varying levels of teacher involvement and facilitation can also lead to meaningful popular music experiences. He looked at five different schools from elementary to high school and found collaboration and control to be inversely correlated. Teachers who worked to facilitate collaboration seemed to exert less control over the students.

Connections to Out-of-School Music

In addition to the possible creative and collaborative benefits that emerged, researchers have found that popular music in schools allowed students to connect to out-of-school musical experiences in meaningful ways (Cremata, 2017; Tobias, 2015). Popular music classrooms can be a “blended learning space” that allows for different music making experiences such as taking music home to practice or composing with friends (Cremata, 2017, p. 72). Tobias (2015) referred to this as “crossfading” (p. 18). Students enrolled in a songwriting and technology class engaged in and created music outside of school and easily navigated these musical environments. For example, they used the music technology skills learned at school to record and mix songs at home. In addition, they watched YouTube videos to learn certain songs and skills. Tobias found that “common across all participants’ perspectives was an appreciation of opportunities to engage and view themselves as musicians in ways relevant to their present and future lives” (p. 31).

Connecting to students’ musical experiences outside of the classroom may also help students identify as future music educators. When surveying junior high students, Demorest, Kelley, and Pfordresher (2017) found that family musical engagement was a predictor of music participation decisions. However, Isbell (2016) found that 86% of the preservice music educators had not participated in musical settings outside of the school environment such as composition or garage band experiences. With current research toward popular music in the schools increasing, will music teachers’ pedagogical approaches shift as well?

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy

The researchers cited in the previous section did not directly reference culturally relevant pedagogy in the classrooms they observed. However, their findings have included examples when pedagogy and curriculum focused specifically on the cultural makeup of the classrooms (Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995). For example, Cremata (2017) found that teachers who facilitated popular music understood their students’ individual talents. One student in particular even identified this pedagogy and stated, “I’m really good at the iPad and Ableton, but my friend, he’s good at coming up with fresh beats, so the teacher gets that and helps us all differently” (p. 70).

In New Zealand, McPhail (2013) studied six music teachers and found a continuum of pedagogies. Overall, the teachers wanted to “affirm, legitimize, and accommodate varying influences—most significantly the interest of their students” (p. 17). As one teacher stated, “You’ve got to respect kids’ tastes even when you don’t agree, turning that side off, being the teacher” (p. 16). However, when acknowledging the musical tastes of one student, teachers may be in turn excluding another. In a study of five Finnish music teachers, Kallio (2015) identified a “school censorship frame, through which certain musics and their accompanying values are promoted, whilst others are suppressed” (p. 197). She wondered how Finnish music teachers construct and navigate this censorship frame. Some teachers suggested that it was easier to teach what they knew, which was not popular music. However, Kallio said, “In excluding, or marginalizing particular popular musics, in turn, so are those young people who enjoy and identify with such musics excluded from and marginalized in school music education” (p. 207).

Levels of Autonomy

Overall, researchers have indicated popular music groups and classrooms practiced some level of autonomy (Berglin, 2015; Byo, 2018; Cremata, 2017; Isbell, 2016; Pulman, 2014; Tobias, 2015). In an initial examination of the research, I attempted to classify the studies from three approaches: (a) a student-centered approach, where the teacher was still the authority; (b) a democratic approach, where the teacher was more a facilitator than a leader; and (c) a completely autonomous approach, where each member participated equally. However, the research did not fit neatly into these categories. Even within a single classroom, teachers would weave between the various levels.

For example, Cremata (2017) purposefully sampled teachers who identified with a student-centered approach from the elementary to high school level. Teachers presented varying levels of control and exhibited less control for older students. While some teachers would stay constantly engaged with the students, others would wait for students to approach them. One student described this as positive and stated, “Our teacher allows us the space we need to do the music we love and relate to” (p. 70). However, this was a struggle for some teachers as they worked to support “notions of democracy, plurality, and diversity” (p. 74). Cremata suggested that teacher evaluation rubrics should be revised to encourage facilitation in the classroom.

While Cremata (2017) highlighted pedagogical approaches among teachers, Byo (2018) found that multiple levels of teacher and student-centered pedagogy existed within one classroom and stated, “It is instead a softer edged amalgam that is its own reality, its own authentic school-based rock band experience” (p. 266). For example, the teacher instructed students on notation as a group but would then shift to small groups—encouraging them to figure songs out by ear and compose their own music. At the university level, Pulman (2014) found that British tutors tended to be more involved with the first-year band students than advanced band students, such as making repertoire decisions and choosing band members. Democracy increased as they progressed in their studies. Initially, students felt challenged to work in independent groups, but eventually they enjoyed the experience of learning without involvement from the professor (Isbell, 2016).

To examine a more autonomous rather than democratic approach, Paparo (2013) studied members of an all-male a cappella group at a U.S. university. The members decided on solos, arranged their own songs, led rehearsals, and contributed musical suggestions. The ensemble valued their autonomy and indicated they did not want a professor. However, even within this autonomous group there existed a sense of democracy through leadership roles. This was also evident in Berglin (2015) who looked at an all-female contemporary collegiate a cappella ensemble. The students within this collaborative and autonomous group created somewhat of a hierarchy through electing a president, music directors, treasure, and so forth.

Approaches and Authority

Around the world, curricula exist on a continuum of open to structured. In one New Zealand study, McPhail (2013) referenced a curriculum that affords teachers “a high level of autonomy to recontextualize potential curriculum components,” which has contributed to the rise of popular music in New Zealand schools (p. 8). While teachers wanted to support their students’ musical curiosities, the “localized curriculum, designed to be inclusive, creates challenges for music teachers who are predominantly trained in classical traditions” (p. 8). McPhail found that these intersections of classical and popular music as they related to the curriculum created problems for teachers and posed the question, “Who now says what music knowledge is of most value and what is the source of this authority?” (p. 8).

In Finland, Kallio (2015) identified issues of authority in the curriculum between five teachers. She indicated that while a broad curriculum was easier for some teachers, it came with additional problems. Deciding whose music to include and exclude in their curriculum was a difficult task. Teachers preferred to teach the music they knew, which for them was not popular music. Kallio addressed these struggles and stated,

All five teachers emphasized that they appreciated the freedoms afforded by the national curriculum, and indeed found it difficult to openly critique. . . . Teachers often compared the open and permissive national curriculum to others that they viewed as overly restrictive and directive, suggesting that these two extremes may be viewed as the only alternatives, compelling teachers to publicly defend the curriculum they have, lest it be replaced with another. (p. 203)

Preservice Teachers’ Experiences

Perhaps loose curricula are also contributing to preservice teachers being more open to teaching popular music in England than in the United States. Randles and Smith (2012) found preservice teachers in England to be more receptive to teaching popular music than preservice teachers in the United States. They examined England’s National Curriculum and proposed that it aimed “to facilitate students’ engagement and success in music in ways that are meaningful and accessible to them” (p. 176). They suggested that a curriculum open to popular music might allow U.S. teachers to incorporate music familiar to students. However, Kruse (2015) indicated that alterations to a curriculum will not suddenly result in diverse genres in the public schools because “if technical proficiency in Western art music continues as a prerequisite for acceptance into American music teacher education programs, this could continue to serve as a barrier to diversity in the field” (p. 20).

Diverse experiences rather than diverse musics may influence the curriculum. In a classroom where the only genre was popular music, tutors worked to incorporate popular music that was unfamiliar to the students in order to expose them to something different (Pulman, 2014). However, teachers from predominantly Western classical music backgrounds reported feeling most comfortable teaching classical music (Isbell, 2016; Kallio, 2015), which is then conveniently the unfamiliar music they teach their students.

Dissonance Between Classical and Popular Music Genres

Researchers have found that preservice music teachers’ past and current performing experiences consisted of significantly more classical music than any other genre (Isbell, 2016; Kruse, 2015). In a survey of preservice music educators at a university in the United States, Kruse (2015) found that while preservice teachers reported listening to popular music frequently, they considered it only occasionally appropriate for school music. However, the open-ended survey responses varied. Some preservice teachers wanted to provide students with diverse musical experiences, while others held the opinion that Western art music was ideal for teaching musical concepts. In-service teachers in New Zealand echoed similar sentiments. One teacher used mostly popular music because it created “fewer socio-cultural and socio-economic barriers for her students,” while another teacher used primarily classical music because “the classical paradigm provides the best foundation for student development” (McPhail, 2013, p. 13). Kruse (2015) suggested that a tendency to teach Western classical music in the United States may continue as “a rather homogenous group of musicians enter these music education programs and have an even more homogenous experience during their teacher preparation” (p. 19).

Dissonance Between Settings

Additionally, researchers have found that informal music groups created diverse musical experiences (Tobias, 2015; West & Cremata, 2016). One high school student appreciated her song writing and technology class more than her performance-oriented ensembles. When playing Mozart in her orchestra, she said, “I don’t connect to that as much as I connect to writing my own song” (Tobias, 2015, p. 31). Another student in a collegiate a cappella group reported dropping out of choir in the fifth grade because he did not enjoy singing classical music (Papara, 2013).

In an attempt to understand younger audiences’ perceptions of classical music, Dearn and Pitts (2017) studied listeners 25 years old and younger who attended a chamber music concert for the first time. Listeners were recruited for their musical diversity and consisted of music students, creative arts students, and students “not formally engaged with any art forms” (p. 47). The groups were not equal in sample size due to the difficulty in finding students who were not formally engaged and who were interested in attending a classical music concert. However, the majority of students not formally engaged (78%) reported listening to music for more than 4 hours per day compared with only 35% of the music students. The students attended a concert in London that consisted of chamber music by Beethoven, Schumann, and Brahms. The students not formally engaged were uncomfortable with the sterile environment and felt too far removed from the composer. The music and creative arts students expressed a more positive experience than the students not formally engaged. The music students drew on their knowledge of classical repertoire, and their increased engagement was usually a result of “the technical prowess of performers” (p. 54). When examining a popular music class, Tobias (2015) found that once students understood the genre, they appreciated the level of work and difficultly involved in writing a pop song. These vastly different genres have such similar roots in form and harmonic structure, but they create a lively debate rconcerning “legitimacy” and “utility” in the music classroom (Mantie, 2013, p. 344).

Legitimacy, Utility, and Authority

A recent discourse analysis of 81 journal articles related to popular music and music education found that researchers in “American” journals tended to address the “legitimacy” of popular music in the classroom, whereas “non-American” journals discussed the “utility” of popular music in the classroom (Mantie, 2013, p. 344). Additional researchers have indicated that legitimacy is still a prevalent concern outside of the United States (Kallio, 2015; McPhail, 2013). For example, teachers’ experiences with popular music in a New Zealand study seemed to weave between utility and legitimacy:

The classification of what types of music were regarded as legitimate was changed within the school, and to a large degree the power was shared with the students. . . . What the cases show is dynamic and varying degrees of power (classification) and control (framing) in terms of how classical music and popular music are utilized as the means for developing musical knowledge. (McPhail, 2013, p. 17)

Ultimately, McPhail (2013) concluded that teachers need to acknowledge their “epistemological power” and consider students’ musical interests, while challenging students to learn unfamiliar music as “the music classroom needs to be a site of both affirmation and dissonance” (p. 18). However, dissonance can occur in classrooms that incorporate a large majority of popular music. For example, teachers in Finland reported that their students felt once popular music entered the classroom it then belonged “to an older, more conservative authority” (Kallio, 2015, p. 204). Kallio noticed that the dissonance simply shifted from one “previously established between Western and Classical” to “now visible between popular musics in school, and popular musics outside of school” (p. 204). Cremata (2017) identified this process of taking popular music into the classroom as “schoolification” and the teachers as “curators of school learning spaces” (p. 73). Navigating and combining the worlds of popular music and school music classrooms are difficult tasks for teachers.