Abstract
It can be difficult to navigate the tasks of repertoire selection and part assignments in a way that produces a successful performance product while also being educationally beneficial to all students. However, researchers have explored methods of ensuring these goals through repertoire selection. In this article, I present ideas for how educators can pair the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) with music aptitudes when assigning parts in an ensemble. In doing so, ensemble directors might find themselves better positioned to address the individual needs of every student in the ensemble.
Directors of musical ensembles spend countless hours selecting repertoire when programming for performances, considering questions such as: Will adjudicators think this piece is too simple? Too difficult? Will the students enjoy this piece? How many “standards” am I programming? These are questions directors grapple with when selecting repertoire. Unfortunately, this selection process can also become skewed by fear. Allsup and Benedict (2008) posited that self-conscious behavior and worry of judgment from colleagues can also influence repertoire choices. Educators often experience a sense of uneasiness that their colleagues will judge them on the repertoire selections they choose and how many “standards” they program each concert. These undesirable feelings may cause directors to select repertoire based on feelings of perceived judgment rather than what might be developmentally appropriate. Rehearsing pieces of music in a classroom setting that are not developmentally appropriate may lead to students’ unimaginatively regurgitating printed notation to the director’s expectations rather than students using their innate musicianship to interpret a piece organically.
Rawlings (2019) examined the benefits and challenges associated with participating in large group instrumental adjudicated events. Among logistical and staffing challenges, participants discussed several music-based considerations, such as repertoire selection and inter-judge reliability of music ratings. Issues such as repertoire selection and adjudication scoring typically distract educators from recognizing what is realistic for their entire ensemble rather than the individual students who comprise the ensemble. Millican (2019) listed factors that might make a piece “difficult.” Factors included instrumentation and scoring (e.g., range, number of parts, exposure, specialized equipment, or instruments), technical demands (e.g., executive skills, rhythmic and harmonic considerations), and structural challenges. Educators who know these factors can select appropriate music that matches ensemble strengths and spurs individual musical development.
Hopkins (2013) outlined how educators could use Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), a framework from the field of educational psychology, to select repertoire more appropriately for their ensembles. In this article, I present ideas for how educators can pair the ZPD with music aptitudes when assigning parts in an ensemble, potentially leading to a more educationally enriching experience for students.
The ZPD
Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934) expanded the works of psychologists such as Gesell, Werner, and Piaget by exploring how external and social interactions influenced development. Vygotsky may be best known for his theory of the “Zone of Proximal Development.” The goal of the ZPD was to identify children’s true potential in school. Vygotsky argued that typical standardized tests only demonstrated potential up until the examination, and test scores would not appropriately show potential from that point forward. Furthermore, these test scores indicated a child’s capacity to do something individually. Vygotsky believed individual test scores did not fairly represent a child’s potential, considering they would be collaborating with, or seeking guidance from, others for most of their lives. The ZPD demonstrated the zone in which something may be slightly too difficult for someone to do alone but not too simple that they could do it with little effort. With the aid of a teacher or a more knowledgeable peer, they would be able to learn the skill at hand and move forward with their learning. Researchers have cited Vygotsky and the ZPD in the context of repertoire selection (Armes, 2020; Hopkins, 2013), social constructivist music classrooms (Barron, 2007; Jones, 2018; Legette, 2000; Scott, 2012; Scruggs, 2009), and special education (Hourigan & Hourigan, 2009). Vygotsky and Cole (1978) defined ZPD as “. . . the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). The ZPD enables students to aid each other by leveraging their varying levels of knowledge and skills. Through peer tutoring, scaffolding, collaboration, and social interaction, students can support and enhance each other’s learning within their ZPD, fostering a positive and empathetic learning environment. To use a metaphor many students would be familiar with, the ZPD could be analogous to the tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. One bed (or zone) is too soft (or easy), another bed is too firm (or difficult), but one (with the assistance of a peer or teacher) is just right. Ensemble directors can transfer this metaphor into ensemble rehearsals regarding part assignments. If not in the ZPD, a particular part may be too challenging (beyond any reasonable expectation for a concert cycle without assistance) or too easy for a student to perform, leading to negative experiences. In an ensemble, students on the same part can help each other by leveraging their individual musical abilities and knowledge. More experienced students can aid their peers by providing guidance, sharing techniques, and offering feedback on student performance and growth, whereas less-experienced students can learn from their more skilled stand partners. This collaborative learning environment can foster skill development, musical understanding, and a sense of camaraderie among ensemble members.
Music Aptitude Testing
Edwin Gordon (1927–2015), one of the leading researchers on music aptitude, developed a series of music aptitude tests examining areas such as tonal imagery, rhythmic imagery, and musical sensitivity. Music aptitude is a person’s potential to achieve in music (Gordon, 1965). Educators who know a student’s aptitude can better instruct them to their fullest potential (Gordon, 2012). In addition to the Primary Measures of Music Audiation (PMMA; Gordon, 1979) and Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation (IMMA; Gordon, 1982), aptitude tests designed for younger students, Gordon created two tests appropriate for instrumental music programs: the Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP; Gordon, 1965, 1995), designed for students in grades 4 to 12, and the Advanced Measures of Music Audiation (AMMA; Gordon, 1989) to measure aptitude for grade 7 students and beyond. Upon grading the results, a teacher learns the students’ tonal and rhythmic aptitudes, thus giving them an insight into how to adapt instruction to the individual needs of their students.
It is important to stress that the results of a test such as the MAP or AMMA are not definitive measures but, as Karma (2007) noted, “a composite measure of several factors that affect success in music studies” (p. 80). This information is just one tool educators can use to maximize student success. Music educators can administer these tests, currently available through GIA Publications, to classes at large. Administration time varies per test. The MAP requires the most time, with approximately three and a half hours to complete, requiring multiple class periods for administration. The AMMA (~20 minutes), PMMA (~12 minutes), and IMMA (~12 minutes) require only one class period for administration. Ensemble directors with limited time and budget should consider using the AMMA. This test is the least expensive, age-appropriate for most instrumental ensembles, and like all of the tests provides statistically valid and reliable information regarding students’ tonal and rhythmic aptitude.
Model for Part Assignments Based on Repertoire and Aptitude
When used separately, the ZPD and aptitude information can be powerful educational tools. However, when used together, directors can use the strengths and weaknesses of each student to pair them in the proper learning zone. Using rhythm intricacies as a measure of difficulty, here is a sequence of steps that ensemble directors can use to assign parts based on the ZPD and music aptitude effectively:
At the beginning of every year, administer the MAP, AMMA, or any other reliable and valid aptitude test to new students. This aptitude data will give you more information on students’ rhythmic and tonal aptitudes.
For each ensemble, create a chart listing the members of each section in the ensemble and their numerical aptitude scores and a general identifier (i.e., Strong, Moderate, and Needs Improvement).
After completing the repertoire selection for each concert cycle, map out each piece’s tonal and rhythmic intricacies. This tonal and rhythm map will provide you the information indicating which pieces are more rhythmically challenging than others.
Repeat Step 3 for each instrument part in the ensemble.
Compare the repertoire analysis map (steps 3 and 4) with student aptitude information (step 2). Find students who typically would struggle independently with a particular part but will be able to develop their skills with the aid of a classmate. Place this student on the part with a classmate with the appropriate aptitude to help this student develop. The general identifiers described in step 2 will allow you to quickly identify and assign students to a part. If you are deciding between two students for a particular part, consult the numeric scores from the test. It is worth noting that one could reverse this step and begin by placing students with strong aptitudes on each part before pairing them with a classmate. However, by doing this, one could fall into the trap of placing all the more advanced students on the more difficult parts. By beginning with the students struggling in a particular area, you guarantee that the student’s musical development is at the forefront of the decision-making process. This reinforces the idea of prioritizing student development rather than being only concerned about the sounds of the entire performing ensemble.
Repeat Step 5 for each part and every piece for the concert cycle.
The sequence mentioned previously, and the scenario listed in the subsequent section, use ideal instrumentation with multiple students on a part. These scenarios have students with high aptitudes in one area paired with those with low aptitude in the same area. Ensemble directors who do not have multiple students on a part might not be able to execute these steps identically. However, they can use aptitude information to inform part assignments to ensure students are playing within their individual “zones.”
Framework in Practice
I will now use the steps that I wrote about previously into practice with a clarinet section in a fictitious ensemble. After administering and scoring the aptitude test of choice, Table 1 provides general information for the nine students in the clarinet section.
Fictitious Student List With Rhythmic and Tonal Aptitude Results.
For the upcoming concert cycle, the ensemble will perform three pieces. The first piece’s clarinet parts are rhythmically challenging and tonally simple, whereas the second piece’s clarinet parts are both rhythmically and tonally challenging. The final piece’s clarinet parts are tonally challenging and rhythmically simple. Now that student aptitude and piece/part information is available, directors can create a part assignment chart (Table 2) that is both educationally and musically enriching.
Clarinet Section Students/Part Assignments Based on Aptitude.
Note. RC = rhythmically challenging; TC = tonally challenging; RSi = rhythmically simple; TSi = tonally simple; RAS = rhythmic aptitude strong; RAM = rhythmic aptitude moderate; RAN = rhythmic aptitude needs improvement; TAS = tonal aptitude strong; TAM = tonal aptitude moderate; TAN = tonal aptitude needs improvement.
Although this model promotes the idea of students performing parts other than the third or fourth all the time, directors are faced with the reality that these parts will often be the “sweet spot” for some students. In addition, there may be instances in which you have students at such high abilities where, even after repertoire has been selected, they still fall into the “too easy” category of the ZPD. If these cases exist, this can be an opportunity for the student to develop their leadership and mentor skills by helping the other students on their part.
There are several other factors that directors might consider when considering this model. Many of these considerations are those addressed by Millican (2019). For instance, the range of a piece and the playable ranges of each student are critical when selecting repertoire, and this is information that an aptitude test cannot assess. It is, however, worth continued consideration when choosing part assignments. If the range of a piece goes slightly beyond what a student is currently capable of performing, consider using the same model for pairing students with classmates who can play in that range, particularly if the student with limited range has a high tonal aptitude and good aural skills. Similar considerations could exist for pieces that incorporate advanced/extended techniques.
Conclusion
This approach is one way to consider assigning parts in an ensemble to keep individual student learning at the forefront. Music educators should endeavor to help all students be the best musicians they can. However, this goal does not always happen. Given the stresses that can happen due to solo and ensemble events and other large ensemble adjudicated events, the focus tends to zoom out to the group as a whole rather than a group of individuals. Owing to these stresses, the students who are currently achieving highest are placed on first part, and a trickle-down effect occurs. Music educators must remember that every student in the ensemble matters, not just the ones playing first part. Too often, directors ignore the individuals who make up their ensembles and only focus on large group events. By distributing parts based on student needs, directors can allow individual student learning to be at the forefront of their educational mission.
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.
