Let’s play together: teacher perspectives on collaborative chamber music instruction

ABSTRACT

This article reports on a pilot project exploring the viability of a teaching-through-playing approach in chamber music instruction in higher music education. Literature suggests that teaching traditions such as the one-to-one setting need renewal, and socio-cultural theories of learning propose that collaboration and participation are a way forward. To explore this new approach, a multiple case study of four chamber music groups with teachers as playing participants was set up in two institutions in Australia and Norway. Participants were interviewed to examine their attitudes, use of teaching and learning strategies, and perceived challenges and benefits of the approach. The findings suggest that working with professionals in a community of practice in a real-life setting intensifies and broadens learning of musical, social and general skills relevant for chamber music performance. However, the study revealed challenges regarding power relations that need to be resolved. In conclusion, the approach seems to be a promising supplement to existing teaching traditions. The master-apprentice model is through this approach re-imagined as a master-apprentice relationship of guided participation. The guidance comes from social partners’ feedback and from the hands-on involvement in and observation of the action culture of chamber music performance demonstrated as a professional practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Chamber music
• collaborative teaching
• collaborative learning
• master-apprentice
• leadership

Introduction

Higher music education (HME) is showing an increased interest in collaborative learning and teaching (Gaunt and Westerlund 2013; Gies and Sætre 2019). There are probably many reasons behind this interest, but we suggest that two are particularly important. First, there seems to be a need to look more closely into the teaching traditions in HME, especially the one-to-one master-apprentice model, in order to understand their strengths and to overcome their weaknesses. Renshaw (2013) argues, for example, that features offered by collaborative learning, such as shared leadership, student creativity and shared expertise, raise questions regarding the value of the master-apprentice model. Second, socio-cultural theories of learning suggest that learning is collaborative and social by nature (Vygotsky 1978; Lave and Wenger 1991; Rogoff 1995, 2003). This body of research claims that the main points of interest are to understand how learning takes place when people work together, interact and collaborate in communities of practice and how to facilitate such learning contexts, instead of looking at learning as the ‘transmission’ of knowledge and skill from teacher to student. Rogoff’s (1995) conceptualisation of apprenticeship is slightly different from the normal one-to-one model of music performance education. It emphasises participation (observation and hands-on involvement) in culturally valued activities under guidance offered by social partners and the cultural and social values embedded in the practice itself. In plain words, a fruitful approach to learning in HME would be to work and play with the teacher. This article reports on findings from a pilot project that combined these two points and aimed to (1) explore whether collaborative chamber music instruction and teaching-through-playing is a viable supplement to the traditional master-apprentice model, and (2) explore the characteristics of learning and teaching taking place in this particular collaborative practice. There is reason to believe that students will learn differently when chamber music instruction is set up as a collaborative practice where the instrumental teacher joins as an active musician, compared to a model where students play and the teacher observes and comments from outside the group.

One-to-one instruction in a master-apprentice setting has been the normal mode of music performance instruction for centuries, and still dominates areas ‘whose body of knowledge is more experience-based than evidence-based’ (Gies 2019, 35). Perkins (2013) has shown that performance specialism is a cornerstone in conservatoire learning practices, and that facilitating one-to-one interaction is a central component of this emphasis, together with performing opportunities. In a study of 20 conservatoire students, Gaunt (2010) found that all students were enthusiastic about the individual attention one-to-one instruction offers and about their relationship with their current teachers. However, she also found that the dynamics of power in these relationships could be troublesome for students, and sometimes hinder their development and self-direction (Gaunt 2010, 2011). Burwell (2019) also argues that one-to-one instruction can be a dissonant experience, since the case study identified problems regarding students’ opportunity to contribute to the lessons, and regarding encouragement and trust. Daniel (2004) summarises a number of issues of concern in one-to-one instruction, such as time inefficiency, conservatism, monocular learning and cloning, and potential for rebellion and frustration. Overall, these studies suggest on the one hand that one-to-one instruction is a central, adequate and highly valuable form of instruction in performance education. On the other hand, they also suggest that one-to-one student-teacher relationships are fragile and open for possible negative effects resulting from issues of power, lack of student involvement, and conflicting views on the direction of the student’s development.

The organisation, content and teaching strategies in one-to-one instrumental lessons probably differ widely (see for example Nerland 2004). Still, some research studies suggest that one might typically expect a focus on technique (Karlsson and Juslin 2008), and on teacher demonstration and teacher talk (Daniel 2006; Zhukov 2008, 2012; Burwell 2019). In comparison, small group lessons seem to be more collaborative and include the student voice to a larger degree. Daniel (2006) compared learning activities and experiences in one-to-one lessons (12 h of video footage) with small group lessons (150 h of video footage), and found that group lessons resulted in decreased teacher instruction (from 68% to 43% on average), and increased student performance (from 27% to 34%) and student input (from 4% to 23%). Also, Hanken (2015, 2016) and Bjøntegaard (2015) found that instrumental group lessons open up for student input, peer learning and peer teaching, and increased discussion and reflection between teacher and students on a number of topics.

The studies above signal that HME, as a field of practice as well as research, considers collaborative learning and teaching (and peer learning, co-learning and group learning) as a promising supplement to the traditional one-to-one master apprentice model of instrumental instruction. Not only do collaborative settings broaden the scope for musical learning, they also facilitate important social learning (Christophersen 2013; Nielsen, Johansen, and Jørgensen 2018). To implement effective collaborative learning is however far from straightforward. Research suggests that collaborative and group settings can be challenging for both students and staff. Students need to adjust to a more active role and involve themselves in each other’s learning (Christophersen 2013; Zanner and Stabb 2013) and teachers need to switch between observation, instruction and facilitation (Hanken 2015), which requires flexible teaching. Hanken (2015) also found that group lessons are challenging when it comes to organisation, involving all students, and developing approaches to giving constructive feedback. Rumiantsev, Maas, and Admiraal (2017) argue that group lessons need to be designed specifically for collaborative learning, and not only thought of as one-to-one tuition in groups, and that HME staff could seek guidance from educational specialists on the design and set-up of collaborative activities.

Furthermore, ensemble participation is particularly interesting from a learning perspective. Ensemble playing is a collaborative group activity, a central part of conservatoires’ learning culture (Perkins 2013), and resonates as well with the view of learning as guided participation in communities of practice articulated by Lave and Wenger (1991) and Rogoff (1995). A survey by Kokotsaki and Hallam (2007) gives evidence of the importance of ensemble participation for conservatoire music students, in terms of developing a broad range of musical, social, personal and professional skills. Normally, the teacher, if present, observes and comments on students’ ensemble playing. Alternatively, the teacher could enter the ensemble as a co-musician. Building on socio-cultural theory, Virkkula (2016, 36) studied workshops where students played with a professional musician:

This research shows that collaboration in workshops with professional musicians enabled the very concrete organisation of the students’ pictures of professional work and of the knowledge and competences needed in such work […]. Through participation in the work of a music community as a professional’s workmate, the students gain access to the expert’s tacit knowledge and action culture, and grow into the membership of the community.

The notion of action culture is pointing at an important aspect of the practice-based master-apprentice model described by Rogoff (1995): learning is rooted in the activities of the cultural practice (e.g. joint performances) rather than teachers commenting on students’ performances in retrospect. According to Virkkula, student learning however presupposes that students take part in joint planning of the workshop and therefore understand the goals and contents of the activities. Furthermore, Virkkula (2016, 37) argues that ‘[t]he change in the teacher’s role from the distributor of information to the educational planner of many-sided supportive environments and the coordinator of learning is a justified area of pedagogical development work in music institutes.’

The studies presented above suggest that contexts of collaborative learning and teaching in group and ensemble settings are particularly interesting in and for HME. Knowledge from research on such contexts could provide an alternative to the traditional one-to-one master-apprentice model, and at the same time increase our understanding of learning in typical and authentic work settings of musicians, where experienced and less experienced musicians work, learn and develop together. In order to investigate these matters, the authors carried out a pilot project where teachers joined as playing and singing participants in four chamber music groups (two in Australia and two in Norway). To explore the viability of the approach, we defined the following research questions:

1. What are the teachers’ attitudes towards the teaching-through-playing approach in chamber music instruction?

2. What strategies of teaching and learning do teachers report using?

3. What are the teachers’ views of the benefits and challenges of this approach compared to regular chamber music instruction?

Empirical data was collected from individual and focus group interviews of students and staff separately. Students reported being inspired by working with teachers on professional footing, learning effective rehearsal techniques, improving their understanding of styles and developing a range of performance skills (Zhukov and Sætre 2021). While this approach to chamber music instruction generated a more collaborative learning environment for students, including more experimentation and group discussion, their perceptions of traditional master-apprentice roles were barely challenged. This article presents the teacher’s perspectives.

Methodology

Research design and participants

The design of the research study is a multiple case study, which is considered an appropriate approach to study complex phenomena (Yin 2009). The phenomenon, or object of study, is teaching-through-playing instruction in chamber music. This is however rare in existing programmes, so we deemed it necessary to set up a number of cases (four chamber music groups) to explore and inform our understanding of the phenomenon. Through individual and focus group interviews following a semi-structured interview guide with a broad range of questions (see Appendix), rich data from multiple participant viewpoints were obtained in order to explore the piloted approach from different angles (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). The available data consists however only of constructed knowledge from participant interviews, and does not account for participants actions.

To explore the applicability of this approach to chamber music instruction beyond a single institution, two researchers – one in Norway and another in Australia – conducted the study. While higher music education curriculum and student preparation for the profession vary between the two countries, it was thought that the comparison would provide a greater variety of implementation and more nuanced insights into strengths and weaknesses of such an approach. In the Norwegian institution students receive chamber music instruction from the first year of their study, typically in weekly classes with the same teacher. The number of lessons increase from the second year of study, depending on group size and repertoire choice. While chamber group performances are assessed each semester, formal examinations take place in the second and fourth years. In the Australian institution students are required to participate in chamber music classes from the third year of their study, with coaching provided by teachers on a rotating basis and practical examinations at the end of each semester.

The chamber music groups (the four cases) were set up to include a variety of participants, regarding gender, study year and experience. In Australia, the researcher advertised a call for volunteers amongst staff and students inviting them to participate in the project. In Norway, the researcher asked two experienced chamber music staff if they were interested in participating, and asked them to suggest potential students. As a result, four groups of volunteer participants were formed, two in Australia (A1 and A2) and two in Norway (N1 and N2), with a mix of female and male (F, M) staff and students (see Table 1 for participant details). All participating staff were active performers with a special interest in chamber music and collaborative playing. All of them have been teaching in their specialty areas in higher education for over 10 years. The researchers obtained ethical clearance in Norway (Norwegian Centre for Research Data) and Australia (institutional level), and all staff and students received information about the project and signed a letter of consent.

Table 1. Overview of participants

	Age	Sex	Year of degree	Instrument
Australia Group 1 (A1)
Staff 1		F		Voice
Staff 2		M		Voice
Staff 3		F		Piano
Student 1	20	M	3	Voice
Student 2	22	F	4	Voice
Student 3	21	F	3	Voice
Student 4	31	M	2	Voice
Student 5	21	F	4	Piano
Australia Group 2 (A2)
Staff 1		M		Strings
Student 1	17	F	1	Strings
Student 2	18	F	2	Strings
Student 3	18	F	2	Strings
Student 4	18	F	1	Strings
Norway Group 1 (N1)
Staff 1		M		Piano
Student 1	22	M	3	Strings
Student 2	25	F	3	Strings
Student 3	25	M	Exchange, Masters (5)	Strings
Norway Group 2 (N2)
Staff 1		F		Strings
Student 1	23	F	5	Winds
Student 2	19	M	1	Piano

Implementation

Staff and students decided on repertoire and set up rehearsal schedules. Australia Group One (A1) decided on a concentrated project, with daily rehearsals during one intensive week. A2 completed four rehearsals over six weeks, plus a concert performance. N1 and N2 had four and three rehearsals over six weeks of semester respectively, and finished the project off with a joined concert for a live audience. The repertoire was mainly Western classical music repertoire from the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and each rehearsal lasted from one to one and a half-hour. No researchers were in the room during rehearsals. The A1 group was special in the sense of having three staff members, and they could switch between observing, doubling and taking over the student parts. In all other groups, the teacher joined the group from start to finish and played her or his own, separate part. The differing composition of the groups was partly a result of pragmatic issues (available staff and their ideas about repertoire), and partly thought to be a strength, insofar as the differences between the groups provide insight into variation of the phenomenon in accordance with the exploratory (rather than explanatory) aim of the case study (Yin 2009).

Data collection and analysis

After each group performed the repertoire studied during the project to an audience, the researchers interviewed staff participants separately from students (one focus group interview (A1) and three individual interviews). The interviews were semi-structured using an interview guide (see Appendix), but asking for additional clarifications when needed. The interview questions addressed the three areas of interest described in the introduction: attitudes, teaching and learning strategies, and benefits and challenges of the model. A professional transcription company transcribed the audio recordings of the interviews. A professional translator translated the Norwegian interviews into English.

The two researchers first analysed the interview data separately in order to find sub-themes and categories within and across the three areas of interest (as recommended by Smith and Osborne 2008), and shared and discussed our summarised, initial coding. The set of sub-themes and categories were revised as a result of this first step of co-interpretation. Second, the authors undertook thematic analysis of all interview transcripts separately (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009), with the list of sub-themes and categories as an analytical guide. Interview quotes from the staff interviews at both sites were used to illustrate the findings and demonstrate the credibility and trustworthiness of results as well as to validate the analysis process (Given and Saumure 2008). While the findings of an explorative case study with a limited number of cases and participants should not be generalised, they can however contribute to a first empirical-based discussion of the viability of using the approach in chamber music instruction. Moreover, it can contribute to a discussion of how to understand the characteristics of the approach from a socio-cultural perspective on learning (which with reference to Yin [2009] could be seen as a form of theoretical generalisation).

Below, we present the result of the analysis and give examples from the interviews in order to present the details of the teachers’ attitudes towards the teaching-through playing approach, the teaching and learning strategies they used, and how they compare the approach to regular chamber music tuition. In the results section, the four groups are abbreviated A1 (Australia, Group 1), A2, N1 (Norway, Group 1), and N2. In order to preserve anonymity, the three teachers in the A1 group are labelled with reference to instrument but not to gender (A1 piano and A1 voice).

Results

Analysis of interview data revealed six sub-themes, which in different ways shed light on the three areas of interest:

Teacher attitudes towards teaching-through-playing

• reasons for participating

• impact on future teaching

Strategies of teaching and learning

• skills taught

• effective teaching strategies

Benefits and challenges

• leadership and student involvement

• effectiveness of teaching-through-playing compared to regular chamber music instruction

Teacher attitudes: reasons for participating

For all staff this project was an opportunity to approach chamber music tuition in a new way. None of them had much experience from similar approaches in HME, even if one mentioned having been part of related projects at festivals (N2).

I can’t remember having done it before, to tell you the truth. At least not a project like this. There might have been some overlapping situations where I’ve played alongside them in practice, but nothing like this, no. (N1)

For most staff, central reasons for participating were to play with the students and to give the students experience with actually working with professionals and learning from them in a different way. The teachers, in other words, took on a dual role of performer and teacher.

It’s taking them to that next level and it’s also great to teach them how musicians interact. I think that’s really important because they’re watching how we, as professionals, are interacting, but interacting with them as well and teaching them. (A1, voice)

I am quite sure that my, and possibly also their view of me as a coach becomes increasingly multifaceted when they can hear what I do at the same time as coaching them. In that sense, the project was very much two parallel processes where I was involved as a musician while also providing impulses and responding to what I’m hearing from the students. (N1)

Another set of reasons concerns intensifying chamber music learning, regarding rehearsing time, communication, interpretation, and level of performance. Generally speaking, ‘experience what it’s like in the real world’ (N2).

I think that’s really important because rehearsal is obviously the most important thing in chamber music and I think they don’t really know how to do it. So, I think that hopefully for them will be the most valuable is how did you put together a piece in the short amount of time. (A1, piano)

Teacher N2 wanted to ‘share’ her ‘considerable experience’ in how to listen, what to listen to, and how to communicate in chamber music ensembles. She is an insider, she said, and can teach them to listen in ways that ‘students completely overlook because they haven’t learned to listen in that particular way’.

These statements indicate that the teachers were particularly interested in the interactive and professional features of the approach. They seem to welcome the chance to interact musically, as a teacher and as a performer, with the students and to show them how professionals interact and rehearse in professional settings. Teachers appear to have seen the potential of giving students access to the action culture of chamber music performance, which Virkkula (2016) identified as a positive effect of student-expert performance collaboration.

Teacher attitudes: impact on future teaching approaches

The teachers reported that this project may affect their future teaching approaches in some ways. The first and most common idea among the six teachers was to be more open to students’ ideas (A1, A2, and N1). The N1 teacher addressed this view generally, saying that he wants there to be ‘an underlying feeling of democracy.’ One voice teacher in A1 admitted that perhaps student ideas were stopped too soon, and that now the teacher would say instead: ‘do it a few times for me to see whether you can convince me that that works’. Another A1 teacher put it like this:

I guess I demonstrate a lot too, but I guess either giving more options and allowing them to really test them out or to go away and come back next week and say, ‘What worked? What did you really, really focus on? Give them those options more. (A1, voice)

A1 teachers also mentioned the importance of a ‘safe environment’ and taking risks: ‘You can’t learn as a musician unless you take risks (voice).’ The A2 teacher was already asking students about their ideas in one-to-one and chamber music instruction, in what he described as interactive lessons. However, this project is a different setting, according to him:

This is the kind of teaching that I find more difficult. It’s different when I’m playing because I’ve got certain things that I need to know are going to happen when I’m playing so that I can feel good about playing. So will it affect my teaching? Well, yes, I think so. It contributes to a whole area of thought in teaching in trying to develop students’ own exploratory processes. And if only to show me that it’s actually very difficult to do under that condition, it’s a different kind of a process perhaps. (A2)

The second impact was to stimulate and develop an atmosphere of constructive comments and communication, which we found most explicitly in the N2 interview: ‘The students don’t know where to start, and some of them are telling me about ensembles with a really bad atmosphere, with shockingly bad language’. These students have not learned how to speak to each other, according to N2. A third impact was to sing and play more with students in instrumental instruction, which was a central lesson learned by A1 staff (more on this below).

One way to interpret these interview statements is that the pilot project encouraged the teachers to be more attentive to student involvement and student voice in instrumental instruction. That there is a need to do so is no surprise, since previous research has indicated that student-teacher relationships may risk being too teacher-oriented (Gaunt 2010, 2011; Burwell 2019). It is however worth noticing that student-staff performance collaboration may activate reflection on issues of power relations in instrumental instruction practices.

Strategies of teaching and learning: skills taught and effective teaching strategies

Staff reported a variety of chamber music skills and general skills they taught and showed the students: technique (intonation, balancing), interpretation (colour, expression, uniformity), co-ordination (leading, eye contact, listening), stylistic approach (score analysis, meaning), and communication (dialogue, respect).

Staff reported to use a variety of teaching and learning strategies in order to teach these skills. According to the interview data, the most prominent one was playing or singing with the students. In N2, in fact, commented that playing together was the only teaching strategy for extended periods. Across the four groups, playing together meant either singing the same part as the student (A1) or students and staff singing or playing different parts together (all groups). A1 staff agreed in the interview that there is ‘so much validity’ to ‘the good old imitation, which we look down upon these days’. They also said that ‘this singing with’ is not typically what they do in one-to-one lessons.

Probably [the most effective was] when we were actually singing the part with the student, rather than just demonstrating. I think demonstrating is important as well but just for them to feel you next to them, feel and hear you next to them, I think that shows a lot. It gives them a lot closer idea of what they can actually do with text for example, or colours. (A1, voice)

All staff reported that communication, dialogue and asking questions were important strategies, and that they were useful but also challenging with students being reluctant, at least initially, to voice their opinions. In A1, one of the teachers said that they made the choices from the beginning, but students were reluctant to voice their opinions: ‘it was only after we had done it a few times where one them would go “Well, actually when we rehearsed it, we decided this”, but they were not game to really show that in the beginning or to say that until afterwards’ (A1, voice). In A2, the teacher said he wanted his students to take initiative and communicate, but he found that his presence in the group perhaps had ‘an intimidating effect or a dampening effect on the students’ own willingness to explore and to ask questions’. He claimed that he asked them, in the early rehearsals, to try and give more input, ‘but even in asking that, that’s intimidating, you know’, (A2). The N1 teacher found it ‘completely inappropriate in a setting like this’ to be a ‘boss who decided how things should be’.

When there were questions, we talked about the passages and discussed a bit. I listened to their views, and I was very keen to try to … for there to be communication both ways, for it not to be too much of a one-way street. I felt that we had quite a good dialogue throughout the project. I believe that they should feel they are being taken 100% seriously. It’s very important, because it gives them an entirely different feeling of their contributions being genuinely significant. Because chamber music is a highly soloistic setting where every single voice is incredibly important. (N1)

The N2 teacher, on a more general level, commented that she would like to introduce some chamber music students to a ‘crash course in how to talk to each other’, since she believes that communication in chamber music is both important and a challenge for many students.

The analysis of interview data suggests that other useful strategies were demonstration and explanation, as in the case of A2:

I talked about some sort of issues of intonation that they might not have come across before, like the difference between playing a harmonically in-tune note to a melodically in-tune note, like major thirds and minor thirds. But not too much. Mostly it was just really just play it and listen and try and find each other. And that really had an effect. I talked a little bit about harmony. But I often find when I do that, it becomes like a harmony lesson, and it shuts down. So I didn’t sort of continue with too much of that. (A2)

Staff were also asked about less useful teaching strategies. A1 staff mentioned choosing ‘the wrong time of year’, since both students and staff had problems finding time for preparation and rehearsals. A2 and N1 said they found ‘different levels of preparation’ and ‘lack of student preparation’ a challenge. Apart from these issues, no other ineffective teaching strategies were reported.

According to the staff themselves, they worked on a wide range of chamber music skills, including coordination and communication skills. This is interesting, insofar as research studies indicate that one-to-one instruction often tends to focus on technique (Karlsson and Juslin 2008). Moreover, staff identified playing with the students, communication, dialogue and asking questions as effective teaching strategies, which all contrast the dominance of teacher talk and demonstration in one-to-one lessons (Daniel 2006; Zhukov 2008, 2012; Burwell 2019).

Benefits and challenges: leadership and involvement

The six teachers reported unanimously that they led the rehearsals. At the same time, all staff seemed to have wanted a shared leadership. They wanted the students to take initiative, be active and communicative. In the focus group interview, A1 staff said that they led the rehearsals, in particular when all three teachers were present; however, the students ‘did come occasionally’ with ideas and suggestions. Leadership seems to have been a particularly challenging issue in A2:

I think that they were very keen to keep me pleased or do what I asked. But beyond that, they really were reluctant to question and to come up with their own ideas or to be seen in any way to be putting themselves on the level of the teacher. You can corral them into doing certain things in a way that perhaps is better than what they might ordinarily come up with. But you’re not really allowing them the space to find things for themselves. (A2)

According to the first quote below, there were similar challenges in N1, but students started to ‘open up’ after some time. The N2 teacher seems to have taken on a defined role as a co-musician (which according to her was possible because the students had high level of skills).

The students were very much the recipients; they were quite shy, a bit reserved. […] it was natural for me to take the initiative, ask questions and stop and bring things up. This was true for the first two-three rehearsals, but towards the end of the process they began to open up. By then they felt more confident about the material and about the situation, they knew me better, and they were definitely putting forward ideas. I felt it eventually became a more open and free two-way dialogue. (N1)

It was probably I who led the rehearsals, but the others spoke and asked when there was something they wanted to do again. […] I think that if I’d put my professor hat on and gone to those rehearsals, things would’ve turned out quite differently. If I’m sitting at the back of the room listening to an ensemble, it’s fine for me to pick things apart and put them back together again and work on the details, but if you’re part of the group, then that’s something different entirely. (N2)

These statements strengthen the impression that leadership, student involvement and power relations are both important and difficult issues in instrumental instruction. It is interesting that the rehearsal processes turned out to be quite teacher-led, according to the staff themselves, despite the fact that they aimed for shared leadership and a free sharing of ideas. There are two important aspects of this dilemma. It may be difficult to step out of traditional teacher and student roles in instrumental instruction, and it is particularly important to be able to do so in collaborative learning. In these settings, students need to adjust to an active role and teachers need to be flexible teachers switching between observation, instruction and facilitation (Christophersen 2013; Zanner and Stabb 2013; Hanken 2015).

Benefits and challenges: effectiveness of teaching-through-playing compared to regular chamber music instruction

Finally, staff commented on how this approach differed from normal chamber music instruction, about possible improvements and how it may affect student professional preparation. A1 staff emphasised the value of the collaborative teaching that their group of three staff members made possible: ‘A lot of that shooting ideas and exchange and working off each other’ (A1, piano), and another teacher added ‘and for me the singers for example, to hear how you would explain something to a pianist and vice-versa.’ (A1, voice). They also reflected on what happens in a mixed-instrument group. ‘I think also talking to instruments other than yours, the voice, talking to a mixed group is different in that you have to speak about much more overarching concepts’ (A1, piano). Finally, they thought that collaboration across instruments would ‘build a better musician’ (A1, voice).

Moreover, several teachers found that joining the student ensemble resulted in a more professional and intensified practice. ‘I don’t think there would be a chamber group I’ve ever seen here that would have been up to that standard in a week, not even close.’ (A1, voice). N1 said that the ‘situation is inherently more intense because they’re doing it together. And I’m joining in as a musician. And you have less time. That makes everything more intensive.’ The most important experience, according to N1, is ‘showing them what it actually means to be a professional musician giving it 100%.’ N2 claims that this approach is ‘much quicker’, since she would not have had the time ‘to sit there and wait for them to learn their parts.’ ‘They get the feeling that this is the professional way of doing things.’ (N2).

All staff commented on the usefulness of this approach and the type of students who could benefit from it. However, their views differed. A1 teachers suggested using this approach more often in chamber music instruction (instead of the typical setting where the teacher comments from outside the group), since it builds self-belief and confidence in achieving high level of performance in a short time. The N1 teacher suggested doing it occasionally with certain chamber groups, both at Bachelor and Master’s level. He thought that ‘some of those who still have a way to go in various areas could take away some concrete learning from such a process’ (N1). The quality of the process depends, however, on the ‘maturity of the students, their level of motivation and how self-sufficient they are’ (N1). The A2 teacher thought that this approach should not replace normal chamber music coaching and their own long-term practice, and that it would be more useful at Master’s level with more confident students than with younger students. The N2 teacher said that the students played at a higher level, they stretched themselves. The divergent views nonetheless indicate that this approach is a useful alternative or at least a supplement to typical chamber instruction.

The teaching-through-playing approach was perceived by these teachers as faster, more intense and professional than what they think of as regular chamber music instruction. These statements also contrast the alleged time inefficiency of one-to-one instruction (Daniel 2004). Importantly, the students stated similar views (Zhukov and Sætre 2021, 8–10). They found the approach much faster than the chamber music instruction processes they were used to, they reported being better prepared and that the approach was more professional due to professionals joining the ensemble.

Discussion

This study was set up as a pilot project exploring the phenomenon of teaching-through-playing in chamber music instruction, and results were obtained from analysing knowledge constructed in interviews of participating staff in four cases that were different in many ways. The study has not given an account of observed actions, only participants’ perceptions. As a result, the findings of the study should not be generalised to other contexts and practices, nor do they capture all facets of the phenomenon. The project, however, provides an initial, empirical-based discussion of the possible viability of the approach and the characteristics of learning and teaching taking place in it. While some differences between countries and institutions have been reported in teacher attitudes, overall the participants viewed this approach as a useful addition to their teaching practice.

The six teachers reported a positive attitude to trialling the teaching-through-playing approach to chamber music instruction, in particular because it offered a chance to interact musically with the students and to show them how professionals collaborate and rehearse. One way of conceptualising this interest is that the approach allowed teachers to grant students access to the professional action culture of expert musicians (Virkkula 2016), and that teachers immediately saw the potential of doing so. This transforms chamber music instruction into a community of practice, which Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner (2015) define as a group of more and less experienced knowers and learners ‘who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.’ It resembles as well Rogoff’s (2003) understanding of apprenticeship as guided participation, which ‘proceeds from the idea that learning is neither a teacher-oriented nor a student-oriented process’ (Mascolo 2009, 7). Common to these socio-cultural views and concepts of learning, is the emphasis of the fundamental role of cultural practice, participation and action in learning. When staff reported an interest in collaborating with students, in showing them how professionals work and interact, they demonstrate an interest in changing the mode of collaboration from instruction to active participation in a community of practice. Similarly, when students reported to cherish ‘the opportunity to work with experienced staff’ and ‘gain further insights into playing in a professional setting’ (Zhukov and Sætre 2021, 7), they seem to welcome a mode of learning that is participatory in the sense of performing activities that are central in chamber music performance as a professional, cultural practice.

Central to Rogoff’s understanding of apprenticeship and learning as guided participation is the idea that neither participation nor guidance is sufficient in themselves (Rogoff 2003; Mascolo 2009). Participation and guidance complement each other in several ways. Participation in cultural practices means both hands-on involvement in the activity and observation of more expert participants (Rogoff 1995). The teaching-through-playing approach seems to incorporate and enable both of these forms of participation. Staff reported using a broad range of teaching strategies, with an emphasis on the hands-on activity of playing together. The students also found that playing/singing with the teacher as a partner was particularly effective, as well as observation-oriented strategies such as teacher demonstration and imitation of the teacher’s playing (Zhukov and Sætre 2021, 7). Both staff and students found that collaborative activities such as dialogue, asking questions, experimentation and group discussions were effective.

Guidance, on the other hand, refers to the direction offered by social partners involved in the activity (in our study feedback from and observation of staff and peers), but also directions offered by the cultural and social values of the practice (Rogoff 1995). Research literature describes ensemble performance as a comprehensive learning arena, which encompasses a range of musical, social and professional skills (Kokotsaki and Hallam 2007), which may explain the wide range of skills addressed in the pilot. Results also suggest that students may have taken guidance from the cultural and social values of the practice, since they reported being prepared more than usual (Zhukov and Sætre 2021). This indicates that a professional practice may build on other cultural values than the educational chamber music practices students were used to.

We can thus understand the teaching-through-playing approach as a form of apprenticeship where staff and students establish a community of practice, work collaboratively in and on performance activities, and learn through regular interaction and guided participation. In this sense, the approach may have represented a democratic and collaborative alternative to the existing HME practices.

Power issues were however present in this study as well. The rehearsals were typically teacher-led, most evident in the group with three teachers (A1) and the group with young female students (A2) (Zhukov and Sætre 2021). The A2 teacher reported to be concerned that he had an ‘intimidating effect’ on the four female students. Several staff reported that a central learning from the pilot was to be more attentive to student involvement and student voice. A possible explanation is that instrumental instruction practices risks being hierarchical and open to negative power mechanisms (as demonstrated by Wagner [2015] and Burwell [2019]), and that it is difficult to adjust to new roles in participatory learning settings. Furthermore, there are hierarchical power relations even in the apprenticeship practices described by Lave and Wenger (1991), Rogoff (2003) and others. Newcomers typically enter peripheral roles, however legitimate, and the importance given to guidance by these scholars would suggest that there are limits to how much a teacher or a more experienced participant should withdraw from leadership without losing the developmental potential of the learning process (which is a central point in Mascolo’s [2009] criticism of exaggerated student-oriented higher education practices).

A last and important reflection concerns the very mode of learning. According to socio-cultural theory, all learning takes place within the context of socio-cultural activities, and novices learn by performing activities that occur within them (Rogoff 1993). Learning, consequently, is not seen as the transmission of knowledge and skill from one person to another by internalisation. Instead, Rogoff proposes that learning is a process of participatory appropriation, which refers to ‘the process of taking control of meanings and skills that have their origins in an individual’s active participation in cultural activities’ (Mascolo 2009, 12). The teaching-through-playing setting could potentially have exemplified this point in its very essence, by defining active and joint participation in chamber music performance as the explicit origin of learning. Therefore, it is not surprising that participants who probably were more used to traditional instructional settings with more clearly defined student and teacher roles (and perhaps a transmission-oriented understanding of learning) had difficulty adjusting to the new learning and teaching setting they had entered. The need for more active and involved students could in fact have been a result of the collaborative nature of the approach.

The teaching-though-playing approach has in our opinion great potential as a supplement to other HME models. Staff and students reported that it introduced students to an authentic setting that was fast, intense, professional, and with high musical standards. The views of the staff differed, however, on the issue of usefulness. It is interesting to note that some teachers thought that all students would benefit from the approach, since it builds self-belief and confidence, while other teachers think it is most useful on Master’s level, where one finds students that are more confident and ready. This is a paradox, and probably relates to issues of learning, and to the question of who is responsible for what in HME.

Conclusions

This article aimed at exploring whether collaborative chamber music instruction and teaching-through-playing is a viable supplement to the traditional master-apprentice model and at exploring the characteristics of learning and teaching taking place in this particular collaborative practice. In our view, the study suggests that working with professionals in a community of practice in a real-life setting intensifies and broadens learning of musical, social and general skills relevant for chamber music performance. The approach seems both to strengthen and accelerate the learning process (confirmed by student reports in Zhukov and Sætre 2021), and it contributes to diversifying the range of teaching strategies (which Hanken [2015] identified as an important requirement in well-functioning collaborative learning). Furthermore, the approach seems to demonstrate competences needed in professional work. The claims presented in this article are supported by the insights from the student interviews reported in Zhukov and Sætre (2021). The participating students were inspired by working with experienced staff in a professional and collaborative setting, and their learning of a range of musical, social and collaborative skills was accelerated by the participatory teaching-through-playing approach and the authentic professional experience. All students identified positive outcomes of the instructional process, which is an interesting contrast to the teachers in the present study who are uncertain whether inexperienced students would benefit from the approach. The comparison of findings from Zhukov and Sætre (2021) and this study demonstrates that both students and teachers identified similar challenges. It seems to be hard to alter traditional teacher-student power relations and to accomplish student involvement, even in explicit collaborative settings. The findings of both studies suggest that power relations, student involvement and leadership are troublesome issues also in a teaching-through-playing setting, and that teachers and students need to focus on, reflect on and adjust to new roles in co-musicianship and collaborative learning and teaching.

Compared to the one-to-one master-apprentice model, the teaching-through-playing approach seems to represent an alternative version of apprenticeship. The study suggests that students through this approach are given access to the professional action culture (Virkkula 2016) of chamber music performance. The learning setting resembles a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) where more and less experienced participants interact in performance activities and develop through guided participation (Rogoff 1995). This is a different point of departure when it comes to normal chamber music instruction. It changes the mode of learning (from instruction to participatory appropriation), as the joint participation revolves around teacher and students playing and interacting together and working towards joint musical objectives and results which they are mutual responsible for, both in the preparation and the performance phase of the process. In this sense, the master-apprentice model is re-imagined into a master-apprentice relationship of guided participation (in line with Rogoff [1995]), where the guidance comes from feedback from social partners (expert and peers) and from the hands-on involvement in and observation of the action culture of chamber music performance demonstrated as a professional, cultural practice. We propose that future research should examine such a learning approach in more depth and with a wide range of students, to evaluate its potential in supplementing the teaching traditions in music performance education.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

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

Notes on contributors

Jon Helge Sætre

Dr Jon Helge Sætre is Associate Professor of music education at the Norwegian Academy of Music (NMH), Oslo. Sætre’s research interests include music education in schools, creative music making, assessment in music education, and research into higher music education studies. Sætre led the NMH Centre of Excellence in Music Performance Education (CEMPE) from 2016 to 2021. He is now head of the Master of Music Education programme at NMH.

Katie Zhukov

Dr Katie Zhukov is a Research Fellow at Monash University, Australia. She has published many articles and book chapters on music sight-reading, eye movement, performance anxiety, skills for classical music careers, and instrumental teaching. After serving for six years on the editorial board of International Journal of Music Education: Research, she is currently a member of the editorial board of Frontiers in Psychology: Performance Science.

Appendix

Interview Schedule – Staff Focus Group

1. What motivated you to volunteer for this project? Why?

2. What did you hope to achieve through participation in this project?

   • Singing/playing goals

   • Social goals

   • Personal goals

   • Performance outcomes

   • Other

3. What did you try to show the students who observed you singing/playing their part?

   • Ensemble cues

   • Aspects of technique

   • Tone production

   • Expressive elements

   • Other

4. What did you try to teach other students while singing/playing with them?

   • Ensemble cues

   • Aspects of technique

   • Tone production

   • Expressive elements

   • Other

5. What strategies did you find most effective when teaching chamber music?

   • Demonstration

   • Explanation

   • Discussion

   • Performing

6. What did you find least useful?

7. Who lead the rehearsals?

   • Students/staff

   • Dissolved/equal leadership

   • Other

8. Did you give students opportunities to voice their ideas/opinions?

   • Yes/No

   • Why?

9. Did you give students opportunities to find solutions for arising problems?

   • Yes/No

   • Why?

10. How will this project affect your future teaching? Please, describe:

    • Individual teaching

    • Group teaching

11. What did you learn from your interactions with students in your group?

12. How does this method of chamber music instruction compare to the usual chamber music coaching you give?

    • More engaging/boring

    • Faster/slower progress

    • Higher/lower quality performance outcomes

13. What would you change to make this approach even better?

14. How does this way of teaching might impact students’ professional preparation?

    • Communication with other musicians

    • Understanding of professional standards

    • Approaches to practising

    • Acquiring knowledge specific to the musical works studied