Tensions, issues and strengths of Professor Lucy Green’s model of informal learning

ABSTRACT

Twenty years have passed since Green’s [2002. How Popular Musicians Learn: A way Ahead for Music Education. Aldershot: Ashgate] publication which proposed a model of informal learning based upon five key principles. The discussion it ignited within the discipline was vast, the debate is still on-going, and the approach is still being implemented internationally. It is timely to explore literature that has focused upon Green’s (2002. How Popular Musicians Learn: A Way Ahead for Music Education. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2008. Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy. Aldershot: Ashgate) model, to celebrate the approach, and acknowledge the challenges of implementation – particularly in light of current formal, traditional music education policy in England – to consider ways of addressing the issues. Literature has been presented according to key themes,to highlight tensions, issues and strengths of the approach. The themes include teacher role, student autonomy, motivation, student inclusion, authenticity and marketisation. The key themes act as a framework to aid understanding of the complexities of the debate. The tensions, issues and strengths have implications for practice, as proposed in this article.

KEYWORDS:

• Informal learning
• music education
• Musical Futures

Introduction

This article will explore literature linked to Professor Lucy Green’s (2002, 2008) model of informal learning (IL), to highlight strengths, issues and tensions of the approach. Twenty years have passed since Green’s publication, ‘How Popular Musicians Learn’ (2002), which was followed by ‘Music, Informal Learning and the School’ (2008). Green’s research evoked considerable response within the music education literature relating to strengths, tensions and issues of the approach. The debate is still on-going – demonstrating how significant the impact upon the discipline area was and continues to be – deserving celebration.

Green’s IL model continues to be implemented on a national and international scale (Musical Futures n.d.; Musical Futures International n.d.). However, the current political climate for music education in England is increasingly formal and traditional (favouring staff notation, Western Classical music, and music theory). Staff notation, music theory and the work of ‘great composers and musicians’ (implying a pre-determined hierarchy to perpetuate the values of those in power) are all referenced in the current National Curriculum (Department for Education 2013) for music in England. Increased formality and tradition are evident in more recent documents such as The Model Music Curriculum (Department for Education 2021), and the Research review series: Music (Ofsted 2021). Although the Model Music Curriculum is non-statutory, anecdotal evidence suggests that some teachers feel obliged to implement the document in preparation for potential inspection. As policy appears to have moved further away from valuing IL, it is vital to explore the literature that has raised tension and issue with the approach. This is to prompt increased consideration of what implications for practice might be useful in maintaining the increased longevity of the approach in light of the strengths of IL. It is believed that there is a danger of IL becoming ‘lost’ in schools, particularly in England, should we fail to address such tensions and issues raised. This article seeks to make contribution to the field by proposing implications for practice in light of the literature review conducted.

Informal learning

For Folkestad (2006, 141), the IL situation is ‘not sequenced beforehand’ and occurs during ‘self-chosen and voluntary activity’, whereas formal learning occurs when thought is focused on how to play music when a person is present who ‘takes on the task of organising and leading the learning activity’. Rather than view the informal and formal as being dichotomies, Folkestad (2006, 135) proposed the idea of the formal and the informal as being ‘two poles on a continuum’ that are both present in most learning situations, which teachers flip between. It was suggested that there are four determining aspects that lie within a formal and IL continuum: the situation, learning style, ownership and intention (Folkestad 2006). In consideration of the parameters of this article, Green’s model of IL is understood as being as far along towards the informal side of the imagined continuum as the school context will allow, assessed against Folkestad’s four determining aspects.

Green’s informal learning approach

Green (2002) proposed that one of the problems of school music was traditional, formal approaches that potentially alienated and demotivated students from participating in school music lessons. Green questioned whether it was an educational oversight that we had stripped music learning of the informal practices used by popular musicians in our quest for more formal knowledge. To remedy this, Green identified characteristics of how popular musicians learnt in the informal realm to inform school music practice. Green (2002, 9) interviewed fourteen popular musicians aged between 15 and 50 years involved in ‘Anglo-American guitar-based pop and rock music’. Themes that were identified from the analysis of the interviews fed into five principles that formed the basis of the IL theory:

1. Learning music that students like, choose and identify with

2. Learning by listening to and copying recordings (aural learning)

3. Learning in friendship groups

4. Personal, often haphazard learning, without structured guidance

5. Integration of performing, listening, improvising and composing, with one or more of these principles present in all stages.

In Green’s (2008) publication, ‘Music, Informal Learning and the School’, Green discussed an action research project, which involved the implementation of these five principles in 21 secondary schools in England. Seven stages were proposed to guide the implementation of the theory:

• Stage one (also known as ‘in at the deep end’) involved principles one to four and was focused upon imitating the practice of popular musicians as closely as possible.

• Stage two involved principles two, three and five, and focused upon learning popular music by ear.

• Stage three was a revisit of stage one to consolidate learning.

• Stage four involved principles three to five and was centred around informal composing.

• Stage five involved actual engagement with real-live popular musicians to model composing.

• Stages six and seven included principles two to four, focused upon an informal approach used with classical music.

The seven stages acted as a structure through which each of the various principles could be applied. The teacher’s role was to facilitate (Green 2008), as opposed to adopting a traditional didactic teaching pedagogy.

A number of strengths of the approach were reported by Green (2008), including increased student motivation and participation. Students appeared to find the authority of a music recording to be copied less threatening than the directive of a teacher, and found the reduced amount of music theory in lessons appealing. The students in Green’s (2008, 62) research expressed that they felt more like ‘proper’ musicians than amateur learners, as a result of increased confidence and self-efficacy beliefs. However, tensions and issues also arose. Initial teacher reactions to the role of the teacher reflected perceived conflicts with official approaches, for example, failure to deliver the National Curriculum (essential policy for state schools in England) – resulting in fear of IL implementation. Another cause of concern raised by teachers was student progression, which Green (2008, 52) regarded as ‘how well pupils were able to play in time with each other and with their chosen recording’ on this occasion. Teachers noted that students' skills often appeared to deteriorate before they improved, which understandably caused anxiety as student progression is regarded as a teacher's responsibility within the school environment (Department for Education 2013). Thus, although strengths of the approach were identified in Green’s (2008) study, issues and tensions were also apparent, igniting debate within the wider discipline.

Green’s (2008) research was initially funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and UK Department for Education and Skills Innovation Unit, but became part of the Musical Futures (MF) project in 2004, also referred to as the IL branch of MF (ILMF) in this article. MF is one of the most prominent contemporary initiatives to address some of the problems of school music and seeks to improve music education through innovation. The initiative operates on an international scale, and has introduced additional strands over time. These include non-formal classroom workshopping and a ‘Just Play’ resource – both of which impact the role of the teacher from IL facilitator to a more non-formal / formal position with increased control – potentially representing the wider shift in the current music education landscape in England.

Although Green’s model of IL can be separated from the MF initiative, it often falls under the umbrella term of MF as it turned out to be the quickest and most widespread model to be adopted by practitioners (Price 2007). Thus, when MF is referred to in this article, IL is understood as being a part of the initiative. The literature explored in this review draws upon the work of Green’s IL model, yet it is acknowledged that some of the cited authors have also used some of the more structured MF strands in addition to IL, for example, Just Play and non-formal classroom workshopping, resulting in overall findings of these articles difficult to separate according to strand. This is infrequent.

An exploration of the literature

All published sources focused upon Green’s IL model have informed this article, stemming mostly from academic peer-reviewed sources. Not all literature has been directly referenced due to the restricted length of this article, but cohere with the themes raised. A full list of the literature which has informed this article can be located on an institutional repository: DOI:10.25416/edgehill.19361912.

Central themes that had surfaced in the reading of Green’s (2002, 2008) work were used as a lens through which to navigate the wider literature. Six prominent themes emerged and have been developed through debate since Green’s original contribution. These six themes provide one proposed framework to organise and understand the many complexities surrounding the strengths, issues and tensions of ILMF.

It must be acknowledged that although Green’s IL model is implemented and has been evaluated in primary settings (for example, Moore 2019 where both primary and secondary settings were explored in Ireland), most of the literature relating to Green’s IL model focuses on secondary age groups (11–16 in England). This article focuses on such literature. Furthermore, the review has considered literature from various contexts, which is likely to have impacted the viewpoints presented. For example, authors based within the United States of America are likely to be reflecting upon music education rooted in a schooling system that favours ensemble skills and performance – with more formal teaching and monitoring systems potentially providing increased tension and issue. In contrast, teachers based within the United Kingdom frequently come from more diverse musical backgrounds, despite the current policy, providing a different lens through which to view and value IL. Thus, the strengths, issues and tensions highlighted in this article are likely to be more significant in some contexts than others.

The response in the literature

The role of the teacher

The role of the teacher ‘throughout the project was to establish ground rules for behaviour, set the task going at the start of each stage, then stand back and observe what pupils were doing’ (Green 2008, 24). Cain and Cursley (2017, 139) termed this a ‘more relaxed approach to teaching music’. Strength has been identified through the adoption of this approach. Hallam, Creech, and McQueen (2016b, 1) suggested that ‘most teachers reported that MF had helped them to become a more effective teacher, more confident in teaching music and had increased their enjoyment’. This was akin to Jeanneret (2010) and Jeanneret, McLennan and Stevens-Ballenger’s (2011) findings, who also reported an increase in teachers’ confidence, self-perceived effectiveness and range of musical skills after MF implementation in Australia, similar to Moore’s (2019) positive findings from a pilot study conducted in Ireland. These seem appealing and motivating benefits for a teacher to engage and continue to engage with MF.

However, the role of the teacher is not without tensions and issues. Allsup and Olson (2012) and Rodriguez (2012) were left wondering how teachers should be trained and professionally developed in Green’s (2008) approach due to the little guidance offered in the text on what constitutes teacher quality. This potentially echoes the problems that have arisen in the Swedish music education system, where an IL approach has been a dominant characteristic for longer than it has been present in England. In Sweden, the role of the teacher often lacks validity and is unclear (Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010). As Gower (2012) and Allsup (2008, 4) concurred, from an outsider’s perspective, it can appear that the teacher is ‘doing very little’. Allsup (2008, 1) even went as far as saying that there was a ‘disappearance of the teacher’, with Greher (2008), on the other hand, noting the disappearance of students from the teaching model – the students were not there to be ‘taught’. When there is no exemplar of ‘best practice’ conveyed, as could be the perceived case with Green’s (2002, 2008) work, Rodriguez (2009) suggested that teacher frustration occurs. This could be one of the factors which have contributed to the more prescriptive nature of MF teacher guidance provided in resource packs (D’Amore 2009).

The responsibility of teachers is to ensure their lessons fulfil required curricula and that students make progress. Crawford (2017) found that MF did not meet the requirement of the Victorian Curriculum, Australia, providing a potential deterrent for teachers considering whether to implement the approach in Australia. Hallam, Creech, and McQueen (2016a) attributed a limitation to student progress that could be made through MF implementation to the dominance of popular music within the approach. This could be attributed to the conflict between two competing paradigms of progress – a formal, linear and hierarchical one and an informal, deviating and varied one (Lill 2016). Furthermore, the role of the teacher in Green’s model can also be exhausting and stressful in reality (Hallam, Creech, and McQueen 2016a, 2016b, 2017b, 2018), suggesting that smaller classes or increased teaching support might be beneficial to teachers implementing the approach, resulting in financial implication.

Clements (2012) and Allsup and Olson (2012) agreed that the teacher was not fully used as an expert in Green’s approach as much as they should have been, which limited learning potential within the classroom. However, teacher expertise can be seen as a concept tied to Western Art music, with Mantie (2012) encouraging a more reflexive approach, particularly within the ensemble-based context of the United States of America and Canada. Rodriguez (2012, 120) believed that teachers must now ‘become experts in helping students make things happen for themselves’ – perhaps if teachers fully developed their skills in assisting students to do so, their expertise in different areas would be used to facilitate learning potential. This task is not to be underestimated, as being able to navigate, understand and connect with students’ musical preferences, values, and cultural and social backgrounds demands a wide range of knowledge and experience (Downey 2009; Dunbar-Hall 2009; Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010). Although Allsup (2008, 5) also noted that the ‘topic of teacher expertise bumps up against the values of informal learning’, by no means are the teachers relinquishing their expertise, neither as educators nor as musicians (Green 2008). However, they can be seen as relinquishing power for increased student autonomy.

Student autonomy

The evolution of the teacher role from a formal, instructive position to that of a facilitator, naturally increased the level of student autonomy within the classroom – which can be considered a strength of the approach (Jeanneret and Wilson 2016; Mariguddi 2021). However, due to the formal school environment, teacher control is likely to be implicit and ever-present in the school context due to the nature of education and the hierarchies that sit within, regardless of how far teacher control is seemingly relinquished. Although students are given greater elements of choice (for example, which song they will copy, which instruments they will play, and who they will work with), students are still subject to classroom rules and overall tasks set by the teacher. There is increased student autonomy compared to a formal didactic music lesson. Yet, for understandable reasons relating to context and teacher professional responsibilities, the student autonomy has boundaries and confines. This creates tension with the values of IL.

Furthermore, Georgii-Hemming and Westvall (2010, 31) believed that ‘if responsibility for music education content and activities is left completely to students we risk failing students’ music and the meaning that music can have for people’. Sexton (2012) concurred with this opinion, and expressed concern that despite ILMF implementation, she had a duty as a teacher to expose students to new and challenging musical experiences that they would not experience without teacher direction. Rodriguez (2009) suggested that students ought to be prepared for this increased autonomy and resulting responsibility that falls within the informal approach. Yet how educators should go about this preparation remains unclear, causing the issue.

Finding a place of balance and co-existence between teacher control and student autonomy might be an idealistic goal (Greher 2008). Striking this balance is likely to be one of delicacy and individuality, depending upon the context. According to Cain (1985, 17), ‘if [teachers] give too much help [students] are likely to lose their involvement in their work; if too little, then they may drift, losing sight of their aims’. Thus, the stakes are high to nurture student participation and learning, although motivation can also play a key role in this area.

Motivation

IL in music education is said to increase motivational levels in students (Green 2002, 2008; Folkestad 2006; Feichas 2010). This is the case mainly through an MF route (Ofsted 2006; Hallam et al. 2008; Jeanneret 2010; Jeanneret, McLennan, and Stevens-Ballenger 2011; Hallam, Creech, and McQueen 2011, 2016a, 2017b, 2018; O’Neill and Bespflug 2012; Wright et al. 2012; Evans, Beauchamp, and John 2014; Moore 2019). Maehr, Pintrich, and Linnenbrink (2002) conveyed the meaning of motivation by discussing four main action patterns, which are often the focus of motivational research: the initial choice to engage with action; the intensity with which the engagement occurs; the persistence has shown by individuals to continue with the action; and the actual quality of the engagement. Thus, it is implied that ILMF can positively impact these four main action patterns. Hallam, Creech, and McQueen (2018) found that students’ main reasons behind their motivation towards MF lay in the independence and freedom within lessons that they were afforded and by being able to work with friends and choose the music they were learning – strengths of the IL approach. However, although a key strength of IL is motivation by drawing upon student choice and autonomy, students will often lose such aspects when they progress onto studying for graded examinations to be taken at ages 15 and 16 (for example the General Certificate of Secondary Education [GCSE] in England, Wales and Northern Ireland). The syllabus and assessment criteria are pre-determined, leaving little room for student choice and autonomy.

The self-determination theory provides a model that highlights the key role of students’ inner motivational resources in facilitating engagement and explains the role of extrinsic motivation when some aspects of music learning are not intrinsically interesting (Ryan and Deci 2000). Thus, the aspect of student autonomy and the teacher as a facilitator rather than an instructor are important concepts of ILMF to promote student intrinsic motivation. The humanistic psychological theory has also emphasised the importance of an individual’s freedom to choose their course of action and behaviour (Maslow 1987). This factor could lie beneath some of the motivational claims of Green’s (2008) model, emphasising the importance of student autonomy when adopting the approach. Renwick and Reeve (2012) believed that a sense of autonomy and competence should be developed and supported for students to gain the capacity to motivate themselves and engage in music. Hallam, Creech, and McQueen (2016a, 2017b) found that teachers did perceive that their students had an increased ability to learn independently, suggesting that student autonomy was a successful outcome of MF.

Even though an IL approach to school music can be seen as a way of increasing student motivation in many ways, this has not proved to be the overwhelming case in Sweden, with contradictory research underlying this caution and issue (Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010). In Sweden, students have been said to enjoy school music group practical activities, yet also believed that it was outdated and lacked the inclusion of a variety of genres, which is presumably attributed to the tendency of students to learn popular music songs by the element of genre choice afforded to them through IL (Skolverket 2004). This suggests that students might appreciate stronger teacher guidance on this aspect, causing tension with student autonomy.

Student inclusion

Inclusion was an intended attribute of Green’s (2008) work, along with increased participation in musical activity. For Green (2008, 117), her model of learning was by ‘default accessible to a wide range of learners’, as they could decide upon their own pace and level of difficulty for their learning, through the self-governing nature of IL practices. In particular, Green looked at student inclusion in terms of ability and those deemed disaffected in music. Wright et al. (2012, 17) agreed that MF can ‘extend and be more inclusive of what we do [as music educators] and who we teach’. Although an IL approach can be seen as a strategy to increase inclusion in school music lessons, the experiences that have been afforded in Swedish music education again suggest approaching this assumption with caution (Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010). As an outcome of embracing an IL approach in Sweden, the increased interest in the personal and social development of students has resulted in a limited repertoire of genres, lesson content, and teaching methods. Such limitations ended up excluding individuals rather than including them as initially intended.

An IL environment, where popular music is welcomed, can result in increased cultural capital for a higher proportion of students, as it is likely that most students will already have an in-depth understanding and knowledge of popular music compared to other genres (Mans 2009). This can be seen as a strength of the approach. Students’ previous musical enculturation and distracted listening experiences of popular music enable them to access purposive listening activities more easily. This renders the learning process as being more accessible although a balance is still required here, so that the minority of students who have indeed been encultured into a classical music environment, for example, are not disadvantaged or excluded by this tipping of the scales – a potential issue. Furthermore, the skills of traditional classical instrumentalists in Green’s (2008) research did not appear as valued as much during the initial stages of the IL model as those belonging to the learners who played instruments belonging to rock or pop bands. Georgii-Hemming and Westvall (2010) viewed this as a problematic notion of value. Rodriguez (2009) also described the struggle that classically trained musicians can encounter when transferring to a more informal music educational approach. Similarly, GCSE, A-Level and Leaving Certificate examinations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, for example, pose issues and challenges for students transitioning from an IL approach in their earlier school years, as musical knowledge and skills based on Western Art music practices are required for assessment (see Lamont and Maton 2010; Moore 2014 for further discussion). As a potential outcome of this issue, Hallam, Creech, and McQueen (2016a , 2017a, 2017b) found that some schools that implemented an MF approach had changed their qualification route due to MF better aligning with alternative qualifications than GCSE, for example, Business and Technology Education Council qualifications or Rockschool Limited. Perhaps as an alternative to such either/or choices, a more balanced approach could be considered, as recommended by Hess (2020), where informal and formal practices could be experienced and valued in music education. Hess’ (2020, 441) participants ‘discussed both wanting to move away from theory and needing theory’ and ‘they further preferred a structured approach to education before moving to a more “free” pedagogy’. This suggests that in addition to their desire for balance, there is also a potential favoured order for when each should be experienced.

Authenticity

For Green, authenticity is that which is real. Green (2009, 129) defined real music as something which exists ‘beyond education’ and regards the learning practice which is linked to real music as the authentic aspect. In the case of IL, authenticity lay in the student's choice of song to copy and through engagement with IL practices. It is often thought that authenticity is naturally linked with learning (Lave and Wenger 1991; Westerlund 1999). However, Green’s quest for authenticity through the IL model has been challenged, as Väkevä (2012) suggested this might not be possible in the multifaceted culture of today due to the different concepts of what is authentic for different individuals. At most, Väkevä (2009) proposed that we can only comprehend different attitudes and approaches that represent various discourses rather than something, that is real and authentic.

Authenticity in Green’s model served more than enabling students to engage in a natural practice. It was used as a device to develop student knowledge, encourage them to become more musically fluent, enable them to access remote theoretical concepts, and motivate students beyond real-music learning (Väkevä 2009) – achieved by progression through the seven stages of ILMF. Once students were motivated by including real music and authentic practices, this enjoyment was transferred from genre to genre, from expression to appreciation (Väkevä 2009). For Väkevä (2009, 24), it was the ‘“feel” for realising future reality’ which was authentic, leading to intrinsic motivation towards further engagement with inter-sonic properties. Thus, the authenticity becomes transformed from the informal to the more formal stages, reaching a ‘new critical level’ where students want to put their newly discovered and acquired musical skills into practice (Väkevä 2009).

Väkevä (2009, 20) also argued that a hybrid style could be produced in schools as the authenticity of the music is changed, causing issue: ‘if the ontological status of music can be transformed relatively freely without losing its authenticity, the ideal that school music should be made more like “real-world music” seems not to qualify as a necessary criterion for achieving authenticity in learning’. Thus, authenticity is not fixed, and authenticity of music and authenticity of learning are separate components – and authentic music is not exclusively required for authentic learning to take place. Gatien (2009) suggested that Green’s work proposed that a music category was defined by its transitional mode, rather than by its musical elements and characteristics. Therefore, it could be considered whether the admission of popular music into the formal school environment, albeit by an IL approach, was a change in categorisng of this music from one tradition to another.

A careful balance of content should also be considered, questioning how much individual musical preferences should be brought into school music lessons (Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010). Due to the close connection between musical preferences and the individual, it may not be such a desirable ideology to strive for in-school music to contain out-of-school music content and it may be more of ethical consideration. As music has such a close link with individuality and integrity (Ericsson 2002; St˚alhammar 2006; both cited in Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010, 29), it could be deemed unethical to almost force students to share their music with their teachers in the school context. Mans (2009) also questioned whether it is important to include such encultured musical schemas in the school context, or whether they should be enjoyed outside of this environment. By including vernacular music into the school context, we could be found guilty of ‘muddying the essence of the genre’, and failing to protect the nature of popular music as something belonging to the community outside of the school (Mans 2009, 83).

Marketisation

Overall, it can be questioned whether the ‘methods and processes of informal learning [are] equal to the unique problems that popular music brings to the classroom’ (Allsup 2008, 5–6). By adopting an IL approach, it could be queried whether the discipline is actually defending against market exploitation, or whether educators are being credulous about this. Allsup (2008, 6) questioned whether ‘a curriculum based on the copying of CD recordings apart from adult interaction is educationally naïve, especially when faced off against the sophistication of the predatory capitalism’. Thus, teacher intervention might play essential safeguarding against marketisation –which ILMF could be lacking. Finney and Philpott (2010, 11) warned that through MF dissemination of ILMF in the form of packaged professional development, a danger lay in the ‘potential to commodify MF’. It was indeed found in Mariguddi (2021) that MF had more recently felt increased pressures to succumb to external commercialisation to secure financial sustainability for the organisation. Thus, tension occurs between ILMF ethos and the process used to disseminate the project and gain impact from the approach.

Furthermore, Clements (2012, 8) recognised the profiteering nature of the popular music market, which ironically operates in a very traditional manner. Woodford (2014, 38) warned :

In this age of entertainment, instant communication, and the neoliberal manipulated man, it is more important than ever that music and other teachers encourage and help children to read and listen […] with a critical eye and ear […] since virtually all of the information about the world and history presented to the public is prepackaged and filtered through various corporate-owned and controlled media that are themselves vulnerable to manipulation by political think tanks, government, advertisers, and others wishing to shape public opinion and tastes or to divert the public’s attention from controversial issues.

Woodford (2014, 32) continued to suggest that school music was ‘probably more vulnerable than most to the blurring of lines among education, vocational training, and entertainment’. MF could be seen as encouraging this by advocating increased links between in- and out-of-school music and by promoting the incorporation of popular music into the classroom. However, by viewing Green’s IL pedagogy as a critical one (see, for example, Lines 2009; Rodriguez 2009; Wright and Kanellopoulos 2010), these claims can be counteracted. According to Rodriguez (2009, 38), IL is a critical pedagogy because ‘musical attainments are stimulated and mediated by the music itself’ – thus, no human figure of authority directs this. Through such a critical pedagogy, students are encouraged to question and challenge concepts, values and meanings surrounding them, including the dominating beliefs and practices stemming from those in a position of power – including the teacher. Students are allowed to critique and challenge the popular music they listen to by bringing it into an educational environment. Without affording students with this opportunity, they otherwise might comprehend the music they listen to out of school at face value alone, according to the message the industry aims to communicate – that which is believed to lead to increased sales and profit within the industry. Also, Webb (n.d, 4) did find that MF was indeed ‘compatible with a range of musics’, providing hope of MF being able to escape its label of being a rock and pop project alone – a frequent misconception (for example, Hallam, Creech, and McQueen 2011).

Conclusion and implications for practice

The themes raised in this article aid as one possible framework to organise and understand the many complexities surrounding the strengths, issues and tensions of Green’s model of IL. It is acknowledged that there is a blurring of lines between the boundaries of these themes, and one factor in particular that has strong links to the other themes is the role of the teacher. The scope for teacher benefit is a potential motivating factor for teachers to initially engage with the IL approach – enjoyment, increased effectiveness and confidence levels in teachers and development of students’ skills (Hallam et al. 2008; Hallam, Creech, and McQueen 2011). However, issues and tensions have been raised about how teachers should be trained and developed and what an exemplar looks like within Green’s (2002, 2008) model. Perhaps this is a gap that MF has attempted to fill through professional development sessions, promotion of individual teacher practice through the Champion Teacher concept (selected teachers who showcase the approach within schools), and other guidance documents (D’Amore 2009). However, it is believed that two key issues surrounding the role of the teacher remain.

Firstly, it is beyond the scope of MF alone to prepare teachers to become experts in nurturing student independence to enable participation and fulfilment of an IL approach. Considering the potential for packetisation of the IL approach through MF, the remit of the initiative must also be questioned. It is, therefore, argued that the IL approach and ethos could be more ingrained within other levels of training, development and experience in the discipline area and beyond, ensuring wider input to enable the approach to become more accessible to teachers subsequently. The approach would also need to gain increased support through policy and assessment – determined on a contextual basis. This would be desirable to ensure the perpetuation of the perceived increased freedom, autonomy and cultural capital for students afforded through an IL approach. Increased time, increased funding, smaller class sizes and increased teaching support would need to be invested in, along with more widespread music teacher training and development activities to champion the IL approach. Due to the current policy direction in England, such implications are increasingly urgent to ensure that IL is not lost in schools.

Secondly, the desirability of the teacher as a facilitator must be questioned in light of the issues raised. The approach has been labelled as exhausting for teachers (Hallam, Creech, and McQueen 2016a, 2016b, 2018), and the importance of teacher direction and guidance has repeatedly been raised (Allsup and Olson 2012; Clements 2012). Examples from Sweden have warned against aspects of the IL approach where a lack of genres, content, methods and inclusion issues have arisen – potentially due to the relinquished teacher control advocated through IL. Although the authenticity of the music experienced through an IL school environment might not be possible, teacher intervention is deemed important to safeguard against potential market exploitation through attributes of critical pedagogy. Greher (2008) suggested a balance to be strived for between teacher control and teacher autonomy. Should teachers wish to aim for such a balance, it remains important that we prepare students for elements of increased autonomy. This might be achieved by raising the profile of IL pedagogy across subject areas so such autonomy is more familiar to students within a wider context.

Akin to Hess’s (2020) view, an overall balance of content and pedagogy is advocated between the informal and formal. We should remind ourselves that a balance was also advocated by Green (2009, 131) herself – that students should have access to informal and formal realms to provide them with the ‘best possible music education’. Thus, teachers and students should be able to reside in a space where the affordances of IL can be experienced, whilst the issues and tensions can be addressed within individual contexts – perhaps by drawing upon some of the implications suggested in this article. This imagined space would be mediated between the teachers and students themselves – departing from Green’s (2002, 2008) original model to include increased traditional, formal and theoretical elements, but in continued search of ethical pedagogy and the ‘best possible music education’.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor Tim Cain and Dr. Bethan Garrett for their engagement in stimulating and thought-provoking debates relating to the literature discussed within this article.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Anna Mariguddi

Dr Anna Mariguddi is a lecturer in music education based within the Department of Primary and Childhood Education, Faculty of Education, Edge Hill University. Anna has achieved a BMus (Hons), PGCE, MA and PGCTHE before completing her Ph.D. (focussed upon perceptions of informal learning, secondary music education). Research interests include music education, co-researching, case studies and linking theory with practice. Anna worked as a secondary school music teacher before joining the university.