Introduction
Informal Learning as a classroom pedagogy has become an important construct in music education research. Green's (Reference GREEN2008) seminal study on how popular musicians learn music and the myriad of ways these learning strategies could be adopted in the formal setting of a classroom is a driving force in the Musical Futures (MF) movement in the UKFootnote 1 and has been a subject of debate in popular music and informal learning (Karlsen & Vakeva, Reference KARLSEN and VÄKEVÄ2012). Although informal learning and popular music in the classrooms have been well-studied previous to Green's work (Campbell, Reference CAMPBELL1995; Folkestad, Reference FOLKESTAD2006; Westerlund, Reference WESTERLUND2006), her research has pushed forth scholarship in this area of the viability of popular music as an informal learning classroom pedagogy (Väkevä, Reference VÄKEVÄ, Karlsen and Väkevä2012). However, scholarship also warns of conflating informal learning and popular music as there are several ways informalities can take place within learning environments that not necessarily mirrors the learning processes of popular musicians (Jorgensen, Reference JORGENSEN, Bowman and Frega2012).
In Singapore, this specific model of informal learning based on Green and Musical Futures was piloted by five specially selected music educators under the guidance of the Singapore Teachers Academy for the aRts (STAR) in collaboration with the UNESCO National Institute of Education, Centre for Arts Research in Education (UNESCO NIE-CARE). Trialling was conducted over two terms towards the end of 2012 where the participants underwent training and workshops from established practitioners and trainers of the Musical Futures project. It is the objective of the pilot study to uncover the different responses and adaptations of the teachers to informal learning and non-formal teaching and observe the characteristics of the resulting pedagogies in the Singapore context. The full reports for the trialling, including an earlier version of this and the other cases, can be referenced at ‘Connecting the Stars: Essays on Student-centric Music Education,’ a research compendium published by STAR in 2013 on their various programmes.
This article focuses on the applications of informal learning by one of the participants, an experienced Secondary Music instructor. This case was also chosen to be included in the NIE-OER funded research called ‘Images of Practice’ (IOP) where exemplary teachers in the arts were documented, analysed and featured in a web resource for teachers.Footnote 2 The classes observed were under the 2NT or Secondary 2 Normal Technical Course. Depending on the results of their PSLE or Primary School Leaving Examination, secondary students in Singapore are placed in one of these curriculum strands: Special & Express, Normal (Academic), or Normal (Technical). The placement is meant to match the learning abilities of the students. Both Express and Normal courses are 4-year programmes with the former leading to the GCE ‘O’ levels and the latter to the GCE ‘N’ levels national examinations.Footnote 3 Those who are in the Normal-Academic course, depending on their class performance, can opt to take a fifth year and sit for the GCE ‘O’ levels. The usual pathway of students under Express is a university degree while Normal is a technical college degree.
The school in this case study is co-ed and situated in the Northern region of Singapore and the students are 14 years of age. The observations took place during the periods July-October 2012 and traced the development of an existing keyboard programme as its objectives were consciously approached using informal learning.
This article outlines the strategies used by the teacher in transforming this keyboard class into a keyboard band through informal learning. The most pertinent issue that has an implication for practice concerns what Finney and Philpott (Reference FINNEY and PHILPOTT2010) refer to as ‘productive dissonance’ at work as an experienced secondary music teacher negotiates the boundaries between formal and informal learning within a span of one term (four months). The study also delves into the problems of engaging at-risk students and choosing an effective pedagogical approach towards that end. Thus, this study seeks to deliver the following: (1) to bring out the interrelationship between the formal and the informal emphasizing the tensions that arise when an experienced teacher transitions between them; (2) to show how the concepts of the informal, formal and non-formal have no clear-cut boundaries in creating effective pedagogy; and (3) to provide both practical and theoretical insights for practitioners who are using or thinking of using the informal learning approach in the music classroom with at-risk students.
Negotiating Teaching Principles and Adapting to Informal Learning
In this study, informal learning is defined as the shift from teaching to learning and from teacher to learner; from how to teach to what to learn and how to learn (Folkestad, Reference FOLKESTAD, Campbell, Drummond, Dunbar-Hall, Howard, Schippers and Wiggins2005, p. 24). Thus, there is a focus on learning through music-making rather than learning how to play the music. Informal learning is also defined by certain conditions in where and how teaching and learning takes place, how curriculum is built and formed, and the structures of administration (Jorgensen, Reference JORGENSEN, Bowman and Frega2012): (1) music in informality is construed in pervasively practical terms; (2) there is design within informality; (3) music teaching is transmitted through words and actions by a teacher whose authority is assumed on the basis of expertise; (4) learning relies on the learner's intuition rather than what is didactically taught to them; (5) informal learning also has directed and focused attention dimensions; (6) informality's curriculum relies on the exemplary character of the music-making of its exponents; (7) student's interest and need-to-know drives the process of what to be learned; and (8) informality has a ‘flat’ organizational structure in which roles and responsibilities are sometimes fluid.
The approach is not easy to adopt and adapt to, especially for experienced music teachers or even student learners who had training and background in the more formal environment. Rodriguez (Reference RODRIGUEZ2009) notes this problem with informal learning and the implications for teachers and students. He mentions two things that should be considered in its implementation (p. 36): (1) new roles for teachers in informal learning; and (2) providing informal learning experiences to students with formal skills as musicians. What came forth prominently in the discussion were the intersections between formal and informal learning, and how exploring these could actually enhance the informal process more effectively. It is therefore important to locate this balance between formal and informal in pedagogy. In this context, formal and informal are therefore not elements of duality but rather complementary.
However, because informal learning is not algorithmic, that does not mean it is not structured. While use of the term ‘formal’ implies that the learning contains hierarchically-organized levels of mastery, and is overseen by more experienced participants, these two features may be present in informal learning as well. In formal instructional settings, a pre-ordinate series of instructional steps allows teachers to control learning and efficiently identify problems in the process. In informal learning, the teacher relinquishes this control and enters into a more flexible and dynamic relationship with the learner, yet a plan for instruction must still be negotiated between teachers and students. The activities of copying recordings, improvising, composing, and performing on an instrument (or singing) each invoke steps, even if they happen to be material-, context- and learner-specific, and even if they are mostly hidden. Experienced teachers naturally desire to bring these steps to the fore. (Rodriguez, Reference RODRIGUEZ2009, p. 38).
The new implication for experienced teachers wishing to adapt their practices to informal learning is a shift in expertise and that is from teaching how to play music to helping students learn the music on their own, which can be frustrating if the teacher is unable to incorporate the new approach in their already tested teaching schema (Rodriguez, Reference RODRIGUEZ2009, p. 39).
The incorporation of formal and informal strategies is something other music educators acknowledge; it is only a matter of privileging one over another (Folkestad, Reference FOLKESTAD2006; Finney & Philpott, Reference FINNEY and PHILPOTT2010). Finney and Philpott (Reference FINNEY and PHILPOTT2010) identify 3 factors that affect a teacher's development: (1) ITE or Initial Teacher Education, (2) planned development (courses taken), and (3) encultured development (acquired through experience in culture). Both formal and informal learning developed as habitus, which is an unconscious, socially-constructed preference in thinking and acting about music learning. It is possible that informal learning could just be buried in this habituated thinking. It is, therefore, crucial for the music educator to excavate and live these informal principles. Student teachers need to excavate their lived informal learning by constant reflection between theory and experience. The aim is to achieve a ‘productive dissonance’ where habitus and ‘living’ informal learning come into tension in one's teaching practice, with the end result of gradually adapting their habitus to informal strategies. As stated by Finney and Philpott (Reference FINNEY and PHILPOTT2010), ‘We take excavation to mean facilitating student teachers to use theoretical tools to interrogate their “lived” experience; to theorise themselves as a result of experience and to encourage the mutual interrogation of theory and experience’ (p. 6).
This tension in the habitus between the formal and informal may be conceptualized through the perspective that the two are in many ways interconnected as so far discussed. As Jorgensen (Reference JORGENSEN, Bowman and Frega2012) states, ‘In a host of musics, formality peeks through informality and seeks to order it just as informality peeks through formality and seeks to humanize it (p. 457)’. From this perspective, perhaps the tension that arises among teachers comprehending informal learning principles is not so much due to the difficulty in transition but in the perception that it is not possible to have the formal in the informal; that the two are opposite sides of the coin rather than a continuum. It is thus important to present ‘informalities’ when inducting teachers in the pedagogical approach in order for informal learning practices to surface as appropriate to a given classroom context.
Given these arguments in scholarship, and overlaps notwithstanding, it is still possible to differentiate formal and informal learning (Folkestad, Reference FOLKESTAD, Campbell, Drummond, Dunbar-Hall, Howard, Schippers and Wiggins2005; Jorgensen, Reference JORGENSEN, Bowman and Frega2012) and what matters is which habitus becomes dominant in the actual pedagogical practice for the approach to be categorized as part of the informalities of learning.
Methodology
This study adopted the case study research methodology (Yin, Reference YIN2014). It is an in-depth look of a single case in a multiple-case study from STAR (five cases) and IOP (18 cases). It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the results of the comparative case analysis of both the STAR and IOP projects. The data used to analyse this case are videotaped lesson observations (seven hours), post-lesson interviews with the teacher (295 minutes), and interview with selected students (30 minutes). It is typical to have only one observer and one videographer for each observation. Efforts have been made for the lessons to go uninterrupted.
The interviews with the teacher were based on what transpired during each lesson and mostly conducted by the STAR investigator. Thus, the atmosphere was often informal due to the dual roles that STAR play as coach and researcher. The student interviews were done in groups (based on the friendship groups selected by the students) and selection was based on two points: (1) willingness of the students to be interviewed; and (2) productive outcome as a group. For this case, we interviewed eight students from two friendship groups regarding their experiences with informal learning after the end of the module (seven lessons).
Analysis
The analysis of data for this case focused on the process of teacher adaptation to the informal learning approach. We proceeded by following the coding procedures of grounded theory (Birks & Mills, Reference BIRKS and MILLS2011; Corbin & Strauss, Reference CORBIN and STRAUSS2008): initial coding, intermediate coding, and advanced coding. During the initial coding, the goal is to tentatively form categories to guide the theoretical sampling of the research via an open process that looks at relationships between conditions, inter/actions and emotions, and consequences (Corbin and Strauss, Reference CORBIN and STRAUSS2008, p. 89). The emergent categories during this phase pertained to the teaching strategies used or planned to be used by the teacher based on what she felt the students needed; these were grounding, listening, pairing, guiding, testing, class-based learning, skills-based grouping, skills-based learning, and self-directed learning. In the intermediate coding phase, the emergent categories were compared to draw connections and identify the central phenomenon, which in this case were the tensions experienced by the teacher in negotiating the boundaries between the formal and the informal. The phenomenon was labelled as ‘crossed informalities’ which basically described the approach at the end of the process revealing the tensions between non-formal, informal, and formal teaching/learning. As shown in Figure 1, each of the teaching strategies used or planned by the teacher were given conditions whereby she implemented or agreed. These conditions were created based on the teachers interactions with the students and the informal learning trialling regulated by her perspectives on what would work for her students. The conditions were classified as either teacher belief or Informal Learning Trialling (ILT) idea. Finally, an advanced coding was done for theoretical integration where each category was cross-checked in the literature as either informal or formal (Folkestad, Reference FOLKESTAD, Campbell, Drummond, Dunbar-Hall, Howard, Schippers and Wiggins2005; Jorgensen, Reference JORGENSEN, Bowman and Frega2012). The results were presented as a storyline that integrated the categories as they related to a central theoretical code of ‘productive dissonance’ (Finney & Philpott, Reference FINNEY and PHILPOTT2010).
Figure 1. Coding Process
Results
Grounding and Instructing
They were learning, C, F, G and A. . . I gave them the handout which showed the notes [on the keyboard]. So, yah, they had the notes. So I wrote some patterns on the board and they [tried to] play [them]. So then this week we [introduced] the score; so there's a bit more structure at the beginning. So that, ‘OK, this is what the chords are like, this is how you form the chords.’ So I try teaching chords, ‘oh you must stack this, you must stack that’. . . the let loose will come in about 2–3 weeks’ time. Now is the groundwork, now is the base. (Teacher, personal interview, 17 July 2012)
In the beginning of the trialling, the teacher approached her class formally. This was strongly indicated through teacher-directed step-by-step instructions and lectures. The teacher believed that it was important to provide grounding in the basic principles of keyboard chord playing before the students could be expected to learn music on their own. The teacher showed a video on how to play the chords on the keyboard and then distributed handouts illustrating a keyboard with corresponding letter names so that students would know what keys to play. When the students had a hard time following the chord changes, a box notation was immediately presented to them. It is important to reiterate that informal learning can have some features of formal learning such as presenting instructional steps and overseeing lessons by a more experienced mentor; the difference is in the degree of control and in helping students find the solution for themselves. The tendency for the teacher to immediately present an alternative method of locating the chords when students had difficulty made this initial approach more formal. In short, the teacher is trying to teach the students how to play the keyboard and not focusing on keyboard music-making.
The teacher was also hesitant to follow the suggestion in the trialling of having students learn individual parts at the outset and explore on their own.
I was looking at the one that [STAR] showed me. . . the ‘Clockwork’. . . no, ‘Coldplay’. So they got the resources for the bass line and stuff so [STAR] was suggesting to me last week that maybe it would be interesting if [the students] would have the separate parts and they go and learn it on their own by hearing. But that will come later when they understand what the pitches are. You know, when the concept of pitches in a sense is more solidified. (Teacher, personal interview, 17 July 2012)
It is clear at this stage, that formality is dominant in the teacher's habitus as evident in her strong belief in good foundation first in keyboard principles of playing and familiarity with chords and the pitches associated with them. It is important that the students carefully follow teacher-directed instructions first in order to provide grounding that they will need in the more informal approach. For this teacher, the students needed to be taught how to play the keyboard properly before they could begin to explore.
This belief in firm grounding continued very well into the first three lessons and would still surface in the later lessons when the teacher began to start changing her pedagogical approach. One of the rationales for the significance of grounding is to keep the students focused on their tasks.
STAR: So just reflecting on the lesson, to what extent do you feel, or do you think, the principles of informal learning were applied?
Teacher: At this point in time not much; not with this lesson. It was very instruction- based. But I felt that the instructions were necessary because one of them was not very focused so it was very disruptive for me! That's why I shut off his computer, I pulled out the plug!
(personal communication, 12 August 2012)
Another reason for grounding would be the teacher's ability to monitor the individual progress of the students and to make sure they understand the lesson.
The girls could recognise the chords after a while. I saw [one girl] practicing – the long-haired girl on the side – she was practising; and another girl was practising but it was a bit blurred. So getting them to practise on their own gives me the opportunity to walk around to make sure that not only are they on task but that they actually understand what is going on. Because in a class sometimes they don't say anything at all, so you really don't know whether they know or do not know. So when they do the project later on, at least maybe they can figure out [things for themselves]. [Teacher, personal communication, 12 August 2012]
Grounding through visual aids was also believed to be important to help the students remember patterns on their own and to lessen teacher-based instructions later on.
So today, why I do the boxes was because I wanted them to remember the patterns rather than just me telling them verbally ‘this is now the pattern’; and then when they remember the patterns like that, it will come in very handy [and] later on they can use [it for learning] ‘Stand By Me’. [For] ‘Stand By Me’ I will give them the same boxes so they can either do the rhythm patterns or they can actually figure out what it is they are hearing and take it down. So when they've noted it down at least there's a visual representation of what exactly they are doing rather than nothing at all. That's why I introduced the box notation. [Teacher, personal communication, 12 August 2012]
We can see that there were intentions of having students explore and play by ear but the previous experiences with her students made the teacher hesitate to change her already formed and tested habitus.
Actually I wanted to try out something else today but I decided not [to because it was] so ambitious. I wanted to try playing the chord and get them to pick [by ear] the chord that I played. So for example, I could play C, Am, Am, C and as I play [I will] have them figure out which chord I played. But I think at this point in time, [if] I do that a lot of them would die! So better not. . . not yet. But at the end of the day that's what we want, you know, for them to dictate on their own and hear. . . figure out the note and the chords for themselves. [Teacher, personal communication, 12 August 2012]
This intention of having students play by ear, unbeknownst to the teacher, was aligned with informal learning; specifically, the principles of aural copying evident in Green's (Reference GREEN2008) work that played prominently in the trialling. With some prompting from STAR, the teacher was challenged to make aural copying/learning more prominent in her classes, to lessen instructions and to emphasize more on playing. Based on the assessment of STAR, the elements were in place to make this happen.
How we can have [aural learning] a little bit more prominently in the classes? I mean in observing the lesson, [students] like M cannot stop himself touching the keyboard and he's really keen. Like for example, you know after you left him then he decided to play the keyboard really loudly? That's when you decided to take the plug out. . . I see that as outbursts of him [wanting to do something]; yes, correct? [He has] interest in the keyboard and he really wants to try it. So I was looking at students like him who, you know, cannot wait to get going. So, I mean for students like them, how do we create an environment that encourages them to actually try out on their own? So that there could be less managing on your end because they are releasing their energies on the music as opposed to being required to listen to instructions. Usually, that's what sets off this inattentive behaviour in general in all classes that we've seen. [STAR, personal comment, 12 August 2012]
In this conversation, the idea of separating the keyboard parts and recording them in varying tempi in the software SONAR came up. In this approach, instead of the teacher modelling and giving instructions the students will listen to the parts on their own and learn their parts in the tempo that suits them. This idea is possible because in the keyboard lab each student is equipped with his own keyboard and computer. In STAR's perspective, the aural copying process is ‘replicating, listening and performing all at the same time and practicing without [the teacher] having to [instruct the students]’ (STAR, comments, 12 August 2012).
Having the students learn their part on the keyboard by ear is no too dissimilar to what the teacher has already been doing where she provides keyboard charts and box notations wherein students locate chords in the actual keyboard individually while carefully following instructions. The compatibility makes the approach feasible because the teacher would still be able to monitor who is on task or not. Thus, the next challenge is to bring her to allow students to form friendship groups while learning.
Self-selected grouping, Skills-based grouping
In order to make the teacher understand the idea of peer learning within informal learning, STAR introduced the idea of forming a keyboard band. In this concept, the parts that will be split are different instrumental parts of an actual band such as drum kits, guitars, and keyboard. In this way, students learn complementary parts that they can try to fit together as a group.
OK, so another thing about this, say in a usual informal music learning setting, you will have a bassist – I mean pop, lah – bass, drumkit, keyboardist, singer. . . all that. I mean not all students have to play everything; not all students have to learn everything; they contribute to their group based on their varying abilities and their interests. Some students are strong in rhythm so hence they gravitate naturally to the drum kit; some students are good singers; so students all come to us different. So how do we harness their differences in a way that will increase their enjoyment of the music and slowly increase their understanding of other aspects? What is the inroad for them, you see? (STAR, comments, 12 Aug 2012)
The teacher accepted the idea provided she controls some of the aspects of learning. One of these is grouping the students based on their skills as assessed by the teacher and learning as class based on skills assignment rather than having them form friendship groups. In this manner, she is assured that the groups would be able to deliver the lesson objectives.
Would it work, if next week, we just try the chorus but that means it must be one group that play ‘da-da-da–’. . . so just a short snippet of the chorus? Then, the slower ones, we can strategically place them in the groups where they can hear the bass. Can they play as a class? That means all the As will play bass, all the Bs will play keyboard so that they can have a melody and chords and the bass as well as drums, would it work? (Teacher, personal communication, 12 Aug 2012)
Skills-based grouping is not entirely divorced from informal strategies. The idea of the teacher, being reluctant to let students be on their own, is actually a modified ‘band carousel’ in the non-formal teaching aspect of the Musical Futures. In Musical Futures, the ‘band carousel’ gives students a chance to learn all the parts or instruments in a band (Musical Futures Resource Pack, pp. 88–94). The students are then asked to choose two preferences as well as ‘talent spotted’ by the teacher/facilitator based on potential skills on an instrument/part where they will be assigned for subsequent groupings. This is more a component of non-formal teaching rather than informal learning. What the teacher was suggesting was class-based learning and performing through skills-based grouping where students were grouped to master similar parts and then, with the teacher's guidance, they would perform as a class band or in small groups. This approach is possible without going through the normal ‘band carousel’ idea because in observing the students in the previous more grounded environment, the teacher already has a sense of who is capable of playing each part.
STAR: This practice that you have done with them is a very good foundation; it's a kind of a half band carousel. Remember when we talk about band carousel? It was for helping the students understand; helping the teacher see which instruments the students are better in [playing]. In this round of where you give them more teacher-directed and instruction-based [learning], you can have a better idea also.
Teacher: After all that we have done, now [I] can say [who] can figure out the riffs and who is better at creating stuff. Those who are weaker are actually more comfortable just playing the bass notes; and then those who are very weak they play riffs, la-la-la-la, you know. It's good to feel that.
STAR: No, no, no. What we have done is not in vain, definitely not in vain.
Teacher: Now, [this] also reminds me that M is very good at drums and the drum part is very fast (STAR: Fantastic! Give him that riff. . . that drum pattern and get him to figure it out). Because now he's always asking, ‘Miss, Miss, how to play?’ Yah, I think I shall just shut him up and give him the drum part!
(personal communication, 12 August 2012)
After these negotiations, the teacher finally accepted the idea and became excited about the approach. She started coming up with ideas on how to make the approach work for her class. Even though the teacher, to some extent, saw the compatibilities between formal, non-formal, and informal approaches, at this stage when asked again about the idea of having students form friendship groups, she remained hesitant and continually negotiated a more controlled-type of grouping.
Teacher: Would it be fair if we numbered them off? Or is it more preferable that they choose their own [groups]?
STAR: We need to try getting them to choose their groups. At least to let the principle have a chance to [be tried out] and see how things are.
(personal communication, 12 August 2012)
Self-directed learning, Class-based learning
In the remaining lessons, the teacher carried out the planned keyboard band for her class. In order for the students to learn a simple popular song by ear, the teacher pre-recorded several instrumental parts of the song ‘Count On Me’ (e.g. drums, electric guitar, bass guitar, piano melody and synthesizer harmony) and uploaded in the SONAR software in each of the students’ computers. Each part would be played in the keyboards and it would be the students’ tasks to locate the correct sound of his/her instrument choice. The ultimate goal was for each group to play together as a keyboard band, blending the different instrumental parts learned by individual students.
The class started out with the students forming friendship groups, something the teacher was quite hesitant doing previously, and turning on their computers to locate the file to copy aurally. The teacher handed out a plan sheet for each group and instructed them to write down their chosen group name and the instruments each of the group members have chosen. They were then instructed to work individually and quietly using the headphones. The teacher went around the room to provide more detailed instructions to the students.
We can see in this lesson how the teacher is slowly changing her habitus by blending in previous approaches with the new one. Although the teacher allowed students to choose their friendship groups, they were still instructed to work individually and quietly, so collaborative interaction and learning were absent. The students chose their instrumental parts to learn but the teacher kept the habit of roaming around the class to give instructions to individual students. However, the new task of discovering things for themselves seemed to lessen the dependency of these Normal Technical (NT) students and for the most part they were much focused on learning their parts.
The main difference this time was the effort of the teacher to have students figure things out if they encountered problems. For example, she sat down with this boy who was not doing his work for some time when she was sure the others were already focused. It turned out the boy was just frustrated because he could not figure out what to do. The student was delighted to explore on his own after being guided to match his first sound with the recording. This was a good example of how formal instruction could come in an informal learning situation.
After the self-directed learning, the class moved on to group playing. The teacher checked on the students’ progress and demonstrated to those who were ready the possibilities of varying the sounds on the keyboard. She did this by playing harmony with a student who already learned the melodic part. The excitement in the students’ faces was undeniable as they discovered what playing as a group sounded like. This motivated them to really work on their parts quicker so they could play together.
Other considerations and outcomes
After the students had learned their individual parts on the keyboard, the teacher brought additional instruments to the class. She introduced the boomwhacker, bells, sound shapes and xylophones. She demonstrated how these instruments could be used as alternatives to the keyboard parts they were learning such as percussion and bass line. This was an attempt to present more instrumental choices to the students and to engage the kinetic learners.
Which was why when [they] saw the soundshapes [they were] very excited. Because for people who are not used to just using two fingers, it's very boring. But for people who needs a lot of kinetic learning [the instrument] actually provide you with a lot of movement. If I have a choice I will assign those instruments but now, given it was supposed to be informal learning. . . I'm glad they chose the instruments, you see. (Teacher, personal communication, 25 September 2012)
In the following lesson, the students started to revert to their old habits. The students started to become restless and some played PC games on their computers. To get the students back on task, the teacher used her strategy of announcing an individual testing. We could see how a more teacher-directed approach was found to be necessary to engage the students again in this situation. The teacher explained later on that engaging NT students required flexible teaching strategies and that she felt the informal learning worked initially because it was new for the students and that in other class situations a more formal approach would be inevitable.
I think this [engagement] comes if it's not every week. Because it is fresh and new suddenly they're like, ‘ah! now I can do something new’. If we did this every week we will get the same results: they will get bored after a while. And then if I introduce the [previous] keyboard [lesson approach] later on it will be something new and refreshing [again]. (Teacher, personal communication, 25 September 2012)
The teacher explained that after much thought she probably was using some informal learning before when situation called for it. There were moments when the class became uncontrollable that she would drop all lesson plans and just let the students explore freely on instruments.
Has [informal learning] happened before? It has but it was not intentional. They're just random decisions like suddenly the class is not behaving so I will just bring them to the recording studio. And if I bring them to the recording studio, they just play, lah! So that's when the chance comes. But this is more intentional. (Teacher, personal communication, 25 September 2012)
The teacher also felt that the approach worked because of the characteristics of the students and that in her other NT classes, where you would find more disruptive students, the approach might not work.
Actually [it worked] because of the response of the students; If I did this with the previous class of 2NT, I would not get the same response. Because they are a bit more hyper, they are a bit more unfocused and they can be very disruptive. They are like 3 M's in the other class. So it's really like looking at the class and seeing what I can do. (Teacher, personal communication, 25 September 2012)
In the subsequent lessons, after pulling the students back on track by giving individual testing, the class managed to perform their respective parts in a class ensemble, which was initially led by the teacher then later on led by the students. The students naturally learned to peer-teach and figure out the concept of ensemble playing through this pedagogical approach. The teacher, despite her misgivings about the informal approach, admitted the method worked more than she expected.
They have learned to play as a group, they have learned to manoeuvre on the keyboard; they may not necessarily have learned to play the keyboard but now they are more engaged which I think is a better outcome than me force feeding them and trying to make them learn. ‘Cause if I look at it this way, S may not learn to play the keyboard ever again but she may learn to pick up drums which is also okay because it's another instrument; but if I were given a choice in the past I would never have let her do that because I may have found it distractive or I may have wanted a more peaceful environment where everybody is doing the same song, so I'll know where they're at. But yet you know I may not get the attention as fully as possible and I may not see collaborative learning. So I was quite surprised when Z1 and Z2 actually took off their earphones and started playing together. Or things like, they were actually very interested, ‘teacher can we stay back to practice?’ At first I was thinking I will give them assessment but now I was thinking I can assess them like that. They are performing, they are doing, and this will give them a bit more to write for their group reflection rather than just telling me, ‘so now I have to learn the keyboard, I've learned this and that’. Now they can talk about group music-making, they can talk about learning through play [which is aligned with the Ministry of Education's syllabus]. I think it has achieved my purposes; maybe not in the way that I would like it to, but it has exceeded my expectations. Because I never saw this outcome; I never thought that I would be using the aural package, and I never thought that they can actually translate the aural package into other instruments. The shakers I just showed them how to shake but they managed to come up with [patterns] on their own. And you look at S ‘tung-tung-tak-tung-tak’, he came up with what he wants to play on his own. . . and after a while he becomes a bit more confident and play louder and louder (laughs). . . which is fine by me, you see. (Teacher, personal communication, 25 September 2012)
We can see in this statement how in the end the teacher saw the outcomes she was aiming for and that in her observation the students not only learned to play but that they understood the musical concepts through practical music-making. This was evident in their abilities to improvise and to play in an ensemble. In the process they learned to apply what Green (Reference GREEN2008) called ‘critical musicality’, which allows students to express themselves musically through the mediation of music itself. In ‘critical musicality’ students are deemed capable of listening to music analytically through aural learning. This involves ‘increasing aural musical understanding and appreciation concerning inter-sonic musical properties and relationships’ (p. 84). This also carries the connotation of possibilities of not only being able to listen critically but also to think about bigger issues, such as the music industry, later on.
During the student interviews, it was evident that terminologies such as chords, riffs, beats and melodies were learned by engaging in the music directly. Students expressed that they learned to ‘count’ with the group and became aware they needed more practice in order to play better. The importance of counting was discovered during the process especially the first time they tried to play as a class. No one provided the cue or established the tempo and so everything turned chaotic. This necessitated the group appointing a leader to give the cue before they started playing. They also noted that the two students playing the bass line should be very steady to help pull the sound together.Footnote 4
Student 1 (S1): We combine [the parts] together to make it nicer.
STAR (ST): Ah, so that is what you learned? You learned about playing in groups?
S1: But sometimes [it's] not good. But now we practice a bit, okay good lah.
ST: How was it not good?
S2: Because everything goes haywire.
ST: Goes haywire?
S2: Not communicate together.
ST: How do you not communicate together?
S2: Because first round we never say 1, 2, 3, 4. . .
S1: And everybody was not sure what [we were] doing. So they [were] a bit blur.
ST: Who was blur?
S1: (mentioned two classmates) they were blur when [it was] their time to play the. . .
S2:. . . when to come in their part.
ST: Do you think that was important?
S2: Yes, of course!
ST: Why?
S2: Because if they don't know then they [will] anyhow go in, then the song will not be nice already, what.
ST: So how do you all solve the problem?
S1: We need a leader who can tell us what to do and control the. . . I think we have. . .
Z. The one who can control us by saying 1,2,3,4.
ST: So was that helpful?
S1: Of course!
(Students, personal communication, 2 October 2012)
The development of ‘critical musicality’ was also noted by the STAR observer:
Actually what your students did just now was quite amazing. If you would notice, when I was filming them, actually a lot of sections didn't come in on time but then they adjusted. I mean it's not perfect but it's fine. They adjusted by themselves! You know, they stop, they listen and then they come in at the right time again. Even when it was out of time, your students managed to come back correctly. Now that is really the musical behaviour we're looking at. It is an intelligent musician at work. It is not somebody who follows the score to the point you cannot change. So this is the kind of ensemble behaviour that for this trialling needs to come out. It's beyond learning chords, it's about intelligent musicianship. Musicianship that is acquired through listening, through being involved in band playing, and being comfortable with the instruments. (STAR, comments, 2 October 2012)
More importantly, the teacher noticed this development of ‘critical musicality’ as well. She found that in giving the students autonomy they actually learned better and became musical.
I find it has positive impact because they become more musical as a musician. They don't just become rote learners; because it is not translation, [it is] interpretation. I didn't tell them what instruments to use, I didn't tell them how to play the sticks; they did it on their own. I realized that when they try out the sounds, they are able to find something more suited for themselves and they are more engaged. They also have a greater sense of ownership. They actually want to do it well. So in terms of accomplishing objectives, it accomplished and it's gone beyond. Because they have gone beyond things that I expected them to do and they've developed something else in the making of it unknowingly. They've learned to listen to each other, which is what Z2 said, ‘Hey, you all keep quiet!’ [when they were playing loudly] and L [said], ‘I'm very soft. So I need to press harder.’ So they've now become more aware of volume. They've now become aware of dynamics. Who needs to be louder, who needs to be softer? So they're actually telling Z2 ‘Hey when the piano comes in, your drums should be softer,’ which I think is very interesting. (Teacher, personal communication, 25 September 2012).
Summary and Conclusions
This article showed the processes that an experienced Secondary Music teacher has gone through in resolving the ‘productive dissonance’ between formal and informal pedagogical approaches in a specific classroom context of at-risk students. The unfolding of the lessons in two terms showed how the formal and the informal are complementary rather than distinct and that specifically, for at-risk students, flexibility between the approaches is necessary. In negotiating the seemingly opposite pedagogies, the teacher found her own approach to informality, strengthening the call in literature to think about informal learning beyond what Green (Reference GREEN2008) has proposed and create metaphorical models of informalities (Jorgensen, Reference JORGENSEN, Bowman and Frega2012). The outcome for the teacher is the beginning of the process of excavating informal principles and learning to live them as practice. The reflective thinking resulted in a more productive dissonance between the formal and informal approaches (Finney & Philpott, Reference FINNEY and PHILPOTT2010) and the engagement of the students in critical musicality (Green, Reference GREEN2008).
The concerns of the teacher with regards to adopting informal learning were: (1) individual comprehension of the lessons by students, (2) classroom management, and (3) keeping students on task. It is very challenging to manage a classroom if most of the students exhibit needy attitudes and would intentionally misbehave to seek attention, which is the profile of most students placed in a Normal Technical (NT) class. It is evident that having control of the class is important for the teacher to make sure that her students learn. Standing back and relinquishing control to the students are something that the teacher struggled with the most. This manifested in her belief that a more directed foundation is necessary before any of the informal approaches are applied. Like other practitioners who advocate the approaches of formal learning, she believes that a more structured approach should come first before allowing students to explore on their own.
At the end of the successful implementation of the informal learning, the teacher expressed in an interview that she was happy with the results but that she also felt the success was due to the fact that the activity was new. For her type of students, she thought new activities must be constantly introduced to keep the level of engagement high. She maintained that the pedagogical approach should be flexible at any one time depending on the cohort of students. She thought the informal approach might not be suitable for her other NT students with more challenging behavioural problems.
Despite the comments above, the teacher also admitted that she was surprised to see that the informal approach worked positively for her NT students. Her compromises in what she would normally do such as having them choose a part to learn and leaving students to figure out how to play them actually yielded the end results she was hoping for: the students being able to learn and perform the song. She was also surprised that the students were able to work collaboratively without much fooling around. In the end, the teacher found that students were more musical, that is, they have reached the musical goal of translation and interpretation. She also noted that in having students try out the sounds they became more engaged and that they have greater sense of ownership. The teacher concluded that implementing the informal learning approach accomplished the objectives of her class and even gone beyond.
When asked to reflect on how informal learning could help NT students, the teacher mentioned the following: First, teachers should learn to be facilitators, meaning, they should teach students to be more independent instead of constantly seeking attention and help from them. Second, teachers should guide students in solving their musical problems, that is, ask them what they think went wrong instead of telling them what went wrong. Third, informal learning can help students engage in critical thinking, that is, they learn to experiment and learn how to make things work for them based on their own learning styles. In sum, instructing makes the students more reliant; facilitating works better for a NT class.
Reviewing these statements clearly shows the ‘productive dissonance’ at work and is effective as a reflective practice on the part of the teacher. She is clearly opening up her horizons and acknowledging that the informal learning approach actually works as evident in the trialling. The results challenge her beliefs regarding music pedagogy and by allowing these tensions to surface she is able to engage reflectively in her practice as a teacher.
Through this experience, the teacher advises that instructors test out different pedagogical approaches as she believes pedagogies should be chosen based on what works in a given context.
You need to find something suitable for your students. Don't adopt what another school is doing because they may not fit. You need to see the resources you have. My resources are cheap. You can have $500 and get many sets. In terms of space constraint there's where informal learning will come in handy; because when you split them into groups, they are at task and can carry on their own, [even with] 40 [students]. Do something you're comfortable with. If you're more comfortable teaching theory, then teach theory lah! Pedagogies are pedagogies; it's how you make the pedagogy work. That's the reason why it's [called] pedagogy because somebody made it work. (Teacher, personal communication, 25 September 2012).
Funding
This project was supported by the Office of Education Research (OER) at the National Institute of Education, Singapore [OER 07/10 LCH: Images of Practice in Arts Education in Singapore]
