Background
The ‘problem’ of school music has been troubling music educators for decades (e.g., Ross, Reference ROSS1995; Harland et al., Reference HARLAND2000; Green, Reference GREEN2008; Lamont & Maton, Reference LAMONT, MATON and Wright2010), and informal learning (IL) can be seen as a potential solution to some of the problems (Green, Reference GREEN2002, Reference GREEN2008). The Office for Standards, Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted, 2002, 2004, 2012) reported a bleak picture of music education, suggesting that it may be badly taught and also provoke negative student responses which include poor motivation and behaviour in lessons. McPherson and O’Neill (Reference MCPHERSON and O’NEILL2010) highlighted that some of these problems are also of international concern, with declining motivation to study music and reduction in competence levels evident in the eight countries studied. In an attempt to remedy such problems, Green (Reference GREEN2002, Reference GREEN2008) sought to explore the potential that IL might have within the classroom – as a proposed antidote to some elements of formal music education. The key premise of Green’s solution was based upon the assumption that those people who practice and learn music through informal means are excluded by the formal, out-dated education system. Barrett and Webster (Reference BARRETT, WEBSTER, Barrett and Webster2014: 1) agreed that ‘much of how we formally teach […] music has remained stuck in age-old theories and practices that do not serve us well’. Thus, by encouraging a change in teacher pedagogy away from age-old theories of formal music education, an IL approach could be more accessible to a wider range of learners within the music classroom (Green, Reference GREEN2002, Reference GREEN2008). IL can be understood as learning which is ‘not sequenced beforehand’ and occurs during ‘self-chosen and voluntary activity’ (Folkestad, Reference FOLKESTAD2006: 141).
An outline of Green’s model of IL
To develop understanding of IL within the field, Green (Reference GREEN2002: 9) interviewed 14 popular musicians who were involved in ‘Anglo-American guitar-based pop and rock music’. Green (ibid) identified five characteristics (referred to as ‘principles’ (P)) of the popular musicians’ practices to inform her model:
-
P1. Learning music that students choose, like and identify with
-
P2. Learning by listening to and copying recordings
-
P3. Learning with friends
-
P4. Personal, often haphazard learning without structured guidance
-
P5. Integration of listening, performing, improvising and composing, with one or more (though not all) of these principles present in all stages of the project. (Price, Reference PRICE2006: 8)
Green (Reference GREEN2002) believed that these principles were authentic to popular musicians within the informal realm, and that transferring them into the school context would be more authentic, inclusive and motivating for students. Accordingly, the next step in Green’s (Reference GREEN2008) work involved the implementation of these IL principles into 21 secondary school music classrooms in England. To support this, she proposed a seven-stage implementation structure, where the teacher was to act as a facilitator throughout (Table 1).
Table 1. Green’s (Reference GREEN2008) Seven Stages
In 2004, Green’s research and IL approach became a branch of the Musical Futures (MF) organisation as a pathfinder programme, and MF has continued to advocate and promote the pedagogy. Thus, IL has been explored within the MF context (ILMF) for this study.
Musical futures
MF was launched in 2003 as an initiative to engage 11–19 year olds in musical activities and encourage innovative practice (Price, Reference PRICE2005). MF aimed to address three perceived areas of disjoint within music learning: formal (organised through statutory provision); non-formal (activities outside formal settings, usually supervised by adults) and IL (activities organised and led without adult supervision). MF has reported an impressive impact. Achievements include engaging previously disinterested students, increasing motivation, improving student confidence, self-esteem and behaviour (MF, n.d.). Positive outcome and impact, similar to that achieved in England, has also been documented in Australia (Jeanneret, McLennan, & Stevens-Ballenger, Reference JEANNERET, MCLENNAN and STEVENS-BALLENGER2011) and Canada (O’Neill & Bespflug, Reference O’NEILL and BESPFLUG2012). After a 10-year journey, the project was due to culminate alongside their funding stream from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation (PHF) (D’Amore, Reference D’AMORE2013). The innovation, debate and practitioner enthusiasm resulting from the project were not ready to culminate however, and MF has made the transition to a self-sufficient not-for-profit organisation.
Key evaluations of MF
There have been two key reviews into the impact of MF (including the ILMF branch), which this study builds upon to develop further in-depth understanding. The first was a quantitative study produced for the PHF over 10 years ago, to evaluate the impact of MF (Hallam et al., Reference HALLAM2008). ILMF was found to be the most frequently implemented MF approach, and it was reported that increased student motivation and improved teaching and learning had occurred. However, it was not known whether students who had participated in MF experienced any particular strengths or difficulties in their General Certificate in Secondary Education (GCSE) music lessons. Although students who played instruments reported a greater sense of a connection being made between in-school musical activities and out-of-school musical activities, lower agreement was found in relation to statements concerned with the bringing together of in-school and out-of-school musical activities overall.
To explore these findings in greater detail, a case study investigation was conducted and published over 8 years ago (Hallam, Creech, & McQueen, Reference HALLAM, CREECH and MCQUEEN2011). The positive findings of the 2008 study were echoed. However, statistically significant differences between schools were evident with regard to student attitudes towards MF, teacher views on the suitability for all students and teacher views on whether the project had helped them to increase their awareness of the students’ out-of-school musical interests. The importance of support from Senior Leadership Teams (SLT) was also highlighted. A misconception that MF only covered popular music and band work was brought to attention, resulting in a potential lack of engagement with other genres and associated instruments. Due to the continued implementation of MF and ILMF in schools, it was deemed to be a valuable quest to discover what has happened more recently to ILMF over 15 years after its launch – the purpose of this more up-to-date study.
Methodology
The aim of this PhD research project was to generate more up-to-date, in-depth understanding of ILMF and explore how it was understood by key figures associated with ILMF, and understood, implemented and experienced by secondary school teachers and their students. It is acknowledged that there is mutual overlap between the three concepts of ‘understanding’, ‘implementation’ and ‘experience’, yet these terms were considered the most appropriate ones to describe what was to be investigated.
The research design was separated out into two phases (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Two-phase research design.
To gain greater insight and understanding of the genesis and development of ILMF, Professor Lucy Green, Abigail D’Amore (former MF Chief Executive Officer (CEO)) and Anna Gower (former MF Head of Programmes and practitioner) were interviewed for the Phase One of the project (anonymity of these figures has been waived due to the well-known nature of their work within the field).
To gather student and teacher perceptions for Phase Two of the project, case studies were conducted in four secondary schools in England. Schools who were currently affiliated with MF were recruited, as it was believed schools closest to MF were the most likely place that ILMF could be found. Within each case study, three core methods were utilised to collect data from students and their teachers – interviews, observations and document sources. Data were collected in schools during the 2016–2017 academic year, and at least three full days were spent in each of the schools. Although it is not the focus of this article, the research also utilised elements of a co-research approach with teachers during the second phase in order to potentially enrich findings and enhance the trustworthiness of data (Thomas, Blacksmith, & Reno, Reference THOMAS, BLACKSMITH and RENO2000). Teachers were invited to propose their own additional research priorities for their schools to be explored, related to MF – in the hope that the research would be of benefit to both parties. The priorities also acted as an additional lens through which wider perceptions of ILMF could be gathered. Additional methods used in each setting were also co-designed to ensure personalisation for each school in light of the complementary knowledge that both researcher and teachers could bring to the study. Co-research elements were discussed at initial individual school visits between the researcher and music teachers, prior to actual data collection. Personalised teacher reports were produced and disseminated to each participant teacher within a month of data collection, focused upon individual research priorities – to potentially inform teacher practice and subsequent student experience. Table 2 serves as an introduction to the case study schools and the teachers within them (pseudonyms given), and the co-researching decisions made during initial school visits.
Table 2. Introduction to Case Study Schools and Participant Teachers
Data were analysed thematically, akin to an approach advocated by Braun and Clarke (Reference BRAUN and CLARKE2006). One of the key advantages of utilising thematic analysis for this research project was its unusual scope in flexibility in comparison with other data analysis processes (Braun & Clarke Reference BRAUN and CLARKE2006, Reference BRAUN and CLARKE2014; Clarke & Braun, Reference CLARKE and BRAUN2017). This was particularly advantageous in consideration of the co-research elements and exploratory nature of the study.
Findings
Four key findings have been drawn from the PhD thesis, as follows:
-
1. ILMF originated as a theory derived from research. The theory is enacted within a community of music education practitioners as a potential problem solver, yet is not always successful in doing so.
-
2. ILMF theory posits five characteristics and presents these as principles to be followed by practitioners. Practitioners commonly choose to implement some but not all of the principles and nevertheless believe they are implementing ILMF. The theory is subject to adaptations and misconceptions.
-
3. ILMF is understood as a revolution in music education; practitioner and students’ perceptions of ‘revolution’ sometimes inspire confidence and sometimes fear.
-
4. To those close to the phenomenon, ILMF often represents freedom, yet it is subject to authority and marketisation.
Each of the above findings will be explained and substantiated by participant data in this article. It was also found that ILMF could not be completely separated in the data from MF and classroom music lessons in general. Although ILMF was talked about as a separate concept to MF in Green’s interview, and to an extent in the interviews with Gower and D’Amore, the possibility of differentiating between ILMF and MF dramatically reduced when the Phase Two data were explored. I had attributed this to the length of time that MF and ILMF have been present in the classroom music lessons within the case study schools, and over time ILMF had become diluted, as substantiated by the data. An essence of ILMF is present in all of the four key findings, although the findings cannot be distilled to capture ILMF alone. Thus, within this article, the term MF can be understood as an umbrella term which includes the branch of ILMF within it.
ILMF as a problem solver
All of the teacher and key figure participants of this study understood that ILMF originated from Green’s (Reference GREEN2002, Reference GREEN2008) research. Within the four case study schools where ILMF was being implemented, most of the music teachers had viewed ILMF as being a problem solver in various ways:
Miss Lightfoot (Oak Lane High School (OLHS)): I think lots of the problems are [students are] taught very like the way I was taught. […] Very traditional, very old school, very teacher-led, ‘do this do this do this’, not very engaging. […] And I think MF does address it, because […] it’s more focussed on the students themselves, and what they enjoy doing, and puts the emphasis on them and making them do the work independently.
Thus, students are at the centre of the approach. The notion of inclusion and participation appeared to be valued across all four case studies, and MF was believed to facilitate the enactment of this ethos. For example, Miss Lewis of Redwood School (RS) appeared determined to make her music lessons inclusive for the majority: ‘So, the idea that music isn’t just for the select few, I like. I value that music’s for everybody’. Jenny, from Year seven (RS), echoed this sentiment about her music lessons: ‘Also, it’s like everyone’s in it. Like everyone’s involved. […] Everyone’s included’. Furthermore, Miss Lewis saw MF as having the potential to break a cycle of disenchantment with music that had been passed down generations of students: ‘there’s still a generation whose parents hated music because they were made to sing, for example, or told they were rubbish at singing. I’m finding that less in the classroom now’.
Mr Holmes of The Grove School (TGS) spoke of how he had tried to make the content and structure of his MF and ILMF music lessons authentic, by implementing projects with outcomes that involved engagement with the outside community: ‘always with an authentic outcome and a real purpose and for a real audience’. In OLHS, reducing disconnection largely related to instruments played in school being purchased for out-of-school use; the success of extra-curricular activities and the opportunity for students to connect with external professionals. Motivation and engagement with music appeared to be an important attribute for the teachers, one which they felt had improved through implementation of MF when asked about the potential impact of the phenomenon in their schools. Miss Lewis reported an increase in music take-up in Year nine – from 3 to 34 students over the space of three years, and stated that ‘before [MF], [students] didn’t go to the practice rooms to make music – they went to dossFootnote 1 ’. It was also noted in lesson observations and reflections that students did generally appear more motivated than not, and on some occasions it was felt that all students within a class showed high motivation during some parts of the music lessons (during student use of musical instruments and practical musicing).
Out of the six teachers, Miss Harper of OLHS was the only teacher who was not directly affiliated with MF, although she taught at a school that was affiliated with MF. Her view of ILMF was often different from the other teachers of this study, but perhaps reflects the view of many other music teachers who are not affiliated with MF. When Miss Harper was asked about her views on ILMF, she gave the following response:
Perhaps [the problems of school music are] played out a bit more. […] Because there’s a bit more freedom, […] I think some kids obviously can run with that, but perhaps not all kids… I think, with choosing their own instruments, I’ve found that sometimes kids will go… like for example with singing, because they think that’s the easiest thing.
There were two main points of concern for Miss Harper with ILMF: behaviour management concerns and choice of instrument according to that which was perceived to be easy. Miss Harper tended to represent a voice which lay on the periphery of the community of MF practitioners, at times in conflict with the views of her colleagues. However, in considering the teachers’ research interests proposed (Table 2), additional problems potentially caused by ILMF implementation were perceived, as it was interpreted that the teachers had raised such particular interests due to having questioned or encountered problems within those areas of practice. Furthermore, a problem of ILMF perceived by students across the case study schools was the high levels of noise present within music classrooms. This might have been magnified by the practical nature encouraged by ILMF and MF approaches. Noise was said to hinder progress due to a lack of ability to concentrate and hold discussions within small groups.
Adaptation and misconception of ILMF
Green (Reference GREEN2002, Reference GREEN2008) identified five principles of ILMF (P1–5), which formed the basis of her IL theory. Within the findings of this study, two out of five ILMF principles were perceived as being of greater importance according to the Phase One data: student choice of the music to be learnt (P1) and the aural learning aspect (P2). Thus, P3–5 could be viewed as the negotiable principles. In the Phase Two data, teachers implemented different principles to different extents, but all perceived that they were implementing Green’s (Reference GREEN2002, Reference GREEN2008) IL theory – subject to adaptation. The concept of choice arose as a point of interest in the Phase Two data and was spoken about as an important attribute for students and teachers, in theory. For students, the provision of choice was key for being able to work in friendship groups (P3) and to choose the instrument they wanted to play on. Although choice of instrument was not an explicit ILMF principle, Green emphasised in her interview that this was indeed an important part of IL.
When teachers had described their implementation and adaptation of ILMF, it was found that the main point of adaptation was actually a removal of song choice for students, for example: ‘One thing we’ve done for the first part of Year nine this year, is give them a piece of music that is notated, does come from a graded syllabus, but they have also had access to the recording’ (Miss Covington of St George’s Park School (SGPS)). Miss Covington had described adaptations of ILMF here, although they border on misconception with her lack of student choice, provision of simplified resources and use of notation. Student choice of instrument was also not always observed in the four schools – for example, the instruments perceived as the most desirable were sometimes used to reward student behaviour (OLHS), and more dominant students were observed having the first pick of instruments in lessons while the less dominant students physically held back.
Another ILMF adaptation found was the order of learning that occurred within music lessons. Although the ILMF model encouraged students to learn and develop their musical skills as and when they needed them, many of the teachers portrayed a different view – that students should learn basic musical skills first, before they attempted ILMF: ‘I tried it too soon, because I realised they needed more skills before they could do it, and, unless they felt more confident they couldn’t achieve it, so we didn’t get great results’ (Miss Lewis). Aside from TGS, the path and timings within lessons were often set by the teachers, perceived through observation. Although didactic teaching was also observed in the case study schools, particularly during the beginning of the lessons, facilitation was observed during student practice time.
All of the teachers spoke favourably of aural learning (P2), although often spoke of a balance that needed to be achieved between aural learning and use of traditional notation – and so adapted ILMF to accommodate this view. Use of traditional notation was observed in all four schools. For Miss Covington, the ability to be able to read traditional notation was mainly important for students wanting to study GCSE music, suggesting a gap between ILMF at Key Stage Three and GCSE music. Mr Reed of OLHS also explicitly shared this view. Furthermore, pinned up on the walls in all music classrooms of all four case study schools were an abundance of posters displaying music theory, technical terms and traditional notation – aspects associated with formal, traditional music education.
Areas of ILMF misconception included teachers emitting a sense of ‘right and wrong’, while students were musicing (discouraged by Green, Reference GREEN2008, and during her interview). Examples observed during Phase Two included teachers correcting how students were holding and playing instruments, and teachers amending structure and content of student compositions at times. Another teacher misconception involved the labelling of ILMF and MF as being a ‘band work’ model, for example: ‘band skills was one of the first topics I taught, so that’s IL’ (Miss Lightfoot). The Phase One participants demonstrated awareness of this, yet did not agree that ILMF involved band work alone. In all of the schools, a much higher proportion of students were observed engaging with popular music instruments, in comparison to classical instruments. In SGPS, a Year nine student was observed struggling while playing on the keyboard within her small group. She later explained that her first instrument was the clarinet, but felt that ‘it doesn’t go with this sort of [popular music] song’. Therefore, she had preferred to struggle on the keyboard than to play competently on her clarinet in her music lessons, potentially impacting upon her final assessment.
ILMF as revolution in music education
ILMF was perceived as revolutionary change by key figure and teacher participants, in comparison to traditional, formal music education. Green had referred to ILMF as being an ‘injection’ of ‘novelty’ – something ‘fresh’ and new, which had changed thinking patterns and was promoted and communicated largely by MF. Green pointed out the main changes in practice which made ILMF different:
Green: [Previously] a) the teacher was still choosing the music, and that’s such a profound difference, b) the kids didn’t have a musical model that they were being asked to copy aurally, and it wasn’t one they had chosen themselves either.
For Green, these were the two defining features of ILMF revolutionary change in theory. Gower talked of the change she had witnessed in schools actually implementing MF: ‘you walk in a [school affiliated with MF] and it just oozes MF, you just know and feel, that this… it is the place that’s changed because of it’. Thus, the change progressed from the teacher and their practice to the overall ‘place’ – a feeling of change which could be known and felt.
Although some teachers in Phase Two had referred to experiencing ‘lightbulb moments’ to capture their initial understanding of ILMF and MF, data and my observational experiences in schools suggested that this knowledge had since become tacit, forming a part of teachers’ everyday practice. However, Mr Reed was able to describe the initial impact of ILMF revolution in OLHS:
Mr Reed: And sort of when we brought [MF] in, there was a huge like kind of sea change, in like the type of kids we saw in music, and the number of kids having instrumental lessons. In the number of bands that there were in school, so there was like extra-curricular become much wider, so lots more kids involved in music.
Thus, change included an increase in student diversity engaging with music in school and increased uptake of student instrumental lessons. Another positive aspect linked to ILMF revolutionary change perceived by participants across both Phases One and Two was teacher and student confidence, for example:
Miss Lewis: I find with MF, I engage much more in the skills that I find threatening. […] I speak more confidently about music, because I am – I feel I’m getting a better understanding myself, through this approach of teaching.
Akin to Miss Lewis, Gower had reportedly felt increased self-belief and had become more positive about her own teaching ability when she had facilitated ILMF as a teacher. Although some students alluded to music as being a personal thing, working in friendship groups (P3) and peer support were seen as ways to boost confidence levels. During observation, many students did appear comfortable and confident when performing in front of their peers and teacher. Teachers attributed this aspect of student confidence to performance being a part of ‘normal’ school music culture, and by students getting used to this over time, for example: ‘I used to hate [performing], because I used to like shake. But I’ve done it for so long now that I’m alright’ (Jasmine, Year 10, Focus Group, OLHS). Yet this was not the case for all students. Some students recalled a feeling of humiliation as a result of having to perform in their music lessons.
Bethan: It’s embarrassing.
Lucy: Just in case like you get something wrong.
Kate: And then people laugh.
Year eight, Focus Group, SGPS.
For other students, it was simply the pressure that made them fear performing in front of others, including assessment and teacher pressure: ‘It’s like if you’re being recorded, you mess up more. Like with all the pressure’ (Mark, Year eight, Focus Group, OLHS). Performance is not an essential part of ILMF, yet could stem from the perception that ILMF equates to band work, and bands usually perform music in front of others.
The concept of teacher fear also arose in relation to ILMF. While conducting her research, Green recalled experiencing fear in observing ILMF being taught, particularly in relation to the haphazard and non-linear patterns of student learning. This fear was something she felt was still in abundance today: ‘a lot of teachers are still pretty anxious about putting particularly IL into practice’. This fear, perhaps due to a lack of control, is something that Mr Reed and Miss Covington had experienced, for example:
Miss Covington: Whereas that would have been a real fear when I started, first started teaching, just letting [students] go, because I would have been ‘ah no, they need more guidance’ or ‘they’re not going to come back with anything any good’.
Teachers also reported a sense of fear relating to how the haphazard nature of their lessons might have looked to colleagues, SLT and inspectors – in contrast to formal, traditional expectations of teaching and learning.
ILMF freedom versus authority and marketisation
It was found in this study that ILMF can offer the hope and sometimes experience of freedom to a certain extent for teachers and students. For students, the utopia of freedom was sometimes seen as having freedom from teacher control, for example: ‘It’s free. It’s not like a lesson where your teacher has to tell you what to do all the time’ (Anjuma, Year 11, Interview Group, RS). Both MF and ILMF promote the notion of student expertise and reduced teacher control through facilitation. This was an important, motivating aspect for many students. Furthermore, Miss Lewis in particular enjoyed the freedom that MF and ILMF permitted her to get things wrong, be more creative and not being afraid of her students seeing her as a non-expert on occasion, for example, when teaching an instrument that was not her specialism. She also wanted to pass a sense of freedom across to her students: ‘[To] feel that freedom to go and try something different and something new’. Miss Covington also raised that it was through implementing a MF approach that had made her realise that students were ‘more creative than you might give them credit for’ – by providing them with increased freedom within lessons.
However, D’Amore admitted that MF was sometimes difficult to implement within schools due to policy:
D’Amore: Barriers [of MF] have always been around how it gets implemented in school… the reasons have changed. It used to be resistance from the music teachers themselves, but now it’s […] the place and status of music in schools. It’s the threat of the EBacc.
Thus, a current barrier of MF and ILMF implementation in schools appears to be the lack of value that the current government give to music education, particularly of an informal nature. Gower also agreed, and felt passionate against didactic, traditional music lessons which did not appear authentic, relevant and participatory for students, which she believed was the way that current policy dictates: ‘Or what I hate is this policy thing that if it looks promising, behind desks, working hard, putting their hands up and answering questions, people seem to think that’s enough – it’s not enough’. Mr Reed and Mr Holmes also spoke of the changes in music education that had swayed towards Gower’s anecdote of traditional teaching, which appeared very different to an ILMF approach. For the case study teachers, points of conflict with SLTs tended to centre around not having enough funding, requirements to rigidly measure progression and assessment, and the haphazard nature of ILMF that often did not conform with wider school ecology.
Another tension identified was the marketisation of the MF organisation. This was a fear of Green’s: ‘[Finney & Philpott, Reference FINNEY and PHILPOTT2010] critiqued the possibility that MF will be assimilated, and sort of become just a packaged part of the curriculum. But, I mean that’s a danger, absolutely I agree with that’. Along with MF, ILMF as a strand would also likely follow this marketisation path. However, ILMF resources are currently still available free of charge from the MF website, unlike other MF pedagogic packages. D’Amore reflected upon the change in her role and priorities for MF in comparison to when ILMF was first piloted, from when she was a research project manager to then having had to take on greater responsibility for the organisational and financial aspects of the initiative as CEO. Some of the language used during her interview included: ‘income generating source’, ‘sub-securing contracts’ and ‘paid work’. Similarly, Gower also made use of marketised language during her interview. Gower referred to teachers as ‘brand advocates’, ‘testers’ for ‘products’ and promotors through social media. This is certainly not to suggest that use of such language meant that D’Amore and Gower no longer felt passionate about an inclusive, accessible music education for students, but that they had perhaps more recently felt external commercial pressures upon them that needed to be addressed to ensure the financial security and potential sustainability of the MF organisation.
Discussion
This study shows that ILMF theory can be viewed as a potential solution to previously identified problems within the field (e.g., Ross, Reference ROSS1995; Harland et al., Reference HARLAND2000; Ofsted, 2002, 2004, 2012; Green, Reference GREEN2008; Lamont & Maton, Reference LAMONT, MATON and Wright2010; McPherson & O’Neill, Reference MCPHERSON and O’NEILL2010), by achieving increased student motivation, teacher and student confidence, and positive perceptions of teaching and learning in music lessons. This builds upon the overall positive impact reported by Hallam et al. (Reference HALLAM2008), Hallam, Creech, and McQueen (Reference HALLAM, CREECH and MCQUEEN2011), Jeanneret, McLennan, and Stevens-Ballenger (Reference JEANNERET, MCLENNAN and STEVENS-BALLENGER2011) and O’Neill and Bespflug (Reference O’NEILL and BESPFLUG2012). However, although the concept of freedom associated with ILMF implementation was desirable for many of the participants, it was also linked to a key downfall – magnification of some of the problems of school music (according to the perception of Miss Harper). This demonstrates that Hallam et al. (Reference HALLAM2008) and Hallam, Creech, and McQueen’s (Reference HALLAM, CREECH and MCQUEEN2011) findings of teachers not agreeing on the suitability of MF for all students remain to be the case – also reflected in the teacher research priorities (Table 2).
In schools, ILMF adaptation often included the removal or capping of student choice. This suggests tension and issue between Green’s (Reference GREEN2002, Reference GREEN2008) revolutionary theory where student choice is strongly advocated and ILMF in practice. Although Green (Reference GREEN2008) had hypothesised that ILMF would increase a range of students’ musical skills, teachers of this study often implemented a ‘skills first’ approach. In doing so, they were straying away from the way that Green’s (Reference GREEN2002) musicians had learnt authentically. There were also many elements of formal, traditional music education noted in the schools of this study. These elements suggest potential movement away from Green’s (Reference GREEN2002, Reference GREEN2008) ILMF theory (and the aspects of freedom valued and strived for by teachers and students) towards a more formal music education pedagogy. This could be due to the teacher fears induced by ILMF, as found in this study, and continued alternative pressures from policy and SLT authority. This reinforces the importance of SLT support for ILMF implementation, as raised by Hallam, Creech, and McQueen (Reference HALLAM, CREECH and MCQUEEN2011).
No teachers mentioned use of Green’s (Reference GREEN2008) seven stages (Table 1), perhaps due to a lack of curriculum time to work through the stages, a lack of knowledge of the stages or due to a perceived lack of relevance. A well-ingrained misconception found across all four case study schools was that MF and ILMF involved mainly ‘band work’ involving pop and rock music only. This was initially found to be the case in Hallam, Creech, and McQueen’s (Reference HALLAM, CREECH and MCQUEEN2011) research and has been identified in this study as a prevailing issue – at times, resulting in the possible exclusion of students who play classical instruments. Two possible reasons for this band work misconception could be: the way in which ILMF is marketised and packaged by MF as an organisation to ensure novelty and desirability (for essential funding purposes) or the lack of movement beyond the first of Green’s (Reference GREEN2008) stages, which does indeed focus upon band work. ‘Band work’ had thus become a tacit part of the teachers’ ILMF practice.
Conclusion
Overall, positive perceptions of ILMF have been found, including ILMF as a problem solver; teacher and student confidence; and the prospect of freedom that ILMF offers. However, a number of tensions and issues have been raised in this study: ILMF as a problem magnifier; misconceptions; teacher and student fear; and the pressure of authority and marketisation. It is argued that the positive perceptions have the potential to contribute towards ILMF sustainability in schools, whereas the tensions and issues have the potential to contribute towards possible ILMF demise in schools. Exposure, understanding and critique of these tensions and issues have the potential to enlighten practice and inspire possible solutions within the field. It is therefore proposed for this article to stimulate further renewed debate about ILMF.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the participants of this study for their valuable contributions, and Professor Tim Cain and Dr Bethan Garrett for their guidance and support throughout the project.
