Introduction
Teaching involves interaction and unpredictability between human beings (Biesta, Reference BIESTA2014; Sawyer, Reference SAWYER2011). In the classroom, teachers act based on teaching repertoires achieved through practice and experience. In this paper, our aim is to explore teaching repertoires in music teacher practices and describe and discuss how these repertoires are performed by the teachers and adapted to pupils and situations as part of improvisational processes. The paper discusses teaching repertoires and pedagogical improvisation in an in-depth study of two music teacher practices: teaching pop band and piano in a community school of music and performing arts in NorwayFootnote 1 . Through the use of concrete examples from these practices and reflections based on previous research, our hope is that an awareness will be raised amongst the readers regarding the connection between teaching repertoires, teacher actions and the perspective of improvisation.
Pedagogical improvisation is mentioned to be musical improvisation’s ‘little sister’ (Holdhus, Reference HOLDHUS, Gravem Johansen, Holdhus, Larsson and MacGlone2019). According to Karlsen (Reference KARLSEN, Steinsholt and Sommero2006, p. 239), improvisation is part of all teaching, and Sawyer (Reference SAWYER2011) accentuates how teaching as improvisational performance is associated with creative teaching. We will underline that pedagogical improvisation focuses on processes in teaching and educational practice, and therefore differs from improvisation in music, even though many researchers from this field are inspired by research on improvisation in musical performance.
A focus on pedagogical improvisation emphasises how teaching repertoires are brought into play. DeZutter (Reference DEZUTTER and Sawyer2011) claims that the jazz community has developed a well-functioning discourse about repertoire in improvisation within its field, and she calls for researchers in education to elaborate on ‘a similar body of knowledge in the teaching profession’ (p. 35). We acknowledge that a repertoire understood as the teachers’ choice of musical material is an essential part of music teacher practices, but in our study, we focus on pedagogical tools, techniques (Zorzi & Santi, Reference ZORZI, SANTI, Santi and Zorzi2016), strategies and exercises (DeZutter, Reference DEZUTTER and Sawyer2011) as repertoires. Zorzi and Santi emphasise that ‘within this repertoire, improvisation emerges as a possible horizon for teaching and learning’ (p. 178). They also claim that ‘teacher improvisers are able to recall these tools, techniques and materials when they need them during the teaching-learning process’ (p. 196).
In the following section, we will contextualise and develop our research question by exploring the literature on improvisational repertories.
Pedagogical improvisation and repertoire in teaching and musical performances
Holdhus et al. (2016) describe repertoires as a key phenomenon relevant for improvisational practices in different disciplines such as music, drama, teaching and rhetoric and discusses repertoires as one of the four aspects in improvisation. Sawyer (Reference SAWYER2011) emphasises teachers’ use of a personal repertoire as a basis for pedagogical improvisation. As he and other researchers (e.g., Beghetto & Kaufman Reference BEGHETTO and Kaufman2011; DeZutter, Reference DEZUTTER and Sawyer2011; Erickson, Reference ERICKSON and Wilkonson1982; Gershon, Reference GERSHON2006; Jarning, Reference JARNING, Steinsholt and Sommero2006) are inspired by improvisational processes in music, we first briefly explore how researchers and musicians describe improvisational repertoire as a phenomenon in jazz and related musical genres.
Campbell argues that musical improvisation ‘requires conscious as well as unconscious selection from a reservoir of musical sound expressions that have been acquired over time’ (Reference CAMPBELL, Solis and Nettl2009, p. 121). Steinsholt emphasises that every jazz musician is expected to develop his own repertoire, but that this repertoire can be achieved ‘by copying and listening to other musicians’ expressions and solos that within the community over a long period of time have gained status as exemplaryFootnote 2’ (Reference STEINSHOLT, Steinsholt and Sommero2006, p. 31). Berliner compares musicians’ sets of repertoires with storehouses filled with ‘vocabulary, ideas, licks, tricks, patterns, crips, clichés, and, in the most functional language, things you can do’ (Reference BERLINER1994, p. 102). He describes how jazz musicians tend to play the same phrases in different settings. Repertoires are, in other words, identified as concrete tools available for the musician to choose from and play with in action.
The aspect of unpredictability is present in teaching as in improvised music. According to Karlsen (Reference KARLSEN, Steinsholt and Sommero2006), this notion calls for a focus on teacher repertoires in pedagogical improvisation, and what Alterhaug (Reference ALTERHAUG2004) refers to as an acute state of readiness for improvisation. As described, researchers on improvisation in musical performance are quite clear about what kind of repertoires one can identify in terms of patterns, ideas, et cetera (Berliner, Reference BERLINER1994). If we move our focus to the literature about pedagogical improvisation, we find several suggestions regarding examples of teaching repertoires. DeZutter (Reference DEZUTTER and Sawyer2011) describes teaching repertoires as scripts, plans, routines, exercises and strategies, and Zorzi and Santi (Reference ZORZI, SANTI, Santi and Zorzi2016) classify the same phenomenon as competences, language and action models. For Shulman, teaching repertoires, in general, are related to subjects and serve as ‘the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations’ (Shulman, 1986, in Holdhus et al., 2016, p. 13). We observe that a variety of concepts are used to describe the nature of teaching repertoires, some of them more concrete than others. In the discussion, we will clarify our understanding of some of these concepts as a result of our data interpretation.
A common understanding is that improvisation is based on intuition, but teachers’ intuitive actions are a result of rehearsal, observation and reflection (Holdhus, Reference HOLDHUS, Gravem Johansen, Holdhus, Larsson and MacGlone2019; Jarning, Reference JARNING, Steinsholt and Sommero2006; Zorzi & Santi, Reference ZORZI, SANTI, Santi and Zorzi2016). Holdhus et al. (2016) are concerned with how teachers’ personal background and non-curricular knowledge are relevant for the development of teaching repertoires. This approach resonates with Sorensen’s input on personal values and beliefs and how these factors can have an impact on the teachers’ ‘pedagogical repertoire and contribute to the personalization of their practice’ (Reference SORENSEN2015, p. 14). An important focus for Sorensen (Reference SORENSEN2017) is his thoughts on a teaching repertoire as a fluid and emerging phenomenon, which is constantly developing as a result of the teachers’ interplay with pupils, school environment, content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. He argues that teacher expertise is diverse and warns against a tendency in which a focus on teaching repertoires are being used to identify ideal and fixed practices. We agree with Sorensen that there is a variety of ways in which such a repertoire will be performed as part of teacher action, depending on the teachers’ personal skills and experience, and that each practice can contain various pedagogical qualities.
We find Bernstein’s (Reference BERNSTEIN1999) distinction between repertoires and reservoirs useful in our study. Bernstein does not focus on repertoires in relation to improvisation but describes them as ‘the set of strategies and their analogic potential possessed by any one individual’ (p. 159). A reservoir is considered as ‘the total of sets and its potential of the community as a whole’ (p. 159). Bernstein distinguishes, in other words, between a repertoire as personal competence and a reservoir linked to, for instance, a school community, from where the person can gather and develop his or her professional repertoire. Our focus is primarily on the teachers’ personal repertoire, but we do acknowledge that their competences and actions are part of a greater picture related to the school environment in which they are participating and the music teacher society in a broader sense.
Research questions
As is apparent from our literature review, teaching repertoires and pedagogical improvisation are topics covered in a number of journal articles and books in recent years. Studies on how such repertoires can be identified within specific disciplines and learning environments and how they are performed and negotiated in teacher actions, however, seem to be missing. Our study aims to contribute to address this gap, as we enter music teacher practices with repertoires and improvisation as points of departure for observations and interviews. Based on these perspectives, we have created the following research question:
What can instrument- and band teachers’ improvisational repertoires in teaching consist of, and how do these repertoires relate to activities, acts and techniques in the teaching situation?
The first part of the research question indicates that teaching repertoires can be considered as competence that the teacher holds and brings into a teaching situation. On the other hand, these repertoires are of vital interest for us when the teachers in interaction with the pupils in learning environments bring their repertoires into play. This perspective is the main focus of the second part of the research question. The emphasis on activities, acts and techniques is a result of reflections based on data material and literature studies. The concepts are added to a model which will be presented and discussed later on in the paper.
We will like to remind the readers that when we explore repertoires in this context, we primarily focus on teachers’ tools and strategies, not musical material. Pedagogical improvisation is part of our study, as repertoires in action are continuously adapted to specific incidents in the classroom. Improvisation is in this sense understood as a professional teacher skill – intuitive and spontaneous, but also based on practice and pre-prepared material (Sawyer, Reference SAWYER2011).
Method
Our article is based on a multiple-case study (Yin, Reference YIN2014) with two research participants teaching music in a community school of music and arts in Norway. As we were interested in an in-depth approach to music teacher practices, we decided to choose a method that gave us the opportunity to get a detailed look at specific aspects of these practices. By combining video observations of teacher practices with stimulated recall interviews (SRI) (Haglund, Reference HAGLUND2003), we gained access to data that gave us information about well-developed repertoires of music teaching.
The first author of this article is one of the four PhD students involved in a multidisciplinary research project focusing on improvisation as a teaching skill (IMTEFootnote 3). Pedagogical improvisation was, therefore, our primary focus as we entered the research process. An emphasis on teaching repertoires emerged as literature studies revealed a lack of research concerning repertoires and improvisation in music teacher practices. We used purposive sampling (Merriam, Reference MERRIAM2009), selecting experienced teachers as our research participants. The teachers represent different traditions within musical style and background. As the participants have each gained many years of practice, they have had the opportunity to develop a variety of personal teaching repertoires over time. By choosing experienced teachers, we, therefore, gained access to a rich and diverse data material in our study.
The pop band teacher participant teaches ensemble in the music school. He is also handling a career as a music therapist and musician. The participant has released several recordings as a bandleader, composer and music producer. In our data, he teaches a pop band consisting of five 15-year-old girls.
The piano teacher participant has been a teacher for approximately 30 years. In addition to teaching piano, he teaches interdisciplinary courses in music, drama and arts and crafts. The participant is a classically trained pianist, but he has also participated in pop band ensembles during his career. The piano teacher’s pupils in our study are three 10-year-old children (two boys and a girl), taught individually.
Data were gathered within a period of 3 months using SRI as a key method. In SRI, video observations of the participants’ teacher practices are part of the interview sessions (Dempsey, Reference DEMPSEY2010). An advantage of this approach is that the participants comment on what they observe from their own teaching sessions – their interpretation is not merely based on memory (Haglund, Reference HAGLUND2003). In our article, video examples from the teaching practices are included and commented on by the participants and us as researchers. In this sense, our study is transparent, as the readers have the opportunity to observe video excerpts from incidents in the classroom and assess the interpretations of participants and researchers. The video examples were picked to show a variety of teaching repertoires and pedagogical improvisation in action as part of different activities in the participants’ teacher practices.
We conducted three one and a half-hour-long interviews with each participant, followed by a final joint interview session. The interviews were transcribed and organised using data software. Thematic analyses were conducted throughout the process (Braun & Clarke, Reference BRAUN and CLARKE2006). Data were coded and categorised continuously (Saldana, Reference SALDANA2015), focusing on different aspects of teaching repertoires and pedagogical improvisation. Annotations served as a valuable point of departure to create the results and discussion sections in our article. The process was characterised by a constant shift between data analysis and literature studies and can be considered abductive (Timmermans & Tavory, Reference TIMMERMANS and TAVORY2012). During the research process, we aimed to create a link between our data and concepts being used by other researchers. We also described a model based on data analysis and previous research as a point of departure for our discussion of teaching repertoires and pedagogical improvisation. The model will be presented and reflected on later in our article.
The study has been approved by the Norwegian Council for Research Data. The teacher research participants and the parents of their pupils received a written information sheet and has signed a consent form approving their contribution to the study, including publication of video material from music lessons.
Findings and discussion
In the next section, we will present four video examples from the data material followed by reflections from our teacher participants. The excerpts are selected in order to illuminate different categories that emerged as a part of the analytical process and can therefore serve as typical examples from situations and participant reflections found in our data. The data material could potentially have been approached in many ways in order to describe and reflect on improvisationFootnote 4 and teacher practices in general, but in the process leading up to this article, we have chosen to focus on the relation between teacher repertoire and pedagogical improvisation.
To describe and discuss the phenomenon of teaching repertoires we are interested in what our participants’ repertoires consist of, what kind of purpose they serve and how these repertoires are part of a pedagogical context. These perspectives are described in the findings, part 1. In the discussion of part 1 that follows, we create a new model based on our data, aiming to reflect on some of the viewpoints raised by other researchers regarding teaching repertoires as well as account for and discuss our own choice of concepts. Video examples from our empirical data are used to exemplify concepts in the model.
In findings and discussion, part 2, we add the perspective of pedagogical improvisation, emphasising how teaching repertoires in the spur of the moment are performed and developed as part of teacher actions in the classroom.
Findings, part 1: teaching repertoires
Example 1: Repertoire used to encourage and motivate
In one of the interviews, the piano participant reflects on how he approaches pupils with low self-esteem. He emphasises the need for a well-developed teaching repertoire in such situations.
Piano participant: What are you going to do when a pupil suppresses herself all the time? That’s like…then you need to have a large repertoire, right? How can you turn pupils’ bad self-image so that they leave the room believing in themselves after 20 minutes? That is a big challenge!
In the following video example, the participant listens to a performance by the pupil and gives her feedback, using verbalisation as well as body language.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LR9EFoS7sSRKa59JVH5dyFm4XWnZB5ac
As the participant leans forward and gazes at the pupil, it appears as though his aim is to encourage and motivate and convince her that she is able to play the piece properly. He gives the pupil positive verbal feedback on the performance and assures her that playing the piece will turn out just fine. During the example, the participant scaffolds the pupil’s achievement, counting the beats and conducts the piece in critical parts of the performance, apparently to create an atmosphere where the pupil can feel safe and secure. In the interviews, the participant also identifies the tone and volume of voice and a general positive body language as part of his teaching repertoire.
Example 2: Repertoire used to teach a pre-composed piece in piano teaching
In this example, the piano participant and his pupil practice a theme from the movie Cinderella.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XX39d-DIN_-8kFDtkrn6mjh3ZiB3O1sT/view
At the beginning of the video clip, we observe that the piano teacher participant demonstrates a melodic motif on the piano as the pupil listens. The participant adds verbal statements in terms of counting and glances at the pupil, checking that the pupil pays attention. In the second part of the example, the participant leaves the piano to the pupil, encourages her, counts and taps his foot in a steady beat as she plays the motif. A search in our interview data reveals that the piano participant mentions a wide range of additional teaching repertoires used in other instructional sequences. This repertoire is related to strategies like decomposition, imitation, demonstration, playing by ear, the use of sheet music, different kinds of body language and question-based teaching. On a more concrete level, the participant emphasises repertoires such as, for instance, masking parts of the sheet music to lead the pupil’s gaze to a limited part of a piece and demonstrate a right and a wrong way to play a part of the piece as a basis for a discussion with the pupil regarding piano technique and interpretation.
Example 3: Repertoire used to teach pop band composing
In this example, the members of the pop band practice a self-composed tune. They have been asked by our teacher participant to make a chord progression as a basis for the composition. The participant is not present during the first part of the process (he is in another room, listening to another band). As he returns to the room, the participant says that he wants to listen to the result of the pupils’ work so far.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dJqPzuNOFmHORcJO9ya7_Iy9JgfUM6Ce
In the video recording, we can observe that the participant (the man) opens up for initiatives from the band. As he experiences that the pupils are quite passive, he introduces a compositional strategy, focusing on the choice of chords. The participant has the following comment regarding the background for his actions:
Pop band participant: I think that the compositional processes are very different from pop band to pop band. It depends on the band members and how confident and experienced they are. These pupils are still searching for their roles…I do not follow fixed points when I am in the room. I know what a song should contain, and I know how I like to write songs, and then I have to give the pupils their freedom. I throw a lot of ideas at them, and then it’s up to them to decide whether the ideas should be included in the song or not.
The pop band participant emphasises the use of certain stylistic musical elements adapted to the physical music instrument in teaching sequences like the one described above:
Interviewer: I see that you focus on riffs, ostinatos and repetition?
Pop band participant: That’s right. I feel that it conforms the pupils’ musical style, what they are keen to play themselves. It’s pop music. You’re not supposed to have ten fingers on each chord…the fewer chord tones in the chord progression, the easier is it for the vocalist to jump between major and minor or to add certain melodic lines.
Based on his philosophy, it seems like the pop band participant possesses a variety of teaching repertoires related to composition in the classroom. Leaving the room, giving the pupils an example and referring to self-experienced strategies and musical style, seem to be samples of repertoires performed by the participant in this situation. The participant aims for the pupils to take part in the compositional process. To promote dialogue and pupil involvement, he encourages the pupils in other parts of our material to come up with tunes that can serve as inspiration regarding their own creative work. On several occasions, the participant performs group management through the use of comments, questions and guiding statements based on pupil input.
Discussion, part 1: teaching repertoires
Our research question aims to describe and discuss how music teaching repertoires in piano and pop band teaching can be characterised and understood. In our approach to this question, we discuss what such repertoires can consist of, but also how they are related to activities, acts and techniques in the classroom.
First, we will position ourselves within the discourse on teaching repertoires and suggest an approach to clarify and systematise some of the concepts being used to describe this phenomenon. Looking back at the descriptions presented in the theoretical part of our article, it seems like researchers identify teaching repertoires on different levels of abstraction. Zorzi and Santi (Reference ZORZI, SANTI, Santi and Zorzi2016) describe in one part of their article repertoire as competence, whereas DeZutter (Reference DEZUTTER and Sawyer2011) uses the term exercises. We would argue that both descriptions illuminate teaching repertoires in a suitable manner, but on different levels. Competence is to us a wide concept focusing on an overall perspective on teachers’ knowledge, skills and capabilities, whereas the term exercise indicates an action on a more specific and concrete level. To us, Berliner’s statement, ‘things you can do’ (Reference BERLINER1994, p. 102) is a simple, but accurate definition of repertoire, as it emphasises action (a focus on doing) as well as knowledge and skills (what you are able to do). The definition indicates that the performer chooses from a personal base of possibilities in every situation. Along with intuitive actions, the performer uses his individual repertoire as he or she reflects prior to, during and after each situation as part of an improvisational sequence (Kruse, 2011). Even though Berliner’s study focuses on the jazz musician and Kruse’s work is based on processes in music and visual arts, these perspectives seem to be valid also for teachers.
Our interpretation of the data has inspired us to create a new model (see Figure 1), which focuses on teaching repertoires on different levels as well as creates a framework in which these repertoires are performed. The model has been developed as a part of an abductive process where we as researchers have made frequent shifts between data analysis and literature studies. The concepts included in the model have been revised several times as part of ongoing discussions between ourselves as researchers.
Figure 1. Teaching repertoires at different levels of specificity.
The model indicates that teaching repertoires are performed within a framework of an overall activity, such as, for instance, music instruction (example 2) or compositional processes (example 3). The term overall activity is chosen instead of overall aim, as our purpose is to describe something the participants do, not something they intend to do. On the next level in the model, the teacher may choose between several possible acts to facilitate for and support pupil learning. In example 3 (compositional processes), the pop band teacher participant seems to select a dialogic approach, opening the floor for input from the band members. The piano teacher participant uses demonstration as a key action in example 2, as he teaches a pre-composed tune. Teaching repertoires in terms of techniques occur on the third and most concrete level in the model. A great number of such techniques are deeply related to acts mentioned as part of level two. An illustration of this relation is how the piano participant displays a rich variety of techniques in example 2 and otherwise in the data regarding the act of demonstration, as presented in Table 1 below:
Table 1. Demonstration and Technique
Our model (Figure 1) gives us an opportunity to structure and discuss our findings. We argue that teaching repertoires occur within an overall activity. The teacher needs a repertoire to act and approach a teaching sequence in a professional, qualified manner. Regarding the teaching of a pre-composed tune, this act could be demonstration, but the use of sheet music, playing by ear, decomposition or a mix of these acts would also be valid approaches. Within the selected act, the teacher has the opportunity to choose amongst a number of techniques achieved through experience, educational background and peer contact. These methods then become tools (Zorzi & Santi, Reference ZORZI, SANTI, Santi and Zorzi2016) available for the teacher in interplay with the pupils to act in a suitable manner designed for the specific overall activity.
We do acknowledge that the teachers’ individual repertoire in our study can be developed from a reservoir related to a social and professional base (Bernstein, Reference BERNSTEIN1999, p. 160) as the teachers are part of a professional community in their local school and in society as a whole. On a concrete level, one can compare the acquisition of teachers’ personal repertoire to the process described by Kofeld et al (Reference KOHFELD, COPPOLA, MENA, SHAKERIFARD, CAMPBELLP, Johansen, Holdhus, Larsson and Macglone2019) regarding how musicians in their study became ‘…enculturated, trained or educated in the musical language and form, and mastered basic knowledge of melodic and rhythmic vocabulary…’ (p. 28). Teachers’ pedagogical repertoire can sometimes be developed through formal training, but we assume that such repertoire also can be acquired as a result of informal processes in communities over time.
Motivational actions, as presented in video example 1, can be considered vital to improve the pupils’ ability to practice and learn. Thus, these actions can be identified as part of the second circle in our model. In the data material, we are able to recognise several techniques performed by the teacher, including the use of gaze, leaning towards the pupil and positive verbal feedback. Such embodied motivational techniques can be interpreted as a part of the model’s inner circle. We consider processes presented in this example as different from overall professional activities in music teaching like composition (video example 3) and the learning of a pre-composed theme (video example 2). Motivational actions cannot, as we see it, therefore be positioned in the outer circle of the model, as they represent acts and techniques performed to improve the pupils’ abilities to work with themes like composition and other professional activities.
Our main focus in this article is on teaching repertoires understood as pedagogical tools and actions. Still, we would like to underline how material (Zorzi & Santi, Reference ZORZI, SANTI, Santi and Zorzi2016) in terms of physical artefacts and the teachers’ musical skills and content knowledge is a premise for qualified pedagogical actions, and as such essential to develop and perform a personal teaching repertoire. As a comment to example 3, the pop band participant emphasises how musical style in terms of riffs and simple chord progressions adapted to the physical music instrument are at the core of his teacher practice in a pop band setting (see the quote as part of example 3). In other parts of the interviews, he underlines how musical knowledge about music arranging, guitar technique, sound and music theory serves as a basis for his teacher actions. In that sense, musical and physical material can be considered important for the performance of a qualified teaching repertoire. The pop band participant’s skills and knowledge about musical style, theory and pop band instruments seem to have an impact on what kind of acts and techniques the participant chooses to use and how this repertoire is structured and performed.
The teaching repertoires presented in examples 1, 2 and 3 are mediated through the use of a variety of modes, such as verbal language, musical artefacts and body language. There does not appear to be any significant differences regarding the uses of modes in the overall activities in the music lessons. The teachers include in other words body language, orality and musical instruments as part of their teaching repertoires, independent of whether composition or teaching of a pre-composed piece are in focus. Some of the repertoires can potentially promote dialogue (e.g., question-based teaching and leaving the floor to the pupils), whereas other repertoires to a greater extent are performed as direct instruction (e.g., demonstration on the musical instrument and verbal feedback).
Findings, part 2: teaching repertoires and pedagogical improvisation
In the previous section, we have discussed what teaching repertoires can consist of and come up with a few examples regarding their purpose and use in teaching situations. In the following part of the article, we will approach the theme of teacher repertoire with pedagogical improvisation in mind, starting out with an example from our data material.
Example 4: Change of repertoire during instruction
In example 4, we wish to turn our attention towards how repertoire is enacted through pedagogical improvisation. In the example, the pop band participant teaches a keyboard pupil how to play a melodic motif.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GGu5jGdQ2PsXec10oq_w5WZfbjrue3Rj
In the first half of the video clip, the participant tries to explain a melodic motif to the pupil, primarily by the use of verbal language. He includes terms from music theory but does not seem to create an understanding with the pupil, as the latter looks at him with an empty gaze and hits the wrong notes on the keyboard. Midway through the session, the teacher changes his approach as he stops talking, and walks over to the pupil and demonstrates the correct tones on the keyboard. The pupil imitates the performed tones on the keyboard and repeats them. To us, it seems like the participant changes his strategy during the sequence to make the pupil understand his instructions. He comments on teaching processes in his classroom in this way:
Pop band participant: When it comes to practice, I do have certain tricks, but in what order I use them and what kind of tricks I use, that’s improvisatory. I have my training, so the tools are there. What is important is that I sense what the pupil needs there and then.
On another occasion, the pop band participant reflects on the aspect of improvisation and professional self-confidence.
Pop band participant: Improvisation in this case is that I write the guitar part there and then. This is not something that I have planned. I am confident, so I am able to write such parts there and then based on what I feel and assume can be suitable for the guitar player, but also for the band as a whole.
The piano participant describes how he develops new teaching repertoires through the use of improvisation, commenting on a specific teaching incident.
Piano participant: It was pure improvisation the first time I did that, I remember. Well, let’s try it, I thought, and it worked. I also added the reading finger. The focus is on sight-reading, that’s what we do here. Let me lead his eyes. Then he started to play what’s written, right.
Discussion, part 2: teacher repertoires and pedagogical improvisation
Our interpretation is that the main teaching repertoires in action in example 4 are verbal explanation (first half) and demonstration at the piano (second half). The example can serve as an illustration of how the participant modifies his choice of repertoire during a sequence there and then, based on the pupils’ response. We argue that teaching repertoires in this process can be considered improvisatory, as the participant performs decision-making in the spur of the moment within a variety of possibilities. He also demonstrates an ability to switch between different kinds of repertoires to facilitate learning. This argument is supported by findings from the participant interviews (see the findings, part 2).
Pedagogical improvisation can also be found in other video examples presented in this article. In example 3, the pop band participant leaves the floor to the pupils and encourages them to come up with their own chord progression ideas. The teacher seems to aim for a dialogue with the pupils, based on their musical input. Due to the pupils’ passive behaviour, the teacher chooses to improvise as the teaching situation progresses, changing his position from facilitator to activator (Hattie, Reference HATTIE2008). This approach resonates with Sawyer’s (Reference SAWYER2011) writings on pedagogical improvisation, emphasising a learning environment where interaction is at the core.
In the findings, part 1, we presented a model in which repertoires on different levels of specificity were linked to concepts like activity, act and technique. The overall activities (the outer circle) will likely be planned and decided in advance in most cases, but improvisation can occur as teachers make a shift in focus away from the pre-planned topic. The choice of act (the mid-circle) can also be planned but will often be revised during a teaching sequence. Within this act, our participants seem to improvise, as they select from a rich personal repertoire of techniques (the inner circle) to create a diverse teaching environment adapted to the pupils at every occasion. In our data, teaching repertoires serve as a basis for improvisation in most cases, but in some instances, new repertoires are being developed intuitively, and thereafter reused and included as part of the teachers’ standard repertoires (see the final statement from the piano participant in the findings, part 2).
Teaching repertoires can be considered to have similarities with formulas, as both include a focus on building blocks that are available for the improviser to use in specific situations. In his doctoral dissertation, Bjerstedt (Reference BJERSTEDT2014) reflects on the tension between improvisation as, on the one hand, formulaic and, on the other hand, innovative and original. Bjerstedt refers to Faulkner (2006), who emphasises improvisation as ‘simultaneously deliberate and spontaneous, imitative and experimental, routinized and innovation’ (Faulkner, 2006, p. 92, in Bjerstedt, Reference BJERSTEDT2014, p. 38). In this article, we do not have space for a thorough discussion of this theme but would like to underline that we find examples in our data that can shed light on both approaches. The pop band participant’s focus on his mastery of a pre-learned and dedicated repertoire (referred to as ‘tricks’) stresses the need for a toolbox the teacher can choose from in specific situations in the classroom (Sawyer, Reference SAWYER2011). On the other hand, the piano participant’s statement regarding the instant development of new repertoires in action can fit with an emphasis on the necessity to leave the well-known territory and surprise oneself as an improviser (Turino, Reference TURINO, Solis and Nettl2009). Our position is therefore that we consider improvisation to be innovative, at the same time as we argue that an improvisational performance consists of pre-prepared and emerging repertoires and formulas organised in different ways in the spur of the moment.
Conclusions
In this article, we have described and discussed music teaching repertoires and their relation to pedagogical improvisation, based on literature studies and empirical material from pop band and piano teacher practices. In the existing literature, teaching repertoires are defined in many ways and on different levels of specificity. We have presented and discussed a new model, emphasising how teaching repertoires are performed within overall activities and are part of teaching acts chosen by the teacher in advance and as part of teaching situations. On a more concrete level, we describe and discuss teaching repertoires in terms of how our participants use a variety of techniques to facilitate pupils’ learning.
We consider teaching repertoires to be something that the teacher brings into a situation. On the other hand, such repertoires are of primary interest once they are enacted in the classroom as part of music teacher practices. We argue that a focus on pedagogical improvisation should be added to a discourse on teaching repertoires, thereby reinforcing an emphasis on how music teachers can perform their acquired teaching repertoire adapted to what each classroom situation calls for. Teaching repertoires should in this sense be considered emerging and not as fixed entities (Sorensen, Reference SORENSEN2017), as the repertoires are transformed and developed as a result of input from pupils and colleagues as well as the music teacher community and society as a whole (Bernstein, Reference BERNSTEIN1999).
