PROCESSES OF REFLECTIVE TEACHING

PROCESSES OF REFLECTIVE TEACHINGACTION RESEARCH

An investigation into ways of introducing teenage pupils, reliant upon notation, to improvisation

3P R O C E S S E S O F R E F L E C T I V E T E A C H I N G | A C T I O N R E S E A R C H

Table of Contents

0 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N P A G E 5

0 1 B A C K G R O U N D P A G E 8

0 1 M E T H O D O L O G Y P A G E 1 0

0 1 R E F E R E N C E S P A G E 2 8

0 3 O U T C O M E S P A G E 1 2

- Learning in Group Context

- Choices

- Teacher roles

- Musicianship skills

- Discussion Opportunities

- Effect on pupils

"What we reach through improvisation is the feel of the journey itself"Nachmanovitch (1990)

4 5I N T R O D U C T I O N P R O C E S S E S O F R E F L E C T I V E T E A C H I N G | A C T I O N R E S E A R C H

One afternoon during the 2004 Mtpp Summer School, as sunshine filtered through the leafy green trees which border the campus at Reading University, Janet Day and I teamed up after an animated discussion about possible research topics with fellow-students.

It was the possibility of doing something with improvisation that ap-pealed to us both. As a result of the Mtpp Initiative, Janet and I had both become aware of how our own musical pathways reflected an unbending route, lacking intrinsic curiosity which is fostered by discovery-based learning opportunities. After this initial discussion we kept in touch through e-mail, honing the research aims and ob-jectives as a result of our background research on the topic.

My personal experiences of improvisation reflect opposite ends of a spectrum. My initial experience, at a summer course (London, 2002), left me feeling confused and a failure. A year later I attended the annual week-long Dalcroze Summer School (Canterbury, 2003). I was filled with dread upon noticing that an hour of pia-no improvisation was scheduled on a daily basis. However, as the week unfolded, these sessions became the highlight of each day; I felt empowered by the experience which gave me the confidence to experiment. With this came a deepening desire to share improvisa-tion with my pupils.

I had incorporated the odd impromptu experience of improvisation into individual lessons, experiences which were neither structured nor followed through consistently. Thus I was excited at the pros-pect of exploring structured opportunities for pupils and observing the outcome enhanced by continuity.

Introduction

Deciding upon a concise research question was not particularly easy although Ja-net and I were both keen to explore improvisation with teenagers. In the end we decided that the following addressed our research topic succinctly: ‘An investigati-on into ways of introducing teenage pupils, reliant upon notation, to improvisation’.

By the Christmas holidays, Janet and I (communicating through e-mail) had deci-ded to place our research within the context of group lessons. We supported this decision by citing arguments in favour of group teaching given by those who had tried and tested this approach; these included increased scope for activities whilst making inroads to the field of social education, cross-learning and fun. (Enoch, 1974; Ghazarian Skaggs, 2004; Thompson, 1997; Uszler, 2000)

On New Year’s Eve, I travelled to Dublin to meet Janet for a day of discussion. Alt-hough we decided to explore a similar selection of activities, we agreed that our interventions may diverge due to the differing social stages of the two groups. For the purposes of teaching music literacy, I had established a group of four girls almost two years earlier, meeting on a fortnightly basis. On the other hand, Janet was forming a group for the purpose of this research. Thus, by this stage we had chosen the teenage pupils, incidentally all girls, who would be involved in the pro-ject (aged 13-16). Each group was appropriately made up of diverging personali-ties, namely out-going and shy pupils.

There were moments when our thoughts diverged. Janet was keen to provide the opportunity for group improvisations on the premise that there is ‘safety in num-bers’. However, my initial experience of improvisation had consisted of a group of instrumentalists ‘jamming’ and, although I felt ‘safe’ in that the sounds I made were unexposed (at times I could not even hear myself above all the clamour), I had no perception of purpose. My subsequent experience at the Dalcroze Summer School, where there was a much clearer focus, concentrated on individual piano improvisations. Somehow I felt that I was being given a useful chance to really listen – to myself as well as others – and that, as a result, I was more inclined to improvise at the piano. Thus I leaned more toward this latter approach while Janet inclined to the former.

I have assigned each of my pupils with pseudonyms: Caitlin (aged 16), Haley (aged 15), Anna (aged 14) and Kendra (aged 13). Pupil profiles are provided (Appendix D). On average, each group lesson lasted for the duration of one hour; due to the researchrelated nature of the lessons, Janet and I did not issue fees.

6 7I N T R O D U C T I O N P R O C E S S E S O F R E F L E C T I V E T E A C H I N G | A C T I O N R E S E A R C H

Finney (1999) suggests that improvisation can ‘unlock imaginative musical po-wers’. Meanwhile, Moore and Schnebly-Black (2003) claim that ‘movement is es-sential to the development of the imagination’; this premise is also alluded to in Hannaford (1995) where the many ways in which movement initiates and supports the mental process, is illuminated.

These references support our decision to incorporate Dalcroze-based movement activities. (Appendix B) Hannaford (1995) also states that the development of a skill (in our case, the skill of improvisation) should start with ‘the establishment of our basal understanding of the world, through our sense, emotions andmove-ment’ adding that artistry emerges when we can incorporate this existing percep-tion to ‘create something beyond and different from our reality’. Thus our approach to improvisation ran parallel to a philosophy which is supported by Mtpp authors (Hallam and Stainthorp, 1997; Pegg, 1994): proceed from the known to the related unknown.

Our decision to place this research within a group context was based upon the following. ‘Improvisation develops from listening to others, imitating and then de-veloping individual style’. (Hallam and Stainthorp, 1997) The outcomes of publis-hed studies, conducted within the field of music psychology and music education, were reviewed by MacDonald and Miell (2000); subsequently, a trend was observed which highlighted the important role of social factors on pupils’ developing musi-cality. Gellrich and Kenny (2002) in McPherson and Parncutt (2002) also claim that ‘one of the best forums for risk-taking and self-challenge is group improvisation’.

I also proposed movement-based Dalcroze activities (Appendix B) on the premi-se that games ‘encourage social interaction’. (Moore and Schnebly-Black, 2003) Nonetheless, I was aware of one potential problem: because pupils are reacting to what they hear with what they understand, their thoughts are visible, as are their bodies. This kind of exposure, especially for teenagers, can be risky. Thus it was important to create an atmosphere of unconditional compassion. Kohn (2005) suggests that ‘the experience of being accepted without conditions helps people… take risks and try new things’.

On the other hand, I was aware that starting with something novel had the advantage of being free of expectations ‘… the idea that you can try something you’ve never done before and give it a whirl’. (Moore and Schnebly-Black, 2003).

Nicholls (1989) cited in Rooke (1989) describes ‘mood music’ (pupils’ personal feelings and other stimuli such as pictures and nature sounds) as a springboard for improvisational activities. Webster (1996) points to the importance of asking pupils to consciously analyse musical material in order to expand their ‘data banks’. This reflects the improvisational approach that had been most meaningful to me; therefore, I explored this concept quite extensively.

However, I failed to articulate this aspect sufficiently to Janet. It was not until towards the end of the project that she realised how profoundly I had been employing this analytical approach. Moreover, Azzara’s findings from a study, conducted in 1993, suggest that improvisation contributes to the improvement of performing music from notation through the enrichment of musical thinking skills (Azzara, 1993). We thought it would be interesting to see whether the improvisational activities enhanced other aspects of pupils’ musical learning.

Background

8 9B A C K G R O U N D P R O C E S S E S O F R E F L E C T I V E T E A C H I N G | A C T I O N R E S E A R C H

Janet and I concurred at our first meeting that our interventions may vary due to social factors described above. I was keen to initially involve my group in Dalcroze-based movement activities while Janet decided that she would use this approach at a later stage (for risk of visual exposure mentioned on page X) and begin with rhythm improvisation using percussion instruments which would not over-expose any individual. Over all, we resolved that the improvisation activities would offer a fusion of ‘fixed and free’ elements.

Subsequently we introduced the idea of improvising rhythms over a jazz recording. Our focal mediums tended to reflect previous activities; Janet’s group continued using percussion instruments whereas my group’s initial movement activities evolved into ‘body’ percussion.

Piano improvisations developed from one-note improvisations. Interestingly, Janet and I had different perceptions about this, according to our own experiences, and it was not until later that we realised our contrasting interpretations. Janet based her one-note improvisations on Wigram’s method (2004). On the other hand, my perception derived from my personal experiences at the Dalcroze Summer School (Canterbury, 2003).

Our decision to explore piano improvisations through ‘images’, was realised in a number of ways. Pupils visualised an image of their choice and supplied a title; alternatively they used a postcard image as visual stimuli. Towards the end of the project, Janet and I used moving visual images (e.g. DVD).

Since I was doing a course in jazz piano, we decided to incorporate this element. Janet’s plan to use Christopher Norton’s ‘Microjazz’ series was abandoned once we decided that we were not going to incorporate any form of musical notation into the project methods. Subsequently, I shared my imitative jazz piano methods, calling upon aural and memory skills, with Janet.

The initial idea of using a questionnaire for pupil feedback was discarded in favour of a blank sheet of paper. Janet video-recorded each lesson while I merely used audio methods. We summarised the occurrences of each lesson and presented the findings at each meeting, supplemented by listening to pupils’ recorded improvi-sations. A summarised account of these meetings is provided as Appendix C.

Methodology

1 0 1 1M E T H O D O L O G Y P R O C E S S E S O F R E F L E C T I V E T E A C H I N G | A C T I O N R E S E A R C H

Teasley and Rochelle (1995) in MacDonald and Miell (2000) support the idea that ‘pupils learn by expressing their own ideas and listening to those of others’; this concept of cross learning is also endorsed by Hallam and Stainthorp (1997). Caitlin voiced a perceptive observation, during the reflective discussion at the beginning of week five, which ties in with this assertion: “It’s not just ‘You get what you put into it’ – its like ‘You get out what everyone else puts in’”.

During week four, there is evidence of Caitlin, Anna and Kendra actively engaging with Haley’s idea of contrast, introducing their own modifications and extensions and thus developing their understanding. Haley had improvised at the piano on an internally imagined scene: “Water trickling down a mountainside then off into a waterfall!” Caitlin and Kendra commented on how Haley had explored a broader dynamic and piano register range than everyone else.

Interestingly, in the next piano improvisation activity, Caitlin, Anna and Ken-dra imagined ‘scenes’ which illustrate a variety of ideas. For example, Kendra had previously improvised on “A snowy day”, illustrating snowflakes falling. Her subsequent improvisation was based on “Football” where she contrasted a five-fin-ger melodic idea using rotary technique, which represented “passing the ball”, against another melodic idea, finishing with clusters (“the audience cheering”).

D I S C U S S I O N

Although pupils placed the movement-based activities on a continuum (the more out-going pupils became whole-heartedly engaged while the shy group members expressed a degree of reluctance), we recognised that enjoyment and spontaneous involvement tended to escalate with repeated and extended opportunities.

Janet gently chided me for not providing more opportunities for my pupils with percussion instruments in groups. Here I noted an interesting feature: we will endorse something that has ‘worked’ for us. Janet used this approach prolifically, due to the successful outcomes.

Meanwhile, I focused more heavily on individual piano improvisations, reflecting my own positive learning experiences which my pupils, in turn, also favoured. To supplement my personal reasoning I referred to Moore and Schnebly-Black (2003): ‘the piano is a powerful tool for expression, for learning about structure and for thinking about one’s own thinking [metacognition]’.

The role of image-based piano improvisations was, by and large, perceived as a highly enjoyable and purposeful means which provided pupils with signifi-cant choices. Conversely, the activities connected with jazz piano improvisation seemed to close-down pupils’ spontaneity – possibly as a result of increased teacher-direction.

I later defended my stance regarding percussion opportunities, reflecting upon the significant amount of ‘body’ percussion which my pupils had collectively engaged in. Moreover, there is evidence to prove that my pupils later used this experience to solve a rhythmic problem (week seven) and incorporate body percussion into a piano improvisation (week eight). (Appendix A)

We observed another notable connection. At the piano, Janet tended to impro-vise using chords while my improvisations reflected a more sparsely textured, meandering melodic approach (typical of the piano music composed by Michael Nyman and Ludovico Einaudi).

Towards the end of the project, we observed that our pupils leaned towards our respective improvisational models. This warns of the dangers of becoming too stylistically narrow and had there been a further phase, Janet and I would have explored further styles and tackled this quandary.

Outcomes

1 2 1 3O U T C O M E S P R O C E S S E S O F R E F L E C T I V E T E A C H I N G | A C T I O N R E S E A R C H

After each pupil improvised, on a personally chosen and internally imagined scene, it was the role of the other group members to ‘guess’ what had been conveyed through the piano music.

This process often sparked the pupils’ imagination. As we guessed possible scenes for Anna’s peaceful-sounding piano improvisation during week four Haley volun-teered: “Is it the calm before the storm?” adding in thoughtful wonder, “Aww, but man, that’d be a good one!”

Azmitia and Montgomery (1993) provide evidence to support that friends find it easier than non-friends to establish productive joint working activities. Caitlin and Haley are close friends; additionally, they share the same bubbly, out-going perso-nalities. This contrasts with the quiet and less-forthcoming dispositions of the two younger group members, Anna and Kendra.

Had Anna and Kendra been close friends, or had there been friends in Janet’s group, this issue would have been better balanced and would have provided an in-teresting perspective with reference to shy personalities. (Observing a combination of temperaments would have provided a further viewpoint for reflection). However, it was interesting to observe Caitlin and Haley engaged in animated discussion as they negotiated aspects of their “Storm” piano-duo improvisation. Subsequently, both girls gave this experience 10/10 for enjoyment.

The confidence that Caitlin and Haley feel with one another was also evident during week eight. After improvising at the piano together, Caitlin was appreciative of her own efforts and voiced disapproval of Haley’s approach. Interestingly, Haley was not in the least bothered and chided Caitlin for her excessively loud dynamic range. A compromise was reached as they chose to improvise individually since they had diverging thoughts on how to convey the mood of this visual movement.

Later, that same lesson, there is evidence of a rapidly developing, and well articulated, ‘image’ of my piano improvisation based on the whole tone scale; again, autonomy emerges. There was also an interesting moment of affinity during week six when Caitlin immediately ‘guessed’ Haley’s improvisation title: “Mixed emoti-ons”.

The very nature of improvisation activities offers plenty of opportunities for decisions to be made by the pupils themselves.

To a large extent, pupils’ interests shaped what they did. They had free choice creating their own improvisational ‘images’, ‘titles’ and ‘moods’ and frequent-ly tapped into their own interests proving that ‘experience allows the individu-al to reach further’. For example, during week four, Kendra (an avid footballer) improvised on “Football”.

Kohn (1993) alludes to the counterproductive effects of control: ‘If learning is a matter of following orders, students simply will not take to it in the way they would if they had some say about what they were doing’. Pupils encountered significantly less choice opportunities during week seven when I explored the concept of jazz piano. Somehow the freshness and exhilaration, vividly present in the earlier sessions, faded as a result of my choice to extend pupils’ ‘power of analysis’. (Odam, 1995)

It became obvious that asking pupils to improvise on their own ‘images’, ‘titles’ and ‘moods’ was, in fact, asking them to work on a problem without clear-cut instructions; in other words, they had the opportunity to decide for themselves how to find solutions. This had two-fold implications for Haley during week six. She used the shakers during the group percussion improvisation, slowly turning them around to imitate her physical feelings: “I feel ill so the shakie things were like my stomach churning”. Haley subsequently improvised at the piano, projecting melancholy in her tone and slow, thoughtful rhythms. The final outcome, written on her ‘thought sheet’, was a revelation: “I feel so much better!! I really liked it, feel KLAS!!!” What’s more, Haley’s ‘enjoyment’ ratings soared from 0/10 to 9.5/10. (Appendix D)

During week four, Caitlin’s piano improvisation image was: “Clear night on the beach”. I had a CD recording of splashing waves and eagerly asked Caitlin to improvise again, this time with the CD playing in the background. However, after listening, Caitlin gently, yet firmly, made it clear to me that it did not help reflect her ideas and that she preferred not to use the recording. On this point, Upitis (1990) encouragingly speculates that pupils who feel in charge of their learning will not be afraid to stick with their original decision, even after the teacher has suggested something else.

The general consensus, arrived at by both groups, was that piano improvisations based on ‘images’, titles’ or ‘moods’ were “the best – oh yeah!” At the inception of this approach to improvisation (week four) I said: “Ok – what’s the most exciting way we could explore this?” The proposals they came up with were good. Kohn (1993) supports this by suggesting that pupils are motivated when teachers ‘use their ideas’.

C H O I C E S


Upitis (1990) believes that proof of learning does not come from testing pupils after they play; rather it comes from their ‘spontaneous comments and observations… watching them solve the problems that they naturally encounter’. During week six, Anna commented that: “If I was doing it again, I would use minor 2nds and go all over the piano as if it [the frog] was jumping… and I wouldn’t use the [sustain] pedal”. (Anna’s improvisation title was “Frogs hopping from lily-pad to lily-pad”.) Meanwhile, Caitlin pointed out that her piano improvisation, “Shhh! In the library”, would have benefited from “less notes”. Apart from personifying learning, I believe that these comments provide evidence of pupils in the worthy pursuit of forming their own judgements - rather than relying on my evaluation.

During the summer, I invited a renowned music educator to give an improvisational workshop for my action research class; disappointingly, he deprived them of choice. Caitlin later commented to me: “That was totally crap - why didn’t you just do it? Then we’d actually have learnt something… he didn’t think he could trust us to make up our own stuff”.

After an animated round of negotiation, it was decided that the listeners (i.e. the speculating audience) would guess the ‘image’, ‘title’ or ‘mood’ being conveyed. Kohn (1993) has astutely observed that: ‘The critical question is not whether limits and rules are needed – but rather who sets them; the teacher alone or the teacher and pupils together’.

A week later (week five), I asked my group how their improvisations could be assessed. At this point, I still felt compelled to raise the complicated issue of assessment and evaluation; as Upitis (1990) remarked, ‘one of the usual responses to the claim that learning is occurring is that there should be some way to measure that learning’. Indeed Sloboda (1988), commenting on areas which researchers’ frequently neglect when studying the psychology of improvisation, cites ‘problems of measurement’ as a key area of concern.

Caitlin’s suggestion that everyone personally assess their own improvisations, giving a mark out of ten for ‘effectiveness’, was unanimously agreed. Subsequently, Janet introduced this measure into her improvisation classes.

Once again Kohn (1993) subscribes to the idea of ‘bringing the pupils in on the process’ maintaining that several things can be achieved simultaneously: ‘it gives pupils more control over their education, makes evaluation feel less punitive and provides an important learning experience in itself’.


What’s more, they were absolutely right. This experience enriched my perceptions of the process.

Additionally, I believe that my role communicated two important messages: that people continue to be genuinely curious all their lives and that a teacher, setting out in uncharted terrain, can plot a route using pupils’ contributions.

Improvisation was identified by Dalcroze as the ultimate goal of Eurhythmics training: to think and shape while in the process of performing was his picture of a complete musician. (Moore and Schnebly-Black, 2003) Interestingly, that same criterion can be applied to a music educator’s ability to think and shape, or re-shape, while the class is active. The ability to ‘take flight’ and improvise in the midst of a lesson plan, as I proved during week six, requires flexibility, awareness and confidence. Mackworth-Young (1997) maintains that we need ‘to be in touch with our pupils’ feelings and their moment-to-moment needs, sensitively adjusting our teaching to suit’ referring to the concept of ‘countertransference’. Ultimately, it was my awareness of this point which turned a potentially disastrous situation into a memorable lesson of breakthroughs which Caitlin summarises on her ‘thought sheet’: “…made me think more about the benefit of expressing feelings to music – it releases your mood, even improves it”.

Haley had arrived to the lesson feeling ill and after the first ‘planned’ activity the ambience was growing distinctly ominous. O’Connor (1999) and Mackworth-Young (2000) advocate the practice of ‘meeting’ pupils’ feelings. An account of this lesson is provided in Appendix A, describing how encouragingly my pupils’ responded to this approach.

Moore and Schnebly-Black (2003) encourage music educators to find opportunities to ‘let the shy become leaders in non-risky ways’ the objective being to develop a healthy balance among the dynamic personalities of the group, supporting each pupil in what they can give. During week five, Anna’s “Juggler” piano improvisation focused exclusively on the interval of a major 2nd. I drew attention to this, commenting that we could all try this approach to explore the possibilities of an improvisation based on one interval.

Henke (2003) cited in Moore and Schnebly-Black (2003) points out the value of ‘doing with pupils’ rather than ‘watch so-and-so do it’. Additionally, Odam (1995) suggests that ‘teachers acting as improvisers… are likely to be the most powerful stimulus to the [pupils]’. During week six I took my ‘turn’ improvising.

This is interesting for various reasons; initially I discarded this week’s lesson plan in the interest of ‘meeting’ the group feelings (page 19). There is also strong evidence to suggest how highly they valued me becoming ‘one of them’; during the final week Caitlin commented “You were like, not just a teacher, you were like putting yourself into it… showing your feelings and everything”.

The following animated conversation between all group members just after I announced my decision to contribute an improvisation (week six) illustrates their perceptions of why I should get involved: “You should be one of us… that would be of benefit to you… then you can understand better… how ya feel and everythin’… you should write down out of ten and all how ya feel… and you go first!”

T E A C H E R R O L E S


In 1996 Webster commented that ‘divergent thinking requires the mind to survey its data banks for possible musical content… the more in those banks, the better’. The Dalcrozebased CD, which I used during the first couple of weeks for movement purposes, also modelled piano improvisations. I engaged the group in listening activities which consisted of analysing musical motifs. During subsequent weeks, I observed pupils retrieving and developing this musical content. For example, Anna (week five) based her improvisation on one interval, an idea exploited on the CD.

Moore and Schnebly-Black (2003) mention the importance of ‘finding a match between incoming information and previously stored associations well endowed with connections’. At the very beginning of week one’s lesson, Haley excitedly experimented with the ‘new look’ piano (I had taken the front off). She played a trill using the lower register of the piano and pronounced with wide-eyes that the effect was “rather scary… oh yeah!” At the end of the lesson, as she improvised a “Storm” with Caitlin, it was interesting to observe Haley use this bass-register pattern. Even the concept of body percussion (snapping fingers and tapping) found its way into Haley’s B minor piano improvisation during week eight. Incidentally, a fusion of body percussion was used to solve a rhythmic problem during week seven; snapping their fingers on the last quaver immediately helped them feel a syncopated jazz rhythm.

I became aware of how improvisation can lead to a mastery of basic concepts involved with aural training whilst developing a holistic experience of musical sounds with vivid, meaningful representations, crucial to aural development. For example, I observed that improvising using particular intervals (whether melodic or harmonic) significantly improved Anna and Kendra’s later discrimination of intervals.

The aural element of examinations has frequently caused problems for both girls; however, the difficulty was noticeably eliminated (Appendix D) despite the fact that I did not consciously ‘prepare’ them for this aspect. Interestingly Kendra, in an individual lesson where I was asking her to discriminate various intervals, commented without hesitation: “Oh! That’s a perfect 5th – the interval I used for my “Midnight Stars” improvisation”.

Azzara (1993) comments that improvisation is often taught through prevalent use of patterns and scales ‘with little regard for an individual’s comprehension of tonality and metre’. I approached the improvisation process in a way which required pupils to understand - and perhaps most importantly, feel - pulse and rhythm through physical movement. As I reflect, this was a sound basis from which to explore piano improvisations; a secure sense of pulse was very often present in pupils’ improvisations.

Hannaford (1995) maintains that ‘talking anchors thought, permitting organisation and elaboration’. During week two, my group discussed the concept of the body as an instrument and how movement responses could be developed with a greater sense of imagination. We also talked about the images and feelings evoked by the CD piano improvisations (Appendix B). Hannaford (1995) suggests that this is of particular benefit since ‘we engage thought and reasoning processes to comprehend and verbalise the emotional experience… strengthen[ing] the important emotion-cognition link’.

Subsequently, Haley responded to the ‘float… like seaweed on the waves’ movement activity, which she described as evoking “a really relaxed [mood… that would] put you to sleep”, with a completely original response reflecting the soothing and hypnotic quality of the music based on the whole tone scale.

Bruner (1996) explains that ‘the give and take of talk… makes collaboration possible’ going on to point out that ‘we learn an enormous amount not only about [others]… but about ourselves by discourse with others’. During week six, I discovered through the evolving process of discussion that Caitlin, Haley and Anna (Kendra was absent) already improvise at the piano in order to release their emotions – and that they have been engaging in this practice for some time. The fact that I had just discovered this challenged me to consider how little I really understood about these pupils’ musical activities outside what I ‘assigned’ in individual lessons each week.

Pupils can also derive enormous intellectual benefits from thinking about what makes an activity interesting. Caitlin’s feedback on ‘Cocktail Piano’ (Appendix B) was perceptive: “… [you] had to be aware of the beat [in order] to relate it to other parts of the body… to make a connection with what was happening you have to be in touch and not feel stupid or else the connection just won’t happen”.

Odam (1995) claims that: ‘asking pupils what mood each picture creates and questioning how these moods can be conveyed in music… has the potential of for-cing a metaphorical relationship’. Moreover, Harris (2005) insists that the use of metaphor is an important tool in teaching, particularly when dealing with musical character since we are asking pupils to apply abstract thinking (character and expression) to a physical activity (playing the piano). Thus, discussing the ‘images’ had significant value.

Janet and I had considered the use of questionnaires (a feedback method which Janet used during the first week). However, the open nature of what we were doing seemed to beg nothing more than a fresh, clean page of white paper upon which the pupils could write their comments and thoughts. This method for feedback prevailed throughout the research period, providing a window through which to observe pupils perceptions about the process and themselves. (Appendix D)

M U S I C I A N S H I P S K I L L S D I S C U S S I O N O P P O R T U N I T I E S


Curiously, it was initially easier to permit spontaneous, animated discussions knowing that the pupils’ parents were not paying for the lessons. Kohn’s (1993) thoughts on this matter were reassuring: ‘the heuristic value of discussions is often overlooked in the rush to get on with the real lesson’. More importantly Janet and I have evidenced how these discussion opportunities have helped our pupils feel respected by making it clear to them that their opinions matter to us.

However, in the pursuit of musical learning, Cottrell (2005) warns that ‘we must never prioritise thinking and talking over thinking and doing’ with the reminder that ‘thinking is visible in music’. MacDonald and Miell (2000) have claimed that improvisation, ‘express[ing] thoughts, emotions and ideas just as words can’, additionally provides the experience of ‘learning how to use and combine elements of music’. Caitlin’s comment (week six) succinctly conveys the point: “I liked that… it was good to hear how you [can] express your feelings other than verbally”.

The ‘guessing’ strategy, invented by my pupils (week four), meant that the feed-back each pupil received about their improvisation from the group was a simple, evaluation-free statement rather than a judgement; in other words, the comments were based upon what was heard. For example, after Kendra’s improvisation “A snowy day” (week four), Caitlin commented on the “pretty sort of softness… it’s like really delicate” while Haley observed that the mood was “reflective”. A week later, the group was contemplating Kendra’s “zigzag” musical shape.

‘Even better than descriptions, are questions’. (Kohn, 1999) Although I was unaware of this premise during the research period, I did ask questions which accessed the pupils own perceptions. During week five I was intrigued to observe Kendra chose a postcard almost instantaneously, while the rest of the group mulled over the available selection of postcards for a much longer period of time. After this improvisation activity, which focussed on exploring Kendra’s chosen interval(perfect 5th), I asked: “What made you choose this particular postcard?” Kendra’s response was equally fascinating: “… the picture sets a sound in my head”.

Perhaps more significantly, there is evidence of the pupils asking questions which require reflection surrounding the learning process. After my piano improvisation “Bugs in the carpet” (week six), a fascinated Caitlin asked me: “How did ya figure out how ya were goin’ to make up such itchy sounds?”

find their own ways to value progress rather than simply holding out achievement as the main aim, allowed them (and me) to perceive the process of learning.

Dalcroze stated repeatedly that even with a wonderfully developed ear, a musician was not complete unless he or she could ‘feel the emotions’ that were in the music. (Comeau, 1995) Gelernter (1994) claims that ‘emotions… are fun-damental to thought’ while Moore and Schnebly-Black (2003) suggest that ‘the mind stores information more effectively if there is an emotional content involved in the activity’. It was interesting to observe these pupils’ increasing engagement with the affective domain in individual lessons. In fact, this emotional engagement was observed by the examiner who heard Anna’s grade five and Kendra’s grade seven piano performances. (Appendix D)

This is in line with the conclusions from a study, conducted by Azzara in 1993, which explored the effects of group improvisation on instrumentalists’ comprehension of tonal, rhythmic and expressive elements in instrumental music performance from notation; the data obtained indicated that improvisation does contribute to the improvement of notated music. (Azzara, 1993)

I also feel compelled to share the effects that this project has had on me personally. It has provided me with an insight into learning processes and boosted my confidence to use improvisation more readily in individual lessons.

In February 2006 I commence two Early Years Music Education projects with NIP-PA (Early Years organisation in Northern Ireland). Both projects require me to en-gage a group of twenty-five children (aged 3-4) in musical learning processes and, although I am aware of the obvious differences, I feel that I can transfer my valua-ble learning experiences about group teaching to this new context.

I have learnt the importance of trusting pupils. Indeed this is a process that sometimes involves more than allowing pupils to take risks or even showing oneself as a risk-taker. It means that one trusts that pupils will become engaged in a meaningful activity without a great deal of direction on the part of the tea-cher. Throughout the research period Janet and I have been rewarded for trusting through the pupils’ musical renderings and their perceptive observations.

However, I still feel ashamed about my lack of trust after Haley’s improvisation (week five), based on a postcard of the Empire State Building at sunset. (Appen-dix B). Her musical representation was so contrasted to what I would have done that I offered sympathetically: “Did it make it really difficult having to base your improvisation on one interval… do you want to have another go?” Haley looked at me flippantly and in a light-hearted tone pointed out that she thought her improvisation was effective and that there was no need to ‘have another go’. Interestingly, the response from the other group members showed no signs or scepticism. Caitlin proceeded to observe: “You were getting across different levels?” The outcome was truly fascinating and imaginative as Haley, somewhat dramatically, revealed her focus: “Windows everyone - and you know the one that fell down into the ground - up at the top and now we’re down at the bottom.”

Kohn (2005) believes that ‘it’s exceedingly difficult to teach the whole child when people are held accountable only for raising… scores’. Meanwhile, Upitis (1990) states that, if marks were assigned to pupils’ improvisations ‘they would be a trivial reflection of the learning involved’.

I realised that rarely before had I invited these teenage pupils to become active participants in their own musical education. Providing them with an opportunity to

E F F E C T O N P U P I L S


This research project has increased my tendency to use improvisation in individual lessons, not only engaging pupils’ in the process themselves but using improvisation to illustrate various concepts.

During one instance, I wanted to provide the pupil with an aural model of how differently a bar of six quavers can sound – played in simple triple and compound duple time. Rather than rummaging through a stack of scores to find an appropriate example, I improvised. Later the rapt nine-year-old asked me what the music was; I replied that I had made it up just for her. Not only did this provide memorable learning of the concept in question, but the pupil became curious about the improvisational process; moreover, she felt special having had music made ‘just for her’.

This term, I have plans to resume improvisation classes for my pupils after they expressed a desire to continue which, in itself, is significant. I plan to additionally extend this opportunity to other pupils.

Implications for Teaching Practice

2 4 2 5I M P L I C AT I O N S F O R T E A C H I N G P R A C T I C E P R O C E S S E S O F R E F L E C T I V E T E A C H I N G | A C T I O N R E S E A R C H

"Parting with power is not easy... because the results are less predictable"Kohn (1993)

The remarkable paradox of improvisational group activities is that they meet the needs of the individual, facilitating discovery-based, imaginative learning.

Kohn (1993) observes that ‘parting with power is not easy, if only because the results are less predictable… asking pupils to decide about the simplest issues can be scary’. Thus, providing pupils with the chance to make decisions about their learning, an aspect which would have filled us both with uncertainty and fear prior to the Mtpp Initiative, has made us aware of how far we have come.

The fact that Janet and I were truly learning, throughout this research project, made the significant difference. The pupils appreciated and associated more profoundly with our ‘learner’ roles; their comments are a constant reminder that they valued this role a great deal.

At the Mtpp Summer School (2005) Dr Tania Lisboa, a research fellow at the Royal College of Music (London), reminded students that the purpose of research is to ‘provide access to novices’. This encouraged me to prepare a presentation which I gave at an EPTA (European Piano Teachers Association) meeting during September 2005. Thompson and Lehmann (2004) in Williamon (2005) relate how improvising abilities are ‘often ascribed to variations in innate disposition’. This apathetic view is regrettable, not least because this research project alongside existing research (cited in Williamon, 2005) makes clear the point that improvisation ‘is amenable to enhancement through structured training’.

It also stands to reason that we should encourage teachers to engage in the research process. It is one thing to listen to a colleague relating her personal experiences, another to actively engage in the process for oneself. As I was writing this document, I found it distinctly more meaningful to validate and ‘bring to life’ various issues using examples of my pupils’ experiences despite having heard Janet’s account of what happened in her lessons, supported by documents and her pupils’ ‘thought forms’. I constantly keyed in to my tactile experiences and I often found that I had a memory of clear, fresh images and sounds.

For me, this project also allowed me to perceive the distinction between covering syllabus requirements and discovering ideas; between mark-driven achievement and real learning. What’s more, I believe that the pupils benefited from this insight. One day I came across a line which Caitlin had written into her music notebook: “Success is a journey, not a destination”. That she had found this and written it down (in her music notebook) reflects her understanding of the significance of the learning process. The words of Nachmanovitch (1990) carry a similar message: ‘What we reach through improvisation is the feel of the journey itself’.

Conclusions

2 6 2 7C O N C L U S I O N S P R O C E S S E S O F R E F L E C T I V E T E A C H I N G | A C T I O N R E S E A R C H

Azmitia, M. & Montgomery, R. (1993) Friendship, Transactive Dialogues and the Development of Scientific Reasoning Social Development: USA

Azzara, C. D. (1993) Audiation-Based Improvisation Techniques and Elementary Instrumental Students’ Music Achievement GIA Publications: Chicago

Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education Harvard University Press: USA

Comeau, G. (1995) Comparing Dalcroze, Orff and Kodaly CFORP: Canada

Cottrell, S. (2005) How Can We Develop Our Thinking Skills in Music? (Music Teacher, May 2005) Rhinegold Publications: London

Enoch, Y. (1974) Group Piano Teaching Oxford University Press: Oxford

Finney, J. (1999) Music and Imagination International Centre for Research in Music Education: University of Reading

Gelernter, D. (1994) The Muse in the Machine, Computerising the Poetry of Human Thought Free Press: New York

Ghazarian Skaggs, H. (2004) The Art of Teaching Piano Yorktown Music Press: New York

Hallam, S. & Stainthorp, R. (1997) Learning Processes International Centre for Research in Music Education: University of Reading

Hannaford, C. (1995) Smart Moves: Why Learning is Not All in Your Head Great River Books: USA

Harris, P. (2005) Improve Your Teaching: An Introduction to Simultaneous Learning Unpublished Document

Kohn, A. (1993) Choices for Children Phi Delta Kappan: USA

Kohn, A. (1999) Punished by Rewards Houghton Mifflin: Boston

Kohn, A. (2005) Unconditional Teaching Educational Leadership: USA

MacDonald, R. & Miell, D. (2000) Creativity and Music Education: The Impact of Social Variables International Journal of Music Education, 2000, 36, 58-68

Mackworth-Young, L. (1997) Pupils, Teachers and Parents International Centre for Research in Music Education: University of Reading

Mackworth-Young, L. (2000) Tuning In MMM Publications: Norfolk

McPherson, G. & Parncutt, R. (2002) The Science and Psychology of Music Performance Oxford University Press: Oxford

Moore, S. F. & Schnebly-Black, J. (2003) The Rhythm Inside: Connecting Mind, Body and Spirit through Music Alfred Publishing: USA

Nachmanovitch, S. (1990) Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art Penguin Putnam: USA

O’Connor, J. (1999) Not Pulling Strings Lambent Books: UK

Odam, G. (1995) The Sounding Symbol Stanley Thornes Publishers: UK

Pegg, L. (1994) The Principles of Influential Music Educators International Centre for Research in Music Education: University of Reading

Rooke, M. (1989) Constructive Creations Rhinegold Publishing: London

Sloboda, J. A. (1988) Generative Processes in Music: The Psychology of Performance, Improvisation and Composition Clarendon Press: Oxford

Thompson, K. (1997) Group Teaching International Centre for Research in Music Education: University of Reading

Upitis, R. (1990) This Too is Music Heinemann: USA

Uszler, M. & Gordon, S. & McBride Smith, S. (2000) The Well-Tempered Keyboard Teacher Schirmer Books: USA

Webster, P. (1996) Creativity as Creative Thinking Routledge: London

Wigram, T. (2004) Improvisation: Methods and Techniques for Music Therapy Clinicians, Educators and Students Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London

Williamon, A. (2005) Musical ExcellenceOxford University Press: Oxford

References

2 8 2 9R E F E R E N C E S P R O C E S S E S O F R E F L E C T I V E T E A C H I N G | A C T I O N R E S E A R C H

PROCESSES OF REFLECTIVE TEACHING

ACTION RESEARCH

The Curious Piano Teachers © 2020 | | [email protected] |

Documents

PROCESSES OF REFLECTIVE TEACHING