The role of peer directed learning on the journey toward becoming a vocal artist; a case study of two graduate level voice majors.
TRY TO THINK BACK to your college education. Can you remember a moment--outside the classroom--when you experienced a growth spurt in your learning as a result of feedback received from a peer? The process of becoming a professional singer not only requires hard work over many years, but it is also a highly personalized journey in developing one's artistic identity. Teachers and professional music school curricula are important contributors to these formative years of study; yet, there are other less formal dimensions that are vital to music students' progress. In developing their voices and careers, devoted students seek additional learning opportunities in their daily lives. Peer feedback, in particular, may be one of the most important activities through which singers develop technique and musicianship, and ultimately shape their careers.
"I just uploaded my singing video. Are you able to check out my voice technique and give me feedback?" This is a text message that Anna received from Sara. (1) Since college, Anna and Sara have been long-time peer learning partners, a relationship that has continued to this day, as Anna studies in Boston and Sara lives in Seoul. Despite 6,800 miles between them, Anna has remained Sara's closest peer supporter for her singing. In witnessing such interactions, as well being a voice student, this researcher became reflexively curious about the role of peer-directed learning and its significance in developing vocal artistry.
Why, for example, do voice students seek feedback from peers? Why do they select a certain peer over another? What actually occurs during these peer sessions? How does peer learning affect musical development? These core questions guided this study.
The data for this qualitative research were obtained via interviews and observations of two adult voice students' peer teaching and learning experiences. It was not difficult to find singers such as Anna, Sara, or Yuri, who voluntarily offered feedback regarding their colleague's technique in order to answer these questions, an exercise that produced rich interactions. By investigating the process of peer learning among music students--in the absence of teachers or set curricula--this researcher seeks to enrich understanding of student learning in music institutions, which could, in turn, inform educational improvements.
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Since the late eighteenth century, the purpose of music conservatories has been to pass along the tradition, culture, and practice of Western classical music to the next generation. (2) To achieve this, fostering a strong teacherstudent relationship is essential. Typically, successful musicians from the previous generation train aspiring professional musicians by means of an intensive regimen of musical knowledge, technique, and repertoire.
Among conservatory offerings, the one-on-one music lesson is regarded as the most critical for students, (3) and students usually consider primary applied lesson instructors as role models. This relationship is often compared to a master-apprentice one, which is rooted in the
practices of the medieval guild. (4) Applied music teachers are regarded as masters of musical artistry, while students (apprentices) learn under their guidance. This intensive relationship can perpetuate a musical legacy from generation to generation. (5)
Of course, motivated students also strive to improve artistry on their own. Beyond scheduled weekly lessons, how students manage their remaining weekly hours becomes a key factor to their musical development. (6) While practicing alone continues to be regarded as perhaps the most significant aspect of a student's development, (7) interacting with other peers while learning in various settings (e.g., practice rooms, rehearsals, or performances) also may profoundly influence students. In addition to students, professional singers also realize the merit of having other ears listen to their voices. (8)
Such learning among peers has been of great interest among educators in various fields, including business, sports, medicine, and popular music education. (9) Social constructivists, perhaps influenced by developmental psychologist Vygotsky, insist that learning occurs in the social context, so it is crucial for people to share their perspectives with others. (10) For example, Johnson and Johnson argue that cooperative peer learning promotes greater interpersonal attraction, higher self-esteem, and social competencies than competitive or individual learning. (11)
Peer directed learning occurs while one interacts with friends, incorporating explicit teaching of one or more persons by a peer, and can take place during casual encounters or organized sessions. (12) There are various names for peer directed learning (e.g., peer tutoring, peer mentoring) according to the persons and formats that compose the learning settings. Peer tutoring generally occurs when a more advanced peer teaches another while they are in the same social group or learning stage; (13) peer mentoring indicates teaching/learning between two peers at different stages of study. (14)
As Green suggested, popular music counts the value of peer directed learning in the process of music making. (15) For instance, Lebler introduced and evaluated a popular music program in Queensland Conservatorium Griffith University, which developed a pedagogic approach based on the creation of a scaffolded self-directed learning community, "a masterless studio." Lebler provided evidence of the usefulness of an alternative approach to the master/apprentice model and drew on data to elicit principles that can be adapted to other music pedagogies. (16)
The popular music program at Queensland Conservatorium provides a curriculum that mainly guides students to focus on music production, including composition, performance, and all aspects of the recording process. Without individual lessons, students decide the direction and content of the creative work on their own and with partners, rather than under the specific direction of a teacher. In the program, collaboration provides a peer learning environment in which the rich resource of student abilities and expertise are readily accessed. Lebler claimed that the masterless studio nurtures students' abilities through interaction within the community of practitioners who have been selected on the basis of their strengths in a range of popular music making activities. (17) Popular music has a different environment in nature from classical music education, but this program provides insights into the advantages of peer interaction on one's musical development.
In classical music, there have been suggestions to improve learning environments in conservatories based on interviews with teachers and students. After interviewing twenty music instructors, Gaunt found that the one-on-one lesson process was dominated by the teacher, even though students had opportunities to have autonomy on minor issues. (18) This learning environment makes students dependant on their teachers' input, which leads to decreasing student self-confidence and limited time for critical thinking. Gaunt suggested that higher music education needs to develop pedagogy to facilitate student autonomy in learning.
Through student interviews, Presland examined the relationship between conservatory piano students and their professors. (19) Similar to Gaunt's research, he found that piano students felt that lessons were sessions of instruction from the "maestro," rather than a healthy two-way dialogue. On the other hand, the students benefitted from regular classes where they have the opportunity to perform in front of familiar faces and to receive feedback from peers and professor. Therefore, Presland suggested including classes that introduce peer assessment and promote peer learning environment in order to diversify piano students' learning channels.
Although limited in number, classical music education institutions have been the site of several trials incorporating peer learning for classes or assessment. (20) Among them, Latukefu conducted a three-year study on a singing class in an Australian college based on Vygotsky's theory, which describes the process of how knowledge formed on the social level (interpersonal learning) transforms to an individually internalized one (intrapersonal learning). (21) The class was for both major and nonmajor students, and involved one-onone lessons in a small group. In the classroom, each student performed and the others commented or gave feedback following the instructor's questions or comments. Feedback on performances included comments about voice technique, musical interpretation, and communication. With time, class members voluntarily dealt with their singing problems more and more on their own, while the lecturer's intervention was invited only when necessary.
Latukefu's study revealed that interactive peer learning with appropriate support through restructuring of the learning environment offered advantages to singers' learning processes. Based on feedback from colleagues and observation of other group members, students were able to check where they were in the progress of voice technique and performance skills. Additionally, students gained more confidence in achieving their goals by seeing peer success and socially constructed their knowledge through listening to experiences and strategies that others used.
Literatures claim that peer teaching and learning encourage students to hone their abilities in critical thinking, authority, and creativity. Most studies, however, mainly examined peer interaction in formal settings such as in the classroom or in the curriculum, rather than the nature of peer interactions in informal settings. With this in mind, the researcher conducted an interview- and observation-based case study of peer learning sessions between two student voice majors to determine how the peer teaching and learning influenced their progress.
The researcher contacted two adult voice majors with peer directed learning experiences. Anna and Yuri are both sopranos, and at the time of the initial interview and observation, they were second year graduate-level female voice majors from South Korea studying in New York City. Both Anna and Yuri began singing as young children and attended the same performing arts schools together from middle school through graduate school except for their undergraduate years. Thus, they had known each other for more than fifteen years as friends and as fellow students of singing. Although they studied under different teachers, they closely witnessed each other's development. Long-time friends, Anna and Yuri also shared peer teaching/learning sessions. To hear their stories of peer learning, the researcher interviewed Anna and Yuri and also observed their peer interaction sessions.
Interviews and Observations
This qualitative case study is based on interviews and observations conducted in 2009 and follow-up interviews in 2011. In 2009, the researcher conducted a semistructured interview with the two participants, followed by three one-hour sessions of voice lessons in which the two students participated in a mutual teaching and learning exercise. The researcher observed the students' interactions during the sessions and also videorecorded the sessions for later analysis. In 2011, follow-up interviews were conducted to trace how the students' peer teaching/learning interactions changed, or evolved, in relation to their musical development.
STORIES OF PARTICIPANTS' PEER LEARNING EXPERIENCES
Students' Needs for Peer Directed Learning
During my undergraduate years, my classmates in the voice department met in the practice room everyday after classes. We would just ask friends in the next room, "Would you listen to my singing?" [Anna] When I was in college, SJ and I were attending the same church; we were very close. Because I struggled with my voice technique so much, I asked her to listen to my singing during vacation. [Yuri] (22)
For both participants, learning interactions with peers were familiar experiences. At Anna's college, practicing with same-year students and sharing feedback with one another was a daily routine. Yuri's first peer tutor was a church choir colleague, a year older than she, who was from the same performing arts high school. Peer directed learning usually took place during times participants were in less frequent contact with their teachers, such as after or between classes or during vacations. The participants felt the need for peer assistance to listen to each other's singing when they wanted to check voice technique in the absence of teachers, especially in instances when it was difficult to follow a particular approach the teacher may have suggested. Master teachers are often too busy to frequently meet each student, and teachers are not easily accessible out of class; therefore, finding accessible advice in everyday circumstances is one of the reasons why students seek peer advice on their singing.
...I felt that teachers mainly explained broad concepts ...I think that's because of a big gap between their abilities and ours. They have passed all the processes and developed their own singing techniques, but we are still in the process and have similar concerns about the details. So, sharing those specific and detailed directions is really helpful to each other. [Anna]
The two friends felt that since their teachers heard students' voices from a more holistic perspective, their manner of explanation tended to be more general. Although the primary source of learning for both students was their master teachers, at times it proved difficult to digest abstract concepts and metaphors used during lessons. Both interviewees believed this difficulty could be attributed to the formidable professional gap between master teachers and student apprentices whose singing muscles are not fully matured. Peers, however, were at the same stage of the learning process and shared similar concerns and predicaments; hence, peers found it easier to exchange and discuss the more tangible aspects of vocal technique.
Students spend a lot of time practicing in order to absorb and personalize lessons learned from their master teachers, training the body and voice as instruments. (23) Between lessons, however, students may look elsewhere for feedback during practice. Peers are conveniently at hand where they can meet in a practice room without strict scheduling. It ultimately becomes a casual opportunity to sing and exchange valuable feedback, which, in fact, can occasionally develop into extensive lessons.
Rapport and Trust: Reason for Choosing a Particular Learning Partner
Although voice students meet many peers in their institutions and have casual interactions over topics of music learning, they tend to engage in more focused peer learning situations with specific friends. The participants in this study described two main conditions for choosing peers to promote their ongoing learning interactions. First, intimacy with peers allows students to take risks and reveal weaknesses or vulnerabilities.
...someone who is comfortable and close enough so that I could show my weaknesses. Because I am a singer, I don't want to show my weird singing to just random people. [Yuri] I feel much less shame or shyness with peers who study together in the same classes. [Anna]
Peer teaching and learning tend to occur among close or long-time school colleagues, such as those in the same year who take the same classes. Since adult voice majors are preparing to become professional musicians, they are often wary of exposing their weaknesses to others; they prefer someone with whom they have good rapport, such as a close friend whom they have known for a long time.
The second condition is trust in the peer's ability to listen to singing and to give appropriate comments.
I choose to have someone I can trust about their ideas of singing technique; otherwise, I cannot share my things with a mind I trust... someone reliable and trustworthy. Sometimes, when we talked to each other about our singing voices, I would know she had pretty much the same idea as I had about singing in general. [Yuri]
Yuri and Anna began their peer teaching/learning sessions while they attended the same master's degree program in New York City. Yuri asked Anna to be her practice mate because she trusted that Anna had a good understanding of and ear for singing voices. For the same reason, Sara, Anna's other learning partner (mentioned at the beginning of this article), maintained a peer learning network with Anna even from a distance. Trust grew though by many casual conversations and occasions where they listened to each other's singing during classes or performances. Yuri found they had similar ideas about optimal voice quality and trusted Anna to give safe feedback on her singing. In short, students choose someone from whom they can learn.
The eventuality that both Yuri and Sara asked Anna to be their learning partner was clearly a consequence of the fact that Anna reinforced their trust in her ability. Anna's greater success probably influenced Yuri and Sara's choice of her as a peer listener/teacher. (Anna had several exceptional achievements--she had won several major competitions and scholarships.) Yuri especially felt the need for peer interactions when struggling with her vocal technique, and she tended to seek individuals who had themselves overcome similar problems. Thus, peer interactions tend to resemble peer tutoring, rather than equal peer-to-peer exchanges. Related to this, Anna's tendency to lead was observable in peer learning sessions where she demonstrated more advanced teaching skills, including critical questions and comments to Yuri.
Peer Directed Learning Sessions
Observations of the participants' peer teaching/learning sessions show how they interact during their practice together. At times, peer teaching/learning occasions crop up unexpectedly during daily practice time, such as inviting friends close at hand; in other instances, peers may set a mutually agreeable time in planning their regular sessions. In Yuri's and Anna's case, Yuri asked Anna to listen to her singing after class when she was confused about her vocal technique. Once they are able to find time and secure practice space, peers listen to each other's singing and share feedback. If they are lucky, they have a friend who can play the piano for them; otherwise they accompany each other. During the sessions observed by this research, they asked their pianist friend to be the accompanist.
In the beginning, Anna and Yuri warmed up briefly by singing scales, but singing repertoire was the main activity during the observed sessions. They usually selected repertoire that they found technically difficult. One student would sing without peer interruption. After singing the whole song once, they began verbal interactions involving feedback, questions, and occasional demonstrations. One singer would take turns playing the role of student while the other functioned as the teacher, then they switched roles (Table 1).
During the sessions, participant interaction was driven more by voice technique than any other aspect of singing. Questions and comments about each other's singing focused on technical considerations. They seldom discussed emotional expressions of the repertoire, but when such concerns came up, comments were closely connected to technique and voice quality. They did not share much background about the repertoire except when they explained it to the pianist, and seemed to assume that all information about the repertoire was already individually absorbed.
In several instances, participant interaction was similar to lessons with their master teachers. Much as a teacher talks more than a student in studio lessons, there was a greater variety of verbal comment from the person giving feedback as compared to self-evaluations or questions (Table 2). Many of the comments began with such observations as "My teacher said that . . .," although they also proffered their own opinions. This feature was common both in feedback as well as in selfevaluations. Throughout these interactions, participants exchanged knowledge and vocal skills that supplemented the lessons learned from their respective teachers. This exchange of learning permitted the students to acquire more diverse perspectives and techniques for singing.
Sometimes, peers shared what teachers would not comment on. For example, Yuri had a habit of using certain facial expressions as she sang whenever she did not feel confident. While the facial changes were subtle, Anna detected them because she had seen her singing in class and on stage many times. During their sessions, Yuri exhibited this habit frequently and Anna commented on it. Yuri mentioned that she had in fact been conscious of this, but her teacher had never pointed out.
While both students commented on each other's singing, Anna provided much more active feedback, questions, and suggestions about Yuri's singing (Table 2). This was most obvious during the first observation session, but Yuri's feedback became more expansive as the sessions continued. The reason for Anna's advanced feedback skills was detected in the interviews. When Anna interacted with friends such as Yuri and Sara, she mostly played the teacher's role. In addition, Anna's better feedback skills could be attributed to her greater confidence. In observing Anna's self-evaluations during the interaction, which were more positive as compared to Yuri's evaluations, it is easy to infer that Anna was more confident about her own singing technique.
As discussed above, peer teaching/learning interactions are still strongly influenced by the culture of master-apprentice lessons. The participants' major activities during interactions were singing repertoire and providing feedback, and the roles of teacher and student were distinct. This is slightly different from what the researcher expected before undertaking this study: in what was an otherwise a horizontal interaction, a subtle hierarchy between the peers was observed. What, then, are the differences between peer learning and master teacher lessons?
For example, my "ah" vowel does not sound good, but hers does; however, I have a better sounding "ee" vowel... I couldn't sing well when I moved from "ee" to "ah," but she does it so easily. At that moment, our roles were altered. So, I asked, "How did you do that?" and learned something from it. [Anna] If my friend does something well, I could ask, "How did you do that?" Some people have a natural technique. It's not because I cannot obtain the technique, it's just that others might have an easier way with it. Reciprocally, I could do the same with others with a skill I have already mastered. [Yuri]
Although Anna showed more advanced feedback skills based on her greater tutoring experience and confidence, the interactions were, clearly, learning opportunities for both participants. Not only does a peer learn from her partner's advice, but the one who teaches also gains knowledge and singing skill. One person may be strong in one technique, the other stronger in another, enabling both to gain from each other's strengths. It was surely not a unidirectional interaction where only one peer teaches and the other learns. Even though the participants took turns singing and providing feedback, roles switched frequently during the sessions. Since this relationship differed from a lesson with a master teacher (in which the master knows everything and the student is but a blank slate), Anna and Yuri tended to think more critically and gain knowledge through a mutual process.
...with friends, it's much easier to talk freely and ask questions like, "Why?" or "How does it work like that?" Also, even when I don't have the proper answers or resolutions, I can be honest about that and we'll spend more time freely discussing our ideas. I think when we teach and learn from each other, there's also less pressure to ask and answer each other. [Anna] Peer advice is somewhat different from that of master teachers because peers know the same pain; they give advice at times that I can better understand. Also, even if they talk about the same concepts, I can catch the idea better when anybody else talks to me. [Yuri]
As Anna described during the interview about the direction of the interactions in peer teaching and learning, it is possible to observe how flexible these interactions were during the learning session. The one playing the role of student felt free to ask questions and reveal her own opinions and self-evaluation. The colloquial vocabulary used during the sessions was close to their daily experiences; it made them comfortable and better understand each other's feedback. At times, interactions would develop into longer discussions, where they would exchange insights and confront more intricate problems.
Jorgensen described classical music lessons as directive and one-way communication from teacher to student. (24) Students have limited opportunities to ask questions or discuss their problems in the traditional applied studio. (25) However, two-way interactions between peers who are at a similar stage of musical development influence cognitive aspects of their learning. Because peers perceive the gaps between them as much less formidable than the gap between themselves and their master teachers, their interactions allow them to mirror and experiment with what they have learned, and to nurture their critical thinking ability.
Possible Risks and Limitations of Peer Directed Learning
While the participants benefited from learning with their peers, they also acknowledged the risks of peer learning.
It could be easy to go wrong... We should decide what to accept and what to ignore. [Yuri] ...master teachers commonly regarded peer lessons negatively. In my program, some teachers told us, "It is not helpful to teach each other." From a professional view, they could be worried that students don't have adequate knowledge to make these interactions useful. [Yuri] I understand what teachers worry about. Sometimes, too much work with peers could be very risky. One of my former teachers said that she [harmed] her voice because it was injured by too much voice trials with her friends. [Anna]
Peer learning can be a risky choice for students; voices can adopt unhealthy habits that sometimes result in severe injury to the maturing voice. Too many opinions from different perspectives can also confuse students while they build voice technique. Because of these risks, participants' master teachers discouraged student peer teaching and learning. As a result, participants did not wish to let their master teachers know that they were engaging in this activity outside the studio, and peer learning was commonly limited to their informal practice. Such concerns certainly helped caution students to avoid imprudent learning situations such as cooperating with someone who could negatively affect their voice technique. The participants took time to choose with whom they would continually work through listening to each other and sharing opinions about voice technique. Also, they realized that it is always important to think critically how they digest the information from preprofessional peers.
Another factor suggests that we should exercise care with peer teaching and learning. Despite benefits, mindless application of peer teaching/learning does not seem to guarantee effectiveness. From the interview, the researcher noticed that the participants did not want peer learning to be included in formal curriculum because they enjoyed the nature of its spontaneity.
If it is in the curriculum, it becomes a "must thing." It's not "I want..." [Anna] I agree with Anna. If it became a "must thing," it could be very rigid and pressure for us. [Yuri]
Both students appreciated their peer directed learning because they voluntarily chose someone to study with when they wanted to do so. However, once they feel there is a binding obligation to work with peers, they might not have autonomous motivation for the interaction. For this reason, peer directed learning is difficult to be fully worthwhile when it is carelessly applied to a formal classical music education curriculum. In this respect, in order to take advantage of it, teachers need to thoughtfully design classes when they incorporate peer learning.
Role of Peer Learning toward Becoming an Independent Musician
Follow-up interviews were conducted two years after the initial interviews. During this period, many changes had taken place. Both participants continued their studies after completing their degrees, but while Anna moved to Boston, Yuri remained in New York. They no longer met daily, but remained in contact with each other.
As time passed, each gained a stronger singing technique and more solid musicianship. After much trial and error in vocal technique, Yuri realized that the beauty of one's singing voice is not all about technique, and she began to focus more on expression of musicality. Even though she continued to chat about her performance with her peers, interactions with her new colleagues were not developing into the one-on-one peer learning sessions she had shared with Anna; rather, she chose to check herself in video recordings during practice. Since Yuri's major concern was her future career, the main topic that surfaced when Yuri and Anna last spoke was about Yuri's relocation for the next big step in her career.
In Boston, Anna was performing opera roles on stage several times a year as her school's representative female opera singer. She continued to make use of peer learning interactions with her friend Sara, who lived at a distance, via video records, online exchanges, and global text messaging. In these interactions, Anna's role was more advisory than it had been with Yuri. However, face-to-face peer teaching and learning sessions such as those she shared during her years in college or in New York no longer occurred in Boston. She was reluctant to share comments about voice technique with her new colleagues with whom she performed on stage. Besides, she sensed that as her body matured, her singing muscles finally understood the techniques she had been practicing. She encountered fewer struggles with voice technique than before, and was able to comprehend with greater facility her master teacher's explanations during lessons.
What, then, are the influences of peer learning on the participants at the point they become independent artists who do not require as much feedback for their singing technique and can develop their own abilities to self-evaluate?
Frankly, we cannot remember everything we acknowledge or read all the time. Sometimes we forget things once we knew. But when talking each other, I could recall something I lost and gain new knowledge. So, it is always beneficial to have opportunities to apply my knowledge to reality. [Yuri] I cannot experience everything Anna is experiencing and vice versa. In this sense, we both learn from the other's experiences. [Yuri]
As Yuri and Anna illustrated, peer directed learning helped them construct knowledge and skills in the vocal arts in a social context by watching and talking to each other before their singing muscles and musical ability were fully mature. Such activities made their experiences richer and more rewarding.
We should consider that an integral part of voice learning is communicating the sensation of the inner body for ideal voice quality. (26) While students in the similar learning stage interact with each other, they critically listen to, observe, mirror, imitate, compare, and contrast each other. By watching a peer's attempt at the same technique, students can reinforce and experiment what was learned from a master teacher, and they can find it easier to construct their own disparate learning realities. (27) In this sense, peer directed learning might be a helpful strategy for voice students to achieve necessary abilities until they become professional singers.
Becoming a classically trained professional singer is a long journey, often lasting decades. The intensive training necessary includes both individual effort and learning from a master teacher. Beginning students primarily learn technique directly from a master teacher. However, as they face challenges of acquiring more advanced techniques and knowledge, adult voice students require more practice, and some find peers a strong supplemental source of support for their learning.
By listening to peers sing and by giving and receiving advice, adult voice students can develop their own knowledge of singing. In this way, fellow students become each other's teachers, counselors, mentors, and mirrors, providing essential support for developing in one another the ideal voices that they will one day use professionally. At the same time, learning to think critically and evaluating each other's skills can aid in understanding and digesting information and techniques that will help them succeed. Although peer interactions among voice students tend to be informal and are not emphasized by conservatories and music colleges, this study reveals that peer learning can be an important, and even a necessary and complementary component of professional training.
Students' curricular and informal learning in their daily routine "should not be regarded as a dichotomy, but rather as the two poles of continuum." (28) Both learning practices are present and interact in conservatories, as this research has shown. To encourage classical singers on their journeys to become professionals, conservatories and music colleges would benefit from fostering more diverse learning environments that can usefully supplement the hierarchical master-apprentice relationship on which professional music education historically relies.
This qualitative case study illustrates peer interactions between only two Korean adult voice majors, which limits the ability to see the whole picture of peer learning interaction in classical singing. For example, stories can be considerably different for students educated in other cultures. The participants centered primarily on technique, but the benefits of peer learning can extend to other areas, such as studying the literature of repertoire, musical expressions, and performance skills. Furthermore, the concept of peer training can be extended to groups larger than three people. More research on diverse extracurricular learning strategies, including studies of larger group interactions, should enrich our understanding and insights into the benefits various learning environments may offer in supporting voice students' journeys toward becoming professional artists.
(1.) Anna (pseudonym), along with Yuri (pseudonym), is a direct participant in this study. Sara (pseudonym) is not a direct participant in this research, but Anna mentioned her frequently as a significant person.
(2.) Estelle R. Jorgensen, Pictures of Music Education (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2011), 53-71.
(3.) Rosie Burt-Perkins, "A Preliminary Analysis of a Music College as a Learning Culture: Professional Learning in a Changing Society," Proceedings of Professional Learning in a Changing Society (University of Oslo, November 25-27, 2004).
(4.) Jane W. Davidson and Nicole Jordan, "Private Teaching, Private Learning: An Exploration of Music Instrument Learning in the Private Studio, Junior and Senior Conservatories," in L. Bresler, ed., International Handbook of Research in Arts Education, Vol. 16 (Netherlands: Springer, 2007), 729-744.
(5.) Harald Jorgensen, "Student Learning in Higher Instrumental Education: Who is Responsible?" British Journal of Music Education 17, no. 1 (March 2000): 67-77.
(6.) E. Jorgensen, 60.
(7.) Nancy H. Barry and Susan Hallam, "Practice," in Parncutt McPherson, ed., The Science and Psychology of Music Performance (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 151-165.
(8.) Donald Simonson, "Colleagues, Community, and Lessons," Journal of Singing 67, no. 2 (November/December 2010): 121-122.
(9.) Richard K. Ladyshewsky, "Peer Coaching: A Constructivist Methodology for Enhancing Critical Thinking in Postgraduate Business Education," Higher Education Research amd Development 25, no. 1 (February 2006): 67-84; Jolene M. Henning, Thomas G. Weidner, and James Jones, "PeerAssisted Learning in the Athletic Training Clinical Setting," Journal of Athletic Training41, no. 1 (January-March 2006): 102-108; Walter J. Hendelman and Marvin Boss, "Reciprocal Peer Teaching by Medical Students in the Gross Anatomy Laboratory," Journal of Medical Education 61, no. 8 (August 1986): 674-680; Lucy Green, How Popular Musicians Learn (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002).
(10.) Lev S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), 79-91.
(11.) David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson, "Making Cooperative Learning Work," Theory into Practice 38, no. 2 (AprilJune 1999): 67-73.
(12.) Green, 76.
(13.) Janet W. Colvin, "Peer Tutoring and Social Dynamics in Higher Education," Mentoring and Tutoring 15, no.2 (May 2007): 165-181.
(14.) Robert A. Townsend, Melinda Delves, Tracy Kidd, and Bev Figg, "Undergraduate Student Peer Mentoring in a MultiFaculty, Multi-Campus University Context," Journal of Peer Learning 4, no.1 (December 2011): 37-49.
(15.) Green, 204.
(16.) Don Lebler, "Student-as-Master? Reflections on a Learning Innovation in Popular Music Pedagogy," International Journal of Music Education 25, no. 3 (December 2007): 205-221.
(17.) Ibid., 211-213.
(18.) Helena Gaunt, "One-to-One Tuition in a Conservatoire: The Perceptions of Instrumental and Vocal Teachers," Psychology of Music 36, no. 2 (April 2008): 215-245.
(19.) Carole Presland, "Conservatoire Student and Instrumental Professor: The Student Perspective on a Complex Relationship," British Journal of Music Education 22, no. 3 (November 2005): 237-248.
(20.) Diana Blom and Kim Poole, "Peer Assessment of Tertiary Music Performance: Opportunities for Understanding Performance Assessment and Performing through Experience and Self-Reflection," British Journal of Music Education 21, no. 1 (March 2004): 111-125; Desmond Hunter, "Developing Peer-Learning Programmes in Music: Group Presentations and Peer Assessment," British Journal of Music Education 16, no. 1 (March 1999): 51-63.
(21.) Lotte Latukefu, "Peer Learning and Reflection: Strategies Developed by Vocal Students in a Transforming Tertiary Setting," International Journal of Music Education 27, no. 2 (May 2009): 128-142.
(22.) Participant interviews were done in Korean and were transcribed and translated in English for quotation purposes.
(23.) Vernon A. Howard, "Languages of Craft (I)," in Vernon A. Howard, Artistry (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1982), 59.
(24.) E. Jorgensen, 59.
(25.) Gaunt, 215-245.
(26.) Howard, 34.
(27.) E. Jorgensen, 59.
(28.) Goran Folkestad, "Formal and Informal Learning Situations or Practices vs. Formal and Informal Ways of Learning," British Journal of Music Education 23, no. 2 (July 2006): 143.
Joo Yeon Jung recently earned her Doctor of Education in College Teaching (Music and Music Education) from Teachers College, Columbia University, where she also received her Master of Education degree. She is a native of South Korea and earned her bachelor's and master's degrees in voice performance from Seoul National University. In working as a teaching artist at Abrons Arts Center and a voice instructor at Highbridge Voices in New York, Jung has taught not only one-on-one voice lessons but also music classes at public schools, and has directed choirs and choir ensembles. She is a certified secondary music teacher in South Korea and a certified K--12 music teacher in New York State. Jung has conducted voice recitals in Seoul and New York, and has performed in China, Japan, and New York as a soloist and a member of a vocal ensemble. Her major research interests are improvement of the higher music education environment and curriculum, voice pedagogy, and music learning in studio settings. The topic of Jung's dissertation at Teachers College was a collaborative inquiry case study of peer group learning among college voice major students.
TABLE 1. Interaction time (minutes:seconds), first session. Yuri teaching Anna teaching Sum Anna Yuri Preparation (accompanist sight-read and singers' explanation about the repertoire to accompanist) 5:05 3:41 8:46 Singing (first time without interruption) 11:05(6:06) 11:13(4:17) 22:18 Verbal interaction 6:10 5:46 11:56 Total 22:20 20:40 43:00 TABLE 2. Content and frequency of verbal interactions displayed during the first session While Anna sang and Yuri gave feedback Anna Yuri Self-evaluation--Positive 4 Feedback--positive 1 Self-evaluation--Negative 3 Feedback--negative 3 Self-evaluation--Neutral 0 Feedback--neutral 0 Self-evaluation based on 5 Feedback--negative 2 master teacher or coach +positive Self-diagnosis ("I think 2 Feedback based on own 2 that was good/not good.") experience Question about self ("How 8 Feedback basedon master 3 was it when I sang that teacher passage?") Sharing own problem("I 4 Suggestion("What if you 3 feel difficulty singing here.") do this?") Problems that responds to 1 Suggestion based on master 1 teacher ("My teacher said teacher's teaching that this was not good.") Self-evaluation responding 1 Mentioning how her 1 to question master teacher solved the problem Self-correction 0 Correction 0 Self-reinforcement 0 Demonstration 0 Question to evoke 1 suggestion ("How can you fix it?") Questions leading to 0 Self-evaluation ("How did you feel about it?") Admitting less knowledge 1 Feedback related to 0 musical atmosphere Feedback related to face 0 and confidence Feedback related to 0 diction and expression While Yuri sang and Anna gave feedback Yuri Anna Self-evaluation--Positive 0 Feedback--positive 10 Self-evaluation--Negative 5 Feedback--negative 14 Self-evaluation--Neutral 5 Feedback--neutral 1 Self-evaluation based on 1 Feedback--negative 2 master teacher or coach +positive Self-diagnosis ("I think that 1 Feedback based on own 0 was good /not good.") experience Question about self ("How was 1 Feedback based on 0 it when I sang that passage?") master teacher Sharing own problem ("I feel 6 Suggestion ("What if you 16 difficulty singing here.") do this?") Problems that responds to 0 Suggestion based on master 0 teacher ("My teacher said teacher's teaching that this was not good.") Self-evaluation responding 1 Mentioning how her master 0 to question teacher solved the problem Self-correction 3 Correction 2 Self-reinforcement 4 Demonstration 3 Question to evoke suggestion 0 ("How can you fix it?") Questions leading to 2 self-evaluation ("How did you feel about it?") Admitting less knowledge 0 Feedback related to musical 1 atmosphere Feedback related to face 10 and confidence Feedback related to diction 13 and expression
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Jung, Joo Yeon|
|Publication:||Journal of Singing|
|Article Type:||Case study|
|Date:||May 1, 2014|
|Previous Article:||Amy Beach: muse, conscience, and society.|
|Next Article:||Doing the right thing for the wrong reason.|