Monthly Archives: September 2018

The role of peer feedback in musical training

Posted on 091118 | Comments Off on The role of peer feedback in musical training

Hanken’s (2016) recent review of the literature on peer feedback in instrumental instruction confirms that this topic has not received a lot of formal attention in the scholarly literature. Indeed, as we discussed in class on Monday, we Western Art Musicians typically rely on an ad hoc sense of etiquette around the roles we play in our social circles, whether we define our social circle by instrument, instrumental teacher, ensemble, or ensemble section. Though the world has changed tremendously, we still participate in an apprenticeship model the age of which can counted in centuries.

That’s not to say that peer learning is irrelevant to us. In fact, Hanken utilizes a situated theory of learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991) as motivation to characterize in more detail the implicit role of peer learning in our WAM tradition. She notes that peer learning is already an important part of our apprenticeship, whether we pay attention to it or not. Her research aims to increase awareness of peer learning among musicians and teachers to effect positive social change.

She offers three case studies of studios that embrace aspects of peer learning in the apprenticeship model. Two of these studios are run by instrumental teachers who have created instructional roles for students in masterclasses and group lessons. These teachers step back and allow students to provide feedback to each other, offering mentorship as needed along the way. The third case study employs Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process as more of an intervention for peer feedback, and I think it may be useful to consider this intervention as we carry out peer feedback activities in our class.

  1. Peer offers descriptive response
  2. Performer asks for specific feedback
  3. Peer asks open-ended questions to stimulate reflection
  4. Peer asks permission to offer opinion to performer

Students in my class will notice, very coincidentally, this list starts with “descriptive response.” We are currently working with descriptive responses in our peer review training module (though our instructional module comes from an integration of ideas from a different scholarly tradition). Kristin Kjølberg, the vocal teacher who uses this intervention, reported that students initially had difficulty forming a response other than an evaluative one (great job, too bad it was out of tune). Their experience seems to have highlighted the specific problem inherent in description – what are we paying attention to? I’ll leave that with you for now.

Whether or not our instrumental teachers explicitly embrace a role for peer feedback, it is useful for music students to think about how we manage our social interactions – we are only as good as our peers, so anything we can do to support each other will ultimately reflect well on us.

References:

Hanken, I. M. (2016). “Peer learning in specialist higher music education.” Arts & Humanities in Higher Education. 15(3-4): 364-375.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning – legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lerman, L. & Borstel, J. (2003). Critical Response Process: A Method for Getting Useful Feedback on Anything You Make, From Dance to Dessert. Tacoma Park: Liz Lerman Dance Exchange.

 

Comments Off on The role of peer feedback in musical training

Posted in Peer Review, Teaching

Tagged , ,

The Short Bio

Posted on 090618 | Comments Off on The Short Bio

One of my first content lessons in WRDS 150 develops situational awareness around the activities of writing. Genre studies is based on the idea that the situations of writing shape the content and presentation of written material (see Giltrow et al. 2014, chapter 1). Over the next few weeks we will explore different genres of scholarly research on music performance. Specifically, we will critically engage the way genres of music scholarship portray the activities of music performance. For now, we are simply looking at how our own writing changes in response to different writing situations.

This second writing activity presents a similar opportunity for cultivating self-regulation (see previous blog post), but in a very different genre. This time, the goal of the writing was to present me with a short bio to inform me about the experiences and interests that led to choosing a degree in Music. This provides a an opportunity for students to organize and present their goals and experiences on their own terms. This low-stakes writing also allows me to get to know my students better. I am, after all, a 20th century musician teaching 21st century students!

Your Bio:

TASK: Please write a short bio for yourself and hand it in. 10 minutes.

PURPOSE: To inform me about your background and interests.

FORMAT: Hand written, on paper, with name and date at the top of the page. Structure the bio as you would for a professional opportunity. Write about yourself in the third person.

KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED: Your decision to earn a degree in Music is an important one. As you write your bio, consider how your experiences have led you to that decision.

DISCUSSION: Musicians write many versions of their bio for different professional situations. Consider how your bio changes for each performance situation. What aspects of your experience do you put forward? What do you want your audience to know about you? What information might contextualize your performance for those who are there to witness it? How long should it be? Consider collecting bios from the concert programs you attend this year. Keep them in a scrapbook, or gather them as your corpus for analysis in WRDS 150.

Our course textbook: Giltrow, Gooding, Burgoyne & Sawatsky. (2014). Academic Writing: An Introduction. 3rd edition, Peterborough: Broadview Press. On Reserve in Koerner Library PE 1408 .G53 2014

Comments Off on The Short Bio

Posted in Teaching

Tagged , ,

Sorting Hat Writing

Posted on 090618 | Comments Off on Sorting Hat Writing

We began WRDS 150 with a Sorting Hat Writing exercise – a private, stream-of-consciousness activity that I designed as a welcome activity for first year Music students. Research shows that students perform better when they feel a sense of agency, what some researchers call “self-regulated learning” (Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick 2006). Self-regulated learning refers to a learner’s ability to set reasonable goals, to choose appropriate strategies, to manage resources, time, and effort, to incorporate feedback, and to provide evidence of mastery over the material (p. 199). Throughout their paper, Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick draw out the relation between self-regulated learning and successful feedback activity, what I am calling the giving, receiving, and incorporation of feedback on written work. These authors support the idea that student authors should maintain a level of control over the feedback they receive. They also suggest that good feedback practice requires good assignment design (instructor) and self-regulation (student) in meeting the assignment goals.

Their seven principles of good feedback provide a solid starting place for thinking about the interaction involved in feedback activity. I include them here for reference:

Nicol & Mac-Farlane-Dick’s good feedback practice:

  1. helps clarify what good performance is (goals, criteria, expected standards);
  2. facilitates the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning;
  3. delivers high quality information to students about their learning;
  4. encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning;
  5. encourages positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem;
  6. provides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance;
  7. provides information to teachers that can be used to help shape the teaching.

(Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick 2006, p. 205)

I developed the Sorting Hat Writing activity to support principles 2, 4, and 5, above (later I will talk about how this activity informs our situational awareness of writing). The Sorting Hat Writing activity is inspired by fiction, by psychology, and by process-oriented writing instruction (see further resources below). Writing is a technology that we use to harness and direct thought (Menary 2007). We use it here for self-reflection.

 

Sorting Hat Writing

This Sorting Hat Writing activity asks that you allow your pen to guide your thought process as you sort yourself into a fictive house in the School of Music.

Task: Write, non-stop, for a timed period. If your pen gets stuck, ask questions with it, or repeat words with it until it becomes unstuck. The only rule is – don’t stop writing. No one will read this but you.

Purpose: The activity serves two purposes: 1. to develop a situational awareness of the activities of writing, and 2. to take time to touch base with personal goals for learning. 

Knowledge: Students will draw on their experiences and self-concepts as they write.

Format: There are no format requirements on this exercise.

[NOTE: Because this was our first timed writing exercise, we wrote for 5 minutes. But for a regular practice, I suggest gradually increasing the time to 10-20 minutes per day. Use this prompt, a different prompt, or no prompt at all for regular practice. You may discover yourself in new houses altogether.]

The Houses:

Beaks – Prefer verbal modalities (reading and writing, speeches, concepts, laws)

Wiffles – Prefer social interaction (groups, ensembles, friends, parties)

Strings/Springs – Prefer the technical and mechanical (know-how)

Batons – Prefer leadership and distinction (standing on podiums, taking chances)

Blank Pages – Prefer the new and the unexpressed, creativity, invention, improvisation

Of course, there are no right answers in this activity. There is only the opportunity to observe. It is the process of connecting your goals and experiences with your situations of learning that will help cultivate the self-regulation skills for success in University.

References:

Elbow, Peter, (1998). Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Library call number: Education Library PE1409.5 .E5 1998 (an older edition is in Koerner).

Menary, R. (2007). “Writing as thinking.” Language Sciences 29: 621-632.

Nicol, D. J. & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). “Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice.” Studies in Higher Education (2006), Vol 31(2), 199-218.

To try some more scientific personality tests please visit:

https://openpsychometrics.org/

To discover your magical house at Hogwart’s:

https://www.pottermore.com/explore-the-story/the-sorting-hat

To read more about Freewriting, check this book out of the library:

Elbow, Peter, (1998). Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Library call number: Education Library PE1409.5 .E5 1998 (an older edition is in Koerner).

To bravely wrestle with the cognitive integrationist account of writing as thinking:

Menary, R. (2007). “Writing as thinking.” Language Sciences 29: 621-632.

Comments Off on Sorting Hat Writing

Posted in Teaching

Tagged , ,