Team teaching in the conservatoire: The views of music performance staff and students

Clemens Wöllner; Jane Ginsborg

doi:10.1017/S0265051711000222

Team teaching in the conservatoire: The views of music performance staff and students

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 October 2011

Clemens Wöllner and

Jane Ginsborg

Show author details

Clemens Wöllner*: Affiliation:
Institute of Musicology and Music Education, University of Bremen FB 9, Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 7, 28359 Bremen, Germanywoellner@uni-bremen.de
Jane Ginsborg: Affiliation:
Royal Northern College of Music, 124 Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9RDjane.ginsborg@rncm.ac.uk
*: Corresponding author: Clemens Wöllner

Article contents

Abstract
Introduction
Aims
Three studies: overview and general methods
Study 1: Strings
Study 2: Vocal and Opera Studies
Study 3: Wind, Brass and Percussion
General comparison and discussion
References

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

Team teaching – two or more teachers sharing the training of a group of students – has only recently been implemented in the curricula of many higher music education institutions. This article reports on a survey of 142 music students and their tutors from three departments (the Schools of Strings, Vocal and Opera Studies, and Wind, Brass and Percussion) in a major British conservatoire. Team teaching had been in use for one year in the first department, five years in the second and 30 years in the third. The extent to which respondents valued team teaching was not, however, related to the length of time it had been in use. Key benefits of team teaching were seen as exposure to new ideas and additional feedback. Respondents suggested a variety of improvements to mitigate drawbacks such as perceived differences between tutors' approaches and limited time for individual tuition. Provided tutors and students communicate effectively with each other and negotiate where necessary, this method of teaching and learning is likely to be beneficial for all.

Information

Type: Research Article
Information: British Journal of Music Education , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , November 2011, pp. 301 - 323
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051711000222 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Introduction

The teaching of musical instruments and voice at the tertiary level differs from other forms of higher education in that it involves a great deal of one-to-one tuition. Music performance students learn and develop their skills as individuals, often forming enduring relationships with their instrumental and vocal teachers. This study reports on an innovative method of teaching and learning. Team teaching generally takes the form of a series of classes in which tutors teach a small group of students, all of whom normally receive their individual tuition from a different tutor. We investigated students’ and teachers’ perceptions of this teaching method as it is used in different departments in a conservatoire.

The tradition of teaching music performance on a one-to-one basis goes back a long way. In previous centuries, aspiring virtuosi often lived in their masters’ houses and tried to imitate their musical ideas, techniques and sometimes even aspects of their lives and personalities (cf. Cox, Reference COX and Cox2007; Davidson & Jordan, Reference DAVIDSON, JORDAN and Vallance2007). The strength of the relationship between teacher and student has often been emphasised in the literature; it is characterised retrospectively by many musicians in terms of warmth and closeness (cf. Davidson et al., Reference DAVIDSON, HOWE, MOORE and SLOBODA1998; Lehmann et al., Reference LEHMANN, SLOBODA and WOODY2007). Such relationships are particularly important in the earliest stages of learning to play an instrument. Groups of children who were more successful in acquiring musical skills had generally received individual lessons, as compared with less successful children who had received group lessons (Davidson et al., Reference DAVIDSON, HOWE, MOORE and SLOBODA1998). On the other hand, research has shown that peer learning is equally valuable later on (Davidson et al., Reference DAVIDSON, HOWE, SLOBODA, Hargreaves and North1997). Arguably, even very young pupils learn not only from their teachers in the course of individual lessons but also from their contemporaries during group lessons.

In the context of higher education, one-to-one instrumental lessons (including vocal tuition) provide individual students with continuous support and specific feedback. Conservatoire teachers interviewed by Gaunt (Reference GAUNT2008) revealed high levels of commitment to their students, characterising their roles in their relationships with them as parental (‘guiding, moulding and nurturing’) and/or friendly, ‘collaboratively curious’, or even in terms of a ‘doctor–patient relationship’ (pp. 230–231). One such relationship, described as a form of creative collaboration, is illustrated in a case study undertaken by Barrett and Gromko (Reference BARRETT and GROMKO2007) of a distinguished composer/teacher of composition and his graduate student, also an experienced composer. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that the aspiring music performance or composition student often chooses to apply to a particular institution in order to study with a specific teacher (Presland, Reference PRESLAND2005).

While we acknowledge the value of one-to-one tuition in music, it has a number of potential limitations. First, the teachers interviewed by Gaunt (Reference GAUNT2008) felt that it was important for their students to develop the capacity for autonomous learning and an ‘individual artistic voice’ (p. 240), but these may be inhibited if the teacher is too dominant, and/or the student too dependent. Second, some teachers in Gaunt's study reported experiencing difficulties within the teaching-and-learning relationship that caused a great deal of distress to both parties and which could not be resolved institutionally. Third, it is important that teaching should meet the needs of the profession. Very few music students go on to earn their living primarily as soloists (cf. Gembris & Langner, Reference GEMBRIS and LANGNER2005), and thus to be in a position to impose their own musical ideas on fellow performers; more typically, musicians work with colleagues from a wide range of backgrounds who are likely to hold diverse views on style, interpretation and even technique. Students should thus have the opportunity to be exposed to a variety of approaches, to acquire collaborative skills and to engage in critical dialogue (cf. Bennett & Hannan, Reference BENNETT and HANNAN2008). If students are taught by only one teacher, they may not learn all the skills required of them as professional musicians today. Finally, from a budgetary point of view, group classes are less expensive than one-to-one tuition.

For these reasons, many conservatoires have introduced new methods of learning and teaching. One is the explicit promotion of autonomous learning. Lebler (Reference LEBLER2007) has shown that this approach can enhance the independence, reflexivity, instrumental and social skills of students studying popular music, particularly when learning how to work in a recording studio, and thus prepare them more effectively for the challenges that lie ahead. Another method is group teaching, whereby students can learn not only from different teachers but also from each other. Several studies have been undertaken over the past two decades to explore the interactions between teachers (including music instructors) and groups of students (e.g. Single, Reference SINGLE1990; Goolsby, Reference GOOLSBY1997; Young et al., Reference YOUNG, BURWELL and PICKUP2003; for overviews, see Hallam, Reference HALLAM1998; Price & Byo, Reference PRICE, BYO, Parncutt and McPherson2002). It has been found, for example, that non-verbal communication has a particularly important role in effective group instrumental teaching at college level (Kurkul, Reference KURKUL2007).

Instrumental and vocal classes at conservatoires are often described as ‘group lessons’, in which students obtain feedback from the teacher – and sometimes from their peers – on their playing or singing. While those who listen may learn as much if not more than those who play in these classes, students’ performances can be so well prepared that opportunities for interactions that genuinely involve teaching and learning are limited. The same is true of master classes, given by ‘masters’ who can be performers and/or teachers external or internal to the conservatoire (Creech et al., Reference CREECH, GAUNT, HALLAM and ROBERTSON2009). As well as offering advice to the student performer on interpretation and technique, the teacher is likely to address the audience; this may include members of the public as well as other students. Master classes thus provide a group of students with the opportunity to learn, but once again teaching is likely to be specific to the needs of the individual student performer, or only of general interest to listeners and less related to other students’ needs.

While team teaching was first introduced in higher education more than 40 years ago (cf. Kugler, Reference KUGLER1970), it is a recent innovation in many conservatoires. Definitions vary (Anderson & Speck, Reference ANDERSON and SPECK1998; Eisen, Reference EISEN2000) but in a university context team teaching generally seems to involve the preparation and delivery of a course by two or more members of staff (Davis, Reference DAVIS1995; Robinson & Schaible, Reference ROBINSON and SCHAIBLE1995; Tisdell & Eisen, Reference TISDELL and EISEN2000). One of the earliest evaluations of team teaching is provided by Kugler (Reference KUGLER1970). Three lecturers shared the same course, delivering sessions in turn, and subsequently received high ratings of student satisfaction. Effective team teaching requires staff to take joint responsibility for the course concerned, be willing to learn themselves, and to be prepared to reflect on their relationships with their fellow teachers, since occasional strains seem unavoidable (Davis, Reference DAVIS1995; Tisdell & Eisen, Reference TISDELL and EISEN2000; Leavitt, Reference LEAVITT2006). If all goes well, students have the opportunity to witness ‘professional disagreement’ between lecturers discussing concepts from a range of perspectives and quite possibly expressing contradictory opinions (Anderson & Speck, Reference ANDERSON and SPECK1998, p. 681), thus learning from and indeed contributing to a genuine exchange of ideas. In similar vein, Cowan et al. (Reference COWAN, EWELL and MCCONNELL1995) report on their experiences of team teaching, which they perceive as prolonged conversations, initially between staff during the planning phase and subsequently, during the course itself, with students. This ‘pedagogical model of conversation’ (Cowan et al., Reference COWAN, EWELL and MCCONNELL1995, p. 127), whereby knowledge is not presented in fixed terms but developed and presented, by contrast, as an exchange of concepts and opinions, can widen the perspectives of both students and staff in otherwise more and more specialised academic fields, particularly when lecturers come from different cultural backgrounds or disciplines (cf. Tisdell & Eisen, Reference TISDELL and EISEN2000). Indeed Davis (Reference DAVIS1995) argues that team teaching can promote interdisciplinarity (i.e. synergy between disciplines); it has also been suggested that it helps develop students’ skills in critical thinking and perspective taking (Tisdell & Eisen, Reference TISDELL and EISEN2000; Leavitt, Reference LEAVITT2006).

We observed at the outset that instrumental and vocal teaching methods clearly differ from those of academic subjects at the tertiary level; similarly, the purposes of practical music and academic teaching are different. Approaches that were devised for use in academic teaching may need to be adapted, therefore, if they are to be as effective in instrumental teaching – just as methods that are useful for teaching certain instruments sometimes have to be adapted for teaching others with different characteristics (cf. Gabrielsson, Reference GABRIELSSON and Deutsch1999; Parncutt & McPherson, Reference PARNCUTT and MCPHERSON2002). The concept of interdisciplinarity may not seem immediately relevant to instrumental and vocal teaching, for example, although providing the opportunity for music performance students to make use of different teachers’ perspectives may help them to manage the demands of their future profession. We are not aware, however, of any investigation into the extent to which team teaching methods are generally accepted by students and staff, particularly in the conservatoire where most tuition typically takes place according to the traditional ‘master–apprentice’ model involving one-to-one instrumental or vocal lessons (cf. Lehmann et al., Reference LEHMANN, SLOBODA and WOODY2007). How do students and staff perceive team teaching? How successful is it in achieving the objectives of both?

Aims

The principal aim of the present study was to investigate perceptions of team teaching. In the three departments of the conservatoire where the study was undertaken, different models of team teaching are used according to the departments’ specific needs. The School of Vocal Studies, for example, teaches singers who are primarily soloists; the School of Strings prepares a small number of different kinds of string player for careers as solo, chamber and orchestral musicians, while the School of Wind, Brass and Percussion encompasses a much greater variety of instruments and performance contexts. These models will be described in detail below. What they have in common is that – in addition to their individual one-to-one lessons with their principal study tutor – students take part in group classes taught by a tutor who is not, normally, their own principal study tutor. In order to compare the three models, staff and student respondents were surveyed using a questionnaire that was completed anonymously so that they would not be inhibited from articulating their honest opinions, even when these were critical. They were asked to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of team teaching, and propose improvements, on the basis of their experiences. Given the similarities between the three models, we expected respondents in each department to agree on the strengths and weaknesses of team teaching. In addition, we believed that the longer staff and students had had the opportunity to participate in team teaching, the more likely they would be to accept it as a valuable adjunct to one-to-one tuition. Since it had been offered in the three departments for different lengths of time, we were able to ask if acceptance of team teaching was indeed related to overall experience with it.

Three studies: overview and general methods

Students and members of staff in three departments of a conservatoire were asked for their views on team teaching. The three departments had introduced team teaching at different times. The School of Wind, Brass and Percussion was the first, using a model in which students are taught in groups as well as receiving ‘split tuition’, i.e. individual lessons from more than one principal study tutor (long-term experience of team teaching). The School of Vocal and Opera Studies was the second (intermediate experience) and the School of Strings had introduced team teaching only a year before the present study was undertaken (short-term experience). While the teaching models have features in common, their organisation and content also differ, to some extent, in accordance with the requirements of the students’ different levels of experience, instrument and voice type. Staff and students in the three departments were invited to complete on-line or corresponding paper questionnaires comprising 19 items (rating scales, multiple choice and open-ended questions). Data were collected in the School of Vocal and Opera Studies between January and April 2009, and in the other two departments between April and July 2009. Analyses were made of fully completed questionnaires only; these were provided by a total of 129 students in all years of study, and 13 tutors.

In this article, we focus on respondents' perceptions of the benefits and limitations of team teaching, and their suggestions for improvement. For a detailed analysis of further aspects of the study, see Ginsborg and Wöllner (Reference GINSBORG and WÖLLNER2011). In the present paper, we report answers to the following three main questions:

• What do you perceive as the principal strengths of team teaching?
• Do you perceive any disadvantages/weaknesses in team teaching? If your response was ‘yes’, please say what these are.
• In your opinion, is there any way in which team teaching could be improved by the college? If your answer was ‘yes’, please give up to three suggestions.

Students' responses to open-ended questions were divided into statements and categorised by each author independently (initial agreement ≥84%). Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Each category consists of statements made by at least two respondents; statements reflecting views that were not shared by anyone else were categorised as ‘miscellaneous’. Tutors' open-ended responses are summarised, with quotations where appropriate.

As for our roles as researchers working at the same institution, both confidentiality and independence of research were of central importance. All responses were collected and analysed anonymously, and respondents were asked not to name individuals in any part of the questionnaire, which was particularly vital with regard to students’ potentially critical views. Initial consultations with members of staff inspired the development of some questions. There was no further interaction between the researchers and these or any other members of staff with regard to the content of the survey until data collection and analysis had been completed. The findings were subsequently presented to Heads of Schools, resulting in discussions between tutors in staff meetings and in generally positive feedback about the survey. This study was approved by the institution's Research Ethics Committee.

Study 1: Strings

When the survey was undertaken, team teaching had been part of the curriculum in the School of Strings for only a year. Hours for team teaching were limited, so that each student attended no more than two half-hour classes each term. (The academic year is divided into three terms. Each term is three months long.) In response to the question ‘Please use your experience over the past term to define [team teaching] in your own words’, most students and staff described it as a short additional group lesson with a different teacher.

Students

Respondents. Forty-six undergraduate and postgraduate students (38 female and eight male) from all years of study completed the questionnaire. Their ages ranged from 19 to 25 years, with a mean of 21.59 years (SD = 1.80). They comprised violinists, violists, cellists and double bass players who had been taking lessons for a mean of 12.12 years (SD = 4.27). They reported practising on their own for a mean of 21.40 hours (SD = 6.09) in a typical week, and rehearsing together with others for a mean of 6.58 hours (SD = 5.10). The hours they were allocated for team teaching over the course of the academic year ranged from none (four respondents) to three (one respondent); on average they were allocated 1.21 hours (SD = 0.98), and attended 1.05 hours of team teaching (SD = 1.25). A paired-samples t-test yielded no significant difference between the hours of team teaching that were allocated and attended (p = .20).

Results. Strengths: The 96 statements elicited by the first question, regarding perceived strengths, were grouped into 13 categories, as shown in the left-most column of Table 1. An exemplar statement illustrates each category (right-most column). The middle column shows the number of statements in each category. A single comment could include references to more than one strength falling into the same category; accordingly, where the middle column shows two numbers, the first refers to the number of statements and the second, in square brackets, indicates the number of respondents (if different from the number of statements) who provided them. The strengths mentioned most frequently were the opportunity to gain fresh perspectives and knowledge of other teaching styles.

Table 1

Strengths of team teaching (School of Strings)

¹ Numbers in square brackets indicate the number of respondents, if different from the number of statements (i.e. some respondents provided more than one statement per category).

Weaknesses: Nineteen of the 46 respondents (41.30%) perceived disadvantages/weaknesses in team teaching, providing a total of 39 statements. These statements were grouped into nine categories, as shown in Table 2. The weaknesses mentioned most frequently were not having enough time with the team teacher, and perceived differences between teachers.

Table 2

Perceived weaknesses of team teaching (School of Strings)

Potential improvements to team teaching: Forty-four respondents answered the question regarding potential improvements to team teaching. Out of these, 37 (84.01%) answered the question with ‘yes’, indicating that they saw potential for the institution to make improvements and providing 72 statements. These statements were grouped into ten categories, as shown in Table 3. The potential improvements mentioned most frequently were having more time with team teachers, and better organisation of team teaching classes.

Table 3

Potential improvements to team teaching (School of Strings)

Staff

Respondents. One female and four male members of staff with a mean age of 46.80 years (SD = 9.04) completed the questionnaire. Four had been team teaching for a year and one for six months, but they had delivered a mean of only 3.60 hours (SD = 1.82) of team teaching during the course of the term prior to completing the questionnaire: one had taught four classes in total, one had taught two classes and the remaining three had delivered one class each.

Results. Strengths: Four of the five tutors responded to the invitation to list strengths of team teaching (12 statements in all). They all pointed out the value to students of being taught by different tutors who can offer a ‘second opinion’; one suggested that it can help students ‘develop independence’ and another that it may widen students’ expectations. Two tutors suggested perceived benefits for staff, in that it gives them ‘an insight into how other [tutors'] students are taught’, providing a basis for the ‘development of relationships between tutors’.

Weaknesses: Three tutors indicated that they did not perceive any disadvantages or weaknesses, while two listed weaknesses. According to one, ‘the lessons (1/2 hour) were too short!’ The other ‘would much rather use the time on my own students’.

Potential improvements to team teaching: Four tutors suggested a total of eight improvements. All agreed that not enough time was allocated to team teaching, suggesting ‘more sessions’ and/or ‘lessons [. . .] at least one hour long’. One tutor felt that team teaching had the potential to ‘interfere’ with individual teaching and another argued that the latter is ‘more valuable’; finally it was suggested that students should ‘[choose] how many and with whom [and] whether or not they want a team lesson’.

Summary

While the majority of responses listed strengths based on positive experiences of team teaching, the survey also elicited weaknesses couched in the form of direct criticism or suggestions for improvement that could only have been made with difficulty had the questionnaire not been completed anonymously. Respondents saw the opportunity for students to gain a ‘fresh perspective’ as the main advantage of team teaching. Disadvantages included differences, perceived or actual, between tutors' approaches, constituting a potential source of confusion. Those students and staff who wished to retain team teaching, however, wanted more hours and/or longer sessions.

Study 2: Vocal and Opera Studies

The School of Vocal and Opera Studies had introduced team teaching five years before the present research was undertaken, and considerably more hours were allocated to this activity than in the School of Strings. Students work in small groups with members of staff who are not normally their principal study tutor. The majority of staff and students described team teaching as a technique class. The remainder described it as a ‘[master] class with a different teacher’ focusing on performance, interpretation or repertoire.