Introduction
In Sweden, music is a statutory subject throughout the nine years of compulsory school. This article reports on the first phase of a research project that aims to systematically and critically investigate the ways in which the Swedish curriculum from 2011, with its new assessment and grading regime, influences music teachers’ practice and their students’ musical learning in grades 1–7. In this phase, music teachers were interviewed about changes in their teaching practices in grades 5–7 as well as about their perceptions of the new curricular demands.
The impact of curricular reform on teaching has often been described as slow and sometimes marginal. However, recent evidence from England, the USA and Hong Kong suggests that teaching and assessment can change rapidly, even if not always in intended ways, when it comes under the influence of strong external pressure in the form of, for example, economic incentives, inspections, school choice and the publication of schools’ and pupils’ expressed achievments (Ozga, Reference OZGA2009; Fok et al., Reference FOK, KENNEDY and CHAN2010; Ravitch, Reference RAVITCH2010; Alexander, Reference ALEXANDER2011; Fautley, Reference FAUTLEY, Brophy and Lehmann-Wermser2013). All of these factors were in play in Sweden in 2011 when a new curriculum reform introduced a totally new system for grading. In this new curriculum for compulsory schools (National Agency of Education, 2011) syllabi are organised in three parts: aims for the school subject, including expected abilities to be developed; core content – aspects of music that all pupils should meet and incorporate; and knowledge requirements or achievement criteria. In the aims, the motive for the subject is described, as well as the subject-specific abilities pupils are expected to develop. The core content defines, through nouns, what pupils are to engage with in years 1–3, 4–6 and 7–9 respectively. Most of these definitions are comprehensive, for example ‘musical performance’ and ‘creation of music’, and music is described as consisting of ‘building blocks’. Through working with this content, the pupils are expected to reach the knowledge requirements. These are defined through verbs with adjectives or adverbs as qualifiers for grades E, C and A. The knowledge requirements are based on the ‘extended conception of knowledge’ that has underpinned Swedish curricula since 1994, and which is influenced by pragmatism, sociocultural theory, phenomenographic research, tacit knowledge and the continental concept of Bildung. As compared with Bloom's taxonomy, this view of knowledge abstains from distinctions between cognitive, psychomotor and affective skills, and does not presuppose a hierarchy between different modes of knowing. Now the new knowledge requirements ‘turn Bloom's taxonomy 90 degrees’, and describe a progression in each of Bloom's different levels of knowledge. Hence, a certain amount of analysis, judgement and creativity is required even for a pass grade (E).
According to the new reforms for school year 6, some 15 aspects of music making and musical knowledge should be assessed according to knowledge requirements in the form of, for example, pupils’ abilities to sing rhythmically in tune, and to ‘apply reasoning to their own and others’ music making’. There is a tension between the behaviouristic formulations in the syllabi and the holistic and constructionist extended conception of knowledge which is promoted in the first chapters of the curriculum. While the word knowledge is in all subjects’ aims, the word understanding is ranked second at the end of the aims, and is generally separated from the rest of the aims by the word also. Whilst teachers are expected to base their grading on holistic assessments of their pupils’ expressed musical knowledge, at the same time it is stipulated that a student's achievements should be assessed with regard to all aspects of the knowledge requirement. How, then, has this new music syllabus affected music teachers’ practices?
Aim and research questions
The aim of this study is to discover how music teachers perceive the effects of the new syllabus and grading system in Swedish compulsory schools years 5–7. To this end, the following research questions were formulated:
• How, according to the teachers, has the new syllabus changed their teaching activities, and how do they value these changes?
• What dilemmas and goal-conflicts are present in the teachers’ descriptions?
Earlier research
The relevant modes of research for the current study are curriculum reform research, research concerning assessment and feedback, assessment in aesthetic subjects, and finally assessment in the music subject. Curricula are situated in a dynamic field of tension between varied societal demands and concrete teaching activities. In Sweden a number of curricular reforms have been performed during the 20th and 21st century, their steering documents having been driven and informed by different political agendas and scientific views (Sandberg, Reference SANDBERG2005). Lately, in line with the global shift towards measurement-based assessment, Sweden has been influenced by the curricular tradition of the USA, wherein the teacher's professional judgement is not valued so much as in the European continental didaktik tradition (Johansen, Reference JOHANSEN2003; Sandberg, Reference SANDBERG2005; Hargreaves & Fullan, Reference HARGREAVES and FULLAN2012). The impetus to formulate explicit knowledge requirements are expressive of this tendency. The implementation of new music syllabi in Norway and Sweden have been notoriously slow (Pinar et al., Reference PINAR, REYNOLDS, SLATTERY and TAUBMAN1995, Johansen, Reference JOHANSEN2003; Sandberg, Reference SANDBERG and Lundgren2006). Pinar et al. (Reference PINAR, REYNOLDS, SLATTERY and TAUBMAN1995) states that implementation of educational reforms takes about seven years on average. Meanwhile Sandberg (Reference SANDBERG and Lundgren2006) concludes that Swedish music teachers are less governed by curriculum than other teachers, and choose their own idiosyncratic methods and content. Furthermore, many music teachers abhor grading due to their perceptions of the subject's unique character (Sandberg, Reference SANDBERG1996; Olsson, Reference OLSSON, Hargreaves and North2001).
Newton (Reference NEWTON2007) raises questions about the often proposed dichotomy between formative and summative assessment and suggests that it would be more logical and productive to analyse assessment in three levels according to purpose: judgement, decision or impact. In this study, the impact of a new assessment regime is explored. All forms of assessment influence teachers’ as well as pupils’ work (Linn, Reference LINN2000; Black & Wiliam, Reference BLACK and WILIAM2009; Torrance, Reference TORRANCE2011). Assessment as a pedagogical tool focused on pupils’ continual learning has been studied, among others, by Black and Wiliam (Reference BLACK and WILIAM1998, Reference BLACK and WILIAM2009), Sadler (Reference SADLER1998), Black et al. (Reference BLACK, HARRISON, LEE, MARSHALL and WILIAM2003), Stobart (Reference STOBART2008) and Hattie (Reference HATTIE2009). These studies show that teaching strategies which include assessment and feedback have a strong influence on learning. Clearly formulated knowledge requirements can be used in such response-giving work (Black et al., Reference BLACK, HARRISON, LEE, MARSHALL and WILIAM2003), even though teaching characterised by explicit assessment-based goals can have negative effects (Torrance, Reference TORRANCE2007, Reference TORRANCE2011). Sadler (Reference SADLER2007) notices that syllabuses and goals are often de-constructed in small units, which he claims makes it hard for pupils to develop embodied holistic knowledge. On a similar note, Rose and Countryman (Reference ROSE and COUNTRYMAN2013) describe a prevalent ‘pedagogy of the elements’ which they claim works ‘as a framework of dominance, denying diversity, access, and individual agency’ (p. 45) in Canadian music education.
This is also evidenced in recent research in England. Garnett (Reference GARNETT2013) describes how the English national curriculum, although aiming at understanding, is often transformed into behaviouristic attainment descriptions, be they definitions of concepts as assumed evidence of understanding or specified performance standards. In a meta-analysis of two studies of English music teachers’ assessment practices, Fautley (Reference FAUTLEY, Brophy and Lehmann-Wermser2013) concludes that the demands put on lower secondary music teachers to demonstrate perpetual progress in their pupils’ learning forces them to assess their pupils’ performance against ever more specific and finely grained behaviouristic performance descriptions. Fautley concludes that this assessment-driven teaching inhibits both musical learning and music making in the classroom. This seems to be a far cry from Eisner's (Reference EISNER and Bresler2007) contention that teachers’ aesthetic judgements must aim at the development of artistic qualities in their pupils’ work, and Lindström's (Reference LINDSTRÖM, Jernström and Säljö2004) suggestion that knowledge goals have to be formulated in ways that capture subject-specific competencies.
The aforementioned English experiences are quite different from the professional life of Swedish lower secondary music teachers at the beginning of the 21st century. Georgii-Hemming and Westvall (Reference GEORGII-HEMMING and WESTVALL2010) describe an unclear Swedish music teacher role that is not interested in syllabuses, knowledge requirements or assessment. Consequently, the interpretation of grading criteria varies greatly (Sandberg, Reference SANDBERG1996; Zimmerman Nilsson, Reference ZIMMERMAN NILSSON2009; Zandén, Reference ZANDÉN2010; Ferm Thorgersen, Reference FERM THORGERSEN2011). Only a few years ago, assessment and grading in Swedish secondary music education seemed to be dominated by ideas of musical quality that were neither verbalised nor reflected on (Olsson, Reference OLSSON2010; Zandén, Reference ZANDÉN2010). Enter the Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and the Recreation Centre 2011 (Lgr11).
Method
Semi-structured qualitative interviews were chosen for data collection (Kvale & Brinkmann, Reference KVALE and BRINKMANN2009). Our sample of 10 teachers was selected to find the greatest variations of age, gender, degree of specialisation in music, private and public education (both systems are obliged to follow the same syllabus) and rural versus city areas (see Table 1: Participants’ profiles). Five female (X1–X5) and five male (Y1–Y5) music teachers were interviewed. Their music teaching experience ranged from 7 to 35 years in upper primary and lower secondary schools. The extent of music courses in their teacher education varied from two to eight semesters of full-time music studies. Half of the participants were working in or around the capital of Sweden – Stockholm – which has 2 million inhabitants, two worked in towns with about 100,000 inhabitants in each, two in smaller towns and one in a rural village. The four most common educational backgrounds for music teachers were represented: music specialists from the academies of music, two-subject teachers, generalist teachers with specialisation in music, and teachers who had gained their qualifications through state-funded, part-time studies initiatives. One of the interviewees volunteered in response to a request in a network of 400 music teachers, and the other nine, two of which we had a closer professional relation with, were recruited through our personal networks.
Participants’ profiles
Each face-to-face interview lasted for 60–80 minutes. The questions were designed to elicit descriptions of the music teachers’ teaching, their ideals about music teaching and learning, their experiences of, and views on, the former and present curriculum, their perceptions of personal and professional dilemmas with the new curriculum and, finally, descriptions of how the new curriculum has affected their practice. The interviews were transcribed word by word in Transana, a software in which transcriptions are coupled to media files in a way that lets the researcher work analytically with audio files, using transcriptions more as labels than as data. The 10 hours of recorded interviews were analysed through an inductive, theory-generating content analysis (Finfgeld-Connett, Reference FINFGELD-CONNETT2013) that complied with the principle of ‘meaning condensation’ (Kvale & Brinkmann, Reference KVALE and BRINKMANN2009). Transana provided us with simple techniques for categorising utterances into ‘collections’ according to emerging themes, and for assigning key words to the utterances, which made it possible to examine the data from different perspectives. Only one key word was decided in advance, dilemmas, while the others emerged through the analytical process. We were able to switch between the interview as a whole, each collection as a representation of all the interviewees’ utterances on a specific theme, and all utterances that included the same key word. In this process, the collections of utterances were condensed in order to get a variation of aspects with little attention to how prevalent they were in the data. Then we took part in writing outlines of result descriptions according to a notion of researchers as story-tellers, or ‘narrative creators’ (Kvale & Brinkmann, Reference KVALE and BRINKMANN2009, p. 137). The aim was to make the interviewees’ ‘voices heard’ in ways that completed the function of pure quotations from the interview transcriptions. Finally, the text was compared with the original recordings in order to check for misinterpretations, and some adjustments were made.
Results
The results are organised in two sections. First the teachers’ perceived effects of the 2011 curriculum (Lgr11) are presented, including both positive and negative experiences. In the second section, the focus is on dilemmas and contradictions.
Perceived effects of Lgr11
The analysis resulted in the following seven themes: overall experiences of the syllabus, collegial and individual syllabus work, organisation and increased resources, changed focus and content, communication, documentation and written judgements. The result is presented as a narrative text completed with quotations.
Overall experiences of the syllabus. Our overall impression is that the new syllabus is considered to be an important steering document that is easy to follow, more clear than its predecessor, and something to hold onto in teachers’ daily work: ‘it's more structured than before and easier in every way’ (X2). One teacher even characterised the knowledge demands of the new syllabus as ‘quantitative’ and thus easy to handle. All teachers except for one said that they had a more active relation to the new syllabus than to earlier ones. One of them said that the formulations were always present in his mind. In spite of these positive views on the syllabus, its overall meaning was also described as hard to grasp; and as for the detailed knowledge requirements, the teachers’ views were ambiguous. These criteria were said to be clear and useful in discussions with pupils and in the assessment process, but they were also considered to be hard to understand, both by younger children and by older ones who were striving for higher marks. Finally the syllabus was criticised for being too narrow, thus limiting the teachers’ freedom to choose appropriate methods and relevant content, and, as a consequence, limiting the pupils’ possibilities to attain the syllabus’ overarching goals and acquire deep learning and musical experiences. This is attributed to the need to check and score every pupils’ work against both criteria and content: ‘the joy for the pupils to become absorbed in an instrument . . . and put together bands . . . and create, but no, it is impossible, because we have to make sure that all the pupils have done everything’ (Y2). There is more focus than earlier on measurable attainments, which creates less space and time for creative and experimental teaching and learning. There was also a critique of how the increased demand for documentation steals time from planning.
Individual and collegial syllabus work. With one exception all the teachers stated that this reform has demanded much more individual work with the syllabus than earlier curriculum reforms. Several of the interviewees also testified to an increased collegial collaboration. The teachers have spent much time spelling out the meaning of syllabi together with colleagues in music or in other subjects. There is evidence of this process being strenuous: ‘people have been so unhappy, upset, not understanding anything, and then understanding but not wanting to’ (X1). In some cases, though, there is satisfaction with having reached very precise interpretations: ‘we worked in two dimensions so to speak; what is important for us and what works, and the second dimension is what is written in the syllabus and how can we combine this . . . so we produced a terrific joint planning . . . and now everybody thinks that this is the way it should work’ (Y2). This teacher works on a school with more than one music teacher. Collegial work with music teachers from other schools is never mentioned in the data.
Resources and organisation. Some of the teachers have used the new syllabus as a lever to produce organisational change and get new resources such as smaller groups, two teachers in a class instead of one, more instruments in the classroom or new digital tools. One teacher even reported to having felt threatened by a scenario with many low marks: ‘it [the syllabus] sort of gives us the possibility to assign F [fail] until we get the instruments’ (Y2). Cross-border work is suggested as a way to distribute the teaching and assessment of competencies between the school subjects, the aim of this being to guarantee all pupils the possibility of dealing with all expected content in a less time-consuming way: ‘in religious education they should learn hymns, but we could contribute as well with that’ (X3). However, the possibilities for such interdisciplinary collaboration seem to vary substantially. One teacher said they had all the possibilities in the world, if only they started planning for them. Another teacher said that the possibilities are very limited due to a complex and rigid schedule.
Changed focus–changed teaching. The new curriculum is said to have affected lesson design. Most of the teachers testified that the knowledge requirements are the part of the syllabus that is most in focus for them, sometimes to the detriment of other parts of the syllabus: ‘in reality it is not so much about the content but about assessments, how to assess and grade’ (X1). Although only one of the interviewees opposed having a prescribed central content, its compass being as much a challenge as a problem, s/he said that: ‘we soon realised that if we do all this, we have to cooperate much more between subjects’ (X3). One effect of the central content, according to the teachers, is that the pupils have to do so many prescribed activities that there is little time left for making music, since the focus now is on covering the content: ‘now you test the bass, then the drums, and we tick the boxes’ (X1). According to the knowledge requirements the pupils have to show singing, harmony, melody, bass, and percussion skills. As for learning to play these instruments, one of the teachers said that the emphasis on ensemble playing in the early years makes it impossible to concentrate on the musical handicraft required to establish skills on the basis of which pupils will later be able to play together and perform in a creative and musical way. In the higher grades, on the other hand, there is so much content to cover within the music syllabus that the time for music making becomes too limited. Many teachers expressed stress when it comes to covering the central content. Some of them (only men) underlined that there is too much focus on singing, whilst others said that there is too much focus on playing. Most of them said that digital tools are challenging, both for reasons of a lack of equipment and hands-on experience. On the other hand, the central content is also said to be useful, since specific areas, for example classical music, are mandatory.
Communication in the classroom. The teachers reported an increased focus on goals and grades in their discussions with pupils: ‘the knowledge requirements are good, the children must know and I as the teacher must know [what is required for a ‘pass’]’ (X4), and the syllabus makes it more easy to explain this: ‘then I can really show them, it says that you should do this’ (Y3). One teacher, for example, says that if the pupils know that they are to follow rhythm and pitch, it makes it much easier for them to know what to practice. On the other hand, it is also mentioned that pupils’ interest in grades makes it hard to focus on the actual qualities that are to be developed. The grade, rather than proficiency and knowledge, becomes the goal which is strongly associated with doing. Motivating grades are said to be easier now, thanks to the vocabulary of the knowledge requirements. Some of the interviewees underlined that they now can be ‘tougher’ when it comes to telling the pupils what they have to do. Others are more hesitant when it comes to discussing grades so early as the sixth school year. When it comes to earlier years, it has been questioned whether pupils have the capacity to understand the knowledge requirements at all, especially those with little previous knowledge about music. While classroom discussions about what the pupils are expected to do seems to be relevant, little is mentioned about understanding, and then only in the context of the form of knowing what to do, or the realisation that ‘understanding the chords is not enough – they have to learn to play them’ (X3).
Documentation. An increased focus on documentation is central in the material: ‘you must document to an absurd extent nowadays’ (Y1). Planning as well as lessons and activities arising from them are affected by the perceived need to continually document individual achievements: ‘the more you have to document, the more it affects teaching’ (Y5). The increased documentation is also a means to safeguard against criticism: ‘since I have to vindicate my grading I must have noticed the details’ (X4). The teachers seemed to organise their teaching so that the pupils could show their skills on each instrument, and reflect on their musical experiences. They are required to document their pupils’ progress in these activities by means of schemes, files, pupils’ own logs or video recordings. The teachers searched for different ways of making this documentation easy in the face of the combination of limited time (in total 230 hours of teaching in nine years of mandatory music education), and extensive syllabus demands for planning, assessment and long-term documentation. One teacher reported that although she does not have to grade pupils in years 4 and 5, they might not have time to show all mandatory skills in year 6. Hence there must be detailed documentation of the pupils’ achievements from the very beginning. As a result of the documentation, some of the teachers expressed a high degree of satisfaction with knowing what the pupils can do and what they have to develop further.
Grading and written judgements. In December 2012 Swedish sixth form music teachers graded their pupils’ achievements for the first time in more than 30 years. None of the interviewees said that they were happy with this. One teacher said that it is very easy to get high grades in the sixth school year, another said that it is impossible to grade pupils, whilst some others said that the new syllabus makes it much more easy to connect their classroom work to assessment and grading: ‘I can prove more easily why I have assigned a certain grade . . . ‘you have worked with this central content and showed this level and that level of competence’ (X4). The usefulness of differentiated pass grades in early years is questionable and said to cause stress. As already mentioned, needs for assessment and grading brings forth changes in lesson planning: ‘I will let them work in pairs for months . . . and then I think it will be easier for me to grade them’ (Y3). The teachers expressed frustration with how everything the pupils do has to be evaluated, so that they can show that they master everything in the syllabus to a high degree in order to acquire a high grade. ‘It is not enough to be a good singer, you have to be able to play a lot of instruments at a rather high level as well’ (Y4). The knowledge requirements are used for formative purposes both by teachers and in pupils’ self- and peer assessments. One teacher said that letting the pupils use the vocabulary of the knowledge requirements when giving feedback to their peers had helped him in their final grading. The interviewees are expected to use the vocabulary from the knowledge requirements in the mandatory written judgements they have to deliver each semester: ‘[in each subject] we have to make a written report of at least one page for each pupil in which we have to detail exactly in what ways they have fulfilled the goals’ (X1). The content and form of this feedback is strictly regulated and some teachers deplore that they cannot be personal in the reports: ‘These judgements are 40% of the teachers’ millstone’ (Y1).
Expressed dilemmas
Here the teachers’ explicitly expressed dilemmas are thematised and discussed.
Frame-factor connected dilemmas. Frame factors are often beyond teachers’ control. One teacher said that he had successfully fought for the necessary prerequisites, but for most of the teachers equipment and room space were said to be in short supply:
I have always wanted to have more keyboards but there is no money . . . I found a group-room in the basement and we brought some instruments but then they realised it was an air-raid shelter and we weren't allowed to be there. (Y4)
Big classes and little time added to this problem.
Although some teachers said that interdisciplinary work is needed if the core content is to be covered, this is often hampered by organisational constraints. The schedule can make it difficult to give the pupils the continuity that they need to improve their musical skills and to experience progression in their work. For those who work in years 6–9 schools, classes can be very heterogeneous in year 6 since the pupils’ earlier music education has been of very different quality. This leaves the teacher with the dilemma of how to assess all children fairly in four months while at the same time arranging teaching that can meet all pupils’ needs and compensate for a lack of earlier education. One teacher who worked in an under-privileged district with much unemployment and criminality faced obvious dilemmas when she found herself lowering children's already fragile self-confidence by following the strict grading regime. With the former curriculum, it was easier for her to treat every step forward as a victory for the child.
One of the identified frame factors was the teacher's own lack of competence to deliver the syllabus. There is a clear gender difference in this respect. Whilst the men expressed a lack of confidence in their vocal knowledge and skills, the women were less at ease with guitar, bass and drums. Most of the teachers lacked confidence with making music with computers. Moreover, the changes brought fourth by the new curriculum had affected some of the teachers’ beliefs in their own professional competence: ‘I know that rumour has it that I am a good teacher but I don't feel good any longer. I’m fumbling and I feel unstructured . . . I’ve lost my compass’ (X5). On several instances in the interviews, the teachers deplored a growing distrust in their professional judgement not only from legislators and governing bodies but also from parents, which might contribute to lowering professional confidence.
Dilemmas connected to the syllabus. The majority of the teachers seemed to find the new syllabus musically meaningful even though some of them considered the core content and knowledge demands to be in conflict with their personal views on meaningful music education. Dilemmas appeared when the teachers found themselves struggling with fulfilling the three musts in the curriculum: to cover the core content; to arrange learning situations for all aspects of the knowledge requirements; and to safeguard against complaints and prepare for grading by producing extensive documentation. They dealt with this in different ways but none of them were satisfied with their own solution. This was experienced to be an intrinsic problem within the curriculum. The demand for documentation is said to create two dilemmas, firstly by leaving less time for lesson planning, and secondly, as already mentioned, by pushing teachers to design their teaching for optimal documentation rather than for optimal learning, thereby giving less room for musical experiences and deeper learning: ‘Earlier I worked proactively: how can we make this sound better . . . I listened to the totality. Today I feel I have to note: Stina is playing the keyboard, check, Charles is playing the drums, check’ (X4). In spite of this documentation, new dilemmas appeared when parents’ and pupils’ expectations and uninformed interpretations of the allegedly clear and unambiguous steering documents challenged the music teachers’ professional understanding of the syllabus.
Dilemmas connected with assessment and grading. Demands for transparency in assessment and grading seem to have lowered trust in teachers’ judgements:
Formerly parents trusted your judgement but now you have to show beforehand what and how you grade, and the results are published on Schoolsoft [a software for administration and communication] . . . and there is a form for making complaints on the home page. (X5)
One dilemma is the perceived exacting demands for an A grade as compared with the pupils’ and parents expectations of high grades, whilst another is the demand that all aspects must be reached to the defined level in order for the child to get an E, C or A. The strict grading regime is said to have counter-productive effects for conscientious and diligent pupils who are reported to adapt by ‘stopping working with that which they find joyful’ (X5), and in some cases quit their extra-curricular music making in order to practice those aspects of the knowledge requirements that they have not yet mastered. The focus on assessment of individual achievements is described as conflicting with music making as a communal, communicative enterprise, whilst testing and assessing the individual is said to threaten ‘creativity and musical experience and the artistic vein, making everything barren in the end . . . instead of joy there is burden and anxiety’ (X1). Finally, four dilemmas are connected to grading. As the pupils approached their final exam in compulsory school, their interest was said to be turned more and more away from musical qualities and, as stated earlier, to focus increasingly on grading.
– When they are practising and we enter the room they stop and don't want to show: ‘we’re not ready yet’, and that's annoying (X5)
– Yes, now one has to work hard to make them understand that one wants to help them improve, so that they won't get a final grade from what I hear when I enter the room. (Y5)
This is said to make meaningful teaching more difficult, and does not work with younger children. Two other dilemmas appear. Firstly, the children are not considered to be mature enough to differentiate between who they are and what they can do. When grading did not start until year 8 and there were no explicit targets for years 3 and 6, it was possible to let the children learn and mature at their own pace. Now some interviewees feared that low grades at an early age will have damaging effects not only on the children's musical development but also on their self-esteem. Secondly, the knowledge demands are said to be very hard to grasp for younger children and for those of low musical proficiency. One teacher said that this problem is aggravated by the confusing factor that pupils’ achievements and knowledge are not assessed in relation to what they are dealing with – the core content – but in relation to some seemingly transcendant competencies. Finally, the perceived demand for thorough documentation, combined with the dense syllabus and short teaching time, gives less time for creativity and joint music making.
Discussion
The results present a number of overarching dilemmas that these 10 music teachers had experienced during their first 18 months’ work with the new curriculum:
• The new demands versus their personal musical and pedagogical ideals.
• The syllabus as a guide for teaching and communication versus dwindling professional autonomy.
• Increasing focus on performativity versus decreasing focus on learning processes, reflection and understanding.
• Holistic views and intentions versus a more narrow view of musical knowledge as skills and facts.
• Teaching for documentation versus teaching for learning.
Johansen (Reference JOHANSEN2003) concludes from a Norwegian perspective that music teachers seldom engage in implementing curricula but build their work on experience and routine. However, the 10 teachers in this study seemed to be engaged in implementation work to a high degree. They saw challenges and problems, but also possibilities when it comes to new and old ways of teaching and promoting musical learning. They were struggling with how to hold onto their ideals while teaching, documenting and assessing according to the new demands. This harmonises well with the English music teachers’ experiences in Fautley's (Reference FAUTLEY, Brophy and Lehmann-Wermser2013) study, as does the strong emphasis on doing and the idea of knowledge as evidenced behaviour which is recorded in his, as well as in Garnett's (Reference GARNETT2013) study. But it is somewhat surprising, given the tradition of Swedish pedagogical discourse, to emphasise knowledge as a totality of cognitive, psychomotor and affective aspects, with equal importance given to facts, understanding, skills and knowledge by acquaintance through enculturation. As evidenced from these 10 teachers, curriculum reform can be rapid, but more research is needed before we can talk about a paradigm shift within Swedish music education. Our next step in this research project is therefore to conduct a survey based on these findings.
The introductory text in the syllabus stresses music making as a mostly communal pursuit, and emphasises musical sensitivity, creativity and expressivity. This is in line with the interviewees’ ideals, many of whom expressed frustration about not being able to design their teaching according to these conceptions of musical and didactic quality. Instead, the detailed knowledge requirements seem to propagate a de-constructive approach to musical knowledge (cf. Ferm Thorgersen & Leijonhufvud, Reference FERM THORGERSEN, LEIJONHUFVUD, Pio and Varkøy2014). This can be compared with Sadler's (Reference SADLER2007), Torrance's (Reference TORRANCE2007), Fautley's (Reference FAUTLEY, Brophy and Lehmann-Wermser2013) and Garnett's (Reference GARNETT2013) similar findings as well as to Rose and Countryman's (Reference ROSE and COUNTRYMAN2013) description of a ‘pedagogy of the elements’. If the central content and knowledge requirements are viewed as building blocks that can be documented and verified on an excel sheet, pupils’ holistic musical learning may be forgotten as well as the affective and experiential aspects of music and music making. However, it is probably a futile enterprise to try to reach and acknowledge excellence through an excel-lens. Finally, the time-consuming, reflective, engaged documentation that is dominating the results is worth attention. What function does it fulfil for teachers and how does it affect pupils’ learning? Is the documentation per se the main impetus for how teachers organise their teaching? Are Swedish music teachers being forced into music teaching for documentation rather than for teaching musical learning? These are some of the issues that will be addressed in the ensuing phases of the research project.
Implementation seems to have affected teaching already a year after the syllabus was introduced, which challenges the results of research by Kroksmark (Reference KROKSMARK2006) and Johansen (Reference JOHANSEN2003), as well as that by Georgii-Hemming and Westvall (Reference GEORGII-HEMMING and WESTVALL2010) which testifies to teachers’ and especially music teachers’ disinterest in steering documents. Our interviewees seem to have adapted their work to the new syllabus, and it is obvious that Lgr11 offers them both possibilities and challenges. The syllabus is said to be used as a tool for getting relevant resources, as a guide for teaching, and as a document that is useful in communication with pupils and parents. This communication also has an unexpected downside since it seems to be propelled by and promotes distrust in music teachers’ professional judgement among school leaders and parents. Some of the teachers reported feeling less competent and professional in their teacher role after the reform, despite several years of teaching experience, which is precisely the same as the teachers in Fautley's (Reference FAUTLEY, Brophy and Lehmann-Wermser2013) study who perceived that their professional judgement of pupils’ musical ability is repeatedly questioned.
Olle Zandén is a Senior Lecturer in music education at Linnæus University, Sweden. He earned his master's and doctor's degrees in music education at the University of Gothenburg. His research interests are orbiting around the music classroom and comprise work on teachers and pupils’ conceptions of musical quality, on assessment in music, on music teacher professionalisation, and on using the internet as didactical resources.
Cecilia Ferm Thorgersen is a Full Professor in music education at Luleå University of Technology Sweden, where she graduated in 2004 with a thesis about teaching and learning interaction in music classrooms. Her research focuses upon music teacher education quality, communication and assessment in the music classroom, special needs in music education and philosophy of music education. She has presented her work internationally at several conferences and in well-known journals.
