James A. Grymes

---

Introduction

As the film opens, the young guitarist takes a seat onstage before the eminent maestro, and begins to play Mallorca by Albéniz. After less than a minute, the teacher stops him, brandishing the score. “One moment, one moment. You give me this. It is my transcription. But you modify all the fingerings. Why?” The student responds with deference, but also with self-assurance: “Just decisions I made.” The teacher presses him: “Do you think it is better, what you have found?” The student demurs to say his fingerings are better. “Then, why do you play it?” The student attempts to find a middle ground between deprecating the teacher’s judgment and renouncing his own: “I think it is good.” The teacher growls with disapproval, shaking his head. The audience laughs, nervously. “Continue,” says the teacher. “I don’t mind. That is for you.”

But the teacher does mind. He stops the student once more to criticize him for failing to execute the portamentos that are part of the teacher’s version. He instructs him again to continue, but interrupts him after a moment, criticizing him more and more aggressively. Then he ends the lesson: “Well, listen. If you want to play my transcription, play my transcription. Otherwise, go to another person who has made a better transcription than I. Fuera [out].”¹Michael Chapdelaine, “Segovia Chapdelaine Master Class,” uploaded June 11, 2007, https://youtu.be/wiAbqfaYGwk.

The young guitarist is Michael Chapdelaine, the year is 1986, and the scene is a masterclass at the University of Southern California. The teacher is Andres Segovia.

The film continues with Chapdelaine being interviewed later. “It’s too unbelievable, the way he treated me,” he says. But he is not criticizing Segovia for throwing him out of the class. He is praising him. “He finds a schmuck like me, and he knew exactly what to do.” Challenged by the interviewer on this point, he doubles down in defense of Segovia: “There is no other way that what I ended up getting out of this class, I would have gotten, unless he had handled it the way that he did.” Chapdelaine speaks of the misplaced confidence with which he approached the masterclass, and of how, in the end, “I was finally broken down to the point that he needed, in order to get through.”²Chapdelaine, “Segovia Chapdelaine Master Class.”

Chapdelaine’s masterclass lesson with Segovia is legendary among guitarists. Watching the film of the class, and Chapdelaine’s interview afterward, we can observe three distinct processes. First, in playing Mallorca, but not trying to play it the way Segovia played it, Chapdelaine attempts to express a creative voice of his own. This is what we expect artists to do. Second, Segovia experiences Chapdelaine’s performance as a denigration of his own, authoritative version. He puts a stop immediately to what is, for him, the student’s disrespectful impertinence. Third – and most importantly – we see Chapdelaine internalizing Segovia’s repression. With the experience of his public rejection still fresh and surely painful, he insists emphatically to the interviewer that he had deserved it; that he, as a student, had no business altering the master’s fingerings or bringing his own ideas to his interpretation of the piece. He almost seems to be trying to convince himself.

Today, decades after Segovia’s death, his former students are not always so sanguine about his teaching methods. John Williams, perhaps his greatest protégé, has expressed his misgivings to his biographer, William Starling. In Williams’s view, according to Starling, “the demand by the maestro that his students copy his every inflection stifled creativity and undermined any sense of personal ownership of a piece. It was as if Segovia had decided and ordained that there was but one valid transcription, one interpretation and one fingering of anything in the repertoire and they were his own.”³William Starling, Strings Attached: The Life and Music of John Williams (London: Robson Press, 2012), chapter 2, location 575, Kindle.

Andres Segovia was not a uniquely oppressive teacher. He was operating within a tradition and a time-honored culture of music teaching and learning based on replication of skills and transfer of knowledge from teacher to student. This essay is not about Segovia. But it is about a current of authoritarianism that runs through the teaching of music, especially in the performance studio; about the self-reinforcing and self-reproducing nature of that authoritarianism; and about the effect it has on students’ willingness to question what they are told and to form their own ideas and opinions, especially in the musicology classroom. While the influence of this oppressive culture on the study of performance is problematic enough in itself, the primary concern of this essay is the influence it has on the study of music as an academic discipline. In the musicology classroom, critical-analytical discourse is prized and necessary. Are students equipped for this discourse by their experience in the studio, or does the studio teach them a set of values that prepares them poorly for scholarly inquiry?

I begin by situating the traditional student-teacher relationship in music within the larger tradition of craft apprenticeship, which includes both pedagogical limitations and deeply-ingrained imbalances of psychological power, before exploring how this relationship lends itself to the creation of fixed, or “canonized,” ideas about the nature of music as a field of study. Specifically, I draw on traditions in studio instruction and examine their oppressive consequences in the academic classroom. I then explore a number of different pedagogical currents that are potential elements of a liberatory approach to teaching music scholarship. These include critical and feminist pedagogies, open and OER-enabled pedagogy, and cognitive apprenticeship. Finally, I will offer examples of attempts to implement these ideas in an effort to empower students as creators of knowledge, rather than mere replicators of knowledge, in the musicology classroom. My intention is to problematize the approach to learning that many music students bring with them to the classroom, and propose a series of ideas and concrete practices that I believe can help students experience themselves as creators of knowledge and real participants in the scholarly conversation.

I wish to acknowledge the generous contributions of Dr. Juli Parrish, Director of the University of Denver Writing Center, with whom I have collaborated in many of the practices I describe, who contributed a number of ideas to the following discussion, and who was generous with thoughtful advice and feedback in the preparation of this essay.

 

Apprenticeship as a Learning Model in the Academy

As an institution, apprenticeship grew out of the medieval guild system, where it was important for training new craftsmen but also played an exclusionary, gate-keeping economic role. Though often romanticized, it is associated with a strictly authoritarian model of knowledge transmission, along with considerable economic exploitation. Labor economists have traditionally grouped apprenticeship with slavery, indentured servitude, and other forms of “unfree labor.”⁴Robert J. Steinfeld and Stanley L. Engerman, “Labor – Free or Coerced? A Historical Reassessment of Differences and Similarities,” in Free and Unfree Labor: The Debate Continues, eds. Tom Brass and Marcel van der Linden (Bern: Peter Lang, 1997), 107. As late as the fifteenth century, guild rules allowed one master to sell an apprentice to another, even against their will, though the practice was tightly regulated in order to prevent any one master from accumulating too many apprentices and thus acquiring a competitive advantage over other masters.⁵O. Jocelyn Dunlop, English Apprenticeship & Child Labour: A History (New York: MacMillan, 1912), 57–8; see in addition Madonna J. Hettinger, “Defining the Servant: Legal and Extra-Legal Terms of Employment in Fifteenth-Century England,” in The Work of Work: Servitude, Slavery, and Labor in Medieval England, ed. Allen J. Frantzen and Douglas Moffat (Glasgow: Cruithne Press, 1994), 218, and David W. Galenson, White Servitude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 9. Barbara Tuchman also points out that medieval French commercial law prohibited the employment of extra apprentices as an unfair practice along with working by artificial light, selling below a fixed price, or any technical innovation. See Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century (New York: Random House, 1978), 37.

The apprenticeship model of learning later found its way into the academy to varying degrees, as professions that had once depended on apprenticeship-style training adopted an academic model as an essential part of professional preparation. In medicine, a particularly oppressive remnant of apprenticeship lingers in the residency stage of graduate training; resident physicians typically have no choice but to work under the most difficult conditions, consisting of both impossibly long hours and routine humiliation and abuse.⁶Robert N. Wilkey, “The Non-Negotiable Employment Contract: Diagnosing the Employment Rights of Medical Residents,” Creighton Law Review 44 (2011): 706, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/creigh44&i=711. The struggle to reform these practices is still ongoing even in the twenty-first century.

William Sullivan’s Work and Integrity draws on the work of the Carnegie Foundation’s Preparation for the Professions Program to frame an extensive discussion of apprenticeship in professional training for a variety of fields.⁷William M. Sullivan, Work and Integrity: The Crisis and Promise of Professionalism in America, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 14, 26, 53, 195–97, 203–215. Sullivan examines the historical evolution of professional training from a strictly apprenticeship-based model to an academic training that retained aspects of apprenticeship. In Sullivan’s view, the elevation of professional training to the academy is a mixed blessing, as well as an incompletely achieved project.⁸Sullivan, 195–205. Its incompleteness is shown by professional schools as “hybrid, bridge institutions with one foot in the academy, so to speak, and one in the world of practitioners.”⁹Sullivan, 25. The mixed blessing he sees in the inherent danger of a “culture of critical discourse” to a professional identity with a strong ethical component.¹⁰Sullivan, 216–7. For Sullivan, the apprenticeship tradition is an important socializing influence that works in tacit and subliminal ways to instill ideas about professional identity.¹¹Sullivan, 209–10. Sheldon Rothblatt agrees, observing that in many cases, “the evolution of higher education has meant the displacement of older socialization processes derived from guilds.”¹²Sheldon Rothblatt, “How ‘Professional’ Are the Professions?” Comparative Studies in Society and History 37, no. 1 (January 1995): 195, https://www.jstor.org/stable/179383. In music, however, this displacement is less advanced, as the training regimen is less academicized. As Kim Burwell observes, “musical performance retains a craft orientation in being evaluated by its product, whereas the professions, having become more standardized in their approach to training, are evaluated by their methodology.”¹³Kim Burwell, “Apprenticeship in Music: A Contextual Study for Instrumental Teaching and Learning,” International Journal of Music Education 31, no. 3 (August 2012): 278, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0255761411434501. Thus, traditional training approaches have greater hold in music than in other professional disciplines.

 

Apprenticeship as a Learning Model in Higher Music Education

Music students at the post-secondary level generally have long experience with practical music lessons before they enter the musicology classroom, and they naturally arrive conditioned to the apprentice model of teaching they have learned to expect in the performance studio. Scholars of the teaching and learning of music at the post-secondary level agree that the master-apprentice model of skill acquisition is the dominant approach to teaching of music performance in conservatories and in college and university music programs. Ryan Daniel and Kelly Parkes have observed that teaching in the applied studio is based on the master-apprentice relationship, and point out that this teaching model rests on a centuries-long tradition.¹⁴Ryan Daniel and Kelly A. Parkes, “Music Instrument Teachers in Higher Education: An Investigation of the Key Influences on How They Teach in the Studio,” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 29, no. 1 (2017): 33, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1136001.pdf. Harald Jørgensen’s inquiry into higher instrumental education also identifies the master-apprenticeship relationship as the historical model in instrumental instruction.¹⁵Harald Jørgensen, “Student Learning in Higher Instrumental Education: Who Is Responsible,” British Journal of Music Education 17, no. 1 (March 2000): 68, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000164. Burwell notes “the continuing emphasis on the master-apprentice dyad, found in both conservatories and university music departments,” and recognizes this as characteristic not only within institutions, but in other sites of music learning as well.¹⁶Burwell, “Apprenticeship in Music,” 278.

One way of gauging the ubiquity of this model of learning in music is to note how often it goes unstated in the literature of music teaching and learning, its paradigmatic dominance unquestioned. Eeva Kaisa Hyry-Beihammer presupposes the suitability of the master-apprentice relationship as the guiding metaphor in her case study of the teaching of the pianist Matti Raekallio.¹⁷Eeva Kaisa Hyry-Beihammer, “Master-Apprentice Relation in Music Teaching: From a Secret Garden to a Transparent Modelling,” Nordic Research in Music Education Yearbook 12 (2010): 161–5, https://nmh.brage.unit.no/nmh-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/172285/Hyry-Beihammer_2010.pdf. Lotte Latukefu and Irina Verenikina also use the master-apprentice model as an assumed paradigm for studio instruction in music.¹⁸Lotte Latukefu and Irina Verenikina, “Expanding the Master-Apprentice Model: Tool for Orchestrating Collaboration as a Path to Self-Directed Learning for Singing Students,” in Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education, ed. Helena Gaunt and Heidi Westerlund (Surrey: Ashgate, 2013), 101–104. In her case study of guitar instruction, Burwell uses the terms “studio-based learning” and “studio apprenticeship” interchangeably to describe the applied lesson environment.¹⁹Kim Burwell, “Dissonance in the Studio: An Exploration of Tensions with the Apprenticeship Setting in Higher Education Music,” International Journal of Music Education 34, no. 4 (November 2016): 499–500, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0255761415574124.

 

Oppressive Consequences of the Apprenticeship Model in Music

The long and contested history of apprenticeship has problematic consequences whenever the model is evoked, consciously or unconsciously, in the teaching studio. One of these consequences is a tendency to emphasize teaching and learning by imitation, with all the pedagogical limitations that implies. Jørgensen describes the normative model of apprenticeship as one where the student learns by imitating the master, and finds evidence that musicians’ apprenticeship-style training may not equip them for autonomous musical value formation.²⁰Jørgensen, “Student Learning in Higher Instrumental Education,” 70. Hyry-Beihammer notes that while apprenticeship is sometimes romanticized for the supposed intimacy of the master-apprentice relationship, it is as often criticized for being authority-based and for promoting learning by imitation.²¹Hyry-Beihammer, “Master-Apprentice Relation in Music Teaching,” 161n1. Klaus Nielsen acknowledges that imitation predominates over cognition in apprenticeship, and while he challenges the negative connotations of imitation by observing that it is subject to some flexibility, he concedes that the question of how learning by imitation allows for innovation is only partially answered.²²Klaus Nielsen, “Apprenticeship at the Academy of Music,” International Journal of Education & the Arts 7, no. 4 (June 17, 2006): 8–9, 13, http://www.ijea.org/v7n4/v7n4.pdf. A model of master-apprentice teaching where imitation is the only element is vividly portrayed by Latukefu and Verenikina, in a testimonial of a student’s experience: “My teacher would stop me in lessons and sing a phrase back to me instructing me to copy him. I would try to imitate his phrasing, dynamics and vocal production. Often he would get impatient, tell me to sit down and then proceed to sing song after song to me.”²³Latukefu and Verenikina, “Expanding the Master-Apprentice Model,” 103. It is not hard to hear in these words an echo of “the demand by the maestro that his students copy his every inflection,” the injunction that Chapdelaine failed to observe before Segovia.

In addition to its questionable pedagogical benefits, the paternalistic history of apprenticeship fosters an oppressive and authoritarian control over the learner. Latukefu and Verenekina’s description of a voice student’s experience shows the teacher taking every opportunity to denigrate the student by giving himself credit for the student’s achievements, and striving to magnify his authority by instructing the student to disregard any source of information other than his own teaching.²⁴Latukefu and Verenikina, 103.. Angeliki Triantafyllaki’s study also emphasizes the teacher’s demand that the student renounce any outside pedagogical loyalty and invest themselves completely in the unique authority of their teacher.²⁵Angeliki Tryantafyllaki, “‘Workplace Landscapes’ and the Construction of Performance Teachers’ Identity: The Case of Advanced Music Training Institutions in Greece,” British Journal of Music Education 27, no. 2 (July 2010): 194, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051710000082.

The culture of inequality nurtured by apprenticeship also extends beyond the studio into other sites within the music academy. Marian Long, Andrea Creech, Helena Gaunt, and Susan Hallam find that many students experience master classes as “unfriendly and intimidating” with a high risk of public humiliation, precisely because of the inequality between teacher and students not only in expertise, but in prestige and power.²⁶Marian Long, Andrea Creech, Helena Gaunt, and Susan Hallam, “Conservatoire Student’s Experiences and Perceptions of Instrument-Specific Master Classes,” Music Education Research 16, no. 2 (2014): 189–90, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14613808.2013.859659. Patricia O’Toole’s analysis of singing in a choral ensemble notes the elevated status of the conductor over the choristers, in terms of selection of repertoire, dictation of interpretive choices, allocation of rehearsal time, appropriation of credit for a successful performance, and even stage geography.²⁷Patricia O’Toole, “I Sing in a Choir But I Have No Voice,” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 2–8, http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v6n1/visions/O%27Toole%20I%20Sing%20In%20A%20Choir.pdf. Roberta Lamb has written of the choir or orchestra before a conductor as the model dynamic that students and teachers together are trained to expect and recreate in the classroom, as a result of “thorough indoctrination into musical culture.”²⁸Roberta Lamb, “Discords: Feminist Pedagogy in Music Education,” Theory into Practice 35, no. 2 (Spring 1996): 128, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1476798.

This inequality is deeply internalized by students. Burwell, acknowledging the asymmetrical power relationships attendant on apprenticeship in music and their potential for abuse, notes that students often value such a power imbalance.²⁹Burwell, “Apprenticeship in Music,” 283. Jørgensen notes that not all students want freedom and autonomy in their learning.³⁰Jørgensen, “Student Learning in Higher Instrumental Education,” 70–1. Ingrid Maria Hanken’s study of student evaluation of studio teachers focuses on this imbalance, and emphasizes how often it is accepted as necessary by both parties.³¹Ingrid Maria Hanken, “Student Evaluation of Teaching from the Actors’ Perspective,” Quality in Higher Education 17, no. 2 (2011): 249, https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.582797. Kristin Kjølberg’s exploration of peer-learning in music finds that music students can experience extreme discomfort in exercising an autonomy to which they are unaccustomed.³²Kristin Kjølberg, Peer Learning in a Group of Voice Students, Learning Together: Trialling Group Tuition as a Supplement to One-on-One Principal Instrument Tuition, ed. Ingrid Maria Hanken, vol. 3 (Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Music Research Publications, 2015), 5.

The power imbalance that goes with the apprentice relationship contributes to an authoritarian culture that also facilitates another, more overtly violent kind of oppression. Ashley Fetters, J. Clara Chan, and Nicholas Wu have documented how the culture of the music academy facilitates sexual harassment of students. Power structures in music institutions are skewed in favor of prestige members; speaking up about harassment under these conditions can incur a heavy career price.³³Ashley Fetters, J. Clara Chan, and Nicholas Wu, “Classical Music Has a ‘God Status’ Problem,” Atlantic Web Edition, January 31, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2020/01/conservatories-sexual-harassment-abuse/604351/. Moreover, this problem like others operates not only within the music academy but is carried over into the professional environment. The examples of James Levine and Placido Domingo confirm the corrosive effects of status inequality in music outside the academy as well as within it.

 

The Apprenticeship Model in Music: Development of a Critical Posture

Optimal outcomes in the musicology classroom depend in large measure on students learning to adopt a posture of inquiry. However, the culture of apprenticeship has a chilling effect on students’ development of capacity related to critical questioning and analysis. Hanken quotes both students and teachers to demonstrate how the master-apprentice tradition actively discourages questioning what the teacher tells a student. In one student’s words, “putting up too much resistance against the teacher or the type of system he has just doesn’t work, especially in the type of teaching tradition that we have. I think you have to decide to go along with him entirely, or otherwise you have to find yourself another teacher.”³⁴Hanken, “Student Evaluation of Teaching from the Actors’ Perspective,” 249. A teacher’s words express the uncritical, quasi-religious “subjection” he thinks is necessary on the part of the student: “It is a question of faith, to subject oneself to teaching. It is a question of believing in it.”³⁵Hanken, 249. Another teacher, reflecting on their own experience as a student, similarly describes the necessity of discarding a critical attitude: “I had to make a choice: either I was suspicious and distrustful, or I just had to ‘swallow’ what he came with. And then, in a way, you have put behind you that dispassionate and critical attitude. You have to have faith in the person and trust that this will work out.” Burwell’s case study of studio teaching positions a developed ability for critical thought in the student as a clear stressor within the master-apprentice relationship. In her words, such an ability “would seem to be exactly what an institution of higher education would hope for, in its students. In the rather unique setting of studio apprenticeship, however, it gives rise to a paradox: that the development of critical or evaluative thinking would seem to conflict with the trust and authority essential to success.”³⁶Burwell, “Dissonance in the Studio,” 508. Lamb’s account of her struggles to implement a feminist pedagogy shows that this resistance to questioning operates on teachers, too: she acknowledges that the way she is trained to make and to teach music causes her to question whether her ideas about interrogating musical ideologies in the classroom actually make her less of a musician.³⁷Lamb, “Discords: Feminist Pedagogy in Music Education,” 125.

Such resistance to a questioning attitude in the musicology classroom lends itself to fixed, almost habitual, ideas about music, which are often retained as musicians transition from their student careers to their professional careers. This is seen in the rigidity of canonized knowledge that students encounter in their studies. Canonic facts emerge when debate about them is closed. Once canonized, they embody truth and are questioned only with the greatest difficulty. Such facts in musicology – that Bach was conservative, that Beethoven was progressive, that a fugue is intellectual, that blues is not – become so established that they are rarely stated; their non-statement makes them even harder to challenge, especially when music students have already suppressed a critical attitude as harmful to their learning. These received truths about music are transmitted in a number of ways, not least by the texts students are assigned to study, which according to one critical perspective, “fail to promote critical thinking, open up interdisciplinary considerations, or engage in the ideological tensions and historiographic/methodological issues central to a liberal arts education.”³⁸“OAM Mission,” Open Access Musicology, accessed October 31, 2020, https://openaccessmusicology.wordpress.com/oam-mission.

Canonic facts about music can easily outlive their time. O’Toole, among others, notes that discourse concerning musical quality is controlled by men and serves masculine culture. Although feminist musicologists have created an alternative canon of compositions by women, dominant discourse represents these works as inferior and “naive.”³⁹O’Toole, “I Sing in a Choir But I Have No Voice,” 5–6. More recently, Philip Ewell has pointed out that music-analytical discourse embodies unspoken assumptions about the value of certain types of structure over others that that tend to reinforce anachronistic racial hierarchies.⁴⁰Philip Ewell, “Music Theory and the White Racial Frame,” Music Theory Online 26, no. 2 (September 2020), https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.20.26.2/mto.20.26.2.ewell.html.

This approach to understanding musical culture deadens any spirit of inquiry, reinforcing instead what Matti Huttunen calls “a stiff set of values which, instead of encouraging innovation, tend to transform the discipline into an apologia for Western musical culture.”⁴¹Matti Huttunen, “The ‘Canon’ of Music History: Historical and Critical Aspects,” in Selected Proceedings: The Maynooth International Musicological Conference, 1995 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1996), 110. Daniel Leech-Wilkinson identifies the outcome of this kind of training as the same internalized oppression that we see operating in Chapdelaine’s interview. He describes the artistic culture thus produced as a musical “police state,” where performers exist as “slaves to a fantasy of the omnipotent composer.”⁴²Daniel Leech-Wilkinson, “Classical Music as Enforced Utopia,” Arts & Humanities in Higher Education 15, no. 3–4 (July–October 2016): 330–2, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474022216647706. As Huttunen reminds us, however, the only real authority behind canonic fact is that of tradition.⁴³Matti Huttunen, “The Historical Justification of Music,” Philosophy of Music Education Review 16, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 14, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40327287.

With the master-apprentice model ubiquitous in musical studio instruction, and students in the music academy likely to have been shaped by it in their previous educational experience, this much is clear: for all its practical effectiveness and staying power, there are constraints and assumptions associated with it that can influence academic outcomes in the musicology classroom in less-than-ideal ways. Students brought up in this tradition may have little understanding that they have agency in influencing the agenda and methods of their own education. Their internalization of oppressive educational experiences thus impairs their ability to question what they are being taught, how they are being taught, and to what end. They are likely to view musicology as a static set of facts to learn and assimilate, rather than an ongoing conversation about the nature and meaning of art, the course of which they are in a position to contest and ultimately influence. In an era of rapidly changing musical values, we must ask whether the stiffness described by Huttunen threatens to leave students unequipped to navigate the transformations musical disciplines will undergo in their own lifetimes.

With these observations in mind, let us turn to theoretical resources in the study of teaching and learning that can potentially liberate music students from the learned passivity encouraged by an oppressive pedagogy and empower them as active constructors of knowledge in their own right. These include critical and feminist pedagogies, open and OER-enabled pedagogy, and cognitive apprenticeship as developed by Collins, Brown, and Newman. After discussing these ideas, I will offer some tentative suggestions for their implementation in the musicology classroom.

Let us begin by bringing together critical and feminist pedagogy, a pair of complementary, but not identical, theoretical perspectives aimed at interrogating oppressive structures, including oppressive educational structures, and replacing them with alternative models.

 

Elements of a Solution: Critical and Feminist Pedagogy

Critical pedagogy is most identified with Paulo Freire, who began developing his ideas while teaching literacy to rural Afro-Brazilian agricultural laborers. Freire was a committed Marxist and saw his work as a revolutionary project.⁴⁴Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 50th anniversary ed. (New York: Bloomsbury, 2018), 37. This aspect is often overlooked in the United States, where Ron Glass and others have observed that critical pedagogy has tended to take on a domesticated character.⁴⁵Ronald David Glass, “Interviews with Contemporary Scholars: Ronald David Glass,” in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 199–200.

Freire’s critique of education as he found it revolves around his metaphor of the “banking model” of education. In “banking education” the teacher owns knowledge – is all-knowing – and deposits that knowledge into the minds of students. Students’ sole agency lies in their responsibility for cataloging and storing the knowledge deposits made by the teacher. The more completely a teacher fills the minds of students, the better a teacher he or she is.⁴⁶Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 72. Freire’s formulation stands in a tradition of similar metaphors, one of which holds students to be “buckets” which it is the teacher’s job to fill with knowledge; see Sara Haefeli, “From Answers to Questions: Fostering Student Creativity and Engagement in Research and Writing,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 7, no. 1 (2016): 5, http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/192. A popular aphorism to this effect is often attributed to William Butler Yeats, but may in fact be paraphrased from Plutarch; see Robert Strong, “‘Education Is Not the Filling of a Pail, But the Lighting of a Fire’: It’s an Inspiring Quote, But Bid WB Yeats Say It?” Irish Times, October 15, 2013, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/education-is-not-the-filling-of-a-pail-but-the-lighting-of-a-fire-it-s-an-inspiring-quote-but-did-wb-yeats-say-it-1.1560192.

In this model, the relationship between teacher and students is a narrative relationship, and the teacher’s role is to narrate reality to their students.⁴⁷Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 72. In this narration, reality is fixed and unchanging – even though, as Freire reminds us, “reality is really a process, undergoing constant transformation.” By thus mythicizing – or canonizing – reality, the banking model teaches students to experience the world passively as something that acts upon them, rather than as something they actively re-create. The educational project is then to organize and regulate the way people experience the world, so they can better adapt themselves to it.⁴⁸Freire, 75–6, 83. Freire emphasized the degree to which this educational paradigm leads to students internalizing their own oppression. Just as Chapdelaine saw his humiliation at Segovia’s hands as being for his own good (“He finds a schmuck like me, and he knew exactly what to do”), Freire found his students to be conditioned by banking education to see themselves as ignorant and incompetent, and to be excessively deferential to the teacher’s educational qualifications.⁴⁹Freire, 63.

Such suppression of people’s agency over their own lives is, for Freire, an act of violence.⁵⁰Freire, 85. As a radical alternative to banking education, he proposes what he calls “problem-posing education.” In problem-posing education, knowledge deposits are replaced with acts of cognition, and the world is seen not as an object of description but of transformation; this pedagogy revolves around asking the question, “Why?” which is subversive in any system of oppression.⁵¹Freire, 79, 86.

In Freire’s model, the teacher does not own knowledge but shares and co-creates it with students.⁵²Freire, 80–1, 90. The dialogue by which this happens depends on critical thinking, which is focused on transformation, rather than naive thinking, which is focused on adaptation.⁵³Freire, 83–4, 92. Freire observes that the power of banking education to inhibit creative and critical thought is expedient for those who do not want to see the world changed, because it trains students to adapt to their own oppression, rather than overcome it.⁵⁴Freire, 85.

The “banking model” has much in common with the master-apprentice model: Both support a rigid hierarchical distinction between learner and teacher; both are focused on preparing the learner to take his or her place in a system of economic or artistic production, whether on the factory floor or in an orchestral section; and both depend for their success on the internalization of their ideology by the learner. Like the apprenticeship system, banking education discourages critical interrogation of the nature of things, including those things pertaining to the relationship between teacher and student. And, like the apprenticeship system, banking education is arranged in such a way that one of its outcomes will invariably be to reproduce the relationships and conditions that brought it about in the first place.

This educational outcome, called “cultural reproduction” by Marxists, is one of the central concerns of another influential philosopher of critical pedagogy, the cultural critic Henry Giroux.  Giroux argues, however, that cultural reproduction is never complete or unchallenged, and views schools as a complex arena: not only “reproductive sites that smoothly provide the knowledge, skills, and social relations necessary for the functioning of the capitalist economy and dominant society,”⁵⁵Henry A. Giroux, introduction to The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation, by Paulo Freire (New York: Bergin & Garvey, 1985), xi. but also “a complex discourse of both domination and emancipation”;⁵⁶Henry A. Giroux, “Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New Sociology of Education: A Critical Analysis,” Harvard Educational Review 53, no. 3 (August 1983): 283, https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.53.3.a67x4u33g7682734. a contested field where class ideologies are in constant competition and resistance is possible.⁵⁷Giroux, 283.

Giroux’s analysis of reproduction theory adds a nuanced perspective on the ways reality is mythicized by educational systems through “hidden” and “hegemonic” curricula. These teach values that support inequalities of economic power and status in society, or they legitimize culturally dominant ways of thinking, knowing, and speaking at the expense of others, advantaging students with greater access to them. In these ways education portrays the status quo as given, rather than historically constructed. Giroux also foregrounds the nature of state pressure on schools through prescribed curricula or credentialing of teachers. Against this, however, Giroux also presents schools as sites of resistance to indoctrination and of counter-cultural production, or the generation of cultural alternatives.⁵⁸Giroux, 262–89. This contribution adds a valuable layer of insight to Freire’s critique of traditional educational systems and the ways they fail to serve students’ drive for self-discovery. It is easy to see how a preoccupation with a “hegemonic curriculum” of analytical methods, instrumental technique, and the nuances of comportment in a choir rehearsal do not encourage students to reflect on why some people can connect to each other through the music of Beethoven, while others feel excluded by it.⁵⁹Some recent work examines applications of critical pedagogy to the education of musicians. In the realm of secondary-school education, see Frank Abrahams, “The Application of Critical Pedagogy to Music Teaching and Learning,” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 1–16, http://www-usr.rider.edu/%7Evrme/v6n1/visions/Abrahams%20The%20Application%20of%20Critical%20Pedagogy.pdf; Thomas A. Regelski, “Critical Theory as a Foundation for Critical Thinking in Music Education,” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 1–24, http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v6n1/visions/Regelski%20Critical%20Theory%20as%20a%20Foundation.pdf; Patrick Schmidt, “Music Education as Transformative Practice: Creating New Frameworks for Learning Music though a Freirian Perspective,” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 1–14, http://users.rider.edu/~vrme/v6n1/visions/Schmidt%20Music%20Education%20as%20Transformative%20Practice.pdf. In the post-secondary sphere, see Haefeli, 1–17; David K. Blake, “Towards a Critical Pedagogy for Undergraduate Popular Music History Courses in the Twenty-First Century,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 5, no. 1 (Fall 2014): 99–102, http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/164; Loren Kajikawa, “Hip Hop History in the Age of Colorblindness,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 5, no. 1 (Fall 2014): 117–23, http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/160; and James Vincent Maiello, “Towards a Praxial Philosophy of Music History Pedagogy,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 4, no. 1 (Fall 2013): 71–108, http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/85.

Feminist theory has long offered a lens on pedagogy in music that is closely aligned with Freire’s banking metaphor and its alternatives. Examples include O’Toole’s deconstruction of her own experience as a choral singer,⁶⁰O’Toole, “I Sing in a Choir But I Have No Voice.” Lamb’s auto-ethnographic examination of the contradictions between her identities as musician, music teacher, and woman,⁶¹Lamb, “Discords: Feminist Pedagogy in Music Education,” 124–31. and Julia Ecklund Koza’s critique of Bennett Reimer’s A Philosophy of Music Education.⁶²Julia Ecklund Koza, “Aesthetic Music Education Revisited: Discourses of Exclusion and Oppression,” Philosophy of Music Education Review 2, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 75–91, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40327074. O’Toole reveals the physical nature of oppression in ensemble rehearsal and performance, the spatial and temporal economics of which result in performers’ being regarded as accomplished to the extent they are able to internalize the oppression of their own training. Like O’Toole, Lamb also problematizes traditional musical power dynamics, pointing out the long shadow they cast in the musicology classroom, where authority is identified with competence and equivocation with incompetence. These assumptions run so deep that shifting the focus of music instruction toward questioning musical ideologies threatens students’ musical identities and even the structures of musical institutions. However, the greatest resistance Lamb encounters comes from within herself, where she finds in her ideals as a musician an internalized oppression that conflicts with her ideals as a feminist. Koza’s response to Reimer shows that the traditional discourses to which he holds reflect oppressive power relations and reproduce insider/outsider discourses that favor insiders, often based on the construction of dichotomies that value stereotypically masculine over feminine characteristics. It is the internalization of precisely these discourses that leaves a teacher like Lamb wondering how to be both a feminist and a teacher in a music program.

Critical and feminist pedagogies are concerned with liberating learners from oppressive social structures by developing the critical tools necessary to first liberate them from internalized oppressive mental structures. Let us now examine two more pedagogical resources that lend themselves to this liberatory agenda: Open or OER-enabled pedagogy, and cognitive apprenticeship.

 

Elements of a Solution: Open / OER-Enabled Pedagogy

Pedagogical practice informed by the use and production of Open Educational Resources, or OERs, is significantly aligned with the values that inform critical and feminist pedagogy. But because the word “open” has been used in regard to so many different educational practices over the years, it is useful to first sort through these meanings and clarify our understanding. Claude Paquette became identified with “open pedagogy” after he published Vers une pratique de la pédagogie ouverte in 1976.⁶³Claude Paquette, Vers une pratique de la pédagogie ouverte (St-Vincent-de-Paul, Québec: Éditions NHP, 1976). He later described it as a constantly evolving approach whose principles include, among others, flexibility, privileging process over product, and joint ownership of the educational experience between the teacher and the student.⁶⁴Claude Paquette, “Quelques fondements d’une pédagogie ouverte,” Québec français, December 1979, 18, https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/qf/1979-n36-qf1208689/51334ac.pdf. In 1978, Robert P. Mai identified “open education” in opposition to an explicitly oppressive experience, as “the concept of an informal classroom where children might be trusted to learn by exploring according to their own interests, instead of being bored, demeaned, and alienated.”⁶⁵Robert P. Mai, “Open Education: From Ideology to Orthodoxy,” Peabody Journal of Education 55, no. 3 (April 1978): 231, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1491597.

By the time of the “Cape Town Open Education Declaration” of 2007, “open” was less focused on teaching practices and more on sharing through technology.⁶⁶“Read the Declaration,” Cape Town Open Education Declaration, accessed Sept. 1, 2020, https://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration. David Wiley’s formulation of open pedagogy in 2013 was closely aligned with the Cape Town Declaration, though he was apparently unaware of it at the time. His influential blogpost defined “open pedagogy” as specifically those practices made possible by open educational resources, or textbooks and similar instructional materials licensed for open access and re-use. Wiley spoke not to technology per se, but to the access and permissions embodied in open licensing. Wiley advocated “killing the disposable assignment” in favor of “renewable assignments” where students use OER platforms and practices to create work they can share with the world.⁶⁷David Wiley, “What Is Open Pedagogy?” Iterating Toward Openness (blog), Oct. 21, 2013, https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2975. Building on Wiley’s ideas, Bronwyn Hegarty also saw open pedagogy as connected to OER but refined Wiley’s definition, moving back in the direction of Paquette’s and Mai’s 1970s vision by addressing not just technology and permissions, but humanistic factors such as trust, sharing, learner-centeredness, and rigor.⁶⁸Bronwyn Hegarty, “Attributes of Open Pedagogy: A Model for Using Open Educational Resources,” Educational Technology 55, no, 4 (July–August 2015): 6–10, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44430383. Rajiv Jhangiani’s version of open pedagogy also drew on Wiley’s manifesto to advocate especially for public scholarship through contributions to Wikipedia.⁶⁹Rajiv S. Jhangiani, “Ditching the ‘Disposable Assignment’ in Favor of Open Pedagogy.” In Essays from E-xcellence in Teaching, vol. 17, ed. William S. Altman, Lyra Stein, and Jonathan E. Westfall (Society for the Teaching of Psychology, 2018), 8–10, http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/eit2017/index.php. The ideological affinity between these approaches and critical pedagogy is emphasized by Catherine Cronin. Her formulation, “open educational practice,” is consistent with Wiley’s vision, but includes participatory technologies beyond OER.⁷⁰This kind of practice has been slower to emerge in the teaching of musicology than in some other fields, but one notable new effort is the “Open Access Musicology” project; see https://openaccessmusicology.wordpress.com/about/. Cronin’s ideas are inspired by Freire as well as Black Lives Matter and Gamergate, and she highlights Michael Apple’s description of education as “an ethical and political act.”⁷¹Catherine Cronin, “Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education,” presentation to the Society for Research into Higher Education, Nov. 18, 2016, http://catherinecronin.net/research/openness-and-praxis/.

By 2017, Wiley had acknowledged that he hadn’t realized the term “open” already had a history in pedagogy when he originally used it, and was no longer sure it made sense to talk about “open pedagogy” as a discrete concept at all.⁷²David Wiley, “How Is Open Pedagogy Different?” Iterating Toward Openness (blog), Apr. 4, 2017, https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/4943. However, Wiley’s vision of an educational practice where students’ intellectual production is not discarded but preserved and shared as a resource to support the learning of others remains a powerful way of fulfilling Freire’s vision of students co-constructing and transforming reality as they learn.

 

Elements of a Solution: Cognitive Apprenticeship

Critical and feminist pedagogies provide a lens through which to analyze the oppressive aspects of traditional pedagogical models, and offer alternatives aimed at student inclusion and empowerment. OER-enabled pedagogy contributes to an educational vision of students as creators and constructors of knowledge. Cognitive apprenticeship, as developed by Allan Collins working with John Seeley Brown and Susan E. Newman, contributes to this set of ideas a model of teaching and learning with potential to reclaim the positive aspects of apprenticeship for learners while setting aside the oppressive aspects of the master-apprentice relationship. Cognitive apprenticeship includes important elements of traditional apprenticeship (observation, coaching, and practice) along with other elements (articulation, reflection, scaffolding, and strategies) that can foster a liberating approach in the music classroom.

Cognitive apprenticeship as a model of situated learning relies on the same basic elements that underlie traditional craft apprenticeship. Instead of teaching manual skills in a workplace environment, however, cognitive apprenticeship is an approach to teaching cognitive skills in a school environment. The elements common to both forms of apprenticeship are observation, coaching, and practice.⁷³Allan Collins, John Seeley Brown, and Susan E. Newman, “Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic,” in Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, ed. Laura B. Resnick (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989), 453. The first element, observation, exposes learners to expert performance of a skill in order to provide a mental model, continually revised through reflection, that helps learners organize their attempts, helps them organize the feedback they receive, and guides them toward independent task completion.⁷⁴Collins, Brown, and Newman, 453. The second element, coaching, refers to active monitoring of learners while they carry out a task, and offering hints, feedback, reminders, and more modeling to improve their performance.⁷⁵Collins, Brown, and Newman, 453. The third element, practice, is defined by Collins, Brown, and Newman “successive approximation.”⁷⁶Collins, Brown, and Newman, 455–6. These three elements are common components of studio music instruction; students in the music classroom are predisposed to be receptive to them.

The cognitive apprenticeship model stands in direct opposition to the normal academic class in a music program, in its emphasis on teaching skills over information. Cognitive apprenticeship focuses on how experts approach complex tasks, and considers factual information only in terms of how it is used in that context.⁷⁷Collins, Brown, and Newman, 455, 457. Sara Haefeli has observed that “[s]tudents are accustomed to history classes that focus on the acquisition of information, but not on the acquisition of skills, and the acquisition of skills is different from the acquisition of information.”⁷⁸Haefeli, “From Answers to Questions,” 4.  Schools traditionally teach facts and ideas, while expert performance of a skill depends on cognitive and metacognitive problem-solving strategies, more than on a command of facts. Recognizing these strategies is a key element of applying cognitive apprenticeship. “Heuristic strategies” are solution patterns that underlie an expert’s ability to use concepts, facts, and procedures to solve a problem. “Control strategies” help diagnose problems and monitor progress toward a solution. They may be thought of as problem-management strategies; the more complex problems become, and the more heuristic strategies students acquire to deal with them, the more important their control strategies are. “Learning strategies” help a learner or an expert to acquire new knowledge or reconfigure old knowledge. Often overlooked, they include research skills, reflective evaluation of one’s understanding, and testing one’s understanding against that of others.⁷⁹Collins, Brown, and Newman, “Cognitive Apprenticeship,” 478–9.

The main difference in applying apprenticeship to mental rather than physical skills lies in the need to externalize internal mental processes. To facilitate this, cognitive apprenticeship includes two elements absent from traditional apprenticeship: articulation and reflection. Articulation refers to verbally externalizing the teacher’s or the student’s internal mental process for examination.⁸⁰Collins, Brown, and Newman, 464, 473, 483. Reflection, closely related to articulation, refers to the student’s comparison of their own internal process with that of the teacher, with that of other learners, or with an already-internalized model. This comparison, it should be stressed, is of process rather than outcome.⁸¹Collins, Brown, and Newman, 487, 490.

A last crucial factor in cognitive apprenticeship, and indeed in all apprenticeship, is scaffolding (along with the gradual withdrawal of scaffolding, labeled “fading”). Scaffolding is support for learning, provided by the teacher and designed to be removed when no longer needed. It can take the form of “decomposing” a task so that students understand the steps necessary to carry it out,⁸²Collins, Brown, and Newman, 464. turning over part of a task to students while retaining control of parts that students are not yet ready to manage,⁸³Collins, Brown, and Newman, 482. or designing an environment or experience so that students collaborate socially in constructing solutions to a task in “communities of practice.”⁸⁴Allan Collins, “Cognitive Apprenticeship,” in Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia, ed. Eric M. Anderman and Lynley H. Anderman (Detroit: Macmillan, 2009), 179. Collins connects the idea of scaffolding to Vygotsky’s concept of the “zone of proximal development,” as the space within which cognitive growth can take place by supporting learners to accomplish tasks they cannot accomplish on their own.⁸⁵Collins, 177, 180; see Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), 84–91.

 

Solutions in Practice: Empowering the Musicology Student to Inquire and Create

So far, I have examined the master-apprentice model of instruction and some problematic aspects of its heritage, and considered critical and feminist pedagogies, open or OER-enabled pedagogy, and the cognitive apprenticeship model as potential ingredients of an antidote to the learned passivity rooted in an internalized oppression. In the final section of this essay, I will discuss specific lessons, patterns, and practices I have developed in the context of the graduate music information literacy course at the University of Denver Lamont School of Music, to reflect and embody these conceptual resources in varying degrees.

This discussion is intended as anything but a set of prescriptive recommendations; indeed, such would be antithetical to my theme. I only hope to show where I have found success, and inspire others to experiment along similar lines. Depending on the course context, constraints, and graduate vs. undergraduate student population, different solutions may suggest themselves. The examples I describe fall broadly into three loose and somewhat overlapping themes, that I will describe as: 1. Engaging students with contested and evolving disciplinary discourse, 2. Building in elements of cognitive apprenticeship, and 3. Students constructing knowledge to serve other students.

 

Theme 1: Engaging Students with Contested and Evolving Disciplinary Discourse

We have seen that traditional education methods, including apprenticeship and traditional forms of schooling, are associated with a view of reality as fixed and unchanging, rather than subject to constant change and transformation. Studying the bibliographic landscape of music means coming to terms with not just the literature, but the changing nature of musicology as a discipline. Several class sessions early in the class sequence are devoted to examining this idea that we call “musicology.” Within this first group, three examples illustrate how the course is designed to encourage students to think of musicology not as a reality to which they must adapt their own thinking, but as something that is subject to their participation, influence, and transformation. The three examples are an exercise in comparative historiography, engagement with one of the most important debates in modern musicology, and a gamified activity designed to spur awareness of the various disciplinary areas within musicology.

One of the first reading assignments students are asked to complete is to look up the word “Musicology” in the four different editions of the Harvard Dictionary of Music: the original 1944 edition, the 1969 edition, the 1983 edition, and the 2003 edition. Students are asked to compare the readings and analyze what they find, both in terms of content and structure.

In the 1944 edition, students encounter a restrictive definition of the field, a quasi-racist description of ethnomusicology, and a reference to the relative newness of the field generally. This last can in itself can be surprising: their experience with musicology includes so much that is old, they may never have imagined that musicology itself was once new.⁸⁶Willi Apel, “Musicology,” in Harvard Dictionary of Music (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1944), 473–5. In the 1969 edition, musicology is no longer new, and ethnomusicology is described in terms that imply a revolution in perceptions of different musical traditions, though some sexist language is still included. The restrictiveness of the field’s definition is partially mitigated, and there is bibliographic evidence of a growing body of scholarship.⁸⁷Willi Apel, “Musicology,” in Harvard Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969), 558–9. In the 1983 edition, all disciplines formerly excluded from musicology are now admitted, and the status of ethnomusicology is elevated both rhetorically (it is described first) and conceptually (with the idea that “all musicology aims ultimately to be ethnomusicology”). In another profound shift, there is a new section on “History,” meaning not historical musicology, but the history of musicology. Musicology is now so firmly established that it has turned to the tentative construction of its own mythology.⁸⁸Don Michael Randel, “Musicology,” in The New Harvard Dictionary of Music (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 520–1. The 2003 edition is identical except for the omission of a single sentence: “Unlike literary studies, musicology has not yet produced a significant body of Marxist or feminist work.” Accounting for this provokes discussion of arguably the most important development in musicology in the 1980s and 1990s, the creation of new, gender-conscious modes of musicological discourse by Susan McClary and others.⁸⁹Don Michael Randel, “Musicology,” in Harvard Dictionary of Music, 4th ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 542–4.

Students who may have thought looking up “musicology” in a dictionary would nail down once and for all what it was are surprised to learn that the more dictionary definitions they consult, the more ambiguous their understanding of musicology becomes. Through this exercise they learn not only that musicology itself is an evolving concept, but also that ostensibly neutral sources of information like dictionaries, or even the library collections of which they are a part, are created by human beings and represent points of view. This is usually their first exposure to the idea that disciplinary reality is, in Freire’s words, “really a process, undergoing constant transformation.” Sorting among these conflicting definitions of musicology may result in what Jack Russell Weinstein calls “cognitive conflict”: a state where an individual must choose between options, knowing their choice may only lead to further conflict, and more choices.⁹⁰Jack Russell Weinstein, “Neutrality, Pluralism, and Education: Civic Education as Learning about the Other,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 23 (2004): 242, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SPED.0000028333.81199.8e. In the words of Carrie Donovan and Sara O’Donnell, “It is in this space that students will realize they even have the option to engage with and alter structures they previously assumed to be permanent mainstays of academia.”⁹¹Carrie Donovan and Sara O’Donnell, “The Tyranny of Tradition: How Information Paradigms Limit Librarians’ Teaching and Student Scholarship,” in Information Literacy and Social Justice: Radical Professional Praxis, ed. Lua Gregory and Shana Higgins (Sacramento: Library Juice Press, 2013), 125. A substantial literature supports the idea that ambiguity and confusion are essential to complex learning. See John Seely Brown and Kurt VanLehn, “Repair Theory: A Generative Theory of Bugs in Procedural Skills,” Cognitive Science 4, no. 4 (1980): 379–426, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(80)80010-3; Kurt VanLehn et al., “Why Do Only Some Events Cause Learning During Human Tutoring?” Cognition and Instruction 21, no. 3 (2003): 209–49, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3233810; and Arthur C. Graesser, et al., “Question Asking and Eye Tracking During Cognitive Disequilibrium: Comprehending Illustrated Texts on Devices When the Devices Break Down,” Memory & Cognition 33, no. 7 (2005): 1235–47, https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193225. As a final step in this exercise, students are asked to reflect in writing on how they might like to see musicology evolve in their own lifetimes.

Another example of this theme comes when students are asked to read a series of three inter-related essays: Susan McClary’s “Getting Down off the Beanstalk,” Pieter van den Toorn’s “Politics, Feminism, and Contemporary Music Theory,” and Ruth Solie’s “What Do Feminists Want?”⁹²Susan McClary, “Getting Down Off the Beanstalk: The Presence of a Woman’s Voice in Janika Vandervelde's Genesis II,” in Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality, new edition, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), 112–31; Pieter C. van den Toorn, “Politics, Feminism, and Contemporary Music Theory,” The Journal of Musicology 9, no. 3 (Summer, 1991): 275–99, https://www.jstor.org/stable/763704; and Ruth Solie, “What Do Feminists Want,” The Journal of Musicology 9, no. 4 (Autumn 1991): 399–410, https://www.jstor.org/stable/763868. The contours of the debate are well-known: McClary’s essay challenges traditional paradigms of musical structure as gendered and oppressive, van den Toorn argues against McClary’s reading of Beethoven and challenges the legitimacy and motivation of her critique, and Solie responds to the agenda she perceives behind van den Toorn’s attack on McClary’s point of view.

The three essays provide fertile material for discussing the idea of a scholarly conversation, analyzing the kinds of evidence used by each author, and examining structural features in scholarly texts. The authors respond in an unusually direct way to one another, making their conversation especially explicit. The choice of evidence deployed by each author, and their critiques of each other’s evidence, show different ideas about what counts as legitimate evidence in a scholarly debate about music. Each author also has a unique approach to sectioning their essay, road-mapping it for their reader, and providing metadiscursive markers to help the reader navigate their argument.

Beyond the technical analysis, though, choosing these texts on which to perform this analysis provides a larger lesson to students about the nature of their discipline. Erin Conor, following Gerald Graff, has previously observed the importance of exposing students to not just to the outcomes of debates within musicology, but to the actual debates themselves. If students are to learn that disciplinary reality “is really a process, undergoing constant transformation,” how better to demonstrate that than by exposing them to the dynamics that underlie the transformation? This can be profoundly empowering for students. In Conor’s words, “If music history is an extended series of debates, they are debates in which students may participate.”⁹³Erin Conor, “Re-Envisioning Information Literacy: Critical Information Literacy, Disciplinary Discourses, and Music History,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 9, no. 1 (2019): 38, https://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/293/627. Here I wish to acknowledge that Conor has already proposed the idea of exposing students to the van den Toorn-Solie debate as a way of showing them a side of musicology they have rarely encountered, and Amy Strickland has independently suggested tracing a topic over time through comparison of dictionary articles, in her case the reception of Benjamin Britten and different editions of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (see Amy Strickland, “Context, Reliability, and Authority: Grove Dictionary Through the Years,” in Information Literacy in Music: An Instructor’s Companion, ed. Beth Christensen, Erin Conor, and Marian Ritter (Middleton, WI: A-R Editions, 2018), 99–103). Conor has also proposed assignments that ask a student to confront the library collection as not neutral but rather a reflection of accepted disciplinary discourse (See Conor, 37–8). This was unknown to me before I began researching this essay, but I find myself gratified to learn that similar considerations have led other educators to similar solutions.

A third example of the disciplinary-discourse theme involves role-playing discourse in a card game I call “Musicology Spyfall.” Students begin this phase by playing a commercially-produced, card-based, social deduction party game called “Spyfall.” Spyfall is played in groups of four to six. Each member of the group but one is dealt a card identifying one of a list of “secret locations.” (All members have the same location.) One member of the group receives a card designating them the “spy.” The spy does not know the secret location, and the other players do not know the identity of the spy. The game proceeds by asking questions in turns. The objective of the spy is to guess the secret location, without giving away their identity as the spy. The objective of the non-spy players is to guess the identity of the spy, without giving away the secret location. Like any good party game, it is played through social interaction, with plenty of bluffing, hinting, and close listening.

After students have become familiar with Spyfall, they are asked to study the second part of the article “Musicology,” in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition. This section of the article is titled “Disciplines of Musicology,” and describes eleven different disciplines within musicology. Students are told that these disciplines will be the “secret locations” in a modified version of Spyfall. When the class meets again, students play the game with custom-made cards that identify one of the disciplines in the article. Again, there is a spy in each group. Players are asked to imagine they are meeting for lunch after a morning at a scholarly conference. One person in their group, the spy, was not at the conference. The spy’s task is to identify the discipline known to the others, while the non-spy players try to detect the spy. Students perform disciplinary discourse to show they are not the spy, and listen for discursive errors or anomalies to identify the spy. Students enjoy the game, testing their powers of deception and discernment, and experimenting with different modes of discourse. After each round, spontaneous discussions of how the spy was unmasked or the discipline was detected clarify which cues were important, and in which context. Through this game, students learn to listen for nuances of disciplinary discourse, and experience directly the way it is constructed through social interaction. Abstracting the concept of the scholarly conversation from this experience is quite natural and easy.⁹⁴I have previously described Musicology Spyfall; for a more detailed treatment please see https://sites.google.com/site/musicologyspyfall/. To cap off this activity, students are asked to propose a twelfth discipline to be added to the list of eleven they have learned.

 

Theme 2: Cognitive Apprenticeship

The three activities described above are designed to allow students to construct an idea of musicology as a discourse subject to their participation and influence. They are complemented by a second set of practices incorporating elements of cognitive apprenticeship, which are built into the class in the form of general practices and specific assignments. I will discuss five specific aspects that particularly touch on cognitive apprenticeship: 1. scaffolding the final assignment, 2. co-grading with “coached” assignment re-submission, 3. flipped classes, 4. writing groups as communities of practice, and 5. expert consultations.

To begin with, the final assignment in the course, a traditional research paper submitted at the end of the second quarter, is “decomposed” into a step-by-step series of assignments and exercises beginning in the first quarter, including:

1. A formal topic statement,

2. An extended bibliography,

3. A shorter annotated bibliography,

4. An exercise on building a literature review out of the annotated bibliography,

5. A structured sentence outline of the essay,

6. An exercise in deploying source material,

7. A first draft of the essay,

8. A final draft of the essay.⁹⁵Note: this model of decomposing the task of writing an essay owes much to the description offered by Laura Snyder in “Teaching the Graduate Bibliography Course,” in Music Library Instruction, ed. Deborah Campana (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2004), 47–98.

Decomposing a large task into a number of small steps is one of the types of scaffolding described by Collins, Brown, and Newman. It is a process familiar to any music student who has learned a concerto or an operatic role, but these students have seldom applied it in the context of a research essay. Each step in completing the essay is a separate assignment, given equal weight in grading. Before students begin each step, models of successful completion are provided in the form of a prototype demonstrated by the instructor and successful examples of past student work. This allows students to experience multiple models of successful performance, which they can use to form richer internal models of task completion to guide their own performance. Models of essay structure are also generated in the class through article analysis exercises.

Second, along with this decomposition and sequencing of assignments, the traditional grading process is modified to optimize the opportunity for coaching, with collaborative grading by student and instructor along with optional re-submission for a revised grade. A detailed, points-based evaluation rubric is supplied with each assignment, and students are asked to familiarize themselves with the rubric before completing the assignment. After completing the assignment, and before submitting it, students are asked to award themselves a point score in each of the several categories shown in the evaluation rubric, and also asked to state why they awarded themselves the score they did in each category. The instructor then scores the same submission according to the same rubric. Importantly, the instructor does this first without reference to the student’s rubric, in order to avoid being influenced; afterwards, the student’s rubric is consulted for areas of agreement and disagreement. The grade recorded for the assignment is a simple average of the student’s score and the instructor’s score.

The intent of this practice is manifold: First, the evaluation rubric is designed to provide maximum transparency for the student about what is expected from each assignment. Like the models of successful completion provided in each step of the scaffolding process, the purpose is to remove any ambiguity about what an optimal outcome looks like. Second, having the student complete the rubric is intended to stimulate the development of the reflective “producer-critic dialogue” seen as crucial by Collins, Brown, and Newman for the development of metacognitive self-monitoring and self-correction processes.⁹⁶Collins, Brown, Newman, “Cognitive Apprenticeship,” 464. It also articulates the student’s thinking about their own process, in a way the instructor can respond to after articulating their own thinking in a parallel reflection. This response by the instructor to the student’s rubric is another site where coaching can take place. In some cases, this also allows the student to coach the teacher: after studying the student’s rubric, the instructor may find their own perception of the student’s work has deepened, and they may modify their own scoring of the assignment.

Of course, it is possible for a student to game this process by consistently awarding themselves the maximum score irrespective of the quality of their work. In practice, most students are uncomfortable giving themselves more credit than they know they have earned, and the small risk of such abuse is outweighed by the benefit of de-centering the role of the instructor and allocating responsibility to the student as an active co-participant in the evaluation process.⁹⁷Dan Guberman has written on his use of co-grading as a way to overcome students’ resistance to engaging with instructor feedback. His process is more open-ended than the one I describe, with a more qualitative, less quantitative influence by the student on the final grade. See Dan Guberman, “Grading Together: Toward a Partnership Approach,” Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education 1, no. 29 (Winter 2020): Article 6, https://repository.brynmawr.edu/tlthe/vol1/iss29/6.

To make this exchange of externalized reflection more meaningful for the student, they are given the opportunity to re-submit each assignment a second time for an improved grade if they wish.⁹⁸With one exception: The do-over for the first draft is built into the sequence in the form of the final draft. A busy student will quite understandably be tempted to ignore even the most conscientious instructor feedback when it comes after the fact and with no opportunity to impact their letter grade, by which they judge their own performance and know it will be judged by others. Allowing the student to benefit tangibly from the instructor’s comments gives them a reason to think about them and try to put them into practice. This requires detailed feedback, along with careful scheduling of assignment deadlines so that the instructor has time to provide feedback and the student has time to assimilate it before submitting a revision. To be sure, it does increase the grading burden on the instructor. But when managed successfully, it allows grading to move away from an experience of judgment to one of coaching, prompting, and reinforcement.

A final, intensive coaching session is provided in a face-to-face conference with each student after submission of the first draft and before submission of the final draft. By the time a final essay draft is submitted, the student has experienced multiple models of successful completion of each step, and multiple rounds of coaching in the form of instructor feedback. The final submission, instead of a high-stakes test of proficiency, is designed to be anticlimactic.

Third, a flipped class design is used for a number of class sessions in the first quarter that revolve around learning to navigate and effectively use a variety of print and electronic research tools. In these lessons, material that might traditionally be delivered in a lecture is instead delivered in a video that students are asked to watch before class; they then spend the class period in a structured search or evaluation exercise, with the instructor monitoring progress and providing feedback, hints, and other elements of coaching in real time to maximize students’ opportunities for success. Information delivered or reinforced at the point of need is more meaningful for students and is more likely to be retained.

Fourth, microcosmic “communities of practice” develop in the second term of the course sequence, when students form persistent writing groups. These groups meet throughout the term for peer-review sessions, beginning with a workshop by University Writing Center staff on peer-review techniques. Before each writing assignment deadline, groups meet in class to provide feedback on each other’s work in response to specific prompts based on the assignment. Participants collaborate in constructing their understanding of the assignment, testing solutions with each other, and struggling together to overcome challenges. This peer assistance and collaborative construction of solutions is one of the scaffolding methods described by Collins, Brown, and Newman,⁹⁹Collins, Brown, and Newman, “Cognitive Apprenticeship,” 486–7. and is also an important way for learners to benchmark their progress against that of other learners.¹⁰⁰Collins, Brown, and Newman, 457. Providing feedback on each other’s work is another step toward the gradual internalization of a “producer-critic dialogue.” Students also undertake a number of other analysis and revision exercises within the same groups; consistent engagement with the same small group of peers is designed to build a level of trust and understanding that strengthens each group. Groups are encouraged but not required to meet outside of class as well; sometimes they do so.

Fifth, opportunities for intensive expert coaching are afforded by two individual consultations scheduled by each student. In the first term, this is a research consultation with a reference librarian. In this consultation the librarian prompts the student to articulate their understanding of the topic and the task at hand, and then talks the student through an individually-generated process of choosing and engaging research tools, locating and evaluating resources, and monitoring progress in real time, modeling what Johanna K. Garner calls an expert’s “significant capacity to recognize patterns, connect problem states with solution paths, and execute strategies that yield solutions.”¹⁰¹Johanna K. Garner, “Cognitive Apprenticeship Learning,” in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, ed. Norbert M. Seele (New York: Springer, 2012), 568. By having a reference librarian guide them through this process instead of the class instructor, students can observe an alternate model of expert performance, further enriching the internal model they are developing.¹⁰²Collins, Brown, and Newman, “Cognitive Apprenticeship,” 456–7.

In the second term, students schedule a consultation with a trained peer consultant in the University Writing Center.¹⁰³The Writing Center workshop on peer-review techniques also serves to orient them toward Writing Center services, so students already have an idea of what to expect. The methodology followed in this consultation is even more geared toward articulation and reflection, as the student is requested to prepare by thinking about their goals for the current writing project, along with what they know about their strengths and challenges as a writer. Then, when they meet, the consultant poses questions to the student and the two agree on goals for the consultation, before reading through parts of the student’s paper together. Like the research consultation, this interview is a rich opportunity for coaching and feedback, drawing on the consultant’s repertoire of heuristic and control strategies. The two consultations together expose the student to expert coaching resources that they can, and often do, access repeatedly thereafter.

 

Theme 3: OER-Enabled Knowledge Construction

In addition to engaging students with the changing realities of academic discourse to break down a mythicized understanding of the discipline, and drawing on a number of principles of cognitive apprenticeship to reinforce the learning potential of course assignments and activities, the course includes two major opportunities for students to create knowledge – one individually and one collaboratively – and share it with communities of peer scholars in the form of open educational resources. In the first of these opportunities, students finish the first term of the class by publishing their annotated bibliographies as OER research guides in the university’s institutional repository. In the second, they meet with Writing Center staff before the end of the class to create a disciplinary writing guide based on what they have learned about writing on music. These opportunities are designed to heighten students’ awareness of what they know, build their self-concept as emerging scholars, and contribute knowledge and understanding to their immediate information environment.

Completion of students’ annotated bibliographies demonstrates skill in a number of areas: searching, citation practice, summarizing, evaluating authority, and situating sources in a larger conversation. Students are specifically asked to examine how sources respond to each other, and to address their annotation not to the instructor, but to scholars who might use their work in the future.

The mechanics of licensing and publication are simple: Students attach a digital signature to an agreement by which they assign a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 (CC-BY) license to their work and grant permission for its publication in the university’s Digital Commons repository.¹⁰⁴The CC-BY license is available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/. Students may choose in the agreement to anonymize their work if they have any concern regarding privacy. The bibliographies and agreements are collated by the instructor and forwarded to the institutional repository manager, who adds them to the repository, along with the appropriate metadata. Once published, the students’ works are discoverable through the university’s repository, through the Digital Commons Network, and also through Google Scholar and Google Web. The bibliographies in the repository are also linked from a custom page on the university’s library website, created with Springshare’s LibGuides platform, so that students’ intellectual production has a presence in the repository, on the web, and on the library website.¹⁰⁵See https://libguides.du.edu/MUAC-4000.

In this process, student work is treated with the same respect as faculty research. The effort that goes into producing these documents is ultimately not wasted, but results in a resource for other learners and researchers, who can use these documents as a starting point in their own research. In David Wiley’s words, this process produces “cognitive surplus” and adds value to the world instead of “suck[ing] value out of the world.”¹⁰⁶Wiley, “What Is Open Pedagogy?” Afterwards, students receive a monthly email with a link to an author dashboard showing bibliometric information including numbers of downloads and an interactive world map showing where their work has been accessed. Some student bibliographies have been downloaded more than one hundred times around the world. Students begin to see themselves as emerging scholars as they see their intellectual production consumed by others. They learn in a concrete way that they are participants in a community of scholarly practice. They also become more discriminating consumers of scholarship as they begin to take their place as producers.

The collaborative creation of writing guides brings together these three threads – engagement with disciplinary discourse, principles of cognitive apprenticeship, and OER-enabled construction and sharing of knowledge by students – in a cumulative process that once again involves the University Writing Center. Recalling that students have engaged with the Writing Center once during a peer-review workshop in class, and a second time in the course of an assigned writing consultation, their third experience with the Writing Center comes when the faculty director and two consultants visit the class to facilitate a final collaborative exercise with the students, working together to create a guide to writing in music, to be shared with future students.

The consultants who visit the class are not music students, but graduate or advanced undergraduate students in other fields of study. Their training includes a course on pedagogy, collaboration, peer learning, and theories about genre and discourse communities. This is not meant to teach them writing expertise in all academic fields, but rather how to help other students discover and navigate the discourse conventions in their own fields.

The approach of the Writing Center is informed by rhetorical genre studies, a theoretical framework described by Anis Bawarshi and Mary Jo Reiff, concerned with “the study of genres as forms of situated cognition, social action, and social reproduction.”¹⁰⁷Anis S. Bawarshi and Mary Jo Reiff. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. (West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2010), 78–104. In this perspective, a music student is not only learning about music, but also learning to communicate about music. The forms this communication takes are genres. Scholars of rhetorical genre studies question the value of explicitly teaching genre as knowledge to be passed down, just as Freire questions the value of teaching the nature of reality as knowledge to be deposited by teachers in the minds of students. They advocate instead a model of learning as a “situated apprenticeship” in which learners must interact with, and produce, the genres they are learning in order to become fluent in them.¹⁰⁸Bawarshi and Reiff. 61. This interaction forms a kind of dialogue between the student and the traditions of the genre. Because students, under this model, learn genres of communication through a process of dialogic interaction, genres are inevitably contested and modified by each new generation of students, just as reality is constantly transformed by students discovering and constructing it in Freire’s dialogic model of “problem-posing” education. The Writing Center’s mission is not to help students inherit a series of established discursive practices,¹⁰⁹Ken Hyland, “Genre and Academic Writing in the Disciplines,” Language Teaching 41, no. 4 (2008): 543–62, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235. or even to create a new set of discursive practices, but rather to develop the rhetorical flexibility and confidence to navigate new discursive contexts, or genres, and respond to them successfully.¹¹⁰Laura Micciche and Allison D. Carr, “Toward Graduate-Level Writing Instruction,” College Composition and Communication 62, no. 3 (February 2011): 477–501, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27917909. This requires metacognitive control and heuristic strategies of the kind stressed in cognitive apprenticeship.

Thus the Writing Center approach centers on asking students themselves to generate and discuss their own knowledge of writing in music for this course and this field of study. The class is divided into three groups, with one facilitator for each group. The group is asked to discuss, focus-group style, what they know and what they are not sure about in writing about music. One group focuses on musicology as a field, one group talks about methods and resources in musicology, and one group talks specifically about writing conventions in musicology. Facilitators ask questions like these:

- How does writing about music differ from other kinds of writing you’ve done?

- Who are the actual / potential audiences for your writing?

- What kinds of evidence are common in music writing?

- What kinds of analysis do writers engage in?

These conversations prompt students to articulate what they know and what they do not yet know (or what they think they do not know) to each other and to the facilitator. This articulation externalizes students’ internal processes and makes them available for reflection and comparison, essential elements of cognitive apprenticeship.

After a period of discussion, groups are asked to begin drafting content based on what they have heard and said. After the class, Writing Center facilitators compare notes and identify themes. The information generated by students in the class, along with the facilitators’ notes, is then compiled in a handout. The handout is converted by the course instructor to an online format using the same platform as the webpage linked to the student bibliographies published earlier.¹¹¹See https://libguides.du.edu/writing-on-music. Like the bibliographies, it is assigned a CC-BY license, so the final product is an OER available to students in other classes, or emerging writers anywhere.

The writing guide is an ongoing project, and is submitted to future classes of students for iteration and development – possibly addressing subgenres, such as “Writing about Jazz,” or “Writing about Music Pedagogy.” In the spirit both of rhetorical genre studies and of critical pedagogy, the construction of disciplinary practices is never finished, but continues indefinitely.

 

Conclusion

Michael Chapdelaine went on to build a fine career as a guitarist, including a concert career and a number of respected recordings. He is the only guitarist, ever, to have won first prize in both the Guitar Foundation of America International Concert Artist Competition and the Walnut Valley Bluegrass Festival National Fingerstyle Championship. Today he holds a professorship at University of New Mexico. People still ask him about that masterclass with Segovia, though. His perspective is different now. He had this to say in a 2010 interview:

When I played for Segovia, I was two generations removed from those famous old films you see of the sixties, where he was the only source, practically, so they all played like him, or tried. And it was obvious to him that I wasn’t trying to play like him and, in fact, I was trying to not play like him. And that wasn’t out of disrespect. It was out of a twenty-eight-year old’s earnest attempt to become as good an artist as possible.¹¹²Christopher Davis, “Michael Chapdelaine Interview, Part 3,” August 29, 2010, https://youtu.be/9ioMuy1UzlI.

Apprenticeship is not without its merits as a model of learning: at best, it is individualized and wholistic, allowing a student to acquire from a teacher a comprehensive understanding of a complex, historically-rooted practice along with the solid foundation necessary to tread new paths and make new connections. Yet there are aspects of the historical traditions around apprenticeship that can repress a student’s curiosity and autonomy, and handicap their independent formation of values connected to what they are learning. These repressive aspects are widely reflected and reinforced in the popular imagination, perhaps best exemplified by a widely popular reality television program from 2004 to 2017, The Apprentice. This program’s narrative had nothing to with learning and everything to do with the host’s ritual humiliation and rejection of one contestant at the climax of each episode.¹¹³Douglas Kellner, American Nightmare: Donald Trump, Media Spectacle, and Authoritarian Populism (Rotterdam: Sense, 2016), 8. And lest we consider this symbolic violence a peculiar proclivity of the host himself, it is worth considering spin-offs of the program, such as the U.K. program Young Apprentice, which regularly featured this same ritual humiliation of contestants as part of its appeal.¹¹⁴Anita Biressi and Heather Nunn, “‘I’m Passionate, Lord Sugar’: Young Entrepreneurs, Critical Judgment, and Emotional Labor in Young Apprentice,” in A Critique of Judgment in Film and Television, ed. Silke Panse and Dennis Rothermel (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014), 91, 103–4.

I have attempted to deconstruct the traditions and cultures historically linked with apprenticeship in order to better examine how its power structures operate within today’s music academy, and to offer alternative theories and models of learning that can encourage a spirit of critical inquiry in the music classroom. Others are already engaged in this work. Examples include Sara Haefeli, who has written on guiding students toward an inquiry stance,¹¹⁵Haefeli, “From Answers to Questions” the authors of the volume Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education, edited by Helena Gaunt and Heidi Westerlund,¹¹⁶Helena Gaunt and Heidi Westerlund, eds., Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education (Surrey: Ashgate: 2013). and the creators of a new project, “Open Access Musicology,” which “embraces changes and tensions in the field to help students understand music scholarship as the product of critical inquiry.”¹¹⁷Open Access Musicology, accessed October 31, 2020, https://openaccessmusicology.wordpress.com/about/.

This essay draws on examples of classroom practice from a graduate course, but its principles are equally applicable to undergraduate teaching and learning. Indeed, the students in the course described here are at the very beginning of their graduate career, and accustomed to viewing experience through the frames they developed as undergraduate students. Ideally, learners should be engaged in a liberatory approach as early as possible. Every experience students have with banking education teaches them to expect knowledge transmission as a norm, and knowledge construction as a threat. Long before graduate school, they may agree with the student interviewed by Kjølberg, who reported, “I feel uncomfortable when I must make choices. I am so used to being told what to do, that when someone asks me what I want, I become uncertain. I don’t know what to say.”¹¹⁸Kjølberg, Peer Learning in a Group of Voice Students, 5.

Some will say that undergraduates are consumers of research, and only in graduate school do students become producers of research. This is a false distinction. The benefits to learners of sharing the fruit of their intellectual labor are confirmed by scholarship on undergraduate research and publication. Wendy Katkin finds the most important influence of the 1995 Boyer Commission report to be the development of undergraduate research programs: Eight years after the report, more than half of colleges and universities had created events to showcase undergraduate research and a third of them had undergraduate journals to publish student work.¹¹⁹Wendy Katkin, “The Boyer Commission Report and Its Impact on Undergraduate Research,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning no. 93 (Spring 2003): 24–5, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tl.86. Rebecca Kennison and Sarah Shreeves observe that electronic publishing of student work can be “a critical part of building the student’s understanding of the scholarly research publishing cycle and allowing them a place in it.”¹²⁰Rebecca Kennison and Sarah L. Shreeves, “Institutional Repositories—So Much More than Green OA,” in “Point & Counterpoint: The Purpose of Institutional Repositories: Green OA or Beyond?” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 1, no. 4 (2013): eP1105, 3, https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1105. Kimberly Francis and Travis Stimeling have specifically investigated electronic publishing in the context of an undergraduate music history classroom, and find that the practice demystifies scholarly communication and removes the stigma of elitism that surrounds it.¹²¹Kimberly Francis and Travis Stimeling, “E-Publishing in the Undergraduate Music History Classroom: The University of Guelph Book Review Project,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 4, no. 1 (2013): 13, https://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/92/124.

The lessons and activities I have described represent my way of trying to introduce these elements into the classroom. Others will find their own. The task is essential, and urgent; the ways of the past are no longer adequate in the present, and will be even less so in the future.

 

Notes

1. Michael Chapdelaine, “Segovia Chapdelaine Master Class,” uploaded June 11, 2007, https://youtu.be/wiAbqfaYGwk.

2. Chapdelaine, “Segovia Chapdelaine Master Class.”

3. William Starling, Strings Attached: The Life and Music of John Williams (London: Robson Press, 2012), chapter 2, location 575, Kindle.

4. Robert J. Steinfeld and Stanley L. Engerman, “Labor – Free or Coerced? A Historical Reassessment of Differences and Similarities,” in Free and Unfree Labor: The Debate Continues, eds. Tom Brass and Marcel van der Linden (Bern: Peter Lang, 1997), 107.

5. O. Jocelyn Dunlop, English Apprenticeship & Child Labour: A History (New York: MacMillan, 1912), 57–8; see in addition Madonna J. Hettinger, “Defining the Servant: Legal and Extra-Legal Terms of Employment in Fifteenth-Century England,” in The Work of Work: Servitude, Slavery, and Labor in Medieval England, ed. Allen J. Frantzen and Douglas Moffat (Glasgow: Cruithne Press, 1994), 218, and David W. Galenson, White Servitude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 9. Barbara Tuchman also points out that medieval French commercial law prohibited the employment of extra apprentices as an unfair practice along with working by artificial light, selling below a fixed price, or any technical innovation. See Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century (New York: Random House, 1978), 37.

6. Robert N. Wilkey, “The Non-Negotiable Employment Contract: Diagnosing the Employment Rights of Medical Residents,” Creighton Law Review 44 (2011): 706, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/creigh44&i=711.

7. William M. Sullivan, Work and Integrity: The Crisis and Promise of Professionalism in America, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 14, 26, 53, 195–97, 203–215.

8. Sullivan, 195–205.

9. Sullivan, 25.

10. Sullivan, 216–7.

11. Sullivan, 209–10.

12. Sheldon Rothblatt, “How ‘Professional’ Are the Professions?” Comparative Studies in Society and History 37, no. 1 (January 1995): 195, https://www.jstor.org/stable/179383.

13. Kim Burwell, “Apprenticeship in Music: A Contextual Study for Instrumental Teaching and Learning,” International Journal of Music Education 31, no. 3 (August 2012): 278, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0255761411434501.

14. Ryan Daniel and Kelly A. Parkes, “Music Instrument Teachers in Higher Education: An Investigation of the Key Influences on How They Teach in the Studio,” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 29, no. 1 (2017): 33, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1136001.pdf.

15. Harald Jørgensen, “Student Learning in Higher Instrumental Education: Who Is Responsible,” British Journal of Music Education 17, no. 1 (March 2000): 68, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000164.

16. Burwell, “Apprenticeship in Music,” 278.

17. Eeva Kaisa Hyry-Beihammer, “Master-Apprentice Relation in Music Teaching: From a Secret Garden to a Transparent Modelling,” Nordic Research in Music Education Yearbook 12 (2010): 161–5, https://nmh.brage.unit.no/nmh-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/172285/Hyry-Beihammer_2010.pdf.

18. Lotte Latukefu and Irina Verenikina, “Expanding the Master-Apprentice Model: Tool for Orchestrating Collaboration as a Path to Self-Directed Learning for Singing Students,” in Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education, ed. Helena Gaunt and Heidi Westerlund (Surrey: Ashgate, 2013), 101–104.

19. Kim Burwell, “Dissonance in the Studio: An Exploration of Tensions with the Apprenticeship Setting in Higher Education Music,” International Journal of Music Education 34, no. 4 (November 2016): 499–500, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0255761415574124.

20. Jørgensen, “Student Learning in Higher Instrumental Education,” 70.

21. Hyry-Beihammer, “Master-Apprentice Relation in Music Teaching,” 161n1.

22. Klaus Nielsen, “Apprenticeship at the Academy of Music,” International Journal of Education & the Arts 7, no. 4 (June 17, 2006): 8–9, 13, http://www.ijea.org/v7n4/v7n4.pdf.

23. Latukefu and Verenikina, “Expanding the Master-Apprentice Model,” 103.

24. Latukefu and Verenikina, 103.

25. Angeliki Tryantafyllaki, “‘Workplace Landscapes’ and the Construction of Performance Teachers’ Identity: The Case of Advanced Music Training Institutions in Greece,” British Journal of Music Education 27, no. 2 (July 2010): 194, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051710000082.

26. Marian Long, Andrea Creech, Helena Gaunt, and Susan Hallam, “Conservatoire Student’s Experiences and Perceptions of Instrument-Specific Master Classes,” Music Education Research 16, no. 2 (2014): 189–90, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14613808.2013.859659.

27. Patricia O’Toole, “I Sing in a Choir But I Have No Voice,” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 2–8, http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v6n1/visions/O%27Toole%20I%20Sing%20In%20A%20Choir.pdf.

28. Roberta Lamb, “Discords: Feminist Pedagogy in Music Education,” Theory into Practice 35, no. 2 (Spring 1996): 128, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1476798.

29. Burwell, “Apprenticeship in Music,” 283.

30. Jørgensen, “Student Learning in Higher Instrumental Education,” 70–1.

31. Ingrid Maria Hanken, “Student Evaluation of Teaching from the Actors’ Perspective,” Quality in Higher Education 17, no. 2 (2011): 249, https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.582797.

32. Kristin Kjølberg, Peer Learning in a Group of Voice Students, Learning Together: Trialling Group Tuition as a Supplement to One-on-One Principal Instrument Tuition, ed. Ingrid Maria Hanken, vol. 3 (Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Music Research Publications, 2015), 5.

33. Ashley Fetters, J. Clara Chan, and Nicholas Wu, “Classical Music Has a ‘God Status’ Problem,” Atlantic Web Edition, January 31, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2020/01/conservatories-sexual-harassment-abuse/604351/.

34. Hanken, “Student Evaluation of Teaching from the Actors’ Perspective,” 249.

35. Hanken, 249.

36. Burwell, “Dissonance in the Studio,” 508.

37. Lamb, “Discords: Feminist Pedagogy in Music Education,” 125.

38. “OAM Mission,” Open Access Musicology, accessed October 31, 2020, https://openaccessmusicology.wordpress.com/oam-mission.

39. O’Toole, “I Sing in a Choir But I Have No Voice,” 5–6.

40. Philip Ewell, “Music Theory and the White Racial Frame,” Music Theory Online 26, no. 2 (September 2020), https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.20.26.2/mto.20.26.2.ewell.html.

41. Matti Huttunen, “The ‘Canon’ of Music History: Historical and Critical Aspects,” in Selected Proceedings: The Maynooth International Musicological Conference, 1995 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1996), 110.

42. Daniel Leech-Wilkinson, “Classical Music as Enforced Utopia,” Arts & Humanities in Higher Education 15, no. 3–4 (July–October 2016): 330–2, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474022216647706.

43. Matti Huttunen, “The Historical Justification of Music,” Philosophy of Music Education Review 16, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 14, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40327287.

44. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 50th anniversary ed. (New York: Bloomsbury, 2018), 37.

45. Ronald David Glass, “Interviews with Contemporary Scholars: Ronald David Glass,” in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 199–200.

46. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 72. Freire’s formulation stands in a tradition of similar metaphors, one of which holds students to be “buckets” which it is the teacher’s job to fill with knowledge; see Sara Haefeli, “From Answers to Questions: Fostering Student Creativity and Engagement in Research and Writing,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 7, no. 1 (2016): 5, http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/192. A popular aphorism to this effect is often attributed to William Butler Yeats, but may in fact be paraphrased from Plutarch; see Robert Strong, “‘Education Is Not the Filling of a Pail, But the Lighting of a Fire’: It’s an Inspiring Quote, But Bid WB Yeats Say It?” Irish Times, October 15, 2013, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/education-is-not-the-filling-of-a-pail-but-the-lighting-of-a-fire-it-s-an-inspiring-quote-but-did-wb-yeats-say-it-1.1560192.

47. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 72.

48. Freire, 75–6, 83.

49. Freire, 63.

50. Freire, 85.

51. Freire, 79, 86.

52. Freire, 80–1, 90.

53. Freire, 83–4, 92.

54. Freire, 85.

55. Henry A. Giroux, introduction to The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation, by Paulo Freire (New York: Bergin & Garvey, 1985), xi.

56. Henry A. Giroux, “Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New Sociology of Education: A Critical Analysis,” Harvard Educational Review 53, no. 3 (August 1983): 283, https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.53.3.a67x4u33g7682734.

57. Giroux, 283.

58. Giroux, 262–89.

59. Some recent work examines applications of critical pedagogy to the education of musicians. In the realm of secondary-school education, see Frank Abrahams, “The Application of Critical Pedagogy to Music Teaching and Learning,” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 1–16, http://www-usr.rider.edu/%7Evrme/v6n1/visions/Abrahams%20The%20Application%20of%20Critical%20Pedagogy.pdf; Thomas A. Regelski, “Critical Theory as a Foundation for Critical Thinking in Music Education,” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 1–24, http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v6n1/visions/Regelski%20Critical%20Theory%20as%20a%20Foundation.pdf; Patrick Schmidt, “Music Education as Transformative Practice: Creating New Frameworks for Learning Music though a Freirian Perspective,” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 1–14, http://users.rider.edu/~vrme/v6n1/visions/Schmidt%20Music%20Education%20as%20Transformative%20Practice.pdf. In the post-secondary sphere, see Haefeli, 1–17; David K. Blake, “Towards a Critical Pedagogy for Undergraduate Popular Music History Courses in the Twenty-First Century,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 5, no. 1 (Fall 2014): 99–102, http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/164; Loren Kajikawa, “Hip Hop History in the Age of Colorblindness,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 5, no. 1 (Fall 2014): 117–23, http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/160; and James Vincent Maiello, “Towards a Praxial Philosophy of Music History Pedagogy,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 4, no. 1 (Fall 2013): 71–108, http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/85.

60. O’Toole, “I Sing in a Choir But I Have No Voice.”

61. Lamb, “Discords: Feminist Pedagogy in Music Education,” 124–31.

62. Julia Ecklund Koza, “Aesthetic Music Education Revisited: Discourses of Exclusion and Oppression,” Philosophy of Music Education Review 2, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 75–91, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40327074.

63. Claude Paquette, Vers une pratique de la pédagogie ouverte (St-Vincent-de-Paul, Québec: Éditions NHP, 1976).

64. Claude Paquette, “Quelques fondements d’une pédagogie ouverte,” Québec français, December 1979, 18, https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/qf/1979-n36-qf1208689/51334ac.pdf.

65. Robert P. Mai, “Open Education: From Ideology to Orthodoxy,” Peabody Journal of Education 55, no. 3 (April 1978): 231, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1491597.

66. “Read the Declaration,” Cape Town Open Education Declaration, accessed Sept. 1, 2020, https://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration.

67. David Wiley, “What Is Open Pedagogy?” Iterating Toward Openness (blog), Oct. 21, 2013, https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2975.

68. Bronwyn Hegarty, “Attributes of Open Pedagogy: A Model for Using Open Educational Resources,” Educational Technology 55, no, 4 (July–August 2015): 6–10, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44430383.

69. Rajiv S. Jhangiani, “Ditching the ‘Disposable Assignment’ in Favor of Open Pedagogy.” In Essays from E-xcellence in Teaching, vol. 17, ed. William S. Altman, Lyra Stein, and Jonathan E. Westfall (Society for the Teaching of Psychology, 2018), 8–10, http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/eit2017/index.php.

70. This kind of practice has been slower to emerge in the teaching of musicology than in some other fields, but one notable new effort is the “Open Access Musicology” project; see https://openaccessmusicology.wordpress.com/about/.

71. Catherine Cronin, “Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education,” presentation to the Society for Research into Higher Education, Nov. 18, 2016, http://catherinecronin.net/research/openness-and-praxis/.

72. David Wiley, “How Is Open Pedagogy Different?” Iterating Toward Openness (blog), Apr. 4, 2017, https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/4943.

73. Allan Collins, John Seeley Brown, and Susan E. Newman, “Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic,” in Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, ed. Laura B. Resnick (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989), 453.

74. Collins, Brown, and Newman, 453.

75. Collins, Brown, and Newman, 453.

76. Collins, Brown, and Newman, 455–6.

77. Collins, Brown, and Newman,  455, 457.

78. Haefeli, “From Answers to Questions,” 4.

79. Collins, Brown, and Newman, “Cognitive Apprenticeship,” 478–9.

80. Collins, Brown, and Newman, 464, 473, 483.

81. Collins, Brown, and Newman, 487, 490.

82. Collins, Brown, and Newman, 464.

83. Collins, Brown, and Newman, 482.

84. Allan Collins, “Cognitive Apprenticeship,” in Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia, ed. Eric M. Anderman and Lynley H. Anderman (Detroit: Macmillan, 2009), 179.

85. Collins, 177, 180; see Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), 84–91.

86. Willi Apel, “Musicology,” in Harvard Dictionary of Music (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1944), 473–5.

87. Willi Apel, “Musicology,” in Harvard Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969), 558–9.

88. Don Michael Randel, “Musicology,” in The New Harvard Dictionary of Music (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 520–1.

89. Don Michael Randel, “Musicology,” in Harvard Dictionary of Music, 4th ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 542–4.

90. Jack Russell Weinstein, “Neutrality, Pluralism, and Education: Civic Education as Learning about the Other,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 23 (2004): 242, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SPED.0000028333.81199.8e.

91. Carrie Donovan and Sara O’Donnell, “The Tyranny of Tradition: How Information Paradigms Limit Librarians’ Teaching and Student Scholarship,” in Information Literacy and Social Justice: Radical Professional Praxis, ed. Lua Gregory and Shana Higgins (Sacramento: Library Juice Press, 2013), 125. A substantial literature supports the idea that ambiguity and confusion are essential to complex learning. See John Seely Brown and Kurt VanLehn, “Repair Theory: A Generative Theory of Bugs in Procedural Skills,” Cognitive Science 4, no. 4 (1980): 379–426, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(80)80010-3; Kurt VanLehn et al., “Why Do Only Some Events Cause Learning During Human Tutoring?” Cognition and Instruction 21, no. 3 (2003): 209–49, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3233810; and Arthur C. Graesser, et al., “Question Asking and Eye Tracking During Cognitive Disequilibrium: Comprehending Illustrated Texts on Devices When the Devices Break Down,” Memory & Cognition 33, no. 7 (2005): 1235–47, https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193225.

92. Susan McClary, “Getting Down Off the Beanstalk: The Presence of a Woman’s Voice in Janika Vandervelde's Genesis II,” in Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality, new edition, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), 112–31; Pieter C. van den Toorn, “Politics, Feminism, and Contemporary Music Theory,” The Journal of Musicology 9, no. 3 (Summer, 1991): 275–99, https://www.jstor.org/stable/763704; and Ruth Solie, “What Do Feminists Want,” The Journal of Musicology 9, no. 4 (Autumn 1991): 399–410, https://www.jstor.org/stable/763868.

93. Erin Conor, “Re-Envisioning Information Literacy: Critical Information Literacy, Disciplinary Discourses, and Music History,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 9, no. 1 (2019): 38, https://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/293/627. Here I wish to acknowledge that Conor has already proposed the idea of exposing students to the van den Toorn-Solie debate as a way of showing them a side of musicology they have rarely encountered, and Amy Strickland has independently suggested tracing a topic over time through comparison of dictionary articles, in her case the reception of Benjamin Britten and different editions of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (see Amy Strickland, “Context, Reliability, and Authority: Grove Dictionary Through the Years,” in Information Literacy in Music: An Instructor’s Companion, ed. Beth Christensen, Erin Conor, and Marian Ritter (Middleton, WI: A-R Editions, 2018), 99–103). Conor has also proposed assignments that ask a student to confront the library collection as not neutral but rather a reflection of accepted disciplinary discourse (See Conor, 37–8). This was unknown to me before I began researching this essay, but I find myself gratified to learn that similar considerations have led other educators to similar solutions.

94. I have previously described Musicology Spyfall; for a more detailed treatment please see https://sites.google.com/site/musicologyspyfall/.

95. Note: this model of decomposing the task of writing an essay owes much to the description offered by Laura Snyder in “Teaching the Graduate Bibliography Course,” in Music Library Instruction, ed. Deborah Campana (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2004), 47–98.

96. Collins, Brown, Newman, “Cognitive Apprenticeship,” 464.

97. Dan Guberman has written on his use of co-grading as a way to overcome students’ resistance to engaging with instructor feedback. His process is more open-ended than the one I describe, with a more qualitative, less quantitative influence by the student on the final grade. See Dan Guberman, “Grading Together: Toward a Partnership Approach,” Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education 1, no. 29 (Winter 2020): Article 6, https://repository.brynmawr.edu/tlthe/vol1/iss29/6.

98. With one exception: The do-over for the first draft is built into the sequence in the form of the final draft.

99. Collins, Brown, and Newman, “Cognitive Apprenticeship,” 486–7.

100. Collins, Brown, and Newman, 457.

101. Johanna K. Garner, “Cognitive Apprenticeship Learning,” in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, ed. Norbert M. Seele (New York: Springer, 2012), 568.

102. Collins, Brown, and Newman, “Cognitive Apprenticeship,” 456–7.

103. The Writing Center workshop on peer-review techniques also serves to orient them toward Writing Center services, so students already have an idea of what to expect.

104. The CC-BY license is available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/.

105. See https://libguides.du.edu/MUAC-4000.

106. Wiley, “What Is Open Pedagogy?”

107. Anis S. Bawarshi and Mary Jo Reiff. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. (West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2010), 78–104.

108. Bawarshi and Reiff. 61.

109. Ken Hyland, “Genre and Academic Writing in the Disciplines,” Language Teaching 41, no. 4 (2008): 543–62, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235.

110. Laura Micciche and Allison D. Carr, “Toward Graduate-Level Writing Instruction,” College Composition and Communication 62, no. 3 (February 2011): 477–501, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27917909.

111. See https://libguides.du.edu/writing-on-music.

112. Christopher Davis, “Michael Chapdelaine Interview, Part 3,” August 29, 2010, https://youtu.be/9ioMuy1UzlI.

113. Douglas Kellner, American Nightmare: Donald Trump, Media Spectacle, and Authoritarian Populism (Rotterdam: Sense, 2016), 8.

114. Anita Biressi and Heather Nunn, “‘I’m Passionate, Lord Sugar’: Young Entrepreneurs, Critical Judgment, and Emotional Labor in Young Apprentice,” in A Critique of Judgment in Film and Television, ed. Silke Panse and Dennis Rothermel (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014), 91, 103–4.

115. Haefeli, “From Answers to Questions”

116. Helena Gaunt and Heidi Westerlund, eds., Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education (Surrey: Ashgate: 2013).

117. Open Access Musicology, accessed October 31, 2020, https://openaccessmusicology.wordpress.com/about/.

118. Kjølberg, Peer Learning in a Group of Voice Students, 5.

119. Wendy Katkin, “The Boyer Commission Report and Its Impact on Undergraduate Research,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning no. 93 (Spring 2003): 24–5, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tl.86.

120. Rebecca Kennison and Sarah L. Shreeves, “Institutional Repositories—So Much More than Green OA,” in “Point & Counterpoint: The Purpose of Institutional Repositories: Green OA or Beyond?” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 1, no. 4 (2013): eP1105, 3, https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1105.

121. Kimberly Francis and Travis Stimeling, “E-Publishing in the Undergraduate Music History Classroom: The University of Guelph Book Review Project,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 4, no. 1 (2013): 13, https://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/92/124.

 

References

Abrahams, Frank. “The Application of Critical Pedagogy to Music Teaching and Learning.” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 1–16. http://www-usr.rider.edu/%7Evrme/v6n1/visions/Abrahams%20The%20Application%20of%20Critical%20Pedagogy.pdf.

Apel, Willi. “Musicology.” In Harvard Dictionary of Music, 473–5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1944.

———. “Musicology.” In Harvard Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed., 558–9. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969.

Bawarshi Anis S., and Mary Jo Reiff. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2010.

Biressi, Anita, and Heather Nunn. “‘I’m Passionate, Lord Sugar’: Young Entrepreneurs, Critical Judgment, and Emotional Labor in Young Apprentice.” In A Critique of Judgment in Film and Television, ed. Silke Panse and Dennis Rothermel, 90–107. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014.

Blake, David K. “Towards a Critical Pedagogy for Undergraduate Popular Music History Courses in the Twenty-First Century.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 5, no. 1 (Fall 2014): 99–102, http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/164.

Brown, John Seely, and Kurt VanLehn. “Repair Theory: A Generative Theory of Bugs in Procedural Skills,” Cognitive Science 4, no. 4 (1980): 379–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(80)80010-3.

Burwell, Kim. “Apprenticeship in Music: A Contextual Study for Instrumental Teaching and Learning,” International Journal of Music Education 31, no. 3 (August 2012): 276–91. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0255761411434501.

———. “Dissonance in the Studio: An Exploration of Tensions with the Apprenticeship Setting in Higher Education Music.” International Journal of Music Education 34, no. 4 (November 2016): 499–512. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0255761415574124.

Collins, Allan. “Cognitive Apprenticeship.” In Psychology of Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia, ed. Eric M. Anderman and Lynley H. Anderman, 177–81. Detroit: Macmillan, 2009.

———, John Seeley Brown, and Susan E. Newman. “Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic.” In Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, ed. Laura B. Resnick, 453–94. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989.

Chapdelaine, Michael. “Segovia Chapdelaine Master Class.” Video. 9:57. Uploaded June 11, 2007. https://youtu.be/wiAbqfaYGwk.

Conor, Erin. “Re-Envisioning Information Literacy: Critical Information Literacy, Disciplinary Discourses, and Music History.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 9, no. 1 (2019): 28-43. https://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/293/627.

Cronin, Catherine. “Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education.” Presentation to the Society for Research into Higher Education, Nov. 18, 2016. http://catherinecronin.net/research/openness-and-praxis/.

Daniel, Ryan, and Kelly A. Parkes. “Music Instrument Teachers in Higher Education: An Investigation of the Key Influences on How They Teach in the Studio.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 29, no. 1 (2017): 33, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1136001.pdf.

Davis, Christopher. “Michael Chapdelaine Interview, Part 3.” Video. 6:33. Uploaded August 29, 2010. https://youtu.be/9ioMuy1UzlI.

Donovan, Carrie, and Sara O’Donnell. “The Tyranny of Tradition: How Information Paradigms Limit Librarians’ Teaching and Student Scholarship.” In Information Literacy and Social Justice: Radical Professional Praxis, ed. Lua Gregory and Shana Higgins, 121–39. Sacramento: Library Juice Press, 2013.

Dunlop, O. Jocelyn. English Apprenticeship & Child Labour: A History. New York: MacMillan, 1912.

Ewell, Philip . “Music Theory and the White Racial Frame,” Music Theory Online 26, no. 2 (September 2020), https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.20.26.2/mto.20.26.2.ewell.html.

Fetters, Ashley, J. Clara Chan, and Nicholas Wu. “Classical Music Has a ‘God Status’ Problem,” Atlantic Web Edition, January 31, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2020/01/conservatories-sexual-harassment-abuse/604351/.

Francis, Kimberly, and Travis Stimeling, “E-Publishing in the Undergraduate Music History Classroom: The University of Guelph Book Review Project,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 4, no. 1 (2013): 1–22. https://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/92/124.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 50th anniversary ed. New York: Bloomsbury, 2018.

Galenson, David W. White Servitude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Garner, Johanna K. “Cognitive Apprenticeship Learning.” In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, ed. Norbert M. Seele, 566–70. New York: Springer, 2012.

Gaunt, Helena, and Heidi Westerlund, eds. Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education. Surrey: Ashgate: 2013.

Giroux, Henry A. Introduction to The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation, by Paulo Freire, ix–xxvi. New York: Bergin & Garvey, 1985.

———. “Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New Sociology of Education: A Critical Analysis,” Harvard Educational Review 53, no. 3 (August 1983): 257–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.53.3.a67x4u33g7682734.

Graesser, Arthur C., Shulan Lu, Brent A. Olde, Elisa Cooper-Pye, and Shannon Whitten. “Question Asking and Eye Tracking During Cognitive Disequilibrium: Comprehending Illustrated Texts on Devices When the Devices Break Down,” Memory & Cognition 33, no. 7 (2005): 1235–47, https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193225.

Guberman, Dan. “Grading Together: Toward a Partnership Approach.” Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education 1, no. 29 (Winter 2020): Article 6. https://repository.brynmawr.edu/tlthe/vol1/iss29/6.

Haefeli, Sara. “From Answers to Questions: Fostering Student Creativity and Engagement in Research and Writing.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 7, no. 1 (2016): 1–17. http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/192.

Hanken, Ingrid Maria. “Student Evaluation of Teaching from the Actors' Perspective.” Quality in Higher Education 17, no. 2 (2011): 245–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.582797.

Hegarty, Bronwyn. “Attributes of Open Pedagogy: A Model for Using Open Educational Resources.” Educational Technology 55, no, 4 (July–August 2015): 3–13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44430383. 

Hettinger, Madonna J. “Defining the Servant: Legal and Extra-Legal Terms of Employment in Fifteenth-Century England.” In The Work of Work: Servitude, Slavery, and Labor in Medieval England, ed. Allen J. Frantzen and Douglas Moffat, 206–28. Glasgow: Cruithne Press, 1994.

Huttunen, Matti. “The ‘Canon’ of Music History: Historical and Critical Aspects.” In Selected Proceedings: The Maynooth International Musicological Conference, 1995, 110–8. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1996.

———. “The Historical Justification of Music.” Philosophy of Music Education Review 16, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 3–19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40327287. 

Hyland, Ken. “Genre and Academic Writing in the Disciplines.” Language Teaching 41, no. 4 (2008): 543–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235.

Hyry-Beihammer, Eeva Kaisa. “Master-Apprentice Relation in Music Teaching: From a Secret Garden to a Transparent Modelling.” Nordic Research in Music Education Yearbook 12 (2010): 161–178. https://nmh.brage.unit.no/nmh-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/172285/Hyry-Beihammer_2010.pdf.

Jhangiani, Rajiv S. “Ditching the ‘Disposable Assignment’ in Favor of Open Pedagogy.” In Essays from E-xcellence in Teaching, vol. 17, ed. William S. Altman, Lyra Stein, and Jonathan E. Westfall, 7–12. Society for the Teaching of Psychology, 2018. http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/eit2017/index.php. 

Jørgensen, Harald. “Student Learning in Higher Instrumental Education: Who Is Responsible.” British Journal of Music Education 17, no. 1 (March 2000): 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000164.

Kajikawa, Loren. “Hip Hop History in the Age of Colorblindness.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 5, no. 1 (Fall 2014): 117–23, http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/160.

Katkin, Wendy. “The Boyer Commission Report and Its Impact on Undergraduate Research,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning no. 93 (Spring 2003): 19–38. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tl.86.

Kellner, Douglas. American Nightmare: Donald Trump, Media Spectacle, and Authoritarian Populism. Rotterdam: Sense, 2016.

Kennison, Rebecca, and Sarah L. Shreeves, “Institutional Repositories—So Much More than Green OA,” in “Point & Counterpoint: The Purpose of Institutional Repositories: Green OA or Beyond?” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 1, no. 4 (2013): eP1105. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1105.

Kjølberg, Kristin. Peer Learning in a Group of Voice Students. Learning Together: Trialling Group Tuition as a Supplement to One-on-One Principal Instrument Tuition, edited by Ingrid Maria Hanken, vol. 3. Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Music Research Publications, 2015.

Koza, Julia Ecklund. “Aesthetic Music Education Revisited: Discourses of Exclusion and Oppression,” Philosophy of Music Education Review 2, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 75–91, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40327074.

Lamb, Roberta. “Discords: Feminist Pedagogy in Music Education.” Theory into Practice 35, no. 2 (Spring 1996): 124–31, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1476798.

Latukefu, Lotte, and Irina Verenikina, “Expanding the Master-Apprentice Model: Tool for Orchestrating Collaboration as a Path to Self-Directed Learning for Singing Students.” In Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education, edited by Helena Gaunt and Heidi Westerlund, 101–9. Surrey: Ashgate: 2013.

Long, Marian, Andrea Creech, Helena Gaunt, and Susan Hallam. “Conservatoire Student’s Experiences and Perceptions of Instrument-Specific Master Classes.” Music Education Research 16:2 (2014): 189–90. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14613808.2013.859659.

Leech-Wilkinson, Daniel. “Classical Music as Enforced Utopia.” Arts & Humanities in Higher Education 15, no. 3–4 (July–October 2016): 325–36. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474022216647706.

Mai, Robert P. “Open Education: From Ideology to Orthodoxy,” Peabody Journal of Education 55, no. 3 (April 1978): 231–7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1491597.

Maiello, James Vincent. “Towards a Praxial Philosophy of Music History Pedagogy,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 4. no 1 (Fall 2013): 71–108, http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/85.

McClary, Susan. “Getting Down Off the Beanstalk: The Presence of a Woman's Voice in Janika Vandervelde's Genesis II,” in Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality, new edition, 112–31. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002.

Micciche, Laura, and Allison D. Carr. “Toward Graduate-Level Writing Instruction,” College Composition and Communication 62, no. 3 (February 2011): 477–501. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27917909.

Nielsen, Klaus. “Apprenticeship at the Academy of Music.” International Journal of Education & the Arts 7, no. 4 (June 17, 2006): 1–15. http://www.ijea.org/v7n4/v7n4.pdf.

“OAM Mission.” Open Access Musicology. Accessed 2 July 2021. https://openaccessmusicology.wordpress.com/about/.  

O’Toole, Patricia. “I Sing in a Choir But I Have No Voice.” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 1–26. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v6n1/visions/O%27Toole%20I%20Sing%20In%20A%20Choir.pdf.

Paquette, Claude. “Quelques fondements d’une pédagogie ouverte,” Québec français, December 1979, 18–9. https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/qf/1979-n36-qf1208689/51334ac.pdf.

———. Vers une pratique de la pédagogie ouverte. St-Vincent-de-Paul, Québec: Éditions NHP, 1976.

Randel, Don Michael. “Musicology.” In Harvard Dictionary of Music, 4th ed., 542–4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.

———. “Musicology.” In The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, 520–1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.

“Read the Declaration.” Cape Town Open Education Declaration, accessed Sept. 1, 2020, https://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration.

Regelski, Thomas A. “Critical Theory as a Foundation for Critical Thinking in Music Education.” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 1–24. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v6n1/visions/Regelski%20Critical%20Theory%20as%20a%20Foundation.pdf.

Rothblatt, Sheldon. “How ‘Professional’ Are the Professions?” Comparative Studies in Society and History 37, no. 1 (January 1995): 194–204. https://www.jstor.org/stable/179383.

Schmidt, Patrick. “Music Education as Transformative Practice: Creating New Frameworks for Learning Music though a Freirian Perspective.” Visions of Research in Music Education 6 (2005): 1–14. http://users.rider.edu/~vrme/v6n1/visions/Schmidt%20Music%20Education%20as%20Transformative%20Practice.pdf.

Snyder, Laura. “Teaching the Graduate Music Bibliography Course.” In Music Library Instruction, ed. Deborah Campana, 47–98. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2004.

Solie, Ruth. “What Do Feminists Want.” The Journal of Musicology 9, no. 4 (Autumn 1991): 399–410. https://www.jstor.org/stable/763868.

Starling, William. Strings Attached: The Life and Music of John Williams. London: Robson Press, 2012. Kindle.

Steinfeld, Robert J., and Stanley L. Engerman. “Labor – Free or Coerced? A Historical Reassessment of Differences and Similarities.” In Free and Unfree Labor: The Debate Continues, edited by Tom Brass and Marcel van der Linden, 107–26. Bern: Peter Lang, 1997.

Strickland, Amy. “Context, Reliability, and Authority: Grove Dictionary Through the Years,” In Information Literacy in Music: An Instructor’s Companion, ed. Beth Christensen, Erin Conor, and Marian Ritter, 99–103. Middleton, WI: A-R Editions, 2018.

Strong, Robert. “‘Education Is Not the Filling of a Pail, But the Lighting of a Fire’: It’s an Inspiring Quote, But Bid WB Yeats Say It?” Irish Times, October 15, 2013. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/education-is-not-the-filling-of-a-pail-but-the-lighting-of-a-fire-it-s-an-inspiring-quote-but-did-wb-yeats-say-it-1.1560192.

Sullivan, William M. Work and Integrity: The Crisis and Promise of Professionalism in America, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.

Tryantafyllaki, Angeliki. “‘Workplace Landscapes’ and the Construction of Performance Teachers’ Identity: The Case of Advanced Music Training Institutions in Greece.” British Journal of Music Education 27, no. 2 (July 2010): 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051710000082.

Tuchman, Barbara. A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century. New York: Random House, 1978.

van den Toorn, Pieter C. “Politics, Feminism, and Contemporary Music Theory.” The Journal of Musicology 9, no. 3 (Summer, 1991): 275–99. https://www.jstor.org/stable/763704.

VanLehn, Kurt, Stephanie Siler, Charles Murray, Takashi Yamauchi, and William B. Baggett. “Why Do Only Some Events Cause Learning During Human Tutoring?” Cognition and Instruction 21, no. 3 (2003): 209–49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3233810.

Vygotsky, Lev Semyonovich. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Weinstein, Jack Russell. “Neutrality, Pluralism, and Education: Civic Education as Learning about the Other.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 23 (2004): 235–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SPED.0000028333.81199.8e.

Wiley, David. “How Is Open Pedagogy Different?” Iterating Toward Openness (blog), Apr. 4, 2017. https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/4943.

———. “What Is Open Pedagogy?.” Iterating Toward Openness (blog), Oct. 21, 2013. https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2975.

Wilkey, Robert N. “The Non-Negotiable Employment Contract: Diagnosing the Employment Rights of Medical Residents.” Creighton Law Review 44 (2011): 705–47. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/creigh44&i=711.