For those who have spent more than a few moments in academe, the past is littered with educational ideas considered and then abandoned. It sometimes seems that a new pedagogical fad is trotted out once a year, only to be declared a shibboleth when the next model is rolled off the mental assembly line. However, a (suddenly fashionable) buzz-phrase for a very old set of concepts may yet prove to have staying power: Active Learning has proven benefits for students, and points favorably toward pedagogical approaches that have been present in applied music teaching since time immemorial.

While the concept of Active Learning has existed in some form for more than a century (and, in practice, much longer), interest around the philosophy and methods associated with the term have increased as teachers deal with the educational aftereffects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the new awareness of student mental health, and generational change. Entire universities are now leading charges to encourage Active Learning across their campuses (Supiano 2024). What does this mean for the music professor?

Active Learning is often identified by what it is not: The concept is often presented as an alternative to the lecture-based or “sage on the stage” model of teaching. However, it can often be difficult to define what Active Learning IS. When presented through the average campus professional development center, it may seem as if the approach is a grab-bag of strategies, mainly focusing on group activities. Indeed, some sources point to a (perhaps) simplistic view that the approach is merely about “introducing activities into the traditional lecture and promoting student engagement” (Prince 2004, 225). It may be more useful to think of Active Learning as a re-packaging of constructivist educational approaches that date back at least to the theories of Piaget in the early 20th century. In this view, students are responsible for constructing their own knowledge rather than relying on simple knowledge transfer from an instructor (Lombardi and Shipley 2021).

While a constructivist model of education can make ample use of hands-on experiences and engagement, student participation, as such, is not the point. Rather, these methods are used to help a student build their own aptitude for understanding, critical thinking, and, ultimately, independence (Shively 2015, 129). In a landmark study in 2014, a team of natural scientists from the University of Washington and the University of Maine found that use of Active Learning methods (identified as a constructivist model of teaching, counterposed to a lecture-based approach) improved scores on tests in STEM fields by approximately six percentage points, especially when utilized in classes of fifty students or fewer (Freeman et al. 2014, 8410).

Aside from such a cold metric, however, the music professor can also think of end goals as a motivating factor in incorporating Active Learning techniques. If we desire our students to be independent artists, teachers, music therapists, and more beyond their student years, they will need to possess the ability to continue to learn on their own, build their own meaning, and find their own creative way. If we are not building these skills in the college classroom and studio, how do we expect them to gain them? An Active Learning or constructivist approach can lead the way.

As Scott (2011) noted, in an active learning paradigm or constructivist perspective,

students acquire new knowledge most effectively when teachers facilitate their learning by helping them investigate their musical surroundings and discover musical knowledge for themselves. Through acts of discovery, students rearrange and transform what they know in ways that allow them to extend their current level of understanding by integrating new insights into what they already know. (192)

It may be easy to classify nearly every activity in the private studio or ensemble as an “Active Learning” experience from a surface understanding of the concept. However, the constructivist approach is ultimately student-centered. The student connects previously-acquired knowledge with new concepts, applies information or ideas in creative and personal ways, and all concerned in the teaching and learning process leave a wide berth for questions and inquiry (Scott 2011, 194).

Any scenario in which students can truly make their own artistic decisions alone or as a collective, or apply knowledge and concepts in creative formats, could be called Active Learning. The challenge for the teacher is to conscientiously create assignments and opportunities for students to meaningfully build connections and create their own knowledge. For example, virtually all applied instructors would say that we are trying to develop our students’ musicianship. Which Active Learning strategies would help a student build these for themselves, rather than relying on a constant stream of examples from the instructor?

Perhaps one way to achieve this would be in a chamber ensemble setting, with students working together as peers. Initially, the teacher could choose a small section of a piece and request that each student write out, as accurately as possible, their own interpretation of the passage: breath marks, notes to emphasize, shaping dynamics, and anything else possible. Then, in the next coaching, students could play through each interpretation, discussing what rings emotionally true in every iteration. Then, they could work collaboratively to combine the best elements of each interpretation to form a true ensemble approach. After this, the teacher could introduce larger and larger sections until the ensemble had their own complete interpretation of the movement or piece.

Of course, there is risk in this approach. Students could conceive of a completely outré interpretation that would shock the musical establishment…but who would care? In the rare case that this happens, the teacher could compare the result with commonly-accepted interpretations and explain why some choices may not be appropriate within the given context. Ultimately, we must trust our students to make their own way someday, so why not begin the process while we can still nurture?

Today, collegiate music instructors have a unique opportunity to follow the zeitgeist. Active Learning is a much-touted concept that many of us can embrace, and, indeed, many of us have been practicing for years. Why not showcase the leadership of music departments and programs in this area to the benefit of our students?

 

References

Freeman, Scott, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt, and Mary Pat Wenderoth. 2014. “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, no. 23 (May 12, 2014): 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Lombardi, Doug, and Thomas F. Shipley. 2021. “The Curious Construct of Active Learning.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 22, no. 1: 8–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620973974

Prince, Michael. 2004. “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research.” Journal of Engineering Education 93, no. 3: 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

Scott, Sheila. 2011. “Contemplating a Constructivist Stance for Active Learning Within Music Education.” Arts Education Policy Review 112, no. 4: 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2011.592469

Shively, Joseph. 2015. “Constructivism in Music Education.” Arts Education Policy Review 116, no. 3: 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2015.1011815

Supiano, Beckie. 2024. “Can This University Change Its Teaching Culture?” Chronicle of Higher Education, March 8, 2024. https://www.chronicle.com/article/ can-this-university-change-its-teaching-culture