Learning Theories in Music Instruction

The notion of a learning theory has always been strange to me. When I see exceptional teachers, I don’t notice distinctly what learning theory or style they use, but witness only great teaching, or better, the great learning. Nevertheless, concepts from each of the learning theories are displayed subtly. I will take several of the teaching strategies I use in my classroom and in my studio instruction, which I learned from some great teachers, and describe what concepts from the learning theories they use. I will end with my thoughts on a learning theory developing in response to the technological era, connectivism.

Behaviorism

Behaviorism, which originated among some of the great pioneers of psychology, such as Skinner and Pavlov, focuses on the importance of observable behavior. The biggest place I use observable behavior in my classroom is for assessments of posture and regular performance assessments. Visually assessing points of posture, such as having feet flat, back straight, and sitting on the front half of the chair, are observable parts of behavior, which makes assessment convenient and efficient. These posture points are one of the items I notice as pillars of instruction among excellent teachers, including my own teachers.

One drawback to this mode of assessment actually calls on elements of cognitivism (discussed next) in its critique. While a behaviorist argument defending its efficacy will suggest that habit development in posture is equally observable, a cognitivist critique will call into question the role of memory and long-term learning. For example, a verbal prompt may skew the real retention of the elements of posture; if kids are responding to the prompt, this may suggest that they haven’t stored good posture elements in their long-term memory. In spite of this critique, I will continue to use the behaviorist form of assessment for posture, and will create assessment contexts that have an authentic reflection by conducting assessments of posture both with and without prompting reminders.

Cognitivism

One of our biggest challenges that we face is students’ abilities to transfer knowledge from the context in which they learned the concept to a context where they apply a concept. This is, in my opinion, a drawback of assessing such items as note-reading, bowing concepts, and rhythm; a student will perform well for an informal assessment of a new note, in its presentation context, but will often struggle with it when they encounter it in a piece of music. Behaviorist theory will not be able to explain the discrepancy on its own, therefore, I use cognitivism to justify a subjective or case-by-case basis of assessment. I can ask kids to play a new note on its own, to play it in music, and I can make a call on whether or not they really know and understand the new note based on their timing, expression, confidence, reaction, and various other indicators.

Ideally, the goal is not just to teach a new concept or have students succeed at synthetic performances of that new concept, but to be able to integrate a variety of concepts to produce a piece of music. The difficulty faced by the cognitivist approach here is the extent the complexity of the material on which the assessment is focused: authentic music is far too removed from the goals of assessment to play well into cognitivist assessments, therefore it can yield results that are unhelpful. Ultimately, constructivist approaches to assessing students’ abilities to perform authentic music are the most useful, since they deal more with the processes of learning.

Constructivism

Music, in both teaching and assessment, lends itself well to constructivist learning strategies, provided that a appropriate level of music is selected as the end point of the learning segment and students are taught processes and routines for getting to that point. Rarely, however, does there exist a piece of music with the precise constellation of concepts to reflect the learning of a diverse student population, therefore, constructivism is far more useful as a summative form of assessment. This will give the guide the opportunity to teach some of the procedures by rote or by explanation, help students practice those applications in synthetic musical contexts, teach students to transfer those procedures to new situations, and thus prepare them for the summative assessment.

Additionally, choice is another monumental point of assessment in constructivist learning. I allow my second year orchestra students to browse a collection of repertoire, at all levels, genres, and instrumentations, and select one piece they are to prepare all by themselves. When I taught public school orchestra, our team assessed this through a standard called “Self-Directed Learning EL.A3.3.” In the assessment of the unit, I incorporate an evaluation of the appropriateness of the student’s selection; did they pick something that they felt they could do well, something they might find as a challenge, but something within their musical grasp? I do not feel that these questions are only answerable only by the teacher, but that students generally have an accurate self-assessment in this regard. The assessment becomes either a practice of self-reflection or otherwise honesty.

Connectivism

A recent trend (relative to the field of psychology) in learning theories is concerned with the role of technology on the acquisition of knowledge. Siemens (2004) is specifically interested in networks that students have, personally and through digital interface, and how they deal with the chaos and organization of the abundance of knowledge, which didn’t exist at the time of the study of the former three learning theories (behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism). For Siemens, several principles define connectivism, such as “Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions,” “Learning is a process of connecting…information sources,” and the “Capacity to know is more critical than what is currently known.” In many ways, connectivism might lend itself well for the era of technology.

I am skeptical about the efficacies of assuming a hard stance upon the foundation of connectivism. While the harnessing of the internet is required of learners in this time period, it is important not to disregard the importance of basic fact memorization, at the lowest level of Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956), which is essential for the creation of divergent ideas and high level critical thinking. For a substantial uncovering of this train of thought, see Willis (2007). In addition, Siemens (2004) seems to undermine the very premise of the importance of the knowledge gained through connectivism: “While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate.” He calls the broad curriculum a “shifting reality.” This begs the question, if we are bringing learners to a source of information that shifts from day to day, what do we want them to take away? Will they be motivated to learn something now if it may change tomorrow? Ultimately, my criticism of connectivism rests on the issue of how do we ground knowledge in the first place. What use is there to connect information whose status of validity constantly shifts or opinions which are fundamentally subjective?

Nevertheless, the most important aspect of connectivism lies in the challenge of creating a learning framework that deals with the points of access. What opportunities do students have to connect this learning or that idea, to produce something novel? How do other people make connections? A more fruitful line of inquiry involves teaching concepts in different ways for a larger variety of learners. If I am trying to teach how to hold a bow correctly, no matter how good at teaching on my own I might be, having access to instructional resources through technology may help a struggling learner in a way that I can’t, and having a connection to a network of teachers with a diversity of ideas may give me an alternative route of instruction that I wouldn’t have thought of on my own. I teach the bow hold in a way I find most successful for most students, then I alter the teaching to the struggling learners. In each case of struggler, I have at my disposal the vast internet for teaching suggestions, a network of string teachers on social media to bounce ideas and ask for advice, and a variety of how-to videos to show. In the end, my ability to teach in the age of technology is enhanced by my ability to connect my goals to knowledge banks online, and to help students do the same.

References

Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Elearnspace. Retrieved from https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP130/DIMENTE09/elearnspace.%20Connectivism_%20...pdf

Willis, J. (2007). Research-Based Strategies to Ignite Student Learning. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.