The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of two different reciprocal peer-assisted learning (PAL) arrangements on music achievement and learner engagement in the secondary instrumental music classroom. Using a quasi-experimental design, students from six separate seventh-grade bands from one large urban/suburban school district (N = 261) were randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions: symmetrical PAL, where students of like ability were paired together, and asymmetrical PAL, where students of divergent ability were paired together. Students worked in pairs over the course of four weeks and took turns being the “learner” and the “teacher” to improve sight-reading ability and music theory knowledge. Student pairs were allowed to determine their own rules for interaction, turn taking, and the amount of material to be covered in each session. Three pre-/posttest outcome variables were assessed: sight-reading performance, music theory knowledge, and learner engagement. Additionally, individual socioeconomic status (SES) and motivation orientation were compared as potential moderating variables. Hierarchical linear regression analyses indicated that regardless of PAL pairings, there were significant gains for each of the outcome variables. Moreover, interaction effects were found between learner engagement, method of instruction, and SES.
AlexanderL.DorrowL. G. (1983). Peer tutoring effects on the music performance of tutors and tutees in beginning band classes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 33–47. doi:10.2307/3345108
2.
AllsupR. E. (2003). Mutual learning and democratic action in instrumental music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 24–37. doi:10.2307/3345646
3.
BergM. H. (1997). Social construction of musical experience in two high school chamber music ensembles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
4.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
5.
BuckM. (2008). The efficacy of SmartMusic® assessment as a teaching and learning too. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS.
6.
CohenP. A.KulikJ. A.KulikC. L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248. doi:10.3102/00028312019002237
7.
DarrowA. A.GibbsP.WedelS. (2005). Use of classwide peer tutoring in the general music classroom. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 24, 15–26.
8.
ElliotA. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
9.
ElliotA. J.McGregorH. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
10.
EnsmingerM. E.ForrestC. B.RileyA. W.KangM.GreenB. F.StarfieldB.RyanS. A. (2000). The validity of measures of socioeconomic status of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(3), 392–419. doi:10.1177/07 43558400153005
11.
FinneyJ.TymoczkoM. (2003). Secondary school students as leaders: Examining the potential for transforming music education. Music Education International, 2, 36–50.
12.
FodorD. (1998). Critical moments of change: A study of the social and musical interaction of precollegiate jazz combos (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
13.
FurrerC.SkinnerE. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148
14.
Ginsburg-BlockM. D.RohrbeckC. A.FantuzzoJ. W. (2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 732–773. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.732
15.
GoodrichA. (2007). Peer mentoring in a high school jazz ensemble. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 94–114. doi:10.1177/002242940705500202
16.
GreenL. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. London, England: Ashgate Publishing.
17.
JohnsonE. (2013). The effect of peer-based instruction on rhythm reading achievement. Contributions to Music Education, 38(2), 25–42.
18.
JonesB. F.PalinscarA. S.OgleD. S.CarrE. G. (1987). Learning and thinking. Strategic Teaching and Learning: Cognitive Instruction in the Content Areas, 13(2), 3–32.
19.
KarasJ. (2005). The effect of aural and improvisatory instruction on fifth grade band students’ sight reading ability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
20.
LamontA.HargreavesD. J.MarshallN. A.TarrantM. (2003). Young people’s music in and out of school. British Journal of Music Education, 20, 229–241. doi:10.1017/S0265051703005412
21.
LeblerD. (2007). Student-as-master? Reflections on a learning innovation in popular music pedagogy. International Journal of Music Education, 25, 205–220. doi:10.1177/0255761407083575
22.
LeeE. (2007). A study of the effect of computer assisted instruction, previous music experience, and time on the performance ability of beginning instrumental music students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
23.
MadsenC. K.SmithD. S.FeemanC. C. (1988). The use of music in cross-age tutoring within special education settings. Journal of Music Therapy, 22(1), 34–51. doi:10.1093/jmt/25.3.135
24.
MatthewsW. K.KitsantasA. (2007). Group cohesion, collective efficacy, and motivational climate as predictors of conductor support in music ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(1), 6–17. doi:10.1177/0022429407 05500102
25.
McMasterK. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(1), 5–25. doi:10.1080/105735605002 03491
26.
MikszaP. (2009). Relationships among impulsivity, achievement goal motivation, and the music practice of high school wind players. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 190(1), 9–27.
27.
MikszaP.AustinJ. R. (2010). Eyes wide open: High school student reflections on music teaching experiences within a pre-collegiate recruitment program. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 191(2), 7–20.
28.
PayneR. K. (1998). A framework for understanding poverty. New York, NY: RFT Publishers.
29.
ReimerB. (2000). Performing with understanding: The challenge of the National Standards for Music Education. Reston, VA: MENC.
30.
RobinsonD. R.SchofieldJ. W.Steers-WentzellK. L. (2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 327–362. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-8137-2
31.
RohrbeckC. A.Ginsburg-BlockM. D.FantuzzoJ. W.MillerT. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240–267. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.240
32.
RoscoeR. D.ChiM. T. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534–574. doi:10.3102/0034654307309920
33.
RusinekG. (2008). Disaffected learners and school musical culture: an opportunity for inclusion. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(1), 9–23. doi:10.11 77/1321103X08089887
34.
SchmidtC. P. (2005). Relations among motivation, performance achievement, and music experience variables in secondary instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 134–147. doi:10.1177/0022429 40505300204
35.
ScruggsB. B. (2009). Learning outcomes in two divergent middle school string orchestra classroom environments: A comparison of a learner-centered and a teacher-centered approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta.
36.
ShivelyJ. (2004). In the face of tradition: Questioning the roles of conductors and ensemble members in school bands, choirs, and orchestras. Questioning the Music Education Paradigm, 11, 179–190.
37.
Sidwell-FrameK. (2009). The effect of SmartMusic on the attitudes and achievement of 5th grade students (Unpublished thesis). Viterbo University, La Crosse, WI.
38.
SingerJ. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23(4), 323–355. doi:10.3102/10769986023004323
SmithB. P. (2005). Goal orientation, implicit theory of ability, and collegiate instrumental music practice. Psychology of Music, 33(1), 36–57. doi:10.117 7/0305735605048013
41.
ToppingK. J. (Ed.). (2001). Peer assisted learning: A practical guide for teachers. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books.
42.
ToppingK. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172
43.
ToppingK. J.EhlyS. W. (2001). Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 113–132.
44.
Van RyzinM. J.GravelyA. A.RosethC. J. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 1–12.
45.
WellbornJ. G. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and measurement of motivation in the academic domain (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
46.
WisR. M. (2002). The conductor as servant-leader. Music Educators Journal, 89(2), 17–23.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
