Abstract
Musical Futures (MF) is an internationally recognised approach to music teaching aimed at developing high levels of student engagement through practical music making. Set up in the UK in 2003 Musical Futures is typical of approaches to education aimed at increasing levels of student autonomy through a strong emphasis on student-led discovery learning. A study was undertaken in 2020 to 2021 in New Zealand which investigated how a small number of teachers understand and utilise Musical Futures as an approach for classroom music teaching. The data was obtained through semi-structured interviews with teachers in New Zealand and leaders of the Musical Futures International team in Australia who offer training in New Zealand. Green’s original conceptualisation of informal learning was used as the main theoretical bench-mark against which teacher practices were compared and the findings reveal a shift away from the original idea of a discovery approach into the deep end, to more systemised learning. Bernstein’s concept of recontextualisation is used to make sense of this process of adaptation and change in the curriculum making process.
Introduction
Musical Futures (MF) is an internationally recognised approach to music teaching aimed at developing high levels of student engagement through practical music making. The UK MF website states that music teaching should be ‘relevant, engaging, imaginative and authentic’ (https://www.musicalfutures.org/ n.d.). Set up in the UK in 2003, the Musical Futures project is typical of approaches to education that aim to increase student engagement and autonomy through learner-led discovery approaches to learning. Central to the original MF project were Green’s informal learning principles (Green, 2002). These principles and the pedagogica approach developed to realise them in the classroom (the ‘seven stages’ – see Green (2008) and Green and Walmsley (n.d.)) was Green’s response to long-standing problems with school music in the UK and elsewhere (Green, 2008; Mariguddi, 2021; McQueen, 2022; Ross, 1995; Wilson, 2022).
MF now offers a number of different approaches for classroom music teaching that are quite different from Green’s original work while remaining faithful to the general ethos of student-centred education. Moreover, MF has now split into two distinct organisations – MF (https://www.musicalfutures.org/) – based in the UK – and MF International (http://www.musicalfuturesinternational.org/) based in Australia (MFI). MF then is a name that refers specifically to two organisations and more generally, to a particular approach to classroom music education that most often utilises popular music making as its focus.
This paper reports on a key and unexpected finding from a small-scale masters research study investigating Musical Futures (MF) in New Zealand. One of the authors was familiar with Green’s work on informal learning and had trialled her seven-stage approach in teaching (Green, 2008; Green & Walmsley, n.d.) and now, as a pre-service teacher educator, he regularly introduces students to this research (Green, 2002, 2008). Wang undertook her research study after completing her pre-service training and having become aware that MF training from Musical Futures International (MFI) was available in New Zealand. The initial aim was to investigate the extent to which student autonomy was a key aim in teachers’ work within a MF framework. After some initial interviews it became clear the MF programme was not centred on informal learning as the authors had expected so the research focus was altered (see below).
In the next section we outline some recent additions to the literature on MF. MF has been written about extensively so our aim here is to draw only on the most recent additions. Mariguddi’s (2021, 2022) papers in particular provide a valuable overview. We follow this brief literature section with an outline of the New Zealand study, our theoretical frame, what we found through teacher interviews, and a discussion focused on the key findings.
Recent additions to the literature on MF
At the outset it is important to clarify that MF is now an umbrella term for a broad approach to music education. MF began in 2003 as a Paul Hamlyn Foundation Special Initiative aimed at supporting teachers with teaching music in ways that were more likely than traditional approaches to engage and enthuse students (Musicalfutures.org/who-we-are). Green’s principles of informal learning became an integral part of this initial project (Green & Walmsley, n.d.) and it was these principles realised in the seven-stages of the original study that the researchers had expected to see in the MF training in New Zealand. The five principles are (i) learning music that students choose, like, and identify with, (ii) learning by playing self-chosen instruments and listening to and copying recordings, (iii) learning with friends in groups, (iv) allowing learning to be haphazard without structured guidance, (v) integrating listening, performing, improvising and composing (Green, 2008).
These principles were put into action in a seven-stage format in the original project. Stage 1, the heart of the informal approach, was titled ‘dropping students into the deep end’ (which we truncate to ‘into the deep end’). This stage emulates the realistic learning approach of popular musicians in the classroom by students working in friendship groups and having the freedom to select the music they wish to cover, as well as the instruments they want to play. Stage 1 gives students the opportunity to be responsible for the learning process, pace, and content. Teachers’ become facilitators to the learning, stepping away from the more traditional role where they impart predetermined knowledge. Stage 2 (‘modelling aural learning with popular music’) offers a little more guidance and structure and involves students learning a teacher selected piece of popular music with some resources provided. Stage 3 (‘the deep end revisited’) revisits Stage 1 to draw on and improve on skills acquired from the previous two stages. Stage 4 (‘informal composing’) is concerned with composition and students applying acquired knowledge from the previous stages to the creative practice of song writing. Stage 5 of the programme (‘modelling composing’) involves a popular musician visiting the school as a guest facilitator. In Stages 6 and 7 (‘informal learning with classical music’) students work in groups choosing from a range of teacher pre-selected classical music.
Mariguddi has recently provided an account of the of the MF model and of Greens informal learning approach within it (Mariguddi, 2021, 2022; Mariguddi & Cain, 2022), noting tensions, issues and strengths. Mariguddi (2021) very helpfully summarises the mostly positive evaluative literature on MF noting the two major reviews (Hallam et al., 2008, 2011) and with Cain (Mariguddi & Cain, 2022) a number of other studies from around the world (e.g. Jeanneret, 2010; Moore, 2019; Wright et al., 2012). McQueen (2022) has also recently contributed to the literature on the informal aspects of Green’s work and its development within the MF approach and Papazachariou-Christoforou (2022) reports on promising findings where informal learning principles have been applied in a primary school setting.
In her 2022 paper Mariguddi (2022) organises her findings from her literature review of Green’s informal learning model as a framework comprising six prominent themes. Her aim is to enable continued discussion about the challenges involved in the MF approach and the informal principles in particular. Mariguddi’s six themes are: the role of the teacher, student autonomy, motivation, informal learning, student inclusion, and authenticity and marketisation. In her discussion of each of these themes Mariguddi draws on a wide body of literature noting key strengths of the MF approach as well as the issues and tensions associated with informal music learning. For example, concerning the role of the teacher Mariguddi notes an improvement in teachers’ available repertoire of pedagogic approaches particularly through standing back and facilitating with resultant improvements in student engagement and teacher enjoyment. However, this change of role can also create uncertainty with regard to what role teachers can or ‘should’ meaningfully play in this model of learning. For example, while ‘standing back’ how might teachers facilitate student progress and fulfil mandated curricular requirements? Overall, however Mariguddi (2021) notes that overall MF in its wider sense has had ‘an impressive impact. Achievements include engaging previously disinterested students, increasing motivation, improving student confidence, self-esteem and behaviour’ (p. 32).
On the less positive side one of Mariguddi ‘s themes is marketisation and she notes, citing Allsup, the possibility that an uncritical use of MF with its emphasis on popular music could see the approach become a conduit for ‘predatory capitalism’ (Mariguddi, 2022, p. 8). Moreover, a recent article by Hall et al. (2021) considers MF in Australia ‘as a case example of the neoliberalisation of music in school’ (p. 121). These authors claim that neoliberal rationalities such as marketisation underpin the expansion of MF in Australia and that these ideas ‘are in tension with [MF original] social justice imperatives’. Hall et al. analysis leads them to suggest that ‘informal learning has become closely aligned with commercial music industry training as opposed to popular music education’ (p. 129, italics added). Our study certainly found that some of the underpinning critical goals of Green’s original conceptualisation of informal learning appear to have been modified in the MFI context (see below).
The New Zealand study
Wang’s master’s research study (Wang, 2021) began with the primary intention of investigating how a small number of classroom music teachers utilised MF as an approach to developing student autonomy via informal learning. Once the study was underway a major finding was quickly apparent; teachers were not utilising Green’s informal learning approach as outlined in her 2008 work and some form of major recontextualisation had occurred. The New Zealand teachers were utilising an approach that they termed MF, derived from training offered in New Zealand by Musical Futures International (MFI) based in Australia. The training appeared to bear little resemblance to the structure developed and used by Green in her initial study. Wang subsequently modified her research questions as follows: ‘In what ways do New Zealand teachers approach teaching the MF programme’, supported by two sub-questions: (i) what are teachers’ reasons and justifications for using the MF approach? (ii) how is student autonomy developed in the process of utilising a MF pedagogy? In this paper we focus on the findings related to the overall structure and type of activities that the teachers used in their work.
Wang utilised a realist methodology and qualitative methods (McPhail & Lourie, 2017). A realist methodology places emphasis on disciplinary concepts as explanatory tools for identifying both the research problem and explaining it (Sayer, 2000). For example, the concept of recontextualisation from sociology (Bernstein, 2000) is used in this paper as a key explanatory concept. Such a methodology aims to avoid both the idealism of concepts alone and the limitations of empiricism, such as the over reliance on empirical data (Lourie & Rata, 2017; Moore, 2013; Popper, 1978). The theoretical framework (Green, 2008) and the key concept utilised in this paper (Bernstein, 2000) are outlined below in the theoretical framework section.
The research took a qualitative approach to methods by gathering data through purposive sampling and individual semi-structured interviews brought together in an instrumental case-study design (Stake, 1995). An instrumental case study was the selected approach because it uses cases to shed light on a particular issue, in this case the recontextualisation of MF and Green’s principles of informal learning. In this regard ‘the focus is on the issue rather than the case as such’ (Bassey, 1999, p. 62). In this study four teachers and three curriculum developers made up three cases bound by their different contexts. The cases were structured as follows: two teachers – Harvey and Thomas from the same secondary school; Gary and Abby who both utilise MF resources and approaches in their music classes with Y7-9 students at different schools, and three MF designer/tutors from MFI in Australia – Emerson, Keegan, and Asher. Ethics approval was gained from the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee before the research was undertaken. Matters such as informed consent, the right to withdraw, and anonymity were made clear to participants before they agreed to participate. All participants were offered the opportunity to check their cases study reports and all names used are pseudonyms.
This was a small-scale study with only four music teachers. The findings from such a small sample of teachers clearly cannot be used to generalise to the general population of teachers in New Zealand that may be using MF, nevertheless, since MFI is the main gate keeper and recontextualiser of MF in New Zealand, it is likely that similar approaches and the same resources are being used around the country and therefore the data is likely to be credible. A further limitation of the study is that we relied on teachers self-reporting about their practice; there were no lesson observations or observations of students to confirm what the teachers said. Despite these limitations the study can be considered credible as standard procedures for qualitative research were followed, as outlined above. The approach to data analysis was underpinned by the theoretical approach described in the next section.
Theoretical frameworks
We draw on one theoretical framework and two disciplinary concepts in this paper. The framework is Green’s articulation of five principles for informal music learning (Green, 2008, pp. 9–10) and the seven stages of the original research project (Green, 2008, pp. 25–27). Green’s principles draw on educational ideas such as the sociality of learning, autonomy and motivation, curriculum diversification, non-traditional measures of student success, holistic learning, collaborative learning, and reframing the role of the teacher, all drawn together within an informal student-centred discovery learning context. Green’s principles (outlined above) were used to analyse the practices of the participant teachers in the study; to compare their work with Green’s original conceptualisation of informal music learning, and also to compare the participant’s approaches with each other.
The first disciplinary concept we draw on is Bernstein’s overarching concept for aspects of progressive pedagogic practice – competence. Competence theories developed in the disciplines of the social and psychological sciences in the 1960s and became influential as they were recontextualized into education. Such approaches are underpinned by a belief in ‘a universal democracy of acquisition. All are inherently competent . . . there are no deficits’ (Bernstein, 2000, p. 43). This approach emphasises the student as self-regulating, and there is a critical, sceptical view of hierarchical relations: ‘Competence theories have an emancipatory flavour’ (p. 43). Moreover, competence theories resonate with liberal-progressive, populist, and radical ideologies. Where these ideas are put into practice there is a general shift towards weaker classification and framing of knowledge (Bernstein, 2000). The aim is for the locus of control to rest more with the student than with the teacher. We suggest MF is an ‘ideal type’ of this competence approach to curriculum and pedagogy.
The second disciplinary concept we draw on as an explanatory tool is recontextualisation – the process of knowledge movement and adaptation (Bernstein, 2000). We use this sociological concept to make sense of the process of adaptation and change in the curriculum making process surrounding MF. Bernstein theorises that there is an Official Recontextualising Field (ORF) where knowledge is produced, mostly by academics in universities, for example Green’s principles and stages referred to above. Recontextualisation occurs when knowledge moves from its site of production to another such site as from Green’s original theorisation of informal learning principles (Green, 2002), to the original research project, to Musical Futures International (MFI), and then into New Zealand schools. Schools are part of the Pedagogic Recontextualising Field (PRF) where the relative autonomy of teachers also comes into play in reshaping discourses (McPhail, 2015). Bernstein argues that there is always some form of adaptation and change as discourses move from their original site to a site of recontextualisation and that this is often a site for the play of ideology. New ‘recontextualisation principles’ are likely to emerge, and these new principles can refocus the original discourse to constitute its own, new recontextualised order (Bernstein, 2000, p. 33). For example, below we will argue that Green’s original recontextualising principles of student autonomy and discovery learning as theorised in her five informal learning principles have been reordered if not replaced in the recontextualisation of MF in MFI and in the MF workshops currently offered in New Zealand. We also discuss what these new principles might be.
What we found
Junior high school
The key finding of Wang’s (2021) study was that the participant teachers were not using Green’s original informal learning stages. In fact, none of the teacher participants had read Green’s 2008 book. Harvey, one of the participants and a ‘champion’ of MF in New Zealand 1 had come across MF in the UK in 2015 so had first-hand experience of the programme at that stage of its development when he visited some MFUK pilot schools. By this time the MF UK approach had expanded to include non-formal and class band approaches in addition to informal learning. Harvey was taken with the energy and vibrancy of the classrooms he visited: ‘It was exactly what I envisioned, the best teaching of music [there] could be. It was a real buzz day of my professional career. . .’ (Harvey).
After this experience Harvey was inspired to bring MF to a wider audience in New Zealand and with support from MFI, he has hosted MFI workshops at his school. He utilises what he describes as a MF approach for his junior music classes (Years 9 and 10 – ages 13–14) in the form conceptualised, communicated, and resourced by MFI which is organised around three learning models: informal, nonformal, and Just Play. 2 MFI’s approach to informal learning is similar to Green’s; a highly autonomous approach that allows students to work in friendship groups and choose the music and instruments they wish to play. Non-formal learning on the other hand refers to a more guided approach in comparison to informal learning. It comprises whole class music making and workshopping of specific skills with the integration of performing, improvising, and listening. Certain skills are taught first and then applied in semi-autonomous contexts. A third learning approach is Just Play which encourages practical music making as a whole class band with opportunities for improvising. The teacher acts as a musical leader, directing the activities supported by MFI resources, and the whole class can participate in the development of various musical skills and knowledge. MFI offers a range of different resources for teachers to take away after professional development workshops (which they pay for), most of which are flexible in that they can be used for small groups or whole class settings for example chair drumming, play along, groove your class etc. 3
What we found in the three participant schools was an inversion of Green’s original informal learning stages, with into the deep end placed as an end point of a teaching project/unit rather than the beginning, if it was present at all. Teachers appeared either mostly unaware of Green’s original emphasis on a discovery approach or had rejected it in favour of scaffolding into the deep end through specific sequenced skill acquisition and class-based musicking that precedes smaller group projects – MFI’s non-formal learning and Just Play approaches. For example, Harvey begins his MF programme with rhythm work scaffolding students to play drums and understand rhythm notation via computer software and ‘groove your class’.
4
He follows this with a rap activity from Little Kids Rock,
5
learning guitar, ukulele, and keyboard, and a class band is formed so that students are able to play as an ensemble: I don’t always get to that final ‘choose your own song’. It just depends. I tend to just go through the activities and see how they go and if they need a little bit longer with the rap, we don’t quite get to that (Harvey).
Learning in the non-formal and Just Play modes is certainly practice-based and is focussed on listening and copying but in a sequence of skill building designed by the teacher rather than, as in Green’s design, relying on student choice of songs and instruments (personalised) and haphazard learning without structured guidance. Even if small group work occurs both Harvey and Thomas said they generally intervene in repertoire choice arguing that this is necessary to enable success: Just to approve that this is a playable song for a Y9 class. Obviously if there are musicians in the group who are advanced students, if that’s a group who wants to be able to jump from Eb, Bb whatever and they can do it, obviously, I’m not going to say no (Harvey).
Green worked from the assumption that student choice can work as a mechanism for engagement and inclusion as students feel that they have autonomy over where they want to direct their learning (Green, 2008). However, a discussion with Thomas revealed that he regarded the idea of student choice somewhat problematic. He suggests if students are granted too much choice, they end up choosing what they like or feel comfortable with every time, preventing them from expanding and exploring their musical choices.
Middle school
In the process of this research, it became clear that a number of teachers in New Zealand, as in
Australia, were using MF ideas and resources with a younger age group than in Green’s original study. Wang approached Abby and Garry who teach Year 7 and 8 students (the 2 years before secondary school in New Zealand) to participate in the study. We give only a brief summary here of their approach as this does not differ markedly from that of Harvey and Thomas. Abby and Garry were also taking primarily a non-formal approach to teaching MF with informal learning (into the deep end) as a possible end point rather than a starting point.
Abby was introduced to MF by Auckland’s MF champion teacher, Harvey, while Garry first came across MF in the process of doing his teaching diploma using Green’s principles of informal learning during one of his practicums to complete an assignment. Now he uses the resources provided by MFI: I saw some MF PD come up and thought, that sounds great, and I’ve been going to the PD ever since. . . the resources get better each year. . .you always come away with so much stuff, you almost don’t know where to start (Garry).
A recurring theme in the interview data for all the teacher participants was the convenience of the MFI resources because they are ‘ready to use’. Both Abby and Garry use the resources to scaffold students towards musical independence and note that within each resource there is in-built scaffolding towards practice goals at the micro level. They also note that the resources use quality graphics and student friendly instructions and assist with helping students visualise what they need to do. In this way the resources can be used by students with minimal teacher guidance and therefore to some degree aid the development of student autonomy. Abby and Garry both supplement the predominantly hands-on resources with some theoretical knowledge so their music programmes contain a balance of ‘knowledge-that’ and ‘know-how-to’ (McPhail, 2022). Nevertheless, like Harvey and Thomas, Abby and Garry have inverted Green’s original structure. Garry argues that if he was to follow that original structure, students would take more time than is available to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to cover a song: I think that some kids like to be taught a little bit first. I do the ‘throw them in a room to do a song’ after I’ve given them some skills. I did try it the other way but it was little bit too messy, took too long. For my juniors, I didn’t have a lot of time, I want to get them playing but I needed to show them some stuff first (Garry).
Summary of school case study findings
The key findings that emerged from the school case studies indicate that, compared to Green’s original structure and underlying philosophy, resources are used for scaffolding skill building rather than ‘haphazard learning’ before any experience of into the deep end. Teachers plan, sequence, and scaffold learning. This is a more restricted conception of autonomy where teachers intervene in repertoire choice, monitoring progress, and the formation of friendship groups. These paedagogical approaches are at considerable odds with a number of Green’s five principles of informal learning aimed at providing high levels of student autonomy through repertoire choice and the overall personalisation of learning. This is congruent with findings in Mariguddi’s (2021) research where she found only some of Green’s principles of informal learning were put into practice and that many teachers thought ‘that students should learn basic music skills first, before they attempted ILMF [Informal Learning within the Musical Futures context]’ (p. 37). So where might the impetus for these changes to Green’s original design come from and how is it justified by the teachers and MFI designers?
Musical Futures international
The interviews with teachers brought to our attention the fact that many of New Zealand’s music teachers learn about MF through the lens of MFI which is based in Australia. The workshops run in New Zealand once a year and span 2 days, and the resources provided are designed and produced by the Australian team comprising three key figures – Emerson, Keegan, and Asher. Wang contacted these three people and invited them to join the study and subsequently was able to discuss with them the educational philosophy behind their version of the MF programme. All three of these MFI leaders are musicians with backgrounds in both education and the music industry and all three were strongly motivated by the idea of MF as a means to create a positive connection between students’ everyday music interests and music learning in schools.
The emphasis on providing resources and the scaffolding of learning in the MFI approach creates a clear tension with Green’s original underlying philosophy and principles of informal learning, so we asked the participants what motivated these changes. Firstly, the participants noted that there was a call for a MF approach in the earlier years of schooling in Australia and that an informal approach would not work at those levels of schooling: you can’t allow them to decide on their friendship groups . . . So, you’d water down some of those principles, you leave principles in place like providing resources that are relevant and engaging to the age group. You stick to the principles by not burdening the learning by putting a whole lot of barriers like reading notes and those sorts of things in place to start with. You maintain some of the core elements of Lucy’s work, you ignore parts of it. . . (Emerson).
Keegan, explained: Why we changed MF is to try and resource teachers in a way that made sense. . . We have to stage them into that in a meaningful way . . .. I see it as an approach supported by resources. . . Teachers have a way of dragging it to a resources base and that’s something we fight all the time (Keegan).
Asher noted that “we try to use whole class approaches and staging processes to get them [the students] closer to informal learning where they take all the decisions: it was like we had to add more to it to prepare people to do it (Keegan)”.
The teachers in this study clearly think of MFI as very resource-based approach, but the MFI interviewees stressed on several occasions that the resources are used to support the philosophy of the programme and support engagement within a particular approach to learning: Normally, a teacher might make an easy part, a middle part, and a hard part to give to the kids . . . you get what you’re given and then you play your five notes or your eight notes. In MF you don’t do that, what you do as a teacher is you come in after and you support as you see the kids moving through the tasks. So, you give personalised support rather than predetermined differentiation (Asher).
Keegan explained that if MF took the path to being simply a resource-based approach, they would be providing content for certain age groups or grade levels and follow a specific progression of stages more like the North American Band model of music education. Asher argues that the MFI approach still aims to move towards informal learning: “We try to get them a bit more skilled up to be able to do those things (Asher). Keegan suggested that ‘where it gets waylaid all the time is because teachers work in these academic environments where they want to be task driven and they want to be able to record a result and give a mark’ (Keegan). There is clearly a tension between the way teachers tend to regard the programme as a series of ready-made resources and the more philosophical approach the MFI team are trying to lay claim to in developing autonomous music learners: The ownership of the learning [should] be with the teacher, we don’t want to produce resources where [teachers] put a PowerPoint on and click slide by slide. We want teachers who use resources to support the objectives that they come up with themselves, and that’s so important because every class of kids is different, so it isn’t a one size fits all. The whole point of informal learning was always the fact about very personalised ways of learning and music lends itself brilliantly to that (Asher).
Although the structure of the programme has shifted, in particular offering three different models of learning, the MF participants believe that they remain faithful to Green’s original philosophy. Asher cites using Green’s five principles in teacher workshops as a reference point for any activity to ask the question ‘are you actually using these principles in this activity?’ (Asher). Asher suggests it may not be possible to apply all of Green’s principles all the time but that ‘the integration of performing, composing and improvising and listening is so important – that’s my number one’ (Asher).
Discussion
In this section we consider two key questions that emerged from the findings of the study. The first asks what is in the MFI approach that remains true to Green’s original principles of informal learning. The second question considers why the recontextualisation towards a more structured approach has come about and is championed by leaders in the field who were familiar with Green’s original philosophy and principles.
Although the MFI approach does not emphasise the informal learning aspects of Green’s original design it certainly aims to include curriculum content that students are likely to ‘like and identify with’ and that they might choose themselves. This, at least to some degree, aligns with Green’s first principal – even though in the non-formal learning that precedes any informal learning the element of student choice is to a large degree removed or as Mariguddi (2021) described it in her study there is ‘removal or capping of student choice’ (p. 41). Secondly, the MFI approach certainly foregrounds aural and embodied learning and the integration of performing, listening, improvising, and composing – Green’s second and fifth principles – in a ‘sound before symbol’ and ‘know-how-to’ before ‘knowledge-that’ approach. This focus on know-how-to relies on aural skills derived from listening to musical details and comprehending them so that they can be accurately reproduced in gradually more complex scenarios.
Green’s third principle – learning in friendship groups – is present where non-formal learning progresses to the informal stage, but all the teacher participants stated they intervene where students do not utilise the autonomy given to them in productive ways. Green’s fourth principle – personal, haphazard learning without structured guidance – seems to be the one not retained, at least in the way it was originally conceptualised. Any haphazard learning has been given away in favour of a much stronger role for the teacher in terms of sequencing learning in a skills first approach. This too is congruent with Mariguddi (2021) findings (p. 41). We now turn to the question of why this might be.
New recontextualising principles: A shift to guided discovery?
Green’s Musical Futures is an approach to music teaching originally aimed at developing high levels of student agency and criticality. The approach is typical of trends in education underpinned by a strong emphasis on informal discovery approaches to learning and notions of student agency and empowerment (Abrahams, 2005; Powell et al., 2017). In considering why a shift away from discovery to more systemised learning may have occurred, we firstly hypothesise that paedagogies with minimal guidance may be being approached with some caution as findings from cognitive science have been recontextualised into education with some prominence, 6 for example cognitive load theory (De Bruychere et al., 2015; Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Kirschner et al., 2006; Marzano, 2011; Mayer, 2004; Sweller, 2016, 2021) as well as other ideas related to visible paedagogies such as Hattie’s work on the importance of feedback in teaching (Hattie, 2009, 2011).
Secondly, we note that our participant teachers had not read Green’s original work and were therefore unaware of the potential significance and affordances of the informal learning principles particularly in relation to matters of engagement and autonomy. Mariguddi (2021, p. 41) also notes that none of her participants mentioned Green’s seven stages of the original MF project. Thirdly, in contrast to Mariguddi’s proposition that some teachers in her study reacted in a fearful way to ‘pressures from policy and SLT authority’ we did not detect that response in our participants. Rather, we theorise that the teachers in our study were proactive in their use of a skills first approach. Nevertheless, there is likely influence from the New Zealand outcomes-based assessment requirements that places some pressure on teachers to track and measure learning. Teachers may perceive an ‘authentic’ informal learning approach to be too difficult or time-consuming within this context.
In summary, the participant teachers in this study all use the MFI resources to scaffold student learning towards the deep end in a skills first approach, making sure to include not only applied but also conceptual knowledge: The MF resources we use in class put some knowledge behind the chord progression, how to make a bassline out of that, what sort of drum pattern would work with that, how they might solo, and then that scaffolds them into working on their own performance (Thomas).
The participant teachers seem aware of the problem that in discovery learning contexts students may not always have the prerequisite knowledge to make accurate musical judgements for themselves for example, am I playing in time with others, are my notes part of the harmony so it sounds good etc. For success, learners need some frames of reference or concepts to draw on so they can identify areas for improvement and find strategies to achieve this (Alfieri et al., 2011). Green’s into the deep end seems overly optimistic in this regard. It is likely that learners who cannot self-regulate to a high degree (e.g. they may not have done sufficient music listening in their lives to discern certain features of the music they are working with) would benefit from a more guided learning approach, where clear and achievable goals are identified and cognitive overload is avoided. The participant teachers appeared to be trying to find a middle ground between developing student autonomy and scaffolding the skills required for musicking in a group context. Given the time constraints for learning and the professional aspirations of teachers to enable and report on student progress this is hardly surprising.
Another factor affecting the move towards more guided learning may be the way popular musicians now learn has changed since Green’ s ground-breaking work was published in 2002. For example, Choong (2021) argues that the learning culture of popular musicians has shifted from a predominantly aural one to one that includes notation and new technologies. Moreover, Choong’s research (13 surveys, and 8 interviewed participants) found that contrary to earlier accounts, a significant segment of today’s popular musician community experienced reduced levels of autonomy and self-motivation in the learning process and many do not engage in peer-learning activities. Furthermore, learning tools made available by technology are becoming a staple, and for some, notation was core to their practices (Choong, 2021, p. i). Teachers may be aware of these changes and in particular understand the way technology has changed the popular musicking landscape in the years since Green’s original study. Choong’s study suggests the way popular musicians learn may have changed substantially and that this has implications for music education.
Conclusion
Recontextualisation is the process where academic theories, ideas or programmes move from a site of production to a site of reproduction. In this case the site of production for Green’s theory of informal learning was her 2002 research findings about how popular musicians learn which was subsequently recontextualised in an empirical study called MF. The site of reproduction or recontextualisation in the case of the research study reported on here is MFI in Australia and teachers in New Zealand classrooms. Bernstein theorises that in the process of recontextualisation or the movement of knowledge from one site to another, the knowledge always changes. This research has revealed a major recontextualisation of the informal learning component of the original MF as it has moved from its site of production to classrooms in New Zealand, via the recontextualising work of MFI. We have suggested this has come about through the confluence of a number of possible factors ranging from the views and experiences of the particular recontextualisers themselves (i.e. the design staff at MFI), the way teachers interpret the workshops and materials provided for them, and changes in the ethos or zeitgeist about teaching and learning that exerts an influence – in this case a move away from open-ended discovery learning to what we might call ‘guided-discovery’.
One of Bernstein’s insights is that the level of autonomy in the various pedagogic recontextualising fields can be regarded as a source of agency for teachers. The discourse appropriated in a given educational setting at a particular time is the result of the dynamic interplay between the ‘dominant ideology in the official recontextualising field (ORF)’ and ‘the relative autonomy of the pedagogic recontextualising field (PRF)’ (Bernstein, 2000, p. 53). The teachers in this study exercise their autonomy by recontextualising the ideals and resources from MFI in ways that they believe best meets the needs of their students and by using an MF approach as a steppingstone towards students’ musical autonomy. They also recontextualise under the influence of the dominant ideologies of their teaching contexts, local and national. We suggest that the underlying recontextualising principles of MF have shifted away from Green’s original focus on learner-led discovery through informal learning (into the deep end) to more systemised learning. This is evidenced by the emphasis on non-formal and Just Play models in the MFI approach. What we found in our study was that teachers scaffold learning rather than using Green’s informal learning approach as they believe skill building first is more efficient and leads to better learning outcomes.
The recontextualisation we have identified in this study comprises an idiosyncratic mix of recontextualising principles; an underlying competence ideal expressed rather counter-intuitively through a structured and sequenced acquisition of applied knowledge or know-how-to (McPhail, 2022) which could be seen as a form of instrumentalism (McPhail & McNeill, 2021) as well as a general move away from pure discovery learning. As cognitive scientists argue, while the final aim of education is for students to become autonomous learners, the road to effectively achieving that aim requires scaffolding through structured learning. Green may or may not be too worried about these shifts as long as students keep making music. Asher suggests that Green expected MF to evolve in the hands of others: Lucy’s remit was always very clear: ‘I just want people to take this and do good things with it. You know if it doesn’t look exactly the same, that’s OK - I just want teachers to engage with it”. I guess for us at MFI, it’s about that change of practice that hands some kind of positive benefits on the kids (Aszer).
