Instrumental tuition has predominantly been conceptualized in terms of a master–apprentice model that facilitates the transmission of skills, knowledge and cultural intellect through teaching and learning. Research suggests the one-to-one tuition model needs to evolve and adapt to meet the demands of the 21st century musician. Within the jazz/improvisation lesson, the learning and teaching of improvisory ability is a complex activity where developing improvisers hone motor-specific skills, audiative ability, imaginative and creative impulses that connect and respond to strategic individual and collaborative catalysts. Observing the negotiation of learning and teaching in three lessons in improvisation between expert practitioner-educators and their students, this study reveals a cognitive apprenticeship model that can provide a framework for teachers to develop students’ cognitive and meta-cognitive abilities, and understandings of expert practice. Case studies of three teacher-practitioners and their advanced students explore the “in the moment” teacher–student interactions and teaching techniques that expert improviser-educators utilize in developing mastery and expertise in their students. Teaching to an advanced improvisation student is a dynamic, fluid and reflexive interplay of pedagogical applications of modelling, scaffolding, coaching, and reflective processes. The holistic imparting of knowledge can be understood as a cognitive apprenticeship. Careful guidance by a teacher/mentor can offer the student an immersive environment that brings thinking, action and reflection to the forefront of learning. Implications are identified for more effective, collaborative and inventive ways of assisting learning and inculcating deeper understandings of factual, conceptual and problem-solving concepts that draw students into a culture of expert practice.
AndreottiV. (2011). Actionable postcolonial theory in education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230337794
2.
AustinJ. R.VispoelW. P. (1992). Motivation after failure in school music performance classes: The facilitative effects of strategy attributions. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 111, 1–23.
3.
BaileyD. (1992). Improvisation: Its nature and practice in music. New York, NY: Da Capo Press.
4.
BakerD. (1989). David Baker’s jazz pedagogy: A comprehensive method of jazz education for teacher and student. Van Nuys, CA: Alfred Publishing.
5.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
6.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
7.
BerlinerP. F. (1994). Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BerrymanS. E. (1991). Designing effective learning environments: Cognitive apprenticeship model. Institute on Education and the Economy, Brief #1. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED337689
ClinchyB. M. (1996). Connected and separate knowing: Toward a marriage of two minds. In: GoldbergerN.TaruleJ.ClinchyB.BelenkyM. (Eds.), Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by women’s ways of knowing (pp. 205–247). New York, NY: Basic Books.
15.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S. (1988). The computer as a tool for learning through reflection. New York, NY: Springer.
16.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S.HolumA. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11.
17.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S.NewmanS. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
CreechA.GauntH. (2012). The changing face of individual instrumental tuition: Value, purpose and potential. In McPhersonG.WelchG. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music education (pp. 694–711) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
CreechA.HallamS. (2009). Interaction in instrumental learning: The influence of interpersonal dynamics on parents. International Journal of Music Education, 27(2), 94–106.
20.
CreechA.HallamS. (2010). Interpersonal interaction within the violin teaching studio: The influence of interpersonal dynamics on outcomes for teachers. Psychology of Music, 38(4), 403–421.
21.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1997). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
22.
de BruinI. (2015). Theory and practice in idea generation and creativity in Jazz improvisation. Australian Journal of Music Education, 2, 91–115.
23.
DeleuzeG. (1988). Foucault. (HandS., Trans.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
24.
DenzinN.K.LincolnY.S. (2003). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
DukeR. A.FlowersP. J.WolfeD. E. (1997). Children who study piano with excellent teachers in the United States. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 132, 51–84.
26.
DweckC. S.MasterA. (2008). Self-theories motivate self-regulated learning. In SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 31–51). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
27.
ElliottD. J. (2005). Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
ErdemF.AytemurJ. O. (2008). Mentoring – A relationship based on trust: Qualitative Research. Public Personnel Management37(1), 55–65.
29.
EzzatA. M.MalyM. R. (2012). Building passion develops meaningful mentoring relationships among Canadian physiotherapists. Physiotherapy Canada, 64(1), 77–85. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2011–07
30.
FolkestadG. (2005). The local and the global in musical learning: Considering the interaction between formal and informal settings. In CampbellP. S. (ed.), Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges for the 21st century. Bowen Hills, Australia: Australian Academic Press.
31.
FoucaultM. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York, NY: Pantheon.
32.
FrankeA.DahlgrenL. O. (1996). Conceptions of mentoring: An empirical study of conceptions of mentoring during the school-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 627–641.
33.
GarveyB.StokesP.MegginsonD. (2009). Coaching and mentoring: Theory and practice. London, UK: Sage.
34.
GetzelsJ.CsikszentmihalyiM. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York, NY: Wiley.
35.
GholsonS. A. (1998). Proximal positioning: A strategy of practice in violin pedagogy. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(4), 535–545.
36.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
37.
GuzdialM.KehoeC. (1998). Apprenticeship-based learning environments: A principled approach to providing software-realized scaffolding through hypermedia. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 9, 289–336.
38.
HallamS. (1997). Approaches to instrumental music practice of experts and novices: Implications for education. In JorgensenH.LehmannA. C. (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 89–107). Oslo, Norway: Norges musikkhogskole.
39.
HarrisonD.HongC. S. (2004). The role of mentoring in continuing professional development. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 11(11), 502. doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2004.11.11.17203
40.
HattieJ. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
HaysT.MinichielloV.WrightP. (2000). Mentorship: The meaning of the relationship for musicians. Research Studies in Music Education, 15, 3–14.
42.
JorgensenH. (1997). Time for practising? Higher level music students’ use of time for instrumental practising. In JorgensenH.LehmanA. C. (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice. (pp. 123–139). Oslo, Norway: Norges musikkhogskole.
43.
KennellR. (1992). Toward a theory of applied music instruction. The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 5–16.
44.
KratusJ. (1995). A developmental approach to teaching music improvisation. International Journal of Music Education, 26(1), 27–38.
45.
LaveJ. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In WilliamsD. D. (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation, new directions for program evaluation, No 30 (pp. 73–84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
48.
LipsitzG. (2015). Improvised listening: Opening statements. In CainesR.HebleA. (Eds.), The improvisation studies reader: Spontaneous acts (pp. 9–16). New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
MacDonaldR. A.WilsonG. B.MiellD. (2012) Improvisation as a creative process within contemporary music. In HargreavesD. J.MiellD.MacdonaldR. A. R. (Eds.), Musical imaginations: Multidisciplinary perspectives on creativity, performance and perception (pp. 242–255). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
50.
McCowenH. V. (2010). Mentoring in higher education music study: Are good teachers mentors? (PhD dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3436538)
51.
MegginsonD.ClutterbuckD. (2009). Techniques for coaching and mentoring. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
52.
MilesM.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
NielsonS. G. (1999). Learning strategies in instrumental music practice. British Journal of Music Education, 16(3), 275–291.
54.
NooshinL. (2003). Improvisation as “other”: Creativity, knowledge and power: The case of Iranian classical music. Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 128(2), 242–296.
55.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
56.
PeggM. (1999). The art of mentoring. Industrial and Commercial Training, 31(4), 136–142.
57.
PolyaG. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
QuintanaC.ReiserB. J.DavisE. A.KrajcikJ.FretzE.DuncanR. G.… SolowayE. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.
60.
ReiserB. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.
61.
RitchartR.ChurchM.MorrisonK. (2011). Making thinking visible. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
62.
SpencerL.RitchieJ.OrmstonR.O’ConnorW.BarnardM. (2014). Analysis: Principles and processes. In RitchieJ.LewisJ.McNaughton NichollsC.OrmstonR. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 269–293). London, UK: Sage.
63.
ScardamaliaM. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, 97, 67–98.
64.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (1983a). Child as co-investigator: Helping children gain insight into their own mental processes. In ParisS.OlsonG.StevensonH. (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 61–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
65.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (1983b). The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in children’s composing. In MartlewM. (Ed.), The psychology of written language: A developmental approach (pp. 67–95). London, UK: Wiley.
66.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children’s knowledge processing. In ChipmanS. F.SegalJ. W.GlaserR. (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions 2 (pp. 563–577). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
67.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC.SteinbachR. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science8(1), 173–190.
68.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1983). Problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: A report, recommendations and an annotated bibliography. The Mathematical Association of America, MAA Notes, No. 1. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED229248.pdf
69.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York, NY: Academic Press.
70.
SmildeR. (2009). Musicians as lifelong learners: Discovery through biography (vol. 1). Den Haag, the Netherlands: Eburon Uitgeverij BV.
71.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72.
StakeR. E. (2000). Case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
73.
SudnowD. (2001). Ways of the hand: A rewritten account. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
74.
ViiloM.Seitamaa-HakkarainenP.HakkarainenK. (2011). Supporting the technology-enhanced collaborative inquiry and design project: A teacher’s reflections on practices. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 51–72.
75.
VygotskyL. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76.
WadeeA. A.KeaneM.DietzT. T.HayD. (2010). Effective PhD supervision, mentorship and coaching. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rozenberg.
77.
WalkingtonJ. (2005). Becoming a teacher: Encouraging development of teacher identity through reflective practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 53–64.
78.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods: Vol. 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79.
YoungV.BurwellK.PickupD. (2003). Areas of study and teaching strategies instrumental teaching: A case study research project. Music Education Research, 5(2), 139–155.
80.
ZhukovK. (2005). Teaching styles and student behaviour in instrumental music lessons in Australian conservatoriums (Doctoral dissertation). University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3166825)
