This investigation explored collaborative problem solving with and without a coach by analyzing problem-solving (PS) and problem-solving-prompting (PSP) behaviors by group members and coaches in six total coached rehearsals with three collegiate string quartets, and six autonomous rehearsals with the same string quartets. Teachers’ and learners’ PS and PSP behaviors were compared in three settings: autonomous chamber music rehearsals, chamber music rehearsals with a coach, and one-to-one instruction. Coaches and students performed the same problem-solving component behaviors and most of the same PSP behaviors as observed in one-to-one instruction and in rehearsals of a professional chamber ensemble. As in one-to-one instruction, coaches could engage learners in problem solving, and in this setting invite them to collaborate with one another, by asking questions and varying the specificity of feedback and directives. Coaches’ Attention Directives preceded the most learner problem solving and collaborative engagement. During autonomous rehearsals learners often switched leadership roles fluidly, often prompting one another to problem solve. Implications for a pedagogy of coaching and inclusion of small ensembles within music education are discussed.
AlibraheimE. A.El-SayedS. A. (2021). Exploring female undergraduate education students’ perceptions of Collaborative Online Project-Based Learning (COPBL). Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 17(8), Article em1993. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11079
4.
BergM. H. (2000). Thinking for yourself: The social construction of chamber music experience. In RideoutR.PaulS. J. (Eds.), On the sociology of music education II: Papers from the music education symposium at the University of Oklahoma (pp. 91–112). University of Massachusetts.
CavittM. E. (2003). A descriptive analysis of error correction in instrumental music rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(3), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345375
7.
CohenE. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
8.
CollC.RocheraM. J.De GispertI. (2014). Supporting online collaborative learning in small groups: Teacher feedback on learning content, academic task and social participation. Computers & Education, 75, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.015
9.
ColpritE. J. (2000). Observation and analysis of Suzuki string teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48(3), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345394
10.
DukeR. A. (1994). Bringing the art of rehearsing into focus: The rehearsal frame as a model for prescriptive analysis of rehearsal conducting. Journal of Band Research, 30(1), 78–95.
11.
DukeR. A. (2020). Scribe 5 (for observation and assessment) [Computer software]. Learning & Behavior Resources.
12.
DukeR. A.ChapmanD.-L. (2011). Changing learners: The nature of expertise in music teaching. In MaduraP. (Ed.), Advances in social-psychology and music education research (pp. 29–38). Routledge.
13.
HallgrenK. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
14.
HarneyO.HoganM. J.BroomeB. J. (2012). Collaborative learning: The effects of trust and open and closed dynamics on consensus and efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 15(4), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9202-6
15.
Hill-BriggsF. (2003). Problem solving in diabetes self-management: A model of chronic illness self-management behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(3), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2503_04
HopkinsM. T. (2015). Collaborative composing in high school string chamber music ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(4), 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414555135
18.
JagoS.RadfordJ. (2017). SLT beliefs about collaborative practice: Implications for education and learning. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 33(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659016679867
19.
KapurM.KinzerC. K. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9059-z
KjerlandG. Ø.AnnerstedtC. (2022). Applying learning theories in learning how to teach physical education: A study of teacher education students collaborative learning processes in a project. Sport, Education and Society, 27(6), 689–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1902799
22.
KotsopoulosD.LeeJ. (2012). A naturalistic study of executive function and mathematical problem-solving. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(2), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.12.005
23.
LangendykV. (2006). Not knowing that they do not know: Self-assessment accuracy of third-year medical students. Medical Education, 40(2), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02372.x
24.
LeeC. B.KohN. K.XCaiX. L.QuekC. L. (2012). Children’s use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems: Children’s monetary decision-making. Australian Journal of Education, 56(1), 22–39.
25.
LeongY. H.TohT. L.TayE. G.QuekK. S.DindyalJ. (2012). Relooking “Look Back””: A student’s attempt at problem solving using Polya’s model. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 43(3), 357–369.
MännistöM.MikkonenK.KuivilaH.VirtanenM.KyngäsH.KääriäinenM. (2020). Digital collaborative learning in nursing education: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 34(2), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12743
28.
MarkmanA. B.BeerJ. S.GrimmL. R.ReinJ. R.MaddoxW. T. (2009). The optimal level of fuzz: Case studies in a methodology for psychological research. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 21(3), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09528130903065380
29.
McCartyM. E.CliftonR. K.CollardR. R. (1999). Problem solving in infancy: The emergence of an action plan. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1091–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.4.1091
30.
MostmansL.VleugelsC.BannierS. (2012). Raise your hands or hands-on? The role of computer-supported collaborative learning in stimulating intercreativity in education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 104–113.
31.
MurnighanJ. K.ConlonD. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393352
NäykkiP.JärvenojaH.JärveläS.KirschnerP. (2017). Monitoring makes a difference: Quality and temporal variation in teacher education students’ collaborative learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1066440
35.
RodriguezC.HudsonR.NiblockC. (2018). Collaborative learning in architectural education: Benefits of combining conventional studio, virtual design studio and live projects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12535
36.
RoeslerR. A. (2013). Development and application of a framework for observing problem solving by teachers and students in music. The University of Texas at Austin. http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/21569
37.
RoeslerR. A. (2014). Musically meaningful: The interpersonal goals of performance. Music Educators Journal, 100(3), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432113517720
38.
RoeslerR. A. (2016). Toward solving the problem of problem solving: An analysis framework. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 26(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083715602124
39.
RoeslerR. A. (2017). Independence pending: Teacher behaviors preceding learner problem solving. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(4), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416672858
40.
RoeslerR. A. (2022). Fantastic four! Problem-solving processes of a professional string quartet. Psychology of Music, 50(2), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735621998746
41.
ScriptureJ. D. (2008). Distributed problem-based learning: A study of instructional design models, methods and tools designers use to create collaborative and interactive learning environments. ProQuest Information & Learning.
42.
StahlG.RoséC. P. (2012). Group cognition in online teams. In SalasE.FioreS. M.LetskyM. P. (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 517–547). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
43.
StanleyD.ZhangY. J. (2020). Collaborative learning in online business education: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Education for Business, 95(8), 506–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1703097
44.
TimonenP.RuokamoH. (2021). Designing a preliminary model of coaching pedagogy for synchronous collaborative online learning. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 15, 183449092199143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1834490921991430
45.
van LeeuwenA.JanssenJ.ErkensG.BrekelmansM. (2015). Teacher regulation of cognitive activities during student collaboration: Effects of learning analytics. Computers & Education, 90, 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.006
46.
WarnetV. (2020). Verbal behaviors of instrumental music teachers in secondary classrooms: A review of literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 39(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123320924827
47.
WorthyM. D. (2003). Rehearsal frame analysis of an expert wind conductor in high school vs. college band rehearsals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 156, 11–19.
48.
WorthyM. D. (2006). Observations of three expert wind conductors in college rehearsals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 168, 51–61.
49.
WorthyM. D.ThompsonB. L. (2009). Observation and analysis of expert teaching in beginning band. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 180, 29–41.
50.
YewE. H. J.SchmidtH. G. (2012). What students learn in problem-based learning: A process analysis. Instructional Science, 40(2), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9181-6
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.
