Autonomous 4? Learners’ Collaborative Problem Solving in Chamber Music Rehearsals With and Without a Coach

Abstract

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.

Keywords

chamber music string quartet pedagogy collaborative problem solving independence

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abele

. (2013). Review of “group problem solving.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 316–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1777

Advocacy Resource Center. (n.d.). NAfME. https://nafme.org/advocacy/nafme-music-education-advocacy-resource-kit/

Alibraheim

E. A.

El-Sayed

S. 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

Berg

M. H.

(2000). Thinking for yourself: The social construction of chamber music experience. In Rideout

Paul

S. 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.

Berg

M. H.

(2008). Promoting “minds-on” chamber music rehearsals. Music Educators Journal, 95(2), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432108325870

Cavitt

M. 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

Cohen

E. G.

(1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001

Coll

Rochera

M. J.

De Gispert

(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

Colprit

E. 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.

Duke

R. 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.

Duke

R. A.

(2020). Scribe 5 (for observation and assessment) [Computer software]. Learning & Behavior Resources.

12.

Duke

R. A.

Chapman

D.-L.

(2011). Changing learners: The nature of expertise in music teaching. In Madura

(Ed.), Advances in social-psychology and music education research (pp. 29–38). Routledge.

13.

Hallgren

(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.

Harney

Hogan

M. J.

Broome

B. 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-Briggs

(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

16.

Hmelo-Silver

C. E.

(2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3

17.

Hopkins

M. 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.

Jago

Radford

(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.

Kapur

Kinzer

C. 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

20.

King

E. C.

(2006). The roles of student musicians in quartet rehearsals. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061855

21.

Kjerland

G. Ø.

Annerstedt

(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.

Kotsopoulos

Lee

(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.

Langendyk

(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.

Lee

C. B.

Koh

N. K.

XCai

X. L.

Quek

C. 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.

Leong

Y. H.

Toh

T. L.

Tay

E. G.

Quek

K. S.

Dindyal

(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.

26.

Lipman

(2013, October 12). Is music the key to success? The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/is-music-the-key-to-success.html

27.

Männistö

Mikkonen

Kuivila

Virtanen

Kyngäs

Kääriäinen

(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.

Markman

A. B.

Beer

J. S.

Grimm

L. R.

Rein

J. R.

Maddox

W. 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.

McCarty

M. E.

Clifton

R. K.

Collard

R. 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.

Mostmans

Vleugels

Bannier

(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.

Murnighan

J. K.

Conlon

D. 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

32.

National Association for Music Education. (n.d.-a). Music education and SEL: An advocacy tool for music educators. https://nafme.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NAfME-SEL-Brochure-for-music-educators-March-2021.pdf

33.

National Association for Music Education. (n.d.-b). Music education and social emotional learning. https://nafme.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NAfME-SEL-Brochure-May-2020.pdf

34.

Näykki

Järvenoja

Järvelä

Kirschner

(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.

Rodriguez

Hudson

Niblock

(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.

Roesler

R. 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.

Roesler

R. A.

(2014). Musically meaningful: The interpersonal goals of performance. Music Educators Journal, 100(3), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432113517720

38.

Roesler

R. 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.

Roesler

R. 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.

Roesler

R. 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.

Scripture

J. 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.

Stahl

Rosé

C. P.

(2012). Group cognition in online teams. In Salas

Fiore

S. M.

Letsky

M. P.

(Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 517–547). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

43.

Stanley

Zhang

Y. 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.

Timonen

Ruokamo

(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 Leeuwen

Janssen

Erkens

Brekelmans

. (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.

Warnet

(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.

Worthy

M. 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.

Worthy

M. D.

(2006). Observations of three expert wind conductors in college rehearsals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 168, 51–61.

49.

Worthy

M. D.

Thompson

B. L.

(2009). Observation and analysis of expert teaching in beginning band. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 180, 29–41.

50.

Yew

E. H. J.

Schmidt

H. 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.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB

0.06 MB

0.02 MB

0.06 MB