Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:29:44.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Professors' and trainees' perceptions of educational quality as related to preconditions of deep learning in musikdidaktik

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2008

Cecilia Ferm  and
Geir Johansen
Cecilia Ferm
Affiliation:
Centre for Teaching and Learning, University of Stockholm106 91, Stockholm, [email protected]
Geir Johansen
Affiliation:
Norwegian Academy of Music, Pob. 5190 Majorstua, N-0302 Oslo, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interview-based case studies, involving two institutions, four professors and 11 music teacher trainees were conducted in order to investigate the preconditions for deep learning in the subject of higher music education called musikdidaktik. Analysis was based on the ‘didaktiktriangle’ which is a theoretical model that suggests the relations of the professor, trainee and the selected content as being at the core of any educational endeavour. The model helps to frame the debate about the quality of teaching and learning by highlighting the trainees’ learning as relational. Professors as well as trainees located preconditions for deep learning to relations within the didaktik triangle. Furthermore, it became apparent how those preconditions were connected to the institutional culture within which the triangle relations were played out. It is suggested that deep learning in musikdidaktik was regulated by how the teaching forms and the selected educational content gave space for trainees’ learning styles, strategies and approaches. Furthermore, the learning was affected by the musikdidaktik subject's low status within the institutional culture and its external relations to the trainees’ practical teaching training.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Music Education , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , July 2008 , pp. 177 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANDERSON, G. (2006) ‘Assuring quality/resisting quality assurance: academics’ responses to ‘quality’ in some Australian universities’, Quality in Higher Education 12 (2): 161–73.Google Scholar
BIGGS, J. (2004) Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
BOUIJ, C. (1998) ‘Swedish music teachers in training and professional life’, International Journal of Music Education 32: 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'ANDREA, V. & GOSLING, D. (2005) Improving Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. A Whole Institution Report. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
DOLLOFF, L.-A. (2006) ‘Celebrating and nurturing the identity of the musician/teacher’, in Stålhammar, B. (Ed.), Music and Human Beings – Music and Identity (pp. 191–207). Örebro: Örebro University Library.Google Scholar
ELTON, L. (2005) ‘Scholarship and the research and teaching nexus’, in Barnett, R., (Ed.), Reshaping the University. New Relationships between Research, Scholarships and Teaching (pp. 108–18). Berkshire, GB: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
FERM, C. (2008) ‘Playing to teach music – embodiment and identity making in Musikdidaktik’, Music Education Research, in press.Google Scholar
FERM, C. & JOHANSEN, G. (2007) ‘Organising for deep learning in musikdidaktik – some first impressions from an interview study of educational quality in music teacher education’. Paper presented at the International conference Training Music Teachers. Research in Psychology of Music and Music Education in Padova, Italy, 5–6 November, 2007.Google Scholar
GRAABRÆK-NIELSEN, S. (2002) ‘Musical practice in the conservatoires: strategies advanced students use in self-regulated learning’, in Hanken, I. M., Graabrækdr Nielsen, S. & Nerland, M. (Eds), Research in and for Higher Music Education: Festschrift for Harald Jørgensen (pp. 87–99). NMH-publications 2, Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Music.Google Scholar
HANKEN, I. M. & JOHANSEN, G. (1998) Musikkundervisningens didaktikk [The didaktik of music education]. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
HENNESSY, S. (2007) ‘Constraints and affordances in primary music teacher education in England’. Paper presented at the International conference Training Music Teachers. Research in Psychology of Music and Music Education, Padova, Italy, 5–6 November, 2007.Google Scholar
JANK, W. & MEYER, H. (2003) Didaktische Modelle [Didaktik Models]. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.Google Scholar
JOHANSEN, G. (2007a) ‘Educational quality in music teacher education. Components of a foundation for research’, Music Education Research 9 (3): 435–48.Google Scholar
JOHANSEN, G. (2007b) ‘Didaktik and the selection of content as points of departure for studying the quality of teaching and learning’, Quality in Higher Education 13 (3): 249–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JOHNES, J. & DE SARAM, D. D. (2005) ‘Academic staff views of quality systems for teaching and learning: a Hong Kong case study’, Quality in Higher Education 11 (1): 47–58.Google Scholar
JØRGENSEN, H. (2000) ‘Student learning in higher instrumental education: who is responsible?’, British Journal of Music Education 17 (1): 67–77.Google Scholar
KERTZ WELZEL, A. (2004) ‘Didaktik of music: a German concept and its comparison to American music pedagogy’, International Journal of Music Education 22 (3): 277–86.Google Scholar
LINDLOF, T. R. (1995) Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Current Communication: An Advanced Text Series, Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
MCCARTHY, B. (2000) About Learning (2nd rev. edition). Wauconda: About Learning Inc.Google Scholar
MILLS, J. (2002)‘Conservatoire students’ perceptions of the characteristics of effective instrumental and vocal tuition’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 153/451: 28–87.Google Scholar
MILLS, J. & SMITH, J. (2003) ‘Teachers’ beliefs about effective instrumental teaching in schools and higher education’, British Journal of Music Education 20 (1): 5–27.Google Scholar
NIELSEN, F. V. (1997). Den musikpædagogiske forsknings territorium: Hovedbegreber og distinktioner i genstandsfeltet [The territory of the research in music education]. In Jørgensen, Harald, Nielsen Frede V. og Olsson, Bengt, red.: Nordic Research in Music Education. Yearbook 1997 (pp. 155–77). Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Music.Google Scholar
NIELSEN, F. V. (2002) ‘The didactology of music as a field of theory and research’, in Fiske, H. E. (Ed.), Research Alliance of Institutions for Music Education. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium (pp. 101–14). London, Canada: University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
PATTON, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd edition). London: Sage.Google Scholar
PETERS, M. A. & OLSSEN, M. (2005) ‘Useful knowledge: redefining research and teaching in the learning economy’, in Barnett, R. (Ed.), Reshaping the University. New Relationships between Research, Scholarships and Teaching (pp. 37–47). Berkshire, GB: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
PETTERSEN, R. C. (2004) ‘Studenters lærings- og studiestrategier: Kvalitetsindikatorer i høgre utdanning?’ [Students’ strategies of learning and studying: Quality indicators in higher education?]. Uniped 27 (2): 44–65.Google Scholar
STAKE, R. E. (1994) ‘Case Studies’, in Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
STEENSAKER, B. & MAASEN, P. (2005) ‘Kvalitetskonseptet i høyere utdanning – Oversettelser, omfortolkninger og operasjonaliseringer’ [The concept of quality in higher Education – Translations, interpretations and operationalizations]. Uniped 28 (2): 16–27.Google Scholar
SWANWICK, K. (1994) Musical Knowledge. Intuition, Analysis and Music Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
TROMAN, G., JEFFREY, B. & RAGGL, A. (2007) ‘Creativity and performativity policies in primary school cultures’, Journal of Education Policy 22 (5): 549–72.Google Scholar
VON WRIGHT, M. (2000) Vad eller vem? [What or who?]. Göteborg: Daidalos.Google Scholar
WENGER, E. (2006) Learning for a Small Planet, a Research Agenda. http://ewenger.com/research/LSPfoundingdoc.doc.Google Scholar
WEBSTER, P. R. (2007) ‘The role of music teachers as guides for learning: today and tomorrow’. Paper presented at the International conference Training Music Teachers. Research in Psychology of Music and Music Education, Padova, Italy, 5–6 November, 2007.Google Scholar
WESTBURY, I. (2000) ‘Teaching as a reflective practice’, in Westbury, I., Hopmann, S. & Riquarts, K. (Eds), Teaching as a Reflective Practice. The German Didaktik Tradition (pp. 15–40). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
WILCOX, S. & UPITIS, R. (2002) ‘Strengthening the Teaching of Music Educators in Higher Education’, in Colwell, R. & Richardson, C. (Eds), The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (pp. 840–54). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar