The transfer of knowledge between singing teacher and student has traditionally been an individual undertaking and very much involves passing on tacit knowledge. As an instrument, the voice encompasses the entire body, and singing technique is all about controlling posture, correct relaxation, breathing and support, range etc. Most of these skills can only be partially observed. They are hidden and therefore not easily accessible in the form of unambiguous, clear feedback.

Many singing teachers develop their own vocabulary and definitions. This “language” can work well between a given teacher and student but will often be less than adequate in professional discussions on a more overarching level. The “individualisation” of terms and definitions can restrict or even put a stop to discussion amongst both teachers and students. Good tuition and guidance therefore requires precise language and clear definitions.

On this project, which was conducted in the 2014–15 academic year, we wanted to establish whether it is possible to provide tuition specifically in vocal techniques – something which has primarily been given during one-to-one lessons in a dialogue between teacher and student – in a group setting. We wanted to investigate whether group tuition can help make the technical vocabulary used in the students’ feedback more precise, improve learning outcomes for the students, and also give us a better understanding of and insight into the complex instrument that is the human voice.

(The project was conducted by Professor Svein Bjørkøy. Associate Professor Bjørg Julsrud Bjøntegaard observed the project and interviewed the students and Svein Bjørkøy.)

The project took as its starting point the statement: «To teach is to learn twice» (Joubert, Joseph (1896/2014) Pensées of Joubert. London: George Allen).

One of the aims of the project was to give the voice students an opportunity to identify, discuss and verbalise technical challenges together with their peers.

We wanted to examine and test:

• models for improving one-to-one principal instrument voice tuition and help improve learning outcomes by supplementing the regular one-to-one lessons with a certain amount of group tuition
• how the students can get involved in the tuition by providing guidance to their peers in a systematic manner
• how to develop a constructive vocabulary when giving feedback to fellow students
• specialist singing terminology and definitions
• how guiding others has an impact on own reflection, practice and technical development

One might not have expected the challenges associated with the lack of a common vocabulary when giving precise feedback on singing techniques and artistic expression to be particularly pronounced on this project, since all the participating students had the same teacher. However, it emerged that the students expressed themselves very differently about specific technical challenges, which in turn helped spark interesting discussions during the group lessons.

Nine of Svein Bjørkøy’s students on the music performance and music education programmes made up the project group:

• One master student
• Three fourth-year bachelor students
• Three third-year bachelor students
• One second-year bachelor student
• One first-year bachelor student

A total of 11 group lessons lasting 75 minutes each were held during the 2014–15 academic year, evenly spread across the year. These group lessons were an addition to the weekly one-to-one lessons.

The content of the lessons was agreed before each lesson, including who would present or introduce the specific, agreed topics. All the lessons primarily focused on singing technique. It could be issues such as breathing, sound, vowel equalisation, range etc. Two double lessons with an accompanist every semester were dedicated to interpretation. During these lessons the students looked at the relationship between specific musical challenges in a given repertoire and technical approaches to performing that repertoire. The students prepared concrete topics and were expected to use technical terminology when giving feedback to each other. A master student was given the main responsibility for organising each session and for ensuring that all the necessary information was published in a dedicated Facebook group. The students took collective responsibility for the lessons, i.e. they had collective responsibility for ensuring that each student performed their prepared repertoire and that the comments on each performance were constructive. The teacher was present during all group lessons but only offered comments when he or the students deemed it necessary. Attendance varied between four and six students in each lesson since group tuition was not part of the ordinary syllabus and the lessons had to be held in the afternoons.

The group lessons were conducted as follows: The students sat in a semi-circle. Each performing student had approximately 20 minutes at their disposal. The students would select their own repertoire based on an agreed technical topic and would often introduce the performance by saying something about the technical challenges they were experiencing, how far they had progressed with learning the piece, and which kind of feedback they were looking for on their performance.

The more experienced bachelor students and the master student in charge of organising each lesson were initially intended to mentor the less experienced students. This meant that they would have particular responsibility for giving constructive feedback to the less experienced students so that they felt looked after. However, the mentoring scheme was not systematically adopted since the students found it more appropriate to be equal “colleagues” during these lessons.

The students kept a diary of the lessons. Bjørkøy also kept a diary and frequently carried out brief evaluations of the project together with the students. He also held planning meetings with the master student in charge of organisation. The project was monitored by Bjøntegaard, who observed the group lessons and interviewed Bjørkøy and five of the participating students.