Björn Nyman's clarinet model for group tuition

Associate Professor Björn Nyman at the Norwegian Academy of Music has almost eight years’ experience of teaching the clarinet at conservatoire level. As well as one-to-one tuition he also has experience of giving clarinet classes. There are often as many as 15 students present in the clarinet classes, and the teacher feels there is less time to provide in-depth feedback during these classes. He became interested in the small group model following a presentation of the horn, piano and singing group models given to the faculty in autumn 2012. The scope for giving each student additional study time in a group setting was one of the reasons why he wanted to try out the small group model.

Inspired by the horn model, the clarinet teacher chose to adopt the model with three master students in the group.

Every week the teacher would post two lists on the door to the clarinet studio: one with a timetable for one-to-one lessons and one with a timetable for group lessons. The master students were asked to add their names to both lists every week. NAM students doing a master’s degree in performance generally have 75 minutes allocated to tuition on their principal instrument. The teacher chose to turn all principal instrument lessons, at both master’s and bachelor’s level, into 60-minute lessons. The master students thus had one individual lesson and one group lesson each lasting 60 minutes every week, with 15 minutes being taken from their

one-to-one lessons to create a group lesson. This way the one-to-one lessons and group lessons were of equal length, which made it easier for the teacher to organise the clarinet tuition.

Composition of the group:

The teacher had six master students in 2012 whom he wanted to participate in the small group model. These students could sign up for one of the two group lessons held every week.

The bachelor students were invited to take part in the small groups in addition to their one-to-one lessons if any of the master students were absent. The bachelor students repeatedly took up this offer. They kept an eye on the lists and signed up just before the lesson. This meant the groups changed every week, depending on who was available.

Two of the Norwegian master students participating in the group lessons were interviewed. One of them had gone through the traditional Municipal Arts and Music School system, initially receiving 30 minutes of one-to-one tuition every week and later additional time with an accompanist. Her Municipal Arts and Music School training was followed by one-to-one tuition in upper secondary school and tuition in the NAM junior department. The student also had a wind band background. She was happy with the previous training she had received.

The second student had received group tuition at the Municipal Arts and Music School together with two other students. She never received one-to-one lessons at the Municipal Arts and Music School but did not feel she was missing out at the time. The student got to perform a great deal of interesting repertoire, participated in competitions together with the others in the group, and enjoyed herself very much. By listening to others in the group, she also became more conscious of her own playing. It was only when she enrolled in upper secondary education that she began to receive one-to-one tuition. Group tuition was therefore a familiar scenario for this student.

The students found their natural place in the room – gathered around the student performing.

The students were allocated 20 minutes each during the group lesson. The teacher let the students speak first. He listened to the students’ comments and picked up on some of the comments in his final evaluation of each student. The teacher was generally speaking at the same level as the students in terms of giving feedback during the lesson, but he chose to draw the final conclusions towards the end of the lesson. This is reflected in the time spent on communication between the group’s participants.

The students said that the small group lessons shared some features with the clarinet classes. However, each student was given more time and attention during the group lessons. The group lessons provided more room for in-depth study than did the clarinet classes. The students were inspired by listening to their peers and experiencing the different qualities of their performances. They found it particularly useful to learn how other students had solved specific performance challenges. One of the students also said she felt 75 minutes can be too long for a one-to-one lesson. She felt she benefited more from the allocated tuition time when it involved such varied tuition models. It is good to be “pushed” into putting your own challenges and those of others into words. She says:

«I think it’s as important to have to say something as it is to play something, because putting thoughts into words has been difficult. It’s good to hear – she does this and that, but what is she actually doing? Putting thoughts into words is an equally important part of performing.»

The students also said that the group setting is good for trying out things they are working on and for asking for advice along the way. One of the students said:

«It’s nice to feel confident enough to perform in front of my peers when things aren’t entirely ready. And being able to say that it’s not quite ready yet, and then play and see how it goes ... It feels great to know that this is just fine.»

The students also describe how the time it takes to move from the stage where they feel they do not master the material well enough to being ready to perform in front of someone has shortened after the group lessons were introduced. When asked directly whether such a model could work on the bachelor programme, the students say they are aware that the bachelor students are very satisfied with the horn model, whereby 15 minutes are transferred from the one-to-one lesson to the group lesson. They initially felt 45 minutes for a one-to- one lesson seemed rather short, but when adding the group lesson to that, it may be a good solution. The students are also of the opinion that a great deal rests on how efficient the teacher is in the lesson and on each student’s attitude.

The students also believe that the clarinet teacher’s method – whereby the students speak first and the teacher makes his remarks at the end, including remarks on the students’ comments – works well. One of the students said:

«The way we do it, we speak first and then he joins in... We’re there to learn from him as well. I feel it works really well that we get to speak first and then he joins in and assumes the teacher role at the end.»

The students also see the positive aspects of switching groups every week. They believe that such a varied structure makes them even more confident performing in front of others outside their regular group. However, the students suggest having fixed groups on the bachelor programme. One of the students also made a remark about listening to other students performing the same piece:

«On the bachelor programme I was very uncomfortable listening to someone play the same material as me ..., but now I think I’ve reached a stage where I’ve started to realise that that’s just how it is ... I’ve got no problem with it any more, and that’s a good feeling.»

The clarinet teacher says that the most positive aspect of the model is that the students get to perform a great deal more. Especially master students with a large repertoire and numerous competitions/auditions in the pipeline need to perform in front of each other, perform their pieces several times, listen to others perform, be heard and be inspired. He also acknowledges the importance of the students’ being able to express themselves verbally and to analyse their own performances and those of others, partly to become better teachers of themselves. The teacher says he has attempted to get the students to put any challenges they encounter in the one-to-one lessons into words, but he has not fully succeeded. He found that the students became better at expressing themselves once they had to form an opinion on each other’s performances in the small groups. He has not yet experienced a single negative challenge or feedback relating to the combination model. In respect of disagreements over interpretation, he says:

«It may be that I disagree with them on matters of interpretation, and I will say so, but that doesn’t mean that what they’re saying is invalid. It’s my view that they should become individual musicians and not play the way I play. I’d rather ask: what’s the idea behind it ...? These are positive challenges. A greater challenge may be one relating to feedback to and between bachelor students, who are often at a different stage of their instrumental development. Here you have to be more careful about the feedback you give in the group.»

The teacher considered adopting the small group model for the bachelor programme, but instead opted to use the 60 allocated minutes at this level for one-to- one lessons. He says the need for individual focus on rudimentary skills is very important for the bachelor students. The teacher still suggests the model could be introduced to the bachelor programme, albeit not necessarily weekly – perhaps once every month.

To further develop content in the group lessons, the teacher is also considering putting together groups according to specific themes that will form the basis for the group lesson.