The CPAM project investigated issues around the use of portfolios and artistic mentoring. Our informants represented both the student and mentor groups, something which has provided complementary perspectives. The key question is how this work can help strengthen the students’ holistic study progression with central topics being artistic development and identity as they prepare for a profession undergoing rapid change.

The need for support in building individual musicianship

Findings from the CPAM project show that there is potential for improving the focus on overall reflection and artistic identity in music education. The project was conducted at the NMH and therefore pertains primarily to that institution’s needs, but we believe that the broader findings can be extrapolated to higher music education in general. What stood out the most in the feedback from students and mentors was the urgent need for support in the individual process of building musicianship and the fact that other subjects do not sufficiently address this need. We began the project by trialling a digital portfolio in the hope that it would serve as a reflective tool, but we found that it required considerable attention and continuity as part of a mentoring process that follows the student’s broader progression through their studies.

Artistic mentoring in addition to main instrument tuition?

Music education has traditionally centred around main instrument tuition with weekly one-to-one instrument lessons. This format offers numerous advantages, but the CPAM project and other research show that there may be potential in expanding and/or reviewing the format. One-to-one tuition is based on a master-apprentice tradition which in the past few decades has been challenged by new knowledge recognising the importance of the student’s own agency and involvement to their learning and that this method may contain weaknesses around issues of authority (Hanken, 2007; Gaunt, 2011; Bull, 2019). Simultaneously, major change is underway in the music and art worlds which has resulted in a greater degree of musicianship with individual differences. The breadth of opportunities for professional musicians is now greater than when the music education programmes were first established. Since then we have also seen genres other than classical integrated into higher music education, introducing several new approaches to instrumental teaching. Many of today’s main instrument teachers have acknowledged this trend by accommodating a greater degree of dialogue with their students, more group tuition and more non-hierarchical research (Hanken (ed.), 2016). Questions are also being asked about whether this tendency requires a fresh look at the structure and totality of the curriculum to determine which elements of the learning should and should not be included in instrument lessons.

The changes that have taken place in the music industry highlight the need for more flexible and individually adapted study programmes in higher education (Gaunt et al. 2021, Røyseng, Stavrum, Vinge, J. (eds.) 2022). Then there is the question of whether expectations around the main instrument teacher’s level of responsibility for their students are too high. Main instrument teachers should support their students’ instrumental development, teach them the basic craft of the respective traditions and guide the students to attaining a high standard of instrumental performance. The student must also be met with open and critical questions so that they can stake out a course for themselves and be guided in their search for potential new directions and areas of interest that differ from those pursued by the main instrument teacher in their own musical practice. Facilitating conversions about wider choices requires a different kind of dialogue to what the weekly instrument lesson can offer, where the focus is primarily on the student’s concrete musical development processes. These kinds of conversations may be on the periphery of an instrument teacher’s area of pedagogical expertise, and there is also the question of whether all one-to-one teaching situations should be linked to playing and performance. The idea that one (master) teacher is to provide the student with all the knowledge they need for a professional music career has long prevailed, but with a rapidly changing profession we are seeing the format being challenged across the higher music education sector.

The interviews from the CPAM project show that for the vast majority of the participants it was important that professional development conversations take place with someone other than their main instrument teacher. The students felt that this introduces different perspectives and allows different topics to be raised. Many are reluctant to talk candidly with their main instrument teacher about personal musical choices, areas of interest and personal values. This is not necessarily because of the individuals in these jobs but because of the role they hold. Main instrument teachers are professionals whom the students look up to in terms of instrumental performance, and the master-apprentice tradition creates a hierarchical relationship in the transfer of traditional knowledge that can often be difficult for the student to negotiate by openly disagreeing.

The project revealed a number of instances of conflict, problems and disagreement between students and their main instrument teachers. Many of the students elaborated on authoritarian signals from their main instrument teachers and spoke of personal choices and topics they were unable to raise with their teacher. Many of them divulged to their mentors and in their portfolios that they had musical interests which they pursued in secret as they did not want their main instrument teacher to know. These findings are at odds with institutional values and strategies such as “students in the forefront” and a holistic music education that embodies the whole student. It also conflicts with the reality in the music industry where most people need to be familiar with and have experience of different genres and practices. The conservatoire tradition of predominantly specialising in a 200-year period of Western classical music is still practised in many places despite the growing diversity witnessed in the music industry.

One question that arises when having an artistic mentor in addition to a main instrument teacher is how the parties involved should deal with possible disagreements over what the student should do. For some main instrument teachers it may be difficult enough if someone else is to form opinions about their student’s direction and focus which may be contrary to the teacher’s own values and maybe also exceeding the boundaries of that teacher’s tradition. The CPAM project did not interview any of the main instrument teachers, but this could provide potential for further research into the supplementary mentoring role.

Another finding from the project is that it is often difficult for main instrument teachers to find the time to review the digital portfolios and allocate time to talking about the portfolios during instrument lessons. Of all the main instrument teachers we came into contact with during the project, only a very small number engaged with their students’ work on the portfolios and with the artistic mentoring. Some of the students reported feeling dismayed that their main instrument teacher did not engage with the process.

In the conservatoire tradition the main instrument teacher is often the only person who is genuinely closely involved in the student’s personal process, making the relationship between them especially vulnerable. We therefore see the advantage of including an artistic mentor in the team around the student and of facilitating artistic mentoring irrespective of performance situation. If such an extended core or team was to manifest itself in the curriculum structure, it could help make the student less vulnerable to relational issues and professional disagreement with their main instrument teacher, and the student will have more robust support to make their own sustainable decisions.

Structure, format and skills development for artistic mentors

One key issue investigated by the CPAM project was what artistic mentoring could involve more specifically and what methods actually work. Our findings show that useful methodologies can often be found on the continuum between open questioning and active listening on the one hand and knowledge-sharing and active counselling on the other. The course tutor taught techniques such as open questioning whereby advice and personal opinions are withheld. Some of the mentors found it strange not to be able to share their experience and professional knowledge. All of the mentors pointed to the benefits of active listening and open questioning but also wanted to be able to offer advice since most of the students sought their advice and the mentors possessed extensive experience that the students could benefit from. The challenge of balancing these two positions and the importance of putting the students’ own agency at the centre of the mentoring process point to a need for thorough training in mentoring methodology. It will be important to acquire knowledge and experience of the functions an artistic mentor should fulfil and of how these skills should be learnt.

In other words, the findings from the project show that the artistic mentoring format demands a structured premise with unambiguous content. If individual mentors are able to interpret their role too freely while also allowing for the mentoring process to meet the students’ individual needs, the sessions may veer off in very different directions. It is important that the mentoring fulfils concrete formal functions and learning objectives. There also needs to be structures for how the mentor frames mental health issues that are often brought up during the sessions and for when and how the mentor should recommend seeking medical care.

The CPAM project organised a mentoring course which also came to serve as a professional forum for the participants. It was described as informative and inspiring. The course tutor introduced impactful exercises from the coaching sector, but there was also feedback to the effect that the course could have been given a more artistic perspective or benefit from having additional mentoring professionals from different fields. We found it important to make the course obligatory for the participating mentors so that everyone could adopt a consistent methodology during their mentoring sessions that they themselves had seen the effects of during their training. We believe it is important to organise a mandatory training course if we are to implement a model with artistic mentoring as a supplement to main instrument teaching. We also see the value of including in the course professional discussions around relevant topics, such as values and identity, in order to broaden the mentors’ perspectives in preparation for the conversations they will be having with the students.

Semester review and reflexivity in the study process

The most important aspect of the digital portfolio turned out to be the work on the exercises set during the mentoring sessions. The project found that digital portfolios are rarely used unless concrete portfolio assignments are set. Feedback on the portfolio is also required. We saw that it was vital to the students’ motivation that the exercises were obligatory and that their work generated academic credits. One key finding was that the digital portfolio platform should be one that the student likes, is familiar with and trusts and which mentors and teachers are also familiar with and have access to.

The NMH has long used the Main Instrument Report as a way for students to catalogue their repertoire. Some departments have amended the reporting form because it is built around the classical tradition and involves listing learnt repertoire and thus not suitable. The form has been due an update for some time. The CPAM project saw the students create a summary of work completed in the previous semester and reflect on what they found useful and what they found difficult. They used the summary to set themselves goals for the coming semester. This six-monthly review received much positive feedback, and many students said this is something that is lacking in the existing curriculum. Having to sit down and create a summary helped raise awareness on an otherwise arbitrary study programme. They were able to see what they had actually done and accomplished, while being asked to set goals for the coming semester provided additional structure.

In the 2022–23 academic year Nyhus and Orning conducted a small-scale project as an appendage to the CPAM project linked to the semester review. The additional project sought to isolate the review process from the mentoring and portfolio, and we aimed to conduct it at one forum session before Christmas and one forum session in spring. The students had 90 minutes at their disposal. In that time they had to create a summary of work from the previous semester for their personal benefit. We used the methodology from the CPAM project linked to the four keywords review, retrospection, outlook and introspection. We set a few additional tasks that could be completed during the forum session: one freewriting exercise where they were asked to envisage themselves 5 years after graduation, and a conversation with the person next to them on the processes triggered by that exercise. This project, too, saw overwhelmingly positive feedback in the questionnaire. Most of the students found it meaningful to complete this task in conjunction with a different reflective exercise. Despite the positive response, there was some criticism from students that the activity was taking place during a forum session where they were expecting to concentrate on performance. One key finding from this project mirrored the feedback from the CPAM project: we asked whether we could share what they had written with their main instrument teachers, but most of the students did not want us to do that. The students who declined said their main instrument teacher did not need to know about their wider musical life outside their main instrument lessons.

It was interesting to note how just two meetings over the course the academic year had such a significant impact on the students’ understanding of their personal development by working on the semester review and associated reflective exercises.

Another important observation from the CPAM project is that deeper reflection requiring critical thinking and maturity needs to be repeated and returned to several times rather than be a one-off exercise. Time and repetition are essential in order to go into greater depth.

Reflection in artistic development and musicianship

On an overarching level, the project's combination of portfolio exercises and personal mentoring has had a positive impact on artistic awareness and academic work. It goes beyond stock-taking. In the second project module the students were allocated five sessions with a mentor along with reflective exercises focusing on the broader development of their musicianship. The exercises and conversations centred on identifying the student’s values, amongst other things. We have found this an important issue to address in order to be able to support the students in their maturation process and to enable them to make good decisions both as students and subsequently as professional musicians. When the students are no longer able to lean on their main instrument teacher’s “stock answers” but instead have to be agents in their own decision-making, they are forced to thematise and allow their musical identity to mature. They also need to learn to recognise their inner drive and associated opportunities.

The group meetings during the CPAM project had a positive effect on the students’ capacity for reflection. However, it was hard to get to the bottom of the personal issues that individual musicianship is essentially built on. The project found the personal mentoring to be the single most impactful element for the students and the one which uncovered the most new perspectives, challenged the students and made a difference.

Advantages of having an artistic mentor unrelated to the main instrument teacher include new and different perspectives, new knowledge and an expanded network. Many of the mentors had extensive experience of project work and cross-disciplinary collaboration outside the institutions. Many of the students therefore found themselves exposed to knowledge that represented a different side of professional practice than they would encounter through their main instrument teacher, assuming that teacher’s background is mostly orchestral. Since research shows that most music students will go on to do freelance work (Røyseng, Stavrum, Vinge, J. (eds.), 2022), it is important that the students are able to access such learning. The fact that the mentoring took place over an extended period during the second CPAM project module allowed for a process where the students could go into greater depth. Musical development and identity formation require time and maturation.

Continuation and implementation

One of the current objectives of the performance bachelor at the NMH is for the candidates to be able to “take responsibility for their artistic and creative development” upon graduation. In the curriculum for the bachelor programme this objective appears to be covered primarily by Main Instrument I and II. However, if we look at the learning objectives for those courses, they list learning repertoire, stylistic understanding, instrumental skills, practice techniques etc.

We have raised questions about whether main instrument teachers are given too much responsibility for the wider objectives of the curriculum. Today’s music students must not only learn the craft and tradition to the highest level. They must also develop individual and complex musicianship, be challenged with critical questions and a breadth of perspectives to help them mature, encounter a variety of teaching personalities including gatekeepers, midwives and fellow travellers, and prepare themselves for a varied and challenging life as musicians.

Implementing personal artistic mentoring in higher music education will be an economic challenge. Music education is costly since much of the tuition is traditionally given one-to-one. It is worth pointing out, however, that even if main instrument teachers are to shoulder all of the responsibility, we will still have to “steal” time from main instrument lessons. The findings from the CPAM project suggest that we might just as well spend the same resources on a professional resource other than the main instrument teacher.

Allocating resources to free up time for artistic mentoring has already been done on the new individual concentration master programme, FRIMA. FRIMA students receive 8 hours with their main supervisor (main instrument or composition), 6 lessons a year with an artistic mentor as part of their master project, and a separate resource allocation for a teacher of their choice. The FRIMA programme has thus chosen to distribute teaching resources between the main concentration and general artistic mentoring. In comparison, classical master students are given 27 hours a year just with their main instrument teacher. The argument from main instrument teachers on the classical programme against lesson time being diverted for other purposes is that the students need regular and plentiful instrument lessons in order to develop satisfactorily.

If main instrument teachers are taught mentoring techniques and mentoring is incorporated into the main instrument allocation, it will compromise the finding that the main strength of the mentoring was that it was a different person, often someone very unlike the main instrument teacher, who acted as mentor. We could envisage training for main instrument teachers but for them to then act as mentors for students other than their own. Another important point in this respect is that the mentoring sessions were conducted without the students having to play or perform.

If training in artistic mentoring techniques had been obligatory for all teachers at the institution, teachers with timetable availability could be assigned to such mentoring. This would vary from year to year. It could help ensure a broad range of mentoring skills and good use of institutional resources, but it could also result in a curtailed mentor-student relationship – which is not necessarily a good thing. The institution already has a number of highly skilled mentors. They could be used to launch an artistic mentoring programme while an obligatory or voluntary mentoring course is being set up. Issues around what type and frequency of contact between main instrument teacher and artistic mentor must therefore be discussed thoroughly. The dynamics between the two and the student must also be investigated further.

Training in mentoring techniques will in any case be valuable and can be incorporated into all teaching and give teachers a broader range of skills for their teaching practice. The Guildhall School of Music and Drama in London is one example of an institution that has done something similar. Seeking to create a more dialogue-based teaching format and working actively to build a teaching and learning structure that challenges the master-apprentice tradition, almost one hundred of its teachers have completed a coaching certification.

It is worth noting that over the past ten years CEMPE has been driving the use of group lessons in instrumental teaching. A series of projects and surveys has identified significant potential in rolling this out more widely in higher music education. The model is also financially effective. If just a few more main instrument lessons were converted to group tuition, it would be possible to free up resources for artistic mentoring.

The various trials run by the project show that such mentoring – irrespective of format and scope – is an important academic addition to music study and has had a remarkable effect on the students’ capacity for reflection and on how they view their personal development. This suggests that launching a practice involving artistic mentoring, regardless of format, could create a positive impact on the students. Findings from the project indicate that such mentoring is useful for students at all levels but perhaps especially so towards the end of their studies (advanced level bachelor as well as master) when they are on the threshold of their professional future.

Conclusion

The CPAM project at CEMPE/NMH 2018–2020 comprised two project modules where observations from the first module were further refined during the second. Both project modules involved mentoring in connection with the students’ work on an online portfolio known as the “core portfolio” where they uploaded material from their artistic practice and completed reflective exercises. The core portfolio was central to both project modules, while the artistic mentoring was expanded and given greater weight in the second module, which also included mentor training and professional discussion groups.

Key findings from the CPAM project include the significant potential of the semester review and reflection as part of the students’ reflective processes and the need for the study programmes to reinforce their focus on the broader artistic process. On the basis of a number of trials of artistic mentoring and portfolio work we conclude that artistic mentoring in addition to existing curriculum content has a very good effect on individual students, especially personal mentoring as a complement to main instrument tuition, in respect of the students’ overall professional development and preparations for professional practice. Our findings show that many students are reluctant to share ideas about their artistic visions and identity with their main instrument teachers. The project revealed that being supported in reflecting on artistic processes, personal artistic identity and opportunities in the professional field is something that is lacking at the NMH and that artistic mentoring is one possible way of redressing the issue. The report has identified potential models and solutions for implementing obligatory artistic mentoring as part of the curriculum.