The interviews uncovered almost unanimous support for the combination of one-to-one tuition and small group tuition as a permanent tuition model for students at different levels. All the teachers and students emphasised the importance of taking varied approaches to tuition in order to develop independent and reflective students with a conscious understanding of their own playing and that of others. This falls into line with international research. Gaunt (2009) says that students can easily become complacent and passive if they only have to deal with one teacher in one-to-one situations. Johnson and Johnson (1999) highlight the role of study groups in intensifying each student’s learning in collaboration with fellow students.

The teachers participating in the project chose to put together the groups in different ways.

The horn and piano teachers organised their groups across year groups and ability levels. The horn teacher considered social affiliation and each student’s goals for their studies to be as important as the students’ ability levels when forming the group. She pointed especially to the benefits to “weaker” students of being in the same group as more advanced students. One of the bachelor horn students also appreciated being challenged on the issue of giving feedback to master students.

A good social climate was considered to be so important that the teacher quickly reorganised the group if problems of a social nature arose.

The piano teacher also opted to organise the groups with students at different stages of their studies. His strategy was to group together students with different personal characteristics. The project group was made up of one student who could benefit from being in the group, one who might be the driving force of the group, and one who could act as a stabiliser in the group. These criteria worked well when establishing the piano group. The student deemed to be “needing” the group said himself that he had made good progress in terms of giving verbal feedback on his peers’ performances. The “driving force” of the group said she had learnt to adapt and to be open to the evaluations of others. The “stabiliser” was almost surprised by herself and by her judgement when she discovered that what she said was useful and was taken on board by the student who received her feedback. The piano students also appreciated that their teacher chose to keep a low profile during the lessons. The piano teacher was very appreciative of the close interaction between the students, which made the group lessons a good and safe arena for the students.

The singing teacher went for a different strategy when organising her group. She put together a group with two first-year students and one Eastern European second-year student – all of them male. The Eastern European student had less singing experience than the two first-year students, which meant that the members of the group were practically at the same level. None of the students knew each other. For that reason the teacher chose to take a more dominant role in the group than did the other teachers. The interesting point here is that the students felt that they could speak up whenever they wanted, even though the teacher thought she was taking up too much space in the lessons. The group became a meeting point and an arena in which the students got to know other students. The students forged social relationships within their own year group, something that was much appreciated by the new students at the Academy.

The clarinet teacher also formed groups with students at the same level, i.e. master students. These students are about to complete their studies and are in much need of performance platforms that allow them to obtain feedback on their playing both from fellow students and from teachers. However, the clarinet teacher chose a group format that also allowed bachelor students to join the groups when there was room. The clarinet groups were therefore often made up of students with different ability levels.

The violin student who attended violin teacher Morten Carlsen’s string classes emphasised the importance of the teacher’s allowing the students to get to know each other, both socially and as performers. This allowed the students to participate in each other’s learning processes and challenges.

Although the teachers initially took different approaches to the composition of their groups in terms of year of study, ability level etc., all the students and teachers had positive experiences with the different models.

The teachers’ and students’ experiences are entirely in line with Daniel’s (2004) experiences with similar extensive projects involving piano students in Australia.

In his project he demonstrates how the students became more and more independent from their teacher as they gained experience in giving each other feedback. The students’ guiding each other became a natural part of the tuition in this project.

The clarinet teacher’s experience of involving the bachelor students in the master students’ group lessons on a voluntary basis reflects the experiences gained by Brändström (1994), whereby the group lessons were scheduled in advance while the students could choose when they wanted one-to-one piano lessons. The clarinet bachelor students were free to sign up for small group lessons with master students. One of the horn students also remarked that he was able to consider the need for, and decide the length of, one-to-one horn lessons as he approached the end of his studies. This way the students took responsibility for their own learning through the choices they made. Brändström says the most important task of the teacher is to create a climate that arouses and stimulates the students’ inner motivation for taking responsibility for their own development and learning.

Most of the Norwegian students participating in the project had received previous training in the Municipal Arts and Music School system and in upper secondary school. All the students were satisfied with their past training and with their past teachers, although some of them said that in hindsight they might have wished to see more specialised and targeted tuition. Some of them also stated that more rigorous rudimentary training would have been desirable, including co-operation with more advanced students. The students greatly enjoyed the social climate created by their former teachers. Research literature identifies a good social climate as key to promoting co-operative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999), and the issue of establishing good co-operation between students should be given priority during rudimentary training. One of the students found his basic training particularly important in terms of being able to make independent, well-founded decisions at a later stage. Many of the students had also received group tuition at their Municipal Arts and Music School and were therefore used to having to deal with several persons during their lessons. One of the clarinet students had only received group tuition at the Municipal Arts and Music School and said she did not miss not having one-to-one lessons at the time. Working with the others in the group had given her numerous positive experiences, and she said she became more aware of her own playing by listening to the others.

The group setting was a new experience for the foreign students. For many of them, one-to-one lessons were the only approach to instrumental tuition in their early years, and the teacher’s advice was definitive and authoritative for the students.

For some of these students there was little focus on the positive aspects of their playing, and it was therefore easy to lose faith in their own potential.

The teachers organised the rehearsal studio in different ways. In the horn group the students and teacher were organised on the “same level”. Every student in the group had to comment on each performance subject to a few established rules. The teacher should be at the same level as the students in her feedback and should generally speaking not assume the role of teacher. Each student was allocated 20 minutes. The students themselves decided what to perform and which type of feedback they were looking for. One of the students said it was important to consider the benefits to himself of choosing a particular piece and form of presentation– and also to think about the benefits to his fellow students of the choices being made as regards the content of the lessons. That way the students shared the responsibility for making the group lessons beneficial to all the students. This is in line with Hallam (1998), who says that “peer learning” is extremely efficient both for those who teach and for those who learn.

In the piano group the teacher chose to sit back and let the students manage the entire lesson. He expected the students to take a positive attitude towards each other without the need for specific rules. The students sat around the piano, while the teacher sat in a corner. The content during the lessons often involved pieces that the students were studying in their one-to-one lessons. The students also chose to discuss interpretations they had been given by masterclass teachers that did not match their own teacher’s interpretation. The students were receptive towards each other and, just as in the horn lessons, they showed much respect for each other’s comments. The piano teacher was not particularly concerned about the structure of the lessons. The students’ spontaneous reactions were more important. The difference between the horn lessons and piano lessons was primarily the teacher’s role and positioning during the lesson.

The singing group differed in that the teacher was more actively involved in the lesson, and the students took a more passive role. Each student had 20 minutes, just like in the other groups. Although the teacher chose to take a more pronounced role in these lessons because most of the students were first-year students, the students felt that the teacher was open to their comments. The lessons became a meeting point for the students.

The structure of the clarinet group was similar to the horn group with 20 minutes allocated to each student. The difference was that the clarinet students put their names down for the group lessons when they wanted to and therefore did not meet the same students every week. The teacher acted as a moderator during these lessons and chose to comment on the students’ feedback. The students decided themselves what to perform and showed great interest in each other’s performances.

What all the lessons had in common was the positive social interaction between the students and between the teachers and students. The group lessons became priority meeting places for the students.

Research has shown that music students who enrol at a conservatoire expect to be able to perform for their peers (Burt & Mills, 2006). However, students are also concerned about their own abilities – that they are not good enough. This reinforces the need for informal performance platforms for the students. The informal feedback from these platforms is seen by researchers as more meaningful than formal feedback. For that reason the group lessons are an important part of the students’ timetable.

All the students, regardless of instrument, were united and positive in their feedback on a tuition model under which one-to-one tuition and tuition in small groups are adopted as permanent weekly lessons. They found themselves having become more reflective on their own playing and own achievement by giving feedback on the performances of their fellow students. They found that they had become more confident as performers. They also saw the positive aspects of having to accept and evaluate feedback from their peers, both with and without the active participation of the teacher. They also found that there was more openness and reassurance as they interacted with their fellow students, and they realised that they had got to know their peers in a new way. They appreciated the opportunity to discuss common challenges and developed relationships with the other group members that they found to be both constructive and supportive. The availability of additional performance platforms was seen as a good thing, and the students said they had become more confident in performance situations as a result of these different platforms. The horn students said that the numerous performance opportunities on the course were a major reason why they now find auditions less demanding and challenging than before.

At the same time there were indications that it may be a bit too much to have to attend a one-to-one lesson, small group lesson and instrument class in the one and same week.

Several researches have emphasised this form of co-operative learning. Brew (1999) says that the students must participate in discussions and assessments and be able to give each other feedback in order to become reflective musicians.

Jørgensen (2000) is saying much the same when he argues that teachers who dominate their lessons give their students limited opportunity to feel responsibility for their own development. Daniel (2006) found that the small group lessons focused the students’ attention on the need to give feedback and to assume responsibility for their own learning. Gaunt (2008) discovered that group tuition can improve knowledge about technical and interpretative challenges thanks to the students’ constructive and critical evaluations of each other’s performances.

Nerland (2007) says that the teacher’s pedagogical approach to the tuition demonstrates the degree to which the teacher considers the students to be individuals who can take responsibility for their own learning. According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning is more a result of participation in social practices than it is a result of tuition.

The teachers’ feedback is just as positive as that of the students. The horn teacher says that the combination of small groups and one-to-one tuition is the ideal teaching model. She believes that the students’ learning intensifies as a result of different approaches. The piano teacher is of the same opinion and points to a holistic approach as being necessary in order to create robust, perceptive and confident musicians. The singing teacher also sees the positive aspects of students’ receiving additional tuition overall as a result of this model. The clarinet teacher mentions the opportunity it gives him to see the students several times and in different settings during the week. He suggests that weekly meetings are ideal for master students, while monthly meetings could be considered for bachelor students. The other teachers suggest weekly small groups at all levels. The string teachers, who have been giving different group lessons in the form of string classes with up to ten students, also point towards the same. The students develop an interest in each other, and they get to perform much more. They gain experience of expressing themselves verbally and of analysing performances. They learn from each other, and they learn to take a positive attitude towards their fellow students. This way the students are given different forms of tuition on their principal instruments each week. The one-to-one lesson is often a meeting between teacher and student in which the teacher has the answers, as the horn teacher puts it.

During the small group lessons the feedback comes from the students – sometimes with additional input from the teacher – while during the instrumental classes / masterclasses the teacher offers advice but may also invite input from the students in the audience (Hanken, 2008; Creech et al., 2009; Hanken, 2011).

Implementing this model places demands on both teachers and students. Both teachers and students provided feedback on what they expected of each other, and the input from the two groups was quite clear (Bjøntegaard, 2014):

The teacher should

• plan and organise the group
• encourage a positive atmosphere within the group
• respect the students’ comments and input
• participate in the group as a member on the same level as the students,
• or choose to let the students run the group themselves
• acknowledge that the students may have the best answers
• forget their role as a principal instrument teacher unless otherwise agreed

The students should

• choose repertoire and topics of interest to the entire group
• be well prepared
• be open to input from fellow students
• show respect for and interest in their fellow students
• be constructive when giving feedback
• be responsible group members

This echoes Johnson and Johnson (1999), who found that when engaging in co-operative learning the students should give each other the necessary support in order to promote individual success for each member of the group.

Group members must feel that they do not learn exclusively from their own performances but also from listening to and commenting on their fellow students’ playing. They must appreciate that their contribution to the group impacts on the success of each individual group member (Bjøntegaard, 2014). Jørgensen (2000) spells out how institutions must put the students’ independence on the agenda for institutional development and encourage alternative forms of teaching. For a model to succeed, both teachers and students must believe in it, however. They must build the model together, and each student and teacher must find their place and role in the chosen model.