Instrumental tuition in the Western world has traditionally taken place in a master-apprentice setting, whereby the teacher is the role model and the student comes to the master to learn. In this tradition the master imparts his or her knowledge to the student, and the student is the recipient.

The same approach is used during masterclasses, where the teacher instructs the student in front of an interested, and often knowledgeable, audience. One by one, the students perform a prepared piece, and the master makes comments and offers advice. In both traditions it is up to the teacher to signal whether the teacher’s approach should be adopted as a “follow me” approach or as a dialogue between teacher and student.

Surveys have shown that the teacher’s identity and degree of professionalism have a bearing on his or her approach to the students in the teaching situation (Kennel, 2002; Triantafyllaki, 2010). At the same time we can see how the teacher’s and student’s approaches to their respective roles in the teaching situation are influenced by the institutional culture. Certain rules, standards and expectations often emerge in respect of what it means to be a teacher and a student at a given institution (Nerland & Hanken, 2002).

In light of this, I wanted to look in greater detail at different approaches and organisational models used in instrumental teaching at conservatoire level with particular focus on the combination of one-to-one tuition and group tuition. I also wanted to establish whether using a combination of teaching models, whereby the students are assigned varying degrees of responsibility, can affect the way in which students perceive their own professional development.

This report provides a description of the organisational and teaching models employed by the teachers involved and of the teachers’ and students’ experiences with different types of “combination models”.

Research into group tuition on the students’ principal instruments primarily centres around the teaching of basic skills to younger beginners. Little research has been carried out into group tuition in higher education. Research looking at the combination of one-to-one tuition and group tuition has shown that the teacher is very much in control of the one-to-one lessons, while the students become more involved with feedback etc. during group sessions (Persson, 1994; Jørgensen, 2000; West & Rostvall, 2003). Gaunt (2008) found that teachers were generally enthusiastic about the learning potential of group situations where the pupils could guide each other, but also that the same teachers were not very likely to organise such groups as an integral part of the tuition. Nor did the students display much interest in seeking out situations where they could benefit from the input of fellow students in their own learning.

In 1976 Seipp conducted a project involving trumpet students. Some of the students were taught in groups and some individually. The project showed that the students who were taught in groups made faster progress on their instrument than those who were taught individually. Despite this, some of the same students doubted that group tuition could be as effective as one-to-one tuition. Daniel (2004) carried out a survey of his piano students in which he taught the students in groups of three or four. The group activities were planned in great detail according to the students’ level of ability. Daniel found that the students became increasingly independent from their teacher as they gained more experience, and the exchange of experiences between the students eventually became a natural part of their learning process. Jørgensen (2000) cites established theories that emphasise the importance of active participation by each student in order to achieve an optimal learning outcome. He goes so far as to say that teachers who dominate their instrumental lessons give their students limited opportunity to take responsibility for their own learning and musical development. Gaunt (2008) expresses some of the same views when she says that one-to-one tuition can slow down the student’s individual development.

The group tuition model also gives the students a chance to perform in informal and diverse arenas in front of an audience of peers. Several researchers, including Burt and Mills (2006) and Juuti and Littleton (2010), have found that students are anxious about performing in front of each other and stress the importance of creating performance platforms where the students’ feedback to each other is part of the organisational model. Some teachers even believe that students learn just as much from feedback from their peers as from feedback from their teacher (Nerland, 2007).

The issue of students’ independence and self-criticism as part of a more holistic approach to education is becoming increasingly prominent at institutions where the teachers are expected to produce independent students who are capable of constructing their own knowledge (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). At this type of institution the students construct their knowledge through co-operation and through the exchange of opinions and knowledge. The teacher must therefore encourage an atmosphere that allows student co-operation to become a natural and important element in the tuition.

Most bachelor and master students in performance at the Norwegian Academy of Music (NAM) receive 60–75 minutes of one-to-one tuition on their principal instrument every week. In addition to these fixed lessons, some teachers organise masterclasses lasting between 90 and 180 minutes every week for students playing the same or related instruments.

A 2011 survey of all principal instrument teachers at the Academy on the organisation of principal instrument tuition found that all principal instrument teachers provide one-to-one tuition, 65% provide tuition in masterclasses, and 20% provide weekly or monthly group tuition. One of NAM’s horn professors has developed a model whereby principal instrument tuition in small groups, i.e. groups of three students plus the teacher, is allocated more time than by any other teacher at the Academy. The combination of one-to-one tuition and group tuition is a permanent element in this teacher’s weekly instrumental teaching schedule. During the project I observed one of her horn groups on three occasions during the semester. The students in this group were also observed during their one-to-one lessons.

This allowed me to compare the students’ degree of independent involvement in the two teaching situations. At the end of the semester I interviewed the students and their horn teacher about their experiences with the teaching model.

In 2012 I invited a piano teacher and a singing teacher to develop similar project models for some of their students within a given framework:

• Each group would receive one-to-one tuition and tuition in small groups on a weekly basis over a period of 6 months.
• The time allocated to the small groups should generally speaking be taken from the students’ allocated one-to-one lessons.

As well as the horn teacher and other invited teachers, I also observed a clarinet teacher who had been inspired by the horn model to try out a similar teaching model with his master students. I was also invited to sit in on lessons given by two violin/viola teachers, and I spoke to a third violin teacher about his teaching model and his thoughts on group tuition.

Here follows a description of the different models I observed along with an account of the students’ and teachers’ experiences with this type of teaching model.

Links to each of the projects:

Frøydis Ree Wekres horn model for group tuition

Jens Harald Bratlie's piano model for group tuition

Barbro Marklund-Petersone's singing model for group tuition

Björn Nyman's clarinet model for group tuition

Violin and viola models for group tuition