The six projects involving principal instrument tuition in groups are different in several ways:

They differ in terms of who manages the process and sets the agenda. We have seen examples of strongly student-led tuition such as on Jens Harald Bratlie’s project, where the students took overall responsibility for the tuition. We have also seen examples of a more teacher-led approach such as on Mona Julsrud’s improvisation project, where she sets out a clear framework and gives the students defined tasks which they then solve together. Good group tuition does therefore not mean that the teacher has to play a passive role. Still, we would argue that there must be a strong element of student involvement in the lessons for them to be considered good group tuition. Only then can you exploit the potential of having students learn together and from each other.

We can also see how the content of the group lessons differs somewhat from project to project. Some of them focus on the students performing repertoire for each other and giving each other feedback, such as in Morten Carlsen’s string classes. On other projects the emphasis is more on joint evaluation and discussion surrounding different topics, such as in Svein Bjørkøy’s lessons. In other words, it is not a given that group lessons on principal instruments must have particular content or mirror the one-to-one lessons.

There are also differences in terms of process or product focus. On some of the projects the process itself was the main concern, such as Kristin Kjølberg’s work on the Critical Response Process. Other projects place emphasis on polishing the finished product, such as when Julius Pranevičius’ students work specifically on audition repertoire.

Although the six projects are very different, they can all be said to be examples of well-functioning practices – all in their own way and on their own terms. This illustrates the fact that there is no single answer or given model as to what constitutes good group tuition on principal instruments. The key is rather to achieve concordance between what we wish to accomplish with group tuition and the frameworks we have to relate to on the one hand, and the choices we make in terms of content, activities and organisation on the other. As a consequence of this we also have to choose which role we should assume as teachers and which roles to offer the students. This means that a number of options are available to us, but it also demonstrates that it requires a great deal of thinking and experience in order to identify what would work in a given context.