While the GA and NTNU have divided their learning objectives into Knowledge, Skills and General Competence in the same way as the NQF, the NMH has placed all the objectives in a single list. We have added the NMH learning objectives to the columns we felt were the most suitable. The three study programmes share a number of learning objectives. This is not surprising, seeing that most of them are based on the NQF and then adapted for each study programme.
Using slightly different wordings, all three programme descriptions include the objective for the student to possess knowledge of their subject’s history, theory and place in society. None of them specifies learning objectives explicitly linked to work methods Here NMH’s plan for composition is different, with the goal of applying creative work methods to create an artistic expression).
Nor has any of them included the NQF objective of having knowledge of the tools used in their discipline. It would have been interesting to see what the respective departments would have wanted to place in this category. Acoustic and electronic instruments of varying kinds are an obvious candidate and can be said to be synonymous with a principal instrument. However, most students will also encounter recording equipment for audio and video, notation software and a wide range of music apps such as tuners, metronomes, improvisation practice and score-reading programmes.
A common objective to all of the institutions is for the students to be familiar with artistic research in their respective fields. (The NTNU has placed this objective under Knowledge, the GA under Skills.) All descriptions include an objective for the students to work conscientiously and independently, alone and together with others.
Capacity for reflection is given varying degrees of emphasis in the different programme descriptions. The NQF only uses the term once, although it can be said to be implicit in some of the other learning objectives such as the ability to identify and evaluate information or the capacity for exchanging views and experiences. The NTNU’s plan uses the word reflection three times, the GA twice, and the NMH once. All three institutions have opted to include an objective concerning the students’ insight into and capacity for reflection on ethical guidelines and issues.
The NTNU stands out somewhat as the only institution to include a health perspective in its programme description. It also requires basic knowledge and experience of arranging and composition, something the NMH and GA do not. However, there are more similarities than differences between the three programme descriptions. They are also relatively similar to the NQF, including on learning objectives concerning familiarity with artistic research, professional ethics and the ability to communicate knowledge. So far, there are no conspicuous findings. It becomes a little more interesting as we move down one level to the course plans.
We are unable to include the full details of the numerous courses taught at the three institutions here. Instead we will simply highlight a tendency that we believe can provide an interesting talking point for further discussion. The learning outcomes most closely linked to AR (e.g. knowledge of AR and relevant AR projects, using exploration in own practice, reflection in own practice) have either been omitted in their entirety or assigned to smaller complementary courses. They have not been included in the main component of the course, the principal instrument.
None of the GA’s principal instrument courses at bachelor level includes explicit learning objectives for knowledge of AR, for reflection around own practice or for professional ethics. (see f.ex. https://www.uib.no/emne/MUV231 og https://www.uib.no/emne/MUV234.)
The focus is very much on instrumental and vocal skills, knowledge of repertoire and style, ensemble skills and communication skills. The term AR is in fact absent from every course plan on the GA’s bachelor in music performance. (It first appears in the course plan for the master exam in performance or composition. The only other GA course to mention AR is music therapy theory, but this is a different study programme altogether.)
The same is true for professional ethics. While the term appears in several courses on the study programmes for music education and music therapy, it has not made it into the course plans for performers and composers. Learning objectives relating to own practice or to the characteristics of the subject and its role in society have been placed under minor, lecture-based courses. «Music, culture and society» and «Complementary performance course. Critical reflection and communication».
The same tendency is apparent at the NTNU. The term AR is absent from the course plans for music performance at bachelor level, as are explicit learning objectives for own practice and professional ethics. Capacity for critical thinking and awareness, ethical considerations and reflection and interpretation of own practice are addressed by the courses «Examen Philosophicum for Humanities and Aesthetics Disciplines», «Historical Perspectives on Music, Culture and Society» and «Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Applied Aesthetics».
At the NMH the learning objectives in the programme descriptions are distributed in broadly the same way. The learning objectives for Principal Instrument I and II on the bachelor programmes for music performance (classical, improvisation/jazz and folk music) focus on instrumental skills, repertoire, style and performance. AR is not mentioned in any of the performance course plans. On the other hand, the learning objective of applying material from research has been included for the second year of the course «Musicianship II». (Folk music students do not take this course.) «Musicianship I» and «Industry, profession and identity» include learning objectives on developing reflection skills around the musician’s «own role in society». It should be added that the NMH is in the process of updating its principal instrument courses and is looking at adding reflection as a learning objective in order to be consistent with the programme descriptions. It will be interesting to follow this process further.
Other than that, it is remarkable that knowledge, skills and competence in relation to reflection within own practice, AR and innovation have not been included in the main instrument course. Main instrument teachers should represent their institution’s leading expertise in the respective disciplines. These teachers often have research time included in their schedule, but there are no express instructions for them to integrate this knowledge with their teaching.
Again, we should like to highlight the discrepancy between course plans and practice. Course plans do not necessarily provide a complete picture of the teaching activities. Many teachers present AR in classes, involve their students in their AR projects and integrate explorative attitudes in their teaching so that the students effectively conduct their own AR.
We must also stress that many of the learning objectives for performance courses imply a high degree of awareness and capacity for reflection. For example, all of the institutions require the students to work conscientiously and independently. At the GA the students should use trial and evaluation to address different interpretations (Main Instrument 2 Classical). The NMH requires its students to «develop independence and evaluation skills when interpreting repertoire» (Main Instrument II Classical). The NTNU expects its students to be able to «describe the characteristics of artistic quality, assess her/his own and other students’ learning and give feedback that increases the learning» (Main Instrument and Performing B). If the teacher is already an outstanding performer and the course plans already prescribe activities that imply reflection and awareness, is it really a problem if the terms AR and reflection are not systematically applied? We believe it is.
Artistic practice is not automatically the same as AR. For artistic practice to qualify as AR, it must meet the above criteria: generate new knowledge or experience on an artistic basis, contribute to dialogue and knowledge-sharing, qualify reflection at the institutions through contextualisation and critical discussion, and contribute to and challenge practices and discourses in music. Many staff members are already involved in such in-depth and investigate artistic work, but it is not a given that these processes is integrated with their main instrument teaching, or how it should be done. It is for the institution to highlight and develop this ambition. The first step is to specify the place of AR in teaching at course plan level. That would commit and guide the teacher towards AR-based teaching. It also obliges the institution to let the teacher develop their AR expertise, e.g. by allocating research time and providing various forms of training.
Secondly, the concept of reflection is key to AR in the Norwegian model. All the regulations on the PhD in artistic research specify (albeit with different wordings) that performance and creation is at the heart of the programme and should be accompanied by reflection on contextualisation, the use of theory and method, and processes and contributions to the field. Reflection is thus crucial in the third cycle. To obtain project funding, DIKU and the Programme for Artistic Research also require projects to contribute to «promote reflection and insight based on artistic practice» (according to DIKU’s call 2021).