Constructivism as a paradigm will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Four but, according to Rebecca-Anne Dibbs, it should be considered to be
an extremely broad collection of loosely related philosophies that have the same central axiom: all knowledge is constructed by, rather than absorbed by or imparted to, a learner (Gibbs, 2014, p. 34)
Constructivist philosophies of learning are usually either focussed on Cognitive Constructivism (Piaget), or Social Constructivism (Vygotsky). Whilst the former is
focussed on learning and cognition as an individual process, Social Constructivism sees learning
as a collective process spread across the individual’s world. From this perspective learning is essentially an ongoing social process with
understandings and capabilities emerging from social interaction with and within a group (Light, 2011, p. 3).
The main principle of social constructivism is that social interaction plays a necessary role in cognitive development and that, as learners, we have two
developmental levels – our actual developmental level (what we know at the current time) and our potential developmental level (what we have the potential to know through engaging in social behaviour).
The difference between these two developmental levels is what came to be known as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which Lev Vygotsky described as
the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). 31
Vygotsky was interested in the relationship between learning and development, and the interaction between these two concepts. He believed that learning leads
development and that these two processes do not coincide. Instead, Vygotsky
believed that ‘the developmental process lags behind the learning process; [and] this sequence then results in zones of proximal development’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90), which is where he believed that learning takes place. Learning ‘is considered to be what students can do with assistance or scaffolding’ (Dibbs, 2014, p. 36) and, as a
strategy which involves a learner performing a task with the support of a more knowledgeable other, scaffolding is necessary for ensuring progress and development through the zone of proximal development. Support from the
scaffolding process can be ‘given the form of questions, hints, or instructions’ (Dibbs, 2014, p. 37) and as the student obtains more knowledge, the amount of scaffolding provided is reduced, enabling the learner to become ‘a more central participant in the community of practice’ (Dibbs, 2014, p. 36). As such, social interaction is a
necessary component of the Zone of Proximal Development because of the premise that a greater range of skills can be achieved through working in collaboration with others, than can be achieved independently. This collaboration includes learning from fellow students (when situated in a group environment), as well as from the teacher. David Henson and Simon Zagorski-Thomas (forthcoming) further reinforce the close link between learning and the surrounding environment and circumstances in which the learning takes place ‘and that these will shape the way in which the learner thinks about the process as much as their own activities’ (Henson and Zagorski-Thomas, forthcoming).
The idea of learning through social interaction forms the basis of the concept of Situated Learning, which ‘takes as its focus the relationship between learning and the social situations in which it occurs’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 14). Light (2011, p. 6) writes that for Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (1991), ‘learning occurs through practice and the social interaction that arises from it within communities of practice’ and that they have three interrelated key concepts: Situated Learning, Communities of Practice and Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
The former category focuses on the belief that ‘learning is a social process situated within particular socio-cultural contexts that shape learning through participation in its practices’ (Light, 2011, p. 7). In situated learning, ‘knowledge is context-specific, occurring through one’s environment and lived experiences’ (Kenny, 2016, p. 11). With this in mind, Ailbhe Kenny states that through situated learning, ‘music-making and musical learning cannot be divorced from context’ (Kenny, 2016, p. 11). There is also an emphasis on Implicit Learning; where learning happens organically and the student is often unaware that learning is actually taking place.
With social interaction being of pivotal importance to the concept of situated learning, it is logical that Lave and Wenger’s (1991) framework of Communities of Practice (CoP) is integral as it ‘provides the participation framework within which learning takes place’ (Light, 2011, p. 8). Lave and Wenger (1991) presented Legitimate Peripheral Participation ‘as central to the CoP framework where membership is constantly evolving to move from peripheral to full participation through engagement in practice’ (Kenny, 2016, p. 17). To avoid what Wenger et al. (2002, p. 144) call ‘toxic coziness’ which can arise from the familiarity and safety of prolonged membership of a particular CoP, ‘diversity is key to sustaining fluid and changing CoPs’ (Kenny, 2016, p. 17).
Figure 3.10: Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development
Kenny (2016, pp. 18 – 19) extends the concept of CoP to musical communities and terms this Communities of Musical Practice (CoMP) focusing on ‘the ways that distinct communities make meaning from and interpret their shared music-making experiences’. She expands Wenger’s (1998) ideas of the link between learning and participation in what comprises a CoP, by expanding this to encompass a CoMP. The table overleaf is designed by Kenny (2016, p. 18) and demonstrates how Wenger’s criteria for CoP can be adapted to a CoMP:
What the student is able to do.
What the student is able to do with guidance and support.
What the student is not yet able to do
Criteria for CoP Description Kenny’s study (CoMP)
Mutual Engagement (domain)
This explains the actual domain where regular interaction and sets of relationships form a common endeavour. Regular interaction is
required for mutual engagement to develop.
The mutual engagement for CoMPs is the music- making group interactions
such as rehearsals, workshops and performances. The relationships, interactions and negotiated meanings between the members are of relevance here as these are what essentially
build the CoMP.
Joint Enterprise (process)
Related to the process itself this encapsulates the interactions, shared goals and negotiation that
CoPs entail. Wenger describes this aspect as
‘all the energy they spend’ (1998, p. 78). It
involves stated goals, negotiated goals and mutual accountability
through collective practice. An appreciation of context is also required
here.
Stated and negotiated aims of the music communities are relevant
here. How the members problem-solve in response to the local context and situations
negotiates the CoMP enterprise.
Shared Repertoire (practice)
This describes the actual practice, seen as shared
ways of doing, joint pursuit and communal resources that make and negotiate meaning. Such
indicators as stories, routine, gestures, jokes or
conversations build on a history of mutual engagement to build
these practices.
Within the CoMP explored, this consists of
the practices or built-up communal resources that
distinctly belong to each musical community. They
use these practices to negotiate meaning
through practice.
Both the Zone of Proximal Development and the concept of Situated Learning are focussed on developing sets of event schemata. The ZPD is focused on breaking learning into manageable challenges and segments which meets the learning ability of that particular student. Too little challenge for a student results in a feeling of boredom and a lack of fulfilment, and too much challenge is likely to foster a feeling of anxiety (see figure 3.11). As an example, let us consider the situation of a student learning to improvise. This student already has a set of event schema which produce the necessary affordances to play the relevant scales which match the specific chord tones. Rather than acquiring all the event schema needed to become an improviser, the student needs to be guided to develop a set of schemata which are very close to the set they already own. The very nature of event schema is that they relate to contexts, and that we learn how to do something in a context. Through the use of conceptual blending and metaphor, we can understand how to put something into a
Figure 3.11: Zone of Proximal Development.
Picture:
different context, but making considerable changes of context is difficult. For example, learning about harmony in a theoretical sense is learning about combinations of notes and sounds in one particular context. One person may understand that specific chord sequences make up specific cadential progressions, but if they hear them in an active musical context, it is going to be much harder for them to hear the connection between the knowledge they know and the sounds they hear. If they had undertaken the learning in the original context of musical activity, rather than theoretical understanding, this may not have been so difficult. It is the same knowledge, but applied in very different ways. For a popular musician, the concept of situated learning (learning to do things you want to learn in the specific context you are likely to have to undertake them) would mean that a more effective way of understanding harmony would be in a musical context. This is because this is likely to be the way a pop musician will need to use the skill in the future. A potential caveat to Situated Learning is to remember that, as teachers, we do not want the student to think that the chosen environment is the only place that that specific kind of activity can occur. Therefore, once the skill has been taught in a particular suitable context, then the nature of the zone of proximal development means that they should get the students to perform it in a different context, or for them to alter an aspect of what is being delivered.32
3.8 Chapter Summary
This chapter has provided an overview of the theoretical framework for this research, and has shown how the different concepts are inter-related and applicable for this work. The major points are summarised as follows:
• Using an ecological approach to perception, one can understand the
importance of what is directly specified from the surrounding environment. • It is this interaction between the perceiver and the environment which shapes
our own interpretations.
• Perception is active, not passive and is a multimodal process, which is based
on the identification of invariant properties which, in turn, create affordances. • Gestures are afforded from the musical instrument being performed, and the
musical genre to which the music belongs.
• Ecological theory forms a structure for embodied cognition, in which mind and
body are inextricably linked. As such, music is corporeally experienced.
• The human body is a mediator between the musical mind and the surrounding
environment, and mimetic behaviour is one of the ways we can specify how music cognition is embodied.
• Understanding can be made through the use of metaphor, image schemata
and event schemata.
• A performance persona is formed through the types of event schemata one
has developed for themselves as a performer.
• Goffman’s (1959) sociological adaptation of dramaturgy allows us to
understand that musical persona is not a completely constructed concept; it can be perceived as an extension of the self, and people each have multiple
persona which they adapt based on the environment in which they live and work.
• Joint Action Theory involves the coordination and integration of individual
actions which are brought together to achieve shared goals.
• Social constructivism provides a cognitive structure regarding how learning
can be achieved through the social interaction. The concept of Communities of Practice in Situated Learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991), explains how a participation framework is provided in which learning takes place.
Chapter Four: Methodology
4.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the methodological decisions which underpin the research questions under investigation. From here, a description is given of the chosen philosophical framework, research approach and methodology, data collection methods, analysis processes, and conclude with a discussion on the ethical issues surrounding this research.