Snapshot 7: context makes a difference

A recurring theme in Claxton’s writings (2018, 2008, 2006b, 2006a, 2004, 2002), and those with his colleagues (Claxton et al., 20011; Claxton et al., 2010b, 2010a; Claxton & Carr, 2004), is the suggestion that learning can be ignited and sustained by providing pupils with opportunities to engage learning independently and collaboratively, but also by observing others in the act of learning. Such was the aim of Layer 3. This Layer provided me new insights about pupils that may have otherwise remained hidden. To glimpse the potential of this environment, I use both S2 and T2 as examples.

Unlike her engagement in the other Layers, where she was often a silent learner mesmerised by the film viewing, unable to give complete or articulated comments, and who often needed prompting to verbally engage, S2 seemed to be uninhibited at exercising her vocal skills in the group context. She started and remained in a continuous communicative mode with her peers and me (Flusser, 2000), often being the first to respond to a question and never reticent in collaborating with her peers to explore a variety of topics. S2 willingly and repeatedly illustrated her critical thinking, shared experiences, offered advice, answered questions, and even challenged a peer’s comment. Her feedback consistently included clearly stated points and reasoning, invariably focusing her lens in a positive manner. Although I knew that positivity was one of her personal traits, I had never witnessed this very vocal and clearly articulate S2. I have always known S2 to hold firm opinions and, in this light, two further points caught my attention. Firstly, and as mentioned earlier in Session A, S2 abandoned her own performance goal to adopt T2’s goal and way of reflecting on it. Violin classes that S2 attended prior to this study never incorporated a peer discursive element, so to observe S2 adopt a peer’s goal by abandoning her own was a surprising observation for me. Secondly, though S2 was increasingly more vocal here than in the other environments, she was also the only pupil to challenge a peer’s choice of language. This occurred when T2 was assisting Z5 to describe what advantage there was to perform for a bigger audience, and T2 commented that an audience gave her ‘a rush of adrenaline’. In an exasperated tone of voice S2 said, ‘Ah! You are using all these words! Rush of adrenaline, and unlocked elbow’. T2 stood her ground and replied, ‘Well, I noticed an unlocked elbow and I have a locked elbow when I go fast’. While T2 might have been surprised to find S2 commenting on her use of language as being somewhat unusual, this may have challenged T2 to reflect further. This interaction also suggests that through sharing and discussing ideas S2 had been introduced to how others use language in musical learning.

In comparison to S2 within this group context, T2 was very vocal and continued to display a reflective, resourceful, resilient and reciprocal approach to learning as she did in Layers 1 and 2. She participated in all discussions, and from the feedback given to her peers showed that she could continue to hold her own focus areas in the foreground while rotating between different reflective roles. T2 frequently asked for my opinion in

Layer 1 and this act of resourcefulness also surfaced in the Group Sessions, albeit in a slightly different way. In this session she sought the assistance of her peers when unable to articulate her thoughts or observations clearly.

T2 – I like the mordents and the lifts!

T.R. – What did you like? Can you describe what about it that you liked? T2 – I can’t describe it.

T.R. – What did it add to the piece for you? [silence and giggles from the group] How did it make it more enjoyable?

T2 – Uhm… I don’t know… [giggles]

T.R. – What was the piece sounding like? What type of piece was it?

T2 – Like a …like like… like a… [bouncing in her chair] Can someone help me? I can’t put it into words…

Interestingly, the peer group did not intercede to help T2 clarify her thinking in this first instance or later when the topic of playing from memory surfaced. It should also be noted that, in the second instance, T2 did not ask for peer assistance as she seemed to be content with her own lack of knowledge, as if it were trivial.

T.R. – Does it make you feel happier as a performer not to have to read the music? S2 – Yeah, because you’re not like looking.

T2 – Yes! But don’t ask me why. T.R. – Why can’t I ask you why?

T2 – Because I don’t know what the explanation is.

In summarising my observations of S2’s and T2's engagement during this Layer, the higher number of communicative verbal responses given by S2 could have been the result of any number of variables. It could have been due to such things as existing friendships with peers in the group, experiences earlier in the day, a general in-the- moment mood, as a result of evaluating live performances, or from engaging in group discussions rather than reacting to digital performance recordings, but in any case ascertaining why pupils engaged in the way they did was not a focus of this enquiry. However, S2’s surge of freely and clearly expressed thoughts (Bandura, 1993) were taken as an affirmation that this environment allowed positive reflexive forces to impact her experience of learning (Dewey, 1938) through having opportunities to reflect and

These claims can also be made from the level of engagement that T2 displayed consistently during this and the other Layers. Never timid or reluctant to vocalise her thoughts, feelings or ideas, these Group Sessions seemed to show that T2 possessed a developing reflexive learning lens that she was willing to activate in different environments.