A Multiple Case Study of Informal Learning Practices and Processes Within Three High School Choral Programs

Abstract

Despite the repeated call-to-action to identify more inclusive and equitable approaches within school music ensembles, choral teaching and learning in the United States still favors practices that perpetuate injustices while limiting democracy and student autonomy (Bradley, 2007; de Quadros, 2015; Howard, 2020; O’Toole, 2005; Philpott & Kubilius, 2015; Shaw, 2012, 2016, 2019). In many ways, music teacher socialization surrounding best choral practices for teaching and learning has remained stable since the 19th century. Most choral teachers in the United States continue to center sequential patterns of teaching and learning with a singular trained leader, Western Art Music (WAM), and polished products of music (Conkling, 2019). These practices are best defined as Formal Learning (FL), or learning that includes a structured curriculum and instructional plan, sequential learning process, teacher in charge, and clear assessment plan (Mok, 2011c). Though FL endures as the “default option” in large ensemble classroom settings such as bands, choirs, and orchestras (Conkling, 2019), Informal Learning (IL) in music education—learning that is “not sequenced beforehand” and contains components that are “self-chosen and voluntary” (Folkestad, 2006, p. 141)—has steadily gained popularity in the United Kingdom and the United States since its introduction in Nordic countries in the 1960s (Hallam et al., 2018). In the early 21st century, Green (2002) conducted a seminal study about how popular musicians learn using Informal Learning Practices and Processes (ILPP). Since then, researchers and teachers worldwide have explored IL in elementary music classrooms (Davis, 2013; Moore, 2019), secondary music contexts (Bersh, 2011; Costes-Onishi, 2016; Evans et al., 2015; Gower, 2012; Green, 2008; Hallam et al., 2018; Jones, 2015; Moore, 2019; Vasil, 2015; Wallerstedt & Pramling, 2016; Wright, 2016), and collegiate settings (Finney & Philpott, 2010; Isbell, 2016; Karlsen, 2010; Mok, 2017). Feichas (2010) called IL a “pedagogy of diversity and inclusion” (p. 57), because of the inherent choice involved, the minimization of Eurocentric musics, and the opportunity for all to access this way of learning. Jones (2009) claimed students’ engagement with music in IL settings as one of the most promising indicators of musicking throughout one’s life because of the student choice, informal skills, and self-regulated learning involved. Despite these benefits, research related to IL within high school choral contexts remains scarce. The purpose of this multiple case study was to investigate Informal Learning Practices and Processes (ILPP) within the context of three public high school choral programs. A qualitative multiple case study design guided me toward purposive sampling (Patton, 2015; Stake, 2006). In total, I selected and studied the experiences of three teachers and 59 total student participants, ages 14-18. Data sources and types at each site included choir teacher and student interviews/transcripts, observations/field notes, recordings from concerts and rehearsals, course materials, and other artifacts. In total, I conducted six individual interviews with the teachers and 89 individual/focus group interviews with the students. Additionally, I conducted approximately 104 total hours of observations, split among all three sites. Upon completion of data collection, I engaged in a within-case analysis by first constantly comparing the data with the emerging conceptual framework, The IL-FL Continua, and next open-coding the data and grouping the codes into themes. I subsequently completed the cross-case analysis, first by forming types/families of learning practices and processes (Miles et al., 2020), and subsequently by constructing nine explanations (Yin, 2018) that captured the essence of the quintain: student and teacher perspectives of ILPP in choral programs (Stake, 2006). To ensure trustworthiness, I employed triangulation, peer coding, and member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The within-case data analysis revealed a wide variety of benefits related to ILPP in choir including musical validation and growth, musical self-efficacy, bolstered community, creative freedom, feelings of ownership, enhanced life skills (e.g., communication, teamwork, independence, social-emotional skills), and a more relaxed environment. Challenges of ILPP in choir that emerged included musical setbacks, navigating open-ended and independent tasks, social dynamics in group work, unequal contribution, and limited time. The three teachers each held different values that prompted them to center ILPP in choir. For instance, one teacher centered ILPP because he valued student voice and democracy, while another teacher centered ILPP to foster lifelong music-making. The Informal-Formal Activities Continuum which emerged from the cross-case data analysis (see Figure 3), features four types of learning practices and processes in high school choirs: (a) teacher or student led rehearsals, (b) large group creative activities, (c) small group creative activities, and (d) non-compulsory performance opportunities. Further analysis revealed two models of integrating IL and FL in choral contexts: mutually-supportive and additive. A mutually-supportive model of IL-FL refers to a pedagogy of practice whereby students experience learning on all parts of the IL-FL Continua which contributes toward shared outcomes and goals. An additive model refers to a pedagogy of practice whereby some students may experience shared outcomes and goals. While additive and mutually-supportive models resulted in similar benefits such as student enjoyment and motivation, strengthened community, life skills, and recruitment/program advocacy, the mutually-supportive model promoted greater musical and communal outcomes. This study holds implications for developing and centering a new choral philosophy for inservice and preservice choral teacher education. At the core of this philosophy lies a mutually-supportive IL-FL model, facilitated by decentralized power and a democratic classroom environment. By engaging students in varying learning styles, decentering power in the classroom, and encouraging students to make choices to support their own learning, teachers may foster student lifelong and lifewide music-making.