In all fields of research and scholarship, there is arguably a relationship between the ‘theory’ and the ‘practice’ of a particular discipline, underpinning its research and teaching activities. This post considers this relationship specifically in the field of music pedagogy in higher education.
In his essay on this subject in the 2015 edition of A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Paul Kleiman highlights the commonly perceived separation between elements of ‘theory’ and ‘practice’, as if they are ‘two separate entities, rather than a single entity consisting of two organically interlinked elements.’[1] This, he claims, is a separation that is particularly prevalent in the fields of dance, drama and music in higher education, given their traditional vocational and performance based modes of training.[2]
Introducing the skills of critical thinking and analysis to students alongside their musical practice and performance training is a challenge that faces teachers and lecturers in higher education. It is one that I encountered when designing and delivering a lecture-based module on music history to a cohort of second year undergraduate BMus students. The degree programme is primarily performance-focussed, describing itself as ‘A conservatoire-based course with an emphasis on performance practice’[3], but also emphasising the importance of historical, critical and analytical skills in developing as a well-rounded music professional. Bearing this in mind, it was essential to find ways in a classroom setting to allow students themselves to forge links between the historical and analytical material we explored, and the music they played and practiced on a daily basis. For example, when considering the changes in performance practice, orchestra size and audience behaviour in the nineteenth century, one student of singing remarked that she now understood why in performing music of ‘earlier’ (pre-1800) repertoire, ‘it’s OK to have a quieter voice: there weren’t as many instruments to drown you out!’
Such a seemingly small insight bears out Kleiman’s assertions of the need for constant efforts to present ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ as related, symbiotic elements of music performance, when he states
‘In a higher education context, it is essential that the inter-relationship between theory and practice is acknowledged, and that students are provided with the opportunities and skills to explore, examine and experience how theoretical and practical discourses and practices intersect, inform and inspire each other.’[4]
[1]Paul Kleiman, ‘Dance, drama and music’, pp. 261-77, in Heather Fry, Steve Ketteridge, and Stephanie Marshall (eds.),A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice, Fourth Edition, (London: Routledge, 2015), p. 273 [2] Ibid., p273 [3] See http://www.napier.ac.uk/en/courses/bmus-hons-music-undergraduate-fulltime [4] Kleiman, 2015, p273
In all fields of research and scholarship, there is arguably a relationship between the ‘theory’ and the ‘practice’ of a particular discipline, underpinning its research and teaching activities. This post considers this relationship specifically in the field of music pedagogy in higher education.
In his essay on this subject in the 2015 edition of A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Paul Kleiman highlights the commonly perceived separation between elements of ‘theory’ and ‘practice’, as if they are ‘two separate entities, rather than a single entity consisting of two organically interlinked elements.’[1] This, he claims, is a separation that is particularly prevalent in the fields of dance, drama and music in higher education, given their traditional vocational and performance based modes of training.[2]
Introducing the skills of critical thinking and analysis to students alongside their musical practice and performance training is a challenge that faces teachers and lecturers in higher education. It is one that I encountered when designing and delivering a lecture-based module on music history to a cohort of second year undergraduate BMus students. The degree programme is primarily performance-focussed, describing itself as ‘A conservatoire-based course with an emphasis on performance practice’[3], but also emphasising the importance of historical, critical and analytical skills in developing as a well-rounded music professional. Bearing this in mind, it was essential to find ways in a classroom setting to allow students themselves to forge links between the historical and analytical material we explored, and the music they played and practiced on a daily basis. For example, when considering the changes in performance practice, orchestra size and audience behaviour in the nineteenth century, one student of singing remarked that she now understood why in performing music of ‘earlier’ (pre-1800) repertoire, ‘it’s OK to have a quieter voice: there weren’t as many instruments to drown you out!’
Such a seemingly small insight bears out Kleiman’s assertions of the need for constant efforts to present ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ as related, symbiotic elements of music performance, when he states
‘In a higher education context, it is essential that the inter-relationship between theory and practice is acknowledged, and that students are provided with the opportunities and skills to explore, examine and experience how theoretical and practical discourses and practices intersect, inform and inspire each other.’[4]
[1]Paul Kleiman, ‘Dance, drama and music’, pp. 261-77, in Heather Fry, Steve Ketteridge, and Stephanie Marshall (eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice, Fourth Edition, (London: Routledge, 2015), p. 273
[2] Ibid., p273
[3] See http://www.napier.ac.uk/en/courses/bmus-hons-music-undergraduate-fulltime
[4] Kleiman, 2015, p273