Skip to content
1981
image of Putting the ego aside: A case study of the peer-to-peer feedback dialogue among electronic popular music makers within higher education

Abstract

Settings where students showcase their original songs to peers and teachers can seem advantageous and harmless. However, beneath this surface is a complex, multifaceted negotiation. In this article, I engage with the construction of this complexity. I interviewed eight Norwegian electronic popular music students at the university level on how they experienced the real-time peer group song assessment (PGSA) setting. Through semi-structured interviews, I seek to give a critical view on how PGSA works as a vehicle for learning. I discuss how the student’s experience of risk varies according to what the student is presenting and what the feedback focuses on. The interviews indicate that feedback that engages with elements that contain the highest degree of creative and personal investment is the hardest feedback to give and yet most desirable to receive. Appendix 1 offers suggestions for presenters, peers and teachers related to the PGSA setting.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jpme_00134_1
2024-04-22
2024-07-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allsup, R. E. (2013), ‘The compositional turn in music education: From closed forms to open texts’, in M. Kaschub and J. Smith (eds), Composing Our Future: Preparing Music Educators to Teach Composition, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 5770, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199832286.003.0004.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderskov, J. (2022), KUA Kunstnerisk Udviklingsarbejde/Artistic Development Work Compendium, Copenhagen, Rhythmic Music Conservatory, https://jacobanderskov.dk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/KUA-Compendium-1st_edition_aug22_JLA.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthony, B. (2020), ‘Perspectives of learning popular music production in higher education from both sides of the glass’, Ph.D thesis, Griffith: Griffith University, https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/216.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anthony, B. (2023), Music Production Cultures: Perspectives on Popular Music Pedagogy in Higher Education, New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003055099.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Apple, M. W., Biesta, G., Bright, D., Giroux, H. A., Heffernan, A., McLaren, P., Riddle, S. and Yeatman, A. (2022), ‘Reflections on contemporary challenges and possibilities for democracy and education’, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 54:3, pp. 24562, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2022.2052029.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Armstrong, V. (2011), Technology and the Gendering of Music Education, London: Ashgate, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315612003.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Auvinen, T. (2020), ‘Creative communities of practice: Role delineation in record production in different eras and across different genres and production settings’, in A. Bourbon and S. Zagorski-Thomas (eds), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Music Production, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 16176, https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501334054.ch-011.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. bell, a. p. (2018), Dawn of the DAW: The Studio as Musical Instrument, New York: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190296605.001.0001.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. bell, a. p. (2019), ‘Of Trackers and Top-Liners: Learning producing and producing learning’, in Z. Moir, B. Powell and G. D. Smith (eds), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Popular Music Education: Perspectives and Practices, London: Bloomsbury, pp. 17186, https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350049444.ch-013.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bennet, J. (2015), ‘Creativities in popular songwriting curricula: teaching or learning’, in P. Burnard and E. Haddon (eds), Activating Diverse Musical Creatives: Teaching and Learning in Higher Music Education, London: Bloomsbury, pp. 3756, https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474220316.ch-003.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergee, M. J. (1993), ‘A comparison of faculty, peer, and self-evaluation of applied brass jury performances’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 41:1, pp. 1927, https://doi.org/10.2307/3345476.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bergee, M. J. and Cecconi-Roberts, L. (2002), ‘Effects of small-group peer interaction on self-evaluation of music performance’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 50:3, pp. 25668, https://doi.org/10.2307/3345802.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Biesta, G. (2013), The Beautiful Risk of Education, New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315635866.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Biesta, G. (2018), ‘What if? Art education beyond expression and creativity’, in C. Naughton, G. Biesta and D. R. Cole (eds), Art, Artists and Pedagogy: Philosophy and the Arts in Education, London: Routledge, pp. 1120, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315143880.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Birenbaum, M., DeLuca, C., Earl, L., Heritage, M., Klenowski, V., Looney, A., Smith, K., Timperley, H., Volante, L. and Wyatt-Smith, C. (2015), ‘International trends in the implementation of assessment for learning: Implications for policy and practice’, Policy Futures in Education, 13:1, pp. 11740, https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210314566733.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Björck, C. (2021), ‘Music, gender and social change: Contemporary debates, directions and challenges’, in S. V. Onsrud, H. S. Blix and I. L. Vestad (eds), Gender Issues in Scandinavian Music Education: From Stereotypes to Multiple Possibilities, New York: Routledge, pp. 2850, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003038207.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Black, P. and William, D. (1998), ‘Assessment and classroom learning’, Assessment in Education, 5:1, pp. 774, https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Boucher, M. and Creech, A. (2021), ‘The role of formative and summative assessment in music learning and participation’, in A. Creech, D. A. Hodges and S. Hallam (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Music Psychology in Education and the Community, London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429295362.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brinck, L. and Anderskov, J. (2019), ‘Becoming a researching artist: Situated perspectives on music conservatory learning and teaching’, in S. Gies and J. H. Sætre (eds), Becoming Musicians, Oslo: NMH publications, pp. 15170.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Burgess, R. J. (2013), The Art of Music Production: The Theory and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cappelen, C. and Dahlberg, S. (2018), ‘The law of Jante and generalized trust’, Acta Sociologica, 61:4, pp. 41940, https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699317717319.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chen, F., Lui, A. M., Andrade, H., Valle, C. and Mir, H. (2017), ‘Criteria-referenced formative assessment in the arts’, Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 29:3, pp. 297314, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9259-z.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cook, N. (2018), Music as Creative Practice, New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. D’Errico, M. (2022), Push: Software Design and the Cultural Politics of Music Production, New York: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190943301.001.0001.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dibben, N. (2006), ‘Subjectivity and the Construction of Emotion in the Music of Björk’, Music Analysis, 25:1–2, pp. 17197.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dichev, C. and Dicheva, D. (2017), ‘Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review’, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14:1, pp. 136, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Edmondson, A. C. (2019), The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainnen, K. and Kyngäs, H. (2014), ‘Qualitative content analysis: A Focus on trustworthiness’, Sage Open, 4:1, pp. 110, https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Evans, P. and Ryan, R. M. (2022), ‘Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for music performance’, in G. E. McPherson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Music Performance, vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 576604, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190056285.013.24.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fadel, C., Trilling, B. and Bialik, M. (2015), Four-Dimensional Education: The Competencies Learners Need to Succeed, Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Falchikov, N. (2004), Improving Assessment through Student Involvement: Practical Solutions for Aiding Learning in Higher and Further Education, London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203220993.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fraser, J. M., Timan, A. L., Miller, K., Dowd, J. E., Tucker, L. and Mazur, E. (2014), ‘Teaching and physics education research: Bridging the gap’, Reports on Progress in Physics, 77:3, p. 032401, https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/77/3/032401.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Frith, S. (2012), ‘Creativity as a social fact’, in D. Hargreaves, D. Miell and R. MacDonald (eds), Musical Imaginations: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Creativity, Performance and Perception, New York: Oxford Academic, pp. 6272, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568086.003.0004.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Fullan, M. and Langworthy, M. (2014), A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning, London: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P. and Struyven, K. (2010), ‘Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning’, Learning and Instruction, 20:4, pp. 30415, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Goodrich, A., Bucura, E. and Stauffer, S. (2018), ‘Peer mentoring in a university music methods class’, Journal of Music Teacher Education, 27:2, pp. 2338, https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083717731057.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Graziano, W. G. and Tobin, R. M. (2009), ‘Agreeableness’, in M. L. R. Hoyle (ed.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 4661.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Green, L. (2008), Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy, London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315248523.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hanken, I. M. (2016), ‘Peer learning in specialist higher music education’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 15:3-4, pp. 36475, https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022216647389.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007), ‘The power of feedback’, Review of Educational Research, 77:1, pp. 81112, https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Heywood, J. (2000), Assessment in Higher Education: Student Learning, Teaching, Programmes and Institutions, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hildebrandt, H., Nübling, M. and Candia, V. (2012), ‘Increment of fatigue, depression, and stage fright during the first year of high-level education in music students’, Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 27:1, pp. 4348, https://doi.org/10.21091/mppa.2012.1008.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hill, R. W., McIntire, K. and Bacharach, V. R. (1997), ‘Perfectionism and the Big Five factors’, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12:1, pp. 25770.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hill, S. C. (2019), ‘“Give me actual music stuff!”: The nature of feedback in a collegiate songwriting class’, Research Studies in Music Education, 41:2, pp. 13553, https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X19826385.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Howlett, M. J. G. (2009), ‘The record producer as nexus: creative inspiration, technology and the recording industry’, Ph.D. thesis, Trefforest: University of Glamorgan, https://pure.southwales.ac.uk/files/991533/howlett2009.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Johansson, S. and Lefford, N. (2019), ‘The student’s view of the producer’s role: Analytical methods, interpreting content and practical project management’, in J.-O. Gullö (ed.), The 12th Art of Record Production Conference, Mono: Stereo: Multi, Stockholm, 1–3 December, Stockholm: Royal College of Music & Art of Record Production.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Johnson, C. E., Keating, J. L. and Molloy, E. K. (2020), ‘Psychological safety in feedback: What does it look like and how can educators work with learners to foster it?’, Medical Education, 54:6, pp. 55970, https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14154.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kawulich, B. B. (2005), ‘Participant observation as a data collection method’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6:2, https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.2.466.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. King, A. and Himonides, E. (eds) (2016), Music, Technology, and Education: Critical Perspectives, London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315596945.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kluger, A., N. and DeNisi, A. (1996), ‘The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory’, Psychological Bulletin, 119:2, pp. 25484, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kratus, J. (2013), ‘Preparing music educators to facilitate songwriting’, M. K. J. Smith (ed.), Composing Our Future: Preparing Music Educators to Teach Composition, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 26782, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199832286.003.0016.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kruger, J. and Dunning, D. (1999), ‘Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77:6, pp. 1121134, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kvale, S. (2007), Doing Interviews, London: Sage Publications, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208963.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Lebler, D. (2007), ‘Student-as-master? Reflections on a learning innovation in popular music pedagogy’, International Journal of Music Education, 25:3, pp. 20521, https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761407083575.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Lebler, D. (2008), ‘Popular music pedagogy: Peer learning in practice’, Music Education Research, 10:2, pp. 193213, https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800802079056.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Lebler, D. (2013), ‘Using formal self- and peer-assessment as a proactive tool in building a collaborative learning environment: Theory into practice in a popular music programme’, in H. Gaunt and H. Westerlund (eds), Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education, London: Routledge, pp. 11121, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315572642.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Madsen, C. K. and Duke, R. A. (1985), ‘Observation of approval/disapproval in music: Perception versus actual classroom events’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 33:3, pp. 20514, https://doi.org/10.2307/3344807.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Massey, H. (2000), Behind the Glass: Top Record Producers Tell How They Craft the Hits, San Francisco: Publisher Group West.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. (2007), Technology as Experience, London: MIT Press, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6687.001.0001.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. McIntyre, P. (2006), ‘Paul McCartney and the creation of “Yesterday”: The systems model in operation’, Popular Music, 25:2, pp. 20119, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261143006000936.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. McIntyre, P., Fulton, J., Paton, E., Kerrigan, S. and Meany, M. (2018), Educating for Creativity Within Higher Education: Integration of Research into Media Practice, London: Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90674-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Napoles, J. (2008), ‘Relationships among instructor, peer, and self-evaluations of undergraduate music education majors’ micro-teaching experiences’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 56:1, pp. 8291.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Norton, L. S. (2009), Action Research in Teaching and Learning: A Practical Guide to Conducting Pedagogical Research in Universities, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Partti, H. (2014), ‘Cosmopolitan musicianship under construction: Digital musicians illuminating emerging values in music education’, International Journal of Music Education, 32:1, pp. 318, https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411433727.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Patston, T. (2014), ‘Teaching stage fright? Implications for music educators’, British Journal of Music Education, 31:1, pp. 8598, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051713000144.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Pattison, P. (2010), Writing Better Lyrics: The Essential Guide to Powerful Songwriting, 2nd ed., Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Perrenoud, P. (1998), ‘From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning processes: Towards a wider conceptual field’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5:1, pp. 85102, https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050105.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Raza, S. A. and Sikandar, A. (2018), ‘Impact of leadership style of teacher on the performance of students: An application of Hersey and Blanchard situational model’, Bulletin of Education and Research, 40:3, pp. 7394, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1209826. Accessed 3 March 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Retter, H. (2012), ‘Dewey’s progressive education and instrumental pragmatism with particular reference to the concept of bildung’, in P. Siljander, A. Kivelä and A. Sutinen (eds) Theories of Bildung and Growth: Connections and Controversies Between Continental Educational Thinking and American Pragmatism, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 281302, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-031-6_18.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Røshol, A. W. and Sørbø, E. (2020), ‘Making music, finishing music: An inquiry into the music-making practice of popular electronic music students in the “laptop era”’, in Ø. J. Eiksund, E. Angelo and J. Knigge (eds), Music Technology in Education, Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 15178, https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.108.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Sauer-Zavala, S., Wilner, J. G. and Barlow, D. H. (2017), ‘Addressing neuroticism in psychological treatment’, Personal Disord, 8:3, pp. 19198, https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000224.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Schwartz, B. (2004), The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, New York: Ecco.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Searby, M. and Ewers, T. (1997), ‘An evaluation of the use of peer assessment in higher education: A case study in the School of Music, Kingston University’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22:4, pp. 37183, https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293970220402.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Sidelinger, R. J. and Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010), ‘Co-constructing student involvement: An examination of teacher confirmation and student-to-student connectedness in the college classroom’, Communication Education, 59:2, pp. 16584, https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903390867.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Siljander, P. and Sutinen, A. (2012), ‘Introduction’, in P. Siljander, A. Kivelä and A. Sutinen (eds), Theories of Bildung and Growth: Connections and Controversies Between Continental Educational Thinking and American Pragmatism, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 118, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-031-6_1.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Smith, M., Saklofske, D., Stoeber, J. and Sherry, S. (2016), ‘The Big Three Perfectionism Scale: A new measure of perfectionism’, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34:7, pp. 67087, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916651539.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Snowball, J. D. and Mostert, M. (2013), ‘Dancing with the devil: Formative peer assessment and academic performance’, Higher Education Research & Development, 32:4, pp. 64659, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.705262.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Sørbø, E. and Røshol, A. W. (2020), ‘Teaching of aesthetics in popular electronic music: A case study of one-to-one tuition in popular electronic music in higher education’, in Ø. J. Eiksund, E. Angelo and J. Knigge (eds), Music, Technology in Education: Channeling and Challenging Perspectives, Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 25778, https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.108.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Stoeber, J. (2012), ‘Perfectionism and performance’, in S. M. Murphy (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Sport and Performance Psychology, New York: Oxford Academic, pp. 294306, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199731763.013.0015.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Sylvester, T. (2016), ‘Early Access’, YouTube, 4 November, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNtry3eLx-s. Accessed 3 March 2024.
  81. Tara, W. (2011), ‘Facilitating meta-learning in art and design education’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 30:1, pp. 90101, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2011.01685.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Toynbee, J. (2000), Making Popular Music: Musicians, Creativity and Institutions, London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Trotter, R. T., Schensul, J. J. and Kostick, K. M. (2015), ‘Theories and methods in applied anthropology’, in H. R. G. Bernard and C. C. Gravlee (eds), Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, 2nd ed., London: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 66194.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Valle, C., Andrade, H., Palma, M. and Hefferen, J. (2016), ‘Applications of peer assessment and self-assessment in music’, Music Educators Journal, 102:4, pp. 4149, https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432116644652.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Vickerman, P. (2009), ‘Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen learning?’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34:2, pp. 22130, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801955986.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Watson, A. (2014), Cultural Production In and Beyond the Recording Studio, New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203728260.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Zollo, P. (2003), Songwriters on Songwriting: Revised and Expanded, Ohio: Da Capo Press.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/jpme_00134_1
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error