In the course Musical Work Analysis, the teacher works systematically with scaffolding. Throughout the course different scaffolding techniques are used on an organizational, social and cognitive level to heighten student autonomy and confidence. During the course the scaffolding was slightly reduced while students gained more responsibility and influence on the teaching repository.
The students express that they perceive the course as intimidating and exclusionary. They describe nervousness about the final oral exam and report that music analysis is particularly demanding in a way that discourages engagement. Additionally, skills in
music analysis varies greatly in the student group. The students’ sense of intimidation appears to influence both their motivation, engagement and their willingness to participate in analytical work.
The purpose of using scaffolding techniques is to provide support for students in the early phases of the course, both organizationally, socially, and cognitively. By gradually removing scaffolding, the aim is to strengthen students’ sense of competence and reduce the perception of the course as overly challenging.
THE PROCESS | |
Organizational scaffolding | At the beginning of the course, the teaching is highly structured and scaffolded. As the course progresses, I seek to heighten student autonomy by gradually structuring lessons more loosely and by granting them a higher level of autonomy in deciding how to work with a specific topic. Concretely, I approach classes with an increasingly open plan that could move in several directions: Based on their questions, doubts and level of preparation for the class, we discuss something in plenary, in small or larger groups, in matrix group exercises, in individual reflective writing, or in group presentations to each other in plenary. In the first lesson of the course, via Mentimeter, students submit what artists or genres or theoretical concepts they are deeply interested in. Based on the results, I choose four genres and artists to cover, which forms the content of the last four out of twelve lessons. For each artist/genre, I choose to focus on methodological and theoretical concepts that align both with this artist/genre and with areas we must cover in the course. In this way, we cover the academic content that we need to, but we apply it to material that they have chosen. |
Cognitive scaffolding | In the beginning of the course I provide elaborate working questions to the students for their preparation. I explicitly tell them that the main acquisition of knowledge ideally happens during their own preparation, while classes are a space where to apply our knowledge. As the semester goes by, working questions gradually become more generic, forcing the students to take more active decisions on how to go about solving a task. Furthermore, I use meta-communication throughout the course, where we reflect on the learning process itself. I do this to make learning goals transparent and to make them conscious about my gradual removal of scaffolding and gradual increase of expectations. E.g. I mention explicitly that “you will notice that the working questions for next week are not as elaborate and more generic. That’s because I want you to decide what could be relevant factors to analyse in this specific case.” |
Social scaffolding | In the beginning of the semester, occasionally I begin the lesson with low-stakes, reflective exercises designed to make the students talk to each other using the correct terminology. For instance, I make a “shared list” exercise and a flash card exercise. The aim is to create a more welcoming and engaging atmosphere where the students quickly feel comfortable and competent. |
Based on my own reflections and impressions, I experienced that the students were very motivated, especially in the last four lessons. Here, students who had been less active were markedly more active and enthusiastic.
On the less positive side, even though the class dynamic did change for the better, a small group of students remained very hard to activate in plenary sessions, perhaps indicating that they still felt ill-equipped to participate or that they found the social space less safe than others. Luckily these students were active in other kinds of small-group activities.
The evaluation was overwhelmingly positive. The students highlighted the varied teaching formats, teaching activities, meta-communication and the instructions and working questions between classes.
Increasing the students' autonomy and their influence on the content of the teaching entails that the class can move in different directions. This demands more preparation as I must prepare for different scenarios.
Preparing the last four lessons while teaching the other lessons, was challenging.
Although allowing the students to have a say in the choice of repertoire was very time-consuming, their response was overwhelmingly positive. The next time I teach this course, I will therefore dedicate at least one additional lesson to a repertoire, genre, or methodological topic chosen by the students.
Because we have to cover a lot in the course, it does not always feel great to set aside time for low-stakes icebreakers where learning is perhaps not the highest. But after such icebreakers, students were markedly more engaged in the rest of the lesson, and overall, I am confident that it increased their learning.
| Educator | Thomas Husted Kirkegaard |
| Faculty and department | ARTS, Department of Dramaturgy and Musicology |
| Degree programme | Musicology |
| Level of study | BA |
| Course/subject | Musical Work Analysis |
| Number of students | 23 |
| Extent | Whole semester |
| Teaching format | Small class teaching |
| Implementation | Spring 26 |
