The social constructivist approach – introduced by Lev Vygotsky in the 1930s, though it did not fully enter the wider academic sphere until 40 years later (Ewing, Le Cornu & Groundwater-Smith, 2014) – has been contested, but remains a cornerstone of educational philosophy. The tenets of this theory include learning deriving initally from social interaction, and then becoming internalised within the individual (Ewing et al, 2014); the internalisation process occurring through the acquisition of language, which facilitates the reconciliation of one’s experience with external reality (Liu & Matthews, 2005); and the Zone of Proximal Development. This concept provides two representations of a learner’s developmental level: actual, representing tasks a learner can do unassisted, and potential, representing tasks the learner can do with assistance from teachers or more experienced peers, the ZPD being the distance in between (Vygotsky, 1978). Other thinkers, notably Jerome Bruner in the 1970s, proposed the metaphor of scaffolding to explain the teacher’s role as a facilitator, providing a scaffold for the learner to build upon, and removing it when they are secure (Ewing et al, 2014). In this way, learning becomes a collaborative process, while the experience remains individualised to each learner.
The Madrigal Ensemble is the chamber choir at SCEGGS Darlinghurst, a private Anglican girls’ high school in central Sydney. It comprises twenty students aged 13-18, mostly Australian-born with Anglo heritage, and some from Asian or other European backgrounds, such as Greek. All are able-bodied, fluent in English, and middle- to upper-class in terms of SES background. Most are cisgender female, but there are a few transgender and gender diverse students. All are able to read notated music, to varying degrees – some are very experienced sight readers, having attended Sydney Children’s Choir, some struggle with reading more complex passages, and some need time to decipher a passage before singing. There are more assured members of the ensemble, who are unafraid to speak up during rehearsal if they need extra support, or to sing alone, and quieter members – a few of whom struggle with anxiety, and will sometimes need to leave the room for a little while before returning to rehearsal – who find activities that single them out very frightening. The students have developed a good sense of camaraderie, a longstanding tradition being all having dinner together before their weekly rehearsal. In addition to the students, the ensemble comprises a conductor, an accompanist, and two choral assistants who are recent graduates of the school.
Some aspects of social constructivism, such as learning through collaboration, are already embedded within rehearsal practice; for example, less experienced sight-readers naturally listen to and imitate more experienced ones when learning music. However, there are potential activities that would allow for a deeper integration of social constructivist elements. Student-directed sectionals, supervised by the ensemble staff, would allow each student to actively contribute to the learning of themselves and others. Shy students may find it less threatening to engage with a small group of peers than with the conductor in rehearsal, to ask for a slower pace, or clarification regarding a passage. In addition, with a smaller group, it is easier to account for different abilities and experiences – if a student only has a basic score reading proficiency, but rehearsals assume a moderate to high level, they will struggle and feel left behind. In a smaller, student-directed group, they have more opportunities to learn in a way and at a pace that works better for them.
Another potential activity is group arrangement. The conductor teaches a simple melody to the ensemble, then demonstrates two different arrangements of the melody, featuring elements such as ostinati, harmonies and body percussion, either in person with the other ensemble staff, or found online. The students then divide into groups of five and are given half an hour to devise their own arrangement of the melody. They are supervised by staff, who act as facilitators, giving suggestions if needed or highlighting perspectives from quieter group members. At the end, the students perform their arrangements, and the conductor can then choose to combine them into a piece the ensemble can perform. This activity showcases several elements of social constructivist theory: students learning through discussion, supported by each other; and scaffolding, through the examples provided in the demonstrations, and the presence of staff and choristers experienced in arrangement, who can help their less experienced peers.
In addition to those previously stated (increased student engagement, more allowances for an individual’s musical background), advantages to this approach include increased connection as an ensemble – each individual chorister would be “closely interconnected, functionally unified, constantly interacting” with the group (Liu & Matthews, 2005, p. 7). In addition, group work, instead of exclusively following the instruction of the conductor, encourages students to take responsibility for their own development as a musician (Schweitzer & Stephenson, 2008), ensuring that they cannot simply coast along in rehearsals without actively participating.
But disadvantages also abound: poorly scaffolded tasks can obstruct instead of facilitate learning, as staff provide too many or too few guidelines for their students to work with (Searle, 1984). In addition, the concept of ZPD is notoriously vague (Ewing et al, 2014), as well as being different for all students, so it is difficult to ensure every student learns effectively with the same method – the group arrangement task, for example, could be a valuable challenge for some students, but completely out of reach for others. Finally, students do not inherently prioritise egalitarianism. Not all students will listen to others effectively, slow down if requested by their peers, or cooperate in a way that is conducive to learning, and many groups form hierarchies even in the absence of authority (Schweitzer & Stephenson, 2008).
The social constructivist approach, at the end of the day, is one of many tools for educators – there to use in some contexts, and not others. It is up to the conductor and the ensemble, their preferred styles of learning and interaction, to decide how the balance ultimately falls.
Ewing, R. & Le Cornu, R. and Groundwater-Smith, S. (2014). Teaching Challenges and Dilemmas (5th Ed.). Southbank, Vic: Thomson.
Liu, C., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386-399. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854992.pdf
Schweitzer, L. & Stephenson, M. (2008). Charting the challenges and paradoxes of constructivism: a view from professional education, Teaching in Higher Education, 13(5), 583-593. https://doi:10.1080/13562510802334947
Searle, D. (1984). Scaffolding: Who’s Building Whose Building? Language Arts, 61(5), 480-483. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41405178
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Soundworlds 