Negotiating the
Boundaries of Formal and
Informal Learning
Pamela
Costes-Onishi,
Research Scientist,
UNESCO-NIE
CARE, Nanyang
Technological
University
Introduction
Green’s (2008, 2002) contribution to the incorporation of informal learning
in the music classrooms cannot be overemphasised. Her seminal study on
how popular musicians learn music and the myriad of ways these learning
strategies could be adopted into the formal setting of a classroom is a
driving force in the Musical Futures movement project in the UK.1 The new
approaches to learning and pedagogy have been well written about in music
education literature during the past decade, introducing what are called
informal learning (Finney & Philpott, 2010; Rodriguez, 2009; Folkestad, 2006)
and non-formal teaching (Mok, 2011; Mak, Kors, & Renshaw, 2007).2
This report pertains to Ms Sim (not her real name), an experienced Secondary
Music educator at School E, who participated in the trial3 of informal learning
over two terms towards the end of 2012. The classes observed were under
the Secondary 2 Normal Technical (NT) Course.4 The observation took
place during the periods July-October 2012 and traced the developments
of an existing keyboard programme as its objectives were consciously
approached using informal learning strategies.
1. Musical Futures is an approach to new ways of thinking about music-making in schools, which advocates informal learning and non-formal
teaching. It started as a research initiative in 2003 in England targeted to find more inventive ways to address the disengagement of students
aged 11-18 in their music classes. For more information please visit www.musicalfutures.org.uk/c/pamphlets
2. Below is a table comparing informal and formal learning strategies as summarised in Green (2008, p.10):
Informal
Formal
Music is choice of the performers; music they already know or like
Introduce students to music they do not already know; usually selected
by the teacher
Skill-acquisition is through copying recordings by ear
Written notation, verbal instructions
Peer-learning, peer-directed learning
Pupil-teacher relationship
Skills and knowledge assimilated in haphazard, idiosyncratic and
holistic ways
Planned progression – simple to complex
Emphasis on personal creativity; integration of performing, listening, Emphasis on reproduction
improvising, and composing
The following are characteristics of Non-formal teaching based on the Musical Futures Resource Pack (2nd edition, p. 44):
• An inclusive approach to music making, lowering entry barriers
• A belief in group-based activities in performing, listening, composing, and improvising
• A sense of immediacy and exploration
• An opportunity for tacit learning – music being ‘caught’ not ‘taught’
• A more democratic view of learning
• Opportunities to develop non-cognitive skills
98
Negotiating Teaching Principles and Adapting to Informal
Learning
The new approach of informal learning places ownership of music education
in the hands of the students. Greater autonomy is evident in the choice of
music, on how to play the music, and where to draw resources to learn the
music. The main sources of learning are usually peers whom the students
also chose to work with. The main shift is the focus on the process of making
music rather than on learning how to play the music.
The approach is not easy to adopt and adapt to, especially by experienced
music teachers or even student learners who had training and background
in the more formal environment. Rodriguez (2009, p. 36) noted this problem
with informal learning and the implications to teachers and students. He
mentioned two things should be considered in its implementation: (1) new
roles for teachers in informal learning; and (2) providing informal learning
experiences to students with formal skills as musicians. What came forth
prominently in the discussion were the intersections between formal and
informal learning and how exploring these could actually enhance the informal
process more effectively. It is therefore important to locate this balance
between formal and informal in one’s pedagogy. In this context, formal and
informal are therefore not elements of duality but rather complementary.
However, because informal learning is not algorithmic does not mean
that it is not structured. While use of the term “formal” implies that
the learning contains hierarchically-organized levels of mastery, and is
overseen by more experienced participants, these two features may be
present in informal learning as well. In formal instructional settings, a
pre-ordinate series of instructional steps allows teachers to control learning
and efficiently identify problems in the process. In informal learning,
the teacher relinquishes this control and enters into a more flexible and
dynamic relationship with the learner, yet a plan for instruction must still
be negotiated between teachers and students. The activities of copying
recordings, improvising, composing, and performing on an instrument (or
singing) each invoke steps, even if they happen to be material-, context-,
and learner-specific, and even if they are mostly hidden. Experienced
teachers naturally desire to bring these steps to the fore.
(Rodriguez, 2009, p. 38)
The new implication to experienced teachers wishing to adapt their practices
to informal learning is a shift in expertise and that is from teaching how to play
music to helping students learn the music on their own (Rodriguez, 2009, p.
3. During the pilot, participants underwent training and workshops from established practitioners and trainers of the Musical Futures project and
participated in the pilot research by STAR and UNESCO NIE-CARE. It is the objective of the pilot study to uncover the different responses and
adaptations of the teachers to informal learning and non-formal teaching and observe the characteristics of the resulting pedagogies in the
Singapore context.
4. Depending on the results of their PSLE or Primary School Leaving Examination, secondary students in Singapore are placed in one of these
curriculum strands: Special & Express, Normal (Academic), or Normal (Technical). The placement is meant to match the learning abilities of the
students. Both Express and Normal courses are 4-year programmes with the former leading to the GCE ‘O’ levels and the latter to the GCE ‘N’
levels. Those who are in the Normal (Academic) course, depending on their class performance, can opt to take a fifth year and sit for the GCE ‘O’
levels. For more information on these types of examination, please refer to www.seab.gov.sg under National Examinations. The usual pathway
of students under Express is a university degree while Normal is a technical college degree.
99
39). This can, however, be frustrating if the teacher is unable to incorporate
the new approach to their already tested teaching schema (Ibid.).
The incorporation of formal and informal strategies is something other music
educators acknowledge; it is only a matter of privileging one over another
(Finney & Philpott, 2010; Folkestad, 2006). Finney & Philpott (2010) identified
3 factors that affect a teacher’s development: (1) ITE or Initial Training
Education, (2) planned development (courses taken), and (3) encultured
development (acquired through experience in culture) (p. 5). Both formal and
informal learning developed as habitus, which is an unconscious, sociallyconstructed preference in thinking and acting about music learning. It is
possible that informal learning could just be buried in this habituated
thinking. It is, therefore, crucial for the music educator to excavate and live
these informal principles. Student teachers need to excavate their lived
informal learning by constant reflection between theory and experience.
The aim is to achieve a “productive dissonance” where habitus and ”living”
informal learning come into tension in one’s teaching practice with the end
result of gradually adapting their habitus to informal strategies. As stated by
Finney & Philpott (2010):
We take excavation to mean facilitating student teachers to use theoretical
tools to interrogate their ‘lived’ experience; to theorise themselves as a
result of experience and to encourage the mutual interrogation of theory
and experience (p. 6).
This tension in the habitus between the formal and informal is evident in
the case study to be discussed for the rest of this report. Ms Sim, a very
talented and accomplished musician in popular styles and aural learning,
struggled initially to let go of the more teacher-controlled classroom
learning environment. Ms Sim has always been a reflective teacher and
constantly observing her students’ interests outside of the classroom. She
would observe the students during lunch breaks and would take note of
instrument and music preferences. These observations combined with
her and colleagues’ strength in keyboard and guitar playing resulted into
the current music programmes of her school. However, despite these
reflective and student-sensitive qualities, implementing the informal learning
approach proved challenging to Ms Sim. The following is an account of how
within the period of four months, Ms Sim negotiated the boundaries of the
formal and the informal and how she arrived at what Finney & Philpott (2010)
call “productive dissonance” between the habitus and the new informal
pedagogical approach. This report is an account of how a practitioner slowly
learned to excavate informal learning with the future hope of transforming it
into a lived practice and to eventually become the dominant habitus.
Starting the Excavation Process
17 July 2012. Just fresh out of the workshop on informal learning and nonformal teaching, and a focus group reflection session, Ms Sim had to figure
out how the new pedagogical approaches could potentially be applied to her
normal keyboard class for Secondary 2 that meets for an hour once a week.
It should be noted that Ms Sim was very receptive to the idea of “trialling”
100
for the reason that she and her colleagues were used to experimenting
approaches especially when it comes to their NT classes. Ms Sim has a
keen awareness that it is important to constantly find the right approach in
order to keep her NT students engaged in the lessons.
There were about 20 students in the music classroom equipped with
keyboards and computers, one for each student. The objective for that
lesson was to learn to play chords with the left hand on the keyboard. The
class started with the distribution of handouts with graphics of a keyboard
and the corresponding location of notes. They were to learn the simple
chords of the popular song “Count On Me” by Bruno Mars. Ms Sim started
out by reviewing the location of notes to be used for the chords namely C,
A, F, E, G. She then asked the students to build the root chords by skipping
notes from the first note thus forming the C chord, Am chord, etc. She used
an online tutorial software showing how the chords are supposed to be
played on the keyboard. The students, however, had difficulty following the
instructions and by the end of the lesson most only managed to locate the
root notes. Ms Sim experimented by pairing the students and having one
play a bass line and another play the full chord. She ended the class by
playing the root notes to the verse and chorus phrase by phrase, asking
the students to listen and count how many times she played each note
before moving to the next one. Ms Sim sang and played for the students
and instructed them to write down the number of counts per note on their
handouts.
The class was heavy on teacher instruction that day. Ms Sim seemed to be
very concerned that the students were grasping the knowledge she was
trying to pass on to them. The only time she allowed students to explore
on their own was after she had given them the explicit directions. Students
were reliant on the handouts and whenever they encountered problems
there was the tendency for Ms Sim to supply the solutions immediately by
illustrating on the white board, playing the software tutorial, or playing the
chords herself. It was very clear that the day’s lesson was still very much
formal in orientation in the following ways: (1) students were introduced
to a music they may be familiar with but selected by the teacher; (2) the
use of written notational keyboard guide and lots of verbal instructions; (3)
the teacher was the dominant figure in directing the class; (4) clear plan
of progressive keyboard learning; and (5) emphasis on students’ ability to
reproduce what the teacher taught them.
During the post-lesson reflection, Ms Sim shared that she wanted to start
the class with formal instructions first to provide a strong foundation for
the students. She mentioned most of them did not have any knowledge
about the keyboard. She believed that giving them a clear orientation on the
keyboard through a more directed lesson would equip the students with the
necessary tools to explore on their own later in the course. She believed that
in her understanding, the plan was still in alignment with informal learning
in such a way that she let the students try out the chords for themselves
before giving the instructions. However, this was not the case during the
observation as noted above. At this time, Ms Sim said that her teaching style
10 1
was based on how she was taught as a pre-service teacher.
At the beginning they don’t [have freedom to choose] because they don’t
know the keyboard… they don’t know the chords. But at the end [of] the
20 classes what they [can] do is bring in the song [they like] and say ‘I want
to play this’, ok you play lah. Then [they] play, sit down, [and] they figure
out the chords themselves. Only when they need help then you go in and
[ask] ‘now can you tweak from verse to chorus?’, ‘can you do something
different?’ so they try to find something different. Would that be informal
learning? Teaching? How informal must I put it?
(Ms Sim, personal communication, 17 July 2012)
There were some adjustments already made in the lesson, however.
An example of this adjustment was the way she taught chord changes:
she asked the students to listen first to the chords while she played and
then count the repetitions based on what they have heard. Prior to being
introduced to informal learning, Ms Sim would dictate the repetitions to the
students and have them write down before they would even have a chance
to hear them played. Ms Sim also discovered during the class that placing
students in pairs worked better in giving the experience of playing the full
chords on their own. This resulted in teamwork of a student playing the bass
line while another playing the full chords.
At this early stage in the transition it was evident that Ms Sim was still
confused about what constituted informal learning. The important point here
was that she was already beginning to reflect on her teaching practice and
training background. She was already beginning to excavate those informal
principles that could potentially be applied in the ensuing lessons.
14 August 2012. Three weeks after, the class was still working on the chords
for the song “Count On Me”. Ms Sim explored the idea of having students
work in pairs and by this time the distribution of parts was chords and
melodic riffs. The goal of today’s lesson was to finish the song using both
hands in playing the chords.
It was obvious that Ms Sim was not satisfied with the way the students
were progressing and so to make them focus she announced a short
assessment for the next meeting. This day showed students playing with the
different sounds on the keyboards and simply fooling around. Ms Sim had
to distribute new copies of the keyboard guide handout because students
forgot to bring theirs.
There was one particular disruptive student seated at the back of the room
and Ms Sim strategically taught from this student’s keyboard. She reviewed
the chord changes of the verse, chorus, and bridge. The students seemed
to be confused about when to make the chord change and to rectify the
situation Ms Sim started drawing box notations on the white board (see Fig
12.1).
102
Fig 12.1: Box notation of chord changes
C
RH
x
LH
x
Am
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
etc
The notation was meant to guide the students in remembering the patterns
and when to change the chords. It showed when the right (RH) and left (LH)
hands should play and each box represented a beat. An ‘X’ meant a chord
should be played on that beat.
At this point, the students were asked to work individually with their
headphones on. Ms Sim went around the classroom helping students. The
kind of help constituted the following: (1) listening to them play the chords;
(2) playing the chords for them; and (3) explaining how the notation works.
The students seemed to go off task whenever Ms Sim was not attending
to them. Despite this there was an indication that they liked working and
interacting with each other; they tend to naturally ask instructions from their
peers even though directed to work individually with their headphones on.
When asked why she resorted to the box notation, Ms Sim admitted that
she was aware that was not informal learning but it was necessary because
the students were very distracted and not really comprehending the pattern
changes. She believed the notation would help them understand and keep
them on task. Seeing how Ms Sim was still hesitant to let go of her formal
orientation because of concerns regarding reproducing music as instructed
and being on task, the observer was prompted to provide ideas on how to
apply a more informal learning approach to the class.
The suggestions consisted of the following: (1) switching to more aural
replication rather than visual patterns; (2) breaking the music into parts
besides chords and recording these in advance for students to learn on their
own aurally; (3) allowing students to practise on their own; and (4) giving
room for students to work in groups and solve musical problems together.
It was believed that the suggestions would still attend to Ms Sim’s concerns
and would even lessen the energy spent on individual instruction. It was
emphasised that it would be easier to monitor if students were on task by
observing if they were playing repeatedly to learn a part. This appealed
greatly to Ms Sim who seemed to value keeping students focused.
However, there seemed to be hesitation on Ms Sim’s part to the idea of
breaking the song into parts. She still maintained the keyboard band idea
should come later when the students have already grasped the foundation,
which was playing the chords. She also insisted the box notation should
be used for the benefit of the slow learners and was reluctant to accept
the suggestion of early peer learning. The principle seemed to be formal
learning first for a firm foundation then informal learning later. To achieve at
a compromise, Ms Sim came up with a plan of having the parts broken but
practised as a class. She also wanted to mix the slow learners with those
who are quicker instead of having students choose their own groups. The
103
session ended with Ms Sim contemplating whether to adopt the suggestions
or not. The interview closed with Ms Sim wondering aloud about the idea of
allowing students to choose their own groups.
Would it be fair if we numbered them off? Or is it more preferable that
they choose their own?
(Ms Sim, personal communication, 14 August 2012)
This was another indication of how she was starting to allow room for the
informal learning to potentially become more prominent in her pedagogy.
The Turning Point
11 September 2012. After the term break, Ms Sim welcomed the class
back by announcing that the goal for that day would be to learn different
parts of the song “Count On Me” by ear. She also instructed the students
to choose their own groups and to choose the part they wanted to learn to
play. She pre-recorded several instrumental parts of the song and uploaded
in software called “Sonar” in each of the students’ computers. Each part
would be played in the keyboards and it would be the students’ tasks to
locate the correct sound. The ultimate goal was for each group to play
together as a keyboard band.
The class started out with the students forming friendship groups and
turning on their computers to locate the file to copy aurally. Ms Sim handed
out a plan sheet for each group and instructed them to write down their
chosen group name and the instruments the group members chose to copy.
They were then instructed to work individually on their chosen parts with
headphones plugged in the computer and keyboard. Ms Sim went around
the room to provide more detailed instructions to the students. It should
be noted that students in this NT class tend to intentionally be off task to
get the teacher’s attention. However, the new task of discovering things
for themselves seemed to lessen this dependency and for the most part
students were very focused on learning and choosing their parts.
There was a noted difference in the way Ms Sim assisted the students as
well. Whereas in the previous lessons she would normally provide solutions
to the students’ problems or her own questions, in this lesson she would
model possibilities and give clues but would leave the student to figure things
out. Ms Sim was also observant to those who appeared to be distractive.
She sat down with this boy who was not doing his work for some time when
she was sure the others were already focused. It turned out the boy was
just frustrated because he could not figure out what to do. The student was
delighted to explore on his own after being guided to match his first sound
with the recording.
All throughout the class the students were on task. Ms Sim seemed to
have thought about the informal principles during the break and showed
remarkable difference in the way she approached this day’s lesson. There
was order in the classroom and the students seemed to enjoy the new way
of learning.
104
18 September 2012. This day’s task was to move on to group playing. The
class seemed chaotic but everyone was working on recalling the parts
they learned the previous week. Ms Sim checked on the students and
demonstrated to those who were ready the possibilities of varying the
sounds on the keyboard. She did this by playing harmony with a student
who already learned the melodic part. The excitement in the students’ faces
was undeniable as they discovered how playing as a group sounded like.
This motivated them to really work on their parts quicker so they could play
together.
The day was also spent with individual assessment. Ms Sim followed what
she was used to doing by sitting with students individually and writing
comments on feedback grade sheet. While doing so she was able to catch
the weakness of the students and provide alternatives to the parts they were
learning. She announced at the end of the class the names of students who
needed remedial classes to learn their parts.
This type of assessment is still very formal. This is another aspect that
Ms Sim would have to re-evaluate in her process of excavating informal
principles.5
Developing Critical Musicality
25 September 2012. Ms Sim brought additional instruments to the class
this day. She introduced the boom whacker, bells, sound shapes, and
xylophones. She demonstrated how these instruments could be used as
alternatives to the keyboard parts they were learning such as percussion
and bass line. The students showed enthusiasm in using the instruments to
play their parts. This perhaps was another discovery on Ms Sim’s part on
how the informal learning principle could be applied to extend their keyboard
program’s objectives.
This meeting showed how the students naturally learned to peer-teach and
figure out the concept of ensemble playing. Playing in groups made them
realise individually how their parts should match the others. In the process
they learned to apply what Green (2008) called “critical musicality”, which
allows students to express themselves musically through the mediation of
music itself. As with “critical pedagogy”, this is the process wherein the
concepts and skills are allowed to surface through the engagement with the
materials; in short, the necessary rules emerge out of the process of doing
and not taught sequentially as in formal learning (as cited in Rodriguez,
2009, p. 38). This would allow exploration of the intersection between formal
and informal learning, seeing that both involve mastery of materials, allow
for rules to emerge, and require the guidance of an experienced participant.
During the student interviews, it was evident that terminologies such as
chords, riffs, beats and melodies were learned by engaging in the music
directly. Students expressed that they learned to “count” with the group
and became aware they needed more practice in order to play better. The
5. The Musical Futures project encourages multiple points of assessment drawing on AfL (Assessment for Learning) strategies including peer
assessment, self-assessment, formal and informal assessment, target setting and formative and summative assessment.
105
importance of counting was discovered during the process especially the
first time they tried to play as a class. No one provided the cue or established
the tempo and so everything turned chaotic. This necessitated for the group
to appoint a leader to give the cue before they started playing.
Student Interview, 2 October 2012
Student 1:
We combine together to make it nicer.
Interviewer:
Ah, so that is what you learnt? You learnt about playing in groups?
Okay, did you (But…) hmm, but?
Student 1:
But sometimes like… like not good, but now we practice a bit, okay good lah.
Interviewer:
Okay, how come how was it not good?
Student 1:
Because everything go haywire.
Interviewer:
Go haywire… Latif you were saying?
Student 2:
Not communicate together.
Interviewer:
How do you not communicate together?
Student 2:
Because first round we never say 1,2,3,4…
Student 1:
And everybody was not sure what was we doing. So they was a bit blur.
Interviewer:
Who was blur?
Student 1:
Xiuqing, Bryan… they was [sic] blur when is their time to play the …
Student 2:
…when to come in their part.
Interviewer:
When to come in their part… do you think that was important?
Student 2:
Yes of course.
Interviewer:
Why?
106
Student 2:
Because if they don’t know then they anyhow go in then the song will not be nice
already what.
Interviewer:
So how do you all solve the problem?
Student 2:
Like now people see you go into the stage, you sing not nice already right?
Interviewer:
So how do you solve the problem?
Student 1:
We need a leader who can tell us what to do and control the … I think we have Zahid,
the one who can control us by saying 1,2,3,4.
Interviewer:
So was that helpful?
Student 1:
Of course.
Besides developing “critical musicality” the students also expressed how
they acquired more confidence in their playing as they practised as a group
and learned the importance of communication and team work. Therefore,
in adapting informal learning principles, extra-musical qualities were also
honed in the process. These qualities are in alignment with the Singapore
Ministry of Education’s (MOE) goal of enhancing 21st century competencies
such as developing a student who is confident and a self-directed learner. In
a bigger picture, the other two competencies of concerned citizen and active
contributor could also be enhanced as the students learn the importance of
team work and perfecting their individual parts to contribute positively to
the whole.6
Summary and Conclusions
This pilot case study tried to locate patterns of unresolvable dissonance and
adaptation in the pedagogical practices of an experienced Secondary Music
teacher who is consciously reflecting on the applicability of informal learning
in her keyboard class. The unfolding of the lessons in two terms showed
how a practitioner with solid perspectives on engaging underachieving
students negotiated the tensions between the formal and informal. The end
result is the beginning of the process of excavating informal principles and
learning to live them as practice. The reflective thinking resulted into a more
productive dissonance between the formal and informal approaches (Finney
& Philpott, 2010) and the engagement of the students in critical musicality
(Rodriguez, 2009; Green, 2008).
Most of the concerns of Ms Sim in this study are shared by other experienced
teachers, namely: (1) individual comprehension of the lessons by students,
6. To learn more about the MOE and 21st century competencies please visit
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2010/03/moe-to-enhance-learning-of-21s.php
107
(2) classroom management, and (3) keeping students on task. It is very
challenging to manage a classroom if most of the students exhibit needy
attitudes and would intentionally misbehave to seek attention. It is evident
that having control of the class is important for Ms Sim to make sure that her
students learn. Standing back and relinquishing control to the students are
something that Ms Sim struggled with the most. This manifested in her belief
that a more directed foundation is necessary before any of the informal
approaches are applied. She believes that “Modeling Aural Learning” should
come first before dropping the students “In at the Deep End”.7
At the end of the successful implementation of the informal learning, Ms
Sim expressed in an interview that she was happy with the results but that
she also felt the success was due to the fact that the activity was new.
For her type of students, she thought new activities must be constantly
introduced to keep the level of engagement high. Although this could be
possible in informal learning, which is an approach to thinking about music
learning regardless of the activity8, Ms Sim maintained that the pedagogical
approach should be flexible at any one time depending on the cohort of
students. She thought the informal approach might not be suitable for her
other NT students with more challenging behavioural problems.
Despite the comments above, Ms Sim also admitted that she was surprised
to see that the informal approach worked positively for her NT students.
Her compromises in what she would normally do such as having them
choose a part to learn and leaving students to figure out how to play them
actually yielded the end results she was hoping for: the students being able
to finish the song. She was also surprised that the students were able to
work collaboratively without much fooling around. In the end, Ms Sim found
that students were more musical, that is, they have reached the musical
goal of translation and interpretation. She also noted that in having students
try out the sounds, they became more engaged and that they developed
a greater sense of ownership. Ms Sim concluded that implementing the
informal learning approach accomplished the objectives of her class and
even going beyond.
When asked to reflect on how informal learning could help NT students, Ms
Sim mentioned the following: first, teachers should learn to be facilitators,
meaning, they should teach students to be more independent instead of
constantly seeking attention and help from them. Second, teachers should
guide students in solving their musical problems, that is, ask them what they
think went wrong instead of telling them what went wrong. Third, informal
learning can help students engage in critical thinking, that is, they learn
to experiment and learn how to make things work for them based on their
7. In the Musical Futures Resource Pack (2nd edition),it was suggested that lessons be structured in the following manner: In at the Deep End,
Modeling Aural Learning, Informal Composing, Informal Learning with Other Musics. For some teachers, ‘Modeling Aural Learning’ seems more
logical as a starting point because of its more structured design and the way it resembles a normal lesson; in contrast, students are literally
thrown in the deep end at the first suggested lesson opener. ‘In at the Deep End’ “encourages students to experiment, and to explore music and
learning in their own way” and is believed to increase the motivation of students to learn more (p.142).
8. Informal learning has been successfully applied to a number of musical activities such as songwriting, individual and group performance,
individual instrument learning, and immersion in different genres such as pop, classical, and non-western musics (Sexton, 2012; Jeanneret,
2010; Wright & Kanellopoulus, 2010; Jaffurs, 2004).
108
own learning styles. In sum, instructing makes the students more reliant;
facilitating works better for a NT class.
Reviewing these statements clearly shows the “productive dissonance” at
work and is definitely a healthy way of reflective practice on the part of Ms
Sim. She is clearly broadening her horizons and acknowledging that the
informal learning approach actually works, as evident in the “Trialling”. The
results challenge her preconceived beliefs regarding music pedagogy and
by allowing these tensions to surface, she is able to engage reflectively in
her practice as a teacher.
In the end, Ms Sim advised that teachers test out different pedagogical
approaches as she believes pedagogies are just that because someone
made them work. It is the teacher’s responsibility to find out what works best
for their students. However, considering the positive results of the “trialling”,
Ms Sim personally would like to continue experimenting with the informal
approach in her other music classes. She is now thinking of the possible ways
she can incorporate informal learning and non-formal teaching approaches
for a long-term application in their music programme and also finding ways
on how to make it fit to meet the examination requirements of the Ministry
of Education. Her story of “living” informal learning and transforming her
habitus now begins.
References
D’Amore, A. ed. (n.d.) Musical Futures: An approach to teaching and learning (Resource Pack,
2nd edition). London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
Finney, J. & Philpott, C. (2010). Informal learning and meta-pedagogy in initial teacher education
in England. British Journal of Music Education, 27 (1), 7-19.
Folkestad, G. (2006). Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs formal and informal
ways of learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 135-145.
Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Hampshire
and Burlington: Ashgate.
Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Hampshire
and Burlington: Ashgate.
Jaffurs, S. E. (2004). The impact of informal music learning practices in the classroom, or how I
learned how to teach from a garage band. International Journal of Music Education, 22
(3), 189-200.
Mak, P., Kors, N. & Renshaw, P. (2007). Formal, non-formal andinformal learning in music. Hague:
Lectorate Lifelong Learning in Music, Prince Claus Conservatoire, Groningen & Royal
Conservatoire.
Mok, O.N.A. (2011). Non-formal learning: clarification of the concept and its application in music
learning. Australian Journal of Music Education, 1, 11-15.
Rodriguez, C.X. (2009). Informal learning in music: Emerging roles of teachers and students.
Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education, 8 (2), 36-45.
109