LAB 2

 LAB 3

 LAB 1

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This exposition seeks to unpack how the artistic research laboratory may offer new opportunities for the teaching and learning of music performance in Higher Music Education (HME). In what follows, we will address the findings presented in the three Labs, seeking to establish potential connections and contrasts between them. We first address some methodological perspectives, starting with the use of video stimulated recall analysis in the Labs, moving to the use of critical thinking and self-regulated learning, ultimately making the argument that, taken together, the methods contribute to more dynamic relations between teacher–student and student–student. In the final section we discuss how the artistic research laboratory may contribute to the development of more inclusive and decolonised curricula in HME.

STIMULATED RECALL

As a method in artistic research in music, stimulated recall has emerged as an important means, not merely for creating an analytical understanding of artistic processes, but also as a means in artistic creation (see for instance Stefánsdóttir, 2023; Östersjö et al., 2023). As seen in the exposition, stimulated recall has proven to be a valuable method also in many of the student projects. In Elkjär’s Lab 1, it was key to arrive at less hierarchical ways of teaching and learning, since it enabled students not only to gain new phenomenological insights, but through that, give feedback to each other, making explicit the decolonising power of the method. 

The third lab also presented the potential of observational analysis of video in the search for new methods of practising. As described by student A18, the process was twofold, starting with observations of other players on video, and in a second stage making similar observations of their own playing:

I started by looking up videos on YouTube where the left hand was clearly visible to study how others do it [positioning the left hand], and also some instructional videos for beginners. In a beginners video, the instructor showed that the fingers should be curved like an arch to achieve the strongest possible form. Of course, I thought, that’s how I’ve been taught and always done it. But I decided to look at how I actually do it  […]. My fingers look like nice arches, but where my little finger meets the hand and the knuckle, I bent it the wrong way! The only way I could correct this was to turn my wrist slightly counterclockwise and direct the thumb more towards the shell, rather than perpendicular to the neck. The result is a much more natural hand position than I am used to. [Student A18]. (Lab 3, italics in original)

Looking at the student’s degree projects, detailed in Lab 2, video 3, it is evident that stimulated recall was essential to the experimental inquiries. In an interview Olsson notes how—through stimulated recall analysis (carried out through a third person perspective analysis)—he gained a deeper understanding of his playing, which would have been impossible to achieve in the moment of performance. This in return helped him evaluate the effect of the experimental method designed for his project, which explored the role of inner hearing in the shaping of his improvisations. In Schützer’s project, stimulated recall was used in an entirely different manner, by presenting the full recording of his piano recital to informants drawn from the audience. This way, he sought to gain access to the audience experience of his performance, with regard to gestural and verbal communication, as well as the shaping of his piano playing. This approach to researching audience communication, through in-depth qualitative interviews, appears to be a neglected possibility in the field. 

Yet another approach was presented in Mellberg’s collaborative project with Andersson, which had its focus to bring forth new arrangements of songs. Through iterative design, audio and video playback was used both as an artistic method in the development of new arrangements of songs and in Mellberg’s instance to explore how she could heighten her expressiveness and interactivity therein. As may be seen in the chart below (Figure 1), representing their use of the method, it also worked as an analytical tool to gain deeper insights into the nature of their artistic collaboration.   

In an earlier interview—presented in a chapter analysing the impact of artistic research in degree projects in the Piteå School of Music—Mellberg discusses how the potential for life-long learning in her degree project was related to the collaborative stimulated recall analysis, and how it enabled ‘constructive criticism’ and increased awareness of how “to reach the intended expression” (Minors et al. 2024, p. 37). In the final analysis Mellberg argues that

becoming one’s own teacher, I believe is a matter of perspective. To manage to make observations of your own music making from several perspectives, than those from inside the experience of performing. It is great to be able to record oneself and show and discuss what is heard and seen with others, and thereby get perspectives to utilise in an analytical moment. (Lab 3)

To summarise, we find that the Labs present different examples of how documentation and analysis using video and audio recording technologies have proved useful in a range of different musical learning situations. This suggests broader unexplored opportunities across educational contexts.

CRITICAL THINKING AND SELF-REGULATIVE LEARNING

In the Labs created by Tullberg and Elkjär, settings that encourage the learning of basic instrumental skills through interaction with others are explored. While the designs of their Labs were based on different methods, both sought novel approaches to practising and the development of specific playing techniques. 

Lab 1 was conceived as a laboratory for developing flute tone through better control of the airstream. However, as the Lab unfolded, perspectives of musical shaping became an integrated part of this undertaking. Exercises were carried out in a group setting, with all students and their teacher engaging in joint explorations of breathing exercises and playful approaches to a series of scored works, all compositions that form part of the standard repertoire of the instrument. As a part of the design, video-stimulated recall was used in one-to-one sessions with each student.  

Lab 3 took a different point of departure, seeking to develop new and more diverse approaches to practising, through a multimodal approach to methods. The design of the Lab in three “segments” refers to an understanding of musical learning of basic skills as divided in three domains, (i) sensorimotor skills, (ii) systematised practice, and (iii) the socio-musical context of practice (see Figure 2).

The first segment approached all three domains by introducing the students to different tools for critical thinking about practising, through a series of research perspectives (see further Lab 3). In contrast to this approach, the second segment of the lab is built on self-regulated learning, with autoethnographic writing as a tool. This also entailed more workshop-based teaching situations, in which students would interact with each other’s practices. Student B27 describes the experience of their explorations of practising through such workshops, and how a starting point in joint explorations made the individual practising that followed more motivating:

All practice must settle into the body, and I have found that I do it best alone in my own space. [However], discovering new exercises or strategies together with another person works well. Starting the exercise together makes it in some way easier to create your own path. The individual exercise thus becomes less tough and boring. [Student B27]

(Lab 3)

An even more radical example is presented in Schützer’s approach (Lab 2, video 3) who expanded the learning settings beyond the confinement of HMEIs, and entered stimulated recalls with selected concert audience members. Through this Schützer took on the role of facilitator, who guided and steered the stimulated recall, all while gathering a rich data set which fed into his experimentation with audience communication. 

A final example of the usefulness of critical thinking in artistic learning processes is the master thesis project of Moa Nissfolk, discussed in Lab 2, video 3. Here, NABC (Carlson and Wilmot, 2006), a central model in entrepreneurship theory, informed her reflections on the challenges of becoming a freelance performer. Since freelancing is one of the few options available for a classically trained performer, this became the topic of her final lecture recital, addressing the correlation between developing artistic identity and becoming an entrepreneur in the music business (see video 3 in Lab 2). 

The Labs thus provide a wide range of examples of how the learning and teaching of music performance can be enhanced. This includes thinking and doing together, in group setting, as well as by employing critical theory and autoethnographic inquiry, all providing means for self-regulated and life-long learning. 

MORE DYNAMIC TEACHER-STUDENT AND STUDENT-STUDENT RELATIONS

The methods presented in the preceding sections hold a potential for shifting and diversifying the modes of teacher–student and student–student relations. Starting with the latter, then Lab 3, video 3, presents a duo collaboration between Mellberg and Andersson, wherein they worked on improving their interactivity and musical expression, as they forged new arrangements of songs. This approach, done through stimulated recall, presents an augmented method for duo collaboration. The students alternated between 1st and 3rd person perspectives, while also developing a 2nd person perspective: 

As we discussed the outcome of our listening we had an intersubjective 2nd person perspective towards each other. What could be changed to reach the interpretation we want to achieve? How does each of us apprehend the interpretation and what needs to be done in order to achieve that? (Mellberg, 2022, p.14)

This may serve as an example of the novel forms of knowing through audiovisual laboratory practices, as proposed by Ben Spatz (2020). In the case of Mellberg and Andersson, the students bypass the usual master–apprentice mode of HME and enter a space requiring negotiation through peer-learning within an iterative design, based on documentation, reflection and analysis.

In Lab 1, it is observed how the group explorations had a strong impact in the direction of altering teacher–student relations, and that the use of stimulated recall analysis enhanced that process further. Elkjär notes how

the students were highly engaged participants. They frequently offered suggestions to each other, and since I was also participating in the experiments and playing as much as the five students, I had the new and rewarding experience of receiving feedback on my playing from the students. (Lab 1, Implementing section).

In her final reflections she further argues that the collaborative process played a crucial role in helping both her and her students identify new roles that would shape their future approaches to learning and teaching. She notes that by emphasising the use of musical imagination in providing feedback to one another and to her, the students developed greater independence and a sense of authority. In addition to these qualities, a common reference would be the strengthening of student autonomy. Looking beyond this notion, Jacob Thompson-Bell (2024) refers to the concept of ‘ontonomy’, drawn from Buddhist theory, which proposes that “the self exists within the other, and vice versa, so that individual actions must be understood as ontologically and ethically entangled with the others with whom, on whom, the self acts” (p. 168). Considering the interactive nature of the teacher–student relations in Ann Elkjär’s laboratory with flute students, perhaps the notion of ontonomic relations would be a useful figure of thought? As Thompson-Bell further argues: “approaching teaching from an ethic of care means seeking to cultivate ontonomic awareness in both carer and cared-for, enabling teachers and students to recognise how their learning experience binds them together, as an ethical-agential learner collective” (p.169). 

Such an approach may shift the educator’s role towards that of a facilitator, as seen in Lab 2, wherein Stefánsdóttir and Kent Olofsson, in their mentoring role of Nordanskog's degree project, shared their knowledge to provide him with critical perspectives and technological know-how to support his experimentation. Similarly, Tullberg’s role in Lab 3, during the second segment of the project, took on the form of facilitation as students entered the new context of approaching practising through peer-learning. This in turn, as we detailed in the previous section introduced a more holistic approach to practising, alleviating the psychological duress practising can introduce. It is our hope that the artistic research laboratory might constitute a platform for the development of such ontonomic practices, which alter the nature and thereby agency in education/learning relations, as part of the environment of HME.  

WIDER PERSPECTIVES ON CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Eidsaa and Kharatyan argue that HME must encourage students to build diverse portfolios and cultivate versatile skills for engaging with broader musical opportunities (Eidsaa & Kharatyan 2024). The artistic research laboratory can serve in introducing practices from a wider context, through which the student may bypass existing protocols, and, as argued in Lab 2, video 1: open up “paths to new forms of sociality and in certain cases to exploration from intermediary positioning, bypassing both power structures and the usual delivery modes of the art world” (video 1, 03:36). A case in point is how Lukas Nordanskog (2021) in his audio paper, refers to the listening practices developed by Pauline Oliveros, arguing that, in the creation of his composition for trombone and electronics, “maybe the different, albeit interconnected improvisations, are a proof, that through my improvisation I have understood, listened and reacted to the space-time. That which Oliveros referred to as 'space and time continuum'” (Lab 2, video 3, 16:23).

Another approach is presented in Lab 2, through Stefánsdóttir’s revising of the teaching material of the degree project preparatory seminars. One perspective addressed was how the teaching was preconditioned through historical protocols of Western Art Music, which are repeated and reinforced through HME (Leech-Wilkinson, 2020). In Lab 2, video 2, Stefánsdóttir describes how she “approached the choice of teaching materials as a curator” (video 2, 03:49). Relating the choice of teaching materials to an analysis based on intersectional and decolonising perspectives, it is further argued that “[t]hrough this lens, curating teaching materials becomes crucial in challenging the exclusionary and discriminatory patterns embedded in practice” (video 2, 04:23).

In the framing of Lab 3, Tullberg points to the role of tradition in the shaping of a performer’s relation to their instrument. In a book chapter, he proposes a flexible and dynamic set of perspectives on such interrelations, suggesting that a musician may develop what he calls “a personal tradition”. Further, he notes how setting such processes 

in relation to the education of future professional musicians is an area for further exploration. Although it may seem obvious, the means to reach it are not necessary as evident. This is because, among many aspects, it covers knowledge about the historical context, embodied understanding of the function of the music, mastery of interpretive practices and a thorough experience as a musician in general. This complex set of skills is the foundation for a space of artistic freedom while drawing from all the resources the tradition has to offer. In a way it in itself proposes a curriculum for the aspiring professional musician. (Tullberg, 2018, p. 138) 

Lab 3 creates two different avenues through which each participant can explore such negotiation of tradition, as a part of developing their relation to their instrument, both through critical reflection and through self-regulated learning processes, enhanced by co-operative workshops and autoethnographic writing. It is important to note how collaborative learning forms a part of much informal learning, in contexts that are connected to the forms of folk and world music that are at the heart of this Lab. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS 

This exposition builds on a limited number of studies, which are in different stages of completion. Hence, it must be acknowledged that more research is needed to further assess the potential of artistic research laboratories to contribute to curriculum development in HME. However, we do hope that the examples presented, and the ways in which they have been contextualised, may serve as an invitation to further experimentation and research in the field. As proposed by Hannula et al. (2005) almost twenty years ago:

Instead of a mechanical and closed relationship, artistic research is a good example of an activity which by its nature is relative, uncertain and changing, but at the same time (in the best case scenario) experimental, an intellectual pleasure creating new knowledge. In other words, it is an activity which challenges and exposes, opens up and activates in order to consider who we are, where we are, and how we are. (p. 151)

If anything, our deepest ambition with the exposition, but even more with the research and teaching practices we are part of developing, is to provide opportunities for students and teachers in HME to explore approaches to the teaching and learning of music performance that are playful, inclusive, sustainable and student-centred, but also that can serve as a basis for new discoveries.