The raison d'être of theoretical pedagogy and psychology

The project examines the subject "Theoretical Pedagogy and Psychology" at the Danish National Academy of Music, the role of the subject in the respective programmes and in the student's everyday life and future.

The subject is a small subject in the programme in terms of time, while at the same time forming the foundation for the students' entry into and development of teaching skills and musicianship.
The starting point for the project is an assumption that a high percentage of the students will come into contact with educating, for example on their instrument (at a music school), in larger groups (e.g. primary school), or in connection with master classes.
Based on this assumption, the project explores how the subject can be composed and redefined so that it is immediately relatable to students in their everyday lives.

In addition, the project examines how the importance of the subject can be clarified for the students in relation to overall education and reflection.

Excerpts from Annemette's final report can be read below or downloaded as a pdf here.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Pedagogical Research project is to investigate whether it is "necessary" to have theoretical pedagogy and psychology as part of the curriculum at DNA of Music.

In the following, I will describe how the teaching and organization of the subject is at present and make suggestions and reflections on how it could be in the future.

I will start by describing why I have chosen to put the subject "at stake" - and why I believe that the subject is the most unifying subject at the Academy.

Then I will consider what it is that the subject can do and how it can affect the students and make them more ready to go out "into the real world".

I will reflect on the title/name of the course. Can it be thought of more broadly and possibly more contemporary?

This project is part of a "three-stage rocket", where the meta-perspective is the first, content and form is the second, and the connection to the other pedagogical subjects is the third part.

My reflections before and during the work with this Pedagogical Research are attached as an appendix. Here you will find considerations, reflections, wonderings and thoughts that have all contributed to the design and content of the project itself.

THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

Why do this project?

Since TPP/TPPU has not been addressed for a very long time, it makes a lot of sense to clean up all the old stuff, "shake the bag" and look at new methods and other ways of thinking.

It is very important to first address the overall vision and attitude towards the subject and its role at DNA of Music, both as a subject with great coherence to the other subjects the students have, and about the actual purpose of the subject.

The students must become good at reflecting on their own practice, both as musicians and educators. To be able to do that, it's important:

• They gain philosophical perspectives that can help them understand both themselves and the world in a larger perspective.
• They learn to take responsibility for their own learning and thus also the learning of their future students.
• They can find the motivation and desire to keep learning and innovating and to be able and dare to find the creative person in themselves.

These are all qualities that are in many ways invisible and unconscious, but which nevertheless influence the entire approach to both studies and future working life.

The personal reason for doing the project

It is very important to me to make this subject a meaningful part of the students' daily lives, both now while they are studying, but also when they graduate and are sent out into the "real" world.

I have made many important decisions and choices throughout my career. The choices have always been a both-and, not an either-or. I both educate and play.

Moreover, it has always been, and still is, extremely important for me to contribute to both giving to each other. The performer to the educator and vice versa.

So my why: Because this profession can (and should) evolve and change into something meaningful, and it's time to adapt it to the current reality and give our students a good foundation to stand on.

The history of the subject

There is a great historical condition in this subject.

From the beginning of time, it has been thought that this subject should be part of most of the programmes at conservatories. There may have been several reasons for this.

The following assumptions are based on my two conservatory educations 20 years apart:

• It has been important to provide some kind of background/foundation for students who did not get a job as orchestral musicians or who could not make a living "only" playing/singing.
• It has been important for the academies to take responsibility for the fact that in the vast majority of cases it will be possible to make a living from both playing and educating.
• In an academic context, it has probably also been necessary to build theories into an otherwise very practical programme.

TPP/TTPU has been part of the Academy's curriculum for many years. A subject that was thought to be rewarding for the students, so that the theoretical foundation was present in the teaching that was/is offered to the students.

I also imagine that there were thoughts that no matter how good/world-famous/known you become, someone will always come and ask to learn something from you.

It is my assumption that this subject has thus been given a life at the respective conservatories in Denmark because they knew that the theoretical foundation was good to have.

WHAT DO WE EDUCATE FOR AND WHY

Looking at the TPP/TPPU subject at DNA of Music, it makes sense to talk about the concept of "education".

We educate for skills (the professional), knowledge (to be able to orient oneself professionally) and for education (purpose). TPP/TPPU is the subject where education can be made visible. Where students can practice relating to the world around them.

Through theoretical concepts, psychological theories and philosophical/reflective angles, this subject can form the foundation for students as human beings, future musicians and future educators.

Educating for a life as a musician and educator can help students to be strong when they go out into "reality".

• We can create awareness of what "I" do as an educator.
• We can create awareness of how "I" do.
• We can raise awareness of why "I" choose what "I" do.
• We can bring awareness into the students' professionalism, so they have a point of view and can avoid "learning by doing" in the classroom.
• We can create a breeding ground for students to become part of the food chain that the academies are partly responsible for.

Some students are already educating while they are at the conservatory, and this course gives them the opportunity to bring the problems they experience into the classroom, so the foundation can be made stronger for them.

This is part of the formation in TPP/TPPU. The purpose of what the future educator does, which is outside the subject matter, is the "why".

• Why do I educate the way I do?
• Why do I choose the way I do?
• Why am I the way I am?

That's why I think it's important that the institution is aware that this subject has a foundation that is based on being able to reflect. Being able to see yourself from the outside. To be aware of the purpose of what you do as a future educator.

Therefore, I have chosen to write about the concept of education and why I believe it is necessary to be aware of these elements in this subject.

The concept of education

We need to talk about education because this is where we find the reflective part of learning.

Education is the abstract - the ability to reflect on oneself, one's behavior and choices and their consequences.

Education helps to "become human".

To be able to look at yourself and relate to the world, and from the learning and reflections you do, become wiser.

Above you can see that "formation" is connected to "purpose".

Education stands as the "third leg" in the triangle of what I believe we need to work with at DNA of Music: Knowledge, skills and education.

• Knowledge: Acquired both by doing and by receiving instruction.
• Abilities: Developing skills (main subject teaching). Provides competencies.
• Education: The way you relate. It is the more abstract and invisible part that you bring into your life.

The pedagogical theory part of the teaching at the conservatory (TPP/TPPU) includes a formation process for the students, along with all the other teaching they receive.

It is in this subject that one can work on a conscious level with what forms the framework of the teaching, namely the abstract, the "invisible", the considerations an educator makes that are not subject-specific.

The institution's vision/intention with TPP/TPPU

Intention: Graduates must be as employable as possible

As an institution, the Academy must be able to account for the following three parameters within all subjects taught:

• Why: What is the purpose? Why is the subject part of the programme? Does it create value for the students?
• What: What is it that the conservatoire and the employers want the students to be able to do after completing the programme?
• How: How do we organize the education so that it is meaningful for everyone, graduates, educators and employers?

The formation in TPP/TPPU at DNA of Music

There must be a theoretical part for the students so that they are educated for more than "just" their main subject. Knowledge about life, about relationships, about themselves, etc.

Teaching in the main subject often takes place as a methodology/method that is passed on.

The teaching of theoretical pedagogy is what is around this methodology itself:

• The preparation
• The pedagogical choices in relation to the student/group
• The didactic approach to the choices made: It's about why, what, how.

The above is built into the knowledge the students acquire in their respective majors. In this way, the theory becomes part of a teaching loop:

The model above is an argument for the importance of having a subject like TPP/TPPU on the schedule.

Basically, theory is a foundation.

A place to build confidence in the choices you make. A place to argue and articulate the choices you have made.

Pedagogy and theory help to focus your teaching:

• What learning style your students have.
• What kind of teacher you want to be.
• How to motivate both yourself as an educator and your students.
• How to practice taking responsibility for your own learning and help/encourage your students to take responsibility for their learning.
• How to give good and constructive feedback to students and to yourself.

Learning and practicing are inextricably linked, and it is therefore important to teach the student to be able to reflect both on their own behalf and on behalf of the student.

At the Royal Academy of Music, the focus must be on exactly this: reflection.

Can we assume that a skilled musician is automatically a skilled educator?

The skilled musician reflects with themselves on what they play and how they play it.

The skilled educator reflects in two places:

1. On their own playing (as the skilled musician)
2. On the student's playing

This is where the difference lies. Reflecting on your own playing is different from having to reflect on someone else's behalf and helping/encouraging them to reflect on their own behalf.

REFLECTIONS ON TEACHING AS A CONCEPT

The theoretical part of pedagogy can also be thought of more broadly than just the act of educating.

Teaching: "Actions intended to promote the acquisition of knowledge, skills, insight and understanding"

From the above definition, you can see that teaching is about promoting acquisition.

Dissemination: "to convey knowledge or experience to an audience by acting as an intermediary.1a: to provide information in an easily understandable and pedagogical form"

As you can read from the above definition, communication is a way of passing on knowledge, for example. You become an intermediary between something that needs to be passed on and those to whom it needs to be told.

A subtle difference between communication and teaching: A communicator does not need to know whether the audience they are communicating to will acquire any of the knowledge they are talking about, whereas the educator is obliged to pay attention to creating opportunities for the audience/students to acquire knowledge through methods that ensure that the knowledge in question creates insight and understanding.

The question is whether, from this perspective, communication belongs to the pedagogical subjects?

Having music education and pedagogy under "the same hat" could make sense when you need to unite the performing musician with the educator, as the performer is very often a form of communicator and thus must have a pedagogical angle in their communication.

See: 1a: "Provide information in an easily understandable and pedagogical form" (see above)

Teaching can take the form of lectures, concerts, written texts and actual teaching (teacher/student). What most of us would call communication. If you delve deeper into the two concepts, there will be differences in nuances, but they are both based on wanting to pass something on to someone, and thus a form of pedagogy.

The very act of teaching also hides the factor that you have no control over whether those you educate want to learn something.

Teaching is therefore about facilitating learning through reflection, i.e. the educator must contribute something themselves.

As an educator, I can only pass on my knowledge. Whether it lands or is used for something is out of my hands.

In other words: "I cannot teach anyone anything, I can only make them think!"
Socrates (Greek philosopher 469-399 BC)

Professor Steen Larsen from DPU writes that:

"You cannot teach anyone anything. What you can do is organize the circumstances so that someone can learn something"

As an educator, you need to be aware of this. In the teaching situation, there are two parties who are responsible for ensuring that something can be learned: the one who organizes the teaching and the one who will receive the teaching.

This thinking underlies the argument that this subject, in one form or another, should be part of the curriculum at DNA of Music. Not only as the basis for the actual teaching of the subject at DNA of Music, but also as a starting point that we must teach the students to be aware of when they go out to educate themselves.

Not only do we have the responsibility to offer basic theoretical education to our students. We also have the responsibility to encourage them to want to learn (the being ready) - responsibility for their own learning - and to become aware that the students they will later educate feel the same way.

Theoretical pedagogy can offer exactly both, I believe.

It is the responsibility of the institution that the students are able to stand as the performer who plays, on the one hand, and on the other to educate, communicate and create curiosity and motivation in the future generations of musicians, students, listeners and audiences who will come and listen when our students play.

The institution and the students share the responsibility of continuing the food chain.

Society as a whole needs well-reflected graduates who can take care of themselves and the learning of others.

The future of working life

Most people's working lives will involve teaching/teaching in one form or another, and music schools in particular will be employers of DNA of Music graduates.

If you ask the music schools, the answers are that there is a lack of pedagogy and pedagogical thinking among the newcomers.

If you ask the graduates themselves, many of them also call for a better foundation in pedagogy.

From the perspective of both employers and students, it would be both responsible and meaningful for DNA of Music to emphasize a subject like TPP/TPPU.

In their future working life, most graduates will make use of the different roles of a musician:

• The educator
• The creative artist
• The performer
• The developer and entrepreneur
• The musical leader

As an educator, you are a role model, and that's a responsibility you take on. At the same time, you're also a musician who loves music, and that's part of what students see. On top of that, you're also a person who has some kind of behavior - consciously or unconsciously - and all these things come into play when you want to be a good educator.

In my opinion, a good educator is someone who is aware of when and how they make use of the different roles they have.

Therefore, the whole theoretical/reflective background is very important and there is no arguing that it is more or less important for any student.

TPP/TPPU is perhaps the subject at DNA of Music that has the most unifying effect.

The course is not subject-specific and can therefore provide a common, professional conversation and exchange across genres and fields of study, and it can provide a strong foundation for students to relate to/reflect on the subject matter.

Reflecting together allows you to practice putting into words the thoughts and reflections you have, both theoretical and academic.

Theoretical knowledge provides an overview and basic knowledge that can be applied to the specifics of how to educate in the respective main subject.

This unifying effect is also an argument in favor of everyone getting the same level and the same time allocation in this subject.

It's difficult to argue that some students should take the subject a lot or a little or not at all. Either everyone should have it because it is a fundamental subject that underpins pretty much everything else you will get into as a musician/educator, or it should not be on any of the study programs. There is no argument that it should be distributed differently.

Reflection on the musician and educator

• How does the musician influence the educator and vice versa? Can they "ask each other to dance"?
• Do they reinforce each other, and is it even possible to talk about being "only" one or the other?

Looking around the world, there aren't many musicians who don't also educate in one form or another.

One example is teaching at a music school, another is writing applications for foundations, a third is giving lectures on music, a fourth is the world star giving a master class, a fifth is the composer talking about his creative process, a sixth is teaching at the conservatory, a seventh is the electronic musician who becomes a project manager on his own project, and the list of contexts that can fall under the term "teaching" goes on and on.

So what does it mean to be a professional musician?

You are the performer. The one who plays. The one who writes music. The one who performs other people's music. The one who can come and play when someone is missing.

What characterizes a musician?

A musician almost always relates to something outside of themselves. When you play, there is an audience. When you compose, there are buyers. When you create sound surfaces, there are listeners. Most music/sound doesn't make sense without a receiver.

From a philosophical perspective, you could say that music (or sound) doesn't exist until it hits the receiver's ears. Literally. It is the receiver who listens.

From this perspective, it makes sense to talk about the musician as an educator and thus approach the concept of "educator" as part of the identity.

Because what the musician does is dependent on a receiver, he/she is geared to consider what their intention is with the music.

That in itself is also the starting point for teaching. That there is a receiver. That there is someone you are passing something on to. Whether it's what you create, what you communicate or what you educate, they are all part of being a performing professional educator.

Reflection on DNA of Music's hallmarks in the outside world

If you, as an institution, choose to emphasize that students gain pedagogical skills in their programme, you must also take responsibility for what it is that graduates can do when they graduate.

If the choice is to educate graduates who can take responsibility for pedagogical thinking, then the institution is responsible for ensuring that the study programs are composed in a way that meets that choice.

DNA of Music must ensure that it is competent students who are educated.

This means that DNA of Music is responsible for ensuring that the graduates are "equipped" to do what the institution says they can do, so that employers know what they are getting when they hire a graduate from DNA of Music.

As an institution, we must take responsibility for ensuring that the "back label" the students come out with is recognizable to the labor market. So employers know that a high level is guaranteed.

When students graduate, they have a clear backpack that contains both pedagogical thinking and expert knowledge in their main subject. It is this combination that makes them desirable in the labor market, and it must be the ultimate task of the institution to ensure this.

NAME OF THE SUBJECT

The subject is now called:

• Odense: "Theoretical Pedagogy and Psychology"
• Esbjerg: "Theoretical Pedagogy, Psychology and Teaching"

Firstly, it makes sense for the course to have the same name when it also has the same content.

Secondly, it would make sense to rethink the name of the subject so that it can cover a broader perspective and thus also a broader content.

There are several considerations you can make:

• A new name could define the subject "from the front".
• A new name could also allow for a connection to the other pedagogical subjects in the respective fields of study.
• A new name allows for topics that are not necessarily covered by theoretical pedagogy/psychology, e.g. philosophy/reflections and the like.
• A new name can define what "we" think students should have when they finish their programme.
• Giving the subject a new title can bring the subject into the present, where, for example, the types of young people we work with are very different from 20 years ago.

In this way, the subject can be renewed and there is room to work with new topics such as power relations, social security, neurodivergence, etc.

Finding a new name for the course requires a clear understanding of what the course should be able to do and contain. As described in this project, a recurring theme is the word "reflection".

• Being able to reflect, ponder and consider is a big part of a study.
• Being able to describe and put into words what you see and experience.
• To be able to relate to yourself, others and what is happening around you.

That's why it's important to have a subject where there is room to do this, and where part of the foundation is that you do it and learn it.

It's part of what this subject can and should do, and part of the title could therefore include the word "reflection".

At the same time, it's important to stick to the foundation of the subject, which is a theoretical approach. To start from theories, and from this form a basis for practicing the practical part of your main subject. Therefore, you can also consider whether the word "theory" should be included in some form.

The name of the subject should be broad enough to cover many perspectives while at the same time being able to describe what we expect to happen in the teaching.

My suggestion for a new name for the course is:

PEDAGOGICAL THEORY AND REFLECTION.

If you choose to change the name, description, learning objectives etc. you can consider creating a new course description for the subject. This has not been part of the purpose of this project.

THE SUBJECT'S RESONANCE WITH PRACTICE

The basis for pedagogical thinking at DNA of Music must be that we educate graduates who can take responsibility for pedagogical thinking while being experts in their main subject. It is this combination that makes them desirable.

Here I will briefly reflect on how I see the connection between theory and practice.

In a communication and teaching context, practice is connected to a theoretical background. This means that the foundation is made of theories about practice and planning of teaching, i.e. professional competencies that go beyond the professional ones.

Here you can again look at the three legs of the triangle, where the theoretical foundation itself is described.

A good foundation stabilizes academic teaching. If you know something about didactics and the Zone of Closest Development, you will be able to apply that knowledge to the subject-specific teaching you do.

That's why I see a kind of "sluice" that starts broadly with the theoretical/reflective part and through the practical part lets the students out into their own practice.

This can help to make teaching meaningful for students.

The proposed pedagogical manager, described above, could have an overview and be responsible for ensuring that this connection is clear to educators, students and employers.

The connection from reflection to practice will be described in PUV3, for which funding will be sought in June 2025.

CONCLUSION

The mission of this project was based on these questions:

• How is the subject currently included in the programmes?
• How is the subject currently distributed in terms of time and can it be streamlined to provide more continuity?
• How can the subject be made more meaningful and application-oriented for students?

The answers to these questions are more complex than that.

In order to figure out the specific ways the course is put together, it is necessary to look at the overall structure. To become more aware of our own "why".

Possible answers can be found in different sections of this Pedagogical Research, and here I will summarize my own conclusions in relation to the movement from now to the future:

The overall conclusion is:

There is a need for the theoretical part of pedagogy at DNA of Music.

There are various arguments as to why:

• The subject has a unifying effect for the professional division between the students
• The subject forms the foundation for their further journey into the practical part of pedagogy and into the labor market.
• The course provides a foundation for the students' ability to reflect and self-reflect.

Various other conclusions have arrived:

• It is meaningful to combine teaching across study branches.
• It makes sense to create a temporal framework from an academic perspective.
• It is necessary to create a framework for the curriculum and content of the subject.
• It is necessary to work on finding solutions for how the pedagogical set-up can work as a team.

The project points towards rethinking the subject.

Open up for expansion in both the professional field and the reflective field.

Paying attention to how we educate young people who are both virtuosos in their main subject and virtuosos in their communication/teaching.

We need to get to the root of this subject and shape it so that it is meaningful for both student and institution.

We can do this by addressing the concrete, temporal structure, the composition of the subject, willingness to be investigative within pedagogy, and openness to new initiatives and considerations.

The project can point towards a desire to maintain a pedagogical structure through process work, leadership in relation to pedagogy and clarity in descriptions and behavior.

My own reflections in connection with the preparation of this Pedagogical Research

During my employment as an hourly teacher at DNA of Music Esbjerg, I could see after some time that something was not adding up. This led to reflections on the subject's connection to the rest of the programmes. Later, when I applied for the position as assistant professor, I realized that something had to change. My reflections were mostly about the completely different ways in which the programmes are put together. Next, the lack of professional connection to the practical pedagogy, and, last but not least, the lack of an idea of what should be educated. These things made it difficult and challenging to plan, prepare and create coherence in the subject, so already at that point, the first reflections on what could be done began.

How to take responsibility for proper coherence?

----------------------------------

Throughout the writing process, I have had conversations with people from other areas of the educational field. Other angles, other points of view. Several questions that took me by surprise. Made me think again, and I have continuously had to find answers or approaches that could make sense.

----------------------------------

Reflection from within:

• Why do I come to the profession with prejudices and a kind of acceptance that the profession has a bad reputation?
• Why do I accept that this is the premise of this profession?
• If I take responsibility for the profession, how do I feel about it?
• How can I put something together that is sustainable and structured?

Reflection from the outside:

• Why do we need this course? (the students)
• Why do we need this subject at the academy? (colleagues and outsiders)
• Isn't it something from the old days?
• Why are there so few hours for this subject? (a primary school teacher)
• The big challenge: The assumption that the subject is a waste of time.

--------------------------------

Theoretical pedagogy and psychology.

What is the content of it? The arguments for and against the subject and its content. What happens when you read a title? The ideas and assumptions about what it is and what it stands for.

A new name must be able to describe what the subject contains, yet still be broad enough for educators to be able to professionally vouch for the content of the course.

New name - renewal and for what and why?

-------------------------------------

What does it take to create a space where students dare to ask or ask "critical" questions? As an educator, I need to be able to hold a space where students are brave enough to say what they think about the teaching. Because reflection is such a big part of this subject, I need to make space for it.

------------------------------------

How can we with this subject speak to the musician in the students, while working with and relating to the fact that the musician is also dependent on being able to communicate/educate. Because it makes you clearer as a musician.

How can I pass on the feeling of passing something on? Speaking to the place described in Carl Orff's quote from page 2: "being ready for listening".

-------------------------------------

As an educator, I have to stand in myself and be relevant and competent professionally, while also being a musician who loves to play. How do I stand with these two professional skills?

-----------------------------------

Reflection on the concept of "reflection"

What does it mean to reflect? Being able to see things from many angles. Being able to stand outside of what is happening and observe. To describe and verbalize your thoughts and considerations so that you gradually see connections and logic within the framework you are in.

Being able to work in process - letting something happen without a goal. Process-oriented versus product-oriented.

-------------------------------------

Throughout the writing process, I have had to deal with the frustration of "only" being able to make suggestions. Not being able to come up with a finished solution.

As described above, it is to work process-oriented - without goals, but to come up with considerations and suggestions that can be considered and taken into account.

Putting something forward that can be talked about.

The practice of communicating what I think without being oriented towards a total solution coming from me.

The project is the first part of a three-part Pedagogical Research project. The other projects can be read here:

Part 1: Theoretical pedagogy and the raison d'être of psychology

Part 2: Reflection and Teaching Practice

Part 3: On common threads and interdisciplinarity