ISSN: 1968-2065

Peer Mentoring in a University Jazz Ensemble

By

Andrew Goodrich
Boston University

Abstract

Through an exploration of peer mentoring in a university level jazz ensemble, I examined

how three graduate students learned to perform and learned to teach based in a specific cultural
music context—jazz. Framed within the universal-pluralistic debate, three students pursuing
graduate degrees (Music Education, Mechanical Engineering, Philosophy) shared their prior
experiences with learning to play jazz and being mentored during that process, and with
mentoring each other and mentoring undergraduate students in a jazz ensemble during the
course of this study. The following questions guided this study: (1) How did the participants
learn to become peer mentors? (2) How did the participants engage in the peer mentoring
process during this study? Data collection for this study included interviews and observations of
the three participants during one semester of instruction. Data analysis revealed that peer
mentoring was a conduit for how these graduate students learned to perform and teach jazz
music. Themes for this study included learning to mentor in jazz and mentoring in the jazz
ensemble. Suggestions for the profession include peer mentoring can assist music educators with
learning to teach and perform a specific musical style.

Keywords: peer mentoring, universal-pluralistic debate, learning jazz, teaching jazz, performing
jazz

Goodrich, A. (2016). Peer mentoring in a university jazz ensemble. Visions of Research in Music Education, 28.
Retrieved from http://www.rider.edu/~vrme
 2

Jazz musicians learned via aural and oral ways in non-academic settings in the historic

jazz culture (Goodrich, 2008). As they learned how to play jazz music, they listened to live

performances, records, and fellow jazz musicians, or peers. Historically, peer mentoring

comprised an integral part of learning in jazz music (Goodrich, 2007). As jazz musicians

engaged in the peer mentoring process they learned new melodic and harmonic phrases, style,

and songs as they shared their knowledge with each other. When jazz music entered the schools,

however, the big band model became the predominant type of ensemble where the director

conducted the group, often similar to directing a concert band (Goodrich, 2005; Kelly, 2013).

This model, where the director acts as the sole authority of knowledge in the ensemble rehearsal,

led the way for a transformation with the way jazz music was learned. Cultural elements unique

to jazz music such as lingo, and approaches to learning jazz, most notably via aural ways with

improvisation that included sharing of knowledge via peer mentoring, were discarded as the

emphasis in learning shifted towards reading music, with both ensemble parts and solos notated

note-for-note for the student (Goodrich, 2008). Thus, with the introduction and subsequent

inclusion of jazz music in U.S. schools post-World War II (typically performed in the big band

jazz ensemble), students had fewer opportunities to mentor each other and to learn from each

other via the engagement that occurs during peer mentoring.

A primary issue with how musicians learn to play jazz today is how it is taught in

schools. A central tenet of this issue lies within the realm of teacher training in jazz for

undergraduate music education majors. Preservice teachers often receive a “one size fits all”

approach in learning how to teach a multitude of ensembles in undergraduate music education

programs. Yet, Herbst (1997) argued within the context of a study of Balinese teachers, “within

any musical performance style exist various intrinsic teaching methods” (p. xviii). But, a
 3

universalist approach in music education is perpetuated with the assumption that all teachers and

learners learn in the same universal manner, regardless of musical style. Dunbar-Hall (2006)

posited that this viewpoint does not take into consideration the specific culture of the music,

which contributes towards a “disjuncture between learners and musical styles” (p. 63).

Therefore, a universalist approach does not consider the individual student as they negotiate

through prior learning styles as they embark upon new teaching methods and expectations

(Dunbar-Hall, 2006). A pluralistic approach, though, entails a process where learning music is

based in enculturation and is, therefore, influenced by what is considered the host culture

(Dunbar-Hall, 2000). The universalist-pluralist debate focuses primarily on the teaching and

learning of non-Western music in relation to Western Art music. The tensions between learning

jazz in the historic culture versus jazz education in school settings creates a similar issue

(Goodrich, 2005; Prouty, 2008), and thus similar characteristics, framed within the universalist-

pluralistic debate.

With consideration towards time constraints and degree requirements for teacher

certification, it is often difficult to focus on the intrinsic teaching methods of each musical style.

In a learning environment where students share their knowledge with each other, opportunities

can be created via peer mentoring for learning more about a particular music style and elevation

of performance skills. A study that explores peer mentoring among students as they share their

knowledge with each other may provide insights into how they can mentor and concurrently

learn from each other in any type of school music ensemble. Because I explored peer mentoring

in a university level jazz ensemble for this study, I examined literature that pertains to the

universalist-pluralist debate, the teaching and learning of jazz, and peer mentoring.

Universalist-pluralist debate
 4

For this study I situated this exploration into peer mentoring within the universalist-

pluralist debate. Dunbar-Hall (2000) explored the universalist-pluralist debate in a study of the

teaching of Balinese gamelan and suggested that teachers need to consider the culture,

knowledge, and the people associated with a particular style of music in order to effectively

teach it. Schippers (2010) explored the way music of the world’s cultures is acquired, developed,

and transmitted. Campbell (2004) stressed the notion that to teach music from different cultures

around the world, one must engage in interactive experiences with the music to be able to teach

it. In addition, Campbell provided insights for pedagogical approaches into teaching music of the

world’s cultures including aural, kinesthetic, and visceral facets of the music-making process.

Using a study of North American practitioners of Japanese shakuhachi music, Matsunobu (2011)

argued that teachers must understand the shared aspects of music experience in order to teach

and learn music outside of its original context, in this case spirituality. Hennessy (2005) studied a

taiko ensemble (Japanese style of drumming) in Southwest England. Although Hennessy

cautioned that teachers may not possess the experience nor interest to be able to incorporate a

wide variety of different musical styles in their teaching, the taiko ensemble presented alternate

opportunities for participants to develop their musicianship to a higher level, particularly with

regards to using their ears, rhythm, and ensemble playing.

Teaching and learning in jazz

The perceived dichotomy between jazz as it was originally learned in the historic jazz

culture and how it is learned in an institutional setting has been explored (Goodrich, 2008). The

concepts of “teaching” and “learning” are often intertwined under the label of “jazz education”

and Kelly (2013) stated that learning jazz is “multi-faceted and multi-dimensional” (p. 196).
 5

Kelly recommended that university faculty include jazz teaching experiences for all students

taking similar courses, to provide a more thorough comprehension of the genre.

Wilf (2010) explored the challenges of learning embedded in post-secondary jazz

education with the codification and standardization of its pedagogical materials in an institution,

versus the historical means of learning the style: emulation of musicians and dissemination of

recordings. Prouty (2008) discussed the tensions between the study of improvisation in an

institutionalized environment with educators using pedagogical practices that stifle creativity, as

opposed to potentially limitless possibilities inherent in improvisation for pedagogical and

curricular practices between teacher and student. Goodrich (2008) argued that procedural

knowledge of jazz education in school ensembles is similar to what is used in concert bands.

This reflected in how similar the teaching and learning methods in the jazz ensembles were when

compared to the concert bands. Historically, jazz musicians learned to play via listening to their

peers and records, and through mentoring each other.

Peer mentoring

Peer mentoring comprised an intrinsic component of how jazz musicians taught each

other and subsequently learned to play the genre (Goodrich, 2007). Bozeman and Feeney (2007)

attempted to define a theory of mentoring, but acknowledged that mentoring is a complex

activity, for separating mentoring from other types of learning is problematic and explains why

mentoring is often ill-defined in the literature. They posited that researchers fail to distinguish

mentoring from different types of knowledge transmission and that mentoring involves informal

transmission of knowledge and is successful only when the mentee considers the information

relevant.
 6

Swap, Leonard, Shields, and Abrams (2001) explored how knowledge is transferred

within an organization and found that knowledge is gained through experience, and experience is

accrued over time with exposure to the subject matter. Within an organization, mentors engage in

socialization (sharing experiences) and internalization (learning by doing). Mentors transfer

skills, convey knowledge about the organization of the local system, the norms of behavior, and

the values of an organization. Within socialization, learners learn via informal means, often

through observing a particular behavior, reflecting upon feedback from a mentor, and through

active learning. In a study of music teacher education students who mentored elementary

students in a cross-age mentoring program, Madsen (2011) discovered that the friendships

developed during the mentoring process were reported as the most important component of the

mentoring process. Friendships were explored with co-mentoring in a university jazz ensemble

in which undergraduate participants served as both mentors and mentees concurrently (Goodrich,

2014). In this study, social connections were heightened and reinforced as participants engaged

in the mentoring process since they were allowed to contribute ideas regarding the musical

directives in the ensemble. In turn, they reported that this helped to elevate their knowledge of

jazz in addition to the performance level of the ensemble.

In an examination of attrition in graduate programs, Boyle and Boice (1998) found that

mentoring facilitated enculturation of first year students into graduate programs. They identified

three best practices of successful graduate programs: Collegiality—support of community of

friendly attitudes among first year students; Mentoring—programs support mentoring among

students and between faculty and students; and Structure—well-organized program in which

friendly and professional relationships between students and faculty were encouraged in addition

to clear expectations set by the faculty of what was expected of graduate students in the program.
 7

Napoles (2008) investigated relationships between instructor, peer, and self-evaluations after

micro-teaching episodes in class. Napoles (2008) discovered that instructor evaluations were the

highest, and peer evaluations were consistently the lowest among the participants in the study.

Further, Napoles (2008) discovered that peers valued feedback from their fellow peers more than

from their instructors.

McCormack and West (2006) investigated a group mentoring program for university

women. They suggested that traditional mentoring relationships involve a mentor-mentee

relationship and are thus hierarchical in their organization. A group mentoring program, in which

the mentor concurrently guides several mentees, can help to reduce the hierarchical structure

typically associated with mentoring relationships. This allows for more sharing of knowledge

among the mentor and mentees. In addition, they asserted that any student can serve as mentor

and mentee. Goodrich (2007) investigated a high school jazz band in which the director used a

formal peer mentoring system to elevate the performance level of the ensemble. Although the

director in this study was actively involved with establishing guidelines and meeting frequently

with student mentors at the beginning of the school year, once the peer mentoring system was

up-and-running the students began to mentor on their own accord with minimal involvement

from the director.

Peer mentoring context

The peer mentoring system in this study was not part of any university wide mentoring

system. Although peer mentoring can be hierarchical in structure and under the direct

supervision of a teacher, the peer mentoring in this study was informal and not under the direct

supervision of the director of the jazz ensemble. Peer mentoring involved the graduate students,

who recounted their experiences with peer mentoring as they learned to play jazz, how they
 8

mentored people as they developed their performance skills to a higher level, and their

reflections on current participation with the peer mentoring process. Peer mentoring in this study

embodied several closely-related, yet distinct components of approaches to learning to perform

this style; learning to mentor each other, and to mentor the undergraduate students.

For the purposes of this study, I define peer mentoring as any student-to-student coaching

and feedback, in which students (mentors) share information to another student who is the

recipient of the information (mentee). I draw upon Bozeman and Feeney’s definition of

mentoring in which mentoring is, “between a person who is perceived to have greater

knowledge, wisdom, or experience (the mentor) and a person who is perceived to have less (the

protégé)” (Bozeman & Feeney, 2007, p. 731). The transfer of knowledge is a characteristic of

teaching, in which a trained person (considered the expert) dispenses information to students via

one-way instruction. The teacher is responsible for additional duties, such as classroom

management and tasks not directly associated with knowledge such as administrative duties. A

teacher, though, does not always serve as a mentor to their students. Peer mentoring involves

more than the transfer of knowledge. It is a process of engagement that involves social

interactions and does not always relate to subject matter knowledge being transferred from one

person to another. In addition, peer mentoring, “encourages mentors’ personal growth and

provides advice, support, and knowledge to the mentee” (Colvin & Ashman, 2010, p. 122).

While peer mentoring is an established instructional practice in many jazz ensembles

(e.g., section leaders running sectionals), I did not identify any studies that specifically

investigated peer mentoring in a university level ensemble. The purpose of this study was to

explore how the participants became peer mentors, and how they engaged in the process in a

university level jazz ensemble during the course of this study. The following questions guided
 9

this study: (1) How did the participants learn to become peer mentors? (2) How did the

participants engage in the peer mentoring process during this study?

Method

A private university in the Northeastern United States served as the site for this study. A

jazz degree program did not exist at this institution, and membership in the jazz ensembles (big

band, two combos) consisted primarily of non-music majors. Although the ensemble in this

study (a “big band”) was offered as a course with credit, rehearsal space was limited due to the

urban setting of the university. They rehearsed in a garage on campus, two nights per week for a

total of three hours. I received institutional review board approval for this study and all names

and locations used in this study are pseudonyms to hide the identity of the participants.

Research Design

I framed the research design for this study within qualitative inquiry, as I wanted to

interpret the reality of the participants of the case being studied. The case in this study entailed

the three participants and their experiences with peer mentoring. Acting in the capacity of what

Creswell (2007) referred to as the key instrument, I collected and analyzed data within an

intrinsic case study design. Peer mentoring, the context of this intrinsic case study, was situated

within a university jazz ensemble and was bounded by one semester of instruction (Creswell,

2007). The intrinsic case study design provided a platform for me to explore the perspectives of

the participants in the jazz ensemble as they discussed their experiences with peer mentoring.

Participants

Nineteen students comprised the membership of this ensemble: three graduate students,

and sixteen undergraduate students. Because I was interested in exploring students with

advanced jazz performance skills who mentored each other and the younger students, I used
 10

criterion sampling to select the three graduate student members as participants in this study

(Creswell, 2007). Selection criteria included participants who performed jazz music at an

advanced level, and were involved with mentoring the younger undergraduate members of the

ensemble.

The graduate students in this study included: Charles, guitar, a masters level student in

Music Education, served as the graduate teaching assistant for the jazz ensemble during the year

of this study. He also received an undergraduate degree in jazz performance. While he pursued

the masters degree and teaching certification, Charles maintained a teaching position at a local

public school. James, trumpet, a doctoral level student in Philosophy, held a Teaching

Assistantship in the Philosophy department at this university, and played trumpet in the

ensemble. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology and a Bachelor of Arts in

Philosophy and Political Science from a university on the west coast. Justin, piano, a doctoral

level graduate candidate in Mechanical Engineering, was at this private university to focus on

energy and acoustics. He received an undergraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering from a

university on the east coast.

Data generation

Data collection entailed interviews and observations of jazz ensemble rehearsals during

one semester of instruction. Interviews comprised the primary source of data for this study, as I

was interested in exploring the perspectives of the participants with regards to peer mentoring.

Interview questions reflected the purpose of the study and were designed to explore how

these graduate students learned to play jazz music, how they learned to teach it, and their

perspectives on how they interacted with each other via peer mentoring. I interviewed

participants individually. I used semi-structured interview questions to allow for flexibility

 11

during the interviews so I could ask follow-up questions as warranted (Patton, 2002). I recorded

the interviews using a digital recording device and transcribed the interviews within a 48 hour

time period.

As I sought to explore how the participants became peer mentors, observation data was

not feasible as the participants recalled past experiences. Because I was interested in the

perspectives of Charles, James, and Justin, observation data served as an opportunity for me to

gain access as the trusted person in this setting so that participants would be more comfortable

with me (Glesne, 2006).

Data analysis

Data from the interviews and observations provided me with information about how

Charles, James, and Justin engaged in the peer mentoring process. Upon completion of the

transcription process, I coded the data that I identified with two-to-three letter codes. Examples

of these codes included “LM” for “Learning to Mentor,” and “LEO” for “Learning from Each

Other.” Glesne (2006) stated that coding is a “progressive process of sorting and defining and

defining and sorting those scraps of collected data” (p. 135). To assist with the identification of

these “scraps” of data, I began this process with a general read through of the transcripts looking

for “certain phrases, events, activities, behaviors, ideas, or other phenomena” in the data

(LeCompte & Schensul, 2012, p. 91). To provide meanings to words in the data record, I

followed a sequential analysis process posited by LeCompte and Schensul (2012) that includes:

identifying variables—small bits and pieces of data; sub-factors—groupings of variables as they

emerge in the analysis process; factors—groupings of sub-factors with theory to help explain

patterns and structures; and domains—groupings of factors with how I made sense of the

community of practice of these participants (pp. 93-94).

 12

Variables in the data included Charles, James, and Justin discussing how they engaged in

peer mentoring. As I reviewed the data and made note of variables, I noticed sub-factors that

included “learning to mentor” (LM) which corresponded with “learning from each other” (LEO).

I reviewed the data again and grouped the sub-factors into factors. For example, “learning to

perform jazz” (LPJ) and “learning to mentor jazz” (LMJ) were identified as components of how

Charles, James, and Justin learned to mentor. Finally, I grouped the factors together into

domains, and during this process I identified the following themes: Learning to play jazz, and

mentoring in the jazz ensemble. This process allowed me to “clump individual items at the

concrete level into more abstract statements about the general characteristics of those items as a

group” (LeCompte & Schensul, 2012, pp. 91-92).

As I wrote up each theme in a separate word document, I continued to revise each section

before I merged them into this manuscript. While I did this, I sought both confirming and

disconfirming examples in the data record, and made notes when I considered data to relate to

the research literature. For example, I was able to confirm observations of peer mentoring

episodes with what Charles, James, and Justin recalled in their interviews. A disconfirming

example included my observations of the undergraduate students where they appeared to

understand directives from the graduate students; yet Charles, James, and Justin reported in

interviews of being frustrated at the progress of the undergraduates. I used both confirming and

disconfirming examples in the results section and subsequent discussion to provide a rich portrait

of the peer mentoring in this university jazz ensemble.

Researcher bias

Because the interpretation of the interview data can be threatened by my own

perspectives and beliefs, I kept research memos to keep track of the biases I brought to this study
 13

(Maxwell, 1996). Personal biases included my experiences with learning and teaching jazz

music. For example, I began to improvise in my high school jazz band and continued to learn

and hone my skills through my graduate studies. My experience with teaching jazz ensembles

includes ensembles and improvisation courses at the elementary, secondary, and university

levels. During my journey with learning to improvise I sought out peer mentors to help me

improve my skills, and during my first contracted teaching position I began to implement peer

mentoring among the students I taught. In addition to teaching, I have performed as a jazz

musician in amateur and professional level ensembles. Keeping track of these biases during the

course of this study helped me to reflect on how I learned to play this genre, what I learned from

being mentored by my peers, how I mentored my peers, and how I implemented and maintained

peer mentoring in the ensembles I taught. Further, with these memos I could ask myself

questions about whether I was really “seeing” what was going on during the peer mentoring in

this study and whether I was “mapping” my experiences onto the participants in this study.

Trustworthiness of the final report

In addition to keeping track of the biases I brought to this study, I asked the graduate

students to conduct member checks in which they reviewed an early draft of the entire

manuscript and to verify the accuracy of what they said during the interviews. I incorporated

their comments into the final draft of this manuscript. Further, I asked a colleague who was a

noted qualitative researcher to serve as an external peer auditor to review a draft of this

document.

Results

Peer mentoring in this study comprised a diverse array of experiences for these

participants as they learned to play and teach jazz music, both in their prior learning experiences
 14

and during the course of this study. These findings are discussed as themes under the following

two categories: Learning to mentor in jazz, and mentoring in the jazz ensemble.

Learning to mentor in jazz

So, my middle school and high school years, there were several friends. We would get
together and they would show me things. Not necessarily that I had planned on learning.
There seems to be an element of spontaneity or in the moment, or what the moment calls
for, or what you’re inspired by in the moment, when it comes to these mentoring things.
Charles, guitar

For the participants in this study, learning to mentor in jazz occurred while learning to

perform the music. James and Charles learned a lot about performing from their peers. During

his undergraduate studies, James played in a big band at a school that did not have any jazz

majors. James recalled that, “I did a lot of hanging” and “everyone who wanted to play brought

in information.” After the big band concerts James and his peers would “all hang afterwards and

talk about what they heard and what they would want to change.” James remembered that he

“was the younger, more inexperienced person who was getting information from my peers.”

James recalled one person in particular, who:

Was a guy in the jazz chair who was a great trumpet player. He spent a lot of time after
rehearsals talking with people about how they could better. He knew a lot about it, more
than the people around him, and wanted us all to sound good. He figured out a way to
pass his knowledge on so we could all, kind of, come-up.

Charles, guitar, did not “learn from someone telling me in a classroom” with regards to

playing jazz, and he “transcribed a lot of solos: Bill Evans, Pat Martino, Jim Hall, Les

Montgomery, and it goes on, and Keith Jarett” when he was younger. Charles learned “a lot of

information just by listening to the style, so there’s a lot of things I didn’t learn from someone

telling me.” Charles recalled, “a lot of sharing of information when I was learning my

instrument. Sometimes it was from someone older, sometimes it was someone who had more

knowledge. They could have been younger or older than me, or the same age.” During high
 15

school Charles would jam with his friends in the basement of his house and when his “brother’s

friends would come over they’d play really cool stuff. And, I would say, ‘Can you show that to

me?’” In these jam sessions, Charles never set any goals to learn anything in particular. For

example, “there’s not a pre-determined topic, like, we’re going to play some Led Zeppelin songs.

That’s not specific at all. But then we’d play a Zeppelin tune, and I’d be, like, ‘Oh, show me that

Stairway to Heaven solo.’ I come out of that.”

Unlike Charles and James, Justin’s first experience with learning jazz came from his

piano teacher, the person “who started me in jazz” when Justin was 16 years old. Justin recalled

that his piano teacher was “always focusing on not pushing people too hard, but inspiring them

to want to push. That fine line is very tough to, in practice, achieve.” Justin said that he “knew

nothing about jazz when I started taking with him. When he asked me what jazz I was listening

to in my first lesson, I said Billy Joel.” For Justin, who grew up in a large metropolitan area and

had access to live jazz music, “there wasn’t that much jazz happening around me, but you could

get in the car and go hear whatever you wanted to hear.” Justin reported that he “learned piano a

lot by myself and I didn’t play with tons of groups” but his piano teacher would “call me up on

the gigs with his professional level people and have me come sit in for a tune.” In turn, this

“inspired” Justin to practice more on his own at home.

Despite the advantages reported by James, Charles, and Justin with regards to learning to

mentor from listening to recordings and from their peers, Justin was aware of the frustrations of

learning to play jazz music. Justin stated “in the midst of it, it can be frustrating because you

don’t see progress.” Justin understood “the frustration of young players trying to enact some of

these sort of pretty complicated aspects that’s required in jazz—the harmony, the rhythm, the

different aspects being enacted in real time, in a musical fashion.” As a result, Justin could “see
 16

why people would get frustrated and not want to take the next step because it is so daunting

hearing the best people, like the people on records, how good they are, and then hearing

yourself.” Justin added, “you just have to take it one step at a time and just try to do one thing

really well every day and over the course of time you start doing many things well.”

Mentoring in the jazz ensemble

I think it’s a craft, it’s something you have to just work at and, you know, do the best you
can every day. Mentoring is a controlled conversation. Justin, piano

Charles, James, and Justin used their prior experiences with playing and mentoring jazz

when they began to mentor in the ensemble in this study. When James first played in this jazz

ensemble he considered two options, “put your hands in your ears and play jazz when you had

the opportunity” or “teach people about how everyone can get better.” James chose the latter

option for he would “rather play in a good band.” For James and Justin, learning how to mentor

began with listening to jazz music. For example, Justin would, “listen to recordings of the songs

we play, and when something wasn’t working I had to think about why it wasn’t working and

what could we do about it. It’s tough to convey sometimes, jazz is a tricky thing.” When James

listened to recordings he would try to “get information that historically would have been

expected” for example, “of the drummer in this chart.”

Charles, James, and Justin all realized they needed to mentor the younger students in the

jazz ensemble. The mentoring in this jazz ensemble was informal, and Charles “didn’t prepare a

lesson plan” nor did he “prepare specific things.” For Charles, it “felt more kind of like friendly

help rather than professional coaching.” Charles would listen to recordings and then transfer

what he learned into his mentoring of students in the jazz ensemble. Charles cited Miles Davis’

album “Kind of Blue,” and in particular the song So What as a source of inspiration for listening

and mentoring jazz. Charles stated, “because Jimmy Cobb’s swing is so tight, yet it’s very
 17

understated in the way he comps behind the different soloists, and then Coltrane starts soloing

more actively, and Jimmy Cobb’s response to that is more active.” For Justin, “a lot of mentoring

is non-verbal, at least non-spoken, especially in jazz.”

James viewed his role of mentor as one who could incorporate the ideas of the students.

James said that he had “to work to really create an atmosphere where we’re a team, working to

solve some problem.” He added, “the idea is getting people to chime in about their ideas so you

can hear what they have, and, most importantly, getting people who know what they’re talking

about to speak up.” In turn, this allowed everyone “to hear how their ideas fit with their peers.”

Mentoring occurred during rehearsals. James engaged in mentoring primarily with the

trumpet section and provided directives “when I hear things” and looked for “an opportunity to

speak to them that’s as close as possible to where the mistake happened without interrupting the

rehearsal.” James said, “there’s a small window in which that sort of feedback is going to be

helpful” but “I don’t want to be the guy talking while the director’s trying to say something.”

In addition to mentoring within his section, James occasionally mentored other sections

in the jazz ensemble, such as the rhythm section. According to James:

I often have the rhythm section on my right, and so I’m regularly leaning over and talking
to them about stuff. The drummer and I have been working a lot this past semester on
getting him to read lead trumpet parts, so instead of reading a drum chart he’s reading a
trumpet part; and we’re talking about what these things mean to him in terms of how he
might play. The trumpet chart is the exact opposite of a drum chart. It’s all the places you
shouldn’t play. This gives him an idea about where the holes are that he can fill in.

At times, James also worked with the trombone section. James stated that, “because they’re

young and eager, it’s been a good section to talk to about, you know, what might be phrased

different or how we [trumpets and trombones] can line up, since the brass often have parts

together.”
 18

As James, Charles, and Justin mentored the younger students, they mentored each other

as well. They learned from watching how each other engaged in the peer mentoring process,

particularly with how they addressed musical issues within the jazz ensemble. Justin viewed

Charles, who pursued a masters level degree in music education, as “a teacher” who has “very

specific goals.” Although Justin viewed Charles as “the teacher,” Charles said that he “got a lot

out of working with Justin.” Charles stated, “for sectionals, Justin and I would talk to the other

two members of the rhythm section. And he always had some really nice insights about how to

approach things or how to, you know, tackle a problem.”

James (trumpet) learned from observing Justin (piano) and Charles (guitar) mentor

members of the rhythm section. James considered Justin, “a rhythm section player” to have “a

really different experience from me” as well as Charles, who “has a really different perspective

on what it is to play music, particularly in the big band” for they “had a different role” as rhythm

section members from James. For James, “listening to them, in mentoring other people, and also

talking to them about my own playing, has been really helpful.”

In addition to observing Justin and Charles in the rhythm section, James learned as well

during the mentoring process. He stated, “this is a really cool teamwork experience” because

“the more you talk about jazz, the more you do jazz, the more you get better at it.” With regards

to mentoring, James said, “I think mentoring is actually kind of a selfish. I feel like I learn way

more than the people around me, because the more I say ‘here’s what I think drummers typically

do,’ the more I think ‘wow, I gotta go back and figure out, find a recording that does that.’” As a

result, James finds “myself digging through my record collection a lot more in the last couple

years than I have before because I need to find stuff to illustrate points, or better yet, find things

that showed how I could say it differently, or other ideas to bring forward.” James realized
 19

during this process that “because everybody learns from it different, in that you get different

ways of presenting the same material, that’s more effective.” As a result, James stated that, “I do

more listening now, and more thinking about music than I did in the past.”

Despite learning from each other and from working with the younger students, Charles,

James, and Justin found that mentoring was not always easy. For Justin, his self-perceived lack

of formal training in teaching made it “tough to put in words when something doesn’t feel right”

because “I’m not a music teacher. I haven’t had the training in how to talk descriptively about

grooves and things like that, or feels or articulation.” For these graduate students, frustrations

went beyond their own personal issues with parlaying mentoring directives. Justin stated, “you

can’t unilaterally mentor someone. There has to be desire coming from the other side, from the

mentee, the younger person.” Throughout the course of this study James, Charles, and Justin

were often frustrated with the level of improvement among the younger members of the jazz

ensemble. Justin indicated that, “a lot of people in the band didn’t necessarily care to get much

better or really learn.” He added, “James, and Charles and I got kind of frustrated sometimes

because the commitment wasn’t there, or the time [groove] wasn’t there, or the energy wasn’t

there.” As people who were “serious about jazz,” Justin said that, “it was good that James and

Charles were around because they’re similar in that respect. If they weren’t there, it’d probably

be a lot tougher for me to be in there.”

When Charles worked with the rhythm section in the jazz ensemble, “we examine the

recordings, and we try to learn the same way basically that the jazz greats learned, essentially by

sharing information and listening and observing.” Even with disseminating recordings, Justin

thought that ‘a big problem in listening’ existed in the jazz ensemble and that “most of the kids

don’t listen enough. They just don’t have the aural history. They haven’t put in the time of
 20

listening.” Justin found it difficult to teach students who did not listen to jazz music when he

tried to teach them basic concepts of style. For Justin, “It was really tough to be able to convince

people they were doing things wrong.” For example, Justin experienced frustration when

“teaching the drummer that playing, ‘ching, ching-a-ching, ching-a-ching,’ every beat on the ride

is not a swing pattern because his drum teacher in 8th grade taught him that was a swing pattern.”

Justin said it was difficult to get the undergraduate students to realize what they were doing

wrong, because they did not listen enough to jazz music and that, “it’s tough, because if you

haven’t listened to jazz, you don’t know what things are supposed to sound like.”

Yet, despite issues with a perceived lack of dedication and progress of the undergraduate

students, Justin and James learned from the younger students in the jazz ensemble. For Justin,

mentoring the younger players “put my playing into context” as he “thought back to when I was

that age and how I addressed mistakes in my playing.” From James’s vantage point in the

trumpet section he saw that “there’s mentoring going all the way around in a full circle. Even

Justin and Charles; they’re older people, and they’re getting mentored by younger people who

are tossing new ideas out and giving them new things to think about.”

Discussion

The participants in this study learned to play jazz music and engage in peer mentoring in

informal and formal learning environments. Peer mentoring played an important role in these

prior learning situations for Charles, James, and Justin. According to Dunbar-Hall (2006),

“learners respond to culturally influenced pedagogic settings in proactive and individual ways”

(Dunbar-Hall, 2006, p. 63). In the Dunbar-Hall (2006) study the learners of Balinese music had a

lack of exposure to the music, whereas Charles, James, and Justin had exposure to jazz music.

For example, Charles hung out with friends, who were older and more experienced with jazz, or
 21

who had more knowledge and could help him to improve his performance skills. His desire to

improve began in jazz band rehearsals at his undergraduate institution, where he was mentored

outside of rehearsals by an older, more experienced jazz trumpet player. Justin attended jam

sessions and performances at the encouragement of his private piano teacher. Peer mentoring, a

component of learning and teaching in the historic jazz culture (Goodrich, 2007), provided a

platform for Charles, James, and Justin’s past and current learning and teaching experiences with

jazz music. Peer mentoring in this capacity served as a pedagogical setting referred to by

Dunbar-Hall (2006).

Charles, James, and Justin all had prior musical experiences in which they spent

considerable time listening and emulating their favorite jazz players similar to practices

discussed by Wilf (2010) and Goodrich (2008). Dunbar-Hall (2006) indicated that people learn

by “adapting strategies from their previous musical backgrounds” (p. 63). Although Charles,

James, and Justin had learned how to perform jazz in their past, they drew upon their

performance knowledge into the development of their mentoring of the undergraduate students.

They used their time spent listening and performing jazz as a framework for their teaching, and

during this process they learned from each other with how to teach. For example, James, a

trumpet player, observed how Charles and Justin worked with the undergraduate members of the

rhythm section to help him with his own mentoring of the younger students, both in the rhythm

section and the trumpet section. But, with listening to and modeling recordings—two learning

approaches associated with the historic jazz culture—as one of the primary teaching techniques

during the peer mentoring process for these participants, they held a limited repertoire of

teaching techniques. For example, Justin recounted frustrations when the undergraduate students

did not take listening seriously. According to Bozeman and Feeney (2007), the mentee must
 22

consider the information relevant for the mentoring process to occur. Yet, Charles, James, and

Justin did engage in the peer mentoring process for they possessed greater knowledge of jazz

(Bozeman & Feeney, 2007) and provided advice, support, and knowledge to the undergraduate

students (Colvin & Ashman, 2010).

The peer mentoring in this study was informal, and Charles, James, and Justin engaged in

peer mentoring with each other and the undergraduate students in the jazz ensemble because they

had to. As James recalled, he learned to mentor out of necessity because he simply wanted the

jazz band to perform at a more advanced level. Further, as they mentored each other, not only did

these graduate students advance their own performance level with jazz and ability to teach it

from observing each other, hanging out, and asking questions, they became friends during the

process. This is similar to Swap, Leonard, Shields, and Abrams (2001), in which the

socialization process entails learning via informal means, observation of each other’s teaching,

and reflecting upon their feedback with each other while hanging out. Further, in Madsen (2011)

the social component became the most important part of the mentoring process. The more

Charles, James, and Justin learned from each other, the closer they became in terms of

friendship, which in turn fed back into both their learning and teaching in jazz.

Campbell (2004) stressed the notion that to teach music from different cultures, one must

engage in interactive experiences with the music to be able to teach it. Although Charles, James,

and Justin were not necessarily learning in a manner similar to how jazz musicians learned in the

historic jazz culture (e.g., from a fellow jazz musician in a dance hall), their experiences with

learning to play jazz provided a platform for them to learn how to teach it to the younger, less-

experienced undergraduate students in the ensemble during the year of this study.
 23

Herbst (1997) argued that embedded in a musical style is an approach to teaching it

specific to that particular style. Peer mentoring, a teaching process in the historic jazz culture

(Goodrich, 2008), served as an intrinsic teaching method for the graduate students in this study.

Charles, James, and Justin were able to create a strong connection between how they learned to

play and how they learned to teach. This helped them to avoid what Dunbar-Hall (2006) referred

to as a “disjuncture between learners and musical styles” within a universalist approach (p. 63).

Thus, for these participants, peer mentoring served as a conduit for a continuous process between

learning to play and learning to teach. This is similar to what Dunbar-Hall (2000) discussed in

that “culturally derived perceptions in music” helped to “influence approaches in teaching” (p.

127) For these participants, learning to teach jazz is based upon learning to play jazz. Charles,

James, and Justin did not consider a distinction to exist between these two concepts. The time

spent listening, performing, and teaching jazz were inter-related.

Implications for the profession

Hennessy (2005) cautioned that teachers may not possess the experience nor interest to

be able to incorporate a wide variety of different musical styles in their teaching. The findings

from this particular study, however, suggested that learning to perform a particular musical style

can influence a student’s approach to teaching that style of music. Although this study entailed

peer mentoring in a jazz ensemble, the instructional technique of peer mentoring may provide a

platform in which students could bring their individual strengths with any musical style (e.g.,

zydeco, rock, hip-hop) to an undergraduate music education program. Under the guidance of

music education faculty, students could engage in the peer mentoring process, learn a variety of

approaches to teaching, and contribute their knowledge of a particular style to a variety of

courses in an undergraduate program (e.g., methods courses). With peer mentoring, opportunities
 24

could be created throughout coursework for students to engage in interactive experiences with

music (Campbell, 2004). In turn, students could potentially gain exposure to a wide variety of

styles that can provide a foundation for future teaching experiences in a variety of musical styles.

In addition to undergraduate teacher training, current teachers could provide

opportunities for their students to mentor each other at early stages of musical development. For

example, students in beginning band, who are typically at similar performance levels, could

mentor each other as they learn their new instruments together. Peer mentoring in this

application could extend into students sharing different musical interests and styles with each

other, such as playing the guitar or turntable, instruments used in popular music. Similar to

Charles, James, and Justin, who engaged in mentoring both in and outside of formal school

environments, music teachers could encourage and guide their own students to get together on

their own time and mentor each other. For example, students could engage in low-level

mentoring where they share knowledge with each other about correct fingerings; mid-level

mentoring where a teacher-designated student leader mentors members of their own section; and

high-level mentoring, where a teacher-designated student leader mentors students in other

sections (Goodrich, 2007).

Under the guidance of a music teacher, who can actively promote the mentoring process,

students with similar backgrounds and diversity of musical interests could share their knowledge

with each other and be open to a diversity of approaches that is valued and promoted by both the

students and the teacher. With peer mentoring as the foundational instructional technique for

students sharing knowledge with each other, the levels of musicianship may be elevated and

subsequent ability to perform at a higher level. In turn, students of all performance levels could

be motivated to continue to acquire new knowledge about different styles of music. In this study
 25

Justin was frustrated with the performance level of the jazz ensemble. But, with Charles and

James—peers whom he considered to be of a similar performance level—he realized he could

continue to learn and so he remained a member of the group. Thus, the instructional technique of

peer mentoring may help with retention and provide a platform in which students could bring

their individual strengths with any musical style (e.g., zydeco, rock, hip-hop) or instrument (e.g.,

guitar, laptop, turntable) to a school music program.

 26

References

Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Best practices for enculturation: Collegiality, mentoring, and
structure. New Directions for Higher Education, 1998(101), 87-94.

Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2007). Toward a useful theory of mentoring a conceptual
analysis and critique. Administration & Society, 39(6), 719-739.

Campbell, P.S. (2004). Teaching music globally: Experiencing music, expressing culture. Oxford
University Press.

Colvin, J., & Ashman, M. (2010). Roles, risks, and benefits of peer mentoring relationships in
higher education. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(2), 121-134.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Dunbar-Hall, P. (2006). An investigation of strategies developed by music learners in a cross-

cultural setting. Research Studies in Music Education, 26(1), 63-70.

Dunbar-Hall, P. (2000). Concept or context? Teaching and learning Balinese Gamelan and the
universalist-pluralist debate. Music Education Research, 2(2), 127-139.

Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Longman.

Goodrich, A., Kracht, J., McDonald, J., & Sapp, C. (2014). Comentoring in a university jazz
ensemble. Visions of Research in Music Education, 25, 1-21.

Goodrich, A. (2008). Utilizing elements from the historic jazz culture in a high school setting.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 175(Winter), 11-30.

Goodrich, A. (2007). Peer mentoring in a high school jazz ensemble. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 55(2), 94-104.

Goodrich, A. (2005). Inside a high school jazz band. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Arizona State University, Tempe.

Hennessy, S. (2005). ‘Taiko southwest:’ Developing a ‘new’ musical tradition in English

schools. International Journal of Music Education, 23 (3), 217-226.

Herbst, E. (1997). Voice in Bali: Energies and perceptions in vocal music and dance theater.
Hanover: Wesleyan University Press.

Kelly, K. B. (2013). A new cartography: Learning jazz at the dawn of the 21st century
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
 27

LeCompte, M.D., & Schensul, J.J. (2012). Analysis and interpretation of ethnographic data: A
mixed methods approach (Vol. 5). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

Madsen, C.K. (2011). Music teacher education students as cross-age reading tutors in an after-
school setting, Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20(2), 40-54.

Matsunobu, K. (2011). Spirituality as a universal experience of music: A case study of North

Americans’ approaches to Japanese music, Journal of Research in Music Education, 59
(3), 274-289.

Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.

McCormack, C., & West, D. (2006). Facilitated group mentoring develops key career
competencies for university women: A case study. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 14, 409-431.

Napoles, J. (2008). Relationships among instructor, peer, and self-evaluations of undergraduate

music education majors' micro-teaching experiences. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 56(1), 82-91.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Prouty, K. E. (2008). The “finite” art of improvisation: Pedagogy and power in jazz education.
Critical Studies in Improvisation/Études critiques en improvisation, 4(1).

Schippers, H. (2010). Facing the music: Shaping music education from a global perspective.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001). Using mentoring and storytelling to
transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of management information systems, 18(1),
95-114.

Wilf, E. (2010). Swinging within the iron cage: Modernity, creativity, and embodied practice in
American postsecondary jazz education. American Ethnologist, 37(3), 563-582.