Where environment and intention intersect in intergenerational music making

Kirstin Anderson | Lee Willingham

A sense of the key qualities and leadership approaches necessary for those teaching, facilitating, or working across varied music settings has become a pressing concern in recent dialogue among community musicians and music educators. This article examines how participatory music making is facilitated in diverse contexts, with special attention to carceral environments where traditional notions of community music, such as hospitality, must confront the realities of institutional power. Consideration is given to the settings in which participatory music takes place, the motivating strategies that sustain the work through principles of inclusion and welcome, and the varied participants who take part in the process.

The first author has spent more than seventeen years teaching music in community centres, schools, universities, and prisons, and now serves as a lecturer in Criminal Justice. The second author has taught at secondary and tertiary levels for decades in music education, choral music, and community music and has been a professor in music education and music leadership for the past fifteen years.

Guiding questions shape the exploration: where are we working, which speaks to context; who are we working with, which addresses people and community; and given answer to those first two, how do we do it, which concerns strategy. These framing questions help locate common features of music making across different settings while also pointing to what distinguishes each context.

Context: where music-making happens

Community music as a practice has drawn increasing academic interest, supported by degree programmes and funded research initiatives. Grounded in principles that prioritise participation, accessibility, diversity, lifelong learning, and informal and nonformal pedagogies, community music offers people of all ages and abilities the chance to deepen their musical engagement. The belief that music instruction must start early, before a supposed window of opportunity closes, is contradicted by the success many adults experience in intentional, nonformal, and semi-structured community settings.

Pedagogical approaches for classroom and studio contexts largely focus on childhood and youth. An increasingly healthy and ageing population, however, seeks meaning and enrichment in later life. Post-career and retired individuals often find opportunities to make music with much younger participants across a broad spectrum of experience and skill. This trend appears in prison music projects too, where participants frequently report having had little or no prior involvement with music in their communities outside prison.

Although community music practices in prison and in non-incarcerated community spaces overlap significantly, carceral settings introduce distinct challenges around power dynamics. Recent research suggests that hospitality practices in prison community music can be "disruptive" and "extremely challenging" to sustain. Hospitality, one study argues, "interrupts ourselves and disrupts our social settings" — a disruption necessary for participants to envision something different.

The fact that music making in prisons is described as disruptive or challenging merits attention, as research on community music in prisons has a history of "over positivity" owing to the evaluation culture of arts programmes, a culture embedded in criminal justice's "what works" agenda.

Principles and practices of community music can also enrich formal education and any diverse setting where people and music gather. The approaches outlined here are adaptable to faith-based groups, seniors' communities, youth centres, schools, prisons, and beyond.

People and community: who participates

How best to facilitate music making in intergenerational and diverse settings remains a central question. Relying on principles of instructional intelligence, facilitators draw on a range of models — from direct instruction and guided discovery to free creative exploration — all dependent on the facilitator's expertise and reflexivity in managing the learning environment.

In intergenerational contexts learners span a wide spectrum. Most educational approaches target young learners, but older participants, living longer and experiencing many life changes, demonstrate broader and more varied interests. Formal instructional approaches typical of school music can apply to ageing populations, yet constructivist models that promote informal and nonformal learning may prove even more effective because they encourage multiple dimensions of understanding and skill development.

For music practitioners working in prison settings, flexibility and creativity in session structure and delivery are also essential. Prison populations often overrepresent people with mental illness, low literacy skills, and histories of abuse and trauma. Yet arts practitioners equally observe individuals reawakening musical skills they developed before incarceration and others who continue as experienced musicians.

Community music principles of lifelong learning and intergenerational experience open space for different ages, cultural backgrounds, and ability levels, enhancing lives within community. Each community is unique, with its own history, cultural practices, language, songs, and aspirations.

Theories that guide practice

Informal and nonformal learning are terms that carry specific meanings in community music research. Informal learning can take place "anywhere, in any order, with or without sequence, agency or guidance". It accounts for essentially all lifelong skill and knowledge acquisition. Informal learning "is nothing new; it is almost older than formal learning". Often social in nature, it provides the setting in which community music facilitates skill building and creative practice.

Nonformal learning is intentional but does not necessarily follow an organised curriculum. The learner seeks a skill but does not enrol in a course or submit to evaluation. Instead, the learner turns to a facilitator in a community music setting. Because social interaction is critical to cognitive development, nonformal learning connects naturally to community music practice. Unlike formal instruction, nonformal learning is voluntary: the learner pursues a planned outcome without required assignments or formal assessment.

These experiential, hands-on approaches find a theoretical home in constructivism. Constructivism holds that knowledge is temporary, developmental, socially and culturally mediated, and non-objective. Meaning is constructed from prior experiences, interests, social connections, and context. Relationships provide the foundation for growth; diversity offers complexity and multiple perspectives that extend human possibilities.

Constructivist approaches apply to participants and facilitators alike. Adults learn through constructing meaning, which demands both participation and reflection. Facilitators acquire knowledge and skill while leading, meaning they practice meaning making and experiential knowledge building. Leadership can flatten traditional hierarchical roles — any participant in a community music workshop can take on leadership tasks.

An example is the song-sharing workshop. The facilitator invites someone to share a song meaningful to them. The participant sings it; the facilitator asks that person to teach the song to the entire group. Leadership shifts to the participant, who holds the group's attention and guides full participation. The process may end there, or the participant may be asked to refine, revise, or amplify the song. New meaning is made; authority is shared.

These pedagogical models are not rules to follow robotically. Flexibility and adaptability build individual and group success, and the facilitator's skill contributes to the overall experience. In a prison context, engagement with the arts can "challenge the one-dimensional 'prisoner' view of identity by creating pathways for development and change".

The interplay of human agency and social structure means that action reproduces or subverts social norms, and can enhance quality of life. Building social capital requires focusing on assets and gifts rather than deficiencies. Social capital in community is "the quality of relationships, the cohesion that exists among its citizens". With an eye to social and cultural capital, we now turn to facilitation strategies that engage participants across settings.

Strategies: methods for success

Music settings that include multiple ages, experience levels, confidence, and ability pose challenges for facilitators as well as participants. Competent facilitators have developed adaptable tools, including:

• instructional tactics — simple structures, graphic organisers, mind maps
• instructional skills — checking for understanding, processing time, modelling, framing questions
• instructional organisers — frameworks such as Bloom's taxonomy or Gardner's multiple intelligences used in overall planning
• group management skills — navigating personalities, building inclusive and safe spaces for all participants, confident or vulnerable.

Community music facilitation also benefits from the classic teaching cycle: plan, implement, reflect, revise, refine, re-implement, assess outcomes, evaluate results, then repeat. These steps occur simultaneously with delivery, echoing Donald Schön's notion of reflecting in action — a two-step process in one. Metacognitive approaches that mean thinking about the thinking underlying practice offer pause amid the rush of constant activity, where reflection and evaluation are often neglected.

Facilitation is nuanced and personal. Three essential questions enable action: Where am I? Who am I with? What am I good at? Demanding for its consideration, these anchor and orient practice.

"Where am I?" asks for an understanding of the specific location. Room layout, local traditions, stories that define the context, protocols the leader must honour or respect— all matter. Is this a place ready for radical change? Can boundaries be pushed creatively?

"Who am I with?" demands knowledge of the incoming participants. What do they bring? What barriers or anxieties might they have? What background, identity, and personal history do they carry? Understanding their unique path and what they have to give changes the expectation for readiness. Rather than meeting random groups on that first exploration skill-wise, facilitators tune toward those who appeared with explicit invitations or unspoken longings

.

Whether in schools, retirement homes studios confinement regular joint generation sites appropriate value builds exactly where culture humility flexibility together mean forward movement.

Direct, well-timed facilitating lifts participants not instructors mastery — necessarily. Pride plus pleasure extend everyone continuously anywhere supportive rhythm well anchored tradition communal. Reflex listening final grace provider group develops under often underestimated noticing courage refines effort and. Meaning realized reaching relationships brings total outcome visible — that qualifies facilit success.

- understand their age range - know what they’ve done recently and with whom - learn their aspirations and goals - understand why they invited you - decide whether to be cautious or bold

Ultimately this requires knowing what each facilitator is good at — a form of self-knowledge that is essential for authentic, effective practice. No two practitioners are identical, yet many professional development programmes import “expert” methods that have been polished to fit one personality. The real skill lies in identifying which areas of strength are worth developing.

When participants encounter unfamiliar or challenging ideas, they either fit new information into existing frameworks or create entirely new rules. The following concepts, borrowed from formal education, can help facilitators gauge engagement:

• Transmissive instruction (detailed sequential instructions)

• Guided discovery (basic instructions, learner‑driven process)

• Exploration and discovery (experiment)

• Collaborative learning (working with another)

• Engaged (motivated with clear goals)

• Narrative and dialogue as meaning constructors (tracking one’s journey through reflection and focused discussion).

These categories derive from Mosston’s (1992) spectrum of instruction, which ranges from command to independent learning. In a community music setting, transmissive instruction might include precise directives such as “do this,” “do something like this,” or “do something very different.” Even with clear guidance, the participant remains a co‑creator. Modelling the process — showing it, doing it for the group — also qualifies as transmissive.

Guided discovery means the facilitator provides clear parameters while gently nudging the learner. For instance, a melody may emerge from exploration on a pentatonic scale; the facilitator might say, “I wonder what it would sound like if this note were up here?” The participant can try the suggestion or return to the original. Trust and common purpose must be present to stop guided discovery from becoming directive.

Exploration and discovery typically occurs in collaborative learning groups where a few participants experiment with ideas and creative processes. Little intervention is needed because discovery belongs entirely to the explorer. Though it is often less time‑efficient, this model encourages blue‑sky brainstorming and eventual consensus.

Engaged is not an instructional model but a measurable quality essential for success. An engaged participant is invested and willing to take risks. In nonformal, constructivist contexts, motivation tends to be intrinsic — the value lies in the doing and in the relationships formed.

Narrative and dialogue as meaning constructors allow meaning to emerge through discourse and reflection. Facilitators are urged to think within and through the music, guided by principles such as inclusivity, hospitality, lifelong learning, wholeness, activism, and social justice. They ask: How can music enhance lives? How does it foster social cohesion? What benefits extend beyond the participant group?

[CITE]

For community musicians, instructional intelligence draws from Phil Mullen’s adaptation of John Townsend’s “facilitation rainbow” (Veblen 2009). This sequence of strategies overlaps with Mosston’s models while more sharply defining facilitation roles. A brief overview follows:

- Presenting (contextualizing with examples): The facilitator sets a conceptual frame that places the experience in context. - Demonstrating / modelling (showing what could happen). - Instructing / transmitting information (clear direction on what to do): Precise instructions are given. - Coaching – guide by side (offering support as needed): The facilitator scaffolds, redirects, and supplies missing ideas. - Socratic direction – probing directed questions (checking understanding): Informal diagnostics determine if everyone is on board. - Facilitating – enabling process (scaffolding and lubricating): Similar to coaching but less directive, creating room for participants to reach their potential with ease (“facile” in French means easy). - Stimulus provider – re‑directing (rescue, focusing, reframing): Intervenes when the group is stuck. - Guardian of the process (present but not directly involved): The facilitator stands nearby without intentional action.

A brief scenario illustrates these tactics: a circle includes children, parents, and grandparents. The facilitator sings a lively song while everyone claps the beat (presenting/demonstrating). Participants then repeat the first line of the song line by line (socratic direction). After learning the song together, they are told, “Get into groups of 4 — make sure each has one child — and create words for a new verse about nature. You have 10 minutes!” (instructing). The facilitator visits each group with encouragement and ideas (coaching), then remains present but only intervenes for inspiration (facilitation). One group is stuck; the facilitator comments, “I heard you say this, I wonder if you could try another direction?” (stimulus provider). As the process unfolds, the facilitator stands aside and observes (guardian of the process).

### Discussion Earlier it was noted that relational patterns form the foundation of human growth. Music-making is an act of hospitality (Higgins 2012), signifying that we value human connections. [] As Lambert et al. (1995) state, relationships — or their lack — are decisive factors in institutional success or failure. Community music making depends on interaction; risks are taken when trust and safety are present, and creativity thrives without threat or vulnerability. Greene (1995: 4) writes that “the arts provide new perspectives on the lived world.” Sometimes the most valuable outcome is the quality of the working relationships fostered.

Research shows that participatory music-making succeeds through engagement and flow, social affirmation (giving and receiving), opportunities for collaboration, joy in the experience, and evidence of learning (Higgins and Willingham 2017). Facilitators and participants co‑create experientially based knowledge within informal or nonformal frameworks. Lucy Green (2002) describes this learning as personal and often haphazard. Friendships and social interaction reinforce the experience, making participatory music-making particularly powerful for children, youth, adults, and elders separately or together.

Reflecting on where, who, and how, we come back to the welcome: participants decide whether to commit based on that invitation. Inclusion and belonging are paramount. Peter Block (2018: xvii–xviii) distinguishes two meanings of “belonging” — being part of something and longing to participate. [] Belonging and inclusion are key ingredients for engagement, social affirmation, receiving from the group, and contributing personally.

### Conclusion Models of musical intervention have been described that create space for lifelong skill acquisition in participatory settings. We have addressed where it happens (contexts), how it happens (intentions and motivations), and who participates (individual perspectives), with examples from incarcerated settings, community programmes, and formal classrooms. Developing lifelong skills requires knowledgeable mentor–teacher–facilitators who possess deep, flexible musicianship along with a wide range of instructional tools to sustain the process. Constructivist approaches that invite informal and nonformal learning environments enable participants to discover, explore, and grow in their musical abilities and interests. We are reminded of the ISME Community Music Activities Commission’s mandate: everyone has the right and ability to make, create, and enjoy their own music. Music-making belongs at all ages, all levels of society, and in diverse environments.