The PPVaT Framework
PPVaT (aka “Pivot”) Explained
Abstract
The Gig Based Learning PPVaT Framework offers a comprehensive, reflective practice model designed specifically for classroom music education. This framework encompasses four interconnected spaces: Pedagogical, Physical, Virtual, and Technological. Starting with pedagogical questions, educators can configure their physical and virtual environments, alongside technological tools, to foster an engaging and productive music learning experience. This article introduces the PPVaT Framework, explores its theoretical underpinnings, and demonstrates its application through practical examples.
Introduction
The integration of technology in education has the potential to transform traditional teaching methods, offering new opportunities and challenges. In music education, the need for a structured, reflective practice framework is paramount to address the evolving music and educational landscape. The Gig Based Learning PPVaT Framework is designed to support music educators in creating dynamic, inclusive, and effective learning environments. This article presents the PPVaT Framework, outlining its four spaces and their theoretical foundations, and provides practical examples to illustrate its application.
Background and Theoretical Foundations: Drawing on Existing Literature
Nair (2009) - "Don't Just Rebuild Schools—Reinvent Them"
Prakash Nair's commentary emphasises the urgent need to rethink the design of educational spaces, moving away from the traditional, industrial-era classroom model towards more dynamic, student-centered environments. Nair advocates for personalised learning communities, ubiquitous technology, outdoor connections, student comfort, and a focus on arts and performance as integral components of modern education.
The PPVaT Framework incorporates these principles by advocating for the thoughtful design of physical spaces (Physical Space) and the integration of technology (Technological Space) to support a holistic learning experience. However, Nair's model primarily focuses on physical and environmental redesign without a detailed recursive process to connect these changes back to pedagogical goals and virtual learning enhancements.
Knock (2012) - "The Built Environment: Creating Innovative Learning Spaces"
Dr Anne Knock discusses the necessity of designing educational spaces that cater to the needs of both students and teachers, reflecting changes in pedagogical practices and the integration of technology. She highlights the transition from traditional classroom layouts to flexible, multi-functional spaces that support inquiry-based learning and collaboration.
The PPVaT Framework builds on Knock's insights by not only emphasising the physical redesign of classrooms but also integrating virtual and technological spaces into a cohesive, reflective practice model. This approach addresses the dynamic interplay between the physical environment and pedagogical aims, ensuring that space design is continually informed by and responsive to educational objectives.
Harris (2010) - "The Place of Virtual, Pedagogic and Physical Space in the 21st Century Classroom"
Dr Stephen Harris's work explores the convergence of digital, pedagogic, and physical spaces to create environments conducive to 21st-century learning. Harris stresses the importance of adapting inherited learning spaces and creating new ones that align with modern pedagogical paradigms. He advocates for professional development to support teachers in shifting their practices to utilise these spaces effectively.
The PPVaT Framework extends Harris's ideas by explicitly incorporating a recursive process that continuously aligns and realigns the pedagogical, physical, virtual, and technological spaces. This iterative process ensures that changes in one area (e.g., physical space redesign) are consistently evaluated and adjusted based on their impact on other areas, promoting a holistic and adaptive learning environment.
Collis (2017) - "The Paradoxical Art of Designing for Emergence"
Stephen Collis examines the role of digital technologies in facilitating emergent, unscripted interactions within educational environments. He underscores the importance of creating flexible learning spaces that can adapt to the needs of students and support self-determination and autonomy. Collis also highlights the necessity of a balanced approach that integrates structure and freedom to foster meaningful learning experiences.
The PPVaT Framework draws from Collis's emphasis on flexibility and emergent design by advocating for the use of virtual tools (Virtual Space) and technological innovations (Technological Space) that enhance student autonomy and engagement. The framework's recursive nature ensures that these tools are continuously evaluated and optimised to support pedagogical goals and adapt to the evolving needs of students.
Identifying Gaps and Limitations
While each of these works offers valuable insights into the design and implementation of modern learning environments, they also present certain limitations that the PPVaT Framework seeks to address:
Lack of Integration: Many existing models focus on individual aspects of learning environments (e.g., physical space, technology) without providing a comprehensive framework that integrates these elements into a cohesive, reflective practice.
Absence of a Recursive Process: Existing models often lack a built-in mechanism for continuous evaluation and adjustment. The PPVaT Framework addresses this gap by incorporating a recursive process that ensures ongoing reflection and adaptation across all four spaces.
Emphasis on Physical Redesign: While physical space redesign is crucial, there is often insufficient emphasis on how these changes interact with pedagogical strategies and virtual tools. The PPVaT Framework ensures that physical space changes are always aligned with pedagogical goals and supported by appropriate virtual and technological tools.
Description of Each Space with Examples
Pedagogical Space
The pedagogical space is the foundational quadrant of the PPVaT Framework, emphasising the necessity of beginning with clear educational objectives. This space prompts educators to interrogate the core aims of their instructional practice. Pedagogical questions serve as the starting points for this reflective process.
The Pedagogical Space in GBL
GBL begins with the assertion that “music is an activity, it’s something people do together for full human flourishing, for the benefit of self and others now and into the future. (adapted from Small, 1990 & Elliott & Silverman, 2015) Elliott and Silverman helped us to develop our understanding of music(k)ing as and for music education. We understand their phrase “in, about and through music” to mean that we learn by doing music, by musicking, and as we're musicking, we have a context to learn about music. Learning about music by being in music. But most importantly, by being in music and learning about it ,we have the opportunity, through music, to, as Freire says, become more fully human.
We also incorporate Lucy Green’s informal learning ideas such as understanding how musicians learn outside of the classroom can guide us inside the classroom and fold in Pamela Burnard’s observations about how technology can be used to foster creativity in music education for teachers and students.
The literature reveals a path to a classroom music education that doesn’t just look to how a particular group of musicians learned in the past tense but remains connected to how musicians across musical praxes are learning (present tense). We believe that as music is not a “unitary art form” but a plurality of musics” (Turino, 2008) that are fluid, a pedagogy informed by, and responsive to how musicians are learning musics and how they engage with technology should also be plural and fluid.
Physical Space
The physical space is designed based on the pedagogical answers derived from the reflective process. This space involves configuring the classroom environment to support the identified pedagogical aims.
Virtual Space
The virtual space extends the learning environment beyond the physical classroom, leveraging digital tools and platforms to facilitate blended learning & asynchronous collaboration. Blended learning approaches integrate online and face-to-face instruction.
Drawing on principles of blended learning and digital pedagogy, this space integrates online and face-to-face instruction to facilitate a cohesive learning experience.
Technological Space
The technological space focuses on the selection and use of musical software and hardware. This space integrates digital tools in ways that are pedagogically informed and relevant to the instructional content.
Recursive Nature of the Framework
The PPVaT Framework is designed to be recursive, meaning that adjustments in one space can have intended and unintended consequences, and unexpected affordances in the others. This iterative process ensures continuous improvement and adaptation of the PPVaT spaces based on ongoing reflection and feedback.
Example Spaces
1 The Base Station
2 The Creation Stations
3 The Jam Rooms
4 The Jam Stations
5 The Stage
6 The Suites
7 The Green Room
Conclusion
The Gig Based Learning PPVaT Framework offers a comprehensive and integrated approach to reflective practice in classroom music education. By considering the interconnectedness of pedagogical, physical, virtual, and technological spaces, educators can create dynamic, inclusive, and effective learning environments. This framework addresses the unique demands of contemporary music education, providing concrete strategies for optimising all aspects of the teaching environment. Future research should explore the implementation and impact of the PPVaT Framework in diverse educational settings, further validating its effectiveness and adaptability.