UDC:159.928.23.072-057.875:786.2
378.147::786.2
COBISS.SR-ID 221746188
Received:12.Nov.2015./
Accepted:05.Feb.2016.
#6
A CASE STUDY OF STUDENT’S PROGRESS IN PIANO PLAYING:
THE ROLE OF TRAINING MODEL IN STUDENT’S EXPERTISE
Maja Marijan
Belgrade Center for Music and Dance, Belgrade (Serbia)
e-mail: majamarijan@bcmd.edu.rs
Belgrade Center for Music and Dance, Belgrade (Serbia)
e-mail: majamarijan@bcmd.edu.rs
|
Acknowledgments: The author wants to thank PhD Blanka Bogunovic for the mentoring the research and for her assistance in the evaluation processes. Furthermore, she wants to thank the other two evaluators, Dr. Maja Rajkovic, and MSc Jelena Dubljevic.
Citation: Marijan, Maja. 2016. "A Case Study of Student’s Progress in Piano Playing: The Role of Training Model in Student’s Expertise." Accelerando: Belgrade Journal of Music and Dance 1:6
|
ABSTRACT
A case study of student’s progress in piano playing was carried out as an empirical research investigating student’s progress in piano performance. The research was outlined as a multiple process carrying out in four stages. This paper discusses the valuation of the training model through the assessment of the student’s level of attainment. The analysis included descriptive statistics for all the variables and correlations between variables and the level of attainment. Factors that influence the student’s progress in piano playing, student’s individual characteristics (traits), and cognitive abilities, were measured objectively and were related to significant aspect of musical behavior. These items were assessed at the commencement of the student’s tuition program and at the cut-off date set for the study period. Findings confirmed that the change of training model had significant impact on the student’s progress in a very short period, in this case three-week research period. Introduction of organized, and intuitive training model influenced cognitive abilities and motor skills, and personality constructs, such as anxiety, motivation, sense of contentment, self-confidence, energy and effort. The difference is large enough to permit the conclusion that the proper training model leads to an important progress in student’s piano playing. Keywords: training model, methodology, cognition, piano performance, evaluation |
Introduction
Main goal of this case study was to prove the following hypothesis: that the employing of a structured, organized and comprehensible methodology in music pedagogy leads to student's progress in short time. In this research we have focused on student’s progress in piano performance.
It is obvious that every teacher has her/his way of teaching. Throughout teaching practice, a teacher develops some kind of scheme, a specific manner which s/he employs on her/his students. That manner often becomes the only possible "method" in the teacher’s pedagogical approach. This leads us to another problem - that is rigid and non-flexible teaching approach unsuitable in a single student-teacher class. This means that after years of pedagogical work, using the same schematic, limited way of teaching, a teacher often refuses to change the fixed "way", or to accept new ideas, or simply s/he cannot comprehend new ideas and embody them in her/his "method". Similarly, it happens to teachers who use some "well-known" or "proven" methods turning them into an evangelistic, enclosed list of rules. There are research papers on students' progress in relation to: teacher-pupil-parent relationship (Davidson et al. 1996; Davidson et al. 1995-1996; Howe and Sloboda 1991a; Howe and Sloboda 1991b; Macmillan 2004; McPherson and Davidson 2002; Mcpherson 2009), students' musical and non-musical abilities (Ericsson and Smith 1991; Levitin 2012; Bogunovic 2008; Sloboda 1990), musical knowledge and skills ( Wolf 1976; Gruson 1978), hours and years of practicing (Chase and Simon 1973; Gruson 1988; Sosniak 1985; Sloboda and Howe 1991; Ericsson et al. 1993; Sloboda et al. 1996), and student’s motivation (Davidson et al. 2009; Bogunovic 2008). In addition, in this research paper we will show that many more factors contribute to students' success besides those factors which mentioned papers investigated and designated as core factors in student’s development. In this empirical research we employed objective, systematic and structured non-experimental research method, and employed a number of assessment tools to provide a mix of qualitative and quantitative data. Assessment techniques employed in this case study were interviews, questionnaires, and three numerical assessment scales (five point list of expressive elements of the performance, 1-5 rating scale for ranking student’s overall attainment, and 1-3 ranking scale to rate possible grade/educational level of the student who was anonymous to evaluators). In this inquiry that investigated student’s progress within its real-life context audio recording of each student-author class was made. In addition, a log-book with a permanent daily record and events during three-week research period was kept by the student. This research was conducted in a three-week period, in the Music School and in the private studio. In the research participated one student, three evaluators, student’s music teacher and the author. Research methodology
This research was organized in four stages. The first stage was exploratory. The second and forth stages were evaluative. The third stage was divided into two parts with the approaches changing from theory-testing to theory- building.
First stage - Evaluation Phase 1
In the first stage were used the interviews, two questionnaires for the student (we call him A. J.), and audio recorder.
Approach. The author have never worked with A.J. before. Therefore, to become familiar with A.J. she subjected her subject to a series of in-depth interviews. The purpose of these interviews were to clear up the A.J.'s understanding of music, his concert-going activities, likes and dislikes, the way how he listens to music, his broad education, and so on. She then gave him two questionnaires. They were used to provide data for the author to learn more precisely A.J.'s experiences. Also A. J. was told to keep a careful log of how he spent his time in a handbook given to him by the author. The first questionnaire the author gave to student was a self-administered type with 44 questions divided in five groups. It was untimed questionnaire (no time limit for answering questions). This questionnaire was used to learn precisely A J’s experiences with music. This questionnaire was structured in five sections, as following:
In this questionnaire A.J. had to describe precisely his organization of practicing,and learning music, as well as how his school teacher usually organizes her class with him. We will demonstrate some of these questions: #Can you describe the way you practice (from the moment you sit down before the piano to the end of practicing session)? #Does music you play summon up some pictures, places, feelings? Describe. #Describe your class - from the beginning you enter the classroom to the end of your class. #How do you memorize the piece you learn? Can you describe the process? #Do you organize music into sections? The second questionnaire was Motivation Questionnaire (MQ) divided in four sections (Energy and Dynamism, Synergy, Intrinsic and Extrinsic) with 34 researcher-administered questions. The Motivation Questionnaire (MQ) comprised of structured questions and was given to student in timed manner (each section was to be done in fifteen minutes). In the first section questions refer to energy and dynamism - where he gets his energy from and what drives him (level of activity, achievement, competition, fear and failure, power, and immersion). In the second part questions refer to synergy: how important environmental comfort factors are to maintaining the student’s motivation (affiliation, recognition, personal principals, personal growth). The third intrinsic section questions refer to student’s motivation to do the job itself: his interest, flexibility and autonomy. Finaly, the fourth extrinsic section refer to the rewards and outcomes which are important to the individual: material reward, progression, and status. From interviews and the questionnaires the author learned the following facts:
In the next step, the author asked A.J. to play the works that he was preparing for the June piano recital exam, so that she could have a closer insight into A.J.'s pianistic abilities. We must noted that this research was conducted a month before the final exam, in May. Therefore the student was working on his recital from September to May (cc. seven months). However, the author recorded A. J.'s performance and made the next step.
Second stage - Evaluation Phase 2
In the second stage called Evaluation Phase 2, author used audio recording of A. J.'s playing before specific training was applied, and the following assessment tools: the five-point list of expressive parameters of the performance, 1-5 rating scale of student’s overall performance impression, 1-3 rating scale of student’s possible grade level, and a Note List for evaluators to note if they had some comments.
The author recorded A. J.'s playing: the A. J.’s performance repertoire included J. S. Bach French Suite no. 6, Czerny's Etude op. 740 no. 6, Beethoven's Sonata op. 79 and Chopin's Prelude op.28. This audio recording was sent to evaluators to rate his playing according to the list of the expressive parameters. In Table 1, we show how evaluators rated A. J.'s playing. This blind procedure was conducted as following: evaluators had to rate from 0 - 5 how they perceive expressive parameters of musical performance by an unknown player, where one has value of very poor, two - poor, three - weak, four - good, and five - very good. |
| THE LIST OF THE EXPRESSIVE ELEMENTS OF THE PERFORMANCE | Valuation scale 0-5 avg. score |
|---|---|
| The playing is fluent and the parts of musical form are easily recognizable | 2.25 |
| Proper use of Tempo | 2 |
| Sections are defined (difference between I and II theme) | 2 |
| Technical control | 1.5 |
| Dynamics is applied | 2.25 |
| Rhythm is correct | 3.75 |
| Meter is correct and recognizable | 3.75 |
| Phrasing is correct and could be observed | 2 |
| The style of the composer can be recognized | 2.50 |
| It can be recognized the culmination of the entire form | 2.25 |
| The quality of the player's sound | 1.75 |
| Articulation is implied | 2.25 |
|
In Chart 1, we show the result of the evaluated performance.
|
Chart 1. In the Chart 1 the rating from the 5 point expressive list is shown. We can compare how each valuator rated A.J.'s performance. The author was the 1st evaluator, the 2nd was university piano professor, the 3rd was a musician and psychologist and the 4th was a music theory university teacher. From this Chart we can see that evaluators perceived rhythm and meter good to very good, technique control very poor, and parameters which refers to expressiveness very poor to weak.
|
|
The evaluators had to evaluate A.J.'s grade (educational) level: from his playing they had to conclude if he was a student of Elementary Music School, a student of Music High School, or a student at the University. Table 2 shows evaluation of the grade level of the performer. All the evaluators rated A.J. as the student of an Elementary Music School, with two of them being uncertain between elementary and high school for the reason of compositions he played, which are intended for the student of High School according to educational plan and program, which they commented about in the Note List.
|
| EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF THE STUDENT | RATE |
|---|---|
| primary school | x,x,x,x |
| secondary (high) school | (x, x) |
| university level |
|
Finally, The Total Impression Gradin Table (Table 3) shows the final score for A.J.'s playing:
|
| TOTAL IMPRESSION | SCORES very poor (1), poor (2), weak (3), good (4), excellent (5) |
|---|---|
| first evaluator | 2 |
| second evaluator | 2 |
| third evaluator | 3 |
| fourth evaluator | 2 |
|
The average score of the evaluation of the total impression equalizes with the A. J.’s school grade (Table 4): A.J. was graded with 2 (poor) for his piano playing at the Music School he attended.
|
| TOTAL AVERAGE SCORE | 2.3 |
|---|---|
| AVERAGE SCORE IN THE SCHOOL | 2 |
THIRD STAGE A - CONCEPTION OF THE TRAINING MODEL
During the first two research stages which we called Evaluation Phase 1 and Evaluation Phase 2 we examined A.J.'s abilities and graded student on the basis of his overall attainment, which encompasses technical ability, musicality, and general musicianship. These items were assessed before the commencement of the student’s tuition program. Afterwards, the author proceeded to organize the special form of training which will help student to progress in a short period of time (three-week period). To organize this training, author made a methodology on which she would base her training model.
Methodology is a well organized structure of principles on which teacher builds up his/her instructional model. Its fundamental principles are building upon reversible communication between the student and the teacher. It has to take into consideration all the factors that influence the student’s development with learning the piano: psychological, physiological, sociological factors as well as philosophical principles such as ethics, aesthetics, and logic. In Figure 1 we show how our methodology was comprised: |
Figure 1. Conception of the methodology.
|
From the Figure 1 we can see that the main goal of the piano teaching methodology is to find a proper path to enable student for making expert performance, in other words, to make him an expert performer. Teacher has important role in the introducing composition to student in a logical and comprehensible form. His/her main goal must be to make a student capable of learning a composition independently, unaccompanied by the teacher at the end of the course. Therefore the scheme would be:
The best training models relay on logic, dialectics, straightforward and clear ideas - examples of "the methods" of great Russian and German schools: Hofmann, Neuhaus, Leimer and Gieseking, Liberman and Leschtizky (Gieseking and Leimer 1972; Neigauz 2005; Liberman 2001; Lhevinne 1982; Hofmann 1920; Breé, 1997). Teaching model must be flexible, not presented in a closed form. It must be properly adjusted to student's psychological and physiological abilities and should always treat musical abilities and technical skills equally important. Every student has his own pros and cons, and in that sense, training model have to be adjusted to student, helping him to develop his weak side, and strengthen his abilities. There are modern neuroscientifical researches and studies of the genetics of music that can help identifying student's abilities and aptitudes, and find students with potentials in specific areas of musical endeavor, therefore to help teachers to create special instructional models based on the given knowledge (Levitin 2012). However, to reach the goal, i.e. to create an expert performer by creating a proper teaching model is not enough. It depends mainly on student's inner motivation, abilities, cognitive functions, physiological proficiency, will, concentration on practice (Howe et al., 1998) as well as non-musical genetic factors (general cognitive and physical) such as goal directness, seriousness, single mindedness and conscientiousness (Levitin 2012; Kalbfleisch 2004; Ericsson and Smith 1991). A number of researches have found out that musical ability is not genetically determined but can be improved through practice and training (Ericsson and Lehman 1997). In addition, a student’s effort as well as communication between teachers and parents were found to be of paramount importance (Sloboda and Howe 1991). Regular exchanges of feedback between parents and teacher are found to be of great importance because they should minimize the danger of misinterpretation and allow the student to thrive in his or her development. (Sloboda and Howe 1991; Davidson et al. 1995-6). Third stage B - application of training model
In the second part of the third stage there were used audio recorder, author's booklet for piano technique and music scores. Author's training model was developed after she had analyzed A.J.'s answers from the questionnaires, his log-book and heard him play. In addition, it took into consideration rated scores from the evaluators, particularly an average score that he got for his performance. The duration of each training session was about two hours every second day during three-week research period.
Author's training model is intuitive and flexible. It was developed through two modes. The first mode was concentrated on the basic music terminology, theory, and development of piano technique. This mode consisted of four parts:
To develop A.J.'s piano technique, author made a special booklet with photos of correct postures of player's body and hands and deliberate examples for practicing the fingers and hand. In the second part, she applied basic music terminology because she learned that A.J. was totally confused about it and was incapable to explain the basic musical terms, although he has been learning music for about seven years in the Music School. The third part referred to harmony and contrapunctal exercises, through perception, memorization and reproduction aurally as well as trough playing. That way would help A.J. to memorize and consciously approach to repertoire he played. And finally, the fourth part delivered discussion of musical styles which would help A.J. to properly distinct Bach from Chopin, Chopin from Beethoven, etc, and develop critical approach to each composer and for the special "touch" for each composer. The main idea of the training model was to organize ideas and thus to form the structures of the knowledge of the musical elements and expressive parameters in A.J.'s mental space trough clear explanation of musical elements, perception, memorization, recognition and reproduction (singing and/or playing). To control the efficiency of the model, author employed a special test which was made to examine improvements of A.J.'s psychological (cognitive), and physiological abilities, level of motivation, and level of musical knowledge throughout the training session. The test was performed at the beginning of each training session, employed auditory skills, motor skills, and cognitive functions such as perception, memorization, recognition and reproduction:
Second mode deals with the A. J.'s piano repertoire. Here, the knowledge from the first mode was applied. The author used several training methods: Imitation, Student's attempts, Playing solo, Playing in duet, Conducting, Valuation of expressive means, and Imagination.
In Imitation the author would play a short phrase from the composition with special touch, dynamics, articulation and movement, and student had to imitate what he heard and saw in the same way. Therefore, student's attention and technique were practiced. Also, the same phrase was played in different manners, so the student was trained to use different kinds of touch. Author had to put A.J. to solve the problems by his own. Sometimes, the student had to work alone without teacher's help. Therefore, author applied method which she called Student's attempts in order to articulate A.J.'s intuition and knowledge. A.J. would try several times to solve the problem and sometimes he would succeed, sometimes he would fail. If he failed then the author would help him. The author would use this method particularly where the repetitions occurred, in Sonata form or Rondo. For example, author would explain in details to A.J. the phrasing, dynamics and articulation of one section. A.J. would learn that section. Then, author would ask A.J. to find the same section or in the form of variation, to explain it and to play it. This way, author controlled how much A.J. has learned and how he would apply that knowledge. Playing solo method was in the form of small concerts where student played whole compositions without interruption. Here A.J. was trained in concentration, his strength was testing as well as amount of music memorized. Also, the author would play the whole piece for A.J. usually one or two times. Playing in duet was quite interesting method. Author would play left hand, and A.J. right or vice versa, or both of them would play the same hand. If the composition had several voices, then author would play one voice and the student the other, or student would play alone two voices in the four voice part section. Conducting was the most important part of the training session. Here, A.J. was trained to conduct with one hand and to play with another or to sing and conduct or to do parlato and conduct. This was practiced in different tempi. To develop critical thinking author applied a method of Valuation of expressive means. There were two kinds of approach: author would play in several ways the same phrase with articulation, phrasing, proper use of pedal, and dynamics that fit or do not fit the character of the music. The A.J.'s task was to valuate if the expressive parameters are used properly or not. The other kind of approach to this method was following: A.J. had to play certain part of the composition or small phrase and then to valuate his playing, to say if it was expressive and if not to try to correct himself. Also, if the section was larger, then A.J. had to record himself, to listen the recording and to correct his playing. Imagination referred to auditory and motor imagery (Zatorre and Halpern 2005) in A.J.'s mental space. The method was used in several occasions: before starting to play A.J.had to "hear" the music in his head in advance in order to organize the quality of the sound, dynamics and articulation, and to organize tempi of the sections in the composition. The purpose of this "mental practice" was to practice "in the head" out of the training session. These methods were employed sometimes in combinations, and sometimes separately, optionally. To express his thoughts, the author marked them in the scores and never used a notebook. The very first training sessions were mostly concentrated on developing piano technique and the small portion of repertoire was used, so the student could gain the control over his movements and thus be able to perform afterwards. As the training sessions were approaching the end, they were directed towards organization of the interpretation. In Table 5 we show how the training sessions were organized: |
| TRAINING MODEL | FIRST WEEK | SECOND WEEK | THIRD WEEK | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MODE I | 60% | 40% | 10% | 110% |
| MODE II | 30% | 50% | 80% | 160% |
| TEST | 10% | 10% | 10% | 30% |
|
At the end of the training session, the author recorded A.J.'s final performance, and sent the audio recording to evaluators.
|
Fourth stage - Evaluation Phase 3
In this stage were used audio recording, Five - Point Expressive List (Table 6), 1-5 ranking scale of overall impression and Grade Level Scale.
|
| THE LIST OF THE EXPRESSIVE ELEMENTS OF THE PERFORMANCE | Valuation scale 0-5 avg. score |
|---|---|
| The playing is fluent and the parts of musical form are easily recognizable | 4.75 |
| Proper use of Tempo | 4 |
| Sections are defined (difference between I and II theme) | 4 |
| Technical control | 3.75 |
| Dynamics is applied | 4.25 |
| Rhythm is correct | 4.75 |
| Meter is correct and recognizable | 4.75 |
| Phrasing is correct and could be observed | 4.75 |
| The style of the composer can be recognized | 4.75 |
| It can be recognized the culmination of the entire form | 4 |
| The quality of the player's sound | 4 |
| Articulation is implied | 4.75 |
|
In Chart 2 we will see how four evaluators valuated the final A.J.'s performance, according to the Five Point Expressive List.:
|
Chart 2. The Five Point Expressive List results shown on the chart.
|
Now, we show in Table 7, how the evaluators assessed the A.J.'s grade level:
|
| EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF THE STUDENT | RATE |
|---|---|
| primary school | |
| secondary (high) school | x,x,x,x |
| university level |
|
In Table 8, we show the overall impression of the student's performance:
|
| TOTAL IMPRESSION | SCORES very poor (1), poor (2), weak (3), good (4), excellent (5) |
|---|---|
| first evaluator | 4 |
| second evaluator | 4 |
| third evaluator | 4 |
| fourth evaluator | 4 |
|
In Table 9, we compare average scores A. J. got from the evaluators in the end of tuition period (three-week research period) and the grade he got for his final performance exam which was held immediately after the end of the research session in A. J.’s Music School:
|
| TOTAL AVERAGE SCORE | 4 |
|---|---|
| FINAL SCORE IN THE SCHOOL | 5 |
|
As we can see, the total average score was raised from 2.3 that A. J. got for his piano playing at the commencement of the research (before training) to 4 in the end of the three-week training session. However, in the school there was a considerable difference - the score was raised from 2 to 5. We must mention that in Music School A. J. performed a week after the end of the research session, before an examination panel consisted of four piano teachers.
|
repeated RESEARCH
In the repeated research, which was held after two years, the author had the session with the same pupil for another three-week period. Note that the Author has not worked with A. J. during these two years.
In this stage, A. J. was in the High Music School (Grade Four) and he was preparing for his graduation exam. He was graded mark 2 for his final exam in the Music School. After three-week session during which the author repeated her training model and worked intensively with A. J. he was graded excellent on his graduation exam. He gained energy again and after working three more days with the author he managed to enroll at the University of Arts, School of Music, piano department. It had never happened before that the student who never went to the competition and with poor grades from music school succeeded to enroll at the Academy of Music. Furthermore, the opinions from the members of commission board of his playing at the entrance examination were very satisfactory. |
Conclusion
In this case study on pupil’s progress in piano playing the author has shown that:
We can say that case study can tell us certain important things that other approaches cannot. The opportunity to examine certain kinds of musical phenomena in depth enables us to advance greatly our empirical understanding of the factors which influence pupil’s development and play a critical role in the acquisition of musical expertise. |
References
|
