A natureza do feedback no ensino e na aprendizagem de piano com o uso de tecnologia digital no ensino superior

Luciana Hamond; Evangelos Himonides; Graham Welch

doi:10.5965/2525530406012021e0011

Autores

Luciana Hamond Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (UFMT) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5345-3802
Evangelos Himonides UCL Institute of Education https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8749-0799
Graham Welch UCL Institute of Education https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2258-8039

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5965/2525530406012021e0011

Palavras-chave:

tecnologia digital, aprendizagem aumentada, ensino de piano, educação musical, Piano roll, DAW software

Resumo

O objetivo da presente pesquisa foi investigar a natureza do feedback quando um sistema de tecnologia digital foi aplicado em aulas de piano com três duplas de professores e alunos no ensino superior no Brasil. Os dados foram coletados por meio de observações de aulas registradas em vídeo, entrevistas com os participantes e também dados relacionados ao uso de uma tecnologia específica. Uma análise temática dos dados resultantes sugere que os participantes usaram feedback verbal e feedback não verbal em três áreas de foco da aula: música (partitura), performance (por exemplo, dinâmica, articulação) e tecnologia (parâmetros de Musical Instrument Digital Interface [MIDI]). A aplicação da tecnologia permitiu que o foco da aula ficasse mais claro, tornando os alunos mais conscientes de suas performances e de seus processos de aprendizagem. Os dados sugerem que o engajamento com a tecnologia variou nos três casos observados. O uso do feedback mediado pela tecnologia parece ter benefícios; isso pode, por sua vez, otimizar as abordagens pedagógicas mais tradicionais no ensino e aprendizagem de piano no ensino superior e também enriquecer o estudo individual.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

ACITORES, A. P. Towards a theory of proprioception as a bodily basis for consciousness in music. In: CLARKE, D; CLARKE, E. (ed.). Music and consciousness: philosophical,psychological, and cultural perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 215-231.

BANTON, L. J. The role of visual and auditory feedback during the sight-reading of music. Psychology of Music, v. 23, n. 1, p. 3-16, 1995.

BAUTISTA, A.; ECHEVERRÍA, M. D. P. P.; POZO, J. I.; BRIZUELA, B. M. Piano students’ conceptions of musical scores as external representations: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Research in Music Education, v. 57, n. 3, p. 181-202, 2009.

BENSON, C.; FUNG, C. V. Comparisons of teacher and student behaviors in private piano lessons in China and the United States. International Journal of Music Education, v. 23, n. 1, p. 63-72, 2005.

BERA. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. London: British Educational Research Association. 2011. Disponível em: https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchersresources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2011. Acesso em: 23 ago. 2016.

BERNAYS, M.; TRAUBE, C. Investigating pianists’ individuality in the performance of five timbral nuances through patterns of articulation, touch, dynamics, and pedaling. Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, n. 157, p. 1-19, 2014.

BISHOP, L.; GOEBL, W. When they listen and when they watch: Pianists’ use of nonverbal audio and visual cues during duet performance. Musicae Scientiae, v. 19, n. 1, p. 84-110, 2015.

BISHOP, L.; GOEBL, W. Communication for coordination: Gesture kinematics and conventionality affect synchronization success in Piano Duos. Psychological Research, v. 82, n. 6, p. 1177-1194, 2018.

BOUD, D.; MOLLOY, E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, v. 38, n. 6, p. 698-712, 2013.

BRAA, K.; VIDGEN, R. Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: A framework for in-context information system research. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, v. 9, n. 1, p. 25-47, 1999.

BRANDMEYER, A. Real-time visual feedback in music pedagogy: Do different visual representations have different effects on learning? Dissertation (M.Sc.) – Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 2006.

BRAUN, V.; CLARKE, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, v. 3, n. 2, p. 77-101, 2008.

BRESIN, R.; BATTEL, G. U. Articulation strategies in expressive piano performance analysis of legato, staccato, and repeated notes in performances of the Andante Movement of Mozart’s Sonata in G major (K 545). Journal of New Music Research, v. 29, n. 3, p. 211-224, 2000.

BROWN, R. M.; PALMER, C. Auditory-motor learning influences auditory memory for music. Memory & Cognition, v. 40, n. 4, p. 567-578, 2012.

BRYAN, D. M. Student teacher interaction in one-to-one piano lesson’. Thesis (Ph.D) – University of Sheffield, Sheffield, 2004.

BURWELL, K. Instrumental teaching and learning in higher education. Canterbury, UK: University of Kent, 2010. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.

CAREY, G.; GRANT, C. Teachers of instruments, or teachers as instruments? From transfer to transformative approaches to one-to-one pedagogy. In: INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR OF THE ISME COMMISSION ON THE EDUCATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL

MUSIC, 20., 2014, Belo Horizonte. Proceedings [...]. Belo Horizonte: International Society for Music Education (ISME), 2014. p. 42-53. Disponível em: https://www.isme.org/sites/default/files/documents/proceedings/2014-CEPROM-Proceedings.pdf. Acesso em: 3 nov. 2020.

CAREY, G.; GRANT, C. Peer assisted reflection in studio music teaching. In: KLOPPER, C.; DREW, S. (ed.). Teaching for learning and learning for teaching: cases in context of peer review of teaching in higher education. Rotterdam: Sense, 2015. p. 63-78.

CHAFFIN, R.; IMREH, G. Practicing perfection: piano performance as expert memory. Psychological Science, v. 13, n. 4, p. 342-349, 2002.

CREECH, A. Interpersonal behaviour in one-to-one instrumental lessons: An observational analysis. British Journal of Music Education, v. 29, n. 3, p. 387-407, 2012.

CREECH, A.; GAUNT, H. The changing face of individual instrumental tuition: Value, purpose and potential. In: MCPHERSON, G.; WELCH, G. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Music Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 694-711. v. 1.

DAMÁSIO, A. The feeling of what happens: body and emotion in the making of consciousness. London: Heinemann, 2000.

DAMÁSIO, A. Self comes to mind: constructing the conscious brain. London: Vintage, 2012.

DANIEL, R. Self-assessment in performance. British Journal of Music Education, v. 18, n. 3, p. 215-226, 2001.

FERRELL, G.; GRAY, L. Feedback and feed forward: Using technology to support students’ progression over time. Jisc Guide, 4 Dec. 2013 (Updated: 7 March 2016). Disponível em: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/feedback-and-feed-forward. Acesso em: 21 dez. 2015.

FLICK, U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage, 2009.

FRANÇOIS, A. R. J.; CHEW, E.; THURMOND, D. Visual feedback in performer-machine interaction for musical improvisation. NIME07, New York, p. 277-280, June 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1279740.1279798. Acesso em: 5 nov. 2020.

HALLAM, S. Instrumental teaching: a practical guide to better teaching and learning. Oxford: Heinemann, 1998.

HALLAM, S. The development of metacognition in musicians: Implications for education’. British Journal of Music Education, v. 18, n. 1, p. 27-39, 2001.

HALWANI, G. F.; LOUI, P.; RÜBER, T.; SCHLAUG, G. Effects of practice and experience on the arcuate fasciculus: comparing singers, instrumentalists, and non-musicians. Frontiers in Psychology, v. 2, n. 156, p. 1-9, 2011.

HAMOND, L. Feedback on elements of piano performance: two case studies in higher education studio. In: INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM OF THE PERFORMANCE SCIENCE (ISPS 2013), 2013, Vienna. Proceedings [...]. August, Brussels: European Association of Conservatoires (AEC), 2013. p. 33-38.

HAMOND, L. F. The pedagogical use of technology-mediated feedback in a higher education piano studio: an exploratory action case study. London: UCL-Institute of Education, University College London, 2017. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Disponível em: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1546538/. Acesso em: 5 nov. 2020.

HAMOND, L. F.; WELCH, G.; HIMONIDES, E. The pedagogical use of visual feedback for enhancing dynamics in higher education piano learning and performance. Opus, v. 25, n. 3, p. 581-601, 2019.

HATTIE, J.; BIGGS, J.; PURDIE, N. Effects of learning skills interventions on students learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, v. 66, n. 2, p. 99-136, 1996.

HATTIE, J.; TIMPERLEY, H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, v. 77, n. 1, p. 81-112, 2007.

HIMONIDES, E. The misunderstanding of music-technology-education: a meta perspective. In: MCPHERSON, G.;WELCH, G. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Music Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. v. 2, p. 433-456.

HUGHES, G. Ipsative assessment: motivation through marking progress. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

HULTBERG, C. Approaches to music notation: the printed score as a mediator of meaning in Western tonal tradition’. Music Education Research, v. 4, n. 2, p. 185-197, 2002.

IRONS, A. Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback. London: Routledge, 2007.

JØRGENSEN, H. Student learning in higher instrumental education: Who is responsible? British Journal of Music Education, v. 17, n. 1, p. 67-77, 2000.

KEITHLEY, E. Communicating emotion in piano performance: Nuances used in expert and intermediate level performances. Thesis (Ph.D.) – University of Oklahoma, Norman, 2004.

KING, A. Collaborative learning in the music studio. Music Education Research, v. 10, n. 3, p. 423-438, 2008.

KOSTKA, M. J. An investigation of reinforcements, time use, and student attentiveness in piano lessons. Journal of Research in Music Education, v. 32, p. 2, p. 113-122, 1984.

LATHAM, G. P.; LOCKE, E. A. Goal setting: a motivational technique that works. Organizational Dynamics, v. 8, n. 2, p. 68-80, 1979.

MAGILL, R. A. Motor Learning: Concepts and Applications. 3. ed. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, 1989.

MCPHERSON, G. E.; ZIMMERMAN, B. J. Self-regulation of musical learning: a social cognitive perspective. In: COLWELL, R.; RICHARDSON, C. (ed.). The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning: a project of the Music Educators National Conference. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. p. 327-347.

MOORE, E.; SCHAEFER, R.; BASTIN, M.; ROBERTS, N.; OVERY, K. Musically cued motor training and white matter connectivity. In: SEMPRE MET 2016: RESEARCHING MUSIC, EDUCATION, TECHNOLOGY, 2016, London. Proceedings [...]. London: International Music Education Research Centre, iMerc, University of London, Senate House, 14–15 March 2016. p. 25-30,

NIELSEN, S. Self-regulating learning strategies in instrumental music practice. Music Education Research, v. 3, n. 2, p. 155-167, 2001.

PALMER, C. Computer graphics in music performance research. Behavior Research Methods, v. 21, n. 2, p. 265-270, 1989.

PAPAGEORGI, I.; HALLAM, S.; WELCH, G. F. A conceptual framework for understanding musical performance anxiety. Research Studies in Music Education, v. 28, n. 1, p. 83-107, 2007.

PRENSKY, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, v. 9, n. 5, p. 1-6, 2001.

REPP, B. H. The dynamics of expressive piano performance: Schumann’s “Träumerei” revisited. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, v. 100, n. 1, p. 641-650, 1996.

RILEY, K. Understanding piano playing through students’ perspectives on performance analysis and learning. American Music Teacher, v. 54, n. 6, p. 33-37, 2005.

SADLER, D. R. Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, v. 35, n. 5, p. 535-550, 2010.

SAVAGE, J. Reconstructing music education through ICT. Research in Education, v. 78, n. 1, p. 65-77, 2007.

SCHMIDT, R. A.; LEE, T. D. Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis. 5. ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2011.

SCHRAW, G.; DENNISON, R. S. Assessing metacognitive awareness’. Contemporary Educational Psychology, v. 19, n. 4, p. 460-475, 1994.

SIEBENALER, D. J. Analysis of teacher-student interactions in the piano lessons of adults and children. Journal of Research in Music Education, v. 45, n. 1, p. 6-20, 1997.

SPEER, D. R. An analysis of sequential patterns of instruction in piano lessons. Journal of Research in Music Education, v. 42, n. 1, p. 14-26, 1994.

WELCH, G. F. A schema theory of how children learn to sing in tune. Psychology of Music, v. 13, n. 1, p. 3-18, 1985a.

WELCH, G. F. Variability of practice and knowledge of results as factors in learning to sing in tune. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 85, p. 238-247, 1985b.

WELCH, G. F.; HOWARD, D. M.; HIMONIDES, E.; BRERETON, J. Real-time feedback in the singing studio: an innovatory action-research project using new voice technology’. Music Education Research, v. 7, n. 2, p. 225-249, 2005.

WIENER, N. Cybernetics: Or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1961.

WÖLLNER, C.;WILLIAMON, A. An exploratory study of the role of performance feedback and musical imagery in piano playing’. Research Studies in Music Education, v. 29, n. 1, p. 39-54, 2007.

ZHUKOV, K. Piano assessment in Australian higher education – Time for a change?

In: INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE EDUCATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL MUSICIAN (CEPROM), 18., 2010, Shanghai. Proceedings [...]. Shanghai: International Society for Music Education (ISME), 2010. p. 92-96.

ZHUKOV, K. Instrumental music learning and technology at the beginning of the 21st century. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR RESEARCH IN MUSIC EDUCATION (RIME2013), 8., 2013, Exeter. Proceedings [...]. Exeter, UK, 9-13 April, 2013.