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

Authors

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

Keywords:

Enhanced visual–auditory feedback, Piano pedagogy, Digital technology, Technology-enhancing learning, Piano performance, Music education, Piano roll, DAW Software

Abstract

The aim of the current research was to investigate the nature of feedback when a digital technology system was introduced in the higher education (HE) piano studio alongside three teacher and student pairs in Brazil. Data were collected by using video-recorded observations of lessons, participant interviews, and also data related to the use of a specific technology. A thematic analysis of the resultant data suggests that participants used verbal and non-verbal feedback in three areas of lesson focus: music (score), performance (e.g., dynamics, articulation), and technology (Musical Instrument Digital Interface [MIDI] parameters). The application of technology seems to allow the focus of the lesson to become clearer, making students more aware of their performances and their learning processes. Data suggest that the engagement with technology varied across the three observed cases. There seems to be a valuable use for technology-mediated feedback; this could, in turn, optimize more traditional pedagogical approaches in HE piano learning and teaching, and also enrich private practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

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.