Contents

• Title Page

• 1 Introduction

• 2 Motivation

• 3 Theoretical Background
• 3.1 OPTIMAL Theory of Motor Learning
• 3.2 Literature Directly Related to the OPTIMAL Theory
• 3.3 Flow State
• 3.4 Research in Music Making Relevant to the OPTIMAL Theory

• 4 Personal Experiences Regarding the OPTIMAL Theory

• 5 Research Intervention - HOPE (Holistic and OPTIMAL Practice Experience)
• 5.1 HOPE - The Intervention
• 5.2 Results
• 5.3 Discussion of Findings

• 6 Concluding Remarks

• 7 Tips and Resources for Musicians & Acknowledgements

• 8 References

• 9 Appendices

As mentioned in the motivation section, the researcher’s greatest hope is to help other musicians that might be afflicted with the same issues that he faced. Hence, it was essential for this research to develop a practice method informed by the OPTIMAL theory and investigate how the method would impact other musicians. This was done through an intervention, which was named “Holistic and OPTIMAL Practice Experience” (HOPE).

5.1 HOPE - The Intervention

Participants were committed for four weeks. The first week was a control week, to obtain data of participants before the use of HOPE. HOPE was then applied through a three-week programme. These four weeks occurred between October and November of 2021, followed by a retention test four weeks after the end of the intervention.

5.1.1 Participants

13 students from the Royal Conservatoire of The Hague were recruited through the means of voluntary sign-ups. Participants were of varying instruments and departments. From the classical department there were: violin (4), harp (2), piano (2), saxophone(1), flute (1) and  trumpet(1). From the early music department there were: traverso (1) and natural horn (1). They were also in different levels of education (Bachelor 2 to Master 2) and a good mix of age (range of 20 to 33 years old, mean age = 24.07, standard deviation = 3.59). A handful of participants (3) had taken courses on practising prior to this intervention while one (1) participant started taking a course on practising in the Conservatory a few weeks before the intervention.

Only 2 of the 13 participants were acquainted with the researcher. All participants signed an informed consent (See Appendix A) before the start of the control week. HOPE was termed as “Practice Tool Project” to prevent confirmation bias from participants from knowing about the intervention’s relation to the OPTIMAL theory. Participants were told that they will be trying out a “practice tool” that had been developed by the researcher.

5.1.2 Aims and Hypothesis of HOPE

HOPE was created to investigate the secondary research question of: “How can I use the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning to inform other musicians in their practice?” More specifically, two questions were further investigated during the process of the intervention:

a) How effective is HOPE in enhancing the practice of musicians?

b) How will HOPE impact the practice of musicians, besides the benefits proposed by the OPTIMAL theory?

More specifically, it was meant to investigate how the researcher could use the information from the OPTIMAL theory to develop a practice method that would improve the quality of practice of other musicians.

The independent variables of the intervention would be the three factors of the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning: autonomy, enhanced expectancies and external focus. By referencing the theory, the effectiveness of the method could be judged by examining if the change in independent variables were able to raise levels of motivation, attention, task goal focus and a reduction of self-focus. Hence, attention, motivation, self-focus and task goal focus were laid out as the dependent variables for the intervention. Levels of motor learning and motor performance were not investigated in the intervention for these reasons:

1) Inaccuracies of self-reporting changes in motor learning and performance

2) The researcher does not have the capacity (i.e., budget) to secure professionals to determine levels and changes of motor learning and performance

3) Even if it were possible, there is still subjectivity in quantifying changes in learning and performance level through a third-person perspective as pointed out by Williams (2019)

4) The studies reviewed under Chapter 3.1.4 had already shown that the goal-coupling action from increased attention and motivation will lead to increase in task goal focus and reduction of self-focus, ultimately leading to optimal motor learning and performance.

5)Most importantly, the intervention was designed to investigate the process and the results, and not the performance outcome of practising.

Hence, the hypothesis was that HOPE, which was designed to enhance autonomy, expectancies, and external focus, would be effective in enhancing the practice experience of musicians while promoting attention, motivation and task goal focus, and reducing self-focus.

[Next: Chapter 5.1.3 Informed Method - Practice Toolkit]

5

Research Intervention - HOPE (Holistic and OPTIMAL Practice Experience)

5.1.3 Informed Method - Practice Toolkit

“Practice Toolkit” was the developed method that was informed by the OPTIMAL theory. As a handout for participants, the toolkitaddressed three bigger aspects, “Taking Charge”, “Mindfulness” and “Immersive Musical Imagination”, which encompassed the three domains of autonomy, enhanced expectancies and external focus, respectively, for two reasons:

1) Prevention of confirmation bias if participants should find out about the theory mid-intervention.

2) More importantly, to take on a holistic approach by addressing other issues (e.g., mindfulness, ownership, metacognition, etc.) while also addressing the three domains set out by the theory.

The first page of the practice toolkitintroduced the three aspects. Following which, each aspect was supplemented with ideas that the researcher used. The toolkit was meant to provide a baseline level of ideas within each aspect with some required tasks which were expected of the participants (indicated by the words in bold). These tasks were used to increase the levels of the independent variables of autonomy, enhanced expectancies and external focus.

Following which, participants would undertake personal exploration under all three aspects and look for new tools or techniques that worked for them, with the option of including the ones that were listed in the toolkit. This would then allow the participants to slowly personalise the toolkit, while being autonomy-supportive.

The second and third pages of the practice toolkitserved as a guide for goal setting, mantra setting, and the use of audiation and visualisation.

Taking Charge

Taking charge was used to encompass while masking the idea of autonomy. In taking charge, goal setting was required during practice. SMART goal setting (Doran, 1981) was addressed in the second page as a basic guide for setting goals.

Mindfulness

Mindfulness utilised metacognitive awareness, which was used to enhance the expectancies of the participants. Required tasks under this aspect were: the use of a mantra, to remind participants about one thing they took away from their previous practice session, and to think about the one thing they would like to take away from each practice session. A guide on mantra setting on the second page was based on the experience the researcher had with mantras, and was informed by the course “Quality Practice” by Susan Williams.

The other points under this aspect included the awareness of self-talk language, being objective instead of emotional during practising, and to take on more of an observational, as compared to a controlling approach to practising.

Immersive Musical Imagination

This broad term was used to encompass and to suggest the approach in the usage of external focus, which were identified as audiation and visualisation under this section. A subsequent guide to the usage of audiation and visualisation was detailed on the last two pages of the toolkit. This was supplemented with the illustration of Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1

Figure 5.1 was designed by tapping on the “Circles of Attention” model by Hans Eberspächer (1990) and the benefits of both distal (McNevin et al., 2003) and proximal (Singh et al., 2020) external foci. Under each level, the toolkit outlined which situations would correspond to the level of external focus. 

Level 0 described instances of having internal focus which was the lack of audiation and trying to think, notice, and/or control the body while playing. 

Level 1 was outlined as the start of audiation, and it was the “imagination of the basic pitch” and the “understanding of musical material”. Edwin Gordon’s criteria for audiation (Gordon, 2001) was used as a reference for understanding of musical material here. 

Level 2 was described as the “imagination of sound and body” to encourage using multi-dimensional aspects of audiation and visualisation. The imagination of the sensation of playing was also addressed to tap on the “feeling” aspect of holistic focus.

Lastly, level 3 referred to the level where the imagination draws the audiator away from their instrument and body and examples given were “acting out the character of the music”, “imagining the resonance of playing in a concert hall” and “imagining the mood/scenery/setting of the music”. 

The toolkit also highlighted the importance of instructions and the impact they had on the induced focus. Following which, instructions to encourage exploration were added to reiterate the importance of autonomy. This was done to counteract the instructive aspects of the toolkit.

[Next: Chapter 5.1.4 - Timeline]

Practice Toolkit 

(please click to view all 3 pages)

5.1.4 Timeline

Week 0 - Before HOPE

Participants were briefed on the timeline and that they were to try out a practice tool that the researcher had developed. They were asked to fill up a “Pre-project Survey” (see Appendix B).

Week 1 (Control Week) - Diary Logging

During the control week, participants were told to practice as per usual and record their experiences in a logbook, “Diary (Week 1)” (see Appendix C). 

End of Week 1 - Group Meeting (Short Discussion and Workshop) and Start of HOPE

In groups of 3-5, group meetings started off with a short discussion about observations from Week 1. The discussion served not only as a verbal source of data collection on top of the diaries the participants filled in, but also as an outlet for informal learning between the participants. Thereafter, the researcher conducted a workshop, where participants learnt about the use of the practice tool, “Practice Toolkit” (see Appendix D) (details of the workshop will be further elaborated in Section 5.1.5). Two participants watched a recording of the workshop and had an online catch-up session thereafter with the researcher as they had fallen sick during the week. After the explanation of the toolkit and what participants would have to do for the coming weeks, they had the opportunity to have a hands-on session to experience using audiation and visualisation in a mock practice room setting. Participants took turns voluntarily to play the music (short excerpts where they were facing challenges) they brought with them. After playing once through and highlighting the challenge(s) of the excerpt, they were asked to demonstrate how they would practice with the use of audiation and visualisation. The researcher provided guidance whenever participants were unsure.

Week 2 to 4 - Diary Logging

Participants were required to record their practice experiences in a logbook, “Diary (Week 2-4)” (see Appendix E). They were also encouraged to seek out personal techniques under the three broad categories of “Taking Charge”, “Mindfulness” and “Immersive Musical Imagination” to personalise their toolkit. The goal was to come up with as many techniques that worked for each participant at the end of the intervention.

End of Week 2 and Week 3 - Group Meetings

Before the start of each group meeting, participants were requested to create a safe space, inspired by the safe space environment of the Learning Pods project (Williams et al., 2021). This was done through the rules of :

1) No judgement

2) What is said here stays here (verbal consent was given by all participants for the use of discussion content for this research, on the grounds of anonymity)

3) No questions asked if any participant is not comfortable with sharing any information

Group meetings were generally held in sizes of 4-5 participants per session and split into 3 different sessions. Extra catch-up sessions for the meetings (on top of the 3 meetings) took place, with 2 participants at the end of week 2 meeting and with 1 participant at the end of week 3 meeting, due to scheduling issues or being sick on the day of meeting. 

The agenda for the group meeting was to discuss:

1) General observations

2) Personal or guided (by the practice tool) explorations of “Taking Charge”, this included goal setting as required by the diary. How did that affect practice sessions?

3) Personal or guided (by the practice tool) explorations of “Mindfulness”, this included mantra as required by the diary. How did that affect practice sessions?

4) Personal or guided (by the practice tool) explorations of “Immersive Musical Imagination”, this included audiation and visualisation as required by the diary. How did that affect practice sessions?

The intention of the group meetings was to facilitate the exchange of ideas between participants themselves, between participant and researcher, and to tap on the benefits of diversified modelling. Diversified modelling is the exposure to different individuals with similar abilities mastering difficult tasks (in this case, the use and exploration of the three categories), as compared to the less superior exposure to the same performance by a single person (Bandura, 1997). Furthermore, Williams et al. (2022) study had also shown the benefits of informal peer-learning. Possible ideas for further exploration in the three domains were also discussed with each participant based on the discussion during the group meetings to encourage autonomous exploration that was personal and unique to the individual.

The researcher was conscious and used language that was autonomy-supportive and mindful (e.g., “challenges” instead of “problems”, “explore” instead of “try”, and “I would like to invite you to” or “It would be interesting to” instead of “I want you to”). Participants were reminded to explore and that there were no wrong answers.

End of Week 4 - Final Group Meeting, Post-intervention Survey and end of HOPE

Group discussions were the same as Week 2 and Week 3. At the end of the meeting, participants were asked to fill up the “Post-project Survey” (see Appendix F).

5.1.5 Application of HOPE on Participants - Workshop

HOPE was explained through the “Practice Toolkit” handout during a live workshop explaining the use of it. Following which, participants had to fill up “Diary (Week 2-4)” before and after each practice session.

Workshop - Explanation of the Toolkit to Participants

During the workshop, each domain of the Toolkit was individually explained to the group.

“Taking Charge” was described as exercising personal freedom and choice. Under this domain, what was required of participants was to set goals in the diary entries. A SMART goal format was encouraged for the coming weeks to be objective and pragmatic in goal setting. 

“Mindfulness” was explained to participants as awareness and understanding of thought processes. Under this category, participants were required to set a mantra in the diary as well. Participants were guided through setting mantras through the help of the toolkit. A discussion of the mantras participants came up with followed after, with the researcher helping to reformulate weaker mantras (e.g. use of negative words, instruction instead of a statement). Mantras or positive affirmations were intended to assist in greater self-beliefs. Through the diary, participants were also required to think about what they would take away from each practice session and to remind themselves before their next session what was the take away from the previous one. This was to practice self-awareness and to take a metacognitive approach to practising. Personal techniques of mine were also presented in the last two statements under this section to promote metacognitive thinking in participants.

Finally, “Immersive Musical Imagination” was explained to encompass audiation and visualisation. This was explained using Figure 5.1, which appeared in the toolkit. Under each level, the toolkit outlined which situations would correspond to the level of external focus. It was made clear to the participants in the handout and the workshop that the focus should be on the intended result of moving your body and not the motion itself. 

The researcher verbally encouraged the autonomy exploration of the three aspects of the toolkit. The idea was that at the end of HOPE, participants would have a toolkit that was uniquely theirs that had been tried and tested by them to be effective in the practice room. The researcher also verbally emphasised that there were no wrong answers to the toolkit and participants were encouraged to explore as much as possible. Participants were also encouraged to create names for the techniques they came up with, to promote a sense of autonomy and ownership

“Diary Week (2-4)” (see Appendix E)

In the toolkit, there were one or a few tasks required that were of them (bolded in the Practice Toolkit) in Diary (Week 2-4), to encourage and enhance the use of the independent variables.

This diary was designed to work hand in hand with the Practice Toolkit during practice. Further elaboration about “Diary (Week 2-4)” will be provided in Chapter 5.1.6.

[Next: Chapter 5.1.6 - Data Collection]

5.1.6 Data Collection

Through participants’ self-reporting, data was collected in this order:

“Pre-Project Survey”

“Diary (Week 1)”

Group Meeting Week 1

“Diary (Week 2-4)”

Group Meeting Week 2-4

“Final Toolkit”

“Post-project Survey”

“Final Questionnaire”

“Pre-Project Survey”, “Diary (Week 1)”, “Diary (Week 2-4)”, and “Post-project Survey” were printed out and were to be filled up by hand by participants. Information for the “Final toolkit” was submitted to the researcher either by soft or hard copy. The “Final Questionnaire” was done digitally, through Google Forms.

Data was also collected verbally during the group meetings, through the means of recording and transcribing.

While referring to participants, they/them pronouns are used to maintain anonymity, redaction of specific instrument names to “instrument” or “instrumentalists”, as well as they/them pronouns when referring to participants’ teachers.

“Pre-project Survey” (see Appendix B)

This questionnaire was designed to determine the levels of independent (autonomy, enhanced expectancies and external focus) and dependent variables (motivation, attention, self-focus and task goal focus). Questions were given a scale of “Not at all”, “Sometimes”, “Neutral”, “Most of the time” and “All the time”. Only the two questions were using a different scale. The last second question of “When practising, my focus is directed more towards” is on a 0-10 scale, with 0 being body and 10 being sound and music. The last question of “Briefly describe the tools you normally use to tackle challenges in the practice room” is in an open-ended format. Figure 5.2 illustrates which variable/variables each question was investigating.

Figure 5.2

“Diary (Week 1)” (see Appendix C)

This was designed as a logbook to track the baseline levels of dependent variables (i.e., motivation, attention, self-focus and task goal focus), as well as to get used to logging data. There were two sections to the diary, one to be filled up before the practice session and one to be filled up after the practice session. Participants were asked to fill up the second section no more than one hour after they finished practising. There were two extra questions that were not investigating these factors, which were “Piece(s) practised” and “Observations during practice” for extra insight into participants’ usual practice mindset and routine and they were open-ended questions.

The researcher deliberately left out investigating levels of independent variables (autonomy, enhanced expectancies, and external focus) through “Diary (Week 1)” as this might encourage participants to be more aware of their practice and unintentionally tapping into the benefits of metacognition when practising, which would not have been an accurate representation of their baseline quality of practice before the intervention. Participants were explicitly told to not change their practice routines because of the use of the diary and if they did so due to other reasons, they were to note in the section of “Observations during practice”. The questions which were investigating the variable levels were asked on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being “Not at all” and 10 being “All the time”. Figure 5.3 illustrates which variable each question was investigating.

Figure 5.3

[Next: “Diary Week (2-4)”]

“Diary Week (2-4)” (see Appendix E)

Similar to “Diary (Week 1)”, This was also a logbook to track participants’ levels of dependent variables which were energy, motivation, engagement, enjoyment of participants. However, there were extra questions on top of the ones found in “Diary (Week 1)”. For the researcher, these new questions would track the levels of independent variables (autonomy, enhanced expectancies, and external focus). For the participants, these new questions served to remind and encourage them to be conscious of their level of independent variables and how it affected the level of the dependent variables. Figure 5.4 details the new questions and the variables they sought to track or instil.

Figure 5.4

As seen in Figure 5.4, a lot of the questions that were promoting autonomy also addressed enhanced expectancies as well. This relationship is in line with Prediction 3 from the OPTIMAL Theory. Compared to “Diary (Week 1)”, most of the new questions were asked in an open-ended format which would not only encourage participants to be more autonomous, but also to take a metacognitive approach to practising.

“Post-project Survey” (see Appendix F)

Questions were all the same as “Pre-project Survey” except for the removal Q26 of “Briefly describe the tools you normally use to tackle challenges in the practice room” as the tools would be described in the “Final Toolkit” by participants. Eight extra questions were added as well, with their variables tracked stated in Figure 5.5.

All the new questions, except for the first, were asked so that more insights beyond the final interview and diaries could be obtained.

Figure 5.5

The first new question of “Do I enjoy tackling challenges more than I did before this project?” is answered by a 0-10 scale. The other two new questions are left in an open-ended format. This allows the researcher to have extra information beyond the 0-10 questions to examine the change in levels of independent and dependent variables of the participants.

“Final Questionnaire”

Questions were asked to find out the degree of usage of the diary, 5 weeks after the end of the intervention.

Figure 5.6

The last question was used to get more insights to the impact of HOPE on the practice of participants, 5 weeks after the last group meeting.

[Next: Chapter 5.2 Results]