Contents

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

Although all the aforementioned research has been in the realm of sport science, their findings are extremely relevant for musicians due to the striking similarities with athletes: the use of very specific muscle groups, the complexity of the movement, the type and amount of focus during performance, the substantial amount of time and effort needed to reach a certain degree of automation of motor skills, the list is non-exhaustive.


However, when we compare sports and music making, the way we can substantiate better motor performance is very different. For the former, it is extremely easy to demonstrate enhanced performance since the results are specific and easy to quantify. On the other hand, how does one quantify and substantiate a better performance? Similarly, Identification and evaluation of mistakes, as well as replicating a performance setting in a laboratory setting is challenging for music making (Williams, 2019). This might explain the relatively few number of studies in the realm of music making. 


This chapter will first review the lines of research done in the realm of music performance in relation to the three tenets of the OPTIMAL theory. However, it is worth to note that objective results might not substantiate a better music performance since it is by nature, subjective. Therefore, this chapter will mostly explore artistic research, where a more subjective approach has been taken, and is more relevant to the direction of the intervention of this research. The chapter will then look towards the holistic approach some researchers have taken in music education.


Autonomy


Literature specific to autonomy in the realm of music making has been limited. Furthermore, the researcher was not able to find much quantitative research on the aspect of autonomy. Hence, we will instead look towards several research that has been specific to autonomy and music practice in the artistic and educational field.


Lucy Green’s 2006 study argues that the use of informal learning (learning without specific goals) could offer autonomy to students. Through tapping on informal learning of popular music, she identified the five characteristics of informal learning as:


a) Learners having choice in repertoire

b) Reproduction of music aurally

c) Self-learning and peer-directed group learning

d) Random acquisition of skills and knowledge according to personal music preferences, starting with “real world” music

 

e) A basis of creativity in integrating listening, performing, improvising and composing


Interestingly, informal learning shows the hallmarks of implicit learning through a reliance on aural learning and the low usage of declarative language as compared to formal learning through method books and transmission of knowledge and skills orally. It is also worth noting that the once aural tradition of learning classical music gave way to the more verbal rule-based, technical approach to music with the introduction of the conservatoire system in the late 18th century (Williams, 2019).


However, transfer of information is still highly dependent on the teacher-student relationship. Hence, it is worth looking at the autonomy in this complex relationship and looking at the impact it has on the student.


Bonneville-Roussy, Hruska and Trower’s 2020 study looked into the impact of autonomy between 35 music performance teachers and their 190 music performance students. The study postulated that it was the teachers’ teaching values instead of years of experience that determined whether they were autonomy-supportive or controlling and found that learner’s autonomy impacted their passion, music performance anxiety and future career intentions


More specific to music practising, learner’s autonomy has been seen to alert them of their shortcomings, improve in these shortcomings, have new insights in learning new music material, be more independent in the learning process, promote continuation of the learning process out of curriculum time and be more competent (Cheng, Wong, & Lam, 2020). Hargreaves and Marshall (2003) also postulated that the presence of the learner’s musical ownership would lead to greater engagement and motivation.


Enhanced Expectancies


Wulf et al. (2016) identified self-efficacy as an important factor in the process of motor learning and performance. Hence, it is worth investigating the literature of self-efficacy on musicians, looking towards the sources of self-efficacy, followed by the effect it has specific to music learning and performance.


Studies have demonstrated the factors that influence self-efficacy specific to music learning and performance. Musical learning and performance related self-efficacy levels can be enhanced by parental support (Zarza-Alzugaray, Casanova, McPherson, & Orejudo, 2020), growth in knowledge and skills suitably matched to musical challenges, constant successful performances, diligent practising, musical enjoyment (Silverman, 2008), tenacity in learning and being reflective (Miksza & Tan, 2015). Wrigley and Emmerson (2013) also suggests that self-efficacy levels could be enhanced by promoting flow during performance assessment.


It is also worth mentioning the study by Michael Zelenak (2019) that looked into the four sources of self-efficacy and their effects on music performance during an audition. He found that enactive mastery experience had the strongest correlation to self-efficacy in music performance, in line with Bandura’s predictions in 1997. However, social/verbal persuasion was revealed to be the best predictor of a successful music performance. On the other hand, vicarious experiences and physiological and affective states were shown to threaten the quality of musical performance and were used to explain the anxiety performers had when they saw other competing musicians.


Noting the lack of literature showing how motivation affected musical performances, McCormick and McPherson (2003) published their study that looked into how self-efficacy affected the performance of 332 instrumentalists in a graded music exam. Their results concluded that self-efficacy was an extremely accurate predictor in the musical performance of their subjects. A follow up study in 2006 by the same researchers tried to increase the number of subjects (446) in a graded musical performance exam of a different organisation. This 2006 study further corroborated their 2003 findings.


Siw Nielsen’s (2004) study looked into how self-efficacy levels affected the way 130 students employed learning strategies. It demonstrated that besides bringing enhanced meta-cognitive music learning, higher self-efficacy levels brought better cognitive learning strategies, which were outlined as rehearsal, elaboration, organisation, and critical thinking. However, it was noted that while male students were more critical about themselves as compared to females, they were more self-efficacious, and encouraged that instrumental teachers and institutions should be mindful of this fact.


Other research have also pointed to the numerous benefits self-efficacy brings to motor learning and performance in music such as greater confidence in practice (StGeorge, 2006), enjoyment in music making (Welch et al., 2009), increased practice time (Miksza, 2012; Varela, Abrami, & Upitis, 2014), and seeking of more nuanced (e.g., dynamics, articulation, interpretation, etc.) as opposed to basic (i.e., notes, rhythms) musical objectives during practice (Miksza, 2015).


McPherson and McCormick (2006) aptly sums up self-efficacy and its impact on music learning and practising:


“It would be naïve to regard high self-efficacy as a single panacea for correcting all student  problems. There is no secret ingredient that can make massive improvement for all students.  But, as any good teacher intuitively understands, improving students’ abilities often rests not on making massive improvements as a result of finding a single ingredient, but on small, gradual improvements across a range of areas.”


Despite the countless benefits of self-efficacy (and in a broader sense, enhanced expectancies) seen in the realm of sports and music in motor learning and performance, it is worth noting from the OPTIMAL theory that such benefits can be further amplified through the goal-action coupling with autonomy and external focus.


External Focus


As compared to the previous two tenets of the OPTIMAL theory, more scientific research has been done on the aspect of external focus and its application in a music performance setting, providing more quantifiable evidence on its benefits for musicians.


Duke, Cash and Allen (2011) sought to investigate the effects of external focus on the piano performance of 16 music majors. Participants were prescribed different foci instructions: their fingers (internal focus), the piano keys (proximal external focus), the sound produced (distal external focus), or the piano hammers (external focus between the most proximal and distal foci options). Williams (2019) pointed out that unlike previous experiments done in sports and movement sciences which utilised kinesthetic or visual focus instructions, the Duke et al. (2011) study prescribed the use of an auditory goal to induce external focus. Through measuring the consistency of timing and volume of notes, it was concluded that the best results were recorded when there was a focus on sound for the non-pianists. Interestingly, the four expert pianists did not show differences in results between any of the foci instructions given. Williams (2019) attributed this to the low level of challenge that is required to show comparable results in motor skills.


Since the initiation of Duke, Cash and Allen’s 2011 study that explored the previously untapped application of external focus and its effects on motor behaviour on musicians, several other research has also looked into the effects of external focus in the plethora of musical settings and aspects. These research studies showed that external focus could allow for more accurate expression of dynamics and articulation as intended (Bishop, Bailes, & Dean, 2013), enhance bow-control (Allingham & Wöllner, 2021), better singing tone quality (Atkins & Duke, 2013; Atkins, 2017), note accuracy, enhanced performance experience (Williams, 2019), enhanced musicality and enhanced technical accuracy (Mornell & Wulf, 2019).


However, when looking into the aforementioned research, the limitations and difficulties of drawing objective results in the subjective nature of music are exposed. Williams (2019) pointed out several flaws in some experiments such as the musical material and value (or lack thereof) presented in the Duke et al. (2011) study. The accuracy of internal and external foci instructions in relation to the perception and the usual circumstances of a musician for the studies done by Duke et al. (2011), Atkins et al. (2013), Atkins (2016) and Mornell et al. (2019) were brought into question as well.


Besides instruction giving - audiation, or the imagination of sound that is not physically manifested - can also be used to draw out external focus (Williams, 2019). On the other hand, Bishop et al., used external focus through musical imagery to enhance motor performance, similar benefits of imagery as an external focus were also seen in Yamada et al. (2020) study. Brand (2021) also theorised that body movements and gestures could be used as an external focus to enhance vocal performance. Interestingly, it was found that body movements heavily contributed to musical expressivity (Sakata, Wakamiya, Odaka, & Hachimura, 2009). Although the 2021 study did not reference the 2009 study, and the 2009 study did not draw the links of body movement to external focus, there is some value in these two research studies in providing another source of external focus for musicians, that future research might shed more light on. 


Although the benefits and effect external focus brings to musicians have only started being investigated in the past decade, musicians and music teachers might have intuitively leaned towards it for enhanced motor learning and performance. During high stress situations, music related focus was found to be the most common focus of attention in the mindset of professional musicians (Buma, Bakker, & Oudejans, 2014). Attentional focus skills in the form of imagery were also seen to be stronger with more experienced musicians (Bishop et al., 2013). Vocal coaches have also been found to use more external focus instructions in their teaching as compared to athletic coaches (Treinkman, 2020).


Summary Thus Far

These aforementioned research studies mostly share a commonality in that they were all looking into one specific element of the OPTIMAL theory, or trying to replicate similar conditions as to the research done in sports and movement sciences. Therefore, there is value for this research to look into different and more holistic approaches other research have done in relation or closely related to the OPTIMAL theory. This would also lay out a better foundation for the intervention in this research.


[Next: Finding Focus (Williams, 2019)]

3.4

Research in Music Making Relevant to the OPTIMAL Theory

Finding Focus (Williams, 2019)


Williams’ research on external focus similarly taps on the OPTIMAL theory to investigate and create an informed approach to practice and also performance. Her hypothesis was that using external focus would be beneficial to musicians’ learning and performance experience. This was done through a series of three different investigations (“Projects”) of external focus on practice or/and performance of: individual natural trumpet players, a trumpet consort project and a mixed ensemble project. External focus was induced through the idea of audiation through the use of an “Audiation Practice Tool” (APT) that was designed by Williams (see below). 

(Williams, 2019)


Project 1 saw 7 natural trumpet students going through a five-day intervention of using the APT, eight weeks after a five-day control phase. This was to examine the benefits of external focus on individual students’ learning and performance. Accuracy, self-efficacy, confidence, motivation, engagement and participants’ experience were measured and analysed. Data was collected through audio and video recordings, questionnaires, and practice logbooks. Accuracy was shown to be enhanced.


Project 2 had the 7 trumpeters from Project 1 using external focus to prepare and perform in an ensemble together with Williams herself. The benefits of external focus on learning and performance were once again looked into. However, the approach this time was a more holistic one - besides having a more general external focus instruction of expressing the meaning of the music (while still using APT during individual preparation), they were also given autonomy in preparation and presentation of the concert. 


Project 2 also shows the divergence from a controlled performance setting, which were seen in much of the aforementioned research, to a more naturalistic performance setting in front of an audience, to the various practice scenarios of musicians (i.e. individual and group), as well as the use of elements of informal learning (i.e. peer-led group learning). Data was collected through questionnaires and interviews, and it pointed to enhanced learning and more effective and efficient practice in the participants. Performance experiences of the participants were also enhanced, including reports of less performance anxiety than normal.


To wrap up the series of experiments, Project 3 recruited 17 musicians of varying instruments, including a coach and similarly investigated the benefits of external focus on learning and performance. A holistic approach was similarly used, through the APT as well as using the notion that the “overarching concept for the project was that music is a language and not a technical exercise” (Williams, 2019).  Furthermore, added elements such as movement sessions, improvisation sessions, and non-verbal explanations of the use of “affect” and emotions tapped on the domains of implicit learning (improvisation) as well as enhanced self-efficacy (to be more comfortable and fluent in using body gestures to express the music). 


Project 3 also was in a different musical setting than Project 2 as there was a different dynamic between the coach and students (there was no peer-led learning this time), although it similarly culminated in a live concert. Project three utilised a holistic approach as well - through employing the use of extra components (on top of ensemble rehearsals) to create an immersive experience for the participants. Data was collected through questionnaires and illustrated benefits to learning as well as on performance experience. Interestingly, many participants self-reported an experience of flow during the concert and less self-focus.


It is worthwhile to note the approach which Williams used in her series of three projects. Through the more holistic approach as well as a more naturalistic setting of performing for the audience, her research shows the more practical application and investigation into the use of the literature from sports psychology in its application for the subjective nature of music. Furthermore, the three projects also applied external focus and found benefits through a range of practice scenarios and the resulting varying dynamics between coach, peers and student.


Mindful Practicing (Hidalgo, 2020)


Hidalgo’s 2020 study involved her developing a mindfulness programme and investigating the effects on self-efficacy. The mindfulness programme involved the use of handouts to address three aspects over three weeks, mindfulness exercises, practice logs over a four-week intervention and group meetings. On top of the practice logs and the transcribed group meetings, data was collected through pre- and post-intervention questionnaires and interviews. Through goal setting and mindfulness, Hidalgo’s programme proved its effectiveness in enhancing self-reported levels of self-efficacy as well as practice quality, meta-cognition, and wellbeing.


Besides the usage of a holistic approach in raising self-efficacy level, what was noteworthy from this study was the dynamic of coach to student in this experiment. Hidalgo was a student when she carried out her intervention, and under this unique situation where the coach could also be seen as a peer, she managed to enhance the self-efficacy levels of the participants through developing an informed method.


Learning Pods (Williams & Schlarmann, 2022)


This research saw the design and use of peer-learning groups in the settings of performance preparation and exploration of music making. Williams et al. (2022) hypothesised that this informal method of learning would enhance motivation. As these peer-learning groups (termed as “learning pods”) were designed to facilitate motivation and autonomy, it proved to enhance learning and performance through the self-reported data collected. 


However, what was most notable about this research was the balance between structure and freedom designated for these learning pods. When given a safe space and having and finding shared goals, the freedom to steer their own learning provided a better learning and performance experience in general. The fact that the participants started out without knowing each other also showed that peer-learning could be effective even when students  meet each other for the first time.


Concluding Remarks


Through the brief review of three different approaches that have themes similar or related to the OPTIMAL theory, it showed that a holistic approach has proven to be effective in enhancing motor learning and performance in musicians. This could be seen as the bridging factor between the objective-subjective divide between studies done in sports and music (or performing arts). Furthermore, what these three studies have shown is also the amount of thought and care needed to design such interventions to address the complexities of the relationship and dynamics between the coach, peer and student.


Williams (2019) noted the motivation for her study was the scarcity of studies on motor learning in musicians. She also provided her thoughts on the approach:


“The designs I made to explore external focus are only examples of the infinite number of ways that external focus can be used, explored and researched in the field of music. There is a real need to develop holistic ways to train musicians by designing learning environments that encourage exploration and connectivity (neural, inter-personal and interdisciplinary). It could be that the mindset of our institutions needs to shift – away from result-oriented to process-oriented goals in order to encourage student musicians to practice in a more effective and efficient way. Although external focus means focussing on the intended result of one’s actions, this should be interpreted not in terms of gain or of quantifiable results, but in clarity of expression and successful communication. “

 

Therefore, through the primary and secondary research question, this research hopes to work towards the goal that Williams had set: to develop my own holistic way of learning that would be effective for other musicians as well.


[Next: Chapter 4 - Personal Experiences Regarding the OPTIMAL Theory]