3.    Research methodology

My research aims at finding practical solutions for a complex educational problem, namely the discrepancy between research-based principles of effective piano pedagogy and teaching strategies employed by students in their internship lessons. Even though I did identify potential improvement measures prior to my research (namely the development of coherent teaching materials), improving upon the initial situation would probably involve multiple interventions. A process of trying out different measures, observing their consequences and re-evaluating the situation seemed most appropriate. Based on these considerations, I chose educational action research as the main methodology of my research.

Cain (2008) formulated a general model of educational action research, in which the research process is described as a plan – act – evaluate – reflect cycle:

Educational action research can begin with practitioners asking, “how do I improve my practice?” (Whitehead 1989). In seeking answers, they investigate their own practice, plan and carry out interventions to improve it and evaluate the intended and unintended consequences of these interventions, interrogating data in order to ground their evaluations in evidence. They reflect on each stage in order to generate new plans, thus starting the cycle again. (Cain, 284)

My research lasted two seasons: from September 2017 until April 2019. In each season I taught one class of students and went through an intervention cycle of planning, acting, evaluating and reflecting. The first class consisted of three students, the second class had four students.

3.1     Measurement of results

The outcome measure of my research is the improvement in didactic skills that can be observed in the internship lessons of my students. In order to measure this development, students were asked to record their internship lessons on predetermined moments. I selected fragments from these recordings, based on the criterion that the involved student applies a listening assignment, in-between steps and/or a movement metaphor in it. Definitions and detailed description of these strategies for teaching and learning can be found in paragraphs 2.5.3 (listening assignments), 2.5.4 (in-between steps) and 2.5.2 (movement metaphors). I chose the application of these teaching strategies as a selection criterion for the internship video fragments because I believe they correspond to research-supported principles of effective piano pedagogy and can therefore be useful tools for the learning process of pianistic skills, if applied well. Furthermore, the quality of application of these strategies for teaching and learning indicates to what extent students have processed the information regarding the learning process of pianistic skills transmitted in the methodology course and can apply it independently and effectively in their own lessons. Finally, I wanted the selection of lesson fragments to take place as objectively as possible.

The prototype observation sheets

The objective of this research is not only for students to learn to apply a set of strategies for teaching and learning, but (more importantly) to guide students towards increasing the quality of their application. Put differently, effectiveness of teaching strategies depends on how well students apply certain teaching strategies. Consequently, the aim of observing the recorded internship lessons is not to check whether students apply certain teaching strategies, but to observe improvement of application quality.  For this purpose, at the beginning of the year 2018, I designed three prototype observation sheets which are aimed at measuring how well the students applied the aforementioned strategies for teaching and learning. They are attached to this thesis in appendix 1A through 1C. Each observation sheet contains questions concerning one of the three strategies for teaching and learning, that progress from objective and descriptive to subjective and evaluative. For example, the first two questions on the prototype observation sheet for movement metaphors (Appendix 1C) ask for a description of the applied movement metaphor and the musical goal addressed by it. These questions are descriptive in nature. Questions 3 and 4 focus on two qualitative aspects of the application of the involved movement metaphor, namely whether the pupil has a clear idea of the improvement in terms of sound he is pursuing by the movement metaphor and whether the movement metaphor aims at triggering a movement sensation. These two qualitative aspects have an influence on the effectivity of the applied movement metaphor. My aim is to help students get better at creating the circumstances in which their instructions trigger the desired outcome within their pupils. These questions intend to obtain information about this. Finally, the observation sheets include questions that adopt the perspective of the “teacher of the teacher”. An example of this is question 7 of the observation sheet for movement metaphors, which asks the observer for suggestions for enhancing the effectivity of the application of movement metaphors for the observed teacher.

The unified observation sheet

In November 2018 I integrated the observation sheets into one document and revised the content, based on usage experiences and comments by supervisors. This improved version of the observation sheet is attached in Appendix 2.

Expert consultation meetings

I organized expert consultation meetings at the end of both seasons in which my research took place (i.e. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019), in which two fellow piano methodology teachers and I evaluated and discussed a selection of video fragments of internship lessons, using the observation sheets as a tool to facilitate intersubjectivity. These meetings were intended to obtain information about whether students showed progress in their application of research-supported principles of effective piano pedagogy. In addition, they provided me with feedback on the improvement process of the piano methodology course. I decided to engage fellow piano methodology teachers because I wanted to obtain feedback from colleagues who are also in the position of guiding piano students of various educational backgrounds in their first actions as a piano teacher. I intended to acquire specific and to-the-point feedback based on the experiences of these colleagues. I chose to apply focus group sessions rather than individual interviews, because I wanted the members to engage in a lively discussion about the backgrounds of their opinions. The ideologies underlying their feedback were as important to me as their feedback itself. Furthermore, I intended to enhance the capacity of my colleagues to come up with potential improvement measures by bringing them together. Focus group discussions are more capable of inducing creativity than individual interviews (Mortelmans 2007, 342).

3.2     Interventions

3.2.1     Design of teaching materials

The development of teaching materials was one of the main interventions I undertook. The methodology of this part of my research exhibits similarities to educational design research. Plomp proposes the following definition of educational design research: “the systematic analysis, design and evaluation of educational interventions with the dual aim of generating research-based solutions for complex problems in educational practice, and advancing our knowledge about the characteristics of these interventions and the processes of designing and developing them” (Plomp 2013, 16). In accordance with this definition, my research aims to generate solutions to a complex educational problem, and to acquire knowledge about the characteristics of these solutions. More specifically, I intend to create effective teaching materials and acquire knowledge about what characteristics these teaching materials need to have in order to be effective.

Plomp furthermore explains that educational design research is cyclical in character: “analysis, design, evaluation and revision activities are iterated until an appropriate balance between ideals (‘the intended’) and realization has been achieved” (Plomp 2013, 17). The design process of the teaching materials did not start with systematic analysis of the problem but with a more informal evaluation of the initial situation. After this, I put together a set of criteria for the teaching materials (attached in appendix 3) and designed a prototype of the teaching materials based on them. Next, I asked a group of seven fellow piano teachers for feedback on this prototype by means of a questionnaire, which is attached in appendix 4. I used the prototype in my methodology course and wrote down my usage experiences in a logbook. Furthermore, I asked students for their experiences with the materials. Finally, I improved the materials based on these sources of feedback at the end of both cycles of my research.

Nieveen and Folmer propose four quality criteria for educational interventions, namely relevancy, consistency, practicality and effectiveness (Nieveen and Folmer 2013, 160). According to these authors, an intervention is relevant if there is a need for it, and its design is based on state-of the art (scientific) knowledge. The relevance of my research is described in paragraph 1.2, and the scientific knowledge that underpins the approach to piano pedagogy conveyed in piano methodology is reviewed in chapter 2 of this thesis. Nieveen and Folmer suggest that an intervention is consistent when it is “logically” designed. I obtained information about the internal consistency of the teaching materials by including questions focusing on this in the questionnaire I sent to fellow piano teachers. Also, I asked students how they experienced the consistency of the teaching materials during the evaluations of the methodology course that took place at the end of both seasons. In order to monitor the practicality (or: usability) of the materials, I wrote down my experiences applying the materials in a logbook. The effectiveness of the materials is reflected in the intended progress in teaching skills within students, the measurement of which is described above.

As mentioned, throughout my research, I engaged a group of seven fellow piano teachers in order to provide me with feedback on the materials in the making. These colleagues teach piano in a variety of contexts: they have private teaching practices, teach piano as a secondary instrument in the KC and/or teach piano in the music education program for pre-school children of the KC.⁶ They also vary in their educational background since they studied piano in various Dutch conservatories. I selected these piano teachers because I know them personally and they have shown to be interested in the application of research-based educational principles of piano pedagogy. I contacted them by mail. After their agreement to participate, I provided them with a text summarizing the goals of my research and the design criteria. Next, I send them a questionnaire based on the design criteria and parts of the teaching materials. This questionnaire is attached in appendix 4. I collected their responses and improved the materials based on this source of information.

The result of the design process is a two-part syllabus that contain links to video fragments of lesson excerpts, a slide presentation that I use in the methodology course and a set of lesson sheets that help me keep track of key information during the methodology lessons. The syllabus is included as a separate document on the final page of this exposition.

3.2.2     Peer-learning

At the end of the first year of my research, I added a second element of intervention, namely implementation of more opportunities for feedback on the internship lessons by means of peer-learning. I decided to let my students apply the observation sheets as a tool to reflect on their own and each other's lessons. For this purpose, I organised internship discussions within the methodology lessons. These discussions involved students observing fragments of their own lessons as well as those of other students, filling out observation sheets and discussing their observations. In addition to providing the students with extra feedback on their actions, this also yielded feedback on the design of the observation sheets themselves. I decided to implement peer-learning because it is helpful for students to experience the role of the observer and having to provide each other with feedback based on this. Peer-learning has the potential to enhance reflectivity: the ability to evaluate one’s actions and come up with alternative approaches for future similar situations. Reflectivity is an important goal of the music education program of the KC.

3.2.3     Scientific underpinnings

A secondary goal of my research was to make sure that the approach of piano pedagogy that I convey to students is in accordance with current scientific insights into human motor skill learning. In order to reach this goal, I reviewed scientific information on this topic, and integrated this in the lesson material and chapter on the contextualisation of my research in this thesis.

3.2.4     Internship guidelines

I created a more elaborate set of guidelines for the internships, which is attached in appendix 5. These guidelines are intended to provide students with detailed information about both practical and pedagogical aspects of the internship. I handed these guidelines out prior to the start of the internships. I thought that the difficulties students experienced in their internship were partially resulting from a lack of prior information. The more elaborate guidelines aimed at facilitating students to find the appropriate pedagogical direction for their internship lessons more quickly, in order to get the most out of them.

3.2.5     Logbook

I created a logbook of the methodology lessons in which I kept notes about my experiences using the lesson material prototype, the information we covered and the contributions the students made during the lessons. This helped me to keep track of the discussed topics, thus facilitating a smooth and logical connection between the content of the lessons.