4. Results
In this chapter I present the outcomes of the interventions I performed during my research. First, I will describe the development process of the teaching materials, including the feedback colleagues gave on it and experiences of its usage in the piano methodology course. Next, I will report on the internship discussions that took place within the piano methodology lessons. After this, I will describe the procedure and outcomes of the expert consultation meetings I organized at the end of both cycles of my research. Finally, I will evaluate the results of my research.
4.1 Development of teaching materials
At the start of my research, reflecting on the course of events in the methodology lessons I had given so far, I felt the need for unifying the texts I created about the pedagogical approach to pianistic quality into one syllabus. Also, I wanted to create links between different parts of the information in order to create a coherent line of argument. Finally, I felt it was necessary to present students with videos of lesson fragments in which the strategies for teaching and learning that we discussed are applied in piano lessons. My expectation was that a unified, well worked out syllabus would increase the likelihood of students using it actively as reference material during their internship. I also expected that seeing fragments of real lessons in which certain teaching strategies are applied, would help the students to apply these strategies themselves in their internship lessons. Therefore, I decided that the first intervention of my research would be the development of elaborate and coherent lesson material, supported by an organised collection of video fragments of real-life piano lessons.
I started by putting together a set of criteria that the teaching materials had to meet. Based on my evaluation of the initial situation and my own views on the overall approach of the piano methodology course, I made a set of 11 criteria, that are attached in appendix 3. The next step was to re-organise and expand upon the collection of teaching strategies (exercises, in-between steps, movement metaphors and the like) for pianistic skills. I created a list of common aspects of pianistic quality that I wanted to cover in my syllabus. For each aspect I described how it can be dealt with in such a way that musical intentions of pupils (rather than instructions by teachers) play a central role in the learning process. The collection of applied teaching strategies for common aspects of pianistic quality is part 2 of the syllabus.
I started making video recordings of fragments of my own piano lessons, both in my private teaching practice and my lessons in the KC (where I teach piano as a secondary instrument), which I have continued doing until the present day. I deliberately chose parts of lessons in which I applied teaching strategies that I want my students to master and apply in their lessons. I added titles and subtitles to these recordings, uploaded them as “hidden” videos to a private YouTube-channel, and created links to them in the syllabus.
After completing this part of the syllabus, I started working on the first part of it, covering the over-arching vision on piano pedagogy. For this part of the syllabus, there were several existing texts that had to be unified into one coherent document and meaningfully linked to the collection of practically applied teaching strategies. In addition to making this part of syllabus, I created a slide presentation for the methodology lessons, including a couple of video fragments that either explain concepts (such as proprioception) or function as an illustration of teaching strategies discussed in the lesson.
4.1.1 Feedback by colleagues on the teaching materials
Since I wanted to receive additional and early feedback on the syllabus, I engaged seven fellow piano teachers to critically read individual chapters of it. In summary, I concluded that they think that the lesson material generally meets the criteria. In the questionnaire, I asked them about the logical link between the educational concepts and the practical applications on them, which I considered to be the main element of internal consistency. Overall, they were positive about this feature of the syllabus, although they did point out some minor inaccuracies in my usage of piano pedagogy jargon. Furthermore, they provided me with several valuable additional teaching strategies, that I integrated into the syllabus.
4.1.2 Usage experience of the teaching materials
Applying the prototype of the teaching materials in the methodology course, I experienced a considerable improvement compared to the lessons in previous years. Designing the prototype had given me a clearer idea of what I wanted to convey. Also, it helped me to go deeper into the aspects of pianistic quality that I wanted to discuss. I noticed that we spent much more time on each aspect, and the students could contribute more of their ideas. However, in one of the early lessons applying the new materials, I experienced that using the syllabus prototype as teaching material within the lesson has the pitfall of the lesson tending to become a lecture based on it. In my view, the lesson became too much dominated by me, reading aloud the content of the syllabus and presenting examples of how to work on certain aspects of pianistic quality, rather than inviting students to come up with their own ideas and experiences.
In order to fix this problem, I created lesson sheets that summarize the information I want to transmit during the lesson, but also describe questions for the students to answer. The lesson sheets are attached in appendix 6. In general, I want the discussion of each aspect of pianistic quality to start with an exchange of pedagogical approaches that (former) piano teachers of my students have applied and approaches that students have applied themselves in their (internship) lessons. By doing that, we develop an image of the pianistic background of each student. Furthermore, it demonstrates that there is always more than one way to approach the acquisition of pianistic quality. In order to facilitate this exchange of experiences at the start of the lesson, at the end of the previous lesson I give the students one or more questions to think about as a preparation for the next lesson, including questions about how their previous teachers approached the aspect of pianistic quality to be discussed. After exchanging how previous and current teachers approach the topic at hand, I aim at igniting a group conversation by means of an open question. During the exchange of approaches and group discussion, many possibilities are presented. We discuss how these can be linked to concepts of instruction that we have dealt with earlier in the methodology course. Finally, I show further strategies for working on the aspect of pianistic quality at hand, if I think these are a relevant addition to the ones already discussed. The lesson sheets help me to preserve the intended interactive nature of the methodology lessons.
Throughout the season, we discussed all information covered in the syllabus in the lessons. After the course, I gave students a copy of the syllabus as reference material. I used the syllabus to structure the lessons, but it was not used by students as study material. As a result, students could only comment on the internal consistency of the lessons (that took place based on the syllabus), not on the syllabus itself. They experienced no problems in the internal consistency of the lessons. However, they expressed that it would have been nice to have the syllabus at the start of the course.
4.2 Internship discussions
4.2.1 Internship discussion, first class – March 2018
On the 29th of March 2018, I organised an internship peer-learning discussion for the students of the piano methodology course. Peer learning can be a tool for improving one's professionalism with the help of colleagues or peer learners. Prior to this session, I selected one video fragment of an internship lesson from each student. I selected these fragments based on the criterion that the student applies a listening assignment, a movement metaphor or in-between steps as a tool for working on pianistic quality. Even though the students had handed in several recorded internship lessons, I found only one suitable lesson fragment for each student. On average, the fragments were three minutes long.
At the start of the session, I explained its procedure to the students. We watched a video fragment, filled out the observation sheet and exchanged what we had written down. In the exchange phase, the observed student had the first turn in the discussion, after which the other students and I had the opportunity to add our observations. I took notes of the main points of observation and feedback. Also, I made an audio recording of the session so that I had the opportunity to listen back to it in order to retrieve lost information.
The students expressed finding it awkward to see themselves in action as a teacher. At the same time, they also experienced it as useful. All in all, it was a positive and informative experience, both for the students and for me. I noticed that the students can point out peculiarities or possibilities for improvement for themselves. One student noticed she gave many instructions that started with “Don't...”. Another student was worried about talking too fast. The third student immediately noticed that in the fragment of his internship lesson we observed, he did not ask his pupil to apply the demonstrated in-between step by himself, thus diminishing the likelihood of his pupil being able to apply it independently in his own practice sessions. The students also came up with suggestions for improvement for each other. However, the main points of attention were generally already mentioned by students themselves, so that there were hardly any substantial additions to be made by their peers and me.
I noticed that the setup of the observation sheets required quite a bit of explanation, even though we read and discussed all questions prior to watching the video fragments. For instance, the questions that involved indicating the extent to which the observer agrees with a presented statement were sometimes misinterpreted. Possible ways of dealing with this are adding more detailed instructions about how to fill out these questions on the observation sheet, preceding each observation with a step-by-step discussion of the questions and showing an example of a previously filled-out form.
In conclusion, it was a fruitful session, in which the observation sheets played a positive role in focusing the feedback students gave each other. However, the design of the observation needs some adjustments that enhance its practical usability, most importantly to make it easier to understand how to fill it out.
4.2.2 Internship discussion 1, second class – December 2018
The procedure for this session was different from the session with the first class. In the first place, I had unified the three observation sheets into one and revised the content of it. Also, students had to observe the selection of video fragments and fill out the observation forms prior to (instead of during) the session. In order to facilitate this, I sent them the fragments a week before the session. This gave us more time to exchange our observations and have a conversation about potential points of improvement. Finally, the discussion of each fragment was structured by the following sequence of actions: the observed student mentions the main points he/she noticed in his/her lesson, the observed student may formulate a question for the other observers (something he/she would like to get feedback about), the other observers present their main points of observation and answer the question (if any) by the observed student, the observed student formulates new approaches to try out in future internship lessons. Again, I took notes and made an audio recording of the session. This time, the average length of the video fragments was eight minutes. Despite using our time more efficiently by performing the observations prior the session, one hour was not enough for discussing four lesson fragments. In fact, we spent two full lessons on it. I experienced this as positive, since a lot of useful information was exchanged. Considering this, I am all right with spending two full lessons on one round of internship peer-learning discussions.
The students reported that they experienced their observations of the lesson fragments guided by the observation sheet as valuable, most notably since they had never observed lessons in a similar manner. In addition to this, the questions on the observation sheet had demonstrated them potential observation topics that they had not been aware of and therefore had never considered when reflecting on their own lessons. More specifically, the questions about practice strategies were an eye-opener to one of the students, who reported not being used to thinking during the lesson about what her pupils do outside of the lesson. The students reported to find it hard to fill out the more interpretative questions of the observation sheet. However, since the session involves a conversation about the observed lesson fragments (rather than just exchanging the filled-out forms), students get the opportunity to explain their answers. Put differently, the observation form is a tool for focusing observations and feedback and intends to enable a productive conversation in which students think about potential areas for improvement together. It helps to make sure all observers focus on the same things. This further explanation of the role of the observation sheet made it easier for the students to answer the more interpretative questions of the observation sheet.
The fact that the observation sheets were now unified into one form implied that for each observed fragment there were several irrelevant questions. For example, lesson fragments may not involve one or more of the teaching strategies included in the observation sheet, making questions about them redundant. One student reported having to watch the video fragments several times. Since the unified observation form consists of five pages, it was challenging to keep all observation topics in the back of one’s mind. As a result, it happened that she realized something relevant happened in an earlier part of the fragment after having watched it completely, forcing her to retrieve this relevant event. Nevertheless, all students reported that observing the fragments and filling out the observation sheet became easier after doing it a couple of times. We therefore decided not to change the procedure since we expected that more experience with it will lead to more ease in the future. One minor change in the procedure for selecting the fragments was agreed upon: Since homework assignments and instructions on how to practice are sometimes given at the end of lessons, I promised to also include these lesson fragments, if relevant. Nevertheless, the lessons handed in for this session did not include such discussions of homework or practice strategies.
Student A had recorded a lesson with an eight-year-old boy, who had recently started playing the piano. The lesson fragment I selected involved the application of listening assignments. Its main topic was the distinction between legato and staccato, the piece was “Een witte Kerst” by Leo Wouters. She concluded that her usage of listening assignments is good and suggested that she could also employ listening questions before demonstrating something in order to allow pupils to observe her demonstrations in a more focused manner. Most importantly, she intends to pay more attention to the practicing process of her pupils during the lesson.
Student B had recorded a lesson with a twelve-year old boy who played the piano for two years. The lesson fragment I selected involved both in-between steps and a movement metaphor. Its main topic was playing melodically by making little crescendo’s towards accented notes and diminuendo’s after them, the piece was an easy arrangement of “Angels we have heard on high”. Student B reported that she found her teaching style to be similar to her own current piano teacher: she expresses clearly what she wants and is demanding, which has the potential pitfall of being pushy and over-asking pupils. She explained that the pupil in the recorded lesson has motivational issues, resulting in a very passive attitude in the lesson. She had been trying to apply an activating teaching approach by means of questions, but he kept saying “I don’t know”. Therefore, her question to the other observers was: “How can I engage my pupils more in the lessons?” After the discussion of her lesson, she planned to address this by employing activities away from the piano (such as singing and moving) and presenting this pupil with repertoire options. She will continue looking for an “entrance into his world”.
Student C had recorded a lesson with an adolescent pupil who already has an advanced level of playing. In this lesson they worked on Impromptu op. 142 nr. 3 by Schubert, focusing on overall calmness in expression, staying soft, keeping the crescendo’s small, play more legato and take more time at the end of phrases. The playing of this pupil demonstrates a good sense of style, high tempi and an easily recognizable enthusiasm. His main learning goal is to learn to “polish” his playing, for instance to be more accurate in terms of the correct notes, more fluent in his rhythms and to be clearer in building up and finishing phrases. The lesson fragment I selected involved both a listening assignment and in-between steps. Student C explained that observing his own lesson was a surprising experience. His questions to the other observers were: “Do I give this pupil too much space in trying certain things out?” and “How to encourage his [the pupil’s] extreme motivation whilst helping him to stay in control?”. Based on the discussion of his lesson, he intended to check more frequently whether his pupil has understood the instructions or comments, to be clearer and more specific in his instructions and to let his pupil focus longer on one aspect of the music, rather than introducing too many points of attention in a short amount of time. In addition, he planned to offer this pupil more guidance in how to approach practicing.
Student D had recorded a lesson with an adolescent pupil who had been playing for around five years. In this lesson they worked on Prelude op. 28 nr. 4 by Chopin, mainly focussing on pedalling. The lesson fragment I selected involved listening assignments and in-between steps. Student D concluded that he managed to apply many tools that he learned in the methodology course, more specifically listening assignments and self-feedback. He also noted that he regularly checked during the lesson whether his pupil understood his instructions and comments. His question to the other observers was: “Do I talk too much?” The observers expressed that they experienced the communication in the observed lesson fragment as positive, since it involved a balanced dialogue between pupil and teacher and many questions were asked. Also, the application of listening assignment was perceived as productive. Focusing on feedback, it was found that his feedback largely expresses his opinion (evaluative feedback) rather than describe what he heard (descriptive feedback). Based on the discussion of his lesson, student D intended to more frequently apply descriptive feedback rather than evaluative feedback. Finally, he planned to let his pupil try out different ways of doing things (including “wrong” ways) rather than only practicing the “correct” way in the lesson.
4.2.3 Internship discussion 2, second class – February/March 2019
These internship discussions took place during two methodology lessons in February and March 2019. Each discussion lasted around 30 minutes, following the same procedure as in the previous round: the observed student mentions the main points he/she noticed in his/her lesson, the observed student may formulate a question for the other observers (something he/she would like to get feedback about), the other observers present their main points of observation and answer the question (if any) by the observed student, the observed student formulates new approaches to try out in future internship lessons.
Student A had recorded a lesson with the same eight-year old boy as in the first round of internship discussions. In the fragment I selected, they worked on the C-major and F-major scales, with two hands in parallel motion, one octave up and down. The pupil had to play these scales staccato and legato. In this lesson fragment, student A applied a listening assignment, namely the question “What is the difference between these two ways of playing” after her demonstrations of legato and staccato playing. Also, she applied the movement metaphor of “happy fingers” intended to facilitate fine-motor playing gestures in moving the fingers over the thumb in scales.7 By observing this lesson fragment, student A found out that this pupil does not listen to the full instruction, but already starts playing during the instruction. Furthermore, in the discussion of this lesson fragment, we concluded that this pupil appears to be focused on the physical movement rather than the intended musical sound, which can be addressed by presenting him with goal-oriented (rather than movement-oriented) feedback. The pupil improvised with the practised scales, which is a nice way of encouraging pupils to develop a sense of tonality, rather than just playing scales up and down. We suggested that student A can give her pupil more feedback on his improvisations and let him explore different rhythms more. Finally, for the future student A aims to take more time for each step of the learning process.
Student B had recorded a lesson with a ten-year-old boy, who is a novice pupil. In the fragment I selected, they worked on achieving a light and clear sound in staccato playing. It involved the application of two movement metaphors intended to facilitate this goal, namely “Imagine your fingers are jumping on a trampoline” and “Imagine your fingers bounce the keys like a ball”. Based on watching back her lesson, Student B concluded that she could have asked her pupil more about what he heard during the lesson. Also, she expressed finding it difficult to verbally express the intended musical outcome to pupils. During the discussion, we concluded that more reflection (i.e. expressing in his own words what he heard in his own playing) would be good for this pupil, with the aim to develop his musical imagination and listening skills. In addition, we found the movement metaphors to be well chosen. In the application of these metaphors we thought the pupil could be more focused on the musical goal rather than on the playing gesture, i.e. the pupil could be more externally focused. At the end of the discussion, student B explained that she plans on making a learning plan for teaching children that helps her to organize the content of her lessons.
Student C had recorded a lesson with the same pupil as in the first round of internship discussions. This time they worked on the second variation of Schubert’s Impromptu op. 142 nr. 2, focusing on clarity of articulation and rhythmic coordination of the hands. The fragment I selected included in-between steps, namely to first play the piece together (teacher plays left hand, pupil plays right hand) and playing a simplification of the piece in which the pupil only plays the bass notes of the left-hand part, in combination with the full right-hand part. Student C found his approach to this lesson incoherent; he had not made a lesson plan for this lesson. His pupil has difficulty to rhythmically coordinate the musical lines of both hands. Therefore, the question that he asked the other observers was which teaching strategy he could apply for this. The other observers suggested him to apply more reflection, make it clearer to his pupil what the musical goal is (for example by giving more demonstrations), and to take more time to focus on one specific thing. Student C aims to try these things out in future lessons.
Student D had recorded a lesson with the same pupil as in the first round of internship discussions. The piece they worked on was an Etude by C. Czerny, focusing on building up and finishing musical phrases, finding out which notes to emphasize, and applying expressive timing to clarify the musical phrases. The lesson fragment I selected included a listening assignment, namely a reflection by the pupil following an imitation of her playing by the teacher. Student D noticed that he asked many questions during this lesson fragment, which reflects his intention to apply activating didactics. He also noticed that he still formulates his feedback as an opinion (“I think…”) rather than as a description (“I hear…”). In the discussion of the lesson fragment we concluded that the applied listening assignment worked well: the pupil could describe accurately what she heard. Throughout the lesson, she gradually improved the clarity of her phrasing, supported by the demonstrations, musical metaphors and exercises applied by student D. We suggested that he can additionally try out exploring alternative ways of playing phrases, such as asking the pupil to perform without dynamic differences or with “inverted” dynamics. This could help her to experience what the musical consequences are of various ways of phrasing, thereby enhancing her control of it. Also, playing together was suggested as a teaching strategy to convey phrasing non-verbally.
4.2.4 Internship discussion 3, second class – March/April 2019
The third and final round of internship discussions took place in March and April 2019. The procedure and average duration of both the lesson fragments and the discussions was the same as in the previous rounds.
Student A had recorded a lesson with an introvert, eight-year old boy, a different pupil from the previous rounds of discussions. They worked on an arrangement of the French folk song “Alouette”, focusing on finding an appropriate practice tempo and dynamic differentiation. The lesson fragment I selected included listening assignments, mostly asking the pupil to identify what can be improved in his playing. This pupil plays with a gross motor playing gesture: a “pushing” motion with the forearm on every note. Student A asked the other observers how she can guide him towards finding more fine-motor playing gestures. During the discussion of this lesson fragment, we suggested to challenge this pupil in terms of his pianistic skills, for instance to ask him to play even softer than he already did, or to dynamically differentiate melody and accompaniment. Also, we suggested to apply more demonstrations, for instance of the proposed practice tempo.
Student B had recorded a lesson with the same ten-years-old pupil as in the previous round. In this lesson they worked on an arrangement of the song “What shall we do with the drunken sailor”, focusing on making the accompaniment shorter and lighter, and playing the melody with accents on the right notes and playing the notes between the accents lighter. The lesson fragment I selected included a movement metaphor, namely to imagine bouncing a ball, intended to facilitate the production of crisp staccatos. Student B noticed that it took her pupil long to achieve the intended improvement in pianistic quality. She also noticed that he continued playing during her instructions and demonstrations, which might be one of the reasons why it took him that long. The other observers suggested to use the lyrics of the song as a tool to convey the sense of accentuation she was aiming for. Since this pupil is a native English speaker and sings in choir, he is very likely to sing this song with the intended natural accents. He could then be challenged to produce these same accents when playing this song on the piano. Student B intends to make sure this pupil listens to her instructions and demonstrations. More generally, she aims to make sure that inner hearing and physical playing become connected in her pupils.
Student C had recorded a lesson with the same pupil as in the preceding rounds. As in the previous lesson, they worked on the second variation from the Schubert Impromptu, focusing on rhythmic accuracy of the left-hand part and accentuation of the right-hand part. The lesson fragment I selected included in-between steps, namely to play only the bass notes of the left-hand part (leaving out the chords). Also, the student had to play the left-hand part, leaving out the bass notes and instead making a “sh” sound with his mouth. During the discussion, we suggested student C to shorten his instructions, be less analytical and let his pupil play more in the lesson. Additionally, we mentioned that he can more frequently demonstrate the intended improvement, thereby providing his pupil with auditory models rather than verbal descriptions. We observed that the in-between steps in this lesson fragment worked well and that the pupil wrote them down in his notebook. Student C intends to be more specific and less analytical in his instructions and feedback, and to more often demonstrate potential improvements to his pupil.
Student D had recorded a lesson with the same pupil as in the previous rounds. In this lesson they worked on the first movement of Beethoven’s Sonata op. 27 nr. 2, focusing on the dynamic balance between melody, chords and bass, and playing the soprano line with more melodic direction. The lesson fragment I selected included several in-between steps aimed at facilitating the dynamic differentiation of two musical “layers” that are played by one hand, namely a finger-tapping exercise on the lid of the piano, playing only the soprano line with the fifth finger (leaving out bass and chords), and holding the triad G#-C#-E with fingers 1, 2 and 3 of the right hand, and playing a repeated G# with the fifth finger on top of that. Student C explained that he was not sure whether the pianistic skill of dynamic differentiation within one hand is attainable for this pupil. In the discussion, we pointed out that the learning process of this particular skill generally takes time. More importantly, this pupil has a slow but consistent speed of development, and has managed to master the skill of dynamic differentiation between two hands during her lessons in this season. Based on that, we felt that she will learn this new pianistic skill too, even though she did not succeed within this lesson. Also, we exchanged some additional exercises and in-between steps that can be applied for the learning process of this pianistic skill, namely to divide the soprano line and chords over two hands and the “church bell game” that is described on page 38 of part 2 of the syllabus. Finally, we suggested student D to perform his demonstrations in the same register that his pupil plays in, so that she can more easily recognize differences between her playing and the demonstrations.
4.3 Expert consultation meetings
4.3.1 Expert consultation meeting 1 – September 2018
The first intervention cycle ended with an expert consultation meeting that took place on the 10th of September 2018. The primary goal of this meeting was to test the prototype version of my observation sheets. I wanted to find out whether they are functional tools for monitoring the development of didactic skills (in relation to pianistic quality) of piano methodology students. Additionally, I wanted to get feedback on their applicability as a tool for students to observe their own and each other’s lessons.
I invited two colleagues who teach piano methodology at a conservatoire: Marc Pauwels (Amsterdam University of the Arts) and Steven Faber (ArtEZ University of the Arts, Zwolle). Prior to this meeting, I sent them the three short videos (around three minutes each) that I also used in the internship discussion session on the 29th of March 2018. These videos were derived from the video recordings of the internship lessons, based on the criterion that in-between steps, a movement metaphor and/or a listening assignment was applied as a tool for improving the pianistic quality of the pupil. More specifically, these three lesson fragments were the only ones I could find in the recorded internship lessons, in which students clearly applied one of the selected strategies for teaching and learning. In addition, I sent my colleagues observation sheets and provided them with explanation about my research in general and the purpose of the expert consultation meeting in particular. All participants watched the videos and filled out the observation sheets prior to the meeting.
The expert consultation meeting took place at the apartment of Marc Pauwels in Amsterdam. It took around 75 minutes. We discussed the video fragments one by one, exchanging what we filled out on our observation sheets. I deliberately arranged the questions on the observation sheets from objective to subjective. I noticed immediately that there were big differences in our answers to the more subjective questions. However, despite this I concluded that having filled out the observation sheets was a useful foundation for a fruitful conversation about the observed video fragments.
The main conclusion from this expert consultation meeting was that the observation sheets are usable as a tool for monitoring the development of didactic skills and as a tool for students to observe their own and each other’s internship lessons, provided that a couple of changes are made. The most important improvement of the observation sheets that my colleagues suggested is the inclusion of questions that are related to an over-arching vision on the didactic approach of pianistic quality. I deliberately narrowed down the questions on the first version of the observation sheets to the quality of the application of three specific strategies for teaching and learning: listening assignments, in-between steps and movement metaphors. However, good application of teaching strategies does not guarantee an effective didactic approach. Effectivity also depends on good application of higher order guidelines for the didactic approach of pianistic quality. I present and discuss an organized set of such guidelines to students in an early stage of the piano methodology course. These guidelines are described in chapter 5 of part 1 of the syllabus I made for the piano methodology course, which I present as a separate document on the research catalogue exposition of this research. We concluded that, in order to monitor the development of didactic skills of students and to serve as a tool for self-observation, the observation sheets should also include questions about over-arching aspects of the didactic approach of pianistic quality.
In addition to this, my colleagues came up with some minor suggestions. In the first place, they suggested that the internship pupils should be recorded from the side, in order to facilitate observation of their posture and movements. Also, the audio quality should be better. Finally, there was some confusion about the questions that are formulated as statements for which the observer has to indicate to what extent he agrees with it, for example questions 3 through 6 of the observation sheet focussing on in-between steps. The observer is presented with the numbers 1 through 4, where 1 indicates complete agreement with the statement, 2 partial agreement, 3 partial disagreement and 4 complete disagreement. In the explanation of the observation sheets I included instructions how to answer these questions, but it would be better to also include a short instruction on the observation sheet itself.
4.3.2 Expert consultation meeting 2 – April 2019
The second intervention cycle ended with an expert consultation meeting that took place on the 23rd of April 2019. The participants were the same as in the first meeting. In order to limit the amount of time involved in the preparation of this meeting, I decided to select only the six lesson fragments handed in for internship discussion by students C and D (three fragments per student), since they had been attending the methodology class as a mandatory part of their bachelor curriculum, whereas students A and B participated as guest students. Prior to our meeting, all participants had observed these six lesson fragments and filled out the (updated and unified) observation forms.
Our discussion of the observed lesson fragments was focused on evaluating how these students apply teaching strategies for pianistic quality. We noticed that both students frequently applied in-between steps, relatively few listening assignments, and not a single movement metaphor. More importantly, we experienced that they could be more creative in finding relevant and varied teaching strategies; we felt they applied a narrow range of strategies, whereas the learning process of pianistic skills generally benefits from approaching it in various ways. There were considerable differences between students C and D. We observed that student D applied a more activating approach, guiding his pupil by means of questions, whereas student C tended to apply lengthy verbal instructions and no questions at all. Also, student D regularly discussed practice strategies with his pupil; student C largely overlooked this topic. Finally, we observed that student D was better than student C at expressing himself concisely, thereby presenting his pupil with clear ideas on what to improve. We thought student C showed some progress over the three lessons, most notably in finding appropriate in-between steps and presenting his pupil with instructions on how to practice (which he did not do in the first two lessons). Student D exhibited a more or less constant level of performance.
Our discussion of the observed lesson fragments was followed by an exchange of ideas on how to improve upon the current situation. The most problematic aspect of the didactic skills exhibited in the observed fragments was a general lack of creativity in the application of teaching strategies forms. In other words, we would have liked to see a much wider variety of strategies for teaching and learning being applied. We identified two potential directions for addressing this. In the first place, the lesson preparations that students are supposed to make prior to their internship lessons could be used as a tool to trigger creativity in coming up with various teaching strategies. For example, students could be asked to think of three relevant musical metaphors for the same aspect of pianistic quality they anticipate working on in their next internship lesson. Or, when planning to apply in-between steps, they could be asked to think of as many in-between steps as possible, even though in the actual lesson they will only apply some of them. Exploiting lesson preparations as a tool for triggering creativity obviously implies bringing them to the methodology lessons and discussing them with all students. In the second place, cooperation and peer-learning between classical piano, jazz piano and early music keyboard students could result in broadening the perspective that students have on potential strategies for teaching and learning. Classical piano students have often only had lessons in their own musical genre, and generally do not have an idea of what takes place in a jazz piano or early music keyboard lesson. This might explain the relatively narrow range of didactic approaches classical piano students apply. Observation of jazz piano or early music keyboard lessons could present them with additional ideas. Moreover, cooperation in the internship with students of other musical genres might bring about peer-learning and help them apply strategies for teaching and learning that they do not yet know by their own experience.
4.4 Evaluation of results
4.4.1 Evaluation of first intervention cycle – September 2018
I experienced considerable improvements during the first intervention cycle. In the first place, the prototype of the teaching materials (syllabus, videos, lesson sheets and slide presentation) enabled longer and more informative discussions about how to deal with common aspects of pianistic quality. Secondly, the internship peer-learning discussion yielded good results, and the observation sheets helped to focus the feedback students gave themselves and each other. However, it was impossible to evaluate the development of the students in terms of effective teaching strategies, since none of the students had handed in enough video recordings of internship lessons. Nevertheless, based on the lessons that they did hand in, I concluded that the goals of my research had not yet been reached. Further interventions were required in order to achieve the improvements I pursue.
Based on my experiences in the first intervention cycle, I came up with several additional interventions. First and foremost, I wanted to apply internship peer-learning discussions more frequently and in an earlier stage of the internship. In my view, the internship discussion in the first intervention cycle provided the students with a valuable opportunity to observe and evaluate their own and each other’s lessons. It could play a role in activating a reflective attitude towards their own actions if applied structurally. I decided to organise internship peer-learning discussions in December, January and February of the season 2018-2019.
In addition to this, I decided to enhance peer learning by exchanging internship pupils during the season. In other words, at a certain moment in the season, student A takes over the internship pupil of student B, and vice versa. I explained this idea to the students, and they liked it. Knowing that you must take over a certain pupil in the near future might enhance active participation in the discussions about how to approach teaching this pupil that take place in the methodology lessons.
Furthermore, I unified the three observation sheets into one and elaborated its content. Applying it in the internship discussion and expert consultation meeting had pointed out that the effectiveness of teaching strategies depends on more than mere good application of certain teaching strategies. The observation sheet should have a broader perspective and include questions about general aspects of effective teaching. Based on feedback by the experts, I decided to add questions focusing on feedback and practice strategies. These questions are derived from the guidelines for perception-based learning that I formulated in syllabus 1. Including these over-arching items on the observation sheet was intended to enable students to not only reflect on how well they applied specific teachings strategies, but on general aspects of teaching effectivity as well. Additionally, I realised that there were too many subjective questions and not enough objective questions, which I fixed.
4.4.2 Final evaluation – April 2019
The second intervention cycle also yielded many improvements, in my experience. Implementing peer-learning (by means of internship discussions) structurally proved to be a valuable addition to the methodology course. As can be seen in the summaries of the internship discussions in this thesis (paragraph 4.2), students were generally able to identify relevant points for improvement in their own and each other’s teaching strategies. Filling out the updated and integrated observation sheet was more time-consuming than using the previous (non-unified) version. However, the broader perspective of the new observation sheet enabled the students to evaluate not only the quality of application of strategies for teaching and learning, but also how these tools relate to more general aspects of pedagogy, such as how feedback is given and how pupils are guided in practicing. Students reported that this made them more aware of these general pedagogic issues. Additionally, watching the videos prior to the lesson (rather than in the lesson, as we did in the first cycle) saved precious lesson time, which we could spend on fruitful discussions.
Even though I experienced the internship discussions to be very productive, there are some elements of it that need improvement. In the first place, the recording quality of the internship lessons was still problematic. Students generally used their mobile phones for recording their lessons. For the observation of a piano lesson, videos should ideally show pupils from the side and slightly from above, allowing the viewer to observe both their overall posture and their playing gestures accurately. Most students struggled to obtain camera positions that result in videos meeting these criteria. In addition, audio quality was sometimes problematic. Apparently, students need support in dealing with these technicalities. More importantly, the second expert consultation meeting made me aware that the lesson preparations students make for their internship lessons were not integrated in the procedure of the internship discussions, which in hindsight I consider to be a missed opportunity.
Writing the chapter on the contextualisation of my research (chapter 2) has deepened my knowledge of motor learning and motor control, which in turn led to elaboration of the lesson material for the methodology course. More specifically, the concept of musical imagination has become more concrete, more supported by research and embedded in the paradigms of predictive processing and ideomotor learning. The lesson material (both the syllabus and the slide presentation) now includes chapters on predictive processing and ideomotor learning, which in my experience helps students to better understand the crucial role musical imagination plays in the formation of coordination patterns.
Students in the second cycle made more use of in-between steps than students in the first cycle. Moreover, I find that they applied in-between steps more effectively, in particular because they managed to create more logical progressions of steps. However, usage of listening assignments and movement metaphors was still limited. More importantly, the expert consultation meeting has pointed out that there is a general lack in creativity in coming up with relevant strategies for teaching and learning. As mentioned in the summary of this second expert consultation meeting, potential ways of addressing this issue are integrating lesson preparations into the procedure of internship discussions, and broadening students’ perspective of strategies for teaching and learning by arranging for cooperation with students of jazz piano and early music keyboard instruments.