As becomes clear from this figure, after each practice session the participant felt more or just as tired as before. On average, the participant felt almost 2,5 points on a scale of 10 more tired after the practice session than before. Furthermore, what’s worth noticing is that the first sessions, the difference between before and after is the biggest with sometimes a difference of 5,5 points. Over time, this difference becomes smaller, at some point there even is no difference anymore between before and after. This indicates that the practice sessions become less tiring over time.
The figure below indicates the tiredness for the normal practice sessions without the imagery exercises applied.
Results of the journal questions
During the intervention, the participant was asked to rate the practice sessions on the following indicators: engagement, motivation, confidence, tiredness and enjoyment. The results of each of these are shown in detail below.
A. The level of engagement
To measure the level of engagement each day the participant was asked how engaged she felt before the practice session and after the practice session. The first figure shows the levels of engagement during the imagery sessions.
As becomes clear from this figure, motivation levels start out high, just as the engagement levels. Where the motivation before the practice session differs, the motivation after the practice sessions remains rather high with an average of 9. Comparable to the engagement levels, the difference in motivation before and after is not larger than 3. The motivation before the practice sessions seems to drop after the beginning of the intervention up until the 23rd, after that, motivation remains stable and increases slowly. This pattern cannot be found for the motivation after the practice sessions. There, motivation remains high over time.
E. Enjoyment
The final question that was asked to the participant after each day was to what extend she enjoyed the practice sessions. The next figure graphically represents the level of enjoyment for the normal sessions and for the imagery sessions.
Recordings
As part of the intervetion, the participant has recorded herself regularly. Although these recordings have not been analyzed in detail, some fragments are really valuable. A selection has been included below.
A section of the imagery piece and the normal piece in week 3. First video again being the imagery piece, the second one the normal piece.
As can be seen in the above figure, engagement levels are rather high in general. The level of engagement is never lower than 6. At the beginning of the intervention, there is some similarity between the measurements before and after the imagery session. Further, engagement is rather high. This can be explained by the fact that it’s the beginning of the intervention and the participant is exited to begin. The engagement levels before practicing start to drop after the first few sessions. Only in the last ones, they go up again. What furthermore stands out is that although the levels vary, in general engagement is the same or higher after every session. Finally, the largest difference between before and after is on the 23rd of December with a difference of three.
The graph above represents the engagement levels during the normal practice sessions. The most remarkable difference here is that the engagement levels fluctuate much more than during the imagery sessions. Also, on average, the engagement levels are lower than the levels during the imagery sessions. Finally, the difference between before and after the session is much smaller. On average, the difference is 0.3, whereas the difference between before and after imagery sessions is 1.3 on average.
B. The level of Motivation
As for the level of engagement, also for the level of motivation the participant was asked to indicate the level of motivation before and after the practice session. Whereas engagement is more about the commitment to the success of the task and the ability to be in here and now during the task, motivation is more about the participants’ internal drive. The figure below represents the motivation levels during the imagery sessions.
The above figure displays the motivation of the practice sessions without the imagery exercises. The most striking difference with the sessions with the imagery exercises is that the pattern of the motivation before and after now seems to follow a similar pattern. When the motivation before is low, the motivation after is also low. Furthermore, with the imagery sessions the motivation after the session was in all cases higher than the motivation before the sessions. With the regular practice sessions, the graph shows that the motivation after the normal sessions is in most cases lower than before. Only the first few sessions motivation after is the same or a little bit higher. On average the difference between before and after is 1,5 for the imagery sessions whereas for the normal sessions this is a difference of -0,75. This indicates indeed that on average motivation was lower after the normal practice sessions.
What becomes immediately clear from this graph is that there seems to be a relation between the tiredness before and after the session. This relationship was not visible at all in the imagery sessions. Furthermore, the normal practice sessions are not as tiring as the imagery sessions. Sometimes the level of tiredness is higher after a session, but sometimes is lower. And most important, the difference between before and after is much smaller with a difference of 0,3 on average. Whereas for the imagery sessions the difference became smaller over time, no such pattern can be found for the tiredness after the normal sessions.
D. The level of Confidence
The level of confidence follows a somewhat remarkable pattern as becomes clear from the figure below
As becomes clear from the above figure, also here a striking pattern is visible. Compared to the imagery sessions, confidence levels are high in the first sessions. After a few sessions, the participant becomes less confident. This is contrary to the imagery sessions where the participant becomes more confident over time. Furthermore, the pattern of the difference between the before and after the practice session is contrary to the pattern of the imagery sessions. Here, the participant felt more confident after the sessions at the beginning of the intervention, but towards the end, the participant felt less confident after the session. With the imagery sessions, this was exactly the other way around.
Analysis and external factors
The expectation was that the imagery sessions would have a positive impact on the level of engagement, motivation, confidence, tiredness and enjoyment of the participant. In all cases the results for the imagery sessions were different from the results of the normal sessions. The results of the normal sessions, however, were comparable with the results before the intervention started. This indicates that there is indeed a relationship between imagery sessions and the level of engagement, motivation, confidence, tiredness and enjoyment of the participant.
The largest difference between the normal and the imagery sessions when it comes to the levels of engagement were that engagement was rather stable and high for the imagery sessions and fluctuating a lot for the normal practice sessions. It is to be expected that at the beginning of the intervention the participant felt more engaged with the project, but it could also have been the case that the engagement dropped after a few sessions because the exercises did not work the way the participant hoped they would. This pattern can be found for the normal sessions: at first the participant is quite engaged but after some sessions, this dropped. Furthermore, the results indicate that the normal practice sessions were much more influenced by external factors and the level of tiredness of the participant than the imagery practice sessions were. This becomes clear from the difference before and after the session. Due to external factors, engagement can be low before the session, but the results from the imagery sessions show that the engagement after was always high. Further, there is no visible relationship between before and after, whereas this is more the case for the normal sessions.
Comparable to the level of engagement is the level of motivation. Again, motivation starts out high, probably because it is the start of the intervention and the participant was exited. But soon the motivation drops for the normal sessions whereas the motivation stays high for the imagery sessions. Furthermore, here too the results from the normal sessions correlate much more with external factors and the level of tiredness of the participant. The levels of motivation for the normal session fluctuated even more than the levels of engagement.
What was somewhat unexpected was that the levels of tiredness were much higher for the imagery sessions. Since the practice sessions were very short (15 minutes) it was not expected that the difference between before and after would be so high. However, this can be explained by the fact that imagery and the exercises were completely new for the participant. Since imagery requires a whole new set of skills, this could take time to practice. Furthermore, Williamon (2011) stated that mental practice can be cognitively very tiring. He recommends a maximum of 10 minutes per day. The results confirm this the difference between the level of tiredness before and after the practice sessions become smaller in the later sessions. The level of tiredness was strongly influenced by external factors. As is to be expected, on busy days or the days of Christmas, the levels of tiredness are much higher. However, even though these external factors were of influence, the difference between the tiredness before and after each imagery session became gradually smaller, also on the days that the participant felt very tired. This could indicate that even though the intervention was only for a month and 15 minutes per day, the participant made progress in executing the exercises.
The results for the level of confidence were also surprising. The expectation was that the imagery exercises would lead to more confidence, but the opposite seemed the case at the beginning of the intervention. This again, can be explained by the fact that imagery was relatively new to the participant. What confirms this, is the fact that at the end of the intervention, the participant felt more confident after the sessions than before. Especially since it takes time to get used to the imagery exercises, for the first few sessions it could be that the participant felt like she didn’t accomplish anything. Another remarkable thing is that for the normal practice sessions the participant felt first more confident after the sessions, but at the end of the intervention less confident. This happens around the same time that the participant starts to feel more confident about the imagery sessions. Before starting the intervention, the participant was asked for the same indicators to keep a daily practice logbook. When looking at the results of this logbook, there is no clear pattern to establish between the levels of confidence before and after the (normal) practice sessions. In this period, confidence levels fluctuated a lot and seemed to be quite dependent on external factors. This could indicate that the confidence levels during the intervention for the normal practice sessions were influenced by the intervention itself. This makes sense, because by keeping track of all the indicators, the participant may have unconsciously compared the different sessions and the pieces, which of course can influence the confidence levels.
Finally, the extent to which the participant enjoyed the sessions was eventually as expected. At first, the imagery sessions were not really enjoyed but after several sessions they were more enjoyed than the normal sessions. This was as expected. The extent to which the participant enjoyed the normal sessions was much more influenced by external factors.
Results of the performance
At the end of the intervention, both pieces were performed by heart for an audience of eight persons. Persons 1-4 were harp players, the others were musicians but not harp players. The main results from the performance are listed in the two tables below.
|
Imagery piece |
|||
|
Technical proficiency |
Musically convincing |
Expressiveness |
|
|
person 1 |
7 |
9 |
8,5 |
|
person 2 |
7,5 |
8,5 |
9 |
|
person 3 |
6,5 |
8 |
7,5 |
|
person 4 |
8 |
9,5 |
9 |
|
person 5 |
7,5 |
8,5 |
9,5 |
|
person 6 |
7 |
8,5 |
8,5 |
|
person 7 |
8 |
9 |
8,5 |
|
person 8 |
8,5 |
8 |
8,5 |
|
average |
7,5 |
8,625 |
8,625 |
|
Normal piece |
|||
|
Technical proficiency |
Musically convincing |
Expressiveness |
|
|
person 1 |
9 |
7,5 |
7 |
|
person 2 |
8,5 |
7 |
8 |
|
person 3 |
9,5 |
6,5 |
6,5 |
|
person 4 |
8 |
8 |
7,5 |
|
person 5 |
8,5 |
8 |
8 |
|
person 6 |
9 |
7 |
7 |
|
person 7 |
8,5 |
8 |
7,5 |
|
person 8 |
9 |
6,5 |
7 |
|
average |
8,75 |
7,3125 |
7,3125 |
As becomes clear from these results, the imagery piece scores much higher on the questions how musically convincing the audience thought the piece was and how expressive the piece was. Both on musical convincingness and expressiveness, the piece scored on average equally. However, the imagery piece scored much lower on technical proficiency than the normal piece. Person number three scored the technical proficiency of the imagery piece with a 6,5 whereas this person scored the normal piece with a technical proficiency with an 9,5.
Furthermore, the audience had to guess which piece was the piece that was studied with the mental imagery exercises and which one was studied the normal way. Out of the eight persons, seven appointed the first piece properly as the imagery piece. Only person number 7 thought the second piece was the imagery piece. The reason person number 7 gave was that he/she thought that the performance of the second piece was more stable overall and therefore that it would have been practiced with the imagery exercises. All others listed the right piece as the imagery piece. The reason that most people gave was that the piece was musically much more convincing.
Furthermore, the participant was asked to log her findings after the performance. These results are listed in the table below:
|
Imagery Piece |
Normal Piece |
|
|
Satisfaction |
8 |
8 |
|
Engagement |
8,5 |
7,5 |
|
Enjoyment |
8,5 |
7 |
|
Nervous |
9 (10=very nervous) |
6 |
Some of these results are quite remarkable. After the performance the participant was equally satisfied with the performance of both pieces. However, she indicated that she was more engaged while playing the imagery piece and also enjoyed this one more. As became clear for the open question What went well, both technically and musically? with the imagery piece the participant was especially happy how the performance went since she was very nervous. Furthermore, the participant was very surprised how engaged she was while playing the imagery piece and how much she enjoyed playing it. This felt for her different from other performances she had done. With the normal piece, the participant was quite happy how the performance went. She indicated that it was much more as how she expected it to go considering the short amount of time she had put into it and the way she prepared.
Section A of both pieces in week 2, the first video is the imagery piece, the second the normal piece.
C. The level of Tiredness
Another question the participant was asked was how tired she felt before and after each practice session. The graph below displays the tiredness on the days the imagery exercises were applied.
For the first imagery sessions the level of confidence before is higher than the level of confidence after each session. After a while, the difference becomes smaller and sometimes the participant felt more confident after the session, but sometimes it was the other way around. But, towards the end of the intervention, confidence levels are consequently higher than after the practice session than they are before. Another remarkable pattern is that in general the confidence level starts out semi-high, then drop to a low level and then slowly increase to an even higher level than at the beginning of the intervention.
The confidence levels for the normal practice sessions are displayed below.
Goal achievement
According to the procedure of the intervention, each week there were several check-ups for the participant to compare the goal achievement of the two pieces.
Metronome speed
In the fifth session the participant was asked for the first time about the metronome. It turned out that the normal piece could be played at a slightly faster tempo compared to the imagery piece. In the 10th session, the question was asked again. Even though the difference between the normal and the imagery piece decreased, the normal piece could still be played at a faster tempo.
Musical intention
In the sixth week the participant worked on interpretation. The question that was asked was about the musical intention. The participant indicated that she had a more clear idea about what she wanted with the imagery piece. Furthermore, she indicated that the imagery piece got stuck in her head more often and that she was humming it even on the days she practiced the normal piece. At the end of the intervention this question was asked again. Now the participant indicated that for both pieces she had a clear musical intention, but that it felt more natural with the imagery piece.
Memorization
To check to what extent the piece was memorized, several questions were asked as a check-up. First of all, the participant was asked to check if the piece was memorized in the seventh practice session. The imagery piece turned out to be more memorized, but not completely. The normal piece wasn’t really memorized. After this, the participant worked several sessions on memorizing besides the previously set goals for each session. In the weeks after the check-up question was about if the participant was able to start at a random point. Again, the participant found it easier to start at a random point in the imagery piece. The final session the participant was asked to play parts from the back to the beginning. She indicated that now there was not much difference between the imagery piece and the normal piece but she indicated also that playing from the back to the beginning was one of her ‘normal’ methods to learn a piece by heart so she found the results not surprising.
