The development of practising strategies in young people

Psychology of Music40(5) 652 680

The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0305735612443868

pom.sagepub.com

The development of practising strategies in young people

Susan Hallam, Tiija Rinta, Maria Varvarigou and Andrea Creech Institute of Education, University of London, UK

Ioulia Papageorgi University of Nicosia, Cyprus

Teresa Gomes and Jennifer Lanipekun Institute of Education, University of London, UK

AbstractThere has been considerable research considering how instrumental practice changes as expertise develops. Much of that research has been relatively small scale and restricted in the range of instrumentalists included. This paper aimed to explore the development of practising strategies and motivation to practise as expertise develops with a large sample of participants at different levels of expertise playing a wide range of different instruments. A total of 3,325 young people ranging in level of expertise from beginner to the level required for entry to higher education conservatoires completed a questionnaire which consisted of a number of statements relating to practising strategies, organization of practice, and motivation to practise with a seven-point rating scale. Data were analyzed in relation to nine levels of expertise. Factor analysis revealed seven factors: adoption of systematic practice strategies; organization of practice; use of recordings for listening and feedback and use of the metronome; use of analytic strategies; adoption of ineffective strategies; concentration; and immediate correction of errors. There were statistically significant linear relationships between grade level and four of the factors but not for organization of practice; use of analytic strategies; and concentration. The findings are discussed in relation to the educational implications.

Keywords

concentration, development, expertise, motivation, practice

Corresponding author:Professor Susan Hallam, Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H OAL, UK. Email: [email protected]

443868 POM0010.1177/0305735612443868Hallam et al.Psychology of Music2012

Article

Hallam et al. 653

Introduction

Practice is central to the development of all aspects of musical expertise. Indeed, Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993) have suggested a monotonic relationship between deliber-ate practice and an individuals acquired level of performance. Supporting this, accumulated practice has been demonstrated to be a key variable in determining the level of musical exper-tise attained. Expert performers invest several thousand hours of practice over a lengthy period of time to attain high levels of accomplishment, although there are substantial individual dif-ferences (Ericsson et al., 1993; Hallam, 1998; Jrgensen, 2002; Sloboda, Davidson, Howe, & Moore, 1996; Sosniak, 1990). These differences suggest that the quality of the practice under-taken is also important. The extent to which musicians enjoy practice may be an important determinant of how much is undertaken or, indeed, the extent to which musicians attempt to make their practice effective so that they can keep practice time to a minimum (Chaffin, Imreh, , & Crawford, 2002; Hallam, 1995a, 2001a, 2001b; McPherson & Davidson, 2002).

Effective practice has been described by Hallam (1997b) as that which achieves the desired end-product, in as short a time as possible, without interfering negatively with longer-term goals (p. 181). In other words, effective practice is what works in the short term without interfering with progression in the long term, for instance by creating undue muscular tension. The underlying assumption of this definition is that effective practice can take many forms and that each musician requires considerable meta-cognitive skills to know what is effective for them. Deliberate practice, as defined by Ericsson et al. (1993), is conceptualized as goal-oriented, structured, and effortful, although motivation, resources, and attention are perceived as possibly acting to constrain its effectiveness. Also acknowledging the importance of practice being focused, Jrgensen (1995) proposes that musicians need to behave like teachers, taking account of their practice aims, the musical content, available learning media, allocation of time, and specific practice strategies.

Whatever the nature of the practice undertaken, time spent practising increases as exper-tise develops (Hallam, 1992; Harnischmacher, 1993; Sloboda et al., 1996). Focusing on the number of days when practice was undertaken each week, Sloboda et al. (1996) reported that novices and young people practised each day, although not all of the evidence supports this (Hallam, 2011). It may be that the number of days when practice occurs does not increase as expertise develops, but the length of time of practice sessions (Hallam, 2001a).

Research on the quality of practice has tended to focus on the strategies adopted. One strand of work has considered whether strategy use changes as levels of expertise increase. Studies with professional musicians have shown that typically they establish an overview and aural mental schemata of music to be learned by studying the score, playing the music, or learning from a live or recorded model. Difficult sections are identified based on the formal structure of the music, the most difficult parts being divided into smaller subdivisions. As practice pro-gresses the sections are linked together (Chaffin, Imreh, Lemieux, & Chen, 2003; Hallam, 1995a, 1995b). Research on the practice of those studying music in higher education in con-servatoires or universities has shown that they tend adopt similar strategies to professionals (e.g., Dos Santos & Gerling, 2011; Miksza, 2011), although they do not always implement them effectively (e.g., Nielsen, 1999, 2001).

Key questions are whether similar strategies are adopted by those at lower levels of expertise and if strategy use changes as expertise develops. Some research has addressed this issue. Gruson (1988) studied 43 pianists from novice to professional level and found that, as expertise devel-oped, there was an increase in the repetition of sections, verbalizing and playing hands sepa-rately, while errors, repeating single notes and pauses decreased. Hallam (1997a), studying 55 string players aged 618 ranging from beginner to post-grade 8 standard, identified six levels of

654 Psychology of Music 40(5)

practice. Initially there was much time wasting and work was incomplete; at the second level the music was played through with no corrections; at the third, single notes were corrected; at the fourth, the material was played through with short sections repeated en route; at the fifth the material was played through with large sections practised en route; while at the sixth level the material was played through initially, with difficult sections identified and worked on in isola-tion. The correlation between these levels and graded examination level was 0.69, suggesting enhanced strategy use as expertise developed. McPherson and Renwick (2001) also found rela-tively ineffective practice in a longitudinal study of relative beginners undertaken over three years. Most practice time was spent playing through a piece with the children sometimes repeat-ing a small section after an error. Some worked things out before playing. These studies suggest that strategy use does develop simultaneously with expertise. However, they have limitations in terms of sample size and instrument breadth (Gruson, 1988; Hallam, 1997a) and because of the length of the period of the study (McPherson & Renwick, 2001).

One of the difficulties that beginners and novices may experience is not having appropriate schemata against which to evaluate progress. If learners have not acquired an internalized rep-resentation of the sound of the music that they are trying to play, they have nothing against which to assess whether they are making errors. There is certainly evidence that this is the case. Hallam (1997a) found that 60% of beginners, novices and advanced students when learning a new piece left errors uncorrected. Once errors were made they tended to become permanent and were left uncorrected. Similar observations were made by McPherson and Renwick (2001) and Pitts, Davidson, and McPherson (2000). Only when students had considerable expertise and had well-developed schemata were errors consistently corrected. One possible strategy to sup-port the development of relevant aural schemata is the use of recordings (Puopolo, 1971; Zurcher, 1975) as this provides learners with the opportunity to acquire knowledge of the sounds that they are trying to recreate before practising. However, there is some evidence that recordings, even when available, are infrequently used (Miksza, 2007) and even when they are used this is not always effective in enhancing performance (Anderson, 1981; Linklater, 1997).

Musicians often have to learn to play passages at considerable speed. Initially, while ensuring that they are playing the correct notation, they may have to begin their practice playing the passage slowly. Drake and Palmer (2000) observed three approaches adopted by students at different levels of expertise in learning to play fast passages. Beginners tended to stick to one tempo throughout practice sessions, novices increased tempo gradually until they reached a limit, while the most accomplished students gradually increased tempo over each practice ses-sion. These findings are supported by those of Barry (1992) and Oura and Hatano (2001). The adoption of these strategies is clearly important to support the development of high levels of expertise. The question is to what extent do they develop in young people playing a wide range of instruments across a broad range of expertise?

Another strand of research has explored whether the organization of practice contributes to its effectiveness (Barry, 1992; DeNicola, 1990; Price, 1992; Santana, 1978). At the start of practice sessions many musicians carry out warm-up exercises, although there is considerable individual variation in the extent to which these are perceived to be necessary; this in part may relate to the instrument that they play (Hallam, 1995a; Jrgensen, 1998). Technical exercises often follow with repertory work left until last (Duke, Flowers, & Wolfe, 1997). Highly expert young musicians focus on scales in morning practice sessions rather than those later in the day (Sloboda et al., 1996) suggesting that this may be an important strategy in developing high levels of expertise. They may do this because they treat scales as warm-up exercises, or they may believe that they will be better able to concentrate on technique in the morning. A distinc-tion has also been made between formal (deliberate) and informal practice (playing favourite

Hallam et al. 655

pieces by ear, messing about with music, improvising); (McPherson & McCormick, 1999; Sloboda & Davidson, 1996). High achievers tend to report more formal and informal practice (Sloboda & Davidson, 1996) which may indicate higher levels of enjoyment of making music.

In order for practice to be focused, learners must concentrate. There is considerable evidence that some learners do not succeed in concentrating and engage in displacement activities, for instance setting up a music stand, maintaining the instrument (McPherson & Renwick, 2001; Pitts et al, 2000a). Concentration may improve as expertise develops. McPherson and Renwick (2001) found that, over a period of three years, a higher percentage of practice time was focused on improving performance with less time spent in off-task activities. This may reflect an increase in meta-cognition, knowledge concerning ones own cognitive processes and products and the active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes (Flavell, 1976, p. 232). These are activities with which professional musicians consistently engage. Hallam (2001a, 2001b), requiring students to undertake a performance task within a limited space of time, explored the extent of implicit planning and found that those who exhibited high levels of planning completed the task, identified difficulties early on, concentrated their efforts on those difficulties and then integrated learned sections together. These strategies were adopted most frequently by students at higher levels of expertise.

Such activities have also been conceptualized as self-regulation (McPherson & Zimmerman, 2002). McPherson (1997), working with 101 high school wind players, demonstrated that self-regulated musicians employed more sophisticated and musically appropriate strategies. Adopting a different perspective, Cantwell and Millard (1994) studied six 14-year-old students and identi-fied deep and surface approaches to learning music, the former involving learning in musical rather than technical terms. This led to a greater focus on understanding and subsequently enhanced learning outcomes. Perhaps the focus on musical outcomes sustained students inter-est. Similarly, Duke, Cash, and Allen (2011) found that concentration on the sound produced led to more accurate performance than focus on the movements required for making the sounds.

Having well-defined aims for practice may support concentration. Ericsson et al. (1993) con-cluded that having a clear goal for each practice session was important for learning to occur. However, the evidence suggests that novices and more accomplished students often fail to for-mulate goals for practice activities and mastering specific tasks (Jrgensen, 1998).

Some research has focused on the direct relationship between strategy use and learning out-comes. For instance, Miksza (2011) investigated the relationships between observed practice behaviours consistent with conceptions of deliberate practice and the performance achievement of a specific piece of 55 college wind players. Participants completed a 23-minute practice ses-sion and were assessed on their performance pre- and post-practice. While there was some improvement in assessed performance this was very small, although there was more variability post-practice. Significant positive correlations were found between pre- and post-performance measures and repeating two to four bar chunks, whole-part-whole strategies, linking sections together and the use of the metronome. The relatively small changes in performance outcomes preclude firm conclusions about the extent to which strategy use assisted learners in the short practice period they were allocated to prepare the set piece, although the positive correlations with pre-practice performance suggest that strategy use was linked to overall levels of expertise.

In a study conducted over a 16-week period where graduate and undergraduate students prepared a short Brazilian piano piece without guidance from teachers, Dos Santos and Gerling (2011) found that students exhibited different performance outcomes although they were simi-lar in their levels of self-regulation. Hallam (2011), researching school-aged students, similarly found no relationship between the practising strategies adopted and the quality of performance at particular levels of expertise.


It is clearly important to our understanding of the development of expertise to be able to establish the relationship between time spent practising, the adoption of particular practising strategies, the organization of practice, motivation to practise and the level of expertise and the quality of performance at that level of expertise. The study reported here aims to explore these relationships with a large sample of young people at different levels of expertise playing a wide range of instruments. The specific research questions are:

Does the amount of practice increase as expertise develops? Do practising strategies, organization of practice and levels of concentration of young

people change as they become more expert? Do young peoples attitudes towards practising change as they become more expert and

are these related to the amount of practice undertaken? Does the adoption of effective practising strategies contribute to attaining high levels of

expertise? Does the adoption of effective practising strategies contribute to the quality of that

expertise?

On the basis of previous research we would expect that: the amount of practice will increase as expertise develops; that practising strategies, organization of practice and levels of concentration will change as learners become more expert; and that the adoption of effective practising strate-gies will contribute to attaining high levels of expertise and to the quality of that expertise.

Method

Design

Previous research in this area has tended to adopt observation methods with practice being recorded using audio or video equipment. While this facilitates detailed analysis of real life events, it is time consuming. As a result sample sizes tend to be relatively limited in size. To address this issue the present study adopted a self-report questionnaire as a means of collecting data from a large sample of learners. Analysis of variance was used to analyze the data, with level of expertise as the independent variable and practice time and the outcomes of two factor analyses as the dependent variables. Multiple regression techniques were also adopted.

Materials

The questionnaire was devised based on the research evidence outlined earlier and a smaller scale prior study (Hallam, 2011). The questionnaire sought information about the level of expertise attained (assessed by the highest examination grade achieved) and the quality of per-formance at that level of expertise (as measured by the mark obtained in the highest grade). In the United Kingdom (UK) there are several independent examination boards which offer graded instrumental examinations, usually from preliminary to grade 8. Typically, graded examina-tions assess candidates performance on pieces, scales, sight-reading, and aural tests, with some examination boards assessing technical exercises and improvisation tasks. These provide a con-venient, widely recognized and impartial means of assessing level of expertise and, through the mark given, the quality of that expertise. Respondents were also asked to indicate the length of time they had spent learning to play an instrument and the number and length of practice

Hallam et al. 657

sessions in a typical week. The questionnaire also included a range of statements relating to: the practising strategies adopted; the organization and management of practice; and motiva-tion to practise. Respondents were requested to respond to these on a seven-point Likert scale with 7 indicating the strongest agreement and 1 the strongest disagreement. The question-naire was piloted on a small group of young musicians to ensure that the statements were easy to understand. Their feedback indicated that no changes were required. The full questionnaire is included in Appendix 1.

Respondents

Data were collected by a team of researchers from young people playing all of the classical and popular musical instruments in a variety of settings, including two junior conservatoires, two local authority youth orchestras, two local authority Saturday music schools, a conservatoire for popular music, and three state comprehensive schools. The children who participated were receiving tuition on their instruments individually or in small groups of no more than four children. The organizations which the children were attending were approached and permis-sion requested for questionnaires to be administered. Convenient times for the researchers to visit the organizations were negotiated.

A total of 3,325 children ranging in level of expertise from beginner through to grade 8 level (minimum required for conservatoire entrance in the UK) participated in the research. Of these, 2,027 (61%) were girls and 1,225 (37%) were boys, with some not indicating their sex. The instruments that they played were representative of the classical and popular instruments played in the UK. The greatest number played the violin (28%) followed by flute (10%), piano (10%), clarinet (10%), cello (8%), trumpet (6%), guitar (4%), viola (3%), voice (3%), saxo-phone (3%), French horn (3%), trombone (3%), oboe (2%), drums (2%), double bass (2%), percussion (1%), cornet (1%), tuba (1%), recorder (1%), bassoon (1%), harp (1%) with other instruments played by fewer than 1% of respondents. The grade levels of the respondents and their ages are set out in Table 1. The age range was from 6 to 19 years and the number of months learning from 1 to 172. The Pearsons correlation between age and grade level was r = .618, (p < .0001), between the number of months learning and age .602 (p < .0001) and grade .592 (p = .0001).

Table 1. Grade levels of participants

Grade Number of learners

Percentage Mean age Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Preliminary 493 17.1 11.4 2.8 5.0 18.01 286 9.9 11.1 1.9 7.0 18.02 197 6.8 11.9 2.1 7.0 18.03 253 8.8 12.5 2.1 7.0 19.04 246 8.5 13.1 1.8 6.0 18.05 495 17.1 14.1 1.9 9.0 18.06 297 10.3 14.6 1.9 8.0 18.07 269 9.3 15.2 1.7 10.0 19.08 354 12.2 16.1 1.6 10.0 19.0Total 2890 100.0 13.4 2.7 5.0 19.0


Procedure

The research was designed taking account of the ethical guidelines of the British Psychological Society and the British Educational Research Association and was approved by the ethics com-mittee of the Institute of Education, University of London. The organizations that the young people were attending were contacted and asked if they would be willing for the researchers to collect data from students. The young people themselves were told that they did not have to participate if they did not wish to do so and were assured that the data would remain confiden-tial and that their parents and teachers would not have access to it.

The researchers administered the questionnaires to students in the various learning envi-ronments. The exact procedures for this varied depending on the environment. For instance, in schools the children completed the questionnaires during music lessons, while in the extra-curricular environments questionnaires were distributed and collected during break periods between musical activities.

Results

Does the amount of practice increase as expertise develops?

Respondents were asked to indicate on the questionnaire the number of days that they prac-tised each week and the length of time that they practised on each day. There was a significant effect of level of expertise on the number of days of practice, F(8,2865) = 12.85, p < .0001, and a statistically significant linear trend, F(1,2865) = 85.35, p < .0001, indicating that, as expertise increased, the number of days in which practice was undertaken increased (see Table 2 for means and SDs of number of days when practice occurred). There was a significant effect of expertise on the amount of daily practice, F(8,2864) = 60.48, p < .0001, and a highly signifi-cant linear trend, F(1,2864) = 388.22, p < .0001, indicating that, as expertise increased, so did the amount of daily practice (see Table 2 for means, SDs, and minimum and maximum daily practice in minutes). The number of days when practice occurred and the reported amount of practice undertaken in each session was combined to create an overall measure of time spent

Table 2. Number of days when practice undertaken and average daily practice in minutes

Grade Number of days of practice Average daily practice in minutes

N Mean SD N Mean SD Min Max

Preliminary 492 4.3 1.9 491 32.5 37.6 .0 180.01.00 285 4.4 1.6 282 26.4 17.6 .0 120.02.00 196 4.4 1.6 196 28.9 21.5 .0 120.03.00 251 4.4 1.7 248 32.4 24.7 .0 240.04.00 244 4.7 1.6 244 38.3 29.7 .0 180.05.00 490 4.7 1.8 492 46.4 38.3 .0 360.06.00 295 4.6 1.6 296 47.2 35.5 .0 280.07.00 269 5.1 1.6 269 59.0 39.8 .0 330.08.00 352 5.3 1.7 353 73.6 48.1 .0 360.0Total 2874 4.6 1.7 2873 43.8 38.1 .0 360.0

Hallam et al. 659

practising each week. There was a significant effect of level of expertise on overall weekly practice, F(8,2856) = 54.39, p


Table 3. Practising strategies

Grade Pre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Linear Sig

Number of participants 490 284 196 253 245 495 296 269 354 Practising strategiesI try to get an overall idea of a piece before I practise it

4.9 5.0 4.7 4.9 4.7 5.0 4.8 4.9 5.3 4.9 .031

When I practise I only play pieces from beginning to end without stopping

3.5 3.8 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.3 3.1 .0001

I work things out just by looking at the music and not playing

3.9 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 .0001

I try to find out what a piece sounds like before I begin to try to play it

4.8 5.1 5.1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8 .0001

I work out where the difficult sections are when Im learning a piece of music

4.9 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.2 .0001

I practise small sections of the pieces I am learning

4.9 4.9 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.2 .0001

When I make a mistake, I stop, correct the wrong note and then carry on

4.9 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 .003

I try to get a recording of the piece that I am learning so that I can listen to it

3.7 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.5 5.1 4.1 .0001

I analyze the structure of a piece before I learn to play it

3.9 4.2 4.1 4.2 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.9 .0001

I practise things slowly 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.2 4.9 .0001I know when I have made a mistake

5.5 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.1 5.7 .0001

When I make a mistake I practise the section where I went wrong slowly

5.3 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.5 .0001

When something is difficult I play it over and over again

5.6 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.6 .004

I learn by playing slowly to start with and then gradually speeding up

5.0 5.1 5.0 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.1 4.8 5.0 NS

When I make a mistake I go back to the beginning of the piece and start again

4.0 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.6 3.4 .0001

When Im practising I mark things on the part to help me

4.0 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.4 4.8 .0001

I practise with the metronome 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.5 3.6 .0001When I make a mistake I carry on without correcting it

3.0 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.8 3.0 NS

(Continued)

Hallam et al. 661

Grade Pre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Linear Sig

I record myself playing and listen to the tapes

2.8 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.1 2.9 3.4 2.9 .0001

I think about how I want to make the music sound

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.8 4.9 .0001

Organization of practiceI start my practice with scales 3.7 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.4 4.1 4.1 .006I start my practice with studies

3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.2 3.7 .0001

I do warm up exercises at the start of my practice

4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.8 5.1 5.3 4.8 .0001

I make a list of what I have to practise

3.5 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.5 .0001

I set myself targets to achieve in each practice session

4.2 4.3 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.2 4.1 .002

ConcentrationI am easily distracted when I practise

3.8 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.8 NS

I find it easy to concentrate when I practise

5.2 5.4 5.1 5.2 5.0 5.1 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.4 NS

Table 3. (Continued)

used to identify those factors before the breaking point of the elbow of the plot. A varimax rota-tion was used to enable interpretation and description of results (Green, Salkind, & Akey, 2000; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Two checks were made to assess sampling adequacy, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test (checks whether the sample is large enough to carry out factor analy-sis) and an anti-matrix of covariances and correlations which showed that all elements on the diagonal of these matrices were greater than .5, the necessary requirement. The KMO was 0.86, greater than the 0.5 required to assess the adequacy of the sample (Field, 2000). Following examination of the scree plot, a seven-factor solution was deemed to be the most appropriate. Table 4 sets out the weightings. Those below 0.2 have been omitted.

Factor 1: adoption of systematic practice strategies. This factor had an eigen value of 2.9, accounting for 10.7% of the variance. This factor had high weightings for practising sections slowly when having made a mistake (.737); practising difficult sections over and over again (.68); slow practice (.649); gradually speeding up when learning fast passages (.585); recognizing errors (.558); mark-ing things on the part (.308); practising small sections (.404); identifying difficult sections (.298); good concentration (.259); and thinking about how the music should sound (.268). There was a significant effect of level of expertise on factor 1, F(4,2492) = 4.09, p < .0001, with a statistically significant linear trend, F(1, 2492) = 6.79, p < .01 (see Figure 2), indicating that, as the level of expertise increased, the adoption of systematic practice strategies increased.

Factor 2: organization of practice. This factor had an eigen value of 2.073 accounting for 7.7% of the variance. This factor related to the organization of practice including starting practice with scales (.734); making a list of what had to be practised (.621); starting with warm-up exercises (.546); starting with studies (.444); setting targets to achieve in each practice session (.381); marking


Table 4. Rotated component matrix

Statements Factors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I find it easy to concentrate when I practise .259 .227 .699 I try to get an overall idea of a piece before I practise it

.663 .251


.701


.320 .450


.759


.298 .516 .229


.404 .264 .405


.225 .705

I do warm up exercises at the start of my practice

.546 .214 .220


.671 .252

I start my practice with studies .444 .486


.402 .427 .254

I practise things slowly .649 I know when I have made a mistake .558 .317 When I make a mistake I practise the section where I went wrong slowly

.737


.680


.371 .381 .224 .207

I am easily distracted when I practice .773 I learn by playing slowly to start with and then gradually speeding up

.585 .220


.643 .247


.308 .302 .228 .305

I practise with the metronome .224 .639 I make a list of what I have to practice .621 .208 When I make a mistake I carry on without correcting it

.793

I start my practice with scales .734 I record myself playing and listen to the tapes .738 I think about how I want to make the music sound

.268 .204 .268 .324 .267 .218

Hallam et al. 663

things on the part (.302); practising with the metronome (.224); and, to a lesser extent, learning to play slowly to start and then gradually speeding up (.22); and thinking about how to interpret the music (.204). There was a significant effect of level of expertise on factor 2, F(8,2492) 4.92, p < .0001, but no statistically significant linear trend indicating that, as level of expertise increased, there was no systematic increase in the organization of practice (see Figure 3).

Factor 3: use of recordings for listening and feedback and use of metronone. This factor had an eigen value of 2.048, accounting for 7.6% of the variance. It had high weightings for recording self-playing and listening to the recording (.738); listening to other recordings of the piece to be learnt (.671); and practising with the metronome (.639). There was a significant effect of level of expertise on factor 3, F(8, 2492) 29.48, p < .0001. A Pearsons correlation of factor 3 with level of expertise revealed an r of .26 (p < .0001). There was also a highly statistically significant linear trend, F(1,2492) = 184.5, p < .0001, indicating that, as expertise increased, so did the use of recordings for listening and feedback and use of the metronome (see Figure 4).

Factor 4: use of analytic strategies. This factor had an eigen value of 1.98 accounting for 7.3% of the variance. The factor had high weightings for: trying to find out what a piece sounds like before trying to play it (.759); getting an overall idea of a piece before practising it (.663); identifying dif-ficult sections (.516); analyzing the structure of a piece before playing it (.427); thinking about interpretation (.324); and working things out just by looking at the music and not playing (.318).

Figure 2. Adoption of systematic practising strategies by grade level


Figure 3. Organization of practice by grade level

Figure 4. Use of recordings and metronome by grade level

Hallam et al. 665

There was a significant effect of level of expertise on factor 4, F(8,2492) = 3.249, p < .001, but no statistically significant linear trend indicating that, as level of expertise increased, there was no systematic increase in the use of analytic strategies (see Figure 5).

Factor 5: adoption of ineffective practising strategies. This factor had an eigen value of 1.87 account-ing for 6.9% of the variance. There were high loadings on only playing pieces from beginning to end without stopping when practising (.7); and going back to the beginning and starting again when making a mistake (.644). There was a smaller loading on working things out just by look-ing at the music and not playing (.451). This latter might be conceptualized as a useful strategy, for instance, in terms of mental rehearsal. However, in previous research it was consistently adopted by beginners who also tended to repeat the whole piece with no identification of diffi-cult passages and returned to the beginning of a piece when a mistake was made. For this reason the factor was conceptualized as referring to ineffective practising strategies. This is supported by the negative loadings on identifying difficult sections (.222); thinking about interpretation (.266); marking things on the part (302); and practising small sections (.403). There was a significant effect of expertise on factor 5, F(8,2492) = 75.72, p < .0001. There was a negative Pearsons correlation of r = .436 (p < .0001) between factor 5 and level of expertise and a highly statistically significant linear trend, F(1,2492) = 462.3, p = .0001 (see Figure 6) indicat-ing that, as level of expertise increased, there was a decrease in the adoption of ineffective prac-tising strategies.

Factor 6: concentration. This factor had an eigen value of 1.48 accounting for 5.5% of the variance. The factor had high weightings on finding it easy to concentrate (.699) and negatively on being easily distracted when practising (.773). There was a significant effect of level of expertise on factor 6, F (8,2492) = 3.218, p


Figure 5. Use of analytic strategies by grade level

Figure 6. Ineffective practising strategies by grade level

Hallam et al. 667

A principal components factor analysis was undertaken with varimax rotation on the vari-ables related to attitude towards practising. The KMO was 0.58, greater than the 0.5 required to assess the adequacy of the sample (Field, 2000). Following examination of the scree plot a single factor solution was deemed to be the most appropriate. The weightings for the variables were I like practising .743; on some days I dont want to practise .623; and I find practising boring .808. The factor focus is on not enjoying practice. There was a small positive correlation between this factor and level of expertise, suggesting that students enjoy practising less as they become more expert (r = 0.123, p < .01). Table 5 sets out the mean factor scores by level of expertise. The data suggest that there is great enjoyment of practice after initially starting to play an instrument which wanes considerably in the middle examination grades (grade 36) with enjoyment and commitment returning beyond this level. There was a significant effect of level of expertise on attitude to practice, F(8,942) = 3.8, p < .0001, and a statistically signifi-cant linear trend, F(1, 942) = 12.5, p < .0001, indicating that, as expertise increased, enjoyment of practice decreased.

Pearsons correlations were undertaken between reported levels of weekly practice, level of expertise and the indices of commitment to practice. There was a positive correlation of .32 (p < .0001) between level of expertise and average weekly practice in minutes. There were no statistically significant relationships between liking practising and level of expertise or finding practising boring and level of expertise. There was a small positive relationship between weekly practice and liking practising (.167, p < .0001), a small negative relationship between not wanting to practise on some days (.092, p < .0001) and finding practice boring (.156, p < .0001).

Does the adoption of effective practising strategies contribute to attaining high levels of expertise?

A multiple regression analysis was undertaken with grade level representing level of expertise as the criterion variable and number of months learning, weekly practice, and the seven factors related to practising and attitudes to practising as the predictor variables. The multiple R was .729 with an adjusted R2 of .526, F(10,928) = 105.2, p < .0001. The beta weightings are given

Table 5. Mean factor scores by grade level

N Mean Std. Deviation

Preliminary 486 .19 1.0Grade 1 280 .10 1.0Grade 2 190 .00 .99Grade 3 248 .23 .93Grade 4 239 .26 .98Grade 5 481 .11 .91Grade 6 282 .27 1.0Grade 7 258 .03 .93Grade 8 350 .02 .94Total 2814 .04 .99


Figure 7. Concentration by grade level

Table 6. Regression coefficients for level of expertise

Beta weight Sig

(Constant) .000Number of months learning .457 .000Adoption of systematic practice strategies .031 NSOrganisation of practice .013 NSUse of recordings and a metronome .121 .000Use of analytical strategies .029 NSIneffective practising strategies .312 .000Ease of concentration .085 .001Unawareness of errors .051 .027Commitment and enjoyment of practice .095 .000Average weekly practice in minutes .055 .033

in Table 6. The strongest weighting was for number of months learning (.457) followed by a negative weighting for ineffective practising strategies and positive weightings for the use of recordings and a metronome. The other predictors had very low weightings.

Hallam et al. 669

Figure 8. Immediate correction of errors by grade level

Table 7. Regression coefficients for quality of performance

Beta weight Sig

(Constant) .000Number of months learning .168 .000Adoption of systematic practice strategies .004 NSOrganization of practice .117 .001Use of recordings and a metronome .116 .002Use of analytical strategies .015 NSPlaying through music adopted as a key strategy .245 .000Ease of concentration .034 NSUnawareness of errors .045 NSCommitment and enjoyment of practice .078 .023Average weekly practice in minutes .045 NS

Does the adoption of effective practising strategies contribute to the quality of expertise?

Participants were asked to indicate their level of performance in their last graded examination. Because participants had taken different examination syllabuses it was not possible to use exact marks as outcome measures so performance was divided into the categories set by exam-ination boards, fail, pass, commended and highly commended. Twenty four percent (624) of


participants responding to this question had failed their last examination, 17% (437) had passed their most recent examination, 33% (834) had received a commendation, and 26% (671) had received a special commendation. A multiple regression analyses using examina-tion outcome as the criterion variable revealed a Multiple R of .407 with an R2 of .156, F(10,856) = 16.99, p < .0001. Table 7 sets out the beta weightings. The strongest weighting was negative relating to playing through music adopted as a key strategy. This was followed by number of months learning, organization of practice and making use of recordings and a metronome

Discussion

The findings from the research suggest that, as expertise develops, learners practise on more days and increase the amount of practice undertaken on those days. Those at the highest levels of expertise, on average, reported just over twice the amount of daily practice of beginners. However, even the most advanced players did not practise every day. There was also huge varia-tion in the amount of practice reported at every level of expertise. This finding is consistent with previous research findings (Ericsson et al., 1993; Sloboda et al. 1996). The increase in practice is not surprising as the higher grade examination requirements include more scales and technical exercises and longer pieces from the repertoire. The increased volume of material to be learned takes longer to practise, hence more practice time is needed.

Learners at higher levels of expertise reported adopting more effective practising strategies and perceived that they were more able to recognize errors. They also ceased to adopt the inef-fective strategies of playing through entire pieces, returning to the beginning of a piece if they made a mistake, or correcting errors as they played through a piece. While these strategies may seem to be ineffective in the long term, it may be that in the initial stages of learning to play an instrument, where pieces are very short and tend to be of a similar level of difficulty through-out, they are appropriate. What may be problematic is that some learners are unable or unwill-ing to change their approach as the content of what they are learning becomes more complex and difficult. This is supported by what appears to be a dip in the adoption of effective strategy use at around grade 3. It may be that, as the repertoire becomes more challenging, some stu-dents cannot or are not sufficiently interested to adapt their practice strategies. These students may then give up playing. The increase in negative attitudes towards practice in these middle grades supports this. Further research taking account of drop outs would be needed for verifi-cation, although there is already evidence that those who drop out tend to practise less than those who continue (Hallam, 1998; Sloboda et al., 1996).

As expertise developed more use was made of the metronome and recordings to assist prac-tice and listen to the performance of others, although beginners also reported listening to recordings more than those in the middle grades. This may reflect the fact that, increasingly, beginner tutor books have recorded materials which can be used to support practice. After this stage, recordings of music to be learned may not be available until learners are tackling the standard repertoire for the instrument. The increase in the use of mobile phones for recording may also have facilitated the ease of recording practice and performance and therefore made this strategy more accessible. This type of feedback may be particularly useful to learners as it is visual as well as aural.

There was no effect of level of expertise on the organization of practice. While it might have been expected that practice would become more organized with increasing levels of expertise, the data do not support this. Perhaps organization of practice relates more to personal

Hallam et al. 671

preferences or other factors such as the instrument played, available repertoire, or constraints relating to where and when practice has to be undertaken.

The lack of increase in the adoption of analytic strategies is surprising. There may be indi-vidual differences in preferences for analytic or intuitive approaches to learning music which are unrelated to the level of expertise (Hallam, 1995b; Lisboa, Williamon, Zicari, & Eiholzer, 2005; Nielsen, 2001; Winold, Thelen, & Ulrich, 1994). However, there is evidence that analytic approaches can support secure memorization processes which would indicate their necessity at higher levels of expertise as more complex works are learned which need to be performed from memory (Hallam, 1997c; Chaffin et al., 2003). It may be that the young people in the research sample were not required to play from memory with sufficient regularity for the adoption of such strategies to be necessary.

There was no effect of level of expertise on ease of concentration. This may be an artefact of the self-report methodology. Self-reports regarding the extent to which one is able to concen-trate while practising or be distracted may be particularly unreliable. Despite this the data raise some interesting questions. While there was no relationship between mean responses and level of expertise, the two statements to which participants responded had different standard devia-tions. There was a reduction in the standard deviation through the grade levels for responses to being distracted but not for ease of concentration. Further research might explore these differ-ences as it likely that intensity of concentration is a key element in the amount of time needed to attain learning goals.

Attitudes to practice and level of expertise were not related, although as expertise increased there was an increase in not wanting to practise on some days. The data suggested that practice was enjoyed in the early stages of learning with less enthusiasm in the middle examination grades with enjoyment and commitment returning beyond this level. This requires more inves-tigation. There was a small positive relationship between the amount of weekly practice and liking to practise. It is surprising that this relationship was not stronger. The extent of practice undertaken does not appear to be strongly related to enjoying practice. This raises the question of what motivates young people to practise. Interestingly, a substantial proportion of those par-ticipating in the study had failed their most recent examination. Despite this they had sustained sufficient motivation to continue playing. This requires further investigation.

The findings from the multiple regression using level of expertise as the criterion variable confirm earlier research (e.g., Ericsson et al., 1993; Hallam, 1998, 2011; Sloboda et al. 1996) demonstrating that the number of months of learning was the best predictor of the level of expertise attained. The adoption of a range of effective practising strategies was not a statisti-cally significant predictor of level of expertise, with the exception of the use of recordings and a metronome. However, lack of ineffective practising strategies was a relatively strong predictor. It may be that, once ineffective strategies have been eliminated and a certain level of effective-ness has been achieved, there is a ceiling effect, and further improvement in practising strate-gies, of itself, does not contribute further to the development of expertise.

The findings suggest that number of months of learning was a significant predictor of the quality of performance at the level of expertise attained, although not all earlier research sup-ports this (Hallam, 2011; Williamon & Valentine, 2000). The strongest predictor related to the lack of use of ineffective strategies. The use of effective strategies with the exception of making use of recordings and a metronome was not an important predictor. This may be because other factors play a more important role in the quality of performance at any level of expertise than those related to practice, although, interestingly, organization of practice did contribute to the


prediction of the quality of expertise. It is possible that this relates to the role of scales and other technical exercises in many graded examinations. Organizing practice so that these technical elements are tackled at the start of practice may indicate a particular focus on them which contributes to gaining high marks.

There are limitations to this research as the data are based on self-report, although the state-ments relating to practice itself are based on research which has been previously verified with recordings or observational work (see Gruson, 1988; Hallam, 2001a, 2001b; McPherson, 2005; Pitts et al; 2000). There is evidence that learners tend to report adopting particular learning strategies before they actually implement them (Flavell, 1976). This needs to be taken into account when interpreting the findings. Getting accurate data about the amount of time which is spent practising is also problematic (Madsen, 2005). This remains the case for this study.

While the research has elucidated a number of issues it has also raised further questions. First, we need to know more about how the organization of practice contributes to the quality of expertise at any particular level and the nature of the use of the metronome and recordings in practice which contribute to the level and quality of expertise. Second, the data indicated that the young people did not unreservedly enjoy practising. There were higher levels of enjoy-ment during the beginner stages and at the higher grade levels. This needs further investiga-tion, as does why some learners continue to play an instrument to relatively high levels of expertise when practice is perceived as not particularly enjoyable. Although there is some research which follows up on those who drop out, this has largely been post-hoc. A large-scale study which collected data relating to practising and motivational factors and was then able to follow up those who dropped out would be useful in this respect. Related to this is the issue of those who had failed their previous graded examination and yet had continued to learn to play an instrument. Theories of motivation would generally predict that failure of this kind, relating to a voluntary activity, would lead to drop out. Clearly for many of these learners that was not the case.

Implications for education

The findings show that beginners learning to play an instrument tend to play through the music that they are required to learn. Initially, this may be an effective strategy as pieces tend to be short and of similar difficulty throughout. However, the evidence from this research sug-gests that, at middling levels of expertise, some learners may not be able to make the transition to the strategies required to learn the more difficult repertoire needed for further progression. Clearly they need support from teachers to enable them to work more effectively. Earlier research has shown that teachers often believe that they are teaching their pupils how to prac-tise (Barry & McArthur, 1994) while students report that this is not the case to any great extent (Jrgensen, 1995, 2000; Schatt, 2011). Indeed, there is considerable evidence that even those studying at higher education music conservatoires do not always adopt very effec-tive practising strategies (Austin & Berg, 2006; Miksza, 2006; Nielsen, 1999, 2001). This is despite the evidence that students can be taught to adopt meta-cognitive strategies effectively during practice and that this leads to enhanced performance (Bathgate, Sims-Knight, & Schunn, 2011). Clearly teachers need to focus more on this issue, particularly as practising for very long periods of time can lead to physical injuries and ruin promising musical careers (see Williamon, 2004).

Hallam et al. 673

How might teachers support learners in becoming more effective in their practice? They can model effective practising in lessons, providing guidance as to how to identify difficult pas-sages, subsequently modelling strategies as to how the difficulties might be tackled. This has the added advantage of encouraging analysis of pieces to be learned which can be extended as repertoire becomes more complex to include issues relating to structure and interpretation. These activities will need to be carried out by the teacher over a sustained period of time to be effective. This will require a change in pedagogy as there is considerable evidence that model-ling does not constitute a major element in many instrumental lessons (Kennell, 1992; Kostka, 1984) despite the fact that it has been demonstrated to be very effective (Dickey, 1991, 1992; Goolsby, 1996).

Teachers can assess whether learners are engaging with these processes during lessons. For instance, when new repertoire is being introduced learners can be asked to identify difficult passages and demonstrate how they would go about practising them. As repertoire is being mastered, ongoing technical challenges can be dissected, discussed and appropriate practising strategies developed. This will mean the learner taking an active rather than passive role. The evidence to date suggests that this is not usually the case, with teacher talk and student perfor-mance typically taking up most lesson time (Kennell, 1992; Kostka, 1984).

Technological developments in recent years, particularly recording facilities on mobile phones, have made recording performance and practice much simpler. Most young people can easily record practice and performances. These recordings can be used in lessons to discuss how practice and performance can be improved. This has been shown to be an effective way of improving practising strategies (Nielsen, 1999, 2001).

The feedback that teachers give, whether in response to recordings or playing in lessons, is crucial for improving the quality of learning outcomes (Colprit, 2000; Duke & Henninger, 1998, 2002; Hallam, 2006; Kennell, 2002). Even when learners can meet technical require-ments unaided, they frequently do not have the vision or knowledge to fulfil their potential musically (Dos Santos & Gerling, 2011). Learners need expert guidance in developing a secure technique, ensuring that the quality of the sound produced is pleasing and playing musically. Teachers need to be able to provide feedback in a constructive supportive way which does not negatively impact on motivation, particularly in the early stages of learning when the learner may have not acquired a strong identity as a musician (Sloboda & Howe, 1991; Sosniak, 1985).

If learners are to achieve high marks in those graded examinations which include consider-able technical requirements (e.g., scales, exercises), teachers need to find ways to encourage greater organization of practice so that these are addressed early in practice sessions. Modelling this in lessons may help in this respect. However, teachers need to take account of the aims and aspirations of their students in developing appropriate curricula. It may be that some students would prefer to focus on learning repertoire rather than taking examinations with high levels of technical requirements. There is certainly evidence that motivation is greater when learners have choice about what they learn and how they learn it (Renwick & McPherson, 2002). Given that most young people taking instrumental lessons will continue with music for recreational purposes rather than to pursue a career as a professional musician, this is important. Sustaining motivation in learners is one of the most important tasks facing the teacher and, crucially, ensuring that they develop a love of music which will sustain their interest in the long term.

FundingThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.


ReferencesAnderson, J. N. (1981). Effects of tape recorded aural models on sight-reading and performance skills.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 2330.Austin, J. R., & Berg, M. H. (2006). Exploring music practice among sixth grade band and orchestra stu-

dents. Psychology of Music, 34, 535558.Barry, N. H. (1992). The effects of practice strategies, individual differences in cognitive style, and gender

upon technical accuracy and musicality of student instrumental performance. Psychology of Music, 20, 112123.

Barry, N. H., & McArthur, V. (1994). Teaching practice strategies in the music studio: A survey of applied music teachers. Psychology of Music, 22, 4455.

Bathgate, M., Sims-Knight, J & Schunn, C. (2011). Thoughts on thinking: Engaging novice music stu-dents in meta-cognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi:10.1002/acp.1842

Cantwell, R. H., & Millard, Y. (1994). The relationship between approach to learning and learning strate-gies in learning music. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 4563.

Chaffin, R., Imreh, G., & Crawford, M. (2002) Practicing perfection: Memory and piano performance. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chaffin, R., Imreh, G., Lemieux, A. F., & Chen, C. (2003). Seeing the big picture: Piano practice as expert problem solving. Music Perception, 20(4), 465490.

Colprit, E. J. (2000). Observation and analysis of suzuki string teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48(3), 206221.

DeNicola, D. N. (1990, November). The development and evaluation of a twelve step sequential method to teach class piano sight reading. Paper presented at the November meeting of the Southern Division of the Music Educators National Conference, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.

Dickey, M. R. (1991). A comparison of verbal instruction and nonverbal teacher-student modeling in instrumental ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(2), 132142.

Dickey, M. R. (1992). A review of research on modeling in music teaching and learning. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 113, 2740.

Dos Santos, R. A. T., & Gerling, C. G. (2011). (Dis)similarities in music performance among self-regulated learners: An exploratory study. Music Education Research, 13(4), 431446.

Drake, C., & Palmer, C. (2000). Skill acquisition in music performance: Relations between planning and temporal control. Cognition, 74, 132.

Duke, R. A., Cash, C. D., & Allen, S. E. (2011). Focus of attention affects performance of motor skills in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(1), 4455.

Duke, R. A., Flowers, P. J., & Wolfe, D. E. (1997). Children who study piano with excellent teachers in the United States. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 132, 5184.

Duke, R. A., & Henninger, J. C. (1998). Effects of verbal corrections on student attitude and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(4), 482495.

Duke, R. A., & Henninger, J. C. (2002). Teachers verbal corrections and observers perceptions of teach-ing and learning. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(1), 7587.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363406.

Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. London, UK: Sage.Flavell, J. H. (1976). Meta-cognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intel-

ligence (pp. 231235). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Goolsby, T. W. (1996). Time use in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of experienced, novice, and

student teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(4), 286303.Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T. M. (2000). Using SPSS for windows: Analysing and understanding data

(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Gruson, L. M. (1988). Rehearsal skill and musical competence: Does practice make perfect? In Sloboda, J. A.

(Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 91112). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Hallam et al. 675

Hallam, S. (1992). Approaches to learning and performance of expert and novice musicians. (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of London, UK.

Hallam, S. (1995a). Professional musicians orientations to practice: Implications for teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 12(1), 319.

Hallam, S. (1995b). Professional musicians approaches to the learning and interpretation of music. Psychology of Music, 23(2), 111128.

Hallam, S. (1997a). Approaches to instrumental music practice of experts and novices: Implications for education. In H. Jrgensen & A. C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 89108). Oslo, Norway: Norges musikkhogskole.

Hallam, S. (1997b). What do we know about practising? Towards a model synthesising the research lit-erature. In H. Jrgensen & A. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 179231). Oslo, Norway: Norges musikkhgskole.

Hallam, S. (1997c). The development of memorisation strategies in musicians: Implications for instru-mental teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 14, 8797.

Hallam, S. (1998). The predictors of achievement and drop out in instrumental tuition. Psychology of Music, 26(2), 116132.

Hallam, S. (2001a). The development of meta-cognition in musicians: Implications for education. The British Journal of Music Education, 18(1), 2739.

Hallam, S. (2001b). The development of expertise in young musicians: Strategy use, knowledge acquisi-tion and individual diversity. Music Education Research, 3(1), 723.

Hallam, S. (2006). Music psychology in education. London, UK: Institute of Education, University of London.Hallam, S. (2011). What predicts level of expertise attained, quality of performance and future musical

aspirations in young instrumental players? Psychology of Music. doi: 10.1177/0305735611425902Harnischmacher, C. (1993). Instrumentales uben und aspekte de personlichkeit. Eine grundlagenstudie zur

erforschung physicher und psychischer abweichungen durch instrumentalspiels [Instrumental practising and aspects of personality: A basic study for research and psychological deviations through instru-mental playing]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter: Lang.

Jrgensen, H. (1995, April 610). Teaching/learning strategies in instrumental practice: A report on research in progress. Paper presented at the third Research Alliance of Institutes for Music Education (RAIME) Symposium, the Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.

Jrgensen, H. (1998). Planlegges oving? [Is practice planned?]. Oslo, Norway: Norweigian Academy of Music.Jrgensen, H. (2000). Student learning in higher instrumental education: Who is responsible? British

Journal of Music Education, 17, 6777.Jrgensen, H. (2002). Instrumental performance expertise and amount of practice among instrumental

students in a conservatoire. Music Education Research, 4, 105119.Kennell, R. (1992). Toward a theory of applied music instruction. The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching

and Learning, III(2), 516.Kennell, R. (2002). Systematic research in studio instruction in music. In T. Colwell & C. Richardson

(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 243256). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kostka, M. (1984). An investigation of reinforcements, time use, and student attentiveness in piano les-sons. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32(2), 113122.

Linklater, F. (1997). Effects of audio- and videotape models on performance achievement of beginning clarinettists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 402414.

Lisboa, T., Williamon, A., Zicari, M., & Eiholzer, H. (2005). Mastery through imitation: A preliminary study. Musicae Scientiae, 19, 75110.

Madsen, C. (2005). A 30-year follow-up study of actual applied music practice versus estimated practice. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52, 7788.

McPherson, G. E. (1997). Cognitive strategies and skills acquisition in musical performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 6471.


McPherson, G. E. (2005). From child to musician: Skill development during the beginning stages of learn-ing an instrument. Psychology of Music, 33(1), 535.

McPherson, G. E., & Davidson, J. W. (2002). Musical practice: Mother and child interactions during the first year of learning an instrument. Music Education Research, 4(1), 141156.

McPherson, G. A., & McCormick, J. (1999). Motivational and self-regulated components of musical prac-tice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 98102.

McPherson, G., & Renwick, J. (2001). Longitudinal study of self-regulation in childrens music practice. Music Education Research, 3(1), 169186.

McPherson, G. E., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Self-regulation of musical learning. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 348372). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Miksza, P. (2006). Relationships among impulsiveness, locus of control, sex, and music practice. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(4), 308323.

Miksza, P. (2007). Effective practice: An investigation of observed practice behaviours, self-reported prac-tice habits, and the performance achievement of high school wind players, Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(4), 359375.

Miksza, P. (2011). Relationships among achievement goal motivation, impulsivity and the music practice of collegiate brass and woodwind players. Psychology of Music, 39(1), 5067.

Nielsen, S. G. (1999). Learning strategies in instrumental music practice. British Journal of Music Education, 16, 275291.

Nielsen, S. G. (2001). Self-regulating learning strategies in instrumental music practice. Music Education Research, 3, 155167.

Oura, Y., & Hatano, G. (2001). The constitution of general and specific mental models of other people. Human Development, 44, 144159.

Pitts, S., Davidson, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2000a). Developing effective practising strategies: Case studies of three young instrumentalists. Music Education Research, 2(1), 4556.

Price, H. E. (1992). Sequential patterns of music instruction and learning to use them. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40(1), 1429.

Puopolo, V. (1971). The development and experimental application of self-instructional practice materials for beginning instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19, 342349.

Renwick, J. M., & McPherson, G. E. (2002) Interest and choice: Student-selected repertoire and its effect on practising behaviour. British Journal of Music Education, 19, 173188.

Santana, E. L. (1978) Time efficient skill acquisition in instrumental music study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 732A.

Schatt, M. D. (2011). If I have time: Junior high school instrumentalists attitudes regarding practice. Visions of Research in Music Education, 19. Retrieved from http://www-usr.rider.edu/vrme~/

Sloboda, J. A., & Davidson, J. (1996). The young performing musician. In I. Deliege & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence (pp. 171190). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J. A., & Moore, D. G. (1996). The role of practice in the develop-ment of performing musicians. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 287309.

Sloboda, J. A., & Howe, M. J. A. (1991). Biographical precursors of musical excellence: An interview study. Psychology of Music, 19, 321.

Sosniak, L. A. (1985). Learning to be a concert pianist: Developing talent in young people. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 1967). New York, NY: Ballantine.

Sosniak, L.A (1990). The tortoise and the hare and the development of talent. In M. J. A. Howe (Ed.), Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents. Leicester, UK: The British Psychological Society.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Pearson International.

Hallam et al. 677

Williamon, A. (Ed). (2004). Musical excellence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Williamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2000). Quantity and quality of musical practice as predictors of perfor-

mance quality. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 353376.Winold, H., Thelen, E., & Ulrich, B. D. (1994). Coordination and control in the bow arm movements of

highly skilled cellists. Ecological Psychology, 6, 131.Zurcher, W. (1975). The effect of model-supportive practice on beginning brass instrumentalists. In

C. K. Madsen, R. D. Greer, & C. H. Madsen Jr. (Eds.), Research in music behaviour (pp. 125130). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Biographies

Susan Hallam is Professor of Education at the Institute of Education, University of London and Dean of the Faculty of Policy and Society. She has published extensively in relation to music psychology and music education including Instrumental Teaching: A Practical Guide to Better Teaching and Learning (1998), The Power of Music (2001), Music Psychology in Education (2005),and she is co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Psychology of Music (2009) and Music Education in the 21st Century in the United Kingdom.

Dr Tiija Rinta is an educationist and researcher based in London. Tiija completed her doctorate from the Institute of Education, University of London, on the importance of creative activities in educational settings with children who exhibit communication difficulties. Tiija has worked for several international NGOs, government agencies and universities since then. Most recently Tiija has worked for an EU-funded pan-European project on the usability of music technology for enhancing social inclusion amongst children from immigrant backgrounds. A recent visit-ing fellowship took Tiija to the Educational Research Academy of the Government of Taiwan. The products of Tiijas work are publications in international professional journals, articles in magazines, book chapters and handbooks for professionals.

Dr. Maria Varvarigou is currently working as a researcher on a range of projects related to instrumental music, practising, ear playing, choral singing, CPD for KS1 teachers, an evaluation of a major project by the London Symphony Orchestra, music provision in the Greater London Authority and the effects of active engagement of music on well-being and health in older people.She completed her PhD in 2009 as scholar of the A.S. Onassis Foundation.

Dr. Andrea Creech is senior lecturer in education and Faculty Director of Research at the Institute of Education, London. She is a regular guest speaker at the Guildhall School of Music (London) and Laval University in Quebec.Her research interests are musical development across the lifespan, learning and teaching for older adults and the impact of interpersonal relationships on learning and teaching outcomes.

Dr. Ioulia Papageorgi holds a BSc in Psychology and a BA in Music. She also holds an MA in Music Education and a PhD (Psychology in Education) from the Institute of Education, University of London. She has worked as a Lecturer and Coordinating Research Officer at the Institute of Education, University of London, and as an Associate Lecturer at the Open University. She is currently an Assistant Professor in the department of Social Sciences at the University of Nicosia, Cyprus.


Teresa Gomes has an academic background in Music Education and Sociology of Education. Early research addressed aspects of the development of cultural capital using music practices. Teresas recent research focused on the methods and processes used in music programming for radio and cultural venues. Her interest for future research is in investigating the relationships between cultural capital and leisure activities, in a life-course perspective.

Dr. Jennifer Lanipekun worked in secondary schools for over 30 years as a teacher of music and dance. Dr. Lanipekun has presented her research at universities and international con-ferences and has co-authored several baseline studies for the British National Singing Programme. Her first book (2011, Cambria Press, New York) is titled Communication in Theatre Directing and Performance from Rehearsal to Production. She is currently doing follow-up research.

Appendix 1

Research on instrumental practising

We are conducting some research on instrumental practising. We would be very grateful if you would complete this questionnaire. It will take you about 10 minutes. Thank you for your time.

Name______________________Age _______________

Main instrument _______________________________

Other instruments _________________________________________________

Do you take part in musical groups at school, e.g., orchestra, band? Yes/No

If yes, please indicate what the groups are ________________________________

Do you take part in musical groups out of school, e.g., county groups, community groups? Yes/NoIf yes, please indicate what the groups are _______________________________________

On average how many days a week do you practise? ______________________________

On average, how much practice do you do on each day? ____________________________

How long have you been learning your first instrument? _______ years ________ months

What is the most recent grade examination you have taken? _______________________

What mark did you get? __________ (please include the maximum that you could have attained, e.g., 71/100 or 121/150

Hallam et al. 679

Very strongly agree

Strongly agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Very strongly disagree

Practising strategies

I try to get an overall idea of a piece before I practise it









I practise things slowly I know when I have made a mistake When I make a mistake I practise the section where I went wrong slowly


I learn by playing slowly to start with and then gradually speeding up



I practise with the metronome When I make a mistake I carry on without correcting it

I record myself playing and listen to the tapes

Please indicate in the table below how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please answer ONLY in relation to your main instrument.


Very strongly agree

Strongly agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Very strongly disagree

Practising strategies

I think about how I want to make the music sound

Organization of practice I start my practice with scales I start my practice with studies I do warm up exercises at the start of my practice

I make a list of what I have to practise


Concentration I am easily distracted when I practice

I find it easy to concentrate when I practise

Attitudes towards practising I like practising On some days I dont want to practise

I find practising boring

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

The development of practising strategies in young people

Documents

practice time

hours of practice

practice under

practice effective

accumulated practice

level of expertise

instrumental practice

university of london