Individual differences between the practising behaviours of six pianists: A challenge to Perceptual Learning Style theory

Abstract

Perceptual Learning Style theory (PLS) claims that the presentation of information in either a visual, auditory or kinaesthetic format will improve the learning of selected individuals due to the dominance of one or more modality in their information gathering. The modality dominance of six Western classical pianists in higher music education was explored through observing their practising in four different situations totalling 80 minutes, and conducting interviews with them in a stimulated-recall protocol after each observation. The observation and interview data were analysed to 1) identify patterns in individuals’ approaches to learning new musical material from scores, to 2) identify differences between the individuals, and to 3) relate these differences to the predictions of PLS. Thirteen behavioural categories were identified that differentiated the pianists, but these could not be convincingly linked to PLS. The findings of the study question the applicability of the theory to musical practising.

Keywords

individual differences instrumental learning and teaching perception pianists practising

Introduction

Research about what it is that musicians learn and how they go about learning it has largely focused either on individual musicians and how they approach the significant challenge of learning to perform a major work from memory (Chaffin, Imreh, & Crawford, 2002; Lehmann & Ericsson, 1998; Miklaszewski, 1989; Nielsen, 1999b), or on finding shared or common characteristics of the learning of musicians (Cahn, 2008; Gruson, 1988; Highben & Palmer, 2004; Leon-Guerrero, 2008; Lim & Lippman, 1991; Miksza, 2007; Nielsen, 2004), often with a view to defining effective practice. Studies that identify individual differences in practising behaviours or strategies have been less common.

In the general paradigm of defining individual differences, Hultberg (2008) showed differences of orientation in the interpretation seeking of two guitarists working together to prepare for a concert tour. In her study, one guitarist was more oriented to the written notes while the other was more oriented to playing and sound. Miklaszewski (1995) used Pask’s (1976) distinction between holist and serialist approaches to describe the differences in working style between two pianists. Hallam (1995) also used Pask in her study of the practising habits of musicians, but adapted his terms to holist/analytic and serialist/intuitive in order to differentiate between those musicians that engage in conscious planning and those that engage in unconscious planning, while maintaining a general holist or serialist approach. Nielsen (1999a) demonstrated that two advanced conservatory-level organists skilfully self-regulated their learning, taking into account a variety of interpersonal, contextual and intrapersonal factors that did not readily group into fixed behaviour patterns. Hallam (2001) similarly concluded that,

there is no single expert way to perform all tasks […] effective practice might take many forms depending on the nature of the task to be undertaken, the context within which the task is to be learned, the level of expertise already acquired, and individual differences. (p. 28)

Despite the complexity of effective practice described by Hallam and Nielsen (see also Gabrielsson, 1999, 2003), a number of authors have suggested that Perceptual Learning Style theory (PLS)¹ should be applied to musical learning and teaching (Beheshti, 2009; Everett, 1997; Garcia, 2002; Gault, 2005; Miller, 2002; Swanson, 2005), and a number of research studies have given support to the concept of PLS in aspects of musical learning (Calissendorff, 2006; Dunn, 2008; Korenman & Peynircioglu, 2007; Persellin, 1992, 1994; Persellin & Pierce, 1988; Zikmund & Nierman, 1992). The main formulations of PLS argue that: learning takes place when information is received and retained through sensory modalities (typically including only the visual, auditory and kinaesthetic modalities); individuals typically display modality dominance in one or two modalities; and, information presented in the dominant modalities of the individual will be processed faster and remembered better than information presented in another modality. For these reasons it is argued that teachers should identify the modality dominance of their students, either by observing the ways that they learn or by getting them to fill in a self-report questionnaire, and adapt their teaching to suit these modality dominances (Barbe & Swassing, 1979; Fleming, 2006a; see also Odendaal, 2013, for a fuller discussion of the definitions of PLS in musical learning and teaching). Many aspects of the theory do not hold up under close scrutiny (Odendaal, 2014, 2016; Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006; Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008; Sharpley, 1984, 1987). There exists, however, an intuitive link between PLS and the ways that musicians describe their memorisation as being either visual, aural, motoric or analytic (Ginsborg, 2004; Imreh & Crawford, 2002), which makes the use of the theory appealing to some musicians. This link has not been investigated in naturalistic settings with advanced musicians, although it has been successfully identified in young children by using short and clear tasks (e.g. Dunn, 2008; Persellin & Pierce, 1988).

Aims

Since there is a need for further comparative research into the practising of musicians, and since the research on PLS of musicians is contested and has not considered the practising of advanced musicians, a study was devised to compare the practising and expressed views on practising of six Western classical pianists in higher music education in order to 1) identify patterns in individuals’ approaches to learning new musical material from scores, 2) identify differences between the individuals based on these patterns, and 3) relate these differences to the predictions of PLS. Space does not permit presentation of complete results on an individual basis, and so this paper will only present results that describe the differences between individuals, and then discuss the relationship between these differences and PLS.

Participants

Six pianists specialising in Western classical piano performance at a large northern European institution of higher education were invited, either through their teachers or through direct contact, to participate in the study. Each consented to the level of involvement required of them and understood that the study would be investigating how they use their senses while practising. However, PLS was not mentioned by the researcher at any point, to minimise response bias. The sample was balanced for gender, and included a range of experience from a first-year student to one just finishing the five-and-a-half year Master’s degree (see Table 1). All the participants were engaged in study towards piano performance degrees.

Table 1.

Gender, phase of study, teachers and repertoire of the six participants in the observation study.

Participant	Gender	Phase of study	Teacher	Repertoire
Carlos^a	Male	One year to B exam^b	X	M. Clementi (1752–1832) Sonata for piano Op. 50 No. 3 in g minor “Didone abbandonata: scena tragica”, and Breffni O’Byrne (1988–) Op. 1 “Rhapsody: On an Irish song”.
Khatia	Female	Preparing for B exam	Z	J. S. Bach (1685–1750) Prelude and Fugue in C# Major from The Well-Tempered Clavier (Book I), and C. Franck (1822–1890) Symphonic Variations.
Martha	Female	One year to A exam	Y	L. van Beethoven (1770–1827) Sonata Op. 28 in D major, 2^nd movement, and Henri Dutilleux (1916–) “Le jeu des contraires” from Trois Préludes for piano.
Maurizio	Male	Preparing for A exam	X	L. van Beethoven Sonata Op. 111 in c minor, 1^st movement, and J. S. Bach Prelude and Fugue in b flat minor from The Well-Tempered Clavier (Book I).
Rosalyn	Female	Preparing for A exam	Y	L. van Beethoven Fourth Piano Concerto in G Major Op. 58, 1^st movement, and J. Brahms (1833–1897) Variations and a Fugue on a theme by Händel Op. 54.
Vladimir	Male	First year	Y	M. Ravel (1875–1937) “Alborada del Grazioso” from Miroirs (1905), and L. van Beethoven 32 Variations in c minor, WoO 80.

Not their real names. The pianists were given the opportunity to choose as pseudonyms the first name of musicians they look up to. ^bB exams generally mark the end of the Bachelor phase of study, while A exams mark the end of the Master phase of study, and generally occur after about 3 and 5 years of study respectively. There is some flexibility about the time frames. Both exams take the form of public recitals.

Method

Each of the six pianists was video recorded practising for 20 minutes at a time in a stimulated-recall protocol (Lyle, 2003; Rowe, 2009). The pianist and the researcher reviewed this recording together immediately after the practice session and the pianists were asked to comment on anything that pertained to how they used their senses. Each pianist was observed working on two pieces from different style periods, and was observed working on each piece twice: once in an early stage of working on the piece and once in a later stage of working on the piece. This resulted in four observations per pianist, amounting to at least 80 minutes of observation data and 80 minutes of recorded interview data for each, with two exceptions: one pianist could only complete three observations due to health reasons, and one of the interviews with another pianist was lost due to technical failure. PLS is usually assessed through a self-report questionnaire that can take as little as 10 minutes to fill in (Fleming, 2006b), or through observations of as little as 20 minutes (Barbe & Swassing, 1979), so the 160 minutes spent with each participant was considered more than sufficient for the purposes of showing the relationship between practising behaviour and PLS.

The interview data was transcribed verbatim and then coded using the HyperRESEARCH© qualitative research software program. Coding was an iterative process, approximating the goal of constant comparison (Corbin & Strauss, 1990), and was theory-driven, pursuing specific mentions of aspects of perceptual use

The video observation was analysed using a similar approach to those of Chaffin et al. (2002), Miklaszewski (1989), and Nielsen (1999b). Each unbroken segment of playing was graphically plotted on a row of a spreadsheet by colour coding one square for each half a bar played. Colour coding indicated which hands were used to play, whether simplification or variation of the written music was used, and if the tempo was considerably slower than the relative tempo of the whole session. When a hiatus occurred and work was either restarted or continued, plotting was started on the next row down. In addition, comments about any observable behaviours were made on the spreadsheet for each unbroken section of work.

The coded interview and observation data thus obtained from each pianist were then related to each other and a within-case description of each pianist was constructed (Miles & Huberman, 1994), focusing on their use of their senses. The pianists were given the opportunity to comment on these descriptions. One of the six pianists chose to respond and confirmed that the description was accurate.

In the next phase of analysis, cross-case comparisons were made between the within-case descriptions of each pianist. The descriptions were compared with each other to identify differences between ways the pianists could be observed to have used their senses. When needed, the base data was consulted to confirm conclusions made at this stage. Thirteen categories of behaviours were identified in which the pianists could be differentiated based on their sensory use. The relative frequency or importance of each behavioural category for each pianist, in comparison to their peers, was ranked (see Table 2). In most cases the frequencies of engagement could not be meaningfully quantified because data was both qualitative and quantitative in nature and this made statistical comparisons impossible. Instead, the rankings are based on the researcher’s interpretations of the qualitative analyses that preceded this stage.

Table 2.

A comparison of the frequency with which participants engaged, or said they engaged, in specific categories of behaviours over the course of the investigation.

Behavioural category	Frequent	Intermittent	Infrequent	No data
Listening to performances of others	Maurizio, Vladimir	Khatia	Carlos, Rosalyn, Martha
Listening to recordings of self	Carlos, Martha, Maurizio	Khatia		Vladimir, Rosalyn
Vocalisation	Vladimir, Khatia	Maurizio, Carlos, Martha	Rosalyn
Use of metronome	Khatia, Vladimir	Martha, Maurizio	Rosalyn	Carlos
Use of writing	Maurizio	Martha, Khatia, Rosalyn	Vladimir, Carlos
Reliance on the score	Khatia	Vladimir, Rosalyn, Martha, Maurizio	Carlos
Visual memory	Khatia	Rosalyn, Vladimir, Martha	Maurizio, Carlos
Rhythmic movement when playing	Khatia	Vladimir, Maurizio	Martha	Carlos, Rosalyn
Rhythmic movement when not playing	Carlos	Martha		Maurizio, Rosalyn, Vladimir, Khatia
Expressive movement when playing	Carlos, Maurizio	Vladimir, Khatia	Martha, Rosalyn
Expressive movement when not playing	Carlos			Maurizio, Rosalyn, Vladimir, Khatia, Martha
Practising hands separate	Maurizio, Vladimir, Khatia	Martha, Rosalyn	Carlos
Simplification or variation of the musical texture	Martha	Vladimir, Rosalyn, Maurizio, Khatia	Carlos

Note. The 13 behavioural categories used emerged from comparisons between the coding of observational and interview data, and frequency ratings are specific to each grouping and are comparative between the participants for that grouping. If a participant has been coded to frequently participate in two categories, in both cases this indicates that they engaged in those behaviours more than their peers, but does not necessarily indicate that they engaged in the two behaviours with a similar frequency.

Description of the observed variation between the pianists

In what follows, an attempt is made to describe the variation that was observed between the pianists’ use of their senses. Each of the 13 behavioural categories that was identified in the cross-case comparison is elaborated through a brief description of the range of engagement that was observed for that category. Also, some comments are given, where possible, on the motivations individuals had for engaging in a specific behaviour. These are given to point out whether the variation occurs due to differences in information processing, which is how PLS generally understands learning, or due to some other factor—something that will be returned to in the next section. The description offered here may not constitute the totality of variation between the pianists, and definitely does not constitute the totality of variation between all pianists, but forms a strong base from which to discuss individual difference and the assumptions of PLS.

Listening to performances of others

In the course of the interviews each participant was asked whether they had listened to recordings of the work they were practising. There was a wide range of attitudes to listening to recordings: Khatia avoided listening to works she was studying, and had listened to her Franck only once. Vladimir had a previous teacher who instructed him to never listen to recordings, but his current teacher encouraged it and he found listening helpful. Maurizio always listened to recordings before starting a piece and also as part of his final preparations prior to performance. The others rarely listened intentionally to the works they were preparing, but in most cases they were very familiar with the works they were learning from hearing them multiple times. Martha tellingly asked in this regard, “Why [would] I start a piece that I don’t know?”.

The participants generally felt that freshness of interpretation and close attention to the score were both endangered by too close a knowledge of a specific recording and that this outweighed any benefit that the formation of a strong aural image of the work through listening might have had. Carlos had, for example, recently learned a very popular Beethoven sonata, and by his reckoning it took him some months “to get the feeling that it’s your piece, it’s my piece,” and not a copy of some other interpretation.

Listening to recordings of self

None of the participants recorded themselves in the observed sessions, since the whole session revolved around recording, but some spoke of using recordings to evaluate their own playing. This happened most often at performances, and less often near the end of preparations for a performance. None of the participants indicated that they used recordings to evaluate their practising or near the beginning of the learning process. Martha and Carlos occasionally recorded themselves, and Maurizio regularly recorded pieces in a near-ready state, in order to compare them to commercial recordings of the same pieces. Khatia had not recorded her practising before, but had found the research process very helpful and decided that she would use recordings of her practising more often.

Vocalisation

Vladimir displayed the most intentional use of vocalisation, singing French solfege names as he sight-read sections of the Beethoven, “when I am sight-reading I am saying the names of the notes all the time”. Khatia sometimes sang melodic lines as she played them, but felt that “sometimes it is not useful” to do this. For her the singing was linked to emotional expression and helped her with phrasing. Both Carlos and Martha can be seen mouthing something indecipherable in the context of sorting out rhythmical difficulties, and they can be seen tapping a pulse or conducting at the same time. Most likely they are counting or saying the rhythms of the sections they are working on.

Maurizio described an inner verbal narrative that takes place, both with regard to selecting which fingers to use and with regard to harmonic progressions:

So I’ll even when I’m playing through I’ll think, for example if I’m in this bar, and so this bar kind of stays the same harmonically and then I’ll say to myself halfway through this bar, ok, Bflat7 is the next bar, you know, and then I get there and I go yes it is, there it is. Next bar, ok, E flat.

Use of metronome

Khatia was the only participant to use a metronome in the research sessions, and she used it extensively in the early sessions. She admitted to feeling scared when playing without it, as she felt that she struggled to keep a steady pulse when playing. When the metronome is playing, “I don’t have to remember the tempo or something and it helps me, because I know how much time I have in one bar”. In addition to the metronome she could also be seen simultaneously tapping her feet, or rhythmically moving her head and upper body in an effort to control the aberrant pulse. She was ambivalent about the effectiveness of this strategy, but unable to find another way of addressing the problem she experienced. However, apart from controlling the pulse, her use of the metronome also functioned to keep her on track: “It also helps if I don’t know how it goes or I don’t remember, that I have to continue”. Small mistakes and other distractions have to be ignored to keep with the metronome’s steady pulse, and this technique therefore develops her ability to keep going under adverse circumstances.

Vladimir did not use a metronome in the research sessions, but claimed that he used it “all the time” to develop manual dexterity and as a way to enforce a systematic approach. He decried his lack of patience when it came to working on difficulties, and the metronome gave him an external stimulus to help him overcome this perceived lack. He described starting the metronome very slow, and for 20 or so minutes gradually increasing the speed of difficult passages. This kind of work allowed him time to “think about everything” related to the passage, and developed his finger dexterity and strength.

Martha and Maurizio both said that they occasionally used metronomes, but only in passages where rhythmical difficulties occurred, or where they wanted to check the tempo they were playing in. Rosalyn preferred not to use a metronome at all because she did not like the way it felt.

Use of writing

Maurizio made the most constant and consistent use of writing of all the participants. This writing was concentrated in the early phases of the learning process, and consisted of fingerings, harmonic labels, brackets and asterisks. In the Bach fugue he also marked out the entries of the theme in each of the five voices with a different colour. He wrote markings even in places where the fingerings would be “obvious” to him and where he has “never played anything else” to ensure that he was certain about which fingers to use. He noted that after some time he no longer looks at the notes themselves, but rather reads the markings he has made:

I can see that bigger picture like 2… 4… 3… [sings] 4… 3… like it gives you a bigger kind of framework and it’s not, you don’t have to look at every note, ok 423424, you know, it just gives you reference points and that’s, and when you are playing fast, that’s a whole lot easier. So, and also I think if I write it in, then especially if it’s something like this, that’s kind of messy and awkward, then that actually serves as a memory tool.

Writing is only a temporary memory tool, however: in the Bach the coloured entries were useful as long as he was using the sheet music to play from, but by the time he had memorised the work, he could no longer remember which voice had which colour. He remarked in the final stages of working that his frame of reference became the “keyboard and how it sounds [rather] than the page and what it looks like”.

The other participants used writing only in situations where it was deemed necessary, and not as a means of building memory in the same way as Maurizio did. Martha wrote in the very complex Dutilleux score but not in the relatively simple Beethoven. In the Dutilleux the markings worked in a very similar way to what Maurizio described, adding a layer of personalised information including fingering and rhythmic information that clarified and eased reading. Khatia and Rosalyn wrote minimally in their scores, only in places that they felt it really necessary. Carlos and Vladimir claimed to never write in their scores.

Reliance on the score

There was variation in the way that the physical score was used, where it was placed and how often it was consulted. Carlos looked at the score the least of all the participants. He attempted to learn the O’Byrne piece by memory prior to playing it. For this he placed the score on the windowsill behind the piano and moved to and fro between looking at and memorising the score and playing from memory what he had just looked at. At the other extreme, Khatia always had the score on the music stand of the piano, even when she played entirely by memory one week prior to her examination. A number of factors impacted the situations in which the score was used, such as: a) whether or not the work was going to be performed without music; b) how thoroughly the piece had been memorised; and c) the kind of work that was planned for a specific session: for example, mock performances and detail work each require a different kind of relationship to the printed score.

Visual memory

Khatia was the only participant who claimed to actively pursue remembering a visual image of the score in detail. This coincided with the score being present on her music stand at all observed times. Rosalyn, Vladimir and Martha could all remember parts of the score as they performed from memory, but were not able to read from the score in their mind’s eye. The knowledge was rather of where they were on the page.

Maurizio and Carlos said that they did not try to remember the sheet music at all, and relied more on keyboard positions, movement and sound. In Maurizio’s case this is a little surprising given his extensive use of writing in the early stages of memorisation, but the writing could be understood as already moving away from the score to a secondary layer of memory cues, which are then replaced again by other memory cues as the sheet music is put aside.

Rhythmic movement when playing

Khatia was observed tapping her foot or making some other rhythmic movements, especially making small nodding movements with her head, in each session observed. However, she did not think that tapping her feet or moving her body were necessarily good strategies to employ, saying, for example, “it does not fit here, in Bach”. She felt that she needed to get rid of the movements and internalise the steady beat prior to the performance date. But she did not have recourse to other strategies and so persisted with the movements and metronome.

Unlike Khatia, the other participants only moved their body parts rhythmically (apart from playing of course) in some sessions. For Vladimir, the tapping of feet only occurred at times where the general character of the music was lively, so this behaviour occurred less than in Khatia’s case, and seemed less consciously regulatory and more like a spontaneous overflow of excitement. Martha could be observed tapping her foot and nodding her head to the beat, and occasionally mouthing words, presumably counting, but only in the first Dutilleux session where she spent a lot of time figuring out the complex rhythmical interactions between her hands. In the same session she twice took more than a minute to contemplate some aspect of the piece. Maurizio’s leg could sometimes be seen bouncing in a way that seemed unrelated to the pulse of the music that he was playing. Since this was not tapping his foot in time to the music, and since the movement increased as the practice session progressed, this seemed to be related to his concentration and energy levels rather than self-regulation or problem solving as for the other participants mentioned above.

Rhythmic movement when not playing

All of the participants spent most of their time in the observation sessions physically playing; the exceptions are Carlos, in his first learning of the O’Byrne, and Martha in her first session with the Dutilleux. Both these pianists took longer times to think about, analyse or mentally rehearse aspects of the work they were learning. These works were also the most rhythmically complex of all the works studied in this study, with irregular rhythms and time signatures, and harmonies not derived from traditional tonality.

Carlos spent about half the time of his first observed session with the O’Byrne in studying and memorising the score, which was placed away from the piano on a windowsill. He moved from the score to the piano several times, in order to attempt to play what he had memorised. During the time he was studying the score he can occasionally be seen moving his arms as if conducting, most likely related to figuring out the pulse and rhythm. Martha similarly focused on figuring out the rhythmical interactions between the two hands in the Dutilleux, and took some time away from playing to mentally analyse and rehearse these passages. She can be seen tapping the score with her pencil before making some notes.

Expressive movement when playing

Carlos moved his upper body and legs a lot, especially in the Clementi sessions. He explained that the movement was related to intense experiences of the music and emotions related to the music, but also felt that the movements were “maybe too much, I need to get all this movement into the music”. He could often be observed with his head bent down to level with the top of the fallboard, and directly above the keyboard. This position was taken very often when he was repeating a chord or playing exceptionally slowly. He seemed to be putting his head nearer to the sound source in order to hear better, which was also one of his aims in these sessions, “to concentrate and listen to the sound, […] you know, instead of kind of listening or just being aware, ‘Ok, the attack is there’, but then not listening to what comes after: the actual sound”. In the first O’Byrne session, where he was not so much searching for sound or expression, but rather trying to recall the notes he had memorised, this bent-over position was taken noticeably fewer times.

Maurizio can also be seen moving his upper body a fair amount; these movements are almost always related to marked changes in dynamics. His upper body would, for instance, move gradually down as an arpeggio gains in volume and then back up as it reaches the apex of the run and climax of the crescendo. This embodiment of the direction of the phrase and the dynamics of the phrase are similar to Carlos’s embodiment of the emotion behind the music. Vladimir commented that he sometimes had “bad posture” when practising, after seeing himself in the second Beethoven session crossing his legs under the piano. On closer inspection, in this session his “bad posture” was very closely related to his levels of frustration. He was unable to achieve the level of playing he wanted to, and became increasingly agitated and frustrated with himself, slapping the keyboard and exclaiming in anger several times. As the session progresses his posture changes from his usual upright posture to a slumped back, crossed feet, drooping shoulders and bent neck. In the other sessions this kind of posture was not observed nearly as much, and he is usually sitting upright and still. Khatia’s posture changed very little, generally she sat still and upright, except that she tended to move her torso and head in time with the beat, as discussed under a previous category. Rosalyn and Martha did not move in this way at all.

Expressive movement when not playing

The majority of practising in the observed sessions happened while seated at the piano. Carlos provided the only exception when, after he had spent some minutes reading the score and memorising it, he walked slowly back to the piano. He explained:

When I am looking at the score, it’s of course easy to remember what is in there but then I need to kind of, it needs to be in my head, that’s why I like to walk around a bit and think, […] what are the chords, how to approach the piano and what is the sound.

His walking was not only locomotion, but also a means of facilitating the processing of both the pitches and durations that he had memorised, and the musical implications of those pitches and durations. In addition, when he stood away from the piano looking at the score, he could be seen gently swaying, in addition to the conducting described above. He seemed to be using movement to help his thinking, and he expressly related his thinking to the overall aim of defining his expressive intentions.

Practising hands separately

Maurizio made the most systematic use of playing hands separately, and in a count of hands-separate playing events also used the behaviour the most of all the participants. For him playing hands separately is part of a conscious process to build a strong understanding of what each hand is doing. In the first Bach session, he played through the first couple of bars several times with each hand, and kept on alternating hands to refresh his memory of what each hand is doing. His aim was to “get it kind of smooth and kind of problem free” prior to attempting to play with his hands together. For him, hands-separate work was both a way of simplifying the complexity in the initial phases of learning, and of memorisation in the later phases. Being able to play the whole work by memory hands separately was one of his aims, and ensured that he knew the details of each hand.

The other pianists did not use the strategy with such determinate focus in the observed sessions, although Vladimir had almost as many instances of hands-separate work as Maurizio. For him, however, the work was focused on developing technical facility rather than memory reinforcement. The other pianists worked on one hand when a problem arose, and then moved on to playing together once the problem was resolved to some degree. In Martha’s case it is possible to see that hands-separate practice is related to the kind of music and the problems that it poses. In the first Beethoven session she made extensive use of hands-separate practice, favouring the right hand because of its melodic importance. In the first Dutilleux session, however, she used relatively little hands-separate work because of focusing on rhythmic coordination between the hands rather than on technical problems in one or the other of the hands.

Simplification or variation of the musical texture

Simplification and variation of the musical texture involved leaving out notes or patterns and changing rhythms, either haphazardly or systematically. In a count of separate simplifications, Martha made the most extensive use of this strategy. This was strongly related to the complexity of the rhythmical interactions between the hands in the first Dutilleux session. In this session she played with an approximation of rhythmic duration in order to focus on getting the pitches right first. This strategy was not nearly as extensively used in the other sessions.

The other participants occasionally used rhythmic variations in order to work on some technical aspect. Commonly they would impose a different repetitive rhythm on the notes of the passage they were working on, often a long note followed by a number of fast, short notes. Working with rhythms was usually aimed at developing evenness in the fingers; Khatia used it this way for a short passage in the Bach prelude. Vladimir used this technique in three of the Beethoven variations to develop technical facility. He also made a technical exercise out of a repeated note pattern in the Ravel that he struggled to get even, and worked on this exercise in both of the Ravel sessions, remarking “I just have to do that and then it works way better”. Rosalyn occasionally held some notes for longer than they are supposed to be held, in order to prepare for the next note, or to have time to think or listen to something specific. Vladimir also used this approach a few times.

Relating the variance observed to PLS

Having described, in as much detail as space will allow, the observable variation in perceptual use of the six pianists who participated in this study, this discussion now investigates the relationship between the described variation and the claims of PLS. Some of the behavioural categories defined above can be related to behaviours that are said to be indicators of modality dominance by the authors that connect PLS and musical learning (Beheshti, 2009; Everett, 1997; Garcia, 2002; Gault, 2005; Miller, 2002; Swanson, 2005). Accordingly, using recordings and vocalisations would generally be considered to be contributing to the auditory modality; writing, reliance on the score and on visual memory would contribute to the visual modality; and all the movement-related categories would contribute to the kinaesthetic modality. However, despite this correspondence, a number of difficulties emerge as an attempt is made to relate the described variance to the claims of PLS.

The first difficulty is that the patterns in the data do not clearly reflect the claims of PLS. Comparisons between the categories in Table 1 should be done with great circumspection because they do not reflect absolute differences. But when this is taken into account, the table does not present individuals who are clearly visual, aural or kinaesthetic. There are pianists who feature somewhat prominently (Maurizio and Vladimir in auditory, Khatia in visual, and Carlos in kinaesthetic), but none of them feature in all the categories that make up that particular modality. There could be a number of reasons for this. According to PLS, individuals can have blends of modality preferences, and this data may reflect something like that, with individuals not displaying one prominent modality preference. However, it emerged from the data that most of these categories of behaviours were not consistently applied by the pianists, but rather used in specific situations and for specific problems (as also argued by Hallam, 2001; Nielsen, 2001). This challenges the conception of stable and preferred modes of interaction with study material, and indicates that the nature of the problem in which the pianist is engaged influences their perceptual use. Furthermore, Gruson (1988) has shown that some of the categories identified in the current study, like self-guided speech, verbalisations and playing hands separately, are used more frequently by more advanced pianists. There is thus also the possibility of an influence of individual level of expertise on this data. And so, while it may be possible to plot each pianist’s engagement with each of the behavioural categories, it is not clear whether this is a reflection of PLS, of strategy selection on the basis of task demands, of expertise level, or of combinations of these influences.

A second difficulty is encountered when each category of behaviour is analysed: which modality is primarily represented by a specific behaviour? While it may seem obvious that listening to a recording is an auditory activity, what about if a score is read while listening, or, what about imagery associated with listening, such as finger-placements, or keyboard geography? Vocalisation is assumed to be auditory by most PLS theorists, but what about the movements involved in speaking or humming? Writing is assumed to be visual, but what about the movements involved in writing, and the subvocalisations that often accompany them? Researchers in the field of multimodality conclude that “the perceiver might have a unimodal experience even though multisensory integration contributed to the experience. [… W]e cannot trust a modality-specific experience as implying that only that modality played a role” (Massaro, 2004, p. 154). Careful consideration is therefore needed before deciding that a certain behaviour involves only one modality, and the most likely conclusion will be that a single modality cannot define that behaviour. This becomes especially pertinent in any musical endeavour where sight, hearing and movement are always inextricably intertwined. An exchange with Maurizio highlighted this difficulty:

Maurizio:

Like here I think it was really like I… my fourth finger wasn’t working and, that, that was definitely like a touch kind of th…

Researcher:

Yeah, so you were working trying to get it…

Maurizio:

Yeah, yeah. Like I don’t think it was really an aural thing, kind of here it was definitely a touch thing.

Researcher:

Ok. So were you concentrating at all on what it sounded like or were you just trying to…

Maurizio:

I guess a little bit, because, there’s this, there’s this crescendo so, so I’m even though I’m still, trying… It’s really the flip to here [demonstrates fourth finger over thumb] that I was trying to get, it was still with a crescendo. So I guess…, but I think that was more subconscious, like Ok, there is a crescendo here.

The danger of classifying an observed behaviour into a focus on one modality is that other contributing modalities are discounted, even though they may play an equally important role in the execution of the behaviour.

A third difficulty arises when it is noticed that the reasons that participants engage in specific behaviours vary. So, Khatia and Vladimir both vocalise while playing, but for Khatia it is related to expression and phrasing while for Vladimir it is an aid to reading. Or, Maurizio and Vladimir both do hands-separate work, but Maurizio uses hands-separate work to focus on memorising while Vladimir uses hands-separate work to focus on improving technical facility. This is important because the common assumption in PLS is that differences in perceptual use are related to differences in learning, and PLS commonly defines learning as information processing (see, e.g. Hannaford, 1995). However, the data in this study show that differences in perceptual use can be related to a number of factors, including the goals of the behaviour, the difficulty level of the problem, the emotional state of the pianist, the influence of a teacher, as well as information processing. Assuming PLS to be accurate in its focus on information processing through sensory modalities, and then classifying individuals based on how they use different behaviours (e.g., as Beheshti, 2009, suggests) without identifying why they use those behaviours is a fundamental error, even if the theory accurately described individual differences in learning.

The variety of factors that influenced the pianists’ decisions to act in certain ways also challenge other attempts to classify strategies. Nielsen (1999a), for example, distinguishes between primary cognitive processing and secondary regulative strategies in her study comparing two organ students. Primary strategies involve selection (e.g. visual examination, sight reading), organisation (e.g. repeating sections, hands-separate work, metronome, markings) and integration (e.g. mental rehearsal, singing along, listening to recordings) strategies. Secondary strategies involve directing attention (e.g. pausing, self-talk), mastering anxiety (e.g. mental and relaxation exercises) and efficient use of time (e.g. formulating goals and objectives). She found differences in how strategies were employed between different stages of work, and between the two individuals. The results presented here, however, point to a further area of variety, which is that each behaviour/strategy may be used for various end-goals, so, using a metronome may be organisational, but it may also be used to master anxiety, or to help with efficient use of time. Similarly, writing in the score may be organisational, but it may also help to direct attention. Thus, a firm classification of each strategy into a definite goal may not be helpful, but perhaps strategies should be understood as contributing to a range of goals, such as those Nielsen has defined: selection, organisation, integration, etc.

A fourth and final difficulty in relating the observed variation to PLS is the extent to which it emerged that teachers influenced the decisions of the students to do certain things. While this was not a particular focus of the research project, the pianists often spoke about doing things because their teachers told them to. So, for example, Maurizio’s use of writing stems from a teacher who emphasised this when he was younger. Vladimir’s initial reluctance to listen to recordings and his subsequent enjoyment of this related directly to the contrasting influences of two teachers. He also engages in vocalisation because he was explicitly taught to do so. While not all teachers have these kinds of long-term effects—Khatia had a teacher who wrote extensive notes on her music but she has not taken up the practice—the assumption in PLS that perceptual differences are largely biological cannot be supported by the data in this study. A number of social influences impacted on the decisions made by the pianists, including their teachers, peers, the larger cultural milieu of classical music (through dictating certain norms of performance), and even the composer (by setting specific problems to be overcome) (Odendaal, 2014). While there are undoubtedly biological differences in how humans perceive, there are also other influences that affect decisions made in the practising room.

Conclusion

The four difficulties highlighted in the previous section—the difficulty in establishing a perceptual use pattern in the participants, the multimodal nature of musical learning, the varying purposes for which a behaviour may be used, and the social influences on the learning behaviours of some participants—should temper the application of PLS to Western classical musicians. It is not clear from this study how the six pianists would be classified according to the theory, despite 160 minutes of interaction with them. It is also not clear, if such a classification were to be made, whether the prescriptions for effective practice that would stem from it would account for the complexity of musical practising and the variety of strategies that musicians need to employ in learning to perform a large-scale composition. It could be argued that Western classical pianists in higher music education are too similar in their approaches and that broadening the sample to include other instruments, genres or musical traditions would highlight stronger differences in perceptual use. However, advocates of PLS in musical learning commonly argue that individual differences occur within musical traditions, genres and instrument groups, and while this paper has found many examples of such individual differences, these have proved too varied and complex for PLS to adequately explain.

This author claims, similarly to Hallam (2001) and Nielsen (1999a), that the variation in musical practising behaviours in individuals seems to be a product of several interacting influences. These include intrapersonal states such as goals, motivation, and awareness; interpersonal relationships with teachers and other significant people; task-related matters such as technical difficulties or familiarity with the conventions of the music to be learned; and contextual matters like the physical environment, requirements and deadlines set. PLS does not account for any of these, yet some claim it to be an educational panacea. Such a claim cannot be supported.

Footnotes

Funding

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

Notes

ORCID iD

Albi Odendaal

Author biography

Albi Odendaal is the Acting Director of the research niche Musical Arts in South Africa: Resources and Applications at the North-West University in South Africa. He also holds a position as a postdoctoral researcher as part of the ArtsEqual project at the Sibelius Academy of the University of the Arts Helsinki, where he also completed his doctoral training. He has previously held postdoctoral fellowships at the University of Cape Town and the University of Stellenbosch. His research interests include psychology of music, educational psychology, doctoral education, and music teacher education, and he has published in Psychology of Music, Research Studies in Music Education, Music Education Research, Ethnomusicology Forum, Innovations in Education and Training International, and the Finnish Journal of Music Education.

References

Barbe

W. B.

Swassing

R. H.

(1979). Teaching through modality strengths: Concepts and practices. Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser.

Beheshti

(2009). Improving studio music teaching through understanding learning styles. International Journal of Music Education, 27, 107–115.

Cahn

(2008). The effects of varying ratios of physical and mental practice, and task difficulty on performance of a tonal pattern. Psychology of Music, 36, 179–191.

Calissendorff

(2006). Understanding the learning style of pre-school children learning the violin. Music Education Research, 8, 83–96.

Chaffin

Imreh

Crawford

(2002). Practicing perfection: Memory and piano performance. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Corbin

Strauss

(1990). Grounded Theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 19, 418–427.

Dunn

R. E.

(2008). The effect of auditory, visual or kinesthetic perceptual strengths on music listening. Contributions to Music Education, 35, 47–78.

Everett

Y. U.

(1997). Modality-based aural skills pedagogy: Ear-training strategies for post-tonal and non-western musics. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 11, 27–58.

Fleming

N. D.

(2006a). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies (2nd ed.). Christchurch, New Zealand: Neil D. Fleming.

10.

Fleming

N. D.

(2006b). VARK questionnaire. Retrieved from www.vark-learn.com

11.

Gabrielsson

(1999). The performance of music. In Deutsch

(Ed.), The psychology of music (2nd ed., pp. 501–602). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

12.

Gabrielsson

(2003). Music performance research at the millennium. Psychology of Music, 31, 221–272.

13.

Garcia

(2002). Learning styles and piano teaching. Piano Pedagogy Forum, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.keyboardpedagogy.org/images/PPF/PPF%20Vol.%204-5.pdf

14.

Gault

(2005). Music learning through all the channels: Combining aural, visual, and kinesthetic strategies to develop musical understanding. General Music Today, 19, 7–9.

15.

Ginsborg

(2004). Strategies for memorizing music. In Williamon

(Ed.), Musical excellence: Strategies and techniques to enhance performance (pp. 121–141). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

16.

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. 91–112). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

17.

Hallam

(1995). Professional musicians’ approaches to the learning and interpretation of music. Psychology of Music, 23, 111–128.

18.

Hallam

(2001). The development of metacognition in musicians: Implications for education. British Journal of Music Education, 18, 27–39.

19.

Hannaford

(1995). Smart moves: Why learning is not all in your head. Arlington, VA: Great Ocean Publishers.

20.

Highben

Palmer

(2004). Effects of auditory and motor mental practice in memorized piano performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 159, 58–67.

21.

Hultberg

(2008). Instrumental students’ strategies for finding interpretations: complexity and individual variety. Psychology of Music, 36, 7–23.

22.

Imreh

Crawford

(2002). In the words of the masters: Artists’ account of their expertise. In Chaffin

Imreh

Crawford

(Eds.), Practicing perfection: Memory and piano performance (pp. 26–65). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

23.

Korenman

Peynircioglu

(2007). Individual differences in learning and remembering music: Auditory versus visual presentation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 48–64.

24.

Krätzig

G. P.

Arbuthnott

K. D.

(2006). Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 238–246.

25.

Lehmann

A. C.

Ericsson

K. A.

(1998). Preparation of a public piano performance: The relation between practice and performance. Musicae Scientae, 2, 67–94.

26.

Leon-Guerrero

(2008). Self-regulation strategies used by student musicians during music practice. Music Education Research, 10, 91–106.

27.

Lim

Lippman

L. G.

(1991). Mental practice and memorization of piano music. The Journal of General Psychology, 118, 21–31.

28.

Lyle

(2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 861–878.

29.

Massaro

D. W.

(2004). From multisensory integration to talking heads and language learning. In Calvert

G. A.

Spence

Stein

B. E.

(Eds.), The handbook of multisensory processes (pp. 153–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

30.

Miklaszewski

(1989). A case study of a pianist preparing a musical performance. Psychology of Music, 17, 95–109.

31.

Miklaszewski

(1995). Individual differences in preparing a musical composition for public performance. In Manturzewska

Miklaszewski

Bialkowski

(Eds.), Psychology of Music Today: Proceedings of the International Seminar of Researchers and Lecturers in the Psychology of Music (pp. 138–147). Warsaw, Poland: Frederyk Chopin Academy of Music.

32.

Miksza

(2007). Effective practice: An investigation of observed practice behaviors, self-reported practice habits, and the performance achievement of High School wind players. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 359–375.

33.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

Miller

B. A.

(2002). Touch the music! Learning modalities in elementary music class. General Music Today, 15, 4–13.

35.

Nielsen

S. G.

(1999a). Learning strategies in instrumental music practice. British Journal of Music Education, 16, 275–291.

36.

Nielsen

S. G.

(1999b). Regulation of learning strategies during practice: A case study of a single church organ student preparing a particular work for a concert performance. Psychology of Music, 27, 218–229.

37.

Nielsen

S. G.

(2001). Self-regulating learning strategies in instrumental music practice. Music Education Research, 3, 155–167.

38.

Nielsen

S. G.

(2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal individual practice: A study of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32, 418–431.

39.

Odendaal

(2013). Perceptual learning style as an influence on the practising of instrument students in higher music education. Studia Musica, 56.

40.

Odendaal

(2014). Solo Practising? Challenging assumptions about the role of social mediation in the practising of musicians. In Forrest

(Ed.), Proceedings of the International Society for Music Education 31st World Conference on Music Education (pp. 222–227). Victoria: International Society for Music Education.

41.

Odendaal

(2016). (Mis)matching perceptual learning styles and practicing behavior in tertiary level Western Classical instrumentalists. Psychology of Music, 44(3), 353–368.

42.

Pashler

McDaniel

Rohrer

Bjork

(2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119.

43.

Pask

(1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128–148.

44.

Persellin

D. C.

(1992). Responses to rhythm patterns when presented to children through auditory, visual, and kinesthetic modalities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 306–315.

45.

Persellin

D. C.

(1994). Effects of learning modalities on melodic and rhythmic retention and on vocal pitch-matching by preschool children. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 78, 1231–1234.

46.

Persellin

D. C.

Pierce

(1988). Association of preference for modality to learning of rhythm patterns in music. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 825–826.

47.

Rowe

V. C.

(2009). Using video-stimulated recall as a basis for interviews: some experiences from the field. Music Education Research, 11, 425–437.

48.

Sharpley

C. F.

(1984). Predicate matching in NLP: A review of research on the preferred representational system. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 238–248.

49.

Sharpley

C. F.

(1987). Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: Nonsupportive data or an untestable theory? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 103–107.

50.

Swanson

C. D.

(2005). The private studio: Learning styles and the voice student. Journal of Singing, 62, 203–208.

51.

Zikmund

A. B.

Nierman

G. E.

(1992). The effect of perceptual mode preferences and other selected variables on upper elementary school students’ responses to conservation-type rhythmic and melodic tasks. Psychology of Music, 20, 57–69.