Developing critical listening skills of Grade 10 to 12 South African subject Music learners to...

DEVELOPING CRITICAL LISTENING SKILLS OF

GRADE 10 TO 12 SOUTH AFRICAN SUBJECT MUSIC

LEARNERS TO IMPROVE MUSIC PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT, PERFORMANCE AND SELF-

REGULATION

by

ELSABIE PETRONELLA HELLBERG

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

B.Mus (Hons) Music Education

in the Department of Music, Faculty of Humanities

UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA

Supervisor: Prof. Caroline van Niekerk

November 2011

i

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background to the study .................................................................................. 1

1.2 Statement of the problem ................................................................................ 3

1.3 Research questions ......................................................................................... 3

1.4 Aim of the study ............................................................................................... 3

1.5 Methodology .................................................................................................... 4

1.6 Delimitations to the study ................................................................................ 5

1.7 Chapter outline ................................................................................................ 5

CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................. 6

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 6

2.1 Development of music practical assessment skills ......................................... 6

2.2 Approaches to assessment ............................................................................. 7

2.3 Self-regulation ................................................................................................. 8

2.4 Types of assessment ...................................................................................... 9

2.4.1 Self-assessment .............................................................................................. 9

2.4.2 Peer assessment ........................................................................................... 11

2.4.3 Assessment of video clip performances ........................................................ 12

2.5 Practical demonstration ................................................................................. 12

2.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................... 14

METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Subjects ......................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Selection process .......................................................................................... 14

3.2.1 Learner participants ....................................................................................... 14

ii

3.2.2 Observation by music teachers ..................................................................... 14

3.2.3 Teacher examiners ........................................................................................ 15

3.3 Procedures .................................................................................................... 15

3.3.1 Schedule for the development of CLS .......................................................... 15

3.3.2 Questionnaires .............................................................................................. 17

3.3.3 Assessment sheets for MPPA ....................................................................... 17

3.3.4 Music practical examinations ........................................................................ 18

3.3.5 Audiovisual material ...................................................................................... 19

3.3.6 Sheet music ................................................................................................... 21

3.3.7 Feedback cards ............................................................................................. 21

3.3.8 Validity ........................................................................................................... 21

3.3.9 Ethical considerations ................................................................................... 21

3.3.10 Optional procedures ...................................................................................... 22

i. Practice diary ................................................................................................. 22

ii. Recording of pieces, scales and arpeggios .................................................. 22

iii. Self-assessment rubric .................................................................................. 23

3.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................... 24

DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................... 24

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 24

4.2 Data collection ............................................................................................... 24

4.2.1 Questionnaire 1 ............................................................................................. 24

i. Grade 10 responses ...................................................................................... 25

ii. Grade 11 responses ...................................................................................... 26

iii. Grade 12 responses ...................................................................................... 27

4.2.2 Questionnaire 2 ............................................................................................. 28

4.2.3 Questionnaire 3 ............................................................................................. 29

iii

i. Reflecting on practice habits ......................................................................... 29

ii. Reflecting on self-assessment ...................................................................... 31

iii. Reflecting on the development of CLS .......................................................... 33

iv. Reflection on music practical examination preparation................................. 33

4.2.4 MPPAs ........................................................................................................... 34

i. MPPA 1 and its Re-assessment (MPPA 8) ................................................... 35

ii. MPPA 2 and MPPA 3 .................................................................................... 39

iii. MPPA 4 and MPPA 5 .................................................................................... 42

iv. MPPA 6 ......................................................................................................... 44

v. MPPA 7 ......................................................................................................... 45

4.2.5 Feedback cards ............................................................................................. 49

4.2.6 Observation by music teachers ..................................................................... 50

4.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 51

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................... 52

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ........................................................... 52

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 52

5.2 Comparison between Questionnaire 1 and Questionnaire 3 ........................ 52

5.2.1 Practice habits ............................................................................................... 52

5.2.2 Self-assessment ............................................................................................ 53

5.2.3 Development of CLS ..................................................................................... 54

5.2.4 Music practical examination preparation ....................................................... 55

5.3 Questionnaire 2 ............................................................................................. 55

5.4 MPPAs ........................................................................................................... 56

5.4.1 Findings with regard to mark allocation ......................................................... 56

5.4.2 Findings with regard to learner comments on assessment sheets ............... 61

i. Comments: MPPA 1 and its re-assessment ................................................. 61

ii. Comments: MPPA 2 and its re-assessment ................................................. 62

iv

iii. Comments: MPPA 3 and its re-assessment ................................................. 62

iv. Comments: MPPA 4 and its re-assessment ................................................. 63

v. Comments: MPPA 5 and its re-assessment ................................................. 64

vi. Comments: MPPA 6 and its re-assessment ................................................. 64

vii. Comments: MPPA 7 and its re-assessment ................................................. 65

5.5 Learners‟ personal music practical examination marks ................................ 65

5.6 Observation by teachers ............................................................................... 66

5.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 67

CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................... 68

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 68

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 68

6.2 Reflecting on the study .................................................................................. 68

6.3 Addressing the research questions ............................................................... 69

6.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 70

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 71

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 76

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRES ........................................................................... 76

Appendix 1.1: Questionnaire 1 ................................................................................... 76



APPENDIX 2: MPPA SHEETS ................................................................................ 83

Appendix 2.1: MPPA 1 – All ABRSM music practical examination components ....... 83

Appendix 2.2: MPPA 2 – Tempo and rhythm ............................................................. 84

Appendix 2.3: MPPA 3 – Dynamics, articulation and phrasing ................................. 85

Appendix 2.4: MPPA 4 – Assessing and comparing different instruments ............... 86

Appendix 2.5: MPPA 5 – Interpretation ...................................................................... 87

Appendix 2.6: MPPA 6 – Scales and arpeggios ........................................................ 88

v

Appendix 2.7: MPPA 7 – Sight reading and aural tests ............................................. 89

APPENDIX 3: HANDOUTS ..................................................................................... 90

Appendix 3.1: MPPA 2 – Tempo and rhythm ............................................................. 90

Appendix 3.2: MPPA 3 – Dynamics, articulation and phrasing ................................. 92

Appendix 3.3: MPPA 4 – Assessing and comparing different instruments ............... 94

Appendix 3.4: MPPA 5 – Interpretation ...................................................................... 98

Appendix 3.5: MPPA 6 – Scales and arpeggios ...................................................... 100

Appendix 3.6: MPPA 7 – Sight reading and aural tests ........................................... 101

Appendix 3.7: MPPA 8 – All ABRSM music practical examination components ..... 103

APPENDIX 4: FEEDBACK CARD ......................................................................... 108

APPENDIX 5: FINDINGS – COMMENTS ON ASSESSMENT SHEETS ............... 109

Appendix 5.1: MPPA 1 and its re-assessment (MPPA 8) ........................................ 109

Appendix 5.2: MPPA 2 and its re-assessment ......................................................... 110






APPENDIX 6: LIST OF VIDEO CLIPS ON CD ...................................................... 116

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

Each individual develops a taste for music, influenced by culture and exposure to

style, which is entrenched in one‟s “personal history” (Godwin, 1996:47).

Consequently, the majority of listeners do not ask themselves why they approve or

disapprove of a particular style of music. Even fewer listeners evaluate the quality of

a performance based on specific criteria. More attention should thus be devoted to

the development of critical listening skills (CLS) in music education.

Many music teachers admit their need for additional training in music practical

performance assessment (MPPA). For this reason, The Associated Board of the

Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM), to mention but one institution, presents

workshops on MPPA and released a DVD in order to assist music teachers to

improve the preparation of their students.

If teaching, stimulation and development of CLS are covered extensively in tertiary

music courses, music students will be efficiently equipped as competent potential

examiners. However, the researchers and music teachers she is acquainted with

agree that the training of music students as music examiners is sometimes

neglected based on their personal experiences. Consequently, the task of a music

practical examiner can be overwhelming to the novice music teacher. From my

personal experience, I would like to share three experiences as music practical

examiner.

The one incident was the time I first entered my learners for an external practical

guitar examination: I can recall being anxious and hesitant. How will my assessment

compare to the examiner‟s report? Did I miss any detail which could have a negative

effect on the marks? Will the examiner comment on an aspect I have overlooked?

2

Did I fail to notice an important aspect of style? To my relief, the results were higher

than what I anticipated and I gained more confidence in my ability to prepare

learners for music practical examinations.

On another occasion, I, as classical guitarist, examined a Grade 10 classical guitar

learner. Two non-guitarist examiners were also present. They were unfamiliar with

the idiom and facility of the classical guitar. I was apprehensive about the post-

examination discussion. Will we agree on the marks? How will I, as inexperienced

examiner but classical guitar specialist, voice my opinion in a convincing manner?

During the post-examination discussion I tried to relate or compare the guitar to the

other examiners‟ instruments of specialisation. Although I followed this strategy, it

seemed futile since the specific school‟s music department marked down learners

with approximately ten percent in comparison to external music examinations. The

department‟s reason behind this was that learners will work harder and reap the fruit

in Grade 12 when their marks will show a sudden increase.

The third incident from my experience as music examiner is the first time I, together

with two experienced examiners, assessed instruments I have never played. How

would I evaluate and compare these instruments? Would my marks be in line with

the other examiners? My marks were higher than the other examiners. However,

following the post-examination discussion, I gained new insight into examining

instruments other than the guitar. Francois Fenelon, 18th century Roman Catholic

archbishop, said that “humility is good in every situation, because it produces that

teachable spirit which makes everything easy” (IdeaWorks, 2011). Through admitting

a lack of understanding of other instruments, reading about different instruments,

absorbing the knowledge of experts in the field, as well as practical experience, I

became a better equipped and more versatile examiner. Although this is true, I feel

there is always more to learn.

After 12 years of experience as a music practical examiner, I am still fascinated by

the opinions of different examiners during a MPPA. This led to the question: how well

equipped are students and beginner music teachers to conduct MPPAs? Should

assessment skills not be taught and acquired earlier; perhaps in high school

3

already? Although all subject music learners from Grade 10 to 12 will not embark on

a music career, the acquisition of CLS can still be of value.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Despite the fact that MPPA plays an integral part of music teaching, the training and

assessment of examiners are sometimes neglected. MPPA methodology is no more

than briefly discussed at tertiary level, not to mention high school Grade 10 to 12

music learners. This study is rooted in a search for improving MPPA skills.

1.3 Research questions

The main research question can be formulated as follows:

How can the critical listening skills of Grade 10 to 12 subject music learners be

developed?

The following sub-questions are related to the main research question:

What are the existing perceptions and levels of CLS of Further Education and

Training (FET) music learners?

To what extent does the development and acquisition of CLS improve learners‟

practice habits, level of performance, self-assessment, MPPA of other performers

and self regulation?

To what extent does equipping subject music learners with CLS make a

difference to their ability to assess music practical performance?

1.4 Aim of the study

The aim of this study is to develop the CLS of Grade 10 to 12 subject music learners

to develop MPPA, stimulate self regulation and improve level of performance. This

4

research paper also attempts to show that self-regulation can be stimulated through

teaching learners different MPPA skills.

In my opinion, experience is a vital component of being a competent and consistent

music practical performance assessor. Bergee (2003:139) states that “adjudicators

are commonly viewed as increasing in consistency as they gain experience. It can

therefore be argued that examiners would be more competent and consistent if they

developed appropriate CLS before embarking on a degree and career in music. In

an attempt to avoid lack of experience, incompetence and inconsistency in MPPAs,

the CLS of learners enrolled for subject music in the FET Phase should be

encouraged and developed.

Blom and Poole (2004:111) state that, “most students [find] the breadth of musical

focus, across a diverse range of musical styles on a wide range of instruments,

daunting and difficult.” If music learners are equipped with CLS, it will make them

more aware of the level of performance by other musicians. If learners are more

critical towards the performance of others, it will hopefully have a positive effect on

their own practise habits, playing, level of performance and, ultimately, stimulate self-

regulation. In other words, thinking about their own practice habits, taking strategic

action through planning, monitoring their own progress and evaluating their

performance against first-class performances.

Although level of music performance is not the emphasis of this study, it is desirable

if the learner participants show improvement in their level of performance. This might

be an indicator of the development of their intrinsic motivation and self-regulation

during the course of the study.

1.5 Methodology

This study involved Grade 10 to 12 subject music learners from a girls‟ school in

South Africa and spanned over seven weeks. The overarching design of the study

involved the assessment of different aspects of music performance by means of

video clips. After each assessment the learners were provided with notes on the

5

aspect in music they assessed. One week later the learners were provided with an

opportunity to re-assess the video clips in order to determine the impact of the

intervention.

The methodology for this study was informed by the research questions. In order to

achieve this, the design most appropriate included qualitative data collection through

questionnaires, MPPA sheets, feedback cards and observations by the learners‟

instrumental teachers. Optional procedures included a practice diary, audio

recording and self-assessment by the participants as method to stimulate self-

regulation.

1.6 Delimitations to the study

The study was conducted at a girls‟ school in South Africa. Further data collection is

required to determine whether the outcome would be the same if boys or co-

education of mixed groups from the same age group were to take part in such a

study. No live performances were used for assessment purposes. All the recordings

involved solo performances. No group performances were assessed by the

participants. ABRSM‟s music practical report was used as framework for the MPPA

sheets. A qualitative approach to the study was followed.

1.7 Chapter outline

This study deals with the topic of stimulating CLS of music learners to improve

assessment of performance as well as self-regulation. Chapter 1 provides an

introduction and description of the topic. The research question, aim and

delimitations to the study are explained. Chapter 2 discusses previous research

related to this study. Chapter 3 provides the methodology for the approach to the

study. This includes the subjects, selection process, procedures, material, validity

and ethical considerations. The collection of data is explained in Chapter 4 and in

Chapter 5 the data is analysed and interpreted. The study concludes with Chapter 6

in which the research questions are answered and recommendations for further

research are inter alia made.

6

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Development of music practical assessment skills

A reasonable amount of literature has been published on equipping students and

teachers with music practical assessment skills in order to improve assessment.

However, these studies have usually been limited to tertiary education. After an

extensive search, the researcher was unable to locate studies investigating the

stimulation of CLS of FET subject music learners in order to conduct MPPA. As far

as the researcher could determine, no studies have examined the effect stimulation

of CLS has on music assessment, performance and self-regulation.

Over the past 20 years, the amount of literature on the assessment of music

practical examinations has escalated (Zdzinski & Barnes, 2002; Bergee, 2003; Scott,

2004; Wrigley, 2005 and Latimer, Bergee & Cohen, 2010). Different assessment

strategies and tools have been developed compared, tested and implemented.

However, very few studies deal with the assessment of MPPA. This was emphasised

by Bergee (2003) in his study, “Faculty Interjudge Reliability of Music Performance

Evaluation”.

The participants in Bergee‟s (2003) study were tertiary music students specialising in

different instruments, teacher assistants and faculty members. It was observed that

inconsistency was more frequent with reference to MPPA when two or three

examiners were present in comparison to four or five. The significance of this study

is that experience and combination of examiners, whether teacher assistants or

faculty members, generally did not seem to make a difference. If this is true, an

assumption can be made that the key to quality MPPA is efficient training of which

the development of CLS forms an integral part.

7

In 2005, Wrigley published a thesis in which he "investigated ways to improve the

quality of MPPA in an effort to address the accountability imperative in tertiary music

education (2005:i)." He developed a new system to regulate and improve MPPA.

Wrigley‟s main emphasis is the assessment of practical examinations by examiners

at tertiary institutions. He noted that there was a significant difference between the

self-assessment of students when compared to that of the examiners. This raises the

question of how well students are equipped with the necessary CLS to assess

themselves and others.

2.2 Approaches to assessment

Mills (1991) suggests that holistic assessment of music practical examinations, as

opposed to segmented assessment, is a more musical way of assessing music

performance. Holistic assessment looks at the overall impression of a performance

and then breaks it up into fragments. Segmented assessment, on the other hand,

segments the performance from the start of the performance.

Two groups of assessors were used in Mills‟s study: the one group comprised music

teachers and students and the other group non-music students with an appreciation

for music but without pursuing music after their school career. Both groups assessed

video recorded music performances of different instruments performing at Grade 8

ABRSM level. The two groups of assessors used holistic assessment criteria on the

one side and segmented criteria on the other side of their assessment form. The

difference between the two groups‟ evaluation of the performances differed by four

percent. Although this is portrayed as insignificant in the study (Mills, 1991:7), four

percent can make a significant difference in the outcome of an MPPA. In addition, no

mention is made of the difference between the two groups when the holistic

assessments and segmented assessments are compared individually. A serious

weakness with this argument is that it makes MPPA skills and experience redundant.

On the other hand, Saunders and Holahan (1997) and Bergee (2003) advocate the

use of criteria-specific or segmented assessment. Their studies have shown that

8

internal consistency among a panel of judges was sufficient when set criteria were

used.

2.3 Self-regulation

Self-regulation is essential to effective and efficient practice. Jørgensen (1995)

identified “planning, the conduct of practise, and assessment of practise” as major

contributing factors for effective practise. Nielsen (2001) also studied the application

of self-regulation of two advanced music students during their practise sessions. The

result was that both students

[had] extensive self-regulatory skill that enabled them to optimise their learning and

performances taking into account interpersonal, contextual and intrapersonal

conditions. They set specific goals, engaged in strategic planning, used self-

instruction, task strategies and monitored themselves selectively at a detailed level. In

addition, they evaluated themselves adopting criteria that they devised. The

implication is that these advanced students demonstrated skilful self-regulatory

learning. The complexity and the diversity of the cyclic self-regulation of learning

strategies that these students engaged in during practise are demonstrated in a

preliminary model.

There are significant similarities between this study and a study by Hallam (2001).

The aim of Hallam‟s study was to determine the connection between the strategies

used during music practicing sessions and the progress of instrumental facility of 50

string players at different levels of development. The participants were recorded

while practicing and were interviewed on their individual approach to practicing. An

important finding was that “effective strategy use in practice depended on the

acquisition of appropriate aural schemata to facilitate the monitoring of progress and

correction of mistakes” (Hallam, 2001:7). It was also discovered that strategy

development and the development of proficiency go hand in hand.

Similarly to Hallam‟s study (2001), Leon-Guerrero (2008) studied self-regulating

strategies adolescent instrumental musicians apply during their music practise in

order to assist music teachers in guiding music learners more specifically regarding

effective practise and reaching their ultimate performance potential. Middle school

9

music learners of mixed gender took part in the study. The selection of music during

a band practice session included a variety of rhythmic patterns, mordents, different

articulation patterns and dynamics. Verbal comments made by the music learners

while practising a given piece of music were video recorded and categorised

according to problem recognition, determining a strategy, evaluating the

performance and general comments. The first three criteria were derived from a

study by Nielsen (2001). The study revealed 21 different practice strategies and 15

types of self-regulating strategies. However, this study provides limited information

regarding problem recognition. In addition, some conclusions lack concrete proof.

2.4 Types of assessment

Considerable literature has been published on types of music performance

assessment. Self-assessment and peer assessment are among various assessment

methods. Therefore, it is important to examine the outcome of studies related to

these methods of assessment.

2.4.1 Self-assessment

In recent years, an increasing number of studies on the topic of self and peer

assessment have been published. However, not much has been published on the

accuracy of these types of assessment (Sung, Chang, Chang & Yu, 2010). This led

to two studies in which they examined the difference between senior phase learners

conducting self- and peer assessment of recorder playing and the design of a web

page. These experiments were measured against the assessment by experts.

Learners had to mark according to specific criteria. The outcome of the studies was

that the difference between the learners‟ peer assessment and the experts‟

assessment was considerably bigger than that of self-assessment versus the

assessment by experts. This demonstrates the need for training in order to improve

assessment. In addition, Hewitt (2001:308) states:

Research on the effects of self-assessment on music performance, perhaps because

of limited study, is inconclusive. University students were unable to successfully

10

evaluate their music performances as they related to expert assessment; i.e.,

students' and expert evaluators' opinions did not match (Bergee, 1993; Kostka, 1997).

Elementary students, after receiving instruction in self-assessment, improved their

performance ability (Davis, 1981; Sparks, 1990). Middle school students who

participated more predominantly in their assessment saw somewhat mixed results, but

Aitchison (1995) noted that their self-assessment accuracy increased while their music

performance ability did not increase as much as that of students who were provided

teacher feedback. Self-assessment may also have an effect on students' attitudes.

The relationship between self-assessment and performance achievement of brass,

woodwind and percussion players has been investigated by Hewitt (2002). His study

stretched over a period of six weeks and was threefold: a) establishing the inclination

of self-assessment, b) whether self-assessment improved over time and c) the

connection between self-assessment and performance achievement. The results of

this study show that although self-assessment scores improved, self-assessment as

such did not improve when measured against the assessment of three experienced

examiners.

Self-assessment is a fundamental aspect of self-regulation. This is consistent with

Hewitt‟s point of view (2011:8) who suggests that music teachers should incorporate

self-assessment strategies into their teaching as method to stimulate self-regulation

(2011:6). However, this is contrary to an earlier study by Hewitt (2001) in which he

investigated the effect of listening to a model performance, self-assessment and self-

listening on junior high school instrumentalists' performance. In Hewitt‟s 2001 study

the results indicated that the music performance of learners conducting self-

assessment while listening to a model performance was better than learners who did

not listen to a model performance. It is interesting to note that when self-assessment

did not form part of the experiment, the two groups‟ level of performance was the

same. This indicates that self-assessment and listening to a model performance did

not stimulate self-regulation.

In a descriptive study Burrack (2002) investigated the effect self-assessment and

audio recording has on the progress of high school music learners. One of the

participants in Burrack‟s study made the following statement:

11

There is no doubt in my mind that the taping and assessing had positively contributed

to both my musical understanding and technical proficiency. ... I became more aware

of correct or incorrect rhythms, tempos, and just overall ear training. ... Those tapes

were the best ear training that I had had in my high school career (Burrack 2002:31).

In addition some of the students in Burrack‟s study (2002:30) revealed that they were

more motivated to improve their playing and practise difficult parts in their music as a

result of self-assessment. Burrack also states that self-assessment and peer

assessment increase the development of CLS. A limitation to Burrack‟s findings is

that he does not explain how he came to his conclusions. Some detail, for example

the number of participants and responses is omitted.

2.4.2 Peer assessment

Although peer assessment is not extensively covered in the current study, the use of

video clips can be regarded as a form of peer assessment since music learners can

evaluate the performance of other music learners who are in most cases

approximately on the same music level than themselves.

Peer assessment of music practical performance at tertiary level is gaining

recognition as valuable tool of assessment (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000:287; Blom

& Poole, 2004:113). Hunter and Russ (1996) studied the effect of peer-assessment

by final-year undergraduate music students of second-year students. The results of

this study show that the students being peer assessed were generally satisfied with

the outcome and worked harder than when assessed by faculty members only. The

student assessors felt empowered and gained insight and experience in MPPA while

working along with faculty members. In addition, the student assessors‟ CLS showed

improvement, they became more critical towards their own performance and their

confidence grew in terms of expressing their point of view during MPPA. The staff

also found the experience valuable. Some reasons include that they were confronted

with the purpose of MPPA, were less judgemental and experienced the transparency

of MPPA as beneficial.

12

2.4.3 Assessment of video clip performances

The use of video clips as teaching tool is gaining popularity in the 21st century

classroom. Webb (2010:313) states that “students‟ rising screen literacy”, as well as

DVDs and video sharing sites, for example YouTube, should be exploited as a

powerful tool in education. He explores ways in which education can benefit from

visual media clips, proposing a theoretical and analytical framework which educators

can use to inform preparation of lessons. However, this study does not explore the

possibility of using video clips or other forms of audiovisual media to train music

assessors in MPPA. As far as the researcher could determine, no other studies

addresses the use of audiovisual media as training tool for music assessors.

2.5 Practical demonstration

Practical demonstration forms an integral part of music education, specifically

instrumental teaching. It has conclusively been proven that junior high school

woodwind, brass and percussion learners perform better “in the areas of tone,

technique/articulation, rhythmic accuracy, tempo, interpretation, and overall

performance” (Hewitt, 2001:307) when listening to a model performance.

Nevertheless, such a model performance does not seem to have an influence on

intonation or melodic accuracy. Therefore, the question arises what the reason for

this problem is and what solution can be offered. In Hewitt‟s study only modelling,

which is an extrinsic motivation, has been used to examine cause and effect. Self-

assessment and self-regulation are intrinsically driven and might have made

participants more aware of intonation and melodic accuracy. This leaves room for

discovering other elements, perhaps a combination between extrinsic and intrinsic

motivation, which impact music practical performance.

2.6 Conclusion

After examining the literature discussed in this chapter, the importance of developing

CLS in order to improve music performance assessment, performance and self-

13

regulation is underlined. In order to explore the topic in further detail, the

methodology for the current study will be discussed in Chapter 3.

14

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Subjects

A qualitative action research study was implemented at a high school in Pretoria,

South Africa. Initially, 54 Grade 10 to 12 subject music learners in the FET Phase

were involved in the study. However, one of the Grade 11 learners changed subjects

after the second week of the study. The number of participants per grade was as

follows: 19 Grade 10 learners, 19 Grade 11 learners (without the learner who

changed subjects) and 15 Grade 12 learners. All participants were between the ages

15 and 18. The participants were from culturally diverse backgrounds. All

participants were female since the school is an all girls‟ school.

3.2 Selection process

The following criteria were used to inform the selection process:

3.2.1 Learner participants

All learners involved in subject music participated in the study.

3.2.2 Observation by music teachers

With commencement of the study, instrumental music teachers of participants

enrolled for instrumental lessons at the school were asked to observe any change in

the learners‟ attitude, performance or comments. The teachers failed to make notes

of their observation during the study but were willing to reflect on progress their

learners demonstrated that might be linked to the impact of the study. Therefore, the

15

teachers were provided with Grade 10 to 12 class lists on which they had to fill in

information relevant to the effect of the study on their learners. In order to refresh the

teachers‟ memory, they were provided with a copy of Questionnaire 3 that was

completed by the individual learners regarding their personal development during the

study.

3.2.3 Teacher examiners

The selection of teacher examiners was limited to three full-time and two part-time

music teachers involved at the school during the morning. All five teachers have had

two or more years experience in MPPA.

3.3 Procedures

At the outset of the study the learner participants were informed about all the

procedures and their role during the time of the study. The following procedures

were followed in the study:

3.3.1 Schedule for the development of CLS

The stimulation and development of CLS took place over a period of seven weeks.

The schedule is explained in Table 3.1.

Week Activities

1 Questionnaire 1 (see Appendix 1.1): The aim of this questionnaire was to gain insight into the

learners‟ music background, practice habits, level of CLS and knowledge of MPPA.

MPPA 1 (see Appendix 2.1): This assessment took the form of an ABRSM examination.

Assessment of the performance of three pieces (one piano piece, one violin piece and one flute

piece), sight reading, scales, arpeggios and aural tests.

MPPA 2 (see Appendix 2.2): Three video clips with regard to tempo and rhythm without providing

prior information on the topic.

After learner assessors‟ assessment sheets were collected, learners received handouts to study

on the assessment of tempo and rhythm (see Appendix 3.1).

16

2 MPPA 2 re-assessment (same format as MPPA 2): The previous three video clips with regard to

tempo and rhythm were played again and each learner got an opportunity to re-assess the

performances on a new assessment sheet.

MPPA 3 (see Appendix 2.3): Three video clips with regard to dynamics, articulation and phrasing

without providing prior information on the topic.

After learner assessors‟ assessment sheets were collected, the learners received handouts to

study on the assessment of dynamics, articulation and phrasing (see Appendix 3.2).


dynamics, articulation and phrasing were played again and each learner got an opportunity to re-

assess the performances on a new assessment sheet.

MPPA 4 (see Appendix 2.4): Three video clips with regard to assessing and comparing different

instruments without providing prior information on the topic.


study on assessing and comparing different instruments (see Appendix 3.3).

Questionnaire 2 (see Appendix 1.2): The purpose of this questionnaire was to determine how the

learners measure the music performances. In other word, what do they use as criterion?


assessing and comparing different instruments were played again and each learner got an

opportunity to re-assess the performances on a new assessment sheet.

MPPA 5 (see Appendix 2.5): Three video clips with regard to interpretation without providing prior

information on the topic.


study on the assessment of interpretation (see Appendix 3.4).


interpretation were played again and each learner got an opportunity to re-assess the


MPPA 6 (see Appendix 2.6): Three video clips with regard to the scales and arpeggios without

providing prior information on the topic.


study on scales and arpeggios (see Appendix 3.5).


scales and arpeggios were played again and each learner got an opportunity to re-assess the


MPPA 7 (see Appendix 2.7): Four video clips with regard to sight reading and aural tests without

providing prior information on the topic.


study on sight reading and aural tests.

In preparation for their final assessment, learner assessors‟ were instructed to revise all the notes

they have received during the course of the study, as well as the assessment criteria used by

ABRSM examiners for music practical examinations (see Appendix 3.6 and 3.7).

7 MPPA 7 re-assessment (same format as MPPA 7): The previous four video clips with regard to

scales, arpeggios and questions, were played again and each learner got an opportunity to re-

assess the performances on a new assessment sheet.

17

MPPA 8 (re-assessment of MPPA 1 and therefore the same format as MPPA 1): replay of the first

performance recording.

Questionnaire 3 (see Appendix 1.3): Learners‟ experienced their own progress in terms of self

regulation.

Table 3.1 MPPA schedule

3.3.2 Questionnaires

Three questionnaires were used in the study. The learner participants completed

Questionnaire 1 upon commencement of the study. The purpose of the

questionnaire was to determine learners‟ existing level of CLS, music background

and approach to practice habits which included planning, reflection, discipline,

motivation and monitoring of progress. Participants were also required to answer

questions regarding self-assessment and the assessment of other performers.

The learners completed Questionnaire 2 during the third week‟s MPPA. The purpose

of this questionnaire was to determine how learners measure the music

performances. In other words, what do they use as reference?

Questionnaire 3 was completed by the learner participants at the end of the study.

The questionnaire was to a great extent a repeat of the first questionnaire. However,

the purpose of the third questionnaire was different. The third questionnaire aimed to

discover whether the stimulation and development of the learners‟ CLS had an effect

on their progress in terms of practise habits, performance, self regulation, self-

assessment and MPPA of other performers.

3.3.3 Assessment sheets for MPPA

At the beginning of each MPPA session, each learner participant was provided with

an assessment sheet for that particular session. The learners were expected to write

comments and allocate marks for audiovisual performances they viewed.

18

The ABRSM music practical report and mark allocation for grade examinations was

used as framework for the assessment sheets. The same criteria and mark

allocation were used. The criteria and mark allocation of the ABRSM music practical

report is showed in Table 3.2.

Criteria Mark

Piece 1

Piece 2

Piece 3

Scales and arpeggios

Sight reading

Aural tests

30

30

30

21

21

18

Total 150

Pass

Merit

Distinction

100

120

130

Table 3.2 ABRSM‟s criteria and mark

allocation for music practical

examinations

Although the aspects being assessed varied from week to week, the mark allocation

of the ABRSM music practical report remained in place throughout the duration of

the study. A mark conversion sheet was supplied to the learners during each MPPA

to view the conversion of marks into percentages. Although the mark conversion

sheet is not included under the list of appendices, it is available from the researcher.

3.3.4 Music practical examinations

Each week consisted of one 15 to 20 minute music practical assessment. The

different components of an ABRSM music practical examination were dealt with

during the seven week study. Except for week one, all weeks involved one familiar

and one unfamiliar component of MPPA (refer to Table 3.1). The concept “familiar

component” refers to the fact that learners have seen video clips related to the

component and received notes on it. The purpose of the familiar component was to

determine if the participants showed development in terms of CLS and whether they

19

were able to assess and comment more accurately on the component in question.

The concept “unfamiliar component” refers to the fact that learners have not yet seen

video clips related to the component and have not received notes on it. The purpose

of the unfamiliar component was to determine what the participants already knew

about the topic and how accurately they could comment on it and award marks.

3.3.5 Audiovisual material

Video clips were downloaded from YouTube.1 The quality of the video clips ranged

from fairly good to excellent. The researcher decided to use audiovisual recordings

instead of mere audio recordings since they provide a better approximation of a live

performance. A total of 19 video clips were used.

The video clips varied from homemade recordings of learners‟ performing to

recordings of actual ABRSM Grade 1 and 5 music practical examinations. The

quality of the performances varied between poor and outstanding. Each video clip

was played twice, once during the initial MPPA and once during re-assessment.

There was a one week interval between each MPPA and its re-assessment.

In order to make the task of MPPA seem less daunting for the learner assessors, the

researcher decided to limit the instruments to piano, flute and violin. In addition, most

video clips were selected in accordance with the music level most learner assessors

were at or had been themselves: Grade 4. The majority of pieces were taken from

the current or previous ABRSM Grade 4 piano, flute or violin syllabi. In some cases

examples were taken from lower music grades with regard to scales, arpeggios,

sight reading and aural tests. However, the Hungarian Dance No. 5 that was used in

MPPA 1 has a much higher grading. Despite this, the researcher decided to use the

example in view of the fact that it is a well known composition. The candidate did not

perform the entire Hungarian Dance No. 5 and learner assessors were told not to

penalise him as a result. The sight reading piece that was used in MPPA 1 is of a

1 Internet video sharing site.

20

Grade 6 music standard. The researcher decided to use the specific example since it

demonstrates typical sight reading errors. The various audiovisual clips and their

music grading are explained in Table 3.3. The video clips are available on the

Compact Disk that is attached to the back cover. In addition, the video clip tracks are

listed under Appendix 6.

MPPA 1 and its re-assessment (MPPA 8)

Title of composition Instrument Music Grade

Brahms, J. Hungarian dance no. 5 Piano 7

Rodríguez, G.M. La Cumparsita Violin 4

Bach, J.S. Rondeau Flute 4

Sight reading: Chopin, F. Berceuse, Op. 57 Piano 6

First three scales and first three arpeggios: ABRSM examination Piano 5

Aural tests: ABRSM examination Not applicable 1

MPPA 2 and its re-assessment

Rieding, O. Allegro: 3rd

movt from Concerto in G, Op. 34. Violin 4

Rameau, J.P. Tambourin from Pièces de Clavecin Flute 4

Bach, J.S. Prelude in F, BWV 927 Piano 4


Purcell, H. Rondeau from Abdelazer Violin 4

Readdy, B. Bop Goes the Weasel, No. 4 from Jazz-It: Twinkle, Twinkle Jazzy Star Piano 4

Paradis, M.T. Sicilienne Flute 4


Mozart, W.A. Menuetto from Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, K. 525 Flute 4

Sandré, G. Petits bateaux sur l‟eau Piano 4

Shostakovich, D. Clockwork Doll from Children’s Notebook, Op. 69 Violin 4


Bach, J.S. Siciliano from Sonata No. 2 in E major, BWV 1031 Flute 4

Grieg, E. Cattle-Call, No. 1 from 19 Norwegian Folksongs, Op. 66 Piano 4

Anon. English Dance Violin 4


Two scales and two arpeggios: ABRSM examination Piano 1

One scale and one arpeggio Violin 1

Two scales and two arpeggios Flute 3


Sight reading: Shostakovich, D. Hurdy-Gurdy from Dances of the Dolls Flute 3

Sight reading: Franck, C. Chant de la Creuse from L’organiste Piano 3

Sight reading: Anon. Lord Cutt's March Violin 3

Aural tests: ABRSM examination Not applicable 5

Table 3.3 Music grading of the examples used in the different MPPAs

21

3.3.6 Sheet music

In pairs, learners shared a copy of the relevant sheet music used for each MPPA.

Learners did not receive sheet music for the MPPAs which involved scales,

arpeggios and aural tests. Although the sheet music is not included in the

Appendices, it is available from the researcher.

3.3.7 Feedback cards

Learners were provided with feedback cards during each assessment session (see

Appendix 4). The researcher decided for the feedback cards to be optional in an

attempt to disqualify any fabricated feedback. Learners could use their real names or

fictitious names on the feedback cards.

3.3.8 Validity

The same assessment sheet was used for all grades during the MPPA sessions.

Each learner was provided with a new practical assessment sheet at the beginning

of each MPPA to record marks and comments.

Each grade conducted their weekly MPPA at the same time in the same room during

one of their music periods. Learners were expected to conduct the MPPA on their

own without any assistance. Learners were not allowed to communicate with anyone

during the MPPA sessions. The researcher was present at all times.

The MPPA by learners was measured against the MPPA average of the five music

educators at the specific school.

3.3.9 Ethical considerations

Prior to commencing the study, ethical clearance was sought from the school. The

school‟s executives indicated that they considered consent forms redundant since

22

the benefits of the study were clear. Consequently, written permission was granted

by the school. All participation was voluntary and participants were free to withdraw

from the study at any stage. The necessary measures were taken to ensure

anonymity of the participants. The school and participants were assured that data

would remain anonymous and would be used for academic research purposes only.

Fictitious names were used by some participants and only the researcher was

familiar with the participants‟ true identity. The school required that its name would

remain anonymous.

3.3.10 Optional procedures

The following optional procedures were followed with regard to learner participation:

i. Practice diary

Learners were encouraged to keep a practice diary. The aim of the practice diary

was to stimulate self-assessment and self-regulation. The practice diary had to

preferably contain the following information: date and duration of practice session,

the work that was practised and comments, for example new approaches to practise.

ii. Recording of pieces, scales and arpeggios

From the experience of the researcher and researchers like Peterson (2001:50) and

Burrack (2002:28), the recording of one‟s playing can serve as invaluable tool for

self-assessment, reflection and monitoring one‟s progress. Therefore, learners were

strongly encouraged to record themselves once they thought they had mastered a

piece. The same applied to their scales and arpeggios. The learners were prompted

to use their cellular phones if they did not have other recording devices, even if the

quality would be slightly compromised. Learners were encouraged to compare their

recordings to professional recordings and apply their acquired CLS.

23

iii. Self-assessment rubric

Self-assessment rubrics were provided to the learners to assist them with self-

assessment when practising. It was up to the learners to what extent they wanted to

use the rubric, if at all. They could, for example, have used the rubric every day for

all the components they had practised or once a week as summative assessment of

the week‟s progress. Instead of merely reflecting on their performance, learners were

encouraged to use the rubric to assess their recordings. The rubric (adapted from

Burrack, 2002:29) provided the following criteria, rating scale and descriptors:

Criteria Excellent 5

Good 4

Average 3

Poor 2

Very poor 0-1

Tone Quality

Characteristics found in all registers

Some inconsistency in registers

Acceptable quality with inconsistent qualities between registers

Poor quality a good deal of the time

Poor tone quality most of the time

Note Accuracy

Virtually note perfect

Strong performance with minute flaws

Generally accurate; note/pitch flaws

Recognizable but technically flawed

Basically not recognizable and shows lack of preparation

Rhythmic Accuracy

Correct rhythms and steady pulse

Minute rhythmic errors/steady pulse

Some rhythmic and/or pulse errors

Several rhythmic/pulse errors

Unsteady pulse

Expressive Quality

Consistent performance of musical line, phrasing and nuance

Fairly consistent awareness of line, phrasing and nuance

Lacking in conviction of expression

Technically accurate without expression

Performance flaws overshadow expressiveness

Articulation No difficulties with articulation

Some difficulties with articulation

Articulation causes tone distortion

Inaccurate articulation

Articulation is non-existent

Table 3.4 Self-assessment rubric

3.4 Conclusion

Chapter 3 has explained the research design that would best suit the current study in

order to answer the research question. Through analysing the questionnaires,

MPPAs and feedback cards, the researcher wishes to determine whether music

performance assessment, performance and self-regulation can be improved through

developing CLS of Grade 10 to 12 South African subject music learners. In order to

achieve this, emphasis will be placed on the qualitative data collection which will be

discussed in Chapter 4.

24

CHAPTER 4

DATA COLLECTION

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter the collection of data will be discussed. No data was collected without

prior permission from the school. Data was analysed and interpreted through using

Microsoft Excel and a qualitative software programme that was developed by Marco

Hellberg specifically for analysing the qualitative data of the current study.

4.2 Data collection

Data was collected through questionnaires, MPPA sheets, learner feedback cards

and observation by teachers.

4.2.1 Questionnaire 1

At the beginning of the seven week study, all Grade 10 to 12 subject music learners

in the FET Phase were asked to fill in Questionnaire 1. The purpose of the

questionnaire was to determine the learners‟ music background, practice habits and

knowledge of MPPA. Of the 19 Grade 10 learners, 17 filled in the questionnaire. All

20 Grade 11 learners and all 15 Grade 12 learners completed the questionnaire. The

majority of learners answered all the questions.

The researcher decided to omit some data from Questionnaire 1 that was not directly

related to answering the research questions.

25

i. Grade 10 responses

Table 4.1 shows the number of learners who responded either positive or negative to

closed-ended questions. The questions are stated in the first column, followed by the

type and number of different responses.

Closed-ended question Positive Negative Sometimes

Do you listen critically to the performances of other performers? 13 3 1

Do you assess your own performance? 6 9 1

Do you work towards a specific goal? 15 2 0

Do you have a plan towards reaching your goal? 13 1 1

Do you monitor your progress by keeping a record of when and how you have

practised? 1 14 2

Do you measure your performance against a model, for example the way your

teacher plays, a certain performance, a recording, or nothing in specific? 12 5 0

Table 4.1 Grade 10 responses to closed-ended questions

The questionnaire contained a number of open-ended questions. Table 4.2 shows

the open-ended questions related to answering the research question and the

learners‟ responses. The figures in brackets indicate the number of learner

responses regarding a specific aspect.

Open-ended question Responses

Should you listen critically to the

performances of other performers, what do

you listen for?

Rhythmic accuracy (5)

Tempo (5)

Note accuracy (1)

Dynamics (4)

Articulation (3)

Interpretation (6)

Balance between instruments (2)

Mistakes (2)

Intonation (1)

Confidence (1)

Technique (1)

Sound quality (1)

Facial expressions (1)

Do you have scheduled practise times or do

you practise when you feel like it?

Scheduled practise times (2)

Practise when I feel like it (10)

Practise when I have time (2)

Combination (5)

Are you self-motivated to practise or do

your teacher or parents often have to

remind you to practise?

Self-motivated (12)

Sometimes self-motivated (1)

Most of the time self-motivated (1)

Parents sometimes have to remind me (1)

Parents have to remind me most often (1)

Combination (1)

Teacher motivates me (1)

Table 4.2 Grade 10 responses to open-ended questions

26

ii. Grade 11 responses

The type and number of the Grade 11‟s responses to closed-ended questions in

Questionnaire 1 is shown in Table 4.3.






Do you monitor your progress by keeping a record of when and how

you have practised? 2 15 2

Do you measure your performance against a model, for example the

way your teacher plays, a certain performance, a recording, or

nothing in specific?

15 5 0


The open-ended questions aimed at answering the research question, as well as the

learners‟ responses to these questions can be viewed in Table 4.4.


Should you listen critically to

the performances of other

performers, what do you

listen for?


Tempo (6)

Note/pitch accuracy (6)

Dynamics (4)

Interpretation (4)

Balance between instruments/blend (1)

Unity between soloist and accompanist (1)

Intonation (5)

Preparation (2)

Technique (3)

Sound quality (3)

Rapport between

performer and

audience (1)

Overall impression (3)

Do you have scheduled

practise times or do you

practise when you feel like

it?




Combination (1)

Are you self-motivated to

practise or do your teacher

or parents often have to

remind you to practise?

Self-motivated (14)

Self-motivated but forgetful (1)

Combination (2)

Teacher motivates me (2)


27

iii. Grade 12 responses

Table 4.5 shows the type and number of Grade 12 learners who responded to the

closed-ended questions in Questionnaire 1.






Do you monitor your progress by keeping a record of when and how you have

practised? 2 13 0

Do you measure your performance against a model, for example the way your

teacher plays, a certain performance, a recording, or nothing in specific? 11 2 1


Table 4.6 shows examples of the open-ended questions related to answering the

research question, as well as the learners‟ responses.


Should you listen critically to the

performances of other performers,

what do you listen for?


Tempo (3)

Note/pitch accuracy (2)

Dynamics (2)

Articulation (2)

Interpretation (5)

Mistakes (1)

Intonation (2)

Confidence (2)

Technique (1)

Sound quality (2)

Theory/harmony (1)

Musicality (1)

Stage presence (1)

Phrasing (2)

Overall impression (3)

Flow (2)

Do you have scheduled practise

times or do you practise when you

feel like it?




Combination (1)

Are you self-motivated to practise

or do your teacher or parents

often have to remind you to

practise?

Self-motivated (10)

Sometimes self-motivated (1)

Most of the time self-motivated (1)

Parents need to remind me (1)

Someone often needs to remind me (1)

Combination (1)

Teacher need to remind me (1)


28


Questionnaire 2 was handed out during the third week‟s MPPAs. The perceptible

purpose of this questionnaire was to determine which criterion learners use when

conducting MPPA. However, the questionnaire also served another purpose:

stimulating self-regulation in terms of thinking about one‟s thinking. Table 4.7 shows

the options learners had to choose from regarding the criterion they use when

assessing music performance. Learners could select more than one option. The

number of completed questionnaires is indicated in brackets below each grade.

Criterion Grade 10

(18)

Grade 11

(19)

Grade 12

(14)

Very bad – bad – average – good – very good 11 13 5

According to percentage 7 10 8

The standard and percentage awarded at competition you have

attended, for example the Pretoria Eisteddfod

1 4 1

Your own performance 6 6 6

Other performances you have heard, for example CD

recordings, live performances or perhaps your teacher

9 9 7

I have not really thought about it 2 2 3

Random selection of marks and comments 2 6 0

Nothing in specific 1 1 0

Other 4 3 1

Table 4.7 Learner responses to Questionnaire 2

Learners could also provide additional criteria they use when conducting MPPA. This

could be listed under “other”. Table 4.8 contains additional criteria learners listed.

29

Grade 10

“I look at what I know about the piece and if it sounds good.”

“What my violin teacher tells me in lessons, like she points out what I do wrong and right and I‟ll

mark the player according to that.”

“I compared them to each other.”

I just listen to the piece and judge it by the sound as a whole. Whether the music manages to

„speak‟ to me, and whether it speaks to the musician themselve [sic].”

Grade 11

“Read the piece and see if they followed the piece with dynamics etc.”

“My own opinion.”

“The sound quality of the piece.”

Grade 12

“I basically measured the performances based on the performances I‟ve given and have been

marked on myself. I looked at what they did compared to what I normally do in exams and then

gave them a mark that I estimated would possibly have been given by my examiners [sic].”

Table 4.8 Learner personal responses to Questionnaire 2


Questionnaire 3 was handed out after the final MPPA. The aim of this questionnaire

was to establish if learners experienced personal growth during the study in terms of

practise habits, self-assessment, development of CLS and preparation for practical

music examinations. Most questions in Questionnaire 3 were based on, or taken

from Questionnaire 1 in order to determine growth. This questionnaire was directed

at answering the research question. A total of 48 participants from the study

population completed and returned the questionnaire. Of the 19 Grade 10 learners,

16 returned Questionnaire 3. All 19 Grade 11 participants completed the

questionnaire and 13 of the 15 Grade 12 learners handed back their questionnaires.

i. Reflecting on practice habits

Five questions were aimed at obtaining information regarding the learners‟ practice

habits. Of the Grade 10 learners, ten stated that their approach to practise have

changed since the outset of the study, while six learners indicated that their practice

habits remained unchanged. The majority of Grade 11 and 12 participants indicated

30

that their approach to practise have shown a positive change. Table 4.9 provides a

list of areas in which learners feel the study helped them to improve their approach

to practising.

Ways in which the study affected learners’

practice habits

Grade 10

learners

Grade 11

learners

Grade 12

learners

Increased motivation to practise 2 1 1

Practise more often 2 6 4

Self-assess music performance 4

Number of practice sessions have increased 2

Has scheduled practise times 1 1

Practise harder/longer 2

Pay attention to detail 5 4 4

Compare own performance to performance of others 1 1

Practise in smaller sections/problem areas 1 2

Practise phrases rather than a few bars 1

More disciplined 1

Focus more on technique/scales 1 1 1

Keep a practice diary 3

Audio-record playing 1 4 3

Apply what has been learnt during the study 1

More effective practice sessions 1

Focus more on sight reading 1

Focus more on quality 1

Table 4.9 Changes in learners‟ practice habits

It is significant that the majority of Grade 10 and 12 learners indicated that they

reflect on their practice habits. Interestingly, only seven Grade 11 learners reflect on

their practice habits, while nine were negative and three learners sometimes reflect

on their practice habits. The majority of participants felt that their practice habits are

more effective than in the past. Only a few learners felt that the efficiency of their

practice sessions did not increase. Most Grade 10 and 12 learners indicated that

they keep record of how and what they practise. It is interesting to note that most

Grade 11s did not keep record of their practice sessions. Methods by which learners

keep record of their practising include practice diaries, timetables and saved

recordings of performances. Interestingly, two learners stated that the type of

31

information they keep record of depends on the type of goal: for example, a concert

performance or music practical examination. Of the 53 participants, 38 indicated that

they are more motivated to practise than prior to the study.

ii. Reflecting on self-assessment

Three questions dealt with self-assessment. The results for the first part of Question

4, “Do you monitor and evaluate your progress?” are shown in Table 4.10. Table

4.11 provides a summary of the participants‟ responses to the second part of

Question 4 in which they had to substantiate their answers.

Grade Yes No Sometimes Unanswered

Grade 10 10 6 0 0

Grade 11 11 5 1 2

Grade 12 9 4 0 0

Table 4.10 Learner responses to Question 4(a)

Ways in which learners monitor and evaluate their

performance

Grade 10

learners

Grade 11

learners

Grade 12

learners

Increase in tempo 2 0 1

Improvement in overall quality 1 0 0

Audio-recording 2 6 5

Practise diary 1 3 0

Reflection 1 1 1

Fluency 2 0 0

Degree to which piece is memorised 1 0 0

Interpretation 1 0 0

Self-assessment/Mark sheet 0 1 2

Improvement in intonation 0 1 0

Constant comparison to other performances 0 0 1

Peer assessment 0 0 1

Table 4.11 Learner responses to Question 4(b)

The purpose of Question 5 was to determine whether learners self-assess their

music performance and if so, how they assess themselves. The results for the first

part of Question 5 are indicated in Table 4.12. A summary of the participants‟

32

responses to the second part of the question can be viewed in Table 4.13. Of the

nine negative responses by the Grade 10 learners, three stated that they made use

of peer assessment instead and one Grade 11 learner made a similar comment.

Grade Yes No Sometimes Unanswered

Grade 10 7 9 0 0

Grade 11 11 5 1 2

Grade 12 12 1 0 0


Manners in which learners assess their

performance

Grade 10

learners

Grade 11

learners

Grade 12

learners

Audiovisual-recording 0 1 0

Audio-recording 1 3 6

Reflection 3 4 2

Fluency 0 0 1

Degree to which piece is memorised 0 0 0

Interpretation 0 2 7

Intonation accuracy 0 0 1

Comfort on stage 0 0 1

Past term marks 1 1 0


The responses to Question 7 are shown in Table 4.14. This question‟s aim was to

determine whether the learners compare their own level of performance to other

performances of a high standard.

Grade Yes No Usually

Grade 10 9 6 1

Grade 11 13 6 0

Grade 12 12 1 0

Table 4.14 Learner responses to Question 7

33

iii. Reflecting on the development of CLS

The majority of participants who completed Questionnaire 3 agreed that they listened

more attentively to the performance by other musicians than in the past. Table 4.15

shows the number of positive and negative responses to Question 8, “Do you listen

more attentively than in the past to the performances of other performers in terms of

dynamics, articulation, phrasing, tempo, rhythm, intonation, style and interpretation?”

A summary of the learners‟ comments can be viewed in Table 4.16.

Grade Yes No

Grade 10 15 2

Grade 11 15 4

Grade 12 13 0

Table 4.15 Learner responses to Question 8

Learner comments for Question 8 Number of learners

I have a better idea how to assess 1

I listen more critically to the tempo and rhythm 2

I pay more attention to style/interpretation 4

Appreciate the performer‟s ability 1

I pay more attention to dynamics 2

I pay more attention to articulation 1

Table 4.16 Learner comments for Question 8

iv. Reflection on music practical examination preparation

Two questions were incorporated to determine the study‟s effect on learners‟

preparation for their music practical examinations. The rationale of Question 10 was

to determine whether the learners had a better idea of the expectations of a music

practical examiner than before the study. All learners, except one, indicated that they

had a better idea of what the expectations of a candidate are during an MPPA.

Question 11‟s aim was to determine if the participants prepare any differently for

their own practical music examination based on what they have learnt from the

34

study. Table 4.17 and Table 4.18 indicate the learners‟ responses to the closed-

ended and open-ended part of the question respectively.

Grade Yes No Somewhat

Grade 10 12 6 1

Grade 11 12 4 0

Grade 12 11 2 0


Ways in which learners’ approach to their music

practical examinations have changed

Grade 10

learners

Grade 11

learners

Grade 12

learners

Longer practice sessions/prepare longer in advance 1 1

Conduct self-assessment 5

Audio-record playing 3

Listen to performances of a high standard 1

Pay more attention to detail 5 9 6

Imagining oneself in the actual examination 1

Focus more on scales/technique 1 1

Applying what has been learnt during the study 1 1

Memorise music 1

Record teacher playing pieces 1

Do sight reading exercises 1

Different practice routine 1


4.2.4 MPPAs

Data was coded according to categories in music performance. In order to achieve

this, word searches were conducted with the intention of grouping words and

comments together that belonged to the same category. There was a category

termed “general” for words and comments the data analysis software program was

unable to sort according to a specific category. The categories and words thus

classified are explained in Table 4.19. After completing the coding, some words and

comments were moved to other categories, depending on their context.

35

Category Words belonging to category

Articulation Articulation, articulate, legato, staccato, detach, attach, smooth, accent.

Confidence Confidence, confident.

Dynamics Dynamics, dynamic, forte, fortissimo, piano, pianissimo, crescendo (cresc),

decrescendo (decr), loud, soft.

Fluency Fluency, fluent, fluid, flow.

Interpretation Interpretation, interpret, express, expression, feeling, mood, emotion, passion,

character, rubato, style, musical, baroque, classic, classical, romantic, modern.

Intonation Intonation, tune, tuning, on pitch, off pitch, pitchy.

Note Note, pitch.

Phrasing Phrase.

Rhythm Beat, pulse, rest, time/timing.

Tempo Pace, rush, slow, fast, ritardando (rit, retard).

Time signature Time signature, metre.

Technique Technique, technical, tonguing, tongue, breath, pedal, coordination, string, bow,

squeaky, finger, fingers, hand, breathing.

General

Mistake, slip, good, excellent, energy, prepare, preparation, messy, accuracy,

accurate, correct, secure, hesitation, hesitate, neat, overall, perform, overall,

musical, musicality, well, perform, performed.

Table 4.19 Categorisation of words and comments used in the MPPAs

i. MPPA 1 and its Re-assessment (MPPA 8)

MPPA 1 dealt with all the aspects commonly found in music practical examinations.

The number of qualitative responses by the Grade 10, 11 and 12 participants are

shown in Table 4.20, 4.21 and 4.22 respectively. The results of both initial

assessment and re-assessment are indicated.

36

Grade 10 MPPA 1

Piece 1: Piano

Piece 2: Violin

Piece 3: Flute

Sight Reading


Aural tests

Category A RA A RA A RA A RA A RA A RA

Notes clear

1

Notes lack clarity 4 4

2 2 1

All pitches correct

1

1 2 1 1 2 3 3

Most pitches correct

2 2

4 4 3

Frequent pitches errors

Rhythmically accurate 2

5

1 2

Rhythm mostly accurate

3 1

1

Lacks rhythmic accuracy

1 1 3 3

Tempo correct/consistent

3 3 6 1 3 3 2 2 6

Tempo fluctuates/not followed 2 2 1

1 1 1 1

Tempo too fast 2 4

1 1 1 2

Tempo too slow

Good dynamic contrast 3 2 8 5 1 2

Some dynamic contrast 4

1 1 1 2

Little/no dynamic contrast 4 6

2 3 3

Good articulation 2 3 2 4 1 3 1 2

Some articulation 1

2 1

1

Little/no/faulty articulation

2

Good interpretation/style/feeling

2 1

1

Some interpretation/style/feeling

2 1 3

Little/no interpretation/style/feeling

1 2

Good intonation

Average intonation

Poor intonation

2

Good technique

2 2 1 3 1

Adequate technique

2

Poor/incorrect technique

6 2

Clear phrasing 2

1

Phrasing unclear/limited

2

Good fluency

2

1 1

3 2 5

Fluency can improve/hesitant 3

2

1

Confident

2

5

2

2

4 1 1

Lacks confidence

2

Excellent overall

1

1 5 4

Good overall 3 2 3 3

4 2

4 2

Satisfactory overall

Aural tests: Answers mostly correct

2

Aural test: Clapping

C 5 C 7

Aural test: Telling time signature

C 2 C 8

Aural test: Singing

C 5 C 10

Aural test: Identification of wrong pitch

C 3 C 6

Aural test: Identification of dynamics

C 2 C 6

Aural test: Identification of articulation

C 1

W 5 W 8

Note: A = Assessment; RA = Re-assessment; C = Correct answer by candidate; W = Wrong answer

by candidate

Table 4.20 Qualitative results of MPPA 1: All ABRSM music practical examination components

37

Grade 11 MPPA 1

Piece 1: Piano

Piece 2: Violin

Piece 3: Flute

Sight Reading

Scales and

arpeggios Aural


Notes clear


1

1

All pitches correct

2 2 3

Most pitches correct 4 2

4 2 6 4

1


Rhythmically accurate

3

2 1 6

3

3


Lacks rhythmic accuracy 3 2

2

Tempo correct/consistent

5 3 4 1 4 2 4 1 1

Tempo fluctuates/not followed 2

3 2 3 2 1

Tempo too fast 4 5

1 1 3 1

1

Tempo too slow

1

Good dynamic contrast

2 3 4

2

1

Some dynamic contrast 1 3 4 4 2 2

Little/no dynamic contrast

1

1 2 1 2

Good articulation

2 4 6 1 2

Some articulation

2 1

3 2


1


2 1 2

2 1 2

2


1 1

1


1

1

1

Good intonation

1 1 1

Average intonation

2 2 1

Poor intonation

1

Good technique

1 1 2

1

Adequate technique

1 1 1 1 1


4

1

Clear phrasing

1

1

3 1 2


3

1

1

Good fluency

1

1 1 5

6

Fluency can improve/hesitant 1 1

2 2

1 1

Confident 1 3

2

1 1 2 2 2 1

Lacks confidence 1

1 1

Excellent overall

3 8 1 1

Good overall 3 4

4 1 2 1 7 5 4 5 4


1


2

Aural test: Telling time signature C 1

Aural test: Singing C 3

Aural test: Identification of wrong pitch C 1


by candidate


38

Grade 12 MPPA 1

Piece 1: Piano

Piece 2: Violin

Piece 3: Flute

Sight Reading


Aural


Notes clear 1


All pitches correct

1 1

2

1 5 2


2 2 4 4 5


1


1 2 6

4 2 2

1 1


2 1

2

2


Tempo correct/consistent 2 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1

Tempo fluctuates/not followed 2 2

6 3 2 2

Tempo too fast 7 8

2

2 1

1

Tempo too slow

1


2 2 6

1 1


1

Little/no dynamic contrast 6 7 1

1

Good articulation

2 1 1 3

Some articulation

1

Little/no/faulty articulation 2


2

4

1

3

1


2 1 4

1

1

Little/no interpretation/style/feeling 2 1

3

Good intonation

2 2 2 1

1

Average intonation

5 1

Poor intonation

Good technique

1 2 1 3 2 2 1

2

Adequate technique 1

1 1

1

Poor/incorrect technique 3

5 6

Phrasing clear

1

3

1


2

1 1 2

4

Good fluency

1

1 1 1 1 1

1

Fluency can improve/hesitant

2

4 2

Confident 1 2 2

1 1 1 1

Lacks confidence

4 1

Excellent overall

1 1

2

4 7 6 1

Good overall 2 1 5 3 1 2 2 3 1 5 6 2

Satisfactory overall 1

Aural test: Clapping C 4

Aural test: Telling time signature C 1

Aural test: Singing C 3

Aural test: Identification of wrong pitch C 1

Aural test: Identification of dynamics C 1

W 1


by candidate


39

ii. MPPA 2 and MPPA 3

MPPA 2 and its re-assessment dealt with the assessment of tempo and rhythm,

while the purpose of MPPA 3 and its re-assessment was to examine dynamics,

articulation and phrasing. The number of qualitative responses by the Grade 10, 11

and 12 learners are shown in Table 4.23, 4.24 and 4.25 respectively.

Grade 10 MPPA 2 MPPA 3

Piece 1: Violin

Piece 2: Flute

Piece 3: Piano

Piece 1: Violin

Piece 2: Piano

Piece 3: Flute


Notes clear

2

1


1

All pitches correct

2

2


2

Frequent pitches errors 3

Rhythmically accurate 7 2 7 3 5 5

1

Rhythm mostly accurate 2 3 4 5 2 1

1

Lacks rhythmic accuracy 1 1 1 1

2

Tempo correct/consistent 3 8 10 6 8 10 2 2

1 2 2

Tempo fluctuates/not followed

5

3 1

1

1

Tempo too fast 3 2

1 1

1

Tempo too slow 4 3 1 5

1

1

Good dynamic contrast 1 1

2

5 8 7


2 1

3 3 3

Little/no dynamic contrast 2 1

4 6 6 2 2 8

Good articulation

2 1

1 2 2 3 5 4 2

Some articulation

4

1


1

1

3

3

1

Good interpretation/style/feeling 1

1



1

Good intonation

Average intonation

Poor intonation

1

Good technique 1

1

1

Acceptable technique 1 2

1


4 3

1

Phrasing clear

1

2 6 3 2 4 5


4 1 2 2 2 2

Good fluency 1

1


2

Confident

Lacks confidence

Excellent overall

Good overall 1

3

3

2


Note: A = Assessment; RA = Re-assessment

Table 4.23 Qualitative results of MPPA 2 (tempo and rhythm) and MPPA 3 (dynamics, articulation

and phrasing)

40


Piece 1: Violin

Piece 2: Flute

Piece 3: Piano

Piece 1: Violin

Piece 2: Piano

Piece 3: Flute


Notes clear


1

All pitches correct

1

1


1


Rhythmically accurate 5 8 6 6 4 10 3

4

1 2


2 1 3

1


Tempo correct/consistent 8 6 3 7 5 9 2 1 5

3 2

Tempo fluctuates/not followed 1 2 1 7 1 5 2 2 1

Tempo too fast 2 4

1

Tempo too slow

3 2 1 1


1

3 6 7 3 3

Some dynamic contrast

6 1 7 5 7 10


3 9 1 1

1

Good articulation

1

5 7 7 6 7 6

Some articulation

1

3 1


2

2

1


1

1

1


1


Good intonation

1

1

1

Average intonation

1

Poor intonation

Good technique

1

Acceptable technique

2

2


2 4

1

2 2

Phrasing clear

5 8 6 7 5 7


4 6 2 5 4 3

Good fluency

1


1

1

Confident

Lacks confidence

Excellent overall

Good overall 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 2

1




and phrasing)

41


Piece 1: Violin

Piece 2: Flute

Piece 3: Piano

Piece 1: Violin

Piece 2: Piano

Piece 3: Flute


Notes clear

1 1


1 1

1

All pitches correct


2





1

Tempo correct/consistent 6 6 7 4 5 5

3

1

2


2 2 1 3 3

3

Tempo too fast 2

1

Tempo too slow

1 1

1

Good dynamic contrast 1

1

1

1 2 4

6


1

4 4 5 5

6


1

3 5 1 2

Good articulation

1

3

1

1

Some articulation

4

4



1

2 1 1 3


1

1

3


1

Good intonation

Average intonation 2

Poor intonation

Good technique 1

1

2

Acceptable technique 1

2

1

1 1


4

2

4

Phrasing clear

3 3 3

7 3


4 4 3

1 4

Good fluency

1

1


1

Confident 1

Lacks confidence

1

1

Excellent overall

Good overall 1 2 2

1 2 1

1 2




and phrasing)

42

iii. MPPA 4 and MPPA 5

The purpose of MPPA 4 and its re-assessment was to assess and compare different

instruments. MPPA 5 and its re-assessment dealt with interpretation. The number of

qualitative responses by the Grade 10, 11 and 12 learners are explained in Table

4.26, 4.27 and 4.28 respectively.


Piece 1:

Flute

Piece 2:

Piano

Piece 3:

Violin

Piece 1:

Flute

Piece 2:

Piano

Piece 3:

Violin


Notes clear 1 3 3 2

1


1 2

1

1 1

All pitches correct

1 1

1

1

Most pitches correct 1

2



2

2


2


Tempo correct/consistent 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

2

2 2


1

1

Tempo too fast

2

1 2

Tempo too slow

1

Good dynamic contrast 1 2

2 1

2 4 5 2


2

1 1 2


1

2 1 3 1

3

Good articulation

1 1

Some articulation 1

1

2

1


4 3


1 1

1 1

12 7 2


5 4 1

5 5


1

1 3 7 8

Good intonation

1

1

Average intonation

1

2

1

Poor intonation 1

8 4

2

Good technique 4 5 1 1

2 3 1


3

1

1 1


1 6 6 3 3 1

Phrasing clear 1 2 3


1

Good fluency

1 1

1

1 1


1

2 2 2

1

Confident

1

Lacks confidence

Excellent overall


3 2 1 2 4 3


1

1 1

Poor overall

1

1


Table 4.26 Qualitative results of MPPA 4 (assessing and comparing different instruments) and

MPPA 5 (interpretation)

43


Piece 1:

Flute

Piece 2:

Piano

Piece 3:

Violin

Piece 1:

Flute

Piece 2:

Piano

Piece 3:

Violin


Notes clear

2

1

1

Notes lack clarity 2

1 1 1

2

All pitches correct 1

1 4


1 1


6 4


7 1

1

1 1 1 2 1


Lacks rhythmic accuracy 3

4 3 3 2

Tempo correct/consistent 1

3 2

1 3 2 4

Tempo fluctuates/not followed 2 1 1

1 3 1 2

Tempo too fast 1

3 3

1

2

Tempo too slow

5

3

1


3

5

Some dynamic contrast 2 1 5 5 3

1 2 2 1 1

Little/no dynamic contrast 1

1 2 4 3 1 1

2

6

Good articulation

1

2

Some articulation

3

2 2

1


1


1

3 4 9 9 8 4


1

5

1

2


1

15 4 2 1 2 3

Good intonation 1 1

Average intonation 1 1

1

Poor intonation 2

1

6 3

Good technique 11 6

3 1

1

2

Acceptable technique 2 5 1 1

2

1 1 2


2

3 5 3

1 1

Phrasing clear 4 4 3 1 1 1 2


1 1

1

1 1

Good fluency

1 1 1


1 1 1

1

1

Confident

1

1

Lacks confidence

1

1

Excellent overall

Good overall

3 1 4 3

5 3 2 3


Poor overall

1 1




44


Piece 1:

Flute

Piece 2:

Piano

Piece 3:

Violin

Piece 1:

Flute

Piece 2:

Piano

Piece 3:

Violin


Notes clear

2

1

Notes lack clarity

1

1 2 2

1

1


1 1 1

1

1


2 1

1


1


1

Rhythm mostly accurate 1 1 1

2

1 2

2 2


1

2 1


2 2 1 3 2

Tempo fluctuates/not followed 2 2 1 1

1 2

1

2

Tempo too fast 1

1 2

2

Tempo too slow

1 1

Good dynamic contrast 2 1 2 3 1

2 3 3


3

1 2


2 1 2 1

1 1 3

Good articulation

1

1

Some articulation

1



1 1

3

9 12 2 4


1 1

1

1


1

6 6

2

Good intonation 1 3

2 1


4 2

1 1

Poor intonation

7 4

1 1


2

2 1 2

Acceptable technique 2 3

1

3

1

Poor/incorrect technique 4 3

5 3 1 1

Phrasing clear 1

2

2

Phrasing unclear/limited 1 1

1 1 1

Good fluency


1

1

Confident

1

Lacks confidence

Excellent overall

1

1 1 2


2 1

1 1 2 1


2

1 1

Poor overall




iv. MPPA 6

MPPA 6 and its re-assessment concerned scales and arpeggios. The violin player in

the second video clip is evidently an experienced player who is demonstrating Grade

1 scales and arpeggios. Hence the learners were told to assess him as if he was

really at Grade 1 level. The number of qualitative responses by the Grade 10, 11 and

12 learners are shown in Table 4.29.

45

MPPA 6 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

Scales & arpeggios Piano Violin Flute Piano Violin Flute Piano Violin Flute

Category A RA

A RA

A RA

A RA

A RA

A RA

A RA

A RA

A RA

Notes clear 3 1 3 1

1

1

Notes lack clarity

2 1

1

All pitches correct 2 3 1 2

2 3

5 1 4 2 1


1

1

3

1

2 3


5 8

4

5

Rhythmically accurate 1 1 1 1

1 3 1 2

6 3 3 2

Rhythm mostly accurate 1

2

1

1

1


3

2 4 2

5 3

Tempo correct/consistent 4 7 3 5

8

2

1 2 3 2 2 1


3 5

1

4

1

1

Tempo too fast 2

Tempo too slow 3

3 2

2

2 2

1

2


1

Some dynamic contrast

1


Good articulation

2

1

Some articulation

1

Little/no/faulty articulation 1

1 1




Good intonation

1

1 1 1

1 1

Average intonation

1

1

Poor intonation

1 1

1

1



1

1

1

1


1 7

5 3 1

3 2

Phrasing clear


Good fluency

2

6

6

1

4

3


3 3

2

1 10

1 1

1 2

Confident

2

1

2 2 2 4

1

1 1

Lacks confidence

1

2

1 1

Excellent overall

5

2 6 2 10


8 3 6

2

4 5 1 1

2


8

Poor overall

1


Table 4.29 Qualitative results of MPPA 6 (scales and arpeggios)

v. MPPA 7

The purpose of MPPA 7 and its re-assessment was to examine sight reading and

aural tests. One of the evaluated performances that had to be assessed was very

good. Learners were reminded that all performances had to be assessed as true

examples of sight reading since the quality of sight reading can vary between poor

46

and excellent. The number of qualitative responses by the Grade 10, 11 and 12

participants are explained in Table 4.30, 4.31 and 4.32.

Grade 10 MPPA 7

Sight reading:

Flute Sight reading:

Piano Sight reading:

Violin Aural tests

Category A RA A RA A RA A RA

Notes clear

Notes lack clarity

1

1

All pitches correct

3 5


1 5 1


3


4 4 3


Lacks rhythmic accuracy 2

1 4 3



1 1 4

Tempo too fast

1

1

Tempo too slow

1


4 3 1


1 4 1 1

Little/no dynamic contrast 3 1 1

5 2

Good articulation 2 2

2 1 1

Some articulation

1

Little/no/faulty articulation 3 3

1 1 1

Good interpretation/style/feeling 1

1 3



1

1

Good intonation

Average intonation

Poor intonation

4 9

Good technique 1



Phrasing clear

1


Good fluency

3 1 3


2

Confident

3 1 5

2

Lacks confidence

1

Excellent overall

Good overall 5

5 3 1

2


Poor overall

1 2


Aural test: Singing C 1 C 1

P 7 P 11

W 2 W 2

Aural test: Clapping C 3 C 7

P 4 P 6

W 2 W 4

Aural test: Telling time signature C 4 C 7

Note: A = Assessment; RA = Re-assessment; C = Correct answer by candidate; P = Partially

correct answer by candidate; W = Wrong answer by candidate

Table 4.30 Qualitative results of MPPA 7 (sight reading and aural tests)

47

Grade 11 MPPA 7

Sight reading:

Flute Sight reading:

Piano Sight reading:

Violin Aural tests


Notes clear

1

1

Notes lack clarity

4

All pitches correct 2 2 6 9 1


2 1


2

Rhythmically accurate 1 1 6 6

1



3 2



3

Tempo too fast

2

Tempo too slow


2 2

Some dynamic contrast 2 3 4 3

1

Little/no dynamic contrast 2

1 2 5 4

Good articulation 1 3

1 1

Some articulation 1 1

1


1


5


1


1

Good intonation

Average intonation

Poor intonation

3 5

Good technique 1

1 2



3

Phrasing clear

1

1


1 2 1 1

Good fluency 2 3

1 1 1


1

1

1

Confident 1 1 1 2

1

Lacks confidence

1

1 1

Excellent overall

2

1

Good overall 7 2 2

1 1 5


2

Poor overall


Aural test: Singing C 1 C 0

P 13 P 13

W 1 W 0

Aural test: Clapping C 3 C 3

P 2 P 3


W 2




48

Grade 12 MPPA 7

Sight reading:

Flute

Sight reading:

Piano

Sight reading:

Violin Aural tests


Notes clear 1

Notes lack clarity

1


2 2 3


1

2 2


1 2

Rhythmically accurate 1 6 4 4 1

Rhythm mostly accurate 5 3 1

3


2

Tempo correct/consistent 1 1 4 2 2


2

Tempo too fast

1 2

Tempo too slow


1

3

Some dynamic contrast 1 2 2 4

4


3 2

2 2

Good articulation

Some articulation

1

1



1 1 3


1


1

1

Good intonation


1 2

Poor intonation

3 2

Good technique

1 1 2


1

Poor/incorrect technique 1 1

Phrasing clear

1 2


Good fluency 1 1

3


2

Confident 1

3

Lacks confidence 1

1

Excellent overall

3

Good overall 3 1 1 2 2


Poor overall

1


Aural test: Singing

C 2 C 1

P 9 P 12

Aural test: Clapping

P 6 P 7

W 3 W 1


W 2




49

4.2.5 Feedback cards

A total of 34 feedback cards describing the effect the study has had on the

participants was completed and returned. Table 4.33 shows the responses and

number of participants who commented on certain aspects.

Number of

responses Learner responses

8 I now know what music practical examiners are looking for.

5 I record myself.

5 I now know how to assess myself/what I need to work on.

5 I focus on finer detail of a piece and performance.

4 I focus more on dynamic contrast since it sounds different to an outsider than to the performer.

4 I focus more on accuracy with regard to tempo.

3 By listening critically to recordings of my performance, I know which aspects of my playing

needs to improve.

3 I have learnt how to assess music performance.

2 I am more critical of my own and other‟s music performance.

2 I am more aware of intonation.

2 I focus more on phrasing.

2 I learnt more about music terminology

2 I am more aware of sound production.

1 I now realise different cannot be assessed in the same manner.

1 I focus more on rhythmic accuracy.

1 Recording myself, have taught me to play through a piece without stopping.

1 Now I know what is meant by “interpretation”.

1 The study helped me overall with my learning and playing.

1 It is more complicated to judge a performance than I initially thought.

1 I became aware of what needs to go in to a good performance.

1 I focus more on interpretation.

1 Many factors influence the outcome of a practical music examination.

1 I have enjoyed listening to the various performances.

1

“This should be taught as part of the syllabus, because it makes us as musicians/performers

more attend on our own performances. We also learn what examiners look for… The overall

standard of practical exams and examining in the future would improve.”

1 I now know where my past mistakes lied

1 Duration of the study should have been longer to see more of an improvement regarding the

participants own music performance.

1

“Instead of assessing and then reading at home and re-assing the next lesson, we should have

one lesson a week where we assess, go through the work together then re-assess because a

lot of people don‟t read through or understand or they forget before they re-assess [sic].”

Table 4.33 Feedback cards by participants

50

4.2.6 Observation by music teachers

Four of the five teachers handed in written observations concerning participants who

showed progress in the effectiveness of their music practice habits and level of

performance during the study. The teachers‟ observation can be seen as a way in

which information provided by the participants is authenticated.

The flute teacher commented on three of her learners. One of the learners started to

record herself and as a result she knew which aspects of her playing required

attention. She even took her recordings to the teacher to discuss where and how she

could improve. This is consistent with her answers in Questionnaire 3. The third

learner did not show any significant improvement, even though the flute teacher

encouraged her to listen to professional recordings. It would have been interesting to

compare this observation to the learner‟s answers in Questionnaire 3 but

unfortunately she did not hand in her questionnaire.

The guitar teacher noticed a change in two of her learners who started to record

themselves as a result of the study. Both learners improved in terms of fluency,

rhythmic accuracy and tone quality. One of these learners was also more passionate

about her music than before, took the teacher‟s remarks more seriously and was

more persistent to achieve excellence.

The vocal teacher commented that one of his learners showed a remarkable

improvement and was more focussed. This is consistent with the learner‟s responses

in Questionnaire 3 and the significant improvement in her music practical marks. He

also mentioned three more learners who displayed some improvement but not to the

same extent as the first learner. This too is in line with the learners‟ responses in

Questionnaire 3. Another learner showed a positive change in attitude during her

lessons. In addition, two learners paid more attention to detail. However, he also

stated that seven of his learners did not show any evidence of improvement. This

contradicts five of these learners‟ responses in Questionnaire 3. However, it is

possible that the learners did not yet apply what they have learnt to their own

playing. The remaining two learners‟ level of performance remained the same. One

of these learners was already a well accomplished singer with effective practice

51

habits and the other learner did not show any progress. This is consistent with what

she said in Questionnaire 3 with regard to her practice habits.

The violin teacher commented on six of her learners‟ development. The teacher

specifically mentioned the improvement of one of her learners in terms of her scales.

This was the only learner who, in Questionnaire 3, pointed out that she pays more

attention to scales and arpeggios. Another learner‟s intonation improved, while three

of the learners started to pay more attention to detail. In addition, one of her learner‟s

practice time increased.

4.3 Conclusion

The rationale of Chapter 4 was to analyse the procedures through which qualitative

data was collected. In Chapter 5 the results will be analysed and interpreted in order

to discover whether the participants showed progress in the development of their

CLS. In addition, the researcher hopes to discover trends, similarities and

characteristics which exist among different groups of people.

52

CHAPTER 5

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

5.1 Introduction

The data that was presented in Chapter 4 will be analysed and interpreted in this

chapter. In order to achieve this, the development of participants‟ CLS to improve

MPPA, performance and self-regulation will be evaluated.

5.2 Comparison between Questionnaire 1 and Questionnaire 3

Questionnaires 1 and 3 contained important questions to determine whether

participants made progress in the development of their CLS and whether such

progress had an impact on the learners‟ level of music performance, ability to

conduct MPPA and ultimately the stimulation self-regulation.

5.2.1 Practice habits

In Questionnaire 1, the majority of learners indicated that their practice habits were

effective. However, in Questionnaire 3, 40 of the 53 participants specified that their

practice habits were, as a result of the study, more effective than in the past. In

comparison to Questionnaire 1, Questionnaire 3 showed a reasonable increase in

learners who keep record of their practice sessions. Table 5.1 provides a

comparison between the responses of the two questionnaires concerning this

aspect.

53

Answer Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 3

Gra

de

10 Yes 1 6

No 14 10

Sometimes 2 0

Unknown 3 3

Gra

de

11 Yes 2 6

No 15 10

Sometimes 2 1

Unknown 0 2

Gra

de

12 Yes 2 8

No 13 4

Sometimes 0 1

Unknown 0 0

Table 5.1 Participants keeping record of practice habits

5.2.2 Self-assessment

An unexpected outcome was that the learners responded almost exactly the same in

terms of assessing their own music performance when comparing Questionnaire 1

with Questionnaire 3. The comparison between these results is shown in Table 5.2.

In terms of comparing one‟s own music performance to a performance of a high

standard, the participants‟ answers also remained approximately the same. These

findings can be viewed in Table 5.3.


Gra

de

10 Yes 6 7

No 9 9

Sometimes 1 0

Unknown 3 0

Gra

de

11 Yes 12 11

No 7 5

Sometimes 0 1

Unknown 0 2

Gra

de

12 Yes 12 12

No 2 1

Sometimes 1 0

Unknown 0 0

Table 5.2 Participants assessing themselves

54


Gra

de

10 Yes 12 9

No 5 6

Sometimes 0 1

Unknown 2 3

Gra

de

11 Yes 15 13

No 5 6

Sometimes 0 0

Unknown 0 0

Gra

de

12 Yes 11 12

No 2 1

Sometimes 0 0

Unknown 2 2

Table 5.3 Participants measuring their performance to high

standard performances

5.2.3 Development of CLS

When comparing the learners‟ response in Questionnaire 1 with the responses in

Questionnaire 3 with reference to listening critically to the performance of other

musicians, the findings show a slight increase.


Gra

de

10 Yes 13 15

No 3 2

Sometimes 1 0

Unknown 0 0

Gra

de

11 Yes 13 15

No 4 4

Sometimes 2 0

Unknown 1 0

Gra

de

12 Yes 9 13

No 5 0

Sometimes 1 0

Unknown 0 0

Table 5.4 Participants listening critically to the performance

of other musicians

55

5.2.4 Music practical examination preparation

As mentioned in the data analysis, 52 of the 53 participants indicated that they had a

better idea of what assessment criteria examiners are using when conducting a

music practical examination. This is a significant, especially when considering the

remarks by learners on feedback cards. Insight into the outcomes and assessment

standards informs the candidate regarding the preparation for a music practical

examination. This finding is consistent with the foundation of outcomes-based

education (OBE) as stated by Dreyer (2008:9):

One of the principles of OBE is to “design down”. This means that you start with the

outcomes and design the curriculum backwards from there… Assessment criteria

indicate the road ahead and determine and shape the expected learning that should

take place.

The key finding in terms of the study‟s effect on the participants‟ own approach to

music practical examination is found in the fact that 20 participants indicated that

they pay more attention to detail during preparation.

5.3 Questionnaire 2

As mentioned in the data analysis, the purpose of Questionnaire 2 was to gain

insight into the criteria learners use during MPPA. The responses to Questionnaire 2

of learners with an average above 80 percent were compared to the answers of

learners with an average below 50 percent. It occurred that there is not a significant

relationship between the type of criteria learners use when conducting MPPA and

the level of achievement by the learners in subject music. It was also discovered that

the answers of Questionnaire 2 and the accuracy of mark allocation during the

MPPAs did not show a remarkable correlation. However, a considerable number of

participants indicated that they rate music performance according to very bad, bad,

average, good and very good. They also measure it against their own performance

and other performances they have listened to.

56

5.4 MPPAs

The MPPAs were interpreted in two ways: learners‟ average mark allocation versus

the music teachers‟ average mark allocation, as well as the number of learner

comments which corresponded to the comments by teachers with regard to the

various MPPAs.

5.4.1 Findings with regard to mark allocation

The marks allocated by the learners for each aspect of a particular MPPA and its re-

assessment were compared to the teachers‟ marks in order to discover any possible

trends. As mentioned in the methodology, a total of 25 assessments were done. This

included all MPPAs and re-assessments. The researcher anticipated that the re-

assessments of the various MPPAs would be more accurate than the initial MPPA

when compared to the teachers‟ assessment. However, it was somewhat

disappointing that, through basic quantitative comparison using bar-charts, the

findings revealed only eight of the Grade 10 re-assessments showed an

improvement, while the number of Grade 11 improvements and re-assessments

were equal. Despite this, 15 of the Grade 12‟s re-assessments were more consistent

with the teachers‟ assessments. A possible explanation for this might be that the

Grade 12s were generally at a higher music level than the Grade 10s and 11s. Table

5.5 summarises the outcome of all MPPAs, MPPA re-assessments and their

comparison to the teachers‟ assessments. Figure 5.1 to 5.3 shows the comparison

between the MPPAs, re-assessments and the teachers‟ assessments in the form of

bar charts. Since the mark allocation for different aspects of MPPA were different,

findings are indicated in percentages to enhance reader friendliness.

Grade Improvement Declination Approximately the

same (less than 2% difference)

Grade 10 8 10 7

Grade 11 11 11 3

Grade 12 15 9 1

Table 5.5 Summary of the number of the MPPAs and MPPA re-assessments

57

Figure 5.1 Grade 10 MPPAs, MPPA re-assessments and their comparison to the teachers‟ assessments

Piece 1: piano

Piece 2: violin

Piece 3: flute

Sight reading

Scales &

arpeg-gios

Aural tests

Piece 1: violin

Piece 2: flute

Piece 3: piano

Piece 1: violin

Piece 2: piano

Piece 3: flute

Piece 1: violin

Piece 2: piano

Piece 3: flute

Piece 1: flute

Piece 2: piano

Piece 3: violin

Piano Violin Flute Flute Piano Violin Aural tests

MPPA 1: All components of an ABRSM examination

MPPA 2: tempo and rhythm

MPPA 3: Dynamics, articulation and phrasing

MPPA 4: Assessing and comparing different

instruments MPPA 5: Interpretation

MPPA 6: Scales & arpeggios

MPPA 7: Sight reading & aural tests

GRADE 10 Assessment 72.53 81.87 45.70 82.48 97.48 80.72 67.43 85.10 85.83 80.90 76.67 81.93 86.27 90.23 70.00 70.50 89.60 82.53 83.25 80.50 56.25 78.29 91.43 71.43 72.22

GRADE 10 Re-assessment 79.20 82.93 74.90 85.43 96.57 90.50 69.77 77.97 83.80 84.17 79.17 78.93 85.83 84.30 63.33 73.33 90.43 71.87 78.88 80.50 50.00 78.86 89.90 63.57 71.39

TEACHERS Assessment 69.33 82.00 72.00 75.71 98.57 74.44 79.67 83.33 78.00 75.00 76.33 80.00 70.33 81.67 65.67 58.00 84.00 65.33 93.75 87.50 64.38 72.38 97.14 74.29 81.94

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Pe

rce

nta

ge

MPPA SUMMARY OF ALL GRADE 10 PARTICIPANTS

58


Piece 1: piano

Piece 2: violin

Piece 3: flute

Sight reading

Scales & arpeg-

gios

Aural tests

Piece 1: violin

Piece 2: flute

Piece 3: piano

Piece 1: violin

Piece 2: piano

Piece 3: flute

Piece 1: violin

Piece 2: piano

Piece 3: flute

Piece 1: flute

Piece 2: piano

Piece 3: violin


MPPA 1: All components of an ABRSM examination MPPA 2: tempo and

rhythm MPPA 3: Dynamics,

articulation and phrasing








0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

PP

erc

en

tage


59


Piece 1: piano

Piece 2: violin

Piece 3: flute

Sight reading

Scales & arpeg-

gios

Aural tests

Piece 1: violin

Piece 2: flute

Piece 3: piano

Piece 1: violin

Piece 2: piano

Piece 3: flute

Piece 1: violin

Piece 2: piano

Piece 3: flute

Piece 1: flute

Piece 2: piano

Piece 3: violin


MPPA 1: All components of an ABRSM examination MPPA 2: tempo and

rhythm MPPA 3: Dynamics,

articulation and phrasing








0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00


60

An important question that spread forth from comparing the difference between the

MPPAs, MPPA re-assessments and teacher assessments, is whether a significant

difference exists between CLS development of strong learners and weak learners. In

each grade learners were grouped according to their average between two terms‟

music marks. Initially, learners were clustered in three groups, depending on their

average: 36-59 percent, 60-79 percent or 80-100 percent. However, since no one in

the 36-59 percent group was present during some MPPAs, the researcher decided

to group the learners according to achievers with an average below 70 percent and

achievers with an average above 70 percent.

It is interesting to note that the number of MPPAs that improved among the learners

achieving below 70 percent increased from Grade 10 to 12 respectively. These

findings can be viewed in Table 5.6. Of the achievers with an average above 70

percent, only the Grade 10 MPPA re-assessments showed an improvement rather

than deterioration. The results of achievers with an average above 70 percent are

shown in Table 5.7. When analysing the results of the achievers above 70 percent, it

is only the Grade 10s that showed a significant improvement. However, the number

of improvements and deterioration among the Grade 11 and Grade 12 re-

assessments remained more or less the same when compared to the initial MPPAs.

Based on this comparison, a conclusion can be reached that the level of subject

music achievement does not have a remarkable influence on the outcome of the

MPPAs and their re-assessments.

Grade Improvement Declination (more

than 2% difference) Approximately the same (less than 2% difference)

Grade 10 7 10 8

Grade 11 11 12 2

Grade 12 14 9 2

Table 5.6 Summary of the number of the MPPAs and MPPA re-assessments of learners

with an average below 70 percent

61

Grade Improvement Declination (more

than 2% difference) Approximately the same (less than 2% difference)

Grade 10 14 6 5

Grade 11 9 10 6

Grade 12 11 12 2

Table 5.7 Summary of the number of the MPPAs and MPPA re-assessments of learners

with an average above 70 percent

5.4.2 Findings with regard to learner comments on assessment sheets

The findings in this subsection are based on the results of the re-assessments in the

different grades when compared to the initial MPPA and teacher‟s comments. Where

reference is made of “consistency” or “inconsistency”, it refers to the teachers‟

comments. On the other hand, “constant” refers to the number of comments per

MPPA that remained the same. In the event of participants not commenting on an

aspect teachers commented on, it is indicated under “no comments”. Comments that

did not apply to a particular MPPA were disregarded.

i. Comments: MPPA 1 and its re-assessment

Table 5.8 provides a summary of the number of learner comments which were

consistent with the teachers‟ comments, as well as the comments that were

inconsistent. Columns two to four contain two numeric values. The first value

represents the number of comments during the initial MPPA and the second value

shows the number of comments during the re-assessment. It is interesting to note

that the number of comments which increased in consistency was more than double

in all three grades. The number of inconsistencies showed a significant decrease.

However, the number of inconsistencies showed a strong increase but was still

significantly lower than the consistent comments. A detailed version of Table 5.8 can

be viewed under Appendix 5.1.

62

Grade Learners’ comments versus

teachers’ comments Increase Decrease Constant

No comments: MPPA & re-assessment

Gra

de

10 Consistency 28-63 24-9 1-1 4

Inconsistency 4-23 19-3 4-4 8

Gra

de

11 Consistency 27-56 22-14 11-11 2


Gra

de

12 Consistency 28-57 35-21 4-4 4


Table 5.8 MPPA 1 and its re-assessments: Analysis of learner comments

ii. Comments: MPPA 2 and its re-assessment

Table 5.9 shows the same type of information as Table 5.8 but with reference to

learners‟ comments during MPPA 2 and its re-assessment. Appendix 5.2 shows the

full version of the abridged table. It is interesting to note that the Grade 11s showed

the highest increase in both consistency and inconsistency. The number of

consistent comments which remained constant is considerably higher than the

number of inconsistent comments which remained the same.




Gra

de

10 Consistency 6-10 30-21 11-11 0


Gra

de

11

Consistency 21-45 0-0 10-10 0


Gra

de

12 Consistency 5-6 23-17 11-11 0



iii. Comments: MPPA 3 and its re-assessment

With regard to the assessment of dynamics, articulation and phrasing, all three

grades showed an increase in consistency. The Grade 12s showed a remarkable

increase of more than double the initial comments. It was also the only grade not to

have decreased in consistency. The increase in inconsistency is considerably less

63

than the increase in consistency. It is remarkable that there were no comments that

remained constant between the two assessments. As can be seen in Table 5.10, the

overall improvement in the re-assessments is higher in comparison to the initial

MPPA. A full version of this table can be viewed under Appendix 5.3.




Gra

de

10 Consistency 19-25 21-10 0-0 0


Gra

de

11 Consistency 19-23 39-33 0-0 0


Gra

de

12 Consistency 18-42 0-0 0-0 0



iv. Comments: MPPA 4 and its re-assessment

In comparison to the previous MPPAs and their re-assessments, MPPA 4 and its re-

assessment showed a notable decline in number of inconsistencies that decreased.

Although there was a steep increase in the number of consistencies, the overall

numbers are less than some of the previous assessments. The results of the re-

assessment in comparison to the initial MPPA are explained in Table 5.11. The

exhaustive version of this table can be viewed under Appendix 5.4.




Gra

de

10 Consistency 2-8 8-4 6-6 0


Gra

de

11 Consistency 6-16 6-3 0-0 0


Gra

de

12 Consistency 3-9 7-4 0-0 1



64

v. Comments: MPPA 5 and its re-assessment

Table 5.12 outlines the participants‟ comment accuracy of MPPA 5‟s re-assessment.

Appendix 5.5 contains the expanded version of this table. A significant development

in this MPPA‟s re-assessment is the number of consistent comments which did not

decrease among the Grade 10 and 12 learners but showed some decline among the

Grade 11 comments. The number of inconsistencies and their increase was very

little. The number of Grade 10 and 12 learners‟ constant comments in the

consistency groups was considerably higher than the number of constant comments

in the inconsistency groups.




Gra

de

10 Consistency 9-23 0-0 5-5 0


Gra

de

11 Consistency 11-15 15-9 0-0 0


Gra

de

12 Consistency 9-16 0-0 7-7 0



vi. Comments: MPPA 6 and its re-assessment

Table 5.13 shows the analysis of the learners‟ comments regarding scales and

arpeggios. It is a reduction of the table shown in Appendix 5.6. The number of

comments consistent with the teachers‟ comments shows a substantial increase in

all the grades. The number of inconsistent comments during MPPA 6 was

significantly few and showed only a slight increase during the re-assessment. The

number of participants who did not comment on specific aspects of the assessments

was considerably more in comparison to the assessments that preceded it. The fact

that this MPPA and its re-assessment contained a higher number of participants not

commenting on important aspects does not seem to be relevant when comparing it

to the overall increase in consistency in comments and marks.

65




Gra

de

10 Consistency 10-21 7-4 4-4 4


Gra

de

11 Consistency 4-26 5-3 5-5 3


Gra

de

12 Consistency 9-23 22-7 1-1 1



vii. Comments: MPPA 7 and its re-assessment

A considerable increase in consistency was noted between the MPPA and its re-

assessment. The number of inconsistencies also increased but not with the same

intensity. This MPPA and re-assessment contained the highest number of comments

remaining constant. There was a considerable increase in the number of learners

who did not comment on fundamental aspects of the performances during the re-

assessment.

Grade Learners’ comments versus teachers’ comments

Increase Decrease Constant No comments:

MPPA & re-assessment

Gra

de

10 Consistency 30-54 17-8 0-0 0


Gra

de

11

Consistency 24-39 30-22 18-18 1


Gra

de

12 Consistency 21-40 19-9 5-5 1



5.5 Learners’ personal music practical examination marks

Learners‟ marks of the music practical examination following the study were

compared to the average marks they obtained in the two examinations preceding the

study in the same academic year. There has been an increase in 25 of the learners‟

music performance in their practical examinations. Although the effect of the study

66

might not be the only influence, the learners‟ responses to Questionnaire 3 and the

teachers‟ reflection support such a hypothesis. A total of 15 learners‟ practical

examination marks remained the same or weakened with not more than 3 percent,

while the remaining 14 learners‟ marks weakened more than 3 percent. It is unlikely

that the study was to blame for this. A possible explanation is that, based on the

responses in the third questionnaire, the learners had not applied the knowledge

they gained during the study. It might also be due to external reasons since some of

these learners‟ marks decreased in some of their other school subjects as well.

Table 5.15 compares the participants‟ music practical examination results before and

after the study. The results are given in percentages.

PARTICIPANT GRADE 10 GRADE 11 GRADE 12

Term 1 & 2

(prior to study) Term 3

(after study) Term 1 & 2


(after study) Term 1 & 2


(after study)

Learner 1 78 72 60 76 76 74

Learner 2 70 68 86 88 58 71

Learner 3 74 58 66 70 56 63

Learner 4 97 90 51 50 90 92

Learner 5 80 54 80 72 88 85

Learner 6 82 90 76 76 75 81

Learner 7 70 78 62 76 71 80

Learner 8 70 60 81 80 84 84

Learner 9 73 76 87 78 61 60

Learner 10 84 84 82 88 44 61

Learner 11 75 78 82 74 40 51

Learner 12 81 76 70 76 53 56

Learner 13 60 76 54 80 78 88

Learner 14 83 78 81 84 89 88

Learner 15 82 82 80 70 64 73

Learner 16 85 82 82 82 Not applicable (15 learners only)

Learner 17 79 86 74 72 Not applicable



Table 5.15 Participant‟s music practical examination percentages before and after the study

5.6 Observation by teachers

The teachers, all teaching different instruments, noted a difference in 17 of the

learners‟ progress, preparation and attitude. However, this number might be slightly

higher since one of the teachers did not hand in any comments regarding the

67

development of her learners during the study. The overall growth the teachers

observed in their learners was thus at least 32 percent; a significant number.

5.7 Conclusion

The data that was collected during the current study has been fully analysed in this

chapter. It is evident that there were some significant, unexpected and disappointing

results. The following chapter, Chapter 6, concludes the study. Important findings of

the study will be underlined and recommendations for future research will be made.

68

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to reflect on the current study, answer the research

questions and make recommendations for future research.

6.2 Reflecting on the study

This action research study‟s purpose was to determine whether CLS of Grade 10 to

12 South African subject music learners can be developed to improve music

performance assessment, performance and self-regulation. In order to discover this,

a methodology was designed that would best suit the purpose of the study. As

shown by the study, significant, unforeseen and disappointing discoveries were

made.

As shown by the study, 52 of the 53 participants have a better idea of the

assessment criteria used by examiners for MPPA, 40 of the participants‟ practice

habits are more effective and at least 32 percent of the participants have shown a

positive change in their music performance. In addition, 17 of the participants

showed improvement in the music practical examination that followed the study.

However, as stated in the findings, this might be owing to other factors as well.

An interesting finding was that learners‟ comments proved to be substantially higher

in accuracy than their mark allocation. A possible explanation for this might be that

learners are able to discern between varying performance standards but not

necessarily capable of awarding parallel marks.

69

Based on learner responses to Questionnaire 3, a somewhat disappointing and

unexpected result was that the learners did not show noteworthy growth in terms of

self-assessment. Another disappointing result was the existence of an insignificant

correlation between Questionnaire 2 and the learners‟ MPPAs and the re-

assessments thereof.

6.3 Addressing the research questions

Returning to the research questions posed at the beginning of this study, it is now

possible to state that CLS of Grade 10 to 12 South African subject music learners

can be developed to improve music performance assessment, performance and self-

regulation. This statement is based on the fact that learners were provided with 50

opportunities in total to assess various aspects underlying MPPA. In order to further

develop their CLS, learners were provided with notes on various aspects of MPPA.

The fact that a significant increase in consistency was observed with regard to the

learners‟ comments during the re-assessments prove that the interventions were

successful (refer to Tables 5.8 through 5.14).

Questions 2.3 and 2.4 of Questionnaire 1 answered the first sub-question regarding

the perception and level of CLS that existed among the participants at

commencement of the study. Of the 52 participant who completed the questionnaire,

35 stated that they listen critically to the performance of other musicians, especially

in terms of note accuracy, tempo, rhythm, dynamics, articulation and interpretation

(refer to Table 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5).

The second and third sub-questions‟ purpose was to discover the impact the

development of learners‟ CLS has on their practice habits, level of performance, self-

assessment, MPPA of other performers and self regulation. The majority of learners

indicated that their practice habits were more effective as a result of the study (refer

to “Practice habits” under Section 5.1). The comments on some feedback cards, the

observation by the teachers and the results of the learner‟s music practical

performance examination following the study revealed that a reasonable number of

learners‟ level of performance improved (refer to Sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6 and 5.5).

70

However, the learner‟s ability to assess themselves did not show a remarkable

increase (refer to “Self-assessment” under Section 5.2). As mentioned earlier, the

learners showed stronger progress in terms of valid comments than accurate mark

allocation during MPPA (refer to Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2). In terms of self

regulation, the study has had a positive impact on the learners. This is evident from

the fact that the number of learners who reflect on their practice habits, keep record

of their practice habits (specifically the Grade 10s and 12s), as well as being more

motivated to practise has shown a strong increase.

6.4 Recommendations

As far as the researcher could determine, this study broke new ground in the

development of CLS. Consequently, a number of recommendations can be made for

further research.

Further investigation is necessary to determine the effect of a similar study on other

spheres of music education, specifically tertiary music education. Music concepts

dealt with during the various MPPAs can be explored in more detail. In addition,

there is scope for research regarding the influence participants‟ instruments of

specialisation and level of experience have on the outcome of MPPA.

Based on the success of the study, it is recommended that music departments of

secondary schools and universities consider implementing such a program to

develop their students‟ CLS as a tool to improve practice habits, level of

performance, self-assessment, MPPA and self-regulation. Finally, the study provided

a method by which music practical examiners in South Africa can be trained more

effectively.

71

REFERENCES

Arkansas State University. 2009. Limitations, Delimitations. Available at:

http://education.astate.edu (accessed 23rd April 2011).

Bergee, M.J. 2003. Faculty Interjudge Reliability of Music Performance Evaluation.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(2):137-150.

Blom, D. & Poole, K. 2004. Peer assessment of tertiary music performance:

opportunities for understanding performance assessment and performing through

experience and self-reflection. British Journal of Music Education, 21(1):111–125.

Burrack, F. 2002. Enhanced assessment in instrumental programs. Music Educators

Journal, 88(6):27–32.

Dreyer, J.M. (ed). 2008. The educator as assessor. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Dye, J.F., Schatz, I.M., Rosenberg, B.A. & Coleman, S.T. 2000. Constant

Comparison Method: A Kaleidoscope of Data. The Qualitative Report, 4:1/2.

Essay Town. 2001-2011. Quality College Research Help. Available at:

http://www.essaytown.com (accessed 9th April 2011).

Falchikov, N. & Goldfinch, J. 2000. Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A

Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks. Review of Educational

Research, 70(3):287-322.

Godwin, C. 1996. Taste, snobbery and spiritual style in music. Contemporary Music

Review, 14(3):47-53.

Hallam, S. 2001. The development of expertise in young musicians: Strategy use,

knowledge acquisition and individual diversity. Music Education Research, 3(1):7-23.

Herbert, T. 2001. Music in Words. London: ABRSM.

72

Hewitt, M.P. 2001. The Effects of Modeling, Self-Assessment, and Self-Listening on

Junior High Instrumentalists' Music Performance and Practise Attitude. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 49:307.

Hewitt, M.P. 2002. Self-Assessment Tendencies of Junior High Instrumentalists.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 50:215.

Hewitt, M.P. 2011. The Impact of Self-Evaluation Instruction on Student Self-

Evaluation, Music Performance, and Self-Evaluation Accuracy. Journal of Research

in Music Education, 59(6):6-20.

Hunter, D. & Russ, M. 1996. Peer assessment in performance studies. British

Journal of Music Education, 13:67-78.

IdeaWorks. 2011. Personal Effectiveness. Available at:

http://www.ideaworks.ca/personal-effectiveness.html (accessed 2nd May 2011).

Jørgensen, H. 1995. Teaching and learning strategies in instrumental practise: A

report on research in progress. In J. A. Taylor (Ed.). 1997a. Transatlantic roads of

music education: World views, pp. 47-51. Tallahassee: Center for Music Research.

Latimer, M.E.Jr, Bergee, M. J. & Cohen, M.L. 2010. Reliability and Perceived

Pedagogical Utility of a Weighted Music Performance Assessment Rubric. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 58(68):168-183.

Leon-Guerrero, A. 2008. Self-regulation strategies used by student musicians during

music practise. Music Education Research, 10(1):91-106.

McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. 2005. Action Research for Teachers: A Practical Guide.

Oxon: David Fulton Publishers.

Mills, J. 1991. Assessing Musical Performance Musically. Educational Studies,

17(2):173-181.

Nielsen, S. 2001. Self-regulating Learning Strategies in Instrumental Music Practise.

The Norwegian Academy of Music, 3(2):155-166.

Peterson, B. 2001. Three ways to practise more creatively. Music Educators Journal,

88(3): 46-50,71.

73

Qualis Research. 1998. Qualitative Data Analysis. Available at:

ftp://ftp.qualisresearch.com/pub/qda.pdf (accessed 19th May 2011).

Saunders, T.C. & Holahan, J.M. 1997. Criteria-Specific Rating Scales in the

Evaluation of High School Instrumental Performance. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 45(2):259-272

Scott, S. 2004. Evaluating Tasks for Performance-Based Assessments: Advice for

Music Teachers. General Music Today, 17(2):17-27.

Sung, Y. et al. 2010. How many heads are better than one? The reliability and

validity of teenagers‟ self- and peer assessments. Journal of Adolescence, 33:135–

45.

The Qualitative Research Web Page. n.d. 15 Methods of Data Analysis in Qualitative

Research. Available at: http://qualitativeresearch.ratcliffs.net/15methods.pdf

(accessed 18th April 2011).

Webb, M. 2010. Re viewing listening: 'Clip culture' and cross-modal learning in the

music classroom. International Journal of Music Education, 28: 313-340.

Wrigley, W.J. 2005. Improving music Performance Assessment. PhD dissertation.

Griffith University.

Zdzinski, S.F. & Barnes, G.V. 2002. Development and validation of a string

performance rating scale. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(3): 245-255.

List of YouTube video clips

2000flute. 2010. Inna *Tambourin J P Rameau*. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joLe0aKFUCs (accessed 6 July 2011).

ABRSM1 . 2010. ABRSM - ABRSM - Grade 1 Piano exam (complete). Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4FBBFsLNek (accessed 7 July 2011).

74

ABRSM1. 2010. ABRSM - Grade 5 Piano exam (complete). Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plA1CQDnins (accessed 7 July 2011).

aldora87. 2008. Grade 4 Piano B3 Petits bateaux sur l’eau (Sandre0). Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTJLbrr3Ylg (accessed 26 July 2011).

andrewpocock1. 2009. hurdy gurdy on flute. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL1HwTs9HyU (accessed 7 August 2011).

belforteki. 2011. grade 3 flute scales. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgpuezpETI (accessed 14 July 2011).

crystalmuller. 2008. Suite in B minor, Rondeau. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZMbUyWS0Y (accessed 19 June 2011).

davidsmffei. 2010. MOZART Eine Kleine Nachmusik_ Third Movement. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdxfan79Tt0 (accessed 26 July 2011).

drZair. 2007. Joshua -- Bop Goes the Weasel by Bill Readdy. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C79l00Jbg0 (accessed 20 July 2011).

eggyqian. 2007. JS Bach BWV 927 Prelude in F. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZrmqHgouqQ (accessed 5 July 2011).

erfanaszman. 2009. ABRSM high scorer concert, grade 4 VIOLIN. Available

at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APV79uIUUxc (accessed 19 June 2011).

goadyusa. 2011. ABRSM Allegro played by Lucy Pang age 8. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi5F9WvS6Ec (accessed 6 July 2011).

jianchen0628. 2007. Hungarian dance No.5. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R85PeU_KdPM (accessed 19 June 2011).

jstpiano. 2011. César Franck, Chant de la Creuse. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J52UC32-Ch4 (accessed 7 August 2011).

narutoAddictNTF. 2010. English Dance - ABRSM Grade 4 Exam Piece. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS-aibekUF4 (accessed 7 July 2011).

75

paulaess . 2008. AJ’s Grade 4 Flute Piece 1. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5ocKdAMFAs (accessed 6 July 2011).

rainable211. 2011. Sicilienne (Flute). Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYvIrfV_48Y (accessed 20 July 2011).

rocket331. 2008. Samantha’s ABRSM Grade 4 Pieces. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5N9EEu9iQI (accessed 20 July 2011).

samlkk9329. 2011. Clockwork Doll - By April Lam. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1xFR7vuAx8 (accessed 19 June 2011).

solotaro. 2008. AMEB Grade 1 Scales & Arpeggios. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8F8kVb4Ca0 (accessed 10 August 2011).

standchen1987. 2009. Chopin Berceuse Op.57 -sight reading practice. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l25GYtwPKN (accessed 20 June 2011).

tancwee. 2009. Purcell grade 4 violin piece. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxenJfWzlTI (accessed 6 July 2011).

zuleika96. 2010. Lord cutts March violin. Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksmo8tvYCG0 (accessed 7 August 2011).

76

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRES

Appendix 1.1: Questionnaire 1

80


QUESTIONNAIRE 2

MEASURING A PERFORMANCE

Name: ____________________________ Grade: _____ Date: ____/____/2011

You have done three MPPAs so far. How did you measure the performances? In

other words, what do you use as reference to guide you? Circle/highlight the most

appropriate option.

Very bad – bad – average – good – very good

According to percentage

The standard and percentage awarded at competitions you have attended, for

example the Pretoria Eisteddfod

Your own performance

Other performances you have heard, for example CD recordings, live

performances or perhaps your teacher

I have not really thought about it

Random selection of marks and comments

Nothing in particular

Other (specify) ____________________________________________________

81


83

APPENDIX 2: MPPA SHEETS

Appendix 2.1: MPPA 1 – All ABRSM music practical examination components

84

Appendix 2.2: MPPA 2 – Tempo and rhythm

85

Appendix 2.3: MPPA 3 – Dynamics, articulation and phrasing

86

Appendix 2.4: MPPA 4 – Assessing and comparing different instruments

87

Appendix 2.5: MPPA 5 – Interpretation

88

Appendix 2.6: MPPA 6 – Scales and arpeggios

89

Appendix 2.7: MPPA 7 – Sight reading and aural tests

90

APPENDIX 3: HANDOUTS

Appendix 3.1: MPPA 2 – Tempo and rhythm

92

Appendix 3.2: MPPA 3 – Dynamics, articulation and phrasing

94

Appendix 3.3: MPPA 4 – Assessing and comparing different instruments

98

Appendix 3.4: MPPA 5 – Interpretation

100

Appendix 3.5: MPPA 6 – Scales and arpeggios

101

Appendix 3.6: MPPA 7 – Sight reading and aural tests

103

Appendix 3.7: MPPA 8 – All ABRSM music practical examination components2

2 Reference

ABRSM. 2009. These music exams: A guide to ABRSM exams for candidates, teachers and parents.

London: ABRSM

108

APPENDIX 4: FEEDBACK CARD

FEEDBACK CARD

Name: _____________________ Grade: _____

Date: ____/____/2011

Should you like to share anything regarding the impact of

this study, e.g. something you have learnt, please write it

down.

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

Thank you!

109

APPENDIX 5: FINDINGS – COMMENTS ON ASSESSMENT SHEETS

Appendix 5.1: MPPA 1 and its re-assessment (MPPA 8)

All ABRSM practical examination components

Teachers’ comments Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

Pie

ce 1

Notes lack clarity C = No comments

I = No comments

C = Decreased: 5 to 3 learners

I = No comments

C = Decreased: 3 to 2 learners

I = No comments

Note inaccuracies C = Decreased: 2-0

I = No comments

C = Decreased: 3-2

I = Increased: 0-3

C = Increased: 1-4

I = Increased: 0-3

Tempo inconsistent and

too fast

C = Increased: 4-6

I = Increased: 0-3

C = Decreased: 6-5

I = Increased: 0-5

C = Increased: 9-10

I = Decreased: 2-1

Lacks dynamic contrast C = Increased: 4-6

I = Decreased: 7-2

C = Increased: 0-1

I = Increased: 1-5

C = Increased: 6-7

I = Increased: 1-6

Lacks feeling/

interpretation

C = No comments

I = Increased: 0-2

C = Increased: 0-1

I = Increased: 0-3

C = Decreased: 2-1

I = Increased: 0-4

Pie

ce 2

Notes lack clarity C = Increased: 0-2

I = No comments

C = No comments

I = No comments

C = Decreased: 3-2

I = Decreased: 1-0

Rhythmically accurate C = Increased: 0-5

I = Increased: 0-1

C = Increased: 0-2

I = No comments

C = Increased: 2-6

I = No comments

Tempo correct and

consistent

C = Increased: 3-6

I = Decreased: 1-0

C = Increased: 3-4

I = Increased: 0-1

C = Decreased: 3-2

I = No comments

Some dynamic contrast C = Decreased: 9-6

I = Decreased: 1-0

C = Increased: 7-8

I = No comments

C = Increased: 4-9

I = Decreased: 1-0

Good articulation C = Increased: 2-4

I = Decreased: 2-1

C = Increased: 4-6

I = Decreased: 1-0

C = Decreased: 2-1

I = Increased: 0-1

Intonation C = No comments

I = Decreased: 2-0

C = Constant: 3-3

I = Decreased: 1-0

C = Decreased: 7-4

I = No comments

Pie

ce 3

Notes lack clarity C = Decreased: 2-1

I = Decreased: 1-0

C = Increased: 0-1

I = No comments

C = No comments

I = No comments

Notes accurate C = Increased: 2-5

I = No comments

C = Decreased: 4-2

I = No comments

C = Increased: 2-6

I = No comments

Rhythmically accurate C = Decreased: 3-1

I = Increased: 1-3

C = Increased: 1-6

I = Decreased: 2-0

C = Increased: 0-4

I = Decreased: 2-0


too fast

C = Increased: 3-5

I = No comments

C = Increased: 5-9

I = No comments

C = Decreased: 10-6

I = No comments

Some dynamic contrast C = Increased: 3-5

I = Increased: 1-3

C = Increased: 3-4

I = Increased: 0-2

C = Increased: 2-3

I = No comments

Articulation generally

good

C = Increased: 1-4

I = Decreased: 2-0

C = Constant: 4-4

I = Increased: 0-1

C = Increased: 1-3

I = No comments

Clear phrasing C = Increased: 0-1

I = Increased: 0-2

C = Increased: 0-3

I = Increased: 0-1

C = No comments

I = Increased: 1-2

Fluency can improve C = Decreased: 2-0

I = Decreased: 1-0

C = Increased: 0-1

I = Increased: 0-1

C = Constant: 1-1

I = Decreased: 2-0

Sig

ht

rea

din

g

Rhythm generally good C = Decreased: 3-1

I = Increased: 0-1

C = No comments

I = Increased: 0-3

C = No comments

I = Increased: 0-1

Tempo inconsistent C = Constant: 1-1

I = Constant: 4-4

C = Decreased: 3-2

I = Increased: 3-4

C = Constant: 2-2

I = Decreased: 5-4

Some dynamic contrast C = Decreased: 3-0

I = No comments

C = Increased: 1-2

I = Decreased: 0-1

C = Constant: 1-1

I = Increased: 0-1


good

C = Increased: 1-4

I = Decreased: 2-0

C = Constant: 4-4

I = Increased: 0-1

C = Increased: 1-3

I = No comments

Clear phrasing C = Increased: 0-1

I = Increased: 0-2

C = Increased: 0-3

I = Increased: 0-1

C = No comments

I = Increased: 1-2

Fluency can improve C = Increased: 0-4

I = No comments

C = Increased: 3-7

I = No comments

C = Decreased: 5-3

I = No comments

Sc

ale

s &

arp

eg

-g

ios

Tempo too fast C = No comments

I = Increased: 2-6

C = Decreased: 1-0

I = Decreased: 2-1

C = Increased: 0-1

I = Decreased: 3-1

Fluency good C = Increased: 2-5

I = No comments

C = Increased: 0-6

I = No comments

C = Increased: 0-1

I = No comments

110

Appendix 5.2: MPPA 2 and its re-assessment

Tempo and rhythm


Pie

ce 1

Rhythm good, mostly

accurate

C = Decreased: 9-5 I = Constant: 1-1

C = Increased: 5-10 I = Decreased: 4-2

C = Decreased: 7-6 I = Increased: 0-1

Tempo consistent but too

fast

C = Increased : 6-10

I = No comments

C = Constant: 10-10

I = Increased: 1-2

C = Decreased: 8-6

I = Increased: 0-2

Pie

ce 2

Rhythm good, mostly

accurate


C = Increased: 7-9 I = No comments

C = Constant: 8-8 I = No comments

Tempo consistent but too

slow

C = Constant: 11-11 I = Decreased: 5-0

C = Increased: 6-9 I = Increased: 1-7

C = Decreased: 8-5 I = Decreased: 2-1

Pie

ce 3

Rhythm good, mostly

accurate

C = Decreased:7-6

I = No comments

C = Increased: 1-11

I = No comments

C = Increased: 5-6

I = No comments


too slow

C = Decreased: 3-2

I = Increased: 8-10

C = Increased: 2-6

I = Increased: 5-9

C = Constant: 3-3

I = Constant: 5-5

111


Dynamics, articulation and phrasing


Pie

ce 1

Some dynamic contrast C = Increased: 6-7 I = Decreased: 2-0



Good articulation at times

but lacks consistency


C = Decreased: 8-7 I = No comments


Pie

ce 2

Little dynamic contrast C = Increased: 11-13 I = No comments




good




Pie

ce 3

Dynamics generally good C = Decreased: 10-3 I = Increased: 2-8



Clear articulation C = Decreased: 4-2 I = Increased: 0-2



112


Assessing and comparing different instruments


Pie

ce 1

Clear tone C = Increased: 1-3 I = Increased: 1-2


C = No comments I = Decreased: 0-1

Adequate technical facility C = Increased: 0-3 I = Decreased: 6-5



Pie

ce 2

Technique is rather good C = Increased: 1-2

I = Increased: 0-1

C = Increased: 1-4

I = Decreased: 2-0

C = Increased: 1-6

I = No comments

Pie

ce 3

Poor intonation C = Decreased: 8-4 I = No comments



Although technique is acceptable,

it is incorrect at times




113


Interpretation


Pie

ce

1 Limited sense of feeling

and interpretation

C = Increased: 8-11

I = Constant: 1-1

C = Decreased: 15-9

I = Increased: 3-4

C = Constant: 7-7

I = Constant: 1-1

Pie

ce

2 The piece is well

interpreted

C = Increased: 1-12

I = Decreased: 8-0

C = Increased: 9-10

I = Decreased: 2-1

C = Increased: 9-13

I = No comments

Pie

ce

3 Limited sense of feeling

and interpretation

C = Constant: 5-5

I = Decreased: 7-2

C = Increased: 2-5

I = Decreased: 8-4

C = Increased: 0-3

I = Increased: 2-4

114




Sc

ale

s &

A

rpe

g-

gio

s:

Pia

no

Rhythm good, mostly

accurate




Very good overall

impression




Sc

ale

& A

rpe

gg

io:

Vio

lin

Lacks clarity C = No comments I = Decreased: 3-1

C = Constant: 2-2 I = Increased: 1-2

C = No comments I = Increased: 0-1

Rhythm good, mostly

accurate




Tempo is too slow C = Decreased: 3-2 I = No comments



Good intonation C = Increased: 0-1 I = Increased: 0-2



Acceptable technical

facility

C = No comments I = Constant: 1-1

C = No comments I = No comments


Excellent overall

impression



C = Increased: 2-10 I = Constant: 1-1

Sc

ale

s &

Arp

eg

gio

s:

Flu

te

Lacks clarity C = Decreased: 2-1 I = No comments



Frequent pitch errors C = Increased: 5-8 I = No comments



Rhythm mostly

accurate




Incorrect technique C = Increased: 1-7 I = Decreased: 1-0



Lack of fluency C = Constant: 3-3 I = No comments



115


Sight reading and aural


Sig

ht

rea

din

g:

Flu

te

Pitches mostly correct C = Increased: 2-3 I = No comments



Lacks rhythmic accuracy C = Decreased: 2-0 I = Increased: 0-4


C = No comments I = Increased: 6-9

Tempo fluctuates C = Increased: 3-6 I = Decreased: 3-2



Little dynamics, contrast

can increase




Good fluency C = Increased: 0-1 I = No comments


C = Constant: 1-1 I = Constant: 1-1

Sig

ht

rea

din

g:

Pia

no

All pitches correct C = Increased: 3-5 I = Increased: 0-1



Rhythm good, mostly

accurate




Good tempo, consistent C = Decreased: 5-4 I = No comments



Good sense of

interpretation




Sig

ht

rea

din

g:

Vio

lin

Notes mostly accurate C = Decreased: 5-1 I = Increased: 0-3


C = Constant: 2-2 I = Decreased: 4-2

Rhythm accuracy varies,

requires attention




Little dynamics, needs

stronger contrast




Some evidence of

articulation




Intonation inconsistent,

needs attention




Au

ral

Singing started well but

intonation weakened




Clapping generally

accurate




Answer regarding time

signature incorrect




116

APPENDIX 6: LIST OF VIDEO CLIPS ON CD

In cases where an assessment did not apply to the full video clip, the time applicable

to the specific video clip is indicated in brackets.

Tracks for MPPA 1 and its re-assessment

1. Brahms, J. Hungarian dance no. 5

2. Rodríguez, G.M. La Cumparsita (0:30 to the end)

3. Bach, J.S. Rondeau

4. Sight reading: Chopin, F. Berceuse, Op. 57 (1:15-2:12)

5. ABRSM Grade 5 examination: First three scales (1:11-1:47) and first three

arpeggios (2:24-2:47)

6. ABRSM Grade 1 examination: Aural tests (6:27 to the end)


7. Rieding, O. Allegro: 3rd movt from Concerto in G, Op. 34

8. Rameau, J.P. Tambourin from Pièces de Clavecin (0:21 to the end)

9. Bach, J.S. Prelude in F, BWV 927


10. Purcell, H. Rondeau from Abdelazer

11. Readdy, B. Bop Goes the Weasel, No. 4 from Jazz-It: Twinkle, Twinkle

Jazzy Star

12. Paradis, M.T. Sicilienne

117


13. Mozart, W.A. Menuetto from Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, K. 525

14. Sandré, G. Petits bateaux sur l‟eau

15. Shostakovich, D. Clockwork Doll from Children’s Notebook, Op. 69


16. Bach, J.S. Siciliano from Sonata No. 2 in E major, BWV 1031

17. Grieg, E. Cattle-Call, No. 1 from 19 Norwegian Folksongs, Op. 66 (1:08-

2:16)

18. Anon. English Dance


19. ABRSM Grade 1 examination: Piano scales and arpeggios (01:39-02:37)

20. Violin scale and arpeggio (03:47-04:47)

21. Flute scales (00:57-01:26) and arpeggios (2:43-2:57)


22. Shostakovich, D. Hurdy-Gurdy from Dances of the Dolls

23. Franck, C. Chant de la Creuse from L’organiste

24. Anon. Lord Cutt's March

25. ABRSM Grade 5 examination: Aural tests (08:45-09:28 and 11:39 to the

end)

Developing critical listening skills of Grade 10 to 12 South African subject Music learners to...

Documents

Transcript of Developing critical listening skills of Grade 10 to 12 South African subject Music learners to...