lilian simones franziska schroeder matthew rodger queen’s university belfast (funded by del)...
TRANSCRIPT
Lilian Simones
Franziska Schroeder
Matthew Rodger
Queen’s University Belfast
(Funded by DEL)
COMMUNICATING MUSICAL KNOWLEDGE
THROUGH GESTURE:
PIANO TEACHERS’ GESTURAL BEHAVIOURS
ACROSS DIFFERENT LEVELS OF STUDENT PROFICIENCY
Gesture IS important for teaching and learning
effectiveness
Teachers and Learners gestures (Goldin-Meadow et al., 2009)
Conceptual understanding (Yoon et al., 2011).
Learning is maintained over time (Cook, Mitchell & Goldin-Meadow, 2008).
Alignment and intersubjectivity (Du Bois, 2001; Mondada, 2006; Sacks et al., 1974; de Fornel, 1992; Pickering & Garrod, 2004; Müller, 2008; Zlatev et al., 2008).
Index
I. METHODOLOGY
II. RESULTS
III. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS
I. METHODOLOGY
I. METHODOLOGY Research Questions
What gestures are developed by teachers while teaching piano to different levels of
student proficiency?
What similarities and differences can be found in teachers individual gestural approach while teaching piano to different
levels of student proficiency?
I. METHODOLOGY Participants: TEACHERS
Gender
Age 39-55
Experience 10-30 teaching
Education PhD
Accreditation All specific teaching accreditation
I. METHODOLOGY Participants: STUDENTS
Experience
Elementary grade 1 Grade 4 grade 8
Gender
2 1 1 2 3 0 2 1
Age [5-7] [8-10] [11- 15] [21-35]
Group ILess
experienced
Group IIMore
experienced
I. METHODOLOGY PROCEDURE
Teach/learn in one-to-one environment:
2 contrasting pieces during three consecutive lessons.
6 video recordings per Dyad
(3 piece 1 and 3 piece II)
total 72 video recordings
(1st 3mins of each analysed)
I. METHODOLOGY Analysis
Qualitative
observation
Statistical
Analysis
Spontaneous co-verbal gestures
(McNeill 1992; 2005)
DeicticIconic
MetaphoricCo-Verbal Beats
Aim:Compariso
n
Poisson Regression
Spontaneous co-musical
gestures (Simones, Schroeder, Rodger 2013, submitted)
Musical BeatsConducting
stylePlaying piano
MimicsTouch
Elan Software (Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics,
Nijmegen, the Netherlands, Lausberg & Sloetjes 2009)
Cohen’s Kappa: .82 (p<.05)
categorisation
I. Gestures developed by the three teachers combined
II. Gestures developed per teacher: agreement/disagreement
RESULTS
Touch
Mimics
Playing Piano
Conducting Style
Musical Beats
Co-Verbal Beats
Metaphoric
Iconic
Deictic
0 50 100150200250300350400
Less expe-rienced students
More expe-rienced students
RESULTS I. Gestures developed by the three teachers combined
R: 0.82 P: 0.008
R: 2.03 P<0.001
R: 4.67 P: <0.001R: 2.08 P: <0.001R: 0.98 P:0.92R: 13.0 P: <0.001R: 0.90 P:0.25R: 0.33 <0.001R: 0.07 P<0.001
Results II. Gestures developed per teacher AgreementsDEICTIC
MIMICS
TOUCH
• METAPHORIC• ICONIC• CO-VERBAL BEATS• CONDUCTING STYLE (*)
Less experienced
(all teachers)
More experienced
(all teachers)
Statistically significant difference for all teachers
(…) for two teachers
(…) for one teacher
Results II. Gestures developed per teacher Disagreement
Musical Beats
Playing Piano
• T1: Less experienced• T2: Less experienced• T3: More experienced (p< 0.003)
• T1: More experienced (p< o.o5)• T2: Less experienced• T3: Less experienced (p< 0.04)
III. CONCLUSIONS/ IMPLICATIONS
Conclusions/ implications
• 1) Didactic intention Gesture type
• 2) Gestural Scaffolding approach
Should a gesture pedagogy
be established for this context?
Thank you!
Publication:
Simones L., Schroeder F. & Rodger M. (2013). Categorisations of
Physical Gesture in Piano Teaching: A preliminary enquiry.
(forthcoming).
References:Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J. (1986). Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological measurements, 20, 37-46.
Cook, S.; Mitchell, Z. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition, 106, 1047-1058
de Fornel, M. (1992). The return gesture: some remarks on context, inference, and iconic gesture. In P. Auer & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of Language (pp. 159-176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, J. (2001). Towards a dialogic syntax. Unpublished manuscript.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture, how our hands help us think. Harvard: Harvard University Press
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind. Chicago: University Press.
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies (8), 117-129.
Muller, C. (2008). What gestures reveal about the nature of metaphor. In A. Cienki & C. Muller (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture (pp.219-245) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pickering, M. & Garrod, S. (2004). Towards a mechanist psychology of dialogue. Behaviour and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-190).
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Zlatev, J., Racine, T., Sinha, C. & Itkonen, E. (2008). Intersubjectivity: what makes us human? In J. Zlatev, T. Racine, C. Sinha & E. Itkonen (Eds.) The shared mind: perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 1-14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gestures developed by the three teachers combined
Gesture Occurrences
Less experienced students
OccurrencesMore
experienced students
Ratio (Less exp/more exp.)
(95% CI)
P-value
Deictic 374 305 0.82 (0.70, 0.95)
0.008
Metaphoric 46 215 4.67 (3.40, 6.43)
<0.001
Iconic 95 193 2.03 (1.59, 2.60)
<0.001
Co-verbal beats
92 191 2.08 (1.62, 2.66)
<0.001
Musical beats
52 51 0.98 (0.667, 1.44)
0.92
Conducting style
2 26 13.0 (3.09, 54.8)
<0.001
Playing piano
230 206 0.90 (0.74, 1.08)
0.25
Mimic 155 52 3.33 (0.25, 0.46)
<0.001
Touch 124 9 0.07 (0.04, 0.14)
<0.001
Gestures developed per teacherGestures Occurrence
sLess
experienced
OccurrencesMore
experienced
Ratio Less/More experienced95% CI
P - value
TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Deictic 169 98 107
125
90 90 0.74
0.92
0.84
0.01 0.56 0.23
Iconic 22 42 31 100
64 29 4.55
1.53
0.94
<0.001
0.03 0.80
Metaphoric 14 29 3 90 80 45 6.43
2.76
15.0
<0.001
<0.001 <0.001
Co-verbal Beats
25 52 15 51 100
40 2.04
1.92
2.67
0.003 <0.001 <0.001
Musical Beats
42 5 0 28 1 22 0.67
0.20
4.40
0.10 0.14 0.003
Conducting Style
0 2 0 18 4 4 * 2.00
* * 0.42 *
Playing Piano
43 71 116
63 56 87 1.47
0.79
0.75
0.05 0.18 0.04
Mimics 19 12 124
16 19 17 0.84
1.58
0.14
0.61 0.21 <0.001
Touch 15 109
0 2 7 0 0.13
0.06
* 0.007 <0.001 *
Gestures developed by the three teachers combined
Gestures Less Experienced Students(freq./ %)
More Experienced Students(freq./%)
Spontaneous Co-verbal(McNeill 1995; 2005)
607 (25%) 904 (37%)
Spontaneous Co-Musical(Simones, Schroeder & Rodger 2013)
563 (23%) 344 (15%)
Total 1170 (48%) 1248 (52%)
Grand total: 2418
62%
38%
RESULTS II. Gestures developed per teacher: Spontaneous co-verbal gestures (McNeill, 1992; 2005) • DEICTIC
• METAPHORIC
• ICONIC
• CO-VERBAL
BEATST3
T2
T1
T3
T2
T1
T3
T2
T1
T3
T2
T1 More expe-rienced stu-dentsLess expe-rienced studentsp<0.0
01
p<0.001
p<0.03
p<0.003p<0.001
p:0.01
II. Gestures developed per teacher: Spontaneous co-musical (Simones, Schroeder, Rodger 2013)
MUSICAL BEATS
CONDUCTING
STYLE
PLAYING PIANO
MIMICS
TOUCH T3
T2
T1
T3
T2
T1
T3
T2
T1
T3
T2
T1
T3
T2
T1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
More expe-rienced stu-dentsLess expe-rienced students
P: 0.003
P: 0.05
p: 0.04
P: <0.00
1
P: <0.00
1P: 0.007