Until recently, very little scholarly attention has been paid to peer- and self- assessment in instrumental music performance. What research there is tells us that self-assessment is often out of touch with the assessments of teachers and peers (Bergee & Cecconi-Roberts, 2002). Instrumental teachers and ensemble coaches typically assume that players can evaluate their own performance correctly (or hope they will learn to do so over time), but the evidence compiled by Bergee & Cecconi-Roberts suggests that accurate self-assessment in musical performance is elusive at best. The studies of small group peer interaction carried out by Bergee & Cecconi further demonstrate the complexity of peer-assessment in music performance. These studies showed no consistent positive effect of peer feedback on the accuracy of musical self-assessment. Worse, if peer feedback is not handled well, they report that an even larger disconnect between self-assessment and teacher assessment can occur. So, what is happening here?
Based on my research, I suspect that the results of this study might accurately reflect two very important aspects of musical training that have been mostly unexplored:
- The goals of instrumental instruction are largely tacit.
- Musical self-assessment cannot be based on external measures of sound production.
From 2014-2016, I carried out a study of instrumental masterclasses created by members of the London Symphony Orchestra to guide instrumentalists in preparing audition materials for the YouTube Symphony (Kaastra, 2016). I adapted Herbert H. Clark’s conceptual framework for analyzing tacit processes in language use (H. H. Clark, Using Language 1996) to explore the tacit aspects of musical activity. These analyses demonstrate that instrumental teachers do more than just measure sound output and give feedback to students. Teachers demonstrate ways of attending to musical activity at different levels. These levels are discussed in detail in my paper (see reference below).
Self-assessment cannot be based on external measures alone. Yes, we can and should record ourselves and critique our performances as objectively as possible afterwards. But to succeed in real time, we need to learn to engage what Donald Schöen calls, “reflection-in-action” and “reflection on reflection-in-action” (Schöen, 1989). We engage metacognition. We learn to attend to the physiological processes that support our performance goals. If we are rehearsing intonation, the target of focal awareness is pitch. But pitch is a complex percept. On the bassoon, playing in tune requires monitoring and manipulation of air support, air speed, embouchure formation (lips, jaw, and tongue), articulation, head position, fingerings, and posture. We feel our sound and position our sound in the context of what we hear happening around us. Accurate self-assessment means that we feel in control of our self-positioning with respect to any number of performance goals – dynamics, pulse, tempo, tone quality, phrasing, etc. The more we learn to name these targets of focal awareness, isolate them, and work on them, the more mastery we gain and the more accurate our self-assessments will be as a result.
Next time you are in a lesson, think about how your teacher is identifying targets of focal awareness for you. Write about these in your reflective journal.
References:
Bergee, M. J. & Cecconi-Roberts, L. (2002). Effects of Small-Group Peer Interaction on Self-Evaluation of Music Performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(3): 256-268.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press.
Kaastra, L. (2016). Tacit Knowledge in Orchestral Performance. College Music Symposium 56: n.p. Available online at: https://ubc.academia.edu/LindaKaastra
Schöen, D. (1989). “A Masterclass in Musical Performance.” Chapter 8 in, Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.