The Role of the Learner and Their Input Towards a Musical Performance Profile: The Practice Journal

Ryan Daniel

Abstract

This article examines the potential role of the learner in the development of a music performance profile and, in particular, the learner’s input towards this process.  Traditionally, assessment of music performance is conducted externally, and emanates from musical experts who provide evaluation and critical commentary, upon which students base their judgements about the success or otherwise of their development.  This research traces the introduction of the Practice Journal as a key strategy within the music degree at James Cook University.  Such a methodology is designed to enhance students’ self-critical reflection skills and understanding of the internal processes towards performance.  Analyses of journals are conducted annually, both as evaluation of learning and as basis for revisions to the journal for the subsequent academic year.

Introduction

The development of music performance skills is complicated, involving both internal processes and external influences.  The success of these processes is particularly important at the tertiary level, where one of the fundamental objectives is to produce graduates with life-long learning skills, including the capacity to manage and promote their own learning.  This is particularly important in music, where a student’s professional career profile is largely a product of the success of their training at tertiary level.  The current pedagogical basis of several Australian tertiary music courses revolves around high-level instrumental teaching and performance.  This arguably places external influences such as the teacher or examination panel as critical and, indeed, pivotal for developing a student’s performance profile.  As a result, many tertiary students today rely primarily on external forms of assessment of their progress, such as a teacher’s critical comments and instructions, examination reports and results, or class performance assessments. While external evaluation and guidance is essential for the development of any physiological skill, one of the potential weaknesses of this is a sole focus on external means of directing learning and development.  Francis (1997: 137) suggests that this is because students see the teacher as the “gatekeeper of knowledge or the fount of wisdom” and thus rely, to an inappropriate degree, on this form of evaluation of progress.  Consequently, there can often be a lack of self-reflective assessment by the student at various critical stages.  In essence, such students often become musically ‘dependent’.

This dependency can often be traced back to the initial levels of music study and performance, and as a result, becomes dominant at a young age in the minds of many music students.  Students develop a sense of comfort in being judged ‘right’ by their teachers, and it is this security, which often leads to the student developing total reliance on the teacher for direction.  This reliance can extend to auditions, competitions, eisteddfods and other public situations where the extrinsic forces in operation take priority over the intrinsic motivators for completing such tasks, and their purpose in the long-term development of a student’s skills.  As they progress through their adolescent years, students often continue to direct their focus and study towards approval from various sources, striving for acceptance, commendation and the encouragement to proceed.  Mallonee (1999:66) refers to this as the common student reliance on “positive evaluation of competence”.  The potential negative result of this situation is students who lack the intrinsic motivation to succeed as a result of the need for ex cathedra external assessments.

This is a particularly significant issue in Australia as a result of the high profile given to such examining bodies as the Australian Music Examinations Board, and other such institutions operating graded music examinations.  Pedagogues and students adopt graded music syllabus exams as a standard method of assessment, and obedience to this credo exists in many teaching studios.  With regard to the Australian Music Examinations Board, Carroll (2000:2) states that, on a yearly basis, this organisation conducts “over 20,000 … examinations in Queensland alone”.  On the one hand, these external examinations become an excellent vehicle for students to prepare specific work, progress through levels of skill development, and achieve certification for their work.  However, in many cases, the sole purpose tends to be to attain an assessment report and grade from an examiner who is automatically afforded the status of musical expert.   This may occur to the extent that students, parents and teachers base the future direction of their child's musical education on these results, whether they are positive or negative.  While the fact that young students and their teachers approach examinations with a respected ‘reverence’ is not inherently negative, it can often promote and confirm reliance on the expert as assessor which, in turn outweighs any emphasis on the student’s understanding of the internal processes towards estimable performance.

This pattern often entrenches at an early age, and those who continue music studies at tertiary level tend to carry this psychological dependence on the teacher and other forms of external evaluation into the higher education domain.  At tertiary level, much performance assessment has traditionally operated under circumstances similar to that of a graded music examination. Hence in many cases, the potential exists for the learner to continue to rely primarily on external methods of evaluation, rather than the more appropriate pattern of external evaluations partnered with critical self-reflection and analysis. The student’s understanding of the internal processes towards performance is often overshadowed by a focus on external assessment and/or approval.  Consequently, there exists an extensive body of musicians who, as a result of overly restrictive guidance and teaching and/or minimal involvement in the development and the learning of self-directed teaching skills, “are unable to continue learning after they discontinue their formal lessons” (Camp 1981: 2).

The Issues at Tertiary Level

The inability to undertake internal reflection and analysis of performance poses a critical problem for some academics when revisiting course structures.  The need to encourage self-directed learning in music would suggest a change of focus on the processes towards an end product, and in particular, the internal reflective processes undertaken by a student.  On leaving tertiary study, students will need an ability to effectively analyse and reflect upon their music in practice, as these skills have the potential to make or break a career.  If these processes are not developed during a student’s tertiary music education, students will potentially be left helpless, without the necessary skills for directing their own performance careers.  While it is not inherently negative that many performers continue periodically to consult colleagues or indeed other pedagogues throughout their career for advice, the issue of attaining musical independence is critical, particularly at tertiary level.

In the majority of current tertiary music programs in Australia, the emphasis is on training high-level performers, under the strict guidance and mentorship of a pedagogue.  This practice has its genesis in the nineteenth century Romantic tradition of the ‘master’ teacher such as Liszt or Leschetizky; pedagogues who were afforded god-like status and whose dictatorial pedagogical methods influenced generations to follow (Rowland 1998).  Many Australian music programs implicitly follow these traditions, priding themselves on producing high-class performers, with the teacher often seen as fundamental to the success of this process.

While these traditions may have been appropriate to the 19^th century, serious questions must be raised about their appropriateness to the 21^st century music industry in all its diversity.  It would seem ludicrous to persist in the belief that these traditions need not be questioned, given the need to produce graduates who are multi-skilled and critical thinkers, and also in the context of the radical changes and restructuring across the tertiary system.  What might be the appropriate balance between external guidance/evaluation and internal reflection/analysis in the development of quality musical performance?  How might a learning partnership be established to develop and promote this?

Traditionally, the input towards performance relies heavily on that received by the student from the teacher.  In the traditional format, pedagogues – traditionally via one to one lessons - instruct students in the necessary skills of technique and musicality.  While this is obviously necessary at some stages and to some degree, potential problems develop, which militate against the development of self-reflection and self-assessment skills.  One of the fundamental problems associated with one to one pedagogy is its inherent reliance on the student’s imitation or mimicry of the teacher’s profile.  While this is arguably inevitable to some extent, several authors refer to this situation as being a critical problem, including Johnstone (n.d.), Neuhaus (1973), Camp (1981) Rowe (1999) and Burkett (1982).  Johnstone (n.d..: vi) refers to the many music teachers whom “have generally but one method of teaching, and that is, to offer the pupil practical examples of playing for his imitation”.  This method of demonstration leaves a student “helpless so soon as he must depend upon himself in his interpretative work” (Johnstone n.d.: vi).  Camp (1981:1,2) refers to the “inefficiency of imitative teaching” and how the “imitative approach does not allow for student involvement in any interpretive decision making, nor does it promote musical independence”.  Burkett (1982:31) argues that in the one on one situation, students learn through “imitation of an adult who performs better than they can”.  He suggests that this is a result of an emphasis on receptive learning where the teacher provides the details and relays the necessary information.

Hand in hand with the imitative approach is the pedagogical strategy of repetition, whereby students are encouraged to repeat musical exercises and performances over and over, under the guidance and shaping eye and ear of the pedagogue.  The potential danger here is that students develop both repetitive rehearsal strategies and dependency on the pedagogue for the means of improving their performance.   The strategy of repetition appears to be common, with Neuhaus (1973:179) referring to an “endless chewing over of the same pieces” as being common to many practice rooms and teaching studios.  With regard to the practice room, it is not uncommon for students to engage in lengthy and repetitive practice sessions, the efficacy of which has not been demonstrated.  Improvisation, creativity and independent thought are qualities often suppressed, even eliminated, as a result of repetitive teaching and practice within the music environment.  Indeed, the commonness of students demonstrating a psychological reliance on the teacher originates as a direct result of these practices.

Within the tertiary environment, creating independence in students is not restricted to the music field.  Ramsden (1992:168) suggests that independent thought in students is something that “every teacher in higher education desires”. Others including Hanrahan (1997) refer to an urgent need for a greater emphasis on “learning to learn” (Hanrahan 1997: 229).  In music therefore, the psychological reliance on the teacher or external methods of input towards performance needs to be challenged in order to create an independent learning framework within which students might proceed and succeed.  With regard to music specifically, several authors have commented on the need for developing independence in students.  Kieran-Harvey (1999:12) argues that pedagogues “have an obligation to their charges to encourage them to think for themselves”.  Mallonee (1999:69) states that encouraging students to “assess their own progress gives them confidence in their increasing competence, strengthens self-efficacy, and keeps students working productively”.  Neuhaus (1973:172) argues that there is a need to “inculcate in the pupil that independent thinking, that method of work, that knowledge of self and ability to reach his goal”.  Camp (1981:p.vii) refers to the need for pedagogues to nurture the development of musical intelligence, thereby providing students with an understanding of how to learn music and make musical decisions long after formal lessons have ended.

Rationale for Implementing the Practice Journal

The goal of empowering self-directed learning and self-reflection is paramount in the music degree at James Cook University as the course encourages students to take charge of their own development, and “to start taking responsibility for their own learning” (Hanrahan 1997:225). This emphasis is to ensure that students are capable of continuing the process of life-long learning in a variety of performance contexts. The literature was searched for specific examples and/or case studies of the means to encourage music students to become greater reflectors of their music in practice.  Mallonee (1999:69) argued the need to help students engage in an intrinsically motivated reflection of their music in practice and to create “task-focused goals”.  He listed one of the possible advantages of this process as being the development of “musical skills, critical thinking, and decision-making skills that will benefit them in all areas of their lives”, and proposed the following areas for reflection:

In her interior design curriculum for first-year tertiary students, Lines (1997) incorporates an assessable journal where students present critical reflections on case studies, class experiments, course notes, readings, understanding achieved and other issues.  Rather than for the purpose of simply diarising or describing various issues, Lines (1997:449) discusses the function of the journal in terms of self-reflective analysis and whether the student has “understood the material in the way we want them to understand it”.  It is from these journals that Lines (1997) discusses the opportunity for academics to assess a student’s understanding and development over time, in addition to allowing staff the opportunity to advise students for the need to enhance or expand their reflections and analyses.   Lines (1997) describes some of the advantages of the journal as enabling students to develop the habit of thinking, as a reference tool for creative work, and as a document to refer back to in terms of the development of independent thought processes over time. 

It was decided to introduce a Practice Journal in 1999 for all new music students. This journal aims to document students’ reflections on their input towards the performance process.  Students are thus required to analyse, reflect upon, and extrapolate significant experiences from within their role as learners, and to develop ongoing skills in reflective critical evaluation at several stages of the performance process and within their general musical environment.  The journal also formed part of the overall result for the performance subject at first year level[1], which became an opportunity for students to demonstrate how much they understood the content of their studies and to contribute in a new way to the assessment process.  The journal also expanded the variety of assessment methods for this subject, which Ramsden (1992:192) argued, “encourages greater responsibility for self-direction in learning”.

Students are thus encouraged to look closely at their performance profile in terms of short, medium and long-term development and progress.  Moreover, it was hypothesised that encouraging students to document why and how they practice, rather than simply maintaining a record of the act of practice would counter the practices of imitation and repetition.  Students were required to take an active part in documenting the growth of their performance profile and to develop a questioning mind.  Maintaining the journal is also designed to ensure that students spend a proportion of time away from the instrument and thus prevent the maintenance of a psychological comfort zone based on imitative or repetitive practice and pedagogy.  The journal was thus designed to create a new input to music in practice, an input with the potential to break the psychological ties associated with cloning through the practice room and the pedagogue.

In the first week of semester one 1999, students were introduced to the purposes of and requirements for keeping a Practice Journal.  In this initial session, the following summarised set of guidelines for the maintenance of the Practice Journal were provided for the students:

Practice Journal: Students are expected to record written reflections on masterclasses, ensemble work, individual practice, concert practice classes and other performance activities.  In addition, students are required to research information on the repertoire they are studying and record this in the journal.  Each week’s practical work should be documented and reflected on in journal style, with the aim of maintaining a history of technical and musical issues discussed in various class situations, individual practice methods, goals, achievements and reflections, as well as the musical understanding and general progress achieved throughout the course.  The journal will be monitored throughout the year and assessed at the end of the semester.

After the initial explanation and discussion of the purpose of the journal, the students began the process of documentation of the various aspects of their music in practice.  Journals were monitored on three occasions during the year, at the end of each term, allowing an opportunity to monitor student reflections and/or understanding of the purpose of the journal as related to their practice.  At the end of the academic year, all students submitted their journals for assessment and evaluation.  Six journals[2] were chosen for brief analysis on the basis of considerable differences in content.  Of the six chosen, the first three demonstrate a relatively weak level of reflection and understanding, with journals 4-6 of a considerably higher level.  Qualitative analysis of the six selected journals is used to draw out various issues relevant to the preparation of the 2000 Practice Journal and the enhancement of the process of creating a vehicle for the independently thinking musician.

Case studies – analysis of selected journals

Practice Journal 1: Therese

Therese’s journal reflected her significant difficulty in maintaining an interest in studies on the flute as she was concerned primarily with changing her discipline emphasis to vocal studies.  Subsequently, the focus of her journal is on the problems associated with this conflict of interests and the desire to change.  Comments included “I hate going to flute lessons” to “I wish I’d started [singing lessons] last semester”.  The journal contains specific references to a lack of commitment to flute playing, including “I don’t practise and lessons go on the same every week”.  Alternatively, comments such as “At least I feel better when I come out of a singing lesson” refer to this student’s desire to make a radical change in music direction.  Highly critical comments in relation to the flute teacher are contained in this journal, which illustrates the student’s unhappiness and the mental block that developed as a result of the personality problems associated with the teacher-student relationship.  The frustrations of her experiences become obvious with such comments as “I don’t particularly give a damn”, “it was so boring”, to “I only get inspired to write in this damn journal when I’m either incredibly [upset] or ecstatically happy”.  As a result of this student’s personal issues and frustrations, the entries in this journal demonstrate limited analysis of practice and its purpose. 

Practice Journal 2: Anna

Anna’s journal was poorly presented, with reflections of a very brief nature recorded in pencil and with poor legibility; some were virtually unreadable.  Responses to music in practice were sporadic, brief in nature and content, and generally descriptive of the practical work being undertaken rather than analytical.  Such comments include “Handel - fast passages” and “run through of all pieces”, which illustrate a deliberate lack of analysis of the design and purpose of the practice strategies employed.  There is very little discussion and analysis of progress, either in technical or musical terms, and the entries offer little insight into this student’s internal thought processes.  Certain statements revealed some critical thought, such as “devised a new hopefully more effective way of practice”, but this is not exemplified at all, nor reflected on at a later point.  Other statements remain inconclusive, such as “setting goals for each week”, “play through all other pieces” and “focus on performance pieces”.  This journal reflected a lack of commitment to reflection and self-directed study of music in practice.

Practice Journal 3: Jessie

Jessie’s journal was brief in terms of content.  It was divided into weeks and sporadically subdivided into days.  The journal contained general comments and descriptions of various practice situations, lessons and classes.  There were some detailed references to technical issues as a result of the input of a new teacher, which led Jessie to focus on various issues that were previously not considered.  There tended to be frequent discussion of ensemble activities and rehearsals, rather than on Jessie’s individual progress and study amidst the variety of practical tasks required of a music student at tertiary level.  Such comments as “This week I really only worked on Suite One as I really need to have it polished by Friday” illustrated a general description and a lack of critical thought as to the content and application of the practice and its purpose.  There were many issues that were not discussed such as repertoire background, reflections on public performances, means of enhancing performance, and general comments on such musical issues that arise during practice sessions and rehearsals. 

Practice Journal 4: Zoe

Zoe demonstrated a high level of analysis and reflective skills and careful and considered thought with regard to the practice and development of music performance.  Zoe had purchased a new instrument, and there is substantial reference to instrument care, comparison with other instruments, and “experimentation and exploration of [the] new instrument” and its various capabilities.  There is frequent discussion of a variety of breathing and technical exercises and their purpose, application of technique to repertoire, and reflections on practice and study.  Such comments as “I intend to use this experience and the thoughts I have recorded in relation to it when setting goals for myself in future situations such as this” illustrated a desire to build on the efforts of previous performances, to extrapolate experiential factors which would enhance future performance, and to use the ensemble of musical experiences as part of the development of the performance profile.

Zoe’s journal was comprehensive.  She researched the works studied and interpolated statements from various musicologists about these works, such as “upon research, I discovered that Malcolm Arnold actually composed this piece for his friend Frederick Thurston, a famous Clarinetist”.  Significantly, Zoe went on to discuss the content of these extracts and applied this to her own interpretation of the work being studied “so that [she] can better understand the works”, illustrating a high level of critical thought, synthesis and evaluation skills.  This journal contained excellent examples of appropriate practice methods and reflection and covers all the areas outlined in the requirements for the journal.  This was also the only journal submitted in which the student provided a critical summary of the year’s practice and performance activities; “This semester I have learnt much and my musical knowledge has grown considerably, particularly in regard to mental approach to performance and motivational techniques”.

Practice Journal 5: John

John’s journal included the majority of elements required in the outline given to students.  There were references to progress achieved during each week, with frequent “reflection on the week” sections.  John records detailed descriptions of practice sessions, critical commentaries on other student performances, as well as general comments on how to enhance practice methods already in place, such as “I still need to try and limit myself to practising the difficult sections first before playing through the whole piece”.  Various performance contexts are referred to, including private practice sessions, masterclasses and ensemble rehearsals and classes.  There was an occasional tendency in this journal for the student to focus primarily on the content of practice sessions, without including a discussion of the progress and other issues associated with the development of the performance profile over short term and long term periods.

Practice Journal 6: Jason

Jason’s journal featured regular entries which include details of the content of music in practice in a variety of contexts: there were references to sections of music that required specific practice, performances of works and reflections on these, decision making in terms of repertoire selection, and documentation of all practical activities undertaken during each week.  There were occasional references to an overall reflective response to music in practice, such as “several questions were asked [of me] and they really made me think about my playing as a whole”.  Such comments revealed the awareness of the need for critical analytical skills.  Jason went on to describe his progress during the year and areas to continue working on, such as “I can say that the piece is actually improving and not staying in the same place”.  There were also in-depth references to technical areas, such as “I also practiced this piece with a metronome and I found my left hand didn’t drag like it did without the metronome”, which illustrates an engaged analysis of practice techniques.  This journal contained considerable critical reflection.

Analytic overview

As a result of offering students freedom in the recording of their reflections, the results ranged from:

As a result of not specifying the extent of reflections, the responses ranged from as few as 20 words for a week’s practice and performance activities to as many as 300 words for one day’s practice.  The content of each journal ranged from general comments on the musical practice methods, to specific reflections on technical or musical issues inherent in the practice and study processes.  Most of the students did not record information on the repertoire studied, nor on all aspects of their performance studies and its various contexts.  Several important issues such as “goals, achievements ... as well as the musical understanding and general progress achieved throughout the course” were not discussed to any great degree in most cases.

Reflections on and Revisions to the Journal

The results of the initial journal trial demonstrated that some students experienced considerable difficulty in maintaining the journal, while others appeared to achieve varying success in reflections and analyses of their music in practice.  At the end of the academic year, students were asked to provide feedback on the introduction of the journal.  The majority of students found the process to be valuable and rewarding in terms of introducing them to a new style of reflective thinking.  The most frequent critical response was that students felt there were not enough guidelines for how to respond, with the requirements too open-ended.   Some also felt helpless in attempting to reflect critically on their practical work, given the fact that this was a new process.

The results of the trial journal and the student responses created the need for revisions to the journal for 2000.  In general, a more detailed set of requirements and an established format will be provided for students to record and present reflections.  It would appear to be necessary to provide a structured framework for response to various issues, followed by room for critical evaluation and reflection, given the weak nature of selected journals that were presented and analysed.  Whilst one student in particular responded comprehensively to the invitation to keep the journal, it would seem that the majority of students require a significant degree of direction.  This may again be reflective of a general tendency in music students to rely on the pedagogue or mentor for the means by which to approach the ongoing development of their music in practice.  The process of critical evaluation requires greater nurturing in music students at this level, and the Practice Journal requires a greater degree of prompting of thought and reflection to the various aspects of music in practice.  For the 2000 academic year, the Practice Journal will follow the following basic structure[3]:

In a similar way to that of the previous year, journals will be regularly monitored and comments made available to students at the end of every term, prior to submission at the end of the academic year.  Journals will also be periodically forwarded to each student’s instrumental pedagogue, to allow the pedagogue an opportunity to explore the student’s understanding and reflective processes.

Conclusions and directions

Possible disadvantages of maintaining the requirement for keeping a Practice Journal are that students:

The advantages of working with the Practice Journal are that it potentially serves as a:

While it is inevitable that some students will find it problematic or uncomfortable to engage in critical analysis of and reflection on their practice, the advantages of the Practice Journal as a pedagogical tool for both students and academics seem to outweigh any potential disadvantages, and therefore warrants continuing development.

Reference List

Burkett TA. (1982) “Group piano teaching and the rewards”, in Music Educators Journal, vol. 69 no. 3, pp. 31-33.

Camp MW. (1981) Developing piano performance: a teaching philosophy.  Chapel Hill: Hinshaw.

Carroll A (2000)  Role of the Australian Music Examinations Board (AMEB) in the long term development of Australian Music, presentation at the NACHTMUS meeting, 7 February, University of Queensland.

Francis D. (1997) “Composing student learning”, in Bain, J., Roy Ballantyne and Jan Packer, Reflecting on University teaching: academics’ stories.  Canberra: Australian Government, pp. 131-137.

Hanrahan S. (1997)  “No sleeping allowed: stimulating thinking in large classes”, in Bain, J., Roy Ballantyne and Jan Packer, Reflecting on University teaching: academics’ stories.  Canberra: Australian Government, pp.  225-233.

Johnstone JA. (n.d.)  The art of teaching pianoforte playing.  London: Reeves.

Kieran Harvey M. (1999) “Playing to please?”, in Bravura, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 12-14.

Lines R. (1997) “Achieving a marriage between structural concepts and design practice”, in Bain, J., Roy Ballantyne and Jan Packer, Reflecting on University teaching: academics’ stories.  Canberra: Australian Government, pp. 445-464.

Mallonee RL. (1999)  “Goals, motivation and performance”, American String Teacher, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 66-71.

Neuhaus H. (1973), trans. K.A. Leibovitch.  The art of piano playing.  London: Barrie & Jenkins.

Ramsden P. (1992) Learning to teach in higher education.  London: Routledge.

Rowe C. (1999)  “Class piano lessons after 30 good years”, Clavier, January, pp. 6-7.

Rowland D. (Ed.) (1998) The Cambridge companion to the piano.  Cambridge: University Press.

---

Appendix 1

Format and Structure of the Practice Journal for 2000

Introduction

Welcome to the College of Music, Visual Arts and Theatre at James Cook University.  The music staff wish you the best experience for your musical studies and encourage you to make the most of the opportunities which are made available to you.  This Practice Journal is designed to allow you the opportunity to map your progress in all forms of music in practice, as a soloist, chamber musician and ensemble player.  It is specifically targeted at your development as a performer, with a responsibility centered on your critical thoughts and evaluations as you progress through your daily, weekly and monthly practice and study.  This journal is not intended to be a general description of how or what you practise, but an indepth analysis of the various musical activities you experience, including practice, rehearsal and performance sessions.  It is designed to take you away from your instrument for a brief period of each day, to reflect upon the day’s activities, your experiences, and your thoughts and reflections on your performance profile - to the betterment of your musical performance.

Suggestions for relevant comments of a diagnostic, emotional and evaluative nature:

Comments should refer to the structure and planning of your practice, rehearsals and other musical experiences.  Document how it is and why you practise and rehearse.  Trace your progress over time, be it daily, weekly, or longer periods.  Discuss your feelings as to this progress or otherwise, the factors which have contributed to this, and what you can do to take control over the future of your learning.  When evaluating your music in practice, look at a variety of areas: stage presentation skills, audience involvement and contact, technical issues, stylistic issues, overall presentation and other areas which you feel to be relevant.

Guidelines as to specific repertoire, technique and performance issues which require research, reflection and response:

Your Practice Journal entries should cover a range of relevant issues.  Do not rely on mere description, such as “Today I practised scales for one hour” - this serves no real purpose other than documenting time.  Discuss how you practised scales, what you were aiming to achieve and why you feel you did or didn’t achieve your goal.  In general, you should cover the following areas:

Questions which may stimulate your thought processes:

Technique and facility:

Repertoire and Style:

Performance evaluation:

Progress evaluation:

Examples of appropriate journal entries

Below are examples of useful critical and reflective Practice Journal entries.  Use these examples to stimulate your own thoughts.

Technical issues:

“I also practiced several scales, and a series of ‘chromatic fives’ repetitively in order to establish the required preparation of airflow for each note to sound of equal strength.  This experimentation with regards to required air pressure over certain areas of the instrument brought to light a lot of interesting points.  Firstly, I discovered that using the same amount of support, when moving downward from C the however notes became increasingly weaker.  Therefore, increased air pressure was needed more and more as I moved downwards, and similarly if starting on the lower notes, I would begin with slightly more air pressure and decrease as I move upwards in order to produce a series of notes that were of equal strength” (Clarinet student).

“The next piece I worked on was the first movement of the C.P.E.Bach.  This piece is still holding together best at M=80.  I spent time speeding it up to M=100.  I came across a question, however: what speed should it be played at?  I also need some help with the stylistic aspects of this piece” (Flute student).

“My technical work is starting to make sense - I can begin to see how practicing scales impacts upon the performance of repertoire.  I always thought that scales were separate to repertoire, but I can see that they are simply a way of learning the technique of playing scalic passages in my pieces.  Maybe I should make my scales more musical so that this transfers across to my repertoire” (Piano student).

Repertoire:

 “I am performing in Concert Practice next week so I worked specifically on dynamics and different tone colours in the Poulenc.  This was successful but there is a great danger of splitting notes.  I need to increase support to overcome this problem” (Flute student).

“Today I looked again at Malcolm Arnold’s ‘Sonatina for Clarinet and Piano’.  This work still continues to challenge me, not really technically but more to do with interpretation.  I am striving to really get underneath what Malcolm Arnold is trying to say through his composition, through its main theme and its repetition.  Why does he make obvious reference to the theme of the first movement in the last, does the return of this recognizable theme recapture the audience’s attention, or is it for musical unity or perhaps something else?” (Clarinet student).

“I worked on the notes in the Novelette as I discovered some wrong ones.  I also worked on expression, dynamics and paid particular attention to rests and articulation” (Piano student).

“There just seems to be no excitement to my performance of this piece - to me it sounds flat.  I need to consider the climax points of phrases, of sections and of the whole piece, and then to exaggerate them.  This will aid in making the performance more successful” (Oboe student).

Evaluation:

 “How frustrating this is - I’ve been working at this piece for weeks and don’t feel like I’m getting anywhere.  I must spend some time away from the saxophone, trying to think why it is that these various sections never seem to go well in performance.  Is it my nerves, bad practice or something else?  Maybe if I watch a video of myself it will help” (Saxophone student).

“While I did wane for sometime during the middle of the semester in terms of motivation and self confidence, I managed to overcome this, perhaps even due to the fact that I could record and reflect upon these things in my Practice Journal.  Through this I learnt to approach there fears and ‘hang-ups’ by setting myself important goals to strive towards, and by recording them in my journal I was constantly reminded of them” (Clarinet student).

“This week has been exciting for me.  I’ve learnt a new drumming technique, and feel much better about my rhythmic control as a result of lots of metronome practice” (Percussion student).

---