Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:30:50.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explicit Versus Performative Assessments in Music Pedagogical Interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2018

Antonia Ivaldi
Antonia Ivaldi*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Aberystwyth University, Wales, UK. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research on teachers’ assessments of students’ playing within music lessons has mainly focused on verbal (spoken) evaluations of their learning. However, closer exploration of these interactions shows that embodied assessments, that is, those that also include non-verbal, multi-modal features as part of the interaction, are found to be particularly relevant when making assessments in performing domains such as music. The study's aim was to examine the different types of assessments made by teachers of their students’ playing, how they were responded to by the student, and the function they served in opening up the learning dialogue. 18 video recordings from one-to-one conservatoire music lessons were analysed and two types of assessments were identified: (1) Explicit, definite assessments that provided a clear statement of the students’ playing (e.g., ‘excellent’, ‘very good’) that resulted in closing down the learning dialogue; and (2) Performative, instructive assessments that were more complex evaluations of the students’ playing (e.g., ‘that's closer’, ‘it's too top heavy’) that necessitated further work, thus leading to a more detailed pedagogic interaction. Findings highlight the importance of looking at embodied assessments as essential components to the learning dialogue in music, as well as discussing the implications that the different types of assessments have for opening up and closing learning interaction.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Music Education , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 69 - 86
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BEACH, W. (1993) Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ ‘OK’ usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–352.Google Scholar
BLACK, P. & WILIAM, D. (2012) Developing a theory of formative assessment. In Gardner, J. (Ed.), Assessment and Learning (pp. 206–229). London: Sage.Google Scholar
BURWELL, K. (2006) On musicians and singers. An investigation of different approaches taken by vocal and instrumental teachers in higher education. Music Education Research, 8 (3), 331–347.Google Scholar
CAIN, T. (2013) ‘Passing it on’: Beyond formal or informal pedagogies. Music Education Research, 15 (1), 74–91.Google Scholar
CARLGREN, I. (2009) CA-studies of learning – from an educational perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 203–9.Google Scholar
CHAFFIN, R., LISBOA, T., LOGAN, T. & BEGOSH, K. T. (2010) Preparing for memorized cello performance: The role of performance cues. Psychology of Music, 38 (1), 3–30.Google Scholar
FASULO, A. & MONZONI, C. (2009) Assessing mutable objects: A multimodal analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42 (4), 362–376.Google Scholar
FREER, P. K. (2009) Focus on scaffolding language and sequential units during choral instruction. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28 (1), 33–40.Google Scholar
GAUNT, H. (2008) One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: The perceptions of instrumental and vocal teachers. Psychology of Music, 36, 215–45.Google Scholar
GAUNT, H. (2010) One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: The perceptions of instrumental and vocal students. Psychology of Music, 38 (2), 178–208.Google Scholar
GOODWIN, C. & HERITAGE, H. (1990) Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.Google Scholar
GUTHRIE, A. M. (1997) On the systematic deployment of Ok and mmhmm in academic advising sessions. Pragmatics, 7 (3), 397–415.Google Scholar
HATTIE, J. & TIMPERLEY, H. (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112.Google Scholar
HELLERMAN, J. (2003) The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32, 79–104.Google Scholar
HUTCHBY, I. & WOOFFITT, R. (1998) Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
IVALDI, A. (2016). Students’ and teachers’ orientation to learning and performing in music conservatoire lesson interactions. Psychology of Music, 44 (2), 202–218.Google Scholar
KARLSSON, J. & JUSLIN, P. N. (2008) Musical expression: An observational study of instrumental teaching. Psychology of Music, 36 (3), 309–334.Google Scholar
KOOLE, T. (2010) Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43 (2), 183–209.Google Scholar
JEFFERSON, G. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G. (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp.13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
LEE, Y. (2007) Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1204–30.Google Scholar
MERLINO, S. (2014) Singing in ‘another’ language: How pronunciation matters in the organisation of choral rehearsals. Social Semiotics, 24 (4), 420–445.Google Scholar
MONDADA, L. (2009) The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42 (4), 329–361.Google Scholar
NISHIZAKA, A. (2006) What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39 (2), 119–154.Google Scholar
PRESLAND, C. (2005) Conservatoire student and instrumental professor: The student perspective on a complex relationship. British Journal of Music Education, 22 (3), 237–248.Google Scholar
POMERANTZ, A. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of the preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
PUCHTA, C. & POTTER, J. (2004). Focus Group Practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
REED, D. (2015) Relinquishing in musical masterclasses: Embodied action in interactional projects. Journal of Pragmatics, 89, 31–49.Google Scholar
SCHEGLOFF, E. A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
SCHEGLOFF, E. A. & SACKS, H. (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.Google Scholar
SIDNELL, J. (2010) Conversation Analysis – An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley–Blackwell.Google Scholar
SPEER, S. (2002) What can conversation analysis contribute to feminist methodology? Putting reflexivity into practice. Discourse and Society, 13, 783–803.Google Scholar
SZCZEPEK–REED, B., REED, D. & HADDON, E. (2013) NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating restarts in the pursuit of learnables in vocal master classes. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 46 (1), 22–46.Google Scholar
TEN HAVE, P. (2007) Doing Conversation Analysis – A Practical Guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
TOLINS, J. (2013) Assessment and direction through nonlexical vocalizations in music instruction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 46 (1), 47–64.Google Scholar
VEHVILÄINEN, S. (2009) Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback and resistance in academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 185–201.Google Scholar
WEEKS, P.A.D. (1996) A rehearsal of a Beethoven passage: An analysis of correction talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29 (3), 247–290.Google Scholar
WOOFFITT, R. (2005) Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
ZHANG WARING, H. (2008) Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (4), 577–594.Google Scholar