Council for Research in Music Education

Music Practice Instruction in Middle School Instrumental Ensembles: An Exploratory

Analysis
Author(s): Stephanie Prichard
Source: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education , No. 213 (Summer
2017), pp. 73-86
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in
Music Education

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.213.0073

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.213.0073?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Illinois Press and Council for Research in Music Education are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education © 2017 Board of Trustees
Summer 2017 No.  213 University of Illinois

Music Practice Instruction in Middle

School Instrumental Ensembles:
An Exploratory Analysis
Stephanie Prichard
University of Maryland
College Park, MD

A bstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of music practice instruction on middle
school band and orchestra students’ practice behaviors. Participants received 4 weeks of practice
strategy instruction. Prior to, and following the intervention, self-reported practice strategy
lists (N = 136) and video of individual practice sessions (n = 35) data were collected from
7th- and 8th-grade band and orchestra students. Self-reported data were coded and analyzed
using descriptive statistics. More than 23 hours of video data (participants’ independent
practice sessions) were analyzed using a practice frames evaluation scheme. Video data were
further analyzed using an observational measure of self-regulation. Analyses revealed that
participants identified and employed significantly more practice strategies following the inter-
vention. Although repetition was the most commonly observed practice strategy overall, posttest
practice sessions included more strategic forms of repetition (e.g., repetition of shorter sections
and whole-part-whole repetition). Video analysis further revealed that following practice strat-
egy instruction, participants exhibited significantly fewer and longer practice frames as well
as more varied practice objectives. Weak relationships emerged between participants’ practice
behaviors and their overall degree of self-regulation. Implications for classroom practice and
future research are discussed.

Helping young musicians learn how to practice effectively is a challenge for kindergarten
through 12th-grade (K–12) instrumental music educators. This charge is particularly
difficult at the middle school level, where students’ musical knowledge and skills are less
developed and their ability to budget time or select approaches to practice may be less
adept. Although independent practice time is a common expectation of instrumental
music teachers, middle school instrumentalists are generally ineffective when asked to
practice independently. That is, students are unsure of how to set goals (Oare, 2012)
and allocate practice time (Austin & Berg, 2006; Miksza, Prichard, & Sorbo, 2012) as
well as unlikely to evaluate their own progress accurately (Hallam, 1997; McPherson
& Renwick, 2001). Further, rather than selecting a range of appropriate music practice
strategies, young musicians are likely to use repetition as a primary tool in independent

73

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 73 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Summer 2017 No.  213

practice (Austin & Berg, 2006; Leon-Guerrero, 2008; McPherson & Renwick, 2001;
Miksza, 2007; Miksza et al., 2012).
Research examining performance achievement in relation to practice behaviors has
found that the inclusion of certain strategies (e.g., whole-part-whole, metronome use,
singing) may be beneficial (Miksza, 2007, 2011). And in fact, strategies employed dur-
ing practice may be more determinative of success in performance than overall duration
of practice time (Duke, Simmons, & Cash, 2009). In examining both self-reported and
observed practice behaviors of eighth-grade musicians, Rohwer and Polk (2006) found a
connection between identification of greater numbers of practice strategies and a higher
level of individual performance. Rohwer and Polk also determined that students who
approached their individual practice time by breaking music down into chunks demon-
strated significantly higher performance achievement.
Despite the potential benefit of certain practice behaviors, observational and
descriptive studies of middle school musicians’ practice have uncovered a lack of strategy
use. Miksza et al. (2012) determined that, when asked to spend time independently
practicing their ensemble music, an overwhelming majority of participants tended to
work primarily on note accuracy through repetition of long passages of music. Austin
and Berg (2006) similarly noted that although some sixth-grade musicians described
strategies such as selecting specific passages from a difficult piece, many approached
practice by simply passing time, repeatedly playing through a piece of music. Because
fewer participants tend to exhibit or identify strategic behaviors such as varying tempo
and repetition of shorter sections of music, prior researchers have suggested further
exploration of the possible impact of music practice instruction for improving overall
practice effectiveness (Austin & Berg, 2006; Miksza et al., 2012).
For the purpose of examining musicians’ practice behaviors, self-regulated learning
theory is a helpful framework. Self-regulated learners take an active role “metacogni-
tively, motivationally, and behaviorally” in their own learning process (Zimmerman
& Martinez-Pons, 1988, p. 284). In particular, McPherson and Zimmerman (2002)
outlined several dimensions of self-regulated learning that are directly applicable to
music practice, including method (selection and application of appropriate strategies),
behavior (monitoring learning through self-evaluation), and time use (organization of
time, level of focus on a particular task). Likely to evolve gradually over the course of
many years (MacNamara, Holmes, & Collins, 2006; McPherson, 1997), a musician’s
capacity for self-regulation in independent music practice may be linked to their selec-
tion of appropriate passages of music, application of practice strategies, and level of
focus on the task of music practice (Miksza et al., 2012).
Although music practice instruction may have a positive impact on practice behav-
iors (Miksza, 2015), the majority of research concerning individual music practice has
been observational (Miksza, 2007; Miksza et al., 2012; Oare, 2012; Rohwer & Polk,
2006), pertaining to self-report data (Austin & Berg, 2006) and/or conducted with
respect to more advanced musicians (Duke et al., 2009; Maynard, 2006; Miksza, 2015;

74

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 74 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Prichard Instruction in Middle School Ensembles

Miksza, Blackwell, Roseth, & Cole, 2016). It therefore remains unclear whether specific
teaching approaches may influence young musicians’ practice behaviors. The inclusion
of an intervention, such as a prescribed course of music practice instruction, is a neces-
sary step in order to illuminate the potential impact of pedagogical practice (Miksza,
2015; Miksza et al., 2012), and because young musicians reflect upon the content of
their band or orchestra class when practicing independently (Austin & Berg, 2006;
Hallam, 2001), a school band and orchestra are an ideal setting for an intervention of
this nature.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of music practice instruc-
tion on middle school band and orchestra students’ practice behaviors. Specific research
questions addressed were:
1. Given a challenging and unfamiliar musical excerpt, what strategies do mid-
dle school band and orchestra students identify for use in independent music
practice?
2. How do middle school band and orchestra students approach their practice
sessions with respect to time use (duration and frequency of practice frames),
musical objective, and practice strategies?
3. What, if any, impact does a unit of music practice instruction have on middle
school band and orchestra students’ identification of practice strategies, use
of time, observed musical objective, and use of practice strategies within their
independent music practice time?
4. What relationships are evident (both before and after music practice
instruction) between middle school band and orchestra students’ indepen-
dent music practice and an observational assessment of their self-regulation
while practicing?

M ethod
Participants were seventh- and eighth-grade students enrolled in band or orchestra in a
suburban mid-Atlantic middle school. The school site was selected based on the overall
proficiency within the music program as demonstrated through festival ratings and level
of repertoire performed, as well as on the diversity of the school community and rela-
tively low numbers of students enrolled in private music instruction outside of school
(n = 12; 8.8% of the research sample).
Maple Tree Middle School (MTMS; pseudonym) has a total enrollment of 434 stu-
dents. Of the population, 40% of students receive free or reduced lunch, 6% of students
are Limited English Proficient, and 11% of students receive special education services. The
student body at MTMS is also ethnically diverse: 38% African American, 27% Caucasian,
19% Hispanic, and 6% Asian or Pacific Islander, with an additional 9% of students
identifying with two or more ethnicities (School District, 2014). Of the 160 seventh and
eighth graders enrolled in instrumental music, consent and assent forms were returned by
136 (85%) band (n = 81) and orchestra (n = 55) students. There was a roughly even split
between seventh-grade (52.2%) and eighth-grade (47.8%) participants, and woodwind

75

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 75 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Summer 2017 No.  213

(30.9%), brass (20.6%), percussion (8.1%), and string (40.4%) instrumentalists were
represented within the sample.
The study took place over the course of 6 weeks, with the first and last week being
reserved for pretesting and posttesting, respectively. Because the study was conducted
within the confines of normal educational practice, students remained in their large
ensemble groups rather than being randomly assigned to an experimental condition.
Although the initial design for the study included both control and experimental groups
using intact classes, the school district’s Institutional Review Board process imposed
limitations to both the timeline and structure of the intervention, resulting in the simul-
taneous delivery of practice strategy instruction to all students, rather than allowing half
of the participating ensembles to be assigned to a control condition.
Pretesting and posttesting procedures were as follows. Participants were presented
with an unfamiliar, challenging musical excerpt. Excerpts differed from instrument to
instrument, based upon range and instrument-specific challenges, and were selected in
consultation with participants’ band and orchestra teachers. Using a prompt, partici-
pants were asked to indicate what strategies they would utilize if requested to practice
the excerpt independently:
Look over the musical excerpt in front of you. If you were asked to go home and
learn how to play this excerpt by practicing it on your own, what kinds of things
would you do in order to be able to play it? After you’ve taken a moment to look
through the music, make a list of all of the strategies you would use to practice
this excerpt.
In order to ensure valid collection of participants’ ideas, strategies were listed freely,
rather than being selected from a predetermined list. Participants’ lists were then inde-
pendently coded by two experienced music teachers (98–100% agreement) for the
purpose of data analysis. Within the coding process, items such as “I would try to play it
and then keep playing it from beginning to end” and “do it as many times as you had to
until you feel like you can play it” were both included in the Repetition category. Some
participants’ lists included strategies such as “start from the beginning and try to play
it” and “ask Ms. Parker for help.” Although such responses were included in frequency
counts, they were not specifically addressed in the practice intervention described below.
Weeks 2 through 5 were spent on music practice instruction. MTMS students
have five 50-minute full-ensemble rehearsals and one 50-minute sectional each week.
Throughout the 4 weeks of practice instruction intervention, participants received
biweekly practice instruction within the context of their band or orchestra classes. There
was 20 minutes of instructional time per week (10 minutes per sectional and 10 min-
utes in one large ensemble rehearsal) dedicated to the application of a specific practice
strategy or strategies.
Observational studies of middle school musicians’ practice behaviors have identi-
fied three areas of focus for music practice objectives: (a) rhythmic accuracy, (b) note
accuracy, and (c) musical accuracy (including dynamics, articulations, and other ele-

76

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 76 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Prichard Instruction in Middle School Ensembles

ments; Miksza et al., 2012). Practice instruction within the present study was catered
accordingly. Within each instructional segment, the intervention included teacher
identification of a challenging excerpt, cognitive and live modeling (Bandura, 1986) of
one or more appropriate practice strategies, and group rehearsal of specified strategies.
Using a cognitive modeling approach, teachers first modeled their own thought process
(i.e., “I noticed that there are a lot of fast 16th notes in this passage, so I’ve decided to
use a ‘chunking’ approach, playing two beats at a time.”). Next, teachers modeled the
use of the strategy or strategies and guided students through group rehearsal of the strat-
egy. During the fourth week of the intervention, dedicated to a review of all strategies,
students were given the responsibility to identify challenging passages to practice and
were also provided with some time for individual practice of the specified strategies. In
order to create the most naturalistic context for data collection, musical material utilized
during this 4-week course of instruction was comprised of concert music and method
book content selected by participants’ band and orchestra teachers. A more detailed
breakdown of teachers’ preparation to participate in the intervention as well as a week-
by-week list of instructional tasks can be found in Appendix A here: http://bcrme.press
.illinois.edu/media/213/.
From the pool of 136 participants, a random sample of students (n = 35; 20 band,
15 orchestra) were selected to participate in a second phase of data collection, wherein
they were asked to practice independently for a period of 20 minutes (both pretest
and posttest). Participants were pulled out of their band or orchestra class to practice
independently in a separate room equipped with a chair, music stand, pencil, tuner, and
metronome. Participants were asked to “please practice your [orchestra/band] music just
as you would if you were at home.” In order to facilitate the most natural practicing
experience, participants were allowed to practice any of the music in their folder, which
ranged in difficulty from Grade 2 to 4. All practice sessions were video recorded and
were subsequently analyzed by two experienced instrumental music teachers (96–100%
agreement) for (a) practice objective, (b) type and quantity of practice strategies, (c)
quantity and duration of practice frames, and (d) evidence of self-regulated practice
behavior.
The observation scheme used in the analysis of participants’ independent practice
sessions was developed for use in a prior observational study of middle school band
musicians’ self-regulated practice (Miksza et al., 2012). Adapted from Duke’s (1999–
2000) concept of rehearsal frames and Maynard’s (2006) work on practice frames, the
scheme facilitated collection of data regarding frequency and duration of practice frames
(defined as an interval of time during which the participant played a particular passage
of music). The observational scheme allowed for collection of data regarding the most
prevalent musical objective within each practice frame (e.g., rhythmic accuracy, note
accuracy, dynamics, bowings), length of musical passage (less than four measures, five
to eight measures, greater than nine measures), and the occurrence of specific practice
behaviors, including whole-part-whole repetition, chunking, chaining, varying tempo,

77

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 77 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Summer 2017 No.  213

varying articulations, varying bowings, silent fingering, air with fingering, air bowing,
pizzicato, buzzing, singing, counting aloud, writing on music, clapping/tapping/patting,
playing rhythm on a single pitch, using metronome, and using tuner. The list of practice
behaviors utilized in this study was compiled based upon prior research in music prac-
ticing (e.g., McPherson & Renwick, 2001; Miksza, 2011; Miksza et al., 2012) as well
as in consultation with participants’ band and orchestra teachers. A copy of the practice
frames observation scheme is included in Appendix B found here: http://bcrme.press
.illinois.edu/media/213/.
Participants’ pretest and posttest practice sessions were also rated for evidence of
self-regulated behavior using a scale previously created for the purpose of evaluating self-
regulated practice behaviors (Miksza, 2012). Based upon McPherson and Zimmerman’s
(2002) dimensions of method, behavior, and time use, the scale included 12 Likert-type
items and a possible score range of 12 to 60, with higher scores indicating a stronger
degree of self-regulation. Internal consistency of the scale was excellent for both judges
(α = .96, and .97), as was interrater reliability (r = .91).

R esults
Self-Report Data
A paired-samples t-test revealed that participants (N = 136) listed significantly more
practice strategies on the posttest (M = 3.01, SD = .83) as compared to the pretest (M =
1.46, SD = .79; t[135] = –25.81, p < .001). That is, when presented with a challenging
musical excerpt, students identified more practice strategies following 4 weeks of music
practice instruction. Also of note was the posttest mode for participants’ listed practice
strategies (3) as compared to the pretest (1). Table 1 displays frequencies for pretest and
posttest practice strategy lists by ensemble. No significant differences were found in
participants’ listed practice strategies across grade, ensemble, or instrument.
Of particular note in a pretest/posttest comparison was the notable increase in
strategies that involve breaking material down into smaller sections (e.g., whole-part-
whole and chunking) as well as manipulation of musical elements for the purpose of
practicing (e.g., varying tempo, pizzicato, playing rhythm on a single pitch). In contrast,
although “play from beginning to end” was among the most frequently listed pretest
strategies, it was not included at all on participants’ posttest lists. Other strategies with
substantial decreases included “write fingerings or note names” and “ask for teacher
assistance.”

Observational Data
In comparing pretest and posttest video data, participants’ (n = 35) mean number of
practice frames decreased (t[34] = 6.04, p < .001), while their mean practice frame dura-
tion increased significantly (t[34] = –5.68, p < .001; see Table 4). Prior to the practice
instruction intervention, participants’ mean practice frame duration was 2:54 (SD =

78

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 78 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Prichard Instruction in Middle School Ensembles

Table 1
Practice Strategies Listed by Ensemble (N = 136)

Band
Strategy Pretest Posttest
Whole-part-whole 8 63
Varying tempo 0 54
Chunking 0 33
Repetition 31 24
Counting rhythms 18 19
Chaining 0 16
Clapping/tapping/patting 12 14
Using metronome 2 11
Silent fingering/fingers with air 0 11
Playing rhythm on single pitch 0 7
Writing fingerings or note names 12 2
Playing from beginning to end 21 0
Asking for teacher assistance 7 0
Using fingering chart 1 0
Orchestra
Strategy Pretest Posttest
Chunking 13 37
Whole-part-whole 0 35
Pizzicato 9 25
Varying tempo 0 22
Air bowing 0 11
Using metronome 0 9
Repetition 16 8
Chaining 0 5
Varying bowing 0 2
Using tuner 0 1
Playing from beginning to end 21 0
Writing fingerings or note names 6 0
Clapping/tapping/patting 4 0
Counting rhythms 3 0

2:03), while the posttest mean was 3:45 (SD = 2:07), nearly 1 minute longer. Further
analyses of practice frame duration revealed an overall trend of longer frames at the
beginning of each practice session, with shorter frames toward the end in both pretest
and posttest practice sessions (see Figure 1).
During pretesting, the overwhelming majority of participants were observed
practicing note accuracy (98%) as a primary objective, while during posttesting, par-
ticipants’ primary objectives were considerably more varied (note accuracy—63%,
musical accuracy—27%, rhythmic accuracy—10%). Video analysis also revealed that
participants employed significantly more practice strategies in posttest practice sessions

79

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 79 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Summer 2017 No.  213

Figure 1. Plot of Pretest and Posttest Mean Practice Frame Durations Over Time (n = 35).

(pretest M = 3.6, posttest M = 5.6, t[34] = –8.76, p < .001; see Table 4). In general,
participants’ practice strategy use was also more varied in posttest practicing than pretest
practice sessions. The most commonly observed practice strategy overall was repetition
of longer (greater than four measures) sections of music; however, instances of this
behavior decreased from pretesting to posttesting (pretest—97.1%; posttest—82.9%).
Other strategies observed in a majority of practice sessions included repetitions of
shorter (less than four measures) sections of music (pretest—68.6%; posttest—71.4%)
and varying tempo (pretest—62.9%; posttest—71.4%). Table 2 displays percentages of
participants who exhibited each practice strategy in pretesting and posttesting.
While not statistically significant (t[34] = 1.15, p = .26), participants’ instances of
irrelevant playing (defined as time spent playing music not included in their band or
orchestra folder) decreased slightly from the pretest to the posttest (see Table 4). This
is perhaps to be expected, as the pretest mean for occurrences of irrelevant playing was
less than one observed instance per participant. Also in posttest data, a weak, negative
correlation emerged between participants’ instances of irrelevant playing and their self-
regulation scores (r = –.496, p = .002).
Observational ratings of participants’ self-regulation (n = 35) were slightly, though
not significantly (t[34] = .89, p = .38), higher in posttest analyses than in pretest analyses
(see Table 4). Self-regulation scores were varied (pretest SD = 9.86, posttest SD = 9.43)
and relatively normal in distribution (pretest skewness = .70, pretest kurtosis = –.26,
posttest skewness = .68, posttest kurtosis = –.26). In both pretest and posttest data, self-
regulation ratings were significantly correlated with participants’ total number of listed
strategies and mean practice frame duration. A negative correlation was found between
participants’ self-regulation scores and their total number of practice frames. A weaker
correlation was found between participants’ self-regulation scores and the total number
of observed strategies within their independent practice sessions.

80

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 80 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Observed Practice Strategy Use (n = 35)

Practice strategy Pre % yes Post % yes

Repeating > 4 measures 97.1 82.9
Repeating < 4 measures 68.6 71.4
Varying tempo 62.9 71.4
Clapping/tapping/patting 31.4 40.0
Whole-part-whole 22.9 42.9
Counting aloud 20.0 28.6
Pizzicato (in arco excerpts) 11.4 34.3
Silent fingering 11.4 22.9
Writing on music 8.6 22.9
Varying bowing 5.7 20.0
Air bowing 5.7 17.1
Fingers with air 5.7 11.4
Chunking 2.9 40.0
Using tuner 2.9 11.4
Buzzing 2.9 2.9
Chaining 0 17.1
Using metronome 0 8.6
Playing rhythm on single pitch 0 8.6
Varying articulation 0 5.7

Table 3
Self-Regulation Ratings Correlations (n = 35)

M SD 1. Pretest self- 2. Posttest self-

regulation ratings regulation ratings
1. Pretest self-regulation 30.81 9.43
ratings
2. Posttest self-regulation 31.06 9.86
ratings
3. Pretest listed practice 1.83 .71 .56*
strategies
4. Posttest listed practice 3.37 .88 .63*
strategies
3. Pretest observed practice 3.60 1.19 .37
strategies
4. Posttest observed practice 5.60 1.68 .45
strategies
5. Pretest mean practice 2:54 2:03 .72*
frame duration
6. Posttest mean practice 3:45 2:07 .67*
frame duration
7. Pretest total number of 7.96 3.04 –.57*
practice frames
8. Posttest total number of 6.34 2.79 .60*
practice frames
*
p < .001.

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 81 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Summer 2017 No.  213

Table 4
Pretest/Posttest Comparisons for Observational Variables (n = 35)

Pretest Posttest
Variable M SD M SD t(34)
Number of practice frames 7.96 3.04 6.34 2.79 6.04*
Practice frame duration 2:54 2:03 3:45 2:07 –5.68*
(minutes:seconds)
Number of observed practice strategies 3.60 1.19 5.60 1.68 –8.76*
Instances of irrelevant playing 0.94 0.71 0.80 0.42 1.15
Observational ratings of self-regulation 30.83 9.43 31.06 9.85 –.89

p < .001.
*

D iscussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of music practice instruction on
middle school band and orchestra students’ practice behaviors. Research questions guid-
ing this inquiry involved the extent to which music practice instruction impacts middle
school musicians’ identification, selection, and use of practice strategies.
When first prompted with a challenging musical excerpt, participants were able to
list some possible practice strategies. Following the music practice strategy intervention,
however, participants listed significantly more strategies overall. Of particular note was
the increased range of and usefulness in listed strategies following the intervention.
Whereas prior to practice instruction some participants indicated that they would
“start at the beginning and play through to the end” or “ask [my teacher] for help,”
posttest lists included a significant increase in strategies taught during the intervention
(e.g., varying tempo, chunking, using pizzicato, using the metronome, and counting
rhythms). Austin and Berg (2006) and Rohwer and Polk (2006) similarly found that
some middle school musicians were able to describe a range of strategic approaches to
independent practice. It seems that practice strategy instruction may therefore serve to
(a) increase the number of students capable of articulating a variety of strategies and/or
(b) increase the variety and/or complexity of strategies students are able to identify.
In terms of time organization, participants exhibited a trend of longer practice
frames at the beginning of a practice session, with progressively shorter frames as the
session went on. This finding is consistent with results of a similarly structured observa-
tional study of middle school band students’ independent practice sessions (Miksza et
al., 2012). This trend was apparent in both pretest and posttest data; however, partici-
pants had significantly fewer practice frames in posttest practice sessions. That is, follow-
ing the practice strategy intervention, participants spent longer periods of time focused
on specific sections of music. Although prior research has largely determined that young
musicians are ineffective in organizing practice time (McPherson & Davidson, 2002;
McPherson & Renwick, 2001; Oare, 2012) or may become fatigued or distracted over
time (Miksza et al., 2012), the results of this study suggest that practice instruction is a

82

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 82 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Prichard Instruction in Middle School Ensembles

possible avenue of refining the skill of time management and perhaps encouraging more
focused work in independent practice.
In pretest practice sessions, nearly all participants were observed working on note
accuracy as a primary practice objective. This may be due to young musicians’ overall
difficulty setting goals (Miksza et al., 2012; Oare, 2012). While note accuracy was also
the most commonly observed posttest objective, participants’ posttest practice videos
showed considerably more variety, including rhythmic accuracy and musical accuracy
(i.e., dynamics, articulations, bowings), suggesting that practice instruction may have
facilitated a slight diversification of goals. Also of note, however, is the timing of post-
test data collection. Participants worked on their large ensemble music in both pretest
and posttest practice sessions. As the posttest was 5 weeks after the pretest, participants’
performance of their ensemble music may have matured to a point where some felt able
to work on more complex goals than simply working to perform the correct notes.
Given that repetition is a commonly utilized approach by musicians of all levels
(Maynard, 2006; Miksza, 2007; Miksza et al., 2012; Oare, 2012; Rohwer & Polk,
2006), it is unsurprising that the same was true within the present study. Following
practice instruction, however, participants exhibited more strategic forms of repetition
(e.g., more instances of repetition of shorter, rather than longer, sections and signifi-
cantly increased application of whole-part-whole repetition). This finding would suggest
that practice strategy instruction is perhaps one way to influence middle school musi-
cians’ application of common strategies (i.e., repetition) in more effective ways. The
greater overall variety in strategy use observed in posttest practice sessions indicates that
practice instruction may be a positive influence on middle school musicians’ vocabulary
and application of practice strategies.
Participants’ self-regulation ratings did not increase significantly following the
intervention. This may be because while practice instruction does serve a purpose in
equipping young musicians with a broader selection of strategies for use in independent
practice, the skills of planning, selection of appropriate passages of music, application
of strategies, and self-evaluation are still undeveloped and in need of more attention
during the middle school years. Self-regulation capabilities have been shown to increase
gradually over time (MacNamara et al., 2006; McPherson, 1997). It may therefore not
be feasible to affect significant change in this construct within a 4-week instructional
intervention.
Some relationships were found between participants’ practice behaviors and inde-
pendent ratings of their self-regulation while practicing. Participants who were rated as
more self-regulated tended to have longer practice frames and list more practice strate-
gies. This corroborates prior research on middle school musicians’ self-regulated practice
(Miksza et al., 2012). The strong correlation between participants’ self-regulation scores
and their total number of listed strategies in comparison to the weaker correlation
between participants’ self-regulation scores and their total number of observed practice
strategies indicates that while more self-regulated students may readily learn and under-

83

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 83 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Summer 2017 No.  213

stand a greater variety of practice strategies, more time or instruction is needed in order
to make a stronger impact on practice behaviors.
Based on pretest/posttest comparisons, participants’ most notable areas of growth
were in number and variety of listed practice strategies, variety of observed strategies,
and mean practice frame duration. These results suggest that, as prior researchers have
hypothesized (Hallam, 2001; Miksza et al., 2012), practice instruction within a large
ensemble setting may be an important step in helping young musicians to be more stra-
tegic and productive in their independent practice time. It is important to note, however,
that because of the single group design necessitated by school district parameters, certain
internal validity concerns (particularly maturation and to a lesser extent history) were
uncontrolled factors within this study. Despite this limitation, pretest findings were simi-
lar to prior observational analyses using the same data collection strategy (Miksza et al.,
2012), and as such, even accounting for a certain degree of maturation, the significant
improvement from pretest to posttest is worthy of consideration and future study.
A portion of the data collection process within this study, including the use of
a practice frame observation scheme and self-regulation scale (Miksza, 2012), was a
replication of a prior observational study of middle school musicians’ independent
music practice (Miksza et al., 2012). The use of these instruments in combination with
a practice strategy intervention has yielded enlightening results with implications for
future research and classroom practice. Because the present study is the first intervention
specifically examining the potential impact of music practice instruction, replication
with different or larger groups of students would serve to strengthen understanding
regarding the effectiveness of this type of instructional intervention. Further, it would be
illuminating to replicate this intervention within an experimental or quasi-experimental
design, utilizing a control group in addition to an experimental group of students.
It may also be instructive to examine young musicians’ practice behaviors longi-
tudinally, incorporating an academic quarter or semester of instruction. A longitudi-
nal approach could highlight issues related to students’ retention of practice strategy
instruction over time and may also facilitate the incorporation of other aspects of self-
regulated learning—such as planning and reflection—within the experimental design in
order to more fully address the construct of self-regulation within independent music
practice (McPherson & Zimmerman, 2002).
In addition to replication or variation on this intervention, this body of research
calls for the application of more diverse methodologies. A mixed-methods approach
would allow for collection of both observational and self-report data regarding musical
objectives, selection of excerpts, and application of strategies. This could be informa-
tive for developing different or better approaches to practice instruction. Exploring the
time ordering of goals (i.e., notes and rhythms first, followed by more nuanced musical
elements) could be another interesting avenue for further exploration. Within the pres-
ent study there was some indication that participants focused on note accuracy during
earlier practice sessions with more diverse goals in later practice sessions. Investigating

84

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 84 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Prichard Instruction in Middle School Ensembles

goal setting in individual practice, and perhaps teaching a strategic approach to goal
setting, would be an area worthwhile of future research efforts.
Learning to practice strategically is an important aspect of all musicians’ develop-
ment. Developing the capability for effective, strategic practice is an ongoing process
and may be a challenge for young musicians who are still working toward becoming
more self-regulated learners. By utilizing the large ensemble rehearsal as a space for
teaching practice strategies, however, music teachers can work with their students to
develop strong, independent musicianship through individual practice.

A uthor ’ s N ote
Preliminary findings from the research reported in this article were presented at the
2016 National Association for Music Education Music Research and Teacher Education
Conference (March 2016).

S upplemental M aterial
Appendix A and B are available online at https://bcrme.press.illinois.edu/media/213/.

R eferences
Austin, J. R., & Berg, M. H. (2006). Exploring music practice among 6th grade band and orchestra
students. Psychology of Music, 34, 535–558. doi:10.1177/0305735606067170
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Duke, R. A. (1999–2000). Measures of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 143, 1–48.
Duke, R., Simmons, A. L., & Cash, C. D. (2009). It’s not how much; it’s how: Characteristics of
practice behavior and retention of performance skills. Bulletin of the Council for Research in
Music Education, 56, 310–321.
Hallam, S. (1997). Approaches to the instrumental music practice of experts and novices:
Implications for education. In H. Jorgensen & A. C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect?
Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 89–108). Oslo, Norway: Norges
Musikkhogskole.
Hallam, S. (2001). The development of expertise in young musicians: Strategy use, knowl-
edge acquisition, and individual diversity. Music Education Research, 3, 7–23.
doi:10.1080/14613800020029914
Leon-Guerrero, A. (2008) Self-regulation strategies used by student musicians during music practice.
Music Education Research, 10(1), 91–106. doi:http://10.1080/14613800701871439
MacNamara, A., Holmes, P., & Collins, D. (2006). The pathway to excellence: The role of psycho-
logical characteristics in negotiating the challenges of musical development. British Journal of
Music Education, 23, 285–302. doi:10.1017/S0265051706007066
Maynard, L. M. (2006). The role of repetition in the practice sessions of artist teachers and their stu-
dents. Bulletin for the Council for Research in Music Education, 167, 61–72.
McPherson, G. E. (1997). Cognitive strategies and skill acquisition in musical performance. Bulletin
of the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 64–71.

85

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 85 10/30/17 10:08 AM
 Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Summer 2017 No.  213

McPherson, G. E., & Davidson, J. W. (2002). Musical practice: Mother and child interactions
during the first year of learning an instrument. Music Education Research, 4, 141–156.
doi:10.1080/14613800220119822
McPherson, G. E., & Renwick, J. M. (2001). A longitudinal study of self-regulation in children’s
musical practice. Music Education Research, 3, 169–186. doi:10.1080/14613800120089232
McPherson, G. E., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Self-regulation of musical learning: A social cogni-
tive perspective. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music
teaching and learning (pp. 327–347). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Miksza, P. (2007). Effective practice: An investigation of observed practice behaviors, self-reported
practice habits, and the performance achievement of high school wind players. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 55, 359–375. doi:10.1177/0022429408317513
Miksza, P. (2011). Relationships among achievement goal motivation, impulsivity, and the music
practice of collegiate brass and woodwind players. Psychology of Music, 39, 50–67. doi:ht
tp://10.1177/0305735610361996
Miksza, P. (2012). The development of a measure of self-regulated practice behavior for beginning
and intermediate instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59,
321–328.
Miksza, P. (2015). The effect of self-regulation instruction on the performance achievement, musical
self-efficacy, and practicing of advanced wind players. Psychology of Music, 43, 219–243. doi:ht
tp://10.1177/0305735613500832
Miksza, P., Blackwell, J., Roseth, N., & Cole, S. (2016, March). Designing instruction on practicing: A
pilot test of a micro-analytic self-regulation intervention. Research paper presented at the National
Association for Music Education Music Research and Teacher Education National Conference,
Atlanta, GA.
Miksza, P. Prichard, S., & Sorbo, D. (2012). An observational study of intermediate band students’
self-regulated practice behaviors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60(3), 254–266. doi:ht
tp://10.1177/0022429412455201
Oare, S. (2012). Decisions made in the practice room: A qualitative study of middle school students’
thought processes while practicing. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 30(2),
63–70. doi:http://10.1177/8755123312437051
Rohwer, D., & Polk, J. (2006). Practice behaviors of eighth-grade instrumental musicians. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 54, 350–362. doi:10.1177/002242940605400407
School District. (2014). Enrollment Report.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student
self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 283–290.

86

This content downloaded from

129.2.19.102 on Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:58:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BCRME_213.indd 86 10/30/17 10:08 AM