Focal points

The focal points that emerged need to be considered in the context of the demands of the particular repertoire chosen by the pupils, and in relation to their level of development. It should be noted that while the issues identified were somewhat expected, this list could have varied slightly had it stemmed from an alternative collection of pieces, or had the data been collected over a longer period of time. The focal points outlined below show that the reflective roles of listener (aural) and observer (visual) were being engaged.

Layer 1 Individual Enquiry

Focal Points: issues pupils talked about as Listener [aural] and Observer [visual]

(N=448)

Listener 259

(58%)

Aural Focal point description Sample statements Dynamics markings or intentions S2 – There’s dynamics.

X4 – Well, there were good dynamics. General

Impression overall impression of the performance

V3 –It was good I think.

Z5 – I’m quite happy with it overall, I mean. Harmonics _{clear and accurate execution} T2 – The harmonic was better.

Z5 – My harmonic didn’t sound. Note

Accuracy correct, notated pitch

U3 – I missed a note.

Z5 – The actual fact that I am playing all the notes. Phrasing _{Interpretation, style or shaping} T2 – It was like two parts of a story. _{Z5 – I like that bit, you know how you said to slow down?}

It just kind of adds to it. Pitch _{intonation accuracy} W3 – It was just flat.

Z5 – Out of tune notes. Rhythm _accuracy T2 – I did the wrong rhythm.

Y5 – Some of the rhythm in it.

Shifting _{accurate execution} T2 – I didn’t shift in to the right place. _{X4 – … it’s ok going up but when I’m shifting back down} that’s…

Tempo _{desired speed} U3 – I’m going too fast. Y5 – I normally play it faster… Tone general sound produced – links to bow

control

R2 – It’s a clear sound. T2 – My sound was nice. Vibrato _{execution of and / or functionality} X4 – My vibrato is ok.

Observer 189

(42%)

Visual Focal point description Sample statements Correct

Bowing Notated or pencilled markings Qp – I didn’t do the slur, I did the two and then didn’t do the slur on the other notes so I started again. Z5 – I got backwards bowing and then I had to fix them. Facial

Expression

Comments about facial expression rather than overall body language

Qp – That I look grumpy.

T2 – I thought my mouth was much more relaxed. Z5 – I did make a face in the beginning.

General

Appearance How pupils felt they looked; confident, ill at ease, communicative with the audience and/or enjoying the act of performing.

W3 – I look very serious like I’m really concentrating. Z5 – I don’t think the performer is kind of communicating. Gesturing Physical posturing S2 – I wasn’t moving much.

X4 – I’m moving with the music. Left hand

issues

Specifics to left hand /

finger movements or arm angle issues

Qp – My wrist was back.

T2 – Yeah, it’s always the 4th finger that I can never stretch. Right Hand /

Arm Control Bow hold and arm use – linked to bow control generally T2 – My bow. Sometimes it is bouncing. W3 – My pinkie finger is very straight. Stance General posture, body alignment,

feet/ leg/ shoulder issues etc. Qp – I’m not up and looking nice and tall… X4 – My feet are grounded.

Figure 15: Layer 1 Aural/visual focal points

Given the emphasis generally placed on listening in violin performance, teaching and learning, it is perhaps not surprising that, overall, aural issues were generally identified more than visual issues. It is interesting to note, however, that early in the study pupils identified as many visual issues as they did aural ones, with aural issues beginning to dominate in the weeks running up to the performance assessments and public concert. The reason for this is not clear. Given the recent research on the impact of using video for older students’ performance analyses (Mitchell & Benedict, 2017; Tsay, 2013), it is interesting that my data suggests this particularly young age group is also capable of including visual reflection as part of the analysis of their own video performance. While generalities were established by viewing the entire group of participants, personal trends surfaced by looking at the data per pupil. For instance, T2’s propensity was to identify and discuss issues that she heard rather than what she saw, while Qp gravitated towards mentioning things that she saw more than what she heard.

T2: Layer 1 Qp: Layer 1

Listener Observer Listener Observer Total 40 30 Total 15 26 Figure 16: Pupil comparison

When reflecting, only a few pupils, such as T2 and X4, ever asked if they were to identify ‘good’ or ‘bad’ ‘things’ in their films. When this occurred, pupils were reassured that there was no correct way to comment, and that how they responded was their own choice. Such questions prompted a further breakdown of the data in terms of the positive or negative manner of pupils’ comments. When pupils spoke about focal points in a complimentary tone, expressed satisfaction or simply stated positive facts, these comments were categorised as favourable. When errors were identified or particular issues were stated as being less than satisfactory, they were depicted as unfavourable. The data for Layer 1 shows that there were more unfavourable than favourable comments.

Untangling this data further shows that when assuming the role of listener, students generally spoke about issues more favourably than unfavourably, but spoke about issues more unfavourably than favourably when referring to visual observations. Labelling comments as either favourable or unfavourable was a particularly useful exercise in understanding if pupils were developing a balanced approach to criticism.