Group Session A, round 2

During round two, I changed from questioning individual pupils to asking questions that all pupils were free to answer. These responses were collated forming a collective voice of the performer.

Peer feedback needed no enticing, as pupils responded immediately after a performance had finished. Pupils began delivering responses in a type of checklist format, at times absent of descriptive reasoning. Causes for this were not determined, and this should be noted for future replication. It could be assumed that pupils were becoming too familiar with repeated comments, or that they were no longer sustaining concentration and observing each performer from a fresh stand point, or simply that individuals were overeager to participate in offering feedback. In fact, pupils were so eager to voice their ideas during this round that they often talked over each other, or immediately after each speaker had finished, not allowing time for additional rationale to be articulated. Such occurrences might just be an indication that pupils felt comfortable and safe enough in

this environment to be an active, participatory voice. Again, pupils’ comments were rudimentary, and centred on issues that repeat across the Layers.

When this round of performances and feedback was complete, I asked the group to take a moment and reflect back on the types of issues each had stated as being important in performance over the past few weeks. After giving them a few moments to reflect, I read out the list that I had made of their remarks:

• Intonation • Rhythm • Bow control • Vibrato • Tone

• Individual’s effort during performance • Movement/Physical gesturing

• Expression (dynamics)

• Delivery – Movement -Looking pleased • Enjoying performing for others

• Displaying confidence

These issues were the ones consistently and repeatedly voiced while giving feedback in this session. Therefore, it was not surprising that all pupils nodded in acknowledgment when I asked if they were aware of noticing these issues during the evening’s performances. It seems that these topics were becoming a structured frame for their performance observations. It was never determined what influenced this list, or if pupils would have suggested all of these elements at the beginning of the study. It was clear that at some stage during the study, all pupils were active in the construction of this frame and its use, if only in part. These were independent contributions that were made as a result of pupils observing and collaborating.

There was enough time left for probing whether or not pupils felt their performances had met their highest personal standards. Collectively, they all stated that their pieces were not there yet. T2 shared her personal view implying that preparedness is directly

linked to the study of music generally, also that performance preparation does not necessarily have clear boundaries and should not be thought of as finite, but as a continuous process of growth.

T.R. – … does everyone feel like their pieces are at their highest standard? [all pupils shake their heads to indicate ‘no’] Z5 – No.

T2 – They never are. You can never be. You are never, ever finished with a piece of music. I have a good saying: ‘The more you practise, the better you get, and the better you get the more you practise’.

T.R. – There you go! Can you tell me a bit more about that? What does that make you think of?

Z5 – Practice.

S2 – Well, it’s like you know, if you practise, you know, you get better because you practised it, but then, and then when you are better you practise more.

T2 – Because you feel, ‘Oh, I’ve practised before and it made me go here so I’m gonna’ practise more’…

Over this 90-minute session pupils seemed to be resourceful, resilient, reflexive and reciprocal (Claxton, 2002, 2008) in their approach to engaging and rotating through different roles. All pupils revealed that they were happy to give feedback, but after pointing out that their feedback tended to be positive and complimentary in nature and void of any form of corrective advice, a few pupils hinted that they shied away from offering any form of negative criticism.

T.R. – No one gave any constructive kind of… W3 – Sorry!

T.R. – I was just wondering do you feel uncomfortable doing that? S2 – No not really, but like, you may help them maybe by, you know… T2 – yeah, but like some people could like take it the wrong way. S2 – But like everyone was good.

In the final minutes of the session, I encouraged pupils to share the impact of hearing feedback from their peers. From their comments, pupils seemed to have experienced:

• An increased sense of wellbeing

o T2 – … it made you feel better about yourself.

• An increased level of self confidence

o S2 – … And then you are more confident when you play.

• An awareness of new issues

o R2 – …and you mightn’t have realised you were doing things. o T2 – … you mightn’t have realised you were doing it.

The last reflection of the evening yielded responses which indicated that this environment was inviting, potentiating, and a worthwhile learning venture. When asked to describe how observing their peers perform made them feel, the pupils who attended this session suggested that this activity had left them feeling ‘inspired’ and armed with new or alternative ideas to explore.

T2 – Inspiration [pointing to S2]. T.R. – So were you inspired today?

S2 – yeah…

T2 – … like, ‘this is what I can do with my piece!’

S2 – Things that you like in their piece, that you could do to your piece.

Pupils’ energy and commitment to participate never waned during this session. They continued to engage the role of listener and observer with vigour during the remaining minutes while viewing a video of Midori Goto perform Sarasate’s Zapateado.1