Abstract
The purpose of this article is to provide a mnemonic device that when incorporated into practice behavior is shown through case study to help students develop an understanding of the relationship between exercises, new and old, and the music that they are preparing. I developed the mnemonic “Preparation of Relevant Activities Causes Technical Improvement, and, Correct Execution” and conducted a limited case study with cello students unknown to me prior to the study, and observed the result of this approach in their practice. This article describes the relationship of the three parts of the mnemonic device and how they are applied for the student.
Introduction
“Most music teachers and students would likely to agree that practicing is not only beneficial but also necessary for learning and improving performance skill” (Kostka, 2002). The answer to the age-old joke of “How do you get to Carnegie Hall?” is, of course, “Practice, practice, practice.” Recognizing that it is not necessarily everyone’s intent to play at Carnegie Hall, the question of how one goes about improving on one’s instrument repeatedly comes back to the process by which one goes from novice to master (Hoffman, 1998). Whether studying the practice habits of beginners to intermediate students (Sloboda, Davidson, Howe & Moore, 1996) or professional musicians (Hallam, 1995), research has shown that there is a measurable quantity of practice that is necessary for the acquisition of skills to achieve expertise in one’s instrument. Sloboda et al. (1996) concluded that there was clear evidence to suggest that the more one practiced, the higher the achievement, and that this relationship is strongest when the practice is “task-oriented.” The study of “formal practice” (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer, 1993) has shown that expertise is acquired over an extended period of time; however, it has also shown that the relationship between “acquired performance and the amount of time and experience” weak to moderate (p. 366). The reason proposed was that “the current definition of practice is vague.”
This suggests that the terminology used to convey the activity referred to by educators as “practice,” should be more clearly defined to their students. Researchers Rosenthal et al. (1988) examined various methods of practice to determine the effectiveness of different strategies. Though the results of their study indicate differing results based on the strategy used – Modeling/Singing/Silent Analysis/Free Practice – the primary outcome was to confirm the prior research (Rosenthal, 1984) into the effectiveness of modeling, which had contrasted the effectiveness of modeling under each of four circumstances: guided model, model only, guide only, and practice only. The conclusion drawn was that direct modeling without additional verbiage may be the most effective means of helping students learn a piece of music. This research, which has been further supported in other studies (Hewitt, 2001), supports the underlying theory behind the Suzuki method, and for young musicians in their early musical training, having such a model to refer to is shown to lead to a positive learning experience (Henley, 2001).
Miksza (2007) has examined practice behaviors and performance achievement, and the discussion of the results of the study pointed to the practical implications for educators of the incorporation of a variety of practice strategies to achieve improvement. The observed behaviors included repetition, (measure/section) slowing of tempo, whole–part–whole, and skipping directly to a section. The author suggested that teachers may find it useful to design lesson plans that specifically instruct the student in the application of these strategies. He further suggests that students should be “trained to distinguish between efficient and inefficient practicing” (p. 372) and be guided towards the characteristics of efficient practice to avoid issues of physical and/or mental fatigue. This issue of providing structure in practice, whether “deliberate practice” (Ericsson et al., 1993), or “formal practice” (Sloboda et al., 1996), has been incorporated into the research and writings of others who suggest that the provision of goals (Pedrick, 1998), structure (Byo & Cassidy, 2008), and routines (von Ende, 1945) are strong influences on the predicted outcome of practice time for students.
Further research has shown that the relationship of time spent practicing to the signs of improvement may be more affected by the methodologies used during that time than previously assumed. Duke, Simmons, and Cash (2009) determined that “the nature of the practice defined in our observations was more determinative of retention test performance than was the amount of practice” (p. 315). Their observations of college-level pianists recorded eight characteristics, ranging from playing hands together early in practice, to giving thoughtful consideration to the passage, etc. Some or all of these eight characteristics were observed in all test subjects and the chart of the results, based on the subject’s ability to accurately perform the test passage the following day, supported the hypothesis that it isn’t merely how much time is spent in practice, but how one practices. Three common additional traits were observed in the three top-ranked pianists’ practice sessions, which suggested that, “the actions taken subsequent to the discovery of errors were major determinants of the effectiveness of practice” (p. 318).
Context
Over a period of years working with cello students in various stages of development at a community college and a four-year university, the depth of the problem of articulating to students the precise meaning of “practice” became apparent to me. Once again the “vague definition of practice” referred to by Ericsonn et al. (1993) was a challenge. While all of the students I worked with understood that practice was important, their individual understanding of what the intent of practice was ranged from an understanding of practice methodologies (i.e., “play it slowly” or “go over it until you get it right”) to a description of practice routines (i.e., practice scales every day, do bowing exercises, etc.). In response I set about finding a way to help my students understand that practice is a concept rather than a series of routines, that practice is more than simply following a series of steps and assuming that the result will follow. The result was the following mnemonic device:
Methodology
Three cello students, unknown to the author (a cellist) prior to the beginning of the study, agreed to take part in a three-part case study. For the first session each student was videotaped in a 30-minute practice session with no one but the subject in the room. The time of 30 minutes was decided upon to allow for any warm-up/tuning time, and as a period of focused, attentive practice without reaching the point of exhaustion. They were given no instructions other than to go through their usual practice routine. The author reviewed the videotapes to identify characteristic practice behaviors of each student. One week later each student was engaged in a lengthy discussion with the author about the mnemonic, as described in detail below, and instructed to apply the strategies discussed in another videotaped 30-minute practice session that was observed by the author. During the first observed practice session, I occasionally made suggestions for alternative practice strategies to aid the students in applying the philosophy. Following this observed session the author made further suggestions to each student on how to self-analyze and thereby identify additional strategies for use in practice. One week later the students provided a diary of their own practice sessions outlining what they had set out to do, the various strategies used, and a self-assessment of the result for each session. The author observed the students in a second 30-minute videotaped practice session. No commentary was made in the second observed session. The three videotapes were compared and analyzed to note the application of the philosophy and the outcomes. Following the case-study, the author met with all three students for a group discussion of their findings.
Outline of the mnemonic device Preparation of Relevant Activities Causes Technical Improvement and Correct Execution (PRACTICE)
This concept is three-fold and deliberately intended to show the relationship between technique, musical understanding, and performance. While there may be an emphasis on technique, it is important for students to recognize that there are other activities that can enhance their performance:
Preparation of Relevant Activities: Through the analysis of any given situation students are encouraged to find activities that will lead them to perform the music better. Activities can range from developing a historical perspective of the performance style to practicing large shifts found in the passage.
Causes Technical Improvement: The intent of this part of the acronym is to show that technical abilities, regardless of their application within the music being practiced, contributes to the overall development. Emphasizing the use of relevant activities to aid in technical improvement is to underpin in the mind of the student that what one studies today has continued effect on one’s overall development as a musician.
Correct Execution: This is the “performance” of whatever the student has been working on, whether that performance be in public or simply the ability to play through a piece or passage.
Practice is therefore not just an activity with a short-term goal of getting a certain section “right” but a part of a longer process that begins the day we hold our first instrument and reaches its peak when we perform.
Case study observations and outcomes
Cello student A
Female aged 18: Playing experience – 2 years.
Videotaped practice session: Student appeared quite self-conscious, referring to the camera directly with comments such as: “This is going to sound horrible.”
Activities:
Tuned instrument.
Played through prepared chapter of method book (Feuillard, Young Cellist Method) – number of errors left uncorrected.
Began working on preparatory exercises for new chapter of method book – development of shift from 1st to 4th position. [Poor sound quality and poor hand posture following shift was observed.] (15 minutes)
Minuet by Handel – play through [with many notes out of tune].
Repeat sections of the Minuet. (10 minutes)
First observed practice session
Activities:
Student began by playing through a piece studied some time ago.
Two-octave F major scale during which time student took time to practice the shift from 4th finger–1st position to 1st finger–4th position. (5 minutes)
When prompted to apply “PRACTICE” ideas, in particular “Relevant Activities,” student employed a three-beat bowing pattern taken from the Minuet she was intending to practice (this had been suggested).
Student spent 5 minutes on the first exercise on the page during which time she attempted first to only practice the shifts involved (not always successfully) before incorporating that work into the full exercise.
Minuet by Handel and spent a couple of minutes marking her music, as suggested in discussion, identifying each shift.
Worked on each shift individually, both plucking the shift and playing it with the bow. (8 minutes)
Various attempts to play through the piece, repeating parts of individual measures or combining two or more measures.
Second observed session
Activities:
Began with the exercises on the top of the page (new chapter). Each exercise was considered prior to attempting to play it. Student described that she was working out the use of a “guide tone” and which finger would land where.
Student referred briefly to a “Fingerboard map” (diagram) to work out a shift that involved a string crossing. Each exercise was practiced slowly with a metronome, pizzicato, and then with the bow.
The speed of the exercise was increased four times, and student moved on to the next exercise only when completely comfortable.
Student examined the piece associated with the chapter and again marked all relative shifts.
Student spent a brief time examining the musical structure of the piece identifying the measures that repeated more than once.
Student practiced these key measures first in pizzicato while counting out loud, followed by repeating the same section with the bow while counting. Two mistakes of bowing were identified and student first attempted to play these sections with open strings only before taking a moment to bow silently in the air.
The same section was repeated combining both left and right hands.
Three further repeats were undertaken before running out of time. Student declared herself satisfied with the progress.
Observations
This young student was still in the early stages of acquiring technical skills, and had little prior knowledge of the music being studied. Though she made an effort to apply different practice strategies, her awareness of different ways to practice was limited.
Cello student B
Male aged 20: Playing experience – 6 years
Videotaped practice session: Student appeared to be doing his best to ignore the camera completely, though he appeared to be uncomfortable with its presence, which may explain the fractured and somewhat unfocused nature of the time used.
Activities:
Student began by playing through the Prelude of Bach Suite No. 1 (several mistakes were noted). Student went back to the beginning and played the opening measures several times.
Student took out the metronome and set it to indicate the speed of the 16th notes and played along. Several attempts to stay precisely with the metronome seemed to frustrate the student, who turned off the metronome and played through the piece one more time.
Student then took out Beethoven Sonata in F and played through the opening measures. Having identified which notes were out of tune, student went over the measures several times, stopping as needed to correct a wrong/out-of-tune note.
Student continued working in this manner through the opening Adagio until running out of time.
First observed session
Activities:
Student began by playing through the Bach Prelude then returned to the opening passage – which was improved since the videotaped session.
Student spent a minute working out the exact rhythm of the string crossings, then proceeded to practice slowly the opening measures on open strings, then continuing to do the same. He began counting the rhythm out loud before using the metronome to do the same. When asked why he was doing that, the student explained that he realized that the problem was one of bow distribution, and that he was getting distracted by intonation issues.
Student plucked the opening chords adjusting hand shape on each string to improve intonation before playing through the passage as written.
Student repeated the similar activity with the closing section of the piece before playing through the entire work .
Student played through a short passage from the opening Adagio to Beethoven Sonata (also considerably improved). This section was repeated several times as the student attempted to gain a continuous vibrato effect throughout.
When prompted, the student tried “playing” the section with his left hand only, while the right hand bowed in the air, so that the student focused on the “feel” of continuous vibrato. He then played the section again with both hands.
Once satisfied with the general sound, the student went back to the beginning to work on the intonation of the same piece. He spent a brief moment doing a couple of shifting exercises followed by finger pattern exercises in each of the hand positions before playing through the passage before the running out of time.
Second observed session
Student spent the entire session working on the finale of the Haydn C Major Concerto, which he had just started learning.
Activities:
Different sections were chosen for specific attention – with frequent stops – to learn the fingerings and notes.
Student identified various scale figures within the passage and focused on practicing the scale alone with increasing speeds, varying rhythm and bowing.
Student identified various shifts and practiced the individual shift as well as the hand position prior to and following the shift.
Student used the Feuillard Daily Exercises book to work on an exercise for the bowing style required by Haydn’s Concerto.
Observations
Student appeared to be quite astute at analyzing the music for its technical and musical challenges. His practice diary referred to a lot of incorporation of singing while bowing in the air and other suggested techniques in addressing specific musical (i.e., non-technical) issues.
Cello student C
Male aged 23: playing experience – 9 years
Videotaped practice session: Student appeared confident and unbothered by the camera and seemed to be following the instruction of going through his usual practice routine without distraction.
Activities:
Student began with slow C major scale in three octaves, noting any shifts that were not completely accurate as evidenced by his immediate return to practice each of those shifts following the execution of the scale.
Student practiced each shift independently and then replayed the entire scale, before doubling the speed.
A large section of Elgar’s Cello Concerto slow movement was played through.
Focused on three separate short sections to improve intonation of shifts by repeating them two to three times. Student appeared to be intending to improve the fluidity of the phrasing and quality of the vibrato throughout.
First observed session
Activities:
Elgar Concerto slow movement: played through a lengthy passage.
Student then proceeded to work on the passage by singing the phrases while fingering the left hand and bowing in the air.
Repeated entire passage noting those areas he was not happy with and going back over them a number of times to get them smooth.
Once prompted by the observer, on more than one occasion student played only with open strings while singing the phrase, focusing intently on the speed of his bow.
Practiced shifts using “guide tone” exercise.
Played through section at double tempo (as suggested), followed by half tempo
Played through the entire passage.
Second observed session
Activities:
Student began with Feuillard Daily Exercise chapter on trills repeating different exercises four times each.
Elgar Cello Concerto finale (student was looking at this for the first time): Student played through part of the movement at a slower speed together with the metronome.
Student spent a considerable amount of time going over short sections identifying fingerings, trying multiple combinations before writing down his preference.
Student practiced the section using rhythmic distortion to ensure accuracy of shifts and fingerings.
Student played/practiced three sections with the metronome and speaking the rhythm out loud. Each time he first spoke the rhythm without actually playing, followed by speaking the rhythm while fingering with left hand alone and finally added bowing.
Student took out his smartphone and, using YouTube.com, listened to the section he was working on.
Student set the metronome to a slightly faster speed, than at the original play through speed and played the segment.
Observations
Student was very quick to see the benefit of cross-referencing techniques being applied in repertoire with specific exercises from the Feuillard Daily Exercise book. His practice diary referred to five separate sections of that book that were practiced in support of the repertoire being studied.
Results
All the students were at first intrigued by some of the concepts of the PRACTICE mnemonic and each of them admitted that they had no set routine for practice, and would follow instructions from their teacher if specifically indicated in relation to the piece being worked on. Each student also agreed that they rarely repeated specific practice routines on different pieces and, as reported in their practice diaries for the time in between sessions, found that the concept of adopting an exercise used in one piece to a completely different passage in a different piece proved useful in helping understand the relationship between musical and technical aspects of the music being performed.
Discussion
One challenge for most students – especially the more inexperienced player – is to identify the exact cause of a certain difficulty, especially a technical difficulty. Until the problem can be clearly identified it is hard for them to figure out exactly what practice strategy to employ. To aid the students in identifying a “relevant activity,” I work with each student to break technique down into the various component elements and we work together through a piece, constantly analyzing what technique component (or combinations) are being challenged at any given time. Though overly simplistic, string technique can be broken down as follows:
Left hand
playing in a regular/closed hand shape;
playing in an open/extended hand shape;
shifting positions;
vibrating.
Right hand
bow going back and forth (one string);
bow going up and down (crossing strings).
By identifying which hand causes the problem, a variety of solutions can be experimented with, each of which may ultimately lead to overall improvement individually, but collectively ensure a complete awareness of the challenge. This allows the students to be actively involved in the seeking of solutions, and learn to recognize what sort of relevant activity, or strategy, would be best employed in the refinement of the section. Each exercise is developed to address a very specific element of each student’s technique and is then added to their “Exercise Database” for later retrieval and application in similar situations as needed.
A very important factor in making this system work, is teaching students to self-regulate problems – even if only at the surface level of “this note was out of tune.” Only when the student can pinpoint directly where a problem or mistake occurred could they take the next step of figuring out why the mistake occurred. It could be as simple as the hand position being wrong, or using inconsistent fingerings, but once the problem has been identified, the student can begin choosing a relevant “fix” by delving into their “Exercise Database.” It is important then for educators to treat “exercises” that they assign to students as tools to the development of technique, etc. and, more importantly, ensure that the students understand what each exercise is designed to accomplish and how to employ that tool as a “relevant activity” in future situations. Too often students are given an exercise, which they practice diligently, but are not taught the next step of applying the exercise not only in the piece/etude they are working on, but also in other pieces that they already know.
The three students who took part in this case study were instructed on how to apply the concept of using activities, including activities that are not immediately apparent. Student A had the least experience and therefore had fewer “relevant activities” that she could experiment with than the others. Student B was the most imaginative in choosing “relevant activities,” incorporating singing in solfege and separate hand practice to his daily habits. Student C focused on finding exercises in the Feuillard Daily Exercises book as a solution for any technical challenge he faced in the music he was studying.
In the post-study discussion all three students reported that they felt that having the freedom to search for their own solution to addressing a particular technical challenge made practicing more enjoyable. They also noted that they got “more” out of their practice time because they were focusing on finding solutions to whatever technical challenge they were addressing. Observation of their practice sessions over the 3-week span supported this and each student appeared more focused while they were practicing. Each of the students referred to a realization of the wider implication of studying “technique” beyond the specific passage of music they were working on. Student A commented that she had not understood the relationship of the exercises with the pieces of music until she had attempted to fix a specific part of the minuet and found herself remembering an exercise in a previous chapter that she could adapt. It is this type of cross-referencing of technical exercises that is at the heart of the mnemonic.
Everything we do when playing an instrument involves “technique” in some way, therefore by incorporating this facet into the practice acronym, I underline for my students that everything we do should contribute to the betterment of our technique. By building a strong overall technique we bring the acquisition of performance standard of the music we are working on ever closer. However, it is important to ensure that the student understands that the acquisition of technique for its own sake does not automatically lead to musical playing.
For young students, various method books often give a series of short exercises that are designed to create a skill level that will afford the student the ability to play the following piece correctly. Each skill acquired through these technical exercises is deposited into our “Skill database” – a repository for technical skills that can be accessed every time we play our instrument. While it is important to make the development of technical skills an important element of pedagogy, it is perhaps even more critical for the long-term development of students that they learn to recognize how skills build upon themselves, how each new skill acquired is related to something that they already know. In this way we teach our students to see “technique” as a component factor in the overall playing and not an end in itself.
Once a student has identified a problem or mistake we set about choosing a relevant activity that will “fix” the problem, but in doing so, the question should also be in the back of our minds whether the tool being employed will also contribute to the development or refinement of technique found in the “skill database.” For example, if the student decides that the problem was in how they shifted hand positions, the easy “fix” would be to work on the two notes affected by the shift (the departing note and the arrival note). But a more advanced analysis would suggest that this would be a perfect opportunity to build an exercise that would develop the overall skill of shifting positions, such as the practicing of the shift using “guide-tones.” In this way the relationship between the music being studied and the overall technique needed to play any piece is highlighted.
It is important for educators to instill in our students the idea that there are multiple facets to practice: there is the acquisition of technical skills – and these should be separated further into the left-hand/right-hand for string players, for example – the refinement of skills; the application of technical skill in the performance of a certain piece; the musical understanding of a piece and thus the resulting need for application of “theory” into practice.
The final element of the acronym is “correct execution” or “performance.” This is the least measurable element of what we do as musicians. This is where the understanding of the music to be performed becomes critical. From an early stage in the learning process students should be taught to look at the full picture of what they are playing, to look at the accompaniment, for example, and try to understand how their performance will be influenced by what else is happening. Too often students fail to see the relationship between the practical aspects of playing an instrument and the theoretical aspects underlining how a piece of music should be played.
For instance, it is not enough to know that one is playing an F♯, the student needs to understand why the F♯ is important in the overall concept of the key signature. These theoretical aspects to music-making are too often overlooked in the quest for technical skills. Therefore one of the important “Relevant Activities” that we should instill in our students is the total understanding of what they are doing when they play: what notes they are playing, what technical skills are required, and how these two separate but equally important elements fit together in the performance of the music.
In conclusion, taking the assumption that “The acquisition of expertise can be viewed as development along a continuum, although some have seen it in terms of a series of phases through which the individual passes” (Hallam, 2010), educators have the responsibility to guide their students in developing their skills within the practice room as they progress through each phase. As Ericsson et al. (1993) note: “As the complexity of a desired skill increases beyond the simple structure of most laboratory tasks, the logically possible methods to correctly and incorrectly perform the task by subjects increase” (p. 367). They go on to suggest that students be supervised in their practice by a teacher providing feedback and specific instructions about the best method of practice. This conclusion is supportive of that of Sloboda et al. (1996) who suggest that the highest achievers are those who spent the most time under the supervision of their teacher. As this is rarely, if at all, possible for most teachers and students, the importance of developing a system whereby students can self-diagnose and correct problems, develop their skills, and advance their creative learning, is paramount. I suggest that the use of the mnemonic Preparing Relevant Activities Causes Technical Improvement and Correct Execution (PRACTICE) empowers students to explore broader practice techniques, and reminds them to employ variety of practice methodologies to contribute to their overall development.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author biography
Brendan Townsend is the Director of Music Programs at Texas A&M International University, USA, where he also is Director of Orchestras and instructor of Cello. Previously he held positions at Tennessee Tech University, and the University of the Incarnate Word. He has conducted clinics and workshops in Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, and Nevada, and has presented research papers at the American String Teachers Association national conference and the International Conference on Romanticism. Professor Townsend is the Music Director of the Laredo Philharmonic Orchestra and maintains a busy guest conducting schedule on both sides of the Atlantic.