Experiences of developing pre-performance routines with recreational pianists

Abstract

The main approach for improving the performance experience and/or performance quality for musicians has been to find solutions for music performance anxiety. An alternative model is prevention through psychological skills training (PST), which is increasingly being shown to have beneficial effects. Pre-performance routines (PPRs) are a common strategy used in such programs. PPRs are thought to help musicians be “ready to perform,” and that musicians could benefit from a deliberate introduction to PPRs by an instructor. This article reports on the teaching of PPRs to recreational piano pupils in an exploratory action research project designed to introduce a PST approach in regular piano lessons. PPRs were taught for 4 weeks in two action cycles leading up to a performance and were evaluated by teachers and pupils. The findings demonstrate how PPRs can be developed, learned, and implemented and suggest that PPRs function in two ways: to improve concentration and to achieve a sense of calm prior to the performance. Consequent increases in performance confidence and improved performance quality could not be attributed to the PPRs alone as the teaching of routines led to changes in working practice. Implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords

pre-performance routines psychological skills training action research instrumental learning and teaching music performance

The main approach to improving the performance experience and/or performance quality documented in the music literature over several decades has been to find solutions and treatments for music performance anxiety (MPA). A variety of therapies, from hypnotherapy and eye movement desensitization (Brooker, 2018), to acceptance and commitment therapy (Juncos & Markman, 2016), to cognitive behavioral therapy (Nagel, Himle, & Papsdorf, 1989) and meditation (Lin, Chang, Zemon, & Midlarsky, 2008), have been reported. Musicians themselves report using alcohol and drugs as ways to manage or treat their MPA (see Kenny, 2011, pp. 223–228).

A more positive approach to enable the performer to enjoy performance and to achieve their performance potential is to deliberately teach or train performance skills. Over the last 10 years, a small but growing literature shows that mental or psychological skills training (PST) programs, largely researched in sport, are beneficial to musicians:

Psychological skills training refers to systematic and consistent practice of mental strategies for the purpose of enhancing performance, increasing enjoyment, or achieving greater sport and physical activity self-satisfaction. (Weinberg & Gould, 2015, p. 247)

A range of PST programs have been administered to adult specialist musicians (Clark & Williamon, 2011; Cohen & Bodner, 2019; Hatfield, 2016; Hoffman & Hanrahan, 2012; Osborne, Greene, & Immel, 2014; Steyn, Steyn, Maree, & Panebianco-Warrens, 2015), adolescent specialist musicians (Braden, Osborne, & Wilson, 2015; Osborne, 2013; Osborne, Kenny, & Cooksey, 2007), and community musicians (Kenny & Halls, 2018). It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from these studies because they use differing samples, have differing program content, and differing times to deliver the programs. Furthermore, the aims in these studies are not all consistent with performance enhancement as defined above. The majority of these studies focus on reducing MPA, although Osborne et al. (2014) aim to manage anxiety. Additional aims are to improve wellbeing (Steyn et al., 2015), performance quality (Braden et al., 2015; Hoffman & Hanrahan, 2012; Kenny & Halls, 2018), as well as performance preparation and practice (Hatfield, 2016). The approach in several studies is “two-pronged.” For example, Cohen and Bodner (2019) focused their program on facilitating flow as well as reducing MPA. Overall, the benefits of PST for the musicians in these studies were a reduction in MPA or better management of MPA, improved performance preparation, and in some cases, performance quality.

The use of a pre-performance routine (PPR), which is the subject of the research in this article, is one of the strategies used in many of the PST programs in the aforementioned studies. It is not possible to determine whether PPRs lead to a particular improvement or whether the benefits come from general exposure to the programs. The exception is the “centering” technique of Greene (2002, p. 40), “taught as the primary pre-performance routine” in the study by Osborne et al. (2014, p. 12). This led directly to participants being able to regulate performance energy which meant a reduction in anxiety for the majority.

To date, there are three PPR intervention studies for musicians conducted by the same group of researchers (Broomhead, Skidmore, Eggett, & Mills, 2010, 2012, 2018). In all three studies, groups of singers were instructed by a psychologist to use a “positive mindset trigger word-based” PPR with the aim of improving expressive performance (EP). To create a positive mindset, participants were instructed to adopt the characteristics of the words “bold,” “confident,” and “free,” which they hoped would provide freedom to express the music. In 2010, non-expert adult singers and, in 2012, junior high school–age singers improved EP. However, only the adults sustained the improvement over a long period. In 2018, this research was developed for junior singers through having classroom teachers implement the PPR and provide follow-up lessons designed to “improve retention.” Results showed that teachers with as little as 1 hr of training could implement a PPR in lessons to improve EP and that follow-up sessions improved retention of EP.

To date, with the exception of Broomhead et al. (2018) and an interview study with a unique Performance Coach and seven of her clients demonstrating the potential of PST and the implementation of PPRs in conservatoire training (Hawkes, 2016), how PPRs specifically and PST generally might be implemented into a music curriculum is lacking. Research about the role of the instrumental/vocal teacher suggests that the emphasis in lessons is on technique and musical skill development (Simones, 2017) to the exclusion of other considerations including performance psychology. “Many teachers feel confident engaging with the technical aspects of the instrument, but not with the individual who plays it” (Patston, 2014, p. 92). Despite this, MacNamara and Collins (2009) studying the long-term musical development of 15 young musicians found that some teachers create “good development environments,” although in higher education, Pecen, Collins, and MacNamara (2016) found that the main source of support for musicians in their training were “friends, family and self-help literature” rather than instrumental teachers. The research in this study demonstrates that PPRs can be implemented by piano teachers and are beneficial to recreational pupils, that is, those who are learning their instrument as a leisure activity.

What is a PPR?

Although musicians are known to use routine behaviors, PPRs have not been clearly defined in the music literature. Partington (1995) wrote that professional musicians employed a “variety of clearly constructed pre-performance routines, some of which were general preparation on the day of the performance, and others which prepared them in the hour before or minutes before the performance” (p. 36). In sport, pre-event and PPRs are distinguished:

Pre-event routine—preferred sequences of actions in the run up to competitive events [. . .] what to do on the night before, and on the morning of, the performance. (Moran, 2011, p. 330)

Pre-performance routine—a sequence of task relevant thoughts and actions which an athlete engages in systematically prior to his or her performance . . . (Moran, 1996, p. 177)

Musicians’ routines described in a variety of interview studies about performance preparation (Bellon, 2006; Skull, 2011; Talbot-Honeck & Orlick, 1998) show that professional musicians can develop and use pre-event routines instinctively with content similar to the following:

. . . a warm-up on the instrument, the use of positive self-talk, a focus on performance goals, the use of a relaxation strategy, controlling the type and amount of interaction with others, a nap earlier in the day and monitoring food and fluid intake. (Wilson & Roland, 2002. p. 57)

Skull (2011) found that singers might include a walk through at the venue or the use of key words such as “courage,” “support,” or “space” in their pre-performance preparation (p. 273). The exact content seems to vary with the individual according to the musicians’ discipline and working environment (Bellon, 2006; Benser, 2012; Partington, 1995). One of the few research examples of musicians using systematic behavior or a PPR consistently prior to the performance is that of Jeremy Kelshaw and the band Cloud Control: “Prior to performance, the band finds a physical space in which they can sit, collecting their thoughts, singing together and listening to a motivational speech delivered by J.K.” (Geeves & McIlwain, 2009, p. 419). The authors state that performance is a “planned experience over which the performer can exercise control” not a “haphazardly random occurrence” (p. 419).

The function of PPRs

Despite several decades of research about PPRs in sport, there are no firm conclusions about how PPRs function. A number of studies using experimental designs have established a link between using a PPR and the enhancement of performance. These studies have led to a variety of hypotheses about the function the PPR, which have not been specifically tested (Cotterill, 2010). Moran and Toner (2017) suggest PPRs are a concentration technique, although Hazell, Cotterill, and Hill (2014) found that PPRs enabled semi-professional soccer players to reduce somatic anxiety prior to a penalty kick, which improved performance accuracy. Qualitative methodologies in sport propose that the function of a PPR is individual in nature. Interviews with six international golfers suggest that PPRs are developed dependant “on the personality, coping resources, and situational appraisals of each individual performer” (Cotterill, Sanders, & Collins, 2010, p. 51). A study that examined the implementation of PPRs by a sport psychology practitioner with two professional cricketers (Cotterill, 2011) found that factors affecting the development of the routine were the task itself, existing behavior, preferred mindset, and the desired outcome for the performer, for example, if the player desired to control arousal, or improve concentration.

Similar to the qualitative findings in sport, incidental findings in interview studies with professional musicians, previously cited, suggest that musicians’ pre-event routines have a variety of functions that perhaps suit the individual and/or their particular musical job. For example, the function of a pianist’s backstage practice prior to going on stage was “just to get me in the musical frame of mind” (Partington, 1995, p. 131). In addition, Skull (2011) found that deliberate mental and physical preparation helps to foster self-efficacy in opera singers, which was the key to keeping up the standard of performance. Bellon (2006) summarized that routines helped professional musicians maintain focus and provided confidence, which allows the performer to express the music. For the band Cloud Control, their PPR ensures band members are on the same wavelength, to “foster a connection among band members and to instil a specific mood in the band, which will remain regardless of any uncontrollable events that may occur in the lead up to the performance or whilst onstage” (Geeves, McIlwain, Sutton, & Christensen, 2010). These findings suggest that PPRs for musicians are tailored to the individual and function in a variety of ways.

Aim and research questions

The aim in this study was to investigate ways in which piano teachers undertook the teaching of PPRs and the effect it had on their pupils. The research questions reflect the dual purpose inherent in the chosen method Action Research (AR), which aims to improve practice as well as come to new understandings (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011, p. 10). The first question asks: How can piano teachers create, develop and implement PPRs in regular piano lessons? The second question: What is the function of a PPR for recreational pianists?

Method

AR was chosen as the most suitable research method, because it is a practice-based approach to knowledge that “requires researchers to work with practitioners” (Huang, 2010, p. 93). The research presented in this article was part of a year-long exploratory project designed to study the practical application of PST as an approach in piano lessons (Hawkes, 2019). While there are generic principles of good AR design, each project is unique. This project, from which the data about the teaching of PPRs is drawn, followed methodological principles described by Somekh (2005, pp. 6–8) which include a cyclical approach and the use of reflection, two aspects missing in many AR studies in music education (Cain, 2008). Following criteria set out by another researcher against which research can be judged is one way to demonstrate validity (see Herr & Anderson, 2005, pp. 49–68). In a cyclical approach, the outcomes of each cycle inform the next. Reflection is also crucial to establish validity (Willig, 2008, p. 16) and to help practitioners develop new understanding.

Participants

Six teachers, including the researcher, and 34 pupils from the United Kingdom participated in the AR project. The teachers were female, aged between 40 and 60 years, and averaged 24 years teaching experience, typical of at least 50% of piano teachers in the United Kingdom (Cathcart, 2013). However, they all had a teaching qualification and were members of a local professional development group, which is not so typical (Cathcart, 2013). Pupils ranged in age from 6 years to just over 60 years, and their playing standard ranged from complete beginner to Grade 8 Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM, UK examination board).

The teachers were given the freedom to choose whether to teach PPRs and to whom, to suit their teaching circumstance. Five teachers chose to teach PPRs as their main strategy in the action cycles, but only four produced data specific to their teaching of PPRs. The four teachers taught PPRs to 26 pupils. Details of the pupils’ gender, age, and standard of playing are shown in Table 1. To protect their identity, the teachers are referred to by a pseudonym and each pupil is referred to by their teacher’s name and a number.

Table 1.

Teachers and pupils who provided data for the teaching and use of PPRs in the action cycles.

Teacher	Cycle	Pupil	Age (years)	Gender	Standard
Yvonne	1 2	P1	8–11	Female	Beginner^a
		P7, P14, P20	8–11	Female	Beginner
		P5, P12	12–16	Male	Intermediate^b
Angela	1 1 and 2	P12	12–18	Female	Intermediate
		P3	8–11	Male	Beginner
		P5	Adult	Female	Beginner
Lynn	2 only	P15	6–7	Female	Beginner
		P8, P10, P11	8–11	Female	Beginner
		P16	8–11	Male	Beginner
		P14	Adult	Female	Intermediate
Author	1 and 2	P1, P2	12–16	Male	Intermediate
		P4, P5, P6, P7, P8	12–18	Female	Intermediate
		P9, P10	Adult	Female	Advanced^c

PPR: pre-performance routines.

Beginner, Prep-Grade 2.

Intermediate, Grade 3–5.

Advanced, Grade 6–8.

Yvonne taught PPRs to different pupils in each cycle. Angela taught three in Cycle 1 and 2 continued to Cycle 2. Lynn only taught PPRs in Cycle 2. I taught PPRs to the same 9 pupils in both cycles.

Procedure

PPRs were taught in two “cycles of action” during two consecutive UK school terms. The iterative process typical of AR projects was used and is shown in Figure 1 (McAteer, 2013, p. 29).

Figure 1.

Action Cycle.

In Cycle 1 planning phase, the teachers were introduced to PPRs in a group workshop organized by me, teacher/researcher. I had expertise in PST and had used this approach for over 10 years. Five weeks before the performance, pupils were to have the music well prepared, so the emphasis of the teaching could be on performance preparation. In the action phase, PPRs were taught for 4 weeks leading to a performance, which could be an examination or a concert. PPRs were integrated into weekly piano lessons at the teachers’ usual place of work; for some, at home and for others, in school. At the performance, the PPR was evaluated by teachers and pupils, after which feedback was given to the pupils. We all reflected on our teaching and I conducted a preliminary analysis of the data at the end of Cycle 1. This showed that the group were focusing on how to teach PPRs rather than why. The workshop and meeting that began Cycle 2 addressed this, so we could develop and improve our teaching.

Data sources used for analysis of the teaching of PPRs were teacher plans (TP), teacher and pupil diaries (TD and PD) kept during the teaching phase, teacher and pupil performance evaluations (TE and PE), teacher and pupil reflections (TR and PR). The data were analyzed through a process of “three concurrent flows of activity: (1) data condensation, (2) data display, (3) conclusion drawing/verification” (see Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014, pp. 12–14). Because of the volume of data produced during the action cycles, the writing process was also part of the analysis which went from “description to explication to analysis” (McNiff, 2016, p. 63). As participating teacher and researcher, I took up two positions in the analysis: the first as an “insider” in the group of fellow piano teachers (Herr & Anderson, 2005), which gave me a perspective and understanding of the data not possible for a non-practitioner, and the second as “outsider” or research interpreter for the other teachers.

Before the project began, ethical approval was given through standard university procedure. Teachers, pupils, and parents (in the case of pupils under the age of 18 years) gave informed consent and were assured of confidentiality and anonymity (Willig, 2008, p. 19). In the report, teachers have pseudonyms and pupils are referred to by a number and their teachers’ name, for example, AngelaP1. All the teachers belonged to professional organizations, which bound us by their codes of conduct (European Piano Teachers Association, 2017; Incorporated Society of Music, 2013) covering all aspects of teaching and the safeguarding of children.

Results

RQ1: How can piano teachers create, develop, and implement PPRs in regular piano lessons?

Creating and developing the routines

All PPRs began similarly: “Walk out, Adjust the stool, Think, Play, Bow.” The routines were then adapted and personalized depending on the performance context and individual need.

There were two differing performance contexts for which teachers developed PPRs: examinations and pupil concerts. Yvonne demonstrated her teaching of PPRs in both contexts. YvonneP14 used the basic routine with the following additions for her examination: “Try out piano, Think of the notes of scale or first phrase, Wait for the examiner to tell you to begin” (PD). YvonneP12 also took an examination in Cycle 2. A “cut-down version” of the PPR to use between pieces and “what to think in the waiting room” inspired by a book she had read (Gordon, 2010) was added to the basic routine. Neither Yvonne nor her pupil recorded the detail of these extensions to the PPR. The routine developed for YvonneP1 performing at a pupil concert shows the difference in context. The PPR included, “Announce piece,” and “Wait for applause,” as well as “Repeat for second piece” before “Bow, return to seat.”

Evidence from pupils who participated in both cycles showed that the content of PPRs was not fixed but could develop from one performance to another. AuthorP7 whose routines are shown in Table 2, became more engaged with her routine from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2, as she became clearer about the purpose it should serve and more convinced that it could work.

Table 2.

Developing routines from one performance to another.

Extracts from pupil diary (AuthorP7)
Routine for pupil concert Cycle 1	Routine for pupil concert Cycle 2
Walk to the piano and adjust the stool so I’m sat comfortably	Say positive words to myself as I walk out to the piano
Place hands in the right place and have my foot on the pedal ready	Place hands in the right place and have pedal ready
Think about what dynamics the pieces start with	Think about the correct tempo to start to stop me rushing
Count myself in and play. Try to forget there is an audience watching	Take my time and PLAY

AngelaP5 introduced yoga arm swings into her performance preparation and a PPR in Cycle 1. In Cycle 2, she developed this further through adding a positive mindset and imagery of a “friendly audience.”

PPRs included musical as well as psychological instructions. Lynn noticed that her young pupil P15 was distracted at a previous concert due to excitement on seeing her parents in the audience. Lynn placed stickers on the music to help her focus on her playing at the performance. The routine was “Introduce myself, Play pieces without stopping, Look at stickers to remind myself to think about the notes and not the audience, Take a curtsey” (PD). AuthorP8 said she found it hard to relax while she was waiting to perform, which then affected her performance confidence. Her routine began: “Steady breathing.” I suggested she should also walk out more positively. She wrote “head held high” and worked on acting confident to feel confident as she approached the piano. The last part of her routine was musical instructions: “Think about the start of the piece and dynamics” (PD).

Implementing the routines

Three factors were identified as important in the implementation process of teaching PPRs.

Developmental differences and differing teaching styles

Process of integration

Practice of the PPR

Developmental differences and differing teaching styles

Developmental differences were most apparent between young children and teenagers. Young beginners had simpler routines that were easy to follow. These pupils were content to be teacher-directed as they were not always able to conceptualize or verbalize their performance issues themselves. Teenage and adult pupils, especially those with more performance experience, were able to verbalize their psychological and musical needs and were therefore more able to develop and personalize complex routines themselves. Teachers adopted a pupil-centered style with these pupils.

Process of integration

The process of developing the PPRs for some pupils was an integration of existing and taught strategies. Each pupil had differing performance experience, and some had already developed performance preparation strategies by themselves, with help from others, or from other hobbies. The teachers could use this information to personalize the PPR. For example, Angela easily integrated yoga arm swings into the routine of her adult beginner P5, because she already used yoga as a relaxation technique.

In addition, taught strategies were integrated into pupils’ routines spontaneously or through discussion with the teacher. For example, positive cues or key words were introduced by three teachers. As stated earlier, Lynn placed stickers as concentration cues for her young pupil. Angela used cue words and statements for two pupils. AngelaP12 was reluctant to perform and had not performed for some time. Angela prepared cue cards on which positive statements were written, for example, “practising well in advance of my performance will give me security and confidence” (PD). The pupil read the cards during the weeks and days preceding the performance and used them to help remain positive for the performance. She added one of her cards to her routine. AngelaP8, an 8-year-old boy found positive self-talk such as “I can do it” and “mistakes don’t matter” (PD) added to his PPR were helpful. Cue words for other pupils were musical. AuthorP1 added the cue word “keybed” into his routine to remind him technically how to play softly at the start of his piece.

Practice of the PPR

The PPR needed to be learned and then practiced to become an embedded part of the performance. From previous experience of using PPRs, the author suggested that PPRs should be taught for 4 weeks. At the final meeting, the group consensus was that 4 weeks was “about right” (Angela F.R.); long enough to learn the PPR “without getting bored” playing the same repertoire.

The practicalities of teaching PPRs for 4 weeks were not straightforward. Pupils who did not practice their routine regularly at home did not always remember it at the next lesson. Some teachers had to spend valuable lesson time recapping the PPR which left no time for a mock performance. Others had to prioritize musical learning over learning the routine, because of missed lessons due to illness or priorities at school. Some pupils simply did not work hard enough to learn the music in time. In the case of examinations, some pupils, for example, AngelaP8, were weaker in one or more areas of the test, for example, sight reading or technical work. The teacher then had to work on these areas to the detriment of the PPR.

One could not assume that an effective PPR learned and practiced in Cycle 1 would be remembered in Cycle 2. AuthorP9 and AuthorP10 spent considerable time developing helpful routines in Cycle 1 which they practiced regularly. Because they were adults, and because the PPRs had been effective, it was assumed they would remember to practice them without reminders in Cycle 2. However, this was not the case.

RQ2: What is the function of a PPR for the recreational pianist?

The performance evaluation data suggested there are two main psychological functions of PPRs for recreational pianists which could result in improvements of the performance experience and performance quality: (1) to improve concentration and (2) to achieve a state of calm.

One group of pupils was confident about their ability to perform but were prevented from achieving their performance potential due to poor focus at the performance itself. Routines seemed to help these pupils concentrate so they could start the piece well, at the correct tempo and dynamic level. For YvonneP1 “on the day it (PPR) helped her steady herself and I could see her taking her time to count in” (TE). YvonneP14 “established the dynamics and character of the piece better but was less successful with the tempo rushing at times” (TE). Although this appeared to be most applicable to younger pupils, some confident older pupils also needed help with focus to aid musical challenges. AuthorP1 “took longer than usual and did not let any noises in the audience interfere with his concentration” (TE), which helped him focus on the technique required to begin softly and prevented him from rushing the tempo. Thus, improved concentration for these confident performers improved performance quality.

There seemed to be another group of pupils who were less confident because of experiences of arousal or worrying thoughts. Six pupils wrote in their evaluations that their PPRs helped to keep them calm. Keeping calm for one young beginner pupil meant controlling her physiological symptoms of arousal. LynnP11 wrote, “. . . and I didn’t have shaking hands during the performance” (PE). Lynn evaluated that this led to a more confident performance. The PPR for YvonneP12 seemed to keep him calm by reducing physiological symptoms of arousal and worrying thoughts about the examination. He wrote, “PPR made me less nervous in the exam and made me feel like I was ready to play the first note” (PE). AuthorP6 evaluated, “having a pre-performance routine helped me calm down and think about the music, hand position and dynamics. I think it made my performance better” (PE).

Achieving the optimal state of calm in itself seemed to lead to better concentration and also confidence for the performance. AuthorP7 who developed her routine from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2 (Table 2) evaluated in Cycle 1 that the PPR did not make much difference. She wrote “I didn’t perform as well as I could have because I was shaking a lot and more focused on the audience.” By Cycle 2, she evaluated that the PPR

. . . helped me to stay calm and it definitely improved my confidence because when I was waiting, I was ready to perform . . . it was keeping me calm and concentrated so my hands didn’t shake too much and I was a lot more confident. (PE)

Overall, improving concentration and keeping calm seemed to improve the performance experience from the pupil perspective. The teachers’ perspective was that performances improved in quality. In their reflections, teachers and pupils also mentioned improvements in confidence at the performance as well as confidence for future performances for the majority of pupils.

Mediator variables in the assessing of the function of PPRs

There were consequent changes to working practice through the teaching of PPRs and the PST approach. Two changes may or may not have been mediating factors in the beneficial effects attributed to the teaching of PPRs. The first change was that the teaching and learning of PPRs enabled conversations about performance in lessons that had not taken place before. These conversations seemed to contribute to performance confidence. Lynn found that her young pupils had a variety of “fears of the unknown” about which they only needed simple reassurance. The author spent time educating teenage and adult pupils about their symptoms of arousal and worrying cognitions. Helping pupils to understand their performance fears and normal biological reactions to performance pressure may also have improved performance confidence and reduced performance worries.

The second change was an increase in performance practice. Before the project began, it was usual for the teachers to organize only one or two mock examinations or dress rehearsals. The teaching of PPRs and practice of PPRs in and out of lessons for 4 weeks therefore hugely increased the amount of performance practice that pupils normally undertook. Performance practice importantly helped pupils practice performance pressures on a regular basis, which possibly had a positive effect on performance confidence and may have reduced performance worries. In the evaluation of the Cycle 2 concert performance, AngelaP5 an adult pupil, summarized the reasons for her performance success which suggests there are possibly other factors that should be considered in assessing the effects of a PPR: “I think it is a combination of my piano teacher’s encouragement and help, the relaxation arm swinging techniques, and my own resolve, techniques about visualisation, practising in front of friends and family and my teachers’ dress rehearsals” (PE).

Discussion

In answer to RQ1, the findings demonstrate that teachers can create, develop, and implement PPRs in regular piano lessons for pupils of all ages and at all stages of learning. The process uncovered three considerations for future teaching and research. Firstly, PPRs show individual differences in their content and development according to the performance context and individual needs of the pupil. This suggests if teaching a PPR or if devising a PPR intervention study, the same PPR is not imposed on everyone.

Second, developmental differences were reflected in the complexity of the routines and teaching styles required to develop PPRs at differing ages and stages of learning. In this study, young children benefited from teacher direction, whereas the teaching style for older pupils was pupil-directed. It is known that many changes occur during adolescence (Blakemore, 2018). It is not perhaps surprising that some teenagers in this project needed to adapt the PPR to their changing ways of thinking and behaving. A more specific study of teaching and learning PPRs using the theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, and new developments in cognitive neuroscience (Goswani, 2008; Wood, 1998) is needed to confirm and extend these findings. PPR intervention studies could be conducted separately for young children and adolescents where differing teaching styles might be applied and tested.

The final factor to consider in future research and practice in the development and implementation of PPRs is pre-existing routine behavior or known performance strategies. In this study of recreational pianists, who perform less often than specialists, few had developed routine behavior, but some already knew strategies from other hobbies and elsewhere, which were integrated into their PPRs. In future projects, teachers and researchers should be aware of the need for discussion to establish pre-existing performance behaviors.

Problems discussed in the implementation of PPRs show that teachers need to encourage and monitor PPR practice as much as they needed to encourage and monitor music practice (see Hallam et al., 2012; Pitts, Davidson, & McPherson, 2000). How many mock performances and how much practice is required to learn a PPR and embed it into performance behavior is unclear, although the findings suggest 4 weeks should be allowed prior to the performance for learning and practising a PPR. How long it takes to embed a PPR is likely to show individual differences, and differences between recreational pianists, who only perform once or twice a year, and specialist musicians who perform more often. A longitudinal study comparing the learning and embedding of PPRs between different types of recreational learners, or between recreational and specialist musicians, taking hours of practice of the PPR, frequency of performance, and motivation to practice into consideration could be informative.

Teachers were deliberately left to choose how to approach teaching PPRs for themselves. However, our combined approaches suggest the following steps could be useful for teachers and researchers in future:

Discuss the performance experience with the pupil to establish any performance concerns, or pre-existing behaviors. Assess performance confidence.

Routine construction. Check the learning regularly in lessons.

Practice the routine in practice performances in and out of lessons.

Use the PPR at a performance.

Evaluate and develop the PPR for the next performance.

These steps are similar to various approaches for developing PPRs discussed in sport psychology, for example, the “five-step” approach used in the study of two professional cricketers developing routines with a sport psychologist (Cotterill, 2011).

In answer to RQ2, with regard to the function of PPRs, Cotterill (2011) concluded that PPRs serve the desired function of the individual. This finding was confirmed and extended in this study to show age group differences. The function of the PPR served the desire of the individual in the case of older pupils, and for younger pupils, the function seemed to be pre-determined by the teacher. An intervention study specifically designed to examine the benefits of teaching PPRs for different age groups is needed to confirm these findings.

In this study, PPRs seemed to be developed to function either to improve concentration or to achieve a state of calm prior to and during the performance. However, teacher and pupil evaluations suggest that this interpretation is too simplistic. There appear to be relationships between the constructs of concentration, control of the optimal performance state, and confidence that should be explored further. For example, improved concentration seemed to be linked to achieving the optimal performance state, which in turn led to improved confidence. Achieving a state of calm for those concerned about arousal or worrying thoughts found their concentration at the performance improved as well as their confidence during the performance and for future performances.

The apparent complexity of relationships between concentration, arousal, cognitive anxiety, and confidence suggests that teachers and researchers should not make assumptions about a musicians’ relationship with performance based solely on the traditional discourse of “nerves” and “music performance anxiety.” Symptoms of arousal and worrying thoughts were part of the narrative for some teenage and adult pupils but not the only reason to develop a PPR, or the only explanation for the beneficial effect of the PPR on the performance experience. While MPA is the most prevalent framework for explaining the performance experience at present, there is some research exploring other psychological constructs. Bonshor (2017) has explored confidence as a framework to study amateur singers and suggests that confidence issues rather than MPA impairs performance and the performance experience. Using attentional focus as the framework of study, Buma, Bakker, and Oudejans (2015), Mornell and Wulf (2019), and Oudejans, Spitse, Kralt, and Bakker (2017) found that developing an external focus of attention could be beneficial for performance quality and for the performance experience. In sport psychology, Uphill (2016) describes the “tangled knots” yet to be unraveled between arousal, anxiety, stress, and their relationships with other constructs; “knots” that also need to be unraveled in future music psychology research.

This study highlights the importance of discussion and education about performance issues for recreational pupils. Young piano pupils seemed to need simple reassurance, while some teenagers were reassured through education about the autonomic nervous system. “Psychoeducation,” which is the “presentation of the automatic activation of the flight/freeze response and its protective nature” (Kenny & Halls, 2018, p. 78), was included in some of the studies of PST previously cited. Specific benefits of psychoeducation in these studies could not be assessed as it was part of a PST program in each case. However, Spahn, Walther, and Nusseck (2016) found that this type of education for music students coping with audition pressure improved their performance experience and performance quality. A PPR intervention study, where an experimental group undertakes a program of psychoeducation compared to a control group, might explain the importance of communication about performance issues.

There are several limitations in this exploration of PPRs for recreational pianists. As with all studies relying on self-report, this exploration of PPRs is limited by the reflective abilities of pupils and teachers. Young pupils wrote their diaries and evaluated their performances with the help of their teachers, which may have been biased toward success. Teenagers typically wrote very little and not all of them evaluated their use of the PPR specifically. I was aware that ongoing relationships with students and the relationships generally between teacher and pupil might lead to biases and assumptions.

TDs gave limited data because they comprised self-reported information chosen by them. Teachers were reticent to allow the author, as researcher, access to their teaching studios or to their pupil performances. Observations of live teaching and performances would have provided an assessment of the implementation and use of PPRs firsthand. Had the project continued for a third action cycle, teacher confidence may have improved sufficiently to provide this opportunity.

The teachers were deliberately allowed the freedom to choose the pupils they wished to work with, and how they would develop and implement the PPRs. It was therefore not possible to make objective comparisons in the teaching of PPRs. The reality of allowing teachers to make their own choices and decisions is described by Cook (2009) as the “mess” of AR, the purpose of which is “to enable and allow new directions to emerge . . .” (p. 17). However, the “mess” importantly contributed to teacher commitment to the project and engagement in the teaching of PPRs.

Conclusion

This exploratory study of the teaching of PPRs suggests many possibilities for future research. The teaching of PPRs shows that a positive approach to teaching performance skills is possible from a young age. PPRs for recreational pianists outwardly serves as good stage presence, which is significant for audience engagement and motivation to continue to listen (Platz & Kopiez, 2012, 2013), and can affect judgment of performance quality (Waddell & Williamon, 2017). Importantly, the PPR appears to serve the psychological and musical needs of the individual performer.

Crucial in the implementation of PPRs for musicians is that teachers are trained well enough to carry out this type of education. The teachers in this sample were well educated and motivated to continue their learning through professional development. Cathcart (2013), Norton, Ginsborg, and Greasley (2019), and Robinson (2010) note a lack of consistency in the education and qualifications of instrumental teachers in the United Kingdom, and that not all teachers attend professional development. This study highlights the importance of better teacher education and professional development.

The teaching of PPRs was part of a positive approach to train pupils to perform. As Lynn recognized, the training was not just for those who are “visibly nervous” but about “best possible performance” for everyone. This raises questions about using MPA as the main research framework for thinking about improving musicians’ performance preparation and performance experience. Teaching the “craft of performance” (Clark, Lisboa, & Williamon, 2014, p. 34) from the start of instrumental and vocal learning might prevent MPA for many musicians and lessen the need to search for treatments.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a full scholarship from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Sheffield, UK.

ORCID iD

Mary Elizabeth Hawkes

References

Bellon

(2006). Application of sport psychology to music performance: A study based on a review of sport psychology literature and selected interviews with professional musicians. Dissertation Abstracts, International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 67(6-A), 1966.

Benser

(2012). At the piano: Interviews with 21st century pianists (Kindle for ipad). Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk

Blakemore

(2018). Inventing ourselves: The secret life of the teenage brain (Kindle for ipad). Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk

Bonshor

M. J.

(2017). Conductor feedback and the amateur singer: The role of criticism and praise in building choral confidence. Research Studies in Music Education, 39, 139–160. doi:10.1177/1321103X17709630

Braden

A. M.

Osborne

M. S.

Wilson

S. J.

(2015). Psychological intervention reduces self-reported performance anxiety in high school music students. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 195. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00195

Brooker

(2018). Music performance anxiety: A clinical outcome study into the effects of cognitive hypnotherapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing in advanced pianists. Psychology of Music, 46, 107–124.

Broomhead

Skidmore

J. B.

Eggett

D. L.

Mills

M. M.

(2010). The effect of positive mindset trigger words on the expressive performance of non-expert adult singers. Contributions to Music Education, 37, 72–74.

Broomhead

Skidmore

J. B.

Eggett

D. L.

Mills

M. M.

(2012). The effects of a positive mindset trigger word pre-performance routine on the expressive performance of junior high age singers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60, 62–80.

Broomhead

Skidmore

J. B.

Eggett

D. L.

Mills

M. M.

(2018). The effects of a teacher-directed preperformance routine on expressive performance mindset. Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, 215, 57–74. doi:10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.215.0057

10.

Buma

L. A.

Bakker

F. C.

Oudejans

R. R. D.

(2015). Exploring the thoughts and focus of attention of elite musicians under pressure. Psychology of Music, 43, 459–472. doi:10.1177/0305735613517285

11.

Cain

(2008). The characteristics of action research in music education. British Journal of Music Education, 25, 283–313.

12.

Cathcart

(2013). The UK piano teacher in the twenty-first century: Exploring common practices, expertise, values, attitudes and motivation to teach (Doctoral thesis, University College London, Institute of Education, London, England). Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10018208

13.

Clark

Lisboa

Williamon

(2014). An investigation into musicians’ thoughts and perceptions during performance. Research Studies in Music Education, 36, 19–37.

14.

Clark

Williamon

(2011). Evaluation of a mental skills training programme for musicians. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 342–359.

15.

Cohen

Bodner

(2019). Music performance skills: A two-pronged approach—Facilitating optimal music performance and reducing music performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 47, 521–538. doi:10.1177/0305735618765349

16.

Cook

(2009). The purpose of mess in action research: Building rigour though a messy turn. Educational Action Research, 17, 277–291.

17.

Cotterill

S. T.

(2010). Pre-performance routines in sport: Current understanding and future directions. International Review of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 3, 132–154.

18.

Cotterill

S. T.

(2011). Experiences of developing pre-performance routines with elite cricket players. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 2, 81–91.

19.

Cotterill

S. T.

Sanders

Collins

(2010). Developing effective pre-performance routines in golf: Why don’t we ask the golfer? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 51–64.

20.

European Piano Teachers Association. (2017). Code of conduct. Retrieved from https://mindfulpiano.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/epta-uk-code-of-conduct-safeguarding-policy-july-20171.pdf

21.

Geeves

McIlwain

(2009). That blissful feeling: Phenomenological conceptions of music performance from one performer’s perspective. In Williamon

Pretty

Buck

(Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium on performance science (pp. 415–420). Utrecht, The Netherlands: European Association of Conservatoires.

22.

Geeves

McIlwain

Sutton

Christensen

(2010). Expanding expertise: Investigating a musician’s experience of music performance. In Schier

Christensen

Sutton

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th conference of the Australasian Society for Cognitive Science (pp. 106–113). North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia: Macqurie Centre for Cognitive Science.

23.

Gordon

(2010). Mastering the art of performance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

24.

Goswani

(2008). Cognitive development. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

25.

Greene

(2002). Performance success: Performance your best under pressure. New York, NY: Routledge.

26.

Hallam

Rinta

Varvarigou

Creech

Papageorgi

Gomes

Lanipekun

(2012). The development of practising strategies in young people. Psychology of Music, 40, 652–680. doi:10.1177/0305735612443868

27.

Hatfield

J. L.

(2016). Performing at the top of one’s musical game. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1356. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01356

28.

Hawkes

(2016). Enhancing performance: An exploratory study of performance coaching in practice in a UK conservatoire. Arts and Humanities as Higher Education (Digital issue). Retrieved from http://www.artsandhumanities.org/journal/ahhe-special-issue-june-2016/

29.

Hawkes

(2019). The practical application of psychological skills training for musicians (Doctoral thesis, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK). Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/24062/

30.

Hazell

Cotterill

Hill

(2014). An exploration of pre-performance routines, self-efficacy, anxiety and performance in semi-professional soccer. European Journal of Sport Science, 14, 603–610. doi:10.1080/17461391.2014.888484

31.

Herr

Anderson

G. L.

(2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

32.

Hoffman

S. L.

Hanrahan

S. J.

(2012). Mental skills for musicians: Managing music performance anxiety and enhancing performance. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1, 17–28.

33.

Huang

H. B.

(2010). What is good action research? Action Research, 8, 93–109.

34.

Incorporated Society of Music. (2013). Code of conduct. Retrieved from https://www.ism.org/images/files/ISM-Code-of-Conduct.pdf

35.

Juncos

D. G.

Markman

E. J.

(2016). Acceptance and commitment therapy for the treatment of music performance anxiety: A single subject design with a university student. Psychology of Music, 44, 935–952.

36.

Kenny

D. T.

(2011). The psychology of music and performance anxiety. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

37.

Kenny

D. T.

Halls

(2018). Development and evaluation of two brief group interventions for music performance anxiety in community musicians. Psychology of Music, 46, 66–83.

38.

Lin

Chang

Zemon

Midlarsky

(2008). Silent illumination: A study on Chan (Zen) meditation, anxiety, and musical performance quality. Psychology of Music, 36, 139–155.

39.

MacNamara

Collins

(2009). More than the “X”factor! A longitudinal investigation of the psychological characteristics of developing excellence in musical development. Music Education Research, 11, 377–392. doi:10.1080/14613800903144270

40.

McAteer

(2013). Action research in education (Kindle for ipad). Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk

41.

McNiff

(2016). Writing up your action research project (Kindle for ipad). Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk

42.

McNiff

Whitehead

(2011). All you need to know about action research. London, England: SAGE.

43.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed., Kindle for ipad). Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk

44.

Moran

A. P.

(1996). The psychology of concentration in sports performers. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

45.

Moran

A. P.

(2011). Attention. In Collins

Button

Richards

(Eds.), Performance psychology a practitioners guide (pp. 319–333, Kindle for ipad). Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk

46.

Moran

A. P.

Toner

(2017). A critical introduction to sport psychology (3rd ed., Kindle for ipad). Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk

47.

Mornell

Wulf

(2019). Adopting an external focus of attention enhances musical performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 66, 375–391. doi:10.1177/0022429418801573

48.

Nagel

J. J.

Himle

D. P.

Papsdorf

J. D.

(1989). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of musical performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 17, 12–21.

49.

Norton

Ginsborg

Greasley

(2019). Instrumental and vocal teachers in the United Kingdom: Demographic characteristics, educational pathways, and beliefs about qualification requirements. Music Education Research, 21, 560–581. doi:10.1080/14613808.2019.1656181

50.

Osborne

M. S.

(2013). Maximising performance potential: The efficacy of a performance psychology program to reduce music performance anxiety and build resilience in adolescents. In Williamon

Goebl

(Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium on performance science (pp. 305–310). Brussels, Belgium: Association Européenne des Conservatoires.

51.

Osborne

M. S.

Greene

Immel

(2014). Managing performance anxiety and improving mental skills in conservatoire students through performance psychology training: A pilot study. Psychology of Well-Being, 4, 18. doi:10.1186/s13612-014-0018-3

52.

Osborne

M. S.

Kenny

D. T.

Cooksey

(2007). Impact of cognitive-behavioural treatment program on music performance anxiety in secondary school music students: A pilot study. Musicae Scientiae, 11, 53–84.

53.

Oudejans

R. R. D.

Spitse

Kralt

Bakker

F. C.

(2017). Exploring the thoughts and attentional focus of music students under pressure. Psychology of Music, 45, 216–230. doi:10.1177/0305735616656790

54.

Partington

J. T.

(1995). Making music. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Carleton University Press.

55.

Patston

(2014). Teaching stage fright? Implications for music educators. British Journal of Music Education, 31, 85–98.

56.

Pecen

Collins

MacNamara

. (2016). Music of the night: Performance practitioner considerations for enhancement work in music. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 5, 377–395. doi:10.1037/spy0000067

57.

Pitts

Davidson

McPherson

(2000). Developing effective practise strategies: Case studies of three young instrumentalists. Music Education Research, 2, 45–56.

58.

Platz

Kopiez

(2012). When the eye listens: A meta-analysis of how audio-visual presentation enhances the appreciation of music performance. Music Perception, 30, 71–83. doi:10.1525/mp.2012.30.1.71

59.

Platz

Kopiez

(2013). When the first impression counts: Music performers, audience and the evaluation of stage entrance behaviour. Musicae Scientiae, 17, 167–197. doi:10.1177/1029864913486369

60.

Robinson

(2010). How popular musicians teach. (Doctoral thesis, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK). Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1219/

61.

Simones

L. L.

(2017). Beyond expectations in music performance modules in higher education: Rethinking instrumental and vocal music pedagogy for the twenty-first century. Music Education Research, 19, 252–262.

62.

Skull

(2011). Sustained excellence: Toward a model of factors sustaining elite performance in opera. In Williamon

Edwards

Bartel

(Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium on performance science (pp. 267–277). Utrecht, The Netherlands: European Association of Conservatoires.

63.

Somekh

(2005). Action research: A methodology for change and development. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

64.

Spahn

Walther

J. C.

Nusseck

(2016). The effectiveness of a multimodal concept of audition training for music students in coping with music performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 44, 893–909. doi:10.1177/0305735615597484

65.

Steyn

B. J.

Steyn

M. H.

Maree

D. J.

Panebianco-Warrens

(2015). A cross-over from sport psychology to the psychology of music: An intervention study on undergraduate music students. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 21, 596–611. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/docview/1722168372?accountid=13828

66.

Talbot-Honeck

Orlick

(1998). The essence of excellence: Mental skills of top classical musicians. Journal of Excellence, 1, 61–75.

67.

Uphill

(2016). Anxiety in sport. In Lane

(Ed.), Sport and exercise psychology (2nd ed., pp. 50–75). London, England: Routledge.

68.

Waddell

Williamon

(2017). Eye of the beholder: Stage entrance behavior and facial expression affect continuous quality ratings in music performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 513. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00513

69.

Weinberg

R. S.

Gould

(2015). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (6th ed., Kindle for ipad). Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk

70.

Willig

(2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (Kindle for ipad). Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk

71.

Wilson

G. D.

Roland

(2002). Performance anxiety. In Parncutt

McPherson

(Eds.), The science and psychology of music. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

72.

Wood

(1998). How children think and learn (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.