This paper provides a summary and synthesis of the extant research related to music practicing as well as a preliminary presentation of an original instructional theory of practicing. The 119 studies reviewed in this paper are organized according to four central questions about practicing that research has begun to inform: (a) What do individuals do when they practice music? (b) How have researchers intervened with individuals' practice? (c) What individual difference variables interact with why and how musicians practice? and (d) How is self-regulated learning relevant to practicing? Figures summarizing the essential methodological components of selected studies from each category are included. An instructional theory is presented as opposed to a descriptive theory in an attempt to more closely align research and teaching efforts. The instructional theory that is proposed makes considerations for theoretical frameworks employed in previous research. The following components of the practice process in regards to both student's and teacher's influence are included in the new theory: choice, intentionality, action, achievement outcome, and rest and recovery.
The body of research literature related to practicing has grown tremendously in both quantity and sophistication over the past 30 years. A large group of scholars from around the world (e.g., Australia, England, Norway, the United States) has conducted investigations of musicians ranging in development from elementary beginners to elite professionals. Studies of how musicians of varied experience levels practice and what factors impact their practicing have begun to yield interesting trends and generalizations. The diversity of the extant research in regards to theoretical bases, methodologies, interventions, and related psychological variables has created a rich body of knowledge for researchers and practitioners to draw on when designing studies and/or instruction. Several authors have worked to disseminate the existing research findings on practicing in book publications (e.g., Barry & Hallam, 2002; Jorgensen & Hallam, 2009), while others have written extensively on how practicing could be viewed through theoretical lenses from related fields (e.g., Hallam, 1997b; Jorgensen, 2003; McPherson & Zimmerman, 2002; Zdzinski, 1991). It is clear that research on practicing has advanced significantly since the work of early pioneers (e.g., Brown, 1928; O'Brien, 1943; Rubin-Rabson, 1939, 1940a-b, 1941a-d). However, no published review of the extant research literature exists at this point in time. Furthermore, no attempts have yet to be made at synthesizing the somewhat disparate theoretical frameworks employed thus far.
The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the research on practicing as a step toward proposing a new, overarching theoretical model relevant to music education research and instruction. Music "practice" and "practicing" in this paper refers to individually oriented self-study directed, no matter how strictly, toward attaining musical proficiency on an instrument or the voice. Although practicing overlaps a great deal with other manifestations of musical learning (e.g., score study for conducting, chamber rehearsing, music analysis), this paper is oriented toward performance competence. In addition, while many of the interesting and important aspects of practicing overlap with constructs in other fields (e.g., motor-skill development, athletics, academic study habits, peer learning), only research pertaining specifically to music education will be reviewed herein. Only studies printed in English from peer-reviewed journals or books were included. A total of 119 empirical studies representing both quantitative and qualitative orientations were found to meet the criteria described above. Studies incorporating self-reports of practicing, observations of practice activities/behaviors, practice interventions, and psychological dispositions related to practicing carried out in a musical context are cited.
The following discussion is intended to highlight major findings and methodological approaches (e.g., populations, measures/data collection approaches, study conditions, variables) that have been incorporated in practice research. The discussion is organized in two main sections; the first dealing with central questions about practicing that research has begun to inform and the second offering a sketch of a new theoretical orientation that may inform research and instruction. The existing research will be presented according to the degree of correspondence with the following questions: (a) What do individuals do when they practice music? (b) How have researchers intervened with individuals' practice? (c) What individual difference variables interact with why and how musicians practice? and (d) How is self-regulated learning relevant to practicing? Tables summarizing key elements of each collection of research will be presented.
CENTRAL QUESTIONS ABOUT PRACTICING THAT RESEARCH HAS BEGUN TO INFORM
What Do Individuals Do When They Practice Music?
Research that addresses "what individuals do when they practice" can be categorized as investigations that have addressed comparisons of student and teacher opinions/perspectives, changes in approach to practicing across long spans of time and development, direct observations of strategies used to facilitate memory, and general investigations of reported and/or observed practice behaviors/strategies. Summaries of key structural elements of studies that include objective analyses of practice behaviors are presented in Table 1.
Comparisons of Student and Teacher Opinions/Perspectives
Studies in this category have found that although teachers may be able to estimate their students' practice time and practice consistency with relative accuracy (Duke, Flowers, & Wolfe, 1997), students' and teachers' expectations regarding practice behavior are inconsistent. Barry (2007) found that university studio teachers were not likely to be observed demonstrating strategies in lessons even though they reported doing so often. Barry also found that students' descriptions of how to practice were much less detailed than their teachers. Kostka (2002) found similar inconsistencies when surveying faculty and undergraduate and graduate music majors. Although 69% of the students in this study reported discussing practice strategies with their teachers and 94% of the teachers expected their students to use a regular practice routine, only 45% of the students did so. An earlier study by Barry and Macarthur (1994) determined that piano teachers of elementary to high school age students were not likely to report teaching strategies that were shown to be effective via research. However, university-level teachers were more likely to endorse practicing with a more set routine, mental strategies, and use of a metronome. Hamann and Frost (2000) investigated the practice habits and attitudes of 512 string students, grades 6 through 12, as a function of whether or not they took private lessons. Those taking private lessons reported practicing for more time and more strategically, and being goal-oriented.
Changes in Approach to Practicing across Long Spans of Time and Development
Several researchers have explored how approaches to practicing change/develop over a musician's lifespan via retrospective accounts. Although heavily dependent on participants' memory/recall across great lengths of time, several interesting trends have emerged. Early, middle, and late periods of development have been found, indicating that musicians may often begin practicing early in life with the aid of parents, shift to being more focused on strategy use and intrinsic desires to practice during middle periods, and focus on personal approaches to music making later in their career (MacNamara, Holmes, & Collins, 2006; Manturzewska, 1979, 1990; Sosniak, 1985). A similar shift in practice sophistication was also detected by McPherson (1997), who found that students reported incorporating more sophisticated strategies across three years (i.e., playing by ear, improvising, play from memory, mental rehearsal) and that higher levels of practice sophistication were related to objective measures of several dimensions of performance achievement (e.g., rehearsed music, sight-reading, playing by ear).
Complementary findings were reported by Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993). These researchers explored retrospective reports of 40 violinists. The researchers found that the "best" and "good" violin students practiced more and with greater regularity than those focused on music education and that the projected amounts of practice from beginning their instrument up until age 18 for both groups were starkly different. In the second part of their study, Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer found that "projected amount of accumulated practice" was as good a predictor for achievement on a 9-stroke keyboard task as skill-level categorization suggesting the importance of a threshold of practice for acquiring expertise.
An account of young musicians' development with regards to practice has been provided by Howe and Sloboda (1991a, 1991b; Sloboda & Howe, 1991) who interviewed 42 "average" and "outstanding" students from a British specialty school along with some of their parents. Results suggested that students spent between 200 and 500 hours a year practicing and that parents played an important role in regulating and encouraging practice. Further, half of the participants' parents spoke regularly with their children's teachers about practice. While most students seemed to enjoy performing, many were not self-motivated to practice and most had a hard time maintaining concentration in practice.
McPherson and colleagues have published several articles reporting on a study of beginning instrumentalists across 3 years. In contrast to the studies discussed above, these researchers incorporated a variety of methodological approaches; semi-structured interview, questionnaire, observation, and objective measures of performance achievement. Interview data indicated that children generally overestimated their practice when compared to parents' estimates, that those who did the least practice tended to be more likely to quit playing, and that most students generally found practice to be a chore or boring (McPherson & Davidson, 2002). A closer analysis of 9 participants who began with and maintained a high degree of motivation, gradually decreased in their motivation, or ultimately quit their instrument was reported by Pitts, Davidson, and McPherson (2000a). The students with highest motivation were driven to practice by personal interest, tended to be self-aware in their practice, and had parents who were supportive but did not interfere detrimentally. Those whose motivation waned tended to practice begrudgingly for a "set amount" of time and had parents with casual approaches to support. Participants who quit practiced the least, avoided practicing challenging materials, and, along with their parents, had low expectations of success.
Pitts, Davidson, and McPherson (2000b) also examined 3 participants who exhibited ineffective practicing in unique ways. One participant was independent but tended to be easily distracted by elements in the environment, whereas another was easily frustrated and dishonest about the nature and extent of practicing. The last took a passive, yet slow and serious approach to practicing that was perhaps a result of parents' high pressure expectations. In contrast, Renwick and McPherson (2002) reported on a case that demonstrated a more healthy development over time. This participant began with parental encouragement and tended to practice only easy music. Over time the participant incorporated strategic practicing (mental strategies, repetition of sections) and was motivated to practice preferred songs regardless of difficulty.
In a culminating report of their longitudinal study, McPherson (2005) reported on analyses relating amount and type of practicing to changes in performance achievement across 3 years. Regression analyses indicated that amount of practice completed was a predictor of the performance outcomes "perform rehearsed music" and "sight-read" across all years. The type of strategy participants employed was also a predictor of these two outcomes and was a more powerful predictor of the "sight-read" outcome than amount of practice. Type of strategy used was the only predictor of the outcomes "play from memory," and "play by ear."
Direct Observations of Strategies Used to Facilitate Memory
This category of research includes lines of work dealing primarily with memory in piano performance and in the context of cognitive psychology. In a series of articles, Chaffin and Imreh (1997, 2001, 2002), Chaffin, Imreh, Lemieux, and Chen (2003), and Chaffin and Logan (2006), report on an investigation of 1 pianist's (coauthor Imreh) preparation of a piece by Bach. The articles examined the pianist's observed practice behavior at various stages in the learning process, verbal reports while practicing, as well as recall of the memorized material 2 years following the study. In a preliminary report, Chaffin and Imreh (1997) describe how the pianist first identified formal aspects of the piece for use as memory retrieval cues since the starts, stops, and repetitions observed were more likely to occur at formal boundaries of the composition. Other studies suggested a more complex structure of retrieval cues based on 3 musical dimensions: basic--familiar patterns, fingerings, technical difficulties; interpretive--phrasing, dynamics, tempo, pedal; and expressive--basic, interpretive, and emotional (Chaffin & Imreh, 2001, 2001). These dimensions and their associated retrieval cues were found to generally predict locations of starts, stops, and repetitions in practice. Further, a trend was detected in that the participant tended to practice basic dimension material at first and interpretive dimension material later. In contrast, analyses from several other studies of practice in a more global sense suggested that four stages of learning were evident: "scouting-it-out," "section-by-section," "gray stage," and "maintenance" (Chaffin, 2007; Chaffin et al., 2003; Chaffin et al., 2009). The stages suggest that the pianist first created an artistic image of the piece early on, then transformed the image into a practice plan, and finally added interpretive details.
Other examinations of pianists' memorization have focused on the use of retrieval structures when practicing as well (Williamon & Valentine, 2002; Williamon, Valentine, & Valentine, 2002). The practice tasks employed in these studies led to a memorized recital for each participant that was scored as a measure of performance achievement. Pianists of higher competence were more likely to start on structural bars (e.g., related to form) when practicing, especially as time went on. The researchers also found that fewer starts and stops occurred on difficult bars over time and that the frequency of structural starts was significantly related to the performance criteria. Williamon, Valentine, and Valentine (2002) studied length of practice segment used and how it changed leading up to performance. They found that practice segment length and variance of segment length generally increased over time and suggest that this represents a shift of attention across hierarchical elements of music. Taking a different approach, Ginsborg (2002) observed student and professional singers' practice for memorizing a song as if for public performance. The numerous practice behaviors observed were categorized as either "attempts" or "errors." Results of this study indicated those with better memory were more likely to count aloud when practicing and those who were more proficient memorizers tended to use a wider array of practice strategies.
General Investigations of Reported and/or Observed Practice Behaviors/Strategies
Several researchers have explored collegiate musicians' amount and use of practice time broadly conceived. Jorgensen (1997, 2002) surveyed collegiate students to compare the amount of time spent practicing as a function of degree program, year of study, and instrument studied. He found that vocal students practiced the least and that piano students practiced the most followed in descending order by strings, brass, and woodwinds. Jorgensen (2002) also found that practice amounts reported by subjects with "excellent" performance evaluations were significantly higher than those who received "very good" or "good" ratings. In an observational study of collegiate practicing, Geringer and Kostka (1984) observed behaviors classified as either performance (e.g., solo/ensemble music, technical exercises, conducting) or nonperformance activities (e.g., reading/writing, getting ready) across 2,000 occasions. Performance activities accounted for 72% of the observations with solo playing the most frequent behavior exhibited. In contrast, nonperformance activities were only observed 28% of the time. In addition, no correlations were found between observations and self-report estimates from 100 musicians.
Other researchers have studied the practicing of younger musicians in an attempt to explain varied degrees of musical success. O'Neill (1997) compared the practice diaries of instrumentalists ages 6 to 10 across a 2-week period. Differences were found between low and high achieving students' practice minutes, medium and low achieving students' number of days practiced, and the degree of parental involvement high achievers received compared to low achievers. In each case, the higher achieving group had a greater quantity. Sloboda, Davidson, Howe, and Moore (1996) conducted a similar study of 257 student musicians' (ages 8 to 18) practicing across 42 weeks, who were categorized according to the following: (a) gained entrance to a music specialist school, (b) auditioned but did not get into the specialist school, (c) inquired about the specialist school but did not audition, (d) enrolled in music in a nonspecialist school, and (e) ceased singing or playing an instrument. Similar to Jorgensen (1997, 2002), pianists were found to practice the most and vocalists the least. Students gaining entrance to a music specialist school reported more time practicing repertoire and technical work, more technical work in the mornings, and practicing with more consistency across weeks. Results also indicated that regardless of current achievement level, the same approximate threshold of accumulated practice time was necessary to achieve each successive competence level on a national exam.
Several researchers have worked to categorize participants as particular types of practicers by inferring from observational analyses and/or self-reports. Hallam (1995a, 1995b, 1997a, 1997c, 2001a, 2001b) has published several articles based on the practicing of 22 professional musicians and 55 novice string players. In her studies of the professional musicians, Hallam (1995a, 1995b) found that all did not all practice regularly, most needed an external goal for motivation, most did not use a set routine, and 40 minutes was considered an optimal practice session length. Hallam drew from the theoretical work of Sloboda (1985), Pask (1976), and Perry (1970) to categorize the musicians as technical or musical, serialist or holist, and situated on a relative position of epistemological development, respectively. A majority of the participants were labeled as technical in their approach, versatile in regards to being holists or serialists, and relatively far along on Perry's continuum of intellectual development.
Hallam (1997a, 1997c, 2001a) also compared the practice tendencies of the novice and professional musicians. These studies were based on interviews with both groups as well as observations of the novices' practice with an accompanying measure of performance achievement. The topics studied include practice strategies, approaches to interpretation, approaches to memorization, and dealing with performance anxiety. Findings relevant to the novices included a tendency to play straight through music without stopping to correct errors; somewhat older novices practiced more, used more repetition behaviors, and demonstrated more planning; those using more strategic practice behaviors had higher performance achievement scores; and memorization strategies consisted of repetition for the sake of automaticity. Findings relevant to the professionals included evidence of metacognition (e.g., self-awareness, strategy knowledge, planning, monitoring, evaluating), memory strategies based on structure of music and analysis, and cognitive strategies used to offset potential performance anxiety. Finally, Hallam's (2001b) report of the novice musicians alone indicated that large discrepancies existed between observations and self-reports of practice, participants practiced more in preparation for an exam, and stronger correlations were detected between participants' grade level and achievement than the degree of reported strategy use.
Rohwer and Polk (2006) explored eighth-grade band students' self-reported strategy use and observed practice behavior during a 5-minute session. Relations between practicing and performance achievement were also examined. Participants reporting a greater number of practice strategies had the highest achievement scores. In a manner similar to Hallam, the participants were categorized as being either holistic (e.g., going straight through the music) or analytic (e.g., breaking the music down) practicers, based on their observed practicing. Analytic practicers had significantly higher performance achievement scores than holistic practicers.
DaCosta (1999) presented 28 wind, piano, and string students with the option of practicing for 5 weeks using researcher-created scripts designated as varied or structured practice. Varied practice entailed presenting a number of strategies participants could apply at their own choosing whereas structured practice entailed step-by-step approaches to improving. Most students chose to use the varied practice approach and reported feeling as though their playing was improved (i.e., more fluent, technique improved, could play more from memory).
In contrast to the studies above that dealt with practicing in relatively broad strokes, other researchers have identified and quantified the presence of very specific behaviors during musicians' practice. Barry (1991) surveyed incoming undergraduates and collegiate faculty to determine attitudes and approaches toward practice. Students reported being more likely to play through entire pieces whereas faculty participants reported the following strategies with significantly greater frequency: focusing on trouble spots, mental rehearsal, scanning a piece before playing, playing slowly, and using a metronome. Similarly, McPherson and Renwick's (2001) analysis of two sessions of 7 participants' practice across two years revealed that simply playing through a piece of music occurred 90% of the time or more.
Other studies have examined repetition behaviors in more depth. Miklaszewski (1989) found that the pianist in his study practiced smaller sections in the early stages of learning a piece and gradually shifted to playing larger sections, although the participant's short-term goals throughout the sessions changed rapidly. Maynard (2006) examined each of her participants' two observed practice sessions with respect to "practice frames" (i.e., consecutive trials on a target passage). She found that pianists exhibited the most trials and trombonists exhibited the least. However, the duration of practice trial was longest for wind players and shortest for pianists.
Researchers have also examined the presence of specific, quantifiable practice behaviors in relation to performance achievement. Gruson (1988) found positive relationships between pianists' competence level and the behaviors repeating sections, guide, hands separate, verbal, and time whereas, negative correlations were found between competence and the behaviors error, repeat note, and pause. Williamon and Valentine (2000) report similar results in that participants who tended to play larger segments of music also tended to be more competent. In a later study of pianists' practice, Duke, Simmons, and Cash (2009) found that the 3 top-ranked players in their study were more likely to exhibit the following: location and source of errors were identified, rehearsed, and corrected; the tempo of individual performance trials varied systematically; and practice targets were repeated until errors were fixed.
A series of studies by Miksza (2006a, 2007, 2011) with samples of high school and collegiate wind players report findings similar to those above. However, these studies included additional controls (i.e., time spent practicing, musical materials) as well as pre-and post-test achievement measures. In each study, positive relationships were found between performance achievement and the strategies repeat section larger than one measure and whole-part-whole. Other behaviors related to performance achievement across the studies were marking part, varying pitch, slowing, skipping directly to or before critical sections of the etude, chaining, using metronome, and singing, whistling, and buzzing. In addition, high school participants' practice across 3 days revealed a consistent approach in regards to practice behaviors used, disparities between self-evaluations of practice efficiency and achievement, and curvilinear growth in performance (i.e., day 1--rapid gains, day 2--peak in improvement, day 3--plateau).
Finally, several studies have been conducted that investigate very specific types of musical achievement and/or relatively unique populations in the literature. Rosenthal, Durairaj, and Magann (2009) examined high school, collegiate, and studio faculty musicians' approaches to practicing expressivity. The participants watched a 10-minute video of their practice and commented freely. Of the total comments, 29% pertained to expression. Older participants' comments were more goal-oriented and proactive, whereas younger participants' comments were more reactive. Killian and Henry (2005) studied practice behaviors used by high school singers immediately before a sight-reading task. More accurate singers were also more likely to tonicize, sing out loud, practice the whole task in 30 seconds, and isolate problems.
Rohwer (2005) examined the use (or lack thereof) of routine, corrective behaviors, and error detection abilities among adult beginner instrumentalists. Although several strategies were evident, the participants had difficulty identifying trouble spots and evaluating their own progress. Nielsen (1997) analyzed an organist's verbal commentary while watching a video of one practice session. In contrast to Rohwer's (2005) study, many statements were made reflecting problem recognition and self-evaluation and considerations were often based on musical features of the piece. Nielsen (1999) also observed two organists across approximately four weeks of practice. The practice was organized into two learning periods, the first being concerned with playing chunks/segments and focusing on technical work and the second concerned with playing the whole piece of music while adding interpretive elements. Strategies used across the periods were categorized as selection (e.g., visual examination/chunks), organization (systematic repetition), and integration (imagery, association).
How Have Researchers Intervened with Individuals' Practice?
Studies designed to test the relative effectiveness of practice strategies have primarily been focused on the use of modeling and mental practice. Other practice methods that have been tested include the use of weekly practice reports, behavioral contracts, a distraction index, and the relative effects of structured versus free practice. The effect of rest/sleep as well as training systems based on motor schema theory and metacognitive techniques have also been examined. Given that most of the details pertaining to each study's methodology are presented in Table 2, only summaries of treatments and results will be discussed.
Studies by Fortney (1992), Linklater (1997), Rosenthal (1984), Rosenthal, Wilson, Evans, and Greenwalt (1988) and Zurcher (1975) each compared the effect of a model compared to no model or free practice. Collectively, their results indicated that the use of a model was more effective than no model or free practice. However, Rosenthal (1984) found that modeling along with a verbal guide was no more effective than modeling alone. Zurcher (1975) also found that the use of a model also led to more time spent practicing. Linklater (1997) found differential effects for aural and visual modeling such that the group incorporating both aural and visual modeling scored significantly higher than groups of aural or visual modeling alone on visual performance criteria (e.g., embouchure, posture). Subjects in the combined aural/visual group also performed better on tone quality and intonation three months after the start of the study.
The effects of modeling have also been examined in conjunction with elements of participants' self-evaluation (Hewitt, 2001) and self-listening (Hewitt, 2001; Puopolo, 1971). Hewitt (2001) investigated the relative effects of all possible combinations of model versus no model, self-listening versus no self-listening, and self-evaluation versus no self-evaluation. Subjects who were in a modeling condition and self-evaluation condition improved significantly more than those in a no-model condition. Puopolo (1971) explored the effects of participants recording their own playing to use as a model. Those in the self-listening (e.g., tape-recorded) condition outperformed those in the control group on sight-reading in this study. Henley (2001) tested the relative effectiveness of model versus no model in combination with three different tempo practice patterns (increase, performance speed, alternating slow/fast). Subjects in the modeling condition made significantly greater gains than those in the no-model condition. However, variations in tempo patterns had no significant effects on the subjects' performance.
A number of studies have drawn from research in motor-skill learning to examine the effects of mental practice on music performance achievement. Three studies have examined the effect of various mental practice conditions on keyboard tasks. Coffman's (1990) study compared the performance of participants that were assigned to one of the eight following treatment conditions--physical practice, mental practice, physical/mental practice combined, control, each with or without knowledge of results. Those in the physical and physical/mental practice combined groups performed the best. Lim and Lippman (1991) compared pianists' performance on an etude as a function of mental practice, mental practice with listening to a model, or physical practice alone. Results indicated that participants in the physical practice group performed the best, followed by mental practice with listening, and mental practice alone. Highben and Palmer (2004) investigated the relative effects of so-called normal (i.e., fingering), motor only (fingering, no sound present), auditory only (sound, no fingering), and covert (no fingering, no sound) practice treatments on the performance of adult pianists. Participants in the covert condition performed significantly worse than all others. However, an interaction between condition and aural skill ability demonstrated that participants with lower aural skills performed worse in the two conditions with no sound.
Other researchers have investigated the effectiveness of mental practice and mental/ physical practice combined. Ross (1985), as well as VanderArk and Murphy (1998), found that those in the mental/physical practice combined group made significantly greater gains than participants in the mental or physical practice alone groups. Similarly, Miksza (2005) found no differences between groups of mental and physical practice combined and a physical practice alone group even when different types of mental practice were encouraged. Theiler and Lippman (1995) found that vocalists performed better in mental practice with a model condition whereas, guitarists performed best in mental or physical practice conditions. In a somewhat unique approach, Cahn (2008) found that participants in mental practice alone and 33% physical/66% mental practice combined groups had superior scores on an easy improvisation task whereas, those in physical practice alone and 66% physical/33% mental practice combined groups had better scores on a difficult task.
Drawing once again from research in motor-skill acquisition, researchers have tested the relative effectiveness of variable practice (Pacey, 1993; Welch, 1985) with or without knowledge of results (Welch, 1985). Pacey's (1993) study involving string players practicing with varied sequences of bow length revealed that upward trends in performance achievement were evident following variable practice. Welch (1985) investigated the relative effectiveness of providing visual feedback via an oscilloscope with and without knowledge of results on the pitch matching abilities of young children. Visual feedback with knowledge of results was most effective.
Another group of studies involve examining the effects of sleep (Duke & Davis, 2006; Simmons & Duke, 2006) and rest (Cash, 2009) on memory consolidation (i.e., learning occurring after practice) of keyboard tasks. Simmons and Duke (2006) found improved temporal evenness but not performance speed in performance after sleep. Another study reported similar positive effects of sleep except when participants learned a new sequence of keyboard strokes in close proximity to the first (Duke & Davis, 2006). Cash (2009) found that introducing 5 minutes of rest in a learning sequence improved performance of a simple keyboard task. In addition, introducing rest early in a learning sequence led to a trajectory of improvement throughout the learning period whereas introducing rest late in the sequence did not.
Studies of methods for encouraging students to practice include Wagner's (1975) investigation of the effects of a practice card and Wolfe's (1987) study of the effectiveness of behavioral contracts. Wagner (1975) compared students who completed practice reports at various weeks across an 8-week period and found that those who completed practice reports at weeks 5 and 6 reported more practice time than those completing reports at all 8 weeks or weeks 1, 2, 5, and 6. Wolfe (1975) found that students met their practice goals (e.g., minutes per week) when completing a contract and that some maintained their practicing after a 4-week follow-up.
Madsen and Geringer (1981) tested the effect of using a distraction index on performance achievement. Participants were asked to fill out a record that included amount of time practiced and self-evaluation of practice effectiveness. Those in the experimental group also marked the number of distractions they experienced while practicing each day. Performance scores of those in the distraction index group improved significantly more than those in the control group. Furthermore, the group using the distraction index was observed being on-task more frequently. Barry (1992) examined the comparative effects of structured and free practice conditions on performance achievement. Free practice was left up to the student to determine, whereas structured practice entailed being guided through a written procedure (e.g., identify key and meter, silent fingering, slow repetition). The subjects in the structured practice group improved significantly more than those in the free practice group.
What Individual Difference Variables Interact with Why and How Musicians Practice?
Researchers have examined how motivation orientations, preferences of cognitive style, and personality traits interact with practicing. Studies of motivation orientations account for the greatest quantity of studies in this category (see Table 3). Generally, studies of motivation orientations toward practice suggest that students are motivated most by satisfying internal needs (Hamann, Lucas, Frost, & Teachout, 1998; Schmidt, 2005, 2007), challenge (Ciabattari, 2004; Miksza, 2006b), achieving personal goals, and mastering tasks for the sake of self-improvement (Miksza, 2006b, 2009b; Schmidt, 2005, 2007). Students who are more committed to musical studies (Schmidt, 2007) and who have positive musical self-perceptions are likely to practice more than those who do not.
Several researchers have also reported relationships between motivational constructs and students' self-reports of practice quantity and strategy use. Self-efficacy has been found to be positively related to reports of time spent on formal and informal practicing (McCormick & McPherson, 2003; McPherson & McCormick, 2006) as well as cognitive strategy use (Nielsen, 2004). Harnischmacher (1997) found that participants who were more goal-oriented were more likely to report using a wider variety of practice strategies and practice more creatively. Researchers have also found those intrinsically motivated to pursue music were more likely to engage in creative practice activities, repertoire work, technical work (McPherson & McCormick, 1999), and formal practice (Miksza, 2006b, 2009b). In addition, McPherson and McCormick (2000) found that participants with internal attributions for success and failure were more likely to have higher performance achievement scores than those who did not.
Studies have also revealed relationships between practice behavior and achievement goal motivation orientations. Miksza (2009a) reported a positive relationship between students with mastery-approach achievement goal orientations and the observed behavior skipping directly to or before critical spots in an etude. Similarly, Smith (2005) found positive relationships between task (i.e., mastery) orientations and self-reported practice strategies. In addition, Miksza (2010) found that students with performance achievement goal orientations were less likely to exhibit the strategic behavior chaining.
Barry (1992) also examined how the cognitive style field-dependence/independence (FD/I) interacted with the experimental treatment of structured versus free practice. Participants were matched by FD/I scores and sex and were assigned to either the free or structured practice group. A 3-way interaction effect (p < .05) was detected for practice condition, sex, and FD/I on the performance criterion rhythmic achievement. The findings indicated that both field-dependent and field-independent females in the free practice group achieved significantly higher rhythmic accuracy scores than both field-dependent and field-independent males in the free practice group.
A musician's practice may also differ as a function of the personality trait impulsiveness. In his study of collegiate brass players, Miksza (2006a) found that less impulsive participants made significantly greater gains in performance achievement than those who were more impulsive across a single practice session. When investigating high school wind players, Miksza (2009a) found that less impulsive wind players began a 3-day practice study with higher performance achievement scores than more impulsive students and maintained that achievement gap. In addition, Miksza (2010) found that less impulsive collegiate participants had higher performance achievement scores than more impulsive participants and that the gap was maintained across a 23-minute practice session. In regard to observed practice behaviors, Miksza (2009a) found that less impulsive participants were more likely to exhibit the strategies whole-part-whole and slowing, whereas Miksza (2010) found that more impulsive participants were more likely to vary the pitch of the material they practiced and less likely to repeat larger sections of music.
How Is Self-Regulated Learning Relevant to Practicing?
Research regarding self-regulation theory has recently become prominent in the practice literature. McPherson and Zimmerman (2002) have described how self-regulation, with its roots in Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, is relevant to understanding how musicians develop as effective practicers. They describe the salient dimensions of self-regulated practicing as (a) motive (e.g., work through distractions, parental influence, self-motivation), (b) method (e.g., task-oriented strategies, mental strategies, self-instruction), (c) time management (e.g., planning, management, concentrate focus on tasks), (d) behavior (e.g., metacognition, self-evaluation/monitoring), (e) environment (e.g., physical structure), and (f) social factors (e.g., parental involvement, siblings, peers, help-seeking). Consistent with the theoretical description provided by McPherson and Zimmerman (2002), most studies reviewed in this section include a motivational construct (e.g., intrinsic value, self-efficacy). Only results pertaining to the remaining dimensions of the theory are described here since motivation is discussed elsewhere.
There are many consistencies among the studies reported in this section. For example, all except one (Nielsen, 2004) are studies with samples of school-aged instrumentalists. In addition, all studies that have incorporated a quantitative measure of self-regulation have adapted and/or supplemented a measure by Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) designed to assess middle school students' self-regulatory behavior in the context of academics. Further, all of the studies but one (Nielsen, 2004) have examined their measure with factor analysis. Methodological considerations for studies incorporating a quantitative design are summarized in Table 4.
The aforementioned longitudinal study reported by McPherson and colleagues has indicated that beginner instrumentalists are not likely to be self-regulated in their practice. Results suggest that beginners can benefit from relatively low-pressure parental support with moderate expectations (McPherson & Renwick, 2001; Moore, Burland, & Davdison, 2003; Pitts et al., 2001a, 2001b), that even after 3 years of study beginners will tend to play straight through materials while leaving errors uncorrected (McPherson & Renwick, 2001) or altogether avoid material that may require applying self-regulated behavior to improve (Renwick & McPherson, 2002), that students may spend much time practicing while distracted (e.g., shuffling papers, talking, fiddling) (McPherson & Renwick, 2001), and that even if highly motivated students can demonstrate self-awareness they still may not have strategies available or be able to draw upon strategies that help them improve (Pitts et al., 2001a, 2001b). In contrast, Austin and Berg (2006) found intermediate instrumentalists' reports of "what others would see" if they looked in on their practice and how they would practice a difficult piece of music included self-regulatory-like dispositions such as help seeking, strategic repetition, and slowing.
Relationships have been detected between musicians' abilities to self-regulate their practice and several variables pertinent to music learning. For example, relationships between practice strategy use and performance achievement suggest that as students gain competence, they also become more able to self-regulate their practice (e.g., organize sessions, scan music for problems, use mental strategies) (McPherson, 2005). Similar results were reported by McPherson and McCormick (2000) who found self-reported self-regulation to be a significant predictor of performance achievement. When comparing the practicing of professionals and novices, Hallam (2001a) found that professionals were more likely to report metacognitive thinking, analysis of musical problems, sophisticated strategy use, organization of practice, and an ability to concentrate. Furthermore, several researchers have found positive relationships between reports of self-regulatory practice behavior and amount of time spent practicing (Austin & Berg, 2006) and amount of formal practice in particular (McPherson & McCormick, 1999, 2006; Miksza, 2006b). In regards to environment, Austin and Berg (2006) found that the degree of practice regulation reported among intermediate instrumentalists was positively related to the degree to which they had a quiet place at home to practice in.
Several studies have explored links between self-regulatory practicing and self-efficacy or self-evaluations of practicing. McCormick and McPherson (2003) and McPherson and McCormick (2006) found that reports of self-regulation were positively related to cognitive strategy use and self-efficacy. A study by Nielsen (2004) with collegiate musicians found that participants with higher self-efficacy beliefs were more likely to report using cognitive, metacognitive, and resource strategies when practicing. Finally, Miksza (2006b) found positive relationships between participants' self-evaluations of practice efficiency and reports of concentration and metacognitive-reflective strategies.
TOWARD AN INSTRUCTIONAL THEORY OF PRACTICING FOR RESEARCH AND TEACHING
Researchers have drawn upon several diverse theoretical frameworks in their investigations of practicing. Theories that have been incorporated in practice research include social-psychological portrayals (Hallam, 1997b, Jorgensen, 2003), models of epistemological development (Hallam, 1995b), descriptions of cognitive memory processes (e.g., Chaffin, 2007; Duke & Davis, 2006), self-regulation theory (e.g., McPherson & Zimmerman, 2002), and a theory of the acquisition of musical expertise (e.g., Lehmann & Ericsson, 1997). These theoretical bases are each drawn from related disciplines outside of music such as cognitive psychology (e.g., Chase & Simon, 1973; Walker, 2005), educational psychology (Pask, 1973; Perry, 1970; Zimmerman, 1986), motor skill development (Fitts & Posner, 1967), and a general theory of the acquisition of expertise (Ericsson, 1996). Music education researchers could also benefit from theoretical foundations built on evidence from research within music education.
Furthermore, music education researchers must continue to be concerned with how studies of theoretical processes inform practical application for the sake of improved instruction. This concern is not new. Dewey (1900, p. 110) called for a "linking science" in educational research to bridge the often-large divide between theoretical and practical concerns. In contrast to descriptive theories such as those referenced in the paragraph above, the purpose of instructional theory is to provide a framework for learning that has prescriptive implications for research and teaching (e.g., Bruner, 1966). In other words, the overarching purpose of instructional theory is to bridge potential divides between descriptive theory and practice (Glaser, 1976; Hosford, 1973). Gordon (1968, p. 3) defines a theory of instruction as "a set of statements based on sound replicable research, which would permit one to predict how particular changes in the educational environment would affect pupil learning." Consequently, instructional theories are helpful for researchers and teachers who are concerned with designing studies and educational programs in an effort to solve instructional problems (Hosford, 1973; Snelbecker, 1974). Essential criteria for instructional theory presented by Gordon (1968) and Hosford (1973) include the following: terms/components must be defined adequately, boundaries and limitations must be stated, theory should be consistent with empirical data, and the theory must generalize logically beyond existing data. Instructional theory should be rooted in theoretical understandings of the learning process and often is most effective when hybridization of existing theories occurs (Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009).
What follows is a preliminary sketch of an instructional theory of practicing that highlights salient variables important for further research and/or instructing a musician in how to practice. This theory is conceived with a relatively traditional model of direct and purposeful instruction between a teacher and a student in mind. Similarly, practice is thought of as a relatively traditional term and readers are referred to the definition presented in the introduction of this paper. As a result, indirect sociological effects of peers, communities of learning, as well as teachers' psychological dispositions and other such variables, while certainly important to learning, are not explicitly included as components of this particular theory. However, no theories or models are beyond critique or revision (Cady, 1992; Dubin, 1969; Edwards, 1992) and future testing and development could result in extensions that include such elements.
The essential components of the proposed theory are intended to represent the primary variables that are mostly directly relevant to learning efficient and effective approaches to practice, and include: choice, intentionality, action, achievement outcome, and rest and recovery (see Figure 1). Each component represents what can be considered essential steps and processes in demonstrating and perhaps determining effective practice, and acknowledges an influence of both student and teacher at each critical juncture. Further, the ultimate outcome that this instructional theory and accompanying model are intended to highlight is the process of becoming a good practicer rather than simply gaining performance competence.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Choice refers to the students' decision to practice, which may in some cases be impacted by their teacher's expectations (e.g., requiring amounts of time to practice, practice assignments). Intentionality refers to the degree of purpose (e.g., deliberate, formal practice) that a student brings to practice. A student's evaluation of his or her own strengths and/or weaknesses as well as a teacher's assessment of what needs to be improved may impact degree of intentionality. Action is simply what takes place during practice and is influenced by a student's "repertoire" of practice strategies available as well as a teacher's instruction, or lack thereof, on how to practice. The achievement outcome component is hypothesized to be most directly related to the action undertaken in practice, often results in some form of formal or informal teacher evaluation, and has an impact on a student's self-perceptions (i.e., reflection). Rest and recovery is included as the final component in this somewhat linear description. Individual differences, such as motivation orientation, cognitive style, and personality, are hypothesized to interact with student disposition and behavior at each step in the process. Finally, the model presented can also be seen to operate on a developmental continuum in that greater proportions of student and/or teacher direction would be expected to be influential at various points in development, that is, as students become more sophisticated and independent in their practice.
Although a complete logical analysis or empirical verification of this instructional theory is beyond the scope of this paper, the extensive review of literature presented above provides preliminary evidence for the importance of each primary component described. Research presented that deals with the impact of motivation, field dependence/independence, and impulsivity suggests that psychological individual differences among learners may have an important role in decisions to practice, self-perceptions of ability, practice effectiveness, and attributions of success and failure. Studies examining changes in approach to practice over lifespans and development, deliberate practice and the acquisition of expertise, self-regulation, and students' evaluations of their own performance indicate that approaching practice with varying degrees of intentionality may ultimately have significant effects on musical outcomes. Studies of specific practice behaviors/strategies, research regarding self-regulated practicing, as well as practice interventions make obvious the relevancy and intricate nature of the action component of the theory. In addition, practice research regarding self-regulation, attributions of success and failure, and self-efficacy implicates the importance of students' reflections and teacher evaluations. Finally, studies of the effects of sleep/rest on performance and memory as well as conceptions of deliberate practice highlight the need for rest/recovery.
The goal of this review of literature and accompanying theoretical framework, even in its preliminary form, is to inform researchers and teachers when considering important characteristics and processes relevant to effective practicing. For example, investigations of practice drawing from this theory could be designed to focus on a single particular component, relations among components, or a systems-type analysis of many components operating in sync. In doing so, a more complete account of what leads to effective practicing may be gained. In addition, findings related to this relatively prescriptive instructional theory would perhaps also have more direct implications for teaching than those based on descriptive theory since results could potentially be more clearly associated with instructional planning and decisionmaking. Given the fact that this theory rests on a large and diverse collection of empirical findings, teachers may also benefit from consulting this theory. For example, teachers who extrapolate instructional plans/methods for helping students become more effective in their practice could do so with at least some sense of confidence that their work would be rooted in rigorous research.
This paper represents a twofold effort, a comprehensive review of research on practicing and a presentation of an original instructional theory for the purpose of enhancing research and teaching. Findings regarding what people do when they practice, how researchers have intervened with musicians' practice, individual difference variables that interact with practice, and self-regulatory practice behavior were summarized and discussed. The diversity of theoretical frameworks employed thus far was considered as well. A synthesis of the extant research was presented in the form of an instructional theory that describes the essential elements and influences related to becoming an effective practicer. The instructional theory provides a new framework for researchers to consider when designing studies and is also prescriptive for teachers in that the variables presented represent critical issues for instruction in efficient and effective practice. It is hoped that the material presented will aid researchers and teachers in their design of studies and instruction as the already large body of literature on practicing continues to grow and diversify.
Austin, J. R., & Berg, M. H. (2006). Exploring music practice among sixth-grade band and orchestra students. Psychology of Music, 34(4), 535-558.
Barry, N. H. (1991). A comparison of advanced student musicians' and professional musicians' practice attitudes and strategies. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 3, 32-41.
Barry, N. H. (1992). The effects of practice strategies, individual differences in cognitive style, and gender upon technical accuracy and musicality of student instrumental performance. Psychology of Music, 20(2), 112-123.
Barry, N. H. (2007). A qualitative study of applied music lessons and subsequent student practice sessions. Contributions to Music Education, 34, 51-65.
Barry, N. H., & Hallam, S. (2002). Practice. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance-creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 151-165). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Barry, N. H., & McArthur, V. H. (1994). Teaching practice strategies in the music studio: A survey of applied music teachers. Psychology of Music, 22, 44-55.
Bona, P. (1969). Rhythmical articulation. New York, NY: Carl Fischer.
Brown, R. W. (1928). A comparison of the "whole," "part," and "combination" methods of learning piano music. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 235-247.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cady, H. L. (1992). Sources of theory for research in school music. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 60-72). New York, NY: Schirmer Books.
Cahn, D. (2008). The effects of varying ratios of mental and physical practice, and task difficulty on performance on a tonal pattern. Psychology of Music, 36, 179-191.
Cash, C. D. (2009). Effects of early and late rest intervals on performance and overnight consolidation of a keyboard sequence. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 252-266.
Chaffin, R. (2007). Learning Clair de Lune: Retrieval practice and expert memorization. Music Perception, 24, 377-393.
Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (1997). "Pulling teeth and torture": Musical memory and problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 3(4), 315-336.
Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (2001). A comparison of practice and self-report as sources of information about the goals of expert practice. Psychology of Music, 29, 39-69.
Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (2002). Practicing perfection: Piano performance as expert memory. Psychological Science, 13, 342-349.
Chaffin, R., Imreh, G., Lemieux, A. F., & Chen, C. (2003). "Seeing the big picture:" Piano practice as expert problem solving. Music Perception, 20(4), 465-490.
Chaffin, R., Lisbao, T., Logan, T., & Begosh, K. (2009). Preparing for memorized cello performance: The role of performance cues. Psychology of Music, 38(1), 3-30.
Chaffin, R., & Logan, T. (2006). Practicing perfection: How concert soloists prepare for performance. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 113-130.
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81.
Ciabattari, W. (2004). Motivating high school students to practice: A comparison of student and teacher perceptions. Contributions to Music Education, 31(2), 43-55.
Coffrnan, D. (1990). Effects of mental practice, physical practice, and knowledge of results on piano performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(3), 187-196.
DaCosta, D. (1999). An investigation into instrumental pupils' attitudes to varied, structured practice: Two methods of approach. British Journal of Music Education, 16(1), 65-77.
Dewey, J. (1900). Psychology and social science. Psychological Review, 7, 105-124.
Drake, C., & Palmer, C. (2000). Skill acquisition in music performance: Relations between planning and temporal control. Cognition, 74, 1-32.
Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. London, UK: Collier-Macmillan.
Duke, R. A., & Davis, C. M. (2006). Procedural memory consolidation in the performance of brief keyboard sequences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(2), 111-124.
Duke, R. A., Flowers, P. J., & Wolfe, D. E. (1997). Children who study piano with excellent teachers in the United States. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 132, 51-84.
Duke, R. A., Simmons, A. L., & Cash, C. D. (2009). It's not how much; It's how--characteristics of practice behavior and retention of performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(4), 310-321.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Edwards, R. S. (1992). Model building. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 38-47). New York, NY: Schirmer Books.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519.
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence (pp. 1-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Fortney, P. M. (1992). The effect of modeling and silent analysis on the performance effectiveness of advanced instrumentalists. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 3, 18-21.
Furstenau, A. B. (1963). 26 studies for flute, op. 107 (Peters, Ed.). Frankfurt, Germany: Litolff-Peters.
Geringer, J. M., & Kostka, M. J. (1984). An analysis of practice room behavior of college music students. Contributions to Music Education, 11, 24-27.
Ginsborg, J. (2002). Classical singers learning and memorizing a new song: An observational study. Psychology of Music, 30, 58-101.
Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction. Review of Educational Research, 46(1), 1-24.
Gordon, I. J. (Ed.) (1968). Criteria for theories of instruction. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gruson, L. (1988). Rehearsal skill and musical competence: Does practice make perfect? In J. A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 91-112). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87-106.
Hallam, S. (1995a). Professional musicians' orientations to practice: Implications for teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 12(1), 3-19.
Hallam, S. (1995b). Professional musicians' approaches to the learning and interpretation of music. Psychology of Music, 23(2), 111-128.
Hallam, S. (1997a). Approaches to the instrumental music practice of experts and novices: Implications for education. In H. Jorgensen and A.C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice. Oslo: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Hallam, S. (1997b). What do we know about practicing? Towards a model synthesizing the research literature. In H. Jorgensen and A. C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice. Oslo: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Hallam, S. (1997c). The development of memorization strategies in musicians: Implications for education. British Journal of Music Education, 14(1), 87-97.
Hallam, S. (2001a). The development of metacognition in musicians: Implications for education. British Journal of Music Education, 18(1), 27-39.
Hallam, S. (2001b). The development of expertise in young musicians: Strategy use, knowledge acquisition, and individual diversity. Music Education Research, 3(1), 7-23.
Hamann, D. L., & Frost, R. S. (2000). The effect of private lesson study on the practice habits and attitudes towards practicing of middle school and high school string students. Contributions to Music Education, 27(2), 71-93.
Hamann, D. L., Lucas, K. A., McAllister, P., & Teachout, D. (1998). An investigation into the factors contributing to individual practice. Journal of Band Research, 34(1), 59-68.
Harnischmacher, C. (1997). The effects of individual differences in motivation, volition, and maturational processes on practice behavior of young instrumentalists. In H. Jorgensen and A. C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 71-88). Oslo, Norway: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Henley, P. (2001). Effects of modeling and tempo patterns as practice techniques on the performance of high school instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(2), 169-180.
Hewitt, M. P. (2001). The effects of modeling, self-evaluation, and self-listening on junior high instrumentalist's music performance and practice attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(4), 307-322.
Highben, H. S., & Palmer, C. (2004). Effects of auditory and motor mental practice in memorized piano performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 159, 58-67.
Hosford, P. L. (1973). An instructional theory: A beginning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Howe, M. J. A., & Sloboda, J. A. (1991a). Young musicians' accounts of significant influences in their early lives. 1. The family and the musical background. British Journal of Music Education, 8, 39-52.
Howe, M. J. A., & Sloboda, J. A. (1991b). Early lives of musicians, 2: Teachers, practicing, and performing. British Journal of Music Education, 8, 53-63.
Jorgensen, H. (1997). Time for practicing? Higher level music students' use of time for instrumental practicing. In H. Jorgensen and A. C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 123-139). Oslo: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Jorgensen, H. (2002). Instrumental performance expertise and amount of practice among instrumental students in a conservatoire. Music Education Research, 4(1), 105-119.
Jorgensen, H. (2003). Instrumental practice and developing musicianship: Time variables and theory development. Proceedings of the 5th ESCOM Conference, (pp. 8-13). Germany: Hochschule fur Musik und Theater, Hanover, CD-Rom.
Jorgensen, H., & Hallam, S. (2009). Practicing. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, and M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 265-273). New York: Oxford University Press.
Jorgensen, H. & Lehman, A. C. (Eds.) (1997). Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice. Oslo: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Kern, J. (1988). All the things you are. In C. Sher and B. Bauer (Eds.), The New Real Book, (p. 4). Petaluma, CA: Sher Music.
Killian, J., & Henry, M. (2005). A comparison of successful and unsuccessful strategies in individual sight-singing preparation and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(1), 51-65.
Kopprasch, C. (1939). Sixty selected studies for French horn, Bk. 1 (Rev. G. A. Frehse). Boston, MA: Carl Fischer.
Kostka, M. J. (2002). Practice expectations and attitudes: A survey of college-level music teachers and students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(2), 145-154.
Lafosse, A. (1949). School of sight reading and style, Book A. New York, NY: M. Baron.
Lehman, A. C., & Ericsson, K. A. (1997). Research on expert performance and deliberate practice: Implications for the education of amateur musicians and music students. Psychomusicology, 16, 40-58.
Lim, S., & Lippman, L. G. (1991). Mental practice and memorization of piano music. Journal of General Psychology, 118(1), 21-30.
Linklater, F. (1997). Effects of audio and videotape models on the performance achievement of beginner clarinets. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(3), 402-414.
MacNamara, A., Holmes, P., & Collins, D. (2006). The pathway to excellence: The role of psychological characteristics in negotiating the challenges of musical development. British Journal of Music Education, 23(3), 285-302.
Madsen, C. K. (2004). A 30-year follow-up study of actual applied music practice vs. estimated practice. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(1), 77-99.
Madsen, C. K., & Geringer, J. M. (1981). The effect of a distraction index on improving practice attentiveness and musical performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 66, 46-52.
Manturzewska, M. (1979). Results of psychological research on the process of music practicing and its effective shaping. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 59, 59-61.
Manturzewska, M. (1990). A biographical study of the life-span development of professional musicians. Psychology of Music, 18, 112-139.
Marsh, H., Craven, R., Hinckley, J., & Debus, R. (2003). Evaluation of the big-two factor theory of academic motivation orientations: An evaluation of jingle-jangle fallacies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 189-224.
Maynard, L. M. (2006). The role of repetition in the practice sessions of artist teachers and their students. Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education, 167, 61-72.
McCormick, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2003). The role of self-efficacy in a musical performance examination: An exploratory structural equation analysis. Psychology of Music, 31(1), 37-51.
McPherson, G. E. (1995). The assessment of musical performance: Development and validation of five new measures. Psychology of Music, 23, 142-161.
McPherson, G. E. (1997). Cognitive strategies and skill acquisition in musical performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 64-71.
McPherson, G. E. (2005). From child to musician: Skill development during the beginning stages of learning an instrument. Psychology of Music, 33(1), 5-35.
McPherson, G. E., & Davidson, J. W. (2002). Musical practice: Mother and child interactions during the first year of learning an instrument. Music Education Research, 4(1), 141-156.
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (1999). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of musical practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 98-102.
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2000). The contribution of motivational factors to instrumental performance in a music examination. Research Studies in Music Education, 15, 31-39.
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2006). Self-efficacy and music performance. Psychology of Music, 34(3), 322-336.
McPherson, G. E., & Renwick, J. M. (2001). A longitudinal study of self-regulation in children's musical practice. Music Education Research, 3(2), 169-186.
McPherson, G. E., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Self-regulation of musical learning: A social cognitive perspective. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 327-347). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen, M., et al. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Miklaszewski, K. (1989). A case study of a pianist preparing a musical performance. Psychology of Music, 17, 95-109.
Miksza, P. (2005). The effect of mental practice on the performance achievement of high school trombonists. Contributions to Music Education, 35(2), 75-93.
Miksza, P. (2006a). Relationships among impulsiveness, locus of control, gender, and music practice. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(4), 308-323.
Miksza, P. (2006b). Self-regulatory and motivational variables in the music practice of junior high band students. Contributions to Music Education, 33(2), 9-26.
Miksza, P. (2007). Effective practice: An investigation of observed practice behaviors, self-reported practice habits, and the performance achievement of high school wind players. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(4), 359-375.
Miksza, P. (2009a). Relationships among impulsivity, achievement goal motivation, and the music practice of high school wind players. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 180, 39-57.
Miksza, P. (2009b). An investigation of the 2x2 achievement goal framework in the context of instrumental music. In L. K. Thompson and M. R. Campbell (Eds.), Research perspectives: Thought and practice in music education (pp. 81-100). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Miksza, P. (2011). Relationships among impulsivity, achievement goal motivation, and the music practice of collegiate wind players. Psychology of Music, 39, 50-67.
Moore, D. G., Burland, K., & Davidson, J. W. (2003). The social context of musical success: A developmental account. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 529-549.
Mulligan, J. (1988). Line for Lyons. In C. Sher and B. Bauer (Eds.), The New Real Book (p. 188). Petaluma, CA: Sher.
Nielsen, S. G. (1997). Self-regulation of learning strategies during practice: A case study of a church organ student preparing a musical work for performance. In H. Jorgensen and A. C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 109-122). Oslo, Norway: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Nielsen, S. G. (1999). Learning strategies in instrumental music practice. British Journal of Music Education, 16(3), 275-291.
Nielsen, S. G. (2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal individual practice: A study of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32 (4), 418-431.
O'Brien, C. C. (1943). Part and whole methods in the memorization of music. Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 552-560.
O'Neill, S. A. (1997). The role of practice in children's early musical performance achievement. In
H. Jorgensen and A. C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 53-70). Oslo, Norway: Norges Musikkhogskole.
O'Neill, S. A. (1999). The role of achievement-related self-perceptions in the practice and achievement of young musicians. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 142, 89.
Pacey, F. (1993). Schema theory and the effect of variable practice in string teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 10, 91-102.
Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-148.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Wilson.
Pintrich, P., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Pitts, S., Davidson, A., & McPherson, G. (2000a). Models of success and failure in instrumental learning: Case studies of young players in the first 20 months of learning. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 146, 51-69.
Pitts, S., Davidson, A., & McPherson, G. (2000b). Developing effective practice strategies: Case studies of three young instrumentalists. Music Education Research, 2(1), 45-56.
Puopolo, V (1971). The development and experimental application of self-instructional practice materials for beginning instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19(3), 342-349.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models, vol. 3, Building a common knowledge base (pp. 3-35). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Renwick, J. M., & McPherson, G. E. (2002). Interest and choice: Student-selected repertoire and its effect on practicing behavior. British Journal of Music Education, 19(2), 173-188.
Rhodes, T. C., Bierschenk, D., Lautzenheiser, T., Higgins, J., & Petersen, L. (2002). Essential technique. New York, NY: Hal Leonard Publishing.
Rohwer, D. (2005). A case study of adult beginning instrumental practice. Contributions to Music Education, 32(1), 45-58.
Rohwer, D., & Polke, J. (2006). Practice behaviors of eighth-grade instrumental musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(4), 350-362.
Rosenthal, R. K. (1984). The relative effects of guided model, model only, guide only, and practice only treatments on the accuracy of advanced instrumentalists' music performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 265-273.
Rosenthal, R. K., Durairaj, M., & Magann, J. (2009). Musicians' descriptions of their expressive musical practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 181, 37-49.
Rosenthal, R. K., Wilson, M., Evans, M., & Greenwalt, L. (1988). Effects of different practice conditions on advanced instrumentalists' performance accuracy. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36, 250-257.
Ross, S. (1985). The effectiveness of mental practice in improving the performance of college trombonists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 33(4), 221-30.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1939). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: II. A comparison of the unilateral and coordinated approaches. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 321-345.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1940a). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: II. A comparison of massed and distributed practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 31, 270-284.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1940b). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: III. A comparison of the whole and the part approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 31, 460-475.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1941a). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: IV. The effect of incentive. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 45-54.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1941b). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: V. A comparison of pre-study periods of varied length. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 101-112.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1941c). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: VI. A comparison of forms of mental rehearsal and overlearning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 593-602.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1941d). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: VII. A comparison of three degrees of overlearing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 688-696.
Saunders, T. C., & Holahan, J. M. (1997). Criteria-specific ratings scales in the evaluation of high school instrumental performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 259-272.
Schmidt, C. P. (2005). Relations among motivation, performance achievement, and music experience variables in secondary instrumental music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(2), 134-147.
Schmidt, C. P. (2007). Intrinsic-mastery motivation in instrumental music: Extension of a higher order construct. Bulletin for Council of Research in Music Education, 173, 7-23.
Simmons, A. L., & Duke, R. A. (2006). Effects of sleep on performance of a keyboard melody. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 257-269.
Sloboda, J. A. (1985). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J. A., & Moore, D. G. (1996). The role of practice in the development of performing musicians. British Journal of Psychology, 87(2), 287-309.
Sloboda, J. A., & Howe, M. J. A. (1991). Biographical precursors of musical excellence: An interview study. Psychology of Music, 19, 3-21.
Sosniak, L. A. (1985). Learning to be a concert pianist. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 19-67). New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Smith, B. (2005). Goal orientation, implicit theories of ability, and collegiate instrumental practice. Psychology of Music, 33(1), 36-57.
Theiler, A. M., & Lippman, L. G. (1995). Effects of mental practice and modeling on guitar and vocal performance. Journal of General Psychology, 122(4), 329-343.
VanderArk, S., & Murphy, E. (1998). Effects of traditional physical, mental, mental with physical, and physical with singing practice on instrumental music performances. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 10, 50-55.
Wagner, M. J. (1975). The effect of a practice report on practice time and musical performance. In C. K. Madsen, R. D. Green, & C. H. Madsen (Eds.), Research in music behavior: Modifying music behavior in the classroom (pp. 125-130). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Walker, M. P. (2005). A refined model of sleep and the time course of memory formation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 51-104.
Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D.R. (2002). Learning and study strategies inventory (2nd ed.). Clearwater, FL: H&H.
Welch, G. F. (1985). Variability of practice and knowledge of results as factors in learning to sing in tune. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 85, 238-247.
Williamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2000). Quantity and quality of music practice as predictors of performance quality. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 353-76.
Williamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2002). The role of retrieval structures in memorizing music. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 1-32.
Williamon, A., Valentine, E., & Valentine, J. (2002). Shifting the focus of attention between levels of musical structure. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(1), 493-520.
Wolfe, D. E. (1987). The use of behavioral contracts in music instruction. In C. K. Madsen, C. A. Prickett, & J. T. Gates (Eds.), Applications of Research in Music Behavior (pp. 43-50). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Zdzinski, S. F. (1991). Research in motor learning: Applications to instrumental music education. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 3, 188-205.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307-311.
Zurcher, W. (1975). The effect of model-supportive practice on beginning brass instrumentalists, in C. K. Madsen, R. D. Green, & C. H. Madsen (Eds.), Research in music behavior: Modifying music behavior in the classroom (pp. 131-138). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Table 1 Studies Incorporating Observations of Music Practice Behaviors Sample/Instrument Author(s) /Performer Time Observed Chaffin (2007) N=1; professional 7 sessions, 4.75 hrs concert pianist (a) Chaffin & Imreh (1997) N=1; professional 58 sessions (c) concert pianist Chaffin & N=1; professional 42 sessions, 28.5 Imreh (2002) concert pianist (a) hrs of practice Chaffin, et al. N=1; professional 12 sessions, 11.3 (2003) concert pianist (a) hrs of practice Chaffin, et al. N=1; professional 75 sessions, 33 (2009) cellist hrs (c) of practice Chaffin & Logan (2006) N=1; professional 58 sessions (c) concert pianist (a) Duke, Simmons, N=17; undergraduate 1 session (time & Cash (2009) and graduate piano var. by subject) majors Geringer & 2000 "practice 8 weeks Kostka (1984) rooms" observed Ginsborg (2002) N=13; singers; 2 weeks, 6 students, amateurs, sessions, 1.5 professionals hrs of practice Gruson (1988) N=43; pianists; 1 session (n=43), ages 6-46 10 sessions (n=16) (time var. by subject) Hallam (1997a) N=55; strings; 1 session, 10 mins ages 6-18 Hallam (2001a) N=55; strings; 1 session, 10 mins ages 6-18 (d) Hallam (2001b) N=55; strings; 1 session, 10 mins ages 6-18 (d) Killian & N=198; singers; 30-sec practice Henry (2005) high school age trial before sight-- reading task Maynard (2006) N=19; brass, 2 sessions, mean woodwind, string; of 88 mins college studio teachers, undergraduate and graduate music majors McPherson & N=7; winds; 3-yr study, Renwick (2001) beginners 2 sessions year 1 (n=7), 2 sessions year 2 (n=5), Length in mins not reported Miklaszewski N=1; conservatory 4 sessions, 48-90 (1989) piano student mins each Miksza (2006a) N=40; brass; 1 session, 23 mins undergraduate and graduate music majors Miksza (2007) N=60; brass and 3 sessions, 75 mins woodwind; high school age Miksza (2011) N=55; brass and 1 session, 23 mins woodwind; undergraduate and graduate music majors Nielsen (1999) N=2; conservatory 2 sessions, 1 hr organists each, (c) across 2 learning periods Renwick & N=1; clarinet; 6 sessions, across McPherson (2002) beginner 3 yrs Rohwer (2005) N=3; saxophone; 474-920 mins of beginners; ages practice across 57-76 3 wks Rohwer & N=65; woodwind, 5 mins Polk (2006) brass, bells; 8th--grade band Williamon & N=22; 4 levels of >9 sessions (time Valentine (2000) competence based var by subjects, on English grading NS) system Williamon & N=22; 4 levels of >9 sessions, (time Valentine competence based var by subjects, NS) (2002) on English grading system (e) Williamon, N=22, 4 levels of >9 sessions, (time Valentine, & competence based var by subjects, NS) Valentine on English grading (2002) system (e) (Study 1) Behaviors/Activities Author(s) Included Chaffin (2007) Starts and stops; repetitions; target tempo; practice rate (number of practice segments x mean length of practice segments in bars x 3 beats/bar)/(playing time in minutes); playing time; rate/tempo ratio (rate of practice/target tempo) Chaffin & Imreh (1997) Starts and stops (practice segments) Chaffin & Starts and stops; repetitions; Imreh (2002) inter--bar--intervals; hesitations; pausing Chaffin, et al. Starts and stops; repetitions; (2003) inter--bar--intervals; slowing Chaffin, et al. Starts and stops; repetitions (2009) Chaffin & Logan (2006) Starts and stops; repetitions Duke, Simmons, Playing hands together early in & Cash (2009) practice; practice with inflection early on; practice was thoughtful (e.g., silent pauses, making notes); errors preempted by stopping in anticipation of mistakes; errors addressed immediately when they appeared; location and source of errors were identified/rehearsed/corrected; tempo of individual performance trials varied systematically; target practice was repeated until errors fixed Geringer & Performance categories: solo music Kostka (1984) practice, ensemble music practice, technical exercise practice, conducting practice, other. Nonperformance categories: read/write/look at music, getting ready, other. Ginsborg (2002) Attempts: accompanying, counting, counting from memory, playing the melody, singing the words, singing the words from memory, speaking the words, vocalizing. Errors: words (word meaning, word sounds, word omission), underlay (problems fitting words to melody), music (pitch errors, rhythm errors, duration errors, omission errors) Gruson (1988) Uninterrupted playing; error; repeat--note/ measure/section/piece; slow; pause; fast; guide; read; count; frustration; hands separate; give up; play other; person-- interruption; total time; tempo Hallam (1997a) Repetition behaviors: errors; planning--ID of problem spots/completed task/ limited time off--task Hallam (2001a) Errors; corrections; stops; starts; poor intonation; inaccurate rhythm; faltering; repetitions (short sections/large sections/ whole piece); nonplaying analysis; speaking letter names; clapping rhythms; frustration/boredom; slowing; planning-- ID of problem spots/completed task/ limited time off--task Hallam (2001b) Repetition; nonplaying analysis; line--by--line practice; playing through whole piece or sections without correction; speaking letter names; clapping rhythms; correcting single notes; repeating sections (more but unspecified) Killian & Tonicized; hand signs; sang out loud; Henry (2005) finished in 30 sec; isolated problems Maynard (2006) Repetition behaviors: number and length of performance trials during researcher--selected practice segments McPherson & Types of practicing coded (repertoire, Renwick (2001) technical, informal); specific behaviors (playing only, moving, counting, thinking, singing, fingering, run--through); nonpractice behaviors (finding exercise, talk, fiddle with instrument, resting, day--dreaming, distracted, frustration) Miklaszewski Slowing; right/left hand alone; both hands; (1989) starts; stops; visual examination; repetition Miksza (2006a) Singing/whistling; air; varying tempo; silent fingering/slide positioning; varying pitch; varying dynamic; varying articulation; buzzing; informal playing; whole--part--whole; frustration; self--guiding; repeat--measure/section/piece; metronome; electronic tuner; marks part; piano Miksza (2007) Repeat measure; repeat section; whole--part--whole; chaining; repeat etude; slowing; varying pitch; varying articulation; varying rhythm; non-etude--related playing; singing/ whistling; use of metronome; marks part; skipping directly to or just before critical sections of the etude Miksza (2011) Repeat measure; repeat 2-4 m. chunk; repeat 4-8 m. chunk; repeat slow or fast section of the form; repeat etude; whole--part--whole; chaining; slowing; varying pitch; varying articulation; varying the rhythm; non-etude--related playing; singing/whistling/buzzing; use of metronome Nielsen (1999) Time spent per measure; measures worked on consecutively; segmentation; tempo; uni--/bilateral play (hands/pedal); change of rhythmical structure Renwick & Silent fingering; silent thinking; singing; McPherson (2002) run--through; repeat 1-2 notes; repeat more than 2 notes; different tempo; time per note Rohwer (2005) Elements of routine; corrective behaviors (slowing, repetition); music selected for practice; error detection; clapping; metronome; foot tapping; analysis for difficulty; singing Rohwer & "Analytic" and "holistic" practicers Polk (2006) described; reactive and proactive analytic practicers described; corrective and noncorrective holistic practicers described Williamon & Time spent; total days; number Valentine (2000) of sessions; number of sessions per day; time per session; graphs of starting and stopping points indicating segments Williamon & Segmentation analysis based on Valentine "structural" (e.g., 1st bar in a (2002) subsection), "difficult" (e.g., pianist labeled it difficult), or "other" (e.g., all remaining bars)' Williamon, Graphs of starting and stopping Valentine, & points indicating segments Valentine (2002) (Study 1) Behaviors Related Performance Task/ to Performance/ Author(s) Material Competence Chaffin (2007) Clair de Lune from NS (b) Debussy, Suite Bergamasque Chaffin & Imreh (1997) Presto from Bach, NS Italian Concerto Chaffin & Presto from Bach, NS Imreh (2002) Italian Concerto Chaffin, et al. Presto from Bach, NS (2003) Italian Concerto Chaffin, et al. Bach, Cello NS (2009) Suite no. 6 Chaffin & Logan (2006) Presto from Bach, NS Italian Concerto Duke, Simmons, 3-m. passage 3 top--ranked piano & Cash (2009) from Shostakovich, players were more Concerto no. 1 likely to exhibit for Piano, Trumpet, the following: and String location and source Orchestra, op. 35 of errors were identified, rehearsed, and individual performance trials varied systematically; target practice was repeated until errors Geringer & Various fixed. NS Kostka (1984) Ginsborg (2002) Memorize a song: Wider strategy use "She's Somewhere in among more the Sunlight proficient Strong," a poem by memorizers; More Le Gallienne set to proficient music by Barab memorizers more (Boosey and Hawkes, likely to count 1955) aloud while reading from the score. Gruson (1988) Performance task Repeat section more varied by level of likely to be used by competence higher--level (12 levels) pianists Hallam (1997a) Prepare sight-- Those exhibiting and reading for graded reporting more national examination strategic practicing had higher performance achievement scores. Hallam (2001a) Prepare sight-- Differences found reading for graded between reported and national examination observed behaviors used. More experienced students tended to engage in slow practice and exhibit more evidence of planning. Hallam (2001b) Prepare sight-- Strategy use related reading for graded to grade, age, and national examination overall performance score. Killian & Two sight--singing Behaviors used more Henry (2005) melodies modeled by high--accuracy after Texas singers than low--or All--State middle--accuracy Choir materials singers: tonicized; sang out loud; finished in 30 sec; isolated problems Maynard (2006) Various solo NS repertoire McPherson & NS NS Renwick (2001) Miklaszewski Debussy's Prelude NS (1989) from Feux d'Artifice Miksza (2006a) Perform a Whole--part--whole; researcher--adapted repeat section; etude from 26 marks part; varying Studies for Flute, pitch related to op. 107 (Furstenau, performance 1963) achievement Miksza (2007) Researcher--created Repeat section; etudes whole--part--whole; slowing; skipping directly to or just before critical musical sections of the etude related to performance achievement Miksza (2011) Perform a Repeat 2-4 m. chunk; researcher--adapted whole--part--whole; etude (same as slowing; chaining; Miksza, 2006a) use of metronome; varying pitch; singing, whistling, buzzing related to performance achievement Nielsen (1999) Repertoire for a NS conservatory examination Renwick & Various music class NS McPherson (2002) repertoire Rohwer (2005) Various community NS band repertoire Rohwer & 24-m. etude no. 16, Analytic practicers Polk (2006) Rusch significantly more effective over time Williamon & All Bach; assigned Higher competence Valentine (2000) to subjects based spent more time on level of ability practicing; those (Polonaise, playing larger Inventions, Fugue) sections had higher performance achievement scores Williamon & All Bach, assigned Higher competence Valentine to subjects based on were more likely to (2002) level of ability start and stop on (Polonaise, structural bars and Inventions, Fugue) less likely to start or stop on "difficult" bars over time; structural starts significantly related to musical understanding and communicative ability Williamon, All Bach, assigned NS Valentine, & to subjects based on Valentine level of ability (2002) (Polonaise, (Study 1) Inventions, Fugue) (a) Same as Chaffin & Imreh, 1997 (b) Not specified (c) Approximate time (d) Same as Hallam, 1997a (e) Same as Williamon & Valentine, 2000 Table 2 Experimental Investigations of Music Practice Sample/Instrument/ Author(s) Performer Treatment Conditions Barry (1990) N=57; brass and (2) Structured woodwind; grades 7-10 practice; free practice Cahn (2008) N=60; piano, guitar, (4) Physical strings, brass, woodwind; practice; mental undergraduates, had at practice; least 1 improvisation 2/3 physical, course 1/3 mental; 2/3 mental, 1/3 physical Cash (2009) N=36; undergraduates, (3) 5-min rest less than 3 years formal interval between training, no musical block 3 and 4; 5-min activities last 5 years rest interval between 9 and 10; control/30 second rests all times Coffman (1990) N=80; nonkeyboard (8) Physical players, undergraduates practice; mental practice; physical/ mental practice combined; control; also-each condition crossed with "knowledge of results" Duke & N=49; nonmusic (5) Various Davis (2006) majors (less than 3 yrs combinations of formal music) learning 2 sequences of key presses with various amounts of time between retests Fortney (1992) N=40; band students; (4) Modeling; silent grade 6 analysis; free practice; control Henley (2001) N=60; brass and (6) Model or no model woodwind; high crossed with three school age tempo patterns: steady increase, performance speed, and alternating tempo Hewitt (2001) N=82; brass, woodwind, (8) All possible percussion; grades 7-9 combinations of model, self-- listening, and self--evaluation Highben & N=16; piano; adults (4) Normal practice Palmer (2004) (fingering); motor only (fingering no sound); auditory only (no fingering but sound); covert (no fingering, no sound) (within--subjects design) Lim & N=7; piano; (3) Mental practice; Lippman undergraduates mental practice with (1991) listening; physical practice (within-- subjects design) Linklater 7V=142; clarinet; (3) Visual and aural (1997) grades 5 and 6 model with accompaniment; aural model with accompaniment, accompaniment only Madsen & 7V=48; undergraduates (2) Distraction index Geringer (1981) group and control Miksza (2005) N=20; trombone; (4) Physical high school practice; 3 versions of physical practice and mental practice combined (goal, production, current) Pacey (1993) N=47; strings; Time--series design: ages 8-12 3 groups received varied practice at different points in time Puopolo (1971) N=52; trumpet; (2) Tape--recorded grade 5 programmed instruction; control Rosenthal (1984) N=44; brass and wood (4) Guided model; wind; undergraduate model only; guide and graduate only; practice only/ control Rosenthal, N=60; brass and (5) Modeling; et al. (1988) woodwind; singing; silent undergraduate and analysis; free graduate practice; control Ross (1985) N=30; trombone; (5) Physical undergraduate and practice; mental graduate practice; mental practice with slide movement; mental and physical practice combined; no practice Simmons & N=75; nonkeyboard (2) Sleep; no sleep Duke (2006) music majors, 4 semesters group piano instruction Theiler & N=14; 7 guitar, 7 voice; (4) Physical Lippman (1995) undergraduates practice; mental practice; mental practice with model; control VanderArk & N=80; brass, woodwind, (4) Physical Murphy (1998) percussion; grade 5 practice; mental practice; mental and physical practice combined; mental and physical and singing practice with physical stimulation Wagner (1975) N=48; undergraduates (4) Weekly practice report; practice reports 4 out of 8 wks; practice reports 2 out of 8 wks; no reports Welch (1985) N=66; singers; ages 7-8 (6) 2 stimulus conditions (low and high variability) crossed with knowledge of results, visual reinforcement, knowledge of result, and visual reinforcement Wolfe (1987) N=3; piano; ages 9-10 Single--subject, multiple baseline design, behavioral contract Zurcher (1975) N=43; brass; grades 4-6 (2) Model; no--model (within--subjects design) Performance Criteria (Reliability Author(s) Treatment Length coefficient) Barry (1990) 4 practice sessions, Rhythmic accuracy, 45 min total melodic accuracy, musicality (.76-.99) Cahn (2008) 1 session, 3 min Note errors (deviations from chord progression) (.75-.91) Cash (2009) 12, 30-sec practice Number of correct key blocks alternating presses in 30-sec with 30-sec rest blocks blocks for training Coffman (1990) 6 practice trials, Pitch errors (.86), 30 sec each rhythm errors (.95) Duke & 12, 30-sec practice Correct key--presses Davis (2006) blocks alternating per 30-sec block with 30-sec rest blocks for training Fortney (1992) 1 session, 2 min Pitch errors, rhythm errors, articulation errors (.98) Henley (2001) 1 session, no Pitch errors (.86), time specified rhythm errors (.84) Hewitt (2001) 5-wk treatment Woodwind brass solo period, subject evaluation form practicing done (Saunders & Holohan, outside of school 1997) Highben & Practice consisted Aural imagery--wing Palmer (2004) of 10 trials of the test of aural skills, etude motor imagery-- researcher-- adaptation of infant measure-7 pictures of right--hand movement Lim & 1 session, 10 min Note accuracy (.79), Lippman total, 8 trials (pre-- rhythmic accuracy (1991) test, 6 practice, (.71), phrasing/ post--test) articulation (.58), dynamics/musical expression (.55) Linklater 8-wk treatment Visual criteria (1997) period, subject (embouchure, hand practicing done position, instrument outside of school position, posture); aural criteria (tone quality/ intonation, articulation, rhythmic accuracy, melodic accuracy) (.84-.96) Madsen & 8-wk treatment Musicianship (.95) Geringer (1981) period, subjects practice on their own Miksza (2005) 3 sessions, 40.5 Objective (notes, min total rhythms, dynamics, articulations); subjective (interpretation/ musical effect, tone/ intonation, technique/ articulation) (.88-.99) Pacey (1993) Several weeks Differentiation between forte and piano Puopolo (1971) 10-wk treatment Watkins Farnum period, 20-25 min Performance Scale per day (approx. 200-250 min) Rosenthal (1984) 1 session, 6.5-min Notes, rhythms, treatment, 3-min tempo, dynamics, practice phrasing/ articulation (.81-.94) Rosenthal, 1 session, 3-min Notes (.96), rhythms et al. (1988) practice (.91), phrasing/ dynamics (.84), articulation (.93), tempo Ross (1985) 3 trials Pitches, rhythms, articulations (.98) Simmons & 12, 30-sec practice Note accuracy, speed, Duke (2006) blocks alternating temporal evenness, with 30-sec rest dynamic evenness blocks for training, staggered times of day for retest Theiler & 1 session, 12-min Pitch accuracy, Lippman (1995) practice rhythmic accuracy, articulation/ phrasing, dynamics/ expression, tempo, tone quality (.80-.82) VanderArk & 30-min session Rhythm, pitch, and Murphy (1998) (pre--test, practice, articulation accuracy post--test) (.95) Wagner (1975) 8-wk treatment "Music Performance" period, subjects (.94) practice on their own Welch (1985) 40 learning trials, Pitch errors one session Wolfe (1987) 3 wks (staggered Average practice across participants) minutes per week Zurcher (1975) 7-wk treatment Pitch discrimination period, subjects (.99), tempo practice on their own stability (.99), pitch matching (.99), fingering/slide errors (.98), rhythm errors (.99) Author(s) Performance Task Barry (1990) Perform an experimental etude, Haydn's Little Dance in F Cahn (2008) Play melodic patterns 3-1-7-5 over a 16--bar chord progression from mm. 17-32 of All the Things You Are (Kernan, 1988) and a 16--bar chord progression from mm. 17-32 of Lines for Lyons (Mulligan, 1988) Cash (2009) 5--element keyboard sequence 25342 Coffman (1990) Perform a researcher--constructed, computer--administered keyboard task Duke & 2 sequential key press sequences Davis (2006) Fortney (1992) Perform an etude, "Study no. 10," from 24 Arban--Klose--Concone Studies for Band Instruments, arr. Rusch (1955) Henley (2001) Perform an etude, "Norwegian Dance," from Essential Technique Band Method Rhodes, et al. (1993) Hewitt (2001) Researcher constructed "Performance Etude" Highben & 4 researcher--constructed etudes Palmer (2004) (one for each condition) in early baroque style, 2 mm. long Lim & Selected excerpts of obscure piano Lippman repertoire from Weiner, Faure, (1991) Haydn, Schumann, Valenti, and Mendelssohn Linklater Four etudes chosen: "Twinkle, (1997) Twinkle," "Jolly Old St. Nick," 2 designed by the researcher Madsen & Varied by subject Geringer (1981) Miksza (2005) 3 researcher--adapted etudes from Watkins Farnum Performance Scale (1954) Pacey (1993) Etude, Lightly Row Puopolo (1971) Weekly band assignments Rosenthal (1984) Performance etude, "Etude no. 22," from 60 Selected Studies for French Horn, Bk.1 (Kopprasch, 1939) Rosenthal, Performance etude, "Etude no. 96," et al. (1988) from Rhythmical Articulation, (Bona, 1969) Ross (1985) Performance etude, "Etude No. 24," from The School of Sight Reading and Style, Book A (Lafosse, 1949) Simmons & Researcher--constructed 12--note Duke (2006) keyboard melody Theiler & Selected excerpts from a sight--singing Lippman (1995) method VanderArk & 16-m. researcher--created etude Murphy (1998) Wagner (1975) Varied by subject Welch (1985) Prescribed pitch sequences Wolfe (1987) Varied by subject Zurcher (1975) Varied by subject Table 3 Music Practice Studies Incorporating Quantitative Measurements of Motivational Constructs Sample/Instrument/ Author(s) Performer Measure Used Ciabattari N=852; high school Researcher--constructed (2004) musicians. N=19 Directors questionnaires: motivating students to practice (directors) motivation to practice (students) Hamman, et al. N=711; Brass, woodwind, Researcher--constructed (1998) percussion, string, practice questionnaire vocals; undergraduate and graduate music majors Harnischmacher N=142; woodwind; Self--concept of (1997) ages 6-17 instrumental abilities; Goal Orientation of Practice (GOP); External Action Distraction (EAD); Action Orientation After Failure (AOF); Action Orientation in Planning (AOP); Action Orientation in Centered Activity (AOC) McCormick & N=332; brass, woodwind, Adaptation of McPherson string, piano; ages 9-18 Motivation and Self-- (2003) Regulatory Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) McPherson & N=190; pianists; ages Adaptation of McCormick 9-18 Motivation and (1999) Self--Regulatory Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) McPherson & N=349; brass, woodwind, Adaptation of McCormick string, piano; ages 9-18 Motivation and (2000) Self--Regulatory Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) McPherson & N=686; piano, strings, Researcher--created McCormick brass, woodwind; ages self--efficacy scale (2006) 9-19 (based on Bandura) Miksza (2005) N=20; trombonists; Nowicki--Duke Locus of high school Control Scale for College and Non-- College Adults (1973) Miksza (2006a) N=40; brass; Nowicki--Duke Locus of undergraduate and Control Scale for graduate music majors College and Non-- College Adults (1973) Miksza (2006b) N=175; brass, woodwind, Adaptation of percussion; grades 6-8 Motivation and Self--Regulatory Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) Miksza (2009a) N=60; brass and woodwind; Researcher--adaptation high school of Elliot & McGregor (2001) 2x2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire Miksza (2009b) N=228; brass, woodwind, Researcher--adaptation and percussion; high of Elliot & McGregor school age (2001) 2x2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire Miksza (2011) N=55; brass and woodwind; Researcher--adaptation undergraduate and of Elliot & McGregor graduate music majors (2001) 2x2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire Nielsen (2004) N=130; college music Adaptation of majors Motivation and Self--Regulatory Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) O'Neill (1999) N=60; 20 high and Researcher--created average achievers at self--perception of specialist school, 20 competence; musically active at researcher--created regular school subjective task value Schmidt (2005) N=300; brass, woodwind, Researcher--adaptation percussion; grades 7-12 of scales used by Marsh, Craven, Hinkley, & Debus (2003) Schmidt (2007) N=456; brass, woodwind, Researcher--adaptation percussion; grades 9-12 of subscales relevant to intrinsic motivation from Schmidt (2005); Smith (2005); Marsh, Craven, Hinkley, & Debus (2003); Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea (1993) Smith (2005) N=344; brass, woodwind, Researcher--adaptation percussion, strings; of Patterns of Adaptive undergraduate music Learning Survey majors (Midgley et al, 1997), Theory of Intelligence Scale: Self Form for Adults (Dweck, 1999) Motivational Construct(s) (Reliability Author(s) coefficients) Relation to Practice Ciabattari Eclectic set of items: Playing challenging (2004) challenge, effort, music was rated as the incentives, teacher most effective feedback, peer motivator by both involvement, competition, students and directors. model, parental Both agreed that effort involvement should be emphasized, and that modeling and practice strategy Hamman, et al. Pos factor analysis: instruction were (1998) Internal satisfaction: important. Satisfying 5 items Practice and internal needs most conflicts: 7 items highly endorsed of all Practice organization: items. Suggests that 4 items Physical/mental avoiding conflicts and limitations: 3 items organizationof practice Practice stamina: 1 item time are also important External influences: issues. 2 items (Total Scale = .96) Harnischmacher Self--concept: Various motivation (1997) 12 items (.86) subscales (i.e., EAD, GOP: 10 items (.76) GOP, AOC, SCI) related EAD: 9 items (.71) to self--reported AOF (.81) practice behaviors AOP (.70) (i.e., playing familiar AOC (.71) pieces, scales, new pieces, warming up, metronome, raising tempo, error correction, improvisation, dividing in sections), goal and action orientations correlated with practice time, self--concept negatively correlated with practice time. McCormick & Intrinsic value: 2 items Self--efficacy best McPherson Self--efficacy: 3 items predictor of (2003) performance achievement, moderate relationships with self--report measures of formal and informal practice. No relations found for intrinsic value. McPherson & Postfactor analysis Intrinsic value found McCormick Intrinsic value: 2 items to be a predictor of (1999) "creative practice activity," repertoire playing, and technical work. McPherson & Postfactor analysis: Internal attributions McCormick Intrinsic value: 2 items for success received (2000) Self--efficacy: 3 items highest ratings (e.g., Attributions for success practice, trying, and failure: 5 items ability). Self-- efficacy and intrinsic value found to be predictors of performance achievement for beginning and intermediate players but not advanced. McPherson & Self--efficacy: 4 items Self--efficacy best McCormick predictor of (2006) performance achievement, related to formal practice and practice regulation as well. Miksza (2005) Locus of control: Although internal external nonsignificant, a trend (general trait) (.68-.71) found between internal locus of control and performance achievement Miksza (2006a) Locus of control: No relations internal external (general trait) (.81) Miksza (2006b) Postfactor analysis: Intrinsic factors Intrinsic--goal: 6 items related to reports of (.77) Intrinsic-- time spent practicing, challenge: 3 items (.74) and percentages of time Commitment to improve: spent on formal 2 items (.75) practice as well as overall efficiency ratings of practice. Miksza (2009a) Mastery--approach (.91) Mastery--approach Mastery--avoid (.83) related to performance Performance--approach achievement. (.92) Performance--avoid Mastery--approach (.90) All scales 10 items related to skipping directly to or before a critical section of the etude behaviors. Miksza (2009b) Mastery--approach (.76) Correlations between Mastery--avoid (.75) various subscales and Performance--approach self--reports of length (.82) Performance--avoid of average practice (.69) All scales 3 items session, average number of practice sessions per day, percentage of time spent on formal practice, and average daily practice efficiency. Miksza (2011) Mastery--approach Performance--approach motivation (.75) and--avoid negatively Mastery--avoid motivation related to chaining (.76) Performance-- behaviors. approach motivation (.88) Performance--avoid motivation (.88) All scales 10 items Nielsen (2004) Self--efficacy: Students with greater 8 items (.81) sense of self--efficacy more likely to use cognitive strategies. Sex differences found on self--efficacy among performance and church music majors but not music ed majors. O'Neill (1999) Self--perception of No differences between competence: 4 items three groups on Subjective task value: competence or task 2 items value scales. Self--perceptions of competence significant predictor of practice time. Schmidt (2005) Mastery (.88) Mastery, intrinsic, Intrinsic (.88) individual, cooperative Individual (.82) orientations each found Cooperative (.83) to be positively Ego (.88) related to reported Competitive (.89) practice time. Approach--success (.80) Avoid--failure (.84) Scales above had 6 items each Self--concept: 4 items (.85) Schmidt (2007) Group efficacy: 10 items All motivation scales (.87) Self--efficacy: positively related to 10 items (.92) self--reported practice Intrinsic--mastery: time. 12 items (.92) Cooperative: 10 items (.88) Commitment to band: 11 items (.95) Implicit theory (entity/ incremental): 8 items (.86) Smith (2005) Ego--approach goals: Task goals positively 6 items (.84) Ego--avoid related to most goals: 6 items (.79) self--report practice Task goals: 5 items (.74) strategies while Implicit theory (entity/ results are more mixed incremental): for ego goals. 8 items (.89) Table 4 Studies Incorporating Quantitative Measures of Self-Regulatory Music Practice Behaviors Sample/Instrument/ Performer Measure Austin & Berg N=224; brass, Researcher-created Music (2006) woodwind, Practice Inventory; also percussion, strings; adaptations from Motivation ages 11-12 and Self-Regulatory Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) and Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002) McCormick & N=332; brass, Adaptation of Motivation and McPherson woodwind, string, Self-Regulatory Learning (2003) piano; ages 9-18 Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) McPherson & N=190; pianists; Adaptation of Motivation and McCormick ages 9-18 Self-Regulatory Learning (1999) Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990), 17 items total McPherson & N=349; brass, Adaptation of Motivation and McCormick woodwind, string, Self-Regulatory Learning (2000) piano; ages 9-18 Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) McPherson & N=686; piano, Researcher-adaptation of McCormick strings, brass, previously used measures (2006) woodwind; ages 9-19 (McCormick & McPherson, 2003) Miksza (2006b) N=175; brass, Adaptation of Motivation and woodwind, Self-Regulatory Learning percussion; Questionnaire (Pintrich & grades 6-8 DeGroot, 1990) Nielsen (2004) N=130; college music Adaptation of Motivation and majors Self-Regulatory Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990), 50 items total Constructs Measured, Number of Subscale Items (Reliability coefficients) Austin & Berg Prefactor analysis (2006) Practice motivation: 10 items (effort, interest, affect, parental support, challenge seeking) Practice regulation: 26 items (preparation, goal setting, use of resources, structuring practice sessions, teacher guidance) Postfactor analysis Practice motivation: 4 items (.79) Practice regulation: 10 items (.87) McCormick & Postfactor analysis McPherson Cognitive strategy use: 5 items (2003) Self-Regulation: 4 items Intrinsic value: 2 items Anxiety: 2 items Self-Efficacy: 3 items Formal Practice: 4 items Informal Practice: 2 items McPherson & Postfactor analysis McCormick Cognitive strategy use, self-regulation, (1999) intrinsic value, anxiety McPherson & Postfactor analysis McCormick Cognitive strategy use: 5 items (2000) Self-regulation: 4 items Intrinsic value: 2 items Anxiety: 3 items Self-efficacy: 3 items Attributions for success and failure: 5 items McPherson & Practice regulation: 7 items McCormick Cognitive strategy: 12 items (2006) Miksza (2006b) Prefactor analysis Self-regulation: 7 items (.83) Intrinsic motivation: 9 items (.87) Concentration: 7 items (.73) Attribution for success and failure in music practice: 8 items (.58) Postfactor analysis Concentration: 6 items (.84) Intrinsic-goal motivation: 6 items (.77) Intrinsic-challenge motivation: 3 items (.74) Metacognition/reflective strategies: 5 items (.76) Commitment to improve: 2 items (.75) Nielsen (2004) No Factor Analysis Rehearsal (.73) Elaboration (.69) Organization (.69) Critical thinking (.71) Metacognition (.67) Time and study environment (.59) Effort regulation (.60) Peer learning (.56) Help seeking (.58) Self-efficacy: 8 items (.81)