An analysis of student errors as addressed by private piano teachers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study investigated the degrees to which private piano teachers addressed student errors, and determined whether increased focus on student errors correlated positively or negatively with measures of teacher effectiveness and student attitude.Twenty private piano teachers were video recorded in two one-on-one piano lessons, two different students each.Systematic observation procedures were used to collect data from the 40 lessons to determine the number of student errors and teacher behaviour related to those errors.Error types analysed were pitch, rhythm, dynamics, articulation, tempo, and pedal.Ten evaluators viewed excerpts of the videos and rated the teachers on six aspects of teacher effectiveness: communication, feedback, interaction, goal accomplishment, personality, and general effectiveness.Additionally, students from the recorded lessons completed an attitude questionnaire.Teachers addressed one-fifth of errors overall.Students committed rhythm errors more than any other error type, and teachers addressed rhythm errors least frequently.Students committed tempo errors with the least frequency, and teachers addressed tempo errors the most often.Teachers whose students made more pitch and rhythm errors than other students were rated as less effective than their peers on five of the six effectiveness measures.As teachers addressed more errors in general, they were rated higher on effectiveness measures.The amount of time devoted to pitch errors was negatively related to these measures.Effectiveness measures were positively correlated with three behaviours related to articulation errors.Teachers not trained in performance at a university level addressed pitch errors more frequently than those who were.They were also rated as being less effective on four measures.iii Student perception of teacher attention to errors did not correlate with lesson and teacher satisfaction, anxiety over making mistakes, or comparison of ability to peers.Student perception of teacher correction to errors correlated positively with satisfaction of lesson and teacher, and self-confidence.Effects were found for gender on mistake anxiety and self-confidence.Taken together, these data seem to suggest that the most effective teachers in this study addressed more errors than less effective teachers.Their vigilance did not appear to adversely affect student attitude. Keywords: attitude,
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».