Inside the piano studio: What teachers say about performance training, perfectionism, and performance anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Music performance anxiety (MPA) is a common experience among musicians of all ages. However, young pianists have indicated receiving limited performance training or effective MPA support from their teachers. As these findings do not reflect teacher perspectives, this study was designed to provide a fuller picture of piano training. Two hundred thirty-seven piano teachers from across Canada and the United States participated in an online survey, comprising both open- and closed-ended questions, to gauge their pedagogy regarding performance training, perfectionism, and MPA. While the majority of participants reported that students have expressed MPA concerns to them, many noted that they only discuss the issue when students raise it. Virtually all teachers reported that they teach students what to do on stage and how to address performance challenges—in particular memory lapses. Most believe there is a distinction between teaching to play and teaching to perform, yet only 58% said they offer studio classes and 37% hold dress rehearsals. Participants noted a focus on excellence, not perfection, in their pedagogy, but many acknowledged that perfection is an expectation within the field. Comparisons with previous findings on piano students and implications for educators are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".