Dr Mark Pulman

University of Huddersfield

Research Fora 2nd December 2008

University of Huddersfield

Personal attributes and rehearsing in a band

University Campus Barnsley

Introduction

The musical context

Personal attributes and rehearsing in a band

What can be learned during band rehearsals?

Group Rehearsing

Peer learning

Popular music contextGroup rehearsing

Peer learning

WhyBother?

The research focus

• Commenced 2000• Contributed to PhD Research 2001-2007 involving 170 undergraduate popular music students, 80 bands, sixteen in-depth individual interviews and

extensive peer marking data • Ongoing

Action research

• Improvements to practice

• Pedagogy, teaching and learning

Research questions

• How might peer assessment activites support learning arising from band rehearsals?

• Which activities and processes may foster the development of such learning?

Learning and acquiring knowledge through band rehearsing and peer

learning activities

A social constructivist paradigm

Some personal attributes that we may display during rehearsing

Our ‘people skills’ as musicians working in a group

Our communication with the band

Our support of the band

Our giving and receiving feedback to band members

Our self-responsibility to the band

Our help towards others and out willingness to ask for help

Our creative input into the band

Using personal attributes as peer assessment criteria

What is the nature of our personal attributes as

they are displayed in rehearsing?

Attributes that the band feel are important to them…?

Attributes that are uniquely important to each band member…?

Our personal ‘strengths’ in the rehearsal…?

Our personal ‘weaknesses’ in the rehearsal…?

Training Principles

Rationale

Agreement

Transparency

Moderation

Which personal attributes do students think are important in their rehearsing?

Most frequently formulated personal attributes criteriaGroup Attributes: Attendance; Team working; Enthusiasm; Commitment;

Responsibility for learning parts; Organisation; PunctualityPersonal weaknesses: Confidence; Contributing to ideas; Punctuality; Enthusiasm. Personal strengths: Responsibility for own part; Punctuality; Organized; Confidence

Personal attributes raised by students in their interviews Self-responsibility: Commitment; Responsibility; Reliability; Punctuality; Attendance.Interpersonal relationships: Tolerance towards others; Personal skills; Flexibility;

Team member; Communication with team. Creativity:Trying new ideas; Inventiveness; Creative input; Contribution to ideasConfidence: Verbal input; Leadership skills/taking charge.Confidence;Awareness: Listening to others; Willingness to help others; Focus/concentration

Peer assessing

‘Personal weaknesses’ that you wish to improve1 = poor

2 = below average

3 = neutral

ge

4 = above average

5 = excellent

Open to ideas

Blinkered

Willingness to help others

Not helping others

Enthusiasm

Lacking enthusiasm

Team member

Taking too much control

Confident

Lacking confidence

Learning

lyrics quickly

Leaving it until last minute

Listening to others

Disregarding others

Contributing to ideas

Too quiet

HA x x x x 3/5 4/5 x 3/5

OM 3/5 x x x 3/5 x x 2/5

SC 3/5 x x x x x 3/5 x

TP x 5/5 4/5 x x x x x

Action research cycles

19 cycles (2000-2006)

of rehearsing and performing

Changes/evaluation/action

Rehearsingand

performing

Students' responsesto peer

assessment

Exploring the peer assessment process

Development of understanding of peer assessment

Development of research questions

Development of methodological

framework

Revision of action research cycle

and re-application

Changes to the cycles

Changes to personal attributes types used as assessment criteria• Group agreed attributes

• Individual attributes (personal strengths/weaknesses formulated by themselves; personal weaknesses formulated by their band)

Changes to other processes of peer assessment

• Timing of assessment

• Assessing privately or collaboratively

• Formative or summative assessment

Personal ‘weaknesses’

• Self selected• Determined for each individual by the band with

whom they have rehearsed

‘Band-determined personal weaknesses’

• “band members should choose, because they are more honest at identifying your weaknesses” –SA

• “you have to listen and respect someone willing and brave enough to tell you your faults” –NL

• “they reveal your weaknesses and once you know these you are fine” -EJ

• “former band members who rehearsed … with you ….could choose these attributes for you, that you can work on…they know you…” –SA

Interviews

• Semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted with sixteen band members during 2002-2006

• Adapted grounded theory was used to analyse the interview data

Interview analysisFour substantive categories arising from the coding analysis

• Self-knowledge

• Feedback

• Honesty

• Confidence

Self knowledge…..

• “it made me look a lot more at myself” –YL• “subconsciously, I was always thinking about them two things I needed to improve on” –TP • “it lets people know what they think of you as well as what you think

of yourself” –OD

Feedback…..

• “an exceptional way of getting feedback” -EJ• “it enables you to understand how to improve”- EJ• “it teaches you to try harder, do better”-OD, HA, NL, HS• “I made a conscious effort to work on my attributes” –EN • “hard to work with people who cannot accept criticism” -EJ• “if criticism makes you take stock, then peer assessment is OK” –NL• “peer assessment gives you a check of what you are actually doing” -OD• “my [self-selected] weaknesses – they’re not what the other people would

perceive as my weaknesses” -SA• “I need constructive criticism, not a stab in the back” –WK

Honesty……

• “ [it is] difficult to try to influence people to be impartial if they are determined to give low marks”-EJ• “[there are] difficulties in telling the truth face-to-face, so written feedback is good” –SA, DS• “written feedback avoids confrontations” – HA, SA• “it’s tough assessing your friends” –OD• “I try to be honest with my friends” -HA, MR• “some give friends better marks…I’m more critical with strangers” –OD • “personal feelings get in the way sometimes, and people will purposely mark low out of spite” –EJ

Confidence…

• “I suppose in the rehearsal process in the past, I’ve always been the one to kind of take a back seat and kind of just sit and do whatever I’m told to do, if you know what I mean. So, because they put me in the position of, you know, deciding this, that and other, I’ve learnt to be more assertive” –DS• “It made me look a lot more at myself, and looking at their confidence like, with mine” –YL• “You definitely notice people who are confident on their instruments, put forward, put their ideas forward more than people who tend to maybe not have had as much experience of playing with people; they like to sit back a little bit” – OM

Peer assessment marking data

Free-riders and shooting stars

• Free riders consistently awarded themselves higher marks, compared with those that were awarded by their bands.

• Shooting stars tended to under-estimate themselves when self-assessing, compared with those awarded to them by their band

A moral dimension

Trust

Honesty

Knowing yourself through others

• Careful preparation• Developing trust among band members• Agreeing to the band deciding your personal weakness

attributes• Receiving feedback • Increasing awareness and knowledge about yourself in

band rehearsing

Developing a process model

Stage One Tutor assessment; rationale; training; transparency; agreement

Stage Two Group Attributes and Individual Attributes

Stage Three Group Attributes and Personal Weaknesses

Stage Four Personal Weaknesses

Strengths and weaknesses

Applications to other areas?

• Group work?

• Creativity?

End of Lecture

Contact /comments to:

Dr Mark Pulman

Senior Lecturer in Music Technology

University Centre Barnsley

University of Huddersfield

01226 644254

m.pulman@hud.ac.uk