Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
Students’ and teachers’ orientation to learning and performing
in music conservatoire lesson interactions
Abstract
Research on interactions between teachers and students in music lessons has documented a
complex interplay of talk, vocalizations and visual demonstrations. This study employed
conversation analysis to explore these multimodal features in order to identify some of the
pedagogical practices evident within lesson interaction. Specifically, the aim was to examine
how conservatoire students and teachers orientate to both learning and performing within the
lesson. Video recordings of 18 one-to-one lessons lasting between 50 mins and two hours
were analysed. Findings suggest that students demonstrate when they are doing learning
versus doing performing through the use of restarts, pauses and apologies in their talk and
playing, thus indicating to the teacher which version they would like the teacher to hear for
assessment and feedback, and which to ignore. The study highlights how conversation
analysis, firstly, enables educators to understand how music performance itself is played out
like conversation, mapping key speech devices found in talk onto the multimodal features
that are evident in playing. Secondly, how talk and embodied actions inform the study of
pedagogical music interaction, demonstrating that, in order to understand and interpret the
instruction meaningfully, each component must be studied in context with each other, rather
than in isolation.
Keywords
Social interaction, conversation analysis, pedagogy, conservatoire lessons,
embodied, multimodal
1
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
Within the growth of qualitative research in music psychology – from content analysis
through to semi-structured interviews and video observations – there has been an attempt to
explore instruction in instrumental and vocal music lessons, the complex relationship
between music and teacher, and the interactions that take place (e.g., Burwell, 2006; Gaunt,
2008, 2010; Presland, 2005). The few studies that have looked at the content and language
use in interaction (e.g., Karlsson & Juslin, 2008) have tended to look at the frequency of
occurrences and key issues that emerged, identifying, in particular, that within a music lesson
the teacher is responsible for most of the talking.
Karlsson and Juslin argue that the
challenge for researchers is to be able to tap into the “complex dynamics of the teaching
process” (p.311), and they attempted to do this by coding their music lesson interactions as
having five educational functions: testing (e.g., questions such as ‘should I continue’);
instructional (e.g., instructions, evaluations, such as excellent); analytical (e.g., in order to
play this phrase, you must use this type of fingering); accompanying (guiding the interaction
e.g., ‘yes, that’s right’); and expressive (e.g., ‘more expression’).
However, whilst Karlsson and Juslin’s (2008) study makes some attempt at exploring
the complex nature of the lesson interaction, it does not offer the “micro-analyses” of lessons
that they state is required. This micro-analysis can be achieved using conversation analysis,
an approach that combines social psychological and sociological approaches to language and
social interaction which is concerned with the structure of conversation, how it is organized,
and how individuals listen and respond to one another in talk. Its grounding in
ethnomethodology means that conversation analysts are interested in how individuals make
sense of their everyday world through interaction.
Conversation analysis is built on the premise that talk achieves things: that is, we are
always doing things when we talk. For example, opening or closing conversations,
demonstrating understanding, or acknowledging what the previous speaker has said. It
2
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
focuses on key features that include how sequences in talk are organized and the turns that
speakers take in conversation. Because of this emphasis on the sequences, and on interpreting
how the speakers themselves are interpreting the talk, it may be argued that conversation
analysis is less susceptible to an over-interpretation of data, compared to other qualitative
methods. Other features of interest are how individuals correct themselves when speaking,
the function of pauses and silences in speech, overlap and interruptions, and the role of
prosody in talk, for example (see further, Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998). Building on Karlsson
and Juslin’s (2008) critique, it is argued here that only within this level of detail can we see
how learning and performing are embedded in the structures of pedagogical interaction.
Conversation analysts are interested in naturally occurring data (data that emerges
without the intervention of a researcher, such as in interviews) that can come from mundane
settings or talk within institutional environments, for example, educational environments.
Research findings in the educational domain have significant implications for our
understanding of pedagogical discourse, where studies have focussed particularly on
assessments and evaluations in terms of how teachers ask questions and give feedback. For
example, Vehviläinen (2009) and Zhang Waring (2008) highlight that positive assessments
can actually close down talk between students and teachers, whilst Hellermann (2003) states
that delays in the teacher’s assessment may be received by the student as potential negative
evaluation, with repeated questions indicating the possibility of a failed answer. This, and
other research (e.g., Hellermann, 2005; Koole, 2012; Pike, 2010), has focussed on instruction
and feedback sequences where a teacher gives a student a directive, the student provides a
response, and the teacher subsequently provides feedback on that response (referred to as the
three part Initiation – Response – Feedback (IRF) sequence). In other words, this research
typically indicates that assessments and evaluations often occur on the third turn of the
sequence. Pike (2010) extended this research further still by identifying a five part sequence
3
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
structure where in the fourth turn the student provides a rationale for their answer, and the
teacher subsequently evaluates the rationale in the fifth turn.
But even within these known sequences, Koole (2012) argues that we need to further
explore what the teacher and student do when producing a directive, response, and then
feedback, by distinguishing between a teacher’s assessment of ‘knowing’, ‘understanding’
and ‘doing’. He found that when teachers make a positive evaluation that this has come from
evaluations relating to the student’s display of knowing, in contrast to the student’s display of
understanding and doing which come from negative evaluations. (For a discussion of how
students actually produce answers, see MacBeth, 2011.)
Finally, acknowledgement tokens – a key speech device used to acknowledge the
preceding talk (Puchta & Potter, 2004) – can be used by students to show understanding,
acknowledge new information, and act as continuers within the conversation (Guthrie, 1997).
For example, ‘Mm’ ‘mhm’ ‘uh huh’ continues conversation by receipting a speaker’s turn
and to encourage them to carry on, where, as illustrated by Gardner (1997), variations in
prosodic shape can show subtle differences in function. Additionally, Clark and Fox Tree
(2002) found that ‘uh’ is used to show a minor delay in talk, and ‘um’ a major delay – both
used intentionally by the speaker to illustrate that they are either thinking about what to say
next or are retaining their turn in the interaction sequence; ‘okay’ and ‘right’ acknowledges
understanding and moves talk on; and ‘oh’ can indicate a receipt of information or serve as a
form of repair by the second speaker after hearing the first speaker’s previous turn (see
further Heritage, 1984; 1998, for the use of ‘oh’ as a function for changing the state of
interaction). In tutorial talk Guthrie (1997) also found that ‘okays’ that stand alone within the
interaction sequence were used to receipt/acknowledge the prior turn, whilst ‘mmhmms’
continued the conversation. ‘Okays’ used in this context were primarily in talk surrounding
informing and advising, and 77% of them came from the students. However, in contrast, the
4
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
data extracts presented here show that the teacher produces the ‘okays’. This pattern was also
found in Othman’s (2010) study whereby lecturers’ talk that contained ‘okays’ with rising
tone were used as a progress check for students – to ascertain whether they could move on
with the lecture or not, and that ‘Okay’s with falling tones were used as a way of obtaining
the students’ attention before moving on.
To date, research employing conversation analysis in a music context has been limited.
The research that has been conducted has looked at, for example, a child case study of
emerging musicality in interaction (Forrester, 2010), learning and embodiment in violin
lessons (Nishizaka, 2006), corrections in a rehearsal of a Beethoven passage (Weeks, 1996),
the construction of value judgements in music lessons (Ivaldi, in press), the role of nonlexical
vocalizations in lessons (Tolins, 2013), and putting in place directives in vocal instruction
(Szczepek Reed, Reed & Haddon, 2013).
Key to this study is the research of Szczepek Reed et al. (2013) and Tolins (2013). The
former applied conversation analysis to vocal master classes and looked at the moment in
which teachers’ directives were applied in the interaction by the student (i.e., as soon as the
directive was given, or after a series of directives). By directives, the authors mean
“instructional first actions, which initiate and make relevant complying response actions,
oriented to putting the directive into practice” (p.26). They found that the teacher often
produced clusters of directives in one instructional turn which resulted in the student having
to delay implementing the instruction. Within the interactions, Szczepak Reed et al. found
that teachers’ instructions were given through a combination of talk, gesture, physical
orientation and proximity management; students responded to these instructions by singing
(and playing in the case of the accompanist) rather than talking. Thus these findings conform
to the frequently adopted master-apprentice style of teaching in master classes – that teachers
give directives and students respond with performative actions, rather than talk. Szczepak
5
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
Reed et al. argue that this master role is played out in the talk by giving the directives and by
determining how long the instructional turns are, arguing that once the student starts to
perform the directive, the teacher is required to employ greater interactional techniques when
requiring them to stop. This possible asymmetry in teacher-student talk is reinforced further
by the fact that the students’ response to the directive is to perform it rather than reply
through talk, making it more difficult for students to instigate verbal turns in the interactional
sequence. The fact that research in other domains has also shown that embodied responses
can instigate compliance of a directive (see, for example, Cekaite (2010) and Kent (2012))
highlights that bodily actions to directives in music lessons cannot be ignored if we are to
fully understand the learning taking place.
The timing of receipt of the directives by the student is also important, according to
Szczepak Reed et al. (2013); if students put into place the directives too early, then the
teacher cannot be sure that the instruction has been understood. Students therefore also need
to demonstrate to the teacher a timely response to indicate that they have understood the
directive and are subsequently ready to illustrate this understanding. Finally, the authors
found that teachers display both local and nonlocal directives, that is, instructions that are to
be put into place immediately, versus instructions that may be taken up at the next
performance restart, or later outside of the lesson in practice.
Tolins (2013) looked at the role that nonlexical vocalizations had in music lessons
when providing assessments of a student’s playing. Such seemingly ‘nonsense’ speech
sounds, he argues, as well as gestures, prosody, and bodily movements, actually have key
functions within the music lesson and should not be ignored or taken out of context of the
interaction sequence. The vocalizations occurred when evaluating certain aspects of the
performance, by vocally mimicking the relevant aspects, and when giving directives for
future performances by illustrating how the music should be performed rather than to mimic
6
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
what had just been played, thus allowing the teacher to focus in on the aspect that needs
further work.
Finally, Keevallik’s (2010) study that looked at dance instruction also highlights the
importance of embodied demonstrations within the interaction sequence, by identifying how
bodily quotations are used to display incorrect performance. Quotations, according to Clark
and Gerrig (1990), are classed as a type of demonstration in interaction, either through
speech, or by displaying visually an action. Bodily quotations in Keevallik’s study are
therefore demonstrations given by the teacher where they are quoting back, through visual
display, the student’s performance of an action. These quotations, similarly to Tolins (2013),
can only make sense within the local context of the interaction, alongside the actual talk.
Teachers are able to re-enact a student’s performance, thus having the benefit of mirroring to
the students what they have done wrong, as well as providing evidence of their incorrect
performance. Keevallik argues that in order for the bodily quotations to make sense, they
must be displayed soon after the incorrect performance, thus encouraging correction in the
next attempt. This is something that is also apparent in music lessons, where teachers are
likely to interrupt a student’s playing to demonstrate incorrect playing. How the student
responds to this bodily corrective demonstrates to the teacher whether their action has been
understood or not. In addition, Keevallik (2010) and Weeks (1996) also found that bodily
quotations are often depicted in an exaggerated way to help highlight the issue, and
particularly for when making corrections (as shown in the data extracts presented here, for
example, where the teacher quotes the student’s chosen tempo through elongated and/or
prosodic counting).
Through conversation analysis research in the performing arts we can, therefore,
anticipate that music lesson interaction will contain directives from the teacher, and include
nonlexical vocalizations and bodily quotations that help to illustrate a particular aspect of the
7
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
instruction – which has a particular function when making assessments and giving
corrections. All these aspects play an important part in the interaction sequence, and must be
studied in relation to another as legitimate turns in talk.
The aim of the current study is to build on this previous research and to examine how
students indicate to the teacher, through their interaction, when – in the lesson – they are
displaying learning in contrast to when they are performing, and how this is received, taken
up, and orientated to by the teacher as a performance so that assessment and feedback may be
given. It should be noted that performing, in this context, does not necessarily mean an actual
performance of the music but the version that the student wants to be heard/assessed by the
teacher. The main research question, therefore, is: How do teachers and students orientate
towards learning and performing in music lessons? This will be explored by identifying,
through talk, bodily quotations and vocalizations, how (a) students present a piece of music
as learning or performing, and (b) how teachers respond to the students’ version of what they
hear.
Method
Participants
Data for this research came from video recordings of music lessons taking place within a UK
conservatoire; eighteen undergraduate students and seven teachers were recorded (the ages of
the students were not obtained as it was not directly relevant to the study). There were five
male and two female teachers, and three male and 14 female students (one female student
was used in two recordings). Instruments represented were piano (five lessons), violin (five
lessons), clarinet (three lessons), cello (two lessons), and one singer, viola and oboe lesson.
Four of the teachers were involved in more than one recording with different students.
Procedure
8
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
Video recordings of 18 one-to-one lessons were made, generating 22 hours of data; the
lessons lasted between 50 mins and two hours. Recordings were made from lessons that took
place over a period of three weeks as scheduled normally between teacher and student, and
without any intervention from the author; data are therefore considered to be naturally
occurring. All teachers, students, and where relevant – accompanists – were informed of how
the data were going to be used and anonymised, and that they were also asked to confirm that
they were happy, after the recording was made, to their lesson being used. All participants
consented to the reproduction of the lessons here, in transcript form. The study was
conducted in accordance with the British Psychological Society’s ethical code, and approved
by the conservatoire’s ethics committee.
Data analysis
Lessons were first transcribed verbatim and also included annotations in the transcript of
when instruments were played. From these basic transcriptions it was noted – through initial
observations of sequences of corrected playing – that there were instances of learning taking
place, in contrast to passages of uninterrupted playing, thereby suggesting that learning and
performing were orientated to differently by the student and/or teacher. From these
observations, extracts that illustrated instances of learning (e.g., where the students were
correcting themselves or being corrected, trying something out, in other words, sequences
characterized by fragmented talk or playing) and performing (demonstrating what they had
learnt, running through a section, that is, sequences characterized by uninterrupted playing)
were then transcribed further using Jefferson (2004) conventions, where everything from
pauses, sighs, intonation, emphasis, laughter, to interruptions were notated and analysed
using conversation analysis. Additional symbols were also designed for the transcription of
playing and other non-verbal gestures (see appendix for complete list of conventions). In
9
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
particular, restarts, pauses and apologies were examined as these were key to demonstrating
how learning and performing were being displayed. In addition to speech, vocalizations,
bodily quotations, and references to the musical score were also noted in the transcription as
these multimodal displays, according to Keevallik (2006), Tolins (2013), and Szczepak Reed
et al. (2013), may have significant implications for the interaction sequence and the context in
which the talk is understood. These sequences are integral to understanding talk as they
enable the individual to accomplish a given activity within the interaction. The conversation
analyst traces this accomplishment by locating the start of the sequence, identifying what is
being achieved through each turn, and by determining what is happening next (Schegloff,
2007).
Analysis and discussion
The following extracts and analysis display instances where the student is orienting towards
learning and performing within the lesson interaction. The shift between learning and
performance mainly occurs through corrections and restarts by the student, and through
apologies in the talk as a means of identifying to the teacher which version of their playing
they want to be heard for assessment and feedback. The first section explores how a student
demonstrates learning, whilst the second section demonstrates how the student displays
performing.
Section 1: Doing learning
Extracts 1 and 2 are taken from a lesson with a male piano teacher (T) and a female piano
student (S). Two grand pianos are positioned side by side in the room. At the start of the
lesson the teacher does not have his own copy of the music but uses the student’s; the student
10
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
plays from memory. At the point of the following extract, the teacher has given the score to
the student.
Extract 1:
1
S: (([pp 00:00:04
[ ))
2
T: [°one° ((teacher beats 1)) [Not too slo::w.]
3
S: ((pstp(.)pp (.))) (([pp 00:00:03))
4
T:
5
T:
6
T: (1.0)
7
T: ((pts)) match that ↓tempo (0.8) do that ↑one
8
S: °yeah°
9
S: ((pp 00:00:02 ))
10
S: (((.) pstp))
11
S: I'm sorry
12
S: (([pp 00:00:07
13
T: [o:::ne ↑two three one ↓two °three° ah::::: oka:y [now
14
T:
[O:n:::e (.)[tw:o. oka:y↓
[((cf1))
((pstp – end of phrase))
))
[((pts))=
=↑that's the same material
15
16
S: (([00:00:16 pp))
))
17
T:
18
S: ((pstp (.))) I'm sorry (([pp00:00:19)) ((T moves away from piano))
19
T:
20
T: ((T stands over S))
21
S: (((.) pstp)) Oh sorry (0.2) wro(hh)ng no(h)te
22
S: ((pp 00:00:05))
[((cf1)↑la de (.) one (0.8) tha:t's it ((T leans on piano))
[00:00:08 <Go::od>
11
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
23
S: (((.) pstp))
24
S: °um°
25
S: ((pp 00:00:[05))
26
T:
27
S:
28
T: (0.1) so ↑let's look at textures ((T sits at piano with score))
29
S: >ye:s<
[yes (.) [good (0.1) ((T takes away music)) okay
[((pstp))
At the start of the extract, as the student plays the teacher counts “one”, thus making relevant
the tempo. This is then qualified by “not too slow”, indicating to the student that there is a
problem with the tempo. In line 3 the student corrects their playing, following the teacher’s
directive, by stopping and restarting. However, the teacher continues to find the tempo
problematic as he counts in time “one, two” and emphasizes this further by clicking his
fingers (lines 4-5). The elongation on the “one, two” also serves as an additional way of
displaying the correct tempo, thus the student receives the directive through two means –
vocalizations and the non-verbal action of clicking his fingers. The “okay” on line 4 serves
the function of indicating a forthcoming action sequence (Beach, 1993), the action being the
pointing (line 7), which orientates the student to the score to illustrate the match in the tempo
that he is after. The falling tone of the “okay” also fulfils the same function as identified by
Othman (2010), in that it serves as an ‘attention-getter’, particularly when linking activities
within talk. Here it links the teacher’s counting with the directive to match the tempo he is
pointing at in the score. The student’s acknowledgement in line 8 “yeah” illustrates to the
teacher her understanding of what he is asking her to do, but this serves as an additional
source of acknowledgement as the playing itself (in line 9) alone also fulfils this purpose (see,
for instance, Szczepak Reed et al., 2013). However, the student takes a number of restarts at
12
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
playing the required version (lines 9-12). Her apology in line 11 acknowledges to the teacher
that her playing was not good enough or correct, thus possibly indicating that it is not that
version that she wants him to assess. In line 12 she plays for 7 seconds, thus this revised
version she is offering is the correct one as no restart is needed. Rather than assess whether or
not the student has understood his guidance on the tempo, the teacher continues to count and
assist the student in line 13, again with elongated talk to fall in line with the tempo. The rises
and fall in tone also help to exaggerate the instruction, as also shown in Keevallik (2010) and
Weeks (2006). The “okay” in line 13 acts as a continuer to his statement that “that’s the same
material”, indicating to the student that this is a repeat of what she is already doing, and he
locates this specifically within the score by pointing (line 14). The student plays continually
for 16 seconds on line 16, indicating to the teacher that it is this version to be assessed. The
teacher continues to make reference to the tempo as the topic by clicking his fingers once and
by counting once (line 17). He then stops making reference to the tempo both in talk and
gesture, thus indicating that the student has learnt, and is playing, the correct version. His
“that’s it” in line 17 provides confirmation that what she is playing is correct. His talking
over her playing, however, also suggests that learning is still taking place as he guides her
through the rest of her playing. Thus what is emerging in the analysis are the different means
for displaying learning, both by the teacher and student.
The student’s stopping and subsequent apology in line 18 is ambiguous as it is clear in
the previous line that she is playing correctly. It might possibly be as a result of the teacher
standing over her shoulder which has distracted her, but this is after he has stood there for a
while. His move away from the piano could be interpreted as a possible delayed
acknowledgement of that. The student restarts and plays for 19 seconds (line 18)
demonstrating that this is the correct version, and the teacher acknowledges this with his
“good”. A similar restart happens in line 21 when the teacher stands over the student in a
13
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
manner that might be considered more distracting than when leaning on the piano (as
illustrated in line 21, the student stops playing immediately – as shown by the millisecond
pause – just after the teacher stands over her). The student apologies for stopping – an action
that displays to the teacher not that version – and justifies further still with “wrong note”.
The teacher does not move away from the piano and therefore does not acknowledge the
error as a result of his action of standing over her. The student continues to play and then
stops again (lines 22-24), but then continues with the correct version in line 25 which is
subsequently interrupted by the teacher who gives a clear indication that he has heard enough
by taking away the music. The “okay” denotes that they are ready to move on, at which point,
the student responds to the cue to stop playing. In line 28 a new topic is introduced, and his
use of “let’s look at textures” not only tells the student that the topic of tempo is now
corrected and closed, but that the next topic – textures – is one that they will look at together
(“let’s”). The teacher shows he needs to demonstrate something to the student by sitting at the
piano, and the student receipts his instruction.
Within this extract the role of acknowledgement tokens, apologies and restarts have
been demonstrated to show how students indicate to the teacher which version they would
like heard. The following extract displays further accounts of these devices, but also explores
how the student demonstrates her own understanding of an incorrect performance that the
teacher does not initially take up.
Extract 2:
In this extract of the same teacher and student, the teacher has the music, and the student
plays from memory.
1
T: Just try that from the↑:re
2
T: (([pp 00:00:06)) =
14
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
3
S: (([S looks to start playing then looks at T))
4
T: = (.) no:: ((ptsp))
5
T: ((pp 00:00:04))
6
((0.2)
7
S: ((pp 00:00:01 (((.) pstp)) ((pp 00:00:02 (((.) pstp))
8
S: I'm sorry
9
S: ((pp 00:00:04 (.) pstp [repeats notes))
10
T:
11
S: (0.1)
12
S: ur:m
13
S: ((pp 00:00:09[
14
T:
15
S: =(((.) pstp)) I'm sorry I should change the (0.3)
16
T: N:o no that's fi:ne (.)(([plays notes
17
T:
18
S:
19
T: =pedal at the botto:m
20
T: ((pp 00:00:01)) urm ((pp 00:00:05))
21
[start again?
))=
00:00:04 [↑Tha:t's good.
))
[yes you should [change] the=
[yeah]
(0.2)
22
S: ((pp 00:00:13
23
T:
24
T: (.)
25
T: tha:t's lovely (.) okay (.) wel[l done=
26
S:
27
S: .hh
00:00:10 now ↑°wait°
))
tha:::t's lovely
[((pstp))
15
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
28
T: =well done
At the start of extract 2 the student takes her cue from the teacher as to where to start playing
from with “try it from there”. However, this is not to be just quite yet as the teacher
demonstrates on his piano as to where to start from. At the same time the student looks to
start playing (line 3), displaying her understanding of where the teacher means without him
needing to demonstrate, but then acknowledges the turn the teacher has made by not playing
over him. In line 4, the teacher produces his own incorrect performance that contains a pause
and a stop. His “no” informs the student it is not that version he wants her to hear, and
subsequently corrects himself and shows her again in line 5. The pause in line 6 denotes the
new turn in the interaction, that is, the uptake for the student to start playing. This she does
but not without a number of pauses and restarts, reinforced by an apology and by stopping
playing (lines 8-9), each time suggesting ‘not that version’. The teacher’s prompt to start
again in line 10 also suggests he needs a new version as the incomplete hearings of the
section are not enough for him to confirm his recognition of her understanding of what he
wants her to achieve. The student attempts another restart with the pause and “urm” in lines
11-12, and then successfully plays a longer section in line 13 of 9 seconds, showing that this
is the performing version; the teacher responds early into her playing (4 seconds) with “that’s
good” (line 14). In talk Goodwin (1980) posits that a restart is characterized by a fragmented
sentence that initially does not make sense to the hearer, followed by a coherent sentence that
is then understood. On first viewing the fragmented sentence might seem to be only
problematic for talk, but, according to Goodwin, it actually performs the function of making
the speech coherent as it provides a platform for the speaker to then generate a corrected, and
comprehensible statement. In a similar way, the sequences presented here demonstrate that
performance restarts also help to make coherent the hearing of the score.
16
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
This early positive assessment of her playing in line 14 suggests that he is responding
to the successful restart that she has achieved and it is this aspect that he wanted to hear.
Despite this, however, the student stops herself and apologises (line 15) and then explains
why as this action contradicts the teacher’s statement of “that’s good”, suggesting that there
is nothing wrong with the playing. Rather than demonstrate through playing what she should
have done, she describes it instead but doesn’t actually complete her statement (line 15).
However, the teacher demonstrates his understanding of what she is referring to with “no no
that’s fine”, or else, doesn’t need to know because the version he heard was correct.
However, the teacher then checks himself by playing the notes (line 16), rather than asking
for a replay from the student, and then corrects himself immediately with “yes you should
change the pedal at the bottom”. At this point the teacher confirms that he knows what the
student is referring to and then labels the problem, the pedal at the bottom; the student
confirms this with “yeah” in line 18.
What is of note in lines 15-19 is how the teacher was aware of what the problem was
without the student completing her statement. This might have been alluded to through
reference to needing to “change” something, which had to make sense at that moment in the
score; this was also aided and indicated by the place in which she stopped. Locally, within
the score, it might not have made sense to have changed a note or tempo, for example, and
thus might have been easier for the teacher to work out what she was referring to. The
correction by the teacher is also an acknowledgement of her sorry, but the teacher still plays
out the relevant music to check hers and his own corrections (line 20); this is not something
that can be determined by studying the score, but actually needs to be played. The lack of any
further comment after his playing confirms that that is the correct hearing and the pause in
line 21 denotes a new turn – a cue for the student to continue playing. In this section the
17
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
student is also demonstrating her own knowledge and learning without guidance from the
teacher, by stopping and questioning herself.
In line 22 the student plays for 13 seconds thus maybe suggesting to the teacher, in
this uninterrupted performance she gives, that this is the final version to be heard. He gives
her a directive (line 23), but it is not one that stops her playing. This might be due to the soft
delivery that functions to mimic the music she is playing rather than as a command for a
change in action, that is, to stop and wait. His comment of “that’s lovely” also confirms that
the performance he is hearing is a good version. The teacher acknowledges to the student
that he has heard enough to be able to evaluate her playing, and completes the sequence with
a positive assessment (line 25). The repetitions of “that’s lovely” and “well done” may also
highlight the “worthiness of an answer” (Puchta & Potter, 2004, p.101), in other words, to
reaffirm how good her playing is. In line 26 the student stops playing; the teacher does not
need to ask the student to physically stop, this action is in response to the “okay” in the turn
before, which again conforms to Beach’s (1993) finding that a new action sequence is
occurring – the result is that the student takes up the cue to stop.
The two extracts shown in the section of ‘doing learning’ have shown the key role
that restarts and pauses play in the sequences of turns. The following section explores how a
student orientates to ‘doing performing’ in their interaction, that is, setting up a hearing of the
piece that presupposes an orientation to assessment and feedback.
Section 2: Doing performing
In this lesson of a female oboe teacher with a male oboe student, both are standing and
sharing the music stand that contains the student’s music.
18
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
Extract 3
1
T: tt anyway (0.1) let's just (.) we need to run this because
I’m I’m I'm (.)
2
I'm losing the:e (0.7)
3
T: .hhhh
4
S: (0.5) ((plays notes on oboe))
5
S: ability to live
6
T: er ↑[no (.) ↑<no no no> not at all=
7
S:
8
T: =I'm I'm losing the plot with the music so let let ↑<let's
9
[hh ((plays notes
))
just run it> from the beginning so
10
T: hh (0.3)
11
T: let's just run this (.) and whatever happens
12
(0.3)
13
T: are you going to do it from memory?
14
S: I think so
15
T: Okay (0.2) well we'll [just leave it there ((music on stand))
16
S:
17
S: (1.0)
18
S: I don't know whether I can remember these runs (1.0) <from
↓memory> (0.2) but I can do the rest of it[ ( ) I ↑can do
19
20
21
[(cos I've)
T:
[Well well look the
thing is if I were you I would (.) not have the music then (1.0)
22
S: okay
23
(0.7)
24
S: It doesn't really matter
19
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
25
T: It's either with or without (.) syndrome
26
S: I ca[n
27
T:
28
T: Alright (.) okay (0.2) let's just go for it then
29
S: ((po 00:00:02))
30
T: Okay Mark now let's just star:t clean yeah?
31
32
[I'll do that I'll do that
[We (0.1) you [can?
(0.5)
T: which if if that means a little bit louder (.) yes you've marked
33
mpm just slightly up
34
S: ((po 00:00:05))
35
T: little bit more now
36
S: .hhhh ((po 00:00:12))
37
T: °°m↑hm°°
38
S: ((po 00:00:16))
39
T: good
40
S: ((po [00:00:15))
41
T:
42
(([teacher points upwards during playing)) (e)Well done (.) well done (.)
and then?
43
S: (([po 00:00:34
44
T:
45
S: ((po 00:00:02))
46
T: mhm
47
S: ((po 00:00:02))
48
T: °m↑hmm°
49
S: ((po 00:00:24))
))
[((00:00:29 bravo (2.0) well done] (and ↑then)
20
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
50
51
T: Go::↓od (0.3) good there's lots of good things here now just a a
.hh (0.2) couple of things....
This extract highlights the second phenomena being examined and displays how the teacher
and student orientate towards producing a performance within the lesson. At the start of
extract 3 the teacher sets up a performance by stating “we need to run this” (i.e., as a whole
performance) in order to get a sense of the piece as she is “losing the” – an incomplete
statement that the student takes a cue to complete in line 5, due to her pause. The student’s
reference to “ability to live” suggests that they have received it as a negative assessment
(implying losing the will to live), which the teacher instantly disagrees with, locating the
problem to the music rather than another aspect of the lesson. This is later confirmed with her
reference to “losing the plot with the music” in line 8, suggesting that previous hearings or
playings of the piece have been either muddled or that they have lost their way with the
music during the lesson. The teacher’s directive “from the beginning” in line 9 also confirms
the instruction to give a performance, which is in contrast to learning, when playing can
restart anywhere within the piece. Her “whatever happens” in line 11 also implies to the
student it should also be treated as if a real performance.
The question about doing it from memory in line 13 also helps to orientate the student
towards the performance as the teacher makes relevant to the student this key performing
decision. It also illustrates to the reader that this is not a piece that the student has just started
learning as it is near performance standard and ready to consider playing from memory. The
student’s response of “I think so” in line 14 is hesitant at the prospect, indicating to the
teacher that he might not be completely ready to play from memory, whilst the teacher’s
response in line 15 suggests that it is a joint decision through the use of “we’ll”. Leaving the
music on the stand provides some security for the student and displays orientation to both
21
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
learning and performing within the lesson; the student is concerned as to whether or not he
will be able to remember the runs, but can do the rest of it from memory. This sequence also
denotes to the teacher where the trouble is with the music, as far as the student is concerned,
and it is an assessment made by the student rather than the teacher. In response, the teacher
recommends that he actually doesn’t have the music (line 21) because it is only a memory
lapse on the runs that he is having problems with; this is reinforced with her “if I were you”.
The student acknowledges this (line 22) and his response of “doesn’t really matter” (line 24)
also confirms that it is not a significant issue. The teacher’s response (line 25) of the decision
being either with or without music informs the student that there is no middle ground, which
prompts the student to commit to playing the piece without the score present. The teacher
confirms the final decision in line 28 and then reaffirms “let’s just go for it then”, which is
the student’s cue to start playing. The repair in pronouns from “we” to “you” (line 27), and
the shift to “let’s” (lines 28 and 30) enables the teacher to make clear to the student what is
his decision and what is a joint decision or action. In line 27 the teacher places the
responsibility onto the student to have to play from memory, as she won’t be able to assist
during the actual performance. However, in terms of the “let’s”, it might be suggested that
this locates the next action to that moment in time where both teacher and student orientate to
accomplishing the action together – that is, the student plays and the teacher listens to provide
feedback. However, in line 30 the student is stopped straight away with the teacher’s
comment “let’s just start clean”, suggesting that the hearing was not performance ready with
a problematic start. This is a directive that requires an immediate response from the student
as the teacher needs to hear the student start again (see further, Szczepak Reed et al., 2013,
for examples of directives that need to be put into place immediately). The teacher then
qualifies what she means by stating a way to address the problem “if that means playing a
little bit louder” (line 32) and she shows she agrees with the student’s action of marking it
22
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
slightly up, thus providing agreement and feedback on the student’s decision. Because the
problem was identified straight away (within two seconds of playing) the problem is easy to
fix, though, without interrupting the flow of the piece as it happens at the start of the
performance.
In line 34 there is no interruption in the restart, thus acknowledging that she is happy
with the start of the playing. In line 35 she gives a further directive regarding the dynamic,
but this does not interrupt the student’s performance, thus honouring her own instruction of
“whatever happens”. In order to allow the performance to continue, the teacher talks through
the pauses between the phrases (lines 35, 37, 39). In line 37 the teacher is using the
acknowledgement token “mhm” to receipt the student’s turn, encouraging them to carry on.
As with conversation, the music works in the same way with the acknowledgement tokens
carrying a similar function, that of continuing – and particularly with the fall and rise in
intonation in lines 37 and 48 (see, for example, Gardner, 1997; Puchta & Potter, 2004). In
line 41 the teacher offers another directive through gesture rather than talk, and this enables
her not to have to talk over the performance – a feature that also occurs in lines 37 and 48
with her soft delivery of the continuers “mhm”. In line 42, “and then”, the teacher indicates
that she wants more from the student, and the student offers a good version of his
performance confirmed by her positive assessment “bravo, well done”, followed by an
expectation that there is more to come – “and then”. In lines 46 and 48 the teacher continues
with acknowledgment tokens that receipt what is being heard whilst indicating to the student
to continue playing. The student completes the piece and the teacher provides an overall
evaluation at the end. Her final statement that there are a couple of things (line 51) suggests
that there are things to work on, but yet it was a good hearing of the performance. At this
point the teacher goes on to elaborate on these couple of things, with the student
acknowledging by nodding the head.
23
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
Variations on orientating towards a performance were also noted in the data where
these were predominantly set up by the teacher. Firstly, some of the lessons that were
recorded mimicked a masterclass format where students had a one-off session with a teacher
different to their own. In these instances, the teacher set up the performance by asking the
student what they wanted to play and have heard, or by asking them what their recital
programme was, thus orienting to the notion of giving a performance.
Secondly, the
teacher’s evaluations (e.g., “I think you play this very very beautifully”, see further, Ivaldi, in
press) helped to illustrate that what they had just heard was being treated as a performance.
Thirdly, the use of “okay” by the teacher, and a pause generated by both teacher and student
before playing (as is usually experienced at the start of performing a piece) orientated both
parties to the fact that the next version of the student’s playing should be heard as a
performance. Fourthly, the teacher sets up their own performance by placing the student as
audience member in the interaction sequence. This may also serve the function of
differentiating between a teacher doing performing and a student doing performing by
orientating to their playing as a performance (in contrast to the student who is illustrating to
the teacher which version they want heard and assessed). This not only further helps to
reinforce the master-apprentice roles, but also mirrors to the student how their playing will be
heard when they give the performance for real.
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to explore how students and teachers orientate to both learning and
performing within music lesson interaction, a key differentiation that allows the teacher to
assess how close to an actual performance the student’s playing is. Conversation analysis is a
method still very new to the music psychology domain, and the little research that has been
conducted within music has tended to address the language and social interaction readership
24
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
(e.g., Nishizaka, 2006; Szczepek Reed et al., 2013; Tolins, 2013) rather than music
psychologists and music educators. This study, along with those of Forrester (2010) and
Ivaldi (in press), attempt to address this gap, highlighting how conversation analysis allows
musicians and educators to understand, more fully, the significance that each turn in talk has
in the learning process. In addition, it allows us to understand the multimodal features within
the playing as interaction, by mapping them onto similar features that exist within talk itself
(e.g., repairs in talk versus restarts in playing).
A key premise to conversation analysis is that interaction is organized sequentially,
with each turn in talk being influenced by what was said by the speaker in the turn before,
and in how this subsequently determines what comes next. These turns in talk produce
actions (e.g., a teacher’s directive means they are ‘doing’ teaching), and that the utterances in
conversation, and in where they are positioned within the sequence, are critical to the
meaning and interpretation of the talk (Schegloff, 2007; Stivers, 2013). The richness of talk
that conversation analysis highlights is, as demonstrated in the current study and the research
of Szczepak Reed et al. (2013), Nishizaka (2006), Tolins (2013), and Weeks (1996), for
example, magnified when taking into account the complex interplay between talk, visual
demonstration, and the physical space of the lesson. Each of these aspects of the interaction
can take a turn in the sequence (e.g., the teacher can give a directive and the student, in the
next turn, perform it), but they are interdependent in how they help produce the action;
conversation analysis therefore has practical applications for enhancing music pedagogy.
Firstly, a conversation analytic approach builds significantly on the research that has
looked at the frequency of occurrences and the nature of the talk in music lessons (e.g.,
Karlsson & Juslin, 2008). Music lessons display a variety of dimensions, such as talk,
vocalizations, and bodily quotations that make up the music lesson interaction, all of which
need to be studied within context of each other to fully understand the instructional sequence
25
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
and how participants oriented to what is going on. In other words, it is not enough to examine
just the type of talk or frequencies. Music lessons are played out like conversation; speech
devices such as acknowledgment tokens and restarts hold similar functions in talk as they do
when in response to actual playing. As demonstrated here, the use of the acknowledgement
tokens ‘mhm’ and ‘okay’ in music interaction support previous findings on how they are used
to continue and/or acknowledge conversation (e.g., Gardner, 1997; Puchta & Potter, 2004)
and in academic discourse, where they carry the additional functions of checking students’
progress (e.g., Guthrie, 1997; Othman, 2010). These acknowledgement tokens not only serve
the purpose of continuing talk, but also allow the student to continue playing – uninterrupted
– which enables the teacher to maintain the performance itself. Similarly, as discussed
previously in relation to Goodwin (1980), performance restarts should not be seen as
problematic as they make coherent the hearing of the score. As such, restarts should not be
heard merely as errors by the teacher, but, rather, should be understood as a means in which
the student is attempting to orientate towards producing a correct performance of the piece.
Secondly, conversation analysis can show how pedagogical practices are displayed in
the lesson e.g., how students ‘do’ playing, learning and understanding, and how teachers ‘do’
demonstrating, assessing and instructing. Schegloff (2007) argues that sequences of turns
have shape and structure in that how they start, the direction in which they are going, and the
action that is being achieved through them can be identified and interpreted as meaningful.
Data in the current study showed that turns were often constructed by a teacher’s directive
followed by a response from the student by playing. However, these turns did not conform to
the typical convention of finding pairs of utterances in talk (as found in greetings and their
subsequent responses, for example; see, for instance, Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998); instead the
interaction sequence often displayed trouble, through the presence of restarts and pauses. It is
through these subtleties and intricacies of such sequences that pedagogical practices can be
26
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
displayed in that it is the seemingly inconsequential presence of pauses and restarts that tell
us that learning is actually taking place.
In the case of the present study, how students and teachers orientate towards both
learning and performing within the lesson was explored. These features, in particular, allow
educators to understand more fully the varying conditions in which learning, in contrast to
performing, might be taking place and the transition between the two as the teacher and
student move in and out of learning and performing each time they take up studying a new
score. The master-apprentice approach that music lessons typically adopt shows that teachers
instruct and students respond by playing in order to show their understanding. However, how
the teacher and student actually play out these roles during the course of the interaction needs
to be examined. By doing so, the analysis illustrates the devices used by students to display to
teachers which versions they want to be heard for assessment and feedback, and which of
those should be ignored. This was achieved through the use of apologies, restarts and pauses
which also enabled the students to demonstrate to the teacher their understanding of what
they consider to be a correct version of their playing. This, in turn, helps the teacher to
identify areas to work on within the lesson and to guide for further practice. In the case of
performance, as shown in extract three, the teacher and student are able to use the lesson
space to reproduce a performance, as if live, which is a key element of the music lesson. For
example, in such interaction, both the student and teacher give an indication of how
performance ready the student is (e.g., the teacher by gauging if the student is ready to
perform from memory, and the student in terms of how they respond to the directive and in
whether or not they can perform without the safety of the score). Finally, by examining how
the student and teacher ‘do’ learning and performing, educators can come to understand the
process as a shared action, rather than each fulfilling distinct and separate roles.
27
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
The music lesson interaction provides an abundance of pedagogical practices to study,
and the method of conversation analysis allows the opportunity to look at the subtle
differences in each phenomenon displayed. For example, here, variations in the overall task
of learning were evidenced (e.g., students needing to show that they were learning versus
showing spontaneous learning) in contrast to the wider context of the lesson where learning
or performing was not always the feature of the interaction. Future work can explore these
subtle displays of learning further, as well as examining the use of other devices present in
the interaction, such as the use of apologies made by teachers, when students and teachers use
their instrument to interrupt or close the talk, and when teachers and students negotiate what
music to focus on within the lesson, for example. It is hoped that through the developing
interest in applying conversation analysis to the music domain that the richness of the music
lesson interaction can be further understood.
References
Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for 'casual' "okay" usages. Journal of
Pragmatics, 19 (4), 325-352.
Burwell, K. (2006). On musicians and singers. An investigation of different approaches taken
by vocal and instrumental teachers in higher education. Music Education Research, 8
(3), 331-347.
Cekaite, A. (2010). Shepherding the child: Embodied directive sequences in parent-child
interactions. Text and Talk, 30 (1), 1-25.
Clark, H.H., & Fox Tree, J.E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition,
84, 73-111.
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66 (4), 764805.
28
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
Forrester, M. (2010). Emerging musicality during the pre-school years: A case study of one
child. Psychology of Music, 38 (2), 131-158.
Gardner, R. (1997). The conversation object Mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30 (2), 131-156.
Gaunt, H. (2008). One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: The perceptions of instrumental and
vocal teachers. Psychology of Music, 36 (2), 215-245.
Gaunt, H. (2010). One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: The perceptions of instrumental and
vocal students. Psychology of Music, 38 (2), 178-208.
Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turnbeginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50 (3-4), 272-302.
Guthrie, A. M. (1997). On the systematic deployment of okay and mmhmm in academic
advising sessions. Pragmatics, 7 (3), 397-415.
Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher
repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32, 79–104.
Hellermann, J. (2005). Syntactic and prosodic practices for cohesion in series of three-part
sequences in classroom talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38 (1),
105-130.
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.M.
Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation
analysis (pp 299-345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291-334.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity.
Ivaldi, A. (in press). The social construction of value judgements in music pedagogical
interaction. In M. Dogantan-Dack & A. Gritten (Eds.), Interpreting music, displaying
values. Indiana University Press.
29
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.),
Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.13–31). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Karlsson, J., & Juslin, P.N. (2008). Musical expression: An observational study of
instrumental teaching. Psychology of Music, 36 (3), 309-334.
Keevallik, L. (2010). Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 43 (4), 401-426.
Kent, A. (2012). Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to
directives. Discourse Studies, 14 (6), 711-730.
Koole, T. (2012). Teacher evaluations – Assessing ‘knowing’, ‘understanding’, and ‘doing’.
In G. Rasmussen, C.E. Brouwer, & D. Day (Eds.). Evaluating cognitive competencies
in interaction (pp 43-66). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
MacBeth, D. (2011). Understanding understanding as an instructional manner. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43, 438-451.
Nishizaka, A. (2006). What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment. Research
on Language & Social Interaction, 39 (2), 119-154.
Othman, Z. (2010). The use of okay, right and yeah in academic lectures by native speaker
lecturers: Their 'anticipated' and 'real' meanings. Discourse Studies, 12 (5), 665-681.
Pike, C. (2010). Intersubjectivity and misunderstanding in adult-child learning conversations.
In H. Gardner & M. Forrester (Eds.). Analysing interactions in childhood: Insights
from conversation analysis (pp.163-181). London: Wiley.
Presland, C. (2005). Conservatoire student and instrumental professor: The student
perspective on a complex relationship. British Journal of Music Education 22 (3),
237-248.
Puchta, C. & Potter, J. (2004). Focus group practice. London: Sage.
30
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stivers, T. (2013). Sequence organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of
conversation analysis (pp. 191-209). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Szczepek Reed, B., Reed, D., & Haddon, E. (2013). NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating
restarts in the pursuit of learnables in vocal master classes. Research on Language &
Social Interaction, 46 (1), 22-46.
Tolins, J. (2013). Assessment and direction through nonlexical vocalizations in music
instruction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 46 (1), 47-64.
Vehviläinen, S. (2009). Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback and resistance in
academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 185–201.
Weeks, P.A.D. (1996). A rehearsal of a Beethoven passage: An analysis of correction talk.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29 (3), 247-290.
Zhang Waring, H. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF,
feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (4), 577594.
Appendix
Transcription conventions (from Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998):
.hhh
In-breath
hh
Out-breath
(hh)
Laughter
°Oh°
Degree signs indicate that the sound is softer than surrounding talk
-
Cut off of previous sound
:
Stretched sound (e.g., wh:::y)
31
Orientation to learning and performing in lesson interactions
.
Stopping fall in tone (not necessarily indicating the end of a sentence)
,
Continuing intonation
a:
Less marked falls in pitch shown by underlining immediately before
colon
:_
Less marked rises in pitch shown using an underlined colon
↑↓
Marked shifts in pitch (high/low) placed immediately before shift
Underline
Speaker emphasis
><
More than and less than signs indicate talk that was produced quicker or
slower than the surrounding talk.
(0.5)
Time gap measured in tenths of a second
(.)
A pause less than two tenths of a second
=
Latching between utterances
[]
Onset and end of overlap
(guess)
A guess at an unclear word
()
Inaudible word
(( ))
Description of a non-verbal activity (e.g., ((plays piano)))
Additional conventions used in the transcription of playing and non-verbal gestures:
pp
Plays piano
po
Plays oboe
pstp
playing stops
cf1
clicks fingers (once)
pts
points
32