青年钢琴学生音乐阅读演奏中的音高误差分析外文翻译资料

 2023-03-11 10:12:19

Pitch error analysis of young piano studentsrsquo; music reading performances

原文作者 Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

Abstract:This study analyzed the music reading performances of 6–13-year-old piano students (N = 35) in their second year of piano study. The stimuli consisted of three piano pieces, systematically constructed to vary in terms of left-hand complexity and input simultaneity. The music reading performances were recorded digitally and a code of error analysis was constructed from the data. The effect of age on the types of errors made was investigated. The age differences found were in terms of error frequency, performance continuity, contour preservation, and stimulus complexity. The study sheds light on what may be typical music reading errors of piano students in their second year of study and suggests some trends of age-related development in music reading among piano students.

Keywords:error analysis, music literacy, music reading, music reading development, piano students

外文文献出处:Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir.Pitch error analysis of young piano students music reading performances[J],International journal of Music Educating

附外文文献翻译:

附外文文献翻译:

青年钢琴学生音乐阅读演奏中的音高误差分析

作者:赫尔加·露丝·古德蒙兹多蒂尔

冰岛大学,冰岛

摘要:这项研究分析了6-13岁的钢琴学生(N = 35)在第二年学琴中的音乐阅读表现。刺激包括三架钢琴,系统地构造以改变左手的复杂性和输入的同时性。音乐阅读表演被数字记录,并从数据中构建了错误分析代码。研究了年龄对所犯错误类型的影响。发现的年龄差异包括错误频率,性能连续性,轮廓保留和刺激复杂性。该研究揭示了在钢琴学习的第二年中钢琴学生典型的音乐阅读错误,并提出了钢琴学生音乐阅读中与年龄相关的一些发展趋势。

关键词:错误分析,音乐素养,音乐阅读,音乐阅读发展,钢琴生

正文:学会阅读传统的音乐术语符号是西方音乐传统中大多数音乐教育计划不可或缺的一部分(Campbell和Scott-Kassner,1995; Mark,1996)。 “阅读和记录音乐”是美国(1994年)自愿制定的“国家音乐教育标准”之一。 英国皇家音乐学院课程联合委员会和其他涉及西方音乐传统的课程文件也强调了音乐阅读技能。 尽管音乐阅读技能不是从事音乐或演奏乐器的先决条件(格林,2002年),并且在许多音乐风格的背景下可能无关紧要,但这并没有改变以下事实:成功获得员工阅读技能仍将继续 评估西方器乐学生的一项主要标准(Mills,2005年)。

尽管一些音乐教育计划已经减少了对传统模式的音乐阅读技巧的重视,但书面音乐仍然经常作为器乐音乐教学的起点(Mills,2005; Swanwick,1994)。 一个明显的例外是流行的Suzuki方法,在这种方法下,仅在乐器学习的后期才教孩子们阅读音乐(Suzuki,1969年)。 包括铃木(Suzuki)方法在内的所有主流西方音乐教育方法的音乐资料,都使用常规的员工符号。 因此,音乐阅读设施被认为是音乐家拥有的一项重要技能,甚至是“成为音乐界正式成员所必需的”(Sloboda,1978,第4页)。 尽管阅读员工记号的能力的不足并未使个人无法完全参与某些音乐流派和文化,但音乐阅读技能显然对音乐家而言很有价值。

在教学方法上的差异反映了关于如何向音乐学生介绍阅读技巧的不同意见。但是,各种方法似乎主要基于约定。基于研究结果的方法尚未被提出,这可能是由于对音乐阅读技能的获取研究不足所致。如前所述,关于音乐阅读的基本理论相当缺乏。(Hodges,1992)

传统上,音乐阅读的介绍发生在生命的早期。最近的研究表明,必须在15岁之前掌握专家级的音乐阅读技能(Kopiez,Weihs,Ligges和Lee,2006年),因此强调了理解儿童的自然认知发展与他们对音乐阅读掌握的相互作用的重要性。研究表明,可以向三,四岁的儿童传授基本的音高阅读技巧(Capodilupo,1992; Tommis&Fazey,1999)。与其他音乐感知研究一样,在音高阅读研究中发现了年龄效应。 Brotz(1992)发现,在钢琴的手指敲击和音高读取任务中,七至九岁的儿童在速度和准确性上存在显着差异;根据Capodilupo(1992)的研究,儿童保留音高更为复杂方面的能力读数从4岁到10岁呈线性增加。显然,当孩子们对记号的音高和乐器上的音符之间的对应关系有所了解时,他们可能仍无法从视觉上理解记号的旋律。在一项研究中,一年级和二年级学生(六至七岁)比在旋律环境中阅读音高更有信心(Pick,Unze,Metz和Richardson,1982年)。这些结果表明,儿童的认知发展如何发挥重要作用,应该有意识地将其纳入理解早期学习复合技能(如音乐阅读)的努力中。

音乐阅读是一个涉及阅读技能和机械技能的复杂过程(Wolf,1976)。研究发现,高水平的音乐阅读成就取决于信息处理的速度和心理运动的速度(Kopiez等,2006)。读取过程需要对两种不同类型的代码进行解码,这些代码需要音调信息和时序信息。行为和神经学研究表明,在聆听情况下(Palmer&Krumhansl,1987年)和在音乐阅读情况下(Schouml;n&Besson,2002年; Waters&Underwood,1999年),音调和时间信息分别被感知。因为音乐阅读是音乐感知过程的建构(Sloboda,1976,1978,1984),所以音乐阅读的研究取决于对感知的潜在过程的研究。尽管在音乐事件中或在音乐阅读情况下音高和定时不能真正分开,但是音高和定时在感知方面的独立性对于分析音高读数而不依赖于定时信息的读取是有用的。

音序中出现的音高通常表示旋律。根据对旋律感知的研究,可以根据轮廓或间隔序列感知旋律(Dowling,1978,1982)。在旋律感知的发展过程中,旋律轮廓的整体特征倾向于先于特定间隔的局部或解析感知(Bartlett&Dowling,1980; Pick等,1988; Trainor&Trehub,1993)。通过音乐训练,感知旋律轮廓的整体策略被更具体的识别音程结构的策略所取代(Fujioka,Trainor,Ross,Kakigi和Pantrev,2004)。在音高阅读的背景下,对音高和旋律线的视觉感知可能会影响音乐阅读中的音高精准度。也就是说,在音乐阅读的情况下,所产生旋律的准确性很可能反映出用于视觉理解音符的策略。对性格理解的发展可能会影响儿童对旋律的阅读(Pick等,1982)。

研究人员提出,熟练的音乐阅读涉及对音乐结构和对音符组之间关系的理解的增强敏感性(Sloboda,1984)。研究表明,成功的视线阅读取决于对和弦等熟悉结构的识别(Salis,1980; Waters,Townsend和Underwood,1998),乐句(Sloboda,1977)和音调(MacKenzie,Vaneerd,Graham,Huron) ,&Wills,1986)。与存在这些结构时相比,缺少熟悉的结构会导致音乐阅读效果更差。此外,斯洛博达(Sloboda(1976))报告了成人钢琴演奏者的视读性能对所谓的校对者错误的影响,从而证明了语言阅读和音乐阅读之间的相似之处。该研究中最好的视觉阅读器播放的乐谱中所植入的错误少于较差的视觉阅读器,这表明专家正在阅读乐曲上下文中含义的乐谱,因此忽略了不适合错误信息的上下文。

从语言阅读文学中可以明显看出,成功的语言阅读基础与音乐阅读基本相同。也就是说,对于读者的熟练程度而言,感知上下文并以符号表示形式搜索有意义的结构的能力是必需的(Singleton,2005)。熟练的语言阅读者和入门的语言阅读者之间的差异反映在他们阅读文本时所犯的错误类型上(Goodman,1969)。流利的阅读器会深入分析含义,并在阅读过程中使用它来对文本进行预测,因此更有可能产生在文本上下文中有意义的错误。新手阅读者更有可能在解码单个单词单元时出错,从而导致没有意义的错误或非上下文错误(Goodman,1969; Laing,2002)。在诸如语言阅读和音乐阅读之类的复杂任务中,错误经常发生。产生错误的方式可以揭示此类任务的基础流程。在语言阅读研究中,对新手阅读者的阅读表现进行错误分析已成为理解语言阅读能力发展的重要工具(Goodman&Marek,1996)和改进语言阅读指导(Singleton,2005)。

从语言阅读文学中可以明显看出,成功的语言阅读基础与音乐阅读基本相同。也就是说,对于读者的熟练程度而言,感知上下文并以符号表示形式搜索有意义的结构的能力是必需的(Singleton,2005)。熟练的语言阅读者和入门语言阅读者之间的区别是:现有的音乐阅读知识主要来自对专业视力阅读器的研究(Edgington,2006; Goolsby,1994a,1994b; Kopiez等,2006; MacKenzie等, 1986;Schouml;n&Besson,2002; Sloboda,1974,1977; Thompson,1987; Truitt,Clifton,Pollat​​sek,&Rayner,1997; Waters等,1998)或成年的新手(Kostka,2000; Lowder,1973)。在音乐阅读中,缺乏对新手所犯错误类型的了解。为了提高音乐阅读教学水平,尽管还不够,但了解专家的阅读方式很重要。了解新手如何阅读,他们如何犯错误以及为什么犯错误至关重要。本研究的主要目的是探讨年轻钢琴学生的音高阅读错误以及年龄对错误产生的影响。第二个目标是提出错误类别,这些类别可以用作进一步研究音乐阅读的基础。

结论

这项研究证实了以前的发现,即无论正式培训如何,整个儿童的音高阅读能力都会逐渐提高(Capodilupo,1992; Pick等,1982)。但是,就音高误差的类型而言,两个年龄组的总体趋势相似。在两组中,最频繁的音调是错误的音高,第二高频率的音调是多余的音调,而遗漏的音调则很少。可以说,音乐的阅读性能的显着特点是儿童明显强调正确演奏乐谱中的所有音高,这反映在多余音高的高频率以及音高错误的即时自我校正中,省略音调的低频。此外,从这些数据可以明显看出,大多数对象的主要目标似乎是打音高,但要牺牲定时精度。这些与Drake和Palmer(2000)的发现是一致的,他们发现年轻的钢琴家似乎比计分任务中的音高信息更不关心时间安排。

尽管在有关年轻钢琴学生的音乐阅读错误的研究文献中发现的信息很少,但在本研究中,人们预计在音乐阅读演奏中出现错误的频率很高。文献中没有指出预期的错误类型。本研究发现,对错误进行分类分析不仅有助于识别音乐阅读任务中的挑战,而且有助于比较年龄组之间的错误发生趋势。

在这项研究中发现的年龄差异是在错误频率,连续性,轮廓保留和刺激复杂性方面。 与年龄较大的年龄组相比,年龄较小的年龄组产生了更多不正确的音高,并且产生了更多的多余音高。与年龄较大的组相比,在较年轻的组中发现更多的违反旋律轮廓的音调错误,并且左手(在C部分中)或同时演奏两只手(B和C部分)的复杂性时,年幼的孩子比大一点的孩子出现了更多的错误。

年龄在推动孩子们音乐阅读向前并最大程度地减少表演中的犹豫,起着重要作用。本研究中定义的冗余错误反映了性能的犹豫。可能会重复正确的音高,这可能是因为不确定一开始的音高是否正确,或者是不确定随后的音高。有趣的是,在B和C的年轻人中,双手同时演奏的重复错误发生率最高。在A部分中,左手和右手交替演奏的重复错误的发生频率较低。这表明,用双手同时阅读音乐的任务可能会对较年轻的对象造成比对较老的对象更大的压力。音乐阅读的任务是对短期记忆的要求,并且已经确定,年幼儿童的短期记忆发展不及年龄较大的儿童(Brotz,1992)。与其他器乐演奏相比,在钢琴上阅读音乐的任务增加了两个手在两个谱号中的两个演奏者的阅读难度。左右手同时输入和电机输出的双重性势必给年轻的钢琴学生带来挑战。

年龄较大的儿童比年龄较大的儿童犯了严重的轮廓弯曲错误。 这意味着,即使他们犯了错误,年龄较大的孩子也比年龄较小的孩子更接近目标音调,并倾向于保留旋律轮廓。

剩余内容已隐藏,支付完成后下载完整资料


Pitch error analysis of young piano studentsrsquo; music reading performances

原文作者 Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

Abstract:This study analyzed the music reading performances of 6–13-year-old piano students (N = 35) in their second year of piano study. The stimuli consisted of three piano pieces, systematically constructed to vary in terms of left-hand complexity and input simultaneity. The music reading performances were recorded digitally and a code of error analysis was constructed from the data. The effect of age on the types of errors made was investigated. The age differences found were in terms of error frequency, performance continuity, contour preservation, and stimulus complexity. The study sheds light on what may be typical music reading errors of piano students in their second year of study and suggests some trends of age-related development in music reading among piano students.

Keywords:error analysis, music literacy, music reading, music reading development, piano students

外文文献出处:Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir.Pitch error analysis of young piano students music reading performances[J],International journal of Music Educating

附外文文献翻译:

附外文文献翻译:

青年钢琴学生音乐阅读演奏中的音高误差分析

作者:赫尔加·露丝·古德蒙兹多蒂尔

冰岛大学,冰岛

摘要:这项研究分析了6-13岁的钢琴学生(N = 35)在第二年学琴中的音乐阅读表现。刺激包括三架钢琴,系统地构造以改变左手的复杂性和输入的同时性。音乐阅读表演被数字记录,并从数据中构建了错误分析代码。研究了年龄对所犯错误类型的影响。发现的年龄差异包括错误频率,性能连续性,轮廓保留和刺激复杂性。该研究揭示了在钢琴学习的第二年中钢琴学生典型的音乐阅读错误,并提出了钢琴学生音乐阅读中与年龄相关的一些发展趋势。

关键词:错误分析,音乐素养,音乐阅读,音乐阅读发展,钢琴生

正文:学会阅读传统的音乐术语符号是西方音乐传统中大多数音乐教育计划不可或缺的一部分(Campbell和Scott-Kassner,1995; Mark,1996)。 “阅读和记录音乐”是美国(1994年)自愿制定的“国家音乐教育标准”之一。 英国皇家音乐学院课程联合委员会和其他涉及西方音乐传统的课程文件也强调了音乐阅读技能。 尽管音乐阅读技能不是从事音乐或演奏乐器的先决条件(格林,2002年),并且在许多音乐风格的背景下可能无关紧要,但这并没有改变以下事实:成功获得员工阅读技能仍将继续 评估西方器乐学生的一项主要标准(Mills,2005年)。

尽管一些音乐教育计划已经减少了对传统模式的音乐阅读技巧的重视,但书面音乐仍然经常作为器乐音乐教学的起点(Mills,2005; Swanwick,1994)。 一个明显的例外是流行的Suzuki方法,在这种方法下,仅在乐器学习的后期才教孩子们阅读音乐(Suzuki,1969年)。 包括铃木(Suzuki)方法在内的所有主流西方音乐教育方法的音乐资料,都使用常规的员工符号。 因此,音乐阅读设施被认为是音乐家拥有的一项重要技能,甚至是“成为音乐界正式成员所必需的”(Sloboda,1978,第4页)。 尽管阅读员工记号的能力的不足并未使个人无法完全参与某些音乐流派和文化,但音乐阅读技能显然对音乐家而言很有价值。

在教学方法上的差异反映了关于如何向音乐学生介绍阅读技巧的不同意见。但是,各种方法似乎主要基于约定。基于研究结果的方法尚未被提出,这可能是由于对音乐阅读技能的获取研究不足所致。如前所述,关于音乐阅读的基本理论相当缺乏。(Hodges,1992)

传统上,音乐阅读的介绍发生在生命的早期。最近的研究表明,必须在15岁之前掌握专家级的音乐阅读技能(Kopiez,Weihs,Ligges和Lee,2006年),因此强调了理解儿童的自然认知发展与他们对音乐阅读掌握的相互作用的重要性。研究表明,可以向三,四岁的儿童传授基本的音高阅读技巧(Capodilupo,1992; Tommis&Fazey,1999)。与其他音乐感知研究一样,在音高阅读研究中发现了年龄效应。 Brotz(1992)发现,在钢琴的手指敲击和音高读取任务中,七至九岁的儿童在速度和准确性上存在显着差异;根据Capodilupo(1992)的研究,儿童保留音高更为复杂方面的能力读数从4岁到10岁呈线性增加。显然,当孩子们对记号的音高和乐器上的音符之间的对应关系有所了解时,他们可能仍无法从视觉上理解记号的旋律。在一项研究中,一年级和二年级学生(六至七岁)比在旋律环境中阅读音高更有信心(Pick,Unze,Metz和Richardson,1982年)。这些结果表明,儿童的认知发展如何发挥重要作用,应该有意识地将其纳入理解早期学习复合技能(如音乐阅读)的努力中。

音乐阅读是一个涉及阅读技能和机械技能的复杂过程(Wolf,1976)。研究发现,高水平的音乐阅读成就取决于信息处理的速度和心理运动的速度(Kopiez等,2006)。读取过程需要对两种不同类型的代码进行解码,这些代码需要音调信息和时序信息。行为和神经学研究表明,在聆听情况下(Palmer&Krumhansl,1987年)和在音乐阅读情况下(Schouml;n&Besson,2002年; Waters&Underwood,1999年),音调和时间信息分别被感知。因为音乐阅读是音乐感知过程的建构(Sloboda,1976,1978,1984),所以音乐阅读的研究取决于对感知的潜在过程的研究。尽管在音乐事件中或在音乐阅读情况下音高和定时不能真正分开,但是音高和定时在感知方面的独立性对于分析音高读数而不依赖于定时信息的读取是有用的。

音序中出现的音高通常表示旋律。根据对旋律感知的研究,可以根据轮廓或间隔序列感知旋律(Dowling,1978,1982)。在旋律感知的发展过程中,旋律轮廓的整体特征倾向于先于特定间隔的局部或解析感知(Bartlett&Dowling,1980; Pick等,1988; Trainor&Trehub,1993)。通过音乐训练,感知旋律轮廓的整体策略被更具体的识别音程结构的策略所取代(Fujioka,Trainor,Ross,Kakigi和Pantrev,2004)。在音高阅读的背景下,对音高和旋律线的视觉感知可能会影响音乐阅读中的音高精准度。也就是说,在音乐阅读的情况下,所产生旋律的准确性很可能反映出用于视觉理解音符的策略。对性格理解的发展可能会影响儿童对旋律的阅读(Pick等,1982)。

研究人员提出,熟练的音乐阅读涉及对音乐结构和对音符组之间关系的理解的增强敏感性(Sloboda,1984)。研究表明,成功的视线阅读取决于对和弦等熟悉结构的识别(Salis,1980; Waters,Townsend和Underwood,1998),乐句(Sloboda,1977)和音调(MacKenzie,Vaneerd,Graham,Huron) ,&Wills,1986)。与存在这些结构时相比,缺少熟悉的结构会导致音乐阅读效果更差。此外,斯洛博达(Sloboda(1976))报告了成人钢琴演奏者的视读性能对所谓的校对者错误的影响,从而证明了语言阅读和音乐阅读之间的相似之处。该研究中最好的视觉阅读器播放的乐谱中所植入的错误少于较差的视觉阅读器,这表明专家正在阅读乐曲上下文中含义的乐谱,因此忽略了不适合错误信息的上下文。

从语言阅读文学中可以明显看出,成功的语言阅读基础与音乐阅读基本相同。也就是说,对于读者的熟练程度而言,感知上下文并以符号表示形式搜索有意义的结构的能力是必需的(Singleton,2005)。熟练的语言阅读者和入门的语言阅读者之间的差异反映在他们阅读文本时所犯的错误类型上(Goodman,1969)。流利的阅读器会深入分析含义,并在阅读过程中使用它来对文本进行预测,因此更有可能产生在文本上下文中有意义的错误。新手阅读者更有可能在解码单个单词单元时出错,从而导致没有意义的错误或非上下文错误(Goodman,1969; Laing,2002)。在诸如语言阅读和音乐阅读之类的复杂任务中,错误经常发生。产生错误的方式可以揭示此类任务的基础流程。在语言阅读研究中,对新手阅读者的阅读表现进行错误分析已成为理解语言阅读能力发展的重要工具(Goodman&Marek,1996)和改进语言阅读指导(Singleton,2005)。

从语言阅读文学中可以明显看出,成功的语言阅读基础与音乐阅读基本相同。也就是说,对于读者的熟练程度而言,感知上下文并以符号表示形式搜索有意义的结构的能力是必需的(Singleton,2005)。熟练的语言阅读者和入门语言阅读者之间的区别是:现有的音乐阅读知识主要来自对专业视力阅读器的研究(Edgington,2006; Goolsby,1994a,1994b; Kopiez等,2006; MacKenzie等, 1986;Schouml;n&Besson,2002; Sloboda,1974,1977; Thompson,1987; Truitt,Clifton,Pollat​​sek,&Rayner,1997; Waters等,1998)或成年的新手(Kostka,2000; Lowder,1973)。在音乐阅读中,缺乏对新手所犯错误类型的了解。为了提高音乐阅读教学水平,尽管还不够,但了解专家的阅读方式很重要。了解新手如何阅读,他们如何犯错误以及为什么犯错误至关重要。本研究的主要目的是探讨年轻钢琴学生的音高阅读错误以及年龄对错误产生的影响。第二个目标是提出错误类别,这些类别可以用作进一步研究音乐阅读的基础。

结论

这项研究证实了以前的发现,即无论正式培训如何,整个儿童的音高阅读能力都会逐渐提高(Capodilupo,1992; Pick等,1982)。但是,就音高误差的类型而言,两个年龄组的总体趋势相似。在两组中,最频繁的音调是错误的音高,第二高频率的音调是多余的音调,而遗漏的音调则很少。可以说,音乐的阅读性能的显着特点是儿童明显强调正确演奏乐谱中的所有音高,这反映在多余音高的高频率以及音高错误的即时自我校正中,省略音调的低频。此外,从这些数据可以明显看出,大多数对象的主要目标似乎是打音高,但要牺牲定时精度。这些与Drake和Palmer(2000)的发现是一致的,他们发现年轻的钢琴家似乎比计分任务中的音高信息更不关心时间安排。

尽管在有关年轻钢琴学生的音乐阅读错误的研究文献中发现的信息很少,但在本研究中,人们预计在音乐阅读演奏中出现错误的频率很高。文献中没有指出预期的错误类型。本研究发现,对错误进行分类分析不仅有助于识别音乐阅读任务中的挑战,而且有助于比较年龄组之间的错误发生趋势。

在这项研究中发现的年龄差异是在错误频率,连续性,轮廓保留和刺激复杂性方面。 与年龄较大的年龄组相比,年龄较小的年龄组产生了更多不正确的音高,并且产生了更多的多余音高。与年龄较大的组相比,在较年轻的组中发现更多的违反旋律轮廓的音调错误,并且左手(在C部分中)或同时演奏两只手(B和C部分)的复杂性时,年幼的孩子比大一点的孩子出现了更多的错误。

年龄在推动孩子们音乐阅读向前并最大程度地减少表演中的犹豫,起着重要作用。本研究中定义的冗余错误反映了性能的犹豫。可能会重复正确的音高,这可能是因为不确定一开始的音高是否正确,或者是不确定随后的音高。有趣的是,在B和C的年轻人中,双手同时演奏的重复错误发生率最高。在A部分中,左手和右手交替演奏的重复错误的发生频率较低。这表明,用双手同时阅读音乐的任务可能会对较年轻的对象造成比对较老的对象更大的压力。音乐阅读的任务是对短期记忆的要求,并且已经确定,年幼儿童的短期记忆发展不及年龄较大的儿童(Brotz,1992)。与其他器乐演奏相比,在钢琴上阅读音乐的任务增加了两个手在两个谱号中的两个演奏者的阅读难度。左右手同时输入和电机输出的双重性势必给年轻的钢琴学生带来挑战。

年龄较大的儿童比年龄较大的儿童犯了严重的轮廓弯曲错误。 这意味着,即使他们犯了错误,年龄较大的孩子也比年龄较小的孩子更接近目标音调,并倾向于保留旋律轮廓。

剩余内容已隐藏,支付完成后下载完整资料


Pitch error analysis of young piano studentsrsquo; music reading performances

原文作者 Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

Abstract:This study analyzed the music reading performances of 6–13-year-old piano students (N = 35) in their second year of piano study. The stimuli consisted of three piano pieces, systematically constructed to vary in terms of left-hand complexity and input simultaneity. The music reading performances were recorded digitally and a code of error analysis was constructed from the data. The effect of age on the types of errors made was investigated. The age differences found were in terms of error frequency, performance continuity, contour preservation, and stimulus complexity. The study sheds light on what may be typical music reading errors of piano students in their second year of study and suggests some trends of age-related development in music reading among piano students.

Keywords:error analysis, music literacy, music reading, music reading development, piano students

外文文献出处:Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir.Pitch error analysis of young piano students music reading performances[J],International journal of Music Educating

附外文文献原文:

Pitch error analysis of young piano studentsrsquo; music reading performances

Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

University of Iceland, Iceland

Abstract

This study analyzed the music reading performances of 6–13-year-old piano students (N = 35) in their second year of piano study. The stimuli consisted of three piano pieces, systematically constructed to vary in terms of left-hand complexity and input simultaneity. The music reading performances were recorded digitally and a code of error analysis was constructed from the data. The effect of age on the types of errors made was investigated. The age differences found were in terms of error frequency, performance continuity, contour preservation, and stimulus complexity. The study sheds light on what may be typical music reading errors of piano students in their second year of study and suggests some trends of age-related development in music reading among piano students.

Keywords

error analysis, music literacy, music reading, music reading development, piano students

Learning to read traditional staff notation is an integral part of most music education programs within the western musical tradition (Campbell amp; Scott-Kassner, 1995; Mark, 1996). lsquo;Reading and notating musicrsquo; constitutes one of the voluntary lsquo;National Standards for Music Educationrsquo; in the United States (1994). Music reading skills are also emphasized in the UK Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music curricula and various other curricular documents that refer to western musical traditions. Although music reading skills are not prerequisites for engagement in music or playing an instrument (Green, 2002), and may be irrelevant in the context of many musical styles, this has not changed the fact that success in acquiring staff reading skills continues to serve as one major criterion by which western instrumental music students are evaluated (Mills, 2005).

While some music education programs have reduced the emphasis on music reading skills char- acteristic of traditional programs, written music continues to frequently serve as a starting point in instrumental music instruction (Mills, 2005; Swanwick, 1994). A notable exception is the popular Suzuki method under which children are taught to read music only at later stages of instrumental study (Suzuki, 1969). The musical material for all mainstream western music education methods,including the Suzuki method, uses conventional staff notation. Hence, music reading facility is considered an important skill for a musician to have and even lsquo;necessary for full membership of the musical communityrsquo; (Sloboda, 1978, p. 4). Although shortcomings in the ability to read staff notation do not exclude an individual from full participation in some musical genres and cultures, music reading skills are obviously valuable for musicians.

Methodological differences in instruction have reflected different opinions on how reading skills should be introduced to music students. However, various methods seem to be mostly based on conventions. A method based on research findings has yet to be proposed, likely as a result of insufficient research on the acquisition of music reading skills. As has been pointed out before, there is a considerable lack of basic theories regarding music reading (Hodges, 1992).

Introduction to music reading traditionally occurs early in life. Recent studies suggest that expert music reading skills must be mastered before the age of 15 (Kopiez, Weihs, Ligges, amp; Lee, 2006), consequently stressing the importance of understanding how childrenrsquo;s natural cognitive development interacts with their mastering of music reading. Studies show that elementary pitch reading skills can be taught to children as young as three or four years old (Capodilupo, 1992; Tommis amp; Fazey, 1999). As in other studies in music perception, age effects are found in studies on pitch reading. Brotz (1992) found a significant difference in the speed and accuracy between seven and nine year olds in a finger-tapping and pitch-reading task on a piano, and according to Capodilupo (1992), childrenrsquo;s ability to retain more complex aspects of pitch reading increased linearly from age four to 10. Apparently, when children have reached an understanding of the cor- respondence between a notated pitch and a note on an instrument they may still not be able to visually comprehend a notated melody. In one study, first and second graders (six to seven year olds) were more confident reading and playing one pitch at a time than reading pitches in a melodic context (Pick,

剩余内容已隐藏,支付完成后下载完整资料


Pitch error analysis of young piano studentsrsquo; music reading performances

原文作者 Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

Abstract:This study analyzed the music reading performances of 6–13-year-old piano students (N = 35) in their second year of piano study. The stimuli consisted of three piano pieces, systematically constructed to vary in terms of left-hand complexity and input simultaneity. The music reading performances were recorded digitally and a code of error analysis was constructed from the data. The effect of age on the types of errors made was investigated. The age differences found were in terms of error frequency, performance continuity, contour preservation, and stimulus complexity. The study sheds light on what may be typical music reading errors of piano students in their second year of study and suggests some trends of age-related development in music reading among piano students.

Keywords:error analysis, music literacy, music reading, music reading development, piano students

外文文献出处:Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir.Pitch error analysis of young piano students music reading performances[J],International journal of Music Educating

附外文文献原文:

Pitch error analysis of young piano studentsrsquo; music reading performances

Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

University of Iceland, Iceland

Abstract

This study analyzed the music reading performances of 6–13-year-old piano students (N = 35) in their second year of piano study. The stimuli consisted of three piano pieces, systematically constructed to vary in terms of left-hand complexity and input simultaneity. The music reading performances were recorded digitally and a code of error analysis was constructed from the data. The effect of age on the types of errors made was investigated. The age differences found were in terms of error frequency, performance continuity, contour preservation, and stimulus complexity. The study sheds light on what may be typical music reading errors of piano students in their second year of study and suggests some trends of age-related development in music reading among piano students.

Keywords

error analysis, music literacy, music reading, music reading development, piano students

Learning to read traditional staff notation is an integral part of most music education programs within the western musical tradition (Campbell amp; Scott-Kassner, 1995; Mark, 1996). lsquo;Reading and notating musicrsquo; constitutes one of the voluntary lsquo;National Standards for Music Educationrsquo; in the United States (1994). Music reading skills are also emphasized in the UK Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music curricula and various other curricular documents that refer to western musical traditions. Although music reading skills are not prerequisites for engagement in music or playing an instrument (Green, 2002), and may be irrelevant in the context of many musical styles, this has not changed the fact that success in acquiring staff reading skills continues to serve as one major criterion by which western instrumental music students are evaluated (Mills, 2005).

While some music education programs have reduced the emphasis on music reading skills char- acteristic of traditional programs, written music continues to frequently serve as a starting point in instrumental music instruction (Mills, 2005; Swanwick, 1994). A notable exception is the popular Suzuki method under which children are taught to read music only at later stages of instrumental study (Suzuki, 1969). The musical material for all mainstream western music education methods,including the Suzuki method, uses conventional staff notation. Hence, music reading facility is considered an important skill for a musician to have and even lsquo;necessary for full membership of the musical communityrsquo; (Sloboda, 1978, p. 4). Although shortcomings in the ability to read staff notation do not exclude an individual from full participation in some musical genres and cultures, music reading skills are obviously valuable for musicians.

Methodological differences in instruction have reflected different opinions on how reading skills should be introduced to music students. However, various methods seem to be mostly based on conventions. A method based on research findings has yet to be proposed, likely as a result of insufficient research on the acquisition of music reading skills. As has been pointed out before, there is a considerable lack of basic theories regarding music reading (Hodges, 1992).

Introduction to music reading traditionally occurs early in life. Recent studies suggest that expert music reading skills must be mastered before the age of 15 (Kopiez, Weihs, Ligges, amp; Lee, 2006), consequently stressing the importance of understanding how childrenrsquo;s natural cognitive development interacts with their mastering of music reading. Studies show that elementary pitch reading skills can be taught to children as young as three or four years old (Capodilupo, 1992; Tommis amp; Fazey, 1999). As in other studies in music perception, age effects are found in studies on pitch reading. Brotz (1992) found a significant difference in the speed and accuracy between seven and nine year olds in a finger-tapping and pitch-reading task on a piano, and according to Capodilupo (1992), childrenrsquo;s ability to retain more complex aspects of pitch reading increased linearly from age four to 10. Apparently, when children have reached an understanding of the cor- respondence between a notated pitch and a note on an instrument they may still not be able to visually comprehend a notated melody. In one study, first and second graders (six to seven year olds) were more confident reading and playing one pitch at a time than reading pitches in a melodic context (Pick,

剩余内容已隐藏,支付完成后下载完整资料


资料编号:[272385],资料为PDF文档或Word文档,PDF文档可免费转换为Word

您需要先支付 30元 才能查看全部内容!立即支付

课题毕业论文、外文翻译、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。