Lilian Simones Franziska Schroeder Matthew Rodger Queen’s University Belfast (Funded by DEL) COMMUNICATING MUSICAL KNOWLEDGE THROUGH GESTURE: PIANO TEACHERS’ GESTURAL BEHAVIOURS ACROSS DIFFERENT LEVELS OF STUDENT PROFICIENCY

Gesture IS important for teaching and learning effectiveness Teachers and Learners gestures (Goldin-Meadow et al., 2009) Conceptual understanding (Yoon et al., 2011). Learning is maintained over time (Cook, Mitchell & Goldin-Meadow, 2008). Alignment and intersubjectivity (Du Bois, 2001; Mondada, 2006; Sacks et al., 1974; de Fornel, 1992; Pickering & Garrod, 2004; Müller, 2008; Zlatev et al., 2008).

Index I. METHODOLOGY II. RESULTS III. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

I. METHODOLOGY

I. METHODOLOGY Research Questions What gestures are developed by teachers while teaching piano to different levels of student proficiency? What similarities and differences can be found in teachers individual gestural approach while teaching piano to different levels of student proficiency?

I. METHODOLOGY Participants: TEACHERS Gender Age Experience10-30 teaching Education PhD AccreditationAll specific teaching accreditation

I. METHODOLOGY Participants: STUDENTS ExperienceElementary grade 1 Grade 4 grade 8 Gender Age [5-7] [8-10] [11- 15] [21-35] Group I Less experienced Group II More experienced

I. METHODOLOGY PROCEDURE Teach/learn in one-to-one environment: 2 contrasting pieces during three consecutive lessons. 6 video recordings per Dyad (3 piece 1 and 3 piece II) total 72 video recordings (1 st 3mins of each analysed)

I. METHODOLOGY Analysis Qualitative observation Statistical Analysis Spontaneous co-verbal gestures (McNeill 1992; 2005) Deictic Iconic Metaphoric Co-Verbal Beats Aim: Comparison Poisson Regression Spontaneous co-musical gestures (Simones, Schroeder, Rodger 2013, submitted) Musical Beats Conducting style Playing piano Mimics Touch Elan Software (Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, Lausberg & Sloetjes 2009) Cohen’s Kappa:.82 (p<.05) categorisation

I. Gestures developed by the three teachers combined II. Gestures developed per teacher: agreement/disagreement RESULTS

RESULTS I. Gestures developed by the three teachers combined R: 0.82 P: R: 2.03 P<0.001 R: 4.67 P: <0.001 R: 2.08 P: <0.001 R: 0.98 P:0.92 R: 13.0 P: <0.001 R: 0.90 P:0.25 R: 0.33 <0.001 R: 0.07 P<0.001

Results II. Gestures developed per teacher Agreements DEICTIC MIMICS TOUCH METAPHORIC ICONIC CO-VERBAL BEATS CONDUCTING STYLE (*) Less experienced (all teachers) More experienced (all teachers) Statistically significant difference for all teachers (…) for two teachers (…) for one teacher

Results II. Gestures developed per teacher Disagreement Musical Beats Playing Piano T1: Less experienced T2: Less experienced T3: More experienced (p< 0.003) T1: More experienced (p< o.o5) T2: Less experienced T3: Less experienced (p< 0.04)

III. CONCLUSIONS/ IMPLICATIONS

Conclusions/ implications 1) Didactic intention Gesture type 2) Gestural Scaffolding approach Should a gesture pedagogy be established for this context?

Thank you!

Publication: Simones L., Schroeder F. & Rodger M. (2013). Categorisations of Physical Gesture in Piano Teaching: A preliminary enquiry. (forthcoming).

References: Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J. (1986). Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological measurements, 20, Cook, S.; Mitchell, Z. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition, 106, de Fornel, M. (1992). The return gesture: some remarks on context, inference, and iconic gesture. In P. Auer & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of Language (pp ). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Du Bois, J. (2001). Towards a dialogic syntax. Unpublished manuscript. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture, how our hands help us think. Harvard: Harvard University Press

McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind. Chicago: University Press. McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies (8), Muller, C. (2008). What gestures reveal about the nature of metaphor. In A. Cienki & C. Muller (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture (pp ) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pickering, M. & Garrod, S. (2004). Towards a mechanist psychology of dialogue. Behaviour and Brain Sciences, 27, ). Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, Zlatev, J., Racine, T., Sinha, C. & Itkonen, E. (2008). Intersubjectivity: what makes us human? In J. Zlatev, T. Racine, C. Sinha & E. Itkonen (Eds.) The shared mind: perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 1-14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gestures developed by the three teachers combined GestureOccurrences Less experienced students Occurrences More experienced students Ratio (Less exp/more exp.) (95% CI) P-value Deictic (0.70, 0.95) Metaphoric (3.40, 6.43)<0.001 Iconic (1.59, 2.60)<0.001 Co-verbal beats (1.62, 2.66)<0.001 Musical beats (0.667, 1.44)0.92 Conducting style (3.09, 54.8)<0.001 Playing piano (0.74, 1.08)0.25 Mimic (0.25, 0.46)<0.001 Touch (0.04, 0.14)<0.001

Gestures developed per teacher GesturesOccurrences Less experienced Occurrences More experienced Ratio Less/More experienced 95% CI P - value TEACHERS T1T2T3T1T2T3T1T2T3T1T2T3 Deictic Iconic < Metaphoric <0.001 Co-verbal Beats <0.001 Musical Beats Conducting Style *2.00**0.42* Playing Piano Mimics <0.001 Touch *0.007<0.001*

Gestures developed by the three teachers combined GesturesLess Experienced Students (freq./ %) More Experienced Students (freq./%) Spontaneous Co-verbal (McNeill 1995; 2005) 607 (25%)904 (37%) Spontaneous Co-Musical (Simones, Schroeder & Rodger 2013) 563 (23%)344 (15%) Total1170 (48%)1248 (52%) Grand total: % 38%

RESULTS II. Gestures developed per teacher: Spontaneous co-verbal gestures (McNeill, 1992; 2005) DEICTIC METAPHORIC ICONIC CO-VERBAL BEATS p<0.001 p<0.03 p<0.003 p<0.001 p:0.01

II. Gestures developed per teacher: Spontaneous co-musical (Simones, Schroeder, Rodger 2013) MUSICAL BEATS CONDUCTING STYLE PLAYING PIANO MIMICS TOUCH P: P: 0.05 p: 0.04 P: <0.001 P: 0.007