1. 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

2. 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).

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

4. I. METHODOLOGY

5. 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?

6. I. METHODOLOGY Participants: TEACHERS Gender Age 39-55 Experience10-30 teaching Education PhD AccreditationAll specific teaching accreditation

7. I. METHODOLOGY Participants: STUDENTS ExperienceElementary grade 1 Grade 4 grade 8 Gender 2 1 1 2 3 0 2 1 Age [5-7] [8-10] [11- 15] [21-35] Group I Less experienced Group II More experienced

8. 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)

9. 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

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

11. RESULTS I. Gestures developed by the three teachers combined R: 0.82 P: 0.008 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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. III. CONCLUSIONS/ IMPLICATIONS

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

16. Thank you!

17. Publication: Simones L., Schroeder F. & Rodger M. (2013). Categorisations of Physical Gesture in Piano Teaching: A preliminary enquiry. (forthcoming). LSIMONES01@QUB.AC.UK

18. 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, 37-46. Cook, S.; Mitchell, Z. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition, 106, 1047-1058 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. 159-176). 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

19. 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), 117-129. Muller, C. (2008). What gestures reveal about the nature of metaphor. In A. Cienki & C. Muller (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture (pp.219-245) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pickering, M. & Garrod, S. (2004). Towards a mechanist psychology of dialogue. Behaviour and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-190). Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735. 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.

20. Gestures developed by the three teachers combined GestureOccurrences Less experienced students Occurrences More experienced students Ratio (Less exp/more exp.) (95% CI) P-value Deictic3743050.82 (0.70, 0.95) 0.008 Metaphoric462154.67 (3.40, 6.43)<0.001 Iconic951932.03 (1.59, 2.60)<0.001 Co-verbal beats921912.08 (1.62, 2.66)<0.001 Musical beats52510.98 (0.667, 1.44)0.92 Conducting style 22613.0 (3.09, 54.8)<0.001 Playing piano2302060.90 (0.74, 1.08)0.25 Mimic155523.33 (0.25, 0.46)<0.001 Touch12490.07 (0.04, 0.14)<0.001

21. Gestures developed per teacher GesturesOccurrences Less experienced Occurrences More experienced Ratio Less/More experienced 95% CI P - value TEACHERS T1T2T3T1T2T3T1T2T3T1T2T3 Deictic 1699810712590 0.740.920.840.010.560.23 Iconic 22423110064294.551.530.94<0.0010.030.80 Metaphoric 142939080456.432.7615.0<0.001 Co-verbal Beats 25521551100402.041.922.670.003<0.001 Musical Beats 4250281220.670.204.400.100.140.003 Conducting Style 0201844*2.00**0.42* Playing Piano 43711166356871.470.790.750.050.180.04 Mimics 19121241619170.841.580.140.610.21<0.001 Touch 1510 9 02700.130.06*0.007<0.001*

22. 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: 2418 62% 38%

23. 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

24. II. Gestures developed per teacher: Spontaneous co-musical (Simones, Schroeder, Rodger 2013) MUSICAL BEATS CONDUCTING STYLE PLAYING PIANO MIMICS TOUCH P: 0.003 P: 0.05 p: 0.04 P: <0.001 P: 0.007