A Review of Research On Practicing

Council for Research in Music Education
A Review of Research on Practicing: Summary and Synthesis of the Extant Research with
Implications for a New Theoretical Orientation
Author(s): Peter Miksza
Source: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 190 (FALL 2011), pp.
51-92
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in Music
Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.190.0051
Accessed: 24-06-2016 17:04 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Council for Research in Music Education, University of Illinois Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education
This content downloaded from 128.223.86.31 on Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:04:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education © 2012 Board of Trustees
Fall 2011 No. 190 University of Illinois
A Review of Research on Practicing:

Summary and Synthesis of the
Extant Research with Implications
for a New Theoretical Orientation
Peter Miksza
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
A bstract
This paper provides a summary and synthesis of the extant research related to music practicing as
well as a preliminary presentation of an original instructional theory of practicing. The 119 stud-
ies reviewed in this paper are organized according to four central questions about practicing that
research has begun to inform: (a) What do individuals do when they practice music? (b) How have
researchers intervened with individuals’ practice? (c) What individual difference variables interact
with why and how musicians practice? and (d) How is self-regulated learning relevant to practicing?
Figures summarizing the essential methodological components of selected studies from each category
are included. An instructional theory is presented as opposed to a descriptive theory in an attempt
to more closely align research and teaching efforts. The instructional theory that is proposed makes
considerations for theoretical frameworks employed in previous research. The following components
of the practice process in regards to both student’s and teacher’s influence are included in the new
theory: choice, intentionality, action, achievement outcome, and rest and recovery.
I ntroduction
The body of research literature related to practicing has grown tremendously in both
quantity and sophistication over the past 30 years. A large group of scholars from
around the world (e.g., Australia, England, Norway, the United States) has conducted
investigations of musicians ranging in development from elementary beginners to elite
professionals. Studies of how musicians of varied experience levels practice and what
factors impact their practicing have begun to yield interesting trends and generaliza-
tions. The diversity of the extant research in regards to theoretical bases, methodologies,
interventions, and related psychological variables has created a rich body of knowledge
for researchers and practitioners to draw on when designing studies and/or instruction.
Several authors have worked to disseminate the existing research findings on practic-
ing in book publications (e.g., Barry & Hallam, 2002; Jørgensen & Hallam, 2009),
while others have written extensively on how practicing could be viewed through theo-
51
BCRME_190_text.indd 51 12/13/11 8:29 AM

Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Fall 2011 No. 190
retical lenses from related fields (e.g., Hallam, 1997b; Jørgensen, 2003; McPherson &
Zimmerman, 2002; Zdzinski, 1991). It is clear that research on practicing has advanced
significantly since the work of early pioneers (e.g., Brown, 1928; O’Brien, 1943;
Rubin-Rabson, 1939, 1940a–b, 1941a–d). However, no published review of the extant
research literature exists at this point in time. Furthermore, no attempts have yet to be
made at synthesizing the somewhat disparate theoretical frameworks employed thus far.
The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the research on practicing as a step toward
proposing a new, overarching theoretical model relevant to music education research and
instruction. Music “practice” and “practicing” in this paper refers to individually oriented
self-study directed, no matter how strictly, toward attaining musical proficiency on an
instrument or the voice. Although practicing overlaps a great deal with other manifesta-
tions of musical learning (e.g., score study for conducting, chamber rehearsing, music
analysis), this paper is oriented toward performance competence. In addition, while many
of the interesting and important aspects of practicing overlap with constructs in other
fields (e.g., motor-skill development, athletics, academic study habits, peer learning), only
research pertaining specifically to music education will be reviewed herein. Only studies
printed in English from peer-reviewed journals or books were included. A total of 119
empirical studies representing both quantitative and qualitative orientations were found to
meet the criteria described above. Studies incorporating self-reports of practicing, observa-
tions of practice activities/behaviors, practice interventions, and psychological dispositions
related to practicing carried out in a musical context are cited.
The following discussion is intended to highlight major findings and method-
ological approaches (e.g., populations, measures/data collection approaches, study
conditions, variables) that have been incorporated in practice research. The discussion is
organized in two main sections; the first dealing with central questions about practicing
that research has begun to inform and the second offering a sketch of a new theoreti-
cal orientation that may inform research and instruction. The existing research will be
presented according to the degree of correspondence with the following questions: (a)
What do individuals do when they practice music? (b) How have researchers intervened
with individuals’ practice? (c) What individual difference variables interact with why
and how musicians practice? and (d) How is self-regulated learning relevant to practic-
ing? Tables summarizing key elements of each collection of research will be presented.
C entral Q uestions about P racticing

T hat R esearch H as B egun to I nform
What Do Individuals Do When They Practice Music?
Research that addresses “what individuals do when they practice” can be categorized as
investigations that have addressed comparisons of student and teacher opinions/perspec-
tives, changes in approach to practicing across long spans of time and development, direct
observations of strategies used to facilitate memory, and general investigations of reported
52

Miksza Practice Literature Review and Theory
and/or observed practice behaviors/strategies. Summaries of key structural elements of

studies that include objective analyses of practice behaviors are presented in Table 1.
Comparisons of Student and Teacher Opinions/Perspectives

Studies in this category have found that although teachers may be able to estimate their
students’ practice time and practice consistency with relative accuracy (Duke, Flowers,
& Wolfe, 1997), students’ and teachers’ expectations regarding practice behavior are
inconsistent. Barry (2007) found that university studio teachers were not likely to be
observed demonstrating strategies in lessons even though they reported doing so often.
Barry also found that students’ descriptions of how to practice were much less detailed
than their teachers. Kostka (2002) found similar inconsistencies when surveying faculty
and undergraduate and graduate music majors. Although 69% of the students in this
study reported discussing practice strategies with their teachers and 94% of the teachers
expected their students to use a regular practice routine, only 45% of the students did
so. An earlier study by Barry and Macarthur (1994) determined that piano teachers
of elementary to high school age students were not likely to report teaching strategies
that were shown to be effective via research. However, university-level teachers were
more likely to endorse practicing with a more set routine, mental strategies, and use of
a metronome. Hamann and Frost (2000) investigated the practice habits and attitudes
of 512 string students, grades 6 through 12, as a function of whether or not they took
private lessons. Those taking private lessons reported practicing for more time and more
strategically, and being goal-oriented.
Changes in Approach to Practicing across Long Spans of Time

and Development
Several researchers have explored how approaches to practicing change/develop over a
musician’s lifespan via retrospective accounts. Although heavily dependent on partici-
pants’ memory/recall across great lengths of time, several interesting trends have emerged.
Early, middle, and late periods of development have been found, indicating that musi-
cians may often begin practicing early in life with the aid of parents, shift to being more
focused on strategy use and intrinsic desires to practice during middle periods, and focus
on personal approaches to music making later in their career (MacNamara, Holmes, &
Collins, 2006; Manturzewska, 1979, 1990; Sosniak, 1985). A similar shift in practice
sophistication was also detected by McPherson (1997), who found that students reported
incorporating more sophisticated strategies across three years (i.e., playing by ear, impro-
vising, play from memory, mental rehearsal) and that higher levels of practice sophistica-
tion were related to objective measures of several dimensions of performance achievement
(e.g., rehearsed music, sight-reading, playing by ear).
Complementary findings were reported by Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer
(1993). These researchers explored retrospective reports of 40 violinists. The research-
53

Table 1
Studies Incorporating Observations of Music Practice Behaviors
BCRME_190_text.indd 54
Behaviors Related
Sample/Instrument Behaviors/Activities Performance Task/ to Performance/
Author(s) /Performer Time Observed Included Material Competence
Chaffin (2007) N=1; professional 7 sessions, 4.75 hrs Starts and stops; repetitions; target Clair de Lune from NSb
concert pianista tempo; practice rate (number of Debussy, Suite
practice segments × mean length Bergamasque
of practice segments in bars × 3
beats/bar)/(playing time in minutes);
playing time; rate/tempo ratio (rate
of practice/target tempo)
Chaffin & N=1; professional 58 sessionsc Starts and stops (practice segments) Presto from Bach, NS
Imreh (1997) concert pianist Italian Concerto
Chaffin & N=1; professional 42 sessions, 28.5 Starts and stops; repetitions; Presto from Bach, NS
Imreh (2002) concert pianista hrs of practice inter-bar-intervals; hesitations; pausing Italian Concerto
Chaffin, et al. N=1; professional 12 sessions, 11.3 Starts and stops; repetitions; Presto from Bach, NS
(2003) concert pianista hrs of practice inter-bar-intervals; slowing Italian Concerto
Chaffin, et al. N=1; professional 75 sessions, 33 Starts and stops; repetitions Bach, Cello NS
(2009) cellist hrsc of practice Suite no. 6
Chaffin & N=1; professional 58 sessionsc Starts and stops; repetitions Presto from Bach, NS

Logan (2006) concert pianista Italian Concerto
Duke, Simmons, N=17; undergraduate 1 session (time var. Playing hands together early in 3-m. passage 3 top-ranked piano
& Cash (2009) and graduate piano by subject) practice; practice with inflection from Shostakovich, players were more
majors early on; practice was thoughtful (e.g., Concerto no. 1 likely to exhibit the
silent pauses, making notes); errors for Piano, Trumpet, following: location
preempted by stopping in anticipation and String Orchestra, and source of errors
of mistakes; errors addressed op. 35 were identified,
immediately when they appeared; rehearsed, and
location and source of errors were corrected; tempo of
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 1 (cont.)
Behaviors Related
identified/rehearsed/corrected; individual
tempo of individual performance performance trials
trials varied systematically; target varied systematically;
practice was repeated until errors fixed target practice was
repeated until errors
fixed.
Geringer & 2000 “practice 8 weeks Performance categories: solo music Various NS
Kostka (1984) rooms” observed practice, ensemble music practice,
technical exercise practice, conducting
practice, other. Nonperformance
categories: read/write/look at music,
getting ready, other.
Ginsborg (2002) N=13; singers; 2 weeks, 6 Attempts: accompanying, counting, Memorize a song: Wider strategy use among
students, amateurs, sessions, 1.5 counting from memory, playing the “She’s Somewhere in more proficient
professionals hrs of practice melody, singing the words, singing the Sunlight Strong,” memorizers; More
the words from memory, speaking the a poem by Le proficient memorizers
words, vocalizing. Errors: words (word Gallienne set to music more likely to count

meaning, word sounds, word omission), by Barab (Boosey aloud while reading
underlay (problems fitting words to and Hawkes, 1955) from the score.
melody), music (pitch errors, rhythm
errors, duration errors, omission errors)
Gruson (1988) N=43; pianists; 1 session (n=43), Uninterrupted playing; error; repeat-note/ Performance task varied Repeat section more
ages 6–46 10 sessions (n=16) measure/section/piece; slow; pause; fast; by level of competence likely to be used by
(time var. by subject) guide; read; count; frustration; hands (12 levels) higher-level pianists
separate; give up; play other; person-
interruption; total time; tempo
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 1 (cont.)
Behaviors Related
Hallam (1997a) N=55; strings; 1 session, 10 mins Repetition behaviors: errors; planning— Prepare sight-reading Those exhibiting and
ages 6–18 ID of problem spots/completed task/ for graded national reporting more strategic
limited time off-task examination practicing had higher
performance achievement
scores.
Hallam (2001a) N=55; strings; 1 session, 10 mins Errors; corrections; stops; starts; poor Prepare sight-reading Differences found
ages 6–18d intonation; inaccurate rhythm; faltering; for graded national between reported and
repetitions (short sections/large sections/ examination observed behaviors used.
whole piece); nonplaying analysis; More experienced
speaking letter names; clapping rhythms; students tended to
frustration/boredom; slowing; planning— engage in slow practice
ID of problem spots/completed task/ and exhibit more
limited time off-task evidence of planning.
Hallam (2001b) N=55; strings; 1 session, 10 mins Repetition; nonplaying analysis; Prepare sight-reading Strategy use related to
ages 6–18d line-by-line practice; playing through for graded national grade, age, and overall
whole piece or sections without correction; examination performance score.
speaking letter names; clapping rhythms;

correcting single notes; repeating sections
(more but unspecified)
Killian & N=198; singers; 30-sec practice Tonicized; hand signs; sang out loud; Two sight-singing Behaviors used more by
Henry (2005) high school age trial before sight- finished in 30 sec; isolated problems melodies modeled high-accuracy singers
reading task after Texas All-State than low- or middle-
Choir materials accuracy singers:
tonicized; sang out loud;
finished in 30 sec;
isolated problems
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 1 (cont.)
Behaviors Related
Maynard (2006) N=19; brass, 2 sessions, mean Repetition behaviors: number and Various solo repertoire NS
woodwind, string; of 88 mins length of performance trials during
college studio researcher-selected practice segments
teachers,
undergraduate
and graduate
music majors
McPherson & N=7; winds; 3-yr study, Types of practicing coded (repertoire, NS NS
Renwick (2001) beginners 2 sessions year 1 technical, informal); specific behaviors
(n=7), 2 sessions (playing only, moving, counting,
year 2 (n=5), Length thinking, singing, fingering,
in mins not reported run-through); nonpractice behaviors
(finding exercise, talk, fiddle with
instrument, resting, day-dreaming,
distracted, frustration)
Miklaszewski N=1; conservatory 4 sessions, 48–90 Slowing; right/left hand alone; both hands; Debussy’s Prelude NS

(1989) piano student mins each starts; stops; visual examination; repetition from Feux d’Artifice
Miksza (2006a) N=40; brass; 1 session, 23 mins Singing/whistling; air; varying tempo; Perform a researcher- Whole-part-whole; repeat
undergraduate silent fingering/slide positioning; varying adapted etude from 26 section; marks part;
and graduate pitch; varying dynamic; varying Studies for Flute, op. varying pitch related
music majors articulation; buzzing; informal playing; 107 (Furstenau, 1963) to performance
whole-part-whole; frustration; self-guiding; achievement
repeat-measure/section/piece; metronome;
electronic tuner; marks part; piano
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 1 (cont.)
Behaviors Related
Miksza (2007) N=60; brass and 3 sessions, 75 mins Repeat measure; repeat section; Researcher-created Repeat section; whole-
woodwind; high whole-part-whole; chaining; repeat etudes part-whole; slowing;
school age etude; slowing; varying pitch; skipping directly to or
varying articulation; varying rhythm; just before critical
non–etude-related playing; singing/ musical sections of the
whistling; use of metronome; marks etude related to
part; skipping directly to or just before performance achievement
critical sections of the etude
Miksza (2011) N=55; brass and 1 session, 23 mins Repeat measure; repeat 2–4 m. chunk; Perform a researcher- Repeat 2–4 m. chunk;
woodwind; repeat 4–8 m. chunk; repeat slow or adapted etude (same as whole-part-whole;
undergraduate and fast section of the form; repeat etude; Miksza, 2006a) slowing; chaining; use of
graduate music whole-part-whole; chaining; slowing; metronome; varying
majors varying pitch; varying articulation; pitch; singing, whistling,
varying the rhythm; non–etude-related buzzing related to
playing; singing/whistling/buzzing; performance
use of metronome achievement
Nielsen (1999) N=2; conservatory 2 sessions, 1 hr each,c Time spent per measure; measures Repertoire for a NS
organists across 2 learning periods worked on consecutively; segmentation; conservatory examination
tempo; uni-/bilateral play (hands/pedal);

change of rhythmical structure
Renwick & N=1; clarinet; 6 sessions, across 3 yrs Silent fingering; silent thinking; singing; Various music class NS
McPherson (2002) beginner run-through; repeat 1–2 notes; repeat repertoire
more than 2 notes; different tempo; time
per note
Rohwer (2005) N=3; saxophone; 474–920 mins of Elements of routine; corrective behaviors Various community NS
beginners; ages practice across 3 wks (slowing, repetition); music selected for band repertoire
57–76 practice; error detection; clapping;
metronome; foot tapping; analysis for
difficulty; singing
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 1 (cont.)
Behaviors Related
Rohwer & N=65; woodwind, 5 mins “Analytic” and “holistic” practicers 24-m. etude no. 16, Analytic practicers
Polk (2006) brass, bells; described; reactive and proactive Rusch significantly more
8th-grade band analytic practicers described; corrective effective over time
and noncorrective holistic practicers
described
Williamon & N=22; 4 levels of >9 sessions (time Time spent; total days; number All Bach; assigned to Higher competence
Valentine (2000) competence based var by subjects, of sessions; number of sessions subjects based on level spent more time
on English grading NS) per day; time per session; graphs of of ability (Polonaise, practicing; those playing
system starting and stopping points indicating Inventions, Fugue) larger sections had
segments higher performance
achievement scores
Williamon & N=22; 4 levels of >9 sessions, (time var Segmentation analysis based on All Bach, assigned to Higher competence were
Valentine competence based by subjects, NS) “structural” (e.g., 1st bar in a subjects based on level of more likely to start and
(2002) on English grading subsection), “difficult” (e.g., ability (Polonaise, stop on structural bars
systeme pianist labeled it difficult), or “other” Inventions, Fugue) and less likely to start or
(e.g., all remaining bars)’ stop on “difficult” bars
over time; structural starts
significantly related to
musical understanding
and communicative

ability
Williamon, N=22, 4 levels of >9 sessions, (time Graphs of starting and stopping All Bach, assigned to NS
Valentine, & competence based var by subjects, NS) points indicating segments subjects based on level
Valentine on English grading of ability (Polonaise,
(2002) systeme Inventions, Fugue)
(Study 1)
a
Same as Chaffin & Imreh, 1997
b
Not specified
c
Approximate time
d
Same as Hallam, 1997a
e
Same as Williamon & Valentine, 2000
12/13/11 8:29 AM
ers found that the “best” and “good” violin students practiced more and with greater
regularity than those focused on music education and that the projected amounts of
practice from beginning their instrument up until age 18 for both groups were starkly
different. In the second part of their study, Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer found
that “projected amount of accumulated practice” was as good a predictor for achieve-
ment on a 9-stroke keyboard task as skill-level categorization suggesting the importance
of a threshold of practice for acquiring expertise.
An account of young musicians’ development with regards to practice has been pro-
vided by Howe and Sloboda (1991a, 1991b; Sloboda & Howe, 1991) who interviewed
42 “average” and “outstanding” students from a British specialty school along with some
of their parents. Results suggested that students spent between 200 and 500 hours a year
practicing and that parents played an important role in regulating and encouraging prac-
tice. Further, half of the participants’ parents spoke regularly with their children’s teachers
about practice. While most students seemed to enjoy performing, many were not self-
motivated to practice and most had a hard time maintaining concentration in practice.
McPherson and colleagues have published several articles reporting on a study of
beginning instrumentalists across 3 years. In contrast to the studies discussed above,
these researchers incorporated a variety of methodological approaches; semi-structured
interview, questionnaire, observation, and objective measures of performance achieve-
ment. Interview data indicated that children generally overestimated their practice
when compared to parents’ estimates, that those who did the least practice tended to
be more likely to quit playing, and that most students generally found practice to be
a chore or boring (McPherson & Davidson, 2002). A closer analysis of 9 participants
who began with and maintained a high degree of motivation, gradually decreased in
their motivation, or ultimately quit their instrument was reported by Pitts, Davidson,
and McPherson (2000a). The students with highest motivation were driven to practice
by personal interest, tended to be self-aware in their practice, and had parents who
were supportive but did not interfere detrimentally. Those whose motivation waned
tended to practice begrudgingly for a “set amount” of time and had parents with casual
approaches to support. Participants who quit practiced the least, avoided practicing
challenging materials, and, along with their parents, had low expectations of success.
Pitts, Davidson, and McPherson (2000b) also examined 3 participants who exhib-
ited ineffective practicing in unique ways. One participant was independent but tended
to be easily distracted by elements in the environment, whereas another was easily frus-
trated and dishonest about the nature and extent of practicing. The last took a passive,
yet slow and serious approach to practicing that was perhaps a result of parents’ high
pressure expectations. In contrast, Renwick and McPherson (2002) reported on a case
that demonstrated a more healthy development over time. This participant began with
parental encouragement and tended to practice only easy music. Over time the partici-
pant incorporated strategic practicing (mental strategies, repetition of sections) and was
motivated to practice preferred songs regardless of difficulty.
60

In a culminating report of their longitudinal study, McPherson (2005) reported on

analyses relating amount and type of practicing to changes in performance achievement
across 3 years. Regression analyses indicated that amount of practice completed was
a predictor of the performance outcomes “perform rehearsed music” and “sight-read”
across all years. The type of strategy participants employed was also a predictor of these
two outcomes and was a more powerful predictor of the “sight-read” outcome than
amount of practice. Type of strategy used was the only predictor of the outcomes “play
from memory,” and “play by ear.”
Direct Observations of Strategies Used to Facilitate Memory

This category of research includes lines of work dealing primarily with memory in piano
performance and in the context of cognitive psychology. In a series of articles, Chaffin
and Imreh (1997, 2001, 2002), Chaffin, Imreh, Lemieux, and Chen (2003), and
Chaffin and Logan (2006), report on an investigation of 1 pianist’s (coauthor Imreh)
preparation of a piece by Bach. The articles examined the pianist’s observed practice
behavior at various stages in the learning process, verbal reports while practicing, as
well as recall of the memorized material 2 years following the study. In a preliminary
report, Chaffin and Imreh (1997) describe how the pianist first identified formal aspects
of the piece for use as memory retrieval cues since the starts, stops, and repetitions
observed were more likely to occur at formal boundaries of the composition. Other
studies suggested a more complex structure of retrieval cues based on 3 musical dimen-
sions: basic—familiar patterns, fingerings, technical difficulties; interpretive—phrasing,
dynamics, tempo, pedal; and expressive—basic, interpretive, and emotional (Chaffin &
Imreh, 2001, 2001). These dimensions and their associated retrieval cues were found to
generally predict locations of starts, stops, and repetitions in practice. Further, a trend
was detected in that the participant tended to practice basic dimension material at first
and interpretive dimension material later. In contrast, analyses from several other studies
of practice in a more global sense suggested that four stages of learning were evident:
“scouting-it-out,” “section-by-section,” “gray stage,” and “maintenance” (Chaffin, 2007;
Chaffin et al., 2003; Chaffin et al., 2009). The stages suggest that the pianist first created
an artistic image of the piece early on, then transformed the image into a practice plan,
and finally added interpretive details.
Other examinations of pianists’ memorization have focused on the use of retrieval
structures when practicing as well (Williamon & Valentine, 2002; Williamon, Valentine,
& Valentine, 2002). The practice tasks employed in these studies led to a memorized
recital for each participant that was scored as a measure of performance achievement.
Pianists of higher competence were more likely to start on structural bars (e.g., related to
form) when practicing, especially as time went on. The researchers also found that fewer
starts and stops occurred on difficult bars over time and that the frequency of structural
starts was significantly related to the performance criteria. Williamon, Valentine, and
61

Valentine (2002) studied length of practice segment used and how it changed leading
up to performance. They found that practice segment length and variance of segment
length generally increased over time and suggest that this represents a shift of attention
across hierarchical elements of music. Taking a different approach, Ginsborg (2002)
observed student and professional singers’ practice for memorizing a song as if for
public performance. The numerous practice behaviors observed were categorized as
either “attempts” or “errors.” Results of this study indicated those with better memory
were more likely to count aloud when practicing and those who were more proficient
memorizers tended to use a wider array of practice strategies.
General Investigations of Reported

and/or Observed Practice Behaviors/Strategies
Several researchers have explored collegiate musicians’ amount and use of practice time
broadly conceived. Jørgensen (1997, 2002) surveyed collegiate students to compare the
amount of time spent practicing as a function of degree program, year of study, and
instrument studied. He found that vocal students practiced the least and that piano stu-
dents practiced the most followed in descending order by strings, brass, and woodwinds.
Jørgensen (2002) also found that practice amounts reported by subjects with “excellent”
performance evaluations were significantly higher than those who received “very good”
or “good” ratings. In an observational study of collegiate practicing, Geringer and
Kostka (1984) observed behaviors classified as either performance (e.g., solo/ensemble
music, technical exercises, conducting) or nonperformance activities (e.g., reading/writ-
ing, getting ready) across 2,000 occasions. Performance activities accounted for 72% of
the observations with solo playing the most frequent behavior exhibited. In contrast,
nonperformance activities were only observed 28% of the time. In addition, no correla-
tions were found between observations and self-report estimates from 100 musicians.
Other researchers have studied the practicing of younger musicians in an attempt
to explain varied degrees of musical success. O’Neill (1997) compared the practice
diaries of instrumentalists ages 6 to 10 across a 2-week period. Differences were found
between low and high achieving students’ practice minutes, medium and low achieving
students’ number of days practiced, and the degree of parental involvement high achiev-
ers received compared to low achievers. In each case, the higher achieving group had
a greater quantity. Sloboda, Davidson, Howe, and Moore (1996) conducted a similar
study of 257 student musicians’ (ages 8 to 18) practicing across 42 weeks, who were
categorized according to the following: (a) gained entrance to a music specialist school,
(b) auditioned but did not get into the specialist school, (c) inquired about the special-
ist school but did not audition, (d) enrolled in music in a nonspecialist school, and (e)
ceased singing or playing an instrument. Similar to Jørgensen (1997, 2002), pianists
were found to practice the most and vocalists the least. Students gaining entrance to
a music specialist school reported more time practicing repertoire and technical work,
62

more technical work in the mornings, and practicing with more consistency across
weeks. Results also indicated that regardless of current achievement level, the same
approximate threshold of accumulated practice time was necessary to achieve each suc-
cessive competence level on a national exam.
Several researchers have worked to categorize participants as particular types of
practicers by inferring from observational analyses and/or self-reports. Hallam (1995a,
1995b, 1997a, 1997c, 2001a, 2001b) has published several articles based on the
practicing of 22 professional musicians and 55 novice string players. In her studies of
the professional musicians, Hallam (1995a, 1995b) found that all did not all practice
regularly, most needed an external goal for motivation, most did not use a set routine,
and 40 minutes was considered an optimal practice session length. Hallam drew from
the theoretical work of Sloboda (1985), Pask (1976), and Perry (1970) to categorize
the musicians as technical or musical, serialist or holist, and situated on a relative posi-
tion of epistemological development, respectively. A majority of the participants were
labeled as technical in their approach, versatile in regards to being holists or serialists,
and relatively far along on Perry’s continuum of intellectual development.
Hallam (1997a, 1997c, 2001a) also compared the practice tendencies of the
novice and professional musicians. These studies were based on interviews with both
groups as well as observations of the novices’ practice with an accompanying measure
of performance achievement. The topics studied include practice strategies, approaches
to interpretation, approaches to memorization, and dealing with performance anxiety.
Findings relevant to the novices included a tendency to play straight through music
without stopping to correct errors; somewhat older novices practiced more, used more
repetition behaviors, and demonstrated more planning; those using more strategic prac-
tice behaviors had higher performance achievement scores; and memorization strategies
consisted of repetition for the sake of automaticity. Findings relevant to the profes-
sionals included evidence of metacognition (e.g., self-awareness, strategy knowledge,
planning, monitoring, evaluating), memory strategies based on structure of music and
analysis, and cognitive strategies used to offset potential performance anxiety. Finally,
Hallam’s (2001b) report of the novice musicians alone indicated that large discrepancies
existed between observations and self-reports of practice, participants practiced more in
preparation for an exam, and stronger correlations were detected between participants’
grade level and achievement than the degree of reported strategy use.
Rohwer and Polk (2006) explored eighth-grade band students’ self-reported strat-
egy use and observed practice behavior during a 5-minute session. Relations between
practicing and performance achievement were also examined. Participants reporting a
greater number of practice strategies had the highest achievement scores. In a manner
similar to Hallam, the participants were categorized as being either holistic (e.g., going
straight through the music) or analytic (e.g., breaking the music down) practicers, based
on their observed practicing. Analytic practicers had significantly higher performance
achievement scores than holistic practicers.
63

DaCosta (1999) presented 28 wind, piano, and string students with the option of
practicing for 5 weeks using researcher-created scripts designated as varied or structured
practice. Varied practice entailed presenting a number of strategies participants could
apply at their own choosing whereas structured practice entailed step-by-step approach-
es to improving. Most students chose to use the varied practice approach and reported
feeling as though their playing was improved (i.e., more fluent, technique improved,
could play more from memory).
In contrast to the studies above that dealt with practicing in relatively broad
strokes, other researchers have identified and quantified the presence of very specific
behaviors during musicians’ practice. Barry (1991) surveyed incoming undergraduates
and collegiate faculty to determine attitudes and approaches toward practice. Students
reported being more likely to play through entire pieces whereas faculty participants
reported the following strategies with significantly greater frequency: focusing on trou-
ble spots, mental rehearsal, scanning a piece before playing, playing slowly, and using
a metronome. Similarly, McPherson and Renwick’s (2001) analysis of two sessions of
7 participants’ practice across two years revealed that simply playing through a piece of
music occurred 90% of the time or more.
Other studies have examined repetition behaviors in more depth. Miklaszewski
(1989) found that the pianist in his study practiced smaller sections in the early stages
of learning a piece and gradually shifted to playing larger sections, although the partici-
pant’s short-term goals throughout the sessions changed rapidly. Maynard (2006) exam-
ined each of her participants’ two observed practice sessions with respect to “practice
frames” (i.e., consecutive trials on a target passage). She found that pianists exhibited
the most trials and trombonists exhibited the least. However, the duration of practice
trial was longest for wind players and shortest for pianists.
Researchers have also examined the presence of specific, quantifiable practice
behaviors in relation to performance achievement. Gruson (1988) found positive
relationships between pianists’ competence level and the behaviors repeating sections,
guide, hands separate, verbal, and time whereas, negative correlations were found
between competence and the behaviors error, repeat note, and pause. Williamon and
Valentine (2000) report similar results in that participants who tended to play larger
segments of music also tended to be more competent. In a later study of pianists’
practice, Duke, Simmons, and Cash (2009) found that the 3 top-ranked players in
their study were more likely to exhibit the following: location and source of errors were
identified, rehearsed, and corrected; the tempo of individual performance trials varied
systematically; and practice targets were repeated until errors were fixed.
A series of studies by Miksza (2006a, 2007, 2011) with samples of high school
and collegiate wind players report findings similar to those above. However, these stud-
ies included additional controls (i.e., time spent practicing, musical materials) as well
as pre- and post-test achievement measures. In each study, positive relationships were
found between performance achievement and the strategies repeat section larger than
64

one measure and whole-part-whole. Other behaviors related to performance achieve-

ment across the studies were marking part, varying pitch, slowing, skipping directly
to or before critical sections of the etude, chaining, using metronome, and singing,
whistling, and buzzing. In addition, high school participants’ practice across 3 days
revealed a consistent approach in regards to practice behaviors used, disparities between
self-evaluations of practice efficiency and achievement, and curvilinear growth in per-
formance (i.e., day 1—rapid gains, day 2—peak in improvement, day 3—plateau).
Finally, several studies have been conducted that investigate very specific types of
musical achievement and/or relatively unique populations in the literature. Rosenthal,
Durairaj, and Magann (2009) examined high school, collegiate, and studio faculty
musicians’ approaches to practicing expressivity. The participants watched a 10-minute
video of their practice and commented freely. Of the total comments, 29% pertained
to expression. Older participants’ comments were more goal-oriented and proactive,
whereas younger participants’ comments were more reactive. Killian and Henry (2005)
studied practice behaviors used by high school singers immediately before a sight-read-
ing task. More accurate singers were also more likely to tonicize, sing out loud, practice
the whole task in 30 seconds, and isolate problems.
Rohwer (2005) examined the use (or lack thereof ) of routine, corrective behaviors,
and error detection abilities among adult beginner instrumentalists. Although several
strategies were evident, the participants had difficulty identifying trouble spots and
evaluating their own progress. Nielsen (1997) analyzed an organist’s verbal commentary
while watching a video of one practice session. In contrast to Rohwer’s (2005) study,
many statements were made reflecting problem recognition and self-evaluation and
considerations were often based on musical features of the piece. Nielsen (1999) also
observed two organists across approximately four weeks of practice. The practice was
organized into two learning periods, the first being concerned with playing chunks/seg-
ments and focusing on technical work and the second concerned with playing the whole
piece of music while adding interpretive elements. Strategies used across the periods
were categorized as selection (e.g., visual examination/chunks), organization (systematic
repetition), and integration (imagery, association).
How Have Researchers Intervened with Individuals’ Practice?

Studies designed to test the relative effectiveness of practice strategies have primarily
been focused on the use of modeling and mental practice. Other practice methods
that have been tested include the use of weekly practice reports, behavioral contracts, a
distraction index, and the relative effects of structured versus free practice. The effect of
rest/sleep as well as training systems based on motor schema theory and metacognitive
techniques have also been examined. Given that most of the details pertaining to each
study’s methodology are presented in Table 2, only summaries of treatments and results
will be discussed.
65

Table 2
Experimental Investigations of Music Practice
Sample/Instrument/ Treatment Performance Criteria
Author(s) Performer Conditions Treatment Length (Reliability coefficient) Performance Task
Barry (1990) N=57; brass and (2) Structured practice; 4 practice sessions, Rhythmic accuracy, melodic Perform an experimental etude,
woodwind; grades 7–10 free practice 45 min total accuracy, musicality (.76–.99) Haydn’s Little Dance in F
Cahn (2008) N=60; piano, guitar, (4) Physical practice; 1 session, 3 min Note errors (deviations from Play melodic patterns 3-1-7-5 over
strings, brass, woodwind; mental practice; chord progression) (.75–.91) a 16-bar chord progression from
2
undergraduates, had at /3 physical, 1/3 mental; mm. 17–32 of All the Things You
2
least 1 improvisation /3 mental, 1/3 physical Are (Kernan, 1988) and a 16-bar
course chord progression from mm. 17–32
of Lines for Lyons (Mulligan, 1988)
Cash (2009) N=36; undergraduates, (3) 5-min rest interval 12, 30-sec practice Number of correct key 5-element keyboard sequence 25342
less than 3 years formal between block 3 and 4; blocks alternating presses in 30-sec blocks
training, no musical 5-min rest interval with 30-sec rest
activities last 5 years between 9 and 10; blocks for training
control/30 second rests
all times
Coffman (1990) N=80; nonkeyboard (8) Physical practice; 6 practice trials, Pitch errors (.86), Perform a researcher-constructed,
players, undergraduates mental practice; physical/ 30 sec each rhythm errors (.95) computer-administered keyboard
mental practice combined; task

control; also—each
condition crossed with
“knowledge of results”
Duke & N=49; nonmusic (5) Various combinations 12, 30-sec practice Correct key-presses 2 sequential key press sequences
Davis (2006) majors (less than 3 yrs of learning 2 sequences blocks alternating per 30-sec block
formal music) of key presses with various with 30-sec rest
amounts of time between blocks for training
retests
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 2 (cont.)
Fortney (1992) N=40; band students; (4) Modeling; silent 1 session, 2 min Pitch errors, rhythm errors, Perform an etude, “Study no. 10,”
grade 6 analysis; free practice; articulation errors (.98) from 24 Arban-Klose-Concone
control Studies for Band Instruments,
arr. Rusch (1955)
Henley (2001) N=60; brass and (6) Model or no model 1 session, no Pitch errors (.86), rhythm Perform an etude, “Norwegian
woodwind; high crossed with three tempo time specified errors (.84) Dance,” from Essential Technique
school age patterns: steady increase, Band Method Rhodes, et al. (1993)
performance speed, and
alternating tempo
Hewitt (2001) N=82; brass, woodwind, (8) All possible 5-wk treatment Woodwind brass solo Researcher constructed
percussion; grades 7–9 combinations of model, period, subject evaluation form (Saunders “Performance Etude”
self-listening, and practicing done & Holohan,1997)
self-evaluation outside of school
Highben & N=16; piano; adults (4) Normal practice Practice consisted Aural imagery—wing test of 4 researcher-constructed etudes
Palmer (2004 (fingering); motor only of 10 trials of the aural skills, motor imagery (one for each condition) in early
(fingering no sound); etude —researcher-adaptation of baroque style, 2 mm. long
auditory only (no infant measure—7 pictures
fingering but sound); of right-hand movement

covert (no fingering,
no sound) (within-
subjects design)
Lim & N=7; piano; (3) Mental practice; 1 session, 10 min Note accuracy (.79), Selected excerpts of obscure piano
Lippman undergraduates mental practice with total, 8 trials (pre- rhythmic accuracy (.71), repertoire from Weiner, Faure,
(1991) listening; physical test, 6 practice, phrasing/articulation Haydn, Schumann, Valenti, and
practice (within- post-test) (.58), dynamics/musical Mendelssohn
subjects design) expression (.55)
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 2 (cont.)
Linklater N=142; clarinet; (3) Visual and aural 8-wk treatment Visual criteria (embouchure, Four etudes chosen: “Twinkle,
(1997) grades 5 and 6 model with period, subject hand position, instrument Twinkle,” “Jolly Old St. Nick,” 2
accompaniment; aural practicing done position, posture); aural designed by the researcher
model with outside of school criteria (tone quality/
accompaniment, intonation, articulation,
accompaniment only rhythmic accuracy, melodic
accuracy) (.84–.96)
Madsen & N=48; undergraduates (2) Distraction index 8-wk treatment Musicianship (.95) Varied by subject
Geringer (1981) group and control period, subjects
practice on their
own
Miksza (2005) N=20; trombone; (4) Physical practice; 3 sessions, 40.5 Objective (notes, rhythms, 3 researcher-adapted etudes from
high school 3 versions of physical min total dynamics, articulations); Watkins Farnum Performance
practice and mental subjective (interpretation/ Scale (1954)
practice combined musical effect, tone/
(goal, production, intonation, technique/
current) articulation) (.88–.99)

Pacey (1993) N=47; strings; Time-series design: Several weeks Differentiation between Etude, Lightly Row
ages 8–12 3 groups received forte and piano
varied practice at
different points in
time
Puopolo (1971) N=52; trumpet; (2) Tape-recorded 10-wk treatment Watkins Farnum Weekly band assignments
grade 5 programmed instruction; period, 20–25 min Performance Scale
control per day (approx.
200–250 min)
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 2 (cont.)
Rosenthal (1984) N=44; brass and wood (4) Guided model; model 1 session, 6.5-min Notes, rhythms, tempo, Performance etude, “Etude no. 22,”
wind; undergraduate only; guide only; treatment, 3-min dynamics, phrasing/ from 60 Selected Studies for French
and graduate practice only/control practice articulation (.81–.94) Horn, Bk.1 (Kopprasch, 1939)
Rosenthal, et al. N=60; brass and (5) Modeling; singing; 1 session, 3-min Notes (.96), rhythms (.91), Performance etude, “Etude no. 96,”
(1988) woodwind; silent analysis; free practice phrasing/dynamics (.84), from Rhythmical Articulation,
undergraduate practice; control articulation (.93), tempo (Bona, 1969)
and graduate
Ross (1985) N=30; trombone; (5) Physical practice; 3 trials Pitches, rhythms, Performance etude, “Etude No. 24,”
undergraduate and mental practice; mental articulations (.98) from The School of Sight Reading
graduate practice with slide and Style, Book A (Lafosse, 1949)
movement; mental and
physical practice
combined; no practice
Simmons & N=75; nonkeyboard (2) Sleep; no sleep 12, 30-sec practice Note accuracy, speed, Researcher-constructed 12-note
Duke (2006) music majors, 4 blocks alternating temporal evenness, dynamic keyboard melody
semesters group piano with 30-sec rest evenness

instruction blocks for training,
staggered times of
day for retest
Theiler & N=14; 7 guitar, 7 voice; (4) Physical practice; 1 session, 12-min Pitch accuracy, rhythmic Selected excerpts from a sight-singing
Lippman (1995) undergraduates mental practice; mental practice accuracy, articulation/ method
practice with model; phrasing, dynamics/
control expression, tempo, tone
quality (.80–.82)
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 2 (cont.)
VanderArk & N=80; brass, woodwind, (4) Physical practice; 30-min session Rhythm, pitch, and 16-m. researcher-created etude
Murphy (1998) percussion; grade 5 mental practice; mental (pre-test, practice, articulation accuracy
and physical practice post-test) (.95)
combined; mental and
physical and singing
practice with physical
stimulation
Wagner (1975) N=48; undergraduates (4) Weekly practice 8-wk treatment “Music Performance” (.94) Varied by subject
report; practice reports period, subjects
4 out of 8 wks; practice practice on their
reports 2 out of 8 wks; own
no reports
Welch (1985) N=66; singers; ages 7–8 (6) 2 stimulus conditions 40 learning trials, Pitch errors Prescribed pitch sequences
(low and high variability) one session
crossed with knowledge
of results, visual
reinforcement, knowledge
of result, and visual

reinforcement
Wolfe (1987) N=3; piano; ages 9–10 Single-subject, multiple 3 wks (staggered Average practice minutes Varied by subject
baseline design, behavioral across participants) per week
contract
Zurcher (1975) N=43; brass; grades 4–6 (2) Model; no-model 7-wk treatment Pitch discrimination (.99), Varied by subject
(within-subjects design) period, subjects tempo stability (.99),
practice on their own pitch matching (.99),
fingering/slide errors (.98),
rhythm errors (.99)
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Studies by Fortney (1992), Linklater (1997), Rosenthal (1984), Rosenthal, Wilson,

Evans, and Greenwalt (1988) and Zurcher (1975) each compared the effect of a model
compared to no model or free practice. Collectively, their results indicated that the use of
a model was more effective than no model or free practice. However, Rosenthal (1984)
found that modeling along with a verbal guide was no more effective than modeling
alone. Zurcher (1975) also found that the use of a model also led to more time spent
practicing. Linklater (1997) found differential effects for aural and visual modeling
such that the group incorporating both aural and visual modeling scored significantly
higher than groups of aural or visual modeling alone on visual performance criteria (e.g.,
embouchure, posture). Subjects in the combined aural/visual group also performed bet-
ter on tone quality and intonation three months after the start of the study.
The effects of modeling have also been examined in conjunction with elements of
participants’ self-evaluation (Hewitt, 2001) and self-listening (Hewitt, 2001; Puopolo,
1971). Hewitt (2001) investigated the relative effects of all possible combinations of
model versus no model, self-listening versus no self-listening, and self-evaluation versus
no self-evaluation. Subjects who were in a modeling condition and self-evaluation condi-
tion improved significantly more than those in a no-model condition. Puopolo (1971)
explored the effects of participants recording their own playing to use as a model. Those
in the self-listening (e.g., tape-recorded) condition outperformed those in the control
group on sight-reading in this study. Henley (2001) tested the relative effectiveness of
model versus no model in combination with three different tempo practice patterns
(increase, performance speed, alternating slow/fast). Subjects in the modeling condition
made significantly greater gains than those in the no-model condition. However, varia-
tions in tempo patterns had no significant effects on the subjects’ performance.
A number of studies have drawn from research in motor-skill learning to examine
the effects of mental practice on music performance achievement. Three studies have
examined the effect of various mental practice conditions on keyboard tasks. Coffman’s
(1990) study compared the performance of participants that were assigned to one of the
eight following treatment conditions—physical practice, mental practice, physical/men-
tal practice combined, control, each with or without knowledge of results. Those in the
physical and physical/mental practice combined groups performed the best. Lim and
Lippman (1991) compared pianists’ performance on an etude as a function of mental
practice, mental practice with listening to a model, or physical practice alone. Results
indicated that participants in the physical practice group performed the best, followed
by mental practice with listening, and mental practice alone. Highben and Palmer
(2004) investigated the relative effects of so-called normal (i.e., fingering), motor only
(fingering, no sound present), auditory only (sound, no fingering), and covert (no fin-
gering, no sound) practice treatments on the performance of adult pianists. Participants
in the covert condition performed significantly worse than all others. However, an
interaction between condition and aural skill ability demonstrated that participants
with lower aural skills performed worse in the two conditions with no sound.
71

Other researchers have investigated the effectiveness of mental practice and mental/
physical practice combined. Ross (1985), as well as VanderArk and Murphy (1998),
found that those in the mental/physical practice combined group made significantly
greater gains than participants in the mental or physical practice alone groups. Similarly,
Miksza (2005) found no differences between groups of mental and physical practice
combined and a physical practice alone group even when different types of mental
practice were encouraged. Theiler and Lippman (1995) found that vocalists performed
better in mental practice with a model condition whereas, guitarists performed best in
mental or physical practice conditions. In a somewhat unique approach, Cahn (2008)
found that participants in mental practice alone and 33% physical/66% mental practice
combined groups had superior scores on an easy improvisation task whereas, those in
physical practice alone and 66% physical/33% mental practice combined groups had
better scores on a difficult task.
Drawing once again from research in motor-skill acquisition, researchers have
tested the relative effectiveness of variable practice (Pacey, 1993; Welch, 1985) with
or without knowledge of results (Welch, 1985). Pacey’s (1993) study involving string
players practicing with varied sequences of bow length revealed that upward trends in
performance achievement were evident following variable practice. Welch (1985) inves-
tigated the relative effectiveness of providing visual feedback via an oscilloscope with
and without knowledge of results on the pitch matching abilities of young children.
Visual feedback with knowledge of results was most effective.
Another group of studies involve examining the effects of sleep (Duke & Davis,
2006; Simmons & Duke, 2006) and rest (Cash, 2009) on memory consolidation (i.e.,
learning occurring after practice) of keyboard tasks. Simmons and Duke (2006) found
improved temporal evenness but not performance speed in performance after sleep.
Another study reported similar positive effects of sleep except when participants learned
a new sequence of keyboard strokes in close proximity to the first (Duke & Davis,
2006). Cash (2009) found that introducing 5 minutes of rest in a learning sequence
improved performance of a simple keyboard task. In addition, introducing rest early in
a learning sequence led to a trajectory of improvement throughout the learning period
whereas introducing rest late in the sequence did not.
Studies of methods for encouraging students to practice include Wagner’s (1975)
investigation of the effects of a practice card and Wolfe’s (1987) study of the effective-
ness of behavioral contracts. Wagner (1975) compared students who completed practice
reports at various weeks across an 8-week period and found that those who completed
practice reports at weeks 5 and 6 reported more practice time than those completing
reports at all 8 weeks or weeks 1, 2, 5, and 6. Wolfe (1975) found that students met
their practice goals (e.g., minutes per week) when completing a contract and that some
maintained their practicing after a 4-week follow-up.
Madsen and Geringer (1981) tested the effect of using a distraction index on per-
formance achievement. Participants were asked to fill out a record that included amount
72

of time practiced and self-evaluation of practice effectiveness. Those in the experimental

group also marked the number of distractions they experienced while practicing each
day. Performance scores of those in the distraction index group improved significantly
more than those in the control group. Furthermore, the group using the distraction
index was observed being on-task more frequently. Barry (1992) examined the com-
parative effects of structured and free practice conditions on performance achievement.
Free practice was left up to the student to determine, whereas structured practice
entailed being guided through a written procedure (e.g., identify key and meter, silent
fingering, slow repetition). The subjects in the structured practice group improved sig-
nificantly more than those in the free practice group.
What Individual Difference Variables Interact

with Why and How Musicians Practice?
Researchers have examined how motivation orientations, preferences of cognitive style,
and personality traits interact with practicing. Studies of motivation orientations account
for the greatest quantity of studies in this category (see Table 3). Generally, studies of moti-
vation orientations toward practice suggest that students are motivated most by satisfying
internal needs (Hamann, Lucas, Frost, & Teachout, 1998; Schmidt, 2005, 2007), chal-
lenge (Ciabattari, 2004; Miksza, 2006b), achieving personal goals, and mastering tasks for
the sake of self-improvement (Miksza, 2006b, 2009b; Schmidt, 2005, 2007). Students
who are more committed to musical studies (Schmidt, 2007) and who have positive musi-
cal self-perceptions are likely to practice more than those who do not.
Several researchers have also reported relationships between motivational con-
structs and students’ self-reports of practice quantity and strategy use. Self-efficacy has
been found to be positively related to reports of time spent on formal and informal prac-
ticing (McCormick & McPherson, 2003; McPherson & McCormick, 2006) as well as
cognitive strategy use (Nielsen, 2004). Harnischmacher (1997) found that participants
who were more goal-oriented were more likely to report using a wider variety of practice
strategies and practice more creatively. Researchers have also found those intrinsically
motivated to pursue music were more likely to engage in creative practice activities,
repertoire work, technical work (McPherson & McCormick, 1999), and formal practice
(Miksza, 2006b, 2009b). In addition, McPherson and McCormick (2000) found that
participants with internal attributions for success and failure were more likely to have
higher performance achievement scores than those who did not.
Studies have also revealed relationships between practice behavior and achievement
goal motivation orientations. Miksza (2009a) reported a positive relationship between
students with mastery-approach achievement goal orientations and the observed behav-
ior skipping directly to or before critical spots in an etude. Similarly, Smith (2005)
found positive relationships between task (i.e., mastery) orientations and self-reported
practice strategies. In addition, Miksza (2010) found that students with performance
achievement goal orientations were less likely to exhibit the strategic behavior chaining.
73

Table 3
Music Practice Studies Incorporating Quantitative Measurements of Motivational Constructs
Sample/Instrument/ Motivational Construct(s)
Author(s) Performer Measure Used (Reliability coefficients) Relation to Practice
Ciabattari (2004) N=852; high school Researcher-constructed Eclectic set of items: challenge, effort, Playing challenging music was rated as
musicians. N=19 Directors questionnaires: motivating incentives, teacher feedback, peer the most effective motivator by both
students to practice (directors) involvement, competition, model, students and directors. Both agreed that
motivation to practice (students) parental involvement effort should be emphasized, and that
modeling and practice strategy
instruction were important.
Hamman, et al. N=711; Brass, woodwind, Researcher-constructed practice Postfactor analysis: Satisfying internal needs most highly
(1998) percussion, string, vocals; questionnaire Internal satisfaction: 5 items endorsed of all items. Suggests that
undergraduate and graduate Practice and conflicts: 7 items avoiding conflicts and organization
music majors Practice organization: 4 items of practice time are also
Physical/mental limitations: 3 items important issues.
Practice stamina: 1 item
External influences: 2 items
(Total Scale = .96)
Harnischmacher N=142; woodwind; Self-concept of instrumental Self-concept: 12 items (.86) Various motivation subscales (i.e., EAD,
(1997) ages 6–17 abilities; Goal Orientation of GOP: 10 items (.76) GOP, AOC, SCI) related to self-reported
Practice (GOP); External Action EAD: 9 items (.71) practice behaviors (i.e., playing familiar
Distraction (EAD); Action AOF (.81) pieces, scales, new pieces, warming up,

Orientation After Failure (AOF); AOP (.70) metronome, raising tempo, error
Action Orientation in Planning AOC (.71) correction, improvisation, dividing in
(AOP); Action Orientation in sections), goal and action orientations
Centered Activity (AOC) correlated with practice time, self-concept
negatively correlated with practice time.
McCormick & N=332; brass, woodwind, Adaptation of Motivation and Intrinsic value: 2 items Self-efficacy best predictor of performance
McPherson (2003) string, piano; ages 9–18 Self-Regulatory Learning Self-efficacy: 3 items achievement, moderate relationships with
Questionnaire (Pintrich & self-report measures of formal and
DeGroot, 1990) informal practice. No relations found
for intrinsic value.
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 3 (cont.)
McPherson & N=190; pianists; ages Adaptation of Motivation and Postfactor analysis Intrinsic value found to be a predictor of
McCormick 9–18 Self-Regulatory Learning Intrinsic value: 2 items “creative practice activity,” repertoire
(1999) Questionnaire (Pintrich & playing, and technical work.
DeGroot, 1990)
McPherson & N=349; brass, woodwind, Adaptation of Motivation and Postfactor analysis: Internal attributions for success received
McCormick string, piano; ages 9-18 Self-Regulatory Learning Intrinsic value: 2 items highest ratings (e.g., practice, trying,
(2000) Questionnaire (Pintrich & Self-efficacy: 3 items ability). Self-efficacy and intrinsic
DeGroot, 1990) Attributions for success and failure: value found to be predictors of
5 items performance achievement for beginning
and intermediate players but not advanced.
McPherson & N=686; piano, strings, Researcher-created self-efficacy Self-efficacy: 4 items Self-efficacy best predictor of performance
McCormick brass, woodwind; ages scale (based on Bandura) achievement, related to formal practice
(2006) 9–19 and practice regulation as well.
Miksza (2005) N=20; trombonists; Nowicki-Duke Locus of Control Locus of control: internal external Although nonsignificant, a trend found
high school Scale for College and Non-College (general trait) (.68–.71) between internal locus of control and
Adults (1973) performance achievement
Miksza (2006a) N=40; brass; undergraduate Nowicki-Duke Locus of Control Locus of control: internal external No relations
and graduate music majors Scale for College and Non-College (general trait) (.81)
Adults (1973)

Miksza (2006b) N=175; brass, woodwind, Adaptation of Motivation and Postfactor analysis: Intrinsic factors related to reports of time
percussion; grades 6–8 Self-Regulatory Learning Intrinsic-goal: 6 items (.77) spent practicing, and percentages of
Questionnaire (Pintrich & Intrinsic-challenge: 3 items (.74) time spent on formal practice as well
DeGroot, 1990) Commitment to improve: 2 items (.75) as overall efficiency ratings of practice.
Miksza (2009a) N=60; brass and woodwind; Researcher-adaptation of Elliot Mastery-approach (.91) Mastery-approach related to performance
high school & McGregor (2001) 2×2 Mastery-avoid (.83) achievement. Mastery-approach related to
Achievement Goal Questionnaire Performance-approach (.92) skipping directly to or before a critical
Performance-avoid (.90) section of the etude behaviors.
All scales 10 items
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 3 (cont.)
Miksza (2009b) N=228; brass, woodwind, Researcher-adaptation of Elliot Mastery-approach (.76) Correlations between various subscales and
and percussion; high & McGregor (2001) 2×2 Mastery-avoid (.75) self-reports of length of average practice
school age Achievement Goal Questionnaire Performance-approach (.82) session, average number of practice sessions
Performance-avoid (.69) per day, percentage of time spent on
All scales 3 items formal practice, and average daily practice
efficiency.
Miksza (2011) N=55; brass and woodwind; Researcher-adaptation of Elliot Mastery-approach motivation (.75) Performance-approach and -avoid
undergraduate and graduate & McGregor (2001) 2×2 Mastery-avoid motivation (.76) negatively related to chaining behaviors.
music majors Achievement Goal Questionnaire Performance-approach motivation (.88)
Performance-avoid motivation (.88)
All scales 10 items
Nielsen (2004) N=130; college music Adaptation of Motivation and Self-efficacy: 8 items (.81) Students with greater sense of self-efficacy
majors Self-Regulatory Learning more likely to use cognitive strategies. Sex
Questionnaire (Pintrich & differences found on self-efficacy among
DeGroot, 1990) performance and church music majors but

not music ed majors.
O’Neill (1999) N=60; 20 high and Researcher-created self- Self-perception of competence: 4 items No differences between three groups
average achievers at perception of competence; Subjective task value: 2 items on competence or task value scales.
specialist school, 20 researcher-created subjective Self-perceptions of competence
musically active at task value significant predictor of practice time.
regular school
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 3 (cont.)
Schmidt (2005) N=300; brass, woodwind, Researcher-adaptation of scales Mastery (.88) Mastery, intrinsic, individual, cooperative
percussion; grades 7–12 used by Marsh, Craven, Hinkley, Intrinsic (.88) orientations each found to be
& Debus (2003) Individual (.82) positively related to reported practice time.
Cooperative (.83)
Ego (.88)
Competitive (.89)
Approach-success (.80)
Avoid-failure (.84)
Scales above had 6 items each
Self-concept: 4 items (.85)
Schmidt (2007) N=456; brass, woodwind, Researcher-adaptation of Group efficacy: 10 items (.87) All motivation scales positively related to
percussion; grades 9–12 subscales relevant to intrinsic Self-efficacy: 10 items (.92) self-reported practice time.
motivation from Schmidt (2005); Intrinsic-mastery: 12 items (.92)
Smith (2005); Marsh, Craven, Cooperative: 10 items (.88)
Hinkley, & Debus (2003); Guzzo, Commitment to band: 11 items (.95)

Yost, Campbell, & Shea (1993) Implicit theory (entity/
incremental): 8 items (.86)
Smith (2005) N=344; brass, woodwind, Researcher-adaptation of Patterns Ego-approach goals: 6 items (.84) Task goals positively related to most
percussion, strings; of Adaptive Learning Survey Ego-avoid goals: 6 items (.79) self-report practice strategies while results
undergraduate music majors (Midgley et al, 1997), Theory of Task goals: 5 items (.74) are more mixed for ego goals.
Intelligence Scale: Self Form for Implicit theory (entity/
Adults (Dweck, 1999) incremental): 8 items (.89)
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Barry (1992) also examined how the cognitive style field-dependence/indepen-

dence (FD/I) interacted with the experimental treatment of structured versus free prac-
tice. Participants were matched by FD/I scores and sex and were assigned to either the
free or structured practice group. A 3-way interaction effect (p < .05) was detected for
practice condition, sex, and FD/I on the performance criterion rhythmic achievement.
The findings indicated that both field-dependent and field-independent females in the
free practice group achieved significantly higher rhythmic accuracy scores than both
field-dependent and field-independent males in the free practice group.
A musician’s practice may also differ as a function of the personality trait impulsive-
ness. In his study of collegiate brass players, Miksza (2006a) found that less impulsive
participants made significantly greater gains in performance achievement than those
who were more impulsive across a single practice session. When investigating high
school wind players, Miksza (2009a) found that less impulsive wind players began a
3-day practice study with higher performance achievement scores than more impulsive
students and maintained that achievement gap. In addition, Miksza (2010) found
that less impulsive collegiate participants had higher performance achievement scores
than more impulsive participants and that the gap was maintained across a 23-minute
practice session. In regard to observed practice behaviors, Miksza (2009a) found that
less impulsive participants were more likely to exhibit the strategies whole-part-whole
and slowing, whereas Miksza (2010) found that more impulsive participants were more
likely to vary the pitch of the material they practiced and less likely to repeat larger sec-
tions of music.
How Is Self-Regulated Learning Relevant to Practicing?

Research regarding self-regulation theory has recently become prominent in the prac-
tice literature. McPherson and Zimmerman (2002) have described how self-regulation,
with its roots in Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, is relevant to understanding how
musicians develop as effective practicers. They describe the salient dimensions of self-
regulated practicing as (a) motive (e.g., work through distractions, parental influence,
self-motivation), (b) method (e.g., task-oriented strategies, mental strategies, self-
instruction), (c) time management (e.g., planning, management, concentrate focus
on tasks), (d) behavior (e.g., metacognition, self-evaluation/monitoring), (e) envi-
ronment (e.g., physical structure), and (f ) social factors (e.g., parental involvement,
siblings, peers, help-seeking). Consistent with the theoretical description provided by
McPherson and Zimmerman (2002), most studies reviewed in this section include a
motivational construct (e.g., intrinsic value, self-efficacy). Only results pertaining to
the remaining dimensions of the theory are described here since motivation is discussed
elsewhere.
There are many consistencies among the studies reported in this section. For
example, all except one (Nielsen, 2004) are studies with samples of school-aged instru-
78

mentalists. In addition, all studies that have incorporated a quantitative measure of

self-regulation have adapted and/or supplemented a measure by Pintrich and DeGroot
(1990) designed to assess middle school students’ self-regulatory behavior in the context
of academics. Further, all of the studies but one (Nielsen, 2004) have examined their
measure with factor analysis. Methodological considerations for studies incorporating a
quantitative design are summarized in Table 4.
The aforementioned longitudinal study reported by McPherson and colleagues
has indicated that beginner instrumentalists are not likely to be self-regulated in their
practice. Results suggest that beginners can benefit from relatively low-pressure parental
support with moderate expectations (McPherson & Renwick, 2001; Moore, Burland, &
Davdison, 2003; Pitts et al., 2001a, 2001b), that even after 3 years of study beginners
will tend to play straight through materials while leaving errors uncorrected (McPherson
& Renwick, 2001) or altogether avoid material that may require applying self-regulated
behavior to improve (Renwick & McPherson, 2002), that students may spend much
time practicing while distracted (e.g., shuffling papers, talking, fiddling) (McPherson
& Renwick, 2001), and that even if highly motivated students can demonstrate self-
awareness they still may not have strategies available or be able to draw upon strategies
that help them improve (Pitts et al., 2001a, 2001b). In contrast, Austin and Berg (2006)
found intermediate instrumentalists’ reports of “what others would see” if they looked
in on their practice and how they would practice a difficult piece of music included self-
regulatory-like dispositions such as help seeking, strategic repetition, and slowing.
Relationships have been detected between musicians’ abilities to self-regulate their
practice and several variables pertinent to music learning. For example, relationships
between practice strategy use and performance achievement suggest that as students
gain competence, they also become more able to self-regulate their practice (e.g.,
organize sessions, scan music for problems, use mental strategies) (McPherson, 2005).
Similar results were reported by McPherson and McCormick (2000) who found self-
reported self-regulation to be a significant predictor of performance achievement. When
comparing the practicing of professionals and novices, Hallam (2001a) found that pro-
fessionals were more likely to report metacognitive thinking, analysis of musical prob-
lems, sophisticated strategy use, organization of practice, and an ability to concentrate.
Furthermore, several researchers have found positive relationships between reports of
self-regulatory practice behavior and amount of time spent practicing (Austin & Berg,
2006) and amount of formal practice in particular (McPherson & McCormick, 1999,
2006; Miksza, 2006b). In regards to environment, Austin and Berg (2006) found that
the degree of practice regulation reported among intermediate instrumentalists was
positively related to the degree to which they had a quiet place at home to practice in.
Several studies have explored links between self-regulatory practicing and self-effica-
cy or self-evaluations of practicing. McCormick and McPherson (2003) and McPherson
and McCormick (2006) found that reports of self-regulation were positively related to
cognitive strategy use and self-efficacy. A study by Nielsen (2004) with collegiate musi-
79

Table 4
Studies Incorporating Quantitative Measures of Self-Regulatory Music Practice Behaviors
Constructs Measured, Number
Author(s) Sample/Instrument/Performer Measure of Subscale Items (Reliability coefficients)
Austin & Berg N=224; brass, woodwind, percussion, Researcher-created Music Practice Inventory; Prefactor analysis
(2006) strings; ages 11–12 also adaptations from Motivation and Practice motivation: 10 items (effort,
Self-Regulatory Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich interest, affect, parental support, challenge seeking)
& DeGroot, 1990) and Learning and Study Practice regulation: 26 items (preparation, goal setting,
Strategies Inventory (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002) use of resources, structuring practice sessions, teacher
guidance)
Postfactor analysis
Practice motivation: 4 items (.79)
Practice regulation: 10 items (.87)
McCormick & N=332; brass, woodwind, string, Adaptation of Motivation and Self-Regulatory Postfactor analysis
McPherson piano; ages 9–18 Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & Cognitive strategy use: 5 items
(2003) DeGroot, 1990) Self-Regulation: 4 items
Intrinsic value: 2 items
Anxiety: 2 items
Self-Efficacy: 3 items
Formal Practice: 4 items
Informal Practice: 2 items
Postfactor analysis

McPherson & N=190; pianists; ages 9–18 Adaptation of Motivation and Self-Regulatory
McCormick Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, Cognitive strategy use, self-regulation, intrinsic value,
(1999) 1990), 17 items total anxiety
McPherson & N=349; brass, woodwind, Adaptation of Motivation and Self-Regulatory Postfactor analysis
McCormick string, piano; ages 9–18 Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, Cognitive strategy use: 5 items
(2000) 1990) Self-regulation: 4 items
Intrinsic value: 2 items
Anxiety: 3 items
Self-efficacy: 3 items
Attributions for success and failure: 5 items
12/13/11 8:29 AM
Table 4 (cont.)
Constructs Measured, Number
Author(s) Sample/Instrument/Performer Measure of Subscale Items (Reliability coefficients)
McPherson & N=686; piano, strings, brass, Researcher-adaptation of previously used Practice regulation: 7 items
McCormick woodwind; ages 9–19 measures (McCormick & McPherson, 2003) Cognitive strategy: 12 items
(2006)
Miksza (2006b) N=175; brass, woodwind, percussion; Adaptation of Motivation and Self-Regulatory Prefactor analysis
grades 6–8 Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) Self-regulation: 7 items (.83)
Intrinsic motivation: 9 items (.87)
Concentration: 7 items (.73)
Attribution for success and failure in music practice:
8 items (.58)
Postfactor analysis
Concentration: 6 items (.84)
Intrinsic-goal motivation: 6 items (.77)
Intrinsic-challenge motivation: 3 items (.74)
Metacognition/reflective strategies: 5 items (.76)
Commitment to improve: 2 items (.75)
Nielsen (2004) N=130; college music majors Adaptation of Motivation and Self-Regulatory No Factor Analysis
Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & DeGroot, Rehearsal (.73)

1990), 50 items total Elaboration (.69)
Organization (.69)
Critical thinking (.71)
Metacognition (.67)
Time and study environment (.59)
Effort regulation (.60)
Peer learning (.56)
Help seeking (.58)
Self-efficacy: 8 items (.81)
12/13/11 8:29 AM
cians found that participants with higher self-efficacy beliefs were more likely to report
using cognitive, metacognitive, and resource strategies when practicing. Finally, Miksza
(2006b) found positive relationships between participants’ self-evaluations of practice
efficiency and reports of concentration and metacognitive-reflective strategies.
T oward an I nstructional T heory of

P racticing for R esearch and T eaching
Researchers have drawn upon several diverse theoretical frameworks in their investiga-
tions of practicing. Theories that have been incorporated in practice research include
social-psychological portrayals (Hallam, 1997b, Jørgensen, 2003), models of episte-
mological development (Hallam, 1995b), descriptions of cognitive memory processes
(e.g., Chaffin, 2007; Duke & Davis, 2006), self-regulation theory (e.g., McPherson &
Zimmerman, 2002), and a theory of the acquisition of musical expertise (e.g., Lehmann
& Ericsson, 1997). These theoretical bases are each drawn from related disciplines out-
side of music such as cognitive psychology (e.g., Chase & Simon, 1973; Walker, 2005),
educational psychology (Pask, 1973; Perry, 1970; Zimmerman, 1986), motor skill
development (Fitts & Posner, 1967), and a general theory of the acquisition of exper-
tise (Ericsson, 1996). Music education researchers could also benefit from theoretical
foundations built on evidence from research within music education.
Furthermore, music education researchers must continue to be concerned with how
studies of theoretical processes inform practical application for the sake of improved
instruction. This concern is not new. Dewey (1900, p. 110) called for a “linking science”
in educational research to bridge the often-large divide between theoretical and practical
concerns. In contrast to descriptive theories such as those referenced in the paragraph
above, the purpose of instructional theory is to provide a framework for learning that
has prescriptive implications for research and teaching (e.g., Bruner, 1966). In other
words, the overarching purpose of instructional theory is to bridge potential divides
between descriptive theory and practice (Glaser, 1976; Hosford, 1973). Gordon (1968,
p. 3) defines a theory of instruction as “a set of statements based on sound replicable
research, which would permit one to predict how particular changes in the educational
environment would affect pupil learning.” Consequently, instructional theories are help-
ful for researchers and teachers who are concerned with designing studies and educational
programs in an effort to solve instructional problems (Hosford, 1973; Snelbecker, 1974).
Essential criteria for instructional theory presented by Gordon (1968) and Hosford
(1973) include the following: terms/components must be defined adequately, boundar-
ies and limitations must be stated, theory should be consistent with empirical data, and
the theory must generalize logically beyond existing data. Instructional theory should be
rooted in theoretical understandings of the learning process and often is most effective
when hybridization of existing theories occurs (Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009).
82

What follows is a preliminary sketch of an instructional theory of practicing that

highlights salient variables important for further research and/or instructing a musician
in how to practice. This theory is conceived with a relatively traditional model of direct
and purposeful instruction between a teacher and a student in mind. Similarly, practice
is thought of as a relatively traditional term and readers are referred to the definition
presented in the introduction of this paper. As a result, indirect sociological effects
of peers, communities of learning, as well as teachers’ psychological dispositions and
other such variables, while certainly important to learning, are not explicitly included
as components of this particular theory. However, no theories or models are beyond
critique or revision (Cady, 1992; Dubin, 1969; Edwards, 1992) and future testing and
development could result in extensions that include such elements.
The essential components of the proposed theory are intended to represent the
primary variables that are mostly directly relevant to learning efficient and effective
approaches to practice, and include: choice, intentionality, action, achievement outcome,
and rest and recovery (see Figure 1). Each component represents what can be considered
essential steps and processes in demonstrating and perhaps determining effective practice,
and acknowledges an influence of both student and teacher at each critical juncture.
Further, the ultimate outcome that this instructional theory and accompanying model
are intended to highlight is the process of becoming a good practicer rather than simply
gaining performance competence.
Figure 1. Figural model of an instructional theory for practicing.
83

Choice refers to the students’ decision to practice, which may in some cases be
impacted by their teacher’s expectations (e.g., requiring amounts of time to practice,
practice assignments). Intentionality refers to the degree of purpose (e.g., deliberate,
formal practice) that a student brings to practice. A student’s evaluation of his or her
own strengths and/or weaknesses as well as a teacher’s assessment of what needs to be
improved may impact degree of intentionality. Action is simply what takes place dur-
ing practice and is influenced by a student’s “repertoire” of practice strategies available
as well as a teacher’s instruction, or lack thereof, on how to practice. The achievement
outcome component is hypothesized to be most directly related to the action undertaken
in practice, often results in some form of formal or informal teacher evaluation, and has
an impact on a student’s self-perceptions (i.e., reflection). Rest and recovery is included
as the final component in this somewhat linear description. Individual differences, such
as motivation orientation, cognitive style, and personality, are hypothesized to interact
with student disposition and behavior at each step in the process. Finally, the model
presented can also be seen to operate on a developmental continuum in that greater
proportions of student and/or teacher direction would be expected to be influential
at various points in development, that is, as students become more sophisticated and
independent in their practice.
Although a complete logical analysis or empirical verification of this instructional
theory is beyond the scope of this paper, the extensive review of literature presented
above provides preliminary evidence for the importance of each primary component
described. Research presented that deals with the impact of motivation, field depen-
dence/independence, and impulsivity suggests that psychological individual differences
among learners may have an important role in decisions to practice, self-perceptions of
ability, practice effectiveness, and attributions of success and failure. Studies examining
changes in approach to practice over lifespans and development, deliberate practice
and the acquisition of expertise, self-regulation, and students’ evaluations of their own
performance indicate that approaching practice with varying degrees of intentionality
may ultimately have significant effects on musical outcomes. Studies of specific prac-
tice behaviors/strategies, research regarding self-regulated practicing, as well as practice
interventions make obvious the relevancy and intricate nature of the action component
of the theory. In addition, practice research regarding self-regulation, attributions of
success and failure, and self-efficacy implicates the importance of students’ reflections
and teacher evaluations. Finally, studies of the effects of sleep/rest on performance and
memory as well as conceptions of deliberate practice highlight the need for rest/recovery.
The goal of this review of literature and accompanying theoretical framework,
even in its preliminary form, is to inform researchers and teachers when considering
important characteristics and processes relevant to effective practicing. For example,
investigations of practice drawing from this theory could be designed to focus on a
single particular component, relations among components, or a systems-type analysis
84

of many components operating in sync. In doing so, a more complete account of what
leads to effective practicing may be gained. In addition, findings related to this relatively
prescriptive instructional theory would perhaps also have more direct implications for
teaching than those based on descriptive theory since results could potentially be more
clearly associated with instructional planning and decisionmaking. Given the fact that
this theory rests on a large and diverse collection of empirical findings, teachers may also
benefit from consulting this theory. For example, teachers who extrapolate instructional
plans/methods for helping students become more effective in their practice could do
so with at least some sense of confidence that their work would be rooted in rigorous
research.
C onclusion
This paper represents a twofold effort, a comprehensive review of research on practicing
and a presentation of an original instructional theory for the purpose of enhancing
research and teaching. Findings regarding what people do when they practice, how
researchers have intervened with musicians’ practice, individual difference variables that
interact with practice, and self-regulatory practice behavior were summarized and dis-
cussed. The diversity of theoretical frameworks employed thus far was considered as well.
A synthesis of the extant research was presented in the form of an instructional theory
that describes the essential elements and influences related to becoming an effective prac-
ticer. The instructional theory provides a new framework for researchers to consider when
designing studies and is also prescriptive for teachers in that the variables presented rep-
resent critical issues for instruction in efficient and effective practice. It is hoped that the
material presented will aid researchers and teachers in their design of studies and instruc-
tion as the already large body of literature on practicing continues to grow and diversify.
R eferences
Austin, J. R., & Berg, M. H. (2006). Exploring music practice among sixth-grade band and orchestra
students. Psychology of Music, 34(4), 535–558.
Barry, N. H. (1991). A comparison of advanced student musicians’ and professional musicians’ prac-
tice attitudes and strategies. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 3, 32–41.
Barry, N. H. (1992). The effects of practice strategies, individual differences in cognitive style, and
gender upon technical accuracy and musicality of student instrumental performance. Psychology
of Music, 20(2), 112–123.
Barry, N. H. (2007). A qualitative study of applied music lessons and subsequent student practice
sessions. Contributions to Music Education, 34, 51–65.
Barry, N. H., & Hallam, S. (2002). Practice. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds.), The science
and psychology of music performance-creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 151–165).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Barry, N. H., & McArthur, V. H. (1994). Teaching practice strategies in the music studio: A survey
of applied music teachers. Psychology of Music, 22, 44–55.
85

Bona, P. (1969). Rhythmical articulation. New York, NY: Carl Fischer.

Brown, R. W. (1928). A comparison of the “whole,” “part,” and “combination” methods of learning
piano music. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 235–247.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cady, H. L. (1992). Sources of theory for research in school music. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of
research on music teaching and learning (pp. 60–72). New York, NY: Schirmer Books.
Cahn, D. (2008). The effects of varying ratios of mental and physical practice, and task difficulty on
performance on a tonal pattern. Psychology of Music, 36, 179–191.
Cash, C. D. (2009). Effects of early and late rest intervals on performance and overnight consolida-
tion of a keyboard sequence. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 252–266.
Chaffin, R. (2007). Learning Clair de Lune: Retrieval practice and expert memorization. Music
Perception, 24, 377–393.
Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (1997). “Pulling teeth and torture”: Musical memory and problem solving.
Thinking & Reasoning, 3(4), 315–336.
Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (2001). A comparison of practice and self-report as sources of information
about the goals of expert practice. Psychology of Music, 29, 39–69.
Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (2002). Practicing perfection: Piano performance as expert memory.
Psychological Science, 13, 342–349.
Chaffin, R., Imreh, G., Lemieux, A. F., & Chen, C. (2003). “Seeing the big picture:” Piano practice
as expert problem solving. Music Perception, 20(4), 465–490.
Chaffin, R., Lisbao, T., Logan, T., & Begosh, K. (2009). Preparing for memorized cello performance:
The role of performance cues. Psychology of Music, 38(1), 3–30.
Chaffin, R., & Logan, T. (2006). Practicing perfection: How concert soloists prepare for perfor-
mance. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 113–130.
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.
Ciabattari, W. (2004). Motivating high school students to practice: A comparison of student and
teacher perceptions. Contributions to Music Education, 31(2), 43–55.
Coffman, D. (1990). Effects of mental practice, physical practice, and knowledge of results on piano
performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(3), 187–196.
DaCosta, D. (1999). An investigation into instrumental pupils’ attitudes to varied, structured prac-
tice: Two methods of approach. British Journal of Music Education, 16(1), 65–77.
Dewey, J. (1900). Psychology and social science. Psychological Review, 7, 105–124.
Drake, C., & Palmer, C. (2000). Skill acquisition in music performance: Relations between planning
and temporal control. Cognition, 74, 1–32.
Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. London, UK: Collier-Macmillan.
Duke, R. A., & Davis, C. M. (2006). Procedural memory consolidation in the performance of brief
keyboard sequences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(2), 111–124.
Duke, R. A., Flowers, P. J., & Wolfe, D. E. (1997). Children who study piano with excellent teachers
in the United States. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 132, 51–84.
Duke, R. A., Simmons, A. L., & Cash, C. D. (2009). It’s not how much; It’s how—characteristics
of practice behavior and retention of performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education,
56(4), 310–321.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia,
PA: Psychology Press.
Edwards, R. S. (1992). Model building. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching
and learning (pp. 38–47). New York, NY: Schirmer Books.
86

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519.
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues.
In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Fortney, P. M. (1992). The effect of modeling and silent analysis on the performance effectiveness of
advanced instrumentalists. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 3, 18–21.
Furstenau, A. B. (1963). 26 studies for flute, op. 107 (Peters, Ed.). Frankfurt, Germany: Litolff-Peters.
Geringer, J. M., & Kostka, M. J. (1984). An analysis of practice room behavior of college music stu-
dents. Contributions to Music Education, 11, 24–27.
Ginsborg, J. (2002). Classical singers learning and memorizing a new song: An observational study.
Psychology of Music, 30, 58–101.
Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction. Review of Educational Research, 46(1),
1–24.
Gordon, I. J. (Ed.) (1968). Criteria for theories of instruction. Washington, DC: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gruson, L. (1988). Rehearsal skill and musical competence: Does practice make perfect? In J. A.
Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and
composition (pp. 91–112). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a
construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.
Hallam, S. (1995a). Professional musicians’ orientations to practice: Implications for teaching. British
Journal of Music Education, 12(1), 3–19.
Hallam, S. (1995b). Professional musicians’ approaches to the learning and interpretation of music.
Psychology of Music, 23(2), 111–128.
Hallam, S. (1997a). Approaches to the instrumental music practice of experts and novices:
Implications for education. In H. Jørgensen and A.C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect?
Current theory and research on instrumental music practice. Oslo: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Hallam, S. (1997b). What do we know about practicing? Towards a model synthesizing the research
literature. In H. Jørgensen and A. C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory
and research on instrumental music practice. Oslo: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Hallam, S. (1997c). The development of memorization strategies in musicians: Implications for edu-
cation. British Journal of Music Education, 14(1), 87–97.
Hallam, S. (2001a). The development of metacognition in musicians: Implications for education.
British Journal of Music Education, 18(1), 27–39.
Hallam, S. (2001b). The development of expertise in young musicians: Strategy use, knowledge
acquisition, and individual diversity. Music Education Research, 3(1), 7–23.
Hamann, D. L., & Frost, R. S. (2000). The effect of private lesson study on the practice habits and
attitudes towards practicing of middle school and high school string students. Contributions to
Music Education, 27(2), 71–93.
Hamann, D. L., Lucas, K. A., McAllister, P., & Teachout, D. (1998). An investigation into the fac-
tors contributing to individual practice. Journal of Band Research, 34(1), 59–68.
Harnischmacher, C. (1997). The effects of individual differences in motivation, volition, and matu-
rational processes on practice behavior of young instrumentalists. In H. Jørgensen and A. C.
87

Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music
practice (pp. 71–88). Oslo, Norway: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Henley, P. (2001). Effects of modeling and tempo patterns as practice techniques on the performance
of high school instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(2), 169–180.
Hewitt, M. P. (2001). The effects of modeling, self-evaluation, and self-listening on junior high
instrumentalist’s music performance and practice attitude. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 49(4), 307–322.
Highben, H. S., & Palmer, C. (2004). Effects of auditory and motor mental practice in memorized
piano performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 159, 58–67.
Hosford, P. L. (1973). An instructional theory: A beginning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Howe, M. J. A., & Sloboda, J. A. (1991a). Young musicians’ accounts of significant influences in
their early lives. 1. The family and the musical background. British Journal of Music Education,
8, 39–52.
Howe, M. J. A., & Sloboda, J. A. (1991b). Early lives of musicians, 2: Teachers, practicing, and per-
forming. British Journal of Music Education, 8, 53–63.
Jørgensen, H. (1997). Time for practicing? Higher level music students’ use of time for instrumental
practicing. In H. Jørgensen and A. C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory
and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 123–139). Oslo: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Jørgensen, H. (2002). Instrumental performance expertise and amount of practice among instrumen-
tal students in a conservatoire. Music Education Research, 4(1), 105–119.
Jørgensen, H. (2003). Instrumental practice and developing musicianship: Time variables and theory
development. Proceedings of the 5th ESCOM Conference, (pp. 8–13). Germany: Hochschule für
Musik und Theater, Hanover, CD-Rom.
Jørgensen, H., & Hallam, S. (2009). Practicing. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, and M. Thaut (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 265–273). New York: Oxford University Press.
Jørgensen, H. & Lehman, A. C. (Eds.) (1997). Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research
on instrumental music practice. Oslo: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Kern, J. (1988). All the things you are. In C. Sher and B. Bauer (Eds.), The New Real Book, (p. 4).
Petaluma, CA: Sher Music.
Killian, J., & Henry, M. (2005). A comparison of successful and unsuccessful strategies in individual
sight-singing preparation and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(1),
51–65.
Kopprasch, C. (1939). Sixty selected studies for French horn, Bk. 1 (Rev. G. A. Frehse). Boston, MA:
Carl Fischer.
Kostka, M. J. (2002). Practice expectations and attitudes: A survey of college-level music teachers and
students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(2), 145–154.
Lafosse, A. (1949). School of sight reading and style, Book A. New York, NY: M. Baron.
Lehman, A. C., & Ericsson, K. A. (1997). Research on expert performance and deliberate practice:
Implications for the education of amateur musicians and music students. Psychomusicology, 16,
40–58.
Lim, S., & Lippman, L. G. (1991). Mental practice and memorization of piano music. Journal of
General Psychology, 118(1), 21–30.
Linklater, F. (1997). Effects of audio and videotape models on the performance achievement of
beginner clarinets. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(3), 402–414.
MacNamara, A., Holmes, P., & Collins, D. (2006). The pathway to excellence: The role of psycho-
logical characteristics in negotiating the challenges of musical development. British Journal of
Music Education, 23(3), 285–302.
88

Madsen, C. K. (2004). A 30-year follow-up study of actual applied music practice vs. estimated prac-
tice. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(1), 77–99.
Madsen, C. K., & Geringer, J. M. (1981). The effect of a distraction index on improving practice
attentiveness and musical performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,
66, 46–52.
Manturzewska, M. (1979). Results of psychological research on the process of music practicing and
its effective shaping. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 59, 59–61.
Manturzewska, M. (1990). A biographical study of the life-span development of professional musi-
cians. Psychology of Music, 18, 112–139.
Marsh, H., Craven, R., Hinckley, J., & Debus, R. (2003). Evaluation of the big-two factor theory
of academic motivation orientations: An evaluation of jingle-jangle fallacies. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 38, 189–224.
Maynard, L. M. (2006). The role of repetition in the practice sessions of artist teachers and their stu-
dents. Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education, 167, 61–72.
McCormick, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2003). The role of self-efficacy in a musical performance
examination: An exploratory structural equation analysis. Psychology of Music, 31(1), 37–51.
McPherson, G. E. (1995). The assessment of musical performance: Development and validation of
five new measures. Psychology of Music, 23, 142–161.
McPherson, G. E. (1997). Cognitive strategies and skill acquisition in musical performance. Bulletin
of the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 64–71.
McPherson, G. E. (2005). From child to musician: Skill development during the beginning stages of
learning an instrument. Psychology of Music, 33(1), 5–35.
McPherson, G. E., & Davidson, J. W. (2002). Musical practice: Mother and child interactions dur-
ing the first year of learning an instrument. Music Education Research, 4(1), 141–156.
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (1999). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
musical practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 98–102.
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2000). The contribution of motivational factors to instrumen-
tal performance in a music examination. Research Studies in Music Education, 15, 31–39.
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2006). Self-efficacy and music performance. Psychology of
Music, 34(3), 322–336.
McPherson, G. E., & Renwick, J. M. (2001). A longitudinal study of self-regulation in children’s
musical practice. Music Education Research, 3(2), 169–186.
McPherson, G. E., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Self-regulation of musical learning: A social cogni-
tive perspective. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music
teaching and learning (pp. 327–347). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen, M.,
et al. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan.
Miklaszewski, K. (1989). A case study of a pianist preparing a musical performance. Psychology of
Music, 17, 95–109.
Miksza, P. (2005). The effect of mental practice on the performance achievement of high school
trombonists. Contributions to Music Education, 35(2), 75–93.
Miksza, P. (2006a). Relationships among impulsiveness, locus of control, gender, and music practice.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(4), 308–323.
Miksza, P. (2006b). Self-regulatory and motivational variables in the music practice of junior high
band students. Contributions to Music Education, 33(2), 9–26.
Miksza, P. (2007). Effective practice: An investigation of observed practice behaviors, self-reported
89

practice habits, and the performance achievement of high school wind players. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 55(4), 359–375.
Miksza, P. (2009a). Relationships among impulsivity, achievement goal motivation, and the music
practice of high school wind players. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,
180, 39–57.
Miksza, P. (2009b). An investigation of the 2×2 achievement goal framework in the context of instru-
mental music. In L. K. Thompson and M. R. Campbell (Eds.), Research perspectives: Thought
and practice in music education (pp. 81–100). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Miksza, P. (2011). Relationships among impulsivity, achievement goal motivation, and the music
practice of collegiate wind players. Psychology of Music, 39, 50–67.
Moore, D. G., Burland, K., & Davidson, J. W. (2003). The social context of musical success: A
developmental account. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 529–549.
Mulligan, J. (1988). Line for Lyons. In C. Sher and B. Bauer (Eds.), The New Real Book (p. 188).
Petaluma, CA: Sher.
Nielsen, S. G. (1997). Self-regulation of learning strategies during practice: A case study of a church
organ student preparing a musical work for performance. In H. Jørgensen and A. C. Lehman
(Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp.
109–122). Oslo, Norway: Norges Musikkhogskole.
Nielsen, S. G. (1999). Learning strategies in instrumental music practice. British Journal of Music
Education, 16(3), 275–291.
Nielsen, S. G. (2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal individual practice:
A study of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32 (4), 418–431.
O’Brien, C. C. (1943). Part and whole methods in the memorization of music. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 34, 552–560.
O’Neill, S. A. (1997). The role of practice in children’s early musical performance achievement. In
H. Jørgensen and A. C. Lehman (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on
instrumental music practice (pp. 53–70). Oslo, Norway: Norges Musikkhogskole.
O’Neill, S. A. (1999). The role of achievement-related self-perceptions in the practice and achieve-
ment of young musicians. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 142, 89.
Pacey, F. (1993). Schema theory and the effect of variable practice in string teaching. British Journal
of Music Education, 10, 91–102.
Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46,
128–148.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart, & Wilson.
Pintrich, P., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of class-
room academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Pitts, S., Davidson, A., & McPherson, G. (2000a). Models of success and failure in instrumental
learning: Case studies of young players in the first 20 months of learning. Bulletin of the Council
for Research in Music Education, 146, 51–69.
Pitts, S., Davidson, A., & McPherson, G. (2000b). Developing effective practice strategies: Case
studies of three young instrumentalists. Music Education Research, 2(1), 45–56.
Puopolo, V. (1971). The development and experimental application of self-instructional practice materi-
als for beginning instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19(3), 342–349.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M.
Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models, vol. 3,
Building a common knowledge base (pp. 3–35). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
90

Renwick, J. M., & McPherson, G. E. (2002). Interest and choice: Student-selected repertoire and its
effect on practicing behavior. British Journal of Music Education, 19(2), 173–188.
Rhodes, T. C., Bierschenk, D., Lautzenheiser, T., Higgins, J., & Petersen, L. (2002). Essential tech-
nique. New York, NY: Hal Leonard Publishing.
Rohwer, D. (2005). A case study of adult beginning instrumental practice. Contributions to Music
Education, 32(1), 45–58.
Rohwer, D., & Polke, J. (2006). Practice behaviors of eighth-grade instrumental musicians. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 54(4), 350–362.
Rosenthal, R. K. (1984). The relative effects of guided model, model only, guide only, and practice
only treatments on the accuracy of advanced instrumentalists’ music performance. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 32, 265–273.
Rosenthal, R. K., Durairaj, M., & Magann, J. (2009). Musicians’ descriptions of their expressive
musical practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 181, 37–49.
Rosenthal, R. K., Wilson, M., Evans, M., & Greenwalt, L. (1988). Effects of different practice
conditions on advanced instrumentalists’ performance accuracy. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 36, 250–257.
Ross, S. (1985). The effectiveness of mental practice in improving the performance of college trom-
bonists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 33(4), 221–30.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1939). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: II. A comparison
of the unilateral and coordinated approaches. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 321–345.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1940a). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: II. A comparison
of massed and distributed practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 31, 270–284.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1940b). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: III. A comparison
of the whole and the part approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 31, 460–475.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1941a). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: IV. The effect of
incentive. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 45–54.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1941b). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: V. A comparison
of pre-study periods of varied length. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 101–112.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1941c). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: VI. A comparison
of forms of mental rehearsal and overlearning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 593–602.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1941d). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: VII. A compari-
son of three degrees of overlearing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 688–696.
Saunders, T. C., & Holahan, J. M. (1997). Criteria-specific ratings scales in the evaluation of high
school instrumental performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 259–272.
Schmidt, C. P. (2005). Relations among motivation, performance achievement, and music experi-
ence variables in secondary instrumental music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(2),
134–147.
Schmidt, C. P. (2007). Intrinsic-mastery motivation in instrumental music: Extension of a higher
order construct. Bulletin for Council of Research in Music Education, 173, 7–23.
Simmons, A. L., & Duke, R. A. (2006). Effects of sleep on performance of a keyboard melody.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 257–269.
Sloboda, J. A. (1985). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J. A., & Moore, D. G. (1996). The role of practice in the
development of performing musicians. British Journal of Psychology, 87(2), 287–309.
Sloboda, J. A., & Howe, M. J. A. (1991). Biographical precursors of musical excellence: An interview
study. Psychology of Music, 19, 3–21.
91

Sosniak, L. A. (1985). Learning to be a concert pianist. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in

young people (pp. 19–67). New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Smith, B. (2005). Goal orientation, implicit theories of ability, and collegiate instrumental practice.
Psychology of Music, 33(1), 36–57.
Theiler, A. M., & Lippman, L. G. (1995). Effects of mental practice and modeling on guitar and
vocal performance. Journal of General Psychology, 122(4), 329–343.
VanderArk, S., & Murphy, E. (1998). Effects of traditional physical, mental, mental with physical,
and physical with singing practice on instrumental music performances. Southeastern Journal of
Music Education, 10, 50–55.
Wagner, M. J. (1975). The effect of a practice report on practice time and musical performance. In
C. K. Madsen, R. D. Green, & C. H. Madsen (Eds.), Research in music behavior: Modifying
music behavior in the classroom (pp. 125–130). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Walker, M. P. (2005). A refined model of sleep and the time course of memory formation. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 51–104.
Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D.R. (2002). Learning and study strategies inventory (2nd ed.).
Clearwater, FL: H&H.
Welch, G. F. (1985). Variability of practice and knowledge of results as factors in learning to sing in
tune. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 85, 238–247.
Williamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2000). Quantity and quality of music practice as predictors of per-
formance quality. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 353–76.
Williamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2002). The role of retrieval structures in memorizing music.
Cognitive Psychology, 44, 1–32.
Williamon, A., Valentine, E., & Valentine, J. (2002). Shifting the focus of attention between levels of
musical structure. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(1), 493–520.
Wolfe, D. E. (1987). The use of behavioral contracts in music instruction. In C. K. Madsen,
C. A. Prickett, & J. T. Gates (Eds.), Applications of Research in Music Behavior (pp. 43–50).
Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Zdzinski, S. F. (1991). Research in motor learning: Applications to instrumental music education.
Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 3, 188–205.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses?
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307–311.
Zurcher, W. (1975). The effect of model-supportive practice on beginning brass instrumentalists, in
C. K. Madsen, R. D. Green, & C. H. Madsen (Eds.), Research in music behavior: Modifying
music behavior in the classroom (pp. 131–138). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
92

A Review of Research On Practicing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Review of Research On Practicing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Council for Research in Music Education

A Review of Research on Practicing:

BCRME_190_text.indd 51 12/13/11 8:29 AM

C entral Q uestions about P racticing

BCRME_190_text.indd 52 12/13/11 8:29 AM

and/or observed practice behaviors/strategies. Summaries of key structural elements of

Comparisons of Student and Teacher Opinions/Perspectives

Changes in Approach to Practicing across Long Spans of Time

BCRME_190_text.indd 53 12/13/11 8:29 AM

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

BCRME_190_text.indd 60 12/13/11 8:29 AM

In a culminating report of their longitudinal study, McPherson (2005) reported on

Direct Observations of Strategies Used to Facilitate Memory

BCRME_190_text.indd 61 12/13/11 8:29 AM

General Investigations of Reported

BCRME_190_text.indd 62 12/13/11 8:29 AM

BCRME_190_text.indd 63 12/13/11 8:29 AM

BCRME_190_text.indd 64 12/13/11 8:29 AM

one measure and whole-part-whole. Other behaviors related to performance achieve-

How Have Researchers Intervened with Individuals’ Practice?

BCRME_190_text.indd 65 12/13/11 8:29 AM

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Studies by Fortney (1992), Linklater (1997), Rosenthal (1984), Rosenthal, Wilson,

BCRME_190_text.indd 71 12/13/11 8:29 AM

BCRME_190_text.indd 72 12/13/11 8:29 AM

of time practiced and self-evaluation of practice effectiveness. Those in the experimental

What Individual Difference Variables Interact

BCRME_190_text.indd 73 12/13/11 8:29 AM

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Barry (1992) also examined how the cognitive style field-dependence/indepen-

How Is Self-Regulated Learning Relevant to Practicing?

BCRME_190_text.indd 78 12/13/11 8:29 AM

mentalists. In addition, all studies that have incorporated a quantitative measure of

BCRME_190_text.indd 79 12/13/11 8:29 AM

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

T oward an I nstructional T heory of

BCRME_190_text.indd 82 12/13/11 8:29 AM

What follows is a preliminary sketch of an instructional theory of practicing that

Figure 1. Figural model of an instructional theory for practicing.

BCRME_190_text.indd 83 12/13/11 8:29 AM

BCRME_190_text.indd 84 12/13/11 8:29 AM

BCRME_190_text.indd 85 12/13/11 8:29 AM

Bona, P. (1969). Rhythmical articulation. New York, NY: Carl Fischer.

BCRME_190_text.indd 86 12/13/11 8:29 AM

BCRME_190_text.indd 87 12/13/11 8:29 AM

BCRME_190_text.indd 88 12/13/11 8:29 AM

BCRME_190_text.indd 89 12/13/11 8:29 AM

BCRME_190_text.indd 90 12/13/11 8:29 AM

BCRME_190_text.indd 91 12/13/11 8:29 AM

Sosniak, L. A. (1985). Learning to be a concert pianist. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in