Dr Mark Pulman University of Huddersfield

1. Research Fora 2nd December 2008 University of Huddersfield Dr Mark PulmanUniversity of Huddersfield Personal attributes and rehearsing in a band University Campus Barnsley

2. Personal attributes and rehearsing in a band Introduction The musical context

3. What can be learned during band rehearsals?

4. Group Rehearsing Peer learning Group rehearsing Popular music context

5. Peer learning Why Bother?

6. The research focus • Commenced 2000 • Contributed to PhD Research 2001-2007 involving 170 undergraduate popular music students, 80 bands, sixteen in-depth individual interviews and extensive peer marking data • Ongoing

7. Action research • Improvements to practice • Pedagogy, teaching and learning

8. Research questions • How might peer assessment activites support learning arising from band rehearsals? • Which activities and processes may foster the development of such learning?

9. Learning and acquiring knowledge through band rehearsing and peer learning activities A social constructivist paradigm

10. Some personal attributes that we may display during rehearsing Our ‘people skills’ as musicians working in a group Our communication with the band Our support of the band Our giving and receiving feedback to band members Our self-responsibility to the band Our help towards others and out willingness to ask for help Our creative input into the band

11. Using personal attributes as peer assessment criteria What is the nature of our personal attributes as they are displayed in rehearsing? Attributes that the band feel are important to them…? Attributes that are uniquely important to each band member…? Our personal ‘strengths’ in the rehearsal…? Our personal ‘weaknesses’ in the rehearsal…?

12. Training Principles Rationale Agreement Transparency Moderation

13. Which personal attributes do students think are important in their rehearsing? Most frequently formulated personal attributes criteria Group Attributes: Attendance; Team working; Enthusiasm; Commitment; Responsibility for learning parts; Organisation;Punctuality Personal weaknesses: Confidence; Contributing to ideas; Punctuality;Enthusiasm. Personal strengths: Responsibility for own part; Punctuality; Organized; Confidence Personal attributes raised by students in their interviews Self-responsibility:Commitment; Responsibility; Reliability; Punctuality; Attendance. Interpersonal relationships:Tolerance towards others; Personal skills; Flexibility; Team member; Communication with team. Creativity:Trying new ideas; Inventiveness; Creative input; Contribution to ideas Confidence: Verbal input; Leadership skills/taking charge.Confidence; Awareness:Listening to others; Willingness to help others; Focus/concentration

15. Peer assessing

16. Action research cycles 19 cycles (2000-2006) of rehearsing and performing

17. Changes/evaluation/action Exploring the peer assessment process Development of research questions Rehearsing and performing Students' responses to peer assessment Development of understanding of peer assessment Development of methodological framework Revision of action research cycle and re-application

18. Changes to the cycles Changes to personal attributes types used as assessment criteria • Group agreed attributes • Individual attributes (personal strengths/weaknesses formulated by themselves; personal weaknesses formulated by their band) Changes to other processes of peer assessment • Timing of assessment • Assessing privately or collaboratively • Formative or summative assessment

19. Personal ‘weaknesses’ • Self selected • Determined for each individual by the band with whom they have rehearsed

21. ‘Band-determined personal weaknesses’ • “band members should choose, because they are more honest at identifying your weaknesses” –SA • “you have to listen and respect someone willing and brave enough to tell you your faults” –NL • “they reveal your weaknesses and once you know these you are fine” -EJ • “former band members who rehearsed … with you ….could choose these attributes for you, that you can work on…they know you…” –SA

22. Interviews • Semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted with sixteen band members during 2002-2006 • Adapted grounded theory was used to analyse the interview data

23. Interview analysis Four substantive categories arising from the coding analysis • Self-knowledge • Feedback • Honesty • Confidence

24. Self knowledge….. • “it made me look a lot more at myself” –YL • “subconsciously, I was always thinking about them two things I needed to improve on” –TP • “it lets people know what they think of you as well as what you think of yourself” –OD

25. Feedback….. • “an exceptional way of getting feedback” -EJ • “it enables you to understand how to improve”- EJ • “it teaches you to try harder, do better”-OD, HA, NL, HS • “I made a conscious effort to work on my attributes” –EN • “hard to work with people who cannot accept criticism” -EJ • “if criticism makes you take stock, then peer assessment is OK” –NL • “peer assessment gives you a check of what you are actually doing” -OD • “my [self-selected] weaknesses – they’re not what the other people would perceive as my weaknesses” -SA • “I need constructive criticism, not a stab in the back” –WK

26. Honesty…… • “ [it is] difficult to try to influence people to be impartial if they are determined to give low marks”-EJ • “[there are] difficulties in telling the truth face-to-face, so written feedback is good” –SA, DS • “written feedback avoids confrontations” – HA, SA • “it’s tough assessing your friends” –OD • “I try to be honest with my friends” -HA, MR • “some give friends better marks…I’m more critical with strangers” –OD • “personal feelings get in the way sometimes, and people will purposely mark low out of spite” –EJ

27. Confidence… • “I suppose in the rehearsal process in the past, I’ve always been the one to kind of take a back seat and kind of just sit and do whatever I’m told to do, if you know what I mean. So, because they put me in the position of, you know, deciding this, that and other, I’ve learnt to be more assertive” –DS • “It made me look a lot more at myself, and looking at their confidence like, with mine” –YL • “You definitely notice people who are confident on their instruments, put forward, put their ideas forward more than people who tend to maybe not have had as much experience of playing with people; they like to sit back a little bit” – OM

28. Peer assessment marking data Free-riders and shooting stars • Free riders consistently awarded themselves higher marks, compared with those that were awarded by their bands. • Shooting stars tended to under-estimate themselves when self-assessing, compared with those awarded to them by their band

29. A moral dimension Trust Honesty

30. Knowing yourself through others • Careful preparation • Developing trust among band members • Agreeing to the band deciding your personal weakness attributes • Receiving feedback • Increasing awareness and knowledge about yourself in band rehearsing

31. Developing a process model Stage One Tutor assessment; rationale; training; transparency; agreement Stage Two Group Attributes and Individual Attributes Stage Three Group Attributes and Personal Weaknesses Stage Four Personal Weaknesses

32. Strengths and weaknesses

33. Applications to other areas? • Group work? • Creativity?

34. End of Lecture Contact /comments to: Dr Mark Pulman Senior Lecturer in Music Technology University Centre Barnsley University of Huddersfield 01226 644254 m.pulman@hud.ac.uk