Mecanismos de acción de la acupuntura en el tratamiento de la infertilidad

The importance and value of an instructor, peer collaboration and self-evaluation (Boud, 1995) are not disputed. All forms of feedback provide learners with the opportunity to create new meaning and understanding, and also to explore new ways of investigating their own strengths and weaknesses (Claxton, 2008). Brinko (1993) posits that ‘givers and receivers of feedback have very different attitudes toward the feedback process’ (p. 576). Supporting research shows that how students respond to feedback is related to their level of sensitivity (Atlas, Taggart & Goodell, 2004), how the feedback is delivered (Rucker, & Thomson, 2003; Anderson, Benson & Lynch, 2001; Brinko, 1993), the timing of delivery (Wulf & Mornell, 2008; Golec, 2004) and the environment in which the feedback is delivered and received (Wulf & Mornell, 2008; Atlas et al., 2004; Golec, 2004; Brinko, 1993). Atlas and colleagues (2004) make a reasonable argument that such factors ‘may have an impact on the learning experience’ (p. 85) adversely affecting motivation, and can ‘lead to performance decrements or withdrawal from the activity’ (p.85). Such findings clearly indicate why it was imperative for this enquiry to be conducted in a positive and encouraging manner.

For feedback to be an advantageous learning tool, pupils need to embrace it in all forms. In the past, it was thought that immediate feedback was the best learning support (Renner, 1964), but research in developmental psychology reveals that students perform better from delayed (Schooler & Anderson, 1990; Kulhavy & Anderson, 1972), or delayed and reasoned feedback from the instructor (Lipnevich & Smith, 2009). While research has shown that direct and immediate feedback amplifies a student’s level of motivation and performance (Larson, 1984), students in higher education were less

that stressed accuracy and that gave immediate feedback (Golec, 2004). By delaying feedback, students were more likely to process information, and evaluate their actions and goals (Golec, 2004; Schooler & Anderson, 1990). When accompanied by additional rationale and instruction, delayed feedback has the potential to increase the learner’s feeling of competence, or know-how (Sansone, 1986). Although these studies are not related to instrumental learning, there might be interesting parallels because, during an instrumental lesson, it is normal for teachers to immediately respond to errors by offering analysis and suggestions for improvement.

The need for new thinking in instrumental pedagogy is further implied by Wulf and Mornell’s (2008) study, which found direct correlations between how pupils perform and the timing, frequency and quality of instructor feedback. Although correct motor responses resulted from immediate and direct instructional feedback, it was deemed only momentarily useful and quickly forgotten, ‘a short-term performance effect, and not a sign of learning’ (p. 4). Immediate feedback was found to be less effective than slightly delayed responses, because delaying comments afforded performers the opportunity to reflect on the effectiveness of their efforts before receiving supplemental instruction. Wulf & Mornell also suggest that if feedback is given too frequently, pupils can neglect the ‘processing of their own intrinsic feedback’ and ‘fail to develop their own error-detection-and-correction mechanisms that would allow them to perform effectively when the augmented feedback is withdrawn’ (p. 4). These findings support this enquiry in relation to how pupils are allowed time to reflect and formulate their own feedback prior to any form of supplemental guidance.

Accepting that feedback from instructors enables improvement (Rucker & Thomson, 2003), studies have also examined the impact of peer feedback within a performance class context, establishing that it was valuable to third level students (Napoles, 2008; Falchikov, 1996). Interestingly, Napoles’ (2008) study reported that after a one-week period, students recalled their peers’ and instructor’s comments more readily than their own self-evaluations. However, while these same students reported that peer comments were mostly self-evident, and included little realistic advice for improvement (less than 20% of peer feedback was depicted as supportive or informative), it was receiving feedback from multiple sources that they valued most, especially when peer feedback affirmed the more comprehensive comments given by the instructor. The overarching

outcome of Napoles’ study was that students valued peer feedback because it provided a wider view from which to reflect, and allowed students to see themselves through the eyes of others (Napoles, 2008). Although no similar study investigating how the younger pupil might respond has been sourced, this enquiry hopes to make contributions in this area.

2.9.6.1 Learning to critique

Many instrumental teachers would agree with Daniel’s (2004) statement that, students ‘gain and continue to develop a number of skills by simply engaging in the process of critically assessing performance’ (p. 108), but some third level music programmes have viewed critiquing performances as a skill to be actively nurtured. At the University of Ulster, programs were designed that trained and included students in formal performance assessment procedures over the duration of their degree (Hunter, 1999; Hunter & Russ, 1996) with a variety of outcomes. Hunter and Russ (1996) showed that firstly, students ‘prepare much more thoroughly for performances which are being assessed by their peers than they do for performances assessed solely by staff ’ (p. 77). Secondly, students in their final year of their degree expressed a greater appreciation and understanding of the assessment process from having been included. Thirdly, and perhaps most advantageously, Hunter and Russ (1996) found that students developed the tendency ‘to listen more critically to their own playing as well as the performances of others’ (p. 77). Blom and Poole (2004) support the findings of Hunter and Russ with two further additions. Inclusion in the assessment process gave students a new perspective of the ‘visual side of performance, and new ways of learning about performance’ (p. 117), but it also signalled to students that staff recognise they ‘do have the capacity, and can be trusted, to evaluate’ learning (p. 124). By observing and assessing their peers, the students in Blom and Poole’s study admitted to gaining a ‘deeper insight and understanding of the performing process’ (p.120).

Third level programs have also increasingly adopted the use of self-evaluation activities (Hewitt, 2011, 2002; Mills, 2009; Napoles, 2008; Hunter, 2006; Falchikov, 2004, 2003; Daniel, 2004; Burrack, 2002), ones that imply reflecting with integrity. To gain a clearer picture of the student’s perspective of self-evaluation, Bergee and Cecconi-Roberts (2002) studied the self-evaluations of 29 undergraduate music performance majors

period were examined in relation to peer and faculty evaluations of those same performances. Findings revealed that peer evaluations were slightly more favourable but similar to the instructors, while students own ‘self-evaluation[s] correlated poorly with both peer and faculty’ (p. 257). Moreover, peer comments did not seem to have an ‘influence on self-evaluation skills’ (p. 263). Had this study been conducted over a longer period and factored in the rate of progress, it might have revealed interesting disparities between staff, peer and self-comments. However, these authors feel that their findings on self-evaluation confirm earlier work by Colwell (1995) and Rosenthal (1985), that undergraduates do not necessarily possess the ability to realistically self- evaluate, and that perhaps more instruction should be given on how to accurately do so, as in the protocol adopted by Hunter & Russ (1996) and Blom & Poole (2004). However, a more recent quantitative study by Hewitt (2011) found that the ability of middle school music pupils to self-evaluate did not increase with instruction, and suggested that qualitative research may identify the missing link.

Self-evaluation involves the various forms of reflection-in-action and reflection-on- action, and is a research topic only beginning to feature in relation to the younger instrumentalist. Hewitt (2002: 229) found that junior-high school musicians ‘were unable to effectively self-evaluate individual music performances’, and that introducing instruction in how to evaluate had ‘little impact on music performance or self- evaluation accuracy’ (p. 13). While this finding clearly points to the need for further research into how and what best assists this younger age group in becoming ‘discriminatingly self-critical’ (Hewitt, 2002: 229), research by Burrack (2002) produced opposing findings. Burrack (2002) concluded that even younger musicians in primary school could learn how to self-evaluate and assess group performance with substantial benefits by using portfolios under the guidance of an instructor. By encouraging pupils to identify and solve their own problems, the same study found that self and group assessment practices enhanced ‘musical understanding, aesthetic sensitivity, and critical-listening skills’ (p. 28). Results also indicated raised levels of motivation and the ability to listen critically, but interestingly, these younger pupils also recognised ‘a relationship between the assessments and their progress’ (p. 30). Burrack suggested that self and group assessment can ‘enhance student ownership’ (p. 32), and give ‘opportunity to construct meaning’ (p. 31) directly related to the activities pupils pursue. Encouraged by the findings of Burrack, this current enquiry examines if peer

collaboration and participation in the feedback process is both effective and advantageous in terms of the young individual’s solo performances.