PRIVILEGIOS E INMUNIDADES

In order to investigate the impact of the intervention on the participants’ narratives and emotions, participants were asked to respond to pre- and post-intervention

questionnaires. In all, four questionnaires were administered using an on-line survey website (see Figure 5.1, which shows the timeline of the whole project):

 A pre-intervention questionnaire was administered to all participants at the time they registered for the project.

 A second questionnaire was administered to all participants between the two sessions of the intervention: this was a post-intervention questionnaire for those who had participated in Session 1, and a waitlist control questionnaire to participants who would participate in Session 2 (the link to both questionnaires was sent to participants by e-mail on 4 May 2015).

 A third questionnaire was administered only to those performers who

participated in Session 2 (the link to this post-intervention questionnaire was sent by email to these participants on 15 June2015).

 A follow-up questionnaire was administered to all participants (the cohorts of both sessions) three months after the end of their respective intervention.

Figure 5.1 Intervention project timeline and release of questionnaires

5.2.4.1 Description of the questionnaires of the intervention project

The pre-intervention questionnaire (Pre-Q)

The pre-intervention questionnaire, embedded in the home page of the project, had to be completed by all participants at the time of their registration for the project. It consisted of 51 questions and took around 15 minutes to complete (see Appendix III). The first eight questions investigated the respondent’s demographic and musical background (i.e., age, main instrument, number of years of musical practice, main genre). Most of the remaining questions investigated the following themes:

 The performance experience: Performers were asked to think about their performance experiences during the previous year and to report on the extent to which they felt joyful, self-confident, willing to perform, inspired, connected to the audience, anxious and immersed in their music-making while performing; the extent to which they assessed the quality of their playing in performance as being better or worse when compared to the quality of their playing during practice; and the extent to which they viewed their performances as being valuable for the

audience. Additionally, they were asked to think about a recent

performance experience that they viewed as typical of their performance experiences in general (preferably their last performance) and to report

ACTIVITY weeks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27

Pre-intervention Quest. Intervention Session 1 Post-intervention Quest. S1 Control Quest. for control group Intervention Session 2

Post-intervention for Quest. S2 Follow-up Quest. for S1 Follow-up Quest. for S2

on the percentage of time in which they experienced positive, negative and neutral emotions during that performance

 The extra-musical methods used to prepare for performance: performers were asked about the extent to which they used the following extra- musical methods to prepare for their performances: visualisation,

relaxation, focusing on their strengths and good preparation, focusing on the value of music, on the privilege of being a performer and on the benefits their performances may bring to their audience. It also investigated the performers’ intake of chemical or natural products.

 The visualisation of an upcoming performance: the questionnaire

investigated the extent to which the participants thought they would feel joyful, self-confident, willing to perform, inspired, connected to the audience, absorbed and anxious, when they visualised themselves on the day of an upcoming performance.

 The experience of practice: performers were asked to think about their practice sessions during the prior seven days and to report on the extent to which they were immersed and enjoyed their practice, and how they assessed the efficiency of their study methods. Additionally, they were asked to think about a recent practice session that they viewed as typical of their practice in general (preferably their last session) and to report on the percentage of time in which they experienced positive, negative and neutral emotions during that practice session.

 Daily life experience: participants were asked to think about their daily life during the prior seven days and to report on the extent to which they enjoyed it. Additionally, they were asked to think about a recent day that they viewed as typical of their daily activities (preferably the previous day) and to report on the percentage of time in which they experienced positive, negative and neutral emotions during that day.

 Goals and beliefs: Performers were asked about the extent to which they had inspiring goals as performers, were confident they would attain these goals, and the extent to which they believed that the talent they had received at birth determined their possibilities for success.

The questions were presented in the form of 9-point Likert-type items, in which 1 meant a complete absence of the variable and 9 its full presence. For instance, choosing 1 in Enjoyment or Anxiety meant ‘Not enjoyed at all’, or ‘Not anxious at all’, and choosing 9 meant ‘Fully enjoyed’ or ‘Extremely anxious’. I considered scores between 1 to 3 to be low, between 4 and 6 to be moderate and between 7 to 9 to be high.

The post-intervention (Post-Q) (cohorts of the first session) and the control- questionnaire (Control-Q)

Between Session 1 and Session 2, a post-intervention questionnaire was administered to the cohorts of the first session, and a Waitlist Control questionnaire (Control-Q) to cohorts of the second session.

The Post-Q was almost identical to the pre-intervention Questionnaire (Pre-Q), except that the Post-Q did not inquire about background variables (as this information had already been gathered by the Pre-Q), and it contained some questions related to the intervention. For instance, as the course was self-administered and each participant could choose his or her own pace (participants knew that the material would be available on-line for four months), the Post-Q investigated whether, by the time they completed this questionnaire, the participants felt they had had enough time to follow the course, as well as the extent with which they had watched the videos, completed the exercises, read and participated in the discussion forum. In those cases in which

participants felt they had not had enough time to participate in the course, they were asked whether they would be willing to take the course once again in the future. Moreover, participants were required to evaluate the extent to which they thought the intervention had helped them as performers, teachers, and in other aspects of life, and the extent to which they thought these kinds of interventions should be included in musical education curricula (see Appendix IV).

The Control-Q was administered only to the cohorts of the second session prior to their intervention. Most of the questions of this questionnaire were identical to the question of the Post-Q, except that the Control-Q did not include intervention-related questions (see Appendix V). This would allow me to compare the scores of participants who had undergone the intervention to those who had not yet done so. If scores increased in the

Intervention group (between their Pre-Q and Post-Q) and not in the Control group, I would interpret these increases as resulting from the intervention.

The post-intervention questionnaire (Post-Q) (cohorts of the second session) The Post-Q administered to the cohorts of Session 2 after the end of their intervention was the same Post-Q that had been previously administered to the cohorts of Session 1. The follow-up questionnaire

The follow-up questionnaire, sent to all participants three months after the end of their respective sessions, was identical to the Post-Q (see Appendix VI) except that it did not inquire about the performers’ perception of having or not having had enough time to follow the course. It was assumed that by the time performers completed the follow-up questionnaire, time was no longer an issue.