↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing Music Learning: Exploring How Blocked and Interleaved Practice Schedules Affect Advanced Performance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Optimizing Music Learning: Exploring How Blocked and Interleaved Practice Schedules Affect Advanced Performance
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01251
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine E. Carter, Jessica A. Grahn

Abstract

Repetition is the most commonly used practice strategy by musicians. Although blocks of repetition continue to be suggested in the pedagogical literature, work in the field of cognitive psychology suggests that repeated events receive less processing, thereby reducing the potential for long-term learning. Motor skill learning and sport psychology research offer an alternative. Instead of using a blocked practice schedule, with practice completed on one task before moving on to the next task, an interleaved schedule can be used, in which practice is frequently alternated between tasks. This frequent alternation involves more effortful processing, resulting in increased long-term learning. The finding that practicing in an interleaved schedule leads to better retention than practicing in a blocked schedule has been labeled the "contextual interference effect." While the effect has been observed across a wide variety of fields, few studies have researched this phenomenon in a music-learning context, despite the broad potential for application to music practice. This study compared the effects of blocked and interleaved practice schedules on advanced clarinet performance in an ecologically valid context. Ten clarinetists were given one concerto exposition and one technical excerpt to practice in a blocked schedule (12 min per piece) and a second concerto exposition and technical excerpt to practice in an interleaved schedule (3 min per piece, alternating until a total of 12 min of practice were completed on each piece). Participants sight-read the four pieces prior to practice and performed them at the end of practice and again one day later. The sight-reading and two performance run-throughs of each piece were recorded and given to three professional clarinetists to rate using a percentage scale. Overall, whenever there was a ratings difference between the conditions, pieces practiced in the interleaved schedule were rated better than those in the blocked schedule, although results varied across raters. Participant questionnaires also revealed that the interleaved practice schedule had positive effects on factors such as goal setting, focus, and mistake identification. Taken together, these results suggest that an interleaved practice schedule may be a more effective practice strategy than continuous repetition in a music-learning context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 134 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 18%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 25 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 27%
Sports and Recreations 11 8%
Neuroscience 11 8%
Arts and Humanities 11 8%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 30 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 July 2023.
All research outputs
#557,673
of 24,715,720 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,143
of 33,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,128
of 350,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#36
of 390 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,715,720 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 390 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.