↓ Skip to main content

Peer Learning in Instrumental Practicing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Peer Learning in Instrumental Practicing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00339
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siw G. Nielsen, Guro G. Johansen, Harald Jørgensen

Abstract

In higher music education (HME), the notion of "private teaching, private learning" has a long tradition, where the learning part rests on the student's individual practicing between instrumental lessons. However, recent research suggests that collaborative learning among peers is beneficial in several aspects, such as sense of belonging, motivation and self-efficacy. This is consistent with the concept of vicarious learning. In this study, we conducted a survey among bachelor music students in church music, performance or music education programs enrolled in a music academy (N = 96), where parts of the questionnaire addressed peer learning and peer's influence on the students's instrumental practicing, and the degree of satisfaction with their practicing. These issues were seen in relation to gender, musical genre and study program. Overall, the students reported engaging in peer learning related to their instrumental practicing, to various degrees. This involved discussing practicing matters with peers, and practicing together with peers. However, student's reports of their views on peer learning, show that they perceive it more beneficial than the amount of time reported doing it would indicate. No significant gender differences were found, but students within improvised music/jazz engaged the most in peer learning, and church music students the least. Neither the degree of engaging in peer learning nor reported influence from peers correlated significantly with the degree of satisfaction. We discuss whether a general dissatisfaction is caused by being in a competitive learning environment combined with a privatized culture for learning. Finally, we suggest that collaborative forums for instrumental practicing within HME institutions can function as constructive and supportive arenas to enhance students learning and inner motivation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Master 10 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 5 6%
Researcher 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 29 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 12 16%
Psychology 10 13%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 29 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,589,103
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,497
of 30,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#259,427
of 333,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#519
of 577 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 333,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 577 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.