A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Different Types of Software EyeGuides in the Development

1
A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three
Different Types of Software Eye-Guides in the
Development of Sight-Playing Skills in Piano
Classes at the College Level

• Sara Hagen--Valley City State University
• Cynthia Benson--Bowling Green State University
• Alejandro Cremaschi--University of Colorado at
  Boulder

2
Importance of sightreading skills

• Saves practice time
• Required for many settings
• Teachers
• Collaborating with soloists and ensembles
• Composing/arranging
• Social settings

3
Sight-reading skills vs. reading skills

• Similarities
• Musical expression
• Continuity/fluency
• Analysis
• Audiation/aural connection

• Differences
• Practice
• Detail vs. overall picture
• Spontaneous vs. sophisticated decisions
• Accuracy
• Visual score concentration

4
Factors affecting sight-reading

• Udtaisuk (2005)
• Physical ability and coordination
• Musical awareness
• Musical potential
• Musical experiences

5
Udtaisuk (2005)
6
Findings related to visual component

• Saccadic movement and fixation
• Saccadic speed can be enhanced by daily practice
  (reading)
• Mature readers read music faster and tend to see
  more than a single note at a time
• Novice readers read more slowly and tend to see
  each separate note at a time
• Mere rapid speed of eye movement may not
  contribute to the overall quality of sightplaying

7

• Better sightreaders require shorter and fewer
  fixations
• Skilled sightreaders move eyes ahead of hands -
  reading ahead is a behavioral consequence of
  larger eye-hand span.
• Perceptual Span
• A measure of the amount of information extracted
  around the fixation point

8
Previous Hagen Benson study

• 2-minute practice period on electronic piano
  reading from paper
• Subject drew order of software
• Played the piece one time on each
• Completed the exit survey

9
Student Preference for Eye-Guide

• Vertical sweep (Finale) - 39
• Gray highlight (Home Concert) - 29
• Note-by-note (Band-in-Box) - 9

10

• A three-way preference emerged with nearly
  equivalent scores for the sweep, highlighted
  measure for both hands, and note-by-note systems.
  
• Results suggest that all of the systems may be
  useful for different learners.
• Other factors became issues
• computer screen interface
• how the software advanced the music (turned
  pages)
• whether or not they could adequately keep up with
  the tempo

11
Purpose of this study

• Compare
• Student sight-reading performance
• Student preference for eye-guide
• using 3 Types of Eye Guides found in computer
  software
• Note-by-note (Flash)
• Continuous moving vertical line (FPA-Finale)
• Highlighted measure (Home Concert)

12
Vertical Sweep FPA - Finale
13
Highlighted measure Home Concert
14
Note-by-note Flash
15
Method

• 3 groups of 2nd semester group piano students
  from 3 universities (N74)
• A sight-reading pretest was given before use of
  eye-guide software
• Each group practiced sight-reading 2 weeks with
  each type of eye guide
• With each practice, students completed a
  sight-reading checklist to guide their practice
  (not included in results)
• Posttests were given after practice was completed
  with each eye guide
• A preference survey was completed by participants
  at the end of all practice sessions and final
  posttest

16
Materials Used

• Judith Wades Sight-Reading Exercises
• Levels 1-8
• Students were placed individually in appropriate
  level regardless of group
• Levels 3 through 6 were used

17
Order of Sight-Reading Practice with Eye-Guide
18
Pre- and Posttests
19
Evaluation of performances

• N 51
• Total correct notes
• Chords in left hand were counted as one note
• Total correct rhythm
• Notes had to occur on time (steady tempo)
• Notes had to occur with correct value (eighth,
  quarter, etc.)

20
Preference SurveyN74
21
(The survey included pictures from each eye-guide
type.)
22

• 1. Which of the eye guidance presentations did
  you prefer? Select one only.
• _____Sweeping line (FPA)
• _____Colored highlighted measure (Home Concert)
• _____Note-by-note highlight (Flash)
• 2. Do you think any of the guidance methods
  affected your performance?
• ____Yes ____No
• If so, how?
• 3. Have you performed from computer screen
  notation prior to this experience?
• _____Yes_____No If no, skip to question
  6.
• 4. How often do you perform from musical notation
  on a computer screen?
• _____Once a day _____Once a week _____Once a
  month _____Only on rare occasions
• 5. For what purpose(s) do you read musical
  notation from the computer
• 6. Do you think you will use the computer
  for musical reading (more or less often) in the
  future?
• _____Yes_____No
• Why or why not?

23
Results - PerformanceAll improved significantly
over time (p .0001)
FPA
HC
FSH
FPA
HC
FSH
24
Performance Scores

• There were no significant differences between
  groups (p .43)
• There were no significant differences within
  groups (p .09)

25
Scores by Eye Guide within Groups
26
Results - Preference

• FPA - 34
• HC - 22
• Flash - 16

27
Did software affect performance?

• 43 of the 47 who responded that it did
• If affected negatively most about the
  distractions
• If affected positively moving forward
• From one participants response to this question
• Sweep eye too far ahead got lost
• Flash helped them count
• Highlighted measure helped move kept eye
  moving forward

28
Likes/Dislikes

• Likes noted for software were also indicated as
  dislikes
• Like - easy to follow, not confusing
• Dislike - confusing, distracting, want to control
  tempo
• FPA - many comments regarding feedback
• Flash - rhythmic
• HC - could read whole measure

29
Future use

• Only 22 of the 74 indicated that they would use
  this software in the future
• Previous experience with software
• Perception of technology the screen sucks my
  brain out

30
Discussion

• Materials used
• contained a very limited sample of sightreading
  styles
• no counterpoint, and only I IV and V chords.
• Familiarity with key and clef could affect
  student sight-reading
• Recording while reading from eye-guide software

31

• Tempo of recording - be predetermined?
• Distinguish rhythm errors due to pauses when the
  forward motion is only delayed, and rhythm errors
  due to stopping and repeating a beat or going
  back, when the forward motion is clearly broken
• Flash instead of Band-in-a Box
• Student participation

32
For the next study

• Use of control group
• Keep student with same software throughout
• Online survey
• More specific questions on survey

33
References

• Gilman, E Underwood, G. (2003). Restricting the
  field of view to investigate the perceptual spans
  of pianists. Visual Cognition, 10(2), 201-232.
• Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and
  information processing 20 years of research.
  Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
• Rayner, K . Pollastsek, A. (1997). Eye
  movements, the eye-hand span, and the perceptual
  span during sight-reading of music. Current
  Directions in Psychological Science, 6(2), 49-53.
• Truitt, F., Clifton, Jr., C, Pollastszek, A.,
  Rayner, K. (1997). The perceptual span and
  eye-hand span in sight reading music. Visual
  Cognition, 4(2), 143-161.
• Udtaisuk, D. (2005). A theoretical model of piano
  sightplaying component. (Doctoral dissertation,
  University of Missouri-Columbia). Dissertation
  Abstracts International, A 67/01.
• Waters, A. Underwood, G. (1998). Eye movement
  in a simple music reading task A study of expert
  and novice musicians. Psychology of Music, 26,
  46-60.
• Wristen, B. (2005). Cognition and motor execution
  in piano sight-reading A review of Literature.
  Update, 24(1), 44-55.