Diversity of Feedback in Music Conducting

Instructor feedback in music conducting can be categorized in two forms: oral and

written. Written feedback which helps students to compare their performance is time and effort

consuming (Cooper, 1999; Eggen & Kauchack, 1997). Chi (1996) categorized feedback as

corrective feedback, reinforcing feedback, didactic explanations, and suggestive feedback.

Instructors should not merely give simple correctional feedback if they identify an error in

students’ conducting technique. It is suggested that assessors should be able to question,

encourage, and inspire them rather than simply demonstrate the right practice. Paccapania (2002)

and Epstein (2002) have categorized several forms of feedback that can be implemented in music

conducting. They are personal reports, supervisors' reports, peer assessment, and tests.

In other studies, feedback was categorized as immediate, informative, corrective,

positive, negative, oral, non-oral, written, internal, external, knowledge, and exploratory

feedback (Ayoun, 2001; Cooper, 1999; Bennett & Cavanaugh, 1998). Wiggins (1998) and Earl

(2003), however, felt that the best type of feedback is a feedback that is highly specific, directly

revealing or highly descriptive of what actually resulted. It has to be clear and available to the

performer in terms of specific targets and standards. According to Earl (2003), “Feedback must

be actually descriptive as it provides the students with clear and manageable understandings of

what to do next base on an assessment of the task at hand and an image or idea of what good

work should look like” (p.90).

The purpose of providing feedback to the students’ conducting work appears to be clear

and that is to depict the learner about his or her performance and related improvement towards

effectiveness. Earl (2003) stated that most of the time, teachers do provide evaluative feedback in

the form of grades and short comments. This form of feedback is commonly used in

undergraduate course of conducting technique in researcher’s faculty. The comments are

normally in the form of praise or criticism. When any conducting error occurs, this kind of

feedback offers direction for students of how they can make the changes or improvements to

move their conducting skill forward. Askew (2000) noted that feedback is given and received in

the belief that the recipient will be able to do better in the next performances. Askew also

expected that feedback automatically leads to learning, as it is assumed that the teacher who is

giving the information to the learner who will use this knowledge to improve himself or herself. .

Instructor feedback should be analytical, suggestive and allow conducting students to reflect on

the feedback they received. Only then, the feedback can be significant to learners. Shepha (2002)

suggested that feedback can be accompanied by checklists and open-ended forms to allow them

to evaluate their own progress.

Positive feedback on students’ conducting performance helps their learning process as its

impact is to motivate the learners. Providing positive feedback might reduce student anxiety and

improve acceptance of negative feedback (Topping, 1998). These motivations increase their

confidence, making new meaning, increasing understanding, helping them to make links and

connections (Askew, 2000; Earl, 2003). According to Johnson (2000), the use of positive

feedback is one of the most important of pedagogical aspects, and the more we know about the

use and effectiveness of this type of reinforcement, the better our teaching will be. Therefore,

effective feedback is very important for the students to be able to actively be involved in their

own learning as well as understand how they can improve themselves. Nonetheless, instructors is

highly recommended to avoid make comparison with other learners as feedback should be about

particular qualities of their own work and give advice on what they can do to improve (William,

1998).

According to Ovando (1994) feedback is an element of the evaluation practice.

Correlated to conducting lesson, formative assessment is a type of evaluation in the learning

process that provides feedback to students and teachers regarding students' progress and

improvement (Miller, Imrie, & Cox, 1998; Yorki, 2003). Ovando (1994) and Sales (1993) are all

in accord as they agree that feedback records as information exposed to students to improve their

learning. Sims (1992) suggested that formative assessment should be analytical and focused on

students' learning as it facilitates educators in designing proper teaching and learning strategies.

According to Brookhart (2005) feedback collected via formative assessment provides

information that is helpful for student learning continuity and constructive classroom changes.

William, Lee, Harrison, and Black (2004) state that continuous use of formative assessment leads

to learning improvement, and steers students to understand learning goals, solves difficulties, and

identifies need for correction and improvement (Frank & Barzilai, 2004; Higgins, Hartley, &

Skelton, 2002).

There is another method where one can provide feedback in music conducting field as

suggested by Wiggins (1998), which is using modeling. Dyal and Sewell (2002) suggested that

model lessons by instructor are an effective strategy that can be used to help beginning teachers

succeed. An expert instructor should conduct model lessons to meet the individual needs of

beginning conductors. Models of guest conductors or outstanding students’ performance can be

employed to set the standards that we want students to achieve. By comparing their work to

model performance, those comparisons are the basis for feedback. Research has suggested that

feedback can be meaningful by the use of assessment instruments that have been called by

various names such as guides, checklists, or rubrics while do the comparison (O’Donnell &

Topping, 1998; Soles, 2001 Wiggins, 1998: Earl, 2003). The best rubrics are worded in such a

way that they cover the essence of what teachers look for when they judge quality and they

reflect the best thinking of what comprises good performance (Arter & McTighe, 2001). Valid

and reliable rubrics serve as evaluation tools, and at the same time, they also serve as teaching

tools because they specify the expectations for assignments (Saddler & Andrade, 2004). In

addition, Saddler and Andrade pointed that good rubrics help clarify instructional goals and serve

as teaching targets; and provide learners with an image of what they are going to achieve.

Categorized by Topping (1998), simple summative, correctional, or didactic feedback is

associated with much lower effect sizes than open-ended, suggestive, and formative feedback.

Topping also pointed that confirmatory or corroborative feedback is also undeniably important,

since one might be correct without knowing why one is correct. However, Topping stressed that

corrective, confirmatory, or suggestive feedback could be more immediate, timely, and

individualized.

There is yet another effective feedback that can be utilized in enhancing students’

conducting skills. Clarke (as cited in Earl, 2003), referred to this form as the “closing the gap

prompt”. It can refer to prompts for making changes to the students’ conducting error. There are

various types categorized by Clarke such as reminder prompt, scaffolding prompt for students

who need more structure, direction prompt and example prompt. For instance, the example of

prompt category can be applied for students who are struggling with understanding the concept

of facial expression in conducting, so the instructor can provide video of professional conductor

as model for learning intention.

For summary, different types of feedback can have different effects on different students.

This has implications for the development of conducting students.