Georgia G. Markea
Post-doc and PhD in Music Education,
University of London, Institute of Education
School Adviser for Music Education
Based in Athens
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Professor Graham Welch under whose guidance I conducted my post-doctoral research (Markea, 2005) at the University of London, Institute of Education.
This research focuses on how a number of influential piano teachers in Greece define the meaning of talent in piano playing and how it is influenced by the Greek environment. Before describing the research methodology of the current study and the analysis of four interviews, the results of research conducted by myself in 2002 in Athenian conservatories1, and the views of Greek piano performers and teachers on ‘talent’ will be presented. Further information arising from the literature follows in the next section.
TALENT AND MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT IN MARKEA'S RESEARCH (2002)
In 2002, I tried to explore ways in which seven influential Greek piano teachers and performers perceive and define ‘musicality’. The interviews were based on a number of teaching episodes in Athenian conservatories and were selected from 200 hours of videotaped piano lessons with the interviewees and their piano students. I found that ‘musicality’ could be developed in four layers in accordance with Swanwick’s (1983) model, and that there were five contextual issues that impinged upon the teachers’ work and may influence a piano learner’s musical knowledge development. These include teacher, learner, conservatory, family, and society (see Figure 1). Among the piano student’s characteristics influencing musical knowledge development, according to the teachers, is ‘talent’.
Greek piano teachers believe that ‘talent’ is innate and that talents are as numerous as individuals (Kingsbury, 1988). All the elements seem to be necessary to talent. These include musicality and dexterity combined with a student’s love and passion for music itself and for its study. ‘Musicality’ can be acquired, when not innate, and its development can be influenced by the student’s environment.
According to the participants, ‘talented’ students can make a teacher’s task a lot pleasanter and bring success even if the teacher is lacking in talent. Talent and industriousness seem to be closely linked and teachers expect more from ‘talented’ students in developing a good career in music and other matters. Teachers identify the notion of ‘musicality’ with that of ‘talent’, but think that if a student does not have it, it can be developed by teachers or environment. This, of course, is a logical paradox.
FURTHER LITERATURE REVIEW ON MUSICAL TALENT AND ITS CONTEXT
Definition of talent
The meaning of ‘talent’ can be understood to be an especially significant constituent in music learning. However, its exact definition is not precise, but complex (McPherson, & Williamon, 2006). Some writers use the terms ‘talented’ and ‘gifted’ interchangeably (Tannenbaum, 1983). Gagné (1991; 1995) argues for the retention of both terms but for differentiating between them by defining ‘giftedness’ as innate capacities and ‘talent’ as developed abilities or performance. Paraskevopoulos & Charalambopoulos (1984) mention that the criteria in accordance with which an individual is characterised as ‘talented’ are varied, different and imprecise. Elliott (1995) says that the unexamined association between music and talent causes parents, administrators, and the general public to assume wrongly that music is an inappropriate or unnecessary subject for the majority of children.
The question of giftedness in relation to creativity and intelligence has been the subject of much recent activity and debate (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986). On the one hand, the existence of child prodigies and ‘idiots savants’ in certain fields leads us towards a biological explanation for precocity. On the other hand, the spectacular success of some preschoolers who have undergone extensive instrumental training shows that intensive environmental stimulation can also give rise to precocity. Hargreaves (1989) believes that giftedness develops from a predisposition towards exceptional skills. Also Davidson, Howe & Sloboda (1997) emphasise the role of environmental conditions in the development of such skills with the major influencing factors of practice, parents and teachers. They (op. cit.) also believe that commercialisation of music and musical expertise cannot impart musical skill to the majority of the population.
Gavin (2001) claims that ‘musical genius is born, not crafted’ and Lundin (1967) holds that musical ability exists biologically and can be ‘channelled’ into different musical areas. Shuter-Dyson (1982) believes that music is as natural to human beings as language.
Sloboda, Davidson & Howe (1994) pointed out the existence of a folk psychology of talent, determining the difference between individuals’ capacity for musical accomplishment. According to the report, few people become expert performers because few have the necessary talent. Davis (1994) also claims that only ‘talented’ individuals can perform professionally.
'Exceptional children' and their needs
Graham (1991) states that individualised special education is necessary for exceptional children. The usual nine categories for non-average children are: those with speech disorders, mental retardation, specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, orthopaedic impairments (crippling), hearing, visual and ‘other’ health impairments, and those who are gifted and talented. He notes the two categories for gifted students: first-order gifted for the highly gifted, and second-order for the others. Revesz (1953) claims that musical types are: creative, and reproductive-interpretative. The latter could apply to instrumental-virtuoso and conducting. He believes that creative and reproductive-interpretative talent can exist in the same single person. Dichler (1948) believes that every student has a specific talent different from those of others.
‘Talent alone is not enough’
Some like Shuter-Dyson & Gabriel (1981), Bloom (1982) and Hunter (1975) recognise that talent in itself is not enough. They claim that achievement depends not solely on skill, but also on the teaching the child receives, the interest in music, and readiness to learn. Woods (2002) concluded that musical ability could be learned, but only to a certain standard. She also identified some differences in the teaching of talented and non-talented students.
Vygotsky and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
In 1978 Vygotsky claimed that social interaction profoundly influences cognitive development, not from innate factors, but social activities practised in the individuals’ cultural surroundings. Vygotsky differentiated between our higher and lower mental functions. The lower are genetically inherited and are our natural mental abilities, but our higher mental functions develop through social interaction and talent must include the ability to benefit from this social interaction. Social learning actually leads to cognitive development. This phenomenon is called the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ (ZPD). Vygotsky (1978: 86) describes it as the gap between the current developmental level of a learner as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers. Talent or unexpressed ability is measured by the extent of profit from guided instruction.
Beyond Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky
Vygotsky (1978) says that the static, individual forms of traditional psychological testing only determine the already matured mental functions and not those which are developing. The ZPD was developed with the aim of discovering these potentials. Lave & Wenger (1991) set out an alternative theory of ‘legimate peripheral participation’, which held that at every stage the learner participates in, and is therefore a part of the community in which s/he is learning. Parents and teachers provide the most important guidance in a child’s early learning, but peer group activities also play a significant role (Wells, 1999).
However, formal schooling also involves coercion, restricting natural creativity and originality and Gardner’s (1983) ‘multiple intelligences’ theory claims that interaction can engender personality conflict and contradiction (Litowitz, 1993). Now the emphasis is on diversity rather than improvement. The multiple transformations consist of the individual’s identity enabling more effective participation, the invention of new practices for novel solutions, activity setting to permit further action options and the group’s interrelations (Wells, 1999).
Effective teaching involves not only a standardised curriculum, but judgements about the facilitation of each student’s learning. Development is becoming multi-faceted with an increasing rate of cultural change. Many teachers practise classroom-based action research (activity theory) (Mercer, 1995). The concept of the ZPD has been expanded in scope with emphasis on community and collaboration with other teachers and students, becoming integrated into holistic learning.
Craft knowledge in recognising ‘gifted’ pianists
Marshall (1990) maintains that the teacher must have a passion for the subject, constant flexibility, reassessment and adjustment of teaching methods according to each student’s needs. Followers of Vygotsky now emphasise the need for ‘constructivist’, student-centred learning with the teacher in the role of observer and facilitator (when required) (Stenhouse, 1975). Gifted students tend to benefit from the cooperative effort. The broader environment is a major factor (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). Lesson planning should be at the ‘macro’ level, but allow for flexibility at the ‘micro’ level (Clark & Yinger, 1979, in Calderhead, 1996). Learning must be motivating and relevant and shared experience between teachers is beneficial in developing skills.
The effects of teaching and practice
Bloom (1982) concluded after a 3-year study with emphasis on pianists’ special qualities that special early abilities could not attain the required levels, without extremely favourable support and teaching circumstances for more than a decade. Papazaris (1999) believes that student ability is partially influenced by society (promotion and mass availability of music affect teachers’ methods).
Sosniak (1985) found that children were strongly affected by their first musical teachers. Sloboda & Davidson (1996) found that the child’s first teacher was perceived differently by the groups in their study. The ‘achievers’ regarded their teacher as friendly and a good performer, whereas children who gave up music studies regarded the first teacher as ‘unfriendly’ and a ‘bad’ performer.
Barry & Hallam (2002) maintain that practice is more effective with metacognition (reflection on thought processes, mental practice in combination with physical). However, repetition of ineffective practice strategies can yield disappointing results. Sloboda, Davidson, Howe & Moore (1996) found from interviews with 257 young people aged between eight and 18 that there was a strong relationship between musical achievement and formal practice (94 of the interviewees). However, the relationship between achievement and informal playing was weaker. High achievers required less practice for examination success.
The data lends support to the theory that formal practice is a key variable in the determination of musical performance expertise, but the talented pianist’s performance has a quality missing from the others, however hard they practise (Hartounian, 2002). Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer (1993) concluded that the level of expertise is a direct function of the individual’s effortful formal practice, contradicting the folk psychology which assumes that high-achievers acquire their skills with the same or less practice than others.
Bentley (1968) found that poor singers usually score low in pitch discrimination tests. Welch (1979) believes that poor pitch discrimination may be the result and not the cause of poor pitch control in singing (training can improve pitch discrimination). Hargreaves, Messerschmidt & Rubert (1980) investigated the influence of training on musical preference and found experienced subjects expressed a greater liking for all types of music than inexperienced subjects and Birch (1963) noticed that they may prefer ‘serious’ music.
Burland & Davidson (2002) investigated events that have influenced the careers and lives of a group of talented musicians. They found that positive experiences with others and within the conservatories, as well as coping strategies, contribute to the success of transition.
Home and cultural environment
Some researchers emphasise the influences of home and cultural environment on musical development (Howe, Davidson, Moore & Sloboda, 1995). For example, Welch & Adams (2003) believe that our innate musicality is nurtured from pre-birth sounds from caregivers (especially mothers) and is subsequently shaped by our environment. Shuter-Dyson (1982) claims that an early musical background can help individuals fulfil their natural potential and also reveal ‘special gifts’. Talent cannot emerge unless given the opportunity (Fletcher, 1987). However, other studies, such as those of Sloboda & Howe (1991), have shown that environment and personal relationships are not always major factors.
Davidson & Borthwick (2002) did an 18-month case study on a family, identifying how parental expectation and ‘support’ over musical development determines the child’s musical progress. Authoritarian parents place high demands on the child and encourage responsibility, independence and creativity. In contrast, neglectful parents fail to control and support, so children feel little impetus to perform and become de-motivated.
Borthwick & Davidson (2002) investigated 12 families with at least one child engaged in musical activity to establish how many factors of family life contributed to a musical identity. The status and role of music was influenced by the importance given to music by the family, which also influenced their current family lifestyle. It was clear that children also influenced the musical identity of their parents and siblings- parents were more inclined to become familiar with musical genres enjoyed by their children.
Albert’s (1980) study showed that exceptionally gifted students had parents of a socioeconomic status higher than the national average. The status is also associated with intelligence test scores and home musical background (Sergeant & Thatcher, 1974).
However, some researchers claim that talent could not easily be developed from the environment if it were not innate in the student. Sloboda & Howe (1991) conducted a survey on forty-two specially gifted students (aged 10-18) and twenty of their parents and found that few had revealed early indications of talent and that parents had exercised supervision and encouragement. The most able students seemed to come from less ‘musical’ families and had had fewer early lessons. They had not practised more than the others, but had spread their practice over several instruments.
Howe & Sloboda’s second study in 1991 involved 42 students (aged 10-18) at a specialist music school and the parents of half of them. They played various instruments and had a greater range of ability than those of Sosniak. Inspiration and motivation in the early stages seems more important than great musical ability. Most of the parents received regular progress reports. Most students depended on parents for support, encouragement and participation in practice sessions. Excessive practice or listening often resulted from self-motivated students becoming obsessed.
Gagné (1999) showed that Sloboda & Howe (1991) had not sufficiently recognised the factor of musical talent in determining differences. Howe, Davidson & Sloboda (1998) doubt whether ‘innate’ talents exist at all, or influence talent development. Gagné (1998), however, maintains that natural abilities play a role in the development of talent. There are five separate factors in the production of talent in any area of human achievement: aptitudes, talents, learning/training/practising (LTP) process, interpersonal and environmental catalysts. Sloboda & Howe’s results show that environment and personal relationships are not major factors in differentiating more from less talented students- the number of lessons and amount of practice were shown not to be related to achievement.
Various researchers have found that a child’s achievements can be greatly affected by the nature of parental support. In a survey by Davidson, Howe, Moore & Sloboda in 1995 on 257 children and their parents the successful students had been personally involved in music or had parents who were more active participants in early lessons and practice. Children who abandoned music lessons had less engaged and motivated parents throughout the course. Howe & Sloboda (1991), Manturzenska (1986), Sloboda & Howe (1991) and Sosniak (1985) believe that parental support is particularly evident in talented musicians, but non-competent performers were ignored, so success may not result directly from the amount of parental support.
Parents of both successful students and those who had abandoned studies were similarly involved in requests to practice and took an interest in listening, apparently aware of the need for support, regardless of whether or not they were musicians (Sosniak, 1985; Sloboda & Howe, 1991; Howe & Sloboda, 1991).
Other influences
During interviews by Howe & Sloboda (1992) with 11 of 42 talented young musicians aged 10 to 17, it was found that not all the children had a musical background and practice time was no greater for exceptional musicians than for those who were less so, but parental involvement was evident in the musical training of almost all these children. It was also observed that these exceptional young musicians faced problems caused by the failure of other children to understand their musical achievements.
This section has shown that the nature of innate or acquired talent has been related to giftedness, creativity and intelligence. Also noted was the need of ‘exceptional children’ for special education. The ZPD of Vygotsky and of researchers beyond him was discussed. Analysis was made of other factors required in musical education, including the influence of the first music teacher, general teaching, practice, and the influence of home, cultural and social environment.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research questions and methods of data collection
This study focuses on talent in piano learning in the Greek environment. The two main research questions concern (a) the perceptions of famous Greek pianists about the basis for their particular instrumental ‘talent’ for the piano, and (b) to what extent such views are informed by a particular musical environment. The study uses both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Two-stage research methodology is used:
An initial questionnaire survey aimed at discovering who is regarded as 'influential' in piano education in Greece.
In-depth semi-structured interviews with influential Greek pianists and piano teachers, and talented soloists. These interviews will be informed by appropriate reading of related literature on exceptional performance and the (often disputed) nature of musical ‘talent’.
Who are considered to be the most ‘influential’ Greek piano teachers
The first step in the current research was to find out which Greek piano teachers and pianists were sufficiently ‘influential’ in piano education in Greece for their opinion about ‘talent’ to be of special significance. I asked the views of various experienced and active members of the Greek pianist community. Thus, I created a simple questionnaire to be sent to 228 Greek piano teachers and pianists, who work in different parts of Greece. The questions concerned (a) personal details, including age group and gender, (b) professional background (location and duration of study, who they studied with after graduation and why (and if not why not), (c) who they would recommend as ‘influential’, and why.
I piloted the questionnaire with a piano teacher, whom I interviewed informally to look over her answers. She considered the questions to be clear and needed less than five minutes to answer them. The questions could also provide the detail I need. I therefore posted the questionnaires to the 228 teachers. 179 teachers completed the questionnaires and returned them to me by post or e-mail. 49 teachers responded by phone.
The sample of 228 pianists was taken from different parts of Greece (32.4% from Athens, 35% from Salonica and 32.4% from islands or other cities). Most are women (94.7%) and only 5.2% are men. This is not unusual in Greece, since working as a piano teacher or pianist is not regarded as a sufficiently secure profession for a man. So the majority of Greek pianists are women (Markea, 2002). Most participants had studied for over 15 years (95.6%) and just 4.3% for less than 14. Also their experience as piano teachers was for the majority 10-20 years (70.1%), 5-10 years for 26.3%, and 21-30 years for 3.5%. From the answers of the 228 piano teachers the following points emerged:
Most of the participating pianists have studied at private conservatories (87.7%), 11.8% in municipal conservatories, and just 0.8% in government-subsidised conservatories. Just 0.8% named their teachers as among the most ‘influential’ in Greece. This indicates the objectivity of the results. The same applied for who they studied with after graduation. From the 9.6% who studied after graduation, only 0.4% named their teachers, as being among Greece’s most ‘influential’. This may be because most go abroad for further studies, due to lack of such opportunities in Greece. Also, Greeks regard studies abroad as prestigious, despite the non-recognition by the Greek Ministry of Culture. 90.9% of the pianists studied after graduation out of interest in learning. Only 9% continued studies abroad to increase career opportunities. Also the pursuit of a piano-playing career is almost impossible in Greece, as even the most talented performers play only rarely in the two major concert halls. 90.3% did not study after graduation for financial reasons. For example, 74.2% needed to work immediately after graduation, 13.1% could not afford to study abroad and 2.6% lacked incentive - their Greek diploma or degree was sufficient to find work.
Finally, the participants characterised piano teachers as ‘influential’ (see Figure 2) when they had good musical and pedagogical knowledge, experience in teaching and performing, the ability to channel students’ knowledge and attitudes towards study and music, thus achieving better results in learners’ piano playing (69.7%). Also by participation in international piano playing committees (30.2%).
Most specifically, the characteristics of a teacher should be patience and persistence in transferring knowledge, the ability to adjust teaching when required and self-evaluation. They should also be dedicated to their students. It may not be a coincidence that none of the most influential Greek piano teachers has her own children.
The teachers questioned believe the following. Teachers participating in international committees as members define ‘good’ piano playing according to their own opinions and aesthetic criteria, thus affecting piano education in Greece (the remaining teachers try to satisfy them in their students’ exam or competition performances).
The three piano teachers regarded as the most ‘influential’ in Greece are (a) Phoebe (96.4%, 220 ‘votes’), (b) Nepheli (87.7%, 200 ‘votes’), and (c) Ariadne (83.3%, 190 ‘votes’). They are usually committee members at an international piano competition, which takes place every two years in Greece (The ‘Maria Callas Competition’), and are also famous soloists. Most of their students achieve success in teaching or piano playing. Because of the death of Phoebe, a fourth teacher joins the list (Erato, 74.5%, 170 votes). She was a student of Phoebe.
ANALYSING THE INTERVIEWS
After the results of the quantitative research, I interviewed Nepheli, the teacher voted first, then Ariadne and Erato, as well as Apollon2, one of the two most famous and talented Greek soloists. The questions were semi-structured. I used this type of question to leave the teachers and the talented pianists free to express their views in their own words and in their own time. This is in accordance with the opinion of Pring (2000) who claims that the interview can only be semi-structured.
The results can be separated into two categories: their views on the nature of musical talent and the influence of the environment. They considered talent to be an innate quality, but also accepted that it could be influenced by varying external factors. These views are largely in accordance with those of Vygotsky (1978). Lower or elementary functions he thought were genetically inherited; they are our natural abilities. However, our higher mental functions develop through social interaction and are socially or culturally mediated. The analysis of the interviews is presented in the following sections.
Defining musical talent
The nature of talent: Innate or developed?
According to the participants, musical talent is especially important for the progress of a student in playing the piano. Although distinguished for his/her dexterity, a talented pianist is chiefly in command of innate abilities related to musicality (Markea, 2002). The view of the participants that talent chiefly consists of the innate ability of a pianist is in accordance with researchers like Lundin (1967), Kingsbury (1988), Sloboda & Davidson (1996) and Gavin (2001). Musical talent, according to the participants, can be developed to a degree through study, the appropriate teaching and in a stimulating family – social environment (Welch, 2001a).
Vygotsky’s writings (1978) emphasise the role of the teacher in development, in determining the level of the student’s ‘readiness to learn’. If the learner responds well, Vygotsky thinks that this learner has a different kind of talent from that which is innate, bringing the ability to benefit from social interaction.
The participants do not regard the terms ‘talented’ and ‘gifted’ as being essentially different (Tannenbaum, 1983). Thus, in contrast to Gagné (1991; 1995) who believes that ‘giftedness’ is comprised of ‘innate capacities’ while ‘talent’ correspondingly includes ‘developed abilities’, the participants believe that by and large ‘talented’ students are really ‘gifted’ by their very own nature. Apollon says that talent is something special and is a ‘gift’ with which one is born and that talent in piano playing is an innate ability to do things with ease which for others are difficult.
To sum up, the participants agree with Hargreaves (1989) regarding the need for a predisposition for exceptional skills in a particular area and also for favourable external conditions to develop these dexterities. Also they agree with Woods (2002) that talent can be developed, when not innate, but only to a degree, as well as with the idea that, however hard an ordinary piano student studies, s/he will never play like a talented pianist does naturally (Hartounian, 2002).
This is similar also to Vygotsky’s (1978) idea about the kind of talent which enables a learner to make progress through social interaction. Effective teaching results when the learner is led beyond his/her current abilities to a subsequent phase of development through cooperation with others. What will be lacking in a mediocre pianist will be that ‘extra something’, which is found exclusively in the playing of a talented person (Markea, 2002) and which, according to folk psychology, few possess (Kingsbury, 1988; Davis, 1994).
In contrast to Ericsson et al. (1993) and in accordance with folk psychology, the participants believe that talented people achieve the same significant results even with little study. Erato notes that there is usually less tiredness on the part of teacher and student and a better resulting performance. Nevertheless, the participants agree that talent alone is not enough. Vygotsky (1978) also believes that the talented student profits from social interaction within the teaching process. Teachers must be flexible, prepared to re-assess teaching methods where required and able to assess students’ level of ability and readiness for further progress.
The characteristics of talent
According to the participants, talent has multiple meanings (‘polysemous’ in Kingsbury, 1988; Dichler, 1948) and multiple manifestations (‘polymorphic’ in Kingsbury, 1988). Revesz’s (1953) view that talent may be ‘creative’ or ‘reproductive-interpretative’ or both of them in one person, seems also to be in accord with that of the participants. The participants agree that the major characteristics of a gifted pianist are innate ability to play with musicality (Markea, 2002) and dexterity, the result of inherited factors, such as an incredible ability to remember and to play, in the best possible way, anything they study on the piano. Talented pianists have musical audibility and their own initiative in interpretation which is not always in accordance with the composer’s wishes. Apollon believes that a good physical condition is another ‘ingredient’ and that Chopin, who was infirm, is an exception to the rule.
Participants agree that of the two basic constituents in piano playing (musicality and dexterity) musicality is the most necessary. Talented pianists may surpass every technical difficulty because of their musicality or musical sensitivity and give the ‘extra something’ in their playing which makes them different from others (Markea, 2002). There is also the question whether love of piano study is an element of talent. Apollon says that professional pianists have a love for music and the stamina for hours of playing/practice and that a talented person can learn a programme of pieces for a concert and in the best possible way in a shorter period of time.
Influences on musical talent development
According to the participants, musical talent is innate, but they recognise that only when talent exists by nature, can it be developed by four factors. These include practice, teaching, family and social environment. The ways in which these variables may influence musical talent development are described in the following sections.
Practice
All the participants emphasised the importance of practice, even in cases of exceptionally talented students (Bloom, 1982; Ericsson et al., 1993; Howe, Davidson, Moore & Sloboda, 1995; Howe, Davidson & Sloboda, 1998; Gagné, 1999; Barry & Hallam, 2002). However, all the participants believe that gifted students may have better results in piano playing even if they study less than the less exceptional. This agrees with Howe & Sloboda (1992) who found that talented pianists spent less time practising than the others.
Nevertheless, as already mentioned, love of music and ability to work hard is thought to be included in the characteristics of a talented pianist. Practice appears to be regarded as a very important factor influencing musical talent development by the participants in this study. Ariadne stresses that even a gifted pianist will never learn to play the piano if s/he does not study at all. Nevertheless, according to the participants, study improves a student’s playing only to a degree.
Teaching
According to the participants, music teachers are all involved in musical talent development (Bloom, 1982; Howe & Sloboda, 1991; Sloboda & Davidson, 1996; Davidson, Howe & Sloboda, 1997). Apollon states that ‘talent, when it exists, requires simultaneously suitable guidance from the teacher’.
Vygotsky (1934/1987) believes that teachers need to explain, inform, inquire, correct and force the student to explain. This can be done with the help of an adult or in a peer group. Children should be left to exercise greater autonomy as they develop the necessary abilities. However, the participants stress that a teacher can never transform an ordinary student into a gifted one. This is in accordance with Harris (2001), who claims that effective teaching can help the ‘less musical’ students to bring about development in true musical thinking. Vygotsky (1934/1987) believes that students’ interest must be engaged and tasks simplified for easier handling. Teachers must motivate them to aim at the required goals and frustration and risk must be dealt with or eliminated. Dialogue must be built up and the teacher provides what is called ‘scaffolding’. Other kinds of teaching include ‘reciprocal teaching’ and ‘cognitive guidance’ (Bruner & Haste, 1987; Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976; Driscoll, 1994; Hausfather, 1996).
The participants believe in the special influence of the first music teacher, agreeing with researchers, such as Sosniak (1985) and Sloboda & Davidson (1996). This is in accord with Gordon (1979 in Welch, 2001b) who states that teaching promotes development of the ‘innate level of musical aptitude’ at the beginning of music studies and up to the age of 9.
Markea (2002) notes that teachers expect more from ‘talented’ students in developing a good music career, which is not easy in the Greek environment. Sigalas (1998) stresses that Greek music teachers are mainly graduates of conservatories with insufficient organisation and further education for the Pedagogy and Teaching of Music, which makes it difficult for them to influence their students’ musical knowledge development positively.
According to the participants, special education is required even for talented piano students (Graham, 1991; George, 2003; Woods, 2002). Nepheli mentions that she has a talented 12-year-old student and wonders how she can help him to play well without losing his spontaneity and temperament. She is not content to allow the student to play a phrase badly for the sake of spontaneity, but is afraid that she is unwittingly hindering the development of his talent and ultimately setting him back. The participants also believe a different repertoire is necessary for talented students, providing freedom of choice about pieces.
The participants believe that musical talent facilitates and complicates piano learning. Such students cannot follow the same programme as other students and cannot remain at the preliminary stage for three years when they play more pieces from the intermediate stage. Although teachers find difficulty in teaching talented students, talent itself mainly facilitates the teacher. Nepheli feels that sometimes she actually learns from her talented students.
Family
Vygotsky (1934/1987; 1978) maintains that parents and teachers offer the most significant guidance and assistance in early childhood learning and beyond. Peer group activities are also significant in the encouragement of learning. This is evident also in contemporary stress on ‘cooperative learning’ in North America (Vygotsky, 1978; Wells, 1999).
The participants believe that the development of talent is influenced by the family environment, agreeing with researchers, such as Ericsson et al. (1993), Davidson, Howe, Moore & Sloboda (1995) and Borthwick & Davidson (2002). Ariadne says that parents play a very important role, involving the necessary financial support and a positive attitude towards musical education and the piano. Apollon claims that if talent is not passed on from the parents, through the genes, it can to a great extent be developed by them, with moral and financial support (without which the child cannot start piano lessons). Erato says that if there is some pianist or a forgotten piano from a previous generation, it will eventually produce an infant prodigy! Apollon, however, believes that talent is innate and a talented person will find his/her way anyhow.
The participants emphasise the influence of the parents’ financial status on musical talent development, agreeing with other researchers, such as Sergeant & Thatcher (1974) and Albert (1980). Also they all believe in the opportunities, support and encouragement of parents in the development of musical talent, which is in accordance with the researches of Davidson, Howe, Moore & Sloboda (1995) and Sloboda & Howe (1991). However, it is very difficult for Greek parents to encourage their children to start piano studies, as it is not regarded by Greek society as a secure profession.
Moreover, the participants believe in the importance of parental involvement in practising (Davidson, Howe, Moore & Sloboda, 1995). This is in accord with Borthwick & Davidson (2002) and Davidson & Borthwick (2002), who maintain that positive childhood experiences with music may provide the motivation for long-term commitment on a musical instrument. This disagrees with Sosniak (1985), who found that most talented students seemed to come from families less involved with music.
They all stress the influence of parental mentality in musical talent. Apollon says that parents have a positive attitude towards piano learning, recognising its importance, improving the character and developing culture through music. However, they will pressurise their child to study more (at the first sign of difficulty) and do not appreciate the moral support needed for such a difficult activity. Believing this will not lead to a secure profession, they give the child other activities (ballet, swimming, foreign languages) so there is insufficient time for the piano.
Regarding the influence of the mentality of Greek parents on music education Ariadne says that even if the child is good at playing the piano, they do not consider that s/he will aim to become a professional musician. However, they do believe that music cultivates the human personality. They regard music as supplementary knowledge and believe that professionally speaking, the only worthwhile music career is that of a state school music teacher. The participants consider the parents’ positive mentality to be more important than their financial status. Ariadne says, she knows parents who have not had the money, but have found a way for their children to study music. They took the risk, knowing the importance of a musical education.
The strong bond between parents and children in Greece makes the influence of family environment even stronger. Nepheli says that despite a positive attitude towards piano education, Greek parents do not believe that their children could survive by performing on the piano, especially in the provinces. There is lifelong interdependence between Greek parents and their children, possibly due to an inability to deal with life in Greece by themselves, because of the lack of provisions from the state. Unemployment is another reason.
Society
The participants in accordance with many other researchers, such as Davidson, Howe, Moore & Sloboda (1995), Borthwick & Davidson (2002) and Davidson & Borthwick (2002), stress the influence of social environment on musical talent development, but only up to a certain standard. Vygotsky (1934/1987) and his followers also stress the broader environment as a major factor. Sharing of experience between teachers is usually beneficial in developing skills and experience.
The interviewees believe that the Greek environment negatively affects musical talent development. Nepheli describes the difficulty for a gifted piano student of pursuing a career in Greece since the Greek media do not recognise the need for piano learning. Even the most successful Greek pianists who have studied abroad cannot find secure employment even at the most insignificant Greek conservatories. They can only survive as piano teachers in conservatories, or as music teachers in state or private schools.
The participants note that Greek children are often too busy with other matters to take up music seriously. In Greece there are only very few concert halls and often no admission fee, so in effect you invite people to listen. The average Greek likes bouzouki and tends to mock those who listen to classical music. Perhaps due to the media’s attitude to music, a pianist gets a better return playing popular music (‘skiladika’!), for which the average Greek is willing to pay half his/her salary to hear a famous singer. However, s/he will gladly accept free invitations which the performer is obliged to distribute in order to have enough people at his/her classical concert.
Conclusions
To sum up, the participants believe that talent is innate, but can be developed to a degree by four factors: practice, teaching, family and social environment. They maintain, however, that an ordinary student can never play the piano in the same way as a talented one. The influence of the conservatory was not emphasised, but Markea’s (2002) research showed that the difference in policies among conservatories in Greece was one of the most important variables influencing piano learning. The participants stress the importance of the teacher over that of the conservatory.
According to the results of this research, talent is an inherited quality, which helps a talented person to play better than another, even if the latter has the best prerequisites, but simply lacks talent. Although talent is necessary, it is not enough in itself for a career in Greece. But all the participants agree that without talent, nothing especially important can occur in piano playing.
The participants tend to stress the innate character of talent rather than Vygotsky’s concept of socially developed ability to benefit from further social interaction within a ZPD. They acknowledge that talented students benefit more from teaching but possibly due to innate abilities rather than those developed through social interaction and which can lead to further profitable development in the right environment, or in response to the appropriate pedagogical skills.
REFERENCES
Albert, R. S. (1980) ‘Exceptionally gifted boys and their parents’. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(4): 174-179.
Barry, N. H. & Hallam, S. (2002) ‘Practice’, in R. Parncutt & G. McPherson (Eds), The Science and Psychology of Music Performance, pp. 151-165.
Bentley, A. (1968) Monotones. Music Education Research Papers No 1. London: Novello.
Birch, T. E. (1963) ‘Musical taste as indicated by records owned by college students with varying high school music experiences’. Dissertation Abstracts International, 23(2): 545.
Bloom, B. (1982) ‘The role of gifts and markers in the development of talent’. Council for Exceptional Children, 48(6).
Borthwick, S. J. & Davidson, J. W. (2002) ‘Developing a child’s identity as a musician: A family ‘script’ perspective’, in R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves & D. Miell (Eds), Musical Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bruner, J. & Haste, H. (Eds) (1987) ‘Introduction’, Making Sense: The Child’s Construction of the World. London: Methuen.
Burland, K. & J. W. Davidson (2002) ‘Training the talented’. Music Education Research, 4(1): 121-140.
Clark, C. M. & Yinger, R. J. (1979) Three Studies of Teacher Planning. Research Series no. 55. East Lansing: Michigan State Univ., Institute for Research on Teaching.
Davidson, J. W. & Borthwick, S. J. (2002) ‘Family dynamics and family scripts: A case study of musical development’. Psychology of Music, 30(1): 121-136.
Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J. A. & Sloboda, J. A. (1997) ‘Environmental factors in the development of musical performance skill over the life span’, in D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (Eds), The Social Psychology of Music. Oxford, New York, Tokyo: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J. A., Moore, D. G. & Sloboda, J. A. (1995) ‘The role of parental influences in the development of musical ability’. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14: 399-412.
Davidson, J. W., Sloboda, J. A., Moore, D. G. & Howe, M. J. A. (1998) ‘Characteristics of music teachers and the progress of young instrumentalists’. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(1): 141-160.
Davis, M. (1994) ‘Folk music psychology’. The Psychologist, 7(12): 537.
Dichler, J. (1948) Der Weg Zum Künstlerischen Klavierspiel. München: Ludwig Doblinger.
Driscoll, M. P. (1994) Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Needham, Ma: Allyn & Bacon.
Elliott, D. J. (1995) Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T. & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) ‘The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance’. Psychological Review, 100: 363-406.
Fletcher, P. (1987) Education and Music. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Gagné, F. (1991) ‘Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent’, in N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis, Allyn & Bacon (Eds), Handbook of Gifted Education. Boston: Ma.
Gagné, F. (1995) ‘From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field’. Roeper Review, 18(2): 103-111.
Gagné, F. (1998) ‘A proposal for subcategories within the gifted or talented populations’. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42: 87-95.
Gagné, F. (1999) ‘Nature or nurture? A re-examination of Sloboda and Howe’s (1991) interview study on talent development in music’. Psychology of Music, 27(1): 38-51.
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gavin, H (2001) ‘Reconstructed musical memories and adult expertise’. Music Education Research, 3(1): 51-61.
George, D. (2003) Gifted Education: Identification and Provision. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Gordon, E. E. (1979) Primary Measures of Music Audiation. Chicago: GIA Publications.
Graham, R. M. (1991) ‘Music education in exceptional children’, in R. Colwell (Ed.), Basic Concepts in Music Education, II. Colorado: University Press of Colorado.
Hargreaves, D. J. (1989) Children and the Arts. Milton Keynes, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hargreaves, D. J., Messerschmidt, P. & Rubert, C. (1980) ‘Musical preference and evaluation’. Psychology of Music, 8: 13-18.
Harris, P. (2001) ‘Simultaneous learning-teaching pupils to think musically’, in Libretto, issue 2001: 3, pp. 14-15. London: Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music.
Hartounian, J. (2002) Kindling the Spark. Recognising and Developing Musical Talent. Oxford: Oxford Press.
Hausfather, S. J. (1996) ‘Vygotsky and schooling: Creating a social contest for learning’. Action in Teacher Education, 18: 1-10.
Howe, M. J. A. & Sloboda, J. A. (1991) ‘Young musicians’ accounts of significant influences in their early lives. 2. Teachers, practising and performing’. British Journal of Music Education, 8: 53-63.
Howe, M. J. A. & Sloboda, J. A. (1992) ‘Problems experienced by talented young musicians as a result of the failure of other children to value musical accomplishments’, in B. Wallace (Ed.), Gifted Education International, vol. 8, pp. 16-18. Bicester, Oxon: A B Academic Publishers.
Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W. & Sloboda, J. A. (1998) ‘Innate talent: Reality or myth?’ Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 2: 399-442.
Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., Moore, D. G. & Sloboda, J. A. (1995) ‘Are there early childhood signs of musical ability?’ Psychology of Music, 23: 162-176.
Hunter, M. (1975) Talent is not Enough: Mollie Hunter on Writing for Children. New York: Harper & Row.
Kingsbury, H. (1988) Music, Talent, and Performance: A Conservatory System. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Litowitz, B. E. (1993) ‘Deconstruction in the Zone of Proximal Development’, in E. A. Forman, N. Minick & C. A. Stone (Eds), Contexts for Learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lundin, R. W. (1967) An Objective Psychology of Music. New York: Ronald Press.
Manturzenska, M. (1986) ‘Musical talent in the light of biographical research’, in Musikalishe Begabung Funden und Forden. Munchen: Bosse Verlag.
Markea, G. G. (2002) Teachers’ Perceptions of Musicality and Its Contexts: A Study of Piano Pedagogy in Athenian Conservatories. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of London. Institute of Education.
Markea, G. G. (2005) Talent in Piano Playing: A Study of Exceptionally Gifted Greek Soloists. Athens: Athens Institute for Education and Research (2005). ISBN 960-88672-1-5.
Marshall, J. (1990) What Makes a Good School? Wellington: Government Printer, 48pp. (Contributor).
McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2001) Professional Communities and the Work of High School Teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McPherson, G. E. & Williamon, A. (2006) ‘Giftedness and Talent’, in G. E. Mc Pherson (Ed), The Child As A Musician: A Handbook of Musical Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge. Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Papazaris, Chr. Ath. (1999) (In Greek) Music Learning and Education. Athens: Papazisis Publications.
Paraskevopoulos, I. N. & Charalambopoulos, I. N. (1984) (In Greek) Psychology of Individual Differences. Athens: ΟΕΔΒ.
Post-doc and PhD in Music Education,
University of London, Institute of Education
School Adviser for Music Education
Based in Athens
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Professor Graham Welch under whose guidance I conducted my post-doctoral research (Markea, 2005) at the University of London, Institute of Education.
This research focuses on how a number of influential piano teachers in Greece define the meaning of talent in piano playing and how it is influenced by the Greek environment. Before describing the research methodology of the current study and the analysis of four interviews, the results of research conducted by myself in 2002 in Athenian conservatories1, and the views of Greek piano performers and teachers on ‘talent’ will be presented. Further information arising from the literature follows in the next section.
TALENT AND MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT IN MARKEA'S RESEARCH (2002)
In 2002, I tried to explore ways in which seven influential Greek piano teachers and performers perceive and define ‘musicality’. The interviews were based on a number of teaching episodes in Athenian conservatories and were selected from 200 hours of videotaped piano lessons with the interviewees and their piano students. I found that ‘musicality’ could be developed in four layers in accordance with Swanwick’s (1983) model, and that there were five contextual issues that impinged upon the teachers’ work and may influence a piano learner’s musical knowledge development. These include teacher, learner, conservatory, family, and society (see Figure 1). Among the piano student’s characteristics influencing musical knowledge development, according to the teachers, is ‘talent’.
Greek piano teachers believe that ‘talent’ is innate and that talents are as numerous as individuals (Kingsbury, 1988). All the elements seem to be necessary to talent. These include musicality and dexterity combined with a student’s love and passion for music itself and for its study. ‘Musicality’ can be acquired, when not innate, and its development can be influenced by the student’s environment.
According to the participants, ‘talented’ students can make a teacher’s task a lot pleasanter and bring success even if the teacher is lacking in talent. Talent and industriousness seem to be closely linked and teachers expect more from ‘talented’ students in developing a good career in music and other matters. Teachers identify the notion of ‘musicality’ with that of ‘talent’, but think that if a student does not have it, it can be developed by teachers or environment. This, of course, is a logical paradox.
FURTHER LITERATURE REVIEW ON MUSICAL TALENT AND ITS CONTEXT
Definition of talent
The meaning of ‘talent’ can be understood to be an especially significant constituent in music learning. However, its exact definition is not precise, but complex (McPherson, & Williamon, 2006). Some writers use the terms ‘talented’ and ‘gifted’ interchangeably (Tannenbaum, 1983). Gagné (1991; 1995) argues for the retention of both terms but for differentiating between them by defining ‘giftedness’ as innate capacities and ‘talent’ as developed abilities or performance. Paraskevopoulos & Charalambopoulos (1984) mention that the criteria in accordance with which an individual is characterised as ‘talented’ are varied, different and imprecise. Elliott (1995) says that the unexamined association between music and talent causes parents, administrators, and the general public to assume wrongly that music is an inappropriate or unnecessary subject for the majority of children.
The question of giftedness in relation to creativity and intelligence has been the subject of much recent activity and debate (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986). On the one hand, the existence of child prodigies and ‘idiots savants’ in certain fields leads us towards a biological explanation for precocity. On the other hand, the spectacular success of some preschoolers who have undergone extensive instrumental training shows that intensive environmental stimulation can also give rise to precocity. Hargreaves (1989) believes that giftedness develops from a predisposition towards exceptional skills. Also Davidson, Howe & Sloboda (1997) emphasise the role of environmental conditions in the development of such skills with the major influencing factors of practice, parents and teachers. They (op. cit.) also believe that commercialisation of music and musical expertise cannot impart musical skill to the majority of the population.
Gavin (2001) claims that ‘musical genius is born, not crafted’ and Lundin (1967) holds that musical ability exists biologically and can be ‘channelled’ into different musical areas. Shuter-Dyson (1982) believes that music is as natural to human beings as language.
Sloboda, Davidson & Howe (1994) pointed out the existence of a folk psychology of talent, determining the difference between individuals’ capacity for musical accomplishment. According to the report, few people become expert performers because few have the necessary talent. Davis (1994) also claims that only ‘talented’ individuals can perform professionally.
'Exceptional children' and their needs
Graham (1991) states that individualised special education is necessary for exceptional children. The usual nine categories for non-average children are: those with speech disorders, mental retardation, specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, orthopaedic impairments (crippling), hearing, visual and ‘other’ health impairments, and those who are gifted and talented. He notes the two categories for gifted students: first-order gifted for the highly gifted, and second-order for the others. Revesz (1953) claims that musical types are: creative, and reproductive-interpretative. The latter could apply to instrumental-virtuoso and conducting. He believes that creative and reproductive-interpretative talent can exist in the same single person. Dichler (1948) believes that every student has a specific talent different from those of others.
‘Talent alone is not enough’
Some like Shuter-Dyson & Gabriel (1981), Bloom (1982) and Hunter (1975) recognise that talent in itself is not enough. They claim that achievement depends not solely on skill, but also on the teaching the child receives, the interest in music, and readiness to learn. Woods (2002) concluded that musical ability could be learned, but only to a certain standard. She also identified some differences in the teaching of talented and non-talented students.
Vygotsky and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
In 1978 Vygotsky claimed that social interaction profoundly influences cognitive development, not from innate factors, but social activities practised in the individuals’ cultural surroundings. Vygotsky differentiated between our higher and lower mental functions. The lower are genetically inherited and are our natural mental abilities, but our higher mental functions develop through social interaction and talent must include the ability to benefit from this social interaction. Social learning actually leads to cognitive development. This phenomenon is called the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ (ZPD). Vygotsky (1978: 86) describes it as the gap between the current developmental level of a learner as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers. Talent or unexpressed ability is measured by the extent of profit from guided instruction.
Beyond Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky
Vygotsky (1978) says that the static, individual forms of traditional psychological testing only determine the already matured mental functions and not those which are developing. The ZPD was developed with the aim of discovering these potentials. Lave & Wenger (1991) set out an alternative theory of ‘legimate peripheral participation’, which held that at every stage the learner participates in, and is therefore a part of the community in which s/he is learning. Parents and teachers provide the most important guidance in a child’s early learning, but peer group activities also play a significant role (Wells, 1999).
However, formal schooling also involves coercion, restricting natural creativity and originality and Gardner’s (1983) ‘multiple intelligences’ theory claims that interaction can engender personality conflict and contradiction (Litowitz, 1993). Now the emphasis is on diversity rather than improvement. The multiple transformations consist of the individual’s identity enabling more effective participation, the invention of new practices for novel solutions, activity setting to permit further action options and the group’s interrelations (Wells, 1999).
Effective teaching involves not only a standardised curriculum, but judgements about the facilitation of each student’s learning. Development is becoming multi-faceted with an increasing rate of cultural change. Many teachers practise classroom-based action research (activity theory) (Mercer, 1995). The concept of the ZPD has been expanded in scope with emphasis on community and collaboration with other teachers and students, becoming integrated into holistic learning.
Craft knowledge in recognising ‘gifted’ pianists
Marshall (1990) maintains that the teacher must have a passion for the subject, constant flexibility, reassessment and adjustment of teaching methods according to each student’s needs. Followers of Vygotsky now emphasise the need for ‘constructivist’, student-centred learning with the teacher in the role of observer and facilitator (when required) (Stenhouse, 1975). Gifted students tend to benefit from the cooperative effort. The broader environment is a major factor (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). Lesson planning should be at the ‘macro’ level, but allow for flexibility at the ‘micro’ level (Clark & Yinger, 1979, in Calderhead, 1996). Learning must be motivating and relevant and shared experience between teachers is beneficial in developing skills.
The effects of teaching and practice
Bloom (1982) concluded after a 3-year study with emphasis on pianists’ special qualities that special early abilities could not attain the required levels, without extremely favourable support and teaching circumstances for more than a decade. Papazaris (1999) believes that student ability is partially influenced by society (promotion and mass availability of music affect teachers’ methods).
Sosniak (1985) found that children were strongly affected by their first musical teachers. Sloboda & Davidson (1996) found that the child’s first teacher was perceived differently by the groups in their study. The ‘achievers’ regarded their teacher as friendly and a good performer, whereas children who gave up music studies regarded the first teacher as ‘unfriendly’ and a ‘bad’ performer.
Barry & Hallam (2002) maintain that practice is more effective with metacognition (reflection on thought processes, mental practice in combination with physical). However, repetition of ineffective practice strategies can yield disappointing results. Sloboda, Davidson, Howe & Moore (1996) found from interviews with 257 young people aged between eight and 18 that there was a strong relationship between musical achievement and formal practice (94 of the interviewees). However, the relationship between achievement and informal playing was weaker. High achievers required less practice for examination success.
The data lends support to the theory that formal practice is a key variable in the determination of musical performance expertise, but the talented pianist’s performance has a quality missing from the others, however hard they practise (Hartounian, 2002). Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer (1993) concluded that the level of expertise is a direct function of the individual’s effortful formal practice, contradicting the folk psychology which assumes that high-achievers acquire their skills with the same or less practice than others.
Bentley (1968) found that poor singers usually score low in pitch discrimination tests. Welch (1979) believes that poor pitch discrimination may be the result and not the cause of poor pitch control in singing (training can improve pitch discrimination). Hargreaves, Messerschmidt & Rubert (1980) investigated the influence of training on musical preference and found experienced subjects expressed a greater liking for all types of music than inexperienced subjects and Birch (1963) noticed that they may prefer ‘serious’ music.
Burland & Davidson (2002) investigated events that have influenced the careers and lives of a group of talented musicians. They found that positive experiences with others and within the conservatories, as well as coping strategies, contribute to the success of transition.
Home and cultural environment
Some researchers emphasise the influences of home and cultural environment on musical development (Howe, Davidson, Moore & Sloboda, 1995). For example, Welch & Adams (2003) believe that our innate musicality is nurtured from pre-birth sounds from caregivers (especially mothers) and is subsequently shaped by our environment. Shuter-Dyson (1982) claims that an early musical background can help individuals fulfil their natural potential and also reveal ‘special gifts’. Talent cannot emerge unless given the opportunity (Fletcher, 1987). However, other studies, such as those of Sloboda & Howe (1991), have shown that environment and personal relationships are not always major factors.
Davidson & Borthwick (2002) did an 18-month case study on a family, identifying how parental expectation and ‘support’ over musical development determines the child’s musical progress. Authoritarian parents place high demands on the child and encourage responsibility, independence and creativity. In contrast, neglectful parents fail to control and support, so children feel little impetus to perform and become de-motivated.
Borthwick & Davidson (2002) investigated 12 families with at least one child engaged in musical activity to establish how many factors of family life contributed to a musical identity. The status and role of music was influenced by the importance given to music by the family, which also influenced their current family lifestyle. It was clear that children also influenced the musical identity of their parents and siblings- parents were more inclined to become familiar with musical genres enjoyed by their children.
Albert’s (1980) study showed that exceptionally gifted students had parents of a socioeconomic status higher than the national average. The status is also associated with intelligence test scores and home musical background (Sergeant & Thatcher, 1974).
However, some researchers claim that talent could not easily be developed from the environment if it were not innate in the student. Sloboda & Howe (1991) conducted a survey on forty-two specially gifted students (aged 10-18) and twenty of their parents and found that few had revealed early indications of talent and that parents had exercised supervision and encouragement. The most able students seemed to come from less ‘musical’ families and had had fewer early lessons. They had not practised more than the others, but had spread their practice over several instruments.
Howe & Sloboda’s second study in 1991 involved 42 students (aged 10-18) at a specialist music school and the parents of half of them. They played various instruments and had a greater range of ability than those of Sosniak. Inspiration and motivation in the early stages seems more important than great musical ability. Most of the parents received regular progress reports. Most students depended on parents for support, encouragement and participation in practice sessions. Excessive practice or listening often resulted from self-motivated students becoming obsessed.
Gagné (1999) showed that Sloboda & Howe (1991) had not sufficiently recognised the factor of musical talent in determining differences. Howe, Davidson & Sloboda (1998) doubt whether ‘innate’ talents exist at all, or influence talent development. Gagné (1998), however, maintains that natural abilities play a role in the development of talent. There are five separate factors in the production of talent in any area of human achievement: aptitudes, talents, learning/training/practising (LTP) process, interpersonal and environmental catalysts. Sloboda & Howe’s results show that environment and personal relationships are not major factors in differentiating more from less talented students- the number of lessons and amount of practice were shown not to be related to achievement.
Various researchers have found that a child’s achievements can be greatly affected by the nature of parental support. In a survey by Davidson, Howe, Moore & Sloboda in 1995 on 257 children and their parents the successful students had been personally involved in music or had parents who were more active participants in early lessons and practice. Children who abandoned music lessons had less engaged and motivated parents throughout the course. Howe & Sloboda (1991), Manturzenska (1986), Sloboda & Howe (1991) and Sosniak (1985) believe that parental support is particularly evident in talented musicians, but non-competent performers were ignored, so success may not result directly from the amount of parental support.
Parents of both successful students and those who had abandoned studies were similarly involved in requests to practice and took an interest in listening, apparently aware of the need for support, regardless of whether or not they were musicians (Sosniak, 1985; Sloboda & Howe, 1991; Howe & Sloboda, 1991).
Other influences
During interviews by Howe & Sloboda (1992) with 11 of 42 talented young musicians aged 10 to 17, it was found that not all the children had a musical background and practice time was no greater for exceptional musicians than for those who were less so, but parental involvement was evident in the musical training of almost all these children. It was also observed that these exceptional young musicians faced problems caused by the failure of other children to understand their musical achievements.
This section has shown that the nature of innate or acquired talent has been related to giftedness, creativity and intelligence. Also noted was the need of ‘exceptional children’ for special education. The ZPD of Vygotsky and of researchers beyond him was discussed. Analysis was made of other factors required in musical education, including the influence of the first music teacher, general teaching, practice, and the influence of home, cultural and social environment.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research questions and methods of data collection
This study focuses on talent in piano learning in the Greek environment. The two main research questions concern (a) the perceptions of famous Greek pianists about the basis for their particular instrumental ‘talent’ for the piano, and (b) to what extent such views are informed by a particular musical environment. The study uses both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Two-stage research methodology is used:
An initial questionnaire survey aimed at discovering who is regarded as 'influential' in piano education in Greece.
In-depth semi-structured interviews with influential Greek pianists and piano teachers, and talented soloists. These interviews will be informed by appropriate reading of related literature on exceptional performance and the (often disputed) nature of musical ‘talent’.
Who are considered to be the most ‘influential’ Greek piano teachers
The first step in the current research was to find out which Greek piano teachers and pianists were sufficiently ‘influential’ in piano education in Greece for their opinion about ‘talent’ to be of special significance. I asked the views of various experienced and active members of the Greek pianist community. Thus, I created a simple questionnaire to be sent to 228 Greek piano teachers and pianists, who work in different parts of Greece. The questions concerned (a) personal details, including age group and gender, (b) professional background (location and duration of study, who they studied with after graduation and why (and if not why not), (c) who they would recommend as ‘influential’, and why.
I piloted the questionnaire with a piano teacher, whom I interviewed informally to look over her answers. She considered the questions to be clear and needed less than five minutes to answer them. The questions could also provide the detail I need. I therefore posted the questionnaires to the 228 teachers. 179 teachers completed the questionnaires and returned them to me by post or e-mail. 49 teachers responded by phone.
The sample of 228 pianists was taken from different parts of Greece (32.4% from Athens, 35% from Salonica and 32.4% from islands or other cities). Most are women (94.7%) and only 5.2% are men. This is not unusual in Greece, since working as a piano teacher or pianist is not regarded as a sufficiently secure profession for a man. So the majority of Greek pianists are women (Markea, 2002). Most participants had studied for over 15 years (95.6%) and just 4.3% for less than 14. Also their experience as piano teachers was for the majority 10-20 years (70.1%), 5-10 years for 26.3%, and 21-30 years for 3.5%. From the answers of the 228 piano teachers the following points emerged:
Most of the participating pianists have studied at private conservatories (87.7%), 11.8% in municipal conservatories, and just 0.8% in government-subsidised conservatories. Just 0.8% named their teachers as among the most ‘influential’ in Greece. This indicates the objectivity of the results. The same applied for who they studied with after graduation. From the 9.6% who studied after graduation, only 0.4% named their teachers, as being among Greece’s most ‘influential’. This may be because most go abroad for further studies, due to lack of such opportunities in Greece. Also, Greeks regard studies abroad as prestigious, despite the non-recognition by the Greek Ministry of Culture. 90.9% of the pianists studied after graduation out of interest in learning. Only 9% continued studies abroad to increase career opportunities. Also the pursuit of a piano-playing career is almost impossible in Greece, as even the most talented performers play only rarely in the two major concert halls. 90.3% did not study after graduation for financial reasons. For example, 74.2% needed to work immediately after graduation, 13.1% could not afford to study abroad and 2.6% lacked incentive - their Greek diploma or degree was sufficient to find work.
Finally, the participants characterised piano teachers as ‘influential’ (see Figure 2) when they had good musical and pedagogical knowledge, experience in teaching and performing, the ability to channel students’ knowledge and attitudes towards study and music, thus achieving better results in learners’ piano playing (69.7%). Also by participation in international piano playing committees (30.2%).
Most specifically, the characteristics of a teacher should be patience and persistence in transferring knowledge, the ability to adjust teaching when required and self-evaluation. They should also be dedicated to their students. It may not be a coincidence that none of the most influential Greek piano teachers has her own children.
The teachers questioned believe the following. Teachers participating in international committees as members define ‘good’ piano playing according to their own opinions and aesthetic criteria, thus affecting piano education in Greece (the remaining teachers try to satisfy them in their students’ exam or competition performances).
The three piano teachers regarded as the most ‘influential’ in Greece are (a) Phoebe (96.4%, 220 ‘votes’), (b) Nepheli (87.7%, 200 ‘votes’), and (c) Ariadne (83.3%, 190 ‘votes’). They are usually committee members at an international piano competition, which takes place every two years in Greece (The ‘Maria Callas Competition’), and are also famous soloists. Most of their students achieve success in teaching or piano playing. Because of the death of Phoebe, a fourth teacher joins the list (Erato, 74.5%, 170 votes). She was a student of Phoebe.
ANALYSING THE INTERVIEWS
After the results of the quantitative research, I interviewed Nepheli, the teacher voted first, then Ariadne and Erato, as well as Apollon2, one of the two most famous and talented Greek soloists. The questions were semi-structured. I used this type of question to leave the teachers and the talented pianists free to express their views in their own words and in their own time. This is in accordance with the opinion of Pring (2000) who claims that the interview can only be semi-structured.
The results can be separated into two categories: their views on the nature of musical talent and the influence of the environment. They considered talent to be an innate quality, but also accepted that it could be influenced by varying external factors. These views are largely in accordance with those of Vygotsky (1978). Lower or elementary functions he thought were genetically inherited; they are our natural abilities. However, our higher mental functions develop through social interaction and are socially or culturally mediated. The analysis of the interviews is presented in the following sections.
Defining musical talent
The nature of talent: Innate or developed?
According to the participants, musical talent is especially important for the progress of a student in playing the piano. Although distinguished for his/her dexterity, a talented pianist is chiefly in command of innate abilities related to musicality (Markea, 2002). The view of the participants that talent chiefly consists of the innate ability of a pianist is in accordance with researchers like Lundin (1967), Kingsbury (1988), Sloboda & Davidson (1996) and Gavin (2001). Musical talent, according to the participants, can be developed to a degree through study, the appropriate teaching and in a stimulating family – social environment (Welch, 2001a).
Vygotsky’s writings (1978) emphasise the role of the teacher in development, in determining the level of the student’s ‘readiness to learn’. If the learner responds well, Vygotsky thinks that this learner has a different kind of talent from that which is innate, bringing the ability to benefit from social interaction.
The participants do not regard the terms ‘talented’ and ‘gifted’ as being essentially different (Tannenbaum, 1983). Thus, in contrast to Gagné (1991; 1995) who believes that ‘giftedness’ is comprised of ‘innate capacities’ while ‘talent’ correspondingly includes ‘developed abilities’, the participants believe that by and large ‘talented’ students are really ‘gifted’ by their very own nature. Apollon says that talent is something special and is a ‘gift’ with which one is born and that talent in piano playing is an innate ability to do things with ease which for others are difficult.
To sum up, the participants agree with Hargreaves (1989) regarding the need for a predisposition for exceptional skills in a particular area and also for favourable external conditions to develop these dexterities. Also they agree with Woods (2002) that talent can be developed, when not innate, but only to a degree, as well as with the idea that, however hard an ordinary piano student studies, s/he will never play like a talented pianist does naturally (Hartounian, 2002).
This is similar also to Vygotsky’s (1978) idea about the kind of talent which enables a learner to make progress through social interaction. Effective teaching results when the learner is led beyond his/her current abilities to a subsequent phase of development through cooperation with others. What will be lacking in a mediocre pianist will be that ‘extra something’, which is found exclusively in the playing of a talented person (Markea, 2002) and which, according to folk psychology, few possess (Kingsbury, 1988; Davis, 1994).
In contrast to Ericsson et al. (1993) and in accordance with folk psychology, the participants believe that talented people achieve the same significant results even with little study. Erato notes that there is usually less tiredness on the part of teacher and student and a better resulting performance. Nevertheless, the participants agree that talent alone is not enough. Vygotsky (1978) also believes that the talented student profits from social interaction within the teaching process. Teachers must be flexible, prepared to re-assess teaching methods where required and able to assess students’ level of ability and readiness for further progress.
The characteristics of talent
According to the participants, talent has multiple meanings (‘polysemous’ in Kingsbury, 1988; Dichler, 1948) and multiple manifestations (‘polymorphic’ in Kingsbury, 1988). Revesz’s (1953) view that talent may be ‘creative’ or ‘reproductive-interpretative’ or both of them in one person, seems also to be in accord with that of the participants. The participants agree that the major characteristics of a gifted pianist are innate ability to play with musicality (Markea, 2002) and dexterity, the result of inherited factors, such as an incredible ability to remember and to play, in the best possible way, anything they study on the piano. Talented pianists have musical audibility and their own initiative in interpretation which is not always in accordance with the composer’s wishes. Apollon believes that a good physical condition is another ‘ingredient’ and that Chopin, who was infirm, is an exception to the rule.
Participants agree that of the two basic constituents in piano playing (musicality and dexterity) musicality is the most necessary. Talented pianists may surpass every technical difficulty because of their musicality or musical sensitivity and give the ‘extra something’ in their playing which makes them different from others (Markea, 2002). There is also the question whether love of piano study is an element of talent. Apollon says that professional pianists have a love for music and the stamina for hours of playing/practice and that a talented person can learn a programme of pieces for a concert and in the best possible way in a shorter period of time.
Influences on musical talent development
According to the participants, musical talent is innate, but they recognise that only when talent exists by nature, can it be developed by four factors. These include practice, teaching, family and social environment. The ways in which these variables may influence musical talent development are described in the following sections.
Practice
All the participants emphasised the importance of practice, even in cases of exceptionally talented students (Bloom, 1982; Ericsson et al., 1993; Howe, Davidson, Moore & Sloboda, 1995; Howe, Davidson & Sloboda, 1998; Gagné, 1999; Barry & Hallam, 2002). However, all the participants believe that gifted students may have better results in piano playing even if they study less than the less exceptional. This agrees with Howe & Sloboda (1992) who found that talented pianists spent less time practising than the others.
Nevertheless, as already mentioned, love of music and ability to work hard is thought to be included in the characteristics of a talented pianist. Practice appears to be regarded as a very important factor influencing musical talent development by the participants in this study. Ariadne stresses that even a gifted pianist will never learn to play the piano if s/he does not study at all. Nevertheless, according to the participants, study improves a student’s playing only to a degree.
Teaching
According to the participants, music teachers are all involved in musical talent development (Bloom, 1982; Howe & Sloboda, 1991; Sloboda & Davidson, 1996; Davidson, Howe & Sloboda, 1997). Apollon states that ‘talent, when it exists, requires simultaneously suitable guidance from the teacher’.
Vygotsky (1934/1987) believes that teachers need to explain, inform, inquire, correct and force the student to explain. This can be done with the help of an adult or in a peer group. Children should be left to exercise greater autonomy as they develop the necessary abilities. However, the participants stress that a teacher can never transform an ordinary student into a gifted one. This is in accordance with Harris (2001), who claims that effective teaching can help the ‘less musical’ students to bring about development in true musical thinking. Vygotsky (1934/1987) believes that students’ interest must be engaged and tasks simplified for easier handling. Teachers must motivate them to aim at the required goals and frustration and risk must be dealt with or eliminated. Dialogue must be built up and the teacher provides what is called ‘scaffolding’. Other kinds of teaching include ‘reciprocal teaching’ and ‘cognitive guidance’ (Bruner & Haste, 1987; Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976; Driscoll, 1994; Hausfather, 1996).
The participants believe in the special influence of the first music teacher, agreeing with researchers, such as Sosniak (1985) and Sloboda & Davidson (1996). This is in accord with Gordon (1979 in Welch, 2001b) who states that teaching promotes development of the ‘innate level of musical aptitude’ at the beginning of music studies and up to the age of 9.
Markea (2002) notes that teachers expect more from ‘talented’ students in developing a good music career, which is not easy in the Greek environment. Sigalas (1998) stresses that Greek music teachers are mainly graduates of conservatories with insufficient organisation and further education for the Pedagogy and Teaching of Music, which makes it difficult for them to influence their students’ musical knowledge development positively.
According to the participants, special education is required even for talented piano students (Graham, 1991; George, 2003; Woods, 2002). Nepheli mentions that she has a talented 12-year-old student and wonders how she can help him to play well without losing his spontaneity and temperament. She is not content to allow the student to play a phrase badly for the sake of spontaneity, but is afraid that she is unwittingly hindering the development of his talent and ultimately setting him back. The participants also believe a different repertoire is necessary for talented students, providing freedom of choice about pieces.
The participants believe that musical talent facilitates and complicates piano learning. Such students cannot follow the same programme as other students and cannot remain at the preliminary stage for three years when they play more pieces from the intermediate stage. Although teachers find difficulty in teaching talented students, talent itself mainly facilitates the teacher. Nepheli feels that sometimes she actually learns from her talented students.
Family
Vygotsky (1934/1987; 1978) maintains that parents and teachers offer the most significant guidance and assistance in early childhood learning and beyond. Peer group activities are also significant in the encouragement of learning. This is evident also in contemporary stress on ‘cooperative learning’ in North America (Vygotsky, 1978; Wells, 1999).
The participants believe that the development of talent is influenced by the family environment, agreeing with researchers, such as Ericsson et al. (1993), Davidson, Howe, Moore & Sloboda (1995) and Borthwick & Davidson (2002). Ariadne says that parents play a very important role, involving the necessary financial support and a positive attitude towards musical education and the piano. Apollon claims that if talent is not passed on from the parents, through the genes, it can to a great extent be developed by them, with moral and financial support (without which the child cannot start piano lessons). Erato says that if there is some pianist or a forgotten piano from a previous generation, it will eventually produce an infant prodigy! Apollon, however, believes that talent is innate and a talented person will find his/her way anyhow.
The participants emphasise the influence of the parents’ financial status on musical talent development, agreeing with other researchers, such as Sergeant & Thatcher (1974) and Albert (1980). Also they all believe in the opportunities, support and encouragement of parents in the development of musical talent, which is in accordance with the researches of Davidson, Howe, Moore & Sloboda (1995) and Sloboda & Howe (1991). However, it is very difficult for Greek parents to encourage their children to start piano studies, as it is not regarded by Greek society as a secure profession.
Moreover, the participants believe in the importance of parental involvement in practising (Davidson, Howe, Moore & Sloboda, 1995). This is in accord with Borthwick & Davidson (2002) and Davidson & Borthwick (2002), who maintain that positive childhood experiences with music may provide the motivation for long-term commitment on a musical instrument. This disagrees with Sosniak (1985), who found that most talented students seemed to come from families less involved with music.
They all stress the influence of parental mentality in musical talent. Apollon says that parents have a positive attitude towards piano learning, recognising its importance, improving the character and developing culture through music. However, they will pressurise their child to study more (at the first sign of difficulty) and do not appreciate the moral support needed for such a difficult activity. Believing this will not lead to a secure profession, they give the child other activities (ballet, swimming, foreign languages) so there is insufficient time for the piano.
Regarding the influence of the mentality of Greek parents on music education Ariadne says that even if the child is good at playing the piano, they do not consider that s/he will aim to become a professional musician. However, they do believe that music cultivates the human personality. They regard music as supplementary knowledge and believe that professionally speaking, the only worthwhile music career is that of a state school music teacher. The participants consider the parents’ positive mentality to be more important than their financial status. Ariadne says, she knows parents who have not had the money, but have found a way for their children to study music. They took the risk, knowing the importance of a musical education.
The strong bond between parents and children in Greece makes the influence of family environment even stronger. Nepheli says that despite a positive attitude towards piano education, Greek parents do not believe that their children could survive by performing on the piano, especially in the provinces. There is lifelong interdependence between Greek parents and their children, possibly due to an inability to deal with life in Greece by themselves, because of the lack of provisions from the state. Unemployment is another reason.
Society
The participants in accordance with many other researchers, such as Davidson, Howe, Moore & Sloboda (1995), Borthwick & Davidson (2002) and Davidson & Borthwick (2002), stress the influence of social environment on musical talent development, but only up to a certain standard. Vygotsky (1934/1987) and his followers also stress the broader environment as a major factor. Sharing of experience between teachers is usually beneficial in developing skills and experience.
The interviewees believe that the Greek environment negatively affects musical talent development. Nepheli describes the difficulty for a gifted piano student of pursuing a career in Greece since the Greek media do not recognise the need for piano learning. Even the most successful Greek pianists who have studied abroad cannot find secure employment even at the most insignificant Greek conservatories. They can only survive as piano teachers in conservatories, or as music teachers in state or private schools.
The participants note that Greek children are often too busy with other matters to take up music seriously. In Greece there are only very few concert halls and often no admission fee, so in effect you invite people to listen. The average Greek likes bouzouki and tends to mock those who listen to classical music. Perhaps due to the media’s attitude to music, a pianist gets a better return playing popular music (‘skiladika’!), for which the average Greek is willing to pay half his/her salary to hear a famous singer. However, s/he will gladly accept free invitations which the performer is obliged to distribute in order to have enough people at his/her classical concert.
Conclusions
To sum up, the participants believe that talent is innate, but can be developed to a degree by four factors: practice, teaching, family and social environment. They maintain, however, that an ordinary student can never play the piano in the same way as a talented one. The influence of the conservatory was not emphasised, but Markea’s (2002) research showed that the difference in policies among conservatories in Greece was one of the most important variables influencing piano learning. The participants stress the importance of the teacher over that of the conservatory.
According to the results of this research, talent is an inherited quality, which helps a talented person to play better than another, even if the latter has the best prerequisites, but simply lacks talent. Although talent is necessary, it is not enough in itself for a career in Greece. But all the participants agree that without talent, nothing especially important can occur in piano playing.
The participants tend to stress the innate character of talent rather than Vygotsky’s concept of socially developed ability to benefit from further social interaction within a ZPD. They acknowledge that talented students benefit more from teaching but possibly due to innate abilities rather than those developed through social interaction and which can lead to further profitable development in the right environment, or in response to the appropriate pedagogical skills.
REFERENCES
Albert, R. S. (1980) ‘Exceptionally gifted boys and their parents’. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(4): 174-179.
Barry, N. H. & Hallam, S. (2002) ‘Practice’, in R. Parncutt & G. McPherson (Eds), The Science and Psychology of Music Performance, pp. 151-165.
Bentley, A. (1968) Monotones. Music Education Research Papers No 1. London: Novello.
Birch, T. E. (1963) ‘Musical taste as indicated by records owned by college students with varying high school music experiences’. Dissertation Abstracts International, 23(2): 545.
Bloom, B. (1982) ‘The role of gifts and markers in the development of talent’. Council for Exceptional Children, 48(6).
Borthwick, S. J. & Davidson, J. W. (2002) ‘Developing a child’s identity as a musician: A family ‘script’ perspective’, in R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves & D. Miell (Eds), Musical Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bruner, J. & Haste, H. (Eds) (1987) ‘Introduction’, Making Sense: The Child’s Construction of the World. London: Methuen.
Burland, K. & J. W. Davidson (2002) ‘Training the talented’. Music Education Research, 4(1): 121-140.
Clark, C. M. & Yinger, R. J. (1979) Three Studies of Teacher Planning. Research Series no. 55. East Lansing: Michigan State Univ., Institute for Research on Teaching.
Davidson, J. W. & Borthwick, S. J. (2002) ‘Family dynamics and family scripts: A case study of musical development’. Psychology of Music, 30(1): 121-136.
Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J. A. & Sloboda, J. A. (1997) ‘Environmental factors in the development of musical performance skill over the life span’, in D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (Eds), The Social Psychology of Music. Oxford, New York, Tokyo: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J. A., Moore, D. G. & Sloboda, J. A. (1995) ‘The role of parental influences in the development of musical ability’. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14: 399-412.
Davidson, J. W., Sloboda, J. A., Moore, D. G. & Howe, M. J. A. (1998) ‘Characteristics of music teachers and the progress of young instrumentalists’. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(1): 141-160.
Davis, M. (1994) ‘Folk music psychology’. The Psychologist, 7(12): 537.
Dichler, J. (1948) Der Weg Zum Künstlerischen Klavierspiel. München: Ludwig Doblinger.
Driscoll, M. P. (1994) Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Needham, Ma: Allyn & Bacon.
Elliott, D. J. (1995) Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T. & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) ‘The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance’. Psychological Review, 100: 363-406.
Fletcher, P. (1987) Education and Music. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Gagné, F. (1991) ‘Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent’, in N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis, Allyn & Bacon (Eds), Handbook of Gifted Education. Boston: Ma.
Gagné, F. (1995) ‘From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field’. Roeper Review, 18(2): 103-111.
Gagné, F. (1998) ‘A proposal for subcategories within the gifted or talented populations’. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42: 87-95.
Gagné, F. (1999) ‘Nature or nurture? A re-examination of Sloboda and Howe’s (1991) interview study on talent development in music’. Psychology of Music, 27(1): 38-51.
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gavin, H (2001) ‘Reconstructed musical memories and adult expertise’. Music Education Research, 3(1): 51-61.
George, D. (2003) Gifted Education: Identification and Provision. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Gordon, E. E. (1979) Primary Measures of Music Audiation. Chicago: GIA Publications.
Graham, R. M. (1991) ‘Music education in exceptional children’, in R. Colwell (Ed.), Basic Concepts in Music Education, II. Colorado: University Press of Colorado.
Hargreaves, D. J. (1989) Children and the Arts. Milton Keynes, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hargreaves, D. J., Messerschmidt, P. & Rubert, C. (1980) ‘Musical preference and evaluation’. Psychology of Music, 8: 13-18.
Harris, P. (2001) ‘Simultaneous learning-teaching pupils to think musically’, in Libretto, issue 2001: 3, pp. 14-15. London: Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music.
Hartounian, J. (2002) Kindling the Spark. Recognising and Developing Musical Talent. Oxford: Oxford Press.
Hausfather, S. J. (1996) ‘Vygotsky and schooling: Creating a social contest for learning’. Action in Teacher Education, 18: 1-10.
Howe, M. J. A. & Sloboda, J. A. (1991) ‘Young musicians’ accounts of significant influences in their early lives. 2. Teachers, practising and performing’. British Journal of Music Education, 8: 53-63.
Howe, M. J. A. & Sloboda, J. A. (1992) ‘Problems experienced by talented young musicians as a result of the failure of other children to value musical accomplishments’, in B. Wallace (Ed.), Gifted Education International, vol. 8, pp. 16-18. Bicester, Oxon: A B Academic Publishers.
Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W. & Sloboda, J. A. (1998) ‘Innate talent: Reality or myth?’ Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 2: 399-442.
Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., Moore, D. G. & Sloboda, J. A. (1995) ‘Are there early childhood signs of musical ability?’ Psychology of Music, 23: 162-176.
Hunter, M. (1975) Talent is not Enough: Mollie Hunter on Writing for Children. New York: Harper & Row.
Kingsbury, H. (1988) Music, Talent, and Performance: A Conservatory System. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Litowitz, B. E. (1993) ‘Deconstruction in the Zone of Proximal Development’, in E. A. Forman, N. Minick & C. A. Stone (Eds), Contexts for Learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lundin, R. W. (1967) An Objective Psychology of Music. New York: Ronald Press.
Manturzenska, M. (1986) ‘Musical talent in the light of biographical research’, in Musikalishe Begabung Funden und Forden. Munchen: Bosse Verlag.
Markea, G. G. (2002) Teachers’ Perceptions of Musicality and Its Contexts: A Study of Piano Pedagogy in Athenian Conservatories. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of London. Institute of Education.
Markea, G. G. (2005) Talent in Piano Playing: A Study of Exceptionally Gifted Greek Soloists. Athens: Athens Institute for Education and Research (2005). ISBN 960-88672-1-5.
Marshall, J. (1990) What Makes a Good School? Wellington: Government Printer, 48pp. (Contributor).
McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2001) Professional Communities and the Work of High School Teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McPherson, G. E. & Williamon, A. (2006) ‘Giftedness and Talent’, in G. E. Mc Pherson (Ed), The Child As A Musician: A Handbook of Musical Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge. Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Papazaris, Chr. Ath. (1999) (In Greek) Music Learning and Education. Athens: Papazisis Publications.
Paraskevopoulos, I. N. & Charalambopoulos, I. N. (1984) (In Greek) Psychology of Individual Differences. Athens: ΟΕΔΒ.
About the Author
| See Author Box Georgia G. Markea Curriculum Vitae Georgia G. Markea is a Doctor in Music Education (Piano Pedagogy) of the University of London (Institute of Education), where she studied under Professor Keith Swanwick with the aid of a grant from the Greek Government (IKY). At the Institute of Education she has also completed post-doctoral research in Talent in Piano Playing under the guidance of Professor Graham Welch. She is also a graduate of the Athens School of Philosophy and the Athens School of Social Sciences. She has a Piano Diploma and Degree (First Class) from the Athens Conservatory, where she studied with the aid of a grant, and |
No comments:
Post a Comment