Developing an Online Intervention to Equip Tertiary Piano Students With Skills and Strategies for Effective Practice

Abstract

Over recent years, many researchers have developed and tested interventions to help music students practice and prepare for performances effectively. While these interventions have led to positive outcomes, their scalability is currently limited. To address this challenge, we developed PractiseWell, an online intervention to equip tertiary piano students with skills and strategies for effective practice. We used a theory- and evidence-based approach to develop the content. In designing the intervention (i.e., how the content is delivered), we drew on the person-based approach and the literature on design features from the field of healthcare. This article reports the development of PractiseWell in three parts. Part I reports a systematic review that was conducted to inform the content of the intervention. Part II reports the development of PractiseWell using the Guidance for Reporting of Intervention Development (GUIDED) checklist. Part III describes the intervention using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). We discuss implications and future directions for intervention research in the context of performance psychology for musicians.

Keywords

Intervention development music practice online intervention performance psychology self-regulated learning systematic review

Music students invest thousands of hours in individual practice, to hone their skills (Macnamara & Maitra, 2019). Tertiary music students (i.e., students in higher education) typically spend 20–30 hr per week on private practice (Jørgensen, 2004; Macnamara & Maitra, 2019) but many of these students do not know how to use this time effectively (McPherson et al., 2019; Miksza et al., 2018; Mornell et al., 2020). This is a concern, since quality of practice is paramount to performance quality and achievement (Duke et al., 2009; Suzuki & Mitchell, 2022; Williamon & Valentine, 2000). Furthermore, the development of effective practice methods forms an important component of holistic care for musicians’ physical and psychological health (Bird, 2013; Kegelaers & Oudejans, 2020; Matei et al., 2018; Perkins et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2021). To practice effectively, students must learn to regulate their own practice, using skills such as goal setting, time management, and self-evaluation (McPherson, 2022), yet these self-regulatory skills are rarely taught in instrumental lessons or at conservatoires (Concina, 2019; Gaunt, 2010; Koopman et al., 2007).

In response, researchers have tested interventions aimed to promote effective practice methods and have reported positive outcomes, such as improved practice quality and increased confidence (e.g., Clark & Williamon, 2011; Hatfield, 2016). Now that the findings of studies have demonstrated the feasibility of teaching these skills, the next challenge for researchers is to make such interventions more scalable. These interventions are currently not widely available, owing to such issues as financial cost, time constraints, and the unavailability of experts to deliver them. One way to increase the availability of such interventions would be to develop and implement an online one.¹ Its practical advantages would be that no expert would need to be present and the students would have flexibility in terms of time and location. Online interventions provide a higher degree of anonymity, which may be appealing to musicians who associate receiving performance psychology support with stigma (Pecen et al., 2016; Suzuki & Pitts, 2023). From the point of view of researchers, online interventions allow a wider range of participants to be recruited and their progress, engagement, and adherence to be tracked (Miller et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, online interventions present a range of unique challenges. The main challenge pertains to engagement: in healthcare, online interventions typically have low usage and high dropout rates, and these can also lead to low effect sizes in trial studies (Eysenbach, 2005; Kohl et al., 2013; Murray et al., 2009). In the context of performance psychology interventions for musicians, recruiting and retaining sufficient participants can be a challenge, even for in-person interventions (Clark & Williamon, 2011; Suzuki & Pitts, 2023). Moreover, music students are often reluctant to invest time in activities other than physical practice as they feel that they are a waste of time, even when they understand the potential benefits (Kruse-Weber & Sari, 2019). Taken together, this suggests that recruiting and engaging music students for an online intervention could be difficult. It is therefore critical that online interventions for musicians are designed carefully to maximize user engagement and that measures are taken to minimize potential issues.

Intervention Development

Developing an intervention is a complex process involving various components, such as planning, reviewing the available evidence, and involving stakeholders (O’Cathain et al., 2019a). This process is a critical stage in an intervention study because it directly influences the potential efficacy of the intervention and could lead to a waste of resources if not conducted carefully and rigorously. However, researchers rarely report this process in publications, typically reporting only the results of pilot and trial studies. In recent years, intervention development studies describing “the rationale, decision-making processes, methods and findings which occur between the idea or inception of an intervention until it is ready for formal feasibility, pilot or efficacy testing prior to a full trial or evaluation” (Hoddinott, 2015, p. 1) have gained traction in healthcare research. Researchers have investigated ways in which the acceptability and engagement of interventions can be optimized, and various guidelines for and approaches to intervention development have been published (for a review, see O’Cathain et al., 2019b). In terms of reporting the development process, Duncan et al. (2020) conducted a consensus study with researchers and stakeholders, and developed the Guidance for the Reporting of Intervention Development (GUIDED), in the form of a checklist of 14 items that should be reported in publishing intervention development studies.

While this literature on intervention development comes from the field of healthcare, we believe that this body of knowledge is highly applicable to music performance science. By utilizing guidelines and theories for intervention development published in healthcare research, we can maximize the rigor, transparency, and efficacy of interventions developed and implemented for musicians.

Aims and Overview

The aim of this study was to develop PractiseWell, which is an online intervention designed to equip tertiary piano students with skills and strategies for effective practice and performance preparation. A secondary aim of this article is to demonstrate the value and utility of applying theories and guidelines from intervention design in healthcare to music performance science.

To develop PractiseWell, we gathered information over two phases. In the first phase, we aimed to gather information regarding the content of the intervention. To do this, we first established the theoretical and empirical basis for the content of the intervention through a review of the relevant literature and a systematic review of existing interventions. The systematic review is reported in this article. We also gathered information through interviews with conservatoire piano teachers about effective practice. This is reported elsewhere (Suzuki et al., 2024). In the second phase, we aimed to gather information on how the intervention should be designed and delivered to maximize user engagement. To do this, we consulted the literature on intervention design in healthcare and conducted an ad hoc survey with tertiary music students.

This article is organized in three parts. Part I presents the systematic review that was conducted in the first phase of the study. Part II describes the development of PractiseWell using GUIDED. Part III describes the final intervention using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR; Hoffmann et al., 2014), which is the method for reporting intervention content recommended by GUIDED. TIDieR is a 12-item checklist, developed by Hoffmann et al. (2014), to facilitate the reporting of intervention content and therefore improve replicability.

Part I: Systematic Review of Existing Interventions

To inform the development of PractiseWell, we conducted a systematic review of interventions for improving tertiary music students’ practice. While PractiseWell was designed for piano students, we looked at interventions for improving practice on other instruments too, since many of the skills required for effective practice should be applicable to all instruments. In this review, we investigated the following research questions:

RQ1. What types of intervention have been conducted to help tertiary music students practice effectively?

RQ2. How effective were the interventions in terms of the outcomes measured?

RQ3. What are the strengths and limitations of these interventions?

This review was carried out following guidelines set out in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Moher et al., 2009). A protocol was created a priori, following the PRISMA protocol guidelines (Moher et al., 2015) and registered on the Open Science Framework Registries (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GYX53)

Methods

Inclusion Criteria

The review concerned interventions that addressed music practice, which we defined as “individually oriented self-study directed, no matter how strictly, toward attaining musical proficiency on an instrument or the voice,” after Miksza (2011, p. 52). We were interested only in individual practice, so we excluded studies of ensemble rehearsals. Since advanced musicians—such as conservatoire students—generally practice to prepare for a performance, we considered memorization and performance preparation part of music practice. We therefore included interventions that addressed these aspects in the review. However, we excluded interventions that were concerned only with performance anxiety or health. Furthermore, the intervention had to address skills for practice directly; we excluded interventions that targeted a skill or a behavior that might help practice as a secondary effect (e.g., mindfulness for effective practice; yoga for better performance). When an intervention consisted of a mixture of practice-relevant and practice-irrelevant components (e.g., health and wellbeing), we only included the study in the review if more than half of the intervention content was relevant.

Regarding the population, we were primarily interested in students studying music at a tertiary (i.e., higher education) institution. However, we also included graduate, semi-professional, and professional musicians, as we assumed that these groups had similar skills and used similar strategies for effective practice. We also restricted participants to classical musicians, as goals and strategies for practice and performance might differ across genres. We only included studies with participants at different levels (e.g., some tertiary and some pre-tertiary students) or in different genres (e.g., some classical and some jazz musicians) if at least half of the participants met these inclusion criteria.

Other inclusion criteria included the availability of full-text and English as the language of publication. Eligible publication types were empirical studies reported in peer-reviewed articles, doctoral theses, book chapters, and conference proceedings. There was no restriction on sample size or study strategy.

Search Procedure

Studies were identified from three sources: (a) a search of selected online databases (see Appendix A in the Supplementary Material for details), (b) a manual search of selected peer-reviewed journals, and (c) the reference list of a systematic review of studies related to music practice (How et al., 2022). We also conducted backward- and forward-cite searches by looking at the lists of references of identified studies and the cited-by list on Google Scholar, respectively.

Figure 1 is a flowchart of the search and selection process. We conducted the searches in October and November 2021. The initial database search yielded 504 results. After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 30 publications remained. Another 38 publications were identified through the manual search, while eight more were identified through the reference list of the systematic review (How et al., 2021). This resulted in 76 full texts that were assessed for eligibility, of which 30 publications were deemed eligible for inclusion. The search and selection process was carried out primarily by the first author, while borderline cases were discussed and resolved in conjunction with the other authors.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart.

To gain an overview of the identified studies, we initially extracted the following information: main topic or strategy under investigation, study design and strategy, duration and frequency of intervention, and main outcomes measured (see Appendix B in the Supplementary Material). It appeared from this preliminary coding that the identified studies could be grouped into two broad categories: single experiments that tested the effect of a specific strategy (e.g., mental practice) and multicomponent interventions that delivered a program designed to teach a range of skills and strategies. Single experiments were often conducted in controlled settings over relatively short periods of time, ranging from one session to several days. In contrast, multicomponent interventions tended to involve a larger number of sessions held over several weeks. Of the 30 studies identified, 20 were categorized as single experiments and 10 as multicomponent interventions. In this review, we focused only on the multicomponent interventions, as they were more pertinent to the development of PractiseWell. Two additional articles were identified through forward and backward searches, yielding a total of 12 publications for inclusion. Each publication reported exactly one study.

Data Collection

The following information was extracted from these 12 studies: study strategy and design; participant characteristics; summary of intervention content; rationale for content, including theoretical basis; outcomes measured and measurement methods utilized; follow-up measures, if any; delivery mode; main findings; and participant feedback on the course. Furthermore, each study was rated according to the level of detail (low, medium, or high) provided by the authors regarding the intervention content (Table 1 gives a description of each category). The first author rated all the studies, after which 50% of studies were chosen randomly and rated by the second and third authors (25% each). Any disagreement between the two sets of ratings was resolved through discussion between the three authors.

Table 1.

Criteria for determining level of detail of intervention content provided.

Level of detail of intervention content description	Criteria
Low	Only vague and general information provided, such as the names of skills covered (e.g., “goal setting”) Insufficient information to replicate the intervention
Medium	Information provided beyond just names of skills but not detailed (e.g., “enhancing musical communication through improvisation exercises”) Alternatively, high level of detail provided about some, but not all, components of the intervention Insufficient information to replicate the intervention but might be possible to conduct something similar
High	Very detailed and specific information provided, such as a script of sessions Sufficient information to replicate the intervention

Results

Table 2 gives an overview of the 12 intervention studies. Participants in all but one study were tertiary students; the exception was the study of Kegelaers and Oudejans (2020), in which participants were professional orchestral players or fellows of an orchestral academy. Ten studies involved interventions designed for musicians, regardless of the instrument they played; one was for pianists only (Osborne et al., 2021); and one was for woodwind or brass players only (Miksza, 2015). The sample size ranged from one to 31 participants. In terms of study strategy, five studies were qualitative, four were multistrategy, and three were quantitative.

Table 2.

Overview of studies included in systematic review.

Reference	Type	Strategy	Participants	Study design	Summary of content	Duration, frequency	Content detail rating
Burwell and Shipton (2013)	SRL	Qualitative	8 UG	Action research project	Residential practice clinic. Seminars on strategic approach to practice, rehearsal, and performance; use of 15-min practice block schedules; watching practice video with researcher	2 weeks Grp and ind (duration not reported)	Medium
Clark and Williamon (2011)	PST	Mixed	23 UG & PG	Pre-post with nonrandomized no-treatment control	Motivation and effective practice (goal setting, peak performance awareness, time management); relaxation and arousal control (relaxation strategies, cognitive restructuring, self-talk); performance preparation and enhancement (mental rehearsal and imagery, focus and concentration, performance preparation, and analysis)	9 weeks 30 min ind and 60 min grp per week	Low
Cohen and Bodner (2019)	PST	Quantitative	24 PG	Pre-post with nonrandomized waitlist control	“Performance skills intervention” Mental skills training (positive thinking, goal setting, mental rehearsal, concentration and focusing, identification of negative automatic thoughts, performance preparation, resilience); developing physiological awareness (zone of optimal functioning, physiological arousal regulation, reframing arousal as excitement, centering), enhancing musical communication (improvisation exercises); simulated performances	11 weeks 90 min grp per week	Medium
Hatfield (2016)	PST	Mixed	6 UG	Pre-post without control	Content tailored to individual needs but included goal setting, attentional focus (e.g., centering) imagery, arousal regulation, and acceptance (e.g., self-talk)	15 weeks 60–90 min grp per fortnight and 30–60 min ind per week	Low
Hatfield and Lemyre (2016)	PST	Qualitative	2 UG	Pre-post without control	Performance profiling using questionnaires and electronic practice journals for self-reflection Sessions tailored based on individual needs but included goal setting, strategies, mental skills for practice and performance	8 weeks 2 × ind and 2 × grp per month	Low
Kegelaers and Oudejans (2020)	PST	Mixed	7 prof. & 8 orchestral fellows	Post-intervention evaluation	“Performance psychology intervention” Group workshops: deliberate practice (time management, use of 20-min blocks, self-regulated learning); imagery; external focus of attention; performance preparation (scenario planning, training under pressure, planned disruptions) Individual monitoring sessions: individualized follow-up after workshops	5 × grp and 10 × 30 min ind	Medium
Miksza (2015)	SRL	Quantitative	28 UG	Pre-post with randomized alternative-treatment control	Both groups: specific categories of practice strategies, such as slowing and repetition (i.e., chaining, whole-part-whole, repetition by singing, whistling, buzzing) Experimental group only: self-regulatory approaches for structuring practice environment to aid concentration, goal setting based on personal learning tendencies, planning, self-evaluation, incorporating rest and reflection periodically during practice	4 days 15–17 min video	High
Miksza et al. (2018)	SRL	Mixed	3 UG	Pre-post without control, multi-baseline	Goal setting (short-term for practice sessions and long-term for playing); presenting list of common practice strategies; maintenance of focus and productivity by redirecting attention to goals if going off-task; assisting in reflective process by engaging participants in conversation about adaptive attitudes to practice and improvement; having participants summarize what they learned from session and how to apply it to future practice	1 × ind	High
Osborne et al. (2014)	PST	Quantitative	31 UG & PG	Pre-post without control	Centering technique (in sessions) and strategies from workbook (independently) for two weakest areas Strategies in workbook: preparation (practice habits, learning modes, mental rehearsal, prioritizing material and identifying obstacles; memorizing music); confidence (self-talk, positive self-talk habits; mental rehearsal); courage (becoming a more courageous performer, overcoming fear of failure); focus (focusing past distractions); concentration (concentrating on demand, energy and concentration); resilience (rebound faster from mistakes; becoming mentally tough, training for adversity)	3 weeks 60–90 min grp	Medium
Osborne et al. (2021)	SRL	Mixed	7 UG	Time series without control	Practice diary: open-ended, force choice, and Likert-type questions targeting three phases of SRL, to be completed with practice session Individual session: discussion of practice, review of SRL phases, feedback from researcher	9 weeks 2 ind Diary: 3 days/week for 3 separate weeks	Medium
Pike (2016)	SRL	Qualitative	9 UG	Pre-post with randomized alterative-treatment control	Watched practice video with researcher and discussed actions and implications for future practice	2 months 1 ind + 3 recorded practice sessions	Low
Pike (2017)	SRL	Qualitative	1 D	Single case study, action research project	Narration during practice (in-practice reflection), practice journal (post-practice reflection), researcher observed and videoed practice sessions, researcher-student meetings to discuss practice, cyclical process of self-evaluation, experimentation, joint assessment	4 months ind	Low

Note. D = doctoral student; grp = group sessions; ind = individual sessions; PG = postgraduate students; prof. = professional musicians; PST = psychological skills training; SRL = self-regulated learning intervention; UG = undergraduate students.

RQ1. What Types of Intervention Have Been Conducted to Help Tertiary Music Students Practice Effectively?

Of the 12 studies identified, psychological skills training (PST; Weinberg & Gould, 2015) was implemented in six, while interventions based on self-regulated learning (SRL; Zimmerman, 2000) were tested in the other six. Psychological skills were implemented in the PST interventions to enhance both practice and performance preparation. All these interventions included mental practice or imagery and concentration. Other skills commonly addressed included goal setting (n = 5), arousal regulation (n = 5), and self-talk (n = 4). Time management was addressed in three studies, while resilience and cognitive restructuring or positive thinking were addressed in two studies.

The SRL interventions were all based, albeit to varying degrees, on the three-phase cyclical model of SRL (Zimmerman, 2000), which conceptualizes learning as a process that occurs over three phases (forethought, performance, reflection) with each phase involving distinct cognitive, metacognitive, emotional, and motivational subprocesses. Five of the six SRL interventions incorporated individual coaching, where the researcher acted as a coach and helped the students reflect on their practice and find ways to regulate it better. In these coaching sessions, students were often encouraged to take an active role in the process rather than being passive receivers of information. In some interventions, the coaching sessions took place as the researcher and the student watched a video recording of the student's practice together (Burwell & Shipton, 2013; Pike, 2016, 2017). Another common element of these interventions was the use of practice journals (Burwell & Shipton, 2013; Miksza et al., 2018; Osborne et al., 2021; Pike, 2017) for data collection, participant reflection, or both. Practice journals were generally used to supplement the intervention or data, except in one study (Osborne et al., 2021), in which it was a core element.

The SRL intervention by Miksza (2015) did not involve individual coaching sessions but instead utilized an instructional video. The video contained information and demonstrations of various specific practice strategies (both groups), and SRL strategies (experimental group only). Demonstrations were performed by postgraduate saxophone students for woodwind players and by postgraduate trombone students for brass players.

Of the six SRL interventions, two studies (Miksza, 2015; Miksza et al., 2018) incorporated the teaching of specific practice strategies identified in the literature, such as chaining, whole-part-whole, slow practice, and repetition with variation (e.g., varied rhythm, varied articulation, buzzing, whistling). In addition, Burwell and Shipton (2013) used 15-min block schedules, in which students chose a specific task to work on for 15 min.

Authors of studies involving PST interventions rarely provided precise accounts of the specific strategies or methods used for implementing particular skills. A notable exception was Osborne et al. (2014), who referred to a centering technique, used for arousal regulation and attention focusing, and described it in step-by-step detail. This technique was also reported in two other studies (Cohen & Bodner, 2019; Hatfield, 2016). Furthermore, Kegelaers and Oudejans (2020) implemented a strategy of dividing practice sessions into shorter manageable blocks, like that described by Burwell and Shipton (2013).

Delivery Mode

In five studies, the intervention was delivered in a combination of group and individual sessions. Generally, group sessions involved the provision of information, activities designed for students to practice new skills, and group discussions, while individual sessions provided participants with an opportunity to share personal experiences and have the program tailored to their needs. In two studies, only group sessions were implemented. Osborne et al. (2014) conducted group sessions with all participants, as well as sessions for groups of players of the same instrument family (e.g., brass). Four studies used individual sessions only and these all involved individual coaching for practice.

All interventions were delivered by the researchers who authored the articles, other than the intervention in the form of a video described by Miksza (2015). In several instances, the researcher who delivered the intervention was a musician with experience in a relevant field, such as clinical or sport psychology (Clark & Williamon, 2011; Cohen & Bodner, 2019; Hatfield, 2016). In contrast, Kegelaers and Oudejans (2020) indicated that they had a background in sport and performance psychology, but not music.

RQ2. How Effective Were the Interventions in Terms of the Outcomes Measured?

Outcomes reported for more than one study were participants’ experiences (n = 8), practice quality (n = 7), performance quality (n = 4), mental skills (n = 3), self-efficacy (n = 2), and music performance anxiety (MPA; n = 2). We looked at the two outcomes that were reported for at least half the studies (i.e., participants’ experiences and practice quality).

Participants’ Experiences

All studies using participant’s experiences as an outcome obtained this information using qualitative data collection methods, such as interviews, focus groups, and open-ended written responses. Participants generally reported that interventions were useful, leading to such outcomes as increased self-awareness of practice and performance preparation (Clark & Williamon, 2011; Kegelaers & Oudejans, 2020; Miksza et al., 2018); improved practice efficiency (Clark & Williamon, 2011; Kegelaers & Oudejans, 2020; Pike, 2017); and increased self-efficacy or confidence (Clark & Williamon, 2011; Hatfield, 2016). Specific aspects that participants found helpful included the setting of specific goals (Hatfield, 2016; Miksza et al., 2018); watching their own practice videos with a researcher (Burwell & Shipton, 2013; Pike, 2016); and the use of short blocks of practice (Burwell & Shipton, 2013; Kegelaers & Oudejans, 2020). They also appreciated group settings because these facilitated peer support or provided a low-stress performance context in which they could try out newly learned strategies (Burwell & Shipton, 2013; Clark & Williamon, 2011; Kegelaers & Oudejans, 2020).

In several studies, participants provided feedback to researchers about how the intervention could be improved. Participants in the study of Clark and Williamon (2011) would have liked the sessions to have involved less discussion of research findings and more practical applications of skills, including the integration of performance and audition settings, and examples from musicians. The transitioning-elite musicians (fellows of an orchestral academy) who took part in the study of Kegelears and Oudejans (2020) reported that the session provided limited novelty, in that they were not provided with information that was new to them. These transitioning-elite musicians also reported that they would have preferred the sessions to be delivered by someone with a musical background.

Practice Quality

Practice quality was measured in seven studies through self-report measures (n = 5) or observational methods (n = 3). Self-report measures included questionnaires, practice diaries, and microanalysis. In three studies, questionnaires (Clark & Williamon, 2011; Hatfield, 2016; Osborne et al., 2014) were employed and statistically significant improvements were found using relevant scales or subscales after the intervention. Practice diaries were used in two small-scale studies (Miksza et al., 2018; Osborne et al., 2021). Although improvements were found in some aspects of self-regulated practice, this finding was not derived from the results of statistical tests. Miksza et al. (2018) conducted microanalysis by having a researcher observe participants’ practice and ask “questions that were strategically timed to elicit information about the forethought, performance, and self-reflection phases of self-regulated learning” (p. 301). Differences in pre- and post-intervention microanalyses were reported to be “subtle” (p. 311), but participants set more detailed goals and reported a more varied repertoire of strategies. The participant who started with the lowest score for self-regulation benefited the most from the intervention.

Observational methods of measuring practice quality involved the analysis of video recordings of participants’ practice. Miksza (2015) divided practice sessions into segments and documented the types of practice strategy employed and the main objective for each segment. He found that the experimental group had focused more than the control group on musical objectives after the intervention. Pike (2016) analyzed practice videos but did not report in detail how they were analyzed or how participants’ practice changed over time. Miksza et al. (2018) analyzed video recordings in the same way as Miksza (2015), but provided little detail of the analysis other than to report that findings were consistent with the microanalysis.

RQ3. What Are the Strengths and Limitations of These Interventions?

The strengths and limitations of the reviewed studies are discussed in relation to three issues: study design, outcome measures, and intervention content.

Study Design

Of the 12 studies, only four employed a control group. Of these, only Miksza (2015) and Pike (2016) randomized participants into experimental and alternative-treatment control groups. In the study of Miksza (2015), both groups were instructed on specific practice strategies but the experimental group were also instructed on SRL strategies. The performance quality of both groups was found to have improved after the intervention, but this improvement was significantly greater for the experimental group. The control group in the study of Pike (2016) differed from the experimental group in that they did not receive coaching, but they still video-recorded their practice sessions and verbalized their thoughts out loud, which one participant reported was helpful. The control groups in both studies therefore benefited to some extent from the control condition, highlighting the importance of including control groups.

Outcome Measures

As seen in the results for RQ2, participants’ experiences in the form of qualitative data were the most frequently reported outcome among the reviewed studies. While this type of data is typically rich, capturing individual experiences in the real world, it is severely limited because it is highly vulnerable to bias. For example, if music students participated in an intervention expecting to benefit from it and the researcher who conducted the intervention asked what they had thought about it, the students would be unlikely to report that they had not benefited from it. Many studies employed one-to-one interviews or focus groups that were presumably conducted by the researcher who had designed or administered the intervention, introducing additional biases. Furthermore, expecting an intervention to be beneficial increases the likelihood of benefiting from it (Linde et al., 2007); all the more so if the participant chose freely to take part in it (Geers & Rose, 2011). Consequently, the use of qualitative methods in studies in which participants were volunteers could have inflated their reported opinions of the interventions.

The use of scales as outcome measures was also problematic (Table 3). While most scales had acceptable internal consistency (α > .70; Boateng et al., 2018), only half of the scales had known factor structures, and only two of these had been validated for musicians. However, Hatfield (2016) utilized subscales that were shown to cross-load; these were therefore omitted in later work Hatfield et al. (2017). Thus, only one of the eight scales (Self-Efficacy for Musical Performing; Ritchie & Williamon, 2011) was known to be a reliable and valid scale for use with musicians. This is an important issue, because if the validity of the measurement tools is called into question, the validity of the entire study is jeopardized.

Table 3.

Scales utilized in studies reviewed.

Study	Questionnaire	Outcome	Reliability (Cronbach's α)	Structural validity (factor analysis)	Validated on musicians?
Clark and Williamon (2011)	Questionnaire adapted from the Self-Regulated Learning Interview Schedule (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988)	SRL	.65	None reported	No
	Randomized short version of Betts’ Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery (Sheehan, 1967)	Imagery	.67–.84	Yes (White et al., 1974 )	No
	Self-Efﬁcacy for Musical Performing Questionnaire (Ritchie & Williamon, 2011)	Self-efficacy	.84	Yes (Ritchie & Williamon, 2011)	Yes
	Revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (Cox et al., 2003)	MPA	.74–.94	Yes (Cox et al., 2003)	No
Cohen and Bodner (2019)	Performance Anxiety Inventory (Nagel et al., 1989), translated into Hebrew	MPA	.89–.92	Unknown	Unknown
Hatfield (2016)	Self-Regulated Learning in Music Questionnaire (Hatfield et al., 2017)	SRL	.58–.80 (Hatfield et al., 2017)	Yes (Hatfield et al., 2017) but study included omitted items	Yes
Miksza (2015)	10-item questionnaire adapted from Hendricks (2009), cited in Miksza (2015)	Self-efficacy	.87–.93	Unknown	Unknown
Osborne et al. (2014)	Performance Skills Inventory (Greene, 2012, 2013, cited in Osborne et al. 2014)	Performance skills	.86	Unknown	Unknown

Note. MPA = music performance anxiety; SRL = self-regulated learning. Only measures relevant to this review are presented (practice quality, SRL, mental skills, self-efficacy, MPA).

Intervention Content

Studies were scored as reporting high, medium, or low levels of detail regarding the intervention content (Table 2). Five studies were categorized as providing low levels of detail and five studies were categorized as providing medium levels of detail. In only two studies, the intervention content was reported in levels of detail sufficiently high that the study could be replicated (Miksza, 2015; Miksza et al., 2018). In these studies, the full script of the intervention content was included as supplementary material. Additionally, Osborne et al. (2021) provided detailed descriptions about the practice diary utilized, but not the one-to-one session. For the other studies, sufficient information was not provided for interventions to be replicated. Furthermore, details were not provided about how interventions were developed or the rationale for choices regarding intervention content or delivery method.

Summary

In this systematic review, we aimed to gain an overview of existing intervention studies designed to equip tertiary music students with skills for effective practice, to inform the development of PractiseWell. Twelve studies were identified and reviewed, comprising six studies that implemented PST and six studies that implemented an SRL intervention.

From the results of this review, we identified the following strategies to include in PractiseWell:

setting specific goals,

watching video recordings of own practice,

time blocking.

We also identified the following as important features to include in the interventions:

examples and demonstrations,

practical activities.

However, the lack of detailed information about the intervention content in most studies presented a challenge for our project, as it was unclear exactly how skills were taught or implemented. While the reviewed studies generally reported positive outcomes, we found that the evidence for the efficacy of the interventions was weak, owing to such issues as the lack of randomized control groups, reliance on participants' experiences as an outcome measure, and the use of unvalidated scales.

Nevertheless, a promising characteristic of some of the interventions was their strong grounding in theory, namely the theory of SRL (Hatfield, 2016; Hatfield & Lemyre, 2016; Miksza et al., 2018; Osborne et al., 2021; Pike, 2017). Interventions with theoretical bases have several advantages, such as allowing researchers to investigate why interventions are effective (or ineffective), explore mechanisms of change, and generate and test hypotheses (Michie & Prestwich, 2010). For example, in some studies it was found that the setting of specific goals led to a variety of positive outcomes, including improved concentration and self-efficacy, which led to stronger feelings of satisfaction and adaptive affective state (Hatfield, 2016; Miksza et al., 2018). Such findings are important for future interventions and can also contribute to the understanding of effective practice and expertise development, which can ultimately lead to invaluable knowledge for instrumental teachers that they can apply in the context of one-to-one tuition.

Part II: Development of PractiseWell

The development of PractiseWell is described next, following the guidelines provided by the GUIDED (Duncan et al., 2020). The GUIDED checklist can be found in Appendix C in the Supplementary Material.

Approach to Intervention Development

Two aspects of PractiseWell were developed: its content (the actual information and activities included in the intervention) and its design (how the content is presented). While these two aspects are described separately in the following section, it should be noted that they were developed in parallel and influenced each other constantly. The content of PractiseWell was developed using a theory- and evidence-based approach. To develop the design of the intervention, we started with the question, “How can we maximize user acceptability and engagement?” and turned to the healthcare field for potential answers, as there is a growing body of literature in this field on intervention development and design (e.g., O’Cathain et al., 2019b). Ultimately, the design of PractiseWell was driven by two concepts from healthcare research: design features (Morrison et al., 2012) and the person-based approach (Yardley et al., 2015a).

Design features are characteristics of an online intervention that facilitate the delivery of its content (Morrison et al., 2012). These features are unrelated to the actual content of the intervention; for example, online interventions for depression, obesity, and mathematical skills have different content but may all involve sending weekly email reminders to participants with motivational messages. Design features can influence users’ engagement with an intervention, which can in turn influence its effect (Perski et al., 2017).

The person-based approach prioritizes an in-depth understanding of the attitudes, beliefs, needs, and situations of the target population to maximize the acceptability and feasibility of an intervention (Yardley et al., 2015a, 2015b). One way in which this can be achieved is by developing guiding principles that aim to address potential challenges and barriers that the target population might face when completing the intervention.

Sources of Evidence and How They Informed the Development of PractiseWell

For the Content of PractiseWell

The socio-cognitive theory of SRL and its cyclical three-phase model (Zimmerman, 2000) was used as the theoretical basis for the content of PractiseWell. The theory of SRL has been used extensively to study and understand effective practice (McPherson, 2022; McPherson & Zimmerman, 2011; Varela et al., 2016) and was the theoretical basis of half the interventions identified in the systematic review.

In addition to the systematic review reported previously, the following sources of information were consulted to identify specific components to incorporate in PractiseWell: (a) a review of the literature on effective practice, (b) a review of the literature on SRL interventions for academic studies, and (c) semistructured interviews with 11 conservatoire piano teachers about their experiences of effective practice and teaching practice strategies to conservatoire students (reported in Suzuki et al., 2024). From these sources, we produced a list of the skills and strategies to be included in PractiseWell, which is presented in Table 4. Some of these are general self-regulatory skills applied to music practice (e.g., goal setting), while others are specific to music practice (e.g., performance preparation).

Table 4.

Skills and strategies to be included in PractiseWell.

Strategy	Skills addressed	References
Setting specific goals	Goal setting	Cohen and Bodner (2019), Hatfield (2016), Locke and Latham (2002, 2006), Suzuki et al. (2024), Zimmerman (2008)
Setting musical goals	Goal setting	Chaffin et al. (2002), Miksza (2015), Suzuki and Mitchell (2022)
Prioritizing, planning ahead	Time management	Antonini Philippe et al. (2020), Suzuki et al. (2024), Wolters and Brady (2021)
Time block strategy: choosing a specific task to work on for 15 min	Goal setting Time management	Burwell and Shipton (2013), Kegelaers and Oudejans (2020)
Performance cues	Memorization Performance preparation	Lisboa et al. (2015, 2018)
Self-recording	Self-evaluation	Boucher et al. (2021), Daniel (2001), Suzuki et al. (2024)
Watching and reflecting on own practice session	Self-evaluation	Burwell and Shipton (2013), Deniz (2012), Odendaal (2019), Pike (2016)
Specific play and non-play practice strategies (e.g., chunking, changing the rhythm, writing in the score)	Strategic planning Problem solving	Miksza (2015), Suzuki et al. (2024), Suzuki and Mitchell (2022)
Practice performances	Performance preparation	Chaffin et al. (2002), Lehmann et al. (2007), Suzuki et al. (2024)
Adopting task-relevant, external focus	Performance preparation	Kegelaers and Oudejans (2020), Mornell and Wulf (2019)
Pre-performance routines	Performance preparation	Hawkes (2021), Lubert and Gröpel (2022), Tief and Gröpel (2021)
Positive self-talk	Performance preparation	Cohen and Bodner (2019), Osborne et al. (2014)

In addition, SRL served as one of the theoretical frameworks for maximizing user engagement. One of the reasons that online interventions are rarely used is that participants are unmonitored and self-directed, and therefore need to be sufficiently motivated and organized to complete the intervention (Broadbent et al., 2020). In other words, if participants are to benefit from an intervention, they already need to be able to regulate their own learning. We call this meta self-regulation (i.e., the ability to use self-regulation skills to take part in an intervention designed to teach or enhance them).

The review of literature reporting SRL interventions for academic studies was used to generate the following principles for promoting meta self-regulation in PractiseWell:

Provide guidance for managing learning on the course (e.g., encourage participants to set aside a regular day and time to work through the intervention each week).

Include activities to facilitate meta self-regulation (e.g., ask participants to set goals for the course) (Bellhäuser et al., 2000).

Incorporate metacognitive reflection: explain how and why the strategies presented can be useful (e.g., explain how specific goals can lead to more effective practice) (Dignath et al., 2008; Dignath & Büttner, 2008).

For the Design of PractiseWell

Design Features

We reviewed the literature on the design features of online interventions in healthcare for the purpose of identifying key design features to incorporate in PractiseWell. Our review was guided by the framework proposed by Morrison et al. (2012), which identified 11 types of design feature. We supplemented the findings of this review with evidence from the music performance psychology literature and an ad hoc survey in which 25 tertiary music students reported their preferences for an online course on effective practice (see Appendix D in the Supplementary Material for the characteristics of this sample). The final list of design features is presented in Table 5, along with a summary of the findings and an explanation of how each feature was implemented.

Table 5.

Design features to be incorporated in PractiseWell.

Design feature	Explanation or evidence	How feature was implemented
Tailoring	Tailoring can increase user engagement (Perski et al., 2017; Wahle et al., 2017) Flexibility is crucial to foster participants’ sense of autonomy (Morrison, 2015) It is useful to provide a wide range of strategies rather than be prescriptive (Kegelaers & Oudejans, 2020) Musicians appreciate tailored support (Suzuki & Pitts, 2023) 76% of participants in the survey wanted to be able to customize the content	Participants have two options for one of the modules PractiseWell encourages participants to engage in self-experimentation, emphasizing that the strategies presented are not prescriptive, as everyone is different
Reminders	Reminders can increase user engagement and adherence (Brouwer et al., 2011; Wahle et al., 2017; Wei et al., 2020)	Participants receive weekly emails when a new module is released, with a brief overview of the module
Case studies	Providing stories of real or hypothetical individuals with experiences similar to the user is useful (Morrison et al., 2012; Thompson & Kreuter, 2014; Wahle et al., 2017) Case studies are more effective if the person featured is similar to the user (Strecher et al., 2008) 92% of participants in the survey reported that case studies would be “useful” or “very useful” Most participants (88%) wanted a variety of musicians to be featured in the case studies	Videos use anecdotes and fictional characters (undergraduate piano students) to illustrate concepts, skills, and strategies
Practical activities and demonstrations	Music students appreciate the use of practical activities to apply and practice learned skills (Clark & Williamon, 2011; Kegelaers & Oudejans, 2020; Suzuki & Pitts, 2023) All participants in the survey reported that demonstrations would be “useful” or “very useful”	Each weekly module comes with a practical activity for participants to try independently throughout the week The modules feature demonstrations to show exactly how skills and strategies can be applied
Format of information	Visually appealing formats (e.g., illustrations, videos) can enhance user engagement (Wahle et al., 2017; Wei et al., 2020) Downloadable materials, such as summary notes and homework sheets, may also be helpful (Wahle et al., 2017) 80% of participants in the survey wished the content to be presented as videos 80% of participants reported that downloadable summary sheets would be “useful” or “very useful”	The content is delivered through videos with simple animation PractiseWell comes with a workbook that contains all the activities Each module comes with a downloadable summary sheet
Practice diary	Self-tracking and self-monitoring have been found to help users by increasing their awareness of their behaviors, especially when users can see their progress through visualization of their data (Lentferink et al., 2017) Practice diaries and performance profiling are useful tools for musicians and can increase self-awareness and motivation (Hatfield & Lemyre, 2016) All participants in the survey reported that a practice diary would be “very useful” or “useful”	PractiseWell comes with a practice diary app (under development)
Language	Non-controlling, non-authoritative language is important, to ensure that participants feel supported and relaxed (Wei et al., 2020) Non-controlling language can also foster autonomy in participants (Hatfield & Lemyre, 2016) Information delivered by text should use language that is simple, non-technical, and concise (Wei et al., 2020)	Content is presented using a friendly, informal tone that is not technical

The Person-Based Approach: Guiding Principles

To develop guiding principles for PractiseWell, we reviewed the literature on performance psychology interventions for musicians to identify the needs of tertiary piano students and the potential challenges they face. We then formulated (a) design objectives to address the needs and challenges that were identified in this review and (b) intervention features aiming to meet these objectives (Table 6). Some of these intervention features were directly drawn from the findings of the systematic review and optimal design features.

Table 6.

Guiding principles for PractiseWell.

Need or challenge	Design objectives	Key intervention features
Tertiary music students tend to believe that physical practice is the most important factor for their skill development and therefore can be reluctant to invest time in activities that do not involve physically playing the instrument (Kruse-Weber & Sari, 2019; Suzuki & Pitts, 2023)	Demonstrate the importance and benefits of non-play practice (i.e., activities that do not involve physically playing the instrument)	Include examples and demonstrations to show practical benefits and application of skills and strategies presented Explain rationale behind skills and strategies (i.e., why and how they can help)
Time constraints are the largest barrier that music students perceive (Clark & Williamon, 2011; Suzuki & Pitts, 2023)	Ensure that the intervention is useful but does not require a large time commitment	Keep time commitment to a minimum (maximum 30 min per week) Ensure that activities can be carried out during normal practice as much as possible
Musicians may believe that music practice is an art form that cannot be looked at systematically or scientifically (Kegelaers & Oudejans, 2020; Suzuki et al., 2024)	Persuade participants that the intervention can enhance (rather than hinder) musical artistry	Frame intervention positively and artistically rather than pathologically (e.g., “course” rather than “intervention”; “focusing performance energy” rather than “managing performance anxiety”) Address musical and artistic aspects within skills and strategies presented (e.g., setting musical goals, thinking about own artistic values when self-evaluating) Give participants an opportunity to think about the “big picture” (e.g., Why do I play music? What are my values as a musician?)
Musicians prefer practitioners with a music background (Kegelaers & Oudejans, 2020); they trust fellow musicians, especially their own teachers and professional musicians (Suzuki & Pitts, 2023)	Base the content on available theory and evidence but visibly incorporate the voices of musicians and their experiences	Inform participants that the course was designed in consultation with musicians and is presented by a musician Highlight when strategies presented are used by professionals (“Professional musicians have been found to use this strategy too”) However, we were also aware that the intervention should be presented as something that complements rather than replaces or contradicts one-to-one piano tuition, and this was emphasized at the start

Part III: Description of PractiseWell

The resulting intervention is described next, following the TIDieR checklist. All materials for the intervention can be found at https://osf.io/yz58j/?view_only=3ebee3555dc24e5aad73a0964803391d.

Overview

PractiseWell is a self-paced, online intervention that aims to equip tertiary piano students with skills and strategies for effective practice and performance preparation. It is based on the socio-cognitive theory of SRL (Zimmerman, 2000) and addresses self-regulatory skills to help music students plan, monitor, and reflect on their practice, so that they can empowered to be autonomous practicers. It is presented to participants as a “course” rather than an “intervention”.

Content

Table 7 provides an overview of the content and activities that form each module. The content was loosely structured according to the three phases of SRL, which were labeled “before practice”, “during practice”, and “after practice” (Bellhäuser et al., 2000). After an introductory Week 1 module, Week 2 and 3 modules address the “before practice” phase by discussing goal setting and time management. Week 4 and 5 modules map onto the “during practice” phase by looking at specific practice strategies, concentration, and self-monitoring. The Week 6 module addresses self-evaluation and therefore corresponds to the “after practice” phase. The Week 7 module addresses skills for performance preparation, while in Week 8 participants can choose a module on skills for either (a) memorization or (b) further performance preparation. The final Week 9 module aims to address broader ideas, such as motivation and artistic identity.

Table 7.

Summary of PractiseWell content and activities.

Module title	Video title	Summary of content	Activities
Week 1: Getting started	1. Welcome	Introduction to the course and tutor
	2. What do you want out of the next 9 weeks?	The scope of the course (what the course does and does not cover)	Set goals for the next 9 weeks
	3. Making the most out of this course	Tips for making the most out of the course, such as time management and self-experimentation
	4. Theory of effective practice	Introduction to self-regulated learning, illustrated through examples of two math students The three-phase practice cycle (before, during, and after practice)
	5. Overview of course	An overview of the modules	Weekly activity: Video record 15 min of normal practice and reflect on it
Week 2: Setting meaningful goals	1. Introduction	Introduction to the “before practice” phase Goal setting is a crucial skill for effective practice	Set goals for a piece for the next session
	2. Why is goal setting important?	The importance of setting specific goals illustrated by two examples, a “proactive” (goal-driven) and a “reactive” (unplanned) practice session	Reflect on the goals set in Video 1
	3. Types of goal (basic vs. interpretative)	Basic and interpretative goals Importance of always having interpretative aspects in mind
	4. Types of goal (long-term, short-term, micro goals)	Goals can be on different time scales (long-term, medium-term, short-term, micro goals) Goals can be set hierarchically	Weekly activity: Set goals for the week and set goals before each practice session based on these weekly goals
Week 3: Planning and managing your time	1. What exactly is time management?	Subskills required for time management (prioritizing, planning ahead, allocating time, estimating time required, monitoring time actually taken)
	2. Identifying and prioritizing challenges	The need to dedicate more time to sections that are more difficult	Choose a piece, divide it into sections, then rate each section for difficulty
	3. Planning ahead	Using hierarchical goals to plan ahead An example of a 6 month plan	Create a long-term plan
	4. Time blocking	Time blocking strategy: practice in 15 min blocks by choosing a specific task to work on for 15 min	Weekly activity: Try out the 15 min time block strategy during normal practice
Week 4: My practice toolbox	1. Introduction	Practice strategies are like tools: you need to know when and how to use them	List all practice strategies that you can think of
	2. Types of strategy	Examples of play and non-play strategies that can be used
	3. Strategic planning (Part 1)	Demonstrations of choosing strategies based on a goal (Étude Op. 10 No. 5 by Frederic Chopin and Valley of Rocks by Miriam Hyde)
	4. Strategic planning (Part 2)	Demonstration of problem solving using strategies (Tarantella from the Anne Landa Preludes by Carl Vine)	Weekly activity: Continue to use the 15 min time block strategy, but for each block choose a goal and a strategy. Adjust or set new goal or strategy after each block
Week 5: Focused, mindful practice	1. Creating conditions for optimal focus	Tips for maximizing focus and minimizing distractions during practice	Write down a list of things that personally help you focus and a list of things that distract you during practice
	2. The dangers of mindless practice	Mindless or autopilot practice Demonstrate how mindless practice can lead to the learning or reinforcing of mistakes and unhelpful habits
	3. Practice as self-teaching	Introduce the concept of self-teaching by verbally instructing yourself while practicing Demonstration of the weekly activity	Weekly activity: Ask yourself “What did I just do?” and “What am I doing next?” during practice sessions to verbalize the practice process aloud
Week 6: Being your own teacher	1. The “after practice” phase	Introduce the concepts of self-evaluation and causal attribution
	2. Constructive evaluation	Explain the difference between vague and specific evaluation Introduce the idea of marking criteria or rubric as a way of evaluating different aspects of a performance separately	Create marking criteria based on own performance values and practice using the criteria on a recording on YouTube
	3. Self-recording: a self-evaluation tool	Introduce the strategy of self-recording Discuss the cyclical aspect of the three-phase cycle: evaluation informs future planning	Weekly activity: Record a run-through of a piece at the end of a practice session, evaluate it using own criteria, then set goals for the next session
Week 7: Getting ready to perform	1. Introduction	How you practice changes depending on where you are on the timeline of preparation
	2. Practicing to perform	Differences between practicing and performing Ways to minimize these differences to re-create the performance environment Importance of doing practice performances Mental practice as a way to practice performing
	3. Where is my mind at? Thoughts and attention	Categorizing thoughts as task-relevant, task-irrelevant, positive, or negative	Write down thoughts you have had before, during, and after a performance that (a) went well and (b) did not go so well Categorize the thoughts from the previous activity. Write down some common thoughts you had for each category
	4. Preparing thoughts for performance	Internal versus external focus, illustrated using the study by Mornell and Wulf (2019) Better if your task-relevant thoughts are external and musical rather than internal and physical Two examples of task-relevant thoughts for a piece: a programmatic piece (Debussy) and a non-programmatic piece (J. S. Bach)	Weekly activity: Choose a piece that is ready to be performed and prepare task-relevant thoughts. Give a practice performance with the prepared thoughts, then write down the actual thoughts you had
Week 8a: Effective and secure memorization	1. Understanding human memory	Different types of memory (semantic, procedural, autobiographical; explicit and implicit) Cues are memory triggers	Match examples of memory to each type (in the video)
	2. Spontaneous versus deliberate memorization	Serial cueing and why it is unreliable Spontaneous memorization relies on serial cueing and implicit memory Deliberate memorization is the opposite: placing cues in various places and use explicit memory
	3. Musical structure as your memory map	Easier to remember things in chunks (demonstrate with digits) Demonstration of how sections of a piece can act like chunks Labeling the chunks can act like cues	Choose a piece and divide into sections, then label the sections. Test your memory by choosing a label randomly and playing just that section
	4. Performance cues	Different types of performance cues (basic, interpretative, expressive, structural) Demonstration of marking performance cues after a practice session	Weekly activity: Explore own performance cues
Week 8b: Focusing performance energy	1. Understanding nerves	The three types of performance anxiety experiences (symptoms): physiological, cognitive, and behavioral, with examples of each	Write down things that you normally experience when you are nervous Categorize these experiences into the three types (cognitive, physiological, behavioral)
	2. I’m nervous… or am I?	Re-appraisal of physiological symptoms of performance anxiety as excitement
	3. My inner dialog	Self-talk and its effects Steps to engage in positive self-talk (listen to current self-talk, evaluate it, rewrite your self-talk script, practice) Common biases and unhelpful thought patterns that we can have in our self-talk (catastrophizing, overgeneralizing, all-or-nothing, focus on uncontrollable outcomes) Challenging questions that you can use to evaluate current self-talk	Activities to go through the steps: (a) think of a recent performance that you were not happy with and write down any self-talk you can remember; (b) ask challenging questions for each thought; (c) replace any negative self-talk with positive self-talk Weekly activity (Option 1): Give a practice performance of a piece and write down own self-talk immediately after. Evaluate the self-talk using challenging questions, replace any negative self-talk with positive self-talk, and repeat the process
	4. Pre-performance routines	Pre-performance routine (PPR) and examples of elements that could go into a PPR An example of a complete PPR	Weekly activity (Option 2): Design own PPR and practice it by giving a practice performance (include waiting around beforehand, bowing, etc.)
Week 9: The big picture and next steps	1. You as a musician	Introduction to module: This week, we will step outside the practice room to think about the “big picture” rather than address a specific practice skill
	2. Motivation	Motivation is not just about quantity but also quality Motivation lies on a continuum from intrinsic to extrinsic	Write down things that motivate you to practice and pursue a musical path Reflect on the things you wrote down in the last activity
	3. The “successful” musician	What does success mean to you? Performance evaluations are not necessarily reliable Different forms of success in music	Think about your artistic identity: Why do I play music? What do I want to communicate or achieve through music? What are my values?
	4. Next steps	Recap of everything that was covered Three points for reflection: 1. What strategies or activities from the course did you find the most useful? Which ones do you want to keep using? 2. Go back to the goals you set in Week 1 and reflect on them 3. What are your goals for the next 3 months?	Weekly activity: Write down answers to the three points of reflection

Materials and Delivery

PractiseWell is fully self-paced, meaning that participants work through the content independently. It is designed to be completed without any guidance or additional support, although there is scope for the intervention to be supplemented by individual or group sessions led by an expert. Each of the nine modules is designed to be completed in a week. The modules are drip-fed to participants, one per week. The entire intervention lasts 9 weeks.

The intervention is available through a website where users can create an account to login (Figure 2). The website was created in WordPress, using the LearnPress plugin and Eduma theme. Plugins are available on WordPress to track participants’ usage of the intervention (e.g., time spent on the website, number of modules completed), which could be used as a measure of adherence in future trial studies.

Figure 2.

Screenshot of PractiseWell website.

Each module is delivered via three to five short videos ranging in durations from 1 to 8 min. The videos are presentation-style (i.e., animated slides with a voice-over; Figure 3(a)). For musical demonstrations, the score is shown while the audio recording is played (Figure 3(b)). The course comes with a supplementary pdf workbook (Figure 3(c)), which contains instructions for the activities, as well as space to write down responses where appropriate. The workbook is available as an electronic version that can be filled in and a print-ready version. Each module also comes with a separate downloadable PDF summary sheet (Figure 3(d)).

Figure 3.

Examples: (a) videos; (b) musical demonstration in videos; (c) workbook; (d) weekly summary sheets.

All of the materials, including the voice recordings and musical demonstrations, were created by the first author, who is also a classically trained pianist. The presentation slides were created using Microsoft PowerPoint, the workbook and worksheets were prepared using Canva, and the audio and video files were edited using Audacity and iMovie, respectively.

It is planned that PractiseWell will be accompanied by a practice diary app, which is still under development. The app will allow users to track their routine practice sessions on their smartphones. It could also act as a data collection tool in future evaluation studies.

General Discussion

In this article, we describe the development of PractiseWell, an online intervention designed to teach tertiary piano students the skills and strategies needed for effective practice and performance preparation. The resulting intervention was based on the three-phase cyclical model of SRL (Zimmerman, 2000) and consisted of nine weekly modules, covering a wide range of skills and strategies. The content was delivered primarily through videos and featured demonstrations and practical activities. The self-paced, online nature of the intervention means that it is highly scalable, compared with traditional face-to-face sessions, but it also comes with the challenge of potentially low usage. We therefore designed PractiseWell to maximize user engagement. However, it is unclear how effective our measures for user engagement are until they are tested on actual users. The next stage of the project is to pilot the intervention to assess its acceptability and revise it according to feedback from participants. This intervention could also be adapted in future to groups of musicians other than tertiary piano students (e.g., players of other instruments, in different age groups, and with different levels of expertise).

We have also demonstrated how guidelines from healthcare research can be applied to interventions in music performance science. We have described the process whereby we developed the intervention, using GUIDED, and the final content of the intervention, using TIDieR. We believe that these guidelines have allowed us to share our development process in a detailed and transparent manner. Our systematic review of the literature reveals that the development process or the content of the intervention in detail have not been reported in most intervention studies. Sharing the intervention content is critical as (a) it allows other researchers to replicate the intervention study; and (b) it allows for the implementation of the intervention outside research contexts (e.g., in conservatoires). Additionally, reporting the intervention development process can help to increase the transparency of the study and allow fellow researchers planning to develop other interventions to learn from the findings (Hoddinott, 2015).

The development of PractiseWell was informed by approaches to intervention development in healthcare research, namely the person-centered approach and optimal design features for online intervention. These approaches allowed us to design PractiseWell in such a way as to maximize user engagement. Given that low participation and engagement rates can be an issue in intervention studies with music students (Clark & Williamon, 2011; Suzuki & Pitts, 2023), user engagement is a topic that urgently needs to be investigated further in music performance psychology. Even if researchers and institutions provide useful interventions and training programs for music students, these efforts are wasted if the students are not willing to utilize them. Therefore, it is vital that future research is focused on understanding what music students want and what would make them more likely to engage with such programs.

Conclusion

In this study, we developed an online intervention, PractiseWell, designed to equip tertiary piano students with skills and strategies for effective practice and performance preparation. To our knowledge, this is the first study to develop such an intervention. We have demonstrated the utility and importance of reporting the content and the development process of interventions in detail, and encourage other researchers to do so in future as we believe that this is a necessity if research in music education, psychology, and performance science is to create effective and positive changes for musicians.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-mns-10.1177_20592043241262612 - Supplemental material for Developing an Online Intervention to Equip Tertiary Piano Students With Skills and Strategies for Effective Practice

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-mns-10.1177_20592043241262612 for Developing an Online Intervention to Equip Tertiary Piano Students With Skills and Strategies for Effective Practice by Akiho Suzuki, Jane Ginsborg, Michelle Phillips and Zoe Franklin in Music & Science

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-mns-10.1177_20592043241262612 - Supplemental material for Developing an Online Intervention to Equip Tertiary Piano Students With Skills and Strategies for Effective Practice

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-mns-10.1177_20592043241262612 for Developing an Online Intervention to Equip Tertiary Piano Students With Skills and Strategies for Effective Practice by Akiho Suzuki, Jane Ginsborg, Michelle Phillips and Zoe Franklin in Music & Science

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-3-mns-10.1177_20592043241262612 - Supplemental material for Developing an Online Intervention to Equip Tertiary Piano Students With Skills and Strategies for Effective Practice

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-3-mns-10.1177_20592043241262612 for Developing an Online Intervention to Equip Tertiary Piano Students With Skills and Strategies for Effective Practice by Akiho Suzuki, Jane Ginsborg, Michelle Phillips and Zoe Franklin in Music & Science

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-4-mns-10.1177_20592043241262612 - Supplemental material for Developing an Online Intervention to Equip Tertiary Piano Students With Skills and Strategies for Effective Practice

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-mns-10.1177_20592043241262612 for Developing an Online Intervention to Equip Tertiary Piano Students With Skills and Strategies for Effective Practice by Akiho Suzuki, Jane Ginsborg, Michelle Phillips and Zoe Franklin in Music & Science

Footnotes

Action Editor

Eckart Altenmüller, Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien Hannover, Institut für Musikphysiologie und Musikermedizin.

Peer Review

Adina Mornell, University of Music and Performing Arts Munich.

Hannah Losch, Hochschule für Musik Theater und Medien Hannover.

Contributorship

As conceived and carried out the project. JG, MP, and ZF supervised the project. AS wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Data Availability

The materials for the intervention can be found at . The dataset generated from the questionnaire study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

Conservatoires UK Research Ethics Committee approved the questionnaire study (Reference number: CUK/SF/2021-22/16).

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK.

ORCID iDs

Akiho Suzuki

Jane Ginsborg

Michelle Phillips

Zoe Franklin

Note

1. By online interventions, we mean self-paced interventions, where participants complete the intervention independently. We are not considering interventions that are led by practitioners in real time but are delivered online.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Antonini Philippe

Kosirnik

Vuichoud

Clark

Williamon

McPherson

G. E.

(2020). Conservatory musicians’ temporal organization and self-regulation processes in preparing for a music exam. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 89. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00089

Bellhäuser

Lösch

Winter

Schmitz

(2000). Applying a web-based training to foster self-regulated learning—effects of an intervention for large numbers of participants. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.002

Bird

H. A.

(2013). Overuse syndrome in musicians. Clinical Rheumatology, 32(4), 475–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-013-2198-2

Boateng

G. O.

Neilands

T. B.

Frongillo

E. A.

Melgar-Quiñonez

H. R.

Young

S. L.

(2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

Boucher

Creech

Dubé

(2021). Video feedback and the self-evaluation of college-level guitarists during individual practice. Psychology of Music, 49(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735619842374

Broadbent

Panadero

Lodge

J. M.

de Barba

(2020). Technologies to enhance self-regulated learning in online and computer-mediated learning environments. In Bishop

M. J.

Boling

Elen

Svihla

(Eds.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology: Learning design (pp. 37–52). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36119-8_3

Brouwer

Kroeze

Crutzen

de Nooijer

de Vries

N. K.

Brug

Oenema

(2011). Which intervention characteristics are related to more exposure to internet-delivered healthy lifestyle promotion interventions? A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(1), e2. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1639

Burwell

Shipton

(2013). Strategic approaches to practice: An action research project. British Journal of Music Education, 30(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051713000132

Chaffin

Imreh

Crawford

(2002). Practicing perfection: Memory and piano performance. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

10.

Clark

Williamon

(2011). Evaluation of a mental skills training program for musicians. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(3), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2011.574676

11.

Cohen

Bodner

(2019). Music performance skills: A two-pronged approach—facilitating optimal music performance and reducing music performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 47(4), 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735618765349

12.

Concina

(2019). The role of metacognitive skills in music learning and performing: Theoretical features and educational implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1583. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01583

13.

Cox

R. H.

Martens

M. P.

Russell

W. D.

(2003). Measuring anxiety in athletics: The revised competitive state anxiety inventory—2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25(4), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.25.4.519

14.

Daniel

(2001). Self-assessment in performance. British Journal of Music Education, 18(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051701000316

15.

Deniz

(2012). Video recorded feedback for self regulation of prospective music teachers in piano lessons. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(1), 17–25.

16.

Dignath

Buettner

Langfeldt

H.-P.

(2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003

17.

Dignath

Büttner

(2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 231–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x

18.

Duke

R. A.

Simmons

A. L.

Cash

C. D.

(2009). It’s not how much; it’s how: Characteristics of practice behavior and retention of performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(4), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429408328851

19.

Duncan

O’Cathain

Rousseau

Croot

Sworn

Turner

K. M.

Yardley

Hoddinott

(2020). Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): An evidence-based consensus study. BMJ Open, 10(4), e033516. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033516

20.

Eysenbach

(2005). The law of attrition. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(1), e11. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7.1.e11

21.

Gaunt

(2010). One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: The perceptions of instrumental and vocal students. Psychology of Music, 38(2), 178–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735609339467

22.

Geers

Rose

(2011). Treatment choice and placebo expectation effects: Choice and placebo effects. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(10), 734–750. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00385.x

23.

Greene

D. J

. (2012). 11 strategies for audition and performance success: a workbook for musicians.

24.

Greene

D. J.

(2013). The performance skills inventory.

25.

Hatfield

J. L.

(2016). Performing at the top of one’s musical game. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1356. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01356

26.

Hatfield

J. L.

Halvari

Lemyre

P.-N.

(2017). Instrumental practice in the contemporary music academy: A three-phase cycle of self-regulated learning in music students. Musicae Scientiae, 21(3), 316–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864916658342

27.

Hatfield

J. L.

Lemyre

P.-N.

(2016). Foundations of intervention research in instrumental practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 157060. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02014

28.

Hawkes

M. E.

(2021). Experiences of developing pre-performance routines with recreational pianists. Psychology of Music, 49(6), 1721–1736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735620972788

29.

Hendricks

K. S.

(2009). Relationships between the sources of self-efficacy and changes in competence perceptions of music students during an all-state orchestra event [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

30.

Hoddinott

(2015). A new era for intervention development studies. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 1(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-015-0032-0

31.

Hoffmann

T. C.

Glasziou

P. P.

Boutron

Milne

Perera

Moher

Altman

D. G.

Barbour

Macdonald

Johnston

Lamb

S. E.

Dixon-Woods

McCulloch

Wyatt

J. C.

Chan

A.-W.

Michie

(2014). Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ, 348(3), g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687

32.

How

Ee Ran

Tan

Leonard

Miksza

Peter

(2022). A PRISMA review of research on music practice. Musicae Scientiae, 26(3), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/10298649211005531

33.

Jørgensen

(2004). Strategies for individual practice. In Williamon

(Ed.), Musical excellence: Strategies and techniques to enhance performance (pp. 85–104). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198525356.003.0005

34.

Kegelaers

Oudejans

R. R. D.

(2020). A process evaluation of a performance psychology intervention for transitioning elite and elite musicians. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01090

35.

Kohl

L. F.

Crutzen

de Vries

N. K.

(2013). Online prevention aimed at lifestyle behaviors: A systematic review of reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(7), e146. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2665

36.

Koopman

Smit

de Vugt

Deneer

den Ouden

(2007). Focus on practice—relationships between lessons on the primary instrument and individual practice in conservatoire education. Music Education Research, 9(3), 373–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800701587738

37.

Kruse-Weber

Sari

(2019). Learning to reflect: Enhancing instrumental music education students’ practice through reflective journals. In Gies

Sætre

J. H.

(Eds.), Becoming musicians: Student involvement and teacher collaboration in higher music education (pp. 127–150). Norges musikkhøgskole.

38.

Lehmann

A. C.

Sloboda

J. A.

Woody

R. H.

(2007). Managing Performance Anxiety. A. C. Lehmann, J. A. Sloboda, & R. H. Woody (Eds.), Psychology for Musicians: Understanding and acquiring the skills. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195146103.003.0008

39.

Lentferink

A. J.

Oldenhuis

H. K.

de Groot

Polstra

Velthuijsen

van Gemert-Pijnen

J. E.

(2017). Key components in eHealth interventions combining self-tracking and persuasive eCoaching to promote a healthier lifestyle: A scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(8), e277. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7288

40.

Linde

Witt

C. M.

Streng

Weidenhammer

Wagenpfeil

Brinkhaus

Willich

S. N.

Melchart

(2007). The impact of patient expectations on outcomes in four randomized controlled trials of acupuncture in patients with chronic pain. Pain, 128(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.006

41.

Lisboa

Chaffin

Demos

A. P.

(2015). Recording thoughts while memorizing music: A case study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 92829. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01561

42.

Lisboa

Demos

A. P.

Chaffin

(2018). Training thought and action for virtuoso performance. Musicae Scientiae, 22(4), 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864918782350

43.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

44.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x

45.

Lubert

V. J.

Gröpel

(2022). Testing interventions for music performance under pressure: A randomized controlled study. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 11(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000285

46.

Macnamara

B. N.

Maitra

(2019). The role of deliberate practice in expert performance: Revisiting Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer (1993). Royal Society Open Science, 6(8), 190327. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190327

47.

Matei

Broad

Goldbart

Ginsborg

(2018). Health education for musicians. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01137

48.

McPherson

G. E.

(2022). Self-regulated learning music microanalysis. In McPherson

G. E.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of music performance (Vol. 1, pp. 553–575). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190056285.013.23

49.

McPherson

G. E.

Osborne

M. S.

Evans

Miksza

(2019). Applying self-regulated learning microanalysis to study musicians’ practice. Psychology of Music, 47(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617731614

50.

McPherson

G. E.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2011). Self-regulation of musical learning. In Colwell

Webster

(Eds.), MENC Handbook of research on music learning (pp. 130–175). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199754397.003.0004

51.

Michie

Prestwich

(2010). Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychology, 29(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016939

52.

Miksza

Peter

(2011). A review of research on practicing: Summary and synthesis of the extant research with implications for a new theoretical orientation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 34(190), 51–92. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.190.0051

53.

Miksza

(2015). The effect of self-regulation instruction on the performance achievement, musical self-efficacy, and practicing of advanced wind players. Psychology of Music, 43(2), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735613500832

54.

Miksza

Blackwell

Roseth

N. E.

(2018). Self-regulated music practice: Microanalysis as a data collection technique and inspiration for pedagogical intervention. Journal of Research in Music Education, 66(3), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429418788557

55.

Miller

C. B.

Henry

A. L.

Davis

M. L.

Espie

C. A.

Stott

Heinz

A. J.

Bentley

K. H.

Goodwin

G. M.

Gorman

B. S.

Craske

M. G.

Carl

J. R.

(2021). Feasibility and efficacy of a digital CBT intervention for symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder: A randomized multiple-baseline study. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 70, 101609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2020.101609

56.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

, for the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339(1), b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

57.

Moher

Shamseer

Clarke

Ghersi

Liberati

Petticrew

Shekelle

Stewart

L. A.

, & PRISMA-P Group (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

58.

Mornell

Osborne

M. S.

McPherson

G. E.

(2020). Evaluating practice strategies, behavior and learning progress in elite performers: An exploratory study. Musicae Scientiae, 24(1), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864918771731

59.

Mornell

Wulf

(2019). Adopting an external focus of attention enhances musical performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 66(4), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429418801573

60.

Morrison

L. G.

(2015). Theory-based strategies for enhancing the impact and usage of digital health behaviour change interventions: A review. Digital Health, 1, 205520761559533. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207615595335

61.

Morrison

L. G.

Yardley

Powell

Michie

(2012). What design features are used in effective e-health interventions? A review using techniques from critical interpretive synthesis. Telemedicine and E-Health, 18(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2011.0062

62.

Murray

Khadjesari

White

I. R.

Kalaitzaki

Godfrey

McCambridge

Thompson

S. G.

Wallace

(2009). Methodological challenges in online trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(1), e9. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1052

63.

Nagel

J. J.

Himle

D. P.

Papsdorf

J. D.

(1989). Cognitive-behavioural treatment of musical performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 17(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735689171002

64.

O’Cathain

Croot

Duncan

Rousseau

Sworn

Turner

K. M.

Yardley

Hoddinott

(2019a). Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. BMJ Open, 9(8), e029954. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029954

65.

O’Cathain

Croot

Sworn

Duncan

Rousseau

Turner

Yardley

Hoddinott

(2019b). Taxonomy of approaches to developing interventions to improve health: A systematic methods overview. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 5(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-019-0425-6

66.

Odendaal

(2019). Individual differences between the practising behaviours of six pianists: A challenge to perceptual learning style theory. Research Studies in Music Education, 41(3), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X18774365

67.

Osborne

M. S.

Greene

D. J.

Immel

D. T.

(2014). Managing performance anxiety and improving mental skills in conservatoire students through performance psychology training: A pilot study. Psychology of Well-Being, 4(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13612-014-0018-3

68.

Osborne

M. S.

McPherson

G. E.

Miksza

Evans

(2021). Using a microanalysis intervention to examine shifts in musicians’ self-regulated learning. Psychology of Music, 49(4), 972–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735620915265

69.

Pecen

Collins

MacNamara

Á.

(2016). Music of the night: Performance practitioner considerations for enhancement work in music. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 5(4), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000067

70.

Perkins

Reid

Araújo

L. S.

Clark

Williamon

(2017). Perceived enablers and barriers to optimal health among music students: A qualitative study in the music conservatoire setting. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 968. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00968

71.

Perski

Blandford

West

Michie

(2017). Conceptualising engagement with digital behaviour change interventions: A systematic review using principles from critical interpretive synthesis. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 7(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0453-1

72.

Pike

P. D.

(2016). Autonomous practice: A comparison of self-regulation among first-year music majors and implications for music instructors. MTNA E-Journal, 8(3), 2–12.

73.

Pike

P. D.

(2017). Exploring self-regulation through a reflective practicum: A case study of improvement through mindful piano practice. Music Education Research, 19(4), 398–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2017.1356813

74.

Ritchie

Williamon

(2011). Measuring distinct types of musical self-efficacy. Psychology of Music, 39(3), 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735610374895

75.

Sheehan

P. W.

(1967). A shortened form of Betts’ questionnaire upon mental imagery. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23(3), 386–389. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(196707)23:3<386::AID-JCLP2270230328>3.0.CO;2-S

76.

Strecher

V. J.

McClure

J. B.

Alexander

G. L.

Chakraborty

Nair

V. N.

Konkel

J. M.

Greene

S. M.

Collins

L. M.

Carlier

C. C.

Wiese

C. J.

Little

R. J.

Pomerleau

C. S.

Pomerleau

O. F.

(2008). Web-based smoking-cessation programs. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(5), 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.12.024

77.

Suzuki

Ginsborg

Phillips

(2024). Effective practice: The views of conservatoire piano teachers. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Centre for Music Performance Research, Royal Northern College of Music.

78.

Suzuki

Mitchell

H. F.

(2022). What makes practice perfect? How tertiary piano students self-regulate play and non-play strategies for performance success. Psychology of Music, 50(2), 611–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/03057356211010927

79.

Suzuki

Pitts

(2023). Toward effective performance psychology interventions in tertiary music education: An exploration of students’ experiences, attitudes, and preferences. Psychology of Music, 03057356231204859. https://doi.org/10.1177/03057356231204859

80.

Thompson

Kreuter

M. W.

(2014). Using written narratives in public health practice: A creative writing perspective. Preventing Chronic Disease, 11, 130402. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.130402

81.

Tief

V. J.

Gröpel

(2021). Pre-performance routines for music students: An experimental pilot study. Psychology of Music, 49(5), 1261–1272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735620953621

82.

Varela

Abrami

P. C.

Upitis

(2016). Self-regulation and music learning: A systematic review. Psychology of Music, 44(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735614554639

83.

Wahle

Bollhalder

Kowatsch

Fleisch

(2017). Toward the design of evidence-based mental health information systems for people with depression: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(5), e191. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7381

84.

Wei

Zheng

Deng

Wang

(2020). Design features for improving mobile health intervention user engagement: Systematic review and thematic analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(12), e21687. https://doi.org/10.2196/21687

85.

Weinberg

R. S.

Gould

(2015). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (6th ed.). Human Kinetics.

86.

White

Ashton

Law

. (1974). Factor analyses of the shortened form of Betts' questionnaire upon mental imagery. Australian Journal of Psychology, 26(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049537408255229

87.

Williamon

Valentine

(2000). Quantity and quality of musical practice as predictors of performance quality. British Journal of Psychology, 91(3), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161871

88.

Wolters

C. A.

Brady

A. C.

(2021). College students’ time management: A self-regulated learning perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1319–1351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09519-z

89.

Yang

Fufa

D. T.

Wolff

A. L.

(2021). A musician-centered approach to management of performance-related upper musculoskeletal injuries. Journal of Hand Therapy, 34(2), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2021.04.006

90.

Yardley

Ainsworth

Arden-Close

Muller

(2015a). The person-based approach to enhancing the acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 1(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-015-0033-z

91.

Yardley

Morrison

Bradbury

Muller

(2015b). The person-based approach to intervention development: Application to digital health-related behavior change interventions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(1), e30. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4055

92.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Boekaerts

Pintrich

P. R.

Zeidner

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

93.

Zimmerman

B. J

. (2008). Goal setting: A key proactive source of academic self-regulation. In Schunk

D. H.

& Zimmerman

B. J.

(Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 267–295). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

94.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Martinez-Pons

(1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.284

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.11 MB

0.20 MB

0.10 MB