A Description of Older Adults' Participation in a Technology

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2012 A Description of Older Adults' Participation in a Technology-Based Piano Program and Their Musical Skill Development, Perceptions of Personal Fulfillment, and Attitudes Toward Music Learning Kirsten Nora Mitak

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF MUSIC

A DESCRIPTION OF OLDER ADULTS' PARTICIPATION IN A TECHNOLOGY-BASED PIANO PROGRAM AND THEIR MUSICAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT, PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL FULFILLMENT, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD MUSIC LEARNING

By KIRSTEN NORA MITAK

A Dissertation submitted to the College of Music in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2012 Kirsten Mitak defended this dissertation on October, 23 2012.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Alice-Ann Darrow Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

Vicki McArthur Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

Larry Gerber University Representative

Judy Bowers Committee Member

John Geringer Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

I dedicate this dissertation to my husband, Slawek, and our little angel, Nora.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my utmost appreciation to the people who have assisted and supported me throughout my learning experience at Florida State University. Dr. McArthur: Thank you for the warm welcome to Tallahassee and to the world of graduate school! Your guidance, kindness, wisdom, and support have been invaluable to me throughout my time at FSU. Thank you for inspiring me as a teacher, musician, writer, and person. Dr. Darrow: Thank you for your willingness to dedicate an abundance of your time and energy towards my being able to finish this degree. You have taught me so much about what it means to be an effective teacher, researcher, and writer. Most of all, thank you for showing me how music can be used to better the lives of others. Dr. Geringer: Your intriguing classes and gentle guidance have opened up doors I never knew existed. Thank you for instilling in me a genuine love for music research. Dr. Bowers: Thank you for re-energizing my passion for choral teaching - it was a privilege to be a part of your techniques class and outreach programs. I especially appreciated your humor and encouragement upon the arrival of motherhood. Professor Gerber: Thank you for your willingness to allow me into your very busy studio, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to study with you. Thank you for your musical inspiration both at church and at school. Thank you also to professors: Dr. Allen, Dr. Bridger, Dr. Kelly, Dr. Madsen, Mr. Mastrogiacomo, Dr. Thomas, & Dr. VanWeelden. To the wellness directors who supported my efforts and to the wonderful people who volunteered as students for this study - thank you, thank you, thank you! This dissertation would not have been possible without your participation, and my life is richer because of you. Thank you to Katrina Tabinowski & Chris Madden for their assistance gathering data. Thank you to my friends and colleagues for their camaraderie, most especially: Arnekua, Carol, Felicia, Joy, Julie, Justine, Michelle, Nicole, Olivia, Peyton, Seon Hwa, & Yen-Hsuan. Mom, Dad, Valery & Ethan: Thank you for the many long-distance trips to Tallahassee, and for your steadfast love and support throughout the years. Auntie, thank you for watching Nora! Above all, thank you to my husband, Slawek, and our daughter, Nora. I cannot begin to express my gratitude for all that you have done for me, and I thank God for you every day.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... viii List of Figures ...... ix Abstract ...... x 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Today’s Older Adults ...... 1 Lifelong Learning ...... 2 Older Adults and Music Education ...... 3 Technology in Music Education ...... 5 Piano WizardTM ...... 6 Need for the Study ...... 7 Purpose Statement ...... 7

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 8 Older Adults and Lifelong Learning ...... 8 The Motivational Orientation of Older Adults ...... 9 Older Adults as Learners ...... 10 The Benefits of Lifelong Learning ...... 11 Older Adults and Music Education ...... 12 Older Adults’ Participation in Musical Activities ...... 12 The Motivational Orientation of Older Adult Music Learners ...... 13 Older Adults as Music Learners ...... 15 Instructional Methods for Older Adult Music Learners ...... 18 Music Materials for Older Adults ...... 19 Structuring the Music Learning Environment for Older Adults ...... 21 Instructing Older Adult Music Learners ...... 22 The Benefits of Music Learning for Older Adults ...... 23 Benefits of music engagement to older adults’ well-being and quality of life ...... 23 Personal benefits of music engagement for older adults ...... 24 Social benefits of music engagement for older adults ...... 25 Emotional benefits of music engagement for older adults...... 25 Physical benefits of music engagement for older adults ...... 26 Cognitive benefits of music engagement for older adults ...... 26 Musical benefits of music engagement for older adults ...... 27 Older Adults and Technology ...... 27 Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) in Music Education ...... 29 The Use of Technology in Piano Instruction ...... 31 Rationale and Research Questions ...... 34

3. METHOD ...... 36 Needs Assessment ...... 36 Participants ...... 36

Setting ...... 37 Materials ...... 37 Piano WizardTM ...... 39 Procedures ...... 44 Measures Used to Address the Research Questions ...... 45 Research Question #1: Musical Progress ...... 45 Research Question #2: Perceived Benefits ...... 45 Research Question #3: Comments about the Program and Learning Experience ...... 46 Research Question #4: Opinions about Piano WizardTM ...... 46 Research Question #5: Motivational Orientation ...... 46

4. RESULTS ...... 48 Reliability ...... 48 Results ...... 49 Research Question #1: Musical Progress ...... 49 Age factor...... 49 Previous musical experience factor ...... 51 Socio-economic status (SES) factor...... 53 Individual vs. partner lessons factor ...... 54 Summary response to question #1 ...... 55 Research Question #2: Perceived Benefits ...... 55 Individual vs. partner lessons factor ...... 56 Summary response to question #2 ...... 59 Research Question #3: Comments about the Program and Learning Experience ...... 59 Age factor...... 60 Previous musical experience factor ...... 60 Socio-economic status (SES) factor...... 60 Individual vs. partner lessons factor ...... 64 Summary response to question #3 ...... 64 Research Question #4: Opinions about Piano WizardTM ...... 64 Summary response to question #4 ...... 70 Research Question #5: Motivational Orientation ...... 70 Summary response to question #5 ...... 73

5. DISCUSSION ...... 74 Limitation of the Present Study ...... 74 General Discussion ...... 75 Research Question #1: Musical Progress ...... 75 Research Question #2: Perceived Benefits ...... 77 Research Question #3: Comments about the Program and Learning Experience ...... 78 Research Question #4: Opinions about Piano WizardTM ...... 79 Research Question #5: Motivational Orientation ...... 80 Implications for Practice ...... 81 Suggestions for Further Research ...... 83 Conclusions ...... 84 vi

APPENDICES ...... 85 A. The Benefits of Adult Piano Study Questionnaire ...... 84 B. Instructions for Weekly Journal Entries ...... 91 C. Questionnaire about Piano WizardTM ...... 93 D. Educational Participation Scale, A-Form...... 96 E. Demographic Questionnaire ...... 99 F. Verbatim Journal Responses...... 102 G. Revised Journal Responses for Word Analysis ...... 121 H. Human Subjects Approval Memorandum...... 139 I. Consent Form ...... 142

REFERENCES ...... 145 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 164

vii

LIST OF TABLES

1 Demographic Profile of Participants ...... 38

2 Participants’ Professions in Rank Order ...... 39

3 Reliability of the Four Motivational Factors ...... 48

4 Benefit Item Ratings - Percent Agreeing that the Item Exists ...... 57

5 Benefit Item Ratings - Mean Ratings of Importance ...... 58

6 Summed Mean Ratings of Importance ...... 58

7 Analysis of All Journal Responses ...... 61

8 Analysis of Journal Responses by Age and Previous Musical Experience ...... 62

9 Analysis of Journal Responses by Socio-Economic Status and Lesson Type ...... 63

10 Comments Pertaining to the Continuation of Piano Lessons with Piano WizardTM ...... 65

11 Expectations Before and After Lessons with Piano WizardTM ...... 66

12 Suggestions for Future Revisions to the Piano WizardTM Program ...... 67

13 Negative Comments about Piano WizardTM from Weekly Journal Entries ...... 68

14 Positive Comments About Piano WizardTM from Weekly Journal Entries ...... 69

15 Ranked Items from EPS Questionnaire ...... 72

16 Distribution of the Four Motivations Factors ...... 72

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Step 1 in the Piano WizardTM program ...... 41

2 Step 2 in the Piano WizardTM program ...... 42

3 Step 3 in the Piano WizardTM program ...... 42

4 Step 4 in the Piano WizardTM program ...... 43

5 Mean accuracy scores by age ...... 50

6 Mean accuracy scores by previous musical experience ...... 52

7 Mean accuracy scores by socio-economic status ...... 53

8 Mean accuracy scores by lesson type ...... 54

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of Piano Wizard™ as a viable technological and instructional tool for older adults. Piano Wizard’s applicability for seniors was determined by participants’ musical skill development, perceptions of personal fulfillment, attitudes toward music learning, and opinions about the software program Piano Wizard™. Secondary purposes of the study were: (1) to identify participants’ motivation for enrolling in a music skills program and (2) to examine differences in participants’ attitudes, perceptions, and skill development based on their: age, previous musical experience, socio-economic status, or participation in individual vs. partner lessons. Six 30-minute weekly sessions were offered to residents at two retirement communities of contrasting socio-economic status (SES). Thirty older adults volunteered to serve as participants, and twenty-five (N=25) completed the six weeks of instruction. Musical skill development was determined by participants’ average accuracy scores, the number of pieces learned, and ‘song-level’ achieved at the end of the six weeks. Results revealed that participants met two of the three pre-determined criteria indicating musical progress, and that there were no significant differences in musical skill development based on participants’ previous musical experience, SES, or participation in individual vs. partner lessons; however, significant differences were found based on participants’ age. Older participants achieved significantly lower accuracy scores, learned significantly fewer songs, and achieved significantly lower song levels than younger participants. Participants’ perceptions of personal fulfillment were examined using a questionnaire, with “Escape from Routine” and “Play/Fun” ranked as the highest-rated benefits of the lessons. Ratings of social benefits were not significantly different between participants taking individual and partner lessons. Attitudes toward music learning were measured through participants’ weekly journals. Analysis of journal entries revealed a ratio of approximately 7:1—positive to negative comments concerning the Piano Wizard™ program and the piano lessons. Almost three-fourths of the participants reported that they would continue lessons using Piano Wizard™ if given the opportunity. Participants indicated partiality towards the rich accompaniment, colored notation, and multi-sensory features of the software program. The highest ranked reason for participating in lessons was “to expand my mind.” Although further research is warranted, the findings of this study suggest that Piano Wizard™ is a viable technological and instructional tool for older adults wishing to study piano.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

It’s projected that by 2030, 1 in 5 Americans will be over the age of 65 years old (He, Sengupta, Velkoff, & DeBarros, 2005). These older citizens will be well-educated, active, and independent. The present growth in the older adult population calls for more awareness of the needs and interests unique to this population. Most seniors experience an increase in available time upon retirement, and pursuing enriching activities can be essential to their well-being. Music education has the potential to enhance quality of life for older adults. Many seniors enjoy musical activities and find music to be an integral part of their lives. Private lessons are among some of the musical opportunities that exist for older adults. Though many seniors wish to study piano, little research exists on the best methods available for this population, particularly with regard to recent technological advances.

Today’s Older Adults During the last twenty years, adults began to outnumber those younger than 18 years old for the first time in U.S. history. In 2010, the Federal Agency Forum on Age-Related Statistics reported that as baby boomers began turning 65 in 2011, the number of older adults would increase dramatically during the following two decades. It’s projected that by 2030, 72 million seniors will comprise 20% of the total U.S. population. The largest population explosion will occur among persons aged 85 and older, with this group increasing to 18.9 million (from 3.1 million in 1990) by the year 2050. This growth in the number of senior adults is due in large to medical advances, better health care, and longer life expectancy (Day, 1993). These elder members of society are more active, mobile, independent, and educated than the elder members of previous generations. Over the last century, life expectancy has increased from 47.3 in 1900 to 78.7 (Murphy, Xu, & Kochanek, 2012). The number of older adults living in nursing homes has decreased since 1982, with more older adults now living in the community at large. Despite families living further apart, and consequently, seniors living away from family support, older adults are finding themselves able to live more independently into their later years. Today’s older adults are among the most educated generation of elders ever, and level of educational

1 attainment is expected to continue to climb. By 2030, 85% of older adults will have their high school diploma, and 75% will hold a college degree (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). For older adults, the maintenance of mental, emotional and physical well-being is of paramount importance. Key terms used in reference to older adults such as quality of life, life satisfaction, successful aging, and lifelong learning reflect the idea that one has the power to influence his or her quality of later life. Such fulfillment is accomplished primarily through means of physical survival, nutrition, and financial and personal security, but also by participation in activities designed to promote wellness. Wellness is defined as “the balance of body, mind, and spirit resulting in a sense of well-being” (Belgrave, Darrow, Walworth, & Wlodarczyk, 2011, p. 115). Wellness programs most often encompass educational activities, which have the potential to meet the cognitive, emotional, and social needs of older adults.

Lifelong Learning The participation of older adults in educational activities reflects the notion of lifelong learning. Lifelong learning can loosely be defined as the pursuit of knowledge at any age, in any context. Learning need not be confined to schools or institutions, for it can occur in various settings and situations throughout life. Educators and researchers are becoming more concerned with creating opportunities that promote optimal quality of life for older adults. Satisfying, productive experiences, such as those related to education, can be beneficial to seniors Since lifelong learning experiences are often initiated by the learner, these experiences are likely to be learner-centered and directed by the desires of the learner (Belgrave et al., 2011). Adults are receptive students, as they tend to be motivated, persistent, attentive, and appreciative. The general belief that older people cannot learn is detrimental to the possibility that this population will receive the benefits of education and training. While it is true the pace of learning often becomes slower due to age (Palmore, 1998), recent research indicates that older adults can learn new skills, and are quite capable of doing so (Rowe & Kahn, 1998). Many older men and women become deprived of mental and social stimulation after retirement, which is unfortunate, since being engaged in a stimulating environment reduces one’s rate of intellectual decline. Researchers have explored the reasons adults participate in learning activities. Social relationships, social welfare, cognitive interest, as well as past, present or future changes, like retirement, are some of the variables that influence one’s decision to enroll in educational

2 activities (Aslanian & Brickell, 1980; Kopka & Peng, 1993; Morstain & Smart, 1974). For older adults, retirement can result in a period of great adjustment, especially if retirees suddenly have considerable time available and have not developed any activities of interest. Engaging in educational activities is one purposeful way to fill available time, and to enhance one’s quality of life. Opportunities that stimulate and nurture creative thought and require the learning of new skills are most beneficial to older adults (Myers, 1995). The field of music education can provide older adults with experiences that accomplish these goals while providing opportunities to socialize with others—another factor related to quality of life.

Older Adults and Music Education The National Endowment for the Arts reported that in 2008, 37 million (13.2%) of U.S. adults aged 65 and over are engaged in arts activities (jazz, classical, opera, musical plays, plays, ballet, and art museums). American seniors engage in music in a variety of ways. Some are devoted listeners, investing in the opportunity to hear both live and recorded performances. Other seniors access music through the Internet. Though less common than music listening, some older adults enroll in music-related classes. Older adults with previous musical training, often wish to revive or maintain these skills, while others, who never had the opportunity to study music, simply wish to do so in retirement. Although many adult music students are quite serious about their studies, a “music for fun” teaching approach tends to be the most successful for persons at this stage of life. The ability to acquire musical skills does not dissipate with age, and has been found to remain strong beyond 90 years of age (Gibbons, 1983). Musical experiences have the potential to meet the cognitive, expressive, and social needs of older adults. Active musical engagement can promote seniors’ aesthetic responses, their understanding of beauty and culture, and their musicianship. Older adults can also experience the release of emotions through music listening and performing (Rohwer, 2010); thus, often leading to improved quality of life (Rohwer & Coffman, 2006; Rohwer, 2010). Participation in ensembles provides seniors with natural opportunities for socialization. Teamwork and rapport among ensemble members is required for musical success. Ernst and Emmons (1992) pointed out that group music instruction “provides the important socialization factor and makes the cost of participation more affordable” (p. 34). Lack of time and money are cited most often by adults as reasons for not participating in learning activities (Merriam &

Caffarella, 2007). With less intense practice requirements and reduced costs, music groups such as community and church ensembles, are often suitable for the older adult. Music ensembles also offer the opportunity to make music in a non-threatening environment. Some organizations, such as the New Horizons International Music Association (NHIMA), promote specialized music ensembles for older adults. The New Horizons program was developed in the early 1990s at the Eastman School of Music, by Dr. Roy Ernst. Ernst’s philosophy was that music ensembles should be inclusive, not exclusive, and that every person has musical potential that can be developed to a personally rewarding level. Various groups are open to seniors aged 50 and older who may or may not have had musical training. NHIMA lists approximately 200 groups encompassing 8,500 adult musicians actively engaged in making music. The New Horizons program offers a rich variety of ensemble-types throughout the country and world including: concert bands, string orchestras, jazz bands, pops bands, string ensembles, and even a clarinet choir, ukulele band, and bluegrass band. The Recreational Music Making (RMM) program for piano lessons has also successfully engaged older adult learners in instrumental lessons (Pike, 2011). According to a recent study by Chorus America (2009), 18% of all U.S. households contain at least one adult choir member, with 32.5 million American adults regularly participating in choirs (Chorus America, 2009). Older adults are often members of community choirs, religious choirs, and even professional choirs. As with any music ensemble, choirs provide a sense of community, which can avert or reduce senior depression. Singing requires the practice of deep breathing, which can lead to greater lung capacity. General posture may be improved, which can help in the prevention of falls. Other potential benefits include lowered blood pressure, elevated mood, improved memory, increased concentration, stronger stomach muscles, and toned facial muscles. It comes as no surprise that choirs rank high in studies related to performance organizations preferred by adults (Bowles, 1991). Although they may not offer the same level of socialization as music ensembles, private lessons can also provide satisfying musical experiences for older adults. Skill improvement and refinement, the gaining of musical knowledge, and a sense of accomplishment are often cited as the benefits of private music lessons for older adults (Jutras, 2006). Other perceived benefits include personal pleasure and growth, escape from routine, and dream fulfilled (Cooper, 2001). Individuals wanting to rekindle skills or try a new activity may take up private music study.

Because private lessons can be adapted for the older learner, almost anyone, regardless of debilitating condition, skill level, or learning style can study music. Adults often indicate an interest in voice and guitar lessons (Flowers & Murphy, 2001) while senior adults most often choose piano as an instrument they would like to study (Bowles, 1991; Flowers & Murphy, 2001; Mitak, 2011). Unfortunately, many seniors believe they are too old to learn or re-learn an instrument (Mitak, 2011), and consequently, forgo the opportunity to take lessons. Others may have been made to feel “unmusical” by parents or music teachers sometime during their lives. They do not believe they have musical potential, or that it’s simply too late to learn to play an instrument. Researcher and music therapist Alicia Claire Gibbons affirmed, “programs designed for sequential skill building, which utilize preferred methods and materials and which approach elderly persons as functional individuals with capacities to learn, make music development possible” (1985, p. 51). Older adults represent a group of potential students ready to participate in musical activities, if given the chance for success. Finding or inventing the most effective methods for this population may lead one to explore the vast field of modern technology.

Technology in Music Education Contemporary technology has the potential to enhance lifelong learning programs. Learning has become more convenient and flexible, as computers have broken the restraints of time and place. Older adults who are homebound can now receive information via online resources. E-learning can easily accommodate those requiring adaptations like larger print, amplification, or additional time to master new skills (Belgrave et al., 2011). Although the term “technology” may bring forth emotions of apprehension or fear among some older adults, seniors are growing increasingly aware of the advantages of using technological tools. The field of music education has embraced various technological tools that include music creation products, recording and distribution technology, performance tools, music production software, and learning and practice aids (Criswell & Menasche, 2009). Individuals have easier access to music education through computers, especially the iPad, electronic music games, other e-learning tools. Music learning via technology can be easily adapted for either passive or active involvement. Technological advances make it possible for older adults to participate in music learning, regardless of their physical or cognitive abilities. Technology can also make music

5 learning more feasible for those with little to no previous musical knowledge. With minimum skill level, one may find the study of music to be very satisfying when utilizing the right technological tools. In 1995, Kathryn Keenan conducted a study using the Yamaha Music in Education program to teach older adults. Results indicated that the technology-assisted music education program was a positive experience for participants. It was also suggested that with some modifications, the MIE program was appropriate for older adult learners. Despite Keenan’s findings, and the advancement of software designed for individuals wishing to study piano, very little research could be found on the use of technology-based music programs with older adult piano students (Belgrave, 2011; Pike, 2011; Tims, 1999).

Piano Wizard™ One of the advancements in software designed for individuals wishing to study piano is Piano Wizard™ (“Piano Wizard Academy: making music child’s play,” 2012). Piano Wizard™ is a computer-assisted instructional piano method that utilizes multi-sensory learning. Chris Salter, in collaboration with Don and Delayna Beattie, created the program in 2007. Through the use of a computer and MIDI keyboard, this software provides aural and visual feedback to users as they play through familiar or newly-composed pieces. It is set up as a game, offering four levels of “music reading” options that allow the student to begin playing immediately. Students do not need to know how to read music, as they are gradually introduced to traditional note reading when ready. The series contains 50 pieces with detailed lesson books containing traditional sheet music. There are five books with instructions on how to practice and master the concepts presented throughout. Belgrave (2011) examined the use of Piano Wizard™ to create lifelong learning experiences for older adults. She found that participants perceived an increase in their subjective well-being, and that lessons provided them with a meaningful weekly activity. The lessons also required participants to exercise cognitive skills and discipline through weekly lessons and at- home practice. Participants perceived the benefits of Piano Wizard™ to be: (1) the programs’ visual and audio feedback (2) the ability to adjust the tempo while playing and (3) the overall structure of teaching materials.

Need for the Study The pace and design of the Piano Wizard™ method appears to have potential to make learning piano an enjoyable and beneficial experience for seniors. Other than the Belgrave (2011) study, no other empirical research could be found on the use of Piano Wizard™ as a learning tool for older adults. Further exploration is needed as to the advantages and disadvantages of using technology-assistance for keyboard-centered music education programs with seniors. Although not originally intended for older adult learners, it is thought that Piano Wizard™ may provide a positive, non-threatening and satisfying approach for seniors wanting to study the piano. Further research using Piano Wizard™ as an instructional tool that focuses on motivational orientation, musical progress, perceived benefits, and older adults’ attitudes toward music learning and the program, is needed.

Purpose Statement The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of Piano Wizard™ as a viable technological and instructional tool for older adults. For this study, Piano Wizard’s applicability for seniors was judged through measurement of participants’ musical skill development, perceptions of personal fulfillment, attitudes toward music learning, and opinions about the software program. Secondary purposes of the study were: (1) to identify participants’ motivation for enrolling in an educational program and (2) to examine differences in participants’ attitudes, perceptions, and skill development based on their: age, previous musical experience, socio- economic status, or participation in individual vs. partner lessons.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter includes a review of the literature relevant to music learning for older adults, and the role of technology in music education. The research is organized into six sections: (1) Older Adults and Lifelong Learning, (2) Older Adults and Music Education, (3) Older Adults and Technology, (4) Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) in Music Education, (5) The Use of Technology in Piano Instruction, and (6) Piano Wizard™. The research presented provides the framework and rationale for the present study.

Older Adults and Lifelong Learning During the last 25 years, there has been an increase in research focused on the older adult population. Numerous journals devoted to research in gerontology are evidence of the growing attention given to the aging population. National and international organizations and conferences have been established to address current issues related to aging. As more than 77 million “baby boomers” begin to retire, gerontologists are redefining what this milestone means. There has been a shift from the notions of old age being associated with illness and dependency, to viewing older adults as active participants and contributors in an age-integrated society. It is important that older adults be offered opportunities for active aging, which can be defined as "the process of optimizing the opportunities for physical, cognitive, and social well-being throughout life with the objective of increasing a healthy life expectancy, productivity and quality of life in older age" (Organización Mundial de la Salud, 2002, p. 12). Today’s older adults are in better health, more financially secure, and better educated than any previous generation. Currently, just over half of those aged 75 and older have their high school diploma. By 2030, 85% have older adults will have a high school diploma and 75% will have a college degree (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). With the availability of educational activities increasing, older adults are more engaged in lifelong learning. As noted in chapter one, lifelong learning is not determined by where one learns, but how. Older adults engaged in lifelong have the chance to continue to develop their knowledge, skills, and attitudes. “Later lifelong learning,”

8 or “LLL,” is a current term referring to the educational participation of older adults. Inherent to the later lifelong learning philosophy is one’s flexibility and openness to new ideas.

The Motivational Orientation of Older Adults Researchers have sought to identify the many different reasons older adults participate in educational activities. While numerous researchers have investigated the motivational orientation of adult learners in general, only a few researchers have focused on older adults’ motivation to participate in educational programs (Kim & Merriam, 2004). Various approaches have been used to investigate seniors’ motivation for continued learning. Havinghurst (1972) identified the developmental tasks of adulthood as having an effect on time-related choices, like participation in learning activities. Developmental tasks may be defined as the “physiological, psychological and social demands a person must satisfy to be judged by others and by him or herself to be successful” (Mehrotra, 2003, p. 647). Developmental tasks are linked to a particular period of life. Those associated with late adulthood include adjusting to retirement, the death of a spouse, changes in social circles, and declining health and strength (Chickering & Havighurst, 1981). McClusky (1982) classified the educational needs of older adults into five categories: coping needs, expressive needs, contributive needs, influence needs, and transcendence needs. Other researchers examining the motivational orientation of older adults found that intellectual curiosity and a desire to learn were strong motivational factors related to older adult students’ enrollment in educational programs (Brady & Fowler, 1988; Bynum & Seaman, 1993; Furst & Steel, 1986; Kim & Merriam, 2004; Russett, 1998; Scala, 1996; Wolfgang & Dowling, 1981). Older adults are more likely to participate in educational programs for reasons such as “to learn for the sake of learning” and “to seek knowledge for its own sake” (Boshier, 1991). Likewise, Boulton-Lewis, Buys, & Lovie-Kitchin (2006) found the most frequent reasons seniors gave for wanting to learn were ‘‘to keep the mind active, use the brain, exercise the mind, stay mentally stimulated, grow, attain goals, constantly learn, [and] never stop’’ (p. 279). In addition to cognitive interest, the desire for social contact and social relationships has also been found to strongly motivate adult learners (Bynum & Seaman, 1993; Furst & Steele, 1986; Garofolo, 1995; Kim and Merriam, 2004). Active participation in learning activities can have a positive impact on the well-being of older adults, particularly at a time of life when they may be experiencing a number of losses (Solé, Mercadal-Brotons, Gallego, & Riera, 2010).

Personal growth and satisfaction can also be strong motivators for older learners. Scala (1996) found that variables related to seniors’ personal growth and satisfaction include ‘enrichment,’ ‘enjoyment,’ ‘self-satisfaction,’ and ‘sense of accomplishment.’ Researchers have found a relationship between certain demographic variables and the learning motivations of older adults. The majority of seniors participating in learning activities tend to be white, middle class, well-educated, and financially secure (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999; Valentine, 1997). The findings of some studies suggest that ‘level of formal schooling’ has more influence on one’s participation in educational activities than any other variable (Arsenault & Anderson, 1998; Manheimer, Snodgrass, & Moskow-McKenzie, 1995; Mehrotra, 2003; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999; Valentine, 1997).

Older Adults as Learners The present increase in a more educated senior population means more older adults are engaged in lifelong learning than ever before. This increase in participation heightens the importance of identifying characteristics unique to older learners (Kim & Merriam, 2004). Andragogy, or the art and science of adult learning, is a concept originally formulated in 1883 by German educator Alexander Kapp (Nottingham Andragogy Group, 1983). American educator Malcolm Knowles developed an extensive theory of adult education using the term. Knowles' (1984) theory may be summarized by the following six assumptions: 1. Need to Know: Adults need to know the reason for learning something. 2. Foundation: Experience (including error) provides the basis for learning activities. 3. Self-concept: Adults need to be involved in the planning and evaluation of their instruction. 4. Readiness: Adults are most interested in learning things having immediate relevance to their work and/or personal lives. 5. Orientation: Adult learning is problem-centered rather than content-oriented. 6. Motivation: Adults respond better to internal versus external motivators. (p. 12) While it is true one’s pace of learning often becomes slower with age (Palmore, 1998), recent research indicates that older adults can learn new skills (Martin, 2003; Mehrota, 2003; Rowe & Kahn, 1998). With sufficient time and practice, older adults have the ability to achieve learning outcomes equivalent to younger learners (Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Charness, 1992). When

10 compared to young adult learners, older adults require more positive feedback to develop a sense of self-efficacy; yet, once convinced of their abilities, they tend to achieve further gains in both performance and sense of self-esteem (Mehrotra, 2003). Variability between individual learners tends to increase with age because of the inevitable biological changes that occur (Rabbit, Diggle, Holland, & McInnes, 2004). Due to distinct differences that exist among older adult learners, more individualization of teaching and learning strategies is often necessary. In addition to the mechanisms of natural aging, other factors such as psychological change, disease, health habits and environmental factors may influence the need for accommodations and modifications (VanWeelden, Butler, & Lind, 2002). Additional variables—lack of interest, lack of self-confidence, lack of information, physical disability, and safety and transportation needs, can also create barriers between seniors and learning opportunities (Purdie & Boulton-Lewis, 2003; Villar, Triado, Pinanzo, Celdran, & Solé, 2010). In spite of these frequent barriers to learning, many older adults persist and overcome such challenges.

The Benefits of Lifelong Learning Educational programs provide older adults with opportunities that can address the cognitive, emotional, and social needs of older adults. A major problem with retirement is that it often deprives men and women of their chief source of mental stimulation; however, older adults’ cognitive abilities can be maintained through activities other than employment (Mehrotra, 2003; Simone & Scuilli, 2006). Maintaining one’s cognitive ability requires continued use of the mind through engagement in complex tasks and activities (Schaie, 1984; Pushkar et al., 1999). Research indicates that people whose jobs demand more problem solving skills do not experience the same loss of mental functioning as those whose jobs require little thought (Mehrota, 2003). Educational activities can provide older adults with the intellectual stimulation they need, which better ensures their optimal mental functioning (Rowe & Kahn, 1998). One’s social stimulation can also decrease with age due to retirement or the loss of loved ones. Educational programs provide older adults with opportunities to make new friends, to discuss topics of interest with others, and to give and receive support. Participation in such programs can serve as a means of preventing the potential loneliness and isolation associated with old age (Mehrotra, 2003). Research indicates that older adults who are socially engaged are

11 more likely to have a higher level of cognitive functioning than those less socially engaged (Krueger et al., 2009; Rowe & Kahn, 1998). Successful participation in educational activities also reinforces one’s self-efficacy, or “a person’s belief in his or her own ability to handle various situations” (p. 651, Mehrotra, 2003). A strong sense of self-efficacy can be beneficial later in life.

Older Adults and Music Education While traditionally focused on the school years, research in music education has developed to include literature on community music, lifelong learning, and music for older adults. It was not until the last thirty years that research on the music education of older adults has emerged. Some of the topics emphasized in this literature have included older adults’ participation in music programs, older adults’ preferred music, preferred activities and class formats, and previous music experiences (Myers, 1995). In 2002, Coffman conducted an extensive review of the literature available on adult music education. While the majority of studies centered on the demographics and dynamics of adult participation in community musical organizations, only about one-fourth of the cited researchers investigated actual music teaching and learning (Coffman, 2002b). Rohwer (2005b) stated, “We still have a very limited understanding of appropriate ways for adult [music] learners to be taught” (Rohwer, 2005b, p. 37).

Older Adults’ Participation in Musical Activities American seniors engage in music in a variety of ways. Researchers have found the most common musical activity for adults is music listening, whether it’s listening to live performances, recordings, or the radio (Flowers & Murphy, 2001; McCullough, 1981; VanWeelden & Walters, 2004). Cohen et al. (2002) reported that 90% of seniors listen to music at least twice a week and 70% listen daily. Older adults prefer a broad range of musical styles, though they tend to prefer music from their earlier years rather than later years (Cohen et al., 2002; Gilbert & Beal, 1982; McCullough, 1981). Popular and popular-style music (Big Band, popular standards, songs from musicals) have ranked high among older adults’ preferred musical styles (Flowers & Murphy, 2001; McCullough, 1981; VanWeelden & Cervasco, 2007). Other

12 favorite genres include classical, opera, country, folk, patriotic, religious, and certain rock styles (Flowers & Murphy; McCullough, 1981; VanWeelden & Cervasco, 2007). Gates (1991) identified three categories of individuals in relation to musical activities: (1) participants, (2) audience members, and (3) those who find no value in music. Older adults may participate in musical activities either formally or informally. Community and church choirs, bands, and orchestras, intergenerational ensembles, music school organizations, and other various instrumental ensembles such as those offered by the New Horizons International Music Association, are some of the non-formal music education opportunities that exist for older adults. Choral organizations rank high as preferred performance organizations by adults (Bowles, 1991; Mitak, 2011). When it comes to private study, piano is the instrument chosen most often by seniors, followed by voice and guitar (Bowles, 1991; Flowers & Murphy, 2001; Mitak, 2011). Despite various opportunities, not all senior adults choose to or are able to actively participate in music. McCullough (1981) conducted a study of 276 individuals 65+ years old and found that although respondents rated music as “important,” only a small percentage (14%) were currently taking part in any musical activity. While many older adults may have participated in musical activities earlier in life, there seems to be a decline in their active involvement as they age. In 1967, Lawrence and Dachinger surveyed over 300 participants with experience playing a musical instrument. Thirty-seven percent still played, and 63% rarely or never played their instrument. Flowers and Murphy (2001) found that among 45 persons aged 60 to 90 years old, 30 had learned how to play an instrument, but only 14 still continued to play. Among 564 surveyed adult piano students, Cooper (2001) discovered that 58% studied piano as children, 15% studied both as children and as adults, and 3% studied only as adults In 2002, Cohen et al. reported the following data related to adult participation in music: (1) 39% of had sung in a choir, while 6% were presently doing so (2) 33% had learned to play an instrument, while 16% were presently doing so (3) 28% had taken music lessons, while 0% were presently doing so. The act of choosing to participate in music is based on a host of decisions, and reflects the motivations and intentions of each participant.

The Motivational Orientation of Older Adult Music Learners For adults who have discretion in how they will spend their resources and time, musical engagement is often a choice. Adults represent a diverse spectrum of ages, interests, experiences,

13 and capacities, and there are many reasons why they choose to pursue musical activities. They are often motivated by intrinsic as well as extrinsic reasons for pursuing musical activities (Bowles, 1991; Lawrence & Dachinger, 1967). Adults may participate in musical organizations because these activities align with their leisure or recreational interests, or because being involved with music meets their aesthetic needs (Brady & Fowler, 1988). Older adults may choose to engage in musical activities simply because they are naturally drawn to music and enjoy it, or because it fulfills a personal need in their lives (Thornton, 2010; Tsugawa, 2009). Seniors have reported that opportunities to broaden one’s social network and to acquire new knowledge are important reasons for engaging in musical activities (Solé, et al., 2010). Older adults may find that socializing is a particularly motivating reason for participating in musical groups (Tsugawa, 2009). When older adults consider private lessons, they are more likely to choose the piano than other instruments because it can be played at home alone, or in social settings (Flowers & Murphy, 2001). Some researchers have reported on what specifically motivates older adults to enroll in piano lessons. Taylor & Hallman (2008) found that lifelong musical experiences and expectations profoundly influenced adults’ motivation to study piano. Significant life changes and the encouragement of friends can also serve as catalysts for adults returning to or beginning a keyboard instrument (Taylor, 2010a). The love of music and the instrument, personal pleasure/enjoyment, skill development, and self-expression, also appear to be important reasons for adults taking up the piano (Cooper, 2001; Wristen, 2006). Adults’ persistence in piano lessons often depends on their ability to maintain a sense of self-efficacy (Cooper, 2001). While it seems that most adults who play the piano are those who started as children and continued taking lessons as adults, there are those individuals who begin studying piano for the first time as adults. Although participants in Swenson’s (2006) study were of ‘career age’ (30- 55), his findings are worth noting, particularly with regard to the resultant three profiles: The Serious Amateur, the largest cohort, was motivated most by repertoire and skill acquisition. Other traits of this group included the enjoyment of public performance, the most prior keyboard training, minor interest in playing games during the lesson, a desire for more discussion in lessons, and enjoyment of duets and ensemble music with other students. The Late Bloomer participants generally shared a longtime desire to learn to play the piano. Additionally, this group had the least amount of prior keyboard training

and little desire to make music with other students. The third profile, the Amicable Amateur, was motivated in the potential mental and physical benefits. This group desired a teacher who was friendly, flexible, and who demonstrated concepts. (p. xi) Most adults’ musical interests are strongly related to their earlier involvement with music (Bowles, 1991; Cohen et al., 2002; Darrough, 1992; Faivre-Ransom, 2001; Flowers & Murphy, 2001; Taylor & Hallman, 2008). Unfortunately, many older adults point to someone’s admonition that they lacked talent as the major factor preventing them from participating in musical activities. They perceive themselves as tone deaf, or lacking musical skill and aptitude (Sloboda, Wise, & Peretz, 2005). Past experiences have led some older adults to believe that musical activities are not an option for them (Dweck, 2000). The possibility of negative past experiences with music teachers or other influential persons should be considered when encountering older adults who express a lack of interest in music.

Older Adults as Music Learners Regardless of age or cognitive status, older adults have indicated that music is personally important to them (Cohen et al., 2002). They have also been found to be susceptible to mood induction by music (Fox, Knight, & Zelinski, 1998). A person of any age has the capacity for making and appreciating music. Beginning adult musicians are in a unique position. After a lifetime of experiencing music as listeners, they find themselves with the time and resources to explore long-held music ambitions (Emmons, 1989). Learning music can transform the older adult from a music listener into a music practitioner, a paramount shift in ‘musical identity’ (Trevarthen, 2002). Learning music can be a new and exciting experience for seniors, “a fresh start with the discovery of unexpected skills and talents, and a chance to reconnect with their youth at a time in life when much has to be given up or compromised as part of accommodating to being older” (Taylor & Hallman, 2008, p. 301). As stated earlier, the ability to acquire musical skills does not dissipate with age, and has been found to remain strong beyond 90 years of age (Gibbons, 1983). Older adults can continue to develop musical skills due to the brain’s continued plasticity and receptivity to music learning (Pantev, Engelien, Candia, & Elbert, 2003; Pascual-Leone, 2003). This plasticity and receptivity can counter-balance some of the physiological effects of aging such as diminished motor skills, and loss of sight and/or hearing (Gembris, 2008; Pickles, 2003; Prickett, 2003). Some scholars

15 have examined music learning in the context of adult development, using cross-sectional studies to assess age-related changes. Gibbons (1982; 1983) found no declines in musical ability after age 65, and Myers (1988) found no significant differences in musical skill achievement, regardless of whether participants were from the ‘younger,’ ‘middle,’ or ‘older’ adult group. Empirical research investigating the effects of age on musical performance skills has shown no age-related decline in older pianists who deliberately invest time in practicing and maintaining their skills (Krampe, 1997). Older adults’ basic sensitivity to musical variables—such as the ability to identify transposed melodic sequences, or recognize melodies that have increased or decreased in tempo—can remain intact for years (Andrews, Dowling, Bartlett, & Halpern, 1998; Cohen & Trehub, 1988; Bartlett, Halpern, & Dowling, 1995). Aging may affect self-perceptions of musical achievement and self-esteem (Kruse, 2012), but given the opportunity to improve fundamental music skills, both younger and older adults can show increases in musical self- efficacy (Myers, 1986; 1990). It is possible that older adults may find some aspects of musical participation more challenging. The physiological effects of aging may cause reduced sensitivity to hearing high frequencies and subtle changes in tone quality (Cohen et al., 2002). Other age-related declines may be delayed reaction time, trembling hands, slower reflexes, and greater fatigue (Atchley, 1989). Older adults may be able to make auditory discriminations that they cannot execute physically, such as imitating complicated rhythmic patterns (Clair, 1991). Although seniors have demonstrated age-related difficulties playing instruments, they are often able to find ways to compensate for these difficulties (Pike, 2001). As one ages, information processing and performance skills will begin to slow (Craik & Salthouse, 2000; Rybash, Hoyer, & Roodin, 1995). This ‘sluggishness’ may explain many age- related differences in older adults’ cognition (Botwinick, 1984; Hultsch, MacDonald, Hunter, Levy-Bencheton, & Strauss, 2000). Older adults who value accuracy over speed may intentionally slow down during musical tasks (Botwinick, 1984). Musical activities requiring memorization can also become more difficult for seniors, especially when the musical patterns in question are unfamiliar (Bartlett, Halpern, & Dowling, 1995; Clyburn & Cohen, 1996; Cohen & Trehub, 1988). Recognizing musical contours, and identifying very fast or very short melodic patterns may also be challenging for older adults (Halpern & Bartlett, 2002; Ragot, Ferrandez, & Pouthas, 2002). However, there are other higher-order secondary mental abilities that do not

16 exhibit declines due to aging. Although older music students may take longer to complete tasks, most possess the cognitive ability to learn new skills (Pike, 2001). Horn (1982) identified the difference between fluid intelligence, and crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence (flexible, abstract, analytic reasoning that is usually independent of education and experience) is thought to develop earlier in life and decline with age. Crystallized intelligence (culturally-based knowledge and reasoning acquired through education and life experience) is thought to increase with age. Crystallized intelligence in the form of musical expertise has been known to mitigate the effects of aging for certain musical tasks (e.g., comparing exact intervals, assessing tonal hierarchy) (Halpern & Bartlett, 2002). While older adults may experience a slowing-down of their mental processing and reaction time, and a reduction in their attention resources, an increased reliance on crystallized intelligence may explain how they are able to compensate for decreases in cognitive speed (Coffman, 2009; Halpern & Bartlett, 2002). In addition to possessing intelligence shaped by life experiences, adult learners exhibit other positive characteristics such as reflective thinking, internal motivation, commitment, enthusiasm, and positive social interaction (Coffman, 2009). Taylor and Hallman (2008) reported on what it may mean for older students to learn basic musical skills on a keyboard instrument: Adult music beginners have to overcome their frustration at the difficulties of learning a new language at the same time as acquiring new motor skills. Moreover, they need to be able to combine this with expressing themselves in a way that meets their personal expectations. They may struggle to resolve a tension between the sophistication of a lifetime’s engagement with music and the clumsiness of their attempts to articulate their musicality as they come face to face with the difficulties of actually playing their instruments. This struggle is something that adult novices seem to experience as part of their learning, and which children do not. It can add to the intensity of learning an instrument which often seems to be linked with someone emotionally significant. For some, music learning is also the realization of a dream as they finally have a chance to learn the instrument they have always wanted to learn, or one which is related to it. Struggle appears to underscore that huge shift in identity from musical listener to musical performer which beginning adult instrumental learners can experience. An awareness of the scale of this shift is crucial for being able to connect with adult learners’ musical

identity at times when they may well feel that they have lost touch with it themselves. (p. 301)

Instructional Methods for Older Adult Music Learners Researchers have suggested assessing older adults’ preferences for musical activities and repertoire before designing curricula for this special age group (Bowles, 1991; Flowers & Murphy, 2001; McCullough, 1981; Mitak, 2011). Although older and younger students share similar learning traits, teaching adults often requires setting different goals, using different methods and materials, and assuming different teacher-student roles than does teaching young people (Bowles, 2010; Burley, 1987; Coffman, 2009). Programs that are not age-appropriate may discourage seniors from participating (Coates, 1984; Gibbons, 1985), so courses and instruction should be tailored to the abilities, skills (Gilbert & Beal, 1982; Coffman & Levy, 1997), needs, interests, preferences (Machover, 1990; Robertson 1996; Gilbert & Beal, 1982; Gibbons, 1985), characteristics, and contexts (Coates, 1984; Myers, 1992) of this population. Life events associated with adulthood should also be taken into account when designing adult musical activities (Coffman, 2002b). By better aligning music education programs with older adults’ desired goals, their increased participation and overall success are more likely. Numerous authors have reported on the characteristics of adult learners, and the application of those characteristics to the music learning process (Bowles & Myers, 1996; Coffman, 2009; Dabback, 2005; Kruse, 2009; Myers, 1989, 2005). Much of the research on the adult teaching-learning experience has been inspired by the New Horizons International Music movement. Researchers have examined the various methodologies, repertoire and materials utilized by those who instruct senior adults in instrumental ensembles (e.g., Coffman, 2009; Coffman & Levy, 1997; Ernst & Emmons, 1992; Rohwer, 2004, 2005a, 2005b). Myers (1989) suggested that although the instructional content of adult and school-aged ensembles may be similar, adults’ past experiences and health conditions (physical, psychological) may call for pedagogical differences across age groups. Rohwer (2005b) noted the way that teachers delivered instruction to adult ensembles differed from traditional school approaches, such as de- emphasizing sight-reading skills and music theory while focusing more on expression and singing. Clapping, counting, and modeling are commonly cited as instructional strategies used by adult ensemble directors (Rohwer, 2005b).

Adult musicians frequently cite the social components of musical rehearsals as one factor important to their participation (Coffman & Adamek, 1999). The music learning environment preferred by adults is often more relaxed and enjoyment-focused than that preferred by school- aged children (Black, 1999; Rohwer, 2005b; Coffman, 2009). New Horizons directors have reported they appreciate and enjoy the relaxed atmosphere of rehearsals with adults, though directors also acknowledge that adults can be resistant to change and less flexible (e.g., using a different counting systems). These observations are an example of how fluid intelligence seems to decline with age. Older adult music students may display more self-consciousness, fear of failure, and concern for perfection; however, these negatives are often off-set by adults’ rich life experiences and their commitment to learning. Coffman found that senior music students were more apt to than younger students to apply and remember analogies, exhibit expressive playing, and grasp the concepts of finesse, ebb and flow, and nuance (Coffman, 2009). Because adults tend to have self-defined and specific goals, it is best that methodologies for older-aged students be flexible and individualized. Flexible lesson planning can help alleviate the fact that regular attendance and practice can be difficult for older adults who are often faced with many family and health-related responsibilities (Bowles, 2010). Bowles (2010) stressed the importance of individualizing instruction with regard to content delivery, materials and motivational strategies. Chen (1996) found that although adult students do best when given some choice as to what is being learned, many adult piano students are not given the opportunity to make use of self-directed learning, or to exercise their problem solving abilities.

Music Materials for Older Adults During the last 100 years, various music-learning books have been produced bearing the title “Adult Method,” particularly with regard to piano materials (Chan, 2002); however, the term “adult” has been applied to many different groups of music learners. Uszler (2000) recognized that the majority of adult piano methods were meant for all of the following potential groups of students: 1. ‘Slightly older’ students (nine- or ten-year-olds, too mature for methods designed for elementary-age students) 2. Teenagers 3. College non-music majors (roughly 18 to 24)

4. College music majors (18 to 24) 5. Adults who play for pleasure (25 years of age and older) 6. Senior citizens (often considered a special adult category) (p. 55) Because publishers may not be able to afford to offer materials ideally suited to meet the needs of each and every adult student, they tend to produce methods designed to reach the widest “adult” age group. Most teachers, however, would agree there are vast differences between music learners at all of the above stages (Burley, 1987; Chan, 2002). Several researchers have stressed the importance of age-appropriate materials that align with adult learners’ past experiences, and their present needs (Bowles, 2010; Black, 1999; Burley, 1987; Friedmann, 1992; Myers, 1989; Rohwer, 2004). Bowles (2010) examined instructional practices with adult music students and found that about one third of the teachers surveyed utilized published materials for adults, and the same percentage of teachers was designing their own materials for classes. Nearly all of the teachers surveyed said it would be beneficial to have published materials designed specifically for adult learners. Mizok-Taylor (2008) examined the appropriateness of several adult piano method books for self-directed learning and stated the following: Overall, many of the concrete objectives and concepts presented in the method books were thorough enough for an adult to understand on his/her own; however, most of the information was stated to the student, and very few opportunities existed for the student to discover information on his own. No choice was given to the student regarding repertoire selection, and with two exceptions, no references to any outside sources were suggested for locating additional music in the same style. No information was provided for the student regarding additional source material for further reading and comprehension of new concepts. With some very rare exceptions, the adult was not called upon to use his own previous musical experiences to understand new material. (p. ii) Clearly there is a need for the development of more age-appropriate instructional materials for the adult music learner (Bowles, 2010). Goals, past experiences, and even musical preference should be considered when selecting resources for seniors. Though adults seem to enjoy a variety of styles (Darrough, 1992; Pike, 2001), most want to play and sing recognizable tunes (Mitak, 2011; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2007; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2009).

Gibbons’ 1977 study was a seminal work on the music preferences of older adults. She discovered a significant preference for music that was popular during respondents’ young adult years (between 20 and 30 years of age), as well as a strong preference for stimulating music over sedative music. Numerous other researchers have also found that seniors prefer popular music from their young adult years (between 18 and 25 years old) (Bartlett & Snelus, 1980; Cohen et al., 2002; Flowers & Murphy, 2001; Jonas, 1991; Lathom, Peterson & Havelicek, 1982; Moore, Staum & Brotons, 1992; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2007; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2009). In addition to popular music, older adults have also indicated preferences for songs from musicals, hymns, patriotic songs, and folk and classical music (Cooper, 2001; Flowers & Murphy, 2001; Mitak, 2011; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2007; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2009).

Structuring the Music Learning Environment for Older Adults In 1997, Coffman and Levy published an account of their progress with a beginning adult band. Although they initially thought teaching adults would be much like teaching school children, they soon realized that some special considerations were necessary due to older adults’ natural physical condition. Researchers have stressed the importance of considering various health characteristics unique to the older adult learner when starting a program (Black, 1999; Burley, 1987; Coffman, 2009; Coffman & Levy, 1997; Friedmann, 1992; Griffith, 2006; Lesnoff-Caravaglia, 2000). While the assumption that older adults are incapable of musical achievement is false, the physical challenges that they may experience are real and should be an important consideration for educators (Dabback, 2005). Commonly cited physiological difficulties are visual impairments (Robertson, 1996; Burley, 1987; Friedmann, 1992; Griffith, 2006; Rohwer, 2005b) and hearing impairments (Coates 1984; Friedmann, 1992; Rohwer, 2005b). Decreased accuracy of movements (Burley, 1987; Coates, 1984; Johnson, 1996) and other physical limitations such as arthritis are also common in older adults (Griffith, 2006). Older adults’ physical characteristics may be addressed through fairly simple adaptations to the learning environment. Vision remedies might include enlarging music, adjusting stands and/or adding individual stand lights, providing each student with their own music and own music stand, and using eyeglasses. Hearing enhancements may include the use of hearing aids, sound amplification systems, and speaking all instructions clearly and audibly (Burley, 1987; Coffman, 2009; Coffman & Levy, 1997; Rohwer, 2005b). The ability to adjust the volume of

MIDI instruments has been found to be helpful to seniors with hearing loss (Pike, 2011). Carefully considering instrument choice (Burley, 1987) and literature selections (Coffman & Levy, 1997; Johnson, 1996) can also help mitigate certain challenges. Physical difficulties may be alleviated by ensuring convenient parking for cars, ample stretch breaks, chairs with padding and arms, adjustable room temperature, access to bathrooms, assistance going up and down steps, and having neck straps and luggage carts for heavy instruments when needed (Rohwer, 2005b). When older adults participate in outdoor events, they should have limited exposure to direct sunlight and provided with breaks for water and movement (Lesnoff-Caravaglia, 2000). While instructors should consider the adjustments necessary to provide the ideal learning situation for their adult learners, seniors often compensate without extreme intervention and without drastic impact on achievement (Myers, 1992; Coffman & Levy, 1997). It’s been suggested that “when adults are treated as functioning individuals, they make a commitment to musical development” (Darrough, 1992, p. 27).

Instructing Older Adult Music Learners Researchers have found the key components of successful learning experiences for older adults are the instructor involved, as well as interesting, familiar, and relevant subject matter (Duay & Bryan, 2008). Although most music educators do not have the opportunity to receive special training in working with older adults, utilizing certain approaches and techniques can ensure instruction is effective for seniors. Adults are motivated differently, and perceive, think, feel, remember, and move differently than children; therefore, they require different teaching strategies, as well as instructors who are knowledgeable, patient, positive, and passionate about music (Burley, 1987; Robertson, 1996; Wristen, 2006). Because seniors sometimes find it challenging to alter habits and preset ideas, flexibility is also a critical instructor characteristic (Coffman, 2009; Nazareth, 1998). Understanding that older adults have other commitments to family and to their health is also important. Instructors have cited the use of humor, praise, and positive reinforcement as effective strategies for older adults (Friedmann, 1992; Nazareth, 1998; Rohwer, 2005b). Adults need an instructor who shows respect and compassion, and avoids sarcasm, scolding and ridicule (Coffman, 2009; Rohwer, 2005b; Vickery, 1972). Educators who remember most older adults are volunteering to participate in musical activities (Vickery, 1972) will find their students are grateful for their time and instruction (Coffman, 2009; Kruse, 2009).

Instructors of older adults may need to be especially creative in order to meet the diverse needs of their students (Rohwer, 2005b). Adaptation of concepts and techniques should be done in a manner that avoids patronizing the adult student (Myers, 1992). Since seniors enjoy incorporating their personal experiences into the learning process, teachers should consider the use of reflective thinking, collaborative goal-setting, collaborative decision-making, problem solving, as well as associating lesson concepts with the adult students’ work and other life experiences (Myers, 1992; Wristen, 2006). Older adults may prefer to set their own pace of learning, as an overly rapid pace imposed by the instructor can result in increased anxiety (Maris, 2000). Johnson (1996) suggests that teachers encourage self-direction and independence, while still providing structure and guidance to the older student. Older adults may need time to assimilate new concepts and motor skills (Myers, 1992), and encouragement to mitigate what they perceive to be slow progress (Maris, 2000). Instilling realistic expectations, offering clear and concise instruction, providing recurrent breaks during instruction, changing tasks frequently, giving frequent and honest feedback, and offering repeated reassurance about the learner’s progress, are all teaching strategies that can all help maintain motivation among adult music students (Johnson, 1996; Maris, 2000; Myers, 1992).

The Benefits of Music Learning for Older Adults For older adults, engaging in musical activities is about making gains in musical knowledge and skills, but also about enhancing the remaining time they have left in life, and retaining a sense of control over their lives, despite the experiences and challenges unique to aging. Older adults tend to view music making as a learning process rather than as an objective (Tsugawa, 2009), and numerous researchers and authors have reported on the importance of music in the lives of older adults (Belz 1994; Coffman & Adamek, 1999; Faivre-Ransom, 2001; Jutras, 2003, 2006; Pike, 2001; Rohwer, 2010). Seniors’ participation in musical activities can provide personal, social, therapeutic, physical, emotional, cognitive, musical, and even spiritual benefits (Hays & Minichiello, 2005; Jutras, 2011).

Benefits of music engagement to older adults’ well-being and quality of life. The importance of music as a therapeutic tool in the care of aging adults, particularly for those with dementia and Alzheimer disease, has been well researched since the 1960s (Bright, 1972, 1997;

Kartman, 1980; Hanser, 1985; McClosky, 1985; Olderog, Kristine, & Smith, 1989; Jonas, 1991; Sacks, 1992; Clair, 1996). Researchers have also established support for the function of music with the well-elderly (Hays & Minichiello, 2005; Solé et al, 2010; Taylor, 2010a; Wise, Hartmann, & Fisher, 1992). A strong sense of well-being has been shown to increase one’s perceived quality of life and subjective experience of good health (Coffman & Adamek, 1999; Sidell, 1995). By engaging in musical activities, seniors can find distraction from existing medical conditions and feel physically and psychologically uplifted (Gabrielsson & Lindstrom, 1995; Hays & Minichiello, 2005; Rudd, 1997). It’s been suggested that more adults are studying music more than ever before to enhance the quality of their lives (Patchen, 1984; Myers, 1990; Boswell, 1992). Musical engagement can provide a sense of coherence, purpose, or spirituality for older adults who need experiences outside of their everyday encounters and events (Hay & Minichiello, 2005; Ruud, 1997).

Personal benefits of music engagement for older adults. Older adults have described a certain loss of identity during retirement. One day they are engaged in work as a nurse, teacher etc, and awake the next day somewhat disoriented and with a sense of “I used to be---“ (Dabback, 2007, p. 58). Older adults’ participation in musical activities can serve as an avenue to new personal goals during retirement (Coffman & Adamek, 1999). In addition, music can provide a way of understanding and developing one’s self-identity (Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2002). Seniors can come to know and reflect upon their own personhood through music (Hays & Minichiello, 2005). For instance, music can convey the intensity of emotion felt at any given time and/or help older adults to recall past events and experiences (Hays & Minichiello, 2005). Musical progress and mastery can boost seniors’ self-confidence, increase their self-esteem, and create improved feelings of self-efficacy (Cavitt, 2005; Coffman and Adamek, 1999; Jutras, 2003, 2006; Ruud, 1997; Taylor, 2010b). Seniors have reported that participating in music learning activities can be challenging, yet fun, and that succeeding in such activities can result in feelings of accomplishment (Jutras, 2003, 2006, & 2011). Several researchers have specifically examined the benefits of piano study for senior adults (Cooper, 2001; Conda, 1997; Jutras 2003, 2006; Taylor & Hallam, 2008; Wristen, 2006; Zelazny, 2001), and found that the rewards of piano study are increased happiness, relaxation, and self-esteem, as well as the opportunity to develop discipline, improve concentration, and

24 develop self expression. The opportunity to study and practice the piano has provided older adults with a way to escape their usual routines (Jutras, 2003, 2006; Wristen, 2006), and to “forget about everything else” (Wristen, 2006, p. 399). For seniors who gave up piano earlier in life, or never had the opportunity to learn, studying piano can fulfill a lifelong dream (Jutras, 2003, 2006).

Social benefits of music engagement for older adults. Hargreaves et al. (2002) suggested that the social functions of music are to “(1) define and mediate interpersonal relationships; (2) regulate mood; and (3) establish and develop an individual’s sense of identity” (p. 5). Various researchers have found that musical engagement can result in social benefits for older adults (Pike, 2001; Rohwer & Coffman, 2006; Rohwer, 2010; Ruud, 1997). One of the most serious threats to older adults’ well-being is the weakening of social networks, often due to older adults’ decreased mobility, relocation of family members, and loss of loved ones (Ruud, 1997). Participation in musical organizations provides older adults with a way to feel connected to and engaged with others. Connectedness and engagement are particularly important late in life when feelings of loss, isolation, and loneliness are common (Hays & Minichiello, 2005; Solé et al, 2010). Members of vocal and instrumental ensembles are especially inclined to experience the social benefits musical camaraderie has to offer (Coffman & Adamek, 1999; Jutras, 2011; Tsugawa, 2009). Also, participants in group piano settings have found the group environment to be a positive experience (Conda, 1997; Wristen, 2006). The social interactions inherent to musical ensembles can also deflect older adults’ feelings of alienation, and support their identities as healthy, productive, and energetic people (Coffman, 2002a; Coleman, 2000; Dabback, 2005).

Emotional benefits of music engagement for older adults. Music has the potential to prompt people towards certain mental states and feelings about life. Older adults have reported the use of music to make them feel more cheerful, content, hopeful, peaceful, and relaxed (Hays & Minichiello, 2005). When seniors listen to or play a piece of music that they associate with certain events and experiences in their lives, they also recall the emotions associated with those experiences (Hays & Minichiello, 2005). Learning and practicing music has been shown to fill

25 an emotional need in the lives of older adults (Pike, 2001). Tims (1999) found that older adults who were regularly engaged in a keyboard class were less anxious, depressed, and lonely than their counterparts, who were not engaged in keyboard lessons. In addition to inducing certain moods, participation in music-making provides older adults with an acceptable means to express and release emotions (Hays & Minichiello, 2005; Rohwer, 2010).

Physical benefits of music engagement for older adults. The study of music can have a positive impact on the physical function of older adults. Parr (1985) found that when participants played strenuous exercises on the piano, the entire body (not just forearms) was affected, and the stress triggered on the heart was comparable to that resulting from a brisk walk. Bittman et al. (2005) cited a significant reduction in the stress hormones of seniors participating in a group music program. Tims (1999) reported that senior adults who were regularly engaged in a keyboard class experienced an increase in the levels of human growth hormones in their blood. He stated that the “human growth hormone positively affects such aging phenomena as energy levels, wrinkling, osteoporosis, sexual function, muscle mass, as well as aches and pains” (Tims, 1999, p.11). Though further research is warranted on the effects of music on the aging process, preliminary findings suggest that taking keyboard lessons can help combat osteoarthritis (Zelazny, 2001), and the pleasure and satisfaction of mastering a musical instrument can help mitigate the negative effects of physical and psychological aging (Coffman, 2002b; Hays & Minichiello, 2005).

Cognitive benefits of music engagement for older adults. When a person is listening to, composing, or making music, all of their cognitive processes are engaged (Bunt, 1996; Hays & Minichiello, 2005; Maranto, 1993). Effective cognitive interventions for older adults include the use of novel stimuli or tasks, tasks that include multimodal sensory-motor integration, tasks that promote self-efficacy, and tasks that are appropriately and progressively difficult. Musical training encompasses all of the attributes that are essential to preserving cognitive functioning throughout the lifespan (Burgos, Perlstein, McCrae, Brophy, & Bedenbaugh, 2007). For instance, the various skills required to play an instrument (e.g., integrating hand movements, visual spatial processing) facilitate the formation and strengthening of synapses (Burgos et al., 2007; Rauschecker, 2001). Active musical participation may also reduce seniors’ risk of developing

26 dementia, and improve their visual and auditory reaction time (Khemthong et al., 2012; Verghese et al., 2003). More specifically, individual piano instruction has been documented as an effective intervention for age-related cognitive decline in older adults (Burgos et al., 2007).

Musical benefits of music engagement for older adults. Engagement in musical performances can promote older adults’ aesthetic responses, their understanding of beauty, culture and values, and their personal musicianship (Rohwer, 2010). There are many skill-related benefits associated with studying music (e.g., skill improvement, skill refinement, proficiency, challenge) which have been highly rated by adult learners (Coffman, 1996; Cooper, 2001; Darrough, 1992; Jutras 2003, 2006, 2011; Wristen, 2006). Adult learners value the gains they are able to make in musical knowledge and understanding (Jutras, 2003, 2006). They also report that an essential reason for learning their instrument is the pleasure they receive from hearing the sounds of the music they produce (Blood & Zatorre, 2001).

Older Adults and Technology The rapid increase in the use of technology is one of the most significant phenomena of the twenty-first century. Since the impetus of the ‘computer age’ over a half century ago, new developments and technologies have constantly altered how we view and interact with the world. Tools that were once thought of as mere conveniences (e.g., computers, the Internet, cell phones) are now an integral part of everyday life. Texting, video-calling, e-mailing, and the use of social networking sites have changed the way we communicate. The societal prominence of technology, coupled with our aging population (Renaud & Ramsay, 2007), has led to a substantial body of literature focused on older adults’ interactions with technology. Researchers have looked at how older people respond to new technologies, their attitudes towards computers, and their abilities to learn how to use them. Findings indicate that computer-use decreases as age increases (Boulton-Lewis, Buys, Lovie-Kitchin, Barnett, & David, 2007). Some studies report that the experiences and attitudes of older adults regarding computers are negative, especially when compared with younger adults (Baack, Brown, & Brown, 1991; Laguna & Babcok, 1997; Timmermann, 1998). The observation that older adults dislike technology also tends to be widely believed by the general population (Czaja & Sharit, 1998). Psychological variables like computer anxiety, self-efficacy, and aging anxiety, can be

27 strong predictors of seniors’ openness to computer-use (Jung et al., 2010). Age-related impairments such as loss of vision, hearing, dexterity, and memory, can make it more challenging for seniors to respond to the features and design of computers (Wang, Sato, Jin, Rau, & Asano, 2007; West, 2002; Zajicek, 2004; Zhao, Rau, & Yang, 2005). Research has also produced some conflicting results about older adults and computers (Broady, Chan, & Caputi, 2010). Many studies show that older people possess the ability and capacity to learn how to use technology (Williamson, Bow, & Wale, 1997; Scott, 2001), and that age has very little effect on their attitudes toward computers (Ansley & Erber, 1988). When older adults have the opportunity to master basic computer skills in a non-threatening environment, they are able to become part of the ‘now’ generation along with their children, grandchildren, younger friends, and neighbors (Timmerman, 1998). Some older adults have even demonstrated a more positive attitude towards computers than younger adults (Dyck & Smither, 1994), and revealed interest in learning about technology for the purposes of maintaining family ties and communicating with others, keeping up to date, and staying mentally alert (Boulton-Lewis et al., 2007). Computer-literate adults use technology to increase productivity and socialization opportunities, to assist with emergency responses, and to assist with daily living tasks like shopping, health monitoring, and medication compliance (Dyck, Gee, & Smither, 1998; Lawhon, Ennis, & Lawhon, 1996; Timmermann, 1998). Computer interactions can serve as an effective tool for increasing older adults’ cognitive abilities and decreasing their levels of depression (McContha, McContha, Deaner, & Demingy, 1995). Older adults have also indicated an interest in the use of computers for educational purposes (Boulton-Lewis et al., 2007; Dyck et al., 1998; Lawhon, Ennis, & Lawhon, 1996; Timmermann, 1998). Computer-assisted instruction, or CAI, has opened up a world of possibilities for older adults, as well as educators of older adults. The prospect of harnessing technology in a way that provides seniors with interactive, effective instruction is exciting, though challenging (Timmermann, 1998). Attitudinal barriers regarding computers, such as those mentioned above, need to be overcome by providing older adults with the opportunity to build their ‘technological’ confidence and self-esteem (Timmermann, 1998). Seniors who already possess computer skills are more apt to want to enroll in CAI opportunities (Baack et al., 1991; Dyck & Smither, 1994; Morris, 1994), but it is possible to provide learning experiences to computer novices as well. Well-designed CAI is highly compatible with many of the principles

28 related to older adult learning such as self-pacing, active learner participation, repetition, and immediate reinforcement (McNeely, 1991). Many CAI programs can also be easily adapted or modified to meet the needs of older computer users (Jones & Bayen 1998; Hutchinson, Eastman, & Tirrito, 1997).

Computer-Assisted Learning (CAI) in Music Education Peters (1992) categorized the development of computer-assisted instruction in music education into five generations, each one related to an important technological advancement: (1) The first generation: The development of the first computer-assisted technologies for the music classroom (Kuhn & Allvin, 1967; Deihl & Radocy, 1969; Lincoln, 1969) took place at large research-oriented institutions including Florida State University, Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University, the University of Delaware, and the University of Illinois. These programs were primarily drill-and-practice type methods of teaching music theory and ear training skills (Bowyer, 2000). Several hundred computer- based music instruction programs were developed between 1969 and 1980 (Peters, 1992). (2) The second generation: The emergence of the personal computer (i.e., the Apple II in 1977 and IBM personal computer in 1981) meant computers were no longer room-sized machines (Weyhrich, 2001). Music CAI frequently utilized music keyboards that played through added-on sound cards encompassing four or more digital voices (Bowyer, 2000). More than 500 music computer programs were developed during this period (Peters, 1992). (3) The third generation: The development of MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) in 1983 (Jones, 2003) led to the development of more than 50 MIDI-enabled music CAI programs between 1984 and 1992 (Peters, 1992). Though various types of software programs continued to become available, the majority of music CAI programs were still drill-and-practice type methods (Agnew, 2009). (4) The fourth generation: Music CAI software evolved from simple drill-and-practice software into multimedia presentations of guided instruction, games, and exploratory and creative software (Agnew, 2009). Programs were developed to support melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic dictation, music composition, and error detection, (Webster, 2002). Complex software were adapted to meet individual student needs. Programs

offering automated accompaniment and assistance in the development of improvisation skills were designed. In addition to drill-and-practice programs, several new types of music CAI emerged. (5) The fifth generation: The emergence of the Internet in mainstream education made music CAI more accessible and convenient than ever before. One could argue that since Peter’s 1992 publication, the most recent generation of CAI has been defined by the development of tablet computers (e.g., the iPad) smartphones, Web apps, and more advanced computer software (Criswell & Menasche, 2009). Computer-assisted music instruction offers teachers and students numerous advantages, some of which would be difficult to achieve through a traditional educational approach. For example, one advantage of computer-assisted music instruction is being able to perceive music aurally, visually, and kinesthetically at the same time (Stevens, 1994). Another advantage is the opportunity for individualized instruction. Students utilizing music CAI tend to work independently and at their own pace. Using CAI may also reduce the amount of class time needed for certain tasks (e.g., reinforcing music theory), leaving more class time to work on other skills (Herzig, 1991; Parrish, 1997). Additional benefits of music CAI include active learner participation, instant feedback, repetition, the objectivity of the computer, and the ability to randomize items and keep records of students’ achievement (Bowyer, 2000; McNeely, 1991). Lastly, CAI can make music learning more feasible and satisfying for older adults who have little or no musical knowledge. There are four types of music CAI: (1) Drill-and-Practice, (2) Flexible Practice, (3) Simulation, and (4) Multimedia (Williams & Webster, 2005). Until the last two decades, music CAI software was primarily drill and practice. Drill-and-practice software provides students with reinforcement on musical concepts that they have already learned. Groovy Music (Sibelius), Essentials of Music Theory (Alfred), Practica Musica (Ars Nova Software, LLC), Music Ace Maestro (Harmonic Vision), Adventures in Musicland (ECS Media), and Datasonic’s Mastering Music and Ear Master 5, are all examples of drill-and-practice software. Research has shown that drill-and-practice music CAI programs can significantly improve students’ ability to read and perform music (Hesser, 1988; Smith, 2002; Willett & Netusil, 1989). Drill-and-practice music CAI programs can also improve the retention of music fundamentals (Weintraub, 1991) and increase self-efficacy (Arenson, 1995).

Flexible Practice software creates a practice environment in which an individual receives immediate feedback. SmartMusic (MakeMusic, Inc.) and iPAS (Neil A. Kjos Music Company) are both considered flexible practice programs. Researchers examining the use of flexible practice software have not always found them to be effective, though they have determined the advantages of students having a practice assessment tool (Buck, 2008; Lee, 2007; Schachter, 1999; Sidwell-Frame, 2009) and viable alternatives to live accompaniment (Glenn, 2000; Klee, 1998; Ouren, 1997; Repp, 1999; Snap, 1997; Sheldon, Reese, & Grashel, 1999; Tseng, 1996; Wright, 2008). In addition, many students have revealed a positive attitude toward the use of MIDI accompaniments during musical practice (Ajero, 2007; Benson, 2002; Davis, 2001; Sheldon, Reese, & Grashel, 1999). Simulation software programs like Finale (MakeMusic, Inc.), Sibelius (Avid Technology, Inc.) and Making Music (Morton Subotnick), are designed to notate music and play it back to the user. Several researchers have reported on the use of simulation software in music education settings (Deihl & Radocy, 1969; Lincoln, 1969; Nelson, 2007; Schachter, 1999). Their findings were not conclusive; however, the researchers indicated that there are educational benefits connected with the use of simulation software programs including sophisticated feedback, student-directed learning and student independence. Multimedia CAI is designed to enhance student learning through an array of means (e.g., audio, video, text, and enhanced graphics). Many of the software programs listed in the paragraphs above fall under the category of multimedia CAI. Because multimedia CAI provides the user with a multi-sensory experience, it is likely to be advantageous to students of all learning types. The use of multimedia music CAI has resulted in positive significant outcomes on student learning (Dobbe, 1998).

The Use of Technology in Piano Instruction Just as computer technology and music application programs have developed, keyboard technology has also advanced over the last fifty years. The early 1960s marked the creation of the first monophonic synthesizers (or ‘Minimoogs’), to be followed by Oberheim polyphonic keyboards in the late 1970s. The digital sampling that emerged in the 1980s made it possible for digital pianos to replicate hundreds of acoustic musical sounds. During the 2000s, keyboard technology evolved into the creation of 256-voice polyphonic digital pianos that featured drum

31 kits, multiple timbres, enhanced sequencing, a wide range of accompaniment styles, and tools for improvisation. Common features found on today’s digital keyboards include graded hammer- action to simulate the feel of acoustic pianos, built-in metronomes, built-in multi-track sequencers, banks of nearly a thousand sounds, auto-accompaniment styles that simulate a back- up band or orchestra for the pianist, LCD touch screens, internal hard drives, expandable external memory options to save performance data, and both USB storage and USB connectivity (Ajero, 2007; Tsao-Lim, 2006). In 1994, Ables, Hoffer and Klotman referred to the use of electronic instruments in music curricula and instruction as one of the most novel developments in the last few decades. MIDI, CAI, and keyboard technology have developed and facilitated piano instruction and performance (Ajero, 2007). Major industries such as Baldwin/Wurlitzer, Roland, and Yamaha, have had an impact on the field of music education through the development of keyboard labs and software- based lessons. Courses developed by Yamaha such as the Yamaha Music Education System (YMES), Keyboard Encounters, and Music in Education (MIE), have sought to reach out to music learners through the use of technology (Keenan, 1995). Keenan (1995) conducted a study using the Yamaha Music in Education program to teach older adults in a keyboard lab setting. She sought to determine (a) if the program and materials would be appropriate to an adult learning environment, (b) what opinions the adults would have about their involvement, and (c) what music concept knowledge and skills they might be able to acquire following eight weeks of course instruction. Results indicated that participants performed significantly better on the skills posttest than on the skills pretest, and that participants’ overall attitudes and opinions towards the program were positive and favorable. Although the Yamaha MIE program was originally geared toward pre-college students, it was concluded that with some modifications (specifically of the featured song literature), the program was appropriate for older adult learners as well. Some recently developed keyboards, like the Yamaha CVP-300 Clavinova, feature the integration of CAI directly into the keyboard design. With the use of ‘Guide Mode,’ lights behind each key are provided during a composition to visually cue pianists as to which keys to press and when. The use of this type of CAI was investigated by Ajero (2007), who assigned participants to two classes: one that used ‘Guide Mode’ on Yamaha CVP-300 Clavinova keyboards and one class that did not utilize ‘Guide Mode.’ Although there were no significant

32 differences in performance accuracy between the two groups, it was found that students perceived the effectiveness of ’Guide Mode’ to be positive. MIDI ensembles are a unique example of the use of technology for group music-making. MIDI technology makes it possible for ensemble members to produce a range of sounds from their digital keyboards that may not sound impressive individually, but combine to form a cohesive musical effect. MIDI instrument sounds can be adjusted to compensate for some of the hearing losses associated with the aging process (Pike, 2011). Pike’s qualitative case study of a successful senior MIDI ensemble revealed that students experienced increased musical growth and confidence, and improved technical and musical skills (Pike, 2011). Hall (2001) conducted a study that evaluated the use of a CAI method (Musicware Piano, Course 1, by Musicware Inc.) for teaching beginning piano to adults aged 31-55. Although there were no increases in musical self-efficacy, participants did consider the course to be a positive experience. Participants perceived the nonmusical benefits of the class to be increased relaxation, nostalgia, and confidence. Participants who were parents reported an increased interest in their child’s musical education. The self-paced curriculum and ability to review lessons were deemed beneficial to the adult participants. In 2006, Tsao-Lim surveyed 76 independent piano teachers about the use of technology in their curricula. Sixty-two percent indicated that they utilized one or more forms of technology in their teaching. Sixty-two percent used keyboard technology and/or computers, 61% used the Internet, and 58% used accompaniment disks for teaching (Tsao-Lim, 2006). Almost every teacher (91%) who reported computer-use was also using computer-assisted instruction software. In fact, CAI software was more widely used than notation, sequencing, or accompaniment application software. Although much of the CAI software employed by piano teachers was to facilitate rhythm, ear training, history, or composition, the majority of CAI software was used to drill and reinforce music theory. Most of the instructors in Tsao-Lim’s 2006 study used CAI to motivate students or to reinforce previously learned concepts, while several teachers used CAI to introduce new concepts. The majority of participants indicated that technology had a positive pedagogical impact on their curricula, and that their primary resources for acquiring music technology knowledge were workshops/seminars and colleagues. Carney (2010) described the successful implementation of music theory CAI in the piano studio. Few CAI programs could be found that specifically facilitate piano playing skills. Tsao-

Lim (2006) provided an exhaustive list of over 70 computer-assisted instruction software programs in her 2006 dissertation. The majority of the programs listed were designed to reinforce the fundamentals of music (i.e., note reading, theory, rhythm and ear training). Some of the music CAI programs cited were intended to teach music appreciation or to assist in teaching composition. Of the 74 software applications cited, only four programs were designed to teach actual piano playing skills: Children’s Music Journey (Adventus Interactive), Music Lab (Town4Kids), Quickstart Piano (Midisoft), and Piano WizardTM (Allegro Multimedia, Inc.). In 2011, Belgrave studied the use of Piano Wizard™ as a means to create lifelong learning experiences for older adults. She sought to examine: the effectiveness of Piano Wizard™ as a valuable piano teaching tool for older adults, whether participation enhanced subjective well-being, and older adults’ perceptions of music technology as a viable instruction method. Eleven participants received eight 30-minute lessons in a one-to-one setting. She found that participants perceived an increase in their subjective well-being, and thought the lessons provided them with a meaningful weekly activity. Participants also perceived that the lessons required the use of cognitive skills and fostered discipline through weekly lessons and at-home practice. Participants indicated the benefits of Piano Wizard™ to be: (1) the programs’ visual and audio feedback (2) the ability to adjust the tempo while playing and (3) the overall structure of teaching materials.

Rationale and Research Questions Based on the findings of Belgrave’s 2011 study, it appears that the pace and design of the Piano Wizard™ program may be applicable to senior adults. Based on Belgrave’s findings, further examination of Piano Wizard™ is warranted in regard to older adults’ motivational orientation, musical progress, perceived benefits of Piano Wizard™, and attitudes toward music learning and the software program. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of Piano Wizard™ as a viable technological and instructional tool for older adults. Piano Wizard’s applicability for seniors was determined by participants’ musical skill development, perceptions of personal fulfillment, attitudes toward music learning, and opinions about the software program Piano Wizard™. Secondary purposes of the study were: (1) to identify participants’ motivation for enrolling in an educational program and (2) to examine differences in participants’ attitudes, perceptions, and

34 skill development based on their: age, previous musical experience, socio-economic status, or participation in individual vs. partner lessons. The research questions for the present study were:

(1) Will participants make musical progress over the six weeks of piano lessons using Piano Wizard™? (2) What are participants’ perceptions regarding the benefits of piano lessons using Piano Wizard™? (3) What is the ratio of participants’ positive to negative comments regarding Piano Wizard™ and the overall learning experience? (4) What are participants’ opinions about the Piano Wizard™ program and its future use with older adults? (5) What is participants’ motivational orientation for taking piano lessons using Piano Wizard™? (6) Will age, previous musical experience, socio-economic status, or participation in individual vs. partner lessons affect participants’ attitudes, perceptions, or musical skill development?

CHAPTER THREE

METHOD

Needs Assessment Prior to the development of the present study, a needs assessment was performed to examine the music education preferences of older adults. Sixty-four senior participants filled out a written survey indicating current and previous musical experiences. Participants rated potential future musical experiences and indicated their preference with regard to time, cost, and musical preference. The majority of participants (69%) indicated some interest in having further musical experiences, with “sing in a choir” as the highest-rated potential musical activity, followed by “take piano lessons.” Interest in potential music learning opportunities was independent from socio-economic status, gender, age, and previous musical experiences. Preference was for on- site, one-on-one lessons, once a week in the afternoon, costing $1-10. Popular music was rated the highest as a style of music participants would like to sing and/or play (Mitak, 2011).

Participants A convenience sample of older adult participants was obtained from two retirement communities in a large Southeastern city. One residence was a subsidized rental retirement community for low-income seniors, aged 62 and older. The other residence offered independent and assisted living in luxury apartment homes. All participants for this study were cognitively and physically well enough to be living independently. Thirty older adults volunteered to serve as participants, and 25 completed the six weeks of instruction. Pragmatic issues (time, transportation, convenience), and health and safety issues are frequently cited as common barriers for older adult learners (McCullough, 1981; Purdie & Boulton-Lewis, 2003) making attrition one of the most commonly-cited limitations of research with seniors (Hofer, Sliwinski, & Flaherty, 2002). Participants’ demographic data were obtained from a questionnaire that was administered prior to the beginning of lessons. A complete profile of all participants can be viewed in Table 1. There were 20 females (80%), and five males (20%) who participated in this study. This ratio of females to males (4:1) is common among the older adult population due to differences in life

36 expectancy, and personal interests related to the arts. Fourteen participants (56%) resided in the facility classified as lower socio-economic status (SES), and 11 (44%) participants resided in the location classified as higher SES. There were two people under the age of 65 (8%), eight people aged 65-74 (32%), eight people aged 75-85 (32%), and seven people aged 85 and older (28%). Most participants were retired and many had worked in the field of education or healthcare (see Table 2). Fourteen of the 25 participants in this study had no formal music training (56%), and of the 11 who reported having formal music training (44%), all had previous keyboard experience—either piano or organ.

Setting All piano lessons took place in designated activity rooms at the living facilities. Participants sat in chairs—one or two depending on whether it was an individual or partner lesson—facing a table with the keyboard and laptop computer easily within reach. Some participants required the use of propping pillows for optimal positioning and comfort, and one participant used his wheelchair for lessons. The instructor typically sat to the right of participants, or sometimes to the left during partner lessons, depending on the assistance needed. Participants used chairs and couches in the activity room to wait for their lessons, to fill out questionnaires, and to complete journal entries at the conclusion of their lessons.

Materials To utilize the Piano Wizard™ program, the following materials were required for each lesson: (1) the Premier Piano Wizard™ software loaded onto a computer, (2) a Gateway™ laptop computer, (3) a 49-key synthesizer-action piano keyboard that was USB compatible, (4) a USB cable to connect the piano keyboard to the computer, and (5) color-coded stickers that were placed on the piano keys a priori. Five Piano Wizard™ lesson books were also made available for those students who could read music. The instructor/researcher used a notebook to record attendance and participants’ musical progress for each lesson. One composition notebook was provided to each participant to record journal entries after each lesson. The “Voice Memos” application on an iPhone™ was utilized for participants who chose to audio record their final journal entry.

Table 1

Demographic Profile of Participants

Variable n % Residence Location A (classified as lower SES) 14 56 Location B (classified as higher SES) 11 44 Age category <65 2 8 65-74 8 32 75-84 8 32 85+ 7 28 Gender Female 20 80 Male 5 20 Education Some high school 1 4 High school graduate 10 40 Some college 5 20 College graduate 6 24 Graduate school 3 12 Marital Status Single or divorced/separated 11 44 Married 6 24 Widowed 8 32 Employment Status* Retired 25 100 Formal musical training Yes 11 44 No 14 56 Keyboard experience (piano, organ, etc.) Yes 11 44 No 14 56 Currently engaged in musical activity Yes 9 36 No 16 64 *Note. See Table 2 for a complete list of professions

Table 2

Participants’ Professions in Rank Order

Profession teacher teacher teacher, co-owner dry cleaners teacher, salesman university professor, writer Kindergarten teacher, R.N. R.N. R.N. for military (WWII) R.N., Rehabilitation Counselor C.N.A. homemaker housewife housewife mother, grandmother caregiver government clerk for the State office manager, Board of Education P. A. A. library assistant manager deli manager customer service laundry, dry cleaner quality control aircraft hardware nurse’s aide, administrative assistant, security supervisor, NASA tour escort, bus driver Note. Verbatim transcription of the textual data

Piano Wizard™ Piano Wizard™ is computer-assisted instruction software application that combines the fundamentals of piano playing with a multi-sensory video game-like format. Alan November, an international leader in education technology, once stated that “all teachers should be playing video games with their students” (Criswell & Menasche, 2009). Video games tend to capture and retain student attention, and the notion that video games can be educational is gradually making an impact on the designers of educational software (Criswell & Menasche, 2009). One example of music CAI that utilizes a game-like format is the Piano WizardTM program. Subsequent to the

39 opening of the original Piano Wizard Academy in 2005, Don and Delayna Beattie, in collaboration with Allegro Multimedia CEO Chris Salter, published the Piano Wizard™ Method curriculum in 2007. The program was founded on the philosophy that the process of learning piano should be fun, gratifying, free from humiliation, and that music should be taught and learned in the same way that language is: first by sound, then by sight (“Piano Wizard Academy,” 2012). The Piano Wizard™ method features a 50-lesson series of five books containing traditionally-notated pieces and instructions on how to practice and master the concepts presented throughout. Book One (Lessons 1-10) introduces playing by use of the black keys only. Book Two (Lesson 11-20) first introduces white keys C, D, and E, and eventually F, G, A, and B. Book Three (Lessons 21-30) includes arrangements of familiar songs (i.e., “Amazing Grace,” “Jingle Bells”), and music that becomes more rhythmically challenging. Book 4 (lessons 31-40), presents various keys containing sharps and flats, and the student is prompted to coordinate hands together playing. Upon completion of Book Five (Lessons 41-50), students are playing at an early intermediate level. The pieces contained in the Piano Wizard™ lesson books correspond with a multi- sensory game. The game provides a visual display of “notation,” and a musical arrangement to accompany students as they play. There are four levels of “notation” available for use with each piece: Step 1: The game objects rise from the bottom to the top along a corresponding colored line that matches the color code of the key being used. The key is pressed when the game object reaches the matching key of the piano graphic at the top of the page and the game object changes as the note is played. See Figure 1.

Step 2: The game rotates the objects to move from right to left, rather than bottom to top. This movement allows the student to quickly adapt to the horizontal nature of music notation. It also assists with coordination by keeping the right hand corresponding to the game objects at the upper part of the screen, and the left hand corresponding to the game objects at the lower part of the screen. See Figure 2.

Step 3: The games objects change into color-coded notes on the musical staff. This transition allows the student to keep the same key-matching color scheme while learning musical notation. See Figure 3.

Step 4: The notation changes from colored notes to black notes, making the shift to reading actual musical notation. See Figure 4.

Step 5: It is suggested that once students master Step 4, they begin playing solely from the sheet music in the lesson books rather than depending on the visual and audio stimuli of the game (“Piano Wizard Academy: making music child’s play,” 2012).

Figure 1. Step 1 in the Piano WizardTM program.

Figure 2. Step 2 in the Piano WizardTM program.

Figure 3. Step 3 in the Piano WizardTM program.

Figure 4. Step 4 in the Piano WizardTM program.

In addition to the pre-set levels, other features of the Piano Wizard™ program may be adjusted at any time. One can enable the display of notation with or without the corresponding key-color, finger numbers, and/or note names. The lead volume and accompaniment volume can both be individually controlled. The tempo of each piece can be changed by the user, even after the piece has begun. The “hit zone,” which determines the amount of precision required for a note to be counted toward the score, can be shortened or expanded. At the completion of a piece, a score is displayed that represents the percentage of pitches played in correct time. There is also a “free play” mode that allows the user to practice on the MIDI keyboard. The Piano Wizard™ program was developed for ages 3 and up, which may lead one to question the validity of its use with older adults. However, many of the above-mentioned features (i.e., the adjustability of the tempo, notation level, and volume) make Piano Wizard™ a potentially effective method of teaching piano to seniors.

Procedures Each facility was provided with informational posters announcing the research project and an invitation to participate. Potential participants indicated their interest on a sign-up sheet. An informational meeting was held at both locations for participants to ask questions, sign consent forms, and sign up for a weekly lesson time. Participants could sign up for individual lessons or partner lessons with a partner of their choice. Thirty-minute lessons were offered for six consecutive weeks. Lessons took place at “Location A” (n=14) on Monday and Wednesday afternoons, and at “Location B” (n=11) on Fridays, from late morning until the late afternoon. Afternoon lessons were scheduled due to the availability of participants, as well as research that demonstrates older adults’ preference for afternoon activities (McCullough, 1981; Mitak, 2011). All participants were asked to come to their first lesson at least fifteen minutes early, during which time they filled out the demographic questionnaire, and the Educational Participation Scale (EPS, A-form). After receiving a brief introduction to finger numbers and the patterns of the black keys on the piano, participants observed as the instructor played the first piece from the Piano Wizard™ program using Level 3 (color-coded notes shown on the musical staff). Once it was confirmed that participants understood the task, they proceeded to play through the first piece. While most participants worked through the method sequentially from the beginning, there were three students with piano experience who advanced ahead to a level more appropriate to their abilities. Each lesson began with review of the final piece attempted at the preceding lesson. Most pieces were repeated 3-4 times per session, with the goal of increasing the tempo, and advancing to the next Piano Wizard™ reading level for each attempt. When participants were able to perform with at least 90% accuracy, or as accurate as seemed feasible without frustrating the participant, the next piece of music was introduced. The highest accuracy score attained for each piece was recorded by the instructor. After each session, participants made written entries in their designated journal. Since writing was a challenge for some individuals due to physical limitations (i.e., arthritis, stroke, etc.), journal entries alternately could be spoken while the instructor recorded participants’ statements. At the conclusion of the sixth lesson, participants completed their final journal entries, The Benefits of Adult Piano Study Questionnaire, and a questionnaire about the Piano Wizard™ program.

Measures Used to Address the Research Question Research Question #1: Musical Progress Will participants make musical progress over the six weeks of piano lessons using Piano WizardTM? Musical progress was measured by (1) participants’ overall mean accuracy score, (2) the number of pieces participants were able to play at the conclusion of all lessons, and (3) the ‘song-level’ participants achieved at the conclusion of all lessons. Accuracy scores—the percentage of correct pitches played in time—were provided by the Piano WizardTM software. Criteria for progress were defined a priori. These progress criteria were: an overall mean accuracy score of 90 or above, at least 10 pieces learned and at least ‘song-level’ 10 achieved (according to the Piano WizardTM program), by the end of the lessons.

Research Question #2: Perceived Benefits What are participants’ perceptions regarding the benefits of piano lessons using Piano Wizard™? Perceived benefits were measured with an adapted version of The Benefits of Adult Piano Study Questionnaire by Jutras (2003). The original questionnaire included 14 questions related to Personal benefits, 10 questions related to Social/Cultural benefits, and seven questions related to Skill benefits, for a total of 31 items. A pilot administration of this questionnaire indicated it was too lengthy for the targeted population; consequently, the questionnaire was abbreviated to include nine questions related to Personal benefits, six questions related to Social/Cultural benefits, and five questions related to Skill benefits, for a total of 20 items. Items were sorted and eliminated on the basis of how they were rated in recent studies (Jutras, 2003), and whether or not they were pertinent to the present study. The following three items were also added to the questionnaire: “Studying piano gets me out among other people,” “Studying piano improves my coordination and motor skills,” and “Studying piano gives me the chance to have a good time with others.” The purpose of these addition questions was to address potential benefits unique to older adults, and possible benefits of partner lessons. Two questions were paraphrased and repeated for test-retest reliability purposes. See Appendix A for the questionnaire.

Research Question #3: Comments about the Program and Learning Experience What is the ratio of participants’ positive to negative comments regarding Piano Wizard™ and the overall learning experience? Participants were asked to make brief written journal statements after each lesson. These could include comments about: their impressions of Piano Wizard™, how they were feeling physically, social interactions during lessons, the learning experience, the instruction received, or anything else they wished to share (see Appendix B). Upon completion of the final lesson, participants were given the option of writing in their journals as was customary, or to have their final thoughts audio recorded. Thirteen individuals chose the second option, and were recorded using the “Voice Memos” application on an iPhone™. All comments were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) (Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007), a text analysis software program designed to calculate the degree to which people use different categories of words.

Research Question #4: Opinions about Piano WizardTM What are participants’ opinions about the Piano Wizard™ program and its future use with older adults? Participants’ opinions about the Piano Wizard™ program were measured through the use of a questionnaire modeled after Keenan’s Adult Participant Survey (1995). This questionnaire was completed by participants at the conclusion of their final lesson. Questions pertained to participants’ expectations before and after the lessons, the probability of continuing piano lessons, and participants’ suggestions for revisions to the program. See Appendix C for the questionnaire used.

Research Question #5: Motivational Orientation What is participants’ motivational orientation for taking piano lessons using Piano Wizard™? Motivational orientation was measured using a modified version of Boshier’s Education Participation Scale, A-form (1982). The original instrument consisted of 42 items related to seven potential factors for enrolling in an adult educational program. Four categories of questions related to potential enrollment factors were considered appropriate to the purposes of this study. These categories were: Cognitive Interest, Educational, Social Contact, and Social

Stimulation. The following categories of questions were considered inappropriate for the purposes of this study and were therefore omitted: Communication Improvement, Professional Advancement, and Family Together were omitted. See Appendix D for the modified final version of the EPS used for this study. The final measure used for this study was a demographic questionnaire, administered to all participants before their first lesson. This questionnaire was adapted from the Personal Data Sheet, prepared by Keenan (1995). It queried participants as to their age, gender, educational level, marital status profession, previous and current engagement in musical activities, and formal music training. This questionnaire can be seen in Appendix E. The data garnered from this questionnaire provided the information necessary to examine differences between participants’ attitudes, perceptions, and skill development based on their age and previous musical experience.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

In order to address the research questions, measures used for this study consisted of participants’ accuracy scores provided by the Piano WizardTM program, an abbreviated and modified version of The Benefits of Adult Piano Study Questionnaire, participants’ weekly journal entries, a questionnaire about participants’ overall experience with the Piano WizardTM program, an abbreviated and modified version of the Education Participation Scale (EPS, A- form), and a demographic questionnaire.

Reliability Reliability was calculated for The Benefits of Adult Piano Study Questionnaire and the Education Participation Scale (EPS, A-form). Two questions (#3 and # 12) in The Benefits of Adult Piano Study Questionnaire were re-phrased and included a second time (#17 and #19) as a measure of reliability. The results of a parallel forms reliability test revealed a coefficient of .82 for questions 3 and 17, and .78 for questions 12 and 19. These data indicate a strong positive correlation for repeated questions on The Benefits of Adult Piano Study Questionnaire. The coefficient alpha levels for each category of the Education Participation Scale (EPS, A-form) ranged from .88 to .91 (see Table 3), indicating strong internal consistency.

Table 3 Reliability of the Four Motivational Factors Category Coefficient alpha Cognitive interest .91 Educational .89 Social contact .88 Social stimulation .91

Results Research Question #1: Musical Progress Will participants make musical progress over the six weeks of piano lessons using Piano WizardTM? Musical progress was determined by: (1) participants’ overall mean accuracy score, (2) the number of pieces participants had learned at the conclusion of all lessons, and (3) the ‘song- level’ participants achieved at the conclusion of all lessons. Criteria for progress were defined a priori. These progress criteria were: an overall mean accuracy score of 90 or above, an overall mean of at least 10 songs learned, and an overall average of at least ‘song-level’ 10 achieved. Piano progress was measured using participants’ reported accuracy scores for each piece. Accuracy scores—the percentage of correct pitches played in time—were provided by the Piano WizardTM program. For all participant lessons, the highest accuracy score achieved for each piece learned was recorded. A mean accuracy score for each participant was calculated by averaging all reported scores. The overall mean accuracy score for all participants was 90.91 (SD=4.39). The average number of pieces learned by all participants was 9.08 (SD=3.59), and the average ‘song-level’ reached was 10.6 (SD=6.32). The high standard deviation for ‘song-level’ reached was due to three students who were more advanced due to prior keyboard experience and skipped ahead to a more appropriate level. These data indicate that participants met two of the three criteria set for musical progress. The criterion not met was the average number of pieces learned. Criterion was set at 10 pieces learned, and the overall mean number of pieces learned was 9.08.

Age factor. Participants for this study included two people under the age of 65, eight people aged 65-74, eight people aged 75-85, and seven people aged 85 and older. For calculation purposes, the two youngest groups were combined, forming three groups: ‘younger’ (<65-74), ‘middle’ (75-84), and ‘older’ (85+). The mean accuracy score was 93.41 (SD=2.08) for the ‘younger’ group, 91.12 (SD=4.61) for the ‘middle’ group, and 87.09 (SD=3.86) for the ‘older’ group (see Figure 5). A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to compare piano accuracy scores for the three age groups, and the results were significant (H(2) = 8.06, p < .05). Post-hoc tests (Mann Whitney U) were conducted to evaluate pair-wise differences, and results indicated a

100 93.41 91.12 90 87.09 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 <65-74 75-84 85+

Figure 5. Mean accuracy scores by age.

significant difference (p < .02) between the ‘younger’ and ‘older’ groups’ piano accuracy scores. No significant difference was found between the ‘younger’ and ‘middle’ groups’ accuracy scores, or between the ‘middle’ and ‘older’ groups’ piano accuracy scores. The mean number of pieces learned was 10.4 (SD=3.2) for the ‘younger’ group, 9.88 (SD=3.99) for the ‘middle’ group, and 6.29 (SD=1.48) for the ‘older’ group. A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to compare the number of pieces learned for the three age groups, and results were significant (H(2) = 8.84, p < .05). Post-hoc tests (Mann Whitney U) were conducted to evaluate pair-wise differences, and results indicated a significant difference (p < .05) between the ‘younger’ and ‘older’ groups’ number of pieces learned. No significant difference was found between the ‘younger’ and ‘middle’ groups’ number of pieces learned, or between the ‘middle’ and ‘older’ groups’ number of pieces learned. The mean ‘song-level’ reached was 11.6 (SD=6.96) for the ‘younger’ group, 12.75 (SD=6.58) for the ‘middle’ group, and 6.71 (SD=1.58) for the ‘older’ group. A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to compare ‘song-level’ reached for the three age groups, and results were significant (H(2) = 7.76, p < .05). Post-hoc tests (Mann Whitney U) were conducted to evaluate

50 pair-wise differences, and results indicated a significant difference (p < .02) between the ‘younger’ and ‘older’ groups’ ‘song-level’ reached, and between the ‘middle’ and ‘older’ groups’ ‘song-level’ reached. No significant difference was found between the ‘younger’ and ‘middle’ groups’ ‘song-level’ reached. As mentioned earlier, three students were more advanced and skipped ahead to work at a more appropriate ‘song-level’. One of the more advanced students was in the ‘younger’ group, and two were in the ‘middle’ group. The scores of these three students were eliminated, and the data were re-calculated to see if there would be a difference in ‘song-level’ reached by those without previous musical experience only. A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to compare ‘song-level’ reached for the three age groups, and results were significant (H(2) = 6.38, p < .05). Post-hoc tests (Mann Whitney U) were conducted to evaluate pair-wise differences, and results indicated a significant difference (p < .02) between the ‘younger’ and ‘older’ groups’ ‘song- level’ reached, though no differences were found between the ‘middle’ and ‘older’ groups’ ‘song-level’ reached. These age factor data indicate that age may have had an influence on the musical progress of participants, particularly between the ‘younger’ and ‘older’ groups. Older participants achieved significantly lower accuracy scores, learned significantly fewer songs, and achieved significantly lower song levels than younger participants.

Previous musical experience factor. Fourteen of the 25 participants in this study had no formal music training (56%), and of the 11 who did report having formal music training (44%), all had some keyboard experience (piano or organ). The mean accuracy score was 90.77 (SD=4.96) for those with previous musical experience, and 91.01 (SD=3.88) for those without musical experience (see Figure 6). A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the accuracy scores for both groups. No significant difference was found in mean accuracy scores between participants with and without previous musical experience (U = 66.5, Z = 0.55, p > .05); see Figure 6. The mean number of pieces learned was 9.82 (SD=4.93) for those with music experience, and 8.50 (SD=1.76) for those without music experience. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the number of pieces learned for both groups. No significant difference was found in

51 the mean number of pieces learned between participants with and without previous musical experience (U = 79, Z = -0.08, p > .05).

100 91.01 90.77 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 no previous experience previous experience

Figure 6. Mean accuracy scores by previous music experience.

The mean ‘song-level’ reached was 13.18 (SD=8.63) for those with music experience, and 8.57 (SD=1.8) for those without music experience. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare ‘song-level’ reached for both group. No significant difference was found in the mean ‘song-level’ reached by participants with and without previous musical experience (U = 92, Z = - 0.79, p > .05). These data indicate that previous musical experience did not have an effect on the musical progress made by participants. In fact, the mean accuracy score for those without formal music training was slightly higher than for those with formal music training. Results may have differed had only participants with a substantial amount of training been included in the category ‘previous musical experience.’ Many of the above standard deviations are quite high, suggesting a wide range of abilities.

Socio-economic status (SES) factor. Fourteen participants (56%) resided in the location classified as lower SES, and 11 (44%) participants resided in the location classified as higher SES. The mean accuracy score was 91.51 (SD=3.99) for the lower SES group, and 90.14 (SD=4.75) for the higher SES group (see Figure 3). A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the accuracy scores for both groups. No significant difference was found in mean accuracy scores between those participants of lower SES, and those of higher SES (U = 90, Z = - 0.68, p > .05); see Figure 7.

100 91.51 90.14 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lower SES Higher SES

Figure 7. Mean accuracy scores by socio-economic status.

The mean number of pieces learned was 9.79 (SD=4.18) for the lower SES group, and 8.18 (SD=2.37) for the higher SES group. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the number of pieces learned for both groups. No significant difference was found in the mean number of pieces learned between those participants of lower SES, and those of higher SES (U = 94, Z = -0.9, p > .05).

The mean ‘song-level’ reached was 10.86 (SD=6.81) for the lower SES group, and 10.27 (SD=5.62) for the higher SES group. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare ‘song- level’ reached for both groups. No significant difference was found was found in the mean ‘song-level’ reached by those participants of lower SES, and those of higher SES (U = 83.5, Z = -0.33, p > .05). These SES factor data indicate that socio-economic status did not have an effect on the musical progress made by participants.

Individual vs. partner lessons factor. Thirteen (52%) students participated in individual lessons, and 12 (48%) students participated in partner lessons. The mean accuracy score was 91.09 (SD=5.34) for those taking individual lessons, and 90.71 (SD=3.03) for those taking partner lessons (see Figure 4). A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the accuracy scores for both groups. No significant difference was found in mean accuracy scores between those taking individual lessons, and those taking partner lessons (U = 59, Z = 1.01, p > .05); see Figure 8.

100 91.09 90.71 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Individual Lessons Partner Lessons

Figure 8. Mean accuracy scores by lesson type.

The mean number of pieces learned was 9.54 (SD=4.55) for those taking individual lessons, and 8.58 (SD=1.98) for those taking partner lessons. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the number of pieces learned for both groups. No significant difference was found in the mean number of pieces learned by those participants taking and individual lessons, and those taking partner lessons (U = 84.5, Z = -0.33, p > .05). The mean ‘song-level’ reached was 11.54 (SD=8.34) for those taking individual lessons, and 9.58 (SD=2.47) for those taking partner lessons. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare ‘song-level’ reached for both groups. No significant difference was found in the mean ‘song-level’ reached by those taking individual lessons, and those taking partner lessons (U = 97, Z = -1.01, p > .05). These data indicate that participation in individual or partner lessons did not have an effect on the musical progress made by participants.

Summary response to question #1. Participants met two of the three pre-determined criteria and made comparable musical progress regardless of previous musical experience, SES, or participation in individual vs. partner lessons. Note that the mean accuracy scores for those without previous musical experience were slightly higher than for those with previous musical experience. Results may have differed had only participants with a substantial amount of training been included in the category ‘previous musical experience.’ Many of the above standard deviations are quite high, suggesting a wide range of abilities. The only factor that appeared to influence participants’ musical progress was age. ‘Older’ participants achieved significantly lower accuracy scores, learned significantly fewer songs, and achieved significantly lower song-levels than ‘younger’ participants. While a 20-year or so difference in age between the ‘older’ and ‘younger’ groups seemed to influence participants’ musical progress, there was not a comparable difference in musical progress of those participants who were in the adjacent groups (‘younger’ and ‘middle,’ and ‘middle’ and older’).

Research Question #2: Perceived Benefits What are participants’ perceptions regarding the benefits of piano lessons using Piano Wizard™? After the final session, participants were asked to complete an abbreviated version of The Benefits of Adult Piano Study Questionnaire (Jutras, 2003; see Appendix A). This

55 questionnaire contained 20 items pertaining to the three categories of Personal, Skill, and Social/Cultural benefits. Participants rated the existence and importance of each potential benefit, first stating if the benefit existed for them personally, and if so, rating the benefit's importance to them on a scale of 1 to 10. Data were analyzed by first determining the percentage of those agreeing with each benefit. The range of positive responses on the existence of each benefit extended from 100% for ‘Escape from Routine’ and ‘Play/Fun’, to 56% for ‘Spirituality’. A complete list of all benefits by category can be seen in Table 4. The category of Skill Benefits had the highest mean percentage of agreement (92%), followed by Personal Benefits (83.11%) and lastly, Social/Cultural Benefits (76.66%). The mean importance rating for each item was calculated. To include all individuals, a score of 0 was used for those who did not agree that a certain benefit existed. Overall, ‘Escape from Routine’ (M=9.16, SD=1.51) and ‘Play/Fun’ (M=8.92, SD=1.47) were the highest-rated benefits. These both fell under the Personal Benefits category. ‘Musical Knowledge’ (M=8.61, SD=1.66), ‘Skill Refinement’ (M=8.59, SD=1.50, and ‘Coordination/Motor Skills’ (M=8.57, SD=1.79) were the next highest-rated items. These items all fell under the Skill Benefits category. The lowest-rated item was ‘Promotes Socialization’ (M=7.00, SD=2.23), which fell under the Social/Cultural Benefits category. See Table 5 for a complete list organized by mean importance rating. To compare scores across the three benefit categories, summed mean ratings were calculated for each category. The category of Skill Benefits received a summed mean rating of 8.34 (SD=1.87). Personal Benefits received a sum mean rating of 8.19 (SD=2.00), Social/Cultural Benefits received a summed mean rating of 7.97 (SD=2.43). See Table 6.

Individual vs. partner lessons factor. The summed mean rating for the category of Social Benefits was 6.59 for those taking individual lessons, and 5.53 for those taking partner lessons. ‘Promotes Socialization’ and ‘Cooperation’ were rated higher by those taking partner lessons, than those taking individual lessons. However, ‘Meet New Friends,’ ‘Fun With Others,’ and ‘Community’ were rated higher by those taking individual lessons, than by those taking partner lessons. Overall, participation in individual or partner lessons did not seem to affect perception of social benefits.

Table 4

Benefit Item Ratings - Percent Agreeing that the Item Exists

Benefit Category Benefit % of Agreement Skill Musicianship 96 Musical Knowledge 92 Coordination/Motor Skills 92 Skill Improvement 92 Skill Refinement 88

Mean Percentage of agreement for Skill Benefits 92.00 Personal Escape from Routine 100 Play/Fun 100 Accomplishment 92 Self-Confidence/Esteem 88 Personal Growth 88 Self-Fulfillment 84 Dream Fulfilled 72 Stress Reduction 68 Spirituality 56

Mean Percentage of agreement for Personal Benefits 83.11 Social/Cultural Promotes Socialization 88 Fun With Others 84 Cooperation 80 Cultural Understanding 72 Meet New Friends 68 Community 68

Mean Percentage of agreement for Social/Cultural Benefits 76.66

Table 5

Benefit Item Ratings - Mean Ratings of Importance

Rank Benefit Category n M SD 1 Escape from Routine P 25 9.16 1.51 2 Play/Fun P 25 8.92 1.47 3 Musical Knowledge SK 23 8.61 1.66 4 Skill Refinement SK 22 8.59 1.50 5 Coordination/Motor Skills SK 23 8.57 1.79 6 Cultural Understanding S 18 8.50 2.47 7 Self-Fulfillment P 21 8.33 2.15 8 Dream Fulfilled P 18 8.33 2.24 9 Skill Improvement SK 23 8.15 2.04 10 Cooperation S 20 8.15 2.24 11 Fun With Others S 21 8.14 2.92 12 Meet New Friends S 17 8.12 2.27 13 Accomplishment P 23 8.04 1.88 14 Musicianship SK 24 7.96 2.35 15 Community S 17 7.88 2.45 16 Self-Confidence/Esteem P 22 7.77 2.09 17 Personal Growth P 22 7.77 2.17 18 Spirituality P 14 7.71 2.22 19 Stress Reduction P 17 7.68 2.50 20 Promotes Socialization S 22 7.00 2.23 Note. P = Personal, SK = Skill, S = Social/Cultural

Table 6

Summed Mean Ratings of Importance

Category No. of Items Category Mean Category SD Average Item Mean

Skill Benefits 5 41.88 1.87 8.34

Personal Benefits 9 73.31 2.00 8.19

Social/Cultural Benefits 6 47.79 2.43 7.97

Summary response to question #2. These findings indicate that participants generally valued personal benefits over skill development and perceived the most beneficial aspects of piano study to be the opportunity to have a diversion from their usual routine and do something enjoyable. Secondary benefits of piano study were related to gains in musical knowledge and ability, as well as coordination and motor skills. Although participants taking individual lessons rated social benefits slightly higher than participants taking partner lessons, the factor of individual vs. partner lessons did not seem to influence overall perception of social benefits.

Research Question #3: Comments about the Program and Learning Experience What is the ratio of participants’ positive to negative comments regarding Piano Wizard™ and the overall learning experience? Data were collected after each lesson, as participants were asked to make brief written journal statements. These could include comments about: their impressions of Piano Wizard™, how they were feeling physically, their social interactions, the learning experience and instruction received, or anything else they wished to share (see Appendix B). Upon completion of the final lesson, participants were given the option of writing in their journals as was customary, or to have their final thoughts audio recorded. Thirteen individuals chose the second option. All data from the written journals and audio recordings were transcribed into text files (see Appendix F). To ensure the most accurate analysis possible, certain revisions had to be made to the original text file (i.e., removing all dashes, correction of misspellings, etc.). See Appendix G for the revised version. All comments were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; Pennebaker et al., 2007), a text analysis software program designed to calculate the degree to which people use different categories of words. LIWC2007 uses an internal dictionary to count words in conceptual categories, and creates proportion scores for each category based on the total word count. It should be noted that during the analysis process one word can be included in more than one subcategory. For instance, the word cried is part of five word categories: sadness, negative emotion, overall affect, verb, and past tense verb. Therefore, if this word were found in the target text, each of these five sub-dictionary scale scores would be increased.

The total word count for all twenty-five participants was 5,803. The ratio of positive to negative comments concerning the experience was approximately 7:1. The proportion score for all affective processes was 9.05, with 7.88% reflecting positive emotion, and 1.1% reflecting negative emotion. Of the words associated with negative emotion, 0.26% fell under the category of anxiety, 0.24% fell under sadness, and 0.19% fell under anger. LIWC2007 provides an output of approximately 80 variables, and a complete list of results pertinent to this study can be viewed in Table 7.

Age factor. The ratio of positive to negative comments concerning the experience was approximately 8:1 for the ‘younger’ group, 6:1 for the ‘middle’ group, and 9:1 for the ‘older’ group. The ‘older’ group had the highest proportion score (4.88) for the both the category of Perceptual Processes (see, hear, feel), and Biological Processes (body, health). A complete list of proportion scores by age group is reported in Table 8.

Previous music experience factor. The ratio of positive to negative comments concerning the experience was approximately 6:1 for those with previous musical experience, and 9:1 for those without previous musical experience. The proportion score for the subcategory of ‘anxiety’ was slightly higher (1.09) for those with musical experience, than for those without musical experience (1.11). The proportion score for ‘leisure’ was higher for those without musical experience (2.28) than it was for those with musical experience (1.69). See Table 8 for a complete list of proportions scores for those with and without previous musical experience.

Socio-economic status (SES) factor. The ratio of positive to negative comments concerning the experience was approximately 6:1 for the lower SES group, and 8:1 for the higher SES group. The subcategory of ‘money’ had a proportion score of .07 for the higher SES group, and .21 for the lower SES group (see Table 9).

Table 7

Analysis of All Journal Responses

Category Proportion Score Total Word Count 5,803 Social processes 4.34 Family 0.07 Friends 0.14 Humans 0.29 Affective processes 9.05 Positive emotion 7.88 Negative emotion 1.10 Anxiety 0.26 Anger 0.19 Sadness 0.24 Cognitive processes 18.49 Insight 4.41 Causation 1.45 Discrepancy 1.84 Tentative 2.43 Certainty 1.46 Inhibition 0.31 Inclusive 4.79 Exclusive 2.83 Perceptual processes 4.29 See 1.62 Hear 1.03 Feel 1.45 Biological processes 1.43 Body 0.81 Health 0.33 Relativity 11.3 Time 6.69 Personal Concerns ---- Work 3.76 Achievement 2.98 Leisure 1.96 Home 0.16 Money 0.14 Religion 0.62 Death 0

Table 8

Analysis of Journal Responses by Age and Previous Musical Experience

Category Proportion Score <65-74 75-84 85+ No Exp. Prev. Exp.

n = 10 n = 8 n = 7 n = 14 n = 11 Total Word Count 2,403 1,981 1,742 2,978 2,842

Social processes 3.77 5.10 4.13 4.80 3.84 Family 0.15 0.05 0 0.13 0 Friends 0.15 0.20 0.06 0.10 0.18 Humans 0.29 0.35 0.23 .27 .32 Affective processes 10.47 8.83 7.86 10.64 7.42 Positive emotion 9.25 7.47 7.00 9.40 6.33 Negative emotion 1.13 1.31 .80 1.11 1.09 Anxiety .29 .35 .11 .34 .18 Anger .15 .25 .17 .24 .14 Sadness .29 .05 .34 .17 .32 Cognitive processes 16.94 20.24 18.43 18.54 18.58 Insight 3.62 4.9 4.65 4.30 4.54 Causation 1.22 1.46 1.66 1.41 1.48 Discrepancy 1.71 1.77 2.12 2.01 1.69 Tentative 2.06 2.88 2.41 2.55 2.32 Certainty 1.37 2.27 .63 1.21 1.72 Inhibition .39 .20 .34 .30 .32 Inclusive 4.60 4.9 5.11 50 4.61 Exclusive 2.50 2.93 3.10 2.62 3.10 Perceptual processes 3.77 4.39 4.88 4.37 4.22 See 1.37 1.87 1.72 1.68 1.58 Hear 1.03 .91 1.21 1.24 .81 Feel 1.08 1.51 1.78 1.14 1.76 Biological processes 1.13 1.51 1.72 1.04 1.83 Body .64 .66 1.21 .34 1.30 Health .24 .56 .17 .24 .42 Relativity 10.43 11.26 12.69 9.67 13.12 Time 6.22 7.22 6.60 6.08 7.28 Personal Concerns ------Work 5.04 3.08 2.76 4.10 3.38 Achievement 3.33 2.83 2.81 2.69 3.27 Leisure 2.20 1.82 1.84 2.28 1.69 Home .24 .10 .11 .13 .18 Money .20 .05 .17 .17 .11 Religion .69 .40 .80 .81 .42 Death 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9

Analysis of Journal Responses by Socio-Economic Status and Lesson Type

Category Proportion Score Lower SES Higher SES Individual Partner n = 14 n = 11 n = 13 n = 12 Total Word Count 2,873 2,977 4132 1689 Social processes 3.13 5.61 4.45 4.03 Family 0 .13 .05 .12 Friends .17 .10 .10 .24 Humans .28 .30 .29 .30 Affective processes 9.08 9.04 8.83 9.65 Positive emotion 7.76 8.03 7.53 8.82 Negative emotion 1.22 .97 1.26 .71 Anxiety .24 .27 .29 .18 Anger .17 .20 .17 .24 Sadness .28 .20 .27 .18 Cognitive processes 17.44 19.79 18.71 18.24 Insight 4.35 4.50 4.28 4.74 Causation 1.04 1.85 1.33 1.72 Discrepancy 2.09 1.61 1.77 2.13 Tentative 2.51 2.35 2.37 2.61 Certainty 1.43 1.51 1.57 1.18 Inhibition .38 .24 .24 .47 Inclusive 4.14 5.58 5.23 3.79 Exclusive 2.68 3.02 2.76 3.08 Perceptual processes 3.31 5.27 4.33 4.20 See 1.18 2.05 1.89 1.01 Hear .52 1.55 .97 1.18 Feel 1.43 1.48 1.23 1.95 Biological processes 1.71 1.14 1.45 1.36 Body .97 .64 .77 .89 Health .52 .13 .34 .30 Relativity 12.36 10.58 11.16 11.84 Time 7.31 6.18 6.51 7.05 Personal Concerns ------Work 4.42 3.06 3.82 3.61 Achievement 3.52 2.45 3.10 2.66 Leisure 1.60 2.32 1.82 2.43 Home .14 .17 .19 .06 Money .21 .07 .15 .12 Religion .24 1.01 .58 .71 Death 0 0 0 0

Individual vs. partner lessons factor. The total word count for all journal entries belonging to those taking individual lessons was 4,132. This was twice as high as the total word count for journal entries belonging to those taking partner lessons (1,689). The ratio of positive to negative comments concerning the experience was approximately 6:1 for those taking individual lessons, and 12:1 for those taking partner lessons. The overall category of Social Processes was slightly lower for those taking partner lessons (4.03), than for those taking individual lessons (4.45). However, the proportion score for the subcategory of ‘friends’ was twice as high for those taking partner lessons (.24), than for those taking individual lessons (.10). See Table 9 for a complete list of proportion scores for these groups.

Summary response to question #3. The ratio of positive to negative comments regarding the program and musical experience was approximately 7:1. These data indicate that participants had an overall positive experience. ‘Older’ participants discussed issues related to perceptual and biological processes more than their younger cohorts. Participants without musical experience mentioned more words related to leisure, and fewer words related to anxiety than those with musical experience. Not surprisingly, the discussion of resources like money occurred three times more among the lower SES group, than among the higher SES group. Overall, age, previous musical experience, and socio-economic status did not seem to have strong influence on the overall experience as reflected in the journal entries; however, the percentage of positive comments made by those taking partner lessons was especially high.

Research Question #4: Opinions about Piano WizardTM What are participants’ opinions about the Piano Wizard™ program and its future use with older adults? At the conclusion of the final lesson, participants filled out a questionnaire pertaining to their overall experience with Piano Wizard™, and the possibility of continuing piano study (see Appendix C). All 25 participants reported they would recommend lessons using Piano Wizard™ to others. When asked if they would consider investing in additional lessons using Piano Wizard™, 18 participants (72%) reported that they would (24% of participants would do so anywhere, 48% would do so only where they lived), and seven participants (28%) reported that they would not consider additional lessons. One participant not wishing to continue lessons

64 indicated partiality for using an acoustic piano rather than a keyboard, but all other comments made by participants reflected reasons other than actual dislike of the program (see Table 10).

Table 10

Comments Pertaining to the Continuation of Piano Lessons with Piano WizardTM

Comment YES (n=18) It depends on whether the expense will fit into my budget Only if they were affordable If I had a piano to practice on NO (n=7) I don't want to invest It would be a lot of time, not sure if I have time. At my age I don't want to do that At this time I would be unable to commit because of travel and obligations. Prefer a real piano I plan to renew my playing on my own Note. Verbatim transcription of the textual data

It was inquired as to whether participants had expectations before starting lessons with Piano WizardTM, and if those expectations changed after lesson began. Six participants began with certain expectations, which did not change. These comments were mostly about the hope to gain or re-gain musical skills. Five people had no expectations before beginning lessons, but had comments about their experience after beginning lessons. These were all positive comments, and reflected gains in self-efficacy. Eight participants had comments about expectations both before and after lessons. All eight people began with positive expectations and half of them indicated some disappointment after lessons began. Two participants described concerns about their ability to progress, and two participants stated they would have preferred the use of an acoustic piano. See Table 11 for a detailed list of all comments. Participants were also asked if they wished to continue studying piano in general. Seventy-six percent replied “yes,” and 24% replied “no.” Of the 19 participants who wished to continue, 34.21% preferred group lessons, 23.68% preferred self-guided study, 21.05% preferred private lessons, 15.79% preferred partner lessons, and one participant marked “all of the above.”

Table 11

Expectations Before and After Lessons with Piano WizardTM

Expectations Beforehand After Lessons Began To renew skills of playing the piano (no change) Renewing my talent (no change) I hoped to regain some of my skills, and I (no change) certainly did that Seeing and saying the notes (no change) I have a real curiosity as to how far I'll go. (no change) If I could learn - not sure if I would be a (no change) candidate for learning. none much easier none Felt more comfortable that I could participate more fully none I was slowly gaining confidence in myself. My expectations were that I wanted to learn as much as I could in 5 lessons none overcome initial phobia none I was even more excited about my work with Kirsten and learning from this program Because I couldn't see, I didn't think I'd Hopefully it would brighten my life accomplish the 6 weeks, but I did When I realized there were only 6 lessons - it is High hopes sorry it ended so soon. like the tip of the iceberg Not having experience, I was so happy to be Just being able to have someone to show and doing this teach me the keys Had a very good time Never heard of Piano Wizard before Being able to play feelings on the piano in a I can see it's a long road for me crowded room. Something to fill the void of knowledge, Thought I could play with a lot more ease and and association with other people understanding of movement Not so good, don't like Piano Wizard. Rather To read music better have a real piano, so if I hit a wrong note I hear it This is really a piano Well I learned something about the keyboard Note Verbatim transcription of the textual data

When participants were queried as to what method of instruction they would prefer to use, seven indicated Piano Wizard™, five preferred a traditional piano course, three would use either, and three indicated ‘other.’ The final question read “If you had the opportunity to speak with Piano Wizard™ personnel, what suggestions might you have for future revisions?” Seven participants (28%) reported that they would suggest something, though most commented on the availability of lessons. The only specific remarks about the Piano WizardTM program were “I want to hear all the wrong notes,” “The colors on the black keys look the same, can’t see,” and “More familiar songs.” The remaining eighteen participants (72%) indicated no suggestions for future revisions, or simply made positive comments about the experience. See Table 12 for a complete list.

Table 12

Suggestions for Future Revisions to the Piano WizardTM Program

Comment I want to hear all wrong notes. The colors on the black keys look the same, can't see. More familiar songs 1 on 1 instead of 2 people playing same piano. Long lessons - more than 6 weeks Longer lesson make it available Yes it should be here I have the interest & time I'm not sure No, colors helped a lot Program has been excellent as is. Everything was great, a very good instructor, I'd chosen her anytime. Nothing great lessons! none, all is perfect for now none (n=12) Note. Verbatim transcription of the textual data

In an effort to expand participant feedback (especially positive feedback) concerning Piano WizardTM, all statements pertaining to the program were extracted from the weekly journal entries and further examined. Participants were encouraged, but not required, to write about their impressions of Piano WizardTM after each lesson. Altogether, there were 25 positive remarks and seven negative remarks and made about the Piano WizardTM program; a ratio of approximately 3.5:1 (see Tables 13 & 14). Positive comments specifically praised the rich accompaniment, colored notation, and multi-sensory features of the program. Negative comments were very much the same as those mentioned above (i.e., desire for acoustic piano and more familiar pieces, difficulty deciphering colors).

Table 13 Negative Comments about Piano WizardTM from Weekly Journal Entries Comments It’s difficult for me to tell the colors apart. Would like more familiar songs …some of the colors are difficult to see, like the green looks like black, black and green look very much the same like with the pink, doesn’t look like pink at all. And some of the other colors are they blend together, like the purple and the blue, they’re pretty close. Same thing I think you need to make common, very common music. Music that’s well-known so that it helps you get the at least the rhythm right

Piano Wizard – screen difficult to discern C/D with trifocal eyeglasses. Stems up/down confusing.

Feeling stupid because I can’t see the program Not a fan of Piano Wizard prefer real piano Piano Wizard very structured. Am glad to repeat as there is no pause to think Most difficult is that tempo continues and I tend to hesitate when I mistakenly strike a wrong key

Table 14 Positive Comments about Piano WizardTM from Weekly Journal Entries Comments I had no idea what to expect at first but was pleasantly surprised with the way the Piano Wizard progressed. The impressions of Piano Wizard was to my liking, enjoyed all of it! I find Piano Wizard very interesting! This is a great program, Piano Wizard. I feel good about the Piano Wizard. Piano Wizard is great Piano Wizard is fun I liked the program like the program & look forward to more I think the Piano Wizard is a good idea. I think the piano Wizard is a good tool. Program seems nicely formatted I am intrigued with Piano Wizard – since my lessons years ago were so different – such fun! … for anybody who gets real serious about learning the keyboard at this stage of their lives I would think this would be quite beneficial and not too challenging. It’s probably the motivation that would count because it’s all very supportive and straightforward. I really enjoyed the Piano Wizard since I had taken lessons years ago under different circumstances, and it’s amazing to me how you can use the computer, and how much help it is when you play ‘em on with the notes. I’d say you learn much quicker with the Piano Wizard. I like the new way of teaching and the color screen It was interesting to read colors instead of trying to figure out where the notes are on the piano. It was fun! It is fun to see how much the colors help to identify the notes. Very interesting. It was a surprise to me since I took piano lessons so many years ago Rhythm was always the hardest part for me – playing with the Wizard definitely helps – much better than the metronome I had as a child. P.W. is really good for it’s purpose. Will the Wizard allow the piano to act like a real piano? I like the chime-sound & the tunes they chose (very soothing). The program brings focus, repetition and good “accompanying” for the “big sound” of making real music! The program is very fascinating using multiple senses/strategies. The background “accompanying” enriches the single notes I’m playing!!

Table 14 continued The hand-eye coordination is really incredible and getting into the rhythm …of the music, and I come from a word world and this is a different world and…but the ABC thing I’m better at that than I am doing it with colors and so on but the program’s great. It bridges the gap I think between the paranoid part about “Oh, I can’t overcome this obstacle in order to get to where I wanna go” and it’s…it does that, makes you feel secure so that you feel that you really can accomplish something … …a beautiful program that makes you feel that you’re accomplishing a whole lot in little…I just, I feel like the program itself gives a beautiful support for the people who have ears for listening and matching notes as well as color and the name, and I went on from the actual recording to the book which helped me to focus even more so the program itself I think is highly recommended. I read how it’s used with young people with especially…with disabled facility children and that was so impressive, but I can see a beautiful need with the elder to have something that is stimulating to their thought and cognitive experience. And my impression of piano wizard is great, so I’m gonna go buy me another one [keyboard]. I had one but can’t find it so I’m gonna buy me another one and I’m gonna teach myself. Note Verbatim transcription of the textual data

Summary response to question #4. The majority of participants’ opinions about Piano Wizard™ were favorable, and journal entries reflected three times more positive feedback than negative feedback regarding the program. Most participants seemed to like the aural, visual, and playful features of the software program. Some participants expressed their desire for the ability to hear all incorrect notes, clearer graphics, and the chance to play more familiar songs. The variables of cost and time seemed to be the main obstacles for those who would not have considered additional lessons using Piano WizardTM. Participants indicated positive feedback with regard to met expectations, with the exception of four individuals. Over three-fourths of individuals wished to continue studying piano in general, with the greatest preference for group lessons using the Piano WizardTM program.

Research Question #5: Motivational Orientation What is participants’ motivational orientation for taking piano lessons using Piano Wizard™? Motivational orientation was measured using an adapted version of Boshier’s Educational Participation Scale (EPS, A-form) (see Appendix D). The categories of Communication Improvement, Professional Advancement, and Family Together were omitted, and several questions in the Education category were adjusted to better suit the objectives of the

70 this study. Participants rated 24 items related to Cognitive Interest, Educational, Social Contact, and Social Stimulation using a 1-4 scale. The EPS questionnaire was administered to participants prior to starting their first lesson. Data were analyzed by calculating the mean for each question item. The highest ranked reason for participating was ‘To expand my mind’ (M= 3.72, SD=.52), followed by ‘To learn just for the joy of learning’ (M=3.64, SD=.56), both of which fell under the Cognitive Interest category. All six items from the Cognitive Interest category were within the top ten rated items (see Table 15). The lowest ranked item was ‘To escape an unhappy relationship’ (M=1.44, SD=.99), an item from the Social Stimulation category. As can be seen in Table 16, the average item mean for the category of Cognitive Interest was 3.31(SD=4.73), followed by Educational (M=2.68, SD=5.72), Social Contact (M=2.50, SD=5.24), and Social Stimulation (M=2.10, SD=6.44).

Table 15 Ranked Items from EPS Questionnaire (scale 1-4) Rank Item Category M SD 1 To expand my mind CI 3.72 .53 2 To learn just for the joy of learning CI 3.64 .56 3 To improve my understanding about the subject ED 3.56 .70 4 To improve my skills and abilities ED 3.40 .80 5 To seek knowledge for its own sake CI 3.40 .85 6 To satisfy an inquiring mind CI 3.24 .76 7 To acquire general knowledge CI 3.12 .95 8 To do something rather than nothing SS 2.84 1.16 9 To get education I missed earlier in life ED 2.84 1.08 10 To get something meaningful out of life CI 2.72 1.08 11 To have a good time with friends SC 2.68 1.01 12 To meet new people SC 2.56 1.02 13 To become acquainted with friendly people SC 2.56 1.13 14 To get a break in the routine of home or work SS 2.53 1.14 15 To make friends SC 2.48 1.02 16 To meet different people SC 2.44 0.98 17 To make up for a narrow previous education ED 2.36 1.05 18 To make new friends SC 2.28 1.08 19 To acquire knowledge to help with other educational ED 2.12 .99 activities 20 To get relief from boredom SS 2.00 1.17 21 To get away from loneliness SS 1.92 1.06 22 To overcome the frustration of day to day living SS 1.84 .92 23 To prepare for further education ED 1.80 1.10 24 To escape an unhappy relationship SS 1.44 .99 Note. CI=Cognitive Interest, ED=Educational/Skill, SC=Social Contact, SS=Social Stimulation

Table 16 Distribution of the Four Motivational Factors Category No. of items Factor Mean Factor SD Average Item Mean Cognitive interest 6 19.84 4.73 3.31 Educational 6 16.08 5.72 2.68 Social contact 6 15.00 5.24 2.50 Social stimulation 6 12.57 6.44 2.10

Summary response to question #5. These analyses suggest ‘intellectual curiosity’ was a major motivational factor for participants enrolling in piano lessons. Secondary motivational factors were related ‘to gain musical knowledge and ability.’ This finding is consistent with the way participants rated benefits of the program once lessons were completed. Those benefits related to skill were perceived as secondary. Social factors did not appear to influence participants’ decision to take piano lessons. This finding is also consistent with ratings of the program’s social benefits as perceived by participants once the lessons were over.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

Limitations of the Present Study One possible limitation of the current study was the issue of attrition, a frequently-cited issue in research of senior adults (Hofer et al., 2002). Thirty older adults volunteered to serve as participants, and 25 completed the six weeks of instruction. Hospitalization, illness, family issues, and schedule conflicts were among reasons for participants’ inability to complete the six

74 weeks of instruction. Of the 25 remaining participants, 11 were present for six lessons, nine were present for five lessons, and five participants were present for four lessons. Forgetfulness, illness, travel, doctor’s appointments, a minor car accident, and other conflicts were cause for missed lessons. Pragmatic issues (time, transportation, convenience), and health and safety issues are common barriers for older adult learners (McCullough, 1981; Purdie & Boulton-Lewis, 2003). Other studies on older adult piano students have reported the same concerns (Keenan, 1995; Pike, 2011). Having access to all participants’ contact information in order to provide reminder phone calls may have helped, but this information was difficult to acquire due to confidentiality constraints. Results also may have differed had lessons been continually offered until all participants had completed at least six sessions. In order to address the research question, “What are participants’ opinions about the Piano Wizard™ program,” a questionnaire (see Appendix C) was developed that included the question: “If you had the opportunity to speak with Piano Wizard™ personnel, what suggestions might you have for future revisions?” Only two participants made specific suggestions about the program. Providing participants with a brief review of how the program had been used, and prompting them to answer specific questions may have yielded more specific results. Though several positive comments were extracted from journal responses, more positive feedback would have been possible by asking every participant what they liked (not just disliked) about the Piano WizardTM program.

General Discussion Research Question #1: Musical Progress Will participants make musical progress over the six weeks of piano lessons using Piano WizardTM? Participants met two of the three pre-determined criteria for musical progress. The criterion not met was the average number of pieces learned. Criterion was set at 10 pieces learned, and the overall mean number of pieces learned was 9.08. Inability to meet this criterion was most likely due to data taken from fewer than six lessons, as some students were unable to be present for all six. Since two of the three criteria were met, it is suggested that musical progress was demonstrated, corroborating earlier studies indicating that older adults can achieve musical skills (Gibbons, 1982, 1983; Myers, 1988; Pantev et al., 2003; Pascual-Leone, 2003).

Musical progress was independent of previous musical experience, SES, and participation in individual vs. partner lessons. Interestingly, the mean accuracy scores for those without previous musical experience were slightly higher than for those with previous musical experience. Standard deviations were high and results may have differed had only participants with a substantial amount of training been included in the category ‘previous musical experience.’ Participants with previous musical training also had to adjust to a completely new method of learning and playing. Consider the following comment made by Participant #16: I took lessons when I was young and the method was quite different so learning something that’s not really different it’s just similar was, it was kind of like my brain was shifting gears. It remembered for some reason after over fifty years the old way and then it would have to shift into how I should be doing it in present time, and that was harder than if I had started with a blank slate, it got in my way it wasn’t so much harder it just got in the way. Participants who were aged 85 years and older achieved significantly lower accuracy scores, learned significantly fewer songs, and achieved significantly lower song-levels than participants less than 74 years old; therefore, it is suggested that age had an effect on musical skill achievement. These results differ from Myer’s (1988) findings which revealed no significant differences in musical skill achievement, regardless of whether participants were from the ‘younger,’ ‘middle,’ or ‘older’ adult group. As one ages, information processing and performance skills begin to slow (Craik & Salthouse, 2000; Rybash et al., 1995) and older adults who value accuracy over speed may intentionally slow down during musical tasks (Botwinick, 1984). One of the greatest challenges of playing a piece using the Piano WizardTM program is that a player can only slow down the tempo by using buttons on the keyboard, and there is no way to pause in the middle of a piece without having to go all the way back to the beginning. These program limitations were sometimes frustrating for older participants who wished to slow down in the middle of a piece.

Research Question #2: Perceived Benefits What are participants’ perceptions regarding the benefits of piano lessons using Piano Wizard™? Participants perceived the most beneficial aspect of piano study was the opportunity to have a diversion from their usual routine. Participation in musical activities has been found to serve as an escape from routine (Jutras, 2003, 2006) and even as an effective distraction from existing medical conditions (Gabrielsson & Lindstrom, 1995; Hays & Minichiello, 2005; Ruud, 1997). The opportunity to have fun and to do something enjoyable was perceived by participants as beneficial. Previous researchers have also suggested that the playful and fun aspects of musical participation are important to seniors (Cooper, 2001; Hall, 2001; Jutras, 2011). Benefits related to gains in musical skills and knowledge ranked high, and were similar to earlier findings (Coffman, 1996; Cooper, 2001; Darrough, 1992; Flowers & Murphy, 2001; Jutras 2003, 2006, 2011; Wristen, 2006). Additionally, the benefit of improved coordination and motor skills was highly-rated. This finding confirms the notion that older adults often find that learning a keyboard instrument improves their motor skills and finger agility (Taylor & Hallam, 2008; Zelazny, 2001). Playing a keyboard instrument tends to be a solitary task, and older adults have found it rewarding to learn in groups (Conda, 1997; Jutras, 2006; Keenan, 1995; Wristen, 2006). Interestingly, older adults taking group keyboard lessons have demonstrated decreased feelings of loneliness, though no change in perceived social support (Tims, 1999). Despite the fact that half of the participants for this study took partner lessons, ‘promotes socialization’ was the lowest-rated item overall, and the category of social benefits received higher ratings from those taking individual lessons than from those taking partner lessons. It is possible that this finding was due to participants’ interactions with the instructor being perceived as socially beneficial. For many of the participants who were living in age-segregated retirement communities, the instructor may have served as a ‘new’ acquaintance. As might be expected, participants taking individual lessons rated the questionnaire item ‘Meet New Friends’ higher than did participants taking partner lessons. For participants taking individual lessons, interactions with the instructor may have compensated for interactions with a lesson partner.

Research Question #3: Comments about the Program and Learning Experience What is the ratio of participants’ positive to negative comments regarding Piano Wizard™ and the overall learning experience? The ratio of positive to negative comments regarding the program and musical experience was approximately 7:1, indicating that participants had an overall positive experience. This finding corroborates earlier research indicating older adults’ generally have positive attitudes toward and opinions about technology-assisted music learning programs (Keenan, 1995; Pike, 2011). ‘Older’ participants discussed issues related to perceptual and biological processes more than younger participants, as might be expected given the psychological effects of aging (Rabbit et al., 2004). Participants without musical experience used more words related to leisure and fewer words related to anxiety than those with musical experience. Since those without musical experience had no formal music training, they may have approached piano lessons as a recreational activity and not as serious music study. Not surprisingly, the discussion of resources (e.g., money) occurred three times more often in comments from lower SES group than in comments from higher SES group. Several participants from the lower SES group indicated the desire to continue lessons, but were concerned about the financial resources. For instance, note the following comment made by Participant #5: “I’m really sorry that this is coming to an end, I hope that there’s some way that they continue it at a price we can afford.” Overall, age, previous musical experience, and socio-economic status did not appear to influence the overall experience as reflected in the journal entries; however, the proportion of positive comments was especially high for those taking partner lessons compared to those taking individual lessons. It is possible that since partners shared responsibility for their musical products, they were more accepting of themselves and their partners when errors were made. The overall category of social processes was similar between the two groups, although those taking partner lessons used words associated with the subcategory of ‘friends’ twice as much as those taking individual lessons. Many of the participants taking partner lessons had physical conditions (i.e., stroke, arthritis) that made it harder for them to write, so it is not surprising that the journal entries of participants taking partner lessons were half as long as journal entries belonging to participants taking individual lessons.

Research Question #4: Opinions about Piano WizardTM What are participants’ opinions about the Piano Wizard™ program and its future use with older adults? The majority of participants in this study expressed favorable opinions about the Piano WizardTM program, and like participants in Belgrave’s 2011 study, described the program’s audio and visual feedback as helpful. All participants reported that they would recommend piano lessons using Piano Wizard™ to others, and well over half of the participants reported that they would consider additional lessons for themselves. Journal statements like the following one made by Participant #5, demonstrated the desire many had to continue: “I really enjoy the program and hope they will find a way to send someone here to continue the program as it the highlight of my week.” Participants indicated preference for on-site, group lessons, confirming earlier findings by McCullough (1981) and Mitak (2011), although Mitak found a higher preference for one-on-one lessons. Pragmatic issues such as cost and time appeared to be the main obstacles for those participants who did not desire additional lessons. Several researchers found similar concerns among their older students (Keenan, 1995; McCullough, 1981; Mitak, 2011; Pike, 2011; Purdie & Boulton-Lewis, 2003). Some participants expressed the desire for clearer graphics, the chance to play on an acoustic piano, and the ability to hear all incorrect notes. The issue of wanting to learn on an acoustic piano may have been remedied by using a larger digital piano that appeared more like an acoustic instrument. Other suggestions for revisions to the program (i.e., “I want to hear all wrong notes” and “The colors on the black keys look the same, can't see”) may have been addressed by creative instructional adaptations or modifications. Such adaptations might have included providing alternative cues when the student was observed pressing the wrong key, or teaching notation primarily through letter names rather than colors. Senior adults enjoy a variety of musical styles (Darrough, 1992; Pike, 2001), and most want to play and sing recognizable tunes (Mitak, 2011; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2007; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2009). As in Keenan’s 1995 study, one participant indicated a desire to play more familiar tunes. A more recent version of Piano Wizard does allow the user to choose from various songs (as MIDI files) on the Internet and upload them into the program. The Piano WizardTM (2012) website indicates that “Thousands of songs are available from Bach to the

Beatles, including religious hymns and children's favorites.” The ability to download various pieces makes it possible to adapt the program to the preferences of older adult students. Only four participants reported some disappointment as far as their expectations for the lessons. For two participants, dissatisfaction was related to their desire to play a ‘real’ piano, not a smaller digital keyboard. For the other two participants, their disappointment was related to their perceived lack of musical achievement. Older students are not always aware of what can be accomplished musically during a relatively short period of time. In addition, aging may affect self-perceptions of musical achievement and self-esteem (Kruse, 2012). Given more time to improve, these participants may have felt more positively about their musical progress (Myers, 1986; 1990). It is also important to note that at least six participants indicated gains in musical self-efficacy or self-esteem including Participant #12, a women in her mid eighties with legal blindness. She stated: “Because I couldn't see, I didn't think I'd accomplish anything in the 6 weeks, but I did.”

Research Question #5: Motivational Orientation What is participants’ motivational orientation for taking piano lessons using Piano Wizard™? Intellectual curiosity was a major motivational factor for participants enrolling in the piano lessons for this study. It has been reported that cognitive interest and desire to learn are strong motivational factors for older adult students (Brady & Fowler, 1988; Bynum & Seaman, 1993; Furst & Steele, 1986; Kim & Merriam, 2004; Russett, 1998; Scala, 1996; Wolfgang & Dowling, 1981). Although there was no ‘Cognitive Interest” category on the benefits questionnaire completed after the experience, journal statements like the following by Participant #23, suggest that there were perceived cognitive benefits once the lessons were over: I really want to say that I have enjoyed it very much and even though I have not been able to hit all the notes correctly at the same…at the right time, I have found that it has made me think a little bit more in another way that I have not been thinking before. You know I can read or we have our little plays or things like that but it gives me something else to think about, and I have found that it rattles my brain and really that’s what I need I mean at my age of 92. I just feel that I really need to stimulate my brain in any way that I can.

Likewise, Boulton-Lewis et al. (2006) found that the most frequent reasons elders wanted to learn were ‘‘to keep the mind active, use the brain, exercise the mind, stay mentally stimulated, grow, attain goals, constantly learn, and never stop’’ (p. 279). A secondary motivational factor was related to ‘gains in musical knowledge and ability,’ corroborating the findings of earlier studies by Cooper (2001) and Wristen (2006). ‘Gains in musical knowledge and ability’ is consistent with the way participants rated the benefits of the program once lessons were completed: ‘Musical Knowledge’ was the third highest-rated benefit, and ‘Skill Refinement’ was the fourth highest-rated benefit. Although social relationships have been found to strongly motivate adult learners (Bynum & Seaman, 1993; Furst & Steel, 1986; Garofolo, 1995; Kim & Merriam, 2004), social factors did not appear to influence participants’ decision to take piano lessons in the present study.

Implications for Practice Researchers have suggested assessing older adults’ preferences for musical activities and repertoire in order to design curricula that are appropriate for this age group (Bowles, 1991; Flowers & Murphy, 2001; McCullough, 1981). Although further research is warranted, the findings of this study suggest that Piano Wizard™ is a viable technological and instructional tool for older adults wishing to study piano. Participants made notable musical progress in just six weeks, found the lessons to be an enjoyable escape from their usual routine, and had an overall positive experience as evidenced by their comments. They expressed an appreciation for the playful audio, visual, and multi-sensory features of the program. Most importantly, almost all participants would have continued piano lesson using Piano WizardTM if given the opportunity. When utilizing the Piano WizardTM program with older adult students, it is suggested that instructors take advantage of the many features that make it possible to individualize learning. The ability to adjust the tempo and “hit or precision zone” for each participant was crucial to their being able to progress at an appropriate and comfortable pace. Although the Piano WizardTM program offers four distinct levels of notation reading, only levels three and four were used for the present study. The traditionally-notated method books were also used when deemed appropriate for the learner. As mentioned earlier, one participant indicated the desire to play more familiar pieces. With the availability of thousands of MIDI song files from various genres online, teachers can

81 create unique playlists that reflect the preferences of their older adult students. It is worth noting that older adults have shown preferences for music that was popular during their young adult years (Bartlett & Snelus, 1980; Cohen et al., 2002; Flowers & Murphy, 2001; Gibbons, 1977; Jonas, 1991; Lathom, Petersen, & Havelicek, 1982; Moore et al., 1992; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2007; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2009). In addition to popular music, older adults have indicated preferences for songs from musicals, hymns, patriotic songs, folk and classical music (Cooper, 2001; Flowers & Murphy, 2001; Mitak, 2011; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2007; VanWeelden & Cevasco, 2009). Researchers have concluded that it is not simply the music software program that determines the success or failure of computer-assisted instruction (CAI), but also the context and instructor (Bresler & Walker, 1990). Bresler and Walker (1990) recommended that music teachers be willing to adjust their traditional role as the exclusive facilitator of instruction when utilizing computer-assisted instruction. During the directions for journal entries, the instructor suggested that participants include “how you interact socially with the teacher and your partner (if applicable).” As was mentioned in the review of literature, older adults prefer certain instructor characteristics, such as knowledgeable, positive, and flexible (Coffman, 2009; Nazareth, 1998; Robertson, 1996; Wristen, 2006). One could argue that these characteristics are preferable for teachers of all ages. There were two teacher qualities, kindness and encouragement, that participants cited numerous times throughout their journal entries. The word ‘patience’ was mentioned by participants in journal entries over 20 times. This finding indicates that older piano students value a teacher’s patience, perhaps even more so than younger students. Patience is likely to be particularly important to seniors who are learning both piano skills and how to use computer software program simultaneously. Participants used the word ‘fun’ 24 times in their journal entries. It is clear that nonmusical factors motivated participants throughout the learning process. Participants wanted to take lessons for stimulation and enjoyment, and these desires were seemingly fulfilled by the end of the experience. It is no surprise that a ‘music-for-fun’ approach has been found to be effective for this age group (Belgrave et al., 2011). The Piano WizardTM program has the ability to offer seniors a musical learning experience that is creditable, viable, and also fun.

Suggestions for Further Research Very few studies have been conducted on the use of music computer-assisted instruction with older adult learners, and findings from this study suggest that further research is warranted. Belgrave (2011) examined whether participation in piano lessons using Piano WizardTM enhanced older adult’s subjective well-being, and how the program served as teaching tool for older adults. Findings of the present study indicate that Piano Wizard™ is a viable technological and instructional tool for older adults. Future researchers might attempt to confirm these findings by achieving higher participation rates. They might do so by recruiting participants from a greater number of retirement communities, or by having a ‘lesson-reminder’ method in place. Attrition is a challenge that should be expected when conducting research with older adults (Hofer et al., 2002), but it is possible and worthwhile to perform successful research with this population. It is also suggested that researchers offer lessons for a period of greater than six weeks long. Just as many participants were getting familiar with the software program, the present study was over. Additional experimental research is needed to explore the effects of the Piano WizardTM program on older adults’ musical learning. A future researcher might utilize a pre/post-test design to examine the effects of the program on musical achievement and progress. One of the challenges of this study was that the software program was investigator-owned, so it was not readily available to participants for practice in between lessons. One might consider examining the effects of regular practice on older adults’ musical progress and subjective well-being. To better determine the effectiveness of the Piano WizardTM program for older adults, researchers could employ the use of a control group learning through traditional means, and an experimental group learning through the piano software program. More specific feedback from older adults about their experiences with the Piano WizardTM program is also necessary. A researcher might develop and administer a questionnaire that requires older adults to comment on all aspects of the software application program, such as perceptions of visual stimuli, audio stimuli, songs played, concepts learned, ease of use, and pace of the method. Researchers could investigate how many participants continue studying and/or playing the piano after the initial lessons are provided.

Conclusions Older adults constitute a large target population for music educators. As the senior population grows, it is critical to design and/or to evaluate the appropriateness of existing music education programs for older adults. The act of learning is valuable and enriching, whether at age five, or age 85. As American businessman Henry Ford once said, “Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at 20 or 80. Anyone who keeps learning stays young. The greatest thing in life is to keep your mind young” (McGill, 2005, p. 1). Music educators must consider that while there may be pragmatic obstacles keeping some older adults from participating in musical activities, many do want to participate and are eager to do so. Reaching out to this population is critical since many seniors, because of age-related issues or lack of transportation, cannot take advantage of music learning opportunities offered in the community. Older adults tend to engage in music learning for the purpose of making the most of the time they have left through stimulating and satisfying experiences. The opportunity to take piano lessons using Piano WizardTM was found to be both fun and educational for participants of the present study. Participants also indicated appreciation for instruction that conveyed patience and encouragement. It is suggested that music educators consider utilizing methods like the Piano WizardTM program in order to provide older adults feasible, enjoyable learning experiences.

APPENDIX A

THE BENEFITS OF ADULTS PIANO STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

The Benefits of Adult Piano Study Questionnaire

Each item will list a potential benefit of piano study. You will be asked if this has been a benefit of piano study for you personally. If you answer YES, you will indicate how important the benefit is to you on a scale of 1-10. Ten represents a most important benefit and 1 represents a least important benefit. If you answer NO, you will not rate the importance of that benefit.

Please think only about your own experience, not about how others feel or how you think others expect you to feel. Your responses are confidential, and your truthfulness is essential!

10 = A Most Important Benefit; 1 = A Least Important Benefit ______

1. Studying piano gives me a satisfying sense of accomplishment.