Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2019
A Comparative Study of Piano Performance Programs at University- Level Institutions in China and the United SYutana Jitaengs
Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF MUSIC
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PIANO PERFORMANCE PROGRAMS AT
UNIVERSITY-LEVEL INSTITUTIONS IN CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES
By
YUAN JIANG
A Dissertation submitted to the College of Music in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
2019
Yuan Jiang defended this dissertation on April 6, 2019. The members of the supervisory committee were:
Diana Dumlavwalla Professor Directing Dissertation
David Kalhous University Representative
Kimberly VanWeelden Committee Member
William Fredrickson 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.
ii
To my parents, Jian Jiang and Huixia He
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have been incredibly fortunate to have such an abundance of mentors who helped me to make this degree and this dissertation a success. I would like to first express sincere appreciation to my main professor, Dr. Diana Dumlavwalla, for not only providing valuable insight and direction during the completion of this dissertation but also providing guidance, encouragement, and support throughout my doctoral study. You are the role model for the type of professor I want to be in the future. I will always be thankful for everything you have done for me.
Appreciation is extended to my committee members—Dr. Kimberly Van Weelden, Dr.
David Kalhous, and Dr. William Fredrickson. The gracious gift of your time and support has meant so much to me. Dr.Van Weelden, you always made yourself available to me. Thank you for the countless hours that you have given to me. I really appreciate your patience, guidance and support throughout the dissertation process. Dr. Kalhous, thank you for being my wonderful piano professor. Your remarkable musicianship and gentle guidance will forever be inspiration to me. Dr. Fredrickson, I admire your professionalism and leadership since my very first music education class at FSU. Thank you for your input and encouragement.
To my professors and colleagues, past and present, you have inspired me in ways you will never know—to be a better musician, a better teacher, a better listener, and a better person.
Please accept my deepest and most sincere thanks.
To those who participated in the research and survey, thank you for your time and sharing your experiences as piano professors and students. It is the information that you provided that made this study possible.
A special thank you goes to my parents, Jian Jiang and Huixia He, who, from the beginning, have supported me not only in my academic goals, but also in every aspect of my life.
iv
You taught me about values, hard work and determination. Thank you for never letting me give up.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...... viii Abstract ...... x
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Background ...... 1 The Growing Trend of an Increasing Number of Asian Music Students in the U.S ...... 1 A Comparison of the Piano Study in China and in the United States ...... 2 Significance of the Project ...... 4 Purpose of the Study ...... 5 Research Questions ...... 6 Operational Definitions ...... 7
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 11 University-level Piano Education in China ...... 11 The Beginning of Professional Piano Education ...... 11 The Rapid Development and Expansion of Piano Programs ...... 13 University-level Piano Education in the United States ...... 15 The History of Conservatories ...... 15 Music Performance Degree Programs ...... 16 Cross-cultural Study in Higher Music Education ...... 17
3. METHODOLOGY ...... 20 Participants ...... 20 Selecting Sample Institutions ...... 20 Selecting Student and Faculty Participants ...... 23 Dependent Measure ...... 24 Data Collection Sheet ...... 24 Questionnaires ...... 25 Procedures ...... 26 Collecting the Data of Piano Performance Programs ...... 26 Administering the Questionnaires ...... 26 Analyzing Quantitative and Qualitative Data ...... 28 Limitations ...... 29
4. RESULTS ...... 31 Data Collection from Selected Institutions ...... 31 Research Question 1 ...... 31 Research Question 2 ...... 32 Audition Requirements in the U.S...... 34 Audition Requirements in China ...... 35 The Comparison of Audition Requirements ...... 36 Research Question 3 ...... 40 Curriculum Requirements in the U.S...... 42 Curriculum Requirements in China ...... 43 vi
Comparison of Curriculum Requirements ...... 44 Research Question 4 ...... 48 Core Course Offerings in Chinese Institutions ...... 50 Core Course Offerings in American institutions ...... 50 Comparison of Core Course Offerings ...... 51 Results from Survey Questionnaires ...... 54 Survey Respondents ...... 54 Research Question 5 ...... 59 Research Question 6...... 63 Research Question 7 ...... 73 Research Question 8 ...... 76 Research Question 9 ...... 77 Research Question 10...... 80 Research Question 11 ...... 82
5. DISCUSSION ...... 83 Piano-related Degree Offerings in China and the United States ...... 83 Comparing Audition Requirements ...... 83 Comparing Curriculum Requirements ...... 85 Comparing Core Course Offerings ...... 87 Biographical Information of the Survey Participants ...... 88 Students’ Perceptions Regarding the Piano Performance Programs ...... 90 Choosing Major and Program ...... 90 Career Goals ...... 91 Student Expectations and On-Going Experiences ...... 92 Important Experiences and Educational Practices ...... 94 Challenges ...... 95 Faculty’s Perceptions Regarding the Piano Performance Programs ...... 96 Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 99 Suggestions for Current Collegiate Piano Majors ...... 99 Suggestions for Prospective Students ...... 100 Suggestions for Faculty Members ...... 101 Suggestions for University-level Institutions ...... 101 Suggestions for Further Research ...... 102
APPENDICES ...... 104
A. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL MEMORANDUM ...... 104 B. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL CONSENT FORM ...... 105 C. PROJECT INVITATION EMAIL ...... 106 D. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES ...... 107
References ...... 115
Biographical Sketch ...... 119
vii
LIST OF TABLES
1 Piano-Related Degree Offerings ...... 37
2 Audition Requirements by Program in the U.S...... 38
3 Audition Requirements by Program in China ...... 39
4 The Comparison of Audition Requirements ...... 40
5 Undergraduate Curriculum Requirements in the U.S...... 46
6 Graduate Curriculum Requirements in the U.S...... 46
7 Curriculum Requirements in China ...... 47
8 The Comparison of Curricular Requirements for Piano Performance Degrees...... 48
9 Core Courses Offerings in Chinese Institutions ...... 52
10 Core Courses Offerings in American Institutions ...... 53
11 The Comparison of the Core Courses Offerings in Piano Performance Programs...... 54
12 Survey Respondents ...... 56
13 Academic and Biographical Information of Student Respondents ...... 57
14 Biographical Information of Faculty Respondents by Percentage...... 57
15 Number of Students in Faculty Members’ Studios by Degree ...... 57
16 List of Courses that Faculty members have Taught in their Universities ...... 58
17 The Professional Activities that Faculty Members Engaged in Outside their Universities .... 59
18 Factors that Influenced Students to Choose Piano Performance as their Majors...... 60
19 The Comparison of the Factors that Influence Students’ Choices of Being a Piano Performance Major ...... 61
20 Factors that Influenced Students’ Choices of the Piano Programs they were Enrolled In ..... 62
21 The Comparison of the Factors that Influence Students’ Choices of Their Piano Programs with Binomial Distribution Scores ...... 63
viii
22 Student’s Perceptions Regarding the Experiences of Studying in their Programs...... 64
23 The Comparison of Student’s Perceptions Regarding the Experiences of Studying in their Programs with t Test Scores ...... 65
24 The Level of Students’ Satisfactions Regarding the Core Courses in their Programs ...... 66
25 The Comparison of Student’s Satisfactions Regarding the Experiences of Studying in their Programs with t Test Scores...... 67
26 The Similarities Between Students’ Expectations and their Ongoing Experiences in the Piano Performance Program ...... 68
27 The Differences Between the Students’ Expectations and their Ongoing Experiences in the Piano Performance Program ...... 68
28 Factors that Affect Faculty Members’ Evaluation of their Students’ Potential...... 70
29 Faculty Members’ Suggestions for Prospective Piano Students ...... 71
30 Faculty’s Comments Regarding the Piano Performance Programs ...... 72
31 Faculty Members’ Suggestions for Piano Performance Programs ...... 72
32 Students’ Perceptions Regarding the Importance of the Courses ...... 73
33 Faculty Members’ Perceptions Regarding the Importance of the Courses ...... 74
34 The Comparison of Students’ Perceptions Regarding the Importance of the Courses with t Test Scores ...... 75
35 Students’ Repertoire Selection ...... 76
36 Students’ Perceptions Regarding the Musical Advice and Practice Strategies they have Received ...... 77
37 Students’ Comments Regarding the Challenges they have Encountered ...... 78
38 Faculty’s Comments Regarding the Challenges that they Assumed the Students may Encounter ...... 79
39 The Factors that Affected Students’ Morale ...... 80
40 Students’ Comments Regarding their Study Goals ...... 81
41 Students’ Career Expectations ...... 82
ix
ABSTRACT
As we work and study in our increasingly globalized society, there is a growing trend of
Chinese piano students choosing to pursue their higher education in the United States. Elite music institutions in America are also seeking and recruiting a large number of Chinese pianists.
This trend raises questions regarding the similarities and differences between Chinese and
American piano performance programs in university-level institutions.
The purpose of this study was to promote a greater understanding of Chinese and
American piano performance programs in higher education through examining selected university-level institutions. To accomplish this goal, (1) the researcher collected data from the selected university-level institutions in both countries regarding their piano-related degree offerings, audition requirements, curriculum requirements, and core course offerings for the piano performance programs. These data were used to analyze and compare the structure and design of piano performance degree programs in both countries; (2) the researcher also conducted an online survey to gather information regarding current faculty members’ and students’ perceptions of their piano performance programs. Their perspectives shed light on why so many Chinese students continue their music education in the United States.
A total of 20 university-level institutions (N = 20) were selected in the U.S. (n = 10) and
China (n = 10) as the sample institutions in this study. Survey participants included the students who were currently enrolled in piano performance programs and faculty members who were currently teaching in the sample institutions in both countries. A total number of 34 student participants and 7 faculty participants in the U.S. along with 119 student participants and 11 faculty participants in China completed the questionnaires.
Results indicated that while only one institution in China offers a doctoral degree, all the sample institutions in the U.S. offer doctoral degrees in piano performance. Institutions have x similar audition requirements in both countries, but the American institutions have a broader review process for admission. Although both the Chinese and the U.S. institutions had a similar structure in their curricula, the balance of required credits in each area was noticeably different.
Overall, American institutions focus more on the major area than Chinese institutions in both undergraduate and graduate programs. In addition, the structure of the core course offerings is also very similar. Applied lessons, piano literature, piano pedagogy, accompanying, and recitals are the core courses that commonly appear on the institutions’ curriculums in both countries.
A large percentage of student participants in both countries indicated that their ideal career was being a faculty member in higher education. Although results indicated that overall, there is no significant differences between the students’ level of satisfaction of the core courses in their piano performance programs, students in the U.S. were significantly more satisfied with the applied lessons and the degree recital in their programs than the students in China. It is encouraging that not only students gave careful attention toward the applied lessons and performance opportunities in their studies, but also that a large percentage of the students believed they received excellent advice regarding practice strategies and artistry in their applied lessons in both countries.
The statements made by faculty participants illustrate that the vast majority of them in both countries expressed positive attitudes regarding the piano performance programs in their universities. Faculty members in both countries believed that piano technical skills were difficult to establish and develop during the collegiate level education. Therefore, they recommended that prospective students must build a solid foundation and master the technical skills before college.
Interestingly, faculty participants in the U.S. were more concerned about the graduation requirements in their piano performance programs while Chinese faculty participants cared more about the admission requirements in their programs.
xi
According to the comparative results of the research questions, the factors that attract
Chinese students to study in the U.S. can be attributed to the following aspects: 1) students plan to seek the most advanced degree—doctoral degree in piano performance; 2) students may have less stress related to studying for standardized tests during the application process; 3) students may be able to complete the program and obtain the master’s degree in a shorter period of time;
4) the design of the programs/curriculums may allow students to receive more personal attention and more professional development; 5) students may become more independent and can receive better quality of applied lessons and degree recital preparation; and 6) they may gain more performance opportunities and receive a comprehensive view of the subject matter.
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
The Growing Trend of an Increasing Number of Asian Music Students in the U.S.
As we work and study in our increasingly globalized society, there is a growing trend of
Asian music students who choose to pursue higher education in the United States. Researchers have found that 30-50% of the student population at leading music institutions in the United
States are Asian or of Asian descent (Choi, 2013; Wang, 2009). As an essential program in music schools across the United States, piano programs continue to attract numerous Asian students pursuing their education (Williams, 2002).
Among these Asian music students, there are many Chinese pianists, who often begin their training at a very young age and are successful on the concert stage in their homeland.
These individuals still choose to further their musical training in the United States (Lin, 2016;
Yang, 2009). Kahn and Wakin (2007) noted that, “In recent years, the Central Conservatory of
Music in Beijing has become part of China’s huge export machine churning out musical virtuosos” (para. 3). Conversely, conservatories and universities in the United States recruit music students from China, and many faculty members even go to great lengths to attract talented Chinese students (Brand, 2001). Wakin (2007) claimed in The New York Times that
“The talented Chinese have become a bonanza for music schools, where they are raising the technical bar and joining the already robust ranks of Koreans, Japanese and Taiwanese”
(para.14). The interaction between musicians and students in China and the United States continues to grow rapidly.
1
A Comparison of Pre-College Piano Study in China and in the United States
This trend raises questions regarding the comparison of piano study in China and the
United States. Researchers have outlined the differences and similarities between pre-collegiate piano education in China and America (Benson & Fung, 2005; Comeau, Huta, & Liu, 2015;
Mahamuti, 2013; Peng, 2016; Sen, 2016; Yang, 2015). These studies can be grouped into three categories: (1) teaching materials (Peng, 2016; Yang, 2015), (2) music reading (Peng, 2016), and
(3) teaching behaviors and learning styles (Benson & Fung, 2005; Comeau, Huta, & Liu, 2015;
Mahamuti, 2013; Shen, 2016). Peng (2016) found that beginning piano students follow a similar course of study in both countries since popular piano teaching materials in China are developed based on a translation of American methods (e.g., Thompson’s Piano Course, Bastien’s Basic
Piano Primer, and Faber’s Piano Adventure Series). While American teachers use materials created specifically for their American students, Yang (2015) found that few materials for
Chinese study included elements of Chinese folk music or traditional music, and very few method books and music collections are designed specifically for Chinese students. The biggest difference appeared in the teaching of music reading; most of the Chinese teachers use solfège while American teachers tend to use fixed letter names from the alphabet (A B C D E F G). The use of letter names with American students may be due to the fact that “this is akin to the time when students have learned their letters in school, learned basic words, and suddenly understand how to read basic books” (“Helping your child stay motivated,” n.d.). Chinese children, on the other hand, typically do not learn the English letters until later in life, which may be why the
Chinese teachers rely on solfège.
Cross-cultural study regarding piano education has not only compared beginning piano teaching materials and approaches in China and the United States, but also observed and compared the teaching behaviors and learning styles in private piano lesson settings in both
2 countries. Benson and Fung (2005) compared both Chinese and American teachers’ and students’ behaviors in the private piano setting. Results of their study indicated that American piano teachers tend to spend more time on verbal instruction and questions, while Chinese teachers use substantially more modeling during lessons. Teachers from both countries do, however, focus on students’ playing. The study also determined that there were no significant differences in the frequency of students achieving success between Chinese and American students, even though the teachers had different teaching styles. Research conducted by Comeau,
Huta, and Liu (2015) found that Chinese students showed stronger work ethic based on their belief that musical ability can be developed by working harder. Results also showed that Chinese students expressed more interest in working on difficult and challenging pieces, and practice time was reported to be twice as much as it was for American students. The authors also found that parental involvement in home practice seemed to be equal in both countries (Comeau et al.,
2015).
In relation to teaching and learning styles, there are many differences between pre- college piano education in China and the United States. While both countries have private piano lessons available, in China, unlike in America, the concepts of private piano studios and independent piano teachers are not fully established. The majority of the private piano teachers who teach pre-college students in China are faculty members in a college or conservatory, as well as music teachers who hold a position in a public school. They do not treat their private piano teaching as a business nor do they rely on it as their main source of income (Mahamuti,
2013). As the piano examination leveling system is popular across China, it is common to see children start piano lessons at a very young age. In order to give children a well-rounded education, Chinese parents send their child to piano lessons with the goal of their child completing their piano study before they enter high school. This is signified by passing the top
3 piano exam level. Piano study should be completed before high school because Chinese parents believe their child should not participate in any extracurricular activities in high school, like piano lessons, when he or she needs to focus on preparing for the highly competitive college entrance exam (Lin, 2016). In the U.S., the length of a private piano lesson depends upon the student’s maturity and level. However, in China, most piano teachers only offer standard weekly one-hour lessons and they expect a lot of parental involvement.
Significance of the Project
While researchers have compared Chinese and American piano education at the pre- collegiate level (Benson & Fung, 2005; Comeau, Huta, & Liu, 2015; Lin, 2016; Mahamuti,
2013; Peng, 2016; Sen, 2016; Yang, 2015), to date, no investigation has compared Chinese and
American piano performance programs at the post-secondary level. A comparison is important because recent research has shown that although Chinese pianists have obtained strong training in their homeland, they still move to America for their higher education. Elite music institutions in America are also seeking and recruiting a large number of Chinese pianists (Lin, 2016).
Exploring this topic may help us understand this current trend. A deeper understanding of the piano programs in both countries will not only enable a smoother transition for the Chinese students when they arrive in America for their higher education but may also increase the exchange and communication between pianists in China and the United States.
This study offers us updated information and insight for piano students regarding their preparation of college choices for higher education as well as their current experience as a piano major in their universities. Information from this comparative study may give faculty members and prospective students a clear view of the current state of university-level piano programs in both countries. This study seeks to identify the similarities and differences between China and
4
America regarding their piano programs in higher education with the goal of increasing the understanding and communication between piano pedagogues in both countries. The results of the study may be valuable for institutions in both countries as they continue establishing and developing their piano programs in order to facilitate international exchange.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to promote a greater understanding of Chinese and
American piano performance programs in higher education by examining selected university- level institutions. This descriptive research approach investigated admission requirements, curriculum design, and the course offerings of piano performance degree programs in both countries. Additionally, this study bridged collegiate students and faculty members’ perceptions in order to explore the similarities and differences of university-level piano performance study programs in China and the United States.
The first section of this study provides a literature review of the history and development of university-level piano education in both countries. The second section of this study presents the comparisons of piano program offerings, admission requirements, curriculum, and core course offerings in selected universities in both countries. The last part of this study presents the results and findings based on questionnaires completed by current students and faculty members of piano programs in both countries. Their perspectives regarding their experiences while studying and teaching in piano performance programs found in both countries may shed light on why so many Chinese students continue their music education in the United
States.
5
Research Questions
The focus of this research is two-fold: (1) to analyze and compare the structure and design of piano performance degree programs in university-level institutions in China and the
United States; (2) to discover and compare current faculty members and collegiate students’ perceptions of piano performance programs in both countries. The following specific research questions were developed in order to compare the piano performance programs in China and the
United States:
1. How many institutions offer piano-related degrees at the bachelor, masters and doctoral
levels in China and the United States?
2. What are the audition requirements for the piano performance degrees at the
undergraduate and graduate levels in each country?
3. What are the curriculum requirements for the piano performance degrees at
undergraduate and graduate levels in each country?
4. What are the core course offerings and how many semesters of these core courses do the
students take within the piano performance programs?
5. What factors influence current students’ choices to pursue certain piano performance
programs?
6. Is there a difference in students and faculty members’ perceptions regarding the piano
performance programs between the two countries?
7. What do students and faculty members perceive as the most important experiences and
educational practices for the students’ future careers?
8. What aspects of piano performance do the students perceive as the most valuable from
their education experience in the piano program?
6
9. What do the students and faculty members perceive as the challenges of studying in a
piano performance program?
10. What are the students’ ideal future careers and expectations after graduating from a piano
performance program?
11. What influences Chinese students to study abroad in America for their piano education?
Operational Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the following important terms have been defined:
• A target university-level institution in the U. S.
An institution that has a music college/school that:
- is accredited by the National Association of School of Music (NASM) and has
fulfilled all the curriculum requirements established by this governing body
- is a degree-granting institution
- offers music performance and academic degree programs which include theory and
composition, musicology, performance and education with specific faculty to cover
each essential area of music study
- offers undergraduate and graduate (including doctoral) piano performance degree
programs
- has an established piano department with at least three full-time faculty members
- has international students studying in the piano performance degree programs
The following 28 institutions meet the above criteria:
Arizona State University
Boston University
Cleveland Institute of Music
7
Eastman School of Music
Florida State University
Indiana University
Michigan State University
Northwestern University
Pennsylvania State University
Ohio State University
Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey
Texas Christian University
Texas Tech University
University of Arizona
University of Colorado Boulder
University of Florida
University of Kansas
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
University of Michigan
University of Oklahoma
University of Houston
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
University of North Texas
University of Texas at Austin
8
University of Wisconsin-Madison
• A target university-level institution in China:
An institution that has a music college/school that:
- is accredited by the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China and has
fulfilled all the curriculum requirements established by this governing body
- is a degree-granting institution
- offers music performance and academic degree programs which include vocal and
instrumental performance, music theory and composition, musicology, and music
education with specific faculty to cover each essential area of music study
- offers undergraduate and graduate piano performance degree programs
- has an established piano department with at least three full-time faculty members
The following 19 institutions meet the above criteria:
Beijing Normal University
Capital Normal University
Central Conservatory of Music
Central China Normal University
China Conservatory of Music
East China Normal University
Fujian Normal University
Harbin Conservatory of Music
Nanjing University of the Arts
Shanghai Conservatory of Music
Shanghai Normal University
Shenyang Conservatory of Music
9
South China Normal University
Sichuan Conservatory of Music
Tianjin Conservatory of Music
Wuhai Conservatory of Music
Xi’an Conservatory of Music
Xiamen University
Xinhai Conservatory of Music
• Core courses/major area: courses directly related to piano performance which include
applied piano lessons, keyboard literature, piano pedagogy, collaborative and
accompanying studies, piano ensemble, chamber music, and recitals.
• Curriculum: a planned sequence of instruction/courses that a piano performance major
needs to experience in the degree program
• Faculty members: full-time faculty members currently teaching in a piano performance
program in a target university
• General education: non-music related courses that provide students with a well-rounded
education, which includes but not limited to math, science, literature and art.
• Piano performance program: in both undergraduate and graduate levels, a practice-
oriented degree program emphasizing piano performance in a university-level institution.
• Piano Students: students currently enrolled in a piano performance program in a target
university
• Sample institutions: twenty institutions selected according to the rating results by three
experts in the field of piano performance among the target institutions
• Supportive music courses: music related courses that enable students to become a well-
rounded musician, which include music history, theory, education and research courses. 10
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
University-level Piano Education in China
The Beginning of Professional Piano Education
Despite China experiencing “piano-mania” with an estimated 40 million children taking piano lessons and numerous accomplished Chinese pianists performing worldwide, there is no doubt that professional piano education is still developing in China (Montefiore, 2014; Lin,
2016). Piano performance as a profession was not established in China until the beginning of the twentieth century when the distinguished musician and music educator Xiao You-mei (1884-
1940) founded the first professional music institution—the National Conservatory in Shanghai in
1927 (Lin, C. 2002; Lin, Z. B. 2016). At that time, the piano department was one of the four main divisions in the conservatory. The faculty members in the piano department included professors and pianists who were educated in Europe or Russia (Xu, 2001).
When the National Conservatory first opened and a few years thereafter, the first generation of piano majors were passionate about their music studies, but they did not have the same advanced skill level as current piano majors. They performed repertoire at the level of
Clementi and Kuhlau’s Sonatinas and Czerny’s Etudes for their auditions. However, after four years of intensive training in the undergraduate piano program, they could perform Chopin’s
Etudes, Nocturnes and Piano Concertos in their graduation recitals (Sun, 2012). The first generation of Chinese pianists who graduated from the four-year undergraduate program in the
National Conservatory in Shanghai, now called Shanghai Conservatory of Music (SCM), directly influenced the development of piano education in China today. They included pianists such as
Cui-Zhen Li (1910-2006), Shan-De Ding (1911-1996), and Le-Yi Wu (1919-2006). These
11 pianists went abroad to continue their piano studies after graduating from SCM, and subsequently returned to China and became the leaders of piano programs and post-secondary level conservatories (Sun, 2012).
The education system in China had hardships during the war with Japan from 1937 to
1949. Higher education institutions had to stop recruiting students, causing the institutions’ development to be in a state of stagnation (Wang, 2001). There was no exception for music education. The Shanghai Conservatory of Music also experienced difficulty since the students were encouraged to complete their studies earlier and devote themselves to jobs that supported
China in the war with Japan. However, after a period of hardship, music education in China gradually returned to normal starting in 1949. The piano department, though it went through significant changes, still remained one of the largest divisions in the Shanghai Conservatory.
Several other government-funded music institutions in higher education were also established in various cities around the country, which included the Central Conservatory of Music in Beijing,
Shen-Yang Conservatory of Music, Wu-Han Conservatory of Music, Si-Chuan Conservatory of
Music, Xi-An Conservatory of Music, Xing-Hai Conservatory of Music, and Tian-Jin
Conservatory of Music (Wang, 2001). Those institutions expanded their programs rapidly as they had effective administration teams and quality faculty in terms of their teaching ability and previous education. Along with the establishment and development of the professional music institutions, the growth of piano programs in higher education institutions was remarkable.
Currently, the most important music institution in China—Central Conservatory of Music in Beijing—has been recognized across the country since the 1960s. In the early stage of the
Conservatory, Chinese piano professors who trained abroad and several Russian pianists were hired by the piano department to establish “Russian-style piano teaching methods” and to develop a new curriculum (Lin, 2002). This new professional training curriculum included a
12 fourteen-year training program in the conservatory, which consisted of four years in primary school, six years in middle and high school, and four years during post-secondary school (Wang,
2001). This fourteen-year training system enables students to receive intensive professional music education from an early age. Under the guidance of this professional training system, piano students’ technical skills and performance level increase significantly. In regard to the mission of the piano department, faculty members and the majority of their college students were highly motivated to achieve virtuosic and artistic performances and win national and international piano competitions. The fourteen-year piano performance training program in
Central Conservatory of Music was expanded along with the development of the piano department, which now includes post-graduate training programs.
The Rapid Development and Expansion of Piano Programs in Higher Education
After the cultural revolution in 1978, people’s interest in art education and studying piano increased nationwide. The heightened interest of studying piano resulted in more applicants to the Shanghai Conservatory and Central Conservatory and it nearly reached one hundred times over the intended number of recruits (Wang, 2001). These two conservatories not only maintained the fourteen-year training system, which included a curriculum from the elementary to undergraduate levels, but also added a two-year graduate program. This yearly system was standardized for each student. It required students to study at the conservatory a certain number of years in order to graduate. The majority of the courses were required and the study plan was the same for each student. There was little flexibility for students to modify their individual progress in this system. Along with the development of the conservatories of music, many comprehensive universities also started to offer piano programs as a minor, and later expanded
13 their curriculum by providing undergraduate piano programs and even graduate piano programs
(Wang, 2001).
In 1985, instead of maintaining use of the yearly system, the credit system was introduced to the conservatories and the universities, which provided students with much wider variety of elective courses and personalization of their study plans. As a result of the “opening to the
Western world” policy in China established in 1978, piano teachers and students were able to easily access the Western classical piano repertoire and teaching materials. The repertoire requirements for piano majors’ graduation recitals were revised and raised to a higher level in the conservatories. World–renowned musicians were increasingly invited to China to perform and give master classes and lectures. The musical sharing enriched the students’ study life and expanded their musical horizon. These musicians from outside the country were willing to come to China even at their own expense, because they admired the Chinese students’ learning attitudes and musical talents (Wang, 2001).
After reviewing the evolution of Chinese piano education in the twentieth century, Wang
(2001) pointed out the following weakness of the piano programs’ in university-level institutions before the year of 2001: 1) students lacked an association between academic course work and overall musicianship; 2) students lacked a well-rounded musical knowledge; and 3) the schools lacked an inspiring environment on campus. Langlang, currently one of the most well-known pianists in the world, stated that while he had thoroughly developed his piano technique in
China, his artistic character was not developed until he studied in the United States (Wakin,
2007). He explained:
“America has everybody coming from the world. You can find every style in New York. I wouldn't have a career like this and artistic development like this if I stayed in China. China is great for fundamentals, for children. We are very disciplined. We have great traditions. But we don't have this kind of tradition 14
that we have in Juilliard and Curtis. Piano is not just talent. It's also tradition” (Wakin, 2007, para. 20) However, more recently, Lin (2016) claimed that more accomplished Chinese pianists who had studied abroad returned to their homeland since they found better opportunities for professional development, and most of them are now teaching in a university or conservatory.
These new generations of pianists are now strongly influencing the piano programs in university- level institutions in China.
University-level Piano Education in the United States
The History of Conservatories in the U.S.
The piano performance programs in the United States were gradually established during the last third of the nineteenth century when the founding of American music conservatories occurred (Gandre, 2001). Although the establishment of American music conservatories of music was profoundly influenced by the European conservatory model, they contained some specific American characteristics which included the introduction of non-music coursework in the curriculum and the awarding of the Bachelor of Music Degree (Grausam, 2005). In addition, while the European conservatories received government support, the American conservatories were private institutions supported by endowments and student tuition. According to Gandre
(2001), the earliest established university-level American conservatories include the Oberlin
Conservatory of Music (1865), the New England Conservatory of Music (1867), the Cincinnati
Conservatory of Music (1867), and the Peabody Conservatory (1869). All of these degree- granting colleges of music became an important aspect of the history of higher music education in America (Fitzparick, 1964). Serious music students seeking professional training and professional careers flocked to these conservatories.
15
During the first two decades of the 20th century, around ten more music schools were founded. These music schools were typical performance-oriented conservatories offering undergraduate training such as The Juilliard School. Around the same time, the first conservatory
(Peabody Institute) became affiliated to a university (The Johns Hopkins University). In the middle of the twentieth century, because of the Depression and insufficient endowment, some conservatories struggled to survive, resulting in more independent conservatories merging with other arts institutions or universities (Gandre, 2001).
Music Performance Degree Programs in the U.S.
The National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), founded in 1924 in the United
States, is an organization that established national standards for undergraduate and graduate degree programs for music and music-related disciplines (“Welcome to NASM,” n.d.). There is no document specifically stating the origin and history regarding the piano performance degree in higher education in the United States. However, as one of the tracks in music performance studies, the origin and the history of piano performance programs can be viewed through the development of the music performance degree programs.
The Bachelor of Music (BM), a degree program focusing on vocal or instrumental performance, was recognized by NASM since its inception. During the 1930s, NASM provided guidelines for the requirements and standards related to the BM degree. The program of the BM degree consisted of a well-rounded curriculum, which included three main parts: applied music studies, music theoretical studies, and academic subjects of general education (Scalfari, 1999).
The number of higher institutions that offered BM degrees in Music Performance significantly increased during the twentieth century. According to Scalfari (1999) there were only a few number of degree-granting institutions offering the BM in the early twentieth century, but the number reached to over three hundred schools by 1997. According to the current standard, the
16
BM in performance program should enable students to master technical and musical skills as professional musicians as well as integrate musical knowledge into cultural life (National
Association of Schools of Music [NASM], 2017 p.96).
In the graduate schools, music students enrolled in the Master’s degree in performance need to demonstrate competencies in performance and gain knowledge in music theory, history and literature. As a practice-oriented degree program, giving a solo recital is one of the main requirements.(National Association of Schools of Music [NASM], 2017 p.129).
In the United States, doctoral degrees are the most advanced academic and professional degrees that music majors can pursue. In the early 1950s, doctoral programs in music performance were formed as NASM permitted the University of Southern California, Florida
State University and Indiana University to grant the Doctor of Music (DM) degree (Gorton,
1995). Around the same time, the Eastman School of Music was permitted to grant the Doctoral of Music Arts (DMA) degree. As the terminal degree in music performance, the doctoral program emphasizes the integration of the highest professional level of historical and theoretical knowledge to support performances in a specific instrument with individual interpretation
(National Association of School of Music [NASM], 2017 p.136). Doctoral students in music performance not only complete course work in their major performance areas, but also in music history and music theory. They also prepare to present high-quality solo recitals, participate in chamber music recitals, and finally achieve competencies to be independent musicians, scholars, and teachers.
Cross-cultural Study in Higher Music Education
According to Williams (2002), “Although music is a universal language that can be shared and understood without verbal communication, culture has a tremendous impact on patterns of
17 music teaching and learning” (p.24). Cho (2013), a Korean pianist who earned her DMA degree in the United States, realized that due to the cultural differences, it was extremely challenging to teach American students and communicate with their parents when she began teaching piano in the preparatory division in her university (Cho, 2013). Not only do language and miscommunication cause a barrier, but also the importance tied to music education in both cultures. Gardner (1989) distinguished values tied to skill and virtuosity and points out their impact on art education in Eastern and Western cultures. Eastern cultures tend to place an emphasis on mastering skills without exploring alternative approaches, while Western societies tend to prefer the process of discovering and creativity (Gardner, 1989). The cultural differences between East and West may influence people’s perceptions toward the educational experience.
In order to investigate the Asian music students’ attitudes toward their experiences in
American universities, Choi (2009) selected students from nine different universities who were from East Asia and moved to the U.S. to pursue higher education. These students participated in a survey. The results indicated the students’ choices of school were profoundly influenced by the reputation of the programs and faculty members as well as the scholarships they were awarded.
Their satisfaction level and academic success were closely related with the rapport they built with their professors and the advice they received. Financial difficulties, cultural differences and the language barrier were the top three challenges they experienced during their study in the
United States.
Kim (2015) compared the music education programs in Korea and America. Results indicated the similarities and differences in admission requirements, curricula, and practicum experiences between the two countries. While the universities in both countries have similar admission requirements and curricular structures, the author highlighted that universities in the
18
U.S. focus more on major coursework in their curriculums and require a longer period for students’ internships.
Brand (2001) also did a cross-cultural study specifically comparing Chinese and American music major students’ motivation and strategies for learning and studying in higher education.
Results suggested that the majority of music majors are disciplined and highly motivated, and that faculty in both countries tend to have similar expectations for their students. The conclusions of this study did not provide an explanation for an increase in international students enrolled in
American music schools. There are many other aspects to be explored in the field of cross- cultural music study in post-secondary education. Further research may need to take other factors into account, such as educational quality, study experiences, professional opportunities, and so on.
19
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Selecting Sample Institutions
The participating institutions (N = 20) were selected from the available 28 target university-level music institutions in the U.S. (n = 10) and the available 19 target university-level music institutions in China (n = 10).
The target institutions in the U.S. meet the following criteria:
- is accredited by NASM and has fulfilled all the curriculum requirements established
by this governing body
- is a degree-granting institution
- offers music performance and academic degree programs which include theory and
composition, musicology, performance and education with specific faculty to cover
each essential area of music study
- offers undergraduate and graduate (including doctoral) piano performance degree
programs
- has an established piano department with at least three full-time faculty members
- has international students studying in the piano performance degree programs
The following 28 institutions meet the above criteria:
- Cleveland Institute of Music
- Eastman School of Music
- Florida State University 20
- Indiana University
- Michigan State University
- Pennsylvania State University
- Ohio State University
- Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey
- Texas Christian University
- University of Arizona
- University of Colorado Boulder
- University of Florida
- University of Kansas
- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- University of Oklahoma
- University of Houston
- University of Maryland, College Park
- University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
- University of Nebraska-Lincoln
- University of North Carolina at Greensboro
- University of North Texas
- University of Texas at Austin
- University of Wisconsin-Madison
The target institutions in China meet the following criteria:
21
- is accredited by the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China and has
fulfilled all the curriculum requirements established by this governing body
- is a degree-granting institution
- offers music performance and academic degree programs which include vocal and
instrumental performance, music theory and composition, musicology, and music
education with specific faculty to cover each essential area of music study
- offers undergraduate and graduate piano performance degree programs
- has an established piano department with at least three full-time faculty members
The following 19 institutions meet the above criteria:
Beijing Normal University
Capital Normal University
Central Conservatory of Music
Central China Normal University
China Conservatory of Music
East China Normal University
Fujian Normal University
Harbin Conservatory of Music
Nanjing University of the Arts
Shanghai Conservatory of Music
Shanghai Normal University
Shenyang Conservatory of Music
South China Normal University
Sichuan Conservatory of Music
Tianjin Conservatory of Music
22
Wuhai Conservatory of Music
Xi’an Conservatory of Music
Xiamen University
Xinhai Conservatory of Music
In order to select the more comprehensive and reputable piano performance programs among the 28 target institutions in the United Stated and 19 target institutions in China as the sample institutions for this study, three experts in the field of piano performance from each country were asked to rate the institutions on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 = least reputable, 10 = most reputable). They based their ratings of the institutions according to the following criteria:
1) This institution has a high reputation in piano performance and offers comprehensive piano performance programs.
2) The piano performance programs attract and recruit high quality piano students.
The average of the three experts’ ratings was calculated and the top 10 target institutions in each country were determined to be the sample institutions in this study.
Selecting Student and Faculty Participants
In order to examine the students and faculty members’ perceptions regarding the experiences in their piano performance programs, the collective case-study method was used for selecting the participants for this study. According to Aldridge (2004), the sample participants in a collective case study have a certain aspect in common and the commonalities are noted and identified by the researcher. In the current study, the target population included the students who were currently enrolled and faculty members who were currently teaching in the selected institutions in both China and the United States. The selected faculty members represented various backgrounds in all selected institutions. The selected student participants represented
23 various school levels which include undergraduate students and graduate students. They were contacted through a research project invitation email (see Appendix A).
Dependent Measure
Data Collection Sheet
The researcher created a data collection sheet to gather information from each selected institution. The data collection sheet contains four sections that directly address the research questions. The first section summarizes information regarding piano degree offerings at the bachelor, masters and doctoral levels in China and the United States.
The second section lists the audition requirements for the piano performance degrees at the undergraduate and graduate levels in each country. The specific repertoire and testing requirements of each individual program are indicated and the generalized information between the two countries are compared.
The third section collects data regarding the curriculum requirements of each piano degree program, including the credit hours of the total degree programs, major area, supportive music courses, general education, recitals/research project and other. The Range, Mean (M), and
Standard Deviations (SD) were calculated within the sample institutions in each country and the results were compared between the two countries.
The last section of the data collection sheet lists all core courses that are offered in the piano performance programs. The core courses include but are not limited to applied lessons, piano literature, piano pedagogy, piano accompanying, ensemble/chamber music, recitals, and dissertation/treatise. This section of the data collection sheet collects the number of semesters required for each core course from each sample institution. Additionally, the summarizing table
24 was used to present the comparison of the Range, the Mean (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of each core course out of the sample institutions between the two countries.
Questionnaires
Based on the collected data in the data collection sheet, the researcher created questionnaires for two different target populations: piano performance students and faculty members. The primary format of the questions includes multiple choice and rating questions. An eleven-point Likert-type rating scale is used in the rating questions. Open-ended options are also included to allow participants to express their opinions that were not anticipated by the researcher.
There are three main sections in the students’ questionnaire (see Appendix C) which gather information regarding:
1) academic and biographical information
2) evaluation of the piano performance program the student is enrolled in
3) the participant’s perceptions regarding the experiences in their specific piano programs
In the faculty members’ questionnaire (see Appendix C), there are questions regarding:
1) the biographical information and the state of their studio
2) perceptions of the piano performance program
3) suggestions for current students and prospective students
The questionnaire was written in English first, and translated into the Chinese national dialect Mandarin, by the researcher. In order to increase the accuracy of the translation, the researcher asked a native Chinese-speaking colleague, who is a doctoral student in piano performance in the United States, to translate the questionnaire independently. Differences between the translations of the second translator and the researcher were discussed until an 25 agreement was reached. The American participants used the original English version of the questionnaire. The Chinese participants used the translated Mandarin version of the questionnaire.
Procedures
Collecting the Data of Piano Performance Programs
The researcher created a data collection sheet based on the information from a previous study conducted by the researcher. The content of the data collection sheet includes the lists of piano degree offerings, audition requirements, curriculum requirements, and core course offerings.
The data for this current study was collected from a variety of sources, which included the university websites, handbooks for undergraduate and graduate students, as well as informal telephone calls and email exchanges with university personnel. It was collected and categorized according to the research questions in the data collection sheet. The categorized data was presented descriptively and was analyzed to determine the similarities and differences in piano performance programs in post-secondary institutions between China and the United States. The collected data also served as a guide for the researcher to develop the survey questions.
Administrating the Survey Questionnaires
The researcher obtained IRB approval prior to the start of the study. The human subjects research approval memorandum can be found in Appendix A. The researcher followed all necessary procedures in order to maintain the anonymity of the participants. Therefore, participants’ identifying information such as name, email address or phone number were not collected in the survey.
26
Questionnaires were distributed and administered through Qualtrics, an online survey program (https://www.qualtrics.com). Since the participants were in two countries, the use of
Qualtrics was deemed to be the best option for several reasons: 1) questionnaires could be distributed and responses could be received in a timely fashion; 2) no costs on the part of the researcher were incurred; 3) the researcher was able to maintain the anonymity of the participants. Besides the questions, the online questionnaire also included the introduction of the study, participant consent information, and the researcher’s contact information. Participants did not provide any personal information, thereby, maintaining their anonymity.
Prior to sending the online questionnaire to the target participants, the researcher ran a pilot test and asked several piano students and faculty members to complete the questionnaires. These individuals were not participating in the main research project. The pilot tests were used to determine if there were unnecessary and confusing questions in the questionnaire. It allowed the researcher to make changes before sending out the questionnaire to the study participants. In addition, it also helped the researcher to anticipate the completion rate and an estimated response time. The data from the pilot test was not used in this study.
The target population was contacted using a project invitation email message (see
Appendix A). The email briefly explained the purpose of the project. It included a short list of procedures and requested the target population to reply if they were willing to participate in the study. A follow-up message was automatically sent by the Qualtrics online survey program to those who did not reply to the initial email. Once the participants responded with the intentions to participate in the study, they received the consent form and survey link from the researcher by email. In order to increase the completion rate in China, the researcher decided to distribute the survey QR Code through WeChat instead of email. Since WeChat, a free messaging and calling
27 application, is the most popular social media app in China, the participants could easily access the survey through their cell phones.
Analyzing Quantitative and Qualitative Data
In order to provide more comprehensive information in a study, researchers often triangulate data by using multiple data collection procedures (Colwell & Richardson; 2002). In this study, the information obtained through official websites and student handbooks from each of the selected institutions along with the online surveys of the target groups—piano students and faculty members—provided the researcher with the opportunity to triangulate data. The collected data were summarized and analyzed. The results appear in the next chapter.
For the quantitative data collected from the questionnaires, frequencies, percentages, ranges, means, and standard deviations were reported as appropriate. Statistical analysis was used to define the significant differences between Chinese and American participants.
Computation of the quantitative data was completed by using VassarStats (http://vassarstats.net).
For all statistical analysis, an a priori alpha level of a = 0.05 was assumed for establishing significance. To test for significant differences between nominal data, which was collected by asking multiple choice questions in the questionnaire, a two-independent sample χ2 test was calculated by combining all the sub-categories together to obtain an overall score. If the result indicated there was an overall significant difference, a series of Binomial Distribution tests for each sub-category were used to determine where the significant differences occurred. A series of independent t tests were calculated for testing the significant differences between interval data, which was collected by asking rating questions in the questionnaire.
Qualitative data was collected from the questionnaire by asking open-ended questions.
The common themes were coded and summarized by the researcher. In order to increase the
28 accuracy and the reliability of the coding, the researcher asked a native Chinese-speaking colleague, who is a doctoral student in piano performance in the United States, to code and summarize the responses to the open-ended questions independently. Differences between the coding were discussed until an agreement was reached. The summarized lists appear in the next chapter.
Limitations
While the researcher made an effort to increase the comparability of the institutions between China and the U.S. by selecting the matching and representative institutions, it is difficult to make a definite comparison with the historical, economic, administrative, and political differences between the two countries.
A fully comprehensive comparative study of Chinese and American piano programs may include subjects from various contexts (e.g. institutions based in metropolitan, urban and rural areas; participants that include current and former students and faculty members). However, this study only focused on collecting data from selected target institutions in China and the United
States that meet the limited operational criteria. Due to the small sample and limited responses, piano programs that did not meet the criteria in the operational definitions were not included and the participants only included current students and faculty members. Therefore, the results in the study and the recommendations may not be generalized.
This study is based on the piano programs in well-recognized music institutions in both countries. The participants for this study may only represent the most well-known institutions of piano study and may not include piano programs that are struggling with various weaknesses such as lack of resources, low quality of facilities, and ineffective pedagogues.
29
Since the researcher has studied in two of the selected institutions as an undergraduate and graduate student, further limitations may emerge from the researcher’s own experiences and personal biases.
30
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to promote a greater understanding of Chinese and
American piano performance programs in higher education. To accomplish this goal, the researcher collected data from the selected university-level institutions regarding their piano degree offerings, audition requirements, and curriculum requirements as well as core course offerings for the piano performance programs. The researcher also conducted an online survey to gather information regarding current faculty members’ and students’ perceptions of their piano performance programs. By organizing according to the research questions, this chapter contains the collected information of the piano performance programs in both countries which address research questions one to four. This chapter also includes the results and data analysis of the online surveys from both countries which address research question five to ten.
Data Collection from Selected Institutions
Research Question 1
How Many Institutions Offer Piano-related Degrees at the Bachelor, Masters and
Doctoral Levels in China and the United States? The piano-related degree programs offered in higher education have various tracks and emphases, which may include but are not limited to performance, pedagogy, and collaborative piano. Within the selected institutions in this study (N
= 20), all the institutions in the U.S. (n = 10) offer piano performance degree programs from the bachelor’s up to the doctoral level. The vast majority of the institutions (90%) offer collaborative piano programs at the master’s and doctoral levels. Some of the institutions offer piano pedagogy degree programs at the bachelor’s (10%), master’s (60%), and doctoral (40%) levels. In contrast, although all the institutions in China (n = 10) offer piano performance programs at the bachelor’s 31 and master’s levels, only one institution—Central Conservatory of Music—offers a piano performance doctoral program which started in 2018. No institution offers piano pedagogy or a collaborative piano program at the doctoral level. More than half of the selected institutions
(60%) offer piano pedagogy and collaborative piano programs at the master’s level. In addition, while the degree designation on diplomas awarded by Chinese institutions indicates Bachelor of
Art (BA) and Master of Art (MA), those designations at American institutions are Bachelor of
Music (BM) and Master of Music (MM). See Table 1 for full results.
The commonalities between the U.S. and China regarding their piano-related degree offerings include: all selected institutions (100%) offer bachelor degrees in piano performance, none of the institutions (0%) offer a collaborative piano bachelor’s degree, and only a few institutions (10-20%) offer a bachelor’s degree in piano pedagogy. In both countries, all three types of piano-related programs are being offered at the master’s level. Additionally, the piano performance program is the only track that the selected institutions offer at all three academic levels in both countries. The biggest difference in comparing programs between the two countries is that far fewer institutions in China offer a terminal degree—doctoral degree—in piano performance. Of the selected institutions, all ten in the U.S. offer a doctoral degree in piano performance and only one offers the same degree in China. Seeking the most advanced degree in piano performance may be an important motive for Chinese pianists to move from their motherland to the U.S.
Research Question 2
What are the Audition Requirements for the Piano Performance Degrees at the
Undergraduate and Graduate Levels in Each Country? In order to be admitted to a piano performance program at a university-level institution, prospective students must go through a series of application and evaluation processes. In China, students are required to pass the annual
32 national college/graduate school entrance exam conducted by the Ministry of Education as well as the live audition conducted by the music department of the specific institution. The national college entrance exam in China consists of sections on Chinese literature, mathematics, English, social sciences/natural science. The graduate school entrance exam includes the subjects of political science, foreign language, music theory and history. In the U.S., students are required to submit application materials including SAT/ACT scores, transcripts, recommendation letters, resume, pre-screening recordings etc., and finally complete the performance audition.
The audition is one of the most important steps when students are applying to study in a piano performance program. It is also crucial for faculty members to evaluate whether the prospective students have the ability and potential to successfully complete the piano performance degree. The audition requirements are usually published on universities’ websites.
There are some variations from one university to another, but the requirements still contain some common themes as the mission for the piano performance program in higher music education is similar between schools. In the U.S., the live audition is not required but highly encouraged in most institutions. Students may be required to submit a pre-screening recording to be invited for the live audition. In China, a live audition is mandatory. The audition may contain two to three rounds, taking a few days to complete. Prospective students must pass each round in order to move on to the next round of the audition.
The audition requirements of ten universities from each country were reviewed. The data were obtained from the university websites and application instructions. Often in both countries, in order to fully assess the applicants’ performance abilities, prospective students are required to prepare a recital program containing music with contrasting styles and from various historical periods. The repertoire prepared for the first-round audition/pre-screening can be the same for the second-round audition/live audition. Students who apply for upper level degrees are required
33 to prepare longer audition programs than students applying for undergraduate programs. Students applying to doctoral programs have more flexibility when choosing their audition repertoire as most institutions do not provide very specific requirements such as the particular composers and genres.
Audition Requirements in the U.S.
For the bachelor’s audition in the U.S. (see Table 2), a Prelude and Fugue by J.S Bach or a polyphonic piano work as well as a Classical Sonata or an Allegro movement in Classical Sonata form are required by the vast majority of the institutions (n = 9) in the bachelor’s audition. These categories of repertoire are required by half of the institutions (n = 5) for their master’s audition.
Virtuoso etude(s) are required by half of the sample institutions (n = 5) in both the bachelor’s and master’s auditions as well. A Romantic piece and a 20th-21st century piece is required by most institutions (n =6) in their bachelor’s audition, but in some institutions, they can be the applicants’ choices in their bachelor’s (n = 2) and master’s (n = 2) auditions. At the doctoral level audition, rather than requiring students to prepare one piece from each specific category such as a Classical sonata, Romantic work and 20th-21st century work, most institutions (n = 7) require a minimum performing time and a program of repertoire from a variety of musical styles/historical periods at the doctoral level audition. None of the institutions require applicants to take sight-singing and ear-training exams for admission. Only one institution requires sight- reading for the bachelors and master’s auditions. Also, only one institution requires applicants to prepare scales and arpeggios in the bachelor’s audition. The experience of performing a piano concerto with orchestra is not required, but a short interview and a diagnostic entrance exam are sometimes a part of the audition process.
34
Audition Requirements in China
In China, instead of giving a general instruction for applicants to prepare music with contrasting styles and various historical periods, all the Chinese institutions (n = 10) list the specific categories in their audition instructions. Some institutions even list the composers and the opus number of some specific works. Table 3 indicates that all the sample institutions (n =
10) require the applicants to prepare the following repertoire for both the bachelor’s and master’s auditions: a Prelude and Fugue by J.S. Bach or a polyphonic work, virtuoso etude(s), and a
Classical Sonata or an Allegro movement from a Classical Sonata. Two virtuoso etudes, one of which must be by Chopin, and the other one by another composer are required/suggested by some institutions for the bachelor’s auditions (n = 6) and master’s auditions (n = 7). Most institutions give students the option to select their own repertoire for the Romantic work, 20th-
21st century work and/or Chinese piano work. Two institutions assign a specific contemporary work for the students and only allow them to learn it by themselves for a prescribed amount of time before the audition. A sight-reading test is required by only one institution for a bachelor’s audition, but it is required by five institutions for the master’s auditions. No institution stated minimum performing time in their bachelor’s audition requirements. Half of the sample institutions (n = 5) stated a minimum performing time in the master’s audition ranging from 35 to 60 minutes.
Besides the piano performing audition, all the institutions (n = 10) require the prospective students to take sight-singing and ear-training entrance exams at the undergraduate level. They are also required to pass the music theory exam to be admitted to the bachelor’s degree programs. According to the application instructions, the experience of performing a complete piano concerto with orchestra is required to apply for the doctoral degree at Central Conservatory of Music.
35
The Comparison of Audition Requirements
The institutions in China and the U.S. have similar requirements and expectations for their prospective students regarding the audition requirements for piano performance majors (see
Table 4). These commonalities include requirements for students to have solo piano performing experiences and a mastery of skills for performing various piano works such as music from different historical periods and with different styles. The most obvious difference regarding the music styles was that Chinese institutions give students the options of choosing from Western music and Chinese piano music for auditions. Some institutions even require applications to select and prepare repertoire in the category of “Chinese solo piano work”. However, American institutions do not include this category in their audition requirements.
Table 4 indicates that the emphasis of the musical styles/periods is slightly different in the audition instructions between the two countries. This is reflected by the percentage of the institutions that require the applicants to prepare certain musical styles/periods in their audition instructions. All the Chinese institutions (100%) require a Prelude and Fugue by J.S. Bach or a polyphonic work, virtuoso etude(s), and Classical Sonata in both bachelor’s and master’s auditions. In contrast, only some of the American institutions specifically require the music from these three categories. For instance, half of the American institutions (n = 5) require virtuoso etude(s) in both bachelor’s and master’s auditions; 50% of the American institutions require a
Classical Sonata in the bachelor’s audition and 90% the institutions require a Classical Sonata in the master’s audition. The most obvious contrast is that only one institution (10%) in the U.S. requires a Prelude and Fugue by J.S. Bach in the master’s audition. Also, while there are six
Chinese institutions that require the applicants to prepare two virtuoso etudes, only one
American institution requires two etudes (see Table 2 and 3).
36
Generally, Chinese institutions require applicants to prepare for a longer performing time than the American institutions, especially in doctoral auditions. While the range of the required minimum performing time in American institutions is between 30 to 60 minutes, Chinese institutions require 90 minutes for the live audition. Also, Chinese institutions require doctoral applicants to have experience performing a complete piano concerto with orchestra. American institutions do not require this experience, but the applicants may be interviewed during the audition process. Besides the piano performing audition, while the American students are not required to take sight-singing, ear-training, sight-reading, accompanying and harmonization tests, Chinese students are required to take sight-singing and ear-training tests in the undergraduate auditions, and they may be required to take sight-reading, piano accompaniment and harmonization tests in the master’s auditions. While the prospective students may need to prepare video/audio recordings for the pre-screening assessments in America, students auditioning for Chinese institutions do not need to submit pre-screening recordings.
Table 1: Piano-Related Degree Offerings
China U.S. (n = 10) (n = 10) å % å % Bachelor Performance 10 100 10 100 Pedagogy 2 20 1 10 Collaborative 0 0 0 0 Master Performance 10 100 10 100 Pedagogy 6 60 6 60 Collaborative 6 60 9 90 Doctoral Performance 1 10 10 100 Pedagogy 0 0 4 40 Collaborative 0 0 9 90
37
Table 2: Audition Requirements by Program in the U.S. A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 Bachelor Bach’s Prelude and Fugue or polyphonic work 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 Virtuoso Etude(s) 1 1 - 2 1 - - - 1 -
Classical Sonata or Allegro movement 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1
Romantic work 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1# 1# 1
20th or 21st century work 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1# 1# -
Scales and arpeggios ------√ Sight-reading ------√ Sight-singing and ear-training ------Minimum performing time required 30 - 20 - - 20 - - - - Variety Musical styles/historical periods Y - - - - Y - - - -
Masters Bach’s Prelude and Fugue or polyphonic work - - 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 Virtuoso Etude(s) 1 - 1 2 1 1 - - - - Classical Sonata - - 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 Romantic work - - 1 1 1# 1# - - - 1 20th or 21st century work - - 1 1 1# 1# - - - 1
Sight-reading - - √ ------Minimum performing time required 45 - 30 - - - 45 45 - - Variety Musical styles/historical periods Y Y - - Y Y Y Y Y -
Doctoral Baroque work - - - 1 1 1 - - - 1 Virtuoso Etude(s) 1 - - 2 ------Classical Sonata - - - 1 1 1 - - - 1 Romantic Work - - - - 1 1 - - - 1 20th or 21st century work - - - 1 - - - - - 1 Minimum performing time 60 - 60 - 30 30 45 60 30 - Variety Musical styles/historical periods Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y - Experience performing piano concerto with orchestra ------
Note: 1or 2 designates the number of pieces in this category that an applicant must prepare for the audition; a # designates an applicant may choose among these musical styles/ historical periods; an * designates applicants will be assigned a specific contemporary work in advance; a √ designates applicants need to meet the requirements or pass the entrance exam to be admitted to the programs; a – designates no specific requirement in the audition instruction; a Y designates there is a specific requirement in the audition instruction, a x designates not available, does not exist. 38
Table 3: Audition Requirements by Program in China C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Bachelor Bach’s Prelude and Fugue or polyphonic 1 1 1 1 2# 1 1 1 1 1 work Virtuoso Etude(s) 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 Classical Sonata or Allegro movement 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Romantic work - 1# 1# 1# 2# 1# 1# 1# 1# 1# 20th or 21st century work 1* 1# 1# 1* 2# 1# 1# 1# 1# 1# Chinese solo piano work - 1# 1# 1# 2# 1# - - - 1# Scales and arpeggios - - - - √ - - √ - - Sight-reading - √ ------Sight-singing and ear-training √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Masters Bach’s Prelude and Fugue or polyphonic 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 work Virtuoso Etude(s) 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 Classical Sonata 1# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Romantic work 1# 1# 1 2# 1# 1# 1# 1 1 1# 20th or 21st century work 1# 1# 1# 2# 1# 1# 1# 1 - 1# Chinese solo piano work 1 1# 1# 2# 1# 1# 1# - 1 1# Sight-reading - √ - √ √ - - - √ √ Minimum performing time required 60 40 45 - - - 35 50 - -
Doctoral Baroque work - x x x x x x x x x Classical Sonata - x x x x x x x x x
20th or 21st century work - x x x x x x x x x Minimum performing time 90 x x x x x x x x x Variety Musical styles/historical periods Y x x x x x x x x x Experience performing a complete piano √ x x x x x x x x x concerto with orchestra Note: 1or 2 designates the number of pieces in the category that an applicant must prepare in the audition; a # designates an applicant may choose among these musical styles/ historical periods; an * designates applicants will be assigned a specific contemporary work in advance; a √ designates applicants need to meet the requirements or pass the entrance exam to be admitted to the programs; a – designates no specific requirement in the audition instruction; a Y designates there is a specific requirement in the audition instruction, a x designates the institution did not offer a doctoral degree.
39
Table 4: The Comparison of Audition Requirements
Audition requirements China (n = 10) U.S. (n = 10)
å % å % Bachelor Bach’s Prelude and Fugue or polyphonic 10 100 4 40 Virtuosowork Etude(s) 10 100 5 50
Classical Sonata or Allegro movement 10 100 9 90
Romantic work 9 90 7 70 20th or 21st century work 6 60 7 70 Chinese solo piano work 2 20 - - Scales and arpeggios 1 10 1 10 Sight-reading 1 10 1 10 Sight-singing and ear-training 10 100 - - Minimum performing time required - - 3 30 Variety Musical styles/historical periods - - 3 30
Masters Bach’s Prelude and Fugue or polyphonic 10 100 1 10 Virtuosowork Etude(s) 10 100 5 50
Classical Sonata 10 100 5 50
Romantic work 9 90 4 40 20th or 21st century work 4 40 3 30 Chinese solo piano work 7 70 - - Sight-reading 4 40 1 10 Minimum performing time required 5 50 4 40 Variety Musical styles/historical periods - - 8 80
Doctoral Baroque work - - 1 10 Classical Sonata - - 1 10 th st 20 or 21 century work 1 10 1 10 Minimum performing time 1 10 7 70 Variety Musical styles/historical periods 1 10 10 Experience performing a complete piano 1 10 - 100- Note: a – designatesconcerto none with listed orchestra in the audition instruction;
Research Question 3
What are the Curriculum Requirements for the Piano Performance Degrees at
Undergraduate and Graduate Levels in Each Country? In order to receive a degree in piano
performance, students need to complete the curriculum requirements at their universities.
Through searching the university websites and exchanging email correspondence with university
40 personnel, the researcher was able to collect and review the majority of the sample institutions’ piano performance degree program curriculums.
At the undergraduate level, the curriculums in both countries are divided into four categories: main area, supportive music courses, general education, and other. The main area contains courses such as applied piano, keyboard/piano literature, piano pedagogy, chamber music/ensemble, and accompanying. The supportive music courses include music theory, music history/literature, and music research courses. “General education” refers to the courses which are not related to the subject of music. “Other” designates courses such as both music and non- music elective courses, practicum/internship, etc. At the graduate level, the Chinese institutions’ curriculums use the same categorizing system as their undergraduate level curriculum. However, the American institutions’ curriculums replace the “general education” category with
“recital/research project.” Non-music courses are usually not included in the curriculum, especially in the master’s program, which students need to complete in a short timeframe.
Therefore, if the general education courses were found in the curriculum, they were categorized under the “Other” category for American institutions.
Among the 20 sampled institutions in both countries, nine of the ten American institutions’ curriculums (n = 9) were reported and used for the statistical analysis in this study (see Table 3).
One institution was not included in the result report because, unlike the other nine institutions, it uses a quarter system instead of a semester system and it uses units instead of credit hours. In order to avoid the confusion of comparing the unit system with the credit hours system, this particular institution was excluded in the results report; however, it does not mean the content of its curriculum is different from the other nine institutions. In China, the curriculums are considered internal information; therefore, most of them are not published on the universities’ official websites. By contacting university offices, faculty members, and current piano majors in
41 the sample institutions, the researcher was able to access four institutions’ curriculums (n = 4) at the time the data was collected for the study. All these institutions’ curriculums used the same credit system. The results can be found in Table 4 and they were all used in the statistical analysis.
Curriculum Requirements in the U.S.
Tables 5 and 6 indicate the curriculum requirements for the piano performance degree in the American institutions. A total number of nine institutions are listed in this table (A1-A9). To complete a bachelor’s degree, the range of total credit hour requirements are between 120 and
131. The heaviest weighted area is the “main area”, which comprises an average of 42.2% of the required credits. The means and percentages of the “supportive music courses” (M = 35.2,
28.6%) and “general education” (M = 33.1, 26.9%) are nearly equivalent. More than half of the institutions (n = 5) do not leave any room for any elective courses for the undergraduate students.
At the master’s level, the range of total credit hours are between 30 and 36. More than half of the courses (57.1%) are in the “main area”, followed by the “supportive courses” (32.2%) and recital/research project” areas (11.7%). Although piano performance degree programs are practice-oriented programs which require students to give public recitals, the requirements of degree recital(s) are not listed as credit hours in five sample institutions’ master curriculum guides and one institution’s doctoral curriculum guide.
At the doctoral level, the range of total credit hours is between 52 and 66. An average of
40.6% of the credit hours fall under the “main area”, category, followed by “supportive music courses” (28.3%). The vast majority of the institutions (n = 8) allow students to choose their elective courses or place the students in different classes according to the outcome of their doctoral entrance/diagnostic exam. This indicates the doctoral degree programs are more individualized and more flexible compared to the bachelor’s and master’s degree programs.
42 Some institutions offer two tracks in their doctoral degree programs—treatise track and non- treatise track. In the treatise track, doctoral degree candidates are required to complete an original research project, then defend and publish their written document. In the non-treatise track, degree candidates may give extra lecture recital(s) rather than write a document.
In general, across all levels of piano performance degrees, the “main area” is the heaviest weighted area—an average of 42.6% of the total credits in the bachelor’s degree, 51.7% of the total credits in the master’s degree, and 40.6% of the total credits in the doctoral degree. In addition, the proportion of the “other” area is the smallest across all the degree plans—an average of 1.8 % of the total credits in the bachelor’s degree, 10.5% of the total credits in the master’s degree, and 10.6% of the total credits in the doctoral degree.
Curriculum Requirements in China
Table 7 indicates the curriculum requirements for piano performance degree programs in
Chinese institutions. A total number of four institutions are listed in this table (C1-C4). Under the bachelor’s degree programs, the range of the total credit requirements were between 130 and
151 hours. The heaviest weighted area is “general education”, which comprises an average of
36.2% of the required credits. The proportion of this area is closely followed by “supportive music courses” (30.6%). The required credits of the “main area” are only weighted an average of 22.4% of the total credits, which is less than “general education” and “supportive music courses”.
At the master’s level, the range of total credit hours is between 50 and 56. The majority of the courses (39.4%) are in the “main area”, followed by “supportive courses” (25%) and “other” courses (23.6%). All four institutions in China have degree recital and research project requirements in their master’s programs; however, they are not listed as credit hours in their curriculum guides. The “general education” area, which may include courses such as political
43 science and English literature, is still listed in the master’s curriculums and the average proportion is 12% of the total credit requirements.
The average proportion of the “main area” in the master’ programs is 39.4% of the total credits, which is the most heavily weighted area. However, the “general education” (30.6%) area has the largest proportion in their bachelor’s curriculums. While the smallest proportion is the
“other” area in the bachelor’s degree program, the least emphasized area is the “general education” area (12%) in the master’s degree program.
Comparison of Curriculum Requirements Comparing the curriculum requirements of piano performance programs in both countries reveals they have a similar structure which comprise of courses in the five categories: main area, supportive music courses, general education, recitals/research project, and other. Undergraduate degree programs are designed to be completed within four years in both countries. However, the length of study in the master’s degree program is usually different between the two countries.
The total credit hours required for this degree in Chinese institutions is 50 to 56, which is higher than the American institutions’ requirements (30-36). Therefore, while the piano students in
China usually complete the master’s program in three years, most students in America complete their master’s programs in two years.
Table 8 summarizes the curriculum information gathered from both countries’ piano performance degree programs. There are three sections in this table, which are divided according to the degree types—bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees. In order to compare the curriculum requirements between countries, the Range (R), the Mean (M), Standard Deviation
(SD) and Percentages (%) of required credit hours among the sample institutions within each country were calculated and are listed in Table 8.
44 When comparing the bachelor degree’s requirements in both countries, the largest percentage of the four categories in China is “general education”, which comprises 36.2 % of the degree curriculum. In contrast, the largest portion of the curriculum in the U.S. is the “major area” (42.1%). Also, Chinese institutions put greater emphasis on the “other” category (10.8%), which may include professional practice, thesis, and electives. This is much higher than the
American institutions’ bachelor curriculum (3.1%). The proportion of “supportive courses” is similar between the Chinese institutions’ curriculums (30.6%) and the American institutions’ curriculums (34.9%). They are the second largest proportion of the total credit requirements.
For the master’s programs, although the proportion of credits in the “major area” is the largest within both countries—39.4% in China and 52.1% in the U.S, the American institutions place more emphasis on the “major area”. Chinese institutions do have recital requirements in the master’s degree programs but they are not presented in the requirements of credited hours.
Similar to the bachelor level’s curriculum requirements, Chinese institutions place more emphasis on the “others/electives” category (23.6%) than the American master’s curriculum
(10.5%). This category includes but is not limited to elective courses, foreign language, political science, and practicum.
Doctoral curriculums in America have an average of 39.1% allotted to the “major area”,
27.4% to “supportive courses”, 19.8% to “recitals/research projects”, and 13.7% to “recitals and research projects”. The doctoral curriculum used at Central Conservatory of Music in China, which is the only institution that offers a doctoral piano performance degree, was not accessible at the time the data was collected for the current study.
Unlike the American institutions where the emphasis of the “main area” is consistent across all degree levels, Chinese institutions only emphasize the “main area” in their master’ programs. The average weight of the “main area” in Chinese institutions was 39.4% of the total
45 credits, which is less compared to 51.7% in American institutions’ curriculums. Instead of the
“main area” category, Chinese institutions place the most emphasis on “general education”
(36.2%) in their bachelor’s curriculums. In contrast, the “general education” category comprises only 26.9% of the total credits in American institutions, which is the second smallest proportion in the bachelor’s curriculums.
Table 5: Undergraduate Curriculum Requirements in the U.S. Institutions Total Main area Supportive General Other music courses education
Bachelor A1* 120 59 33 24 4 A2* 120 56 27 31 6 A3* 120 49 43 24 4 A4* 125 64 31 30 0 A5* 120 40 38 42 0 A6* 131 48 45 38 0 A7* 120 44 40 30 6 A8* 120 54 25 41 0 A9* 130 57 35 38 0 Range 120 to 131 40 to 64 25 to 45 24 to 42 0 to 6 M 122.9 52.3 35.2 33.1 2.2 SD 4.62 7.66 6.91 6.88 2.73 % 100 42.6 28.6 26.9 1.8 Notes: a * designates nine sample institutions in the U.S for which the researcher was able to obtain their curriculums at the time of data collection; all institutions are applying similar credit systems in their curriculum; a - designates none listed in the curriculum guide.
Table 6: Graduate Curriculum Requirements in the U.S. Institutions Total Main area Supportive Recitals/Research Other music courses Project Masters A1* 36 16 11 - 9 A2* 32 20 6 - 6 A3* 35 18 17 - 0 A4* 30 16 9 - 5 A5* 30 17 7 6 0 A6* 32 24 6 1 1 A7* 30 16 10 4 0 A8* 34 12 18 4 0 A9* 32 12 10 - 10 Range 30 to 36 12 to 24 6 to 18 1 to 6 0 to 10 M 32.3 16.7 10.4 3.8 3.4 SD 2.24 3.73 4.4 2.06 4.13 % 100 51.7 32.2 11.7 10.5
46 Table 6 Cont. Institutions Total Main area Supportive Recitals/Research Other music courses Project
Doctoral A1* 60 20-24 9 12 15-19 A2* 60 28 14 8 10 A3* 65 24 26 6 9 A4* 52 24 21 - 7 A5* 56 14 27 6 9 A6* 66 31 12 20 3 A7* 48 12 18 18 0 A8* 64 30 8 24 2 A9* 64 32 16 16 0 Range 52 to 66 12 to 32 8 to 27 6 to 24 0 to 19 M 59.4 24.1 16.8 12.2 6.3 SD 6.3 7.2 6.9 7.8 5.6 % 100 40.6 28.3 20.5 10.6 Notes: a * designates nine sample institutions in the U.S for which the researcher was able to obtain their curriculums at the time of data collection; all institutions are applying similar credit systems in their curriculum; a - designates none listed in the curriculum guide.
Table 7: Curriculum Requirements in China Institutions Total Main area Supportive General Other music courses education Bachelor C1* 137 32 53 42 10 C2* 130 27 58 45 0 C3* 140 28 36 51 25 C4* 151 38 24 64 25 Range 130 to151 27 to 38 24 to 58 42 to 64 0 to 25 M 139.5 31.25 42.75 50.5 15 SD 8.74 4.99 15.65 9.75 12.25 % 100 22.4 30.6 36.2 10.8
Masters C1* 56 30 14 4 8 C2* 50 22 10 5 13 C3* 50 18 12 4 16 C4* 52 12 16 12 12 R 50-56 12-30 10-16 4-12 8-16 M 52 20.5 13 6.25 12.25 SD 2.83 7.55 2.58 3.86 3.30 % 100 39.4 25 12 23.6 Notes: a * designates four sample institutions in China for which the researcher was able to obtain their curriculums at the time when the data was collected for the study. All of them are applying the similar credit systems in the curriculum.
47 Table 8: The Comparison of Curricular Requirements for Piano Performance Degrees China (n = 4) U.S. (n = 9)
Range M SD % Range M SD %
Bachelor Total 130 to 139.5 8.7 120 to 4.6 100.0 151 100.0 131 122.9 Major area 27 to 38 31.2 4.1 22.4 40 to 64 52.3 7.7 42.6 Supportive courses 24 to 58 42.8 15.6 30.6 25 to 45 35.2 6.9 28.6 General education 42 to 64 50.5 9.8 36.2 24 to 42 33.1 6.9 26.9 Others* 0 to 25 15.0 12.3 10.8 0 to 6 2.2 22.7 1.8 Master Total 50 to 56 52.0 2.8 30 to 36 32.3 2.2 100.0 100.0 Major area 12 to 30 20.5 7.6 39.4 12 to 24 16.7 3.7 51.7 Supportive courses 10 to 16 13.0 2.6 25.0 6 to 18 10.4 4.4 32.2 Recital(s)/Project(s) - - - - 1 to 6 3.8 2.1 11.7 General education 4 to 12 6.2 3.8 12.0 - - - - Others/Electives† 8 to 16 12.2 3.3 23.6 0 to 10 3.4 4.1 10.5
Doctoral Total - - - - 52 to 66 59.4 6.6 100.0 Major area - - - - 12 to 32 24.1 8.3 40.6 Supportive courses - - - - 8 to 27 16.8 6.9 28.3 Recitals/ Projects - - - - 6 to 24 12.2 7.6 20.5 Others/Electives† - - - - 0 to 19 6.3 7.2 10.6 Note. an * designates other courses such as professional practice, thesis, electives etc.; a – designates none listed as credit hour requirements in the curriculum guide; a † designates general education courses such as foreign languages, political science, practicums, elective courses etc.
Research Question 4
What are the Core Course Offerings and How Many Semesters do the Students take the
Core Courses within the Piano Performance Programs? Core courses are defined as the required courses in the degree programs that are directly related to the skills of piano performance. The data of core course offerings were collected through searching the universities’ websites, exchanging emails with university personnel and reviewing each sample institution’s degree 48 program curriculums. Within the 20 sampled institutions, the information of nine American institutions (A1-A9) and four Chinese institutions (C1-C4) were accessible at the time of the data collection for this study. They are reported and used for the statistical analysis.
Overall, the piano program core courses offerings are structured similarly between the two countries. All the sample institutions offer common courses including applied piano lessons, keyboard/piano literature, piano pedagogy, piano accompanying, chamber music/ensemble, and recital(s) etc. However, Chinese institutions provide optional courses including “Chinese piano music” and “history of piano art” in the bachelor’s programs and they provide courses such as
“piano performing styles,” “piano and orchestra,” and “Chinese piano music” in the master’s programs. American institutions provide different course options such as “functional piano” and
“duo piano”.
The number of semesters for each required or suggested core course are listed in Tables 9 and 10. The Range, Mean (M), and the Standard Deviation (SD) are calculated among the sample institutions. While the number of required semesters for core courses are listed in most institutions’ curriculum guides, some American institutions only provide required credit hours rather than the number of semesters. Therefore, some of the semester numbers in Table 10 are not direct quotes from the curriculum guide. Instead, they are converted from credit hours by the researcher and were standardized according to the following formulas:
• 1 credit of ensemble/chamber music/piano accompaniment is equivalent to 1 semester;
• 4 credits of applied piano lessons and recital(s) are equivalent to 1 semester;
• 2 credits of keyboard literature are equivalent to 1 semester.
49 Core Course Offerings in Chinese Institutions
Table 9 indicates the core course offerings of piano performance degree programs in each
Chinese institution (n = 4). “Applied lessons” requires the largest number of semesters in both bachelor’s and master’s programs. All the institutions require eight semesters of applied lessons in the bachelor’s programs and four to six semesters in the master’s programs. All the institutions require students to take one to three semesters of “piano literature”, “piano pedagogy” and
“piano accompanying” and require students to give one to two public recital(s) in the bachelor’s programs. In the bachelor’s programs, “piano ensemble/chamber music” and “keyboard skill/functional piano” are only listed in two Chinese institutions’ curricula and the “history of piano art” is only offered by one institution. In the master’s programs, “piano literature” is offered by three institutions while “piano pedagogy” and “piano accompanying” are only required by two institutions. “Piano performing styles”, “piano and orchestra”, “chamber ensemble” and “Chinese piano music” are only listed in one institution’s curricula. Two to three recitals are required in all master’s programs.
Core Course Offerings in American Institutions
Table 10 indicates the core course offerings of the piano performance degree programs in each American institution (n = 9). The largest number of semesters required for the core course offerings in both U.S. bachelor and master’s programs is reserved for “applied lessons”. The vast majority of institutions offer “piano literature”, “piano pedagogy”, “piano accompanying” and
“ensemble/chamber music” in bachelor’s programs. Although some institutions do not specifically list these courses in their curriculum guides, there is still a possibility that the institutions offer these courses with zero credit. The bachelor and master’s programs require students to give one to two public recitals and the doctoral programs requires students to give at
50 least three recitals. The requirements of “piano literature” and “piano pedagogy” are less emphasized in the doctoral program. While there are seven institutions that require the “piano literature” courses in their master’s programs, only four institutions require it in their doctoral curriculum. The “doctoral dissertation/treatise” is required in three out of the nine sampled institutions; however, it is optional in six sampled institutions if the doctoral candidates choose to enroll in the non-treatise track programs.
Comparison of Core Course Offerings
Table 11 displays the comparison of the core course offerings in piano performance programs between the two countries. As piano performance degrees are practice-oriented programs, most of the core courses in the curricula offer students hands-on experiences such as performing a recital and collaborating with singers or other instrumentalists. The most obvious commonality of piano performance programs between Chinese and American institutions is that
“applied lessons” are the most crucial part in the curricula; all the sample institutions in both countries offer “applied lessons” throughout all degree programs. “Piano literature” and “piano pedagogy” are the other two important core courses in both countries’ piano performance programs. While most American institutions require the “ensemble/chamber music” courses in the bachelor’s programs (n = 8) and master’s (n = 6) programs, only half of the Chinese institutions (n = 2) list this course in their bachelor’s curricula and only one institution (n = 1) lists it in the master’s curriculum. In China, the master’s program requires two to three recitals while in the U.S., students are required to complete one to two recitals for the same degree program. This corresponds to the fact that students in China usually take three years to complete their degree while students in the U.S. usually take two years to complete the program. The core courses that only Chinese institutions list in their curricula include “history of piano art”,
51 “Chinese piano music”, “piano performing styles”, and “piano and orchestra”. Although these courses are not listed in American institutions’ curricula, they may have been introduced to the students in other forms such as discussion sections in piano literature classes and studio classes.
Table 9: Core Courses Offerings in Chinese Institutions Degrees Core Courses Number of Semesters C1 C2 C3 C4 Range M SD Bachelor Applied lessons 8 8 8 8 8 to 8 8.0 0.0 Piano Literature 2 3 2 1 1 to 3 2.0 0.8 Piano Pedagogy 2 2 1 1 1 to 2 1.5 0.6 Piano Accompanying 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 0.0 History of Piano Art - 1 - - 1 1.0 0.0 Piano Ensemble/chamber music 4 - - 2 2 to 4 3.0 1.4 Keyboard skill/functional piano - - 1 4 1 to 4 2.5 2.1 Chinese Piano Music - - - 1 1 1.0 0.0 Number of Recitals 1 1 1 2 1 to 2 1.25 0.5
Masters Applied lessons 6 6 4 4 4 to 6 5.0 1.2 Piano Literature 2 1 1 - 1 to 2 1.3 0.6 Piano Pedagogy 1 - - 4 1 to 4 2.5 2.1 Piano Accompanying - - 4 4 4 4.0 0.0 Number of Recitals 3 2 3 2 2 to 3 2.5 0.6 Piano Performing Styles 1 - - - 1 1.0 - Piano and Orchestra 1 - - - 1 1.0 - Chamber Ensemble - 2 - - 2 2.0 - Chinese Piano Music - 1 - - 1 1.0 -
Note: a - designates none specifically listed in the curriculum guide
52 Table 10: Core Courses Offerings in American Institutions
Degrees Core Courses Number of Semesters A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 Range M SD
Bachelor Applied lessons 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 * 6 to 8 7.8 0.7 Piano Literature 3 - 2 2 - 2 2 2 1 1 to 3 2.0 0.6 Piano Pedagogy 2 1 2 - 2 2 2 2 2 1 to 2 1.9 0.4
Piano Accompanying 8 4 4 4 - - 3 3 - 3 to 8 4.3 1.9
Ensemble/Chamber Music 8 8 3* 4 8 8 2 3 8 2 to 8 5.8 2.7 Keyboard skill/functional piano ------1 - 1 1 1 0 Number of Recitals 1 2 2 - 2 1 - 2 2 1 to 2 1.7 0.5
Masters Applied lessons 4 4 4 4 2 2* 3 4 3* 2 to 4 3.3 0.9 Piano Literature - 2 - 1 1 2 2 4 4* 1 to 4 2.3 1.3 Piano Pedagogy - 1 - - 2 2 1-2 - - 1 to 2 1.6 0.5
Piano Accompanying 0 2 2* 2 1 - 1 - - 1 to 2 1.6 0.5
Number of Recitals 1 2 2 - 2 1 2 2 - 1 to 2 1.7 0.5 Ensemble/Chamber Ensemble 4 2* 2 1 1 2 - 1 to 4 2.0 1.1
Doctoral Applied lessons 6 2-5 4 6 2* 4* 2-3 6 * 3 to 4* 2 to 6 4.2 1.5 Piano Literature - 4 - 1 - - 2 4 - 1 to 4 2.8 1.5 Piano pedagogy - - - 3 - - 1 - - 1 to 3 2.0 1.4
Number of Recitals 3 7 4 3 3-4 5* 4-6 4-5 - 3 to 7 4.4 1.3
Dissertation/Treatise † † √ † † - † † √ - - - Notes: a - designates none specifically listed in the curriculum guide; a † designates it is an option for a degree candidate, a √ designates it is required for a degree candidate; a * designates that the number of semesters was not a direct quote from the curriculum guide; instead, it was converted by the researcher from the credit hours cited in the curriculum guide based on the following standardized conversion: • 1 credit of ensemble/chamber music/piano accompaniment = 1 semester • 4 credits of applied lessons and recital(s) = 1 semester • 2 credits of keyboard literature = 1 semester
53 Table11: The Comparison of the Core Courses Offerings in Piano Performance Programs Degrees Core courses China (n = 4) U.S. (n = 9) å Range M SD å Range M SD Bachelor Applied lessons 4 8 to 8 0.0 9 6 to 8 7.8 0.7 Piano Literature 4 1 to 3 8.02.0 0.8 7 1 to 3 2.0 0.6 Piano Pedagogy 4 1 to 2 1.5 0.6 8 1 to 2 1.9 0.4
Piano Accompanying 4 2 2.0 0.0 6 3 to 8 4.3 1.9
History of Piano Art 1 1 1.0 0.0 - - - - Ensemble/Chamber 2 2 to 4 3.0 1.4 8 2 to 8 5.8 2.7 KeyboardMusic skill/Functional 2 1 to 4 2.5 2.1 1 1 1.0 - Chinesepiano Piano Music 1 1 1.0 0.0 - - - -
Number of recital(s) 4 1 to 2 1.3 0.5 7 1to 2 1.7 0.5
Masters Applied lessons 4 4 to 6 5.0 1.2 9 2 to 4 3.3 0.9 Piano Literature 3 1 to 2 1.3 0.6 7 1 to 4 2.3 1.3 Piano Pedagogy 2 1 to 4 2.5 2.1 4 1 to 2 1.6 0.5 Piano Accompanying 2 4 4.0 0.0 5 1 to 2 1.6 0.5 Number of Recital(s) 4 2 to 3 2.5 0.6 7 1 to 2 1.7 0.5 Piano Performing Styles 1 1 1 0 - - - - Piano and Orchestra 1 1 1 0 - - - - Ensemble/Chamber music 1 2 2 0 6 1 to 4 2.0 1.1 Chinese Piano Music 1 1 1 0 - - - -
Doctoral Applied lessons - - - - 9 2 to 6 4.2 1.5 Piano Literature - - - - 4 1 to 4 2.8 1.5 Number of Recitals - - - - 9 3 to 7 4.4 1.3 Dissertation/Treatise - - - - 8 - - - Notes: a # designates number of institutions; a – designates non listed in the curriculum guide or the data was not accessible
Results from Survey Questionnaires Survey Respondents The questionnaire was created and administered by using the Qualtrics® online survey program (https://www.qualtrics.com). This online survey was available for the participants to access for 50 days. The participants were allowed to stop answering the questionnaires or skip questions when they did not feel comfortable to respond. Therefore, the number of responses to some questions was less than the total number of each sub-group of participants.
54 In the U.S., the online survey invitation and questionnaire link were sent to 51 faculty members in piano departments from the sample institutions. The researchers also asked the faculty members to forward the questionnaire link to their current piano students, so the students could also participate in the survey. To increase the completion rate in China, the researcher decided to distribute the survey QR Code through WeChat, a free messaging and calling application, which is the most popular social media app in China. In this way, the participants could easily access the survey through their cell phones.
The total number of survey respondents in both countries was N = 294 (see Table 12). In the U.S, a total number of 79 participants started the questionnaire and 41 of them completed the questionnaire, resulting in a 51.9% completion rate. Of these, 13 faculty members and 66 students started the questionnaire; 7 of the faculty members and 34 students completed the questionnaire, resulting in a 53.8% completion rate within the group of faculty participants and a
51.5% completion rate within the group of student participants. In China, a total of 215 responses were received which included 24 piano faculty members and 191 current collegiate piano majors.
Of these, 11 faculty members and 119 students completed the questionnaire, resulting in a 45.8% completion rate within the group of faculty participants and a 62.3% completion rate within the group of student participants.
The first section of the students’ questionnaires gathered the information regarding their academic and biographical backgrounds. All the survey respondents were asked to provide the degree programs they were currently enrolled in, the years they have studied piano, and their age when they started piano lessons (see Table 13). While the majority of the Chinese student participants (72.3%) were undergraduate students, 47.06% of the participants in the U.S. were doctoral students. The proportions of the master student participants (23.5% in the U.S.; 27.5% in China) in both countries were nearly equivalent. Regarding the number of years of piano
55 study, the range, mean, and standard deviation were calculated within participants in each country. The results showed that American student participants (M = 16.7, SD = 5.2) studied piano longer than the Chinese student participants (M = 14.4, SD = 3.0), while Chinese participants (M = 5.9, SD = 1.9) started piano lessons earlier than American participants (M =
6.9, SD = 3.3).
The first section of faculty members’ questionnaire collected their biographical information and the size of their studios (see Table 14 and 15). The majority of Chinese faculty participants have earned a master’s degree (63.64%) and most of them were in the rank of
Associate Professor (63.64%). In contrast, the majority of faculty participants in the U.S. have obtained a doctoral degree (83.33%), and most of them were at the rank of Assistant Professor
(66.67%). Overall, American faculty participants had more students in their studio (M =18, SD =
6.8) compared to the Chinese faculty participants (M = 12, SD = 4.4). The commonality between the faculty participants in both countries was that they have more undergraduate students than graduate students.
Table 12: Survey Respondents China U.S. Total Started 215 79 Completed 130 41 Completion Rate 60.5% 51.9% StudentsRate Started 191 66 Completed 119 34 Completion Rate 62.3% 51.5% Faculty members Started 24 13 Completed 11 7 Completion Rate 45.8% 53.8%
56 Table 13: Academic and Biographical Information of Student Respondents China U.S. (n = 119) (n = 34) Current Degree Bachelor 72.3% 29.4% Master 27.7% 23.5% Doctoral 0.0% 47.1% Years of piano study Range 9 to 20 7 to 24 M 14.4 16.7 SD 3.0 5.2 Age for starting piano lessons Range 4 to 10 4 to18 M 5.9 6.9 SD 1.9 3.3
Table 14: Biographical Information of Faculty Respondents by Percentage
China U.S. (n = 11) (n = 7) Highest Degree Obtained Master 63.6% 16.7% Doctoral 36.3% 83.3%
Title/Ranking Assistant Professor 27.3% 66.7% Associate Professor 63.6% 16.7% Professor 9.1% 16.7%
Table 15: Number of Students in Faculty Members’ Studios by Degree
China U.S. (n = 11) (n = 7) Range M SD Range M SD Total 4 to 20 12 4.4 11 to 27 18 6.8 Bachelor 6 to 13 9 3.9 6 to 27 12 7.8 Master 0 to 15 3 4.7 0 to 13 4 4.9 Doctoral 0 0 0.0 1 to 6 1 2.4
57 In the questionnaire, the faculty participants were asked: “Do you teach any courses besides applied piano lessons? If yes, please provide the title(s) and a short description of these courses?” All the faculty participants in both countries provided free-response answers for this query. Table 16 lists a summary of their short answers. Overall, the piano faculty member participants were in charge of teaching other courses including collaborative piano, chamber music and keyboard literature. While Chinese faculty participants taught the keyboard-related courses including piano pedagogy, functional piano, history of piano art and Chinese piano music, the faculty participants in the U.S. have taught group piano for music majors. Since these responses were provided by a limited number of faculty participants (n = 11 in China, n = 7 in the U.S.), these answers may not be representative as faculty members may need to teach other music courses beyond the courses mentioned above.
Table 16: List of Courses that Faculty members have Taught in their Universities China U.S. (n = 11) (n = 7) • Collaborative piano • Collaborative piano • Piano pedagogy • Keyboard literature • Functional piano • Group piano • Chamber music • Chamber music
• Keyboard literature • History of Piano Art • Chinese Piano Music
Having been asked about the courses that the faculty members have taught in their universities other than applied piano lessons, they were also asked, “what other professional activities have you engaged in besides teaching in the university?” Table 17 displays their responses. All the faculty participants in China (100%) have engaged in teaching master classes, participating in collaborative or chamber performances, and adjudicating competitions. The vast majority of them (90%) have engaged in music festivals and giving solo recitals. In the U.S., the 58 majority of the faculty participants (85.7%) have engaged in activities including giving solo recitals, participating in collaborative or chamber performances, and adjudicating competitions.
Table 17: The Professional Activities that Faculty Members have Engaged in Outside their Universities
Activities China (n = 11) U.S. (n = 7) å % å % Educational conferences 8 72.7 3 42.8 Music festivals 10 90.9 4 57.1 Master classes 11 100.0 5 71.4 Giving solo recitals 10 90.9 6 85.7 Collaborative or chamber performance 11 100.0 6 85.7 Adjudicating competitions 11 100.0 6 85.7 Other 0 0.0 2 28.5 Note: “Other” category included commercial recording and teaching fortepiano lessons, which provided by faculty members in the U.S.
Research Question 5
What factors influenced current students’ choices to pursue certain piano performance programs? To answer research question five, all the student participants surveyed were first asked, “What are the factors that influenced you to become a piano performance major?” They were given four options from which to select all that applied to their circumstances. Table 18 displays their responses. It is apparent that a vast majority (87.4%) of student participants in
China thought that “parents’ encouragement” was the factor that influenced them to choose piano performance as their major. This factor was closely followed by the option, “passionate about music” (83.2%). Similarly, these factors were also the two main factors amongst the survey participants in the U.S. However, instead of “parents’ encouragement” (67.4%),
“passionate about music” (85.3%) was the most frequently chosen factor that influenced
American students’ decisions to pursue piano performance study. The other factors that influenced the students’ decisions to become piano performance majors but were not listed under
59 the options in the questionnaire included: “being awarded a scholarship from the music school”,
“not interested in other subjects”, and “becoming a pianist is always my dream”.
Table 18: Factors that Influenced Students to Choose Piano Performance as their Majors
Factors China U.S. (n = 119) (n = 34) å % å % Passionate about music 99 83.2 29 85.3 Parents’ encouragement 104 87.4 22 64.7 Piano teachers’ 58 48.7 20 58.8 Easyrecommendation to meet the college 43 36.1 6 17.6 entrance requirements Other 8 6.7 2 5.9 Note: Respondents were asked to select all options that applied, so the total count of responses was larger than the total number of participants and the percentages equal greater or less than 100%.
To determine if there were differences between the students’ perceptions from the two countries regarding the factors that influenced their choices of becoming a piano performance major, a two-independent sample !2 test was calculated by combining the four sub-categories together to obtain an overall score. Since the number of the participants from the two countries was so different, 34 respondents were randomly selected from China for comparison purposes.
Furthermore, the sum of the “other” category in the U.S. was less than 5 and did not meet the requirements for a two-independent sample !2 test. Therefore, the numbers in the “other” category were not included in the overall comparison. Results indicate there was no significant difference, !2 (3, 165) = 1.78, p > .05. See Table 19 for the individual sums and percentages for each sub-category.
60 Table 19: The Comparison of the Factors that Influence Students’ Choices of Being a Piano Performance Major
Factors China U.S. (n = 34) (n = 34) å % å % Passionate about music 29 85.3 29 85.3 Parents’ encouragement 27 79.4 22 64.7 Piano teachers’ 20 58.8 20 58.8 Easyrecommendation to meet the college 12 35.3 6 17.6 entrance requirements Overall 88 64.7 77 56.6
To further investigate the reasons that affect students’ choices of pursuing a certain piano performance program, the student participants were asked in the questionnaire, “What factors influenced your choice of the institution you are attending?” They were given nine options from which to select all that applied to their circumstances. Table 20 displays their responses. While most student participants in China considered the “reputation of the institution” (76.5%) and the
“reputation of the piano faculty” (68.9%) as the two main factors that influenced their selections of their piano performance programs, the two main factors for the American student participants were the “reputation of the piano faculty” (88.2%) and being offered an
“assistantship/scholarship” (73.5%). The “admission requirements” (54.6%) was also considered by more than half of the Chinese student participants. In contrast, only 26.5% of the American participants indicated they considered this factor when they chose their institutions.
In order to determine if there were significant differences between the students’ perceptions from the two countries regarding the factors that influenced their choices of their piano programs, a two-independent sample !2 test was calculated by combining the eight sub- categories together to obtain an overall score. Because the number of the participants from the two countries was so different, 34 respondents were randomly selected from China for
61 comparison purposes. Furthermore, the sum of the “other” category under the U.S. column was less than 5, which did not meet the requirements for the two-independent sample !2 test.
Therefore, the numbers in the “other” category were not used for this test. Results indicate there was a significant difference, !2 (7, 247) = 31.4, p < .05. V = 0.13.
To determine where the significant differences occurred, a series of Binomial Distribution tests were calculated. Results indicated there was a significant difference regarding the factor of
“Assistantship/scholarship” (Z = -4.23, p < .05). No other significant differences were found between the other categories. See Table 21 for the individual sums, percentages, and Binominal
Distribution test scores for each sub-category.
Table 20: Factors that Influenced Students’ Choices of the Piano Programs They were Enrolled In
Factors China U.S. (n = 119) (n = 34) å % å % Geographical reasons 59 49.6 11 32.4 Reputation of the institution 91 76.5 22 64.7 Reputation of the piano faculty 82 68.9 30 88.2 High employment rate 52 43.7 7 20.6 Parents’ suggestion/decision 50 42.0 5 14.7 The admission requirements 65 54.6 9 26.5 The curriculum design 31 26.1 6 17.6 Assistantship/scholarship 6 5.0 25 73.5 Other 5 4.2 1 2.9 Note: Respondents were asked to select all options that applied, so the total count of responses was larger than the total number of participants and the percentages equal greater or less than 100%.
62 Table 21: The Comparison of the Factors that Influence Students’ Choices of Their Piano Programs with Binomial Distribution Scores Factors China U.S. Binomial (n = 34) (n = 34) Distribution å % å % Z tests p Geographical reasons 18 52.9 11 32.4 -1.11 0.26 Reputation of the institution 28 82.4 22 64.7 -0.71 0.47 Reputation of the piano faculty 28 82.4 30 88.2 -0.13 0.89 High employment rate 14 41.2 7 20.6 -1.31 0.19 Parents’ suggestion/decision 13 38.2 5 14.7 -1.65 0.09 The admission requirements 17 50.0 9 26.5 -1.37 0.17 The curriculum design 12 35.3 6 17.6 -1.18 0.23 Assistantship/scholarship* 2 5.9 25 73.5 -4.23 0.01 Overall 132 48.5 115 42.3 - - Note: Respondents were asked to select all options that applied, so the total count of responses was larger than the total number of participants and the percentages equal greater or less than 100%. An ( * ) denotes a significant difference at the 0.05 level.
Research Question 6
Is there a Difference in Students and Faculty Members’ Perceptions Regarding their
Piano Performance Programs between the two Countries? To answer research question six, student participants were asked to rate the statements regarding the coursework and instruction in their piano programs on an 11-point Likert-type scale in which 1 equaled strongly disagree and
11 equaled strongly agree. Table 22 displayed the range and the mean value of each statement received from all the respondents and the standard deviation from the means. The statements “I felt challenged” (M = 9.6, SD = 1.87), “I have received enough attention, direction, and supervision” (M = 9.6, SD = 2.28), and “I was encouraged/inspired to do my own research/study” (M = 9.4, SD = 1.88) received higher ratings than other statements among the student participants in China. In contrast, there were more students in the U.S. who strongly agreed with the statement, “I was encouraged/inspired to do my own research/study” (M = 10.0,
SD = 1.32), “I had opportunities to participate in-class discussion and presentation” (M = 9.9, SD
= 1.39), and “I received a comprehensive view of the subject matter” (M = 9.5, SD = 1.48). 63 Table 22: Student’s Perceptions Regarding the Experiences of Studying in their Programs (Scale 1-11, 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = neutral, 11 = strongly agree)
Courses Students in China Students in the U.S. (n = 119) (n = 34)
Range M SD Range M SD
I felt challenged. 3 to 11 9.6 1.87 1-11 9.3 2.43
I was encouraged/inspired to do 3 to 11 9.4 1.88 1-11 9.4 2.20 my own research/study.
I was provided exposure to 2 to 11 8.6 2.24 5-11 8.9 1.73 current trends.
I received a comprehensive view 2 to 11 8.4 2.49 5-11 9.5 1.48 of the subject matter.
I had opportunities to participate 1 to 11 8.4 2.55 6-11 9.9 1.39 in in-class discussion and presentation.
I was stimulated to develop new 1 to 11 8.3 2.66 1-11 8.9 2.45 scholarship.
I have received enough attention, 1 to 11 9.6 2.28 6-11 10.0 1.32 direction, and supervision.
To determine if there were differences between the students’ overall perceptions from the two countries regarding the experiences of studying in their programs, an independent t test was calculated by combining the seven sub-categories together to obtain an overall score. Since the number of the participants from the two countries was so different, 34 respondents were randomly selected from China for comparison purposes. Results indicated there was no significant difference.
To determine if there were significant differences between the Chinese and American students’ perceptions regarding each individual statement of their experiences in the piano performance programs, a series of independent t tests were calculated. Because the number of the participants from the two countries were so unequal, 34 respondents were randomly selected
64 from China for comparison purposes. Results indicated there was a significant difference between students’ perceptions regarding the statement of “I was encouraged/inspired to do my own research/study” t (66) = 1.96, p < 0.05, d = 0.47, “I was provided exposure to current trends.” t (66) = 2.87, p < 0.05, d = 0.69, “I received comprehensive view of the subject matter.” t (66) = 5.51, p < 0.05, d = 1.33, “I had opportunities to participate in-class discussion and presentation.” t (66) = 4.13, p < 0.05, d = 1.00. No other significant differences were found between the other statements. See Table 23 for the individual t test scores for each sub-category.
Table 23 The Comparison of Student’s Perceptions Regarding the Experiences of Studying in Their Programs with t Test Scores (Scale 1-11, 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = neutral, 11 = strongly agree)
Students in China Students in the U.S. t test
Courses (n = 34) (n = 34) å M SD å M SD t d I felt challenged. 303 8.9 1.48 316 9.3 2.43 0.82 -
I was encouraged/inspired 289 8.5 1.52 320 9.4 2.20 1.96 0.47 to do my own research/study. * I was provided exposure to 262 7.7 1.71 303 8.9 1.73 2.87 0.69 current trends. * I received a 245 7.2 1.93 323 9.5 1.48 5.51 1.33 comprehensive view of the subject matter. * I had opportunities to 279 8.2 1.95 337 9.9 1.39 4.13 1.00 participate in in-class discussion and presentation. * I was stimulated to 272 8.0 1.98 303 8.9 2.45 1.66 - develop new scholarship. I have received enough 330 9.7 1.99 340 10.0 1.32 0.73 - attention, direction, and supervision.
Overall 1980 8.3 27.89 2242 9.4 14.67 0.54 -
Note: An ( * ) denotes a significant difference at the 0.05 level.
65 Student participants were also asked to rate the level of satisfaction with the overall quality of the core courses in their piano performance program on an 11-point Likert-type scale for which 1 equaled extremely unsatisfied and 11 equaled extremely satisfied. Table 24 displays the range and the mean value of each course received from all the respondents and the standard deviation from mean. Chinese students were most satisfied with the “applied lessons” (M = 10.6,
SD = 0.98). Conversely, the student participants in the U.S were most satisfied with the “degree recital” (M = 10.4, SD = 0.94), but this category was closely followed by the “applied lessons”
(M = 10.3, SD = 1.42). While Chinese students were least satisfied with the “dissertation/thesis” requirement (M = 9.2, SD = 2.59), students in the U.S. were least satisfied with the “piano pedagogy” requirement (M = 8.9, SD = 2.55).
Table 24: The Level of Students’ Satisfactions Regarding the Core Courses in their Programs (Scale 1-11, 1 =extremely unsatisfied, 6 = neutral, 11 = extremely satisfied)
Courses Students in China Students in the U.S. (n = 119) (n = 34) Range M SD Range M SD Applied lessons 5 to 11 10.6 0.98 5 to 11 10.3 1.42 Keyboard literature 1 to 11 9.3 2.49 1 to 11 9.3 2.09 Piano Pedagogy 1 to 11 9.4 2.46 1 to 11 8.9 2.55 Collaborative piano/ 1 to 11 9.5 2.27 6 to 11 9.6 1.56 Chamber music Performance/studio class 1 to 11 9.5 2.33 6 to 11 10.1 1.33 Degree recital 1 to 11 9.6 2.31 8 to 11 10.4 0.94 Dissertation/Thesis 1 to 11 9.2 2.59 1 to 11 9.1 2.28
To determine if there were differences between the students’ overall level of satisfaction from the two countries regarding overall quality of the core courses in their piano performance programs, an independent t test was calculated by combining the seven sub-categories together to obtain an overall score. Since the number of the participants from the two countries was so
66 different, 34 respondents were randomly selected from China for comparison purposes. Results indicated there was no significant difference.
To determine if there was a significant difference between the students’ perceptions in
China and the U.S regarding each core course in their programs, a series of independent t tests were calculated within each sub-category. Results indicated there were significant differences between students’ perceptions regarding the “applied lessons” t (66) = 2.15, p < 0.05, d = 0.52 and “degree recital” t (66) = 1.95, p < 0.05, d = 0.47. No other significant differences were found between the other sub-categories. See Table 25 for the individual t test scores for each sub- category.
Table 25: The Comparison of Student’s Satisfactions Regarding the Experiences of Studying in their Programs with t Test Scores. (Scale 1-11, 1 =extremely unsatisfied, 6 = neutral, 11 = extremely satisfied)
Courses Students in China Students in the U.S. T test (n = 34) (n = 34) å M SD å M SD t d Applied lessons* 330 9.7 0.79 350 10.3 1.42 2.15 0.52 Keyboard literature 306 9.0 2.69 316 9.3 2.09 0.51 - Piano Pedagogy 320 9.4 2.48 303 8.9 2.55 0.82 -
Collaborative piano/ 320 9.4 1.88 326 9.6 1.56 0.47 - Chamber music Performance/studio class 333 9.8 1.66 343 10.1 1.33 0.82 - Degree recital* 333 9.8 1.53 354 10.4 0.94 1.95 0.47 Dissertation/Thesis 320 9.4 1.82 309 9.1 2.28 0.59 - Overall 2260 9.5 10.23 2301 9.7 20.47 -0.65 -
Note: An ( * ) denotes a significant difference at the 0.05 level. To look more in-depth at the students’ perceptions regarding their experience in the piano programs, the student participants were asked to answer an open-ended question, where they gave short answers about the similarities and differences between their expectations and their on-
67 going experiences. All the student participants in both countries provided free-response data for this query. Tables 26 and 27 list the common themes and trends of the participants’ answers.
Table 26: The Similarities Between Students’ Expectations and their Ongoing Experiences in the Piano Performance Program Similarities among students in China Similarities among students in the U.S. (n =119) (n = 34) • Detailed instruction provided by • Experienced an emphasis/focus on professors performance • Studied in musically sophisticated • Studied in a musically sophisticated environments environment • Spent lots of time practicing • Experienced lots of growth as a pianist and musician • Received few opportunities to perform • Considerable opportunities available for chamber music with fellow students chamber music and collaborative piano experiences • Received great suggestions for practice • Received great suggestions for practice strategies strategies • Learned a lot from music related • Needed to study both general education courses courses and music related courses • Discovered more of their shortcomings • Piano professor’s teaching style similar to their expectations • Often encountered hardship, but needed • Gained a better understanding of being a to overcome it with a positive attitude musician and human being • Encountered few opportunities to • Experienced a good balance of self-study participate in piano competitions and receiving guidance
Table 27: The Differences Between the Students’ Expectations and their Ongoing Experiences in the Piano Performance Program Differences among students in China Differences among students in the U.S. (n =119) (n = 34) • Self-discipline was more important • Self-discipline was more important • Piano professor’s teaching style • More systematic and more academic work different from their expectations • Learned different performance • Received longer applied lesson time techniques • Received inspiring instructions • Studio environment was different • Performance requirements were more • Not enough time to practice and perform detailed • More time for self-study • Less performance opportunities • Practicing may not be enough for • Would have liked more exposure to piano personal growth as a musician pedagogy
68 Table 27 Cont.
Differences among students in China Differences among students in the U.S. (n =119) (n = 34) • Needed to take many non-music related • Worked very intensively on music related courses courses • Content of music history courses were • Teaching opportunities were available hard to memorize for exam purposes • Gained a lot of knowledge in music theory and history
Piano performance programs in university-level institutions are generally designed to prepare students who have mastered a certain level of piano skills to become professional musicians and pianists. As a result, the students who are accepted to the program contribute to the quality of the program. In this study, faculty participants were requested to provide their perceptions regarding how they evaluate students’ potential in the questionnaires. Table 28 lists and compares the faculty members’ perceptions between the two countries. Due to the small number of faculty participants, no statistical analysis comparing the two countries were completed. Instead, the sums and percentages were calculated to denote the faculty members’ perceptions.
All the Chinese faculty participants (100%) agreed that “students (who) perform musically” served as a very important criterion for evaluating students’ potential. However, all the faculty participants (100%) in the U.S. not only agreed that “musical performance” was one of their criteria, they also agreed that students should have a “solid technique foundation” and “a good attitude and motivation” to become a piano performance major. Only one faculty participant in China was looking for “a satisfactory resume and recommendations” from prospective students. Only one faculty participant in the U.S. considered that receiving prizes in piano competitions was a criterion for evaluation.
69 Table 28: Factors that Affect Faculty Members’ Evaluation of their Students’ Potential Faculty in China Faculty in the U.S. (n = 11) (n = 7)
å % å %
Has solid technique foundation 10 90.9 7 100.0 Able to play virtuosic pieces 9 81.8 3 42.9 Musical performance 11 100.0 7 100.0 Has placed in piano competitions 2 18.2 1 14.3 Shows good personality traits 10 90.9 5 71.4 Has a good attitude and motivation 8 72.7 7 100.0 Performs well academically 6 54.5 6 85.7 Provide a satisfactory resume and 1 9.1 4 57.1 recommendations Note: Respondents were asked to select all options that applied, so the total count of responses was larger than the total number of participants and the percentages equal greater or less than 100%.
Having known the criteria that potential piano performance majors are supposed to have, the faculty members were asked an open-ended question, “Do you have any suggestions for prospective piano students?” All the faculty participants in both countries provided free-response data for this query. Table 29 lists the common themes and trends regarding the faculty participants’ opinions. The common suggestions the faculty in both countries provided included
1) practice diligently, 2) enjoy and be passionate about music, and 3) build a good technical foundation by mastering a certain level of skills before entering the college for professional training.
Besides providing suggestions for prospective piano students, faculty participants were also asked to give their opinions regarding the piano performance programs and give suggestions for improving the piano performance program at their universities. All the faculty participants in both countries provided free-response data for this query. Table 30 lists the common themes and trends of the faculty participants’ regarding the piano performance programs. Table 30 listed the
70 common themes of the faculty participants’ suggestions to improve the piano performance programs in their universities. Overall, although faculty members in both countries stated their programs are “generally good”, the perceptions of faculty members in the U.S. were more positive compared to the perceptions of faculty members in China. The lack of student performance opportunities was one of the concerns that several faculty participants in both countries have mentioned in their short answers. A few Chinese faculty participants were not satisfied with the curriculums in their universities.
In terms of the suggestions for improving piano performance programs, the faculty participants in China recommended the following: increase the performance opportunities for students and reform the curriculums and the recruitment system. In contrast, faculty participants in the U.S. were concerned about the facilities and the standards for juries and graduation. They also expressed unease about students’ workload and their motivations to take advantage of resources and pursue personal growth. See Table 31 for the faculty participants’ comments.
Table 29: Faculty Members’ Suggestions for Prospective Piano Students Suggestions for Prospective Students Faculty members in China Faculty members in the U.S. (n =11) (n = 7) • Practice diligently and effectively • Practice diligently and listen to music • Perform more in concerts • Go to concerts, master classes and get as many experiences as possible • Enjoyment and passion about music is • Enjoyment of music is the most important important thing • Master enough technical skills before • Build a good foundation before applying to study in a professional collegiate study piano program • Be confident and be clear about your • Find a solid piano teacher early career goal • Get to know the challenges and how • Get to know more about opportunities you can overcome the difficulties that a piano program can provide for you • Expand the repertoire, learn music with • Learn music theory and music history various styles/genres
71 Table 29 Cont. Suggestions for Prospective Students Faculty members in China Faculty members in the U.S. (n =11) (n = 7) • Do not only rely on parents’ directions, • Investigate the programs/careers make your own decisions carefully before making a decision • Do not become piano majors if you do • Focus more on the music art itself not truly love music instead of being overly concerned about the business of having a career
Table 30: Faculty’s Comments Regarding the Piano Performance Programs Comments regarding the piano performance programs Faculty members in China Faculty members in the U.S. (n =11) (n = 7) • Students need to have more • Concert hall needs to be more accessible so opportunities to perform and take that students can learn performance master classes techniques on the concert piano • Program is generally effective and • Program is generally effective comprehensive • Prescribed curriculum not practical • Curriculum is pretty flexible • Curriculum needs to emphasize core • Standard of performance is high courses
Table 31: Faculty Members’ Suggestions for Piano Performance Programs Suggestions for Piano Performance Programs Faculty members in China Faculty members in the U.S. (n =11) (n = 7) • Provide more performance • Be more flexible about the repertoire opportunities for students requirements in juries • Hire qualified and professional faculty • Allow students to have more practice time members to teach all the core courses by reducing the academic load • Enhance the scope of the curriculum • Improve the facilities and practice rooms • Develop musically sophisticated • Help students to relate their study to the environments professional realities • Improve the recruiting system for better • The graduation exams need to be taken students more seriously • Increase the number of required • Enhance the requirement for piano students repertoire in juries to be able to graduate • Keep motivating students to get more out from the program
72 Research Question 7
What do Students and Faculty Members Perceive as the Most Important Experiences and
Educational Practices for the Students’ Future Careers? Students and faculty members were asked to rate the importance of the courses that are required for piano performance majors. They indicated their ratings on an 11-point Likert scale where 1 equaled “not important” and 11 equaled “extremely important”. Table 32 indicates the student participants’ responses. Table 33 indicates faculty participants’ responses. The common features between the participants’ perceptions in both countries included: 1) both students and faculty members considered the
“applied lesson” as the most important part of the education; 2) the student participants considered “general courses” as the least important part of their higher education; 3) the
“dissertation/thesis” and the “general courses” were the two least important categories of the faculty members’ perspectives.
Table 32: Students’ Perceptions Regarding the Importance of the Courses (Scale 1-11, 1 = not important, 6 = neutral, 11 = extremely important)
Courses Students in China Students in the U.S. (n = 119) (n = 34) Range M SD Range M SD
Applied lessons 6 to 11 10.9 0.57 7 to 11 10.7 0.82 Keyboard literature 1 to 11 10.0 1.79 1 to 11 9.2 2.17 Piano pedagogy 1 to 11 10.3 1.73 1 to 11 9.0 2.29 Chamber music/ 5 to 11 10.3 1.35 7 to 11 10.0 1.27 Collaborative piano Performance/studio class 6 to 11 10.5 1.20 7 to 11 10.4 1.01 Dissertation/Thesis 1 to 11 9.2 2.53 3 to 11 8.8 2.14 Degree recital 4 to 11 10.1 1.57 8 to 11 10.4 1.00 Supportive courses in music 6 to 11 10.2 1.35 6 to 11 9.9 1.42 General courses 1 to 11 7.6 2.82 1 to 11 6.7 2.71
73 Table 33: Faculty Members’ Perceptions Regarding the Importance of the Courses (Scale 1-11, 1 = not important, 6 = neutral, 11 = extremely important)
Courses Faculty in China Faculty in the U.S. (n = 11) (n = 7) Range M SD Range M SD Applied lessons 9 to 11 10.7 0.62 11 11.0 0.00 Keyboard literature 9 to 11 10.6 0.64 10 to 11 10.9 0.35 Piano pedagogy 6 to 11 10.3 1.48 8 to 11 9.9 1.36 Chamber music/ Collaborative piano 9 to 11 10.6 0.66 7 to 11 9.4 1.50 Performance/studio classes 6 to 11 10.0 1.60 3 to 11 8.0 3.02 Dissertation/Thesis 1 to 11 6.9 3.37 1 to 9 7.3 2.66 Degree Recital 9 to 11 10.7 0.62 1 to 11 8.1 3.72 Supportive music courses 9 to 11 10.4 0.88 7 to 11 10.0 1.59 General courses 1 to 11 7.1 3.50 5 to 8 6.6 1.05
To determine if there were differences between the students’ overall perceptions from the
two countries regarding the importance of the courses that are required for piano performance
majors, an independent t test was calculated by combining the eight sub-categories together to
obtain an overall score. Since the number of the participants from the two countries was so
different, 34 respondents were randomly selected from China for comparison purposes. The
result indicated there was no significant difference.
To determine if there was a significant difference between the students’ perceptions in
China and the U.S regarding the importance of each course/category, a series of independent t
tests were calculated to obtain scores for each individual category. The results indicated that
there was a significant difference between students’ perceptions regarding the following courses:
“applied lessons” t (66) = 4.87, p < 0.05, d = 1.18, “keyboard literature” t (66) = 2.00, p < 0.05, d
= 0.48, “piano pedagogy” t (66) = 2.48, p < 0.05, d = 0.60, “keyboard literature” t (66) = 2.00, p
< 0.05, d = 0.48, “performance/studio class” t (66) = 2.65, p < 0.05, d = 0.64, “degree recital” t
74 (66) = 3.19, p < 0.05, d = 0.77, and “supportive courses in music” t (66) = 2.11, p < 0.05, d =
0.51. No other significant differences were found between the other categories. See Table 34 for the individual t test scores for each sub-category.
Due to the small number of faculty participants, no statistical analysis comparing the faculty members’ ratings between two countries were completed. Instead, the M and SD were calculated to denote the faculty members’ perceptions regarding the importance of the core courses for piano performance majors.
Table 34: The Comparison of Students’ Perceptions Regarding the Importance of the Courses with t Test Scores (Scale 1-11, 1 = not important, 6 = neutral, 11 = extremely important)
Courses Students in China Students in the U.S. t test (n = 34) (n = 34) å M SD å M SD t d
Applied lessons* 340 10.0 0.17 364 10.7 0.82 4.87 1.18 Keyboard literature* 347 10.2 1.93 313 9.2 2.17 2.00 0.48 Piano pedagogy* 350 10.3 2.01 306 9.0 2.29 2.48 0.60 Chamber music/ 326 9.6 1.31 340 10.0 1.27 1.27 - Collaborative piano* Performance/studio 326 9.6 1.44 354 10.4 1.01 2.65 0.64 class* Dissertation/Thesis 303 8.9 1.71 299 8.8 2.14 0.21 - Degree recital* 320 9.4 1.53 354 10.4 1.00 3.19 0.77 Supportive courses 313 9.2 1.31 337 9.9 1.42 2.11 0.51 in music* General courses 245 7.2 2.21 228 6.7 2.71 0.83 - Overall 2870 9.4 31.72 2895 9.5 41.92 0.03 -
Note: An ( * ) denotes a significant difference at the 0.05 level.
75 Research Question 8
What Aspects of Piano Performance do the Students Perceive as the Most Valuable from their Education Experience in the Piano Program? In order to investigate students’ perceptions in terms of their piano study experience in their programs, they were first asked, “How was your piano repertoire selected?” Table 35 indicates the student participants’ responses. The majority of students in China chose the options “My piano professor suggested it” (40.0%) and “My piano professor and I selected it jointly” (38.3%). In contrast, the vast majority of students in the U.S. chose the option “My piano professor and I selected it jointly” (70.6%). %). Selecting repertoire independently was not common in both countries. Only 9 out of 119 (7.5% in China) and 4 out of 34 (11.7% in the U.S.) student participants selected this option.
Due to the small number of responses in each sub-category, no statistical analysis comparing the two countries was completed. Instead, the sums and percentages were calculated to denote the students’ repertoire selection processes.
Table 35: Students’ Repertoire Selection
Factors China U.S
(n = 119) (n = 34) å % å % I selected it independently 9 7.5 4 11.7 My piano professor and I selected it 46 38.3 24 70.6 Myjointly piano professor suggested it 48 40.0 3 8.8 My piano professor assigned it 14 11.7 3 8.8 Other 3 2.5 0 0.0
Student participants were asked to evaluate their piano learning experiences according to two aspects — the musical advice and the practice strategies they have received from their applied piano professors. They were asked to choose a single answer to the questions of “How do you feel about the musical advice given by your applied piano professor in your regular piano
76 lessons?” and “How do you feel about the practice strategies given by your applied piano professor in your regular piano lessons?” Table 36 indicates their responses. Generally, the vast majority of students in both countries indicated that they have received “excellent” musical advice (78.4% in China and 73.5% in the U.S.) and practice suggestions (81.4% in China and
70.6% in the U.S.), The percentages of Chinese students were slightly larger than the American students.
Table 36: Students’ Perceptions Regarding the Musical Advice and Practice Strategies they have Received
Perceptions Musical advice Practice strategies China U.S. China U.S. å % å % å % å % Excellent 93 78.4 25 73.5 96 81.4 24 70.6 Good 24 20.0 7 20.6 19 16.1 5 14.7 Adequate 1 0.8 2 5.9 0 0.0 3 8.8 Fair 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.5 0 0.0 Poor 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 No or little advice given 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 5.9 Total 119 100.0 34 100.0 118 100.0 34 100.0
Research Question 9
What do the Students and Faculty Members Perceive as the Challenges of Studying in a
Piano Performance Program? Student participants were asked, “What are the most challenging things that you have encountered during your study in your piano performance program?” A total of 119 student participants in China and 29 student participants in the U.S. provided free- response data for this query. Table 37 summarizes the common themes of these free-responses.
The challenges that the students in both countries commonly encountered included:
77 1) time management, 2) an overwhelming academic workload, 3) improving pianistic techniques, 4) performance anxiety, and 5) memorizing music before recital/jury.
Table 37: Students’ Comments Regarding the Challenges they have Encountered Students’ comments Students in China Students in the U.S. (n =119) (n = 34) • Time management • Time management • Endless practice but cannot see the • Communication with professors improvement • Stress related to repertoire requirements • Balancing work and practice • Academic workload was too heavy • Academic workload was too heavy • Difficult to improve techniques • Difficult to improve techniques • Lack of motivation to practice pieces • Learn to interpret different composers’ assigned by the professor music styles • Be able to polish the performance • Maintaining self-motivation independently • Overcoming performance anxiety • Overcoming the performance anxiety • Memorizing music before recital/jury • Memorizing music before recital/jury • Preparation for participation in piano • Getting high grades in music history competitions classes • Connection between music supportive music courses with piano performance • Completion of the graduation thesis • Establishing musical interpretation
Faculty members were asked to provide free answers regarding the most challenging things that they assumed the students may encounter in the piano performance programs. As we can see from Table 38, the faculty participants in both countries commonly believed that
“Technique ability is hard to establish” when students study in their universities. The Chinese faculty participants were concerned about the effectiveness of their students’ practice as well as their motivation and self-discipline. Faculty participants in the U.S. considered that the heavy workload and academic assignments might negatively affect students’ piano practice.
78 Table 38: Faculty’s Comments Regarding the Challenges that they Assumed the Students may Encounter Faculty’s comments Faculty members in China Faculty members in the U.S. (n =11) (n = 7) • Technical ability is hard to establish • Technical ability is hard to establish • Imagination, creation and expression of • Practice time is limited music needs to be established • Effective practice • Too many academic subjects • Lack of motivation and self-discipline • Hard to balance the academic and performance work • Need to learn and grow as a performer through recitals and performing experiences
Knowing the challenges that the students have encountered during their study experiences, the student participants were then asked, “What factors most positively affected your morale as you progressed through your study?” They were given six options from which to select all that apply. Table 39 displays their responses. The majority of students in China indicated that
“attitude of piano professors” (95.0%) and “amount of piano practice time” (85.0%) affected their morale positively. Similarly, the majority of students in the U.S. also considered that
“attitude of piano professors” (97.1%) and “amount of piano practice time” (67.6%) were two main factors that influenced their morale positively.
To determine if there were differences between the students’ perceptions from the two countries regarding the factors that affected their morale as they progressed through their study, a two-independent sample χ2 test was calculated by combining the six sub-categories together to obtain an overall score. Since the number of the participants from the two countries was so different, 34 respondents were randomly selected from China for comparison purposes.
Furthermore, the sum of the “other” category in the U.S. was less than 5 and did not meet the requirements for the two-independent sample χ2 test. Therefore, the numbers in the “other”
79 category were not included in the overall comparison. Results indicate there was no significant difference, χ2 (5, 251) = 5.54, p > .05.
Table 39: The Factors that Affected Students’ Morale Factors Students in China Students in the U.S (n = 119) (n = 34) å % å %
Attitude of piano professors 114 95.0 33 97.1 Attitude of fellow students 70 58.3 21 61.7 Amount of piano practice time 102 85.0 23 67.6 Academic course work 50 41.6 11 32.4 Music related course work 87 72.5 15 44.1 Amount of help and assistance 41 34.2 14 41.2 Other 3 2.5 2 5.9 Overall 134 65.7 117 57.4
Note: Respondents were asked to select all options that applied, so the total count of responses was larger than the total number of participants and the percentages equal greater or less than 100%.
Research Question 10
What are the Students’ Ideal Future Careers and Expectations after Graduating from the
Piano Program? To answer research question ten, student participants were asked, “What do you hope to accomplish during your study at your university?” Table 40 summarizes the students’ free-responses. Overall, students from both countries mentioned that they hoped to gain a well- rounded education and eventually become an independent musician. They hoped that when they graduated from school, they would be able to master necessary skills that could push themselves to the highest standards of musicianship without a teacher’s direction. Practically speaking, students from both countries also mentioned that they hope to complete the degree successfully and be well-prepared to enter graduate school or the job market. Additionally, they indicated a preference to enhance their performance and technical skills, such as being able to create better tone quality at the piano. They also expressed that they hoped to improve their professional 80 musicianship and musical interpretations. They indicated that they want to be a music/piano teacher to pass on their knowledge to a younger generation and become a collaborative pianist to perform music together with their peer musicians.
Table 40: Students’ Comments Regarding their Study Goals Students in China Students in the U.S. (n =119) (n = 34) • Complete the degree successfully and • Complete the recitals and finish degree on prepare to enter a better graduate school time • Improve technical skills and gain a • Gain a better understanding regarding how deeper understanding in music the piano works and how to generate the best sound • Become a professional musician • Become a proficient musician • Improve performing and teaching skills • Be able to learn music independently • Be ready to serve as a faculty member • Be competent and ready to hold a in higher education university professorship position • Gain the skills that are necessary to be • Prepare to become a music teacher an independent pianist • Be well prepared for teaching and • Improve research skills and prepare for the collaborative work job market • Gain more performance opportunities • Expose oneself to different disciplines and and participate in piano competitions expand knowledge in different art forms other than only classical piano • Understand music from a multitude of perspectives
To specifically investigate students’ career expectations, student participants were asked to select an answer from four options or provide their own answer for the question of “what is your ideal professional position after graduating from your current piano program?” Table 41 displays the student participants’ responses. It was apparent that a large majority of students in China
(45.8%) and in the U.S. (58.8%) wanted to become a “faculty member in higher education”. No students in the U.S. (n = 0) and only a few students in China (n = 4) indicated that being a
“concert pianist” was their career goal. Students who selected “other” were asked to specify their career goals. Their responses included: 1) collaborative pianist, 2) part-time music teacher, and
81 3) music producer. Due to the small number of responses in each sub-category, no statistical analysis comparing the two countries was completed.
Table 41: Students’ Career Expectations
Career options China U.S. (n = 119) (n = 34) å % å % Concert pianist 4 3.3 0 0.0 Independent piano teacher 27 22.5 5 14.7 Music teacher in a public/private school 23 19.2 5 14.7 Faculty member in higher education 55 45.8 20 58.8 Other 11 9.2 4 11.7
Research Question 11
What Influences Chinese Students to Study Abroad in America for their Piano
Education? According to the comparative results from the previous research questions, the factors that attract Chinese students to study in the U.S. can be attributed to the following aspects: 1) students plan to seek the most advanced degree—doctoral degree in piano performance; 2) students may have less stress related to getting standard test scores during the application process; 3) students may be able to complete the program and obtain the master’s degree in a shorter time; 4) the design of the programs/curriculums may allow students to receive more personal attention and more professional development; 5) students may become more independent and can receive better quality of applied lessons and degree recital preparation; and
6) they may gain more performance opportunities and receive a comprehensive view of the subject matter.
82 CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Piano-related Degree Offerings in China and the United States
The results indicated that piano-related degree offerings seemed most comprehensive at the master’s level in both China and America, because the majority of the sample institutions offer performance, pedagogy, and collaborative piano master’s degree programs. While only one institution in China offers a doctoral degree in piano performance, all the sample institutions in the U.S. offer doctoral degrees in piano performance and the vast majority of them offer doctoral degrees in collaborative piano. Therefore, seeking the most advanced degree in piano performance might be an important motivational factor for Chinese pianists to move to the U.S. since there is only one institution in China which offers a doctoral degree. Although all the sample institutions in both countries offer bachelor and master’s degrees in piano performance, there is a large difference between the two countries regarding piano-related degree offerings at the doctoral level. Therefore, establishing and developing more comprehensive piano-related degree offerings is suggested for Chinese institutions.
Comparing Audition Requirements
In general, the institutions in the U.S. have a broader review process for admission.
Diverse factors based on the applicant’s in-school and extracurricular experiences, academic achievements, and audition performance are all taken into consideration. On the other hand, the selected institutions in China have a narrower review process for admission, which only includes scores obtained on standardized national entrance exams and an audition. Working toward a high score on a standardized test is much more important for applicants to Chinese institutions as the
83 admissions process does not include a transcript review. This might make the admissions process more stressful for students taking the test, as a one-time test score dictates their future.
The results indicated that the institutions in China and the U.S. have similar audition requirements for the prospective students to be admitted to piano performance programs.
Students must prepare to perform various piano works such as music from different historical periods and with different styles. Chinese institutions list their audition requirements of the performance repertoire with more specific categories—prelude and fugues or polyphonic works by J.S. Bach, virtuoso etudes by Chopin, classical sonatas, etc. American institutions tend to list the audition requirements with more generalized instructions especially at the graduate level, for example, music with contrasting musical styles or from different historical periods. In addition,
Chinese institutions have greater emphasis on the virtuoso etudes than the American institutions.
While Chinese institutions are more conservative in terms of their repertoire requirements,
American institutions are more open to the variety of piano literature and musical styles.
Although the researcher did not collect the information regarding the number of applicants, informal observation suggests that Chinese institutions may have stricter audition requirements because they have a larger pool of prospective students.
Furthermore, besides the solo performance audition, Chinese institutions require those applying to undergraduate programs to pass music theory, sight-singing, and ear-training entrance exams in order to be admitted. Additionally, prior to inviting students to campus for a live audition, they require those applying to graduate programs to pass political science, foreign language, music history, and music theory entrance exams. In contrast, the institutions in the
U.S. require the applicants to submit a personal statement, recommendation letters, and prescreening recordings for admission. As assessment in music performance can be subjective and challenging, the scores of the entrance exams are more objective compared to only
84 auditioning students for piano solo performances. These entrance exams not only help institutions to evaluate students’ overall musicianship and recruit students with stronger qualities, but also help students to get relatively equal opportunities to be admitted in the piano performance programs. An admission system, which combines solo performance with entrance exams in music related subjects, is suggested by the researcher to be applied in institutions that are offering comprehensive programs that attract a large number of prospective students.
Since the majority of faculty members in both countries evaluate students’ potential based on their technical and musical performance in the audition, establishing a solid technical foundation and presenting a musical performance are two important factors that prospective students should consider for a successful audition. Faculty members in both countries suggested that to be a piano performance major in a university-level institution, students must practice diligently and effectively. This may be attributed to the nature of the piano performance degree, which requires a certain amount of practice to gain proficiency. Because of the intense practice requirements during the degree-seeking process, truly enjoying and being passionate about music are important to succeed in a music career as a professional pianist.
Comparing Curriculum Requirements
Although both the Chinese and the U.S. institutions had a similar structure in their curricula, the balance of required credits in each area was noticeably different. Overall,
American institutions focus more on the major area than Chinese institutions in both undergraduate and graduate programs. In other words, U.S. institutions require a higher percentage of credit hours in the main area (e.g. applied lessons) than Chinese institutions.
Results indicated that the “main area” is the heaviest weighted area across all levels of degree programs in the U.S. Therefore, students who study in American institutions may receive more
85 professional training directly related to piano performance. The smaller proportion of credits in the main area in Chinese institutions may imply that these institutions focus on cultivating students’ general and comprehensive knowledge rather than training their skills only related to piano performance. This finding contradicted Wang’s study in 2001, which indicated that one of the problems for Chinese music institutions was the neglect of academic courses. This contradiction may be attributed to the reform of the curriculums in China during the last two decades. This finding is also reflected in the student participants’ comments in the survey— students in China stated that they felt the workload in their academic courses was too heavy and they had challenges managing their practice time. The prospect of receiving more professional training emphasized on piano performance may be another motivation for Chinese pianists moving to the U.S. for higher education.
In addition, results indicated that Chinese institutions required many more elective credits than American institutions. This finding may suggest that piano performance programs in China are more fluid and flexible, as students have the opportunity to choose the courses that interest them. The opportunities of providing more elective courses may benefit some students who are more independent and already have established their career goals. On the other hand, the freedom to choose elective courses may be a disadvantage for some students who are not independent enough to make the decision. In contrast, the curriculums in American institutions are more rigid; students may receive more guidance throughout their higher education process.
At the master’s level, results indicate that there are no recitals/projects credit hour requirements in Chinese institutions’ curriculums. It is possible that students are still expected to meet the requirements for recitals/projects, but these requirements are not presented as credit hours in the curriculums. Furthermore, while Chinese institutions require students in master’s programs to take general education courses, American institutions do not have credit hour
86 requirements for general education in their curriculums. This may be attributed to the different length of the master’s programs between the two countries— the master programs in China usually take three years to complete while in the U.S., they usually take two years. Therefore, another possible reason for Chinese students moving to the U.S. may be that they are able to complete the program and obtain the master’s degree in a shorter period of time.
Comparing Core Course Offerings
The structure of the core course offerings is very similar between the institutions in both countries. Applied lessons, piano literature, piano pedagogy, accompanying, and recitals are the core courses that commonly appear on the institutions’ curriculums in both countries. Among these courses, applied lessons commonly require the largest number of semesters between the institutions in both countries.
In general, although piano performance programs in America are more rigid compared to the Chinese institutions because students have fewer opportunities to choose the elective courses, the arrangement of core course offering in American institutions’ curriculums is more fluid and accommodating, since students have more options to design their own study plan according to their personal situation. In contrast, the Chinese institutions have a more rigid arrangement in the core courses requirement especially for the applied lessons. Students have to follow a certain arrangement to complete their study in the degree program. Traditionally, piano lessons are more flexible in the private setting. Students can master the skills according to their own foundation and practical situation. They have their own study pace and the teacher will decide if the students are ready to have periodic completion, such as giving a recital. However nowadays, when students study in a university-level institution with a rigid, standard curriculum, they must complete the degree within a certain amount of time. On one hand, it is encouraging as the
87 institutions can make efficient use of their educational resources to meet the needs of as many students as possible. On the other hand, students may be unable to fully digest the knowledge, master the skills, and become independent musicians. From this point of view, it is understandable that institutions must establish a standard curriculum for a music subject even for the applied piano lessons.
Biographical Information of the Survey Participants
In this study, student participants were piano majors who were currently enrolled in the piano performance degree programs at the sample university-level institutions. Results indicated that the average years of piano learning experiences for students in the U.S. were longer than the students in China. One possible reason is that most student participants in the U.S. were doctoral students while most student participants in China were undergraduate students. However, the average age of Chinese students’ starting piano lessons was slightly younger than the student participants in America. This finding corresponds to a previous study regarding the state of pre- college piano education in China by Lin (2016). In this previous study, Lin pointed out that students in China begin piano lessons at a young age in order to reach a sufficient level of playing as quickly as possible. Because students’ academic lives at school become more rigorous as they grow up, especially when they are in middle and high school, they may terminate their piano study due to the time constraints.
Faculty participants were piano faculty members who were currently teaching at the sample university-level institutions outlined in this study. Although the researcher sent two email invitations reminding all the potential faculty participants to participate in the survey, the number of faculty participants was very small in both countries. Due to the small number of faculty participants, the results may not be representative and are not sufficient to support generalization.
88 However, differences certainly exist between faculty participants from each country and can be identified from the data analysis. Results showed that most faculty participants in China hold a master’s degree and most of them are ranked as an associate professor. Conversely, most faculty participants in the U.S. hold a doctoral degree and most of them are ranked as an assistant professor. Perhaps younger faculty members were more likely to fill out the online survey in the
U.S., so most of them were still in their early stages of their careers. Results also indicated that the faculty members in the U.S. have more students in their current studios than the faculty members in China. Faculty participants in both countries had more undergraduate students than graduate students in their studios.
Besides applied lessons, the faculty participants in this study indicated they also teach other keyboard-related courses. The common courses taught by faculty members in both countries include collaborative piano, keyboard literature, and chamber music. The courses that faculty members in China have taught seem more varied. This also reflects in the comparison of the core course offerings between the two countries’ piano performance programs (see Table 10).
One possible reason is that Chinese institutions not only introduce traditional Western music to their students, but also introduce Eastern music or Chinese music. Therefore, a Chinese piano music course is often a core curriculum requirement for piano performance students at institutions in China. In addition, since faculty members in China have fewer students in their studio taking applied lessons, it allowed them to develop various core courses in their programs.
Results indicated that more Chinese faculty participants have engaged in various professional activities outside their universities. It is possible that faculty members in the U.S. are more focused on their teaching in their universities. Students in the U.S. then, may obtain more attention from their piano professors. On the other hand, faculty members in China may focus more on their own personal growth and may introduce more extra-curricular activities to
89 their students. As a result, students may be encouraged to participate in these extra-curricular activities such as music festivals, master classes, and piano competitions.
Students’ Perceptions Regarding the Piano Performance Programs
Choosing Major and Program
There is no statistical difference between the students’ perceptions from the two countries regarding the factors that influenced their choices of becoming a piano performance major.
However, according to their responses, it is striking to note that a larger proportion of students in
China identified that their parents’ encouragement was their main reason to choose piano performance as their major in college. In contrast, the majority of the students in the U.S. identified that their passion about music was their main motivator for becoming a piano performance major. One possible reason for this difference between the two countries is that
Chinese parents have a greater influence on pre-college students’ piano study. This is supported by previous research regarding the comparison of children’s piano study between China and
America (Comeau, Huta & Liu, 2015). This research indicated that Chinese students had more parental influence on their piano study and this influence may even affect students’ career decisions before they attend college.
Based on the statistical analysis of the student participants’ responses, an assistantship/scholarship offer was the main factor that affected American students’ choices of their piano programs. However, this reason did not apply to Chinese students’ decisions.
Conversely, students in China considered the reputations of the institutions and piano faculty as the main reasons for them to choose the piano programs that they are currently enrolled in. It is understandable that since most American institutions offer assistantships to graduate students and most American student participants in this survey are doctoral students who may receive this
90 funding, they may consider assistantships as an important factor when they are seeking higher education. This finding may also imply that Chinese institutions provide limited scholarships, nor do they usually offer assistantships for graduate students. Or, perhaps piano students in
China seldom consider financial difficulties when they make a decision for their higher education because they are already used to the higher cost of piano lessons during their pre- college years. A previous study (Mahamuti, 2013) indicated that Chinese university piano faculty members in a big city such as Beijing and Shanghai charged 800 to 1000 Yuan (approximately
123 to 153 US dollars) for a 45-minute private piano lesson. In order to have a successful audition, many prospective students who plan to apply to the university piano programs usually took two lessons a week with a university piano faculty member who served on an admission committee one to two years prior to their audition. It was an expensive rate, especially when compared to the tuition for their higher education in a piano program. The annual tuition is around 8000 to 10000 Yuan (approximately 1230 to 1538 US dollars) for both undergraduate and graduate piano performance programs. Therefore, Chinese students may be used to the high cost of piano study and do not consider financial support as a main factor when they choose their piano programs.
Career Goals
A large percentage of student participants in both countries indicated that their ideal career after graduating was being a faculty member in higher education. It is understandable that holding a position in higher education would definitely give pianists a better foundation to develop their career. This type of position not only provides pianists more performance opportunities, but also provides them with more piano students who have a higher level of proficiency. Some student participants expressed that they were considering becoming an independent piano teacher after graduating. It is suggested that core courses related to
91 establishing and managing a piano studio, such as piano pedagogy, may be an important subject geared towards the future careers of students. It would be helpful to fully introduce this topic to collegiate piano students, since building a piano studio might require more initial work and long- term flexibility. Interestingly, a small percentage of student participants in China and no participants in the U.S. planned to be concert pianists. It is possible that this result may be attributed to the operational definition of the institutions. Since the student participants in this study were not from the top conservatories (e.g. The Juilliard School) in the U.S., most of them realized that becoming a concert pianist is probably not a practical goal for them. The results may be different if the study included participants in the top conservatories. Alternatively, these results from the U.S. could be related to the fact that most survey participants were graduate students. Since they have more experience and have progressed further along with their careers, they may have more realistic expectations of their future goals than undergraduate students.
Student Expectations and On-Going Experiences
A comparison of students’ expectations and on-going experiences in their piano programs showed that students in both countries commonly expressed similarities including: 1) they were studying in musically sophisticated environments, 2) they received great suggestions for practice strategies, and 3) they have learned a considerable amount of knowledge from general education and supportive music courses. Students in both countries also commonly realized that self- discipline was more important than they initially realized. Students in the U.S. expressed that they experienced lots of growth as pianists and they gained a better understanding of being a musician and human being. Conversely, students in China expressed that they spent lots of time practicing. They accepted the challenges and realized that positive attitudes were indispensable for them to overcome the hardship. This attitude reflects Chinese piano students’ cultural belief
92 of “no pain, no gain” (Xu, 2001). In other words, Chinese students’ belief of working hard to achieve success in their lives influenced their piano studies in higher education.
Although results indicated that overall, there is no significant differences between the students’ level of satisfaction of the core courses in their piano performance programs, there were significant differences between students’ perceptions regarding the applied lessons and degree recital between the two countries. Student participants in the U.S. were significantly more satisfied with the applied lessons and the degree recital in their programs than the student participants in China. These results may relate to the students’ repertoire selections. Student participants’ responses indicated that most students in China practiced and performed the repertoire suggested by their applied professors. In contrast, a large percentage of students in the
U.S. selected their repertoire in collaboration with their applied professors. Since students in the
U.S. had more opportunities to make repertoire choices, they may be able to practice and perform the music they are truly interested in. As a result, they were more satisfied with the applied lessons and degree recitals in their programs. We may speculate that in order to become more independent and receive better quality of applied lessons and degree recital preparation, some Chinese pianists move to the U.S. for their higher education.
Student participants’ open answers in the survey indicated that compared to the students in China, students in the U.S. more strongly agreed that they: 1) were provided exposure to current trends, 2) were encouraged to do their own research, 3) received a comprehensive view of the subject matter, and 4) had opportunities to participate in in-class discussion and presentations. It could appear that although the curriculums and core course offerings are similar between the two countries, the faculty members’ teaching philosophies and instructional approaches were different. While they may be the potential factors that influenced the Chinese students’ move to the U.S. for their higher education, it is also possible that since the majority of
93 the student participants in China were undergraduate students and the majority of student participants in the U.S. were doctoral students, they were at different stages of their higher education. As a result, students from the two countries perceived their study experiences differently. For example, doctoral students are supposed to have a more comprehensive view of the subject and they are always encouraged to do their own research.
Important Experiences and Educational Practices
It is reasonable that as piano performance majors, students in both countries commonly perceived applied lessons, performance opportunities, and studio classes as the most important experiences and educational practices for their careers. It is encouraging that not only students gave careful attention toward these aspects in their studies, but also that a large percentage of the students believed they received excellent advice regarding practice strategies and artistry in their applied lessons. However, it is interesting that there were significant differences between students’ perceptions regarding the keyboard literature, piano pedagogy, and supportive courses in music between the two countries. Specifically, students in China perceived keyboard literature and piano pedagogy as more important. Conversely, students in the U.S. perceived supportive courses in music (e.g. music history and music theory) as more important. On one hand, these results are closely related to their study goals. In the survey, students in China expressed that they wish to accomplish their goals which were directly related to piano study (e.g. have a successful audition and enter graduate school, become an independent pianist, teach piano, become a collaborative pianist, etc.). As a result, they believed they could benefit from the piano-related courses. However, students in the U.S. expressed that they would like to understand music from a multitude of perspectives and prepare themselves for the job markets.
Therefore, they may appreciate the supportive music courses, which can broad their horizon as an independent musician.
94 Challenges
According to student participants’ responses in both countries, the challenges that they commonly encountered during their study in their piano programs included: 1) time management, 2) overwhelming academic workload, 3) improving pianistic techniques, 4) performance anxiety, and 5) memorizing music before a recital or jury. From the faculty participants’ views, improvement in pianistic techniques was indeed not an easy task. They suggested that students should not only dedicate time in practice, but more importantly, should practice effectively and learn from each performance opportunity. In addition, student participants in both countries expressed that they sometimes lack motivation and self-discipline, which become an issue in their progress of the piano programs. This issue may even hinder them from completing their programs on time. Besides these general and piano-study related challenges, student participants also indicated that music history was one of the most difficult subjects. This difficulty may be attributed to the fact that students felt it was hard to memorize the historical material. It may also be because students could not relate music history to their piano performance and apply the historical knowledge to their piano study. To overcome these challenges, student participants in both countries commonly considered that their professors’ attitudes and support as well as having sufficient practice time positively affected their morale. A previous study (Brand, 2001) suggested that university-level institutions, irrespective of location and cultural tradition, share some common goals in practical music study. The study found that students from very different cultures have similar motivations and learning strategies in music learning. The findings in the current study not only support this previous study, but also indicate that there are some similar hardships that collegiate students may encounter in their music study.
Additionally, students value their professors’ attitudes regardless of their cultural differences.
95 Faculty Members’ Perceptions Regarding the Piano Performance Programs
Overall, the statements made by faculty participants illustrate that the vast majority of them in both countries expressed positive attitudes regarding the piano performance programs in their universities. They commonly perceived applied lessons as the primary and the most important component in the curriculums. The two least important aspects in the curriculums, noted by participants, were general education courses and graduation dissertations/treatises/theses. To emphasize the piano-related study, faculty members in the U.S. suggested that the design of the curriculums should allow students to have more practice time by reducing the academic workload.
Interestingly, according to the faculty participants’ open-ended responses, faculty members in the U.S. were more concerned about the graduation requirements in their piano performance programs while Chinese faculty members cared more about the admission requirements in their programs. One possible reason is that the faculty in the U.S. perceived that they had better quality of current students in their institutions than the faculty in China.
Additionally, faculty in the U.S. may believe that their students have more potential that needs to be unearthed than the faculty in China. As a result, they suggested raising the graduation standards. Since the faculty in the U.S. were primarily concerned about the graduation requirements, one faculty participant specified enhancing the graduation standard by establishing more serious graduation exams. Another faculty participant also stated that “the definition of a
‘real degree candidate’ needs to be reconsidered since the graduation exams seemed to be regarded as formalities.” Since the faculty in China were primarily concerned about the admission requirements, they recommended reforming the student recruiting systems in their institutions and enhancing the standard of the admission requirements. It is also possible that faculty members in the U.S. considered that an institution’s alumni play a pivotal role regarding
96 their reputations. Increasing the standard for graduation may result in a better quality of alumni who may become more competitive in the job market, thereby, increasing the institution’s reputation. Conversely, Chinese faculty members may consider the entrance requirements of the students as the key to improving the reputation of their institutions. Recall that high reputation is the main factor that affects Chinese students’ decisions for selecting their institutions. It is likely that the positive cycle is started from the students’ entrance. The more high-quality students a piano program can attract, the higher reputation the institution will obtain. An increased institutional reputation will attract more high-quality students.
Furthermore, based on faculty participants’ responses, faculty members in both countries believed that piano technical skills were difficult to establish and develop during the collegiate level education. Therefore, they recommended that students who plan to become a piano performance major in college must build a solid foundation and master the technical skills before college. Faculty in the U.S. also believed that students may have difficulties regarding the time limitation for practice and the heavy academic work load. On the other hand, Chinese faculty considered that lack of self-discipline and motivation was the challenge that piano students may encounter in their programs They found that after studying for and going through the extremely competitive college entrance exams, students in China seemed to release from the high pressure and lose their motivation and study goals.
Faculty participants in both countries commonly believed that the general education courses and dissertation/treatises/thesis were the two least important elements in the piano performance curriculums. It is understandable that as a performance-oriented degree program, piano performance degree programs should focus more on students’ practical skills (e.g. stage performance skill, ensemble skill). Since faculty members care less about students’ research skills, students received limited guidance on their graduation dissertation/treaties/thesis. Some
97 student participants in the survey expressed that they felt it was quite challenging for them to complete their dissertation/treatises/thesis. Therefore, while allowing students the freedom and flexibility with choosing their research topics, more faculty assistance with organization, direction, editing, and critiquing students’ written documents was more necessary for some students.
In order to improve the programs, faculty members in the U.S. suggested that their institutions should provide students higher quality of facilities such as better pianos in students’ practice rooms. The concert pianos and concert halls should be more accessible for a performance major. Better facilities seem to be a recurring need for a music institution in the
U.S. as this issue was mentioned in a study two decades ago (Gorton, 1995). Although Chinese faculty participants did not mention about the facility issue in the survey, general observation by the researcher suggests that the quality of the facilities varies across different institutions and cities in China. While institutions in large cities may have high quality facilities to meet the needs of all the students, institutions in less developed cities can only provide limited facilities for their students. Faculty members in China, on the other hand, were more concerned about the high quality of instruction and guidance that students can receive from the programs. They recommended that university-level institutions should hire more qualified and professional faculty members to enhance the quality of the instruction in the core courses.
Regarding repertoire requirements for students’ juries, while faculty members in the U.S. considered that the curriculums should be more flexible, allowing students to explore more new music, faculty members in China felt that their curriculums should increase the number of the required pieces. In other words, American faculty emphasized the variety of repertoire and encouraged students to explore new music. Chinese faculty placed importance on the quantity of
98 the repertoire and recommended students to improve their performance skills by learning as many pieces as possible.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to promote a greater understanding of Chinese and
American piano performance programs in higher education. The sample institutions and perceptions of the respondents are representative under certain standards The previous chapter discussed the findings from this study and identified the similarities and differences between the two countries. In the following sections, the researcher will offer valuable suggestions based on the findings for piano students, faculty members, and institutions from both countries so they can continue pursuing excellence, developing piano programs, and facilitating international exchange.
Suggestions for Current Collegiate Piano Majors
During the degree-seeking process, faculty members suggested that collegiate piano performance majors should fully use the resources that the piano programs provide them (e.g. attending the concerts, master classes). Students will not be able to become professional pianists if they only spend time in the practice rooms. They must take opportunities offered in their programs to gain a well-rounded education and expand their horizons as musicians.
The most common phrases that student participants used to describe the challenges that they have encountered during the study in their piano programs was “time management”. Since the life in a university may allow students to have more self-study time, being self-disciplined and managing time wisely are significantly important skills to have. Piano performance majors were suggested to balance their time for practice, academic work, and participation in extra- curricular activities.
99 Some student participants in the survey also expressed that they were having difficulties with improving pianistic skills. For example, they struggled with improving piano techniques, overcoming performance anxiety and memorizing music. Since it may be attributed to the nature of piano performance, these issues are not exclusively reserved for piano students. Professional pianists may also need to deal with these issues. A certain amount of practice and appropriate strategies are definitely helpful, but it takes time and perseverance to achieve a certain level of proficiency. Therefore, enjoying music, being positive and determined are important to succeed in a music career as a professional pianist.
Suggestions for Prospective Students
Faculty noticed that some of the current students were not willing to take initiative to strengthen their overall musicianship. Additionally, the job market is very competitive for pianists. Prospective students may need to rethink their career decisions and investigate the career as a pianist more seriously. Careful research is needed to find the most suitable program.
Just as many faculty members mentioned in the survey, students must have sufficient passion towards music and piano in order to overcome the difficulties in university study. In particular,
Chinese pre-college students especially need to do more research about the institutions and programs on their own, and not only rely on their parents’ decisions. If students choose to be a piano performance major based only on their parents’ choice, they would hardly ever have enough internal motivation to be successful in a music career.
Once prospective students decide to be a piano performance major, it is recommended that they practice diligently and study with a qualified piano teacher as early as possible.
Qualified piano teachers not only can prepare prospective students to audition for piano programs successfully. They can also help students to build a solid technical and artistic
100 foundation and to perform musically. These are the most two important criteria for admission to a piano performance program in both countries.
Suggestions for Faculty Members
Faculty members mentioned that they believed some of their students were not motivated to develop their pianistic skills and overall musicianship. Therefore, it is recommended that faculty members evaluate their own pedagogical practices and consider how they can better motivate their students for success. This reflection can help provide their students with a sense of educational ownership and motivate them to become adventurous for new music.
Student participants in both countries expressed that they have a hard time truly learning and understanding music history and they cannot see how the music history exams can help them become a better pianist. It is suggested that faculty members help students make connections between their piano studies and other music supportive courses, especially the music history courses.
Additionally, faculty members are suggested to interact with their students using a more encouraging attitude as it may affect students’ morale positively during their degree-seeking process. Since many student participants expressed that they want to become a faculty member in higher education after they graduated, faculty members can be the role model for their students and help them develop a realistic and clear career goal.
Suggestions for University-level Institutions
The piano performance programs investigated in this study were generally very comprehensive and effective. Student and faculty participants hold a positive attitude towards their programs. It is suggested that institutions maintain a focus on the current structure of the curriculums, such as the combination of piano-related core courses, supportive music courses, and general education courses. However, the curriculum design and course development could
101 be more student-centered and aligned with the students’ career goals and aspirations. It is recommended that faculty and institutions take even greater care in ensuring core courses in piano performances programs more effectively prepare students for success in their future careers. There will always be a greater amount of work for competent piano accompanists and chamber players within the profession than for solo pianists. In the book, The Mindful Pianist,
Tanner (2016) suggested that the possibilities of more accompanying courses in higher music education need to be explored.
Piano faculty members from both countries suggested that the programs should offer students more performance opportunities since piano performance majors need to learn and improve their professional skills from actual performances in a concert hall setting. It is important to maintain a certain standard for students to enter and complete a piano performance program and obtain a degree. According to the participants’ responses, it is suggested that
American institutions enhance their graduation standards, while Chinese institutions are suggested to increase their admission standards.
Suggestions for Further Research
This study focused on using online questionnaires to collect participants’ perceptions of their piano performance programs. To collect more detailed information and enable the participants to provide more in-depth responses to the research questions, real-time interviews with students and faculty members in piano departments are recommended for further research.
Since the piano performance degree program is very popular in music departments in many countries around the world, one possible extension of this research could be to replicate the process with the institutions in other Asian, North American and perhaps European countries.
Additionally, based on the operational definitions, this study only investigated current students and faculty members’ perceptions. Another possible extension of this study is to investigate
102 former graduates’ perceptions regarding the piano performance programs they have studied in.
Graduates, based on their professional experiences, may have different views towards the curriculums. Their perceptions may provide an external evaluation to the value and effectiveness of a piano performance program and give current students, faculty members, and institutions a more comprehensive view of their programs.
103 APPENDIX A
HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
Office of the Vice President for Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392
APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
Date: 06/01/2018
To: Yuan Jiang
Address: 1111 High Road Apt. A302
Dept.: MUSIC SCHOOL
From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair
Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research A comparative study of Chinese and American piano performance programs in university-level institutions
The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and two members of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per 45 CFR § 46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process.
The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.
If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects.
If the project has not been completed by 05/31/2019 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.
You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.
By copy of this memorandum, the chairman of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446.
Cc: Diana Dumlavwalla
104 APPENDIX B
HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL CONSENT FORM
FSU Behavioral Consent Form Title of the study: A comparative study of Chinese and American piano performance programs in university-level institutions
You are invited to participate in a research study regarding a comparative study of Chinese and American piano performance programs. You were selected as a possible participant because you are a student who is currently enrolling or a faculty member who are currently teaching in piano department of a target university-level institution. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.
This study is being conducted by Yuan Jiang, a Ph.D. candidate in Music Education at FSU College of Music.
Background Information:
The purpose of this study is to promote a greater understanding of Chinese and American piano performance programs in higher education through examining selected university-level institutions. This study hopes to bridge collegiate students and faculty members’ perceptions in order to explore the similarities and differences of university-level piano performance study programs in China and the United States.
Procedures:
If you agree to be in this study, we would ask you to complete an online questionnaire. The format of the questions in the questionnaire includes multiple choices, ranking questions and short answers questions. It may take around 5 minutes to complete this questionnaire. The questionnaire will not collect any identifying information and all responses will be confidential.
Risks and benefits of being in the Study:
The only risk that participants may suffer from is the loss of some time to complete the questionnaire.
The benefits to participation are: the students and faculty members will have the opportunity to reflect on their own studying/teaching experience. The survey may encourage them to think of ways they can improve in a piano performance program. The piano students will be able to reflect on their learning experience at a highly detailed level. The refection may provide them with unique insights about their progress with piano study. After participating in the research, piano faculty members may feel a heightened sense of satisfaction knowing they are contributing to a research project focusing on the piano performance programs of their area.
Compensation:
You will receive a thankyou email from the researcher.
105 APPENDIX C
PROJECT INVITATION EMAIL
Dear xx,
My name is Yuan Jiang. I am a Ph. D. candidate in Music Education (Piano Pedagogy track) at
Florida State University. I am conducting my doctoral dissertation on the topic, “A Comparative
Study of Chinese and American Piano Performance Programs in University-level Institutions” and I’m looking for participants.
I would like to request your participation in an online survey about your perspectives of the
Piano Performance Program at your university. All responses will be confidential and the researcher will not collect any identifying information such as your name, email address or phone number. Your response will be greatly appreciated. If you are willing to participate in this project, you may simply reply to this email address:
If you have any questions, please contact me by email: or my doctoral advisor
Dr. Diana Dumlavwalla at .
Thank you so much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Yuan Jiang
106 APPENDIX D
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES
For Current Piano Performance Students
I. Academic and biographical information
1. What kind of piano degree program are you pursuing? - Bachelor - Masters - Doctorate
2. Provide information about your previous and current degree (if applicable). - School and location of your Bachelor’s degree - School and location of your Masters’ degree - School and location of your Doctoral degree
3. Please provide information about your piano study experience - What was your age when you started piano lessons? - Years of piano study: - Did you study in a professional music institution before the college?
4. What are the factors that influenced you to become a piano performance major? (select all that apply) - Passionate about music - Parents’ encouragement - Piano teachers’ recommendation - Easy to meet the college entrance requirements - Other:
5. What factors influenced your choice of the institution you are attending? (select all that apply) - Geographical reasons - Reputation of the institution/university 107 - Reputation of the piano faculty - Prestige of the piano degree program - High employment rate after graduation - Parents’ suggestion/decision - The admission requirements - The curriculum designs - Assistantship/scholarship - Other:
6. What is your ideal professional position after graduating from your current piano program? - Pursue a career as a concert pianist - Pursue a career as an independent piano teacher - Pursue a career as a music teacher in a public/private school - Pursuer a career as a faculty member in higher education - Other:
7. What are your sources of financial support during your study in your piano program? (select all that apply) - Parents’ support - Self-support - Government loan - Scholarship - Assistantship - Other:
II. Evaluation of your piano program
8. How important are the following courses for a piano performance? Scale 1-11, 1 = not important, 6 = neutral, 11 = extremely important a) Applied lessons b) Supportive courses in music (theory, history, pedagogy etc.) c) General courses (math, science, etc.)
108 d) Performance/studio class e) Chamber music/Collaborative piano f) Degree recital g) Dissertation
9. How valuable are the following aspects of your piano program at your institution? Scale 1-11, 1 = not valuable, 6 = neutral, 11 = extremely valuable a) Applied lessons b) Keyboard literature c) Piano Pedagogy d) Collaborative piano/ Chamber music e) Performance/studio class f) Degree recital g) Dissertation
10. What was your level of satisfaction with the overall quality of the following courses in your program? Scale 1-11, 1 = extremely unsatisfied, 6 = neutral, 11 = extremely satisfied a) Applied lessons b) Keyboard literature c) Piano Pedagogy d) Collaborative piano/ Chamber music e) Performance/studio class f) Degree recital g) Dissertation
11. Please rate the following statements regarding the course work and instructions in your piano program. Scale 1-11, 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = neutral, 11 = strongly agree (mark “x” if not applicable) a) I felt challenged. b) I was encouraged/inspired to do my own research/study.
109 c) I was provided exposure to current trends. d) I received a comprehensive view of the subject matter. e) I had opportunities to participate in-class discussion and presentations. f) I was stimulated to develop new scholarship. g) I have received enough attention, direction, and supervision from my piano professors.
III. Experiences of studying in your piano program
12. What factors most positively affected your morale as you progressed through your study? (select all that apply) - Attitude of piano professors - Attitude of fellow students - Amount of piano practice time - Academic course work - Music related course work - Amount of help and assistance - Other:
13. How was your piano repertoire selected? - I selected it independently - My piano professor and I selected it jointly - My piano professor suggested it - My piano professor assigned it - Other:
14. How do you feel about the musical advice given by your applied piano professor in your regular piano lessons? - Excellent - Good - Adequate - Fair
110 - Poor - No or little advice are given
15. How do you feel about the practice strategies given by your applied piano professor in your regular piano lessons? - Excellent - Good - Adequate - Fair - Poor - No or little advice are given
16. Do you think your on-going experience in your piano program is similar to the expectations that you had before starting the program? Please explain the similarities and differences you have experienced?
17. What do you hope to accomplish during your study at your university?
18. What are the most challenging things that you have encountered during your study in your piano performance program?
111 For Faculty Members
1. How many students are currently enrolled in applied piano lessons with you?
2. How many students in your studio are currently pursuing a bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, or doctoral degree respectively?
3. What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed? - Bachelor’s degree - Master’s degree - Doctoral degree
4. What is your title or ranking in the university? - Assistant professor of piano - Associate professor of piano - Professor of piano - Artist in residence - Other:
5. What other professional activities have you engaged in besides teaching in the university? (select all that apply) - Educational conferences - Music festivals - Master classes - Giving solo recitals - Participating in collaborate or chamber performances - Judging/adjudicating competitions
6. How do you evaluate a students’ potential during the audition process? (select all that apply) - Student has solid technique foundation
112 - Student is able to play virtuosic pieces - Student’s performance is very musical - Student has placed in piano competitions - Student shows good personality traits - Student has confidence, a good attitude and motivation - Students performs well academically (e.g. high GPA) - Students provide a satisfactory resume and recommendations - Other:
7. Please rate how valuable are the following aspects are to your university’s piano program? Scale 1-11, 1 = not valuable, 6 = neutral, 11 = extremely valuable (mark “x” if not applicable) a) Applied lessons b) Supportive courses in music (e.g. music theory, music history etc.) c) General courses (e.g. science, literature etc.) d) Performance opportunities (e.g. chamber music, collaborate performance, etc.) e) Degree recital f) Dissertation
8. Please rate how important are the following courses for a piano performance major? Scale 1-11, 1 = not important, 6 = neutral, 11 = extremely important (mark “x” if not applicable) a) Applied lessons b) Keyboard literature c) Piano Pedagogy d) Collaborative/chamber music e) Music theory f) Music history g) General education
113 9. Do you teach any courses besides applied piano lessons? If yes, please provide the title(s) and a short description of these courses?
10. What do you think about the piano performance program curriculum at your university? What are the most challenging things that you assume students may encounter?
11. Do you have any suggestions for prospective piano students?
12. Do you have any suggestions for improving the piano performance program at your university?
114 REFERENCES
Aldridge, D. (2004). Case study designs in music therapy. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Benson, C., & Fung, C. V. (2005). Comparisons of teacher and student behaviors in private piano lessons in China and the United States. International Journal of Music Education, 23(1), 63–72. doi.org/10.1177/0255761405050931
Brand, M. (2001). Chinese and American music majors: Cross-cultural comparisons in motivation and strategies for learning and studying. Psychology of Music, 29(2), 170–178. doi.org/10.1177/0305735601292006
Colwell, R., & Richardson, C. (2002). The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educators National Conference. Oxford University Press.
Comeau, G., Huta, V., & Liu, Y. (2015). Work ethic, motivation, and parental influences in Chinese and North American children learning to play the piano. International Journal of Music Education, 33(2), 181–194. doi.org/10.1177/0255761413516062
Cho, J. (2013). Cross cultural teaching in piano pedagogy from a Korean perspective (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin – Madison). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/dissertations/docview/1324098160/abstract/8D253C CA107048A8PQ/1
Choi, J. H. (2009). Attitudes of international music students from East Asia toward U.S. higher education institutions. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Texas) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/dissertations/docview/304964374/abstract/E2FDC585F0A94772PQ/8 0
Fitzparick, E. J. (1964). The music conservatory in America (Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University Graduate School)Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/dissertations/docview/302300483/9F836C9AA9BC4DDAPQ/1
Gandre, J. (2001). And then there were seven: An historical case study of the seven independent American conservatories of music that survived the twentieth century (Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Nebraska - Lincoln). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/dissertations/docview/304707325/abstract/5F6E54DC8835488EPQ/ 1
Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds: Chinese clues to the dilemma of contemporary education. New York: Basic Books.
Grausam, R. V. D. B. (2005). A survey of piano pedagogy curricula in selected United States music conservatories and performance -oriented music units (D.M.A. dissertation, University of South Carolina). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/dissertations/docview/305417403/abstract/67EEF2A1AAAE454AP Q/39 115 Helping your child stay motivated. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.88notesmusic.com/helping-your-child-stay-motivated.html
Johnson, R. G. (2015). What’s new in pedagogy research. American Music Teacher, 65(2), 28– 29.
Kahn, J., & Wakin, D. J. (2007, Apr. 3). Classical music looks toward China with hope. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/arts/music/03class1.html
Kim, B. Y. (2015). A comparative study of selected secondary school preservice music teacher education programs in the Republic of Korea and the United States (Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Utah) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/dissertations/docview/1770081142/abstract/E2FDC585F0A94772PQ/ 82
Lin, Z. B. (2016). Pre-college piano education in twenty-first century China: An oral history of educators fostering an era of Chinese pianism (D.M. treaties, Florida State University). Retrieved from https://search-proquest- com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/pqdtlocal1006021/docview/1873854271/1CDCBE7A7C98474APQ/1?acc ountid=4840
Mahamuti, G. (2013). Piano study in twenty-first century China. Clavier Companion, 5(2), 44– 50.
Montefiore, C. S. (2014). Why piano-mania grips China’s children. BBC News, October 21, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20131022-piano-mania-grips-china.
National Association of School of Music (NASM) (2017). NASM Handbook 2016-17. Reston, VA: National Association of School of Music.
Peng, S. (2016). Chinese and American beginning piano pedagogy: a comparison of approaches (Masters’ thesis, San Francisco State University). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.calstate.edu/handle/10211.3/173420
Roulston, K. (2014). Conducting and analyzing individual interview. In C.Conway (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education (250–270). Oxford University Press.
Seidman, I. (2014). Interviewing as Qualitative Research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Shen, D. (2016). A survey of parent, student, and teacher attitudes about perceived parental involvement in Chinese and American private piano lessons. (Masters’ thesis, University of Toledo). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:toledo1470413687
Scalfari, S. C. (1999). The Bachelor of Music degree in Performance: An analysis of degree purpose, curriculum structure, and practicality for orchestral instrumentalists in the classical field (D.A. dissertation, University of Northern Colorado). Retrieved from https://search-
116 proquest- com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/dissertations/docview/304514049/abstract/513618752289454FPQ/3
Sun, Y. (2012). The cross-cultural influence of the formation and evolution of piano pedagogy at the Shanghai Conservatory of Music (D.M.A. dissertation, City University of New York) Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/dissertations/docview/936122003/abstract/9324F707A56F4713PQ/1 0
Tanner, M. (2016). The Mindful Pianist. London, Faber Music Publishing Services.
Wakin, D. J. (2007, Apr. 4). Increasingly in the West, the players are from the East. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/arts/music/04clas.html
Wang, G. (2009). Interlopers in the realm of high culture: “music moms” and the performance of Asian and Asian American identities. American Quarterly, 61(4), 881–903. doi.org/10.1353/aq.0.0114
Welcome to NASM. (n.d.). Retrieve from: https://nasm.arts-accredit.org
Williams, K. (2002). Cross-cultural communication in the music studio. American Music Teacher, 52(1), 23.
Xu, K. (2001). Piano teaching in China during the twentieth century (D.M.A. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/dissertations/docview/276150564/abstract/C9E85933EAAB47ACP Q/3
Yang, M. (2009). Musicians from a different shore: Asians and Asian Americans in classical music. Popular Music & Society, 32(2), 293–295. doi.org/10.1080/03007760802703351
Yang, L. (2015). Pedagogy and materials for teaching piano to children in China and the United States (Masters’ thesis, The University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/dissertations/docview/1691327406/abstract/DB8175 EA429A4762PQ/4
117 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
EDUCATIONAL SUMMARY Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA Ph.D. in Music Education-Piano Pedagogy (2019)
Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, USA Master of Music in Piano Pedagogy (2015)
Capital Normal University, Beijing, China Bachelor of Art in Music Education-Piano Performance (2013)
TEACHING EXPERIENCE Florida State University College of Music, Tallahassee, FL Graduate Teaching Assistant: 2016-2019
Texas Christian University Music Preparatory Division, Fort Worth, TX Piano Instructor: 2015-2016
Tarrant County College, Fort Worth, TX Adjunct faculty: 2015-2016
Texas Christian University School of Music, Fort Worth, TX Graduate Teaching Assistant: 2013-2015
118