Music Computing Group Department of Computing and Communications Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and Technology The Open University Learning to use melodic similarity and contrast for narrative using a Digital Tabletop Musical Interface Author: Supervisors: Andrea Franceschini Dr Robin Laney BSc, MSc (Università degli Studi di Padova) Mr Chris Dobbyn Examiners: Prof. Eduardo Reck Miranda Prof. Marian Petre Plymouth University, UK The Open University, UK A thesis submitted in partial fullfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Submitted: 18 September 2015 Examined: 10 December 2015 Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Terminology . 4 1.2. Education support tools . 4 1.3. Aim of this thesis . 5 1.4. Thesis roadmap . 7 2. Literature Review 9 2.1. Tangible User Interfaces . 9 2.1.1. Problem solving, planning, simulation . 10 2.1.2. Tangible programming . 11 2.1.3. Presenting information . 12 2.1.4. Music . 15 2.1.5. TUIs in music education . 17 2.2. Digital tabletop musical instruments for music education . 20 2.2.1. Collaboration . 20 2.2.2. Concreteness . 21 2.3. Summary . 22 3. Methodology 25 3.1. A mixed-methods exploratory approach . 25 3.1.1. Validity . 26 3.1.2. Volume and scalability . 27 3.2. Data collection and analysis . 28 3.2.1. Data Collection . 28 3.2.2. Data analysis . 30 3.2.3. Ethical issues . 40 3.3. Pilot study . 42 3.3.1. Prototype design . 43 iii Contents 3.3.2. Tabletop activities . 44 3.3.3. Handling of participants . 46 3.3.4. Protocol . 47 3.3.5. Findings . 49 3.3.6. Lessons learned . 61 3.4. A tabletop musical application . 62 3.4.1. Software as a research tool . 62 3.4.2. Hardware platform . 63 3.4.3. Software platform . 63 4. Study 1: A study of melodic contour 69 4.1. Melodic contour . 69 4.2. Research question . 70 4.2.1. Forms of evidence . 71 4.3. Study design . 74 4.3.1. Protocol . 75 4.3.2. Handling of participants . 80 4.4. Methodology . 81 4.4.1. Video recordings . 81 4.4.2. Feedback questionnaire . 81 4.4.3. Thematic analysis for usability . 82 4.4.4. Thematic analysis for familiarity with contour . 83 4.5. Findings . 84 4.5.1. Demographics . 84 4.5.2. Feedback questionnaires . 88 4.5.3. Usability analysis . 89 4.5.4. Thematic analysis . 93 4.6. Discussion . 102 4.7. Conclusion . 103 5. Study 2: A study of similarity and contrast 105 5.1. Narrative as a way to compose music . 105 5.1.1. Narrative in music . 107 5.1.2. Similarity and contrast . 109 iv Contents 5.1.3. Summary . 112 5.2. Research Question . 112 5.2.1. Forms of evidence . 113 5.3. Study Design . 115 5.3.1. Protocol . 115 5.3.2. Configuration of the DTMI . .120 5.3.3. Handling of participants . 120 5.4. Methodology . 121 5.4.1. Listening and classification exercise . 121 5.4.2. Video recordings . 122 5.4.3. Feedback questionnaire . 123 5.4.4. Thematic analysis for the use of the DTMI as discussion mediator and exploration support tool . 123 5.4.5. Thematic analysis for the use of similarity and contrast in describing and suggesting narrative in melody . 124 5.4.6. Storytelling melodies . 125 5.5. Findings . 125 5.5.1. Demographics . 126 5.5.2. Feedback questionnaire . 126 5.5.3. Usability . 129 5.5.4. Thematic analysis . 132 5.5.5. Storytelling exercise . 153 5.6. Discussion . 168 5.6.1. Designing DTMI-supported learning sessions . 168 5.6.2. Criteria for similarity and contrast in melody . 170 5.6.3. Composing music with narrative . 171 5.6.4. Limitations . 172 5.7. Conclusion . 172 6. Study 3: A group study of similarity and contrast 175 6.1. A Computer-Supported Collaborative Music approach . 175 6.2. Research Question . 176 6.2.1. Forms of evidence . 177 v Contents 6.3. Study design . 178 6.3.1. Protocol . 179 6.3.2. Configuration of the DTMI . .180 6.3.3. Handling of participants . 181 6.4. Methodology . 181 6.4.1. Video recordings . 181 6.4.2. Revised feedback questionnaire . 182 6.4.3. Thematic analysis of the feedback questionnaire . .182 6.4.4. Thematic analysis for collaboration . .183 6.4.5. Storytelling melodies . 184 6.5. Findings . 186 6.5.1. Demographics . 187 6.5.2. Feedback questionnaire . 189 6.5.3. Analysis of the discussions . 200 6.5.4. Storytelling exercise . 210 6.6. Discussion . 218 6.6.1. Performance in music composition . 218 6.7. Conclusion . 221 7. Conclusions 231 7.1. Research question revisited . 231 7.2. Theoretical, methodological, and practical implications . .234 7.2.1. Theoretical implications . 234 7.2.2. Methodological implications . 236 7.2.3. Practical outcome . 236 7.3. Lessons learned . 236 7.3.1. Actionable insights . 237 7.4. Future work . 238 7.4.1. Shared vs private use . 239 7.4.2. Public settings . 239 7.4.3. Longitudinal study of students’ performances . 240 References 241 vi Contents A. Methodology materials 255 A.1. Tabletop hardware . 255 A.2. Pilot study . 257 A.3. Application logs for the DTMI used in studies 1-3 . 261 B. Study 1 materials 263 B.1. Software . 263 B.2. Forms . ..