PRISMA音乐实践研究综述

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 0 MUSIC
Ee Ran How, Leonard Tan, Peter Miksza
{"title":"PRISMA音乐实践研究综述","authors":"Ee Ran How, Leonard Tan, Peter Miksza","doi":"10.1177/10298649211005531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We employed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) method to systematically review research on music practice from 1928 until June 2020 and identified a total of 3,102 records using our inclusion criteria, of which a total of 296 were eventually selected for the final analysis. We tabulated percentages and frequencies of (a) publications in ten-year periods, (b) type of publications, (c) sampling by geographical location, (d) methodologies used, (e) the top tenth percentile of the most highly cited research, and (f) topics covered. Our analyses reveal that particularly strong growth occurred in the literature between 2000 and 2020. In the literature we retrieved, the most commonly sampled research participants were those in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom and Australia. Quantitative research designs were most prevalent, accounting for two-thirds of all studies reviewed (66.2%), with questionnaires and recordings being the most common methods of data collection. Non-empirical papers (17.5%) as well as studies incorporating qualitative (13.5%) and mixed-methods designs (3.1%) were much less prevalent. Ericsson et al.’s (1993) seminal study of deliberate practice, Driskell et al.’s (1994) review of the research literature on mental practice, and Sloboda et al.’s (1996) study of young musicians were by far the most often cited. Overall, the most common topics addressed were deliberate practice, practice strategies, mental practice, the benefits of practice, metacognition, self-regulation, and self-efficacy, suggesting that music practice is a rich, multifaceted, and complex activity. In light of the findings, recommendations for practice and implications for future research are provided.","PeriodicalId":47219,"journal":{"name":"Musicae Scientiae","volume":"1 1","pages":"675 - 697"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A PRISMA review of research on music practice\",\"authors\":\"Ee Ran How, Leonard Tan, Peter Miksza\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10298649211005531\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We employed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) method to systematically review research on music practice from 1928 until June 2020 and identified a total of 3,102 records using our inclusion criteria, of which a total of 296 were eventually selected for the final analysis. We tabulated percentages and frequencies of (a) publications in ten-year periods, (b) type of publications, (c) sampling by geographical location, (d) methodologies used, (e) the top tenth percentile of the most highly cited research, and (f) topics covered. Our analyses reveal that particularly strong growth occurred in the literature between 2000 and 2020. In the literature we retrieved, the most commonly sampled research participants were those in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom and Australia. Quantitative research designs were most prevalent, accounting for two-thirds of all studies reviewed (66.2%), with questionnaires and recordings being the most common methods of data collection. Non-empirical papers (17.5%) as well as studies incorporating qualitative (13.5%) and mixed-methods designs (3.1%) were much less prevalent. Ericsson et al.’s (1993) seminal study of deliberate practice, Driskell et al.’s (1994) review of the research literature on mental practice, and Sloboda et al.’s (1996) study of young musicians were by far the most often cited. Overall, the most common topics addressed were deliberate practice, practice strategies, mental practice, the benefits of practice, metacognition, self-regulation, and self-efficacy, suggesting that music practice is a rich, multifaceted, and complex activity. In light of the findings, recommendations for practice and implications for future research are provided.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47219,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Musicae Scientiae\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"675 - 697\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Musicae Scientiae\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10298649211005531\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"MUSIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musicae Scientiae","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10298649211005531","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

我们采用PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)方法系统地回顾了1928年至2020年6月之间的音乐实践研究,并根据我们的纳入标准确定了总共3102张唱片,其中共有296张最终被选中进行最终分析。我们列出了(a)十年期间的出版物的百分比和频率,(b)出版物类型,(c)按地理位置抽样,(d)使用的方法,(e)被引用最多的研究的前10%,以及(f)涵盖的主题。我们的分析显示,在2000年至2020年期间,文学作品出现了特别强劲的增长。在我们检索的文献中,最常见的抽样研究参与者是美国人,其次是英国和澳大利亚。定量研究设计最为普遍,占所有研究的三分之二(66.2%),问卷调查和录音是最常见的数据收集方法。非实证论文(17.5%)以及结合定性研究(13.5%)和混合方法设计(3.1%)的研究要少得多。Ericsson et al.(1993)对刻意练习的开创性研究,Driskell et al.(1994)对心理练习研究文献的回顾,以及Sloboda et al.(1996)对年轻音乐家的研究是迄今为止最常被引用的。总的来说,最常见的主题是刻意练习、练习策略、心理练习、练习的好处、元认知、自我调节和自我效能,这表明音乐练习是一项丰富、多方面和复杂的活动。根据研究结果,提出了实践建议和对未来研究的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A PRISMA review of research on music practice
We employed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) method to systematically review research on music practice from 1928 until June 2020 and identified a total of 3,102 records using our inclusion criteria, of which a total of 296 were eventually selected for the final analysis. We tabulated percentages and frequencies of (a) publications in ten-year periods, (b) type of publications, (c) sampling by geographical location, (d) methodologies used, (e) the top tenth percentile of the most highly cited research, and (f) topics covered. Our analyses reveal that particularly strong growth occurred in the literature between 2000 and 2020. In the literature we retrieved, the most commonly sampled research participants were those in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom and Australia. Quantitative research designs were most prevalent, accounting for two-thirds of all studies reviewed (66.2%), with questionnaires and recordings being the most common methods of data collection. Non-empirical papers (17.5%) as well as studies incorporating qualitative (13.5%) and mixed-methods designs (3.1%) were much less prevalent. Ericsson et al.’s (1993) seminal study of deliberate practice, Driskell et al.’s (1994) review of the research literature on mental practice, and Sloboda et al.’s (1996) study of young musicians were by far the most often cited. Overall, the most common topics addressed were deliberate practice, practice strategies, mental practice, the benefits of practice, metacognition, self-regulation, and self-efficacy, suggesting that music practice is a rich, multifaceted, and complex activity. In light of the findings, recommendations for practice and implications for future research are provided.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Musicae Scientiae
Musicae Scientiae Multiple-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: MUSICAE SCIENTIAE is the trilingual journal, official organ of ESCOM, published with the financial support of the Belgian Science Policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信