Virtual Teaching in the Applied String Studio During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

The purpose of this survey study was to describe technologies and lesson formats used in virtual applied studio string lessons precipitated by shelter-in-place measures taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to explore teachers’ adaptations, perceptions of effectiveness, and feelings toward virtual lessons. Research questions that guided this study included the following: (a) What technologies and lesson formats did teachers use in virtual applied string lessons? (b) How did teachers adapt their teaching approaches to virtual lessons? (c) Did teachers feel these lessons were effective? and (d) What affective responses did teachers have to these lessons? Data were gathered from members of the American String Teachers Association (ASTA; N = 301) who self-identified as “private studio teachers” in their online profiles. Findings illustrate what equipment and technology participants employed in virtual lessons. They also indicated a relatively high rating of participants’ self-perceived effectiveness when teaching virtual lessons and that studio teachers had mixed affective responses to the experience. Participants indicated difficulties when teaching tone in the virtual format, which was consistent with their open-ended responses that frequently cited poor sound quality online.

Distance education, “a method of teaching where the student and teacher are physically separated” has evolved alongside technological advancements from audio recordings, radio, television, computers, and the internet (Kentnor, 2015, p. 22). In a review of music correspondence courses that became popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Vogel (2015) found that many correspondence schools offered lessons in instrumental music in addition to music theory, history, and teacher education courses. With the birth of recording technology, it became possible to expand the scope of distance music education. For example, in 1913, the Victor Talking Machine Company (RCA Victor Recordings) produced the first edition of the music appreciation text What We Hear in Music with accompanying recordings (Volk, 2007). Radio programming was also specifically created to educate the general public (e.g., Howe, 2003) and school children (e.g., Cooper, 2005) beginning in the 1920s. Between 1958 and 1972, Leonard Bernstein educated the public about music through the medium of television with his Young Peoples Concerts (Rozen, 1991). The Iowa Communications Network, a fiberoptic cable system, allowed the University of Northern Iowa to offer distance education courses using real-time videoconferencing as early as 1993 (Gordon, 2002).

As the internet became ubiquitous, both synchronous (i.e., instruction happening in real time in the digital space) and asynchronous (i.e., instructional materials provided in the digital space for students to access at their convenience) forms of distance education increased in prominence. From 1992 to 2009, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation granted 75 million dollars toward Asynchronous Learning Networks, aimed at expanding the reach of education (Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, n.d.).

Asynchronous music teaching and learning can take many forms. For example, Seddon and Biasutti (2009) explored how three participants learned to improvise a 12-bar blues in an asynchronous environment that involved prerecorded lessons and material along with email correspondence from the instructor. Participants engaged in various activities such as “instruction,” “practicing,” and “performing” (p. 197), and the results revealed all participants were successful in the learning task. When Hanson (2018) utilized three expert instructors’ ratings to evaluate YouTube tutorials for beginning instrumental instruction, he found a trend in videos advertised as “first lessons.” They were overly advanced and included little or no evidence of activities that might foster musicality. Kruse and Veblen (2012) also examined instrumental instructional videos on YouTube, and while they did not evaluate musicality, 73% of videos included the teaching of technique. Their findings supported Hanson’s (2018) assertion that video tutorials tend to have utilitarian qualities and are most ideal to teach basic concepts or skills.

A number of researchers previously examined applied studio lessons taught with videoconferencing technology. In a study of six middle school instrumental students taught virtually over an 8-week period, Dye (2014) found verbal interactions between students and teachers increased as compared with research on interactions during in-person lessons. Dye noted the quality of video and audio are integral factors in the success of online lessons and that teachers with a flexible instructional approach are more likely to succeed. Kruse et al. (2013) conducted a case study using Skype and midi keyboard technology where they conduct piano lessons remotely. The authors found that lessons felt natural to the student and teacher, although findings may be skewed due to participants working together in person prior to the study. In a study that compared in-person and online sight reading lessons for young piano students, Pike and Shoemaker (2013) found that virtual lessons were as effective as in-person lessons and that students participating in virtual lessons demonstrated greater levels of independence.

Because applied studio lessons have traditionally involved face-to-face meetings, some teachers or other stakeholders might question the feasibility or effectiveness of distance education in this context. Participant opinions in Pike’s (2017) case study of piano pedagogy students are illustrative. Pedagogy students who engaged in a service-learning project where they taught underserved students piano using Skype and midi-keyboard technology began the study feeling that piano lessons could only be taught in person. However, their perceptions had shifted by the end of the study. Pike posits that these initial opinions were influenced by a lack of experience with the medium. Participants had not encountered music instruction through videoconferencing technology in their own lives prior to this experience. However, not all stakeholders agree. Daugvilaite (2021) found that while teachers were generally content with teaching online, students and parents preferred in-person lessons. In contrast to Pike’s (2017) findings, Murdaugh et al. (2020) found that a sample of 387 vocal pedagogues were only moderately satisfied with teaching online, indicating a general consensus among this population that virtual teaching is not a sufficient replacement for in-person vocal lessons. Other limitations to teaching music online cited in research include sound and video quality (e.g., Dye, 2014; Gordon, 2002), latency (e.g., King et al., 2019; Kruse et al., 2013), and an inability to communicate musical nuance through the digital space (Dye, 2014; Hanson, 2018). Advantages include the potential to reach underserved populations (Pike, 2017), and convenience, especially for in-service teachers with less flexibility in their schedules (Kruse et al., 2013).

Research Context

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Novel Coronavirus (2019nCoV) a public health emergency (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020). The New York Times reported that Seattle’s North Shore School District was the first to take instruction fully online on March 8, 2020 (Weise, 2020), and many other school districts followed. As schools implemented distance learning programs to slow the spread of the virus, applied studio string teachers followed suit, with the ASTA Connect (https://community.astastrings.org/home) discussion board inundated with posts about ideas for teaching online, equipment suggestions, and Zoom audio settings. Articles for practicing teachers began to emerge, and they provided resources and ideas for applied studio virtual lessons (e.g., Aaberg, 2020; Brown, 2020; Herzog, 2021) and virtual ensemble rehearsals (e.g., Cayari, 2021; Goodman, 2020; Schnerer & Hopkins, 2021).

Findings from recent research describe positive and negative aspects of virtual music teaching and learning in response to shelter-in-place measures that were implemented to slow the spread of COVID-19. Positive findings include participant gratitude for the continued ability to teach and learn during this emergency situation (Murdaugh et al., in press; Salvador et al., 2021), educator learning opportunities, particularly in relation to new technology (Joseph & Lennox, 2021), student–teacher collaboration and connection (de Bruin, 2021), and increased student motivation to practice as a result of sheltering-in-place (Daugvilaite, 2021). In some cases, researchers noticed that introverted or anxious students become more engaged or outgoing in virtual environments (Joseph & Lennox, 2021; Salvador et al., 2021). Negative findings relate to a lack of community (Cumberledge, 2021), difficulty providing material to students such as instruments that would be available in a traditional classroom (Joseph & Lennox, 2021), the inability to provide physical corrections for students (Daugvilaite, 2021; Salvador et al., 2021), and stakeholders’ preferences for in-person lessons (Daugvilaite, 2021; Murdaugh et al., in press; Salvador et al., 2021). As is the case in pre-COVID literature, technology failures such as poor connections and latency (Salvador et al., 2021) or technology limitations, especially sound quality (Murdaugh et al., in press), were discussed.

Studies generated by the COVID-19 pandemic have explored teacher adaptations to the virtual environment. For example, Hash (2021) examined the practices and experiences of elementary and secondary band directors in the spring of 2020 and found a preference for small group and private instruction as compared with large group synchronous instruction, a shift in evaluation practices to increased peer-feedback and self-reflection, and that “maintaining students’ wellbeing” (p. 392) was a priority for directors. Joseph and Lennox (2021) employed a narrative approach to explore their own teaching practices in an elementary general music setting and collegiate setting. They adjusted instruction to use household objects rather than instruments, found online “instruments” for their students to use, pre-recorded instructional videos, and designed community-building practices such as virtual recitals and a talent show.

Hash (2021) pointed out that a mandatory shift to remote learning precipitated by a global pandemic is not representative of remote learning for voluntary reasons. Similarly, the current study investigates the experience private studio string teachers encountered when confronted with the mandatory shift to remote learning. While some findings are corroborated with previous research conducted in a voluntary setting and might inform future private studio string teachers who engage in remote teaching on their own accord, the current study is presented through the lens of the compulsory, emergency environment brought about by the pandemic.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this survey study was to describe technologies and lesson formats used in virtual applied studio string lessons precipitated by shelter-in-place measures taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to explore teachers’ adaptations, perceptions of effectiveness, and feelings toward virtual lessons. Research questions that guided this study included:

• Research Question 1: What technologies and lesson formats did teachers use in virtual applied string lessons?

• Research Question 2: How did teachers adapt their teaching approaches to virtual lessons?

• Research Question 3: Did teachers feel these lessons were effective?

• Research Question 4: What affective responses did teachers have to these lessons?

Method

Questionnaire

Due to the unprecedented nature of widespread virtual-format private studio teaching, there were no research instruments available to adapt at the time of this study in the summer of 2020. To accommodate this, I created a questionnaire aimed at answering the research questions outlined earlier. I distributed the first draft of the questionnaire along with the purpose and research questions to a panel of expert studio instructors (N = 4) of double bass, cello, harp, and violin/viola. Panel members’ teaching experience ranged between 10 and 20 years, and they reported working with beginning through advanced students. One panelist had a bachelor’s degree, one had a doctoral degree, and two had master’s degrees. Panelists were affiliated with professional organizations such as the American String Teachers Association (ASTA), the Suzuki Association of the Americas, National Association for Music Education (NAfME), and Music Teachers National Association (MTNA). These individuals had the opportunity to provide comments on each question and provide general feedback about the questionnaire. Their feedback led to a revision that enabled age-specific responses to some questions by repeating questions for various age groups. In addition, the expert panel recommended more questions relating to teachers’ access to technology. After incorporating this initial feedback, a second draft of the survey instrument was deployed to a pilot sample (N = 13) of private studio string teachers to determine if there were any unclear questions or other concerns. As there were no further recommendations, this draft of the questionnaire was deployed to the participant sample in the current study. All versions of the questionnaire were distributed through the cloud-based survey tool Qualtrics (2020).

A complete copy of the questionnaire is available in Supplementary Appendix A. Questionnaire items fell into five groups: (a) virtual technologies and lesson formats, (b) teacher adaptations, (c) perceived lesson effectiveness, (d) teacher affective responses, and (e) demographic information. Items aiming to determine virtual technologies and lesson formats gathered information about software (e.g., Zoom, Facetime), hardware (e.g., laptop, external microphone), rating of participants’ internet connection, and descriptions of asynchronous activities, if applicable (e.g., reviewing student performance videos or creating instructional videos). Items relating to teacher adaptations were evaluated with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and were phrased, “Considering all of the students that you taught, please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.” Those statements related to adaptation of teaching strategy, increased teacher creativity, and increased comfort with experience. Also using the same 5-point Likert-type scale, another group of statements was used to determine participants’ adaptability to and comfort with technology. To understand participants’ perceived teaching effectiveness, two groups of statements were employed. The first related to aspects of teaching (i.e., physical technique, musical concepts, tone production), and the second related to students’ reception of the lessons (i.e., perceived cooperation, attention, and frustration). These questions were repeated for the following age groups: 5 or younger, 6 to 10, 11 to 13, 14 to 17, and 18+ and were preceded by a screening question that allowed participants who did not teach a particular age group to skip ahead. Finally, to understand any affective responses, participants were asked to describe any positive or negative experiences they had while teaching virtual lessons during the COVID-19 pandemic in a text box with no character limit.

Sampling and Participants

After receiving IRB approval through my institution, I gathered data representative of applied studio string teachers who teach young students through adults. I obtained these data by sampling the American String Teachers Association’s (ASTA) membership and contacting members who self-identified their primary profession as “private studio teachers” in their ASTA membership profiles. ASTA sent an email on my behalf in August 2020 describing this research project and inviting these individuals to participate by completing the questionnaire. A follow-up email was sent by ASTA 1 week later.

ASTA sent the first email invitation to 2,454 email addresses associated with their private studio membership. Of these, 1,307 individuals did not open the email, and 95 emails bounced or were undeliverable. A total of 1,052 emails were opened, and 214 individuals clicked on the link to access the questionnaire. The following week, ASTA sent invitation emails to 2,457 email addresses. The number of emails sent the second time was slightly higher due to new members joining ASTA or additional members opting to receive email correspondences from ASTA. Of these, 1,402 individuals did not open the email, and 67 emails bounced or were undeliverable. A total of 988 emails were opened, and 122 individuals clicked the link to access the questionnaire. Once the questionnaire was closed for responses several weeks later, 301 individuals had responded to the questionnaire. Given the total possible individuals contacted, the response rate was 12.25%. However, if only the number of emails opened is considered, the response rate rose to 30.46%.

Two filtering questions were included at the beginning of the questionnaire to ensure that participants were private studio string teachers and that they taught virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first question required a yes/no response to “Do you teach private string lessons? (Please be aware that selecting ‘No’ will end the survey, since the remaining questions deal with private string teaching).” Three hundred fifteen individuals answered “yes” to this question. To determine whether participants were taught virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic, participants were asked to respond yes/no to the question,

Virtual lessons are defined as lessons taught remotely using digital technology, rather than in-person. During the COVID-19 pandemic, did you teach private lessons virtually for any period of time? (Please be aware that selecting “No” will end the survey, since the remaining questions deal with virtual, online teaching).

Seven participants answered “no” on this question, 7 dropped out, and 301 participants completed the additional questionnaire items. More than one-third of participants (n = 115, 38.21%) indicated that they had some experience teaching virtually prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic, while more than half of the participants (n = 186, 61.79%) did not teach virtually until stay at home orders were imposed to control the spread of the virus.

The sample included teachers of violin (n = 207, 68.77%), viola (n = 144, 47.84%), cello (n = 106, 35.22%), “other” (n = 25, 8.31%), double bass (n = 22, 7.31%), harp (n = 8, 2.66%), and guitar (n = 6, 1.99%). Participants who selected “other” indicated that they taught bass guitar, chamber music, hardanger fiddle, mandolin, piano, viola da gamba, and ʻukulele. One hundred fifty-five participants indicated they taught more than one instrument, with the most frequent overlap being teachers of both violin and viola (n = 93).

Participants (n = 275) ¹ indicated their age group as 18 to 29 (n = 15, 5.45%), 30 to 39 (n = 40, 14.55%), 40 to 49 (n = 43, 15.64%), 50 to 59 (n = 60, 21.82%), 60 to 69 (n = 89, 32.36%), 70 to 79 (n = 22, 8.00%), or 80 or above (n = 6, 2.18%). The majority of participants self-reported earning a master’s degree as their highest level of education (n = 147, 53.60%), followed by a bachelor’s degree (n = 68, 24.80%), doctoral degree (n = 38, 13.90 %), high school diploma (n = 3, 1.10%), and “other” (n = 18, 6.60%). Participants who indicated “other” generally provided details relating to incomplete or equivalent degrees.

Participants’ teaching loads ranged between 1 and 70 students on a weekly basis (M = 17.88, SD = 12.29). Most participants taught between 1 and 10 students (n = 104, 34.55%) or 11 and 20 students (n = 106, 35.22%). While a portion of participants reported teaching 21 to 30 students (n = 50, 16.61%) and 31 to 40 students (n = 28, 9.30%), far fewer taught 41 to 50 students (n = 9, 2.99%) or more than 50 students (n = 4, 1.33%). Participants indicated that they worked with students aged 5 and younger (n = 68, 23.84%); 6 to 10 years old (n = 220, 76.91%); 11 to 13 years old (n = 255, 90.13%); 14 to 17 years old (n = 233, 84.77%); and 18 or older (n = 173, 62.92%).

Data Analysis

I downloaded the dataset from the Qualtrics platform as an Excel file and ran statistics using a combination of Microsoft Excel and version 1.6 of Jamovi (2021). To analyze open-ended responses, I employed descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2016) to summarize data and created a code book using Taguette. Open-ended response items that provided information relating to teaching logistics, teacher adaptation, and perceived lesson effectiveness were used to corroborate quantitative data. Other responses illustrated participants’ affective responses to teaching virtual private studio string lessons.

Results

Virtual Technologies and Lesson Formats

Questionnaire responses indicated that participants engaged in both synchronous and asynchronous activities when teaching virtual applied studio string lessons. Most participants (n = 229, 76.12%) indicated that they taught students synchronously, followed by a combination of synchronous and asynchronous teaching (n = 64, 21.34%); participants who selected “other” (n = 4, 1.40%) simply clarified the particular combination of synchronous and asynchronous teaching they employed. A small number of participants indicated they exclusively taught asynchronously (n = 4, 1.31%).

Participants were invited to indicate the various platforms they used for virtual teaching through open-ended responses where they typed their answers. The most frequently mentioned platform for synchronous teaching was Zoom (n = 235, 78.07%), followed by Facetime (n = 159, 52.82%), and Skype (n = 95, 31.56%). Many teachers indicated they used more than one platform, with one teacher stating in this open-response questionnaire item, “Whatever platform the student chose or preferred!”

Two hundred seventy-eight participants indicated they engaged in some form of asynchronous teaching interaction (see Table 1). These included student-created videos (n = 147, 52.87%), teacher-created videos (n = 124, 44.60%), teacher-created audio recordings (n = 117, 42.08%), third-party instructional videos (n = 88, 31.65%), and audio recordings (n = 78, 28.05%) from sources such as YouTube and shared documents (e.g., PDFs of music, assignments; n = 242, 87.05%). Participants who selected “other” provided further details on how they interacted with students asynchronously, mainly with clarifying statements (e.g., “I sent practice assignments after each lesson via email”). Additional write-in items included providing students with online resources such as music theory websites and online tuners as well as engaging in community-based events such as virtual recitals and group classes.

Table 1.

Asynchronous Teaching Activities (N = 278).

Category	N	%
Student-created videos	147	52.87
Teacher-created videos	124	44.60
Teacher-created audio	117	42.08
Third-party videos	88	31.65
Third-party audio	78	28.05
Documents	242	87.05

Note. As a “check all that apply” question, percentages add up to more than 100.

Participants (n = 283) indicated the hardware that they employed when teaching. The most frequently reported technology included internet connection via wireless router (n = 223, 82.33%), laptop computer (n = 205, 72.43%), smartphone (n = 160, 56.53%), and iPad or tablet (n = 136, 48.05%). One hundred eighteen participants (41.69%) indicated that they used an external microphone. Additional equipment mentioned by participants who indicated “other” included speakers, headphones, and lighting. Participants also rated their internet connection in the location where they teach as excellent (n = 130, 47.32%), good (n = 121, 44.03%), fair (n = 22, 8.31%), or poor (n = 2, 0.7.04%). While it would be interesting to see if geographic location (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural) correlated with participants’ rating of internet connection, I did not gather this data for the present study.

Teacher Adaptation

To assess perceived adaptation to virtual lessons, participants were asked to complete a series of questions that began “Considering all of the students that you taught, please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements” using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Responses were generally positive, with more than half falling into the “strongly agree” or “agree” level, except for the negatively worded statement “I had a difficult time adapting to virtual lessons.” When indicating their level of agreement with, “I adapted my teaching strategies to accommodate virtual lessons,” 50.01% of participants strongly agreed (n = 137), 42.18% agreed (n = 116), 4.74% neither agreed nor disagreed (n = 13), 1.45% disagreed (n = 4), and 1.45% strongly disagreed (n = 4). To “I became a more creative teacher when I worked with students virtually,” 38.67% strongly agreed (n = 82), 41.51% agreed (n = 88), 14.15% were neutral (n = 30), 5.78% disagreed (n = 7), and 1.65% strongly disagreed (n = 5). Nearly half of the participants (n = 121, 44.04%) indicated that they strongly agreed with the statement, “I become more comfortable teaching virtual lessons as I gained more experience.” In addition, 42.54% (n = 117) indicated they agreed, 8.72% (n = 24) neither agreed nor disagreed, 3.27% (n = 8) disagreed, and 1.81% (n = 5) disagreed. When asked if “I had a difficult time adapting to virtual lessons,” 14 (7.82%) strongly agreed with the statement, 117 (65.36%) agreed, 24 (13.40%) were neutral, 19 (10.61%) disagreed, and 5 (2.79%) strongly disagreed.

I ran Spearman’s rank-order correlations to examine the relationships between teachers’ perceptions of their adaptations of teaching strategies, increased creativity, and ease of adaptation. There were moderate positive significant correlations between ease of overall adaptation to the virtual environment and adaptation of teaching strategies, r_s = .542, n = 274, p < .001, increased teaching creativity and adaptation of teaching strategies, r_s = .457, n = 274, p < .001, and increased teaching creativity and ease of overall adaptation to the virtual environment, r_s = 0.611, n = 274, p < .001. The difficulty in overall adaptation to the virtual environment had a significant but very weak negative correlation to increased teaching creativity, r_s = −.209, n = 274, p < .001.

To examine possible relationships between adaptation to virtual teaching and comfort with technology, participants answered a series of 5-point Likert-type type questions about their use of and comfortability with technology (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The mean rating for the statement, “I avoid using technology when possible” was 2.32 (SD = 1.40), with more than half of respondents either strongly disagreeing (n = 62, 23%) or disagreeing (n = 113, 41%). The mean rating for the statement, “It is easy for me to adapt to technology that I have not used before” was 3.16 (SD = 1.00), with ratings fairly balanced between disagree (n = 71, 26%), neutral (n = 79, 29%), and agree (n = 94, 34%). The statement that received the highest mean rating (M = 3.85, SD = 0.88) was “There are some technologies that I adopted when teaching virtual lessons that I will continue to use when I can teach in person again,” with 51% (n = 140) indicating agreement and 21% (n = 58) indicating strong agreement.

Spearman’s rank-order correlations were run to examine the relationships between participants’ reported adaptations to the virtual teaching environment and their comfort with technology. A significant but weak negative correlation was found between difficulty adapting to the virtual environment and continued use of new technology once lessons could return to in-person, r_s = −.20, n = 274, p < .001. A weak significant positive correlation was found between adaptation of teaching strategies and continued use of new technology, r_s = .23, n = 274, p < .001. There was also a weak significant positive correlation between difficulty adapting to the virtual environment and discomfort with new technology, r_s = .27, n = 274, p < .001.

Lesson Effectiveness

Two sets of Likert-type questions with ratings from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) aimed to uncover teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of virtual lessons and were repeated for each of the following student age groups: 5 years or younger, 6 to 10, 11 to 13, 14 to 17, and 18 or older. The questions were worded in the following manner: “With your students age [range provided] in mind, please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.” The first set related to teaching successes, and included physical technique, basic musical concepts (e.g., notes and rhythms), expressive musical concepts (e.g., phrasing and dynamics), tone production, and practice strategies. The second set related to teachers’ perceptions of students’ experiences, and included cooperation, attention, frustration, adaptation, and fatigue.

Teachers’ perceived effectiveness

Participants’ ratings of their teaching effectiveness were generally positive across all age groups, with the most common mode of four (“agree”). Participants rated their teaching effectiveness most highly with the 14 to 17 and 18+ age groups, with a mode of 5 on some statements. The statement “I successfully taught basic musical concepts” received a mean score of 4.52, and the statement “I successfully taught practice strategies” received a mean score of 4.51 for the 14 to 17 age group. The 18+ age group received similar scores, with means of 4.36 and 4.40 on the same statements. For a complete presentation of descriptive statistics across these items and age groups, see Table 2.

Table 2.

Lesson Effectiveness: Teachers’ Perceived Effectiveness.

Item	n	M	Mode	SD
I successfully taught physical technique (e.g., posture) to my students virtually
5 or younger	68	3.56	4	1.03
6–10	216	3.76	4	0.91
11–13	247	4.04	4	0.82
14–17	233	4.22	4	0.74
18+	173	4.16	4	0.86
I successfully taught basic musical concepts (e.g., notes and rhythms) to my students virtually
5 or younger	68	4.04	4	0.92
6–10	216	4.30	4	0.71
11–13	247	4.37	4	0.71
14–17	233	4.52	5	0.62
18+	173	4.36	5	0.79
I successfully taught expressive musical concepts (e.g., phrasing, dynamics) to my students virtually
5 or younger	68	3.37	4	1.04
6–10	216	3.81	4	0.93
11–13	247	4.02	4	0.90
14–17	233	4.25	4	0.84
18+	173	4.03	4	1.01
I successfully taught tone production to my students virtually
5 or younger	68	3.31	4	1.11
6–10	216	3.37	4	1.11
11–13	247	3.53	4	1.13
14–17	233	3.73	4	1.14
18+	173	3.68	4	1.11
I successfully taught practice strategies to my students virtually
5 or younger	68	4.09	4	0.96
6–10	216	4.37	4	1.11
11–13	247	4.40	4	0.71
14–17	233	4.51	5	0.64
18+	173	4.40	5	0.78

Note. 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.

“I successfully taught tone production to my students virtually” received the lowest ratings across all age groups, with means ranging between 3.31 and 3.73 and standard deviations between 1.11 and 1.14. Descriptive codes for open-ended responses to the statements, “Describe any positive experiences” and “Describe any negative experiences” helped to corroborate this finding: The code “poor sound quality” occurred 86 times. As one participant illustrated, “The internet sound quality severely limits my ability to deal with tone and dynamics. I rely on visual cues to imagine the sound my students are making.”

Relatedly, “I successfully taught expressive musical concepts (e.g., phrasing, dynamics)” received relatively low mean ratings that ranged between 3.37 (5 years and younger) to 4.25 (14–17), although all age groups’ most frequently reported rating was 4 (agree). Participants pointed out that the sound quality needed to be sufficiently good to teach these elements, with one pointing out, “As soon as I realized it was not possible for me to assess tone quality, dynamics or phrasing, I just decided to focus on pitch accuracy, intonation, posture, etc.”

In the open-ended responses, the code “cannot play simultaneously” occurred 41 times. This related to the inability to play with students to help them with phrasing, and with the inability to accompany students with duets on their instruments, or with piano. For example, one participant wrote, “I miss playing with the students because there are non-verbal ways I can communicate musical ideas, especially when I can hear and respond to them.” Another pointed out, “I think it is important for students to understand the whole piece (how they fit in with the piano part) so it is frustrating to not have the option to accompany them.”

Another notably low rating occurred for the item, “I successfully taught physical technique (e.g., posture) to my students virtually” in the 5 or younger age group (n = 68, M = 3.56, SD = 1.03). Participants ratings of their perceived effectiveness with the 6 to 10 age group also had a relatively low mean rating of 3.76 (n = 216, SD = 0.96). This finding was also corroborated by open-ended responses, where the descriptive code “no pedagogical touch” was selected 30 times, and “difficult to work with younger students” occurred 28 times. Participants indicated in the open-ended responses that during in-person lessons they relied on physical corrections to teach basic posture, check for muscle tension, and teach vibrato. One participant wrote,

Despite my comfort with technology and the pros it brings in this situation, I still prefer to physically manipulate my students. I very much prefer to touch them and help them with technique physically. It is harder virtually, and with the younger children, requires even more parental instruction and guidance.

The highest mean rating for perceived teaching effectiveness of all age groups occurred for the item, “I successfully taught practice strategies to my students virtually,” with a range of 4.09 (5 and younger) to 4.51 (14–17). Open-ended response items revealed that participants felt that their students became more independent when studying virtually, with the code “increased student independence” selected 30 times. Participants cited students taking notes, counting measures, and marking their own music as examples of student independence. As one participant wrote, “They [students] are being more accountable to see, listen and assess their own practice sessions while taking charge of their own musical discoveries.” Another indicated, “Their [students’] toolbox of practice methods and their implementation went up over the sheltering from home time period.”

Teachers’ perceptions of student experiences

Mean ratings relating to participants’ perceptions of student cooperation, attention, and adaptation ranged from 3.46 (“My students seemed attentive during virtual lessons,” aged 5 or younger) to 4.61 (“My students seemed cooperative during virtual lessons,” aged 14–17). Mean ratings relating to participants’ perceptions of student frustration and fatigue ranged from 2.33 (“My students seemed frustrated during virtual lessons, aged 14–17) to 2.96 (“Over time, my students seemed to grow tired of virtual lessons,” aged 5 and younger). Standard deviations across this set of questions varied from 0.62 to 1.21. For a complete list of ratings across questions and age groups, see Table 3.

Table 3.

Lesson Effectiveness: Teachers’ Perceptions of Student Experiences.

Item	n	M	Mode	SD
My students seemed cooperative during virtual lessons
5 or younger	68	3.59	4	0.95
6–10	216	4.19	4	0.72
11–13	247	4.41	4	0.67
14–17	233	4.61	5	0.55
18+	173	4.60	5	0.62
My students seemed attentive during virtual lessons
5 or younger	68	3.46	4	1.01
6–10	216	3.96	4	0.86
11–13	247	4.26	4	0.76
14–17	233	4.48	5	0.66
18+	173	4.59	5	0.62
My students seemed frustrated during virtual lessons
5 or younger	68	2.76	2	1.02
6–10	216	2.66	2	0.96
11–13	247	2.59	2	1.06
14–17	233	2.33	2	1.04
18+	173	2.58	2	1.09
Over time, my students seemed to adapt to virtual lessons
5 or younger	68	3.87	4	0.96
6–10	216	4.07	4	0.77
11–13	247	4.12	4	0.83
14–17	233	4.25	4	0.73
18+	173	4.08	4	0.90
Over time, my students seemed to grow tired of virtual lessons
5 or younger	68	2.96	2	1.21
6–10	216	2.86	2	1.07
11–13	247	2.78	2	1.11
14–17	233	2.57	2	1.19
18+	173	2.73	2	1.19

Note. 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.

The lowest ratings occurred on negatively phrased questions. “My students seemed frustrated by virtual lessons” received a mode of two across all age groups, with participants perceiving their students 5 and younger as most frustrated (n = 68, M = 2.76, SD = 1.02) and students aged 14 to 17 as least frustrated (n = 233, M = 2.33, SD = 1.09). “Over time, my students seemed to grow tired of virtual lessons” also received a mode of two, with participants indicating that they believed that students ages 5 and younger were most tired (n = 28, M = 2.96, SD = 1.21) and students aged 14 to 17 were least tired (n = 233, M = 2.73, SD = 1.19).

“My students seemed cooperative during virtual lessons” received the highest mean ratings across age groups, ranging from the lowest perceived ratings for ages 5 or younger (n = 68, M = 3.59, SD = 0.95) to the highest for ages 14 to 17 (n = 233, M = 4.61, SD = 0.55). Ages 18+ also received a mode of five (n = 173, M = 4.60, SD = 0.62). Students aged 14 to 17 and 18+ also received a mode of five for the question, “My students seemed attentive during virtual lessons” (ages 14-17: n = 233, M = 4.48, SD = 0.66; ages 18+: n = 173, M = 4.59, SD = 0.62).

Notably, participants selected the code “increased student success” 54 times in the open-ended response section. A commonly cited reason related to increased practice time. Participants speculated this occurred due to the cancelation of other activities such as sports and because students had little else to do while sheltering in place at home.

Teacher Affect

Two optional questionnaire items provided insight into participants’ affective responses to teaching private studio string lessons virtually. “Can you describe any positive experiences that you had teaching virtual lessons during the COVID-19 pandemic?” received 214 responses, and “Can you describe any negative experiences that you had teaching virtual lessons during the COVID-19 pandemic?” received 228 responses.

Codes that related to positive experiences included “positive teacher emotion,” “human connection,” and “feeling valued.” I coded 21 responses with “positive teacher emotion.” Participants explicitly cited enjoyment (7), gratitude (7), happiness (2), and positivity (5). One participant indicated they were “glad to give the students something ‘normal’ to do.” Another wrote, “Everything is slower virtually. I dislike it intensely, but am so glad I can still teach and I’m always trying to be positive and uplifting to my students.” Another participant wrote, “I am so grateful to all the more experienced teachers who offered advice and tutorials online to help me and others transition to teaching all lessons online in a matter of days.”

I coded 26 participant comments as “human connection.” A participant indicated human connection as a primary positive experience with virtual teaching, writing, “The only good thing was having the chance to keep in touch and keeping the kids engaged and playing.” Some participants indicated the virtual format deepened their relationships with students. One wrote, “I think I am developing closer relationships with my younger students because they seem to really value interacting socializing with me at this time” while another indicated, “I also have had many great conversations about life/current issues with my students and we have connected more than ever.” In six instances, participants indicated that introverted or shy students spoke with them more in the virtual lesson format than they had in the traditional in-person format, allowing teachers to connect more easily.

In some cases, participants expressed they felt valued by their students, with the code “feeling valued” appearing 20 times. For example, “It’s very heartening to see that I still am valuable to my students, even when I’m stuck at home, sheltered in place” and, “I have been told that I am one of the highlights of her week.” Some participants described providing support beyond their duties as private studio teachers for students and their families. One participant wrote, “I felt like I could be a consistent presence in my students lives, someone they could talk to one on one when life was feeling frustrating” and, “[I] helped parents by leaving extra 10 mins at the end of each lesson to talk to parents and support them through this difficult time.”

The predominant code related to negative experiences was “frustration,” assigned to participants’ comments 28 times. Frustration related to technology issues (e.g., poor internet connections or poor sound quality), the inability to use specific teaching techniques (e.g., physical corrections or playing simultaneously with students), and personal frustration. For example, a participant wrote, “Extreme frustration on my side or my student’s side when the internet connection was bad.” Another wrote of physical corrections, “I am deeply frustrated that I cannot touch the students, cannot mold and guide their techniques. Words are almost impossible.” Other participants indicated personal frustration: “During normal times I have endless patience with my students. Teaching virtual lessons was much more tiring and I found myself getting frustrated fairly often which rarely happens in face-to-face lessons. This would leave me frustrated with myself.” Another wrote,

I hate to see them [students] zoning out or looking despondent, yet there’s little I can do about it. I believe my presence there with them is helpful, but I can’t solve the problem for them which is frustrating. Particularly seniors in high school in the spring of 2020 had a palpable depression problem. It was hard to know what to say to them.

Two participants indicated concern and discomfort arose from witnessing conflict in students’ homes. For example, a participant wrote, “Some households in complete disarray and I have an uncomfortable window into it (ex. spouses yelling at each other & not knowing I can hear but student knows I can hear it).” Another participant indicated,

I have also found it concerning that some of my students’ homes do not seem peaceful or quiet. For the most part, it’s manageable, but there have been two times where a father was yelling uncontrollably. It gives teachers a more intimate look into the kids’ home lives, which can be stressful. I’ve had to contemplate my mandatory reporter responsibilities a few times.

Discussion

With the present study, I aimed to uncover technologies and lesson formats, teacher adaptations, perceived lesson effectiveness, and affective responses to the mandatory shift to virtual private studio string teaching and learning precipitated by shelter-in-place measures implemented to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Considering this, the data presented here are not representative of voluntary virtual applied studio lessons in a non-emergency environment as described by previous research (Dye, 2014; King et al., 2019; Kruse et al., 2013; Pike, 2017).

Nearly all participants reported they met their students synchronously on video conferencing platforms, with the most frequently mentioned being Zoom, Facetime, and Skype. The platforms participants used align with those reported by applied studio vocal pedagogues in previous research (Murdaugh et al., in press). The routine use of synchronous teaching indicates that while the medium was different, participants endeavored to provide an equivalent educational experience to traditional in-person lessons for students. However, instructional strategies did shift: Roughly 20% of participants indicated that they also engaged in some form of asynchronous activity; that included providing digital assignment sheets, sheet music, instructional videos, or reviewing students’ performance videos.

The practice of reviewing students’ performance videos (“Students created videos for me to review later”) was an adaptation driven by the limitations of video conferencing technology. In the open-ended responses, some participants indicated this was to get around poor online sound quality or weak internet connections. This practice had both positive and negative aspects. Some comments indicated that providing feedback on student performance videos increased participants’ workload, a finding also noted by Joseph and Lennox (2021). Other comments indicated the act of creating such videos forced students to listen to themselves more closely or required multiple takes, which empowered student independence and caused a rapid improvement, which could contribute to the high frequency of the code “student progress.”

While many participants indicated they used an external microphone, poor sound quality was one of the issues participants cited as a point of frustration and an impetus for requiring student performance videos. The issue of sound quality may also relate to the relatively low ratings for the items, “I successfully taught tone production” and “I successfully taught musical concepts.” These findings are consistent with Murdaugh et al. (in press), where the ability to assess dynamics, resonance, and tone received the lowest ratings from participants. These results also emphasize that sound quality issues are a notable limitation for virtual lessons as compared with in-person lessons. As noted by Dye (2014), “there often is an inherent quality to live musical communication that cannot be broadcast or reproduced” (p. 169).

Many participants indicated they relied on playing simultaneously with their students or playing piano accompaniment parts when in-person. Because of latency that causes a delay in sound and prevents simultaneous playing, this teaching strategy was not used during virtual lessons. The challenge of latency in the current study is consistent with those noted in P. E. Riley (2009) and more recently in Daugvilaite’s (2021) case study on beginning and intermediate piano students who began studying virtually as a result of COVID-19. While latency issues have not been mitigated by technological advances at the time of this study, technology such as LOw LAtency (H. Riley et al., 2016) might be a better option than the more commonly used platforms of Zoom, Facetime, and Skype.

Participants’ inability to provide physical corrections to students negatively affected their perceptions of lesson effectiveness, a finding consistent with previous research in applied studio contexts (Daugvilaite, 2021; Salvador et al., 2021) and even in general music settings (Joseph & Lennox, 2021) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Teachers rated perceived lesson effectiveness items lowest when referring to their work with their youngest students (5 and younger and 6–10), and this could be related to the lack of physical correction. According to Küpers et al. (2014), physical correction is the lowest level in the instructional hierarchy because a student does not have to interpret words or musical gestures, a finding that they demonstrated in a case study looking at beginning applied studio Suzuki lessons. If the youngest students in the present study were also the least experienced, it is possible the lack of physical corrections made it more difficult for them to effectively learn.

While responses are generally positive toward adaptation, nearly half of the participants agreed that it was difficult to adapt. This indicates that participants acknowledged the difficulty associated with the shift in teaching format, regardless of the degree of ease to which they ultimately adapted. This finding is somewhat consistent with Pike (2017) where participants began the study feeling that traditional in-person lessons were the only effective medium but changed their opinions over the course of the 8-week study to become more positive toward the medium. However, unlike participants in Pike’s study, participants in the present study were also dealing with the stress of a global pandemic. Consequences of shelter-in-place measures such as isolation from friends and family or homeschooling children could certainly be a factor in adaptation but were not addressed in the present study.

The most frequently reported ratings relating to teachers’ perceived effectiveness were 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree). This suggests that while participants recognized the limitations of virtual lessons (e.g., tone quality, difficulty teaching musicality, unable to physically correct students), many participants in this sample felt they remained effective teachers in the virtual medium. Dye (2014) posits that teachers who do not adjust instruction to the particularities of the online environment might be less effective, while those who are comfortable with technology and flexible in how they deliver instruction might be more effective. The data in the present study suggest participants were comfortable with technology and/or with learning about new technology. Considering that more than half of participants in the present study were above the age of 50, this might challenge commonly held beliefs about the older generation’s limited understanding of technology, at least with this population.

The most frequently reported rating for positively worded questions relating to participants’ perceptions of student experiences were 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree). The most frequently reported rating for negatively worded questions was 2 (disagree). Considering the high frequency of the code “student progress,” this indicates that overall, participants also felt students had productive experiences studying online, despite the challenges mentioned in the open-ended responses. Student success in virtual lessons has been documented in previous research (e.g., Kruse et al., 2013; Pike, 2017). Future research, building on King et al. (2019), might employ an experiment and control group to carefully measure student success in virtual and in-person environments.

Participants expressed that they felt valued by their students within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because these were open-ended response items, it was not possible to correlate with quantitative data on participants’ perceived effectiveness. However, it is possible that feeling valued by or important to students inspired efficacy beliefs that increased teacher adaptability and willingness to work in a compulsory virtual environment. Participant comments that were coded “gratitude” were mostly in relation to the ability to connect with students during the pandemic. Some comments also had to do with student cooperation and continued income.

Responses coded “human connection” were poignant in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some participants noted that they got to know their introverted (“shy”) students better, consistent with observations by Joseph and Lennox (2021) and Salvador et al. (2021). Participants also noted that they valued time after lessons to chat with students, and they felt as though they provided consistency in their students’ lives. However, some participants wrote about missing human interaction, and their students also missed in-person lessons.

Frustration was often coded in tandem with either “poor internet connection” or “lack of musical collaboration.” This suggests that much of the frustration experienced by participants frequently had to do with technology limitations, such as poor or distorted sound quality and latency. There were some comments, however, that related frustration to missing in-person lessons or having difficulty connecting with students on a personal level through the virtual medium.

While only two participants brought up specific concerns about students’ unsafe home environments, this information is important to acknowledge and discuss. As early as April 2020, reports were surfacing regarding upward trends in domestic violence in the United States (e.g., Boserup et al., 2020) that correlated with pandemic stress. While not generalizable, these data serve as a reminder that private studio teachers may sometimes be responsible for reporting incidences of domestic violence. Due to the one-on-one nature of the private studio setting, they may also find themselves in situations where they are privileged to sensitive and troubling information. Future research might investigate private studio teachers’ preparedness for and knowledge of dealing with such matters. This may inform what resources and education professional organizations, after-school music programs, and community music schools could provide to support private studio teachers and their students.

The present study provides details on how private studio teachers engaged with students during shelter-in-place measures taken in the spring and summer of 2020 to slow the spread of COVID-19. While the results in this emergency environment are not generalizable to all virtual teaching, it does provide insight into creative solutions that participants engaged in to make lessons productive and might inspire future voluntary virtual teaching.