The visualizer’s value depends on more than its ability to react to audio. It must help students use the pedal more musically. This proposed study compares students who practice with the tool against students who follow their usual practice process.
Participants and groups
The study would include 12 students divided evenly between a control group and an experimental group. Each six-student group would contain two students from Stage 2, two from Stage 3, and two from Stage 4.
Whenever possible, students at the same stage would study with the same teacher and receive the same repertoire at the same time before the recital. This reduces differences in instruction and preparation that might otherwise affect the comparison.
Familiarizing students with the tool
Before beginning the study piece, students in the experimental group would learn how to read the visualizer. A Certificate of Merit Level 1 or 2 chord progression could serve as the primer: it is easy for later-stage students, familiar to earlier-stage students, and includes clear pedal markings.
The tutorial would connect the on-screen changes to what the student hears and feels at the piano. Students would practice producing a clean background by changing the pedal with the harmony, then compare that result with the darker, blurred display caused by holding the pedal for too long.
Common performance task
Students would prepare a common piece for which pedaling is integral to the performance, with one piece selected for each difficulty level. Each score would clearly indicate the intended pedal changes.
At the recital, the students should have memorized the piece and ideally should not need to focus on their fingers. That leaves some attention available for the tool during preparation and makes the practice conditions more consistent.
Evaluation
The performances could be evaluated through Oclef’s Performance Seminar system, where teachers and students regularly listen, provide feedback, and assign ratings. Before each study performance, listeners would be asked to focus specifically on the use of the pedal.
Rather than treating the rating as a simple worst-to-best score, the rubric would describe the kind of pedaling heard:
- No pedal: the performance does not incorporate pedaling techniques.
- Underpedaling: the performance uses too little pedal.
- Overpedaling: the pedal makes sections sound blurred.
- Musically appropriate: the pedaling and articulation are effective, even if they do not exactly match the score; this may reflect thoughtful artistic choice.
- Score-aligned: the pedaling matches the piece’s markings and remains musically appropriate.
The fourth category may be the strongest sign of musical understanding. The fifth is also an ideal outcome, but by itself it may only show that a student can lift and press the pedal where instructed, not necessarily that the student understands the resulting sound.
What the comparison can show
Average results for the experimental and control groups would provide one measure of whether visual feedback improves pedal use. Student reflections and teacher observations would add context: whether the interface was understandable, whether it distracted from playing, and whether students began making better pedal decisions without depending on the screen.
The study is intentionally small, so it would not settle the question by itself. It would identify whether the prototype is useful enough to justify a larger test and which parts of the visual language or detection algorithm need refinement.