Instructor perspectives on analogical approches in teaching fundamental techniques in piano education

Analogical approaches in instrumental education facilitate students' understanding and comprehension by relating abstract musical concepts to concrete examples. Analogies not only help students enhance their musical expression and technical skills, but also enable them to internalize music in a more comprehensive way conceptually. Additionally, analogies are used to explain musical expressions; for instance, the flow of a melody can be described as the flow of a river, helping students better grasp the dynamics and emotional tone of the music. Analogies provide powerful tools for teaching musical concepts and techniques more effectively, holding a significant place in music education. Therefore, the aim of this research is to gather educators' perspectives on the use of analogical approaches in teaching basic techniques in piano education. In line with this purpose, the analogy examples used by piano educators, their approaches to technical development and musicality, and their views on whether they find these approaches beneficial were evaluated. In this study, a holistic single-case design, one of the case study patterns in qualitative research methods, was employed. Data were collected through document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis and descriptive analysis were used during the data analysis phase. The sample of the research wasselected using the easily accessible sampling method, and it consisted of educators teaching in the Piano Department of the Antalya State Conservatory at Akdeniz University. Within the scope of the research, educators' views on analogical approaches in the teaching of basic techniques in piano education were gathered. The data obtained from the interviews were presented in tables, categorized into main themes, categories, and sub-themes. Based on the data obtained from the findings section, 9 categories and 31 sub-themes were identified for the first sub-question, 7 categories and 13 sub-themes for the second sub-question, 3 categories and 15 sub-themes for the third sub-question, and 1 category and 8 sub-themes for the fourth sub-question.