Examining the instructors’ perspectives on undergraduate distance learning music instrument education during the COVID-19 pandemic

COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an emergency transition to distance education in Turkey as well as other countries in the world; and as in all levels and fields of education, the distance education model has been widely used in undergraduate level music instrument education. This practice has brought certain issues that are required to be addressed to and problems to be solved in instrument education. The main purpose of this study was to determine the perspectives of the instructors regarding the undergraduate instrument lessons conducted with distance education during the pandemic. For this purpose, survey model was adopted with the participation of a total of 201 lecturers. The data was collected using a questionnaire composed of 26 items developed by the researchers. The results revealed that the majority of the instructors had no prior distance education experience, and that those who wanted to employ both synchronous and asynchronous methods together constituted up the majority of the instructors. It was also discovered that the most common issues were connected to internet infrastructure, instrument access, student motivation, and socialization. Furthermore, it is recognized that most of the time, remedies to these issues could not be provided. It was discovered that the majority of instructors thought distance instrument education was a disadvantage. However, when the shift in teachers' perspectives on distance education was evaluated before and after the pandemic, it was reported that positive attitudes toward distance education improved when compared to attitudes prior to the epidemic. Some suggestions were made to increase the quality of distance instrument education.


Introduction
The term distance education, the meaning of which has changed especially in the last decade due to the rapid developments in information and communication technologies, is associated with terms such as distance learning, e-learning, online learning. In this respect, distance education is an umbrella term that defines the continuation of education and training with the help of information and communication technologies independent of time and place, in which the teacher and learner are physically far from each other (Arkorful & Abaidoo, 2015;Eastmond, 2000b;Kentnor, 2015;Moller, 1998;Moore & Kearsley, 1996). A combination of technologies such as online messaging, audios, videos, computers and internet can be used in distance education (Roffe, 2004). Accordingly, the distance education is a model based on the transmitter (teacher), recipient (student), and information and communication technologies by which information exchange is provided.
According to researchers in the field, distance education is an important form of education that has been developed to solve the problems encountered in educational processes is considered as an alternative to face-to-face education and is considered to be at least as effective in increasing learning achievement (Ekici, 2003;Kirby, 1998;Moller, 1998;Moore & Kearsley, 1996;Moore, 1993;Yungul, 2018). In fact, distance education, which has been applied for more than a century, has a history dating back to the end of the 1800s and distance education practices have begun after the 1900s (İşman, 2011;Şahin, 2005;Williams et al., 1998).
Distance education, which was used modestly to strengthen the teaching process using radio, television and computers in the past; has been used by developing countries, especially for the last two decades, to create a solution to the problem of access to resources and quality, and to meet the needs of teacher supply and higher education (Perraton, 2000). Distance education practices have been raised in 1924 in Turkey and Anadolu University took its place in higher education by beginning to accept students to its Open Education Faculty. Today, distance education is used in all higher education programs of our country in order to respond to changing expectations and demand (Akdemir, 2011) However, the current form of distance education is internet-based, and at least 80% of the course content is offered via the internet (Allen & Seaman, 2011).
According to Williams et al. (1998), distance education is a reality that creates new opportunities and challenges for higher education institutions, while providing students with expanded choices about where, when, how and from whom they learn, and makes education accessible to more and more people. In this respect, distance education not only creates challenges but it also has many positive features. According to Ekici (2003), traditional education has lost its quality of being the best practice for formal education; instead, "distance education, which is thought to meet the basic needs of the 21st century educational understanding and practices" (Atıcı & Gürol, 2020) has gained importance. Distance education has been developed and become widespread since the first day it emerged due to its positive features, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic process where schools are closed and face-to-face education cannot be carried out thanks to its feature "to be an emergency solution to a temporary problem" (Perraton, 2000, p.8). It has gained considerable momentum and increased its awareness. Distance education can be applied in synchronous (synchronous), asynchronous (asynchronous) or both ways depending on the program content, technological possibilities and the target situation to be reached (Ruippo, 2003;Yungul, 2018). According to Ruippo (2003), synchronous and asynchronous forms are divided into two as one-way and two-way. The application forms of distance education are demonstrated in Figure 1.
As seen in Figure 1, there is no direct student-teacher interaction in one-way applications while two-way applications are maintained interactively. Although it is applied in different ways, many researchers have stated that distance education has advantages and disadvantages in general (Ambe-Uva, 2010;Cowan, 1995;Hurt, 2008;Keremidchieva & Yankov, 2001;Sadeghi, 2019;Valentine, 2002;Yungul, 2018). According to Dodds et al. (1972), distance education has grown due to three perceived main advantages. The first of these is its economic advantage: in distance education, school buildings are not required and far more students can be trained than the school building can accommodate. Its second main advantage is its flexibility: people who work in a job can participate in educational activities in their own free time and at home without having to leave their jobs. The third advantage is that it has the capacity to educate a very large group of people Forms of Distance Education Practices (adapted from Ruippo, 2003, p. 2) (from nomads to inmates). Kılınç et al. (2020) states that distance education can have important functions in terms of decreasing the costs, providing education to the masses, increasing the income and welfare level especially in populated countries. Khan and Williams (2007) argue that distance learning platforms are powerful tools to reduce poverty and increase the social welfare of low-income people, the disabled, long-term patients, minorities and similar disadvantaged groups.
In addition to these, distance education may also possess certain disadvantages. In his study, Cowan (1995) sated that distance education can cause problems in subjects such as communication and interaction, motivation and attitude. In line with this view, Valentine (2002) argues that distance education has its advantages, however; he also pointed out that there are problematic aspects such as poor infrastructure and education, hidden costs, abuse of technology, negative attitudes of student and teachers. Again, Marble et al. (2016) stated that distance education may contain technical difficulties and cause high infrastructure costs.
In summary, distance education; may be advantageous compared to face-to-face education in terms of economy, flexibility and accessibility. On the other hand, it can be said that physical distance is not suitable for some educational fields, socialization and the possibility of not providing the necessary motivation and the need for a strong and solid infrastructure can be seen as a disadvantage. In addition, the main factors that determine the quality of distance education can be said to be the appropriate infrastructure and application environment, the quality of student-teacher communication, the quality of the educational material, and the attitude of students and teachers towards distance education. Furthermore, for a qualified distance education environment; 24/7 access to course materials, flexibility, video, audio, graphics, diversity, high interaction and collaboration possibilities are considered significant (Harasim, 2017;Henderson et al., 2017;Meyer et al., 2014;O'Callaghan et al., 2017). In parallel with these views, Eastmond (2000a) stated that in order for distance education to be successful, student-teacher interaction should be kept at a high level. All these issues mentioned are also very important in the fields of music and instrument education where interaction is at a high level.
The opportunities in distance education increase in direct proportion to the developments in technology (Dammers, 2009). Despite the fact that the history of distance education practices in music education is not very old (Ruippo, 2003), distance education has also affected music educators, albeit slower than those working in other disciplines, with the increase in opportunities and the effect of developments in information and communication technologies (Rees, 2002). From past to recent times, distance music education has been practiced (Linklater, 1997;Cooper, 2005;Sherbon & Kiss, 2005;Yungul, 2018). During the pandemic, Turkey, as well as other countries, has benefited from distance education opportunities in the field of music and instrument education. With the idea of continuing education-training activities during the COVID-19 pandemic process, many countries have transitioned to distance education in most fields. In this process, the distance education model based on physical distance has come to the fore as a savior with its aforementioned advantages. However, one point that should not be overlooked is that distance education is not a choice but a necessity in this process. In other words, distance education has emerged as the only option and also a necessity in the process of the COVID-19 pandemic rather than its role as an "alternative that has advantages to meet the educational needs of students" (İşman, 2011, p. 6). A rapid transformation process has begun in order to keep up with the current situation, but this fast structuring, which is mandatory, has brought a number of questions, problems and uncertainties in terms of both infrastructure and implementation. Dreyfus (2001, p.165) directed the question: "How far is distance education from education?". These and similar questions need to be answered in education, especially in music education which has the areas where interaction is at a high level and a good motivation should be provided. It can be said that there are areas based on application and performance. Below, studies on distance music education and opinions on this subject will be included.
Music education is both a theory and practice-oriented education, and in this respect, the quality of interaction in the process is of great importance. Although the theoretical aspect constitutes a smaller part of instrument education in particular, successful interaction between theory and practice is vital for successful performance (Digolo et al., 2011). However, Thornton (2020) stated that the system that guided music and instrument education with the COVID-19 pandemic was the distance education system; therefore, he stated that all stakeholders should make an effort to keep up with this. In this respect, it is considered an important requirement to provide the necessary infrastructure and equipment for distance music education in a short time. However, in this process, distance music education, and in particular, instrument education contains some difficulties that need to be overcome. According to Digolo et al. (2011), these are 1) Not having distance music education pedagogy, 2) Lack of proficiency in technology usage, 3) Lack of software for music and instrument education, and 4) Poor internet quality and connection speed.
Following a review of the pertinent literature, it was discovered that various studies in the international area regarding the remote music education, its relevance, challenges, and solutions, in the international arena has been carried out (e.g. Brändström et al., 2012;Bennett, 2010;Daubney, & Fautley, 2020;Digolo et al., 2011;Riley, 2009;Thornton, 2020). Bennett (2010) has piloted "Experiencing Music 2200", which enables rural students to receive distance music education from expert educators. The aim of the study is to shed light on the future design and development of online environments, as well as to reveal the experiences, ideas, perspectives, concerns and problems for distance music education. In this study, topics such as the advantages and disadvantages of distance teaching and learning music, interaction and collaboration, and technical issues and course development issues are examined. Brändström et al. (2012) conducted a study to offer distance electric guitar teaching and to create specialist classes. As a result of the study, the purpose of which was to determine the different aspects of distance education and faceto-face education, it was found that it is a positive practice that supports face-to-face education, and that exercises requiring to play together are difficult due to time delays. It was emphasized that distance education requires a more comprehensive planning than face-to-face education and it is necessary to be ready to improvise in the distance education process. In addition to these, many international institutions such as "Berklee College of Music", "University of Nebraska", "Harvard University", "Colorado State University" "Massachusetts Instituteof Technology" provide distance education on music and instruments (Sakarya & Zahal, 2020). Keast (2009) suggested that more studies should be conducted and the report be presented on issues such as the recognition of distance music education and the detection of problems in the process in the study, whose aim is to expand the published knowledge and practices related to distance education in music to include the constructivist approach.
As the COVID-19 outbreak has spread all over the world, it has brought about unforeseen and unexpected changes in music education as well as in our daily lives (Daubney & Fautley, 2020). During this period, music and instrument training continued via distance education. Although there are examples of distance music and instrument education abroad, distance education applied during the COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as an unforeseen necessity. Distance music education, which has a relatively new history in music education in Turkey, can be said to host several obscurities. Instrument education is a field that requires high-level and quality interaction based on performance and practice. In this regard, it is thought that the questions about distance instrument education should be answered and solutions should be offered to difficulties, problems and uncertainties. Although there are some studies on distance instrument education during COVID-19 pandemic (Akyürek, 2020;Ozer & Üstün, 2020;Sakarya & Zahal, 2020), it is essential to conduct a study of a broader range of data collected from all institutions delivering undergraduate level distance instrument education. In this sense, this study can be considered significant as it is a study covering undergraduate level teaching staff working in instrument education. This study highlights the importance of the views of the lecturers about the process and identifying the problems and difficulties experienced. The study also underlines the measures to be taken in order to increase the effectiveness in the ongoing distance teaching process and the study may well support policy development regarding the aforementioned issues. In this regard, the aim of this study is to determine the perspectives of the instructors regarding the undergraduate level instrument courses conducted via distance education in the 2019-2020 spring semester during the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of experience, pedagogy, technical infrastructure, advantagedisadvantage, application and evaluation.

Method
In this section, the information about the research model, population and sample, data collection tool and data analysis are presented.

Research Design
Survey design has been used in this quantitative research. Quantitative research was carried out by obtaining data from observations and/or measurements made especially independent of value judgments and personal interpretations (Özdamar et al., 1999). Typically, survey design investigations describe the nature of the existing conditions; it collects data at a specific time in order to determine standards by which current conditions can be compared or to determine existing relationships between specific events (Cohen et al., 2000). Survey studies are studies that examine the beliefs, opinions, characteristics, and past or current status of individuals, events and phenomena using various statistical techniques (Neuman, 2008). Since this study aimed to determine the perspectives of the instructors, survey design has been used within the study.

Universe and Sample
The universe of the research consisted of the instructors delivering distance instrument courses at music departments of universities in Turkey such as Conservatory of Music, Faculty of Education Music Education Department, the Faculty of Fine Arts, Art and Design Faculty and Music and Performing Arts Department. The sample group consisted of 201 lecturers, who are working in the music departments of universities, assigned randomly. In order to ensure the diversity at the highest rate when identifying the sample, all the institutions offering distance instrument education in all seven regions of Turkey have been identified. While creating the research sample, at least one institution from each region was determined by drawing lots and the instructors were included in the study on a voluntary basis. Descriptive information about the instructors in the sample group is provided below. Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution according to the demographic characteristics of the instructors in the sample group. In Table 1, it is seen that 92 (45.8%) of the 201 academic staff participating in the research were female and 109 (54.2%) were male. The majority of the participants (89 participants) with a rate of 44.3% were between the ages of 33-43, and 30.8% of the participants (62 participants) were between the ages of 44-54. Table shows that a large part of the participants (43.8% and 88 participants) has the title of lecturer. Following the ratio in terms of size, 22.4% (45 participants) were assistant professors, 18.9% (38 participants) were associate professors, 8% were professors.
When the distribution of faculty members participating in the study according to their work experience is examined, it is seen that the majority of the participants (35.3%, 71 participants) had 21 years or more of experience. 13.4% of the sample group (27 participants) constituted the group of educators who just started their profession. It can be said that the majority were experienced professionally and young educators were in the minority. Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the instructors in the sample group according to the type of institution they work and the type of instrument they teach.
As demonstrated in Table 2, the majority of the participants were members of Faculty of Education, Department of Fine Arts Education, Music Education Departments (43.8%, 88 participants) and in the Music-related departments of the Conservatories (41.3%, 83 participants). The table also indicates that the majority of the participants delivered piano (25.9%, 52 participants), wood wind (21.9%, 44 participants) and string instruments (20.4%, 41 participants) courses.

Instrument
In order to collect data in the study, "Questionnaire for The Instructor"s Perspectives on Distance Instrument Education" consisting of 26 items and questioning the participants' professional experiences, careers, and their views on distance education was used. In the study, the relevant literature was reviewed while preparing the questionnaire items and the items were developed within this framework. Since the questionnaire consisted of a multiple-choice item with categorical questions and contained multiple markings in its items, within the scope of validity and reliability studies, the scope of the questionnaire was valid. According to Yurdagül (2005), the reliability of *FAA: Faculty of Fine Arts; ADF: Art and Design Faculty, MSAF: Music and Stage Arts Faculty the categorical scales is generally considered on the "consistency of expert judgments". In this context, in order to ensure the content validity and to test the consistency of expert judgments, the questionnaire items were examined by five academicians, including experts in language, assessment and evaluation, distance education and instrument teaching, within the framework of the "Davis Technique". Content validity index for content validity in the study was determined by the "Davis Technique" according to the evaluation of the scale items by five faculty members. The content validity index values were obtained by dividing the sum of the scores for "Item represents property" and "Slight improvement required" opinions in all expert forms for candidate items in the questionnaire, by the total number of experts. If the content validity index value of the item is in the range of .80-1.00, that item is sufficient in terms of content validity (Davis, 1992). Since the values calculated separately for each item were in the range of 0.80-1.00, it was decided that the questionnaire ensured content validity. Then a pilot application was carried out. The suitability, responsiveness and response time of the items to the study were examined and the final form of the questionnaire was created. After the final questionnaire form was transformed into an online form, it was presented to the instructors on a voluntary basis via electronic media.

Data Analysis
In this study, descriptive analyzes, which are among statistical analyzes, were used to analyze the data obtained from online questionnaires. Descriptive analyzes are used to facilitate basic interpretation of scattered data collected through measurement (Ekiz, 2013). Categorical (nominal) variables are usually expressed in frequency tables (Russel, 2018). Frequency distribution refers to the number of repetitions of variables, which we can also express as frequency. Percentage, on the other hand, is found by the sum ratio of each variable, and it makes it easy to interpret the variable in terms of density (Karasar, 2017). In this respect, frequency and percentage analyzes were used in the study to summarize categorical data obtained from questionnaire forms and to determine their density and frequency.

Findings
In the analyzes conducted on whether the faculty members participating in the study have distance education experience or not, it was observed that 85.1% of the instructors (171 participants) did not have any previous distance education experience, and a minority of 14.9% (30 participants) had previous distance education experience. When examining whether or not instructors received training related to distance education, it has been observed that 77.1% of the teaching staff participating in the study (155 participants) did not receive any training related to distance education, and a small proportion of them with 22.9% (46 participants) received training related to distance education. The frequency and percentage distribution of the participants who received training for distance education according to the type of support received was presented in Table 3.  Table 3, it can be seen that 10% (20 participants) of the participants who received training with the training tools (video, pdf, etc.) provided by the institution (the participants received one or more types of training) were in the majority. After this group, the following groups were listed respectively as those who received training with videos that were accessed individually on the internet, those who read books or written resources for distance education individually, seminars, courses from private institutions, those who received training in such ways and from official institutions to seminars, courses and so on.
When the opinions of the instructors who received training for distance education about the adequacy of these trainings were examined, it was determined that the relevant trainings were considered insufficient with a rate of 11.9% (24 participants), and the education received was considered sufficient with a rate of 10.9% (22 participants).
When the frequency and percentage distribution is examined according to the methods preferred by the participants while giving distance instrument training; it was seen that 46 of the instructors (22.9%) preferred to do their lessons only with synchronous methods, and 42 (20.9%) of them delivered their lessons only with asynchronous methods. However, the majority of the instructors (51.2%, 103 participants) preferred to use both synchronous and asynchronous methods together while teaching distance.
In Table 4, the frequency and percentage distribution according to the tools used by the instructors in the sample group for distance instrument training is presented. Table 4 revealed that the majority of the participants (participants used one or more vehicles) used laptop computers (69.2%, 139 participants) and mobile phones (45.3%, 91 participants) during distance education. This was followed by desktop computer use with a rate of 21.9% (44 participants) and tablet use with a rate of 12.9% (26 participants).  Table 5 shows, the frequency and percentage distribution according to the application platforms used by the lecturers in the sample group for distance instrument education.  Table 5 is examined (participants used one or more platforms), it is seen that the participants mostly used Whatsapp (63.2%, 127 participants), the distance education platform provided by the institution, and Zoom (47.8%, 96 participants) platforms while providing distance instrument education. Other following platforms can be listed as Skype (14.9%, 30 participants), Adobe Connect (12.9%, 26 participants), Facetime (10.4%, 21 participants), Google Classroom (7.5%, 15 participants), Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.
The frequency and percentage distribution according to the types of problems faced by the instructors in the sample group while performing distance instrument education was presented in Table 6. Table 6 displays that (the participants stated one or more problems), the most intense problems were not hearing the sound quality with a rate of 55.7% (112 participants). The problem that the sound and video did not come simultaneously was reported by 51.7% (104) of the participants. 38.8% (94) of the participants reported that students did not have an instrument in their place of residence (78 participants), there was lack of motivation with a rate of 29.9% (60 participants, and they weren"t able to correct student posture with a rate of 26.4% (53 participants). Lack of personal knowledge and skills (18 participants, 9.0%) and lack of technical support (14 participants, 7.0%) were the least felt problems.
In the study, the frequency and percentage distributions of the instructors in the sample group were examined according to whether they received sufficient support from their institutions in the process of distance instrument education. Accordingly, 66.2% of the participants (133 participants) stated that they could get enough support, 25.4% (51 participants) could not get enough support, and 8.5% (17 participants) stated that they could receive partial support. Table 7 represents the frequency and percentage distribution according to the types of solutions applied by the instructors on the problems related to distance instrument education.
The solution strategies applied by the lecturers on the problems related to distance instrument education revealed that mostly no solution or the solutions were not applied (51.2%, 103 participants). It was also revealed that the most common solution applied by the lecturers was to send or receive audio or video recordings using different asynchronous applications with a rate of 7.5% (15 participants). The number of instructors who sought solutions by providing additional lessons and increasing lesson time was 2% (4 participants). 61 participants (30.3%) had no idea about solution required to solve the problems they encountered. When the search for solutions / applications by the instructors were analyzed, the choices of the instructors can be listed as facilitating the curriculum or work load of the students (2 participants, 1.0%), research homework for students who do not have an instrument (2 participants, 1%), quick tutorials about technology (2 participants, 1%). It was observed that the practices of narrating the studies by voice (2 participants, 1%), explaining, guiding (1 participant, 0.5%) and not speaking and playing at the same time (1 participant, 0.5%) were also used.
In Table 8, the frequency and percentage distribution according to the opinions of the instructors in the sample group regarding the advantages of distance instrument education is presented. The opinions of the participants regarding the advantages of distance instrument education, as presented in Table 8 (participants stated one or more advantages) showed that most of the instructors (58 participants) stated that it was independent of time and place, and it offered the opportunity to repeat the students and the lessons can be recorded. On the other hand, 23.4% (47 participants) reported that it directed students to self-control and autonomy, 20.4% (41 participants) said that it was advantageous in terms of costs (transportation fees, etc.), 19.9% (40 participants) suggested that it supported lifelong learning, 16.4% (33 participants) stated that it provided richer content (notes, performance videos, etc.) to students, 15.4% (31 participants) pointed out that it solved the classroom problem, 13.4% (27 participants) said it created equal opportunities and not preventing social life was another advantage reported by 12.9% (26 participants). The opinion that it increased motivation was the least common advantage stated by only 1 instructor (0.5%).
The frequency and percentage distribution according to the opinions of the instructors in the sample group regarding the disadvantages of distance instrument education is summarized in Table 9. The opinions of the instructors about the disadvantages of distance instrument education are examined in Table 9 (the participants stated one or more disadvantages), 80.1% (161 participants) stated that it was difficult to provide a qualified and detailed education in the instrument lesson, which was an applied lesson and requires practice. The majority of the participants (57.2 %) stated that it was more difficult for students who do not have a sense of responsibility because it required more responsibility than face-to-face education. Not getting immediate feedback in asynchronous lessons was another disadvantage reported by 53.7% (108 participants). Student control was difficult according to with 50.7% (102 participants) and 46.8% (94) of the participants assumed that it caused lack of student motivation due to the lack of communication between student-instructor & student-student communication. 43.3% (87 participants) stated that the lack of classroom environment is another disadvantage. According to 33.3% (67 participants, the evaluation process was difficult and 30.8% (62 participants) emphasized the student participation was low. The most frequently considered disadvantages were that setting up infrastructure for distance education was tiring and costly (14.4%, 29 participants), and technical inadequacies created disadvantages (6 participants, 3.0%).
The frequency and percentage distribution according to the evaluation tools used by the instructors in the distance instrument education is given in Table 10. When the assessment tools used by the participants in distance instrument education are examined in Table 10, first of all; it is seen that participants specified one or more tools. As assessment tools, of 70.1% (142 participants) preferred performance assignments such as asynchronous videos, 63.7% (128 participants preferred live video performance evaluation and 42.3% (85 participants) employed written homework method. It is seen that the least used assessment methods were open-ended examination and discussion methods with a rate of 5% (10 participants), and multiple-choice tests were used with a rate of 1% (2 participants). In general, it is understood that more than one method was used in the evaluation process. Some of the participants (27.9%) in the group preferred to make an assessment with a single method.
In Table 11, the frequency and percentage distribution of the instructors in the sample group according to their grading methods for the final exams is presented. When the obtained results in terms of exams of the participants in distance instrument education are examined, it is revealed that 53.7% (108 participants) preferred to grade by following the performance records of the student. This was followed by 52.2% (105 participants) grading their own students and 34.8% (70 participants) giving written assignments or projects. It is seen that the least preferred evaluation methods were 6.5% (13 participants) giving live exams in front of the commission and 5.5% (11 participants) giving an opinion/classroom performance grade. Requiring students to upload their homework during the course as an exam to the system again.
18 9.0 Students take the remote live exam in front of the commission 13 6.5 Giving an opinion/ classroom performance grade 11 5.5 As another result, the views of the instructors regarding the frequency and percentage distribution of the students in distance instrument education according to the achievement of the course outcomes is presented in Table 12. According to Table 12, 70.1% of the participants (141 participants) were of the opinion that the students partially reach the target objectives of the course, 16.4% (33 participants) did not reach it, and 13.4% (27 participants) reached it. In the table below, the frequency and percentage distribution according to the opinions of the instructors in the sample group regarding the deliver mode of instrument education. According to Table 13, 64.2% of the participants (129 participants) thought that instrument education should be face to face, 32.3% (65 participants) thought that distance and face to face education should be together. 3.5% of the participants (7 participants) were undecided on this issue. There was no instructor who thought that instrument education should be done only via distance education. Table 14 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the change in the views of instructors on distance education before and during the pandemic. The change of participants' views on distance education revealed that 46.3% of the instructors (93 participants) previously thought negatively and still negative towards distance instrument education. 19.9% (40 participants) had negative thoughts before, but however they think positively now. On the other hand, it was observed that 15.9% of the participants (32 participants) were positive and they are still positive, 9.5% (19 participants) were thinking positively before, but negatively now, and 8.5% (17 participants) were indecisive. While the total rate of faculty who had negative thoughts before was 66.2%, it is seen that after distance education it was 54.8%; negative opinions about distance education decreased. It is understood that the total rate of faculty who thought positively before was 25.4%, while it was 35.8% after distance education, and positive opinions on distance education increased.
In the study, when the opinions of the lecturers in the sample group on whether to continue distance education after the pandemic or not, it was seen that 49.8% (100 participants) did not want to continue, and 24.9% (50 participants) would like to continue. In addition, it was revealed that 14.5% (29 participants) could continue if compelled, and 10.9% (22 participants) could continue as a support for face-to-face education.
The opinions on whether or not distance arts education-oriented online professional development courses for the instructors were required were examined. According to results, 52.2% of the participants (105 participants) considered these trainings necessary, 38.3% of them (77 participants) considered unnecessary, 8.5% of them (17 participants) were undecided and 1% of them (2 participants) thought it could be done provided that the physical conditions were met.

Discussion and Conlusion
According to the results obtained; it can be said that the vast majority of the academic staff participating in the study did not have any previous distance education experience, and the vast majority of them did not receive any education related to distance education. When examining the types of education of instructors who received training related to distance education, the most common types of education were the educational tools provided by the institution (video, pdf, etc.), online videos and books or written resources for distance education (article etc.), but the number of those who received training was less. The number of those who receive education through seminars, course from private and public institutions was very low. When the opinions of the lecturers about the adequacy of these trainings were examined, it was seen that the number of those who considered the relevant trainings sufficient and inadequate was close to each other, and the number of instructors who considered the trainings was slightly more than the others. It can be thought that the trainings for distance education can contribute to the teaching process in general. However, trainings for distance music education may be more effective in terms of the adaptation and experience of educators. Johnson (2016) has developed a curriculum to assist instructors in the transition from traditional face-to-face classroom instruction to online teaching. According to the results of the study, this education was found positive in terms of interaction in distance education by the instructors and the students who received education from them. Johnson (2017) emphasized the importance of pedagogy in the transition to distance education and emphasized that educators should have pedagogy for distance education. On the other hand, Clark (1993) stated that previous distance education experiences and trainings towards distance education can positively affect attitudes towards distance education. However, many researchers state that attitude and motivation are complementary to each other and that there is a meaningful and positive relationship between them (Ayık & Ataş, 2014;Gardner, 1985;Jufrida et al., 2019;Oroujlou & Vahedi, 2011). In order for distance education to be efficient, it can be said that experience and pedagogy are important as in other fields. Accordingly, when looking at distance education from the perspective of attitude and motivation, it can be said that for a good distance education environment, high motivation and positive attitudes will be needed and some of the factors that support them are experience and knowledge regarding distance education. During COVID-19 outbreak, distance instrument teaching has been widely applied in Turkey, as well as in other countries. It is thought that this process will play an important role in developing a perspective on distance education and distance instrument training. In this way, it is anticipated that trainings for distance instrument education may increase in number and quality, and different attitudes can be developed.
When the preferences of the lecturers towards the synchronous and asynchronous methods while teaching distance are considered, it was observed that the two methods were preferred close to each other, but the number of those who preferred the synchronous method was slightly higher. In addition, it was revealed that more than half of the participants preferred to use both methods together. Most of the instructors used laptop computers, mobile phones and desktop computers while teaching distance. It has been observed that the number of instructors using tablets was low. In addition, it was observed that the instructors mostly used Whatsapp and Zoom applications. Other tools that were preferred by the instructors can be listed respectively as follows: Skype, Adobe Connect, Facetime Google Classroom and Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. media, Short message (SMS), E-mail, Microsoft Teams, Goto Meeting Youtube, Google Drive, Wetransfer, Mega, TeamLink and Viber. When the literature is examined, it is seen that there is a variety of applications to be used in any form of distance education: synchronous, asynchronous or using two methods together. Bennett (2010) stated that using different technologies in distance education increases cooperation. The researcher also stated that it provides flexibility, studentteacher interaction and supports the development of the learning environment. When the related research is examined, it is seen that the methods, tools and applications in distance education were shaped according to the content, the characteristics of the audience and other opportunities. Shoemaker and Van Stam (2010) stated that the synchronous method in distance instrument education has many benefits in terms of interaction, and even in piano training, experiences close to face-to-face learning can be offered, but it requires a fast internet infrastructure and a weak internet speed may cause problem. The researchers also stated that the asynchronous method is not directly dependent on the internet speed, the videos sent can be stopped and watched again when necessary, but it has disadvantages in terms of interaction. Along with these; Shoemaker and Van Stam (2010) also used a digital piano keyboard, a computer with internet access, webcams and video conferencing tools in their study, in which synchronous and asynchronous methods were used together. Similarly, Pike and Shoemaker (2013) benefited from the Skype application in their study in which they examined the effect of distance education on the acquisition of piano deciphering skills. Karahan (2015) stated that the asynchronous method enables teachers to follow the extra-curricular studies of piano students in the study conducted with the experimental method, and stated that this method contributes to student success, desktop and laptop computers were used by students and teachers in the study. Likewise, Dye (2007) stated that desktop video conferencing, with its ability to provide instant feedback, can be used as a highly efficient tool in increasing the efficiency of distance music education.
The top five problems faced by academic staff about distance instrument education were problems with the sound not being heard in good quality, the sound and image not coming simultaneously, problems with the student's access to the internet, the student's lack of an instrument in the place of residence and lack of motivation. These were followed by failure to understand and correct student posture, insufficient transfer of feedback and corrections to the opposite side, problems regarding the student classroom environment (noise, dark voices, etc.), problems with access to the internet by the instructor, lack of software or hardware, and difficulty in following the work being played in the order of frequency. It has been observed that the lack of personal knowledge and skills on technology and the lack or insufficiency of a technical support unit were less perceived problems than the previous ones. Some instructors pointed out that problems related to the physical structure of wind instruments such as oboes cannot be solved by distance education. When the problems that were felt intensely were examined, it was seen that most of them were related to internet infrastructure, some of them were related to the motivation of access to the instrument and the inability of the student to socialize. There are studies in the related literature that support these findings (Enloe et al., 2013;Shoemaker & Van Stam, 2010).
When the individual solutions applied to the problems related to distance instrument education were examined, it was understood that there was mostly no solution and / or the solutions were not applied. It has been revealed that the most common solution applied by the lecturers was to send and receive audio or video recordings using different asynchronous applications. The number of faculty members seeking solutions by providing additional courses and increasing the duration of the lessons was less. Some of the solutions used by very few people included facilitating curriculum or work, assigning research homework to students who did not have an instrument, trying to create support solutions on technical issues, obtaining information quickly about technology, narrating, explaining, guiding, not speaking and not playing at the same time. The number of people who did not have any idea about how to solve problems related to distance education individually was high. This situation can be interpreted as the fact that a considerable part of the teaching staff is far from the opportunities provided by their institutions, the sense of school belonging or the educational opportunities allowed by technological opportunities. In this connection, it can be observed that some of the lecturers were looking for a solution, a very large proportion had no idea about the solution, and the educators who were not related to technology cannot find solutions for the problems in this process. This result can be associated with the experience, knowledge, attitude and motivation for distance instrument education.
When the problems examined in this process, a large part of the lecturers could get enough support from their institutions, a substantial amount of them could not get enough support, and a minority could receive partial support. Considering that one of the most important factors that ensure the efficient distance education process was institutional support, it can be indicated that the support that instructor could receive was not sufficient to achieve this efficiency.
Comparing the advantageous and disadvantageous aspects of the distance instrument training, it was seen that the majority of the instructors classified the distance instrument training as disadvantageous. The views considered as disadvantages in number were higher than advantages. To explain this, it can be mentioned that several reasons come to the fore. The first of these was the instructors didn"t have pedagogical knowledge and experience on distance teaching before the pandemic. The second was that the distant education process started without adequate preparation, and the third was that the instructors were unable to get enough support from their institutions. In addition to these findings, the number of lecturers who stated that the structure of distance education was not suitable for instrument training in professional sense was quite high. Although Simonson et al. (1999) stated that distance education can imitate traditional classes, the situation was different in vocational instrument training. Enloe et al. (2013) pointed out that distance music education was possible, however; they stated that audio and / or video signal distortions could negatively affect the quality of the lesson and stated that distance music education in its current form can serve as a solution when the teacher and student cannot meet in the classroom.
After examining the instructors" perceived advantageous aspects of distance instrument education, it was understood that the strongest aspects of distance education were seen as being independent of time and place, providing the opportunity for students to repeat, and recording lessons. Secondary benefits were directing students to self-control and autonomy, suitability in terms of cost (transportation fees, etc.), supporting lifelong learning, providing students with richer content (notes, performance videos, etc.), solving the classroom problem, creating equal opportunities compared to, and not preventing social life. The rare opinion that it would increase motivation for studying was also expressed. Examining the disadvantageous aspects of distance instrument training by lecturers, it was difficult to provide a qualified and detailed education in the instrument lesson and it was more difficult for students who did not have a sense of responsibility because it required more responsibility than face-to-face education. The most expressed disadvantages were the lack of immediate feedback, difficulty in student control, lack of communication between student-teaching staff, student-student, and low student motivation due to the lack of classroom environment. Difficulty in the evaluation process and low student participation were seen as secondary disadvantages. Small disadvantages were that it was tiring and costly to establish infrastructure for remote teaching and learning and that technical inadequacies created disadvantages. When the relevant literature was examined, there were several studies on the disadvantages of distance instrument education. While interpreting the results of the current study and others, it should be taken into account that there is no perfect teaching model and that each model has advantages and disadvantages. Shoemaker and Van Stam (2010) stated that the students who received distance piano education were successful in the study conducted on distance piano education in which synchronous and asynchronous methods were used together. Uçan and Günay (1974) created the first example of distance music education in Turkey with the methods of violin teaching by letter. The success graphics of the students in those years were also seen to be quite low, as they tried to be supported only with printed materials (Canbay & Nacakçı, 2011). However, the opportunities and possibilities of those years were at a very different point when compared to current situation. In the study conducted by Brändström et al. (2012) on distance guitar education, teachers and students saw online teaching as a positive experience. Participants saw distance learning as a productive complement to face-to-face teaching. The most difficult part of online music education was seen as playing music together or hitting the rhythm due to the time delay. Research results showed that distance education is a more intense and challenging process than teaching face to face.
When the views of the instructors about the assessment tools in distance instrument education are examined, the most used methods were performance assignments (e.g., recorded videos), live video performance evaluation and written assignments. The less used assessment methods were open-ended exam and discussion and multiple-choice tests. In general, it was understood that more than one method was used in the evaluation process. It was observed that the rate of those evaluating with a single method compared was approximately ¼ when compared to the rest in the sample. When examining the methods of grading for the end-of-year/final exams in distance instrument education by lecturers, it was understood that the most used methods were the lecturer's grading by following the student's performance records, each lecturer grading his / her own student, and giving the students grades by giving written assignments or projects. At the secondary level (relatively less), it was observed that the methods of the instrument commission following the performance records of the student and asking them to upload the homework they did during the lesson to the system again as an exam were used. It has been observed that the least used methods are the methods of students taking the live exams in front of the commission and giving an opinion/classroom performance grade. When the assessment tools used were examined, it has been seen that the majority of the evaluations were synchronous or asynchronous with image and sound. Studies indicate that different assessment techniques should be used when needed (Insorio, 2021;Tadesse, 2020).
The majority of faculty members were of the opinion that students partially reached the target objectives of the course and a minority did not reach. Again, most of the instructors thought that the ideal application of distance instrument training should have been face-to-face, 1/3 of them thought that face-to-face and distance education should have been together. Few of them were indecisive regarding this issue. There was no instructor who thought that instrument training should have been done completely distance. In fact, it can be thought that there was a small inconsistency in these statements of the instructors when evaluated together with the statements about the state of achieving the target behaviors. This situation can be seen in accordance with the situation that the instructors have gone beyond the usual practice. It is also possible that lecturers may have a flexible attitude towards determining target behaviors or objectives of the courses during the pandemic process. Tecimer (2006) emphasized that it is inevitable that education will change with the developing technological opportunities, and providing distance education opportunities in the field of music via the internet will contribute to the lifelong education of musicians and music lovers as well as music educators. On the other hand, there are studies in the literature that indicate the opinions of the instructors who argue that distance instrument training cannot be performed. In a study conducted with the participation of beginner piano students by Pike and Shoemaker (2013), in which the effect of distance education on the acquisition of piano deciphering skills was examined, it was stated that distance deciphering training could replace face-to-face deciphering training or could be applied in addition to normal lessons. In a study conducted by Karahan (2016) with an experimental method, no significant difference was found between the group that received distance synchronous piano training and the group that received face-to-face piano training in terms of piano performance and the level of development in performance. In other words, it was stated in the study that distance synchronous piano training and face-to-face piano training have similar characteristics in terms of piano performance and performance improvement level. Again, according to the findings obtained from the experimental study conducted by Can and Yungul (2018) for undergraduate level guitar students, comparing face-to-face and distance guitar training, it was concluded that both groups achieved target behaviors and objectives of the course. Accordingly, web-based distance education had the same effect on students' guitar learning as traditional methods. Okan and Arapgirlioglu (2020) also found that the same results were achieved in terms of success in distance and face-to-face violin training. It can be seen that there are important differences between the opinions expressed in the present study and the results of the studies in the literature. It can be said that the reason for these differences is incompletely planned and quickly implemented distance education applications with weak infrastructure during the pandemic period. Another reason can be considered as the attitudes of the academic staff towards distance education. In addition, when the studies mentioned above are examined, the fact that most of them were carried out with structured experimental methods, the current study being a large-scale survey study and directly reflecting the views of the lecturers can be seen as the reasons for the emerging differences.
The change in the views of instructors on distance education before and during the pandemic showed that the negative opinions about distance education decreased and the positive opinion about distance education increased after the experience during COVID-19 outbreak. According to this result; it can be foreseen that the perspective towards distance education may change positively and prejudices regarding distance education may decrease after a longer period of experience. Again, when the views of the lecturers about whether to continue distance education in instrument training in the future are examined, as a percentage, about half of them did not want to continue from now on, almost a quarter of them wanted to continue, and some of them could continue if they had to, and that they can continue to have distance education practices in a supportive manner in face-to-face education. Aleksova (2020) stated in his study on distance flute teaching that the best practice for flute education is the combination of distance education and face-to-face education. In this case, distance education and face-to-face education can be close to each other and advantageous aspects of both methods can be used. However, this option will not be considered in situations where face-to-face training is not possible.
When the opinions of the instructors regarding whether or not distance arts education-oriented online trainings should be done in the future for their personal development it was seen that most of them deem these trainings necessary, the instructors who stated they were unnecessary were considerably less and the few were indecisive and thought that they could be done provided that the physical conditions were met. Sherbon and Kish (2005) stated that today most music teachers insist on applying methods and practices that have undergone little change, that face-to-face education has been seen as a norm in music education at all levels, but distance education is also included in music education with small elements. Based on this idea and the above results, the use of distance education in music and instrument education may increase in the coming days; supporting face-to-face education, ensuring the continuity of education in pandemic situations, and facilitating education in some situations may come to the fore. However, in order for distance education to be useful and qualified, topics such as strong infrastructure, educators having distance education pedagogy, theoretical foundations, technical support, strong interaction and high motivation are considered important. Most of the instructors participating in the study agreed that the distance instrument training carried out during the pandemic period was lacking these. In addition, a considerable majority of the instructors pointed out that instrument teaching would be incomplete without face-to-face interaction, and therefore they stated that they were against distance education, especially in the initial phase of instrument training.
In this present study, the instructors expressed their views on advantages and disadvantages, the applicability of distance deliver mode in instrument education during the COVID-19 pandemic. They stated that many difficulties of vocational instrument training can be overcome by face-to-face method and distance instrument training cannot be efficient alone in vocational instrument training and can stand out better with its supportive features. There were also instructors who stated that it would be appropriate to use the two methods together. According to the opinions of the instructors, distance instrument education can come to the fore with its savior quality in cases such as pandemic. It is envisaged that qualified distance education will be provided with high-level infrastructure and interaction considering the today"s opportunities. One of the main points that should be emphasized in the current study is that many instructors in the sample group advocate that face-to-face education is the best method in today's conditions in overcoming many difficulties of professional instrument training. Instrument training is primarily a sense and emotion training. As a part of art education, the ability to manage and express human emotions with the instrument is developed. In distance education, the interference of electronic environments and sounds that can be defined as artificial may pose an obstacle to emotion compared to natural environments. The clear attitudes of the instrument towards distance instrument training can be interpreted more accurately and better based on this idea. The fact that the developments in educational technology have enabled instrument training to take place in an online environment does not mean that instrument training should be done completely remotely. For this reason, while determining our point of view for the realization of instrument training, it is necessary to consider the current conditions, to determine the best method within the scope of opportunities and to determine the main source of the problem or problems. It is thought that it may be beneficial to realize whether the difficulties experienced are due to the education model or to the quality of the education provided.

Educational Implications
Having the appropriate and required technological opportunities does not necessarily mean that all teaching staff have the pedagogy necessary to implement distance education. One of the points that should be emphasized in order to be able to apply distance instrument training efficiently in situations where face-to-face education cannot be made is an excellent technological infrastructure, while the other is the presence of instructors who are competent in distance education pedagogy. For this reason, especially in cases where face-to-face training is not appropriate, such as pandemics, it is recommended to upgrade the technological infrastructure in order to provide qualified remote instrument training, as well as to provide pedagogical support for distance education to lecturers.
It is recommended to adopt theories where interaction and cooperation will be at the forefront in learning where students can have a strong distance learning experience, to use platforms and tools that support this, and to include trainings for these by higher education institutions.
In this study, the opinion that instrument training is not an activity that can be done completely remotely has gained weight. Therefore, it is thought that distance (in other words, online) instrument training can be used as a support for face-to-face instrument education.
Since the sound characteristics of the instruments differ according to the type of instrument, it is recommended not to conduct distance instrument training for all types of instruments.
Experience in using computers, tablets, office programs, internet, e-mail and conference software is required to provide distance education. It is necessary to be able to provide content to students, to be able to receive and send documents, and to find solutions for some problems that may arise during education. Therefore, it is recommended that educators who will provide distance education receive training on these subjects in order to perform distance education effectively.
It is also recommended by the researchers of this study that synchronous and asynchronous methods can be used together in order to avoid problems during distance instrument education. Thus, the educators can have the opportunity to examine the performance of the student in more detail with the recordings in the asynchronous method, while using the intervention, warning and instant feedback possibilities provided by the synchronous method.
It should be kept in mind that due to the preliminary preparation required for distance education and the combined use of synchronous and asynchronous methods recommended in the study, longer periods are required compared to traditional face-to-face education. This will be needed in terms of effective planning of time.
The quality of the sound is very important in understanding the performance of the learners. Therefore, it is recommended to use a high-speed internet connection and a well-equipped computer, good audio equipment (headphones, speakers-monitors, microphones) for distance instrument education.