THE EFFECTS OF LEARNING SONGS BY EAR IN MULTIPLE KEYS
ON PITCH ACCURACY AND ATTITUDES OF BAND STUDENTS
(AURAL TRANSPOSITION)
by
ANN MARIE MUSCO
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the School of Music and Dance
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Musical Arts
December 2006
11
"The Effects of Learning Songs by Ear in Multiple Keys on Pitch Accuracy and Attitudes
of Band Students (Aural Transposition)," a dissertation prepared by Ann Marie Musco in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Musical Arts degree in the School
of Music and Dance. This dissertation has been approved and accepted by:
ce, Chair of the Examining Committee
Date
Committee in Charge:
Accepted by:
Dr. Harry E. Price, Chair
Dr. Michael D. Bullis
Dr. Phyllis M. Paul
Dr. Steve Vacchi
-
Dean of the Graduate School
© 2006 Ann Marie Musco
111
IV
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
Ann Marie Musco
in the School of Music and Dance
for the degree of
to be taken
Doctor of Musical Arts
December 2006
1
ij
Title: THE EFFECTS OF LEARNING SONGS BY EAR IN MULTIPLE KEYS
ON PITCH ACCURACY AND ATTITUDES OF BAND STUDENTS
(AURAL TRANSPOSITION)
Approved: ------
Harry E. Price
The main purpose of the study was to examine the effects of learning songs by ear
in multiple keys on skills in playing by ear and sight-reading. Secondary purposes of the
study were to explore the effects of instruction on student attitudes, and to consider
differential effects due to music aptitude. Students were brass and woodwind musicians
(N = 28) in grades 7-8, placed in one of two instructional groups according to music
aptitude, instrument, and music background.
Time for instruction was three 20-minute lessons per week for four weeks.
Students in the experimental group learned songs by ear in the keys of Bb, Db, and G
)
I'
v
concert, while students in the contact-control group practiced technical exercises in those
same keys. Before and after instruction, students performed a well-known melody by ear
in the keys of Bb, Db, and G concert, as well as a short etude in each of the three keys.
Two adjudicators listened to recorded performances and evaluated pitch accuracy.
To assess the effects of instruction on performance, repeated-measures ANOVAs
considered the variables of group, time, and key. The experimental group improved
significantly in playing by ear in the keys of Db and G concert,p < .001, but not in Bb.
The contact-control group did not improve significantly in playing by ear in any of the
keys. Both groups improved significantly in sight-reading in all three keys, p < .001.
Analyses of qualitative and quantitative data from a researcher-authored attitude survey
indicated that students in the experimental group perceived significant improvement in
the new keys of Db and G, while students in the contact-control group did not perceive
improvement. There were no statistically significant effects of music aptitude on
performance achievement or attitude. Whether this was because the sample sizes were
too small for the detection of effects, or whether there were no significant effects, is not
known. The results of the study suggest that learning songs by ear may benefit student
musIcIans.
VI
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Ann Marie Musco
SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
University of Hartford, Hartt School of Music, Hartford, Connecticut
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor of Musical Arts in Music Education, 2006, University of Oregon
Diploma of Fine Arts in Conducting, 2002, University of Calgary
Master of Music Education, 1990, University of Hartford
Bachelor of Music Education, 1985, Indiana University
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Music Reading
Band Pedagogy
Teacher Education
Wind Literature
Conducting
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Assistant Professor of Music, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2004-present
Graduate Teaching Assistant, University of Oregon, Eugene, 2000-2004
Associate Faculty, Allan Hancock College, Santa Maria, California, 1999-2000
c
Band Director, Grades 4-12, Piedmont Unified School District, California,
1995-1998
VB
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED):
Music Teacher, Grades 1-7, San Lorenzo Unified School District, California,
1991-1995
Graduate Assistant, University of Hartford, Connecticut, 1988-1990
Music Teacher, Grades 7-8, Claremont Junior High School, New Hampshire,
1987-1988
Band Director, Grades 5-6, Garden City Unified School District, Kansas,
1985-1987
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
Music Education Fellowship, Northwestern University, Summer 1997
PUBLICATIONS:
Musco, A. M. (2005). Classroom motivation and management go hand in hand.
Alaska Music Educators Journal, 44(1),34-35.
Musco, A. M. (2005, January). Just watch the baton during these warm-ups. The
Instrumentalist, 59, 12-14.
Musco, A. M. (2005). [Review of the book Vaughan Williams essays]. Music
Educators Journal, 91(3),62-63.
Musco, A. M. (2004). Tone quality in band: A review of selected literature.
Journal o/Band Research, 40,66-79.
Musco, A. M. (2003). [Review of the book Composers on composing/or band].
Music Educators Journal, 90(1),65.
..
V111
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many teachers, colleagues, family, and friends have supported my graduate
studies and this research project. I wish to express gratitude to my dissertation committee:
Dr. Harry Price, for his invaluable expertise in guiding the planning and documentation
of the study; Dr. Michael Bullis, for sparking my interest in experimental research, and
his attention to detail in methodology and analysis; Dr. Phyllis Paul, for her enthusiasm
and practical wisdom; and Dr. Steve Vacchi, for his amazing cheer and volunteerism
during all phases of my graduate studies. My heartfelt appreciation also goes to Dr. Paul
Doerksen for his mentorship during my on-campus years at DO as well as his confidence
in this research.
Thank you to Robin High for his statistical assistance; to Dr. Shannon Chase for
her involvement with the project proposal; to Professor Robert Ponto for his musical
inspiration; and to my adjudicators Paul Cummings, Jane Forvilly, Karen Gustafson, and
Don Hildie for many hours of thoughtful listening. Additionally, I would like to extend a
special acknowledgment to Dr. Wayne Bennett for his wise counsel and unfailing
encouragement. I would also like to recognize my family, especially my brothers Steven
and Michael, for their unconditional faith in me. Finally, and most important, thank you
to the teachers and students who participated in this study!
to my mother
IX
xTABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Problem .2
Rationale for the Study 5
Statement of Purpose 10
Research Questions 11
Scope and Delimitations of the Study 11
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 15
Rote Instruction: Pedagogical Foundations 16
Music Reading and Aural Perception 19
Playing by Ear 21
Aural-Based Instructional Strategies 28
Teaching Music Through Music 34
Rote-Song Teaching Procedures 38
Practice and Rehearsal 42
Summary 46
III. METHODOLOGY 49
Pilot Study 49
Purpose and Description .49
Testing Procedures 51
Scoring Procedures 51
Etude Construction 52
Results of the Pilot 53
Main Study 56
Research Design ;, 57
Participants 57
Instructors 61
Fidelity of Treatment 62
Procedures 62
Treatments 65
Measures 67
Plan for Analysis : 74
Summary 76
----... -.._.._._------~- ---
Xl
Chapter Page
IV. RESULTS 77
Group Demographics and Music Aptitude 78
Descriptive Data: Performance Tests 81
Research Question 1: Effects on Song-by-Ear Achievement 83
Research Question 2: Effects on Sight-Reading Achievement 86
Research Question 3: Effects on Student Attitudes 87
Research Question 4: Differential Effects of Aptitude 107
Summary 11 0
V. DISCUSSION 111
Description of the Study .111
Summary of Results 112
Discussion of Results 115
Discussion of the Study 121
Interpretation and Significance of the Study .127
Suggestions for Future Research .129
Playing by Ear and Music Reading: A Possible Connection 131
Concluding Thoughts 133
APPENDICES
A. STUDENT AND PARENT PERMISSION FORMS 135
B. SONG-BY-EAR PREIPOSTTEST 140
C. SIGHT-READING ETlTDES 142
D. ETUDE COMPARABILITY FORM 144
E. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADJUDICATORS 147
F. STUDENT BACKGROUND SURVEY 149
G. STUDENT ATTITUDE INVENTORY 152
H. INTRODUCTORY LESSON 156
1. SONG REPERTOIRE FOR SONGS GROUP .162
1. TONIC PATTERNS FOR SONGS GROUP .166
K. TEACHING PROCEDURES FOR SONGS GROUP 169
L. LESSON PLANS FOR SONGS GROUP 172
M. EXERCISES FOR EXERCISES GROUP 198
Xll
Chapter Page
N. TONIC PATTERJ\TS FOR EXERCISES GROUP .200
O. TEACHING PROCEDURES FOR EXERCISES GROUP 204
P. LESSON PLANS FOR EXERCISES GROUP .206
Q. TESTING ORDERS 208
REFERENCES 210
LXlll
LIST OF TABLES
T~k P~e
1. Definition of Terms 13
2. Calendar 64
3. Music Background of Participants 79
4. Frequency Distribution: Aptitude Categories by Group 80
5. Aptitude Percentile Scores by Group 80
6. Inter-Rater Reliability 81
7. Performance Tests: Descriptive Data and Confidence Intervals 82
8. Performance Tests: Gain Scores 83
9. ANOVA Results: Song-by-Ear Achievement.. 84
10. Summary: Song-by-Ear Achievement 85
11. ANOVA Results: Sight-Reading Achievement 86
12. Summary: Sight-Reading Achievement 87
13. Perceived Task Difficulty 89
14. Perceived Performance Excellence 91
15. Gain Scores: Perceived Task Difficulty 93
16. Frequency Distribution: Perceived Changes in Task Difficulty 94
17. ANOVA Results: Perceived Changes in Song Difficulty 95
18. ANOVA Results: Perceived Changes in Etude Difficulty 96
19. Gain Scores: Perceived Performance Excellence 97
20. Frequency Distribution: Perceived Changes in Performance Excellence 98
21. ANOVA Results: Perceived Changes in Song Performance 99
22. AN0 VA Results: Perceived Changes in Etude Performance 100
23. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results: Attitudes Toward Instruction .1 02
24. ANOVA Results: Effects of Aptitude on Attitude: SAl Questions 25-31 .109
\
I
I
L
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In their book The Teaching ofInstrumental Music, Colwell and Goolsby (1992)
described a typical rehearsal scenario: An ensemble performs scales and other warm-up
exercises with a high degree of technical accuracy, but sight-reading activities are beset
by numerous pitch errors due to lack of awareness of key signatures and tonalities.
Considering the extended amount of time spent practicing technical exercises in an effort
to ameliorate note accuracy, the number of pitch errors is disappointing. The director
patiently corrects performance errors, and improvements are forthcoming, yet the entire
process seems to begin again with each new composition. Reflecting upon this scenario,
it may be that many students are unable to transfer to the literature skills learned and
practiced in warm-ups and teclmical exer~ises. Colwell and Goolsby advised that one
possible solution to this problem is to "teach more music through music" rather than
exercises or "pure technique" (p.123).
Learning and transposing songs by ear is an activity that qualifies as teaching
music through music. In playing songs by ear, students become aware oftonality and
learn to perform within the appropriate key signature. This study compared learning
songs by ear and aural transposition, a musical approach to learning to perform in new
keys, with the traditional approach of practicin'g scales and other technical exercises.
,I
L
2
Background of the Problem
Pedagogues in instrumental music have voiced their concerns that beginning
method books teach music reading as a motor reaction to visual symbols on the page
rather than as an aural-visual-motor skill (Gordon, 2003; Grunow, 2005; Grunow,
Gordon, & Azzara, 2001; Schleuter, 1997). Popular published band method books that
would be considered traditional in terms of their approach to music reading and the
introduction of new pitches include Standard ofExcellence (Pearson, 1993), Essential
Elements 2000 (Lautzenheiser et aI., 1999), Accent on Achievement (O'Reilly &
Williams, 2001), and The Yamaha Advantage (Feldstein & Clark, 2001). In these
traditional band method books, each new pitch on the music staff is associated with a
musical letter name and a corresponding finger, slide, or mallet position.
Among the four method books, there is little or no attention to aural-skills
development, playing by ear, or rote-note approaches to teaching music reading.
Moreover, in my opinion, there is inadequate attention to tonal context as new pitches are
presented and insufficient repetition of newly learned notes. For example, consider the
introduction of the note low-Ab concert. Of the four method books, three use the new
pitch first in an exercise, rather than a major-key song that might be more quickly and
vividly audiated. Essential Elements 2000 uses the new pitch in two consecutive songs,
but the first song is in Ab major and the next is in F minor. Only one book, Standard of
Excellence, introduces the new pitch with two musical lines, the first an exercise and the
next a song, that are in the same key, Ab major. Two books contrast the new pitch Ab
with A-natural within the first three songs/exercises of music. Although there is no
~~'" "_,", "'C_,~""=""~~=~~ " _
I
I
!
3
music-specific research to suggest an optimal number of repetitions of a new fingering,
Sanders (2004) concluded in his review of literature that three repetitions of a new task
appears to be optimal, and that beginning students may need even more repetitions. None
of the four method books offers three songs/exercises of the new pitch within a single
tonal context before moving on to other concepts.
Schleuter (1997) warned that this approach to instrumental music performance
results in "button pushers" who are unlikely to aurally comprehend the music they are
performing. Thompson (2004) used the term "button pushers" to describe musicians in
her study who were unable to hear inside their heads the music they were asked to sight-
sing; only after instrumental performance were these musicians able to hear the pitches
notated. Gordon (2003) and Grunow (2005) advocated the importance of audiation - "the
hearing and comprehending in one's mind the sound of music that is not or may never
have been physically present" (Gordon, 2003, p. 361) - as fundamental to performance
with understanding. Without audiation, using the correct fingerings when performing
music from notation is analogous to typing prose without understanding the meaning of
the text being typed. Audiation also enables musical prediction and anticipation, which
are thought to facilitate accurate performance and sight-reading (Gaynor, 1995; Gordon,
2003; Grunow, 2005). A more basic concern may be that performers unable to hear the
score do not recognize errors and, therefore, are not able to self-correct mistakes (Nuttall,
2004). These musicians need a great deal of teacher assistance when learning new music,
as described in the opening scenario of this chapter.
·-.'i-A.-· _-_.~.-... L~~~~ _
I
I
:L..
4
In harmony with the views of Gordon (2003), Grunow (2005), Schleuter (1997),
and others, Priest (1989) opined that for instrumental performance to be a musical
experience with a musical result, performance must be preceded by an aural
image. Further, he advocated that all musical performance should be regarded as
"by ear," including when notation is involved, so that an aural basis of
musicianship is maintained, a wider view of performance is encouraged, and
musicians might be more spontaneous in their music-making.
Mainwaring (1941) cautioned against teaching music reading as mechanical
reaction to symbols on the page, or "the unfortunate tendency to teach the notation as the
stimulus of an activity rather than as symbolic of sounds" (p. 211). Mainwaring (1951)
later proposed that music reading involves three automatically functioning processes -
sound, symbol, and action - that ideally occur synchronously. He noticed that many
students possess excellent symbol-action skills but lacked sound-symbol and sound-
action coordination.
Motor and visual/cognitive skills are the focus of development for students in the
middle or high school band that spends many minutes of each rehearsal engaged in
technical drill. Scales and other exercises seek to develop kinesthetic fluency as well as
pitch accuracy. Pitch accuracy is developed further with knowledge of music theory,
including key signatures. However, as suggested earlier in the scenario described by
Colwell and Goolsby (1992), these skills mayor may not transfer as new music literature
is being learned.
T
I
..
5
Rationale for the Study
Pedagogues such as Kodaly (Choksy, 1981), Suzuki (1969), and Schleuter (1997)
advised teaching music through music as much as possible, rather than technical drills
and composed exercises. In developing music reading skills, Kodaly-based instruction
includes singing folk songs and Suzuki-based instruction includes performing classical
masterpieces. Schleuter believed that familiar songs were the most effective musical
material for beginning instrumentalists. He recommended singing songs before playing
them and playing simple melodies at many different pitch levels. In this way, fingerings
and range expansion are accomplished without additional material, and a musical reason
exists for learning new fingerings.
An 18-week experimental study by Reimer (1944) (as cited in Duerksen, 1972)
compared me1ody- and drills-based instruction in beginning instrumental music.
Participants in the melody group selected tunes to practice; fingerings were introduced as
needed and errors were corrected as they occurred. Participants in the drills group did not
play melodies, as all instruction was limited to scales, drills, and exercises. The melody
group covered more than twice as much material, performed more difficult music,
achieved higher scores on a music listening test, and demonstrated more positive attitudes
toward music instruction.
Dalby (1999) posited teaching familiar tunes by ear as among the most basic of
strategies:
Singing and playing familiar tunes by ear are essential for developing the ability
to connect audiation to the physical manipulation of the instrument. ... Think of
!
b
6
tunes as musical stories, essential components of the aural/oral foundation upon
which higher levels of audiation skill are built. Children who learn a large
repertoire of stories as part of their early language learning are better prepared for
formal instruction in reading. The same is true in music.... Encourage students
to learn as many tunes as possible. Make tunes a part of grading or other incentive
plans.... Any efforts you make in this regard will pay valuable dividends in the
level of overall musicianship that your students will ultimately achieve. (p. 23)
Many educators have advised learning songs by ear in beginning instrumental
music (e.g., Conway, 1997; Dalby, 1999; Martin, 2005), and some have also advocated
aural transposition (Froseth, 1996; Grunow et aI., 2001; Righter, 1945; Schleuter, 1997;
Webster, 2000). Transposition of notated music is recommended by piano pedagogues
such as Bastien (1973) and in piano texts such as those authored by Berkowitz (1975),
Heerema (1984), Lindeman (1996), and Pace (1956). In band instruction, Righter was an
early proponent of learning melodies by ear and transposition, reminding the reader that
"song is the real basis of all music" (p. 196) and even suggesting ensemble improvisation
of idiomatic accompaniment parts. Righter opined that such activities were both
interesting and constructive and would "pay large dividends in both suspected and
unsuspected directions" (pp. 43-44).
Although traditional beginning instrumental method books offer scant attention to
playing by ear and rote-song instruction, two currently available series are exceptions: Do
It! and Jump Right In. Do It! Play in Band (Froseth, 2000) lists nine familiar songs to be
learned by ear without music notation and three familiar melodies to be played on a new
bz
7
starting note (p. xv). The songs to be learned by ear are notated in the student book and
accompanied in a "traditional" style; students are later asked to play the songs again,
without consulting notation, in a different style. Other songs, such as Down by the
Station, Blues in F, and Cool Jazz, are designed in a call-and-response format, and
improvisation activities are included. The Teacher's Resource Edition includes a list of
songs suited for specific teaching purposes, but does not describe teaching procedures.
The printing of song lyrics in the student books implies that singing is highly
recommended. Do It! Play Strings (Froseth & Smith, 2003) and Do It! Play Recorder
(Froseth, 1998) are similar in design and content to the band method. On page 23 of the
recorder book, students learn the definition of aural transposition and there are blank
staves for notating eight familiar tunes beginning on new starting pitches.
Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series: For Winds and Percussion (Grunow et
ai., 2001) includes notated tonal and rhythm patterns, four specially composed songs to
teach the concepts of major-minor tonality and duple-triple meter, and 10 folk songs to be
learned by ear and then read in notation. The Teacher's Guide recommends general
strategies - including copious "Dos and Do Nots" (p. 280) - for teaching students to sing
the songs, although I did not find specific recommendations for making a transition from
singing the songs to playing them on instruments. Vocal cues prompt students to begin
singing in the appropriate tonality, meter, and style. For each song notated in the book,
there are bass lines that can be taught by ear and harmony lines to be read in notation.
Recommended enrichment activities include playing familiar songs in different keys,
playing familiar major songs in minor tonality, playing familiar songs in a different
TI
I
I
I
L
8
meter, improvising harmony parts to familiar songs, and notating familiar and unfamiliar
songs. The Solo Books with compact disc recordings contain additional melodies that are
designed to be learned by ear in multiple keys and later read from notation in the original
key. The strings (Grunow, Gordon, & Martin, 2002) and recorder (Grunow, Gordon, &
Azzara, 1998) methods are similar in scope and content.
Although only a few beginning band method books feature substantial play-by-ear
activities, other published resources are available to encourage playing by ear. Froseth's
Ear-to-Hand Foundation Studies (1994) features sequential exercises performed by ear in
all keys, with recorded accompaniments. Among numerous publications by Aebersold for
teaching jazz style and improvisation are Minor Blues in All Keys (1993) and Giant
Steps: Six Challenging Jazz Songs in Alli2 Keys (1995). Although all of these resources
promote playing by ear, they are unlikely to be used in a concert band setting.
A resource directly related to the topic of learning songs by ear in multiple keys
that might be used in band rehearsals is Studies in Aural Transposition by Froseth (1996),
which was designed to assist musicians in improving ears-hands coordination. The author
viewed ear-to-hand activities as "applied ear training," or a "performance-based form of
aural music dictation... of immense utility" (p. 2). Froseth suggested that ear-to-hand
coordination is an important skill for musicians and one that is essential for creative
musicianship. Without ear-to-hand coordination, the music reader is "eye-bound" (p. 2)
and can only respond to visual symbols with kinesthetic actions rather than aural
understanding. The workbook includes a self-assessment of skills followed by songs for
skill development. The opening measures of 30 well known melodies are notated
II
I
II
I
. I
I
I
9
beginning on various starting pitches suitable for band or string instruments. The
musician chooses a convenient starting pitch and reads the musical excerpt in one key.
After learning the excerpt, the musician transposes it to four other starting pitches. For a
song in major tonality, the flutist would read the excerpt in Bb and then transpose it to the
keys of Eb, Ab, C, and F concert. Next, the musician is advised to play the excerpt
starting on all possible pitches; the sequence of starting pitches, around the circle of
fifths, is notated in the book on a music staff. The concept is that now the musician is
ready to learn and perform the entire song by ear in all keys.
In addition to pedagogues who recommend learning songs by ear and some
published resources to support such instruction, descriptive studies have documented
significant, positive relationships between the skills of playing by ear and playing from
music notation. Luce (1965) observed a moderate correlation between high school band
students' skills in playing by ear and sight-reading, r = .50. For students in grades 7-12,
McPherson (1995-1996) reported an even higher correlation ofr = .67, and between
playing by ear and performing rehearsed music, r = .64. Among beginning band students,
Bernhard (2004) documented a correlation of r = .67 for playing by ear and sight-reading.
Playing songs by ear is also recommended by MENC - The National Association
for Music Education. The National Standards for Music include Achievement Standard
2d for grades 5-8: "Students play by ear simple melodies on a melodic instrument"
(MENC Committee on Performance Standards, 1996, p. 69). This recommendation is in
accord with the philosophy espoused by earlier proposals in music education, such as the
Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project, or MMCP, which outlined four categories of
10
musical objectives including knowledge, skills, attitudes, and aesthetics (Thomas, 1970).
The MMCP sequenced skill objectives in priority order: aural/listening,
dexterous/performance, and translative/notational. A well-rounded instrumental
curriculum that includes learning songs by ear and then later reading those songs in
notation would qualify as such a curriculum.
Although the National Standards and educational experts suggest learning songs
by ear in band, and music publications exist that support playing songs by ear, there is a
dearth of empirical evidence measuring the effects of such instruction. Brown (1990)
implemented a pilot rote-song curriculum in a college aural-skills class and found that
melodic echoes, songs by ear, and aural transposition contributed to student achievement
in playing melodic patterns and songs by ear. Other studies have included rote-song
instruction among several independent variables (e.g., Bernhard, 2004; Dunlap, 1989;
Haston, 2004; McDonald, 1991), but none have examined the specific effects of rote-
song instruction on music reading in intermediate-level band classes. Consequently, the
present study was proposed.
Statement of Purpose
This study compared instruction that emphasized learning songs by ear in
multiple keys with instruction that emphasized playing from notation technical exercises
in those same keys. The primary purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of
song-by-ear instruction on pitch accuracy in song-by-ear and sight-reading performance.
Secondary purposes of the study were to examine student attitudes toward instruction and
to explore any differential effects of music aptitude.
...
11
Research Questions
1. Are there any effects on song-by-ear achievement due to type of instruction?
2. Are there any effects on sight-reading achievement due to type of instruction?
3. Are there any effects on student attitudes due to type of instruction?
4. Are there any differential effects among students of low, moderate, and high
aptitude on performance achievement or attitudes due to type of instruction?
Scope and Delimitations of the Study
The study employed a pre-posttest control-group design. Participants included
seventh- and eighth-grade wind musicians in band, most of whom had played their
instruments for three or four years. Students in a single band class were placed in one of
two groups according to music aptitude, instrument, and music background, and the
groups were randomly assigned to either the experimental or contact-control treatment.
Measures included a test of music aptitude (Advanced Measures ofMusic
Audiation, by Gordon, 1989), a researcher-authored Student Background Survey (SBS),
pre- and postinstruction song-by-ear performance tests in three keys, pre- and
postinstruction sight-reading performance tests in the same keys, and a researcher-
authored Student Attitude Inventory (SAl). The independent variables of the study were
type of instruction and music aptitude. The dependent variables of the study were pitch
accuracy in playing by ear, pitch accuracy in sight-reading, and student attitudes toward
instruction. Analysis of variance tests considered the possibility of interaction effects due
to music aptitude (Research Question 4). Follow-up analyses documented the effects of
12
instruction on playing a familiar song by ear (Research Question 1), sight-reading
(Research Question 2), and student attitudes (Research Question 3).
The time for instruction was brief (four hours over the span of one month) so that
the study could be completed within the quarter-term grading period and without
encroaching upon concert season. This decision helped to minimize potential threats to
experimental control, but lessened the likelihood of affecting significant gains in
performance skills.
Because the study measured only pitch accuracy, the playing tests did not take
into consideration tone, intonation, rhythm, or other musical factors. There was no
opportunity for remedial instruction, and neither treatment addressed the concepts of
range development or tone production. Student performances were scored from audio
recordings. Therefore, performance test scores reflected students' pitch production rather
than knowledge of fingerings or slide positions.
In an effort to isolate the variable of rote-song instruction, the treatment protocol
did not include singing, solfege exercises, melodic-pattern training, reading or writing of
the learned songs, harmonization ofthe learned songs, or other activities that would
usually complement such an instructional approach. Further, the teachers showed the
students how to play the new pitches on their instruments without the aid of any visual
fingering/position chart, as would be typical in a traditional rehearsal.
The band classes available to participate in the study were limited to those within
driving distance ofthe researcher's home and school, which pragmatically included three
middle schools. One school employed a part-time educator whose schedule did not
13
permit participation and the other employed a first-year teacher, thus leaving one possible
school site. The class selected to participate had only 29 wind musicians in the group. For
the purposes of statistical analysis, this was a relatively small sample. Further, the
findings of the study might not apply to other instruments, students of different ages,
students with fewer or more years of instrumental study, other student populations
beyond the class involved in the study, or private-lesson instruction.
See Table 1 for definitions of terms used in the study.
Table 1: Definition ofTerms
Term
Audiation
Aural transposition
By ear
Key
Music aptitude
Definition
"Hearing and comprehending in one's mind the sound of music
that is not or may never have been physically present" (Gordon,
2003, p. 361). Walters (1989) used this working definition: "the
hearing of sounds not before the ear at the moment, through
recall, prediction, or conception" (p. 5).
Performing a melody or musical passage by ear (without
notation) beginning on a new starting pitch.
Music performed without notation at the time of performance
(Priest, 1989) and learned aurally without the aid of notation
(McPherson, 2005).
In the broadest sense of the word, loyalty to a specific tonic or
pitch class (Apel, 1969). The keys practiced in this experiment
were Bb concert, Db concert, and G concert. In this document,
these major keys may be termed simply Bb, Db, and G.
Based on the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (Merriam-
Webster Online Dictionary, 2005-2006a) definition, one's
capacity to learn or achieve in music. Gordon (2003), the author
of the aptitude measure used in this study, believes that
"audiation is fundamental to music aptitude" (p. 46).
14
Table 1 (Continued): Definition ofTerms
Term
Notational audiation
Pitch accuracy
Rote instruction
Rote song
Sight-reading
Song
Tonal audiation
Tonality
Tonic pattern
Definition
"The audiation of what is seen in music notation without the aid
of physical sound" (Gordon, 2003, p. 373).
Accuracy of pitch without consideration of rhythm or intonation.
In some literature, "note accuracy" is the term of choice.
According to the New Oxford American Dictionary Online,
instruction focused on the "habitual repetition of something to be
learned" (McKean, 2005).
Any song learned through repetition and, in this study, without
the assistance of music notation and with minimal use of tonal
solfege or scale-degree numbers.
Performing from a score without any prior practice or instruction
of that score; i.e., prima vista (Gabrielsson, 1999).
Traditionally, a song is composed of words with music
(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2005-2006b). In this
study, however, songs will include common melodies taught
without text and performed on an instrument.
Audiating the tonal syntax of music, which is the orderly
arrangement of pitches that establish the tonality of a passage or
piece of music (based on Gordon, 2003).
In the broadest sense of the word, "loyalty to a tonic" or resting
tone (Apel, 1969, p. 855) and the organization of all tones and
harmonies in relation to that tonic or resting tone. Tonalities
include major, minor, dorian, and so on (Gordon, 2003). The
tonality used in this experiment was major.
Two to four pitches of equal duration within the tonic triad that
are heard as a sequential whole (based on Gordon, 2003).
r~--------------~~---_·_-----------i
I
!
I'
. I
L
15
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This study examined the effects of rote-song instruction in instrumental music.
Therefore, the literature review begins with a brief overview of selected instrumental
methodologies that recommend rote instruction: Pedagogical Foundations. The
underlying theory of the study is that improved aural perception facilitates accurate music
reading. Consequently, the chapter continues with research on the topic of Music Reading
and Aural Perception. The experimental instruction, playing by ear, is an aural approach
to music learning, and so discussions of Playing by Ear and Aural-Based Instructional
Strategies are next.
Literature on the theme of Teaching Music Through Music includes two studies
closely related to the present research topic. One study compared warm-ups based on
musical excerpts with instruction employing musical exercises (Price, Blanton, & Parrish,
1998) and another documented the effects of a pilot rote-song curriculum in a college
aural-skills piano laboratory (Brown, 1990). The review of literature concludes with a
summary of recommended best practices for teaching songs by ear, as well as rehearsal
strategies applicable to both the experimental and traditional instructional treatments:
Rote-Song Teaching Procedures and Practice and Rehearsal.
------------
b
16
Rote Instruction: Pedagogical Foundations
This study proposed that rote-song instruction might be as beneficial in
instrumental music as it has been in elementary general music. America's first public
school music educator, Lowell Mason, taught students to sing songs by rote before
introducing music notation. Soon thereafter, music educators were engaged in a lively
debate of teaching methods. Yolk (1993) offered an excellent overview of the history of
the rote-note controversy. Although rote learning in instrumental music makes some
teachers anxious that music reading skills are not being developed (Kendall, 1966), the
major music learning pedagogies ofOrff, KodaIy, Suzuki, and Gordon all advise sound-
before-sign rote instruction where aural/oral activities precede music reading. Although
there have been few applications of the Orff and KodaIy approaches in instrumental
music, the Suzuki and Gordon methodologies have influenced instrumental music
instruction.
Suzuki's Mother Tongue ApjJroach
Shinichi Suzuki (1969) observed that children of all abilities learn to speak their
native language with great facility at a very young age. The Suzuki approach encourages
young children to develop musical skills as they would develop language skills. Listening
to models (usually recordings) and imitative learning of a large body of carefully
sequenced classical repertoire are emphasized. Music reading is taught after a substantial
amount of repertoire is learned, typically through a process of associating what has been
learned by ear with what is seen on the page (Layne, 1974). This is believed to make for a
more meaningful first exposure to music reading. Many Suzuki teachers employ a book
l17
such as Note Reading for Violin (Suzuki, 1985), which teaches the sound, the symbol,
and the name of the symbol, in that order (Kuzmich, 1991). Games, flashcards, and other
activities also help the student to learn the mechanics of notation (Wood, 2001).
Kendall (1966) was an early advocate of the Suzuki approach. He acknowledged
and assuaged worries about the Suzuki emphasis on imitative learning, which in America
was viewed as "a sinful, if pleasurable, pastime" (p. 14) that might impede the
development of the eye-brain-finger relationship. Suzuki proponents, however, believe
that just as learning to talk does not interfere with learning to read, learning to play by ear
does not interfere with learning to read music notation (American Suzuki Institute-West,
1973). Further, it is suggested that in playing from memory and delaying music reading,
the ear is developed, aural memory is challenged, and the musician is free to concentrate
on performance fundamentals such as posture, technique, and musicality.
Gordon's Music Learning Theory
Edwin Gordon (2003) conceived his Music Learning Theory as "an explanation
of how we learn when we learn music" (p. 26). In music learning, as in language
learning, the child progresses from imitation to understanding, and discrimination/rote
learning precedes inference learning. Music Learning Theory focuses on the development
of audiation skills and encourages a whole-part-whole approach to music instruction.
Students learn a repertoire of songs by ear through listening, moving, and singing
activities. These experiences provide the readiness for tonal and rhythm pattern
instruction, which is the "part" in whole-part-whole learning. In band, the later "whole"
in whole-part-whole learning includes performance of music literature.
18
Pattern instruction begins at the aural/oral skill level, where students listen to and
imitate patterns on a neutral syllable. At the verbal-association skill level, students apply
tonal and rhythm syllables to the patterns learned in order to better remember and
discriminate them. Pattern instruction continues through the partial synthesis, symbolic
association, and composite synthesis levels of discrimination learning. As familiar and
unfamiliar patterns are audiated, read, and performed in succession, students are engaged
in the first level of inference learning, termed generalization. Inference learning also
includes creative activities, such as improvisation, and theoretical understanding, which
may include learning the letter names of notes, counting rhythm patterns, and
explanations of key and time signatures.
Concerns: Developing Musical Independence
Presently, in instrumental classrooms throughout the country, students learn the
letter names and time values of notes, the placement of pitches on the staff, and
definitions of musical terms. Still, students ask their teachers, "How does this go?" To
answer students' questions, some teachers sing or perform a tricky passage of music
while the students watch the notation. In the method book Spotlight for Strings, the
authors recommend this type of listen-imitate-read process of association for beginning-
level instruction (Gazda & Stoutamire, 1997). Students are satisfied that they are learning
"how it goes," but educators are frustrated that students continue to need teacher
assistance and have yet to become independent readers. Excellence in sight-reading is not
possible for those musicians who lack musical independence. The challenge for educators
is the development of strategies that move students from imitative, teacher-dependent
19
learning to inferential, independent learning. Careful sequencing, moving from the
familiar to the unfamiliar, and adequate repetition are critical for guiding students from
rote learning to note reading.
Certainly, it should not be expected that anyone pedagogical approach is a fail-
safe method. Critics of the Suzuki approach point to Suzuki-trained string musicians who
are successful in memorizing lengthy, complex repertoire through imitation but are
unable to generalize what they have learned to reading other repertoire or to deeply
understand (i.e., audiate) what they perform (Stamou, 2005). Some research studies
examining Gordon's Music Learning Theory have supported the benefits of that model of
instruction (Grutzmacher, 1987; McDonald, 1991), while others have indicated no
statistically significant advantages (Grande, 1989; Liperote, 2004). Considering the vast
body of research on rote-note instruction as a whole, however, numerous studies have
demonstrated the effectiveness of rote-note instructional approaches in the early stages of
learning an instrument (Bernhard, 2004; Dunlap, 1989; Glenn, 1999; Haston, 2004;
Sperti, 1970). The present study examined rote learning in intermediate-level
instrumental music, thus building upon research in beginning band instruction.
Music Reading and Aural Perception
Hodges (1992) defined music reading as the process of converting the visual
symbols of music notation into sound, whether conceived internally in the mind's ear or
produced externally with the voice or another musical instrument. Research has indicated
that both visual and aural perception of music notation are necessary for performing
music from a score (Dodson, 1983). For some performers, visual perception initiates an
r
!'
I
20
automatic motor response and some degree of performance fluency is achieved. Artist-
musicians, however, deplore such mechanical performances, believing that the
musician's aural/musical conception of the score is what distinguishes competent
performances from inspired performances (Frederiksen, 1996). A more basic concern
may be that performers unable to hear the score do not recognize errors and, therefore,
are not able to self-correct mistakes (Nuttall, 2004).
That aural perception is a component attribute of skilled music reading is evident
in the phenomenon of "proofreader's error," which occurs when a reader fails to
recognize a small error in print, reading a pitch or rhythm that was intended rather than
what is actually printed on the page. Wolf (1976) recounted what has since been termed
the "Goldovsky experiment" (Sloboda, 1984, p. 232). Upon a student's apparently
mistaken performance, piano pedagogue Goldovsky discovered a printing error in a well-
known Brahms Capriccio. Goldovsky later challenged skilled readers to find the
misprint, but even after multiple performances none of the musicians was able to locate
the error without further hints. This suggests that strong aural and kinesthetic
programming may work together in music performance from notation.
Sloboda (1976) asked pianists to sight-read musical excerpts in Baroque and
Classical styles that contained intentional misprints and found that musicians "corrected"
some of the misprints by playing notes that would have been written rather than the notes
that were written. Among the unaltered notes, the error rate during first performances was
2.9%. Among the altered notes, the error rate was 38%. A second performance of the
excerpts resulted in even more "corrections." Misplayed misprints were nearly always
" ;
21
substitutions of the original correct notes, suggesting that stylistic familiarity and tonal
comprehension contributed to musical inferences during performance.
McPherson (1994) observed high school band students while they were sight-
reading and noted that aural feedback seemed to motivate error corrections, particularly
among performers who had failed to observe a new key signature. McPherson observed
first performances of an etude in F concert: Among the students who mistakenly played
the first Bb as a B-natural, 41 % of musicians in the younger, less advanced group played
Bb during th~ rest of the melody, while 82% of musicians in the older, more advanced
group played Bb during the rest of the melody. Aural feedback enabled self-correction
and was strengthened with age/time and skill level.
Playing by Ear
Although the National Standards for Music (MENC, 1996) include playing by ear
as an important educational objective, research on the topic is relatively scarce. Only a
few studies have explored current practices or the relationship between playing by ear
and other musical skills.
Current Practices
A survey in Clavier magazine ("How teachers view playing by ear," 1996)
questioned "a representative sample" (p. 6) of its readers and found that 58% of
respondents taught students to play by ear. Teachers reported incorporating melodic
echoes, question-and-answer phrases, folk and familiar melodies, transposition exercises,
and improvisation in piano lessons. Many teachers felt unskilled in playing by ear, while
others struggled to find a balance of instructional activities within the time constraints of
---------- ---
22
a weekly lesson. Among the benefits noticed, teachers reported that "playing by ear
develops musical playing, motivates creativity, facilitates playing by memory, and
broadens appreciation for diverse compositional styles" (p. 7).
Desiring additional information about current practices in K-12 instrumental
music, I conducted a survey in 2001. Participants were educators attending a regional
conference of the MENC. The results of the survey were that 85% ofrespondents
reported incorporating some type of rote instruction in their music classes. Although the
interpretation of the survey is limited due to the small sample size (N = 26) and
convenience sampling procedures, the data provide some indication of current beliefs and
practices. Of the 22 respondents who said they used rote strategies in their teaching, the
most popular activities were playing rhythm patterns by ear, followed by playing tonal or
melodic patterns by ear, followed by teaching songs by ear. Of the 4 respondents who did
not employ any type of rote instruction in teaching, 3 felt it would hinder music reading
and 2 said they had never really considered it. (Multiple responses were encouraged.)
Shortness of teaching time, the need for a curriculum, and lack of confidence were other
reasons cited. Still, all of these teachers believed that aural transposition had potential
benefits, and one respondent wrote that aural transposition was a part of her personal
practice routine.
All respondents, except 3 who neglected to answer this particular question,
favored the idea oflearning a familiar song by ear in multiple keys (Musco, 2001). The
survey suggested six potential benefits of aural transposition and respondents circled any
they believed might apply: improved note accuracy in prepared performances (n = 11),
23
improved note accuracy in sight-reading (n = 10), better attention to intonation (n = 13), a
good supplement to scales and arpeggios (n == 7), for experience in keys not yet learned in
notation (n = 7), developing awareness of underlying harmonic structure (n = 6).
Handwritten comments included beliefs that aural transposition would be a good way to
learn new key signatures, develop instrumental facility (including finger pattern
technique on string instruments), encourage improvisation, introduce transposition, or
advance theoretical understanding. One respondent considered aural transposition an
indication of "complete knowledge of a particular song," one considered it "a generally
good way to develop better listening skills," and another claimed simply, "It's fun!"
High school instrumentalists in Australia reported that their teachers rarely
encouraged aural and creative forms of performance, but instead focused on technical
exercises and performance literature (McPherson, 1997). Students developed their
abilities to play by ear informally. McPherson identified three broad categories of
cognitive strategies used by student musicians in attempting to play by ear. Nearly half of
the students reported trying to sing the melody internally and match the sounds with notes
on instruments (kinesthetic recall linked with sound). Other musicians attempted to sing
the melody internally without any attempt at kinesthetic recall, and some employed
mental or visual strategies independent of melodic internalization and kinesthetic recall.
In a later investigation, McPherson (2005) interviewed younger band musicians.
Although here the researcher grouped the strategies in five rather than three categories,
the described strategies were similar to those reported by the high school musicians in the
earlier study.
24
Skills Development
As noted by McPherson (1997; 2005), skills in playing by ear may improve over
time without formal instruction. Skills in playing by ear can also be improved with
practice. Wilder (1988) measured the play-by-ear skills of college students who were
assigned to either an experimental or control group for the programmed practice of
melodic patterns. Musicians in the experimental group improved their abilities to play
melodic patterns by ear significantly more than did students in the experimental group.
The primary purpose of a study by Delzell, Rohwer, and Ballard (1999) was to
examine the relative difficulty of performing selected melodic patterns. Data were
obtained for seventh- and tenth-grade wind musicians (N= 47). At the time of the study,
play-by-ear activities were not a regular component of their band instruction. Before the
melodic playback test, a listening test confirmed that all participants had the requisite
aural skills to perceive differences in patterns and a performance test verified that all
students were familiar with the necessary fingerings. The results of the analyses
demonstrated that major patterns were significantly easier than minor patterns and
ascending patterns were significantly easier than descending patterns. Students tended to
persist in using a familiar, although incorrect, fingering pattern during melodic repetitions
in the less familiar keys. Other findings of the study included no significant differences in
ability to play by ear due to length of instrumental study (two years or five years) or
instrument played (brass or woodwind). The seventh graders also took a test of music
aptitude. The analysis revealed moderate, positive relationships between Tonal Imagery
r
I
25
subtest scores on the Musical Aptitude Profile (Gordon, 1995) and student abilities to
play by ear (r = .74 for melody and r = .70 for harmony).
Aural Training
Earlier, I presented evidence that aural perception is a component skill of
advanced music reading and understanding. A question arises, then, as to how skills in
aural perception are acquired and if playing by ear might help to develop aural skills.
Theory pedagogues including Brown (1990), Covington (1992), Karpinski (2000), and
Thackray (1975) have considered this question and advised that playing by ear in college
aural-skills classes may be beneficial. Karpinski recommended instrumental playback of
aural stimuli because it connects aural-skills training directly to students' personal
experiences, allowing musicians to utilize their "most highly developed musical voices"
(p. 129). Further, playing by ear requires a "full spectrum of skills in the pitch domain"
(p. 130). Thackray noted the value of playing by ear as "a tactile aid to visual and aural
perception" and counseled learning through "real" music rather than "exercises" (p. 27).
Covington (1992) advocated that students ought to be able to represent heard and
imagined sounds in both notation and performance. By integrating dictation and
performance activities, all three modalities - the visual, the auditory, and the kinesthetic -
are employed. Covington described her curriculum, where students listened to a well-
known classical, folk, or patriotic theme; played the theme by ear on a familiar
instrument; and then notated the melody on paper.
Wilder (1988) investigated the melodic ear-to-hand coordination skills of 67 first-
semester college theory students. The data analysis revealed a correlation ofr = .84
26
between ear-to-hand coordination and a music theory placement exam, and r = .64
between ear-to-hand coordination and aural music theory grades. Wilder found that ear-
to-hand coordination, or the ability to imitate melodic patterns by ear on an instrument,
was the most effective predictor of aural music theory grades.
Playing by Ear and Music Reading
Intrigued by experts advising the important role of the ear in instrumental
performance, Luce (1958; 1965) was curious to learn the relationship of playing by ear
and sight-reading. Participants in his study were 98 high school band and orchestra
musicians. Performance tests were composed for the study by the researcher. The sight-
reading test included eight 8-measure examples requiring students to perform in three
different keys. The play-by-ear test included six 2-measure musical examples in a
common key. The stimuli were presented with a pipe organ model, and students were told
the starting pitch of the examples. Each example was heard three times, with three
opportunities for student response. In both tests, only pitch and rhythm were evaluated.
The results of the data analysis indicated a significant, positive relationship of sight-
reading with skills in playing by ear (r = .50, p < .01). Students who had taken private
lessons or accumulated more hours of participation in school ensembles tended to score
higher on the play-by-ear test. On the basis of his findings, Luce advocated the inclusion
of play-by-ear instruction in the instrumental music curriculum, stipulating that teachers
ought not encourage rote learning in general, but rather the specific skill of playing by ear
because of its potential to positively affect sight-reading abilities.
rl·!I
i
I
27
McPherson (l995b) espoused a "balanced" approach (p. 59) to instrumental
music education that attends to the development of visual, aural, and creative performing
skills. He considered visual skills to include performing rehearsed music and sight-
reading because both involve reproducing music from written notation, aural skills to
include playing from memory and playing by ear because both involve reproducing
music without the aid of notation in performance, and creative skills to include
improvisation.
McPherson's study (1995-1996) involved 101 clarinet and trumpet musicians
preparing for the Australian Music Examinations Board (AMEB). The musical
requirements of the AMEB include both repertoire and technical studies. Scores of the
AMEB served as an indication of ability to perform rehearsed music. The sight-reading
test was the Watkins-Farnum Perfonnance Scale (WFPS) (Watkins & Farnum, 1954).
The play-by-ear test had two component parts: Students first played Happy Birthday and
For He's a Jolly Good Fellow two times each in two different keys, and then they
listened to, performed, and aurally transposed five short melodies.
For the study sample as a whole, AMEB Levels III-VI, correlations between the
five skills were significant and substantial. For students at AMEB Level III/IV, with
participants closest in age to my study, significant correlations included playing by ear
and sight-reading (r = .40), playing by ear and performing rehearsed music (r = .31), and
sight-reading and performing rehearsed music (r = .30). McPherson (1995-1996) also
noted that these relationships tended to strengthen over time.
'~,I
28
In a three-year longitudinal study involving elementary band students, McPherson
(2005) continued his investigation of the skills of performing rehearsed music, sight-
reading, playing from memory, playing by ear, and improvising. At the conclusion of the
study, there were 97 students. For the play-by-ear test, children were told the starting
pitch of a recorded melody, which they heard four times, and then they attempted to play
it twice. The children improved significantly in all measures over the three years, even
though the local school curriculum did not include specific attention to developing the
aural and creative skills of performance. Students who scored low in playing by ear and
sight-reading at the end of their first year of instruction were significantly more likely to
discontinue their instrumental studies. These findings support the importance of
developing both sight-reading and play-by-ear skills not only for their inherent musical
value, but because students who develop these skills appear to be more likely to continue
instruction past the initial stages of learning.
Aural-Based Instructional Strategies
This study proposed that aural performance activities in band, such as learning
songs by ear, might positively affect skills in music reading. A variety of other aural-
based instructional strategies have been researched: rote-note approaches, singing,
modeling, pattern instruction, aural training, and aural warm-ups. The findings of those
studies, taken together, suggest that aural-based instructional strategies are important in
instrumental music education and can positively affect skills in music reading. Because
my study attempted to isolate the variable of learning songs by ear, the experimental
instruction excluded singing, pattern training, and the use of tonal syllables. However,
,J
29
many pedagogues who have recommended teaching songs by ear in instrumental music
suggest singing songs before playing them as well as preliminary call-and-response
activities such as melodic playbacks and tonal pattern training with solfege (Grunow et
al., 2001; Haston, 2004; Martin, 2005; McDonald, 1991); therefore, I will briefly review
that literature. Next reviewed are two investigations described in somewhat more detail: a
study by Delzell (1989) that examined the effects of discrimination training in band and a
study by Blevins (1998) that incorporated aural warm-ups in band.
Rote-Note Instruction
Learning songs by ear in unfamiliar keys and then later performing from notation
in those keys - in other words, delayed note reading - was the task in the experimental
group of my study. Researchers such as Glenn (1999), Grande (1989), McDonald (1991),
and Sperti (1970) have measured the effects of delayed note reading in beginning
instrumental music. Glenn and Grande found that delayed note reading did not impede
student success on a sight-reading posttest. McDonald reported significant differences in
note reading in favor of her rote-note group, but students were tested only on melodies
sung and played in class. Sperti reported significant, positive differences between rote-
note and traditional instruction in all performance measures: sight-reading, tone quality,
finger dexterity, and musical phrasing. Glenn and McDonald observed that students
receiving rote-note instruction demonstrated increased enthusiasm for music. In Glenn's
study, 70% of students in the rote-note group continued instruction the following year,
while only 32% of students in the note-instruction group continued participation.
j
11,
30
Fifth-grade beginning band classes in a study by Dunlap (1989) received 14
weeks of instruction, including solmization of melodic patterns and singing rote songs for
the experimental group. Students in the contact-control group performed melodic patterns
and songs on their instruments, with no class singing activities. Although there were no
differences between groups on a sight-reading posttest, singing did not hinder music-
reading progress and may have long-term constructive effects not measured by the study.
Pattern instruction involves call-and-response imitations of short tonal, rhythm, or
melodic patterns. Patterns are typically learned both vocally and instrumentally, first on a
neutral syllable and then with tonal or rhythm solfege, and finally read in notation. Many
believe that pattern training facilitates music learning (e.g., Bean, 1938; Gordon, 2003).
MacKnight (1975), Grutzmacher (1987), and Gamble (1989) documented significant
effects on music reading skills due to tonal pattern instruction.
Using 22 melodies from two popular beginning method books, Bernhard (2004)
examined the effects of a sing-imitate-read sequence of instruction in sixth-grade band.
The experimental group scored significantly higher than the contact-control group in the
play-by-ear posttest. The two groups scored similarly in sight-reading. The results of the
study suggest that rehearsal time devoted to singing activities did not encumber sight-
reading achievement and may have contributed to developing skills in playing by ear. For
the group as a whole, several significant relationships were noted: (a) playing by ear and
tonal aptitude, r = 57; (b) sight-reading and tonal aptitude, r = .37; and (c) playing by ear
and sight-reading, r = .67. The relationship between playing by ear and sight-reading is
congruent with the findings of Luce (1965) and McPherson (1995-1996).
31
Haston (2004) also examined the effects of sound-before-sign instruction. Twenty
fourth-grade participants were assigned to either an experimental (aural with modeling)
or contact-control (visual) group, receiving after-school group instruction taught by the
researcher for one hour each week for 11 weeks. Posttests included the WFPS as a
measure of sight-reading achievement and the performance of a prepared line of music
from a popular method book. Instruction for the aural with modeling group included
learning songs by ear, melodic echoes, singing while fingering instruments, playing from
printed music, and teacher models of tone quality, articulation, and other playing
fundamentals. Instruction for the contact-control group emphasized visual learning, with
students playing only from printed music. There was no singing, modeling, or playing by
ear.
Although there were no statistically significant differences between groups
(Haston, 2004), the aural with modeling group scored higher on both performance tasks.
For each group and both groups combined, correlations between skills in sight-reading
and performing rehearsed music were significant and positive. Haston concluded that
instruction emphasizing aural learning with modeling did not hinder beginning
instrumentalists in developing skills in performing from notation, and may have
contributed toward performance success.
Melodic Patterns
In order for students to learn songs by ear through imitation, as in this study,
students must be able to discern differences in melodic patterns and compare their
performance with a model song performance. Hence, skills in aural discrimination are
32
important. Delzell (1989) designed a taped program of instruction for teaching aural
discrimination. Many of the musical examples were short excerpts from the method book
being used for class instruction. The tapes included models followed by discriminator
foils, which differed in only one way from their model counterparts, and call-and-
response imitation cycles. The tapes taught the discrimination of tone quality,
articulation, rhythm patterns, melodic patterns, and more.
Beginning band students (N= 43) were randomly assigned to one of two groups
for the 18-week study (Delzell, 1989). Time for regular instructional activities was
slightly reduced for the experimental group, which listened to one discrimination tape at
each lesson. Both groups improved significantly in skills in aural discrimination. There
was no statistically significant difference between groups on the performance test,
suggesting that time spent in listening activities did not slow performance progress. It is
difficult to fully interpret the results of the performance test analysis, however, as the test
included both performance from notation and by ear.
Aural Warm-ups
In my study, students in the contact-control group played traditional notation-
based warm-ups from a technique book while students in the experimental group played
songs by ear. Blevins (1998) also compared notation-based to aural warm-ups. Her aural
warm-ups included melodic echoes, antiphonal scales, and scale variations as modeled by
the band director. Participants were 54 eighth-graders in their second year of instruction
in one intact band. Treatments took place over a 3-week period of instruction, using a
multiple baseline research design. The first week was devoted to notated warm-ups and
I
II
I
33
the second to aural warm-ups. During the third week, there were two days of notated
warm-ups followed by two days of aural warm-ups. The three dependent variables were
musical effectiveness, student behavior, and student attitude. Musical effectiveness was
evaluated by two experienced judges who listened to audio recordings of notated and
aural warm-up periods and rated them based on tone quality, balance, blend, intonation,
dynamics, and ensemble.
There was no statistically significant difference in ensemble performance or
student behavior between the two warm-up conditions (Blevins, 1998); however, the
length of treatment was very short and it is possible that significant differences might
have resulted after more time. There were no significant differences between warm-up
conditions based on student ratings of self-participation, section participation, band
participation, and overall musical effectiveness.
A majority of students (63%) responded to the free response section of a survey
(Blevins, 1998), which asked for the "best" and "worst" aspect of each kind of warm-up.
Comments such as "too repetitive," "too fast," or "did not get everyone participating"
were reported slightly more frequently for the notated warm-ups. The comment "took too
long" was reported more frequently for the aural warm-ups (36%) compared to the
notated warm-ups (13%). Since the warm-ups were always within one minute of each
other in duration, Blevins theorized that the unfamiliarity ofthe aural warm-ups might
have caused students to perceive that time for aural warm-ups had been extended.
Further, more time for directions was necessary for the aural warm-ups, so perhaps
overall playing time in aural tasks was less.
I!
34
In the "best aspect" category of the student attitude survey (Blevins, 1998), more
than one fifth of responses (22%) were positive reflections on the melodic echoes, which
were unique to the aural warm-ups. Six percent of students reported that the aural warm-
ups "made them think," but no students said the notated warm-ups made them think. The
only statistically significant difference reported by the researcher was related to the
response "good and fun," in favor of the aural warm-ups (24% compared to 5%).
Although a novelty effect certainly could have been a factor, in the short-term, student
attitudes toward the aural warm-ups were favorable.
Teaching Music Through Music
A wealth of materials exist to assist educators in teaching musical concepts
through band literature, such as the Teaching Music Through Performance in Band series
(Miles, 1997). Other resources include the Guides to Band Masterworks (Garofalo, 1992,
1995). Each volume features several instructional units, each based on a significant and
time-honored band composition. The philosophy of the series is that students can and
should become knowledgeable about music as they become technically skilled
performers. Therefore, in addition to accurate performance of individual parts, students
might learn to sing, play, and identify by sound and sight the rhythms, scales, intervals,
and chords found in the music. Garofalo's workbooks reflect an approach to music
education termed "comprehensive musicianship," which is an interdisciplinary approach
to music education that teaches music history, theory, structure, and style using school-
appropriate literature (Mark, 1996; Mark & Gary, 1999).
r
35
Garofalo and Whaley (1979) compared a comprehensive approach to instruction
with traditional band instruction. Two bands participated in the 5-week study, one as the
experimental group and the other as the contact-control group. Both bands rehearsed
Spectrum, a serial composition for electronic tape and band, by Herbert Bielawa.
Experimental instruction included aural skills and rehearsal activities related to the
compositional features of the score, listening to recordings of the work and other works
in a similar style, and a twelve-tone composition project. Rehearsals for the contact-
control group focused on traditional rehearsal procedures, with an emphasis on the short-
range performance goal of skill acquisition necessary for a successful public
performance.
Compared to the contact-control group, the experimental group scored
significantly higher on a test of conceptual knowledge and a listening examination.
Students retook these tests six weeks later. Correlations between the posttests and
delayed posttests were high and significant, demonstrating that retention of learning was
excellent. Adjudicators unanimously rated the postinstruction performance of the
experimental group a I (Superior), while the contact-control group earned a II (Good).
Although these data lend support for the comprehensive musicianship approach, the
researchers cautioned that the results might not apply to other band classes or
compositions.
Comprehensive musicianship advocates teaching musical concepts through music
literature rather than isolated drills and exercises. A study by Price, Blanton, and Parrish
(1998) sought to teach musical concepts through music literature excerpts rather than
36
warm-ups and exercises from a book. High school students (N = 69) in two bands
participated in 8 weeks of laboratory instruction that included two 20-minute sessions per
week. Two band directors provided instruction, rotating between bands and treatment
groups. After a brief scale and tuning warm-up, the excerpt group practiced passages
from the literature that focused on "problems relating to the development of music
reading proficiency" (p. 16): pitch patterns in a variety of keys, challenging articulations,
exigent rhythms, and dynamic and other expression markings. The exercise group learned
key awareness, articulations, rhythms, and dynamic and other expression markings
through studies in the published books Exercises for Ensemble Drill (Fussell, 1939) and
Tippsfor Bands (Hovey & Walker, 1959).
The researchers (Price et ai., 1998) confirmed that the two groups were
statistically comparable in performance skills before instruction. After instruction, skills
in sight-reading were measured using WFPS, skills in performing rehearsed music were
measured using excerpts from the literature rehearsed in the two band classes (which had
formed the basis for the warm-ups for the excerpt group), and student attitudes were
assessed with a written survey. Although there was no statistically significant difference
between groups in sight-reading improvement, both groups scored significantly higher in
sight-reading after instruction. In the performance of rehearsed music, the test results
significantly favored the experimental group. Analysis of a postinstruction participant
attitude survey resulted in significant differences being found in favor of the excerpt
group for lab enjoyment, lab helpfulness for improving personal playing skills, and lab
helpfulness for improving the band's performance at the concert.
I'
1
I
'I
!
"I
I,
i
Ij
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
37
The results of the study (Price et aI., 1998) suggest that the use of separate
materials to teach music performance skills may not always be necessary. Students
preferred instruction that demonstrated an obvious connection with the literature and felt
that such instruction was more effective than practicing isolated technical studies. As the
authors state, "It may be that the answer lies not in exercise materials, but in the music
itself in the hands of an innovative teacher. If the music is the reason for what we do, it
would seem best to use it as our source of inspiration and teaching materials" (p. 19).
Brown (1990) was another researcher and educator who believed in teaching
music concepts and performance skills through music, rather than exercises, whenever
possible. In his semester-long pilot keyboard curriculum involving 11 volunteer college
students, rote songs were the principal teaching materials. Performing melodic patterns
by ear and transposing songs were additional instructional activities. Group singing using
scale degree numbers and the use of a Wurlitzer illuminated keyboard were techniques
for helping students learn the songs. Students played and harmonized the songs in the
keys of C, F, and G major. Performances were graded in terms of correct notes, correct
chords, and number of interruptions. The overall mean song score was 8.39 of 10 points.
Out of 275 song performances, 87% of all performances were scored at or above the 70%
mastery level and 74% were scored at or above the 80% mastery level. The success of
Brown's students suggests that a curriculum incorporating rote-song instruction and aural
transposition might be efficacious in other settings such as intermediate-level band.
:i
l'
I
I
38
Rote-Song Teaching Procedures
Experimental research related to teaching songs by ear has focused on rote-song
instruction in elementary general music. Among the variables studied, research
examining use of text (i.e., presence or absence of song lyrics) has been inconclusive.
Also studied has been mode of presentation, such as whole-song versus echo-phrase
strategies. Most textbooks for teachers describe both methods of instruction (Irwin &
Nelson, 1986; Moomaw, 1984; Newman, 1995) and suggest that teachers consider the
musical characteristics of the song, including song length and repeated phrases, when
deciding how to teach a song through imitation and rote repetition. Harrison (1983)
advised that children would benefit from listening to a song three times in its entirety,
followed by a repeated-phrases approach where the children hear each phrase three times
before singing back the individual phrases. Phrases are then combined and repeated until
students are ready to sing the song in its entirety (Irwin & Nelson, 1986).
Gault (2004) reported empirical research supporting the benefits of a holistic,
rather than segmented, approach to teaching songs. Research has shown that students
with less experience or low music aptitude, however, seem to benefit from echoing
phrases ofa song. Most of the studies employed simple, four-measure songs (e.g., Gault,
2002; Klinger, Campbell, & Goolsby, 1998) and therefore the findings might not apply to
longer songs such as the repertoire planned for this study. In practice, particularly in
presenting longer songs, some combination of the whole-song and echo-phrase methods
is probably optimal.
39
Expert opinion articles and textbooks in elementary general music offer ideas for
motivating and retaining student interest during the song acquisition process (Irwin &
Nelson, 1986; Newman, 1995; Waddell, 1989). Presenting a song effectively is much like
successful public speaking, with expression, eye contact, and enthusiasm being important
(Newman, 1995). Questions and activities can focus attention on specific musical
attributes of the song or song phrases, help the teacher evaluate student understanding,
and sustain interest through necessary multiple repetitions: "Pat the beat as I sing the
song for you." "How many times do you hear the opening motive?" "What is the form of
the song?" "As I sing, clap on the first beat of each phrase." "Draw the shape of this song
in the air as you sing silently." For retention, students will need multiple opportunities to
perform a newly learned song. After a song is learned, practice variation is beneficial
(Newman, 1995; Waddell, 1989). Songs can be performed loud or soft, staccato or legato,
fast or slow. Songs can also be performed in a call-and-response format, or by smaller
ensembles of students with others listening, evaluating, or engaged in some kind of
seated movement activity.
A 1997 study (Moore, Brotons, Fyk, & Castillo) examined accuracy of singing
among children ages 6-9 from five countries. Children (N = 600) sang an unfamiliar song
and performances were evaluated with respect to accuracy of pitch, tonality, contour, and
rhythm. Rhythm scores were highest, followed by scores in contour and then pitch. (The
authors did not report where tonality scores ranked.) These results may suggest an
effective sequence of song instruction, where attention to rhythm and melodic contour
precedes matching pitches. Another finding was that children often repeated their own
, I
! i
.~:
40
mistakes. For nearly half of all tasks (45%), children's first attempt at repetition was the
most accurate, while the success rates for trials 2 and 3 were 27% and 28%, respectively.
Suggestions for teaching songs by ear in instrumental music are scant and
sometimes vague, often describing how to teach the song vocally and then assuming the
students will simply and automatically transfer their vocal skills to an instrument. Do It!
Play in Band (Froseth, 2000) offers no specific recommendations for teaching a song
vocally or instrumentally. Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series (Grunow et aI., 2001)
recommends that the teacher establish the tonality, key, tempo, and meter; "teach the
song by rote" (p. 278); and then have the students perform the song by ear.
Norman (2005) advises a whole-part-whole method. After several informal
hearings, Norman has his students listen one final time to the whole song, echo-sing the
phrases, and then echo-sing the entire song. After vocal review, students echo-play the
phrases and then echo-play the entire song. Martin (2005) advocates adding rhythmic
movement and checking to be certain students are audiating resting tone, but all initial
presentations are of the entire song. After students learn the song vocally, the teacher can
add accompaniment, teach the song lyrics, or teach the bass line. Finally, students
perform the song on instruments.
The procedures employed by McDonald (1991) in her study for teaching songs by
ear on recorder to young children included preliminary instruction involving tonal and
rhythm patterns. Before performing each phrase on instruments, students echo-sang each
phrase on a neutral syllable and then added tonal solfege.
Ii
l,
1
I"
. ;
',>
41
Applications to This Study
From my review of literature, I learned specific strategies for teaching songs by
ear through imitation and rote repetition. As a result, the rote-song lessons were
sequenced to include an initial motivator, whole-song presentations, continuing phrase-
by-phrase presentations with instrumental playback, and an instrumental performance of
the song followed by varied repetitions. Texts and articles suggested strategies for initial
motivation as well as questions and movement activities in order to direct student
attention to structural features of songs. Music Learning Theory (Gordon, 2003) implies
that continuing presentations include separate tonal and rhythm learning activities.
Research in instrumental practice suggested varied follow-up performances of songs:
changing dynamics, rhythms, articulations, or instrumentation.
Moore et al. (1997) reported that children were successful first in performing the
rhythm of the song, then the melodic contour, and finally the exact pitches. Karpinski
(2000), who viewed instrumental playback as a form of aural melodic dictation, included
awareness of melodic contour as a prerequisite skill for playing or notating the exact
pitches of a song. Therefore, although no pedagogues in instrumental music have
specifically recommended a focus on melodic contour before instrumental performance, I
made a special effort to include such activities in the lesson plans.
Learning that children often repeat initial mistakes in consequent performances
(Moore et aI., 1997), I realized the importance of offering guidance before the first
instrumental playback of each phrase so that students would be more likely to succeed in
performing accurately. Strategies included having the group match the starting pitch of
42
the phrase, discussion of melodic contour, deciding if the phrase moved by steps or skips,
and sometimes even matching each pitch of the phrase before playing it in rhythm.
Practice and Rehearsal
Research in music education, music psychology, and motor-skills learning has
suggested practice habits and strategies for instrumental performers that might be
effective in an ensemble rehearsal setting, and which further guided planning for
instruction in this study. Literature has examined scheduling and organizational strategies
for practice, as well as specific techniques - such as repetition, variation, slow practice,
and part practice - that are used by successful musicians.
Time and Scheduling
In my study, the variable oftime for practice was finite. Moreover, we neither
encouraged nor discouraged home practice. Owing to the apparent benefits of distributed
versus massed practice (Hallam, 1997b; Schleuter & Schleuter, 1988; Zdzinski, 1991),
instruction was spaced across a month-long treatment period. Turner (1998) and Sanders
(2004) discussed blocked and random schedules in music as well as degrees of contextual
interference. When one task is practiced repeatedly, as in a blocked schedule, interference
is low; when tasks are intermingled, as in a random schedule, interference is higher. A
serial schedule is somewhere between these two extremes, combining the predictability
of blocked practice with the nomepetitiveness of random practice. One type of serial
schedule would be practicing several different skills in the same order each time (Turner,
1998) such as scales around the circle of fifths. Although low levels of contextual
rii
,ii
'il
I
I
43
interference appear to facilitate initial skill acquisition, high levels of contextual
interference appear to increase skill retention and transfer (Schmidt & Lee, 2005).
For piano students learning to perform in a new key, Bachus (in Bachus, Rock,
Torkelson, & Morelock, 2005) recommends focusing on a key of the week, with students
practicing technical exercises such as scales and arpeggios in the new key. Students also
transpose selected technical exercises notated in a popular piano book, and learn a piece
ofliterature in the new key. A band curriculum could be similarly organized using a book
such as Technique Through Performance (Erickson, 1993), with a page of technical
exercises on the left-hand side of the book and a full-band arrangement on the right side.
Repetition and Variation
Varying the practice of a task introduces contextual interference and enhances
retention, as long as contextual interference is moderately but not extremely high. Adding
dynamics, changing articulations, or altering rhythms in the performance of a rote song or
technical exercise are examples of practice variation. Whether practice involves varied
repetitions of a task or a single task repeated many times exactly, repetition of some kind
is necessary for learning. Sanders (2004) reported that three repetitions of a task is
usually optimal, although the necessary number of repetitions for an individual musician
depends on student aptitude as well as the task to be learned.
Turner (1998) reminded that active processing during learning is preferred:
Mindless repetition typically does not enhance performance, whereas problem-solving
and contemplation usually do enhance performance. Based on research, Hallam (1997b)
suggested that variable practice may be most beneficial for the long-term development of
",~.
44
technical skills, but for improvement of performance on a specific composition, it may be
advantageous to practice the work exactly as it will be performed.
A recent study examined variable practice in band (Schallock, 2004). Two intact
seventh-grade classes participated in the study. The 15 etudes rehearsed by the variable-
practice group included the five etudes rehearsed by the constant-practice group plus two
variations of each etude. There were five performance posttests, including two tests of
skill acquisition, immediately following treatment; two tests of skill retention,
approximately 30 days following treatment; and a sight-reading test of skill transfer.
There were no significant differences between groups in perfoffilance achievement due to
practice condition, and caution is warranted in any attempt to generalize results because
of the small sample size.
Slow and Part Practice
Practicing a tricky passage slowly and then gradually speeding up the tempo is a
common strategy in self-reports of musicians (Brittin, 2006, April; Harnischmacher,
1997). Nearly half of the professional musicians surveyed by Hallam (l997a) described
repetitious practice working up from an initially slow tempo. Progressive-speed practice
acknowledges a ubiquitous phenomenon in motor behavior (referenced in Schmidt &
Lee, 2005) that is known as the speed-accuracy trade-off. Owing to a dearth of
experimental research on slow practice in music, literature reviews in music have focused
on studies examining nonperformance motor skills, which have shown mixed effects.
Sanders (2004) concluded that slow practice was beneficial "as long as the progression
45
does not become so slow that it is perceived as a different motor program" (p. 19), while
Zdzinski (1991) was circumspect.
Cecconi-Roberts (2001) examined the effects of criterion-speed practice,
progressive-speed practice, physical practice, and silent practice. Participants were
seventh-grade woodwind players (N = 80) with approximately 2.5 years of playing
experience. Students sight-read an etude, practiced according to instructions, and then
again performed the etude, which was scored in the categories of note/pitch accuracy,
rhythm accuracy, articulation accuracy, consistency of tempo, and adherence to a
metronome. Students were randomly assigned to one of five practice conditions: playing
aloud with a consistent tempo, playing aloud with a gradually increasing practice tempo,
silently fingering with a consistent tempo, silently fingering with a gradually increasing
practice tempo, and free practice. The analysis revealed no significant differences among
practice conditions except in the category of note accuracy, where free practice was the
most effective of the five strategies. The researcher acknowledged that asking students to
adopt an unfamiliar practice strategy for a short testing session may have been beyond
their comprehension or abilities, thus affecting the interpretation of the study.
Part practice among expert musicians has been documented by Brittin (2006,
April) and Hallam (1997b). After his review ofliterature, Sanders (2004) recommended
breaking a task into component parts, particularly for complex motor programs or
sequences. Research has suggested that the efficacy of part practice depends on the nature
of the task, whether serial or continuous (Schmidt & Lee, 2005). If one considers music
,I
46
performance to be a serial task comprising the execution of musical patterns in
succession, part practice should be an effective strategy.
Applications to this Study
From the review of literature, I concluded that scales and other technical drills are
important for developing instrumental proficiency. I also learned that focused practice in
a single new key should aid in skill acquisition, but that I ought to structure follow-up
rehearsals to include an intermingling of tasks in the three keys under study. In the
practice of technical exercises, as in repeated performances of songs learned by ear,
surveys and experimental studies have suggested the efficacy of a variety of practice
techniques: slow to fast practice; part practice, such as isolating tricky measures or
passages; and varied repetition, such as changing dynamics, rhythms, or articulations. A
perusal of the lesson plans for this study will confirm that we used a multiplicity of
research-based rehearsal strategies.
Summary
Rote-note teaching strategies have been in existence since the dawn of music
education (Volk, 1993). The pedagogical approaches of Suzuki (1969) and Gordon
(2003) recommend that students learn a repertoire of music through imitation and rote
repetition before commencing music reading. Playing by ear requires skills in aural
perception, which are believed to contribute to skilled music reading (Dodson, 1983;
Sloboda, 1978; Wolf, 1976). Theory pedagogues have recommended playing by ear for
developing aural skills in college ear-training classes (Brown, 1990; Covington, 1992;
Karpinski, 2000; Thackray, 1975).
1"1I----------
IIi
II
I 47
Educators have advised teaching songs by ear to students in beginning band
(Conway, 1997; Dalby, 1999; Martin, 2005; Righter, 1945; Schleuter, 1997). Do It! Play
in Band (Froseth, 2000) and Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series: For Winds and
Percussion (Grunow et aI., 2001) are band methods that advocate learning a repertoire of
songs by ear in multiple keys. Playing by ear, including simple familiar melodies, is also
recommended by MENC (1996) in the National Standards for Music Education.
A variety of studies have measured the effects of aural-based instructional
strategies for teaching music reading in beginning instrumental music. Researchers have
found that rote-note instruction has not impeded initial acquisition of reading skills
(Bernhard, 2004; Glenn, 1999; Grande, 1989; Haston, 2004; McDonald, 1991; Sperti,
1970), but the long-term effects oflisten-imitate-read methods have not been
documented. Singing (Bernhard, 2004; Dunlap, 1989) and pattern instruction (Gamble,
1989; Grutzmacher, 1987; MacKnight, 1975) are other aural-based strategies that are
known to prepare students for successful instrumental performance. Most of these studies
employed two or more critical independent variables, such as singing and rote-song
instruction (Bernhard, 2004), solmization and rote-song instruction (Dunlap, 1989),
modeling and rote-song instruction (Haston, 2004), or melodic echoes and rote-song
instruction (Brown, 1990). Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain the specific effects of
learning songs by ear.
The present study suggests rote songs as an aural warm-up activity in band.
Blevins (1998) found traditional warm-ups and aural-based warm-ups to be rated equally
48
successful as measured by ensemble performances. Future research might evaluate the
effects of aural warm-ups on individual student performance skills.
Learning songs by ear in multiple keys as an introduction to playing in new keys
would enable more teaching of music through music rather than isolated technical
exercises. Price, Blanton, and Parrish (1998) found ensemble warm-ups based on
excerpts from band literature as effective as exercises from published technique books for
affecting students' skills in sight-reading and more effective for learning the literature.
Researchers including Luce (1965), McPherson (1995-1996), and Bernhard
(2004) have offered evidence that the skill of playing by ear is correlated with the ability
to perform music from notation. No published survey, however, has documented the
practice of learning songs by ear in band. Because experimental studies have failed to
isolate the activity of playing songs by ear as an independent variable, whether
developing skills in playing songs by ear will result in improved skills in music reading is
unknown. Further, experimental studies related to rote-song instruction in band have
focused on begi11l1ing- rather than intermediate-level instruction. Consequently, the
present study appeared to be a needed contribution to instrumental music pedagogy.
I
I
i,
"
i
I
49
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The investigation comprised a pilot study during the spring months of 2005
followed by the main study during the fall months of that same year. In keeping with the
requirements for research at the University of Oregon, the Office for Protection of
Human Subjects on that campus approved the research protocol for the pilot and main
studies. Participating students signed forms of assent, and guardians of involved students
gave written consent for their children's participation. The principals and school district
also gave documented permission for the study. For the main study, the instructors gave
formal permission for the videotaping of lessons. See Appendix A for student and parent
permission forms related to human subjects compliance.
Pilot Study
Purpose and Description
Performance measures were authored by the researcher and pilot tested prior to
commencement of the main study. The purposes of the pilot were to (a) fine-tune the
testing and scoring procedures, (b) confirm the six etudes as being of approximately the
same level of performance difficulty or rewrite them as necessm'y, and (c) determine
inter-rater reliability.
I'
I
I'
,I
.;
I:
" ,
I;
50
Ten seventh- and eighth-grade wind instrumentalists at a secondary school
(grades 7-12) in Alaska volunteered for the pilot. The school was a different school in
town than the middle school for the main study. Flute, clarinet, alto saxophone, trumpet,
hom, and trombone were the instruments tested in the pilot. The musical instruments
tested in the pilot were the same as those tested in the main study, excepting hom, which
was heard in the pilot but not the main study, and baritone saxophone and tuba, which
were heard in the main study but not the pilot. This gave the judges experience
adjudicating a variety of instruments on these specific performance tasks.
Each student played the song Row, Row, Row Your Boat by ear in Bb, Db, and G
concert. Each student also sight-read six etudes, or two etudes in each of the three keys.
The assignment of key with etude was such that, over the course of the pilot, all six
etudes were tested several times in each of the keys. To minimize any potential effect of
task order, some students played the three songs followed by the six etudes, while others
played the six etudes followed by the three songs. The first song or etude played was
always in Bb, followed by Db and then G, or G and then Db. The song-by-ear
pre/posttest is in Appendix B and the sight-reading etudes are in Appendix C.
Four adjudicators plus the researcher scored the pilot performances. The
adjudicators were current or former public school band directors, each with more than a
decade of instrumental music teaching experience. Two adjudicators were retired
secondary school band directors. Another had 6 years of teaching experience in middle
school as well as several years of college teaching experience. The remaining two
i
I:
51
adjudicators, including the researcher, were current university conductors with an average
of 16 years of experience teaching public school bands, including middle school.
Testing Procedures
The researcher served as the test proctor and recorded all performances. Before
playing the songs, I sang Row, Row, Row Your Boat with each student until the student
was able to sing the melody confidently or at least chant the rhythm with some indication
of melodic contour. For each key, students were given an opportunity to perform aloud
the melody on their instrument before being audio-recorded. The task was extremely
challenging for most students, who needed frequent reminders to "keep playing even
though it does not sound quite like what you are imagining."
For each etude, students were given 30 seconds to practice silently the music
notated on the page. The test proctor played on the piano the opening pitch of each etude
and counted off four beats at quarter note equals 76. Students were encouraged to keep
the tempo and to play the rhythms as written but were told that they were being scored
only on pitch accuracy, or "correct notes."
Scoring Procedures
Pitch accuracy was the musical item of measurable interest, not rhythm or
intonation. On the score sheets, adjudicators circled any pitches played incorrectly. I later
tallied the number of pitches played correctly and then calculated the percentage score as
a ratio of pitches played correctly divided by the total number of pitches in the musical
example. Points were not deducted from the score for rhythm errors, or failure to keep
j:
I
; I
\. ,j
I
I
I
I
I
I
52
tempo unless the performance time exceeded 45 seconds in length. No student in either
the pilot or main study exceeded the allotted performance time.
In addition to printed instructions, each adjudicator practiced scoring student
performances in a training session with the researcher. Subsequent dialogue via telephone
and email between the adjudicators and the researcher helped to clarify scoring
procedures. Adjudicators were free to listen to each recording as many times as they
wished.
Each performance of Row, Row, Row Your Boat was worth a maximum of 23
points. One point was possible for each pitch, with the exception of the eighth-note
groupings on "merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily." In 6/8 time, each group of three
repeated eighth notes was worth only two points: one point for the first eighth note and
one point for the remaining two eighth notes. Each etude performance was worth between
31 and 35 points. One point was possible for each pitch, with the exception of the
repeated-pitch eighth notes, worth only one point for the two repeated pitches together. If
a student misplayed one of any two repeated-pitch eighth notes, one half a point was
deducted.
Etude Construction
The performance tests focused on accuracy of pitch rather than rhythm. In order
to facilitate this objective, the sight-reading etudes used only simple rhythms in 4/4 time.
Three musical experts reviewed the researcher-constructed etudes until they were deemed
of approximately equal performance difficulty in terms of rhythm, range, interval content,
I Ii
I;
Ii
I.~
..
53
harmony, and phrase construction. The expert reviewers were advised of these criteria for
etude construction and completed an evaluation form. (See Appendix D.)
To help assure that the etudes would be of the same level of performance
difficulty, the following rules of composition guided etude construction:
1. Number of pitches: Each 8-measure etude included 31-35 nonrepeated pitches.
2. Rhythm: The etudes used half, quarter, and paired-eighth notes.
3. Range: The etudes encompassed a range of a minor tenth, from the seventh
degree of the scale below tonic to the ninth degree of the scale above tonic.
4. Interval content: The etudes comprised scalar melodic motion as well as small
skips within the underlying I, IV, and V7 harmonies.
5. Harmony and phrasing: The etudes included two 4-measure phrases. Each
phrase had a final cadence on the tonic triad, and the second phrase had a harmonic
rhythm identical to the first. The rate of harmonic change was one chord per measure for
three of the four measures of each phrase, and two chords per measure on the other
measure of the phrase. Each etude included a total of four or six beats over a
subdominant triad. Three different harmonic plans were employed, with one plan for
etudes Xa and Ya, one for Xb and Yb, and one for Xc and Yc.
Results ofthe Pilot
Testing and scoring procedures. Interacting with students during pilot testing, it
became evident that brass students unable to secure the opening pitch of an etude rarely
regained pitch accuracy. Not only was this discouraging to the student, it magnified the
already challenging task of the adjudicators. For the main study, the test proctor made
I54
certain all students were able to match, on their instruments, the opening and concluding
pitches of each etude before beginning the etude performance.
The researcher scored all etude performances and one third of the song-by-ear
performances. The other adjudicators scored a random sample of the student
performances: 60% of the etude performances, or two of each etude in every key; and one
third of the song-by-ear performances, or one song of each student such that all three
keys were represented approximately equally. Percentage scores of student performances
in the pilot ranged from 0 to 100, testing adjudicator reliability on performances at both
the low and high ends of the accuracy scale.
Adjudicators received written scoring instructions. (See Appendix E.) In short, the
instructions were to "Circle any misplayed pitches." The researcher later tallied the
number of correct pitches. Dialogue with each adjudicator during the pilot helped to
clarifY what to do during various kinds of student performance errors so that, by the time
of the main study, the adjudicators seemed to be feeling confident and consistent in their
scoring. For example, students were reminded not to replay any pitches, but sometimes
students made an "instant correction" to their performance. Adjudicators were free to
mark those instances on the scoring sheet, with one half a point deducted for each quick
correction, up to two points per performance. Sometimes students began the etude or a
measure of it a second time. Generally there was no penalty for this, although
adjudicators were advised to use their professional discretion in marking such repeats.
Given the qualifications of the adjudicators and the task at hand - the
determination of correct versus incorrect pitches - the evaluation of student performance
II
t
···
·1.·'·'·········
,
"
I
.1
ss
skills would seem to have been a fairly easy matter. This did not prove so. A high
percentage of student musicians demonstrated basic problems in tone production, often
making it difficult for the listener to ascertain pitch. One adjudicator remarked on the
difficulty of scoring student performances that were very much out-of-key or that failed
to accurately perform the first few pitches. His comments are paraphrased here: I trust my
accuracy when students play most of the etude correctly, but I feel unconfident when
students miss multiple successive pitches or begin missed passages anew, for it is all too
easy to lose one's sense of tonality and key. Nevertheless, as shown below in the
statistical analysis of the pilot data, the adjudicators were able to achieve a high level of
reliability.
Statistical analysis. Analysis of the pilot data sought to answer two research
questions. First, was there an effect ofjudge? Second, was there an effect of etude? Four
adjudicators plus the researcher listened to the pilot recordings. During the period of time
of adjudication, however, one adjudicator was quite ill. Despite good efforts, the scores
were in definite and haphazard disagreement with the scores of the other adjudicators.
Consequently, the analysis included data from three adjudicators plus the researcher.
All computations for the pilot study were calculated using SAS® Version 9.1.3.
The intra-class correlation coefficient, an overall measure of inter-rater reliability among
the adjudicators, was ICC = .89. The pilot investigation concluded that inter-rater
reliability was moderately high and there was no effect ofjudge.
Earlier, expert adjudicators had agreed that the etudes were of approximately the
same level of musical difficulty. A statistical analysis of student test scores was
56
undertaken in order to further support or perhaps even controvert those expert opinions.
The analysis employed only the scores ofthe researcher, which earlier were found to be
consistent with the scores of the other adjudicators. The data included six etudes per
student, two etudes in each key. With 10 participants, there were 60 observations total.
Because this was a within-subjects design, where every participant was scored on every
etude, the analysis employed a repeated-measures ANOVA.
There was a potential for interaction of key with etude. Ideally, a few participants
might have performed each etude in Bb in order to examine the data without the
possibility of a key with etude interaction. Since these data were not collected, the
ANOVA looked for potential interactions. No interaction effect of key with etude was
discovered, F(lO, 33) = 1.47,p = .19. The next step of the analysis was to look for
potential main effects. The analysis revealed no effect of etude, F(5, 43) = 0.20, p = .19
but did find an effect of key, F(2, 18) = 8.32,p = .003. The pilot investigation concluded
that the etudes played in Bb concert were of similar musical difficulty, the etudes played
in Db concert were of similar musical difficulty, and the etudes played in G concert were
of similar musical difficulty.
Main Study
The primary purpose of the study was to compare learning songs by ear with
performing exercises from notation on the performance achievement of brass and
woodwind students. Secondary purposes of the study were to document the effects of
type of instruction on student attitudes and to explore potential differential effects of
music aptitude. The independent variables of the study included type of treatment and
II
, !,
,
I'
"
, I
1.
I
57
level of music aptitude. The dependent variables were song-by-ear achievement, sight-
reading achievement, and student attitudes toward instruction. Twelve 20-minute lessons
comprised the treatments, which consisted of performing in the familiar key of Bb
concert as well as the newly learned keys of Db and G. Measures included a researcher-
authored Student Background Survey (SBS), Gordon's Advanced Measures ofMusic
Audiation (1989), a researcher-authored Student Attitude Inventory (SAl), and researcher-
authored song-by-ear and sight-reading performance achievement tests. See Appendices
F and G for the questionnaires, and Appendices B and C for the performance tests.
Research Design
The study employed a pre-posttest control-group experimental design. Students in
one band class were matched on selected variables and then randomly assigned to either
an experimental (songs) or contact-control (exercises) group. Type of treatment
(experimental/songs or contact-control/exercises) was the manipulated independent
variable of the study and level of aptitude (low, moderate, or high) was the
nonmanipulated independent variable of the study. Thus, the study employed a 2 (type of
instruction) x 3 (level of aptitude) factorial design.
Participants
After human-subjects approval from the school district and the University of
Oregon, and with the cooperation of the school band director, I explained the study to
students in the selected band class and invited participation. Because the instructional
activities were considered by the music teacher and principal to be part of the class
curriculum, all students participated in the instructional activities but were given a choice
I·
I
I·
Id.Ii
'I
I
58
as to whether they wished to participate in the surveys and tests. During the recruiting
process and in explaining the study, I emphasized that both types of instruction were
expected to positively affect student achievement. Using language appropriate for middle
school students, I also stressed the importance of treatment fidelity, including the
admonition that students not discuss the practice activities with peers in the other
treatment group.
Seventh- and eighth-grade wind musicians in one concert band at a middle school
in Alaska volunteered to participate in the study. The school served 410 students, with a
music program including two bands, one choir, one orchestra, and a before-school jazz
band. During fall of2005, approximately 45 students were emolled in one of two bands
at this middle school, with the more experienced band selected to participate in the study.
At the time of the study, the ensemble was performing grade II band literature, the district
curriculum emphasized music reading and performance skills, and concert band activities
did not include playing by ear.
As reported on the school district website, during the 2005-2006 year the school
population included the following ethnic mix of students: 72% White, 11 % Alaska
Native, 6% Asian, 6% Black, 4% Hispanic, and 2% American Indian. Upon inquiry with
the Office of Program Planning and Management, I was able to confirm that the student
volunteers for my study were slightly less diverse in background, with 82% White, 11 %
Asian, and 7% Hispanic students participating. During October, 2005, 36% of the
students at this school qualified for free or reduced lunches.
I:1 !
.,
59
Of 37 students in the band, 1 student declined to participate in the testing and
surveys but participated in all instructional activities, and 1 student was unable to play for
the duration of the study due to oral surgery. The 7 percussionists participated in one of
the two treatment groups and completed all tests and surveys. Percussion data, however,
were not included in the analyses. The reason for this decision was the limited music-
reading background of the percussion students. Before treatment, none of the
percussionists were comfortable performing music from notation in the key of Bb
concert, and the experimental learning environment did not allow for remedial assistance.
For the purposes of analysis, it was important that the two groups were as homogeneous
as practical prior to the start of treatment, and there were too few percussion students to
warrant a separate, meaningful statistical analysis. All factors considered, the sample for
the study was N = 28.
Participants included 7 seventh-graders and 21 eighth-graders. Most students (n =
18), having taken twice-weekly class lessons during grades 4-6 in elementary school, had
three to four years of prior experience performing on their instruments. Of the 28
students,3 had played for just one year, 7 for two years, 7 for three years, and 11 for four
i, I
illIi
I
years (M = 2.93, SD = 1.05). Participants in the study played flute, clarinet, alto or
baritone saxophone, trumpet, trombone, or tuba. To identify important information
concerning students' prior musical experiences, such as private-lesson instruction and
musical participation in ensembles outside of school, and to facilitate the assignment of
students to groups, participants completed a researcher-authored Student Background
I
!
I
I
L
60
Survey (SBS). (See Appendix F.) Additional information on student background is
presented in Chapter 4.
I placed students in one of two groups by means of a stratified random sampling
procedure that resulted in two groups approximately matched in terms of music aptitude,
instrument played, music background and experience, and classroom behavior. First,
students were ranked according to music aptitude. Conceptually, the plan was to place the
student with the highest aptitude in Group A, the next two students in Group B, the next
two in Group A, and so on. Practically, I considered both instrument played and aptitude
at the same time, alternating placing the highest ranked student of each main instrument
category (flutes, clarinets, saxophones, trumpets, low brass, and percussion) in Group A
or B and working from there. Although I had no theoretical hypothesis or prior research
to suggest that the treatments might affect brass and woodwind musicians differently, I
wanted a comparable instrumentation for the two groups in order to assure that
instructional time specific to each instrument would be the same for both the
experimental and contact-control treatments.
After the two groups were formed, I looked for any gross imbalance in music
background and experience as identified on the SBS, paying particular attention to jazz
band participation. To better balance the groups, I made two changes to the list, switching
two pairs of students of like instruments who were approximately matched in terms of
aptitude. Finally, I consulted with the cooperating band director and found a potential
classroom management issue that could easily be avoided by switching two students
without appearing to compromise consideration of aptitude. A coin toss determined that
II'
61
Group A would be the experimental group (n = 13) and Group B would be the contact-
control group (n = 15).
Because this research was a significant part of classroom instruction during the
term, students earned a grade specifically related to study participation. Students were
advised that excellent effort and positive participation in all practice activities would earn
them an "A" grade for this unit of instruction, which counted as 15% of their final term
grade. All students participated satisfactorily.
Instructors
The cooperating band director, one of the two instructors for the study, was
beginning her second year of teaching. Since the setting was a grades 7-8 middle school,
the director had worked the year before with the eighth-grade students. I also participated
as an instructor for the study. After more than a decade of public school teaching,
including 5 years at the middle school level, I was beginning my second year of full-time
university teaching.
To facilitate adherence to the treatment protocol, the two instructors met for two
75-minute sessions and one 45-minute session before the start of the school year. In
addition to briefly examining the study surveys and tests, we reviewed in detail the lesson
plans and teaching procedures for the two treatments. Considerable time was devoted to
teaching each other several of the rote songs, working toward consistent presentation of
new songs and understanding appropriate versus inappropriate teaching strategies. We
also reviewed rehearsal techniques for the exercises group. Additionally, we discussed
i:
I
62
general rehearsal procedures and pacing of instruction, including number of repetitions,
small and large group reiterations, and speed and part practice.
Fidelity ofTreatment
Before each upcoming lesson, the instructors discussed the study in progress
either in person, via email, or by telephone. Topics for discussion included pacing of the
lessons, effectiveness of the teaching procedures, perceived student achievement, and
classroom motivation and management.
Each teacher videotaped two lessons, one with each group, for documentation of
treatment equivalence. The first songs lesson, with the researcher as instructor, was
videotaped so that, early on in the study, the cooperating band director could review the
tape and compare her teaching to the researcher's teaching. During the study, I reviewed
all four videotapes, evaluating the tapes holistically for consistency of rehearsal
techniques and pacing. Although time did not allow for outside evaluation of the
videotapes, in my subjective analysis, implementation of treatment was as planned and
the two instructors were similar in classroom demeanor and teaching procedures.
Procedures
During the two weeks preceding treatment, students took the two performance
pretests (the song-by-ear and sight-reading pretests) as well as a test of music aptitude,
the Advanced Measures ofMusic Audiation (AMMA) by Gordon (1989). Students also
completed the Student Background Survey (SBS) and page one of the Student Attitude
Inventory (SAl).
t'
" 1
I
63
Following the pretests but before the commencement of any treatment, the two
instructional groups met together as a full ensemble to study the pitches necessary to
perform in the three major keys of the study. Students reviewed or learned the letter
names and fingerings/positions of the needed pitches, and their placement on the music
staff, as well as the key signatures used for their instrument. See Appendix H for an
outline of the full-band introductory lesson.
During Week I of treatment, both groups performed in the key ofBb; during
Week 2, in Db; and during Week 3, in G. During Week 4, students worked in all three
keys. The songs group, which due to time constraints had rushed through certain songs
without an opportunity for mastery, worked toward memorization and improved pitch
accuracy, and learned one remaining song in Bb. The exercises group worked to increase
performance tempi. During the two weeks following treatment, students took the two
performance posttests and completed the second and third pages of the SAl.
In sum, the treatment period consisted of 12 lessons, 3 lessons per week for 4
weeks, plus pretreatment activities the two weeks prior and posttreatment activities the
two weeks following. The two treatment plans were parallel in construction. Table 2
"
, ,
highlights the weekly plan of activities.
Table 2: Calendar
64
PREINSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Performance Pretests Introductory Lesson: AMMA
SBS fingerings in Db and G SAl
DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3
Patterns: Lines 1-2 Patterns: Lines 3--4 Learn Unit 3 in Bb:
en Learn Unit 1 in Bb: Review Unit 1 in Bb Skip to My LouOJ)I=i See the Little Ducklings Learn Unit 2 in Bb:0 Santy Maloney
...... ifJ. Bells in the Steeple Frere Jacques~ Alouette (begin)
~ Twinkle, Twinkle Lightly Row
~
~ en
<l)
en Patterns: Lines 1-2 Patterns: Lines 3-4.,.,u Exercises in Bbl-< Exercises in Bb Exercises in Bb<l)~
~
N
~ i3 in Db inDb inDb~ 0
see Week 1 Day 1 see Week 1 Day 2 see Week 1 Day 3~ CO~
M
~ i3 inG inG in G~ 0
see Week 1 Day 1 see Week 1 Day 2 see Week 1 Day 3~ CO~
en Alouette in Bb Review a selection ofOJ)I=i Irish Jig in Bb Review songs in G0 songs in Db and G'<t ifJ. Review Unit 1 in Db~
~
~ en
~ <l)en Short Review in Bb.,.,u Review in G Review in Db and Gl-< Review in Db<l)~
~
POSTINSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Performance Posttests SAl
,I
I'
i .
I.
k
I1
I:
I
i
I I
65
Treatments
Musicians in the experimental/songs group learned a repertoire of songs by ear in
the key of Bb, and then in the keys of Db and G concert. Songs were presented using a
piano model. Musicians in the experimental group also echo-played tonic patterns by ear.
The experimental treatment included no music reading, which was included in the
contact-control treatment. For details of the experimental treatment, see the appendices
for song repertoire (Appendix I), tonic patterns (Appendix J), teaching procedures
(Appendix K), and lesson plans (Appendix L).
Musicians in the contact-control/exercises group practiced from notation scale
drills, arpeggios, interval studies, and other technical exercises in the key of Bb, and then
in the keys of Db and G concert. Musicians in the contact-control group also practiced
from notation tonic patterns; the patterns were the same as those performed aurally by the
experimental group. The contact-control treatment included no specific aural training, as
was included in the experimental treatment. For details of the contact-control treatment,
see the appendices for the list of exercises (Appendix M), tonic patterns (Appendix N),
teaching procedures (Appendix 0), and lesson plans (Appendix P).
Db and G major were the keys selected for the study because they are of moderate
difficulty for this age group. The keys were chosen in consultation with the school band
director, who verified that the students had little or no exposure to those concert keys.
With knowledge of the upcoming study, the band director avoided the major-key
tonalities of Db and G in the literature perform~d by the ensemble during the first
academic quarter of the school year.
".,-
.,
,
I,
i
1
L
66
Each treatment session began with a scale performed in whole notes at a tempo of
quarter note equals approximately 60 beats per minute. During the first week of the
treatment, the scale was Bb; during the second week it was Db; and during the third week
it was G. On Day I of the fourth week, both groups warmed up with the Bb scale; on Day
2 they warmed up with the G scale; and on Day 3 they warmed up with the Db scale. On
selected days, both groups played tonic patterns in order to gain facility in the various
keys. Students in the experimental group played the patterns by ear. In a call-and-
response format, the instructor played a series of three- and four-note tonic patterns on
the piano two times and the students responded instrumentally. Students in the contact-
control group played the patterns by sight, reading the patterns from notation two times.
The length of time spent playing tonic patterns over the course of the four weeks was
brief, approximately 15 minutes in total. The main purpose of playing tonic patterns was
so that students learning the songs could be directed to choose from those pitches during
song phrases comprising tonic-pattern skips. See either Appendix J or N for tonic patterns
used in the study.
In selecting the song repertoire for the experimental group, an effort was made to
include familiar melodies. Given that most students had never before played songs by
ear, the curriculum emphasized songs that were largely conjunct in motion, with some
small skips within the underlying primary harmonies (tonic, subdominant, and dominant
chords). Listed in order of introduction, the songs were: See the Little Ducklings; Bells in
the Steeple; Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star; Frere Jacques; Lightly Row; Skip to My Lou;
Santy Maloney; Alouette; and Irish Jig. Due to limited instructional time but the necessity
't'
67
of trying to learn at least a few songs encompassing the range of an octave, the final two
songs, unfortunately, received less than adequate rehearsal time. The songs are notated in
Appendix 1.
In selecting materials for instruction with the contact-control group, an effort was
made to utilize published resources and then to organize the selected exercises by key
center. The researcher and cooperating band director considered the method and
technique books available in the school library together with the objectives of the
contact-control treatment, ultimately choosing Standard ofExcellence Book 3 (Pearson,
1996) and I Recommend (Ployhar, 1972). For the study, I selected scale drills, arpeggios,
interval studies, and any exercise termed "Technique Study" or the equivalent thereof
that were included in either book in any of the three keys. Each exercise was notated in
Bb concert and the exercises were arranged in a logical order: the scale with arpeggio and
thirds; five scale drills arranged in order of length and difficulty; a broken chord study;
two additional scale studies, each with an interesting rhythmic twist; and the interval
studies, beginning with thirds and progressing to an octave study. Then the exercises
were transposed to Db and G concert. A booklet including the exercises in the three keys
was printed for each student in the contact-control group. A list of exercises is given in
AppendixM.
Measures
Pretreatment data collection began with the AMMA (Gordon, 1989), a test of
music aptitude, and the Student Background Survey (SBS). Individual participants also
played a song-by-ear test in three keys and a sight-reading test in three keys. Finally, all
, I
I
I
~~~~~--~~-
68
participants completed the first page of the Student Attitude Inventory (SAl), which asked
them to reflect upon their recently recorded performance pretests. Posttreatment data
collection included a song-by-ear test in three keys, which was the same song played on
the pretests, and a sight-reading test in three keys, which included etudes similar in
construction to those played on the pretests. Other posttreatment data included the final
two pages ofthe SAl, which asked participants to reflect upon their performance posttests
and their attitudes toward the treatment activities.
Student Background Survey. The researcher-authored SBS provided descriptive
information about participants regarding band-instrument study, private-lesson
instruction, piano and choir background, and experience in ensembles outside of the
school concert band. Based on these data, students were matched and assigned to either
Group A or Group B. I then randomly assigned Group A to be the experimental group
and Group B to be the contact-control group. At the conclusion of the study, statistical
analysis of the SBS was undertaken in order to verify group equivalence or document
unintended pretreatment differences between groups. The analysis of the SBS data is
reviewed in Chapter 4.
Music aptitude. To address Research Question 4, the study employed the
Advanced Measures ofMusic Audiation (AMMA), authored by Gordon (1989). The
AMMA asks students to compare pairs of short musical excerpts and decide if they are
different tonally, different rhythmically, or the same. The test yields three scores for each
student: tonal aptitude, rhythm aptitude, and total aptitude. The purpose of the aptitude
assessment was twofold: First, to assure that the two groups were comparable in terms of
I,
M.:--------------------
69
music aptitude, AMMA scores were considered in assigning students to groups; second,
in an exploration of potential differential effects due to aptitude, the statistical analyses
considered treatment by aptitude interactions.
A supplement to the test manual lists percentile conversions from raw scores and
overviews the psychometrics as they apply to students in grades 7-8 (Gordon, 1990). The
norms are based upon the test results of 1,533 students. The split-halves reliability ofthe
two subtests and of the total test are listed as follows: tonal, r = .80; rhythm, r = .83; total,
r = .85. Due to the construction of the test, the intercorrelation between the tonal and
rhythm subtests is moderately high, r = .63, and the intercorrelations of the tonal and
rhythm test scores with the total test score are high, at r = .95 and r = .94, respectively.
Consequently, I decided to consider total aptitude scores, rather than tonal aptitude
scores, in the data analysis for the study.
Gordon (1987) identified high aptitude students as those with a total score at or
above the 80th percentile and low aptitude students as those with a total score at or below
the 20th percentile. Due to the typical self-selection process of instrumental music
students, I anticipated that there would be a small number of participants in the low
aptitude category as defined by Gordon, thus limiting meaningful statistical analysis. A
perusal of the data confirmed a paucity of student scores at or below the 20th percentile,
so the categories were redefined for this study. Students at or below the 40th percentile
were considered low aptitude (n = 5) and those at or above the 80th percentile were
considered high aptitude (n = 8). The remaining students (n = 15) were considered to
have moderate aptitude.
70
Playing by ear. To address Research Question I, I designed a song-by-ear test to
assess pre- and postinstruction performance skills in playing by ear. The song-by-ear
pretest asked students to perform by ear the well known melody Row, Row, Row Your
Boat in the keys ofBb, Db, and G. (See Appendix B.) During the pretest recording
sessions, I sang the song with each student until he or she was able to sing the melody
confidently or at least chant the rhythm with some indication of melodic contour. Nearly
all students were familiar with the melody, requiring just one or two vocal performances
of it. For each key, students were given an opportunity to perform the melody on their
instruments before being audio-recorded. The posttest to measure song-by-ear
achievement was identical to that used as the pretest, meaning that students again
performed Row, Row, Row Your Boat in the kcys of Bb, Db, and G.
Sight-reading. To address Research Question 2, I composed etudes to assess pre-
and postinstruction performance skills in music reading/sight-reading. It should be noted
that music reading, not sight-reading specifically, was the skill of interest in this study.
Ideally, the music reading assessment of the study might have included both rehearsed
and unrehearsed etudes. However, an extra set of etudes would have added several days
to the testing calendar, resulting in an even longer time period between the conclusion of
the instructional treatments and the conclusion of the posttesting. For that reason, I
limited the scope of the music reading assessment to one type of etude.
I considered the possibility of having students play the etudes after teacher
instruction, after at-home practice, or at sight. Were students to have rehearsed the etudes
in band, there was no way of knowing if their tested performances were an indication of
jpr.,./!.
. :1
I'
,i
I
L
71
personal performance success or memorized imitations of the interpretations of
classmates seated nearby during instruction. Were students to have practiced the etudes at
home, there was no guarantee that that they would have practiced the number of minutes
requested. Given that research has shown that performance accuracy of rehearsed music
is related largely to the length of time of spent in preparation (e.g., McPherson, 2005), I
wanted to avoid that potential confounding variable if I was to include only one type of
etude. Hence, considering the time constraints of the testing schedule and the potential
for the confounding variable of at-home practice, I decided in favor of sight-read etudes
for measuring students' skills in music reading.
The sight-reading pretest required students to perform from notation three 8-
measure melodies (Xa, Xb, and Xc) in the keys ofBb, Db, and G. Each sight-reading
etude was notated in all three major keys, and the etudes were transposed for students
playing Bb clarinet, Eb alto and baritone saxophones, and Bb trumpet.
For each etude, students were given 30 seconds to practice silently. I made certain
that students were able to match on their instruments the opening and closing pitches of
the etude, and then I counted off four beats at quarter note equals 76 beats per minute.
Students were encouraged to play the rhythms as written and to keep the tempo, but
ultimately their scores were based on pitch accuracy regardless of rhythm, tempo,
intonation, and other factors. For additional details about the scoring procedures, see the
earlier section of this chapter titled Pilot Study. The posttest to measure sight-reading
achievement was similar to that used as the pretest, meaning that etudes Ya, Yb, and Yc
were of the same difficulty level as Xa, Xb, and Xc.
r-------------------------~- .-
,rr I
I '
I'
L
(
I
I ~
I
I
i
I
k~~'" ..,~--;' .~. '<; ---
72
Performance testing procedures. The researcher served as the test proctor and
recorded all performances. Students performed either the three songs or the three etudes
first. For both the songs and the etudes, students played first in the key ofBb and then Db
followed by G, or Bb and then G followed by Db. Considering the six tasks (three each,
songs and etudes) and the three keys, 24 possibilities existed for the order a student might
be asked to perform the performance pretests. The possibilities were arranged in a
random order using the on-line number generator at Research Randomizer (Urbaniak &
PIous, 2006). The 24 basic possibilities, and the randomized order of those possibilities,
are listed in Appendix Q.
Students were assigned a confidential identification number. Student 1 played the
pretests in the order listed as "Scenario 9" of Appendix Q, Student 2 played the pretests
in the order listed as "Scenario 11," and so on. Students 25-36 played the pretests in the
same order as students 1-12. Because the percussion students were tested but not
included in the data analysis, and because one student did not complete the postlesting,
the study identification numbers ranged from 1-36 even though there were only 28
subjects in the final study analysis. The order of tasks performed by each student during
the posttest was nearly the reverse of the order for the pretest. If the student played the
songs first, now the student played the etudes first, or vice versa. If the student played
etude Xb first in Bb, then Xa in Db and Xc in G, now the student played etude Yb first in
Bb, followed by Ya in G and Yc in Db.
A hallway alcove near the band room was equipped to record individual students.
The test proctor identified on the audio recording each student performance by number
I:
IJ
Ii
ii,
I .
i
, II
Ij
I
L
(
I
I
. I
I
I
•
,;t; ~.~.
. -' , . "'~'
~--- --
73
and task: e.g., "Student 14, song in Db" or "Student 28, Ya in G." Performances were
recorded directly onto a laptop computer using CD Spin Doctor 2 from the Roxio Toast
Titanium Version 6.0.3 software package for Macintosh. From the full recording tracks,
talking and practicing were later deleted and separate sound files for each test were
extracted and moved to iTunes, where compact disc recordings were created for each
judge. For ease of adjudication, all task-by-key performances were grouped together (i.e.,
all of the songs in Db were arranged as a group, all of the Ya etudes in G were arranged
as a group, and so on). To avoid possible preconceptions among adjudicators, pre- and
posttests were randomly ordered within each task-by-key group of tracks, and
adjudicators were not advised of the X versus Y labels for the pre- and posttest etudes.
Student Attitude Inventory. To address Research Question 3, I authored a survey
to assess student attitudes toward the instructional treatments. After pretests but before
instruction, students evaluated how easy or difficult they found the performance tasks and
rated how well they felt they performed the pretests (Questions 1-12). I used a Likect-
type scale that asked students to rate each of the performance tasks from 1 (easy) to 5
(difficult) and the quality of their recorded performances from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).
After instruction, students evaluated how easy or difficult they found the performance
tasks and rated how well they felt they performed the posttests (Questions 13-24).
Students also rated the overall effectiveness and appeal of the instructional activities
(Questions 25-31) and responded in writing to additional questions (Questions 32-36).
I
I I
l _
74
Plan/or Analysis
The first step of the analysis was to examine the data of the SBS and the AMMA
using the Fisher exact test. Pending results confirming similarity of groups before
instruction, I planned an investigation of inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability for
each performance task in each key was calculated as an ICC value using ANOVA with
group as a fixed effect. With inter-rater reliability adequately high, the ANOVAs for the
play-by-ear and sight-reading data were justified in considering the factors of group
(songs or exercises), time (pre- versus posttest), key (Bb, Db, or G.), and aptitude (low,
moderate, or high).
The next step of the analysis was to look for any interaction of music aptitude
with playing by ear and sight-reading (Research Question 4). Due to small cell sizes, I
predicted that there would be no interaction effect of aptitude. Finding no effect of
aptitude and seeking to focus the report on the primary research questions (i.e., Research
Questions 1 and 2), I reran the ANOVA for Research Question 1 using the play-by-ear
data and the ANOVA for Research Question 2 using the sight-reading data, each with the
factors of group, time, and key. For both ANOVAs, the first step of the analysis was to
consider any interaction effects of key. Where interactions were evident, post hoc
comparisons considered the effects of each key separately. Where interactions of key
were not evident, the analysis looked for any interaction or main effects of group or time.
The remaining question ofthe study was to examine the effects of instruction on
student attitudes (Research Question 3). The most reliable and important questions of the
SAl were Questions 25-31, and therefore the data of those questions were analyzed
...,
Ii
I!
----------------------------------------
I ;
I
I
l------
75
through ANOVA tests with the factors of group and aptitude. No interaction effects were
found. Therefore, all subsequent analysis of the SAl omitted the factor of aptitude.
Each set of three questions of the SAl Questions 1-24 was analyzed as a set, with
the factors of group and key, to assess pre- and postinstruction attitudes. Next, gain
scores (Questions 1-3 compared to 13-16, for example) were analyzed to determine
whether students' attitudes changed as a result of instruction. Then, one-way ANOVAs
were conducted for Questions 25-31. Lastly, I did a conterit analysis of the free-response
Questions 32-36.
The a priori significance level of the study was established at a = .05. The risk of
incorrectly rejecting any single null hypothesis, or concluding a difference between
groups where no difference truly existed, was 5%. The significance level for all post hoc
analyses, planned or unplanned, was adjusted per Bonferonni procedures: With apw =
.05, the per comparison significance level was set at apc = .05/n, where n is the number
of pairwise comparisons.
For all ANOVA analyses, I calculated effect sizes and conducted post hoc power
analyses. With effect size defined as the degree to which the phenomenon under
observation is present, I used Cohen's (1988) definitions of small (d = .2), medium (d =
.5) and large (d = .8) effect sizes, where a medium effect is considered that which is
"visible to the naked eye" (p. 26).
Given my a priori significance level and small sample sizes, I anticipated low
statistical power. For this study, the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis was
low. Were differences between groups to exist, my chance of discovering these
. !
II
': i
,
, i
I i
"
I..•.~ L········t~~,.~. ,'-.'-
---
76
differences was slight. From the calculated effect sizes for the performance tests, I
estimated statistical power using Cohen's power table for a two-tailed comparison of two
mean scores (Cohen, 1988, pp, 36-37), The results of the study should be interpreted in
view of sample size, effect sizes, and statistical power.
Summary
This study compared learning songs by ear to reading exercises in notation in the
keys of Bb, Db, and G concert. Students were middle school brass and woodwind
musi'cians in grades 7-8. Treatments comprised 12 lessons of20 minutes in duration.
Before and after instruction, students performed a familiar melody by ear (Research
Question 1) and sight-read several short etudes (Research Question 2). Students also
responded to an attitude survey designed to measure participants' perceptions of the
effectiveness and appeal of instruction (Research Question 3). Because of the importance
of examining instructional efficacy in consideration of the aptitudes and abilities of
individual students (Cronbach & Snow, 1981), initial data analysis included the variable
of music aptitude (Research Question 4). When no interactions were found, subsequent
statistical tests dropped aptitude as a variable for consideration.
l
I
I --
I
77
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This study compared two instructional approaches in instrumental music.
Participants in the experimental group learned songs by ear while participants in the
contact-control group performed technical exercises from notation. Using a stratified
random sampling procedure, I assigned participants to groups based on music aptitude,
instrument played, and music background. Chapter 4 begins with an overview of group
demographics.
Performance tests measured pre- and postinstruction pitch accuracy in song-by-
ear and sight-reading performances in the keys of Bb, Db, and G concert (Research
Questions 1 and 2). The Student Attitude Inventory documented participants' attitudes
toward instruction (Research Question 3). Analyses of the performance test scores and
the attitude survey in consideration of student aptitude allowed for the examination of
potential differential effects of instruction among participants of differing levels of music
aptitude (Research Question 4).
In all analyses for the study, the a priori significance level was set at a = .05. The
significance level for all post hoc comparisons was adjusted per Bonferroni procedures,
with each per comparison significance level as ap~= .05/n, where n is the number of
• I
: II
.1
, I
I
i
i
, I
IL, I'.,>
78
pairwise comparisons. All descriptive statistics were calculated using Microsoft Excel X.
Other computations for the study were calculated using SAS® Version 9.1.3.
Group Demographics and Music Aptitude
Student Background Survey (SBS)
The purposes of the SBS were to collect demographic information about
participants both for general descriptive purposes and for group assignment. In assigning
students to groups, foremost was the necessity of balancing the two groups in terms of
music aptitude and instrumentation. Second, private lesson instruction and ensemble
experiences beyond the school concert band, particularly jazz band, were considered.
Because this was the advanced band at this grades 7-8 middle school, there were
fewer seventh graders (n = 7) than eighth graders (n = 21) in the class. Students in each
grade were divided approximately equally between the two groups. On average, students
had about three years, or 36 months, of performing experience on their band instruments:
songs group, M = 35.08, SD = 14.25; exercises group, M = 35.20, SD = 11.53.
Six students had taken private lessons on their band instrument, ranging from 1
month to 4 years. Eight students had studied piano: 3 for 2 years or less, and 5 for longer
than 2 years. A number of students had been or were currently involved in other
ensembles, such as jazz band (n = 10), orchestra (n = 2), and/or choir (n = 9). A few
students had attended a summer music camp (n = 5). The two groups were matched in
terms of number of students who had studied privately, length of private instruction, and
involvement in other ensembles.
79
Statistical analyses confirmed that the groups were matched in terms of music
background. Type of data (categorical) and small cell sizes (often n :s 5) suggested the
Fisher exact test. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in
terms oflength of band study, private lessons, and ensemble experiences outside ofthe
school concert band. Table 3 highlights the information collected through the SBS.
Table 3: Music Background a/Participants
Songs Group Exercises Group
n = 13 n = 15
Year in School
Seventh Grade 2 5
Eighth Grade 11 10
Instrument Played
Brass 5 7
II Woodwind 8 8Private Lessons
, .i
I
Band Instrument 2 6: J
, 'I
i :1 Piano 2 6
. ;1
. ~
Other EnsemblesI ~I;
! :1
Jazz Band 4 6
,
Orchestra 1 1
Choir 4 5
Music Camp 2 3
Music Aptitude
The purpose ofthe music aptitude test (AMMA, Gordon, 1989) was to measure
participants' capacities to achieve in music. This information assisted in the assignment
of students to groups and in determining any interaction effects of type oftreatment with
__.all
80
aptitude. For the study sample, scores were negatively skewed. The mode score was the
73 rd percentile (n = 4), the median score was the 69th percentile, and the mean score was
well above the 50th percentile (M = 63.68, SD = 20.76).
A Fisher exact test revealed no significant differences between treatment groups
according to category of aptitude, p = 1.00. Table 4 show the number of participants in
each aptitude category.
Table 4: Frequency Distribution: Aptitude Categories by Group
Aptitude Category
Low(~40%)
Moderate (41-79%)
High (2:...80%)
Songs Group
2
7
4
Exercises Group
3
8
4
, ~ I
I
j, \
A one-way ANOVA indicated no statistically significant difference in aptitude
between the two treatment groups, F(l,26) = 1.05, p = .31. Table 5 reports descriptive
statistics for the two groups.
Table 5: Aptitude Percentile Scores by Group
n
13
Songs Group
M
68.00
SD
21.65
n
15
Exercises Group
M
59.93
SD
19.93
81
Descriptive Data: Performance Tests
Two adjudicators scored all performance tests for the main study. The first step of
the analysis was to calculate inter-rater reliability. With group as a fixed effect, intra-class
correlation coefficients ranged from ICC = .94 to ICC = .99, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Inter-Rater Reliability
Song Tasks Etude Tasks
Bb Db G Bb Db G
, ;
Pretests .97 .94 .96 .99 .96 .97' I
Posttests .97 .95 .98 .96 .97 .97
Note. Values are intra-class correlation coefficients.
I
, I
I i
The next step was to calculate descriptive statistics and confidence intervals
(Table 7) and gain scores (Table 8). In addition, the data were examined for any signs of
abnormality or error. Only two cases of performance decline were noted, one severe and
the other less so, but both involved students in the songs group on the Db etudes. Given
the small sample and the potential for just one outlier to skew the results, I will discuss
these data in Chapter 5.
82
Table 7: Performance Tests: Descriptive Data and Confidence Intervals
Songs Group Exercises Group
Lower Upper Lower Upper
M SD Limit Limit M SD Limit Limit
Pretest Songs
Bb Concert 68.36 24.68 54.48 82.31 66.67 24.19 53.71 79.62
Db Concert 41.47 27.90 25.27 50.98 35.80 15.30 23.83 47.76
G Concert 36.05 21.27 20.22 51.89 44.49 30.19 30.33 58.66
Pretest Etudes
Bb Concert 91.61 9.93 83.78 99.45 91.54 11.10 81.22 95.81
Db Concert 62.51 24.75 44.99 74.41 60.68 27.15 44.30 71.69
G Concert 66.51 22.70 52.67 80.35 69.20 25.96 53.17 78.94
Posttest Songs
i:i Bb Concert 79.60 22.55 65.87 93.33 73.77 25.33 60.98 86.55
'I
Db Concert 66.67 27.32 55.48 81.48 41.01 21.39 31.12 54.38
G Concert 61.20 28.43 48.62 79.47 51.59 26.55 3.72 65.96
Posttest Etudes
Bb Concert 96.20 6.32 91.32 100.00 95.91 8.85 90.02 99.29
Db Concert 72.33 26.87 60.12 86.01 77.43 17.05 65.38 89.48
G Concert 77.36 13.56 67.15 87.57 82.25 17.65 68.54 87.55
Note. Limits represent 95% confidence intervals:
*-----------------------
--------- -
83
Table 8: Performance Tests: Gain Scores
Songs Group Exercises Group
Pretest Posttest Gain Pretest Posttest Gain
, ,
! i
Song Tasks
Bb concert 68.36 79.60 +11.24 66.67 73.77 +7.10
Db concert 41.47 66.67 +25.20 35.80 41.01 +5.21
G concert 36.05 61.20 +25.15 44.49 51.59 +7.10
Etude Tasks
Bb concert 91.61 96.20 +4.59 91.54 95.91 +4.37
Db concert 62.51 72.33 +9.82 60.68 77.43 +16.75
G concert 66.51 77.36 +10.85 69.20 82.25 +13.05
I : The analysis continued with two repeated-measures ANOVAs. The within-
subjects variables were time (pretest and posttest) and key (Bb, Db, and G). The between-
subjects variable was instructional group (songs or exercises). The results of the songs
ANOVA and etudes ANOVA are presented in the next sections of this chapter.
Research Question 1: Effects on Song-by-Ear Achievement
: .
I
In the analysis of song-by-ear achievement, there was a statistically significant
interaction of group with time, F(l, 26) = 5.84,p = .02, meaning that the effect of
treatment was not the same for both groups. Consequently, the analysis compared pre-
i
: I
I
!, :
1;,j.:11 :
i i
I '
: I;, i
i
I,
,'1·1Mt.... ...... ........ ....;....."o,,~~~~~~
84
and posttest scores for each group in each key, resulting in six post hoc comparisons. The
significance level was adjusted, Upw= .008. For the songs group, there was statistically
significant improvement in the keys of Db and G, but not in Bb. For the exercises group,
no statistically significant improvement was noted. Table 9 presents the results ofthe
ANOVA, while Table 10 summarizes the song data and the results of the follow-up
pairwise comparisons.
Table 9: ANOVA Results: Song-by-Ear Achievement
Source df F P
Group (G) (1,26) 3.05 .09
Time (T) (1,26) 25.07** <.01
GxT (1,26) 5.84* .02
Key (K) (2,52) 19.75** <.01
GxK (2,52) 0.58 .56
TxK (2,50) 1.04 .36
GxTxK (2,50) 2.68 .08
Note. Two observations missing: one pretest song and one posttest song.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
I1
III
!III'
i I
III,
Ii 85
II Table 10: Summary: Song-by-Ear Achievement
I
Pretest Posttest t(I,26) P d
Songs Group
I Bb Concert 68.36 79.60 2.18 .034 .48I
I
Db Concert 41.47 66.67 5.16* <.001 .91
G Concert 36.05 61.20 4.38* <.001 1.01
I
; I Exercises Group
I Bb Concert 66.67 73.77 1.72 .091 .29
Db Concert 35.80 41.01 1.14 .260 .28
G Concert 44.49 51.59 1.53 .132 .25
Note. There was an interaction effect of group with time,p < .05.
*p < .008, post hoc comparisons.
The magnitude of treatment effect in the newly learned keys of Db and G concert
was large, .91 and 1.01, respectively. These effect sizes yielded moderate statistical
power: approximately .60 and .69, respectively, meaning that the analysis had a 60% or
I
\
I
I
I III
i I
I
i
I
I
greater chance of detecting significant improvements in Db and G if, indeed,
improvement occurred. In contrast, effect sizes for the exercises group were moderately
small, with correspondingly low statistical power.
Research Question 2: Effects on Sight-Reading Achievement
In the analysis of sight-reading achievement, there were no main or interaction
effects of group. There was, however, a statistically significant interaction of time with
key, F(2, 52) = 4.15, p = .02, meaning that improvement due to treatment was not the
86
I
I
,
I
:l'II;:
~---------------
same for all three keys. Consequently, the analysis considered both groups together and
compared pre- and posttest scores in each key, resulting in three post hoc comparisons.
The significance level was adjusted, Upw = .017. Regardless of instructional treatment,
there was statistically significant improvement in all three keys. Table 11 presents the
results of the ANOVA, while Table 12 summarizes the etude data and the results of the
follow-up pairwise comparisons.
Table 11: ANOVA Results: Sight-Reading Achievement
Source df F p
Group (G) (1,26) 0.00 .96
Time (T) (1,26) 30.23** <.01
GxT (1,26) 0.76 .39
Key (K) (2,52) 53.93** <.01
GxK (2,52) 0.05 .95
TxK (2, 52) 4.15* .02
GxTxK (2,52) 0.24 .79
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.
87
In all keys, the magnitude of treatment effect was a medium size, yielding
moderate statistical power: .45 in Bb, .56 in Db, and .59 in G. The analysis had about a
Note. There was no main effect of group, or interaction of group, p > .05.
*p < .017, post hoc comparisons.
d
.50
.60
.57
Table 12: Summary: Sight-Reading Achievement
Pretest Posttest t(l, 52) P
Both Groups Together
Bb Concert 91.57 96.05 3.75* < .001
Db Concert 61.53 75.06 4.55* <.001
G Concert 67.95 79.98 3.53* <.001
: .
,
i I
,I
. !I
!!
I!
il·
I·
II
50% chance of detecting improvement if, indeed, improvement occurred.
Research Question 3: Effects on Student Attitudes
The main purpose of the SAl was to collect data on the attitudes of participants
toward the performance tests and instructional activities. These data were used to answer
two questions of primary interest: Did students feel the instruction was effective? Did
students feel the instruction was enjoyable?
SAl Part A: Task Perception and Performance Sel.fAssessment
,
!
,I
ii
The first 24 questions of the SAl asked participants to rate the difficulty of the
performance tasks and their success on each task before and after instruction. (See
Appendix G.) Each set of three questions related to a specific time (pre- or posttest), task
(songs or etudes), and attitude (difficulty of task or excellence of performance). For
I
1
I i ~
')
I
I
II
II
,!
,
, Ii
-~----------------- - -
88
analysis, responses to similar SAl Questions 1-24 were combined across the three keys
of this study (e.g., Questions 1-3,4-6, etc.).
The research question of interest was to compare the reference key of Bb with the
newly learned keys of Db and G. First, however, it was necessary to confirm that the
perceived performance challenges of the new keys were similar. For each mixed-effects
ANOVA, the dependent variable was either difficulty of task or perceived performance
success. Group (songs or exercises) was the 2-level between-subjects variable and key
(Bb, G, or Db) was the 3-level within-subjects variable.
The initial step of each ANOVA was to check for interaction effects of group with
key. In two cases, an interaction of group with key was evident. Subsequent examination
of the data showed that participants perceived the performances challenges of Db and G
to be approximately the same.
Where an interaction not was evident, post hoc analyses compared the reference
key Bb with the newly learned keys, Upc= .025. All pairwise comparisons showed no
statistically significant differences between the newly learned keys (Db and G)
considered together in contrast with the reference key ofBb, and there were no main
effects due to instruction.
Perceived task difficulty. Table 13 highlights the results of the analysis of
perceived task difficulty. There were no main effects of group, only interaction effects of
group with key.
I ' 89
III
I' Table 13: Perceived Task Difficulty
Bb Concert Db Concert G Concert
M SD M SD M SD
Pretest Song Difficulty
Songs Group 2.69 0.95 3.69 1.38 3.23 0.93
Exercises Group 3.29 1.25 3.87 0.99 3.53 0.83
Both Groups Together 2.96a 1.14 3.79a 1.17 3.39 0.88
Posttest Song Difficulty
Songs Group 2.08 0.95 2.62 0.96 2.46 0.97
Exercises Group 2.20 1.15 3.47 1.30 3.13 0.92
Both Groups Together 2.14a,b 1.04 3.07a 1.21 2.82b 0.98
Pretest Etude Difficulty*
Songs Group 1.77a,b 0.83 3.00a,c 1.00 2.69b,c 0.95
Exercises Group 2.53 0.83 2.93 1.28 2.67 0.98
Both Groups Together 2.18 0.91 2.96 1.14 2.68 0.94
Posttest Etude Difficulty*
Songs Group 1.92 0.95 2.23 0.93 2.15 0.95
Exercises Group 1.73a,b 0.88 2.53 a 1.06 2.67b 0.88
Both Groups Together 1.82 0.90 2.39 0.99 2.43 0.92
Note. Ratings are 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult). Asterisks indicate group with key interactions.
There were no significant main differences between groups. Row subscripts reveal effects
! ofkey,p < .025.
!
, :
J
'I
i
!
!I
Ii
:!
!
1
90
Questions 1, 2, and 3 asked students to rate the difficulty of performing the songs
before instruction. The ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of key, F(2, 54)
= 6.86, p < .01, with a post hoc analysis indicating that students perceived the pretest
songs in Db and G as significantly more difficult than the pretest song in Db, t(54) =
3.25,p < .01. Questions 13, 14, and 15 asked students to rate the difficulty of performing
the songs after instruction. The ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of key,
F(2, 54) = 9.25,p < .01, with a post hoc analysis indicating that students perceived the
posttest songs in Db and G as significantly more difficult than the posttest song in Bb,
t(54) = 4.15,p < .001.
Questions 7, 8, and 9 asked students to rate the difficulty of performing the etudes
before instruction. The ANOVA revealed a statistically significant interaction effect of
group with key, F(2, 52) = 4.56, p = .02. Post hoc analyses indicated that students in the
songs group perceived the pretest etudes in Db and G as significantly more difficult than
the pretest etude in Bb, t(52) = 5.48,p < .001, while participants in the exercises group
perceived all pretest etudes as equally difficult, t(52) = 1.46, P = .15. Questions 19, 20,
and 21 asked students to rate the difficulty of performing the etudes after instruction. The
ANOVA revealed a statistically significant interaction effect of group with key, F(2, 52)
= 3.44,p = .04. Post hoc analyses indicated that students in the songs group perceived all
posttest etudes as equally difficult, t(52) = 1.54, p = .13, while participants in the
exercises group perceived the posttest etudes in Db and G as significantly more difficult
than the posttest etude in Bb, t(52) = 5,34,p < .01.
91
Ii
II; Perceivedperformance e:xcellence. Table 14 highlights the results of the analysis
i(I of perceived performance excellence. There were no main or interaction effects of group,
j i i
: II
only effects of key.
! : Table 14: Perceived Performance Excellence
, ,I' Bb Concert Db Concert G Concert
M SD M SD M SD
Pretest Song Excellence
Songs Group 3.08 0.95 2.15 1.07 2.77 1.01
Exercises Group 3.27 0.80 2.20 1.01 2.73 0.96
Both Groups Together 3.l8a,b 0.86 2.18a,c 1.02 2.75b,c 0.97
Posttest Song Excellence
Songs Group 3.62 1.04 2.92 1.19 3.31 0.95
Exercises Group 3.47 1.06 2.53 1.13 2.73 0.80
Both Groups Together 3.54a,b 1.04 2.71 a 1.15 3.0h 0.90
Pretest Etude Excellence
i Songs Group 3.38 1.04 2.62 1.33 2.69 1.32I
", Exercises Group 3.13 0.92 2.60 1.30 2.73 0.96ill
'II
I!{ Both Groups Together 3.25a,b 0.97 2.61 a 1.29 2.7h 1.12Ii
:1
1'1 Posttest Etude Excellence
'Ii· :1 Songs Group 3.77 1.09 3.31 1.18 3.46 0.78
II Exercises Group 4.13 0.83 3.20 1.08 3.13 1.19
II Both Groups Together 3.96a,b 0.96 3.25a 1.11 3.29b 1.01
" Note. Ratings are 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). There were no significant main differencesI
! between groups. Row subscripts reveal effects ofkey,p < .025.
I:
'I!~i
--------------------
III'II
I,
I I
i I
j
"
'I
tt _
92
Questions 4,5, and 6 asked students to rate how well they thought they performed
the songs before instruction. The ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of
key, F(2, 54) = 22.97, P < .00 I, with a post hoc analysis indicating that students believed
they performed their pretest song in Bb significantly better than their pretest songs in Db
and G, t(54) = 5.57,p < .001. Questions 16, 17, and 18 asked students to rate how well
they thought they performed the songs after instruction. The ANOVA revealed a
statistically significant effect of key, F(2, 54) = 7.76,p = .001, with a post hoc analysis
indicating that students believed they performed their posttest songs in Bb significantly
better than their posttest songs in Db and G, t(54) = 3.79,p < .001.
Questions 10, 11, and 12 asked students to rate how well they thought they
performed the etudes before instruction. The ANOVA revealed a statistically significant
effect of key, F(2, 54) = 6.25,p < .01, with a post hoc analysis indicating that students
believed they performed their pretest etude in Bb significantly better than their pretest
etudes in Db and G, t(54) = 3.49,p < .01. Questions 22, 23, and 24 asked students to rate
how well they thought they performed the etudes after instruction. The ANOVA revealed
a statistically significant effect of key, F(2, 54) = 9.33,p < .01, with a post hoc analysis
indicating that students believed they performed their posttest etude in Bb significantly
better than their posttest etudes in Db and G, t(54) = 4.31,p < .01.
SAl Part B: Analysis ofGain Scores
Perceived changes in task difficulty. On the SAl, students were asked to evaluate
the difficulty of the performance tasks before and after instruction. Taking those gain
I i
I I
I
, I
J ,.
93
scores, the analysis was able to establish whether students felt that the posttests were
easier than, the same as, or more difficult than the pretests. Student ratings were from 1
(easy) to 5 (difficult). Gain scores ranged from -3 to +4 for song performances and -2 to
+4 for etude performances. Table 15 presents mean scores for perceived task difficulty,
! I
I
".:1' II
iJ
I
II,
I ~I
I
I'
, I
iII
I,' ,I '!L
--------------- I
contrasting pre- and posttest ratings.
Table 15: Gain Scores: Perceived Task Difficulty
Pretest Posttest Gain
M SD M SD
Songs Group
Bb Song 2.69 0.95 2.08 0.95 0.61
IDb Song 3.69 1.38 2.62 0.96 1.07
GSong 3.23 0.93 2.46 0.97 0.77
Exercises Group
Bb Song 3.20 1.26 2.20 1.15 1.00
Db Song 3.87 0.99 3.47 1.30 0.40
GSong 3.53 0.83 3.13 0.92 0040
Songs Group
Bb Etude 1.77 0.83 1.92 0.95 -0.15
Db Etude 3.00 1.00 2.23 0.93 0.77
G Etude 2.69 0.95 2.15 0.80 0.54
Exercises Group
Bb Etude 2.53 0.83 1.73 0.88 0.80
Db Etude 2.93 1.28 2.53 1.06 0.40
G Etude 2.67 0.98 2.67 0.98 0.00
Note. Perceived difficulty ratings are 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult). Gains are pretest ratings
minus posttest ratings.
94
Regardless of instruction, nearly 60% of students in both groups perceived the
song posttests as easier than the pretests. Approximately one quarter of students in the
songs group perceived no change in song difficulty due to instruction. Responses
regarding ease of etudes were slightly unpredictable. More students in the exercises
group than the songs group perceived an easing of etude difficulty from pre- to posttest
(40% compared to 26%). However, for the new keys only, where pretest scores revealed
the most room for improvement, the results were reversed. A slightly higher percentage
of students in the songs group (35%) than the exercises group (30%) perceived an easing
of etude difficulty. (See Table 16.)
Table 16: Frequency Distribution: Perceived Changes in Task Difficulty
Ease of Songs Ease of Etudes
All Keys New Keys All Keys New Keys
Together Only Together Only
Songs Group
Neutral Scores 10 7 22 14
I
Negative Scores 6 3 7 3
II ,
Positive Scores 23 16 10 9
I N of Responses 39 26 39 26
"F:I Positive Responses 59% 62% 26% 35%
:1,
'!I
Exercises Group
Ii i I
",ill Neutral Scores 15
9 23 17
:11
I" I
"
Negative Scores 4 4 4 4
:I
Ii: Positive Scores 26 17 18 9
Ii
!'
N of Responses 45 30 45 30
Positive Responses 58% 57% 40% 30%
, i
!
I
I
, I
, \',
ii r,
A 2 x 3 repeated-measures ANOVA, with type of instruction (group) as the
between-subjects factor and key as the within-subjects factor, determined whether gain
scores were statistically significant. There were no main or interaction effects of group.
(See Table 17.)
Table 17: ANOVA Results: Perceived Changes in Song Difficulty
95
Source df F YJ2 P
Between subjects
Group 1 0.46 < .01 .50
Group
within-group error 26 (2.20)
Within subjects
Key 2 0.38 <.01 .69
, '
i' Group x Key 2 2.15 .02 .13I'
Group x Key
within-group error 52 (0.97)
Note. Group refers to instructional group (i.e., type of treatment). Values enclosed in
parentheses represent mean square errors.
A similar 2 x 3 ANOVA determined whether students perceived the postiest
etudes to be significantlyeasier than the pretest etudes. (See Table 18.)
I
1
96
Table 18: ANOVA Results: Perceived Changes in Etude Difficulty
p112FdfSource
--------------------- ------
I
Ii'
J,
. !
!
Between subjects
Group 1 0.00 <.01 .97
Group
within-group error 26 (2.54)
Within subjects
: I
, I
I
I
Key
Group x Key
2
2
1.93
11.41*
<.01
.05
.15
<.01
Group x Key
within-group error 52 (0.41)
Note. Group refers to instructional group (i.e., type of treatment). Values enclosed in
parentheses represent mean square errors.
*p < .05.
Here there was a statistically significant interaction of group with key, F(2, 52) = 11.41, P
, i
< .01. Post hoc analyses revealed that students in the exercises group perceived the
!,I
II,
'I';.1
I'j
posttest etude in Bb to be significantly easier than the pretest etude in Bb, t(52) = 2.93,p
= .005. No other differences were noted.
Perceived improvement in performance. On the SAl, students were asked to
evaluate the excellence of their performances before and after instruction. Taking those
I
I
I '
,I
II
!1
'I
II,j
gain scores, the analysis was able to establish whether participants felt that their posttest
performances were better than, the same as, or worse than their pretest performances.
Student ratings were from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Gain scores ranged from -3 to +3 for
I .
..,
97
ill song performances and -2 to +4 for etude performances. Table 19 presents means scores!j
/,1
f for perceived performance excellence, contrasting pre- and posttest ratings.
! :
: I
Table 19: Gain Scores: Perceived Performance Excellence
Pretest Posttest Gain
M SD M SD
,
i' Songs Group
Bb Song 3.08 0.95 3.62 1.04 0.54
Db Song 2.15 1.07 2.92 1.19 0.77
G Song 2.77 1.01 3.31 0.95 0.54
Exercises Group
Bb Song 3.27 0.80 3.47 1.06 0.20
Db Song 2.20 1.00 2.53 1.13 0.33
G Song 2.73 0.96 2.73 0.80 0.00
Songs Group
Bb Etude 3.38 1.04 3.77 1.09 0.39
Db Etude 2.62 1.33 3.31 1.18 0.69
G Etude 2.69 1.32 3.46 0.78 0.77
Exercises Group
Bb Etude 3.13 0.92 4.13 0.83 1.00
Db Etude 2.60 1.30 3.20 1.08 0.60
G Etude 2.73 0.96 3.13 1.19 0.60
!
Note. Perceived performance ratings are 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Gains are posttest
I' ratings minus pretest ratings.
I
More students in the songs group (44%) than in the exercises group (33%)
perceived their song performances as having improved from pre- to posttest. However,
almost half of the students in both groups perceived no change in song performance.
I
~--------------------
! '
_.....------------------------------------ -------
98
Regardless of instruction, approximately 45% of students perceived improved
performances on the etude posttests, although a similar proportion of students perceived
no change. (See Table 20.) By coincidence, some frequency counts in Table 20 are
, ,
identical; these are not typographical errors.i i:
, "
Table 20: Frequency Distribution: Perceived Changes in Performance Excellence
Excellence of Songs Excellence of Etudes
All Keys New Keys All Keys New Keys
Together Only Together Only
Songs Group
Neutral Scores 18 11 18 11
Negative Scores 4 3 4 3
Positive Scores 17 12 17 12
N of Responses 39 26 39 26
Positive Responses 44% 46% 44% 46%
i:
Exercises Group
I' Neutral Scores 21 15 19 13
Negative Scores 9 6 5 4
Positive Scores 15 9 21 13
N of Responses 45 30 45 30
Positive Responses 33% 30% 47% 43%
A 2 x 3 repeated-measures ANOVA, with type of instruction (group) as the
between-subjects factor and key as the within-subjects factor, determined whether gain
scores were statistically significant. There were no main or interaction effects of group.
(See Table 21.)
!1
,
"'j j
;~I:j", !
, I
I,' 1; .. _
; ,
, ,
i i
I
~---------------------------------
!
~
99
Table 21: ANOVA Results: Perceived Changes in Song Performance
Source df F YJ2 P
Between subjects
Group 1 1.48 .04 .24
Group
within-group error 26 (2.71)
Within subjects
Key 2 0.87 .01 .42
Group x Key 2 0.11 < .01 .90
Group x Key
within-group error 52 (0.65)
Note. Group refers to instructional group (i.e., type of treatment). Values enclosed in
parentheses represent mean square errors.
A similar 2 x 3 ANOVA determined whether students perceived their
performances of the posttest etudes as significantly better than their performances of the
pretest etudes. There were no main or interaction effects of group. (See Table 22.)
SAl Part C: Attitudes Toward Class Instruction
100
p
.88
.08
.91
.03
112
<.01
<.01
0.12
2.63
F
0.01
(4.00)
Within subjects
Between subjects
1
2
2
df
26
Source
Group
Investigating potential differences between groups due to type of instruction, one-
improvement in listening skills. Question 29 asked students to evaluate whether the
Questions 25, 26, and 27 asked students to evaluate whether the instructional
instructional activities were enjoyable. Questions 30 and 31 asked students to offer their
Group
within-group error
Key
Group x Key
way ANOVAs were conducted for these survey questions. Noting the compound risk for
Group x Key
within-group error 52 (0.68)
Table 22: ANOVA Results: Perceived Changes in Etude Performance
activities helped them to improve their playing skills, while Question 28 focused on
attitudes about continued instruction, with student answers most likely taking into
account both instructional efficacy and appeal.
Note. Group refers to instructional group (i.e., type of treatment). Values enclosed in
parentheses represent mean square errors.
i.
I,
I
error with multiple ANOVAs, the analysis looked first for any pairs of questions where
Ii
~-------_ ..........~_....................._~---~-
,
I
-------
-~-------~-
I .
. 'I
I,
T
I
,
I
I'
, '
i I
; ,
1
101
student responses might be highly correlated in order that data from two or more
questions might be combined and thereby facilitate a reduction in the total number of
ANOVAs conducted. The Kendall's tau correlation for student responses on Question 25
with 26 was {= .62,p < .001; and for Question 30 with 31, {= .66,p < .001.
Combining Question 25 with 26 and Question 30 with 31, there were five
ANOVAs in all. (See Table 23.) The only significant difference between groups was
found in the first ANOVA, which asked students if they felt their playing in the new keys
had improved due to instruction. Students in the songs group (M = 4.00, SD = 0.86)
perceived more improvement in their playing than did students in the exercises group (M
= 3.30, SD = 0.99), F(1, 26) = 4.82,p = .04. Table 23 highlights mean scores and
ANOVA results for Questions 25-31 of the SAL
.~
I I
r I
II
! :
')
~ :
102
Table 23: Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results: Attitudes Toward Instruction
Songs Exercises ANOVA
Group Group
M SD M SD F(l,26) P
"Helped my playing" 3.46 0.97 3.40 1.12 0.02 .88
"I've improved in Db and G" 4.00 0.89 3.30 0.92 4.82* .04
"Helped my ears" 3.08 1.04 3.00 0.65 0.06 .81
"Instruction was enjoyable" 2.85 0.80 2.80 1.21 0.01 .91
"I'd recommend this
to a friend and in other keys" 2.27 1.12 2.43 1.50 0.12 .73
Note. Ratings are 1 (negative) to 5 (positive).
*p < .05.
SAl Part D: Free Response Questions
The free response questions of the SAl offered an opportunity for students to
explain their attitudes toward instruction and elucidate their individual approach to music
reading. As might be expected, the answers reflected a wide range of opinions and
maturity levels. Most of the questions asked for a positive or negative response followed
by comments. Where I have presented frequency counts, the tallies may not total to N =
28 because some students provided explanations but not a "yes" or "no" response. Since
there were few significant differences between groups in earlier questions, I will quantify
all responses in terms of the sample as a whole rather than each group separately.
I1 I
!
103
Although percussion data were not included in the tallies, some of the most interesting
responses were from those students and a few of the free response comments will be
quotations from the percussion surveys. All quotations are typed exactly as written by the
students, including spelling.
Question 32: Key signatures. A majority of students believed that it was important
to tmderstand key signatures (n = 24) and most wrote that they "understood" key
signatures. Among students who indicated that they comprehended key signatures, a few
answers nevertheless revealed confusion (e.g., "because you know how fast or slow to
play the song"). A few answers advised that knowledge of key signatures was important
not because it helps one to perform better or tmderstand music, but because it "shows
how smart you are" or helps you to avoiding looking "stupid." Many of the positive
responses were a variation of, "So you know what notes to play and don't play wrong
notes," although only one student specifically mentioned that key signatures designate
"which sharps or flats to play." A few students indicated that knowledge of key signatures
helps in developing "an ear for the music," "finding the notes easier," or in playing scales
and then knowing how scales relate to pieces played in band. Among the negative
responses (n = 3), one student wrote, "Not important because it sotmds the same" and
another wrote, "No, they are all just notes." One student stated, "I do percussion so 1
don't use keys."
Question 33: Inner hearing. When students were asked if they tried to internalize
the music before playing ("Do you try to hear the piece inside your head?") and whether
it'
; ,
, I :
J
il! !Ii ii'i!' "
i'
I
;
i
104
that skill was important, the responses were more divided. Approximately two thirds of
students said they attempted to hear music internally (n = 16) compared to one third who
did not (n = 7); a couple of students responded that the skill was "kinda" important (n =
2). Slightly under half of the students believed this skill to be important (n = 12) while
others believed it to be unimportant (n = 9); a few students thought it might be important
(n = 3).
Among the affirmative responses: "Yes, because you know what it sounds like" or
"what it mite sound like then." Similar responses included, "because it helps you realize
your mistakes," or simply, "because it is." Whether or not a student attempted
internalization was not always reflective of his or her thoughts concerning the value of
the skill. A few students said they thought the skill was important but that they were not
good at it. Other students chose internalization but did not feel it necessary "if you
already know the notes" or "because I find it useless" or "because it's kinda stupid." One
student thought it "not too important but helpful."
Question 34: Helpfulness ofinstruction. Of all student participants, most students
(n = 15) found the instruction helpful. Some (n = 5) found instruction somewhat helpful,
and some (n = 6) did not find instruction helpful. Among the positive responses,
assistance or understanding of the new keys was of most benefit: "The practice activities
were helpful to me. They helped me understand my keys better, especially Db and G. I
had no clue how to play those keys well until I played this." Two students in the songs
group believed that instruction had helped them to "hear the notes better" and
J!
\
:'
! .
\ '! '
i i~ ;
i
L. II
------
105
consequently to improve their playing; one student in the scales group said he "heard the
. scales better, therefore I could play better." Among students who did not find the
activities helpful: "I hate practicing," "I like to practice on my own in a quiet room
without distractions," "I can't use my ability to hear very well," and "I never try to play
music by ear, and will never use those skills again." One student commented that the
activities were "kind of' helpful but that there was not a lot of time for instruction.
Question 35: Enjoyment ofinstruction. Considering all student participants,
approximately half of the students found the instruction enjoyable (n = 10) and half found
it unenjoyable (n = 10), with no evident trend between groups. Six students found
instruction somewhat enjoyable. The most common reasons cited as to why instruction
was not enjoyable, or only somewhat enjoyable, was that the instruction was difficult,
confusing, or boring (n = 10). However, some of these same students offered that they
"hate practicing" in general, that they did not like being unable to sit with their friends, or
that they were expected to listen during instruction and while others were playing.
Among students in the songs group, one reported that he was "horrible" at playing
music by ear while another suggested that instruction was "okay, but easyer if I saw the
notes." One student wrote that instruction was enjoyable because it was a smaller group
and everyone got more attention, and another that "It was kinda hard and that took a lot of
the fun out of it, but it's learning, it's not suposed to be fun." A trombone student not yet
fully grown enjoyed instruction except for having to reach seventh position in G major.
An especially mature and conscientious student in the scales group admitted that the
i I
i
I.
•. I
. i
I I!
I I
I,
i I
I
1'1
106
instruction was not enjoyable to her: "Not really enjoyable, because in music unless I
enjoy the music it's self it's kind of boring to me."
SAl: Summary ofResults
Analyses of participants' responses to Questions 1-24 of the SAl revealed few
statistically significant differences between groups. Before and after instruction, both
groups rated the difficulty of the pre- and posttest songs similarly. The pretest songs in
Db and G were perceived as significantly more difficult than the pretest song in Bb, and
the posttest songs in Db and G were perceived as significantly more difficult than the
posttest song in Bb. Rating the etude tasks, the only significant effect was a simple effect
ofBb, with students in the songs group perceiving the posttest etude in Bb to be
significantly easier than the pretest etude in Bb. Both groups rated their performance
excellence similarly. Before and after instruction, students perceived their song and etude
performances in Bb as significantly better than those in Db and G. Pre- and
postinstruction ratings on the SAl were then used to calculate gain scores. Excepting a
simple effect of key for increased ease of the Bb etude task for the exercises group, there
were no other statistically significant differences between groups.
The remaining questions of the SAl asked students whether the instruction was
helpful overall and whether it was enjoyable. When asked if instruction helped their
playing specifically in the new keys, the songs group responded positively whereas the
exercises group did not. When students were asked if instruction helped their playing
overall or helped their ears, there were no significant differences between groups. When
I'
I,
I
1
107
students were asked if instruction was enjoyable, and if they would like to continue this
type of instruction and whether they might recommend this instruction to a friend, again
there were no differences between groups.
In general, student responses suggested that the instruction was perhaps more
helpful than enjoyable. Mean scores related to enjoyment of instruction indicated that
students were neutral or even slightly negative toward the instructional activities. A
content analysis of the free response questions illuminated possible reasons why students
did not particularly enjoy instruction: Some thought the instruction too difficult or boring,
while others did not see the value in learning key signatures or playing by ear.
Research Question 4: Differential Effects of Aptitude
To learn whether aptitude might be a factor in student reactions to the
instructional treatments, aptitude was included as a variable in the song and etude
ANOVAs as well as the ANOVAs for Questions 25-31 of the SAL
The performance ANOVAs included the between-subjects factors of instructional
group (songs or exercises) and aptitude level (low, moderate, or high) and the within-
subjects factors of time (pretest and postiest) and key (Bb, Db, and G). Although there
was a statistically significant interaction of time with aptitude, there were no simple
effects of aptitude. For song~by-ear achievement, F(2, 24) = 0.88, p = .43; the
instructional treatment did not differentially affect the performance achievement of
students of low, moderate, and high aptitude. For sight-reading achievement, F(2, 24) =
0.87,p = .43; the instructional treatment did not differentially affect the performance
I
, \
I
I
, i
"1 i
. I
. ,
I
,
i I
i
'
l:.II 1
108
achievement of students of low, moderate, and high aptitude. Since aptitude did not
appear to be related to performance achievement, I analyzed the song and etude data
without including aptitude as a variable, and all calculations previously reported in this
chapter reflected this decision.
Student attitudes toward instruction as measured on the SAl did not vary among
students with differing aptitude levels. (See Table 24.) Since aptitude did not appear to be
related to attitude, I analyzed all SAl questions without including aptitude as a variable,
and all calculations previously repOlted in this chapter reflected this decision.
109
Table 24: ANOVA Results: Effects ofAptitude on Attitude: SAl Questions 25-31
Source df F 112 P
Question 25-26
~~
'\ Group 1 3.90 .12 .06
Aptitude 2 0.35 .02 .71
Group x Aptitude 2 0.04 <.01 .97
Question 27
Group 1 0.01 <.01 .91
Aptitude 2 0.11 <.01 .90
Group x Aptitude 2 0.50 .04 .61
Question 28
Group 1 0.31 .01 .58
Aptitude 2 0.39 .03 .68
Group x Aptitude 2 2.35 .17 .12
Question 29
Group 1 <0.00 <.01 .96
Aptitude 2 0.03 <.01 .97
Group x Aptitude 2 0.34 .03 .71
Question 30-31
Group 1 <0.00 <.01 .95
Aptitude 2 0.07 <.01 .94
Group x Aptitude 2 0.20 .01 .82
Note. Due to moderately high correlations, student responses for Questions 25 and 26
were averaged together, as were responses for Questions 30 and 31.
,i I
, ,
I
I
110
Summary
Analyses of the performance test data began with an investigation of inter-rater
reliability, which was found to be high. The next step was to check for any interaction
effects of treatment with aptitude. No effects of aptitude were noted. Subsequently, the
analyses considered any effects of type of instruction or key. The results of the analysis
of the song-by-ear data indicated that students in the songs group improved significantly
in the new keys of Db and G, approximately 25 percentage points, while students in the
exercises group did not improve in playing by ear in any of the three keys. The results of
the analysis of the sight-reading data indicated that students in both groups improved
significantly in all three keys: approximately 4.5 percentage points in Bb and an average
of 12.5 percentage points in each of the new keys.
The analysis also examined the effects of type of instruction on student attitudes.
No interaction effects of aptitude were found. The only statistically significant difference
between groups was perceived improvement in the new keys: Students in the songs group
perceived instruction as beneficial for learning to play in the keys of Db and G, while
students in the exercises group did not perceive the instruction as beneficial in learning
the new keys.
I
I
: ,I I
, I
I
i:
! i I'ii, '
, I
!
I
I·Ii
ii,
)
,i
ij
! )
111
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Description of the Study
The main purpose of this study was to examine the effects of learning songs by
ear in multiple keys on the play-by-ear and sight-reading skills of middle school band
students. Secondary purposes of the study were to investigate the effects of learning
songs by ear on student attitudes and to explore the possibility of differential effects due
to music aptitude.
Participants were brass and woodwind musicians in grades 7-8 who had been
studying an average of three years. Students were placed in one of two groups according
to aptitude, as measured by the Advanced Measures ofMusic Audiation (AMMA)
(Gordon, 1989), and instrument. Consideration was given to balancing the groups in
terms of private lesson study and outside musical experiences as reported on a Student
Background Survey (SBS). After I considered the groups matched, I randomly assigned
one group to be the experimental group. Statistical analysis confirmed that the groups
were well matched on the selection criteria.
The researcher and the cooperating band director served as instructors for the
study, alternately teaching the two groups. Students in the experimental group learned
songs by ear in the keys ofBb, Db, and G concert. Students in the contact-control group
I! !
I:
112
learned technical exercises in those same keys. The exercises were gathered from two
books in the school music library. The period of instruction was three 20-minute lessons
per week for four weeks.
To assess skills in playing by ear, each student performed Row, Row, Row Your
Boat in the keys of Bb, Db, and G both before and after instruction. To assess sight-
reading, I composed six etudes, 8 measures in length and using simple rhythms. Three
etudes served as the pretest and three the posttest, one each in the keys of Bb, Db, and G.
Two adjudicators independently evaluated pitch accuracy of recorded performances.
Qualitative and quantitative data from a researcher-authored Student Attitude Inventory
(SAl) were analyzed in an effort to determine students' attitudes regarding the
effectiveness and appeal of the instructional treatments.
Summary of Results
Research Question 1: Playing by Ear
Were there any effects on song-by-ear achievement due to type of instruction?
A repeated-measures ANOVA with the variables of group, time, and key was used to
evaluate the effects of instruction. Due to an interaction of group with time, I conducted
follow-up pairwise comparisons (uPw= .008). The songs group improved significantly in
playing by ear in the keys of Db and G,p < .001, but not in Bb. The exercises group did
not improve in any of the keys.
: I
I·
I'
--------------------------------- -
113
Research Question 2: Sight-Reading
Were there any effects on sight-reading achievement due to type of instruction? A
repeated-measures ANOVA with the variables of group, time, and key was used to
evaluate the effects of instruction. There was no effect of group. Due to an interaction of
key with time, I conducted follow-up pairwise comparisons (uPw= .017). Both groups
improved significantly in sight-reading in all three keys,p < .001.
Research Question 3: Student Attitudes
Were there any effects on student attitudes due to type of instruction? In the
analysis of gain scores for ease of song task, there were no interaction or main effects of
group. In the analysis of gain scores for excellence of song performance, there were no
interaction or main effects of group. In the analysis of gain scores for ease of etude task,
there was an interaction of group with key, with students in the exercises group
perceiving the posttest etude in Bb as significantly easier than the pretest etude in Bb.
This finding may be related to preinstruction ratings, where the songs group considered
the pretest etude in Bb relatively easy (M= 1.77) compared to the exercises group (M=
2.53), although that difference was not statistically significant. In the analysis of gain
scores for excellence of etude performance, there were no interaction or main effects of
group.
Questions 25-31 were postinstruction survey questions. When students were
asked if the instruction helped them improve in the keys of Db and G, students in the
songs grOl,lp perceived significantly more improvement than did students in the exercises
/ .
I:
bill: ..........................iiiioooiio----...................-----
I
1
Ii
I
I
l~-,- ~~ ~~~_ I~
114
group. However, no statistically significant differences between groups were noted for
the other statements: (a) "Helped my playing," (b) "Helped my ears," (c) "Instruction was
enjoyable," and (d) "I would recommend this to a friend and in other keys."
The remaining questions of the SAl were free response questions. Most students
(n = 24) reported that they believed it was important to understand key signatures "so you
know what notes to play" but only one student specifically mentioned that key signatures
indicate which notes are sharped or flatted. A majority of students (n = 16) said they
attempted to hear music internally even though some of those students thought the skill
unimportant. Most students (n = 15) found the instruction helpful: songs group, n = 7;
exercises group, n = 8. Among students who did not find the activities helpful, several
reported that they "hate practicing." A few students in the songs group said they never
play music by ear and will never use those skills in the future. Only 10 students found
instruction enjoyable: songs group n = 4, exercises group n = 6. The most common
reason for lack of enjoyment was that the instruction was difficult, confusing, or boring.
Research Question 4: Music Aptitude
Were there any differential effects of music aptitude on performance achievement
or student attitudes due to instruction? There were no differential effects of aptitude.
Whether this was due to small sample sizes or lack of treatment effects is not known.
l,1" ,
.....-----------------------------
j
! '
I
I,
I I
I
~ i
I
I I
Ip
!
"1 "
' "
I
I
)
115
Discussion of Results
Performance Achievement
Before instruction, most students were comfortable and skilled performing from
notation in the key ofBb (songs group M= 91.61 %, exercises group M= 91.54%).
During the pretest, I noticed that most students were quite uncomfortable attempting to
playa familiar melody by ear. Many students had to be coaxed to continue playing. Still,
pretest scores in the familiar key ofBb were modestly high (songs group M= 68.36%,
exercises group M= 66.67%). Pretest scores for playing a song by ear in the unfamiliar
keys of Db and G were approximately 28 percentage points lower.
In each key, posttest mean song scores for the exercises group were
approximately 7 points higher than pretest scores. This song improvement was without
specific instruction in playing by ear, perhaps a result of test-retest gains or increased
comfort with the testing procedures. Posttest mean song scores for the songs group were
approximately 11 points higher than pretest song scores in Bb, and 25 points higher in Db
and G. That the gains in the new keys were more pronounced than in Bb may be due to
the fact that pretest scores in Bb were high compared to Db and G and, therefore, the
students could achieve no higher degree of musical accuracy without substantially more
instruction or practice. The results of the study appear to support earlier research (Delzell
et aI., 1999) that has documented familiarity of key as an in±1uential factor in playing by
ear. Analyses of the data suggest that some improvement in playing songs by ear may
I~ I
I I,
L
)
116
occur with familiarity of key or repeated exposure to the task, but that instruction and/or
practice is necessary for significant improvement.
Pretest etude scores in Bb were above 90%; therefore, I did not anticipate much
improvement in sight-reading in Bb. Nevertheless, both groups improved significantly in
Bb, about 5 points. Both groups also improved significantly in the new keys of Db and G.
Improvement in G was about 11 points for both groups. Improvement in Db was about 10
points for the songs group and 17 points for the exercises group. Normally I might
wonder about the apparent difference in improvement, but the analysis showed no
statistical difference. Also, as mentioned in Chapter 4, there were two atypical Db etude
scores that may have affected the results of the songs group.
Atypical scores. One student was exceptional in playing songs by ear, earning
perfect scores on the pretest song in Bb and all posttest songs as well as above average
scores on the other pretest songs. Scores on the Bb and G etudes were high. However,
scores on the Db etude indicated an 18% decline from pre- to posttest. This student was
without her instrument during the week of instruction in Db. Whether the performance
decline was related to lesson participation, regression to the mean, or natural test
variability is unknown. Fortunately, school attendance among study participants was very
good, and no other students had attendance problems that might be considered related to
experimental mortality.
For another student, performance scores in the keys of Bb and G, and on the Db
etude pretest, were comparable to her peers. Unexpectedly, there was a decline of 45% on
! '
i
: I
I:
I:
!
-----------------------------------
117
the Db etude, where the student played only 6 of 34 pitches accurately on the posttest.
One adjudicator noted on the score sheet, "Could not figure where student was." Since
this was a clarinetist, it was not a case of playing incorrect partials while fingering
correctly; and with so few correct pitches, it was not simply a case of neglecting to
observe the three flat signs in the key signature. The performance remains a mystery.
In any testing situation, the possibility exists that any score, high or low, may be
affected by sampling error. Just as these two negative gain scores may have been due to
chance rather than performance decline, other positive gain scores may have been due to
chance rather than true improvement in skills. Nevertheless, while the data still revealed
overall etude improvement for the songs group in the key of Db, one might grant that the
analysis of reading improvement in Db could have been more pronounced without these
two negative gain scores, the only in the entire data set.
Student Attitudes
Statistically significant differences between groups were few. However, given
that this research is in its infancy, two positive trends may be worth noting. Regarding
perceived changes in song performance, post hoc analyses compared mean gain scores of
each group to zero, Upw= .025. The results of the analyses suggested that students in the
songs group perceived at least modest improvement in song performance, t(26) = 2.33,p
= .028, while student in the exercises group did not, t(26) = 0.72, p = .48. Regarding
perceived changes in etude performance, post hoc analyses compared mean gain scores
of each group to zero, UPW= .025. Although notstatistically significant, it seems that
II
1/:
L~ ...........""""""'"'_iiiiiOiiiiIIIi _ 1
I
1)
I'
I
I'
I'
I'
I
I
I
I:
I
l--.- _
118
some students in both groups may have perceived some improvement in their etude
performances: songs group, t(26) = 1.92,p = .07; exercises group, t(26) = 2.24,p = .03. It
is interesting to note that the results of the performance test data support student's
perceptions on the attitude survey in that only the songs group improved in playing songs
by ear but both groups improved in reading etudes.
Although it seemed to be a good idea to have students assess both their pre- and
posttest performances, a posttest-only attitude survey would probably have been
adequate. Given the six weeks between the pre- and posttests, I do not believe students
were internally consistent in their responses. Some students told me that they could not
recall their perceptions of the tests and their performances, and two students simply
marked all responses as "3."
The posttest-only items of the survey, Questions 25-31 and the free response
questions, were enlightening. Students in the songs group felt they improved significantly
in the keys of Db and G, which was encouraging. That students in the exercises group did
not feel they improved may be something to consider in rehearsal planning. With the
exercises group, in seeking to replicate "traditional" rehearsals, we did not make any
special efforts to involve students in the rehearsal process except to present and assess
factual knowledge such as fingerings and key signatures. Moreover, we did not ask
higher-order level questions, offer opportunities for students to make musical choices,
encourage student creativity, or otherwise promote higher-order thinking. Although we
did not do these things with the songs group either, the nature of the experimental
, I
1
i
, <
i
Ii:l _ ~
119
treatment compelled problem-solving and self-evaluation. As noted by Turner (1998),
problem-solving and reflection facilitate learning while automatic drill and repetition
usually do not.
Students in both groups were neutral in their enjoyment of the instructional
activities: songs group, M = 2.85; exercises group, M = 2.80. Since attitude toward
instruction was similar for both groups, one can probably interpret the results to mean
that learning songs by ear was no more or less enjoyable than normal ensemble warm-
ups. A few students in both groups wrote comments such as "I hate to practice," which
are telling.
For the songs group, lack of enjoyment might also have been due to discomfort or
unfamiliarity with aural-based learning activities or feeling unsuccessful with the
activities; for example, "It was kinda [sic] hard and therefore that took alot [sic] of the
fun out of it" and "I'm terrible at playing songs by ear." Some comments reflected
students' devaluation of aural perception in music reading or the skill of playing by ear:
"It is not important to hear the music inside your head before playing" or "Playing from
the written notes is a more important skill." When students are taught music reading as a
symbol-action skill where visual learning is emphasized and aural learning is neglected
(Grunow, 2005; Mainwaring, 1951; McPherson, 1995b; Schleuter, 1997), they might not
realize the importance of aural perception in music reading. When students are not taught
to play by ear in band classes, they might come to the conclusion that the skill is
unimportant. Further, music educators and even parents have voiced concerns about rote
,I·'I,'
~btl
--------------
120
learning and/or playing by ear ("How teachers view playing by ear," 1996; Kendall,
1966; Yolk, 1993), which can negatively influence students' perceptions (Barger, 2001).
One exceptionally skilled, high-aptitude student said that he would never again use skills
in playing by ear. This is unfortunate because, as Priest (1989) recommended, we should
teach all music performance skills as being "by ear."
Although the results of the attitude survey were disappointing in some ways, it is
important to remember that this was one study with students in a single band. Further, the
students in this band felt equally neutral about both the experimental and contact-control
instructional treatments. In past experiences, with students at a variety of grade levels, I
have witnessed strong enthusiasm for learning songs by ear. My regret in this study is
that, due to the necessity of isolating the variable of rote-song instruction, preliminary
activities such as melodic echoes (Brown, 1990; Haston, 2004) and singing songs
(Bernhard, 2004; Dunlap, 1989; McDonald, 1991), which might have better prepared
students for success and consequently contributed to enjoyment, had to be avoided.
Further, due to research protocol, we were on a strict time schedule that might have
resulted in the lessons being too fast-paced for some students. Had I planned for at-home
practice, which albeit would have introduced a potential confounding variable, success
and enjoyment might have been enhanced.
I
,\,1
,
iw+J, - -
---------------------- ~~~-~ ~----~~-~~-~~--
121
Discussion of the Study
Validity
Inherent in the research design were several threats to internal validity, or the
possibility that something other than the treatment affected the results of the study
(Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). Most potential threats, such as
differential selection and compensatory equalization, were minimized through the
planned methodology. However, there might have been an effect of testing in that
students may have been more comfortable during the posttests than during the pretests,
particularly in the song-by-ear task. Further, the song-by-ear test was the same for both
the pre- and posttest.
Several threats to external validity (Bracht & Glass, 1968; Gall et aI., 2003), or
the extent to which the findings of this study might apply in other settings, should also be
noted. The novelty effect, which occurs when the experimental treatment was effective
simply because it was a change of pace from the normal practice routine, may have been
a factor except that students were generally neutral toward the experimental treatment. To
minimize any effect of experimenter or teacher, the cooperating band director and the
researcher alternated instructing the two groups. The Hawthorne effect, which occurs
when the mere fact of participation in a scientific study improves participant
performance, may have been a factor. However, students were graded on behavior and
effort rather than achievement, and we did not notice any extraordinary behavior during
in-class instruction or related to at-home practice.
I
i I
I
I
h....-------------------- 1
122
To facilitate generalizability to other settings, I made every effort to design lesson
plans based on common, best practices in teaching. Explicit descriptions of the treatment
were offered, including musical materials and lesson plans. In all, the teaching strategies
and lesson procedures were not unusual and, I hope, well documented so that the study
could be replicated.
The Experimental Treatment
Learning songs by ear was a new activity for participants in the songs group. In
an effort to isolate the variable of aural rote-song instruction, the experimental treatment
did not include melodic echoes, singing, or visual references to a fingering chart.
Although students practiced tonic patterns for approximately five minutes in each key,
pattern instruction went no further. Without tonal or melodic pattern instruction as
preliminary activities for learning songs by ear, many students struggled with echo
playback of song phrases. Without singing as a means of checking for song
memorization, it was difficult to know if problems were due to too few presentations of
the song, technical performance difficulties, or unfamiliarity with the new keys. Without
access to a fingering chart, we spent considerable time reminding individual students of
the correct fingerings.
The time for instruction was extremely brief, only four hours in total. We needed
more time to teach the songs in Bb so that students were ready for the aural transposition
activities. Had we extended the time for instruction in Bb, however, students in the
exercises group would probably have been bored, since the Bb exercises were not overly
I:
I'
I' '
l
123
challenging for them. Because time for each key was the critical variable, not number of
songs or exercises learned, perhaps the time for instruction in all three keys could have
been extended. For the songs group, I might have planned extra time for learning the
song repertoire in Bb, and for the exercises group, additional exercises in Bb compared to
Db and G. Due to limited time for instruction, there was not enough time to properly
teach the Unit 3 songs, and there was no time for playing Irish Jig in Db or G, the only
song to employ the upper tonic. Consequently, the songs learned best were within the
range of a major sixth and there was insufficient time for songs that used the full octave
and a half range. The exercises group, however, practiced exercises over a two-octave
range, and the performance measures tested competence over a full octave. That the
songs group was still able to achieve significant improvement in sight-reading may be
testament to the benefits of the experimental treatment.
The Contact-Control Treatment
I made every effort to design the "traditional" treatment in accord with current
best practices in instrumental music. It should be remembered, however, that I used two
technique books in order to compile exercises for practicing in the keys ofBb, Db, and G
so that there would be enough exercises to fill 60 minutes of instructional time. Further,
the lessons were organized so that students practiced three days, or 60 minutes, before
moving on to a new key. This type of scheduling - blocked scheduling - is known to
enhance initial skill acquisition (Sanders, 2004; Shea & Morgan, 1979; Turner, 1998) but
is not inherent in the design of either Standard ofExcellence Book 3 (Pearson, 1996) or I
124
i
: I
i I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~----
Recommend (Ployhar, 1972), the two books used in this study. Had we simply practiced
exercises from the two books in sequential order, there would not have been enough
material for practice, and exercises in other keys would have been intermixed with the
keys under study. As Kohut (1992) reminds us, we cannot expect a book to teach our
students. Only with planning and organization is any method or technique book effective.
However, since many teachers employ exercises in a method or technique book in the
order presented, my intended "traditional" treatment may not have reflected fully the
instructional practices of some teachers.
Weaknesses and Limitations
Several weaknesses or limitations of the study are evident, some resulting from
my decision to focus attention on a manageable number of dependent variables and
others due to seeking to minimize experimental risk.
1. In selecting the melody for the pre- and posttests, and in an effort to be time-
efficient in testing, I chose a song that was familiar to most students and, therefore,
would require minimal instruction. Further, to insure that the pre- and posttest melodies
were comparable, I opted to use the same song for both tests, creating a potential test-
retest effect. Testing play-by-ear skills using two unfamiliar melodies might have
minimized threats to validity due to testing.
2. In selecting materials for sight-reading, I wanted to measure performance in the
three keys practiced during instruction. Consequently, I composed etudes specifically for
this purpose. Although I pilot-tested the etudes and concluded that they had excellent
Ii
'I
I
'I
'/Ii
"
II
III
I
'I,
I
I'
"
I:
i, ,
I I"
'Ii
!
--------------------~-----------------------
125
content validity and reliability, use of a published, standardized test would have added to
the interpretability of the study results. Follow-up research might employ the WFPS
(Watkins & Farnum, 1954) or an adaptation of it.
3. The skills of interest in this study were playing by ear and performing from
music notation. The performance tests did not include prepared etudes, for reasons of
time and experimental control. However, among students in grades 7-9, McPherson
(1995-1996) reported only a moderate relationship (r = .31) between abilities in
performing rehearsed music and sight-reading. Consequently, my decision to limit the
music reading test to sight-reading gives an incomplete picture of students' skills. Delzell
(1989) included etudes read at sight, etudes learned with teacher assistance, and etudes
learned without teacher assistance. Other researchers, similarly, have included in their
studies tests of both sight-reading and prepared music (e.g., Haston, 2004; McPherson,
1995a, 2005; Price et aI., 1998). Follow-up research to this study ought to do the same.
4. The posttests included measures of skill acquisition (song-by-ear test) and skill
transfer (sight-reading test) but did not include a measure of skill retention (a delayed
performance test). Research has suggested that low contextual interference and blocked
scheduling of tasks build initial skill acquisition, but high contextual interference and
random scheduling of tasks facilitate skill retention and transfer (Sanders, 2004; Shea &
Morgan, 1979; Turner, 1998). Investigation of these phenomena as they apply to the
experimental and contact-control treatments of this study is needed. Rarely has music
---------------------
_....--------~~----------
te _ ~
126
research considered retention of skills or knowledge, with studies by Garofalo and
Whaley (1979) and Schallock (2004) among the exceptions to this trend.
5. Pitch production, regardless of intended pitch or the use of correct
fingerings/positions, was evaluated by adjudicators listening to audio recordings. It is
possible that some participants had cognitive understanding of which notes to play but
that their performances, due to problems of tone production, did not reflect this learning.
Possibilities for measuring knowledge of new fingerings/positions and key signatures
include the use of a written test or evaluation based on videotaped performances.
6. All instruction took place in a group setting and students were not asked to
practice at home. Students who might have benefited from individual, at-home practice,
or simply more time on task, may not have had adequate time for learning. Although
adding the variable of at-home practice would have posed some experimental risk, it
might more realistically have reflected the potential of the experimental and traditional
treatments.
Because this was initial research on an untested method of instruction, I thought it
best to concentrate my efforts on the three dependent variables of playing by ear, sight-
reading, and student attitudes. In doing so, however, I neglected to measure skills in
performing rehearsed music, skill retention, aural skills, and music knowledge of
fingerings/positions and key signatures. Another weakness or limitation of the study
resulted from a desire to control extraneous variables, such as the variable of at-home
practice. In delimiting a small number of dependent variables, I was able to complete the
i 11
127
posttests in a timely manner and focus attention on the most readily visible effects of
instruction. However, follow-up research will need to address other potential effects,
especially those related to the underlying motivation for the experimental treatment,
which is the improvement of reading skills through aural-skills development.
Interpretation and Significance of the Study
This study examined learning songs by ear in multiple keys. The results ofthe
study showed that band students improved their skills in playing by ear and sight-reading.
Although the results are encouraging, they should be interpreted in view of its sample
size and population, large effect sizes for gains in performing by ear in newly learned
keys and medium effect sizes for gains in sight-reading, and moderate statistical power.
Replication is needed to confirm or reject the apparent effects of the treatments among
middle school band students, and follow-up research could include musicians of other
ages and instruments as well as tests of skill retention.
It is counterintuitive that students who did not read in the new keys of Db and G
achieved scores on a test of sight-reading that were as high as those who did read in the
newIeys. Perhaps the critical variables of the study were not learning songs by ear and
practicing exercises from notation but instead concentrated instructional time devoted to
study in the new keys. Moreover, with achievement in the new keys reaching only at or
below the 82nd percentile, there is ample room for musical improvement. Given a longer
period of time for treatment, it is possible that the experimental instruction would not be
strong enough to facilitate reading skills above this level. Optimally, the length of
.----------------------
128
treatment would enable contact-control group posttest scores in Db and G equal to scores
in Bb so that the limits of the experimental treatment might be learned,
This study isolated the variable of aural rote-song instruction. Important
preinstruction activities such as singing and pattern training (e.g., Bernhard, 2004;
Brown, 1990; Haston, 2004; MacKnight, 1975) and postinstruction activities such as
reading and writing songs (Gordon, 2003) were neglected. Powerful supplemental
instructional activities, such as learning bass lines and harmony parts (Grunow et ai.,
2001; Righter, 1945) were likewise not a part of the treatment. Consequently, that the
experimental instruction was as successful as traditional instruction is especially
noteworthy.
The fact that students in the experimental group demonstrated significant
improvement in playing songs by ear in the keys of Db and G implies that musicians,
with instruction or practice, can improve their skills in playing by ear and that familiarity
of key enhances success. For all practical purposes, the results of the study are in accord
~with the findings of Wilder (1988) and Delzell, Rohwer, and Ballard (1999). Because
students in both groups achieved significant gains in sight-reading, we can conclude that
instructional time devoted to play-by-ear activities did not hinder learning to play from
notation in new keys during the initial stages of skill acquisition. Further, free-response
comments on the attitude survey suggest that teachers need not worry that encouraging
students to play by ear will negatively influence motivation for performing music from
notation.
!;
I
I
I'"~I !
129
The results of the study support the findings of earlier research that has
documented the benefits of sound-before-sign instruction that included learning songs by
rote in beginning instrumental music as preparation for music reading (e.g., Bernhard,
2004; Haston, 2004; McDonald, 1991). In expanding the population to include
intermediate-level musicians, the present study suggests that rote instruction might be
advantageous beyond the beginning stages of learning an instrument and may have
benefits beyond preparing students for initial reading experiences. In affecting
performance improvement through the practice of the musical materials of songs, in
contrast to exercises, this research corroborates the work of Price, Blanton, and Parrish
(1998), who found instruction based on musical materials (excerpts from band literature)
equally effective as performing scales, rhythm drills, and technical exercises from
published band books.
Thus, implications for pedagogy are as follows: (a) Aural-based instruction may
be a positive tool for learning in the intermediate stages of instrumental study; (b)
performing by ear in a new key, a type of sound-before-sign instruction, can assist
students in the initial stages oflearning to perform in a new key; and (c) for teaching the
skill and concept of playing in a new key, isolated technical drills or specially composed
studies are not the only option.
Suggestions for Future Research
Additional research on the topic of learning songs by ear in instrumental music is
recommended.
1J
I'
i
, ,
i I
i
,i ll _
~-
130
1. A follow-up study of middle school students, but employing a bigger sample, is
needed. The participants could be from a larger single band or multiple bands at several
school sites. A larger sample size would also invite a possibly more representative group,
and better facilitate the examination of potential differential effects among students of
varied levels of music aptitude.
2. In order to examine the effects of the experimental treatment among a more
diverse population of musicians at various stages of learning, future research could
involve students at other levels of instruction, such as beginning or high school band
participants, or even college musicians taking private lessons. Because the technical and
aural requirements for pitch accuracy in playing different instruments are varied, future
research might also examine the effects of the experimental treatment among musicians
of other instruments, including mallet percussion, strings, and piano.
3. A follow-up study could include additional major or minor keys. With the
dearth of minor-key songs/exercises in method and technique books and young-band
~'Jepertoire, it would be interesting to compare practicing minor scales and exercises with
learning songs by ear in minor. In American music, aural familiarity in major tonality is
much stronger than for minor tonality. Hypothesizing that songs offer a more vivid aural
image than scales and exercises, meaning that it is easier to discern wrong notes in a
familiar song than in an exercise, I would conjecture that the strength of the experimental
treatment might be magnified in the minor keys.
! 1.1[,'
~ .' I
I
I
L
131
4. To build on the research of Luce (1965), McPherson (1995-1996), and
Bernhard (2004), which has documented a significant relationship between the skills of
playing by ear and sight-reading, replications ofthe present study should include a
calculation of the correlation of play-by-ear and sight-reading test scores.
5. The students in this study had little to no previous experiences in aural-based
musical performance on their band instruments. A study of middle school students who
are involved in a band curriculum that already includes some types of aural instruction,
such as tonal or melodic pattern training, might assure that the students are prepared for
learning songs by ear and that the full benefits of rote-song instruction are realized.
6. The experimental treatment of this study facilitated ears-hands coordination
while the contact-control treatment facilitated eyes-hands coordination. A longer period
of instruction might allow time for the experimental group to read songs learned by ear in
notation and thereby facilitate ears-eyes-hands coordination. An aural component could
be added to the contact-control treatment so that it similarly facilitates ears-eyes-hands
coordination.
7. A longer period of treatment might allow the full benefits of the experimental
treatment to impact skills in audiation. A replication study over a semester or full year of
instruction could include pre- and postinstruction tests of notational audiation.
Playing by Ear and Music Reading: A Possible Connection
Although the present study compared the effects of learning songs by ear and
practicing exercises, my thoughts are not that one instructional technique is superior to
I i
,
Ii II!'I,
---------------------~~~~~~.- ----------
--------
132
the other but that learning songs by ear can enhance other activities in rehearsal. In this
study, learning songs by ear in two new keys appeared to contribute to student success in
performance from notation in those two keys as much as did traditional instruction
employing scales and technical exercises. Learning songs by ear may have other as of yet
unmeasured benefits as well.
I believe that learning songs by ear contributes to developing skills in pitch
internalization and audiation. Teachers of college ear-training classes have voiced similar
opinions (Brown, 1990; Covington, 1992; Karpinski, 2000; Thackray, 1975), and at least
one study has documented a relationship between aural-skills grades and playing by ear
(Wilder, 1988). Skills in pitch internalization and audiation, which facilitate musical
anticipation and prediction (Gordon, 2003), might then aid musicians in performing
within the notated key signature. Sloboda (1976) observed the powerful effects of
musical inference among musicians performing an unfamiliar score in a familiar tonal
style, and Wolf (l976) reported the phenomenon of proofreader's error in music. This
literature suggests the influence of aural perception in performing from notation.
Gordon (2003) and Grunow (in Casey, 1993) have opined that practicing scales
and exercises aids in developing instrumental technique but does little to develop skills in
audiation. I speculate that technical fluency is especially important in fast passages, but
since such passages are infrequent in middle school band literature, developing the ability
to play fast scales and arpeggios is perhaps less important than developing the ability to
•
1,',.
I I;,.
---------------------------------
1
audiate tonality (e.g., Gordon, 2003; Grunow, 2005), predict and anticipate musical
1 '
1
I
1
I
I.
I·
I
I "'.I,
T
133
events (Gaynor, 1995; Walters, 1989), and self-correct (Nuttall, 2004). Whether the
benefits of learning songs by ear would extend to musicians beyond the intermediate-
level stages of instruction should be investigated.
Concluding Thoughts
Based on personal musical and teaching experiences, a review of the literature,
and the positive results of this study, I conclude that learning songs by ear merits
consideration as follows:
1. Performing music from notation should be considered a visual-aural-motor task
(Mainwaring, 1951) involving eyes-ears-hands coordination (McPherson & Gabrielsson,
2002). Learning songs by ear may be one means of strengthening aural skills (Brown,
1990; Covington, 1992; Karpinski, 2000; Thackray, 1975) and perhaps ultimately
facilitating instrumental music reading. The results of the present study are in accord with
this theory.
2. Aural-based learning activities prepare students for music reading (e.g.,
Bernhard, 2004; Grutzmacher, 1987; Haston, 2004; MacKnight, 1975) but ought not
'.
preclude music reading (Gordon, 2003; Kendall, 1966). This study included instruction in
learning songs by ear, but given the importance of music reading for ensemble musicians,
posttests measured the effects of instruction on music reading. The results of the present
study demonstrated that students who learned songs by ear sight-read as well as students
who practiced exercises from notation.
.1
I I
'I!
I
i
I'iI ~ '
i I
II
II
I
Ib _
134
3. The National Standards in Music encourage learning a diverse repertoire of
music both visually and aurally, and engaging in musically creative activities such as
improvisation (MENC, 1996). In multiple studies, McPherson (1995-1996, 2005) has
offered empirical evidence suggesting the value of a curriculum that includes attention to
visual, aural, and creative musical performance activities. Learning songs by ear qualifies
as an aural performance activity, which has been advised by McPherson and others (e.g.,
Froseth, 2000; Grunow et aI., 2001; Priest, 1989).
The results of this study suggest that a well-rounded instrumental curriculum that
includes learning songs by ear and aural transposition may be beneficial. Learning songs
by ear is advocated by expert teachers, is in harmony with earlier research, and is
supported by the National Standards in Music. Additionally, implementation of a song-
by-ear curriculum may enable the teaching of selected skills and concepts through music
rather than isolated technical exercises.
Even with a short period of treatment, positive effects of learning songs by ear
were documented in this study. Whether this trend was due solely to instruction, or due in
part to repetitive musical performance of any kind in new keys, is not known. A longer
period of treatment would help to answer this question. As with any single study,
experimental replication is needed before making unequivocal recommendations.
Nevertheless, the results of the study suggest that learning songs by ear and aural
transposition may be valuable activities in instrumental music.
I
,
k
APPENDIX A
STUDENT AND PARENT PERMISSION FORMS
135
I
I
ILETTER OF RECRUITMENT AND ASSENT
August 24, 2005
Dear BAND STUDENT,
My name is Ann Musco and I conduct the concert band at the University of
Alaska-Fairbanks. I am also a student at the University of Oregon, where I am
working on my dissertation. The ultimate goal of this project is to improve how
we teach in band classes. Because your participation in this project is vital to its
success, I am writing to ask for your assistance!
For one month this term, several times a week, you will be involved in specific
rehearsal activities designed to improve skills in music reading. In order to
compare two different teaching methods, we will divide the band into two groups.
Mrs. xxxxxxxxx and I will alternate teaching the two groups. Whatever your
group assignment, I believe that you will find the activities both musically
beneficial and enjoyable. Your participation in these special rehearsal activities
will count as part of your fall term band grade. If you give excellent effort and
participate positively, you will earn an "A" for this portion of your fall term
grade.
If you choose to participate in my dissertation study, you will be involved in
several additional activities, all of which will also take place during regularly
scheduled band classes. First, you will complete a short, confldential
questionnaire about your musical background. Then you will take a portion of a
listening test call the Advanced Measures ofMusic Audiation so that I can learn a
little bit more about your musical skills. At the conclusion of our time together, I
will ask for your comments about the instruction you received: Did you enjoy the
4,~tivities?Do you feel they were helpful? And so on.
If you choose to patiicipate in the study, I will want to know your playing skills
before and after instruction so that I can hear how much you improved. Therefore,
you will be asked to playa short pretest and a short posttest. These performance
tests will consist of sight-reading three brief melodies and playing a familiar song
by ear (without written music) in several keys. In order for me to privately
audiotape your performances on my computer, you will be excused for about 12
minutes from band class to play your melodies and songs. Because several judges
will later score your performances, you must consent to be audiotaped in order to
participate in the study.
136
. ,
I
. ,
: it
: 1
',':!
Ii
, i
; . I
~ : i
I
I
, Il _
137
For this study, your identity will remain confidential. That is, the judges will not
know who is playing on the recording and your name will not appear in my write-
up. I hope you will not be shy or nervous about playing for me. Remember, any
opportunity for performance helps us to grow as musicians.
If you choose not to participate in the study, you will participate in the curriculum
activities but you will not be recorded and you will not need to complete the
questionnaires. Your academic grade will not be affected but you may be given an
independent study project to complete while other students are taking the
dissertation tests and questionnaires.
Your participation in the tests and questionnaires is completely voluntary, and will not
affect your music grade or your relationship with your school band director. If you have
any questions, please contact me at xxx-xxxx or ann.musco@uaf.edu. To participate,
please sign your name where indicated, and have your parent/guardian sign where
indicated as well. Of course, you may withdraw from the study at any time without
penalty.
I look forward to working with you, and I thank you for your help!
Sincerely,
Ann Musco
Assistant Professor of Music
University of Alaska-Fairbanks
907-xxx-xxxx or ann.musco@uaf.edu
lyolunteer to participate in Ms. Musco's dissertation study as described above:
Narne of participating student
Signature of participating student
Date
Do you have any questions or comments about the study?
If so, please ask me in class or write your question(s)/comment(s) here. ©
.. I
__l._
138
LETTER OF RECRUITMENT AND INFORMED CONSENT
August 24, 2005
Dear BAND PARENT,
My name is Ann Musco and I conduct the concert band at UAF. I am also a student at the
University of Oregon, where I am working on my dissertation, and so I am writing to ask
permission for your child's participation in my study.
For one month this term, all students in the Concert Band will be involved in specific
rehearsal activities designed to improve skills in music reading. In order to compare two
different teaching methods, we will divide the band into groups matched according to
instrumentation and other factors. Mrs. xxxxxxxxx and I will alternate teaching the two
groups. It is anticipated that students in both groups will benefit from the instruction
received, and I believe students will enjoy our time together. Since these learning
activities are part of the regular band class, students will earn credit toward their fall term
band grade through positive participation.
Students who elect to participate in the study will also take a music listening test, perform
two short playing tests, and complete two confidential questionnaires. Students will be
excused briefly from band rehearsal to play their performance tests. Students who elect
not to participate in the study (the pre- and posttests) will not be penalized in any way,
but may be given an alternate independent study project while the dissertation
participants complete the study questionnaires and listening test.
For study participants, the performance tests include private audiotaping of six short
musical examples. The recordings will be made directly onto a laptop computer, and are
necessary for full participation in the study. During recording, students will be identified
by number rather than by name. To verify that instruction was implemented as planned,
each teacher will be videotaped two times during the study. Additional details about the
study can be found in the attached letter to students.
Your child's participation is voluntary and confidential. Students will be assigned a study
identification number so that all testing information is known only to Mrs. xxxxxxxxx
and the researcher. The code list will be retained by the researcher only until the data
have been analyzed, or approximately six months.
If you have any questions about the study, please contact me at ann.musco@uafedu or
xxx-xxxx.
. ~
I
'I
, Ii
: il
II
I
! !
139
You may also contact my dissertation advisor: Dr. Harry Price, School of Music, 1225
University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1225,541-346-3777, or hprice@uoregon.edu.
If you have questions regarding your rights as a research SUbject, contact the Office of
Human Subjects Compliance, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403,541-346-2510.
Your signature on the reverse of this letter indicates that you have read and understand
the information provided above; that you willingly agree to your child's participation;
that you will receive a copy of this form if you request it; and that you are not waiving
any legal claims, rights, or remedies. Participants may withdraw from the study (the pre-
and posttesting) at any time without penalty.
As a public school teacher for more than ten years, I sought to employ the best teaching
strategies I knew. With this dissertation and the wonderful contributions of Mrs.
xxxxxxxxx and the students, I hope to scientifically document the effects of two of those
teaching strategies and make a contribution to pedagogy.
I look forward to working with your son/daughter on this project, and I thank you for
support. Again, please feel free to contact me at any time should you have questions,
comments, or concerns about the study. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Ann Musco
Assistant Professor of Music
University of Alaska-Fairbanks
907-xxx-xxxx
ann.musco@uaf.edu
I consent to my child's participation in the dissertation study as described:
Name of parent or legal guardian
Signature of parent or legal guardian
Date
I have questions about the study. Please telephone me:
Name of parent/guardian
Telephone
Best time to call
II '
i ':
I :
I
I'
, ,i
, ,I
I "
I
I'
I'
I
I
I
~,'i,:I "\
I
---l
APPENDIXB
SONG-BY-EAR PRE/POSTTEST
140
Name of Adjudicator
Song-by-Ear Pre/Posttest
Student ID
141
· I
!
Circle each pitch misplayed by the performer.
You may listen to the recording as many times as you wish.
Pitch accuracy ("correct notes") is the only attribute of measurable interest.
Intonation and rhythm are not attributes of interest during this performance test.
~&~I'''a~J~. ~~~~,,
'~I'-
i: ~--.4--.
~.
Ii
. f
': I
i
:1
'1. :
·1
. i I
~ili i 1_
APPENDIXC
SIGHT-READING ETUDES
142
, ,
t l
ii,
I I'
:,11 i
'.'1.
11
i:.,.1
, I)
,. !
: jll.
il'i
, ,
" I
I
: '
, I:
I,I! i
I
, I
:1
, I
I
; I
:i
1·,·11I, !...... ....iIIiIIIIiIi_.... _
143
Sight-Reading Etudes
Xiii
Xb
Xc
Ya
Yb
Yc
,
r I I
',I'
i i j
, 'I
I "~ i
'i
i I
, j:
: :
I
I
i
; :1Is.,.,., _
APPENDIXD
ETUDE COMPARABILITY FORM
144
I
I
I I
!,
I
- ,
II
I
I
145
Dear Adjudicator,
Thank you for your expert opinion on the content of these etudes, which are intended to
be of equal performance and musical difficulty.
Here is a brief description of the areas of concern while composing the etudes:
Number of pitches
Rhythm
Range
Each 8-measure etude includes 31-35 nonrepeated pitches.
The etudes use half, quarter, and paired-eighth notes.
The etudes encompass a range of a minor tenth, from the seventh
degree of the scale below tonic to the ninth degree of the scale
above tonic.
[,
"t
I
I'
I
1,-
t'I!
i II
I' !
i!
: I
~ I
Interval content The etudes comprise scalar melodic motion as well as small skips
within the underlying I, IV, and V7 harmonies.
Harmony/Phrasing The 8-measure etudes include two 4-measure phrases. Each phrase
has a final cadence on the tonic triad, and the second phrase has a
harmonic rhythm identical to the first. The rate of harmonic change
is one chord per measure for three of the four measures of each
phrase, and two chords per measure on the other measure of the
phrase. Each etude includes a total of four or six beats over a
subdominant triad. Three different harmonic plans are employed,
with one plan for Xa and Ya, one for Xb and Yb, and one for Xc
and Yc.
Please review the etudes and complete the questionnaire on the reverse side of this page.
After signing the questionnaire, please mail it to me in the enclosed return envelope.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Ann Musco
907-xxx-xxxx
ann.musco@uaf.edu
146
(i
, I ETUDE COMPARABILITY FORM
For each pair of statements, check ONE box and include any relevant comments.
o All six etudes appear to be of equal difficulty in terms of rhythm.
o I have concerns here. Comment on which etudes (and measures thereof)
appear to be more or less difficult than the rest.
o All six etudes appear to be of equal difficulty in terms of range.
o I have concerns here. Comment on which etudes (and measures thereof)
appear to be more or less difficult than the rest.
o All six etudes appear to be of equal difficulty in terms of harmony.
o I have concerns here. Comment on which etudes (and measures thereof)
appear to be more or less difficult than the rest.
o All six etudes appear to be of equal difficulty in terms of interval content.
o I have concerns here. Comment on which etudes (and measures thereof)
appear to be more or less difficult than the rest.
Date
o All six etudes appear to be of equal difficulty in terms of phrase construction.
o I have concerns here. Comment on which etudes (and measures thereof)
appear to be more or less difficult than the rest.
Other Comments
Signature
i
"
, I
i
li;~ IL
i,
I
I
:',:I!
I'
~ J
,I
II
"
APPENDIXE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADJUDICATORS
147
, !
I'
I
I
I'
'II:
II
"
148
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADJUDICATORS
Thank you so much for adjudicating!
Enclosed is the listing of tracks on each CD, plus the score sheets. On your score sheets, I
have noted the instrument that should be playing.
You may listen to the recordings in any order you wish, although I recommend listening
to each group of recordings (songs or etudes in one key) before moving on to another
task.
You may listen to each track as many times as you wish.
For each performance, circle any pitches misplayed by the performer. Also circle any
pitch not played, even if it is a repeated pitch.
Pitch accuracy (i.e., "correct notes") is the only factor of measurable interest.
Intonation and rhythm are not of interest during this performance test. Consequently, if a
student pauses or misplays a rhythm, it does not affect the score unless it takes more than
45 seconds to play the song or etude. I have already confirmed that there are no
excessively long recordings, so you do not need to be concerned.
If you find specific tracks especially difficult to score, draw an asterisk near the clef sign,
but still circle, to the best of your ability, any misplayed pitches.
An addressed envelope plus postage money is included for the return of the scoring
sheets. I will retrieve the CDs from you next time we meet in person.
Again, thank you so much for your time listening to these recordings!
APPENDIXF
STUDENT BACKGROUND SURVEY
149
I.
I I'
f
Student Background Survey (SBS)
Your Name
Grade in School
Instrument in Band
150
All information on this form is confidential.
lao In what grade did you begin playing this instrument? 3 4 5 678
lb. Do you play any other instruments? YES NO
lc. If yes, what other instruments do you play? For how long?
i
I
ii
'.1
, II'
.1
,I
i;
, ,I
,I
, II
:1
II
fl
f: )
2a.
2b.
3a.
3b.
4a.
4b.
5a.
5b.
6a.
Do you take, or have you taken, private lessons on a band instrument?
If yes, for how long?
Do you take, or have you taken, private lessons on piano?
If yes, for how long?
Do you play in any other instrumental ensembles besides Concert Band?
If yes, which ensemble(s) and for how long?
Have you attended any summer music camps?
If yes, which camp(s) and for how long?
Do you sing, or have you sung, in any choirs?
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
6b. If yes, what choir(s) and where? For how long?
7. Is there anything else about your music background that I should know?
If yes, please explain. Use reverse side of page ifneeded.
Student Background Survey
UO #XTI7-05
YES NO
Additional student comments here, please.
TEACHER USE ONLY
Name
Study ID #
Instrument
AMMA Tonal
AMMARhythm
AMMA Composite
AMMARank
Comments
151
Lessons
Ensembles
Group
A
A
A
B
B
or
C
C
B
o
o
,L-_
Student Background Survey
UO #X717-05
I"
II
J.L_
APPENDIXG
STUDENT ATTITUDE INVENTORY
152
1. During your pretest, was it easy or difficult for you to play easy difficult
Row, Row, Row Your Boat by ear in Bb concert? 1 2 3 4 5
2. How about Row, Row, Row Your Boat in G concert? easy difficult
1 2 3 4 5
3. How about Row, Row, Row Your Boat in Db concert? easy difficult
1 2 3 4 5
4. Rate your pretest performance of poor exceMent
Row, Row, Row Your Boat in Bb concert. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Rate your pretest performance of poor exceMent
Row, Row, Row Your Boat in G concert. I 2 3 4 5
6. Rate your pretest performance of poor exceMent
Row, Row, Row Your Boat in Db concert. 1 2 3 4 5
7. During the pretest, was it easy or difficult for you to play easy difficult
the etude in Bb concert? 1 2 3 4 5
8. How about the etude in G concert? easy difficult
1 2 3 4 5
9. How about the etude in Db concert? easy difficult
1 2 3 4 5
10. Rate your pretest performance of the etude in Bb concert. poor excellent
1 2 3 4 5
11. Rate your pretest performance of the etude in G concert. poor exceMent
I 2 3 4 5
12. Rate your pretest performance of the etude in Db concert. poor exceMent
1 2 3 4 5
Iw,··
Student Attitude Inventory (SAl)
This questionnaire is confidential.
before instruction = PRETEST
ID/Name
153
,",
I
I I
,
Student Attitude Inventory (SAl)
This questionnaire is confidential.
after instruction = POSTTEST
ID
154
13. After instruction, was it easy or difficult for you to play easy difficult
Row, Row, Row Your Boat by ear in Bb concert? 1 2 3 4 5
14. How about Row, Row, Row Your Boat in G concert? easy difficult
1 2 3 4 5
15. How about Row, Row, Row Your Boat in Db concert? easy difficult
1 2 3 4 5
16. Rate your posttest performance of poor excellent
Row, Row, Row, Your Boat in Bb concert. 1 2 3 4 5
17. Rate your posttest performance of poor excellent
Row, Row, Row Your Boat in G concert. 1 2 3 4 5
18. Rate your posttest performance of poor excellent
Row, Row, Row Your Boat in Db concert. 1 2 3 4 5
19. After instruction, was it easy or difficult for you to play easy difficult
the etude in Bb concert? 1 2 3 4 5
20. How about the etude in G concert? easy difficult
1 2 3 4 5
21. How about the etude in Db concert? easy difficult
1 2 3 4 5
22 .. Rate your posttest performance of the etude in Bb concert. poor excellent
1 2 3 4 5
23. Rate your posttest performance ofthe etude in G concert. poor excellent
1 2 3 4 5
24. Rate your posttest performance of the etude in Db concert. poor excellent
1 2 3 4 5
25. My ability to play in the key of G concert has improved. not at all a lot
1 2 3 4 5
26. My ability to play in the key of Db concert has improved. not at all a lot
1 2 3 4 5
27. Our class practice time helped my playing. not at all a lot
1 2 3 4 5
28. Our class practice time helped my ears. not at all a lot
1 2 3 4 5
29. I enjoyed our class practice activities. not at all a lot
1 2 3 4 5
30. I would like to do more of this in other keys. no yes
1 2 3 4 5
31. I would recommend this activity to a band friend. no yes
1 2 3 4 5
~~,----_...........--------~--------~~~---
155
32. When you sight-read a new piece of music, do you look at and understand the key signature?
Yes or No? Do you think this knowledge is important? Why or why not?
33. When you read music, do you try to hear the piece inside your head before you play it? Yes or No?
Do you think this skill is important? Why or why not?
34. Were the practice activities helpful to you? Yes or No?
Please comment. Try to be as specific as possible.
35. Were the practice activities enjoyable for you? Yes or No?
Please comment. Try to be as specific as possible.
36. Here, please make any additional comments you have about our class practice activities. Thank you! ©
Student Attitude Inventory - Last Page
DO #X717-05
: I
i
~
APPENDIXH
INTRODUCTORY LESSON
156
I,
I
it
157
Introductory Lesson: Both Groups Together
Lesson Objectives:
Students will learn or review the fingerings/positions for the pitches of all three scales.
Students will learn or review the key signatures for all three scales.
Students will learn or review steps and skips in music.
Students will learn the term "tonic pattern" and the notes of the tonic triad.
Lesson Notes:
Researcher leads activities from the podium.
Cooperating teacher assists individual students as necessary.
The abbreviation SR stands for student response. Italicized passages are teacher talk.
The lesson will last about 25 minutes.
Lesson Procedures:
1. Be certain all students know which instrument group they are in:
Flutes, trombones, tuba, and mallet percussion - you are in the C-instrument
group. Clarinets and trumpets - you are in the Bb-instrument group. Saxes - you
are in the Eb-instrument group.
2. Learn or review the key signature of the Bb-concert scale:
Everyone, look at Line J on your handout. Notice that the scale goes up one note
higher than the octave and goes down one note lower than the octave.
Raise your hand ifyou have two flats in your key signature. SR.
Raise your hand ifyou have no flats or sharps in your key signature. SR.
Raise your hand ifyou have one sharp in your key signature. SR.
3. Name the notes of the Bb-concert scale:
C-instrument group, you have two flats in your key signature. (Teacher draws key
signature on the white board.) You must play all Bs as Bjlats and all Es as E-
flats. Please say the note names o/your scale while fingering along as ifyou were
going to play the scale aloud.
I.'-
158
SR: Bb C D Eb F G A Bb C Bb A G F Eb D C Bb A Bb
Repeat with the Bb and Eb instruments.
4. Time for additional student questions, reviewing fingerings/positions as needed:
Does anyone have any questions about the fingering or slide position for any of
these notes? Help students as necessary.
5. Read and perform the Bb-concert scale:
All together: Play the Bb-concert scale while reading from Line 1.
Band plays the scale in whole notes at quarter note equals 60.
Band then plays the scale in quarter notes at quarter note equals 60.
6. Learn or review the key signature for the Db-concert scale:
Everyone, look at Line 2 on your handout. Notice that the scale goes up one note
higher than the octave and goes down one note lower than the octave.
Raise your hand ifyou have five jlats in your key signature. SR.
Raise your hand ifyou have three jlats in your key signature. SR.
Raise your hand ifyou have twojlats in your key signature. SR.
7. Name the notes of the Db-concert scale and perform the scale in groups:
C-instrument group, you have five jlats in your key signature. (Teacher draws key
signature on the white board.) You must play all Bs, Es, As, Ds, and Gs asjlatted
. notes. Please say the note names ofyour scale while fingering along as ifyou
were going to play the scale aloud
SR: Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb C Db Eb Db C Bb Ab Gb F Eb Db C Db
All C-group instruments, let's be certain we know the fingerings for Db and Gb.
Teacher helps as needed.
Good work. Now let's play that scale.
C-instrument group plays the scale in half notes at quarter note equals 60.
Repeat with the Bb and Eb instruments.
8. Time for additional student questions, reviewing fingerings/positions as needed:
II
......_-----------------------
159
Does anyone have any questions about the Db-concert scale for their instrument?
Answer any questions.
9. Read and perform the Db-concert scale:
All together: Play the Db-concert scale while reading from Line 2.
Band plays the scale in whole notes at quarter note equals 60.
Band then plays the scale in quarter notes at quarter note equals 60.
10. Learn or review the key signature for the G-concert scale:
Everyone, look at Line 3 on your handout. Notice that the scale goes up one note
higher than the octave and goes down one note lower than the octave.
Raise your hand ifyou have one sharp in your key signature. SR.
Raise your hand ifyou have three sharps in your key signature. SR.
Raise your hand ifyou have four sharps in your key signature. SR.
11. Name the notes ofthe G-concert scale and perform the scale in groups:
C-instrument group, you have one sharp in your key signature. (Teacher draws
key signature on the white board.) You mustplay all Fs as F-sharps. Please say
the note names ofyour scale while fingering along as ifyou were going to play
the scale aloud.
SR: GAB C D E F# GAG F# E D C BAG F# G
All C-group instruments, let's be certain we know thefingeringfor F#.
Teacher helps as needed.
Good work. Now let's play that scale.
C-instrument group plays the scale in half notes at quarter note equals 60.
Repeat with the Bb and Eb instruments.
12. Time for additional student questions, reviewing fingerings/positions as needed:
Does anyone have any questions about the G-major scale for their instrument?
Answer any questions.
13. Read and perform the G-concert scale:'
II
....._---------------------------
160
All together: Play the G-concert scale while reading from Line 3.
Band plays the scale in whole notes at quarter note equals 60.
Band then plays the scale in quarter notes at quarter note equals 60.
14. Learn or review steps versus skips in music:
Let's go back to the key ofBb-concert. Please play thejirstjive notes ofthe scale.
SR. When we go straight up or down the scale, without skipping any notes, this is
called stepping. Step patterns in music go directly up or down the scale, like Bb-
C-D-C-Bb or line-space-line-space on the music staff. Step patterns are scale
patterns. [Teacher plays example on piano.]
Still in Bb concert. please play thejirst, third. andjifth notes ofthe scale. SR.
When we skip one or more notes ofthe scale, this is called skipping, like Bb-D-F-
D-Bb. [Teacher plays example on piano.] Skip patterns in music often go up or
down a triad or chord. Next time we meet, you will learn tonic-triadpatterns,
which are an example ofskip patterns in music.
15. Assess student comprehension:
I will notate four patterns on the white board. Tell me which patterns are step
patterns and which patterns are skip patterns. SR.
I will play for youfour patterns on the piano. Tell me which patterns are step
patterns and which patterns are skip patterns. SR.
16. Verbal wrap-up:
Thanks for your attention today, band. We realize that this was new for some and
review for others, and we appreciate your cooperation. We'll begin working in
our two experiment groups on Monday.
for flutes: Bb COltceIt
Scales for Flutes
("C instruments in treble clef')
161
,-
4> ij 6 i)
o o
n
n
for flutes: Db concert
· i
n
o o n
for flutes: G conceIt
I'• IIIiIIIIIIIIII.-.IiiiIIIIIIIIII ~_
() n
n
o Q o o
n
o nell
APPENDIX I
SONG REPERTOIRE FOR SONGS GROUP
162
I:
!
I
I
,i
'1I1iIIIIIiIIII.? _ 1
163
See the Little Ducklings
Bells in the Steeple
'~'D~
Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star
'I.~!­
'1)'-
Frere Jacques
'I'~Z~
'I,I'~
T
I
_--L
164
Lightly Row
:'~hi_
'~h_1
Skip to Ivry Lou
'I,h!j~~
'I)'j-~
'~I'­
'~I'_ I
I
.L.
165
Santy I\IIaloney
Alouette
hish Jig
11,1'2~
'~I'~ ~j@
'1,1,-
,~,~
-------------------- -
166
APPENDIX]
TONIC PATTERNS FOR SONGS GROUP
I I
I
I
I
I
llliiiiiiioil--~__-- ---- l
, '
I
I
I',
II
,.
I,
167
Instructions for Teaching the Tonic Patterns
Day 1 of Weeks 1,2, and 3 of instruction:
In the key of the week, teach Lines 1 and 2 of the Pattern Sheet.
These are 1-3-5 tonic patterns.
Day 2 of Weeks 1, 2, and 3 of instruction:
In the key of the week, teach Lines 3 and 4 of the Pattern Sheet.
These patterns add the upper octave tonic and the lower dominant.
Suggested Script for Teaching the Tonic Patterns
• Songs Group Day 1
- '-
Play for me the first note ofthe scale.
Teacher plays pitch on the piano and holds up one finger. SR.
Play for me the third note ofthe scale.
Teacher plays pitch on the piano and holds up three fingers. SR.
Play for me the fifth note ofthe scale.
Teacher plays pitch on the piano and holds up five fingers. SR.
When we find patterns made up ofjust these three notes ofthe scale, in any octave, we
call this a tonic pattern. We have the lowest pitch ofthe tonic triad (play on piano and
have students match on their instruments), the middle pitch ofthe tonic triad (play on
piano and have students match on their instruments), and the highest pitch ofthe tonic
triad (play on the piano and have students match on their instruments).
Please echo-play the tonic patterns I play for you on the piano.
SR: Perform Lines 1 and 2 of the Pattern Sheet.
• Songs Group Day 2
I
!
I
t
_--L
Play for me the first, third, andfifth notes ofthe scale as we learned them last time. Now
play the upper octave tonic ofthe scale. That will be the upper note Bb-concert, whatever
that is for your instrument. Here are some new tonic patterns that will include that note.
Echo-play the tonic patterns I play for you on the piano.
SR: Perform Line 3 of the Pattern Sheet.
Now we will add a lower pitch ofthe tonic triad. See ifyou can find this note on your
instrument. [Teacher plays lower dominant on the piano and students match. Assist
I.:
168
students having difficulty.] Echo-play these tonic patterns that will include the lower note
we just learned.
SR: Perform Line 4 of the Pattern Sheet.
Thinking ofall ofthe notes ofthe tonic triad that we have learned, let's repeat all ofthe
patterns we learned today.
SR:Perform Lines 3 and 4 of the Pattern Sheet.
Terrific! In the songs that we 'Illearn, you will hear passages that consist only ofskips
within the tonic triad. When I point out such a passage, remember that your choice of
notes is those notes that we have been using today.
line 1
~ I~. E~· I I~• • I I~. • • • • • I • •¥=j• • • I~.• • • •
line ~.
~ • I~. I~. • • • I~. I• •
Ulle :3
I'L I'L I'L I'L I'L~ l~. • • ·I~. I~• • • ·I~.• I~.
Une 4
I'L I'L,
L
• @j~. ~. I~. • ~. II• •• • • • •
, I
APPENDIXK
TEACHING PROCEDURES FOR SONGS GROUP
169
t
_1__
170
Teaching a Song by Ear: General Principles
In preparation for teaching and guiding students toward success, the idea of the proposed
song lesson plans is to help students figure out the melody on their own as much as
possible. This not only facilitates performance accuracy, it most likely results in longer-
term learning. Questions such as "Does this phrase go up or down?" are excellent, as are
activities such as having the teacher play on the piano the first pitch of a phrase until the
students match it on their instruments.
When teaching a song by rote for instrumental performance, a combination of the whole-
song and phrase methods usually works best. The first time a song is presented, play the
melody through in its entirety, giving the students something specific to listen for or do.
Students may need to hear the entire melody several times before instruction that breaks
the song into phrases and before attempting instrumental performance. Then, depending
on the length and complexity ofthe song, present phrases or mini-phrases of the song,
eventually combining phrases until the song is performed in its entirety.
Remember that we are aiming to teach for audiation, not imitation or simple
memorization. Therefore, the teacher should not sing or say passages of the song using
scale-degree numbers or tonal syllables, nor should the teacher ask the students to do so.
That said, comments such as "This phrase begins on the third note of the scale" can be
positively effective, particularly after students have attempted on their own to find a
certain structural pitch.
Allow plenty of time for memorization and audiation. Having students sing a song before
playing it on their instruments is the best means of assessing whether the students have
memorized the song. To avoid introducing singing as a potential confounding variable in
this study, alternate methods of assessing aural comprehension will be employed. One
method will be to think through the melody while fingering/sliding along, as if playing
the song on an instrument.
Other tips for rote~song teaching:
./ Provide motivation for learning a new song - develop a sense of expectancy:
Does anyone recognize this melody? Can anyone tell us the title of this tune? This
song is especially popular in France; what might it be?
./ Find ways to question students about the song: How many phrases are there?
Doesthis phrase move up or down? Does this phrase step or skip?
171
./ Find ways to assess aural comprehension: With your hands, show the melodic
contour of this song. Raise your hand when you hear the melody change from
skipping to stepping motion.
./ After most students have been successful performing a song, find opportunities
for repetition: Play the song legato or staccato, soft or loud, slow or fast. Have
solo or small-group performances. At the teacher's cue, have students play some
phrases out loud and other phrases silently.
APPENDIXL
LESSON PLANS FOR SONGS GROUP
172
173
Notes on the Lesson Plans
There are five general components of each song lesson:
Initial Motivation: to stimulate curiosity and engage students in listening
Whole-song Presentations: to provide opportunities to hear the song in its entirety
Continuing Presentations: to provide opportunities to hear and play back song
phrases
Song Performance: the first student performance of the entire song
Repeated Performances: varied song performance(s) for extra practice
•
•
•
•
•
TP indicates task presentation.
TS indicates teacher stimulus.
SR indicates student response.
TF indicates teacher feedback.
If students are unsuccessful in playing back a song phrase, feel free to repeat a particular
teaching cycle within the lesson plan (TP-TS-SR-TF) until most students are accurate. If
students are inaccurate after several attempts, it may be necessary to rethink the
presentation or give additional hints, such as scale degree numbers.
For the sake oftime, in order to be certain all songs for the day are taught, it may be
necessary to forego repeated performances of a given song. This is particularly true
during Week 1, with initial presentations of many songs in a short lesson. Once the
students have memorized the nine songs, there will be more time in the lessons for
performing variations of the songs.
Italicized passages are teacher talk.
"Anticipated verbal responses from students are in quotations."
.... I
-
174
#1 See The Little Ducklings
• Initial Motivation: Melodic Contour
TP After I finish the first performance ofthis song, please be able to tell me if the
shape ofthe melody is like a hill, a valley, or a flat road.
TS Show possible contours with arm motion.
TS Perform song.
• Whole-song Presentations: Melodic Contour Continued
TP Correct, the shape ofthe melody is like a hill. This is a children's song called See
the Little Ducklings. As I perform the songfor you this time, please move your
arms to show the shape ofthe melody.
TS Perform song.
SR Show shape of phrase in motion.
TF Thank you for participating. Moving your arms to the shape ofthe melody is one
way for me to know better what you are hearing. Andplease do not be afraid to
be incorrect. That's how I know ifI need to go back and reteach something. We
don't all have the same ear skills, just as we don't all have the same instrumental
skills, but I am 100% confident that all ofyou will be successful with our activities
together.
•
TP
c-" TS
SR
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TF
•
TP
SR
Continuing Presentations: Rhythm Focus
Now I will play the two phrases ofthe song and I'd like for you to clap back the
rhythm.
Perform first phrase.
Clap rhythm.
Perform second phrase.
Clap rhythm.
Greatjob with the rhythm!
Here is the entire song. Please clap back the rhythm.
Perform song.
Clap rhythm.
Wonderful! You were able to remember the rhythm ofthe entire song.
Continuing Presentations: Pitch Focus
Does this song move by steps or skips?
"It moves by steps."
h,...- ....;......;..;.....;.. ---'-=---__~~~~_~~~ _
.....
I '
h.. ....IIIIIIIIIIl.....IllliliiiliiIiiiiilliiiiiiIlliiiillilio.....---------------
175
TF Correct, the song moves by step.
TP Beginning on the first note ofthe scale, play back the first phrase after I play it
for you. Then, beginning on the note where you just ended, play back the second
phrase after I play it for you.
TS Perform phrase one.
SR Play phrase one.
TS Perform phrase two.
SR Play phrase two.
• Song Performance: Entire Song
TP After I play the songfor you, play the melody back in its entirety.
TS Perform song.
SR Play song.
TF Wonderful! It sounds like most everyone was able to perform the song accurately.
Ifnot, here's another opportunity for you to try playing this song.
• Repeated Performances: Articulation
TS Play the song again, this time legato.
SR Students play.
TS Play the song again, this time staccato.
SR Students play.
TF Terrific work on this first song, band! Since learning songs by ear is a new
experience for most ofyou, I wanted to be certain to start with a relatively easy
melody. That said, other songs may be a bit more challenging. Keep up the good
spirits, like today, and I think you'll find our time together both rewarding and
enjoyable. Let's move on to our next tune!
TP Now I will play just the secondphrase ofthe song. With your hands, show me the
shape ofthe secondphrase.
TS Teacher plays phrase two.
TP Now I will play just the first phrase ofthe song. With your hands, show me the
shape ofthe first phrase. Remember, it should be clear to me ifyou are showing
repeated notes, stepping notes, or skipping notes.
TS Teacher shows possible arm motions for repeated notes, stepping notes, and
skipping notes.
TS Teacher plays phrase one.
SR Students indicate repeated notes and distance between them with hands.
Note Be certain students hear and show 1-3-5-3, not 1-3-5-1.
TF Yes!
1
#2
•
TP
TS
•
TP
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TF
•
176
Bells In The Steeple
Initial Motivation: Program Description
This song is called Bells in the Steeple and it seeks to remind the listener ofthe
ringing ofchurch bells. To do this, the song uses only the notes ofthe tonic triad.
Let's listen.
Perform song.
Whole-song Presentations: Steps/Skips/Repeats
As I play the songfor you a second time, determine how many phrases there are
in the song. I will take a breath before beginning each phrase.
Teacher plays song, breathing before each 4-bar phrase.
Students count number of phrases.
That's right, there are two phrases.
Now I'd like you to determine what kind ofmelodic motion you hear in each
phrase: Do you hear mostly stepping notes, mostly skipping notes, or mostly
repeated notes. The two phrases are different.
Teacher plays song, saying "phrase 1" and "phrase 2" at the appropriate times.
"The first phrase has repeated notes. The second phrase has skipping notes."
That's correct. The first phrase has some repeated notes while the secondphrase
has skipping notes.
Continuing Presentations: Phrase Shape
SR
TF
•
TP
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
•
TP
/,-----===-0:. TS
SR
TF
•
177
Students indicate skipping notes from low to high with hands.
Yes!
Continuing Presentations: Use of Tonic Triad
This song uses only the notes ofthe tonic triad. Play me the first, third, andfifth
notes ofthe scale.
Teacher holds up one, three, or five fingers to indicate which pitches to play.
Students respond to teacher cues.
With my hands moving to a low, middle, or high position, I will ask you to play
the various notes ofthe tonic triad.
Teacher moves hands low, middle, and high (in random order).
Students respond to teacher hand signals.
Great!
After I play the first phrase ofthe song, please play it back on your instrument.
Remember to use only notes ofthe tonic triad.
Perform first phrase.
Play first phrase.
After I play the secondphrase ofthe song, please play it back on your instrument.
Remember to use only notes ofthe tonic triad.
Perform second phrase.
Play second phrase.
Song Performance: Entire Song
After I play the songfor you, I'd like you to play it back in its entirety.
Perform song.
Play song.
That's exactly right!
Repeated Performances: Tempo
bllilil" _
Play the song in small groups. Maybe have a quick contest to see which group can play
the song fastest but still with excellent accuracy and tone.
• Initial Motivation: A Familiar Melody
"iI:,
b _
#3
TP
TS
SR
TP
•
TS
SR
TF
TP
SR
TF
TS
SR
•
TP
SR
TF
TP
SR
TP
178
Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star
Our next song will probably be familiar. Why don't you tell me some ofthe titles
you know for this song?
Perform song.
Students suggest titles.
Sure, it's the ABC Song, or Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star. This song has three
phrases. We'll call the first phrase A. Please tell me ifthe middle phrase is the
same or different, and ifthe third andfinal phrase is the same ofdifferent from
the A phrase.
Whole-song Presentations: Form
Perform song, indicating verbally the beginnings of each phrase.
Students indicate "A-different-same."
Yes, the middle phrase is different and we will call it B. The final phrase, though,
is the same as the opening phrase and so we will call it A.
So, what is the form ofthis song?
"ABA form."
That's correct, it is an ABA form. I will play the song again. During the A
sections, pat the beat softly on your knees, but during the B section, tap your toes
softly on the floor.
Play song on piano.
Do motions are requested.
Continuing Presentations: Phrase-by-phrase
This song begins on thefirst note ofthe scale and skips up. Play the first note of
Twinkle and then figure out the nextpitch by playing some higher notes on your
instrument.
Students experiment until they figure out the upper note.
That's correct, the song skips up to the fifth note ofthe scale.
On your own, play through the A section ofthe song. Raise your hand when you
think you have it correct.
Students play the first phrase.
Here is the first pitch ofthe B section. 'Match this pitch on your instruments.
TP Now listen as I play the B section. Play this middle section back as soon as I
finish playing it on the piano.
TS Perform second phrase.
SR Play second phrase.
TF Great!
II
d
,I
Ii
ii
:1
I
I
,
'I
'I
I
SR
TP
TS
SR
TS
SR
TS
SR
•
TP
SR
•
TP
179
Students play the appropriate pitch, the fifth note of the scale.
Now we'll play the entire song, with you echoing each phrase after I play it on the
piano.
Perform first phrase, the A section.
Play it back.
Perform second phrase, the B section.
Play it back.
Perform third phrase, the repeat of the A section.
Play it back.
Song Performance: Entire Song
Let's put that all together. Play the entire song.
Play song.
Repeated Performances: Alternate Aloud and Silent Phrases
This time you will play parts ofthe song on your instrument and think through
parts ofthe song while fingering/sliding along. Let's begin by playing, which I
will indicate by pretending to play the clarinet. When I point to my ears, you
should think andfinger/slide through the song until I give you the signal to begin
playing again.
L
TS Teacher cues aloud and silent phrases. Repeat this activity a few times, changing
directions first every four measures and later every two measures.
SR Students perform or think through the song as indicated by the cues of the teacher.
Note Conclude the lesson with a full-song, out loud performance.
I
I
II
: I
, !
I
i.
T
I
I
#4
•
TP
TS
SR
TF
•
TP
180
Frere Jacques
Initial Motivation: Place/Language of Origin
This next melody will probably also be familiar to you. In what language do you
often hear this song?
Perform song.
"It is sung in French."
Yes, Frere Jacques is a lullaby from France.
Whole-song Presentations: Shapes
Now I will play the melody again. You will notice that every mini-phrase is
repeated, and there are four phrases in the song. I've drawn the shape ofthe four
mini-phrases on the white board, but the boxes are mixed up. As you are listening,
think about the shape ofeach phrase and decide which box is first, second, third,
andfourth.
----,..
I
l.
~- ~ ~•
•
TS Perform song.
TP Which box represents "Morning bells are ringing? "
(Teacher sings the phrase with lyrics.)
SR "The second box."
TP Which box represents "Ding, dang, dong?"
(Teacher sings the phrase with lyrics.)
SR "The third box."
TF Exactly!
TP Now I will perform the entire melody again, and you will have another
opportunity to decide which ofthe remaining boxes is "Are you sleeping?" and
which ofthe boxes is "Brother John. " What difference do you see, visually,
between the two boxes?
SR "Both drawings indicate that the music goes up, but one starts on the first note of
the scale and the other goes up beginning from a higher note of the scale."
r181
TF Good attention to details!
TP Now I'll play the song.
TS Perform song.
TP Which box represents the first phrase, "Are you sleeping?"
(Teacher sings the phrase with lyrics.)
SR The second box.
TP Which box represents the secondphrase "Brother John?"
(Teacher sings the phrase with lyrics.)
TF So, the song begins on the tonic, or first note ofthe scale.
• Continuing Presentations: Echo-play Each Phrase
TP Let's learn the song phrase by phrase. The first phrase begins and ends on the
first note ofthe scale. Try playing the first phrase on your own.
SR Students play first measure on their own, in their own tempo: 1-2-3-1
TS (Teacher helps students as needed either by singing or playing piano.)
TF Good, you're getting it.
TP Let's have a solo demonstration.
TF After students have had time to try it on their own, select a soloist to demonstrate
the phrase. Good, you've got that down.
TP
SR
TS
TF
TP
TF
The second phrase begins on the third note ofthe scale. Try playing that phrase
on your own.
Students play third measure on their own, in their own tempo: 3-4-5
(Teacher helps students as needed either by singing or playing piano.)
Good, you're getting it.
Let's have a solo demonstration.
After students have had time to try it on their own, select a soloist to demonstrate
the phrase. Good, there's the secondphrase.
I
--L
TP The third phrase begins on the fifih note ofthe scale. Try playing that phrase on
your own.
SR Students play fifth measure on their own, in their own tempo: 5-6-5-4-3-1
TS (Teacher helps students as needed either by singing or playing piano.)
TF That is sounding pretty accurate.
TP Let's have a solo demonstration.
TF After students have had time to try it on their own, select a soloist to demonstrate
the phrase. That's the way!
182
TP Let's figure out the fourth andfinal phrase ofthe song. On your instruments,
match the notes I playfor "Ding, dang, dong. "
SR Students match pitches.
TF That's correct. The lower note is the fifth degree ofthe scale below the tonic.
II
'. I
TP
SR
TP
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
TF
Why don't we play down the scale from the tonic to that low note ofthe phrase:
1-7-6-5.
Play 1-7-6-5.
And let's hear again, "Ding, dang, dong. "
Perform (sing while playing) 1-5-1.
Play 1-5-1.
Now please echo-play each phrase, in time, after the piano.
Teacher performs each mini-phrase, followed by student echoes, without pause.
Students echo each mini-phrase after each teacher call, without pause.
It's sounding great, band!
• Song Performance: Entire Song
TP After I perform the songfor you, play it back in its entirety. You may finger/slide
along as I perform the song on the piano.
, I
I
, I
TS
SR
•
Perform song.
Play it back.
Repeated Performances: Call-and-Response Format; Also as a Round
Play with a soloist or small group of instruments performing the first of each two
repeated measures, and the full group answering.
Also, playas a round.
#5
•
TP
TS
SR
TF
•
TP
TS
SR
TF
•
TP
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
183
Lightly Row
Initial Motivation: Head Motif
This is Lightly Row, and it begins with the words "Lightly row, lightly row. "
(Teacher sings words while playing head motifon the piano.) Count how many
times in the song you hear this motif.
Perform song.
"The motif occurs three times."
Yes, that motifbegins each A phrase, and there are three A phrases (or variations
thereof) in this song.
Whole-song Presentations: Form
Now I'll perform the song again and I'd like you to raise your handfor the
duration ofthe B phrase. Also, be able to tell me the form ofthe song.
Perform song.
Students raise hands during B section.
Yes, the form is a variation ofAABA. (Write AABA on board.)
Let's work on learning the A sections.
Continuing Presentations: "A" Phrases
First we need to find the pitches for the words "Lightly row, lightly row. JJ
Teacher plays 5-3-4-2 on the piano, holding each pitch until the students are
successful in matching it.
Students respond by matching pitches on their instruments.
Yes, you have it!
Now I'll play the first A phrase. Describe how the phrase ends.
Perform first A phrase.
"It ends with a scale going up."
Now, echo-play that opening A phrase.
Perform first A phrase.
Play it back.
Now I'll perform the second A phrase. Describe how the secondphrase ends.
Perform second A phrase.
"It ends with skips."
Show me with your hands how that ending skips along.
Perform just the phrase ending: 1-3-5-5-3-.
Show with hand motion.
184
• Continuing Presentations: Phrase by Phrase
TF Yes, the phrase ends with skips and they are skips within the tonic triad, 1-3-5.
TP Play just those two measures for me.
TS Teacher plays 1-3-5-5-3- on piano.
SR Play back the phrase ending.
TF Good listening!
Here is the last A phrase. Is it more like the opening A phrase or the second A
phrase?
Perform final A phrase.
"It is most like the second A phrase, with skips at the end."
Yes, it is more like the second A phrase.
Play just those two measures for me.
Teacher plays 1-3-5-5-1 on piano.
Play back the phrase ending.
Yes, just the final note is different from the second A phrase.
TP
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TF
Now let's echo-play the entire song. When we get to the B section, just do the best
you can at figuring it out andplaying it back.
Perform the song four measures at a time.
Play back each four-bar phrase.
Congratulations. Most ofyou were able to figure out the notes.
TP Some ofyou, however, might benefitfrom more attention to the B section.
Everyone, match the note you hear on the piano.
TS Teacher plays the second note of the scale, the opening pitch of the B section.
SR Match pitch on instruments.
TP Now echo-play after me.
TS Perform 2-2-2-2-2-3-4.
SR Play 2-2-2-2-2-3-4.
TP Match this note that you hear on the piano.
TS Teacher plays the third note of the scale, which is the pitch that begins the next
mini-phrase.
SR Match pitch on instruments.
TP Now echo-play after me.
TS Perform 3-3-3-3-3-4-5.
SR Play 3-3-3-3-3-4-5.
~...n ....' _
I
l
I
I
I
I
i
i
, '
I
,I
, i
I
TP
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TS
SR
•
Here's the entire B section.
Perform B section: 2-2-2-2-2-3-4-, 3-3-3-3-3-3-4-5-.
Play it back.
That's definitely an improvement.
Let's echo-play 4-bar phrases again.
Perform song four measures at a time.
Play back each four-bar phrase.
Great. It sounds like you've got it all, now!
Let's putpairs ofphrases together. After me, please.
Perform measures 1-8.
Play it back.
Perform measures nine through sixteen.
Play it back.
Song Performance: Entire Melody
185
I,
I
, I
k...- iiiliiiiiiooioI.......... ~
TP We're ready to play the entire song. Remember the form is AA 'BA '.
SR Perform song.
• Repeated Performances: Tutti-Solo-Soli
TP This time when we play the song, we'll play some phrases all together, some with
just a soloist playing, and some with a small group ofyou playing. (Teacher
demonstrates the various cues.) Keep your finger/slides moving throughout the
song so that you know exactly where to begin ifyou are asked to play. When I
give you the full-group cue, everyone should be playing. When I give you a solo
or small-group cue, only some people should be playing. Good luck!
TS Give cues for tutti vs. solo vs. small-group playing. At first, change every four
measures, then every two measures.
SR Play the song, following the conductor's cues.
TF Wonderful! It was great how you were all able to keep the song going in your
head while others were performing.
186
#6 Skip To My Lou
• Initial Motivation: Number of Phrases
TP Next we're going to learn to play the chorus ofSkip To My Lou. (Teacher sings a
bit of the tune, with lyrics.) With your jingers, discreetly count the number of
phrases in the song, adding ajinger for each new phrase, like this. (Teacher
checks to be certain she can see that all students are beginning with their first
fingers pointed, and that the students are actually counting on their fingers so that
the teacher can check for understanding.)
TS Perform song, without breathing or other hints about phrase structure.
TP Hold up your hands to show me the number ofphrases in the song.
SR Hold up four fingers.
TF Yes, the song has four phrases.
• Whole-song Presentations: Same and Different
TP I've drawn four blank boxes on the white board, one for each phrase. After
listening to the song this next time, be able to tell me which phrase is most
different from the others.
At the end of the lesson, the shapes drawn in the boxes wi11look like this:
TS Perform song.
SR "The last phrase is the most different."
TF Yes, dejinitely!
(Teacher draws squiggle in Box 4 to show its shape and uniqueness.)
1'P I will play the melody again, and when I am jinished, I'd like for you to clap back
the rhythm ofthe last phrase.
1'S Perform song.
SR Clap l+a 2+ 1- 2-.
1'F Perfect!
I!
I'
,;
TP
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
TF
187
Let's figure out the starting pitch ofthat the last phrase. Match the note I play on
the piano.
Hold the second note of the scale while the students match on their instruments.
Play the pitch, which is the second note of the scale.
Exactly! That's the second note ofthe scale.
Now I will play that phrase on the piano, and I'd like for you to play it back.
Play final phrase.
Play it back.
Let's practice that one more time. I'll play the entire song now, and you play back
only the last phrase.
Perform song.
Play back final phrase.
That's it!
I
--L-
TP I have one last question for you. Thefirst three phrases are similar. Do they have
the same pitches but different rhythms, or do they have the same rhythms but
different pitches? Let's listen one more time.
TS Perform song.
SR "The rhythms are the same but the pitches are different."
TF Yes. The pitches ofthe second phrase are different than the first, although ifyou
listen carefully you will find that the first and third phrases are exactly the same
in both pitch and rhythm! But more ofthat later.
• Continuing Presentations: Harmony
TP Ofthe first three phrases, two skip around the tonic triad and one skips around
another chord. Let's work on the openingphrase, which uses only the 1-3-5 notes
ofthe scale. Please match these pitches ofthe tonic triad. I will hold each until
you match it.
TS Hold 3-1-3-5 until students match.
SR Play 3-1-3-5.
TP Now let's add the rhythm to that.
TS Perform phrase one.
SR Play it back.
TF Yep! And the third phrase will be exactly the same.
TP Here are the main pitches ofthe second phrase. Match these pitches with me.
TS Hold 2-7-2-4 until students match.
SR Play 2-7-2-4.
TP Now let's add the rhythm to that.
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TF
III
•
TPII
II
TS
SR
:1
I
•
!
! I TP
I TS
I SR
TF
188
Perform phrase two.
Play it back.
You've got it.
Now please echo-play each phrase after me.
Perform each phrase of the song, with student echoes immediately following.
Play each phrase of the song after each teacher call.
That's it, the entire chorus.
Song Performance: Entire Melody
Let's begin at the beginning andplay the chorus in its entirety.
Sing introductory cue: "5-3-1-ready-play."
Play song.
Repeated Performances: Verse One
The verses ofSkip To My Lou use the same pitches as the chorus. I will singfor
you each phrase, with lyrics, and I'd like you to echo-clap the rhythm.
Sing each phrase, followed by student clapping of the rhythm.
Clap each phrase after the teacher sings it.
Perfect! When we get to playing this verse, it may be helpful to think the rhythm of
the words as you play the pitches on your instruments.
TP Now please echo-play each phrase ofthe first verse after me.
TS Perform each phrase of the song, with student echoes immediately following.
SR Play each phrase of the song after each teacher call.
TF That's it, the entire first verse.
TP Now let's play the entire verse, thinking ofthe words ofthe verse to help you play
the correct rhythms, and we'll follow that immediately with the chorus. Don't
worry too much ifyou forget how the rhythms ofthe verse and chorus are
different. What is most important is to get the chorus!
SR Perform song, first the chorus and then the first verse.
TF Fabulous!
189
Initial Motivation: Phrase Direction (Last Phrase)
Santy Maloney
I'll perform our next songfor you. It is called Santy Maloney. And no, I have no
idea behind the meaning ofthis title. Maybe one ofyou would like to research this
popular folk song! As you are listening, be thinking ofthe direction ofthe melody
as it concludes.
TS Perform song.
SR Listen.
TP Does the melody end by going up or going down?
SR "It goes down at the end."
TP Did you get a sense ofwhether that last phrase moves by step or by skips?
SR "It moves by steps."
TF That's correct.
#7
I
i i
I [I ..I! •
TP
TP Please match this pitch on your instrument.
TS Hold 5.
SR Play the fifth note of the scale.
TP Which note ofthe scale are you playing?
SR "It is the fifth note of the scale."
TP Now play that last phrase for me.
TS Perform 5-4-3-2-1-.
SR Play 5-4-3-2-1-.
I·
I
TP
TS
SR
TP
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TF
Actually, this phrase begins on a pick-up note. Let's find that note.
Hold 3.
Play the third note of the scale.
What note is that?
"It's the third note of the scale."
Correct.
Now play the entire last phrase, after me.
Perform 3-5-4-3-2-1.
Play 3-5-4-3-2-1.
Bravo. Now let's go back to listening to the whole song, and we'll work on some
other details ofthe music.
• Whole-song Presentations: Phrase Shape
TP
TS
This time as you listen, move your arms to show the shape ofthe phrases. Listen
especially for the repeated pitches and the skips down.
Perform song.
L~I1IIIIIIiIIfII..........iIIIIiiii k_~
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TF
•
TP
TP
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
TF
•
TP
TS
SR
•
190
Show steps, skips, and repeated notes with motions.
Terrific listening, band!
This time as you listen, clap your hands to the beat during the parts ofthe song
where there are repeatedpitches. When you hear the song skip down, slap your
legs. On the final phrase, snap high for that high pitch and then show the stepping
down to the last note ofthe song.
Perform song.
Show lowest and highest pitches with motions, as described above.
Good. 1 think by now you have the song pretty well memorized.
Continuing Presentations: Hold-play
Do you remember that low fifth note ofthe scale that we usedfor "Ding, dang,
dong" in Frere Jacques? Well, we're going to need that pitch for this song.
I'm going to hold the starting pitch ofeach phrase until you get it, and then at my
cue, please play each phrase along with me as 1play it at the piano. Ifwe do not
all end on the correct note, I'll keep playing it until everyone finds it.
Hold-play each phrase.
Play back each phrase.
Let's do that again, this time a little closer to tempo.
Teacher plays song at piano as students perform it on their instruments.
Play the song along with the teacher.
You got it!
Song Performance: Entire Melody
After 1play the songfor you, play it back in its entirety.
Perform song.
Play it back.
Repeated Performances: In a Round
ilL.
___..dtn__~
Perform the song in a two-, three-, and/or four-part round.
If there is time, try this with one student on a part.
Iii
II
II #8
•
TP
SR
TP
TS
191
Alollette
Initial Motivation: Conducting and Fermata
Here's a song that many ofyou will knOw. It is another songfrom France, like
Frere Jacques. Any ideas?
"Not yet."
That's okay. Let's have a listen! First, though, let me show you that we will learn
the four parts ofthis song, each represented by a box drawn on the white board.
I'll call out "number 1, " "number 2, " "number 3, " and "number 4" as I perform
the song on the piano.
Perform song.
TP Does anyone know the opening words or the title ofthis song?
SR "It's Alouette."
TF Yes, definitely.
TP
TS
SR
TF
•
This song is usually played with afermata in the middle. This time as I perform,
wouldyou conduct along in 4/4 time. When I get to the fermata, hold up both
arms like a conductor would. Remember, when we conduct in 4/4 time, the beat
pattern is "floor, left, right, ceiling. " (Demonstrate beat pattern for students,
turning so that the teacher's back is to the class and the students can copy.)
Perform song.
Conduct along.
Hey, there's some nice conducting going on in this room!
Whole-song Presentations: Head Motif
I
, I
b
TP This song begins on the tonic. Would you play the Alouette motiffor me? I'll play
it first on the piano. Play immediately after me, please.
TS Perform 1-2-3-3.
SR Play 1-2-3-3.
TF Yes, that's exactly it.
TP Now I will perform the song in its entirety, and I'd like you to play along with me
every time the Alouette motifcomes up.
TS Perform song.
SR Play along with teacher, but only during the Alouette motif.
TF You did great with that.
192
We need to figure out the notes for the big skips. Would you try to figure them out
on your instrument? Raise your hand when you feel you have it.
Sing the octave leaps as necessary to help students.
Students experiment on their own.
Now let's work on the middle section. I'll play the B section, and I'd like you to
show me the shape ofthe melody with your arms.
Perform B section.
Show melody with arm motions.
Continuing Presentations: A Section
I'll play the song on the piano. Please join me on the Alouette motifand the B
section.
Perform song.
Play along on the learned sections.
Yes, that's it. Now there are just a few more parts ofthe song to learn.
Continuing Presentations: Play Along with Teacher
Play back what I play on the piano.
Perform 1-2-3-4-5-5-5-, 5-6-5-4-3-2-1-.
Play that back.
Perform 5-5-5-, 5-5-5-.
Play that back.
Perform 5-4-3-2.
Play that back.
Continuing Presentations: B Section
Let's try the entire B section.
Perform B section.
Play it back.
Amazing!
I think we'll be able to play back the A section, but perhaps first we should be
certain ofjust what that low note is. Please find that low note when I give you the
cue.
TS Sing 1-2-3-3-2-1-2-3-1-5, holding on the low dominant.
SR Find and perform low 5.
TF Yep, you found it.
!, •
TP
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
TS
SR
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
TF
•
TP
~
TS
( SR
TF
•
TP
193
IP Play after me.
IS Perform measures one and two.
SR Play it back.
IS Perform measures three and four.
SR Play it back.
TP The entire section, now.
TS Perform measures one through four.
SR Play it back.
• Song Performance: Entire Melody
TP I'll play the entire song on the piano, while youjinger/slide along. Immediately
after, you will play the song aloud.
TS Perform song.
SR Finger/slide along during the teacher's performance, and then play the entire
melody aloud.
TF Congratulations! That was a great performance.
• Repeated Performances: Dynamics and Articulation
Teacher conducts soft and loud beat patterns, changing every two measures. Students
respond accordingly.
Teacher conducts staccato or legato beat patterns, changing every two measures. Students
respond accordingly.
Teacher varies both the dynamics and style of articulation. Students respond accordingly.
i.
-------------------------------- -----_ ..
194
#9 Irish Jig
Ii I~,
•
TP
SR
TF
SR
TP
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TF
•
TP
TS
TP
TS
SR
TF
TP
Initial Motivation: Where is Ireland?
This is a popular melody in Ireland. Can anyone tell us where the country of
Ireland is located?
"Near England."
Yes. Can anyone find either England or, more specifically, Ireland, on this map?
A student volunteer, with any needed teacher assistance, finds Ireland on the map.
What else do we know about Ireland? In America, there is a holiday celebration
ofIrish heritage.
"Saint Patrick's Day."
That's correct.
Well, we're on to the song now. Please listen as I play. The song has two sections,
and so it is an AB or binary form. Raise your hand when we get to the beginning
ofthe B section. You'll hear that it starts on the highest pitch ofthe song.
Perform song.
Raise hand at beginning of B section.
Good, you found the B section.
Can you hear which pitch begins the B section? Here, I'll hold it for you, and you
can match my pitch on your instrument.
Hold 8.
Play the eighth note of the scale, or the high tonic.
Yes, it is the high tonic or the scale, or scale-degree 8.
Whole-song Presentations: Mini-phrases
Each section includes four mini-phrases. Each mini-phrase is just one measure
long. When I perform the song next time, I'd like you to snap your fingers at the
start ofeach mini-phrase. I'll demonstrate the first two mini-phrases.
Sing the first two measures of the song, snapping two times as appropriate.
Now I'll play the entire song, and you will show me the mini-phrases by snapping.
Here we go.
Perform song.
Snap every two measures.
Terrific!
Let's do a little choreography to show the shape ofthe melody. As I sing, copy my
movements. (Basically, teacher does lap-tap lap-tap lap-tap down-- for the A
T
195
section and down-up slopes for the B section, guiding students to show the shape.
Students should think the melody but not sing along.)
TS Sing song.
SR Show melodic shape.
TF I trust that you are starting to get this melody memorized now.
• Continuing Presentations: "A" Section
Please play back what I play.
Perform first mini-phrase.
Play it back.
Perform second mini-phrase.
Play it back.
Perform third mini-phrase.
Play it back.
Perform fourth mini-phrase.
Now let's do that in rhythm. Please play back what I play.
Perform 1-3-1-3-1-3-4-.
Play 1-3-1-3-1-3-4-.
Perform 7-2-7-2-7-2-3-.
Play 7-2-7-2-7-2-3-.
Perform 1-3-1-3-1-3-5-.
Play 1-3-1-3-1-3-5-.
Perform 4-3-2-1-7-1-2-3-1-1.
Play 4-3-2-1-7-1-2-3-1-1.
Terrific, we're ready now to add in all those little notes.
TP We'll begin with the A section. Let's practice only the skipping parts, which are
the first few beats ofthe opening mini-phrases. Find these notes on your
instrument.
Hold 1-3-4.
Play 1-3-4.
Hold 7-2-3.
Play 7-2-3.
Hold 1-3-5.
Play 1-3-5.
Hold 4.
Play 4.
Perform 4-3-2-1-7-1-2-3-1-1.
Play 4-3-2-1-7-1-2-3-1-1.
Yes, that's a great start!
TS
SR
TS
SR
TS
SR
TS
[I SR
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TS
SR
TS
SR
TS
SR
TF
TP
TS
SR
TS
SR
TS
SR
TS
,
k
---------------------
196
Ii
SR
TF
Play it back.
Greatjob. Ifyou missed any notes, you'll have another try at things as we put the
mini-phrases together.
TP
TS
SR
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
TF
•
TP
TS
: i SR
TF
TP
You know what's coming! Please play back what 1play.
Perform measures 1-2.
Play it back.
Perform measures 3--4.
Play it back.
Now for the entire A section. Are you ready?
Perform A section.
Play it back.
Good concentration everybody. That was a lot ofnotes!
Continuing Presentations: "B" Section from mini-phrases to full section.
Let's listen again to the B section. Please tell me how many times you hear the
descending scale pattern.
Perform B section.
"The descending scale occurs three times."
Yes, three times.
On the board are three possibilities for the descending scale pattern:
AAA, AAB, ABB, ABA, or ABC
Listen to the end ofeach pattern to determine how it changes.
Perform B section.
Looking at the board, what did you hear? AAA, AAB, ABB, ABA, or ABC?
"It was ABA."
Correct. The middle pattern was different from the other two.
Please echo-play the mini-phrases ofthe B section. Remember that this section
begins on the highest note ofthe scale. Find that note on your instrument.
Hold 8.
Play 8.
That's it. Remember to begin each pattern on that note, no matter how the other
notes are going!
lL-=-.......-_~~_~~~__~~~ t_.__
TP Here we go with the mini-phrases ofthe B section.
TS Perform measure 5.
SR Play measure 5.
TS Perform measure 6.
SR Play measure 6.
197
Song Performance: Entire Song
Let's be certain we're all matching those last three notes.
Hold 3-5-2.
Play 3-5-2.
Now that entire mini-phrase again.
Perform 8-7-6-5-4-3-5-2.
Play 8-7-6-5-4-3-5-2.
Yes, so going on now.
Perform measure 7.
Play measure 7.
Perform measure 8.
Play measure 8.
Let's play two measures at a time.
Perform measures 5-6.
Play it back.
Perform measures 7-8.
Play it back.
Now for the entire B section. Are you ready?
Perform B section.
Play it back.
Whew!
Now we'll play the entire song. Finger/slide along as I play through the song the
first time, and then begin your performance immediately after Ifinish. I love this
song, and I hope you do as well. It is lots offun to play!
TS Perform song.
SR Play it back.
TF Wow! You were amazing! I can't wait to hear you play this later in the other keys.(
TF
I: TSi'
SR
TP
TS
SR
TF
TS
SR
TS
SR
TP
TS
SR
TS
SR
TP
TS
I; SR
TF
•
TP
• Repeated Performances: Call-and-response Performances with Varied
Articulations
TP
TS
SR
TF
Let's add in some slurs for this song. Play each mini-phrase after I sing it. I'm
really gonna mix this up a bit, so get your ears on!
Sing each mini-phrase, making it clear which notes are slurs and which are not.
Play back each mini-phrase.
That's good, careful listening, everyone. Thank you!
'I
, ,
i I
APPENDIXM
EXERCISES FOR EXERCISES GROUP
198
I
II!
ii
I
i
List of Exercises for the Exercises Group
SE refers to Standard ofExcellence, Book 3 (Pearson, 1995)
IR refers to I Recommend (Ployhar, 1972)
All page numbers refer to the student book.
Italicized names are titles I used in the student booklets.
199
, ,
i'
!
I' ,
1 '
I
~i,", '" i..
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Scale-Arpeggio-Thirds
SE, p. 38-39, Scale Studies
First Triples Study
IR, p. 9, Line 24
Second Triples Study
SE, p. 28, Line 104, Technique Break (measures 1-4 only)
First Scale Study
IR, p. 7, Line 3
Second Scale Study
IR, p. 10, Line 31
Around and About
SE, Line 2, Technique Break
Broken Chord Study
SE, Line 52, Technique Break
Rhythm Study in 5/4
SE, Line 99, Technique Break
Rhythm Study in Changing Meters
SE, Line 116, Technique Break
Arpeggios
IR, p. 16, Arpeggios
Thirds
IR, p. 17-19, Interval Studies
Fourths
IR, p. 17-19, Interval Studies
Fifths
IR, p. 17-19, Interval Studies
Octaves
IR, p. 17-19, Interval Studies
. ,
~,:
APPENDIXN
TONIC PATTERNS FOR EXERCISES GROUP
200
i
i
I'
I'
l
ll'
" I,',I I
, k __
201
Instructions for Teaching the Tonic Patterns
Students have the Tonic Pattern Sheet printed in their exercise packet.
See next page for a copy.
Day 1 of Weeks 1, 2, and 3 of instruction:
In the key of the week, teach Lines 1 and 2 of the Pattern Sheet.
These are 1-3-5 tonic patterns.
Day 2 of Weeks 1, 2, and 3 of instruction:
In the key of the week, teach Lines 3 and 4 of the Pattern Sheet.
These patterns add the upper octave tonic and the lower dominant.
Suggested Script for Teaching the Tonic Patterns
Exercises Group Day 1
Play for me the first note ofthe scale, printed in the first measure ofLine O. SR
Play for me the first note ofthe scale, printed in the first measure ofLine O. SR.
Play for me the first note ofthe scale, printed in the first measure ofLine O. SR.
When we find patterns made up ofjust these three notes ofthe scale, in any octave, we
call this a tonic pattern. We have the lowest pitch ofthe triad (point to the note on Line 0
and have students play the note their instruments), the middle pitch ofthe triad (point to
the note on Line 0 and have students play the note on their instruments), and the highest
pitch ofthe triad (point to the note on Line 0 and have students play the note on their
instruments) .
Please read andplay the tonic patterns youfind on Lines 1 and 2. We will pause slightly
between patterns, so watch for my conducting cue to tell you when to begin the next
pattern. SR.
Exercises Group Day 2
Looking at Line 0, play for me the first, third, andfifth notes ofthe scale as we learned
them last time. Now play the upper octave tonic ofthe scale, printed in the fourth
measure ofLine O. That will be the upper note Bb-concert, whatever that is for your
instrument. Line 3 includes new tonic patterns with that note. Let's play those patterns
together.
SR: Perform Line 3 of the Pattern Sheet.
ii,
t~
I
I
II
,I
•
202
Now we will add a lower pitch ofthe tonic triad, printed in the fifth measure ofLine O. If
you have any questions about how to play that note on your instrument, please ask me so
that I can help you. [Teachers provide assistance as needed.] Line 4 includes new tonic
patterns with the lower note. Let's play those patterns together.
SR: Perform Line 4 of the Pattern Sheet.
Thinking ofall ofthe notes ofthe tonic triad that we have learned, let's repeat all ofthe
patterns we learned today.
SR: Perform Lines 3 and 4 of the Pattern Sheet.
Terrific! In the arpeggio and interval drills that we 'Illearn, you will hear passages that
consist only ofskips within the tonic triad. Ofcourse, other patterns skip within the
dominant chord or other triads. These skip patterns contrast with the scale-wise or step
patterns used in the scale drills that we 'Illearn. This is information you might consider
when you look over a new piece ofmusic.
I
II
i
)
I
C-Instrument Group
Scale and Tonic Patterns in Bb-Concert.
This is your Bb-concert scale.
203
These are the notes of the Tonic Triad.
I These are your tonic patterns in Bb concert., '
line 1
~ I,. I I,. I I,. • I I,. •• • • • • I • .rgj•• • • I,•• •
I..ill.e ~
~ • I,. I,. • • I,• II• • •
I..ill.e 3 I,.... I,.... I,.... I,.... I,....~ "I,. • • ·1,. I,. • • ·1,.• I,•
, I
i I..ill.e4
~ I,.... .... I,....• E,· [=3'. I,• E • ¥=I• •A. • • • •
___E"'b:.
I
: i
, ,
, i
I I
I
,
, '
i
, I
'I
I
i '
i ,
I'
~. j•
APPENDIX 0
TEACHING PROCEDURES FOR EXERCISES GROUP
204
205
Practicing the Scales and Technical Exercises
Remind students of the concert key and key signature of the day.
The whole-note scale plus tonal patterns (Days 1 and 2 of Weeks 1-3) or
Scale-Arpeggio-Thirds (Day 3 of Weeks 1-3) will take approximately three minutes.
For the remaining 16 minutes or so of the lesson, play through and rehearse the exercises
listed. Gauge your time so that there is enough time for each exercise and so that, by the
end of the week, all exercises are mastered to approximately the same degree of accuracy.
During repetitions of exercises, any of the following rehearsal strategies are appropriate:
During Week 4, review week, work to speed up the exercises, and try new variations.
Here are some possibilities for varied repetitions:
For any percussionists having trouble keeping up, try having them play just the first pitch
of every measure or rhythmic grouping.
II
I
:1
Ii
II:
;1,
•
•
•
change the articulation or add dynamics
vary the instrumentation
part practice (one or two measures at a time)
! '
i
i I
•
Exercise 2
Exercise 3
Exercise 4
Exercise 5
Exercise 6
Exercise 7
Exercises 8-9
Exercise 10
Exercises 11-14
slur three; slur two then tongue one, tongue one then slur two
play all staccato; then all legato
crescendo while ascending, decrescendo while descending; reverse
slur two then tongue two; reverse
slur four
tongue one then slur three (first half);
slur three and tongue one (second half)
play all legato; then all staccato
crescendo while ascending, decrescendo while descending; reverse
slur every two pitches
Ij
I,
I'
I'
i I
i 'I
APPENDIXP
LESSON PLANS FOR EXERCISES GROUP
206
207
Day 1 (of each new key)
Patterns Lines 1 & 2
2. First Triples Study
3. Second Triples Study
4. First Scale Study
I' 5. Second Scale StudyI 8. Rhythm Study in 5/4'I
I
9. Changing MetersI
Day 2 (of each new key)
Patterns Lines 3 & 4
10. Arpeggios
11. Thirds
~ 12. Fourthsf "
13. Fifths
14. Octaves
4. First Scale Study
5. Second Scale Study
Day 3 (of each new key)
1. Scale-Arpeggio-Thirds
6. Around and About
7. Broken Chord Study
8. Rhythm Study in 5/4
9. Changing Meters
2. First Triples Study
3. Second Triples Study
•
r-
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I:
!
I
i.
I
I
I[
•
APPENDIXQ
TESTING ORDERS
208
~~--_...... ._---------------------=-----~-------------------~~-------_._~-~-
Scenario Order TASK 1 TASK 2 TASK 3 TASK 4 TASK 5 TASK 6
1 20 Row Bb Row G Row Db a Bb b G c Db
2 21 Row Bb Row Db Row G a Bb c Db b G
3 16 Row Bb Row G Row Db b Bb a G c Db
4 23 Row Bb Row Db Row G b Bb c Db a G
5 22 Row Bb Row G Row Db c Bb a G b Db
6 6,30 Row Bb Row Db Row G c Bb b Db c G
7 9,33 a Bb b G c Db Row Bb Row G Row Db
8 24 a Bb c Db b G Row Bb Row Db Row G
9 1,25 b Bb. a G c Db Row Bb Row G Row Db
10 17 b Bb c Db a G Row Bb Row Db Row G
11 2,26 c Bb a G b Db Row Bb Row G Row Db
12 11,35 c Bb b Db a G Row Bb Row Db Row G
13 12,36 Row Bb Row Db Row G a Bb b Db c G
14 18 Row Bb Row G Row Db a Bb c G b Db
15 13 Row Bb Row Db Row G b Bb a Db c G
16 5,29 Row Bb Row G Row Db b Bb c G a Db
17 7,31 Row Bb Row Db Row G c Bb a Db b G
18 19 Row Bb Row G Row Db c Bb b G a Db
19 14 a Bb b Db c G Row Bb Row Db Row G
20 3,27 a Bb c G b Db Row Bb Row G Row Db
21 10,34 b Bb a Db c G Row Bb Row Db Row G
22 8,32 b Bb c G a Db Row Bb Row G Row Db
23 4,28 c Bb a Db b G Row Bb Row Db Row G
24 15 c Bb b G a Db Row Bb Row G Row Db
- --- --- - ._-
tv
o
'0
210
REFERENCES
Aebersold, J. (1993). Minor blues in all keys. New Albany, IN: Jamey Aebersold Jazz.
Aebersold, J. (1995). Giant steps: Six challengingjazz songs in all 12 keys. New Albany,
IN: Jamey Aebersold Jazz.
American Suzuki Institute-West. (1973). The use of recordings and tape recordings in
Suzuki training. In E. Mills & T. C. Murphy (Eds.), The Suzuki concept: An
introduction to a successful methodfor early music education (pp. 121-124).
Berkeley, CA: Diablo Press.
Apel, W. (1969). Harvard dictionary ofmusic (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press.
Bachus, N., Rock, B., Torkelson, S., & Morelock, D. (2005, Summer). Repertoire and
performance: How do you introduce pieces with more than two flats or sharps and
what favorite repertoire do you use in more difficult keys? Keyboard Companion,
16,46-51.
Barger, P. H. (2001). Suzuki piano and reading. American Suzuki Journal, 29(4),28-29,
72.
Bastien, 1. W. (1973). How to teach piano successfully. Park Ridge, IL: Neil A. Kjos.
Bean, K. L. (1938). An experimental approach to the reading of music. Psychological
Monographs, 50(6), 1-80.
Berkowitz, S. (1975). Improvisation through keyboard harmony. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bernhard, H. c., II. (2004). The effects of tonal training on the melodic ear playing and
sight reading achievement of beginning wind instrumentalists. Contributions to
Music Education, 31 (1), 91-107.
Blevins, S. L. (1998). Effects ofnotation-based versus aural warm-up techniques on
preference, perception, andperformance by middle-school band students.
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Missouri-Kansas City.
r
I'
I:
:l
I'
, .
I ~
!
211
Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American
Educational Research Journal, 5,437-474.
Brittin, R. V. (2006, April). Professional instrumentalists: Selfreports ofpractice
strategies and recommendations to students. Poster session presented at the
MENC National Conference, Salt Lake City, UT.
Brown, T. W. (1990). An investigation of the effectiveness of a piano course in playing
by ear and aural skills development for college students (ear training) (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1990). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 51, 4052.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Casey, 1. L. (1993). Teaching techniques and insights for instrumental music educators
(Rev. ed.). Chicago: GIA.
Cecconi-Roberts, L. A. (2001). Effects of practice strategies on improvement of
performance of intermediate woodwind instrumentalists (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Missouri-Columbia, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International,
62, 1356.
Choksy, L. (1981). The Kodaly context: Creating an environmentfor musical learning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cohen, 1. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colwell, R. 1., & Goolsby, T. (1992). The teaching ofinstrumental music (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Conway, C. (1997, August). Why wait to start beginning band rehearsals? Teaching
Music, 5, 36,45.
Covington, K. (1992). An alternative approach to aural training. Journal ofMusic Theory
Pedagogy, 6, 5-8.
Cronbach, L. 1., & Snow, R. E. (1981). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook
for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.
Dalby, B. (1999). Teaching audiation in instrumental classes. Music Educators Journal,
85(6),22-25,46.
ri
!
II
it
212
Delzell, 1. K. (1989). The effects of musical discrimination training in beginning
instrumental music classes. Journal ofResearch in Music Education, 37, 21-31.
Delzell, 1. K., Rohwer, D. A, & Ballard, D. E. (1999). Effects of melodic pattern
difficulty and performance experience on ability to play by ear. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 47, 53-63.
Dodson, T. A (1983). Developing music reading skills: Research implications. Update:
The Applications ofResearch in Music Education, 1(4), 3-6.
Duerksen, G. L. (1972). Teaching instrumental music: From research to the music
classroom no. 3. Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference.
Dunlap, M. P. (1989). The effects of singing and solmization training on the musical
achievement of beginning fifth-grade instrumental students (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 444.
Erickson, F. (1993). Technique through performance. Van Nuys, CA: Alfred.
Feldstein, S., & Clark, L. (2001). The Yamaha advantage: Musicianship from day one.
Conductor score. Book 1. New York: Carl Fischer.
Frederiksen, B. (1996). Arnold Jacobs: Song and wind. (1. Taylor, Ed.). United States:
WindSong Press.
Froseth,1. O. (1994). Performance-based ear training: Ear-to-handfoundation studies.
Chicago: GIA.
Froseth,1. O. (1996). Performance-based ear training: Studies in aural transposition.
Chicago: GIA.
Froseth,1. O. (1998). Do it! Play recorder. Teacher's edition. Chicago: GIA.
Froseth,1. O. (2000). Do it! Play in band. Book 1. Teacher's resource edition andfull
score. Chicago: GIA.
Froseth,1. 0., & Smith, B. P. (2003). Do it! Play strings. Teacher's resource edition and
full score. Chicago: GIA.
Fussell, R. C. (1939). Exercisesfor ensemble drill: Arrangedfor band or orchestra (2nd
rev. ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Schmitt Music.
Gabrielsson, A (1999). The performance ofm,usic. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The Psychology
ofMusic (2nd ed., pp. 501-602). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
~I
II
I',
213
Gall, M. D., Gall, 1. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction
(7th ed.). Boston, MA: Longman.
Gamble, D. K. (1989). A study of the effects of two types of tonal pattern instruction on
the audiational and performance skills of first-year clarinet students (Doctoral
dissertation, Temple University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50,
893-894.
Garofalo, R. 1. (1992). Guide to band masterworks. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Meredith
Music.
Garofalo, R. 1. (1995). Instructional designs for middle/junior high school band. Guides
to band masterworks (Vol. 2). Fort Lauderdale, FL: Meredith Music.
Garofalo, R. 1., & Whaley, G. (1979). Comparison of the unit study and traditional
approaches for teaching music through school band performance. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 27, 137-142.
Gault, B. M. (2002). Effects of pedagogical approach, presence/absence of text, and
developmental music aptitude on the song performance accuracy of kindergarten
and first-grade students. Bulletin ofthe Council for Research in Music Education,
152,54-63.
Gault, B. M. (2004). The rote song: Does one size fit all? The OrffEcho, 37,46-48.
Gaynor,1. (1995). Music reading comprehension: The effect of aid to chunking and
melodic predicting on sight reading performance achievement of secondary
school instrumental music students (Doctoral dissertation, University of San
Francisco). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56,4693.
Gazda, D., & Stoutamire, A. (1997). Spotlight on Strings. Levell. Teacher
Score/Keyboard. San Diego, CA: Kjos.
Glenn, K. A. (1999). Rote vs. note: The relationship of working memory capacity to
performance and continuation in beginning string classes (sixth~grade,middle
school) (Doctoral dissertation, University ofNorthern Colorado, 1999).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1010.
Gordon, E. E. (1987). The nature, description, measurement, and evaluation ofmusic
aptitudes. Chicago: GIA.
Gordon, E. E. (1989). Advanced measures ofmusic audiation. (Manual with testing kit).
Chicago: GIA.
r.~
"
4t
214
Gordon, E. E. (1990). Advanced measures ofmusic audiation: Combined seventh and
eighth grade percentile norms. Chicago: GIA.
Gordon, E. E. (1995). Musical aptitude profile. (Manual with testing kit). Chicago: GIA.
Gordon, E. E. (2003). Learning sequences in music: Skill, content, and patterns: A music
learning theory (6th ed.). Chicago: GIA.
Grande, L. E. (1989). A comparison of the "rote-to-note" approach and the traditional
music reading approach in teaching begilming instrumental music [Abstract].
Masters Abstracts International, 28, 22.
Grunow, R. F. (2005). Music Learning Theory: A catalyst for change in beginning
instrumental music instruction. In M. Runfola & C. C. Taggart (Eds.), The
development andpractical application ofMusic Learning Theory (pp. 179-200).
Chicago: GIA.
Grunow, R. F., Gordon, E., & Azzara, C. D. (1998). Jump right in: The instrumental
series: Soprano recorder. Teacher's guide. Book 1. (Rev. ed.). Chicago: GIA.
Grunow, R. F., Gordon, E. E., & Azzara, C. D. (2001). Jump right in: The instrumental
series: For winds and percussion. Teacher's guide. Book 1 and 2. (Rev. ed.).
Chicago: GIA.
Grunow, R. F., Gordon, E. E., & Martin, M. E. (2002). Jump right in: The instrumental
series: Strings. Teacher's guide. Books 1 and 2. (Rev. ed.). Chicago: GIA.
Grutzmacher, P. A. (1987). The effect of tonal pattern training on the aural perception,
reading recognition, and melodic sight-reading achievement of first-year
instrumental music students. Journal ofResearch in Music Education, 35,
171-181.
Hallam, S. (1997a). Approaches to instrumental music practice of experts and novices:
Implications for education. In H. J0fgensen & A. C. Lehmaml (Eds.), Does
practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music
practice (pp. 89-107). Oslo, Norway: Norges musik0gskole.
Hallam, S. (1997b). What do we know about practising? Towards a model synthesising
the research literature. In H. J0rgensen & A. C. Lehmann (Eds.), Does practice
make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp.
179-231). Oslo, Norway: Norges musik0gskole.
;:1~I
r,
'r
"},
~
..,.
215
Harnischmacher, C. (1997). The effects of individual differences in motivation, volition,
and maturational processes on practice behavior of young instrumentalists. In H.
J0rgensen & A. C. Lehmann (Eds.), Does practice make perfect? Current theory
and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 71-88). Oslo, Norway: Norges
musik0gskole.
Harrison, L. N. (1983). Getting started in elementary music education. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Haston, W. A. (2004). Comparison of a visual and an aural approach to beginning wind
instrument instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 2004).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 1711.
Heerema, E. (1984). Progressive class piano (2nd ed.). Sherman Oaks, CA: Alfred.
Hodges, D. (1992). The acquisition of music reading skills. In R Colwell (Ed.),
Handbook ofresearch on music teaching and learning (pp. 466-471). New York:
Schirmer.
Hovey, N. W., & Walker, M. (1959). Tippsfor bands. Miami, FL: Belwin Mills.
How teachers view playing by ear. (1996, September). Clavier, 35, 6-9.
Irwin, P., & Nelson, J. (1986). The teacher, the child, and music. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Karpinski, G. S. (2000). Aural skills acquisition: The development oflistening, reading,
andperforming skills in college-level musicians. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Kendall, 1. D. (1966). Talent education and Suzuki. Washington, DC: Music Educators
National Conference.
Klinger, R, Campbell, P. S., & Goolsby, T. (1998). Approaches to children's song
acquisition: Immersion and phrase-by-phrase. Journal ofResearch in Music
Education, 46(1),24-34.
Kohut, D. L. (1992). Musical performance: Learning theory andpedagogy. Champaign,
IL: Stipes Publishing.
Kuzmich, J. A., Jr. (1991). John Kendall: Visionary pioneer of the American Suzuki
movement. American Suzuki Journal, 20(1),20-23.
!
I
I
~
'j
)
~
I1
i
.~
,
j
:~
I
!
r
I
r
/~~-
~I
216
Lautzenheiser, T., Higgins, 1., Menghini, C., Lavender, P., Rhodes, T. C., & Bierschenk:,
D. (1999). Essential elements 2000. Comprehensive band method. Book 1.
Conductor. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard.
Layne, R. D. (1974). A comparative investigation of traditional and modified Suzuki
teaching techniques in beginning clarinet instruction (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International,
35,2747.
Lindeman, C. A. (1996). Piano lab: An introduction to class piano (3rd ed.). New York:
Wadsworth.
Liperote, K. A. (2004). A study of audiation-based instruction, music aptitude, and music
achievement of elementary wind and percussion students [Abstract]. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 65,447.
Luce, J. R. (1958). Sight-reading and ear-playing abilities related to the training and
background of instrumental music students (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln). Dissertation Abstracts International, 19, 1629.
Luce, J. R. (1965). Sight-reading and ear-playing abilities as related to instrumental
music students. Journal ofResearch in Music Education, 13,101-109.
MacKnight, C. B. (1975). Music reading ability of beginning wind instrumentalists after
melodic instruction. Journal ofResearch in Music Education, 23,23-34.
Mainwaring, 1. (1941). The meaning of musicianship: A problem in the teaching of
music. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 11,205-214.
Mainwaring, 1. (1951). Psychological factors in the teaching of music. Part II: Applied
musicianship. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 21, 199-213.
Mark, M. L. (1996). Contemporary music education (3rd ed.). New York: Schirmer.
Mark, M. L., & Gary, C. L. (1999). A history ofAmerican music education (2nd ed.).
Reston, VA: MENC-The National Association for Music Education.
Martin, M. E. (2005). Music Learning Theory and beginning string instrument
instruction. In M. Runfola & C. C. Taggart (Eds.), The development andpractical
application ofMusic Learning Theory (pp. 225-250). Chicago: GIA.
itI.
i
,I
\1 \
i.
l iz+
217
McDonald, 1. C. (1991). The application of Gordon's empirical model of learning
sequence to teaching the recorder. The Quarterly Journal ofMusic Teaching and
Learning, 2(1-2), 110-117.
McKean, E. (2005). Rote n. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from http://O-
www.oxfordreference.com.janus.uoregon.edu:80/views/ENTRY.htm1?subview=
Main&entry=t183.e66693
McPherson, G. E. (1994). Factors and abilities influencing sightreading skill in music.
Journal ofResearch in Music Education, 42,217-231.
McPherson, G. E. (1995a). The assessment of musical performance: Development and
validation of five new measures. Psychology ofMusic, 23, 142-161.
McPherson, G. E. (1995b). Redefining the teaching of musical performance. The
Quarterly Journal ofMusic Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 56-64.
McPherson, G. E. (1995-1996). Five aspects of musical performance and their correlates.
Bulletin ofthe Council for Research in Music Education, 127, 115-121.
McPherson, G. E. (1997). Cognitive strategies and skill acquisition in musical
performance. Bulletin ofthe Council for Research in Music Education, 133,
64-71.
McPherson, G. E. (2005). From child to musician: Skill development during the
beginning stages of learning an instrument. Psychology ofMusic, 33,5-35.
McPherson, G. E., & Gabrielsson, A. (2002). From sound to sign. In R. Parncutt & G. E.
McPherson (Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative
strategies for music teaching and learning (pp. 99-115). New York: Oxford
University Press.
MENC Committee on Performance Standards. (1996). Performance standards for music:
Strategies and benchmarks for assessing progress toward the national standards,
grades preK-12. Reston, VA: MENC-Music Educators National Conference.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2005-2006a). Aptitude. Retrieved June 6, 2006,
from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/aptitude
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2005-2006b). Song. Retrieved November 13,
2006, from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/song
218
Miles, R. (Ed.). (1997). Teaching music through performance in band (Vol. 1). Chicago:
GIA.
Moomaw, S. (1984). Discovering music in early childhood. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Moore, R. S., Brotons, M., Fyk, 1., & Castillo, A. (1997). Effects of culture, age, gender,
and repeated trials on rote song learning skills of children 6-9 years old from
England, Panama, Poland, Spain, and the United States. Bulletin ofthe Council
for Research in Music Education, 133,83-88.
Musco, A. M. (2001). Survey: Rote learning in instrumental music. Unpublished survey,
University of Oregon.
Newman, G. (1995). Teaching children music (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Norman, M. (2005). Developing thinking musicians in instrwnental music. In M. Runfola
& C. C. Taggart (Eds.), The development andpractical application ofMusic
Learning Theory (pp. 201-224). Chicago: GIA.
Nuttall, D. (2004, Winter). A Suzuki teacher's thoughts on music reading. (Part two).
American Suzuki Journal, 32, 34-37.
O'Reilly, 1., & Williams, M. (2001). Accent on achievement. Book 1. Conductor's score.
USA: Alfred.
Pace, R. (1956). Piano for classroom music. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pearson, B. (1993). Standard ofexcellence: Comprehensive band method. Book 1.
Conductor score. San Diego, CA: Neil A. Kjos.
Pearson, B. (1996). Standard ofexcellence. Comprehensive band method. Book 3. San
Diego: Neil A. Kjos.
Ployhar, 1. D. (1972). I recommend: A complete warm-up technique book designed to
improve fundamental musicianship. Phoenix, AZ: Byron-Douglas.
Price, H. E., Blanton, F., & Parrish, R. T. (1998). Effects oftwo instructional methods on
high school band students' sight-reading proficiency, music performance, and
attitude. Update: Applications ofResearch in Music Education, 17(1), 14-20.
Priest, P. (1989). Playing by ear: Its nature and application to instrumental learning.
British Journal ofMusic Education, 6, 173-191.
219
Reimer, A 1. (1944). A comparison oftwo methods ofteaching instrumental music to
beginners. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Righter, C. B. (1945). Success in teaching school orchestras and band. Minneapolis,
MN: Paul A. Schmitt Music.
Sanders, G. 1. (2004). Improving student practicing through application of motor-learning
research. Update: Applications ofResearch in Music Education, 23(1), 14-22.
Schallock, M. G. (2004). The effects of constant and variable practice on the acquisition,
retention, and transfer performance of complex music literature tasks among
seventh-grade instrumental music students (Doctoral dissertation, University of
North Carolina at Greensboro, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65,
2933.
Schleuter, S. L. (1997). A sound approach to teaching instrumentalists: An application of
content and learning sequences (2nd ed.). New York: Schirmer Books.
Schleuter, S. L., & Schleuter, L. (1988). Teaching and learning music performance:
What, when, and how. In C. Fowler (Ed.), The Crane Symposium: Toward an
understanding ofthe teaching and learning ofmusical performance (pp. 63-88).
Potsdam, NY: Potsdam College.
Schmidt, R. A, & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis
(4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Shea,1. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition,
retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal ofExperimental Psychology:
Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179-187.
Sloboda, 1. A. (1976). The effect of item position on the likelihood of identification by
inference in prose reading and music reading. Canadian Journal ofExperimental
Psychology, 30,228-237.
Sloboda, J. A (1978). The psychology of music reading. Psychology ofMusic, 6,3-20.
Sloboda, 1. A (1984). Experimental studies of music reading: A review. Music
Perception, 2, 222-236.
Sperti,1. (1970). Adaptation of certain aspects of the Suzuki method to the teaching of
clarinet (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1970). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 32, 1557.
220
Stamou, L. (2005). Music Learning Theory, physiology of learning, and the Suzuki
philosophy: When research meets philosophy and educational practice. In M.
Runfola & C. C. Taggart (Eds.), The development andpractical application of
Music Learning Theory (pp. 265-279). Chicago: GIA.
Suzuki, S. (1969). Nurtured by love: A new approach to education (W. Suzuki, Trans.).
New York: Exposition Press.
Suzuki, S. (1985). Note readingfor violin. Miami, FL: Summy-Birchard.
Thackray, R. (1975). Some thoughts on aural training. Australian Journal ofMusic
Education, 17,25-30.
Thomas, R. B. (1970). MMCP Synthesis. Bardonia, NY: Media Materials.
Thompson, K. A. (2004). Thinking in sound: A qualitative study of metaphors for pitch
perception. Journal ofMusic Theory Pedagogy, 18,81-107.
Turner, M. (1998). Motor learning research: Applications and directions for elementary
music teaching and learning. Update: Applications ofResearch in Music
Education, 16(2), 12-16.
Urbaniak, G. c., & PIous, S. (2006). Research randomizer. Retrieved August 8, 2005,
from http://www.randomizer.org
Volk, T. M. (1993). Factors influencing music educators in the "rote-note" controversy.
Bulletin ofHistorical Research in Music Education, 15,31-43.
Waddell, G. (1989). Teaching a rote song. In D. L. Walters & C. C. Taggart (Eds.),
Readings in Music Learning Theory (pp. 84-91). Chicago: GIA.
Walters, D. L. (1989). Audiation: The term and the process. In D. L. Walters & C. C.
Taggart (Eds.), Readings in Music Learning Theory (pp. 3-11). Chicago: GIA.
Watkins,1. G., & Farnum, S. E. (1954). The Watkins-Farnum performance scale.
Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard.
Webster, M. (2000, June). Teaching beginners: Finding the right tonic. The Clarinet, 27,
4,6-8.
Wilder, M. D. (1988). An investigation of the relationship between melodic ear-to-hand
coordination and written and aural theory skills within an undergraduate music
theory context (Doctoral dissertation1 University of Michigan, 1988). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 49,3548.
221
Wolf, T. (1976). A cognitive model of musical sight-reading. Journal ofPsycholinguistic
Research, 5, 143-171.
Wood, E. (2001). Sight-reading. American Suzuki Journal, 30(1),31-33.
Zdzinski, S. F. (1991). Research in motor learning: Applications to instrumental music
education. Southeastern Journal ofMusic Education, 3, 188-205.