TEACHING METHODOLOGY IN ELEMENTARY MUSIC AND BEGINNING

BAND: THE EFFECT ON STUDENT RHYTHMIC ACHIEVEMENT

A Dissertation

Presented to

The Faculty of the Education Department

Carson Newman University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

By

Leslie M. Benson

May 2016

i

ii

Copyright page

I hereby grant permission to the Education Department, Carson-Newman University, to

reproduce this research in part or in full for professional purposes, with the understanding

that in no case will it be for financial profit to any person or institution.

Signature

Date

iii

Permission Statement

I hereby grant permission to the Education Department, Carson Newman University, to

reproduce this research in part or in full for professional purposes, with the understanding

that in no case will it be for financial profit to any person or institution.

Signature

Date

iv

Abstract

Teaching Methodologies in Elementary Music and Beginning Band: The Effect on

Student Rhythmic Achievement

Leslie M. Benson

School of Education, Carson Newman University

May 2016

Data from research suggests there is very little curricular unity or alignment between

music instruction that progresses from elementary, middle, and high school programs.

This may be the reason for the diminished rhythmic reading ability that often occurs

between elementary general music classes and beginning band classes. Consistent

practice of initial and similar concepts over a period of time allows for transfer of

learning from one grade level to the next. However, there is a dramatic difference in the

way rhythmic instruction is given in elementary music classes and beginning band

methods. A sequential presentation of rhythmic instruction, should provide a curricular

link between elementary music and beginning band. Students are often able to perform

more difficult rhythms in general music classes than are presented in most beginning

band method books. Subjects performed seven common rhythmic patterns from fifth

grade curricula. Students in this study who experienced continuous rhythmic instruction

(fifth grade students) scored significantly higher (than students (sixth grade beginning

band students) who experienced a different method of rhythmic instruction. The

recommendation is to encourage communication between elementary specialists and

instrumental specialists regarding curriculum and methods to ensure a cohesive music

education program. A more collaborative strategy would involve developing a cohesive

method and linear learning experience from general elementary music method curricula

to beginning instrumental music curricular methods.

v

Acknowledgements

A journey such as this, is not traveled alone. I would like to thank the following people

for traveling this road with me……

J. Littleton, you tirelessly listened to me and encouraged me throughout this journey. You

spent hours of your own time helping me listen to recording after recording….

K. Bagwell, your selfless service as an assistant in my classroom has been an incredible

blessing…

J. Leiser, as the third “musketeer” you served hours to listen to recordings and helped

behind the scenes…

Principal Sutton and S. Rogers assisted me in the acquisition of data…

Dr. Taylor, Dr. Price, & Dr. Buckner, you provided me with the tools I needed and

assisted me in achieving a lifelong dream…..

I thank you from the bottom of my heart!

Most importantly, I thank God, who gave me a love for music from an early age and

placed individuals in my life to cultivate my love for all things music. Whether playing,

singing, or listening I am incredibly blessed by the gift of music.

vi

Dedication

Without the support of my wonderful family this study would not have happened.

To my husband, JR, who has been the ‘Wind Beneath My Wings’ and I could never truly

express my love and devotion to him. His love and support have given me the wings to

soar toward and secure a lifelong goal.

To my mom, D. Kirst and sister, K.Vyskocil your encouragement and support kept me

going when I wanted to quit (over and over again).

To my special gifts from God, my children, Jessica, Matthew, Andrew, and Philip thank

you for putting up my continuous educational journeys.

Most importantly, I thank God who gave me a love for music from an early age and

placed individuals in my life to cultivate my love for all things music. Whether playing,

singing, or listening I am incredibly blessed for the gift of music.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iv

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................v

Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables and Figures ...............................................................................................................x

1. Purpose and Organization ........................................................................................................1 Introduction and Background ..........................................................................................................1

Theoretical Foundation ...................................................................................................................1

Elementary Music and Beginning Band Methods ...........................................................................3

Lack of Continuity ..........................................................................................................................5

Purpose and Significance of the Study ............................................................................................6

Differences Between General Music and Beginning Band .............................................................7

Implications......................................................................................................................................7

Research Question and Null Hypothesis..........................................................................................8

Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................................9

Assumptions and Definition of terms ............................................................................................10

Organization of the Document .......................................................................................................11

2. Literature Review ....................................................................................................................12

Music Learning Theories ...............................................................................................................12

The Influence of Piaget .................................................................................................................14

Behaviorism and Cognitive Constructivism Theory......................................................................15

Bruner’s Concept Theory ...............................................................................................................17

Critical Pedagogy ...........................................................................................................................18

Generative Theory and Music Learning Theory ............................................................................18

Elementary Music Education Instructional Practices ....................................................................19

Elementary Teaching Methods ......................................................................................................20

History of Movement in Music Education .....................................................................................22

Rhythm and Importance of Movement ..........................................................................................22

Movement in Elementary Music ....................................................................................................23

Movement Coupled with Multiple Modes .....................................................................................24

Studies of Movement in Education ................................................................................................25

Instrumental Teaching Methods ....................................................................................................26

Instrumental Methods of Teaching Rhythm ..................................................................................23

Comparison of Elementary and Beginning Band Methods of Rhythmic Instruction ....................27

Comparison of Rhythmic Patterns in Elementary and Beginning Band........................................30

3. Methodology .............................................................................................................................35

Research Design.............................................................................................................................35

Research Participants and Setting for the Study ............................................................................35

Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................................36

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................39

Ethical Issues .................................................................................................................................39

4. Results of Data..........................................................................................................................41

Inter-Rater Reliability ....................................................................................................................41

Presentation of Data .......................................................................................................................42

5. Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations ......................................................................49

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................49

viii

Research Question .........................................................................................................................50

Method of Performance .................................................................................................................52

Steady Beat ....................................................................................................................................54

Order of Rhythm Pattern Presentation ...........................................................................................54

Null Hypothesis .............................................................................................................................56

Rhythmic Pattern Difference .........................................................................................................56

Movement and Steady Beat ...........................................................................................................57

Different Methods of Rhythmic Performance ...............................................................................58

Summary ........................................................................................................................................60

Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................62

References ......................................................................................................................................64

6. Appendices ................................................................................................................................71

Appendix A Pattern Set A..............................................................................................................71

Appendix B Pattern Set B ..............................................................................................................57

Appendix C Pattern Set C ..............................................................................................................58

Appendix D Parental Consent Letter .............................................................................................60

Appendix E Student Recruitment Script ........................................................................................62

Appendix F Student Recording Script ...........................................................................................64

ix

List of Tables and Figures

Figures Figure 2.1 Rhythmic Pattern Example ......................................................................... 27

Figure 2. Pattern Set C ................................................................................................. 55

Figure 3. Word Cue Methods....................................................................................... 59

Figure 4. Number Counting System ........................................................................... 60

Tables

Table 1. Comparative Analysis of Nine Beginning Band Methods ............................. 32

Table 2. Comparative Analysis of Twelve Band Methods (1994-2010) ..................... 33

Table 3. Beginning Band Pre-test Pattern Set Mean .................................................... 42

Table 4. Beginning Band Post-test Pattern Set mean .................................................. 42

Table 5. Beginning Band Pre/Post Dependent t-test .................................................... 43

Table 6. Public School Group AB* Beginning Band Pattern Set Mean ...................... 44

Table 7. Group AA* Pattern Set Mean ........................................................................ 44

Table 8. Independent Sample t-test .............................................................................. 45

Table 9. Method of Rhythmic Performance Group AB* (Pre & Post-Test) ............... 45

Table 10. Method of Rhythmic Performance Comparison .......................................... 47

Table 11. Pattern Set Means All Subjects .................................................................... 47

Table 12. Comparison of Performance Methods ......................................................... 53

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Background

Many music educators agree that listening to music often elicits a physical

response from its listeners (Reifinger, 2006). Even the youngest of children respond to

music (Ferguson, 2005). Almost every person has been swept away by music at one time

or another. Toes tap, heads nod, and fingers snap are a mere subconscious response to the

sound of certain types of music (Westervelt, 2002).

Theoretical foundation

Music education is a profession that exists within a multi-faceted discipline.

Because music learning is comprised of complex cognitive processes, there is a need for

diverse learning theories in order to research and enhance the many educational

phenomena existing within a music education classroom (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.).

However, according to Boardman (1988), music instruction cannot be based on a specific

learning theory. Regelski (2002) also states that the theoretical principles for music

education are “ambiguous at best and controversial at worst” (p. 102). Isbell (2011)

agrees with this statement, “There is no single explanation regarding how best to teach

music” (p. 23). A brief overview of learning theories, as they apply to music education,

is provided in this section. The most common learning theories used in music will be

discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

Constructivists posit that humans are naturally active learners and “must construct

knowledge for themselves by using tools at hand to learn from their experiences” (Keast,

2009). The foundation of Constructive Learning Theory was built by the contributions of

2

philosophers, such as Vygotsky, Piaget, Dewey, and Bruner. The theoretical framework

for this study was from the works of Vygotsky. Constructivism places any learning in the

context of active engagement. Students move from experience through to the construction

of understanding. Through participation in activities, students develop or construct

individual understanding. The process of teaching music mirrors that of the language

development of children (Rinaldo & Denig, 2009).

The conceptual framework for this study was the Music Learning Theory. Edwin

Gordon developed the Music Learning Theory. Gordon’s theory, which guides instructors

to the best sequences for helping students learn music. Gordon’s theory begins with a

process he calls audiation. “Audiation is the process of hearing and comprehending music

in the mind” (Dalby, n.d.). The idea of sound before symbol is not unique to MLT.

According to this theory, audiation is the basic foundation of any music learning. Much

like the process of learning language, the methodology behind this theory is based upon

beginning a foundation through rhythmic movement, singing, and tonal/rhythmic pattern

instruction. Each instructional session builds upon previous experience and knowledge.

As students learn a “musical vocabulary” a musical language is developed and

constructed (Dalby, n.d.). The construction of methodology in musical instruction should

be based upon the building and extension of student experiences.

During the 1960’s, Jerome Bruner’s theories of conceptual learning led to

curricula that were sequenced developmentally (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.). In Bruner’s

modes of representative learning, the usual response of students begins with an Enactive

Representation, which presents understanding through a motor response when

experiencing a new concept (Gault, 2005). Psychomotor awareness may lead to better

3

rhythmic performances (Rowher, 1998). Bruner’s Concept Theory is primarily a

developmental theory; however, the premise applies in a music education setting

(Boardman, 1988). In a music education setting, Bruner’s Concept Theory dictates that

music symbols be introduced after the student is able to demonstrate the ability to

assimilate musical sounds with iconic notation (Boardman, 1988). Bruner’s spiral

curriculum and conceptual learning has been used as an elemental method of music

instruction (Taetle and Cuttieta, n.d.). Information gathered on children’s perceptual and

performance abilities in regards to rhythmic development should be researched in applied

instrumental settings and assessed empirically (Reifinger, 2006).

Elementary Music and Beginning Band Methods

Elementary educators of general music classes have implemented methodologies

such as Orff, Dalcroze, and Kodaly as a primary step in the process of learning music

(Rowher, 1998). Dalcroze, Kodaly, and Orff methods all promote multi-sensory musical

experiences before conceptual understanding (Gault, 2005). At the most basic level,

people learn rhythm through movement (Westervelt, 2002). In the Orff process for

instance, movement is the foundational element used to develop beat and rhythm

competencies, as well as to develop rhythmic memory followed by symbolic music

notation (Mason, 2012).

Music education for primary grades in the United States has employed the use of

the sound-to-symbol approach for the last few decades (Feldman & Contzius, n.d.).

Music Learning Theory, along with other music teaching methods such as the Orff and

Kodaly methods, employs the sequence of ‘sound before sight’ (Dalby, n.d.).

4

One way elementary students learn rhythmic patterns is through the use of spoken

syllables, which act as an aural coding, or memory of the sounds before the visual picture

of iconic notation (Reifinger, 2006). Kodaly methods support the sound-to-symbol

approach by providing experience before notation, as well as singing games and

movements to build musical development. Feldman & Contzius (n.d.) propose that

students must learn rhythm by the way it feels and sounds. Visual connection comes

afterward as a symbolic representation of what the student has already experienced.

One of the major differences between elementary music and beginning band

classes is that many elementary methodologies use word cues such as the Kodaly, Orff,

Gordon, or Takidimi method of rhythmic syllables to teach rhythmic patterns. Word cues

such as “tah” for quarter notes and ti-ti” for paired eighth notes are used as a way to teach

students to recognize and feel the duration of notation as they speak and clap or move

their bodies to match the rhythm (Richardson, 2008).

A study by Santelli (2007) revealed that the majority of band method books

approach rhythmic instruction using a mathematical approach or a counting system. This

change in rhythmic method instruction can cause confusion (Santelli, 2007). This means

that students have to learn a new method of counting rhythms when it would be much

easier if the rhythms were presented in the same way as they had previously been

instructed. This method would also make the transfer of previous learning to new

learning easier due to the similarity of previous rhythm recognition. When the same

method of instruction is presented in elementary and middle school music classes,

students are able to build upon their previous knowledge and experiences (Santelli,

2007).

5

The number based counting system is the most commonly used rhythmic

instruction technique (Richardson, 2008). Varley (2005), as cited in Mason (2012),

compared thirty-seven instrumental method books and the rhythmic systems used within

the United States. The results showed that six of the methods used kinesthetic rhythmic

activities and three books used mnemonic or syllables in rhythmic instruction. Thirty

books used only a counting approach to rhythm instruction.

In a study of seven popular band method books, Collins (2013) determined that

six out of seven books used clapping exercises and only one of the seven used clapping or

foot tapping. None of the seven method books included any whole body movements or

activities to aid in learning. None of the seven methods used rote learning methods or

audiation training. Only one of the seven methods included melodies written in symbols

to accommodate students who could not yet read music notation.

Lack of Continuity

In a study by Woods (1982), a comparison of elementary and middle school band

methods reveals that there is very little to no “conceptual cohesiveness or curricular

unity” between the two areas even though there may only be one summer between the

methods. It was if students experience music from one grade level to the next as an

“isolated entity”. Since 1966, Bruner’s spiral curriculum has been used to order the

structure of teaching and learning concepts at “appropriate levels and periodically with

greater levels of complexity” (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d). The question to be asked then, is,

“shouldn’t music students’ experiences build conceptually in the cross over between

elementary general music and beginning band or chorus?” When music educators provide

music concepts in similar ways to those used in upper level general music classes, a

6

transfer of learning can occur from one grade or class to the next level. Transfer learning

is most successful when there is a consistent practice of initial and similar concepts

throughout the instruction process (Santelli, 2007).

Purpose of the study/significance of Study

Observation of music programs from elementary, middle, and high school has

revealed very little “conceptual cohesiveness or curricular unity” almost as if the music

experiences exist as “isolated entities” (Woods, 1982). This may be the reason for the

differences that exist between elementary general music classes and beginning band

classes. Just as math concepts build sequentially upon the other, music concepts do as

well. Bruner’s spiral curriculum theory allows students to encounter “gradual, increasing

presentations of concepts that build upon previous knowledge or experience (McLeod,

2008). Woods suggests that each level of music instruction should naturally develop

conceptually from elementary, middle school, to high school levels. A sequential

presentation of musical concepts should provide a link between elementary music and

beginning band, which can begin as early as fourth grade or begin as late as sixth grade.

Transfer of learning from one grade level to the next is best accomplished by the

consistent practice of initial and similar concepts over a period of time (1982).

Elementary students carry with them an elementary musical mindset as they

transition into middle school. This musical mindset is based on their previous musical

learning experiences (Conklin, 2007). A holistic musical approach across the school

levels will provide a more cohesive musical education experience.

7

Students are often able to perform more difficult rhythms in general music classes

than are presented in most beginning method books. Sixteenth note rhythm patterns

are experienced and performed by most elementary music students as early as

fourth grade. In contrast, this rhythmic pattern is generally not included in beginning

band method books until the second year of instruction. Instrumental method books that

leave more complex patterns to the next year can deprive students of the consistent

performance of patterns that increase the transfer of learning to new contexts (Byo, 1998

& Watkins, 2011). By creating connections between elementary music and instrumental

music, students are allowed to build upon previous experience without a grade level gap.

Pierce’s 1992 study found that similar rhythmic tasks resulted in an increase in the

possibility of transfer of knowledge transfer (Santelli, 2007).

Differences Between General Music and Beginning Band

Music concepts, just like math, build upon each other in a logical sequence. The

question to be asked then, is shouldn’t music students’ experiences build conceptually in

the cross over between elementary general music and beginning band or chorus? When

music educators provide music concepts in similar ways to those used in upper level

general music classes, a transfer of learning can occur from one grade or class to the next

level. Transfer learning is most successful when there is a consistent practice of initial

and similar concepts throughout the instruction process (Santelli, 2007).

Implications

A review of the literature revealed that the pedagogical practices successfully

used in elementary classes are not typically used in band or orchestra rehearsals (Dalby,

1999). There is a definite need for a connection between elementary general music and

8

beginning band instruction. Research supports that instructional methods used

successfully in elementary classes can also be successful in beginning band instruction

(Mason, 2012). Methods such as Orff, Dalcroze, Kodaly, and Music Learning Theory

found in elementary classes can be used in instrumental settings to continue the rhythmic

development of students moving from one grade level to the next (West, 2015).

Although the idea of singing and moving in instrumental classes is not new, the

concepts are not widely used even though it has been shown that these methods will

enhance music achievement (Conway, 2003). Sixth grade or older students may not be

entirely comfortable with the use of kinesthetic movements such as those used in

elementary music, these activities have the potential to aid in the development of

psychomotor awareness (Rowher, 1998). Most instrumental method books do not use

basic kinesthetic learning methods that are so readily used in general elementary music

(Rowher, 1998).

When general elementary music teachers and instrumental teachers have aligned

their curricula, the musical concepts learned in elementary class can be transferred to

instrumental learning. Consistent terminology and approaches will ensure that students

transfer learning from one level to the next (Conway, 2013).

Research Questions and Null Hypothesis

What effect does the lack of continuity between elementary general music and

beginning band curricula have on the rhythmic performance of beginning band students?

The lack of continuity between elementary and beginning band methods has no

effect on student rhythmic achievement.

9

Limitations and Delimitations

This study will be limited by the small sample size based upon the number of

students who elect to enroll in beginning band and the number of enrolled students in the

fifth grade. The number of parental permission slips returned by public school students

may also be small depending on school schedules or other factors. Previous beginning

band classes have been predominately male. Therefore, gender distribution will be a

limitation. Participants in this cross-sectional design will be similar but there may be

differences within the pre-existing groups. Participants may include transfer students

from other elementary music programs who have not used similar teaching methods or

who have had little or no musical experiences.

Delimitations include the author’s ability to analyze and understand both

general music and instrumental strategies. The author teaches both general music and

instrumental music in the school and will be able to create a rhythmic measurement based

upon the curriculum used in the elementary fifth grade level. The educator would be able

to control the method of instruction to beginning band and fifth grade students by

following the current school curriculums for each.

10

Assumptions and Definition of terms

Rhythm: The term originates in the Greek language as “rhythmos” or “flow”. As humans

listen to or perform music, he or she feels the rhythm and as a result either overtly or

covertly moves to the rhythm or “flow” of the music (Westervelt, 2002).

Orff Schulwerk : an elementary method approach to music learning that includes active

music making. Educators use imitation, exploration, literacy/composition, and

improvisation through singing, movement, various forms of speech, and performance on

instruments (Mason, 2012)

Kodaly: The Kodaly approach advocates hearing the sound before reading standard

written music notation. Singing is taught using solfege syllables (ex do, re, mi) to

represent pitches in the scale. (Geoghegan, 2006). Kodaly also uses rhythmic names to

represent the length or duration of a note or rhythmic pattern.

Music Learning Theory: students develop rhythmic and tonal vocabulary patterns

through experiences such as singing, performing, and rhythmic movement before seeing

iconic notation. MLT approaches instruction through a process known as

Whole/Part/Whole (Dalby, n.d.).

Audiation: the “musical equivalent of thinking in language” (Dalby, n.d., p. 5).

Rhythmic Achievement: the ability to perform rhythms that include half, quarter,

eighth, sixteenth notes, equivalent rests, and dotted rhythmic patterns in common time

Steady Beat: Music has basic steady pulse that can be identified as the heartbeat of the

music. The basic pulse is the underlying beat to which a listener or performer would tap

or clap in time or in conjunction with the steady pulse.

Tempo is the speed of the steady beat or pulse

11

Organization of the Document

This document begins with an introduction and background of the study. The

reason and purpose of the study, as well as the limitations and delimitations are included

within the first chapter.

The second chapter contains a literature review of music learning theories. A brief

historical context of both elementary and instrumental instruction is provided, as well as a

description of the common methodologies used in each level of music instruction. For the

purpose of this study, the focus will be on rhythmic instructional strategies in elementary

general music and beginning instrumental music classes. Elementary and instrumental

rhythmic instructional methods will be compared. A discussion of empirical studies will

be included.

Methodology and specifics of the study will be discussed in the third chapter. The

subjects will be identified and an explanation of the data that will be collected. The third

chapter will also describe the procedure to be used in the gathering of data. Data analysis

for the study can be found in Chapter 4 and the Summary in Chapter 5.

12

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

For centuries music has been a form of expression and has served as a reflection

of a culture (Dalby, 2005). Music celebrates the good times and gives comfort during the

hard times. Music elicits a physical response from its listeners (Reifinger, 2006). Even

the youngest of children respond to music (Ferguson, 2005). Almost every person has

been swept away by music at one time or another. Toes tap, heads nod, and fingers snap

as a mere subconscious response to the sound of certain types of music (Westervelt,

2002).

Moog’s (1976) landmark study observed that six-month old infants’ first

responses to music often involved the entire body. These responses were considered as

rhythmic due to the repetitive nature of the movement (Reiginger, 2006). Prior to the turn

of the 20th century, movement in the classroom was used as a form of stress relief and a

way to improve posture (Ferguson, 2005). Music educators must understand the nature of

rhythm and how it is learned (Westervelt, 2002). The movement of young children to

music can provide insight as an outward display of an internal understanding (Ferguson,

2005). As students mature, their capacity of musical skills will stabilize and without

further training, will not continue to develop. Music education must see that crucial

rhythmic skills are developed through the use of proper musical experiences (Reifinger,

2006).

Music Learning Theories

Music education has been viewed as an integral component in the educational

experience. Many scholars believe that music education is a critical part of a child’s

13

“complete and aesthetic development” (Barry, 1992 p. 16). Before making instructional

decisions, there must first be an understanding of how students learn. In the past

educational landscape, instructional theories have been based on what Boardman

describes as a “factory model”. This “factory model” theory of learning produced

learning strategies that have been “reductionist, analytical, and linear” (1998, p. 5).

Every profession has a theory that derives from research and theoretical principles

that function as the foundation of practice. This foundation encompasses the “commonly

recognized and accepted action ideals of the profession’s ethical and other guiding

philosophical considerations” (Regelski, 2002 p. 102). Music education curriculums and

other educational subjects are informed by a “synthesis of philosophy, psychology, or

learning theory and praxis” (Abrahams, 2005, p. 7) Music educators are often faced with

multiple diverging practices, which are rarely linked. “The definition of a theoretical

framework for music education is closely related to a general philosophy of education”

(Gruhn, 2006, p 15). However, according to Boardman, music instruction cannot be

based on a specific learning theory (1998). Taetle and Cutietta suggest the importance of

“the creation of a learning theory unique to music” (n.d. p. 294). Regelski also states that

the theoretical principles for music education are “ambiguous at best and controversial at

worst” (2002, p. 102). Isbell seems to agree with this statement, “There is no single

explanation regarding how best to teach music” (2011, p. 23). Music education is a

profession that exists within a multi-faceted discipline. Because music learning is

comprised of complex cognitive processes, this creates the need for diverse learning

theories to attempt to research and enhance the many educational phenomenon existing

within a music education classroom (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.).

14

Through social and educational transitions of the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s

general learning theories began to serve as a foundation for both educational research and

methods (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.) Most general learning theories used in education can

also be dissected into categories that are applicable to music education classrooms.

Theories such as behaviorism, humanism, cognitivism, and constructivism overlap in

music education but differ in the definition of learning, the purpose of education, and the

roles of the teacher and student. However, all four of these theories provide music

education with a “conceptual framework for interpreting the examples of learning”. The

learning theories also offer a specific vocabulary and provide guidance for solutions to

“practical problems” (Isbell, 2011 p. 20). Due to the numerous learning theories

employed in music education, a brief overview will be presented.

The Influence of Piaget

Many learning theories are linked to the work of Swiss child psychologist, Jean

Piaget. Piaget believed that learning was more than a passive cognitive process, but

instead was an active construction of personal experiences (Cognitive, 2015). The work

of Piaget provided insight into the process of learning. Through assimilation and

accommodation, children experience new information, which is then combined with

existing knowledge. Children then re-arrange the known to add new concepts or precepts

(Boardman, 1988). Cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget has shown that thinking follows

action, so essentially there is no difference between thinking and action (Gruhn, 2006).

Piaget’s learning theory was endorsed and accepted during the 1950s through the

1970s. The theory has had monumental influence on preceding cognitive theories, which

still accept and adhere to the precepts of “assimilation and accommodation” (Cognitive,

15

2015 p 5). In a music education setting, pedagogy that employs the use of active learning

enables students to learn by doing. This practice is found in the majority of instructional

methods used in music education (Gruhn, 2006).

Hargraves (1986) and Zimmerman (1992) point to three areas of music learning

research that has been influenced by Piaget’s work. Developmental stages and symbolic

function as it relates to music learning comprise the first two areas of music learning

research. The third area of music learning research has been focused on a concept of

conservation. In this process, young children begin to understand that two properties of a

concrete object can lead to a third property (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.). The work of

Bamberger (1991), which is based on Piaget’s Cognitive Learning theory, relates the

music learning process as one that builds progressively from one experience to the next

(Gruhn, 2006).

Behaviorism and Cognitive Constructivism Theory

There are several lines of thought in regards to how people learn. Behaviorists

claim that knowledge is obtained through passive absorption of experiences and

behaviors. Hodges and Sebald (2011) explain that behaviorism is based on the work of

Ivan Pavlov, which focuses on behaviors that are observable and ways in which the

behaviors can be changed or modified (Isbell, 2011). In this learning theory, students are

passive and demonstrate desired behaviors. In a music classroom, a teacher might

‘modify’ behavior by controlling the classroom decisions. Use of rewards by educators

often stimulate desired behaviors in their classrooms. (Isbell, 2011).

Educators and scholars who have embraced the constructive learning theory, have

been influenced by the works of Vygotsky as well as other prominent psychologists such

16

as John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Jerome Bruner (Isbell, 2011). Cognitive constructionists

see knowledge as an active mental process in which the student builds upon previous

knowledge or experiences (Cognitive, 2015). Cognitivists tend to focus on the hidden

processes rather than observable behaviors. In this learning theory, students are viewed as

individuals who arrive in class with different ways of knowing and understanding. The

goal of the educator is to assist students in the process of understanding (Isbell, 2011).

Based on past learning experiences, a student would retrieve knowledge to increase

understanding. To cognitive constructionists, each person synthesizes current knowledge

as it relates to personal experiences based on past experiences or cultural history

(Cognitive, 2015). Cognitivism learning theory proposes that knowledge is not

transferred from one person to another, but that each individual ‘constructs’ his or her

own knowledge (Isbell, 2011).

Within Cognitivism, there exists differing beliefs in regards to the student and

educator roles. The reception method views the educator as the main focus. In this

method it is the role of the teacher to design and deliver education opportunities for

students who then become passive recipients of knowledge (Isbell, 2011).

Because Cognitive Constructivism proponents view learning as an active rather

than passive process, new knowledge must be presented through active discovery

(Cognitive, 2015 & Isbell, 2011). The role of the instruction moves from teacher-

centered to student-centered. The educator determines current knowledge and provides

opportunities for students to take existing understanding and add new information and

experiences. Students then assimilate existing knowledge and new knowledge to form a

broader scope of information (Cognitive, 2015). This discovery method, according to

17

Isbell, is the foundation or key to understanding the constructivist theories on learning

(2011).

Bruner’s Concept Theory

During the 1960’s, Jerome Bruner’s theories of conceptual learning led to

curricula that was sequenced developmentally (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.). Bruner’s

Concept Theory is primarily a developmental theory; however, the premise applies in a

music education setting (Boardman, 1988). Following the translation of Jean Piaget’s

research into English, Bruner developed his own stages of learning, which has been

widely accepted in music as well as other subjects (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.) The Concept

Theory is based on experience rather than age or stage as proclaimed by other child

psychologists. In Bruner’s modes of representative learning, the usual response of

students begins with an Enactive Representation, which presents understanding through a

motor response when experiencing a new concept (Gault, 2005). Music educators witness

this phenomenon in classes on a regular basis. Boardman claims that without appropriate

educational experiences, basic concepts remain under-developed or false concepts are

accepted as true (1998). Kinesthetic movements such as those used in elementary music,

these activities have the potential to aid in the development of psychomotor awareness.

Psychomotor awareness may lead to better rhythmic performances (Rowher, 1998).

In a music education setting, Bruner’s Concept Theory would dictate that music

symbols be introduced after the student is able to demonstrate the ability to assimilate

musical sounds with iconic notation (Boardman, 1988). Bruner’s spiral curriculum and

conceptual learning has been used as an elemental method of music instruction (Taetle

and Cuttieta, n.d.). Information gathered on children’s perceptual and performance

18

abilities in regards to rhythmic development should be researched in applied in

instrumental settings and assessed empirically (Reifinger, 2006).

Critical Pedagogy

Critical Pedagogy for music education derives from a philosophical framework

based on the Critical Theory as well as an educational psychology referred to as

“Experiential Learning” (Abrahams, 2005 p. 7). Critical Pedagogy can be described as a

flexible pedagogy. Music education approaches such as Orff or Kodaly use a specific

repertoire along with specific teaching procedures. This methodology/theory does not

limit the genre or the teaching sequence. Abrahams notes that Bernice McCarthy views

experiential learning as a model of learning that focuses on conceptual learning. Both the

teacher and the student engage in learning together. Students participate in activities to

construct knowledge, to act and to reflect on their experiences (2005).

Generative Theory and Music Learning Theory

The Generative Theory is based on several cumulative assumptions. The first

assumption is that a basic system as a whole is greater than the part. The second and third

assumption is that symbols and symbol systems represent views of reality and that the

general function of knowledge is generative in nature. This means than an individual can

expand his or her personal understanding beyond the part to the whole. Boardman

explains that music is based on a symbolic system and the interpretation of the symbol

system would be considered as part of the basic unit system (1998). Musical sound could

be viewed as a “symbolic representation of cognitive and emotional activity, just as

language is the symbolic representation of other forms of cognition and emotion”

19

(Boardman, 1998 p. 5). When it comes to learning theories, Boardman emphasizes that

any theory of learning must acknowledge that there is an inter-dependence between

cognition, emotion, and action (1998).

E. Gordon’s Music Learning Theory (MLT) was developed through extensive

research. This theory outlines the learning process in music. Gordon’s MLT provides a

sequential and comprehensive guide for music educators (Sangiorgio, 2006). At the heart

of this learning theory is what Gordon calls audiation. Audiation is the term for thinking

and understanding music in the mind without the presence of sound. Audiation can be

compared as the “musical equivalent” of the cognitive processes that occur during

“thinking in language” (Dalby, n.d. p. 5). Music learning consists of the learning of

patterns, relationships, and structures that compose mental representations of sound

(Sangiorgio, 2006). Gordon’s MLT is similar to the Generative theory in that Gordon’s

theory approaches music education in a process that could be described as

Whole/Part/Whole (Dalby, n.d.).

Elementary Music Education Instructional Practices

The process of learning music closely relates to the process of language

acquisition process. Children begin with a type of musical sound vocabulary, which

enables them to become familiar with melodic and rhythmic patterns found in songs, as

well as aural recognition of instrumental sounds. Music educators should approach

instruction in such a way to develop musical understanding by helping students to learn

to ‘speak’ and ‘think’ through musical experiences (Gruhn, 2006). Gruhn notes that

educators should use singing, moving, and playing instruments to build mental

20

representations. Because learning is the sequential process of developing mental

representations, music educators need to follow an effective instructional approach

(2006). There are many popular methods and instructional approaches available to

elementary music educators. Some educators choose to primarily use one method, while

others choose to blend characteristics from many methods. Three of the methods will be

briefly examined and will not contain a comprehensive report.

Elementary Teaching Methods

The Orff Schulwerk approach to learning music can be summed up in these four

words: sing, say, dance, and play. The Orff Schulwerk method for teaching and learning

music was developed by Carl Orff and Gunild Keetman. At the core of the philosophical

approach to teaching children is active music making. This approach is cognizant of the

conceptual and affective development of children (What is Orff?, n.d.). The main

emphasis of the Orff approach is to develop the awareness of an internal steady beat and

enable children to become musically independent (Long, 2013). Students engage in

creative thinking, movement, and play xylophones, which are often referred to as “Orff”

instruments (What is, n.d.). Musical independence is nurtured through experiences such

as exploration, dance and movement, composition, improvisation, and performance

(Long, 2013). In teaching melody and rhythm, “the guiding principles are that notation

and reading be built on known musical materials and that sound precede symbol” (What

is, n.d. para.1)

Educators using a Kodaly approach provide music instruction that is child

centered and in a logical and sequential process. Although the Kodaly approach is often

referred to as a method, Geoghegan suggests that it should instead be viewed as a series

21

of guidelines (2006). The Kodaly approach advocates hearing the sound before reading

standard music notation. Singing is taught using solfege syllables (for example: do, re,

mi) to represent pitches in the scale. Along with using solfege syllables, Kodaly also used

Curwen hand signs to represent each pitch name which would serve as a visual

representation of the relative position of each pitch in the scale (Geoghegan, 2006). Of

particular interest to this study is the use of rhythmic names to represent the length or

duration of a note or rhythmic pattern. For example, a quarter note in common time

would be spoken as a “ta”. Two eighth notes would be spoken as “ti-ti” and four

sixteenth notes are spoken as “ti-ka-ti-ka”.

E. Gordon’s Music Learning Theory (MLT) places great emphasis on the process

of audiation, which relates to the “musical equivalent of thinking in language” (Dalby,

n.d., p. 5). Audiation of tonal and rhythmic patterns is the main focus of MLT. Gordon’s

method of teaching music is both comprehensive and sequential. MLT, along with other

music teaching methods such as the Orff and Kodaly methods employ the sequence of

‘sound before sight’. Dalby explains that students develop rhythmic and tonal vocabulary

patterns through experiences such as singing, performing, and rhythmic movement before

seeing symbolic music notation. MLT approaches instruction through a process known as

Whole/Part/Whole. Students hear the whole song or section of music and then discover

parts of the whole through discovery.

In regards to rhythmic instruction, students must develop a sense of meter, pulse,

steady beat, and microbeat. This is accomplished through movement. MLT also uses

rhythmic syllables based on beat function. Gordon’s system is based on how rhythmic

patterns are audiated (Dalby, n.d.)

22

History of Movement in Music Education

Movement became part of the musical landscape in U.S. schools at the beginning

of the 20th century. This inclusion of movement in elementary music was influenced by

the work of Jacques Dalcroze and John Dewey. Dalcroze’s successful work with

eurhythmics training in music classes coupled with Dewey’s progressive education

model, which focused on the creative work of children ushered in a new era of movement

as a pedagogical tool (Ferguson, 2005).

Since 1994, national and state standards have advocated movement instruction as

a component of the music curriculum, which indicates the importance of movement in

music education (Westervelt, 2002). However, the suggestion of movement in music

classes met with serious obstacles just as any new methodology does when it is

introduced. Conflicts centered on the types of movement and the philosophical

differences about rhythmic understanding (Ferguson, 2005). Conservative educators of

the day such as Giddings, Earhart, Kwalwasser, and Seashure believed that rhythmic

ability was more of an inherited trait that could not be altered through instruction. More

progressive educators of the day, Gehrkins, Mursell, and Farnsworth believed that

children could develop rhythmic understanding while participating and experiencing

body movement activities. These progressive educators felt that movement should

include large muscle movements, while the conservative educators suggested the use of

small muscle movements, such as the tapping of a finger (Ferguson, 2005).

Rhythm and Importance of Movement

All around the world, music shares a common important component: rhythm

(Dalby, 2005). How exactly is rhythm defined? The term originates in the Greek

23

language as “rhythmos” or “flow”. As humans listen to or perform music, he or she feels

the rhythm and as a result either overtly or covertly moves to the rhythm or “flow” of the

music (Westervelt, 2002). The “flow” of music is often referred to as the pulse or the

beat. Most everyone can easily recognize a pulse in music, and the body responds with

some type of movement. Listening to music often results in a tap of the foot, a nod of the

head, or a snap of the fingers (Cash, 2011).

Jacques Dalcroze, creator of Eurhythmics believed that awareness of musical

rhythm only comes through experiences of movement of the entire body. Gerald Edelman

developed a neurological theory about movement and rhythm. According to this study,

Edelman claimed that a motor response is needed as music is being taught about or

learned (Westervelt, 2002).

Movement in Elementary Music. Many elementary educators of general music

classes are familiar with the movement methodologies, such as Orff, Dalcroze, and

Kodaly, and have implemented these methods as a primary step in the process of learning

music (Rowher, 1998). Most professional literature examines the use of movement with

students in preschool or primary age subjects. Studies indicate that large-motor

movements in music classrooms produce positive results. Joseph (1982) conducted a

study with kindergarten students using Dalcroze eurhythmics. Students who received this

treatment out-performed in the areas of recognition and response in regards to familiar

rhythmic patterns within unfamiliar music. These students also out-performed in the area

of improvisational activities (Ferguson, 2005). Students should be able to move and feel

both macro and micro beats within the music. Movement only to a macro beat might

24

cause some students to never learn to feel the subdivision of the beat, which is an

essential skill in rhythmic performance (Conway, 2003).

Movement Coupled with Multiple Modes. At the most basic level, people learn

rhythm through movement (Westervelt, 2005). Dalcroze, Kodaly, and Orff methods all

promote multi-sensory musical experiences before conceptual understanding (Gault,

2005). Elementary music education in the United States has employed the use of the

sound-to-symbol approach for the last few decades (Feldman & Contzius, n.d.). One way

elementary students learn rhythmic patterns is through the use of spoken syllables which

acts as an oral coding of the sounds before the visual picture of iconic notation

(Reifinger, 2006). Kodaly methods support the sound-to-symbol approach by providing

experience before notation as well as singing games and movements to build musical

development (Feldman & Contzius, n.d.).

There are several methods used by educators that encompass multiple modalities.

The Kodaly method uses the words “ta and ti-ti” to correspond with note durations. The

work of Gordon includes the use of “du and di” which represents the metrical placement

of notes. Some educators use a Word method, which employs the use of novel word

syllables to correspond with rhythmic groupings (Reifinger, 2006). Many educators

approach rhythm instruction using either a visual/oral combination or an aural/kinesthetic

combination (Persellin, 1982). Reifinger notes that the mode in which patterns are

presented affects the performance of rhythms. The use of verbal, kinesthetic, and aural

presentation is an effective way to reach all learning styles (2006). Feldman & Contzius

propose that students must learn rhythm by the way it feels and sounds. Visual

25

connection comes afterward as a symbolic representation of what the student has already

experienced (n.d.).

Studies of Movements in Education. The music education community has

embraced the importance of movement as tool in learning rhythm in recent decades.

Pioneers of movement in music such as Gordon, Orff, and Dalcroze consistently advocate

movement in relation to rhythmic learning rather than a purely intellectual process such

as mathematics (Dalby, 2005). Most professional literature examines the use of

movement with young students rather than older elementary or middle school students.

This may reflect a trend of a decrease in the use of movement as a tool as students mature

(Ferguson, 2005).

Even though movement has been proven to be a useful tool in learning strategies

for rhythm, experimental situations have shown mixed results. A study by Salzberg and

Wang (1989) noted that movement was more difficult than counting aloud (a traditional

method) for younger students (Rowher, 1998). In work with third grade elementary

students, Persellin noted that movement seemed to be a distraction to rhythmic learning

due to the fact that students concentrated more on the movement than on the music

(1982). Rowher’s study appeared to show that the use of body movement activities in

various tempi did have a positive effect on sixth-grade beginning instrumental student

performance (Rowher, 1998). Research with mixed-age groups by Groves (1969), Jersild

and Bienstock (1935) and Smoll (1974) suggest that the maturation process rather than

training has shown the best results on improvement in rhythm performance (Rowher,

1998). In another study by Crumpler (1983), first grade students receiving movement

methods showed improvement in musical performance (Ferguson, 2005).

26

INSTRUMENTAL TEACHING METHODS

In 1857, Boston’s Farm and Trade school became the first site for an instrumental

school music program. Instrumental classes were very few in number and were not

included in the school day, nor did the students receive academic credit. The early

instrumental programs lacked “standard teaching methods, instrumentation, or curricula”

(Humphrey, 1989 p. 52). Band Training Series: Reed, Brass and Drum Ensemble became

the first method book specific to band instruction. This method dates back to Louis M.

Gordon in 1926 (Watkins, 2011). In the early 1920’s, more schools began to include band

classes during the day and students began receive academic credit. Private instruction

slowly gave way to classes of instrumental instruction. Albert Mitchell, a music

supervisor in Boston, created a class method book for violin in 1912. The performance of

his violin class at the Music Supervisor’s National Conference in 1920 demonstrated the

effective nature of class instrumental instruction. Other instrument specific method books

began to be available (Humphrey, 1989).

For most beginning band classes, the method book functions as the main

curriculum (Byo, 1988). The method book is usually the main resource for the first

several years of a student’s instrumental instruction (Watkins, 2011). Instrumental

method books are accepted as a self-sufficient curriculum, which is often delivered with

little thought or evaluation (Regelski, 2002). Because of the important role of method

books, instrumental educators must be cognizant of the pedagogical and musical precepts

of the chosen method (Byo, 1988).

Instrumental Methods of Teaching Rhythm. Most instrumental classes

approach rhythm instruction from a mathematical perspective based on the ratio of note

27

durations (Dalby, 1999). A whole note (w) divides into half equals two half notes (h). A

half note divides into two-quarter notes (q q) and each basic beat divides into smaller

fractions of the whole. This way of teaching rhythm is often referred to as the rhythm

tree. Rhythmic patterns are then taught by counting each beat of the music. An example

of the number system for counting rhythms in common time would look like this:

Many instrumental educators rely on rote teaching of rhythmic patterns in an

effort to help students feel successful immediately (Richardson, 2008). If the rhythmic

pattern is one that occurs in songs that the student knows, he or she will probably be able

to play that pattern without much formal instruction. However, when that same pattern is

moved to an unfamiliar piece of music, the student often cannot play the pattern correctly

(Sale, Walton, Glennon, Cook, Klein, Mills, Stadler & Lopez, 2013). This method of rote

teaching can be used effectively, at least until the rhythms become more complicated or

occur more frequently (Richardson, 2008). The difficulty with this approach is that

understanding rhythm and meter is more than the use of a mathematical formula (Dalby,

2005).

Comparison of Elementary and Beginning Band Methods of Rhythmic Instruction

Although the idea of singing and moving in instrumental classes is not new, the

concepts are not widely used even though it has been shown that these methods will

28

enhance music achievement (Conway, 2003). Most instrumental classes have not used

basic kinesthetic learning methods that are so readily used in general elementary music

(Rowher, 1998). Dalby agrees that the pedagogical practices successfully used in

elementary classes are not typically used in band or orchestra rehearsals (1999). This may

be because instrumental instructors assume, (either correctly or incorrectly) that students

have attained a reasonable level of rhythmic ability before the age of instrumental classes

(Rowher, 1998). As students move to a rhythmic pattern, they begin to feel it. Once the

student connects the feeling experience to the written notation, he or she will be able to

recognize the pattern in unfamiliar music (Sale, Walton, Glennon, Cook, Klein, Mills,

Stadler & Lopez, 2013).

Cash suggests that feeling a strong sense of inner pulse is a prerequisite for

playing rhythmically (2011). Instrumental instructors should enable students to

internalize rhythm through movement (Dalby, 1999). There are many methods of

teaching rhythm, but even within the same method there are inconsistencies from school

to school and from teacher to teacher practice (Dalby, 2005). Instrumental students who

arrive in a band or orchestra class without an internal sense of steady beat, usually gained

by movement activities in elementary music classes, must not only learn basic music

skills, but kinesthetic skills as well (Rowher, 1998). Students who cannot perform a

steady beat would need movement instruction before activities that require the

performance of a steady beat (Conway, 2003).

In learning to play an instrument, students must learn note reading, develop aural

skills, and technique all while feeling the steady beat (Rowher, 1998). Reading music

notation and the rhythms contained within is an important part of beginning instrumental

29

classes, but students cannot learn to read and interpret the rhythm unless they have first

experienced the notation through movement (Conway, 2003).

Rhythm that is taught through audiation (or hearing the music in the mind)

requires students to interpret the beat based on how it is felt in the body. Educational

leaders such as Dalcroze, Laban, Weikart, and Gordon all emphasize the importance of

the use of movement to internalize rhythm (Dalby, 1999).

Rhythm instruction could be improved by not beginning with mathematical values

or counting. However, it is imperative to begin with experiences to enhance the student’s

physical and aural responses to music (Cash, 2011). Just because a student may have an

intellectual understanding of the arithmetic behind rhythmic values does not guarantee an

ability to perform the rhythms correctly (Dalby, 2005). Although many teachers begin

rhythmic instruction with the ratio of note values, this is counter-productive because

rhythmic audiation and mathematical concepts are very different cognitive functions

(Dalby, 2005).

Conway states that young instrumental students must move their bodies in order

to internalize sub-division of the beat. By experiencing and internalizing various

rhythmic patters, students cognitively bring meaning to written notation when it is

introduced (2003). When allowed the freedom to move to the music, the human body will

respond to the music in ways that are different from the traditional rigid rules of music

notation and theory (Dalby, 2005). Regardless of the counting system used, students must

physically feel the relationships between beat, subdivision and rhythm (Richardson,

2008).

30

A study by Rohwer (1998) showed that sixth-grade beginning band students who

used movement along with metaphysical imagery seemed to demonstrate improvement in

performance (Ferguson, 2005). Studies by Bebeau (1982) and Colley (1987) found that

rhythmic reading based on speech cues were more successful than the traditional number

based system (Santelli, 2007).

A study by Santelli (2007) investigated the rhythmic ability of fifth grade

elementary students and sixth grade students enrolled in beginning band. When sixth

grade beginning band student were allowed to choose the method of response, they did

not choose to use the rhythmic syllables (such as Kodaly or Orff) that they had learned

through out elementary music classes. Instead, the students used the number counting

system (1 & 2 & 3-e-&-a 4). Santelli attributes the use of the number system of counting

and performing rhythms due the method of instruction. Counting and clapping rhythmic

instruction was what the students had experienced in beginning band. Santelli suggests

that this method of rhythmic counting could not be easily applied to the more difficult

rhythmic patterns (2007).

Comparison of Rhythmic Patterns in Elementary and Beginning Band

An examination of several fifth grade music instruction frameworks contained

standard rhythmic patterns. Alfred’s Music Expressions and Music Play curriculums for

fifth grade listed rhythmic patterns that included whole, half, dotted half, quarter note,

two-eighth notes, sixteenth notes, syncopation and combinations of eighth

and sixteenth note patterns Alfred’s and Music Play

also included corresponding rests for whole, half, quarter and eighth notes. Both the state

of Texas and Tennessee list the same rhythmic patterns in their frameworks for fifth

31

grade students (Fine Arts:, n.d. & Music Curriculum, n.d.). The Tennessee standard for

sixth grade also included sixteenth and eighth-sixteenth note patterns (Fine Arts: n.d.).

Beginning band method books do not include the same rhythmic patterns that

most elementary method courses cover. Gage’s 1994 study revealed that of the four

method books studied there was a deficiency or deficit in “a sequence of rhythmic

instruction between the methods” (Wakins, 2011 p. 40). It is especially important to note

that the majority of beginning band methods do not use curricula that supports and builds

upon student’s previous knowledge, but instead seems to assume “that student have little

accumulated rhythmic knowledge” (Santelli, 2007 p. 76).

In 1988, Byo completed a comparative analysis of nine beginning band method

books that were published in the late 70’s to early 80’s. For the purpose of this study only

the comparison of rhythmic elements were included. Only two of the nine beginning

methods included sixteenth notes, and only one exercise out of the entire book was

devoted to this rhythmic pattern. Eight of the nine method books used the number system

for counting rhythms rather than a rhythm syllable approach such as what is used in

elementary methods. Three of the nine method books used a type of movement other than

tapping a foot. Six of the beginning methods did not use any other type of movement in

rhythm instruction. When compared to the movement activities used in elementary

methods, beginning band methods did not use the technique to enhance rhythm

instruction.

32

In a more recent study, Watkins (2011) completed a dissertation based on the

analysis of beginning band method books. The twelve method books chosen for this

study were selected based on two criteria: the most recent publications (between 1994

Table 1

Comparative analysis of nine beginning band methods

Musical Concept # of methods including the

concept

# of methods who did

not include the

concept Rhythmic Chant/Syllables

used for rhythm instruction

4

5

Counting using a number

system for rhythm instruction

8

1

Movement used in rhythmic

instruction: foot tapping

6

3

Other movements used for

rhythmic instruction

3

6

Rhythmic patterns & meters # of methods including the

pattern

# of methods who did

not included the

pattern

Compound meters such

as

1

8

Irregular Meters

2

7

Cut Time

2

7

Time signatures

9

0

6

3

8

1

2 *at least one exercise

7

33

and 2010) and the level of availability to the national consumer base. Although Watkins’s

study focused on the method books and national music standards, the focus for this study

will be the rhythmic evaluations of the twelve band methods for year one students (2011).

Eleven out of twelve did not include sixteenth notes in first year of instruction. Five out

of seven methods included singing and two out of twelve provided a sound before sight

opportunity, which has been proposed by at least three of the most influential music

teaching methodologists.

Although beginning band students do have many new tasks such as breath support

and control, tone production, and fingerings, consistent curricular alignment would

Table 2

Comparative Analysis of twelve band methods (1994-2010)

Rhythmic Content and

other elements

# of methods

included

# of methods that

did not include

Compound meters

1

Jump Right In

11

y A rests

1

Jump Right In

11

Opportunity to sing

Yamaha Advantage

Measures of Success (3 times)

Jump Right In (22 times

using Solfege syllables)

Do It! Play in Band (40 times)

Band Expressions (3 times)

5

7

Sing, Clap, & Play

Sound Innovations

1

11

Play Before Notation

Measures of Success

Do It! Play in Band

Do It! Play in Band

2

10

34

ensure that students do not lose rhythmic vocabulary by starting a completely new way of

rhythm instruction (Santelli, 2007). Pierce’s 1992 study found that similar rhythmic tasks

resulted in an increase in the possibility of transfer (Santelli, 2007). Rowher’s work with

sixth-grade beginning instrumentalists suggests that rhythmic skills should be introduced

using a basic kinesthetic experience for students in order to aid in the connection of

cognitive understanding of note length as well as the overt experiences of movement or

flow in meter (1998). Even educators who take a more standard approach of instrumental

instruction can provide the benefits of the addition of movement and singing into their

professional practice (Conway, 2003). Rowher states the most important information

gained from rhythmic study is that steady beat skills can be improved with the use of

kinesthetic or movement activities (1998).

35

CHAPTER 3

Methodology

Research Design

The study followed a cross-sectional, quantitative pre-test and post-test measure

of the rhythmic performance of sixth grade beginning band students. Students were tested

on rhythms commonly used in the elementary method books at the beginning of the sixth

grade year before band method book instruction. The same instrument was used toward

the end of the year after students experienced band method book rhythmic instruction.

The results were compared to determine gains or losses in rhythmic performance.

Research Participants and Setting for the Study

The setting for this study included a small parochial school as well as a rural sixth

grade beginning band class at a local middle school. The intact classes at the small

parochial school were the basis for convenience sampling. Demographic Information was

gathered from the school admission’s office. Total enrollment as of October, 2015 for

the parochial school was (483) pre-K through twelfth grade. Parents pay tuition and

limited financial assistance can be available for families who qualify. Students were pre-

dominantly Caucasian (eighty-seven percent). Boarding students from many countries

live on the campus. The number of Asian students (thirty-nine percent) represented the

largest international group. African-American students (.02%), students from the country

of Africa (.01%), and Hispanic/Latino/Non-Hispanic/Latino (.018%) represented the

smaller population of internationals. The smallest percent of nationalities included multi-

racial (.02%), Native American (.002), and Other (.006%).

The number of subjects in the study was dependent on the number of students

who choose to participate in band. The class size for this study began with fourteen

36

students, but one student dropped and the other was not able to participate due to multiple

absences. Four female students and nine male students comprised the in-tact study

group. Once permission was granted by school administration and IRB approval was

obtained, student testing began.

Demographic information for the rural public middle school showed enrollment

of 1077 students as of 2015. Sixty-seven percent were white, twenty-four percent were

black, and six percent of students are Hispanic. Fifty-seven percent of the students at this

school qualified for free or reduced lunch (State Report Card. (n.d.). Beginning band

students (sixth grade) from a local middle school, (n=7) were also tested toward the end

of beginning band method instruction. Two visits were made to the school in order to

recruit volunteer students to participate. A minimal number of parental permission slips

were returned due to schedule changes for standardized testing, shortened class times,

and a week long spring break. The volunteer subject group was comprised of 6 males and

1 female student.

Data Collection Procedures

Before beginning the study, students provided basic personal information such as

age, gender, and indicated if they had participated in private instruction on an instrument.

This information was used to determine if private lessons had provided a student with

more rhythmic competence. A researcher-designed instrument of seven (7) common

rhythmic patterns used in two different popular fifth grade elementary level method

books (Silver-Burdette and Alfred’s Music Expressions) was designed and analyzed by a

practicing university faculty member familiar with general music methods to validate the

measure. (Ary, Jacobs, Sorenson & Walker, 2014). Because there is no standardized

37

rhythmic testing measure, a researcher-designed rhythmic test was developed based upon

state standards, two elementary fifth grade curriculum standards, and consultation with

one retired and three practicing music educators in music education. Once the measure

was designed, a pilot study was conducted using current fifth grade students and one

rising sixth grade student. Using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 test for reliability, the

designed test measure rated .86. Reliability “refers to the confidence that the test score

will be the same across repeated administrations of the test” (Brogan, 2009). Test

measure reliability of .86 would be considered as “highly acceptable” (Frisbie, 1988).

Rising sixth grade students were tested using the researcher-designed rhythmic

test before instrumental method book rhythmic instruction was introduced. The students

were assigned a random number identity. The identity of the student was kept

confidential and only the researcher had access to the key. It was explained to the student

that he or she would decide how they wanted to perform the rhythms: the patterns could

be spoken, clapped, both spoken and clapped or any other the way as long as it could be

audibly recorded. Students were instructed to speak the word “skip” if they were unsure

of a specific rhythm and to speak the word “rest” if a rest was included in the pattern. It

was explained that there was no right or wrong way to perform the rhythmic patterns.

Students were assured that their performance did not affect their grade. Each participant

was given a brief moment to study the rhythm. At this point, the students were

individually recorded as they performed the pre-test. A spoken steady beat was given to

each student (1, 2, ready, go) to set a tempo and to inform the student when to begin. The

student then performed the rhythmic patterns. Students nearing the end of fifth grade

were also tested so that a comparison could be made between the rhythmic achievements

38

of current fifth graders. The fifth grade intact classes followed the same procedures as

described above. This data was compared to the scores of the beginning band students

before band method rhythmic instruction.

Two practicing music educators were taught how to score the results. The

assessors as a group scored a practice set of recordings that was not to be used in the

study. Each beat of the rhythmic pattern was counted as correct or incorrect. Two music

educators and the researcher rated the ability of the student to keep a steady beat

throughout each of the exercises by indicating Yes or No. The researcher also noted

which method the student used to perform the rhythm (count & clap, the use of rhythm

syllables, or other ways in which students respond). This enabled the researcher to

compare the results based on the chosen method of performance.

There were a total of seven rhythmic patterns. The patterns were printed as flash

cards. The flash cards were presented to three groups of students who were divided

randomly. Each group of students received the flash cards in a different order. The sets of

flash cards were labeled Set A, Set B, and Set C. The researcher created a master list that

noted the order in which the rhythms are presented in each set. This process enabled data

to be separated and analyzed to see if the order of presentation yielded differing results.

The same instrument was presented as a post-test toward the end of the school

year. The students performed the same rhythm set (A, B, or C) in both the pre-test and the

post-test. The same procedures were followed for recording student performances of the

rhythmic patterns, as well as the same system of scoring was utilized for the post-test

measure. The rhythmic test was also given to the students at a local middle school toward

39

the end of the school year as a comparison to the rhythm achievement post-test sixth

grade beginning band group.

Data Analysis

Data collected from the pre-test rhythmic measurement was scored by qualified

music educators and analyzed by the researcher. In order to ensure that the results were

not skewed by fifth grade students who had participated in private instrumental lessons,

an independent samples t-test was used to compare the mean scores of students in private

lessons and those were not. In order to determine if a transfer of learning occurred

regarding the student’s rhythmic reading and performance skills, a cross-sectional design

compared the rhythmic achievement of current fifth grade elementary music students

who received consistent instruction and sixth grade band students who experienced band

method rhythmic instruction. The mean scores as well as standard deviations between the

pre-test and post-test were analyzed based on independent samples t-test.

Ethical Issues

Permission to conduct the study was secured from university International Review

Board, school administration, and permission was obtained through the local public

school Research and Development board. The subjects were considered as minimal risk

as it is an occasion that students may experience during a normal school day. Parents

were given the choice to permit or prevent the student’s participation. Students were also

given an explanation of the study and asked if they want to participate. It was stressed to

the student that participation was voluntary, and nothing bad would happen if they chose

not to participate. Students were informed that they may stop participation in the study at

any time without consequence. They were also assured of confidentiality and that they

40

would not be graded in any way. The study was conducted during regular class time and

did not require any time outside of class. (See Appendix D & Appendix E)

Once permission was granted from the parent and the student, the student was assigned a

random number and only the researcher had access to the key. Music educators who

scored the rhythmic test only knew the participant by number.

41

Chapter 4

Results of Data Analysis

The purpose of this study was to determine if the difference in rhythmic

instruction practices between fifth grade (Group AA) and sixth grade beginning band

(Group AB) effects the rhythmic performance of students. Seven common rhythmic

patterns were performed by fifth grade students toward the end of the fifth year after a

consistent method of rhythmic instruction and sixth grade students after beginning band

method’s different rhythmic instruction. Students were also rated on the ability to

maintain a steady beat. The seven rhythmic patterns were divided into three sets, A, B,

and C each presenting the patterns in a different order.

Because there is no standardized rhythmic testing measure, a researcher designed

rhythmic test was developed based upon state standards, two elementary fifth grade

curriculum standards, and consultation with experts in music education. Once the

measure had been designed a pilot study was conducted using current fifth grade students

and one rising sixth grade student. Using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 test for

reliability, the designed test measure rated .86.

Inter-Rater Reliability

Two practicing music educators and the researcher individually rated each

student’s performance. Assessors attended a training session prior to rating each student

performance. A rating sheet containing the exact rhythmic patterns was designed to

match each pattern set A, B or C flashcard set the student read and performed. Each beat

of the pattern would be marked as correct or left blank if incorrect. Student responses

were marked as correct or incorrect and steady beat was marked as Yes or No. Student

recordings could be re-played as needed by assessors to ensure accurate results. A total of

42

52 possible points for each student was possible. In order to determine the inter-rater

reliability of student performances (n=12), Cohen’s Kappa formula revealed .74 rating

between two practicing music educators.

Presentation of the Data

A pre-test was given on the dependent measure to identify gains or loss in rhythmic

performance before and after band method instruction. Data was gathered from rising

sixth graders (Group AB n=12) before beginning band method. The pre-test resulted in

(M=34, SD = 6.38) out of the fifty-two possible points. The rhythmic pattern set means

are noted in the table below:

Table 3

Beginning Band Pre-test Pattern Set Mean

Group AB* Pattern Set A Pattern Set B Pattern Set C

35 30 34

Table notes. *new method of rhythmic instruction

In mid February, the students performed the same rhythm pattern set A, B, or C as

the pre-test. From mid September to mid February the students experienced a new way of

counting and performing rhythms as indicated by the beginning band method. The post-

test scores for the sixth grade beginning band (M=36, SD= 3.21). The rhythmic pattern

set means are noted in the table below.

Table 4

Beginning Band Post-test Pattern Set Mean

Group AB* Pattern Set A Pattern Set B Pattern Set C

35 37 36

43

A dependent t-test showed there was not a significant difference between pre-test and

post-test scores (t(12)=1.83, p=.42) of the beginning band students who experienced new

rhythmic instruction.

Table 5

Beginning Band Pre/Post Dependent t-test

Mean SD Stand. Error Mean t df p

Group AB* 1.83 7.69 2.22 .82 11 .42

Table Notes. SD =

Standard

Deviation

df = Degrees of

Freedom

*new method of rhythmic

instruction

Students who performed pattern set A and C scored the same mean (M=35, M=36)

respectively. Pattern set B saw the biggest increase from (M=30) to (M=37). The

dependent t-test result suggests that the beginning band students did not show significant

growth (p=.42) after several months of band method instruction in rhythmic performance.

The performance of rhythmic patterns then remained static with neither increases or

decreases.

Beginning band students from a local middle school, (n=7) were also

tested toward the end of beginning band method instruction. The public school was

visited on at least two occasions in order to recruit volunteer students to participate.

There were a minimal number of parental permission responses due to schedule changes

for standardized testing, shortened class times, and a week long spring break.

It is important to note that the beginning band students at the local middle school also

used the same beginning band method book as the pre-test/post-test group. These

students were tested in the same manner as the other groups, each subject was randomly

assigned to rhythm pattern set A, B, or C. The students were recorded and the scores

44

were assessed by the same educators. Results for these students (n=7) showed (M=20, SD

3.64). Pattern set results can be seen in the table below.

Table 6

Public School Group AB* Beginning Band Pattern Set Mean

Pattern Set A Pattern Set B Pattern Set C

35 32 34

Table notes. * New rhythmic instruction methods

Fifth grade students (Group AA) who had consistent rhythmic instruction (n=27)

were assigned to a pattern set randomly in order of performance. The scores of fifth grade

students (M=37, SD=4.84). Pattern set means can be seen below.

Table 7

Group AA*Pattern Set Means

Pattern Set A Pattern Set B Pattern Set C

35

37

40

Table notes. *Consistent method of rhythmic instruction

In order to measure the difference in performance abilities between fifth grade

students who continued to count and perform rhythms as previously presented (consistent

method), and beginning band students (new method) after a shift in band method

rhythmic instruction, an independent samples t-test compared the fifth grade scores and

all sixth grade scores, from both public and private schools. The independent samples t-

test showed a significant difference (p=.026) between students who had rhythmic

instruction in a consistent manner verses the beginning band students who had a different

method of rhythmic instruction.

45

Table 8

Independent Sample T-test

Mean SD df p

Group

AB*

35.03 3.21 19 .0 26

Group

AA**

37.48 4.84 26

Table Notes. SD = Standard Deviation df = Degrees of Freedom

*All beginning band student’s new method of rhythm instruction

**Consistent method of rhythm instruction

The steady beat was rated for each of the seven patterns as a Yes or No. Some

students were able to perform the rhythms correctly, but not within a steady beat. For

instance, Group AB pre-test scores for steady beat were two out of seven while the post-

test scores were three of seven. Mean scores for Group AB steady beat revealed that two

out of seven patterns were performed with steady beat.

The method in which students chose to perform the rhythmic patterns included

speaking only, clapping only, speaking and clapping, or some other method. Sixty-seven

percent of students in both the pre and post-tests choose to clap rhythmic patterns.

Seventeen percent performed rhythms in the speaking only and speaking and clapping

methods in both the pre and post-test.

Table 9

Method of Rhythmic Performance Group AB* (Pre & Post-Test)

Class Clapping Speaking Speaking/Clapping n

Group AB Pre-Test 67% 17% 17% 12

Mean 34.75

30.5

34

Group AB Post-Test 67%

17%

17% 12

Mean 37.14 32 32

Table notes. n=number of participants *new method of instruction

For the pre-test, sixth grade students beginning band students performed the rhythmic

patterns sixteen weeks (normally this would only be an eight-week summer break) after

46

fifth grade rhythmic instruction, which is reflected in the method of performance. Sixty-

seven percent of the subjects chose to perform the rhythms by clapping. Both speaking or

speaking and clapping were performed by seventeen percent of the subjects. The pre-test

resulted in the same percentage in each of the three categories. Considering that the sixth

grade students did not show any significant difference (p=.42) between pre and post-test

experience it stands to reason that their methods would not change. There was not a

continuation or repetition of previous rhythmic instruction methods but an absence of

familiar instruction which included both speaking and clapping of rhythms. Four students

who did speak continued to use the syllables, “ta, ti-ti”, even if the syllables were used

incorrectly.

Twenty-two percent of fifth grade subjects performed rhythms by clapping in

contrast to fifty-five percent of the 6th beginning band subjects. Forty-eight percent of

fifth graders chose to perform rhythmic patterns by speaking, while thirty-percent chose

to speak and clap the pattern. Most elementary methods utilize speaking of rhythms in

early grades and then add clapping to speaking in upper grades rhythmic instruction. Fifth

grade subjects in this study had a higher percentage of performance with either speaking

(48%) or speaking and clapping (30%). The students in fifth grade who utilized speaking

had the highest mean (M=54) in comparison to those students who only utilized clapping

(M=34).

47

Table 10

Method of Rhythmic Performance Comparison (GroupAB* and Group AA**)

Class Clapping Speaking Speaking/Clapping Clapping/other n

Group AB* 55% 15% 15% 10% 19

Mean 36.82 31.66 33.66 35

Group AA** 22% 48% 30% N/A 27

Mean 34 54 38

Table notes. n=number of participants *inconsistent rhythmic instruction ** new

rhythmic instruction

Beginning band students (Group AB) with new rhythmic instruction performed by

clapping (fifty-five percent), which reflects the method book of clapping and performing

rhythmic patterns (M=37). Both speaking and speaking/clapping represented fifteen

percent each, which is surprising since the method book uses both clapping and counting

aloud. The subjects who performed using speaking/clapping at the same time scored

higher (M=33.66) than those who only spoke (M=31.66).

The seven patterns were divided into three different sets, which presented the

rhythmic patterns in different order of progressions. Most rhythmic instruction for

elementary students begin with quarter notes and paired eighth-notes (Black, 1982). The

pattern sets did not follow a specific recommended order in order to determine if the

presentation of the patterns had an effect on the performance of the subjects. The subjects

who performed pattern set A (n=19) had the lowest overall score (M=35.11). Pattern set

B (n=16) scores were just slightly higher (M=35.38). Subjects (n=14) who had the

highest scores performed pattern set C (M=38.57).

Table 11

Pattern Set Means All Subjects

Pattern Set A Pattern Set B Pattern Set C

35.11 35.38 38.57

n= 19 16 14

48

The rhythmic presentation of patterns in set C follow more closely the recommended

progression of rhythmic patterns (Black, 1982). This suggests that the order of rhythms

may have had an effect on the performance of the rhythms. Students are most familiar

with quarter notes and rests, paired eighth-notes, and half notes and rests due to the

repetition/performance of these patterns throughout elementary music.

The null hypothesis for this study stated that the, “difference between

elementary and beginning band methods has no effect on student rhythmic achievement”.

The data gathered revealed a significant difference (p=.026) between students who had

consistent rhythmic instruction (Group AA) and beginning band students (Group AB)

who experienced a new method of rhythmic instruction. Therefore, the null hypothesis

for this study is rejected.

49

Chapter 5

Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a difference in rhythmic

instruction from consistent methods as used in elementary music education methods to

the different methods of rhythmic instruction as found in most beginning band method

books. One of the major differences between elementary music and beginning band

classes is that many elementary methodologies use word cues such as the Kodaly, Orff,

Gordon, or Takidimi method of rhythmic syllables to teach rhythmic patterns.

(Richardson, 2008). In beginning band however, the majority of band method books

approach rhythmic instruction using a mathematical approach or a counting system (Byo,

1988, Mason, 2012, Richardson, 2008, Santelli, 2007, & Dalby, 1999). This change in

rhythmic method instruction can cause confusion. Santelli suggests that if the same

method of rhythmic instruction is used and presented in elementary and middle school

music classes, students are then able to build upon their previous knowledge and

experiences (2007).

Jerome Bruner’s theories of conceptual learning led to curricula that were

sequenced developmentally. Although Bruner’s theory is primarily a developmental

theory, the premise applies in a music education setting (Boardman, 1988). Bruner’s

spiral curriculum and conceptual learning has been used as an elemental method of music

instruction (Taetle and Cuttieta, n.d.). A comparison of elementary and middle school

band methods reveals that there is very little to no “conceptual cohesiveness or curricular

unity” between the two areas even though there may only be one summer between the

methods. It was if students experienced music from one grade level to the next as an

50

“isolated entity” (Woods, 1982). When music educators provide music concepts in

similar ways to those used in upper level general music classes, a transfer of learning can

occur from one grade or class to the next level. Transfer learning is most successful when

there is a consistent practice of initial and similar concepts throughout the instruction

process (Santelli, 2007).

This premise led the to question what effect if any, would a change in rhythmic

instruction or the lack of sequenced, conceptual learning would have on the rhythmic

performance of students. Students are often able to perform more difficult rhythms in

general music classes than are presented in most beginning method books. Sixteenth note

rhythm patterns are experienced and performed by most elementary music students

as early as fourth grade. In contrast, this rhythmic pattern is generally not included in

beginning band method books until the second year of instruction. Instrumental method

books that leave more complex patterns to the next year can deprive students of the

consistent performance of patterns that increase the transfer of learning to new contexts

(Byo, 1998 & Watkins, 2011). This study was designed to measure the rhythmic

performance ability of students who receive consistent, sequenced rhythmic instruction

(5th grade) and beginning band students (6th grade) who receive new, different rhythmic

instruction. Because there is no standardized rhythmic testing measure, a researcher

designed rhythmic test was developed based upon state standards, two elementary fifth

grade curriculum standards, and consultation with experts in music education.

Research Question

What effect does the lack of continuity between elementary general music and

beginning band curricula have on the rhythmic performance of beginning band students?

51

Students were asked to perform seven basic rhythmic patterns based on state

standards and two fifth grade curriculum guides. These patterns included meters of two,

three, and four as well as quarter note and rest, paired eighth notes, single eighth notes,

half notes, dotted half notes, sixteenth notes and dotted sixteenth-eighth patterns. Rising

sixth grade subjects, who chose to participate in band (n=12) completed a pre-test using

these patterns before new rhythmic instruction method. According to Santelli, transfer

learning is most successful when there is a consistent practice of initial and similar

concepts throughout the instruction process (2007). Transfer of learning from one grade

level to the next is best accomplished by the consistent practice of initial and similar

concepts over a period of time (Woods, 1982). A reasonable expectation would be that

rising sixth graders who had experienced consistent rhythmic instruction in the previous

grade would be able to successfully perform and score higher on the rhythmic patterns. In

this study however, the scores (M=34, SD = 6.38) out of the possible fifty-two points did

not reflect a high transfer of learning.

It should be noted that due to school scheduling, beginning band students did not

begin class until mid-September. This delay might have negatively affected the results.

As noted previously by Woods (1982), Santelli (2007) and Bruner (1966), consistent

practice over a period of time leads to a transfer of learning from one grade level to the

next. Instead of the usual eight-week summer break, these students experienced an

approximate sixteen week break between rhythmic reading or performance. The subjects

did not participate in a review session.

The sixth grade subjects completed the same test measure after a new method of

rhythmic instruction from mid-September to mid-February. The scores were compared

52

using a dependent t-test. The dependent t-test showed there was not a significant

difference between pre-test and post-test scores (t(12)=1.83, p=.42). The post-test scores

on rhythmic patterns by the same subjects remained static with neither increases or

decreases. It is assumed that most educators would expect to see some growth during the

process of instruction and learning.

Method of performance

Students were encouraged to choose the method they wanted to perform the

rhythms: the patterns could be spoken, clapped, both spoken and clapped or any other the

way as long as it could be audibly recorded. Students were instructed to speak the word

“skip” if they were unsure of a specific rhythm and to speak the word “rest” if a rest was

included in the pattern. Sixty-seven percent of the subjects (Group AB) chose to perform

by clapping in both the pre/post-test. This choice of performance method could correlate

with the way clapping is added to rhythmic performance in the upper grades of

elementary rhythmic instruction. Only seventeen percent chose to speak and clap, which

would correlate to how rhythmic patterns are performed in fifth grade music. Considering

that the sixth grade students did not show any significant difference (p=.42) between pre

and post-test experience it stands to reason that their methods of performance would not

change. There was not a continuation or repetition of previous rhythmic instruction

methods but an absence of familiar instruction which included both speaking and

clapping of rhythms. Of the four students who did speak, there was a continued use of the

syllables, “ta, ti-ti”, even if the syllables were used incorrectly.

53

Of the fifth grade subjects who had consistent rhythmic instruction,

twenty-two percent performed rhythms by clapping in contrast to the fifty-five percent of

all 6th beginning band subjects (n=19). Forty-eight percent of fifth graders (n=27) chose

to perform rhythmic patterns by speaking, while thirty-percent chose to speak and clap

the pattern. Most elementary methods utilize speaking of rhythms in early grades and

then add clapping to speaking in upper grades rhythmic instruction. Fifth grade subjects

in this study had a higher percentage of performance with either speaking (48%) or

speaking and clapping (30%). The students in fifth grade who utilized speaking of

syllables had the highest mean (M=54) in comparison to those students who only utilized

clapping (M=34). The results correlate with many elementary methodologies which

employ the use word cues such as word cues such as “tah” for quarter notes and ti-ti” for

paired eighth notes are used as a way to teach students to recognize and feel the duration

of notation as they speak and clap or move their bodies to match the rhythm (Richardson,

2008).

Table 12 Comparison of Performance Methods

Method of Performance

Clapping only Clap & speak Speak Only Clap & other

Group AA n=20 22% 30% 48% N/A M 34 38 54 N/A

Group AB n=29 55% 15% 15% 10% M 36 33 31 35

54

Steady Beat

The rhythmic patterns were divided into seven flashcards, presented to students

one card at a time. Each pattern was scored with a Yes or No in regard to steady beat. It

was determined by the assessors that the entire pattern must be performed with a steady

beat throughout in order to be marked Yes. Some students were able to perform the

rhythms correctly, but not within a steady beat. It was noted that some students would

hesitate just enough to miss the steady beat throughout the entire pattern, but because the

student was able to accurately perform and represent the notated rhythm the rhythm was

counted as correct while the steady was indicated as No. Studies by Upitis (1983) and

Petzold (1963) have shown that as students grow older, beat or keeping time accuracy

will increase. However, individual developmental differences between students must be

considered in terms of rhythmic accuracy (Upitis, 1984).

Order of Rhythmic Pattern Presentation

The seven patterns were divided into three different sets, which presented the

rhythmic patterns in different order of progressions. Most rhythmic instruction for

elementary students begin with quarter notes and paired eighth-notes (Black, 1982). The

pattern sets did not follow a specific recommended order in order to determine if the

presentation of the patterns had an effect on the performance of the subjects. The subjects

who performed pattern set A (n=19) had the lowest overall score (M=35.11). Pattern set

B (n=16) scores were just slightly higher (M=35.38). Subjects (n=14) who had the

highest scores performed pattern set C (M=38.57). Subjects who performed pattern set C

had the highest scores. The rhythmic presentation of patterns in set C followed more

55

closely (but not exactly) the recommended progression of rhythmic patterns (Black,

1982). This suggests that the order of rhythms may have had an effect on the performance

of the rhythms. Students are most familiar with quarter notes and rests, paired eighth-

notes, and half notes and rests due to the repetition/performance of these patterns

throughout elementary music. Pattern set C can be seen below:

Figure 2. Pattern Set C

56

Null Hypothesis

The difference in rhythmic teaching between elementary and beginning band

methods has no effect on student rhythmic achievement.

Students with consistent rhythmic instructional methods (fifth grade) had a higher

mean (M=37.48, SD=4.84, n=27) than beginning band students (sixth grade) who

experienced a different rhythmic instructional method (M=35.03, SD=3.21, n=19). An

independent sample t-test showed a significant difference (p=.026) between the two

groups who had different instructional methods (t(44)=1.68, p=.026). The null hypothesis

must be rejected based on the statistical results for this study.

Rhythmic Pattern Differences

One possible reason for the significant difference could be that the majority of

beginning band methods do not use curricula that supports and builds upon student’s

previous knowledge, but instead seems to assume “that students have little accumulated

rhythmic knowledge” (Santelli, 2007 p. 76). Most beginning band method books do not

include the same rhythmic patterns that most elementary method courses cover. A 2011

comparison study by Watkins of twelve beginning band method books published between

1994 and 2010, showed that eleven of the twelve did not include sixteenth notes in the

first year of instruction. Gage’s 1994 study revealed that of the four method books

studied, there was a deficiency or deficit in “a sequence of rhythmic instruction between

the methods” (Wakins, 2011 p. 40).

An examination of several fifth grade music instruction frameworks contained

standard rhythmic patterns that included whole, half, dotted half, quarter note, two-eighth

57

notes, sixteenth notes, syncopation and combinations of eighth and sixteenth

note patterns . Fifth grade students commonly see these type of rhythms

as early as fourth grade and continue throughout grade five (Fine Arts: n.d.). Although

beginning band students do have many new tasks such as breath support and control, tone

production, and fingerings, consistent curricular alignment would ensure that students do

not lose rhythmic vocabulary by starting a completely new way of rhythm instruction

(Santelli, 2007). Continuous presentation and performance of the rhythmic patterns may

explain why Group AA had a higher score (M=37.48) than Group AB (M=35.03) who

did not review or perform some of the more difficult rhythms.

Movement and Steady Beat

The significant difference between rhythmic scores could also be linked to the

differences in way elementary general music classes and beginning classes are conducted.

General music classes often employ methodologies such as Orff, Dalcroze, and Kodaly as

an integral bridge in the process of learning music (Rowher, 1998). These methods all

promote multi-sensory musical experiences to aid in conceptual understanding (Gault,

2005). Educators who use such methodologies often have students learning rhythm

through movement (Westervelt, 2002).

In the Orff process for instance, movement is the foundational element used to

develop beat and rhythm competencies, as well as to develop rhythmic memory followed

by symbolic music notation (Mason, 2012). Most instrumental method books do not use

basic kinesthetic learning methods that are so readily used in general elementary music

(Rowher, 1998).

58

In a study of seven popular band method books, Collins (2013) determined that

six out of seven books used clapping exercises and only one of the seven used clapping or

foot tapping. None of the seven method books included any whole body movements or

activities to aid in learning. (Rowher, 1998). Reading music notation and the rhythms

contained within is an important part of beginning instrumental classes, but students

cannot learn to read and interpret the rhythm unless they have first experienced the

notation through movement (Conway, 2003). In a 1988 study by Byo, nine beginning

band methods published in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s were analyzed. Six of the

nine beginning methods did not use any type of movement in rhythmic instruction. When

compared to the movement activities used in elementary methods, beginning band

methods did not use a proven technique to enhance rhythm instruction. In a more recent

study, Watkins (2011) compared twelve of the more available beginning band methods.

Only one of the twelve included any type of movement in relation to rhythmic

instruction. Rowher states the most important information gained from rhythmic study is

that steady beat skills can be improved with the use of kinesthetic or movement activities

(1998). Steady beat scores were lower for Group AB which could be linked to the lack of

movement included in beginning band methods.

Different Methods of Rhythmic Performance

In elementary landscape of rhythmic instruction, methods can be exclusive

or are blended. One of the major differences between elementary music and beginning

band classes is that many elementary methodologies use word cues from methodologies

such as Orff, Kodaly, or Takidimi rhythmic syllables to teach rhythmic patterns. Word

cues such as “tah” for quarter notes and “ti-ti” for paired eighth notes are used as a way to

59

teach students to recognize and feel the duration of notation as they speak and clap or

move their bodies to match the rhythm (Richardson, 2008). The figure below

demonstrates a few of the many word cues that can be found in elementary methodology.

Figure 3.

Word Cue Methods

Method

Kodaly ta ti-ti ti-ka-ti-ka Tri-o-la

Gordon Du Du-de Du-ta-de-ta Du-da-di

Takadimi Ta Ta-di Ta-ka-di-mi Ta-ki-di

Orff* “Bee” “Bum-ble” “Yell-ow-jack-

et”

“blue-ber-ry”

Table notes. *Words can be substituted based on the duration of the word or song

The opposite is true for beginning band rhythmic instruction. Most instrumental classes

approach rhythm instruction from a mathematical perspective based on the ratio of note

durations (Dalby, 1999). A study by Santelli (2007) revealed that the majority of band

method books approach rhythmic instruction using a mathematical approach or a

counting system. According to Richardson, the number based counting system is the most

commonly used rhythmic instruction technique (2008). Byo’s 1988 comparison of

method books found that eight out of nine methods used the number system for counting

rhythms. This way of teaching rhythm is often referred to as the rhythm tree. The figure

below shows an example of the mathematical or numerical number counting system.

60

Subjects from Group AB (fifty-five percent) performed rhythmic patterns by clapping

which is consistent with the method book procedures. Fifteen percent of Group AB

counted the rhythms by the number system. Subjects from Group AA spoke the rhythm

syllable (forty-eight percent) which is consistent with elementary rhythmic instruction

(M=54). Another thirty-percent of the subjects from Group AA both spoke the rhythm

syllable and clapped (M=38), which is also consistent with elementary practices. Subjects

who spoke the rhythmic syllables scored the highest, followed by clapping and spoken

rhythmic syllables at the same time. This seems to suggest that the consistent repetition

of rhythmic instruction provided a solid knowledge base from which the student could

recall.

Summary

Based on the premise of Bruner’s spiral curriculum, learning concepts should be

presented at the “appropriate level and periodically with greater levels of complexity”

(Taetle and Cutietta, n.d). This led the to question, “shouldn’t music students’

experiences build conceptually in the cross over between elementary general music and

beginning band or chorus?” When there is consistent practice of initial and similar

concepts throughout the instruction process, it is more likely that a transfer of learning

will occur (Santelli, 2007).

61

In this study students who had consistent practice of initial and similar concepts,

in this case rhythmic performance, were able to score higher on the test measure.

Students who had consistent rhythmic instruction encountered “gradual, increasing

presentations of concepts” that built upon “previous knowledge or experience” (McLeod,

2008). Students who did not experience a consistent practice of similar concepts, but

were taught the some of the same rhythmic patterns in a different way, demonstrated a

loss in regards to rhythmic performance. An independent t-test showed there was a

significant difference between Group AA (who had consistent rhythmic instruction and

Group AB (who experienced a new method of rhythmic instruction (p=.026).

One of the major differences between elementary music and beginning band

classes is that many elementary methodologies use word cues such as the Kodaly, Orff,

Gordon, or Takidimi method of rhythmic syllables to teach rhythmic patterns. The

majority of band method books teach rhythm using a mathematical approach or a

counting system (See Figure 3 & 4).

This means that beginning band students (Group AB) had to learn a new method

of counting rhythms when it would be much easier if the rhythms were presented in the

same way as they had previously been instructed (Group AA). This method would also

make the transfer of previous learning to new learning easier due to the similarity of

previous rhythm recognition. When the same method of instruction is presented in

elementary and middle school music classes, students are able to build upon their

previous knowledge and experiences (Santelli, 2007).

The results of this study indicates there is a definite need for a connection

between elementary general music methods and beginning band method book instruction.

62

Research supports that the instructional methods used successfully in elementary classes

can also be successful in beginning band instruction (Mason, 2012). Methodologies

found in elementary classes can be used in instrumental settings to continue the rhythmic

development of students moving from one grade level to the next (West, 2015). When

general elementary music teachers and instrumental teachers have aligned curricula, the

musical concepts learned in elementary class can be more easily transferred to

instrumental learning. Consistent terminology and approaches will ensure that students

transfer learning from one level to the next (Conway, 2013). A holistic musical approach

across the school levels will provide a more cohesive musical education experience. By

creating connections between elementary music and instrumental music, students are

allowed to build upon previous experience without a grade level gap.

Recommendations

Due to the small sample size (n=47) it is recommended that more studies such as

this one be conducted with larger sample sizes and multiple schools. A longitudinal study

would also benefit music educational practices. Curriculum directors are encouraged to

seek ways to bridge the gap between elementary rhythmic instruction and beginning band

instruction. “Instrumental directors and elementary specialists can make the instrumental

curriculum a continuation of the general music program” (Burnsed & Fiocca, 1990).

Communication between elementary specialists and instrumental specialists regarding

curriculum and methods will ensure a cohesive music education program. Both levels of

educators should meet to collaborate based upon scope and sequence, so that they can

create continuity within the music education program. Perhaps an even better scenario

63

would be the collaboration of general elementary music method curricula developers and

beginning instrumental music curricular methods developers to create a cohesive method

of teaching elementary students who move to middle school instrumental classes. Music

educators and curriculum directors must ensure that elementary content standards are

considered as the district develops courses that build upon the transfer of knowledge from

elementary music to middle school music. Music educators must ask critical questions

regarding the difference and gap between elementary music methods and middle school

music methods.

64

References

Abrahams, F. (2005). The application of critical pedagogy to music teaching and

learning. Visions of Research in Music Education, 6. Retrieved from http://

Rider.edu/~vrme

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. A. (2014). Introduction to

research in education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Barry, N. H. (1992). Music and education in the elementary music methods class. Journal

of Music Teacher Education, 2(1), 16-23. doi: 10.1177/105708379200200104

Benchmarking Inter-Rater Reliability Coefficients. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.agreestat.com/book3/bookexcerpts/chapter6.pdf

Black, S. (1982). The application of the Kodaly method to instrumental music education.

Retrieved from

http://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1440&context=honor

s-theses

Boardman, E. (1988). The generative theory of musical learning: Parts 1, 2, & 3. General

Music Today, 2(1-3), Retrieved from http://www-

usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v11n1/vision/Boardman Generative Theory.pdf

Brogan, R. (2009, December). Reliability. Retrieved from

http://www.education.com/reference/article/reliability/

Burnsed, V., & Fiocca, P. (1990). Bringing General Music Techniques to the

Instrumental Class. Music Educators Journal, 76(6), 45. Retrieved from

www.jstor.org.library.acaweb.org/stable/3400967.

Byo, J. (1988). Beginning band instruction: A comparative analysis of selected class

65

method books. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 7(1), 19-

23. doi:10.1177/875512338800700106

Cash, Carla Davis. "The Music is in the Rhythm." Clavier Companion. no. March/April

(2011): 52. www.claviercompanion.com

Cognitive Constructivism. (2015). Retrieved from http://gsi.berkeley.edu/gsi-guide-

Collins, L. A. (2013). A teacher resource guide for beginning band in an urban school

setting centered on adapting the standard of excellence comprehensive band

method according to brain-based method of education. (Unpublished master's

thesis). Retrieved from

http://www.lvc.edu/library/documents/theses/Collins_MME_2013.pdf

Conklin, Hillary. "Methods and the Middle: Elementary and Secondary Preservice

Teacher's Views on Their Preparation for Teaching Middle School." Research in

Middle Level Education Online. (2007): 1-16.

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ801110.pdf

Conway, C. M. (2003). Good rhythm and intonation from day one in beginning

instrumental music. Music Educator's Journal, 89(5), 26-31. doi:

10.2307/3399916

Dalby, B. (1999). Teaching audiation in instrumental classes. Music Educator's Journal,

85(6), doi: 10.2307/3399517

Dalby, B. (2005). Toward an effective pedagogy for teaching rhythm: Gordon and

beyond. Music Educator's Journal, 92(1), 54. doi:10.2307/3400228

Dalby, B. (n.d.). The gordon institute for music learning. Retrieved from

http://giml.org/docs/AboutMLT.pdf

66

Davis, C. D. (2011, March/April). The music is in the rhythm. Clavier Companion, 3(2),

52-53. www.claviercompanion.com

Feldman, E., & Contzius, A. (nd). Instrumental education: Teaching with the musical and

practical in harmony.

http://www.chromaticartists.com/uploads/3/1/2/4/3124452/methods_of_music_ed

-ucation.pdf

Ferguson, L. (2005). The role of movement in elementary education: A literature review.

Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 23(2), 23-33.

doi: 10.1177/87551233050230020104

Fine Arts: Dance, Music, Theatre, Visual Art. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://tn.gov/education/article/arts-education

Frisbie, D. A. (1988). Reliability of scores from teacher-made tests. Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice Educational Measure: Issues Practice, 7(1), 25-

35. Retrieved from www.ncme.org.

Gault, B. (2005). Music learning through all the channels: Combining aural, visual,

and kinesthetic strategies to develop musical understanding. General Music

Today, 19(1), 7-9. doi:10.1177/10483713050190010103

Geoghegan, L. (2006). Why musicianship training according to the principles of zoltan

kodaly. Retrieved from

http://www.britishkodalyacademy.org/public_downloads/why_kodalyLG2006.pdf

Gruhn, W. (2006). Music learning in schools: Perspectives of a new foundation for music

teaching and learning. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 5(2), 1-

27. Retrieved from http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Gruhn5_2.pdf

67

Hoffman, R., Pelto, W., & White, J. (1996). Takadimi: A beat-oriented system of

rhythm pedagogy. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 10, 7-30. Retrieved from

http://www.takadimi.net/documents/TakadimiArticle.pdf

Humphreys, J. (1989). An overview of american public school bands and orchestras

before world war II. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,

101(Summer), 50-60. Retrieved from http://0-

www.jstor.org.library.acaweb.org/stable/40318374

Isbell, D. (2012). Learning theories: Insights for music educators. General Music Today,

25(2), 19-23. doi: 10.1177/1048371311425684

Keast, D. (2009). A constructivist application for online learning in music education.

Research and issues in music education, 17(1), Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ894765.pdf

Mason, N. F. (2012). The effect of orff schulwerk instruction on rhythmic achievement

in beginning band. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Available from Pro Quest.

(1506961102). Retrieved from Document

URLhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/1506961102

McLeod, S. (2008). Bruner - Learning theory in education. Retrieved from

http://www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html

Music Curriculum Framework. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.tmea.org/assets/pdf/educator_toolkit/8_1_Music_Frameworks.pdf

Long, A. (2013). Involve me: Using the orff approach within the elementary classroom.

68

Retrieved from

http://thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=lib_awards_201

3_docs

Persellin, D. C. (1992). Responses to rhythm patterns when presented to children

through auditory, visual, and kinesthetic modalities. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 1992(40), 306-315. doi: 10.2307/3345838

Regelski, T. (2002). On "methodolatry" and music teaching as critical and reflective

praxis. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 10(2), 102-123. Retrieved from

http://0-www.jstor.org.library.acaweb.org/stable/40327184

Reifinger, J. L. (2006). Skill development in rhythm perception and performance: A

review of literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 25(1),

15-27. doi:10.1177/87551233060250010103

Richardson, C. (2008, Spring). Teaching students to be rhythmically independent.

Canadian Music Educator, 49(3), 41-43. cmea.ca

Rinaldo, V., & Denig, S. (2009). A constructivist approach to learning music: What

role, if any, does active engagement play in the learning process?. Retrieved from

http://www.jpacte.org/uploads/9/0/0/6/9006355/2009-1-rinaldo_denig.pdf

Rohwer, D. (1998). Effect of movement instruction on steady beat perception,

synchronization, and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education,

46(3), 414-424. doi: 10.2307/3345553

Sale, C., Walton, S. R., Glennon, A., Cook, J., Klein, J., Mills, R. M., Stadler, J. &

Lopez, Z., Johnson, J., Kramer, R. (2013, May/June). How do you teach

the dotted-quarter eighth note rhythm?. Clavier Companion, 5(3), 34-38.

69

www.claviercompanion.com

Sangiorgio, A. M. (2006, July ). Models of an orff approach integrating edwin gordon's

music learning theory. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/4134458/Models_of_an_Orff_approach_integrating_E

dwin_Gordons_Music_Learning_Theory

Santelli, C. (2007). An examination of students’ ability to transfer rhythmic concepts

taught in elementary general music classes to middle school beginning band

instruction. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation). Retrieved from

http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1208991892

State Report Card. (n.d.). Retrieved from State Report Card-Tn.gov

Welcome to GreatSchools. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2016, from

http://www.greatschools.org/

Taetle, L., & Cutietta, R. (n.d.). Learning theories as roots of current musical practice

and research. Retrieved from

http://www.posgrado.unam.mx/musica/lecturas/educacion/Learning theories.pdf

Upitis, R. (1984, June). Children's understanding of rhythm: The relationship between

development and musical training [Scholarly project]. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED250071.pdf

Wakins, Kie (2011). An analysis of select beginning band method books and the level to

which they address the national standards for music education (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University

West, C. (2015). Developing internal musicianship in beginning band by teaching the

"big 5". Music Educators Journal, 101(3), 101-106. doi:

70

10.1177/0027432114565392

Westervelt, T. (2002, Spring). Beginning continuous fluid motion in the music

classroom. General Music Today, 15(3), 13-19.

doi:10.1177/104837130201500305

What is orff schulwerk? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://aosa.org/about/what-is-orff-

schulwerk/

Woods, D. (1982). A model for curriculum construction in music, the

american/icelandic

project. Music Educators Journal, 68(9), 42-44. Retrieved from http://0-

www.jstor.org.library.acaweb.org/stable/339

71

Appendix A

Pattern Set A

72

Appendix B

Pattern Set B

73

Appendix C

Pattern Set C

74

Appendix D

Parental Consent Letter

Research Participation Invitation

Study Title: Teaching Methodologies in Elementary Music and Beginning Band: The Affect on Student Rhythmic AchievementTeaching Methodologies in Elementary Music and Beginning Band: The Affect on Student Rhythmic Achievement

Dear Parent or Guardian,

My name is Mrs. Leslie Benson. I am doctoral candidate in the Education

Department of Carson Newman University. I am conducting a research study as part of

the requirements for my degree in Education, and I would like to invite your band student

to participate.

I am collecting information on how students in fifth grade and sixth grade beginning band

students learn to read and perform rhythms. If you decide to allow your student to participate, he or

she will be asked to read and perform seven (7) basic rhythm patterns. This would take place during

band class, not before or after school. It should only take about seven (7) to ten (10) minutes to

complete and it will be a one-time occurrence. This process would be similar to the normal stresses

of a classroom testing situation, except it will not affect student grades. Student responses will be

digitally recorded. In this study, student identity will be protected by replacing a student’s name

with a random number and only I will know who is on the recording. Educators who help score the

digital recordings for accuracy will only be given the student number and will not know the identity

of the student.

Students do not have to participate, and it will not affect their grades. If your

student decides to participate, it could help music teachers learn more about how students

learn rhythms. Students can change their minds and decide to stop at any time. The

75

student will not get any treats or prizes for participating. It will just be something that the

student will do one time.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have about the study. If you

have any questions you can always e-mail me at lmbenson@cn.edu or leave me a

message at 865-363-4344 and I will return your call. Please sign the Parental Permission

Form and send the form to your child’ band teacher.

With Best Regards,

Mrs. Leslie Benson, Doctoral Candidate

Carson Newman University

76

Parental Permission Form

Study Title: Teaching Methodologies in Elementary Music and Beginning Band:

The Affect on Student Rhythmic Achievement

Researcher: Mrs. Leslie M. Benson, Doctoral Candidate

Carson Newman University

________________________________________________________________________

__________________

I have read the information contained in this letter about the above titled study, which

describes what my child will be asked to do if (s)he wants to participate in the study; and,

Yes – I give permission for my child to participate in the study

-OR-

No – I do not give permission for my child to participate in the study

________________________________ ____________

Parent/Guardian Signature Date

________________________________ ____________

Child’s Name Age

77

Appendix E

Student Recruitment Script

Dissertation Subject Recruit Script

Hi, I’m Mrs. Benson a teacher at a school nearby. I am collecting information on how

students in fifth grade and sixth grade beginning band students learn and perform

rhythms. In a few weeks I am hoping that some students will volunteer to read and

perform some basic rhythms. This would take place during your band class, not

before or after school.

I will show you a total of 7 (seven) rhythm flash cards one at a time. I will ask you to

count, clap, or speak the rhythm. You will choose how you want to perform the

rhythms. You will be recorded and then someone will listen to it and tell me which

rhythms you can read. Your name will be replaced with a number, so no one will

know who is on the recording.

You don’t have to participate, and nothing bad will happen to you if don’t. If you

decide to participate, it could help music teachers learn more about how students

learn rhythms. You can ask questions before you decide to participate, and your

parents will have to say it’s ok. I have a special form for you to take home to your

parents. It will explain my study and it will ask them to sign it. Please return this

form back to your band teacher.

78

You can leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop participating in the study,

nothing bad will happen. You will not get any treats or prizes for participating. It

will just be something that you do one time and then you will be finished. If you

have any questions you can ask me now, or you can always e-mail me.

Thank you,

Mrs. L. M. Benson

Doctoral Candidate

Carson Newman University

I can be contacted in this way:

lmbenson@cn.edu

79

Appendix F

Student Recording Script

Dissertation Student Recording Script

I am going to show you seven (7) rhythms patterns, one at a time. I will begin the

recording with an IPad and say the number of the rhythm pattern. When I say,

“ready, go” you can begin to read and perform the rhythm pattern. You can decide

how you want to perform the rhythm. For example, you can speak the rhythm out

loud or clap and count the rhythm. If there is a rhythm that you don’t know, it’s ok.

Just keep going and give it a try. You can say skip if there is a rhythm you do not

know and then continue on to the next rhythm you do know. It helps if you can

“rest” if there is one in the pattern. Can you see the rhythm? Do you have any

questions before we begin?