. . ....1. .1..-.9..11. . ‘11.. ‘._-70. ..0 .0. . . .0, . -— u _ c. I ...l’ _—. 01. l...’.. .. . o . c. 41 .. 0...- . . 1 . . . ....-..1.. p WJ....1... 3.12;: .....w... . ... . .... ... ..... ... .... .... . ... .... . ... . 2... 1..... ......v ... . . .q'. . .. . 3 . 0. .....07 .0 . 10.... 9.. .1 11.40:... . . ..... 10.1.. . ...9. o . p . . .nl....h).. 02.0.93. LLm-u.-0.0...uo0 .5. .3143— pf“... :le . .. .. . v 9. ... ...31. .. .. 0' .. .3... . 0.... 0 .9....0 . ‘0.L....J.0>~sh. 0. .1: .3“? 791 l... . 0 . .. .. 0 . . .0. .90.. . .. ....01. .. ..0.0 . o #03300 31.11.1- 0 1.1.1910... 109.0 01.0. 1 . 00.. .....0'. 0.1u1 .. . . 0.... . ...1l9 .35. .. 3.1 ...' .95. .3700... .000 1. 7.010.110 1 . I... 1. ... . .... ... .. .. 9 0. . 0 . .9 . .0 .. ..0‘ ”1.1.1.1101 1 o . ..11...».y1.3.... .. u 9. . .0 . . .. .. 1.. . .o v . ... . 4‘. . 0.01. I. ..0 .v. .1 . . . . 33.000. 3.. 7 0 . . 0.. 100,0 ... .....111. ... ...o. ..1 ...... 07.. . .... ..01. ...-.1 . . '1 .010. .1" 0. 1 090.9 .. . r . . . OJ. 0. .0 «.01 O 0. ... .. .I 110.1..00 ...‘0. .1. . .0}...01.0 .‘1 ...n. 0.10- 1 1 0010.1... 09.0.0... .910... 1.. 1‘. (90.11.0110 .0 ..0. . . ... 0:01.04. 99.003230... . . . .. . I. 00100 O 0 V 0.9. . ...1. . 9.31 o 0.90.. 01:11.1..- .I....l9. .0 . . .. . 00.... . , .31.... . . . . . .01....»111703 0.0 . 9.10. .. -\ l.-0 .. . .. . .01.. 9.. 9. . ....1.104 99. .0. . 110.1 4’00 ‘123‘0 . .. .0... .00 .0 .0130... ....0.«. .... . .. . . . ... .. 0 0 .03... .0 y. {...-1.19. 9.). 1 . u. .....30.... . .. . . .....«13h.‘.1.’.~ . . . .. ll. 10.0.00. . 0. l..1.,.1........0. 0. ...... ...0. 1903.0. .. . . .. . ... 0 . 31:131. . ... . .«.1..8.~1.J.~ . 00 . 0. .0 .9.- .. 0. ‘1. or“ . . 10 ... 0 c. 0.“. 419.....1. .1013 .0 n 0.010 00.2100. «H00 .10. ..u . .00 1.0-. ... . . ... ... . . . 1. .1. . .... rt...- ... . 0.10.01... 0........._. . 21.70.. . . 3.1.0 .. . .... . . . . 00. 1..?0 .01.?! 140 190 1 .. ... 00. . ...1... 13:9... 73.. 1.301011 ...... 1. ...... -100. .. L.” .0.. . . ...9 . .9.) ... l.’o..10......;. 10.....010..1 . 1. ~11 . ..0 ...0. 90.0 5‘. .11. .0. l .. '00:...0731 .01.... ...-.0010...‘ 1.1 ...... . o 0 .153.-- 9 5.19. .. . .. .. ....V... l.\.....0... .9... . . I .l. . .....0. l . 1 ....0 . . . ... ..10 1... . .. . .4. .09 .00. 1..-51 . ... .. . . . . . 1 .0020... u. 0: 1 1 n. 0 ......300. .01. . v 010 .9. 0 13. .. .J...0h... 9....0 0 ....0 .0..1l. .0 .1. . .13 .. .. .. o. g. 40 0 .11.. .0 .9.‘ . 1181......01l1afi. ..fl . . 0...... .. 010.0 ... . 19.10 1 < 10011.0 04. “ 3...‘.......9.0.91.. .. ..0. ...-31...... . . .. . . . . . .10... .. .... 0.1. - 0.}...0. “010.14... . .. ... i... 1 .. .. I ...: .......0~.1000.0.... a... ..1 .. 1.. .... 2.30.-..1. _ . 1.103.699... Z 1.0:. ..013‘... -.....0. .. . 0.. 1.0.110. 0.0.9.- 1. . 1...-0.. 0.. 01:1. 0 .9 . .0.. o. . I 3.1.... . ..11. .... .0100 ... 0.. 1. . 49.1.2... . ... 4 .05’1... . ... . . .1010. v ...0 1 . 0.0.0. -. ....1. . ...09)..11...0....00. 0 20:71. ... .10... .11.. 1.0... 1..... . . . ......13 IL ...0...0.... ..9. 1.. ... .... .. .. . .....1........1....:..0. 0. .1 :0“ .1.... ...!)fl- [1‘ 1...: 9. 3.": . . 0. o . .0 ... 1 .101 . 1.1.011.) .0. q .3: 0.0...0 .-.. 0.. .1. .. 940. ‘0. . . .312... 00 . O 0.0 .900. 1:01. 0.. . I... .1... .... . .0. 1.2.1900. ..OI . .. .... . 1.0.1 01....' . 0c .4... .0 . 0.1.0.1.... 111...! 1.0. .. 0... 3.01.... ..0 ... . 1.0 .....1... 1.3.3.0... ... 2:9,...3739011... ... .. .....- ..... .... .... . ...: .. 10...}..60. .. ... . .1..:.. .1. ....fi 0 p 0 {0.9.1001 000 .3. 1. 1y .. L. y as ‘0. 0.. 3J1“; 1.”’.1.13..1.V .0 .71....9130 ...010 1‘3200. 3.0. 0 .... 0. .0! ... 0 . ..y. 1000.. .00 . ... c . . ......._.1 .. 1.030. .1-1 . o ... . ’7..w..0..(.... ...-...... . 99."..1.‘\.. 23001.0 0.0.1.01!) 0. .l' 1 “.14.. 1' ,- 1) . . . c 0. 09.090 .0. 1.. . n.‘.9. 0 0'10 .1 By. . 04.. 0 . .00... 005 119 .0 s. 9. .J. .0 0. 77.01. ...-0 ...... .. . . 1 0.. ..100. .. ...“. 900.9 . .30.... 9.0 ... .0. 11 ”0.0.1! o .. 0. 1...)..1 3.001 . A. .I.‘ 0 1... owogl ‘00.... 1 0.1 -00. 00 .1. . .... . o. .4 c 1.9... ....o :30“ ... . l. .00.... .3019 .93. 7001.90 1. 0.... 0...0..u0...003..1..0 .... 0.300. 1.00.. . : _ . _ . . .0. 0.. . 39.. y. o... .1041. . ... . ......999. I0... .0. o. .01 01.. 1.01.1... . 1.0.0 1000 .9 1. .00 .0” .. . 0 '1‘ . .. . . . .03.... ... . 0 4.9..l... . 3.9.3 . . 11.nfzoogq ... . 38.3. . D ..0. .. . 1 .. . .1200 ..0 ...... .. «91.....8... 5109...... ... .0 .....ou.........0..... .33... ...r .. ... . . 0 . .. .0. . . . .11.... 1.0.. . 4. I . . ..J 1... . .0 .0f . ”'90. ‘0 1.11 01.10. .9917 a“. v .9000...‘ . 1... 900. 10,..- . 01.... .1 ... 11:00. 01:130.... ..01000. I. 00.00 .. .... 0.9.0. . .... 0. 0 . .001. 0 .... 0.00 .. 0.9... . .. . $1.900. . . .. .0“ . ...l ...-...... “1.000 .1'. . .1913.I... ... . 0.)! .... ...-9.1 001.00.310.30.“ 0.", .1..‘.. . - . .1. 1... 0. ..100 . 100.. 0.010.009.1230232130...‘ 0.0.31... 0,. ...... ... 0 .. ..0 .0.- . a. . . ... .. ... 10 . . ... . 1. . \ ... ... .... .9 . ...90 2*... 9.9.. ... .. 1.1.0 5111.0 .. . ...c....0. . .10....0 00'. . ... o.\.0.o.1l....0..10 .....0v.1. 01....110 ......0..v. 9.3.”..031. . . . .... .99... 1.10.0. 0. .... 0. (.1113 1—10.91 .. ... .0. 01.1. .k.... . 1.0.. .. .... ... . ... .u... :1...- 0.9.00.1... ... ..0. .. - .... ...0 .. 10.0.0.1... 9 .01 10 3: . ..-- .1... .17 1:1 1. ..0 AI. 30 ....-11. 0 .... 3.1.0. . ... 1.0.0... 0:91.09. 30%. .01..0...1.. 10. . .0f....1. 3.0.1.2... .....l... I... .10 .15.... . 9.1. 0.............0 ...: .00 - 0 0....1. . 1.11.1.3“. . I.. .. ...-. .0 0.1.04.3? :1. 1.1.1.100. 09.11.... Z... 0. . . . I... o.......1\....-...!2.u. .1..0.J“Mn.. ..l .. 9.9... .1. ... . . . 0a.“... 030.0 111.11 ....1 v .. ...! . 9009... ...19 ...0 . . 0.. .03.? *rnu ...-.00. «- .... k9? 1.. 0 -00 I 0 .... 0" 1031’s.. 0.’. .5 1 ..0.. n . 11... I. 0.. .1000. ......10.. 019 .00. . 3110 1.0.. 074 L 0. 210“ “.11“ . ”1..... ..uo . . .. 9. .9 1040.... .10. n... ... . ...»...Q: .0. . . .0 ...1 . . d .. . . .. . . .. . A .103... . 01.4.“. . .0.... . 1.11.... .... ... ... .....90... .ymnu . .1. . ....0... ......0...03 .11.. 0 ........1.. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . 2 . 01.01“...” 0 2.9.1.9n0 151971.11 31.0.0 .. .020... .0. .1 0.. 140 09.. 010.00.91.40.- .l ....J .1111... .. .11. 0hr........ .19.. 91001.0 ...-.1. ... .. 1....110..10.. . ..0J 400111. 3.41.... 0.1. 9.7.. 0 ......0. 3.".013. . . If..- . . . . . . . . . . , J . . 5.01.1310...) .fl.0. - 1. 1.0.. .0910”... 0.1”: .0 .1. 8.". . .h. 3.0.0 .0 .0. .91....0 £.l-..J..0.0-0 .0..- .0.0.1 .00.... 1419.0 .10.... 0.0. .. . .1. 1301....-. 9 .331-.. .. 1.00 9.1.0.0... ... .. ...... . - 71.0... 09.. 0 .10.. . . . . . . . . a. .09 ..0. 3 .5: 20.7900... .00; u :4... 011.110.»... .. 1..“...01.“.. “1.... ..01".1..10. ..0‘ 10. “...... o Lugl. 1.0..- .00nJ—f“09.0 110010.011”?! .03 . «tuba..- . , . . .. . . . . . . . . I... 313.c0. ..1 l...% .rqr .10, 5131.... . ”3.1.0.1. .. 0. ... 0.91 . .30 3 . 1 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . £0171... .. . . O 0. .0... 1.....‘1....... .. 1......9. .... 1.1!.a... ..000 .. . . . . . . . . p .1. 301.100.. . .0.- . . . 9 .9. 0 d. .11 I”. r...11.000.9. .11 . ‘o.’ 0.. ...0‘ Q 1..). . 0.1.4.0... . ... ”.... 20.9.... um“; 0.. ..."..ur . ....39.)01.1..L’PK9.111....J..11K.% 0 C191“! «.01... ... "......" . ...... r... .0. 19.3.“..11.‘ ..5.T‘.”L¢II. 303050031011. . 0:0 . .2110...) 1‘ 9’1”.“ ...”...JJHV‘. ..I. .0499”... of‘éfi’os .. . . . ...; 1.9.1. ..., .. ... . a. ... _, .. 017M009.“ .. .0002... :0..... MIT... .‘ .. .09.. . 1 .. .9 0.... .. . . . . . _ . .01... . ...9...... .0r ...0.I.....u.ha".000.0..0.0.w.... . l1; 0..0........9K.0.!1...009.0....J . ..movtfsqu. “Low... 0 14.1.1”: 1.. .... .1390. r6... 1..... N.” 0 0.430.103”? .0...“ . ....m.” . .1...1 .uw...fl.ocn..r.l.oll0. .....10 .. . . . ......101 0.0..." . 5:101... i. . .... .... 1.1.1. .1?) 0duu‘a':’.3 . ..h: . - . 90. . . .. 1 0.0. 0 V... 0. . 0 01 .....l. . . . . . 0.. . . .. .. . . . .0 0. 1 y . . -..... ......z: Lhaué. u. .. ., ... “Ire... ......rt .... .. ............u.... .......z... . . . . . . . . . ...... .25.»... .....w. .... .. ; : ... ... ...... .. 3360.4... .0 . . a .1. 10.....1 11.1.1120 0....0..o. 9...... ...0... ..10. 0.01.”..Iar1 -.....01. .. . ... . . . . . . . 10.. 0 1 0... 1 1099 . . .1 .A.. . .011“: 91. ...90 1y“. ..‘000090900‘000 .0000 (...—1....00 0.000 1. ...0 .0. 0.00.... . . ..0 ... . .1. ...J0.1.00".1 .1100... If 01’...’..0?‘. ....1..o’ 131..., O. 109 1030100 . ... . .. $1.390. .. ... .09. . . .. . .. . .. . . ..... ... . ..‘0. 0:0.- .319’..1.. ... ... 3.0.3.. . 0. l. . .10. .. ....0 .9 .... 0.9.... 9. Lift-wt. :11.- . , . .0... n. 9......Ui0 .....- .03.... . 001;... .11 .. 1.0 ... . 0 . ... 9.0 .0... ‘9 01.11.13 .... 10.. ”NJ... 7fd.o.fl...3w\. .910 . 4.111.. a. .04. ... 0.0 .0.... ....o :2... .. 1 -.. . 102.01 203-7.. . ... .‘f'l 1. :0. 9. .. 9 ... 00....0. 0... ...0’0 .1. . ..9.....'. ..11.0.1-0......1.. 1 04.01....- .0'1. 0.0.. .. 10 ... . 0., 031...}... . 1.1. 7.-.... 1001 0. .. .. .1 1.0....01. 0.110.. 1.01. 2003.0--. .. . 1-3.10.9 .0 ...y0.00. 0100‘». 00.90.00... . ..-.11—o...’ 9.01...0 .00 . 0....- ...-1. 11.301. .-.-.1711 1.... 1.90 . d...1...!1...l ... .... ... . . . .1 .11. I ....9 ..r’! .93.... 00.3.1.4: . .1}. r.. 0...... ....v .. .9. . 0.1.1 ... u .. 1... . . . . . £01.... .. 9...... .91.- ... .... 3... . .0 . .. 0. 0. 21.. .~r. .. 00-1.0 .... . 1’... . o ..r.. . . . .. .. 0.9.1 0 1003.000 . . . . . . . .. ... .21.... .. ....11..24... 3.21.1: ...... . . .... . 20.1.21: . . 1.. 0 0 3.00%. .0 .1“. .. 0.0.0....111 .. 1' . 0. ... ... .... . . . I. ‘0 ...-0. .Q90..00.00 0011.. .10 .. ..rl...00..:. ... 0......19. . 110.11 .. 1'31... .. 90. .00...... 1...... .. ... . 110.10.. ... ......1...U.U.9. 00...: 3 .03..-......‘...1.. . .....Jo. . I .. . ... . . . c . ...... ......y? .....11...19. W“.9.-....$1\. 0 k. 0 ..m . o. 0 1.0 ‘10... 0.4.0.00... 01‘ 19.. . . . . i n . . . .9 33.1.9 . . . v 1 . ... ..1 ..J...ol..061 . 0.3.1.1.........”1‘.. $1.20..- . .....0.0.0>..0.0 0.0 0 1. 0. 1 020.1312. y .. . ... 01.1.10... .. 9.1 £10L0‘ .9110... C .0 0. .1110n1u1:.0100‘ . 1 . $0 109.! :01“... .0100}. 1. 0 ..v 0.0.. 0 0. 0. o. o. 1.... . .0 .000. .10... ...l... .10. . ..y. .1301. 0‘00 . 0.. .0. 1010. ..I 3.13.01.00... 3,—73; . .0 31.... .. 1... 1 00... .. 090.0..011 Q . 1. . ... ... . ....a\ . 1.11.0...- . . 00.95.11 ...... ...... .L...:IPQ.L.... 0016‘ . 0 .. . .... . .00.... . I... ....1..-...1.1..!.._...1.. .) . ......10....01"0...10.1 . . . . hi .1 0 0. . . ”.0 0. 1.0 ... ...0.o».-0.10.. 01‘. 1.009010. 0. .110: 9.. .09 99? no. .‘fio‘hcfl..‘1’h‘.’ki~10fiu '0‘”“ .0 .. ..0 . 2.2.0..” ...: ....Wu...1............ .. ...: . ..1...........;..... . ...1. 1 0... ....0.u..u.....m..0.:...0..... . .u . .rthOJl.... 1 £011.11)! .. 2.4.001. 020.100.. 1.”... .... . . . . . 6‘. .... 900.. 10.9.3... 0:... .L.H.10n\o.o.. . . .. . . . . . .. ...0... .0 0. .2010... .- ..0).....0. .. . ... :1 L§./.. . L10". 0"...” ~1~0Wf§2vlhfi11¢1n0m51800wuo .6..§“0n.111|00 01 .1 - ..0.9110000 . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .001. .110»... O u 1‘ . . s 1......20 ......0... . 012.09. . . . _. . . . . . _ ...Jl... n1. .. 11.1.... .0....$1..:0~..u..1 .11."; 4...”. ...“. .fivn90a1n900tr .60ms..l.v..‘0..1 . .... TI ... . .... 11 .1 1.... . .1030... ....O‘l 0‘... 10.9. . .109 . .10.... 1..-10.39.21. .. .0 .9... . . . ... ... l0....1.0.g.1. 10 .91 . . T... .. .10. 20.. 1..... 11.0.1 .1 . .1 . .0. '1‘. .9.. A 9. .0.- . .40 0. ...! ............$. 13...... :1. ... .1ahnuw01 ... ".01 .1 ...1010..n00.0. 9.. . .rl‘... .1... ’10.”. . . .. ’ .9“.0.1H’\ ....0 . 'M‘r0 ‘ “.filnnxaltlnl ".10.. 1.11.0. .. 008))...‘13 ‘- o . V 0 0 1 . . 0 _....m.m.......u....._....x"......1. . 5... . 1...... :1. thrim. 1.". .. 1102...... 9...“?! : .... 91‘"..- 09.0. .0 .9 u. 1.0 1... 0... 9.. ~. 1.0. . . . .. .10 . 0.....20701'1 .0. .0 . . ..J.100..0100-. .m....10.v. .1... .0 0....( 1.9 . ... . .0. ...... . .0... 3.0.9.1...” .. . . . . . 21.7.1.1. . ... .. . 9 .0... ..0 ....0. .. ... ....ao. ... .. ... . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .... .... ... ... ...1. -..... .1. . .0}. . .. o. . . . ..- .. . o. “9. . . 9. .0. ..0 .... _ 9.0.1.7”. o .....J ... . . . 1 l...9.w.?..0 yQJ‘ 0 ..0. n.1...0.s0.09\u.’1 . 0 a 0 .. . .... Q ....010 .01. 0. 0 ..1. 9.0 . «‘10. J... 4.010.031 .1 0.... .0. .. 1 0.0.0 . .0.- 01 0.‘ .. .I. Z .. L .. ll!1H..1...0...... :00. J . 0. . . ..... ....01...o... ('91...-051 (1.. 39.19. ...... 1’0. .0 1000.. 0.0-.. ...Qotfi. ).:v1 '10.“...- 1...\1 .. l 9 ... . .0 0. .... ...“. 0.. 1'1..00.J4 0 . .1 ... ... 111.0 . 3‘31... ..1\... o I. . 0: ’0. o u 10‘ 00. 19100 1 . . 1 . .. . . 1 v . . . v 1 ..090 . .. .. '10.. H ....u 000 . .0 0 . 0.. 1... .0 .0400...01-. 1.00 H... “'0 ..1.1..0. 0...." ....‘1n0... 1. ..0. . .... . ..f... s 0 . . 0| . . 9. ... . 0;.n1.19“,.?.9. 0.0.?991 A . . 10.1.0 900 ...0.QO‘§..11.1,. ..1 .91.}... 1 .1. .... ....01 ...,91W1Jl.....131.11.3 4.-.. . ....1. . .0. .9... 13.0.y :00... ... .10.... 0.0.0.1m‘. 3.1.1.5... .010... .15)‘. 8.... 40.1 1 ..... ......” . .../11.... .. .19... .9 ..09 0.10.0011! 0...”.."5: .1.QU~ .0' . . ... ...I. w .1.. . , .1. ......2. 111.0007: .1 .0. .9 . ...... .- ....w....1...... 0. .1... . ...19 . . 1...... 1 .11. ..- . . o . . o 1 . 0 .11 . . .. . ....0 9010. 0 ..v.. 00.0... .1 .. .n .\.0 .111 0 ... . :Ils. 0.00.10.11106 . 0. 50.. 000.00 1...-1.... 0.. o ......1..1.. ..., 0 0 .1! 33,110.30. ’ o ......a... . . .... .... .... .... .1 .. n. .0 ’1... .“. u . I... 1:300: ... 0. .._. ... o .- 00. . I 01.0.10.”- (90.. .....0. .1... . 1.1.1.210111731. . (1.7.8... 5...)... ..0... nQ .0 .. 0 Q... .. . . ....0 .1.0...00...0r.o.1 1 0 .1 . .. ....91: ...«Ir..1....<..1......1!...... 11.11.4403». .. 2.1.9.1....3... ..010....0.0M.1...... ...1.............”.....1... . 119.110... {1.3119 5.0.... ..0.. 0.. .o ... .. 1.1 s 50.. .1. -.. 208... 1:0 .0....0.1.1'0.0 . - . . .... 0.000....97..o.00.9. 900...... . 0... .. .. 00. . o. .0 .10.? .. o . ”0.0.. . .0 .. .1.u 1.11.1.3.“09. 1 . '1? 0...}... ...-....1113113‘. 00100.01...- . 04 .0. A .09 00 00.000 .... . 13 . . ... .0. 0.- .. 0....u11.100..11v nun" .... .qy. .. .1111. >I... . . .. Id .. 10.1.10‘.§‘ . .1 .. . o . . 0.. . : .. .H... .. ... .....H.1 ....0... ... .....01. .H! . . ....39. 0 .... 1... ... 09...”... ...: .. .00.. . 0.. 31...... 1. . 1.931.800. . ..9. 0.9.... . . . . . ... . .- ... - .. .. v . . o . . .11. o. . .1 o .. . . . . . . .....12 .91..l..?1..11.... 7...... . . . . . .. . 1 a . . 0 A. . . . . . . .. . ... ... o. .. , . . . . . .. . . 0 .. ......oy “.9 10. \0 9. . . o 0...... 01 ...: u. .9. 5H0. .K' ... ......o...<..1.......... 1......0........0.0.0... .. ..... . 1. ...19..o.. . ..0 .. . . . .1 . . . . 0 . .0. s1... ......w.” ...“... . .. . £N..0...3..001HW.3.00| 110 .005... . . ..1. .. . ... 9P ... ...-0.. 0.9.0......r.00,1.0...1. . 160.3“91'00910b0.1”1'130p94" .1. .....HJ... ...01. ...... . ...: ...: . P . 0 .0. . . a . 9.190... .r\... u . 191.91....010. .. ..0‘k.1.. .0199 79. .. . v . . . ...- v 30.6....1. .....l . . ““0 . .9 . 0 '06 .. .. . I... .... .0. .- 1. . 1.. v 0 ....0 I .2 0.. . 1.0..»1 v0. . . . a -0 .. .. c .. .v .. .0....you.... ......1. .15.. ... . .. 1 . . 91.3‘ 0. . v .. _ ... “'1' . f l . 9.... ...-..L......:....: . . .1u'u...0! ...... .... 0. (.10., 105‘ 0.1.7111. 1.90.1 .10 .11010...A .. .30.... I v.0 1! . -.. . ... o. ...-...“...u... . H . . .. . .. . . .0r0..... 100.-....1011063 .. 1 . H..0.:...0.0-1.0. 0 .. . ...... . . 00 _. . . . . 510, .0... 010 .... .0’g009lPlC.-1C.‘0o. . 10.. . 3......- u. . .7 I min-99 ._ ...-. .... . . . . 0.8.0.3039 . . . . ...l0.1rv . . . 9 9. . 0.00. :0 .0h .10.... .0) «...! 0.030)....001. 0 . . . . . 1 1. "'on . .41. . 0... .. . .. . . . . . .4 0 9.0. . 9 o . . . . 0 .. .9. "“0 . .... .u...~... ......1 c. . .. an"-.. ... 0.0.. .730 ...000. 3.1!".o 1.0."01130. 4. _. 3 . .nqu.....9.. .11.. . . ... ...... ..lr . .0.'O\00.. 1.}.n.19.. “ ...0.. ... ...... 1... .. ... ....0. .1 0. . . O .. . . .0.. 9. -1 . . It‘flur. . .3 0‘ ..10 ... 1 ...0. . ... I . .10.. Z . . . .. 0.. 0... . .. .0. 0 . 1:. ‘9. .0000 ....0. 001.0. ' 0 II .‘ 0.30.9019-.. v . .. .. ._ .. . .1 1...... 1 . 9.. . .. ..1. ....00130. ..0.0..r1-0...1.. " . ... - ..0 .00. . . - .-0. 0 1. :4.- ..l..’.00..1500.y.1‘0. . . . V . . .. ... . . . . 9 . . .0. . . I. . . '1 . ... . . . . . . OI ’1’0910: $90.10.... W _. .... I . J.I.. . 0 . . .. .. 0. .. .1. . f .. 1 .00 0 3 ..0 ... . . . . 9.01".“1-0131 ..90‘-.111.. . IQ!” - .. .. ...... . 9 s 0 -.,11. ... .1. .0 . .... 91193 .... 009.0 1...-0 .... .... ..V .0. 4 9. . . . s . .....0 . . . . 0 . 119.. - .. . ..Ho. ...0. . . .. . 0. ..11’......'..0 0 0.00. .‘0....’..100f19.00. .... V 09.. .. . 9 . a . 0 .. 9.0 0<... 1 .. 9 . . 1 . o . . . . .. . .. . . . . 0 . .1 . 0001599,..1‘0130... .990.) v V“. .5 . . . ......n. .0 1. .. \o. 1 1. 1 o. . . . . . . . O I ‘ 7.' -=. . .. .1. . . .100.0000‘.J1 .... . a .. 9- . 0 o. .. 0. ... . ...n.. 0. ~0..n0.0900. 90?!!‘!!?.. I u . 090 . . . . _ o . 0 0 J .. n 1.: 0 .1 . . . . ... 7 . .3... o. . .11. I. . ...........0....1..... .... 31;... .. .0»00J..)~..9 110.0]10. .0 .. 0 9 . o . . ......1 ..- ..l I ....00. t. . v . . .. . .1... .011. ... ..- .1.».o1.. 0.... 9. 0.. J11. ..00110 0. 9 . . . 1 0 v _ . . ....v o 0 ..~ F. In. 9 . 0 0 .. v . . .4. - 10.0.0.9 . 0 .. 0.0.0.00? .... 1 . .... 0. 1. 01 .. 1.. 0...... . . . 0. 9 . . 00 ... . n. 1 1 . . . . 0 c u. . u. . . . . y . 0 0.. 0. - .. . ...0 . ‘0 .9.| \. 0'00 . 0. L 1‘. 0.40.. N .011 00\ V . . .0. . o 1. .. I! .. . .I. .1. 1. . . . ...? . 1.0 l 3.0.. ...01.9.0.0.0....1...v..0. 10.1.9111 .0. .9..0 . _ ' 9. 1 I . . . ... . . . . .. . v- . . ... 2.00. .1000 ... I .1 .. .. 1 H00. - 0.0 1 . . .4.’ .0 . . .... _ 1 . . . . .. r 1 . ... o .. I n . 10v .. 0.1! .. ..0 ... . u 0 0 . o . .- o 1 1 . .1 o 1 . I 1 Q 0 9' . .. . '.' .rmnu. éwfl¢t$§lfl1 9 ...KM 0.) 0 .1.....hfl...0. . .0 110‘... 0. . .u..1. ...”... N.; . ... Ina-.... ‘0’. ... ‘0‘. 9 s I 0| N... H. m01v‘1g‘4 $01.9” g... ‘91,“.9‘ . 0‘... ilomw. .. 9.. rr‘b..h.‘.c.~.9.r.0....+ 32.1“. "Mun", an..>fl. cum-to.¢u .00” . pJ...J..“O\0.10~.o v.1...u... 'fi'iIINng.lfl1.flod.g . _. .. . k13505... ....u......r.... .... 3...... :15... ...... .0 ......0. .. 1..... q...... . .....30.-. .. : fé . . I. . .. . 0000. gm ' LIBR ARY . W Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECTS OF A MUSIC LEARNING THEORY-BASED PATTERN INSTRUCTION CURRICULUM ON THE IMPROVISATIONAL ABILITY OF MIDDLE SCHOOL INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC STUDENTS presented by KENNETH A. DOUGLAS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters degree in Music Education Ctfi :AQI: (le (AL I a: K ./ (TKMTJL (.1 Major Professor’s $§yature $122. los" Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5/08 K IProjIAcc&Pres/CIRClDateDue indd THE EFFECTS OF A MUSIC LEARNING THEORY-BASED PATTERN INSTRUCTION CURRICULUM ON THE IMPROVISATIONAL ABILITY OF MIDDLE SCHOOL INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC STUDENTS By Kenneth A. Douglas A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF MUSIC EDUCATION School of Music 2005 ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF A MUSIC LEARNING THEORY-BASED PATTERN INSTRUCTION IMPROVISATION CURRICULUM ON THE IMPROVISATIONAL ABILITY OF SECONDARY INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC STUDENTS By Kenneth A. Douglas The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of Music Learning Theory-based improvisation instruction with an emphasis on improvisation and creativity on the improvisational abilities and readiness for improvisation of secondary instrumental music students. A two-dimensional treatment by levels with repeated measures design was used. The subjects of the study were 101 one 6'", 7‘“, and 8th grade wind and percussion students. Prior to the instructional period, the students took the Music Aptitude Profile (MAP), Harmonic Improvisation Readiness Record (HIRR), and Rhythm Improvisation Readiness Record (RIRR). The students were randomly assigned to a treatment or control instructional group, by homogenous instrument group using MAP results to control for aptitude. The researcher taught each group for 12 weeks. Both groups received rote-song instruction, and the treatment group received additional pattern instruction. After the instructional period, each student played four consequent phrases to a set of four researcher-composed antecedent phrases. Two independent judges and the researcher rated the improvisations for tonal and rhythmic achievement. Reliability coefficients of .68 to .89 were accepted. HIRR and RIRR were also administered a second time as a post-treatment measure. Those in the treatment group had significantly higher tonal improvisation scores than those in the control group and tended to have slightly higher rhythmic improvisation scores. There was no significant difference between instructional groups in improvisational readiness Copyright by KENNETH A. DOUGLAS 2005 AKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the contributions of Kevin Culling and the students of the Chippewa Middle School Band program for participating in this study; Nate Kruse and Steven Ore for their assistance with rating the students’ improvisations; and Dr. Bruce Taggart and Dr. Mitch Robinson for serving on my committee and their invaluable advice. I would like to extend special thanks to Dr. Cynthia Taggart for her guidance, encouragement, and constant support. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii LISTS OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. l The Scholarship of Improvisation ........................................................................... 4 Methods and Materials ................................................................................ 5 Scholarly Research ...................................................................................... 5 Cognitive Theories ...................................................................................... 9 Audiation ....................................................................................... 10 Aptitude ......................................................................................... 12 Improvisation ............................................................................................ 12 Summary ................................................................................................... 20 Purpose .................................................................................................................. 21 Problems ............................................................................................................... 22 CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................. 23 Related Research ................................................................................................... 23 Improvisation as Treatment ...................................................................... 23 Improvisation as a Dependant Variable .................................................... 29 Summary ................................................................................................... 38 CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................... 40 Design and Analysis ............................................................................................. 40 Sample ....................................................................................................... 40 Experimental Design ................................................................................. 42 Procedures ................................................................................................. 42 Instruction ................................................................................................. 44 Measurement ............................................................................................. 46 Materials and Equipment .......................................................................... 49 Analysis ..................................................................................................... 50 CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................. 53 Results and Interpretations .................................................................................... 53 Improvisational Rating Scales Reliabilities .............................................. 53 Reliabilities of the Music Aptitude Profile ............................................... 57 Reliabilities of Harmonic Improvisation Readiness Record and Rhythm Improvisational Readiness Record ..................................................... 59 Differences in Aptitude among Instructional Groups and Grade Levels. 61 The Effects of Instruction on Improvisational Ability .............................. 71 Results ........................................................................................... 71 Interpretations ............................................................................... 79 The Effects of Instruction on the Improvisational Readiness of Secondary Instrumental Students .................................................................... 80 Results .......................................................................................... 80 Interpretations .............................................................................. 83 The Effects of Aptitude on the Improvisational Ability of Secondary Instrumental Students .................................................................... 83 Results .......................................................................................... 83 Summary of Results and Interpretations ................................................... 84 CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................................. 86 Summary, Limitations, and Recommendations .................................................... 86 Summary ................................................................................................... 86 Purpose ...................................................................................................... 86 Problems ................................................................................................... 87 Design and Procedures .............................................................................. 87 Analysis ..................................................................................................... 88 Summary of Results and Interpretations ................................................... 89 Limitations and suggestions for Future Research ..................................... 90 Implications for Music Education and Conclusions ................................. 91 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 93 Appendix A: University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects Approval ................................................................................................... 94 Appendix B: Parent Letter and Consent Form ...................................................... 95 Appendix C: Treatment Songs .............................................................................. 99 Appendix D: Lesson Outline .............................................................................. 101 Appendix E: Tonal Patterns ................................................................................ 103 Appendix F: Rhythm Patterns ............................................................................. 104 Appendix G: Antecedent/Consequent Improvisational Measure ........................ 105 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 106 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Inter-judge Reliabilities for Improvisation Rating Scales .................................. 54 Table 2. Inter-judge Reliabilities for Combined Content Scores of Each Dimension ...... 55 Table 3. Inter-judge Reliabilities for Dimension Total Scores and Composite Score ...... 55 Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations Table for Judges Ratings ................................. 56 Table 5. MAP Reported and Present Study Reliabilities .................................................. 57 Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations of MAP Raw Scores by Grade Level .............. 58 Table 7. HIRR & RIRR Reported Reliabilities and Pre- & Post-Instruction Reliabilities 60 Table 8. HIRR & RIRR Means and Standard Deviations Table by Grade Level ............ 60 Table 9. Means Table by Groups for all grades for MAP Raw Scores ............................ 62 Table 10. Means Table by Group for 6th Grade for MAP raw scores .............................. 63 Table 11. Means Table by Group for 7th Grade ............................................................... 64 Table 12. Means Table by Group for 8th Grade ............................................................... 65 Table 13. Pillai’s Trace of significance for MAP ............................................................. 66 Table 14. MANOVA of MAP Tonal Raw Scores ............................................................ 67 Table 15. MANOVA Table of MAP Rhythm Raw Scores .............................................. 68 Table 16. ANOVA Table of MAP Composite Raw Scores .............................................. 69 Table 17. Tukey’s HSD Table among Grade Levels ........................................................ 70 Table 18. Means and Standard Deviations by Group ....................................................... 72 Table 19. Means and Standard Deviations by Grade Level .............................................. 73 Table 20. MANOVA Table for Tonal dimension of ACIM ............................................. 75 Table 21. MANOVA Table for Rhythm dimension of ACIM ......................................... 76 Table 22. ANOVA Table for ACIM ................................................................................. 77 Table 23. Tukey’s HSD Table among Grade Levels ........................................................ 78 Table 24. HIRR & RIRR Means and Standard Deviatons Table by Instructional Group 80 Table 25. MANOVA of Pre & Post-Instructional HIRR & RIRR ................................... 81 Table 26. Measure Linear Contrasts table for Pre- & Post-Instructional Repeated .......... 82 Table 27. Pearson’s Correlation of Aptitude and Improvisational Achievement ............. 84 vii LISTS OF FIGURES Figure 1. Gordon’s eight types of audiation ..................................................................... 11 Figure 2. Kratus' seven levels of improvisation ................................................................ 14 Figure 3. Swanwick and Tillman Spiral of Musical Development ................................... 15 Figure 4. Gordon's levels of skill learning sequence ........................................................ 19 Figure 5. Grade level and Instrumentation of participants ................................................ 41 Figure 6. Experimental Design ......................................................................................... 42 Figure 7. Tonalities and Meters of Treatment Songs ........................................................ 45 Figure 8. Improvisation Rating Scales .............................................................................. 51 viii CHAPTER ONE Introduction Musicians have been improvising for as long as they have been making music. Ancient Greek musicians began by embellishing melodies of their otherwise monophonic music. When medieval musicians could not memorize plainchants for liturgical services, they were able to improvise new melodies within the conventions that had established, which paved the way for Pope Gregory to notate his now famous Gregorian Chants. Medieval Organum and faburden developed from musicians improvising a new melody with plainchant accompaniment, which marked the beginnings of polyphonic music. During the Renaissance, instrumental musicians improvised new melodies, embellished familiar melodies, and improvised contrapuntal accompaniment to familiar melodies (Grout & Palisca, 2000). Improvisation was an essential component of music from the baroque and Classical eras of Western Art music. Figured bass guided musicians when improvising, and organists improvised extensively as a part of the church services. Classical musicians became famous for improvising cadenzas. Additionally, some of the world’s most accomplished composers, such as J.S. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, were also accomplished improvisers (Grout & Palisca, 2000). Improvisation is an important aspect of many of the world’s musics. Javanese Gamelan music relies heavily on group improvisation. Iranian musicians use the music from their culture, called radifi as a source of themes to improvise variations. Similarly, Arabic musicians use music from the taqsim for their improvisations. The Shona, of Zimbabwe, also have their own unique repertoire they use as a foundation for their improvisations. Furthermore, the Shona develop their improvisations by interacting with the other musicians during performances. Similar traditions exist in cultures throughout Asia, Africa, and South, Central and North America (Nettl, 1998). In the United States, improvisation continues to exist mainly in the jazz idiom, which has now secured a place in many university and conservatory curricula. Many believe that improvisation, in any idiom, is an integral element of a comprehensive music education (Azzara, 199]; Bitz, 1998, Bowman, 1988; Elliott, 1995; Flohr, 1981; Gordon, 1997; Kratus, 1996; McDaniel, 1974; Madura, 1996; Reimer, 2003; Sloboda, 1985). The Comprehensive Musicianship Project (CMP), National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), and the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project (MMCP) have included improvisation as a necessary component of a quality music education. Methodologies such as Orff, Dalcroze, and Kodaly have long included improvisation as an important activity in the curriculum (Azzara, 1991; Flohr, 1981; Kratus, 1991; McDaniel, 1974; Madura, 1996). Likewise, the third content standard of the National Standards for K-12 Music Education from MENC: The National Association for Music Education is “improvising various melodies, variations, accompaniments” (1994). The present study explores, directly and indirectly, what instrumental music students need as preparation to improvise, how instrumental music students learn to improvise, and how music education can incorporate improvisation into instrumental music curricula. Improvising occurs at many levels in the music classroom, ranging from a child’s improvisation of simple and unrestricted explorations to the sophisticated and complicated melodies of older more accomplished students. Improvising is a comprehensible and unmistakable account of musical understanding. The nature of improvisation is a process of self-discovery that helps students develop and nurture, through practice and performance, a personal, consistent, and possibly unique, musical style and identity (Azzara, 1993; Gordon, 1997). Improvisation instruction, however, exists almost exclusively in the jazz curricula of high school and university programs (Azzara, I993; Bowman, I988; Kratus, 1991, Madura, 1996; McDaniel, 1974). McDaniel (1974) states that “the performance of jazz may call for the most talented musicians in our midst,” (p. 96) which may explain why jazz ensembles tend to consist of the elite of many music programs, and music educators tend to regard improvisation as a specialized Skill more suitable for the performers with greater aptitude and achievement. Many believe that improvisation instruction and curriculum within the profession is substandard in most secondary and even some university-level educational institutions (Azzara, 1991, 2002; Bitz, 1998; Bowman, 1998; Kratus, 1991; Sarath, 2002). Additionally, MENC, CMP, NASM, and MMCP recommendations are not being met in secondary music programs (Adderly, 1999; Austin 1998; Byo 1999; Kirkland, 1996; Lehman, 1995; Skube, 2002). Adderly (1999) and Kirkland (1996) both report that universities in South Carolina are not doing enough to prepare music teachers in their undergraduate programs for the implementation of the third MENC National Standard. Skube (2002) claims that the third MENC National Standard, which focuses improvisation, is not being implemented in Michigan secondary instrumental music programs. Furthermore, improvisation, as an important musical activity of music, receives little scholarly attention. Nettl (1998) says “the understanding of music at large hinges on understanding something of improvisation” (p. 5). Bailey (1992) points out that “improvisation enjoys the curious distinction of being both the most widely practiced... and the least acknowledged and understood” (p. ix). Bowman (1988) and Sarath (2002) believe that quality of research into improvisation is substandard. Sarath states that the “marginalized status of improvisation in the curriculum appears to be consistent with, and possibly a result of, its marginalized status as a research topic” (p. 188). The present study, in part, is an attempt to address this problem. The Scholarship of Improvisation The scholarship of improvisation can be divided into three general categories. First are methods and materials (Aebersold, 1967- 1999; Baker, 1994; Cooker, 1984), which provide a prescriptive approach for learning to improvise, and are primarily rooted in convention, memorization, and technique drills. Second is educational research into music teaching and learning, of which improvisation is a key element. Researchers have focused on improvisational curricula and pedagogy; how children learn to improvise, how teachers can affect that learning, and how Ieaming improvisation impacts music education (Aitken, 1975; Albiro 1988; Azzara, 1991; Bash, 1983; Damron, 1975; Gordon, 1997, 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2003; Hores, 1977; Kratus, 1996; McDaniel, 1974; Madura, 1996; Paulson, 1985). Third are the psychological or cognitive theories of improvisation, which attempt to provide insight into the processes by which people make music and the process that people progress through when learning music (Elliott, 1995; Flohr, 1985; Kratus, 1991; Gordon, 2001; Pressing, 1987; Sarath, 2002, Sisk, 1989; Webster, 1979). Methods and Materials Jazz improvisation instructional materials that are popular among teachers and students have proliferated (Aebersold, 1967-1999; Baker, 1994; Coker, 1984). The methods tend to focus on the activity of improvising by providing concrete technical objectives to master through drill and memorization. These materials contain an exhaustive sequence of scales and chordal patterns. Many refer to these materials as teacher- or student-proof, because the amount of detail and formulas for successful performance limit the need for extensive instruction. Commitment and practice is all that is necessary to master the objectives with these materials (Aitken, 1975; Azzara, 1991; Bash, 1983; Damron, 1975; Hores, 1977; Kratus, 1996; McDaniel, 1974; Madura, 1996; Nettle & Russell, 1998, Paulson, 1985; Pressing, 1987, Sarath, 2002). Many criticize these materials for focusing too much on visual and technical Skills, drills, and music theory, while neglecting aural skills, creativity, and musical context (Aitken, 1975; Albiro 1988; Azzara, 1991; Bash, 1983; Damron, 1975; Gordon, 1997, 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2003; Hores, 1977; Kratus, 1996; McDaniel, 1974; Madura, 1996; Nettle & Russell, 1998; Paulson, 1985; Pressing, 1988; Sarath, 2002). Scholarly Research Some doctoral studies delve into jazz and jazz improvisation. These studies usually attempt to improve teaching and learning by examining the music and techniques of jazz masters. Some of these perpetuate harmful assumptions; among the most noteworthy, and perhaps most destructive, is that jazz improvisation is perhaps unexplainable, un-teachable, and best left to the most talented (Madura, I996; McDaniel, 1974). Much research into improvisation is substandard, and the research has not informed curricula or pedagogy as it has in other areas of music education. Bowman (1988) claims that the literature reviews are perfunctory, there are no clearly stated purposes or problems, and that there “can be no denying that the research [into improvisation] has failed to keep pace with the incredible proliferation of materials developed in the area” (p. 71). The popularity of the student- or teacher-proof methods and materials and a desire to provide teachers and students with clear detailed procedures and resources have inspired research into the efficacy of such materials. Paulson (1985) developed self- instructional materials that focused on imitation. His materials are sequential and divided into five sections. Using recorded excerpts, section 1 begins with students imitating two measure articulation drills; section 2 involves pitch matching, and section 3 synthesizes the tasks from sections 1 and 2. Section 4 requires students to improvise their own response to a melody; section 5 requires the students to improvise over a blues progression. Although he did not evaluate the effectiveness of his method, Paulson believes that a method primarily concerned with imitating as a basis from which to develop melodic ideas is the most effective instructional approach. Damron (1973) developed and evaluated self-instructional materials. The study involved 40 instrumental music students randomly assigned to a treatment group, which received the self-instruction materials, and a control group, which did not receive the self-instruction instructional materials. Damron observed that those in the treatment group showed significant gains in improvising achievement. In an effort to address an attrition problem in his string ensemble, Albiro (1988) explored alternative teaching strategies in order to increase student retention. After concluding that the available materials focused too much on technical development, be implemented an improvisation curriculum designed to foster creativity. Albrio found that his students’ attitudes were more positive concerning music class after implementing the curriculum, and they seemed less likely to drop out. Bash (1983) also believes that the common practices of improvisation instruction place too much emphasis on developing the technical dimensions of improvising at the expense of other less technical, more creative, dimensions. Bash examined the effectiveness of two different improvisation methods that he believed to offset the shortcomings of common practice. He randomly assigned 60 high school instrumentalists to one of three treatment groups. The control group received typical instruction or used the available jazz materials as intended. Vocal imitation, vocal improvisation, and transcribing supplemented the typical instruction in the second treatment group. The students in the third treatment group analyzed jazz recordings as a supplement to typical instruction, with particular emphasis on the use of musical devices, such as imitation, repetition, and silence. Bash concluded that the instruction that treatment groups 2 and 3 received was superior to common practice. These studies commonly recognize and place a high degree of importance on listening, imitation, and repetition. Nevertheless, as Pressing (1987) observes, “too much intellectual detail both interferes with the fluid organization of action sequences... and strains [cognitive] resources” (p. 141). There are an increasing number of high-quality studies related to improvisation. Researchers have investigated the effects of instruction on improvisation (Amchin, 1995; Bash, 1983; Bitz, 1998; Briscuso, 1972; Brophy, 1999; Bumsed, 1978; Carlson, 1980; Coy, 1989; Guilbault, 2002; Hores, I977; Jessen, 1991; Joseph, 1982; Kratus, 1996; Partchey, 1974; Paulson, 1985; Schenkel, 1980; Wig, 1980; Zwick, 1987) and the effects of improvisation instruction on overall music achievement (Azzara, 1991; Baudo, 1982; Bumsed, 1978; Della Pietra, 1997; Flohr, 1981; Lorenz, 1993; Montano, 1983; Whitman; 2001, Wilson, 1970). One of the earliest studies concerning improvisation is Moorhead’s and Pond’s (1978) investigation of children’s behavior when improvising. They studied the behavior of two- through six-year-old students and discovered that the students were predisposed to creating patterns. They also observed evidence of a structural form within the children’s improvisations. They concluded that, with proper guidance, children could improvise tonal, rhythmic, and asymmetrical patterns with a steady beat. F lohr (1979, 1981, 1984) studied student improvisational capabilities at different developmental levels. In a longitudinal study of improvisational behaviors of children, he characterized and described the behaviors of two-year-old through five-year-old children when improvising. Children had the opportunity to improvise freely, improvise with the researcher’s verbal guidance, and improvise while the researcher played an ostinato-type accompaniment. His research supports suppositions that children’s improvisational behaviors change with age. He identifies three stages of improvisational development. During the first stage of development, children tend to explore the instrument and its different sounds. In the second stage, children experiment with making sounds and combinations of sounds. Greater structural properties, such as repetition and form, develop in the third stage of development. Reinhardt (1990) studied the rhythmic improvisations of preschool children. Reinhardt also found that the level of sophistication in the children’s’ improvisations increased with the age of the child. Five-year-old children were able to employ a greater variety of patterns than three-year-olds when improvising. F urtherrnore, she observed that older children had greater ability to maintain a steady beat. Cognitive Theories Researchers also offer cognitive theories and descriptions of the mental processes children use to create music (Elliott, 1995; Flohr, 1985; Kratus, 1991; Gordon, 2001; Pressing, 1987; Sarath, 2002, Sisk, 1989; Webster, 1979). This invariably results in defining how music becomes meaningful to a person. Such theories are valuable, because they identify relationships that may direct research and teaching strategies. In a study of behavioral differences in jazz musicians, Hargreaves, Cork, and Setton (1991) noticed that expert improvisers approach improvising with preconceived ideas that are easily adaptable to new and different circumstances. Beginning improvisers, however, have little to no ideas from which to develop their improvisations. Pike (1974) believes that accomplished improvisers posses, in memory, a repertoire of musical patterns that serve as a foundation when improvising. Additionally, they also possess the cognitive ability and musical insight to use that repertoire creatively and expressively. Similarly, Sloboda (I988) believes that improvisation involves the ability to sequence related elements of music to produce a basic structural cohesiveness. The relationship between and within musical elements, and the order in which they are sequenced determines musical meaning. Pressing (1984, 1988) developed a cognitive model based on the sequencing of musical patterns into a series of larger musical actions. Improvisation, to Pressing, is the orderly combination of these musical actions. A musician develops, through experience, a repertoire of patterns that he or she is able to access and transform, in real time, into meaningful actions within a musical context. Improvisational ability, according to Pressing, is based on a musician’s knowledge and experience, the ability to retrieve patterns from memory and link to actions, and the ability to execute these actions either vocally or instrumentally. Audiation Gordon (1997) coined the term audiation to describe the process by which persons bring meaning or comprehension to music. Audiation is “the ability to hear and to understand music for which the sound is not physically present or may never have been physically present” (p. 3). Audiation, according to Gordon, is essential to making music meaningfully and it requires the ability to attend to music in the present, recall music from the immediate and/or distant past, and predict what is to come. It is through audiation, according to Gordon, that students take ownership of their music. Walters (1989) states that “as a subject of scientific investigation, musical audiation is new and incomplete. Additional thought is needed, and observable aspects of audiation need to be researched” (p. 10). Audiation, however, is the best definition available of the process through which people bring meaning to and take ownership of music (Azzara, 2002). 10 Figure 1. Gordon’s eight types of audiation Type 1: Listening to familiar and unfamiliar music Type 2: Reading familiar and unfamiliar music Type 3: Writing familiar and unfamiliar music from dictation Type 4: Recalling and performing familiar music Type 5: Recalling and writing familiar music from memory Type 6: Creating and improvising unfamiliar music while performing or in silence Type 7: Creating and improvising unfamiliar music while reading Type 8: Creating and improvising unfamiliar music while writing There are eight types of audiation, according to Gordon (see Figure 1). Each represents a Situation or an occurrence in which audiation Skills are needed to bring meaning to the music successfully. Accordingly, the degree to which one is able to bring meaning to music is dependant on the level of audiation skills possessed. Thus, the quality of one’s experience in each type of audiation is dependant on one’s ability to audiate, or hear and understand the sounds. The sixth type of audiation directly relates to improvisation. The sixth type of audiation requires students to use familiar patterns and create new unfamiliar patterns. Gordon states in numerous books and articles that improvisation is the “spontaneous creation of music” (2003, p. 1 I; 2000a, p. 8; 2000c, p. 35; 1998, p. 8; 1997, p. 128). Although he includes spontaneity in his definition, he also states, “chance favors the prepared [italics added] mind” (1997, p. 11). Gordon reinforces this preparation with the Sixth type of audiation, which involves audiating within “previously 11 agreed upon formulas or patterns” (p. 16). In order to improvise meaningfully, students must be able to audiate within the many different tonalities and meters in which those “previously agreed upon formulas and patterns” occur. Aptitude A person’s ability to audiate, and ultimately to achieve in music, is determined in part by his or her aptitude. A person’s aptitude is determined by innate potential as well as by early environmental experiences. Aptitude is one’S capacity to learn; achievement is that which has been learned. While it is true that a person with high achievement has high aptitude, a person with low achievement does not necessarily have low aptitude. This person simply may not be achieving because of lack of effort, interest, suitable training, or some other unknown factor. According to Gordon (1987), 40% of children with high aptitude go unidentified, never realizing their potential. While there is no way to predict the level of an unborn child’s aptitude, everyone is born with some degree of aptitude, and it is normally distributed among the population. Improvisation The New Harvard Dictionary of Music defines improvisation as “the creation of music through performance” (p. 392). Azzara (1991, 1993) defines improvisation as the “manifestation of musical thought” (1993, p. 330). He adds that “improvisation skills allow students to express musical thought and ideas from that internal source with meaning” (p. 330). Sarath (1996) defines improvisation as “the spontaneous creation and performance of musical materials in a real time format” (p. 3). 12 Spontaneity is a common term that occurs in the literature when defining improvisation (Azzara, 1991; Bowman 1988; Campbell, 1991; Gordon, 2003; Kratus, 1991; Sarath, 2002). Pressing (1988), however, believes that meaningful music making is not spontaneous. He believes that, although improvisation happens in real time, spontaneity is not essential to the definition, because a good improviser is able to refine musical ideas in practice and then incorporate those ideas into each improvisation. Elliott (1995) explains that improvisation is not spontaneous “in the sense that they [improvisations] are thoughtless, unpremeditated, unstudied, or unconscious” (p. 169). Meaningful improvisation, according to Elliott, is in fact the opposite; the meaningful generation of music in real time not only requires a high level of musicianship but also preparation and practice. The performer must be conscious of, among other things, tonality, meter, and style (Gordon, 2003, 1997; Pressing, 1984). Gordon (2003, 2000a, 2000b, 20000, 1998, 1997) believes that improvisation cannot be taught directly. He believes that a student learns to improvise on his or her own. The teacher’s role in this process is to direct learning by providing an effective Ieaming environment, positive musical opportunities, and readiness. Readiness for improvisation, according to Gordon, is the ability to audiate tonal, rhythmic, and harmonic patterns. The harmonic patterns create the context, and the musician uses the tonal and rhythm patterns to develop melodic patterns for use in that context, thereby producing a meaningful improvisation. Beginning improvisers must pass through many stages to become proficient improvisers. Kratus (1995) identified seven levels of improvisation (see Figure 2) in this process. These levels are closely related to the Spiral of Musical Development (see 13 Figure 3) developed by Swanwick and Tillman (1988), which was inspired by Bruner’s Spiral Curriculum. Beginning at the lower levels, a child’s development is exploratory and unique to each individual. The exploration of sound is simple individually, but, to be able to participate with others, musicians must be able to rely on previously established and commonly recognized formulas and patterns. This is also consistent with Gordon’s sixth type of audiation. Therefore social and cultural factors influence development as a child progresses through the higher levels of the spiral. Kratus’s seven levels and Swanwick and Tillman’s Spiral, as with Gordon’s types of audiation, illustrate a continuous developmental process. Achievement at any level is dependant on achievement at previous levels. Achievement is also cyclical. A musician will revisit the different stages or levels repeatedly each time her or she encounters something new and different. Figure 2. Kratus' seven levels of improvisation 1. Exploration 2. Process Oriented Improvisation 3. Product Oriented Improvisation 4. Fluid Improvisation 5. Structural Improvisation 6. Stylistic Improvisation 7. Personal Improvisation 14 According to Kratus, students begin by exploring different sounds and combinations of sounds. As the student explores the sounds, he or She may not be conscious of what is being created or possess little musical or technical knowledge from which to draw. Figure 3. Swanwick and Tillman’s Spiral of Musical development ' 15+ Meta- II — M- | systematic Cognition I 10-15 S Imaginative Play 4-9 Imitation ‘ ' Personal ‘ -I ‘ . Manipulative Mastery Sensory ‘ Towards Social Sharing Swanwick and Tillman (1988) label this as the “sensory” (p. 77) stage of musical development. At the sensory stage, the child is often more concerned with creating sounds and experimenting on an instrument than with the actual organization of the sounds. The teacher’s main responsibility, at this stage, is to immerse the student in the various sounds that are available and provide positive opportunities for students to experiment with the sounds. As students continue to explore, they begin to realize the relationships between various motor movements and different sounds. Eventually the students begin to be able to control and manipulate the sounds. At this level, the improvisations begin to become more deliberate. The students are able to experiment with creating sounds that are long and short; fast and slow; and soft and loud and so forth. Kratus (1996) calls these improvisations “process oriented improvisations” (p. 32); similarly, Swanwick (1988) describes this stage of development as “manipulation” (p. 77), because the process of making sounds is more important than the sounds themselves. AS the students become more adept at creating sounds and attain greater technical facility, they attempt to recreate familiar sounds perhaps from the environment. Because of the emphasis students place on imitating or emulating familiar sounds, it is important that teachers provide a musically rich environment during this time. Swanwick (1988) refers to this as the “vernacular” stage (p. 78), and Kratus (1996) refers to this as the “product orientat ” level (p. 33), in which students begin to demonstrate greater structural cohesiveness with emerging senses of tonality, meter, and tempo. Assuming that the environment is suitable to foster musical development, the greatest obstacle for students at this point in their development is the lack of technical 16 facility on an instrument. Once skills are developed, students enter the “fluid” (Kratus, 1996 p. 34) stage of improvising, in which performing becomes easier, relaxed, and comfortable. It is at this stage that technical ability and musical achievement begin to intertwine, depend on, and compliment one another. These improvisations, while technically adept, still lack expressiveness, which is why these fluid improvisations fall into Swanwick’s “vernacular” (p. 78) stage of musical development. With technical facility and musical achievement, the students enter the “structural” level, in which they can structure their improvisations with greater totalin and sense of a musical whole. Swanwick (1988) describes this stage as “speculative” (p. 78), during which the improvisations begin to include more surprising or experimental musical elements. This is when students begin to take ownership and develop more personal and meaningful improvisations. As students begin to master style and genre, they enters the “stylistic” (Kratus, 1996, p. 35) level. At this level, they are able to improvise with technical and musical mastery or to use improvisation as one uses language. Improvisations are highly personalized. Swanwick (1988) describes this stage as “idiomatic,” during which the improvisations demonstrate authenticity, maturity, and accomplishment. From this level, a few improvisers enter the “personal” (Kratus, 1995, p. 36) level of improvisation. Only expert musicians reach this level, at which they are able to transcend the accomplishments of others and contribute to the evolution of the world’s music. In his Music Learning Theory (MLT), Gordon (1997, 2003) identifies two different types of Ieaming: discrimination and inference learning. Improvisation primarily occurs in inference learning. Discrimination learning, however, always precedes and I7 provides readiness for inference learning. Teachers can only teach readiness to improvise; learning to improvise is the responsibility of the learner. Teachers provide within discrimination learning the readiness to learn: a rich musical environment, and a vocabulary of tonal, rhythmic and melodic patterns. Just as children need words to communicate effectively, musicians need musical patterns to improvise effectively. Gordon identifies five levels of discrimination Ieaming and three levels of inference learning (see Figure 4). The aural/oral, verbal association, and partial synthesis levels of discrimination and improvisation/creativity and generalization levels of inference learning are germane to improvisation. Theoretical knowledge, reading, and writing are not necessary for improvisation. In discrimination learning, students listen to and perform familiar music patterns. In inference Ieaming, students listen to and perform unfamiliar patterns, and, as they do, the unfamiliar becomes familiar. As with Kratus’s, and Swanwick and Tillman’s models of learning, Gordon’s is cyclical. Each level of discrimination Ieaming requires achievement at the previous levels before proceeding, and students revisit the different levels often throughout the Ieaming process. Aural/oral is the most fundamental stage of music learning. It consists of listening and performing. The “aural” is listening to a large repertoire of songs, chants, and patterns many times. The “oral” is performing the songs, chants, and patterns that are heard in the musical environment. The teacher’s role in this process is to teach the patterns, provide an appropriate model, and provide the children with appropriate feedback. Students are ready to move on once they are audiating songs and patterns within the context of tonality and meter. Evidence of audiation is accurate solo 18 Figure 4. Gordon's levels of skill Ieaming sequence Levels of Discrimination Learning Levels of Inference Learning 1. A ural/oral * l . Generalization * 2. Verbal Association“ 2. C reativigz/Improvisation“ 3. Partial Synthesis* 3. Theoretical Understanding 4. Symbolic Association 5. Composite Synthesis *denotes levels of learning that are germane to improvisation performance of the songs, chants, and patterns. At the verbal association level, children name the sounds that they are audiating. Tonal and rhythmic syllables are used to label the patterns. Partial synthesis, the level at which students become syntactically aware, requires students to discriminate between different tonalities and meters. Furthermore, in partial synthesis, students begin to perform patterns in a sequence, and, as they do so, they begin to audiate the patterns differently depending on how the patterns interact. Generalization is the basis for inference learning. There are three sublevels: aural/oral, verbal, and symbolic. Since reading and writing are not germane, to this study the generalization-symbolic stage of Ieaming, which involves reading and writing music, will not be discussed. In generalization-aural/oral, the children perform, discern, and label tonalities and meters of unfamiliar patterns. In generalization-verbal, the children are required to associate accurately tonal and rhythmic syllables to unfamiliar patterns. 19 The creativity/improvisation level of inference Ieaming has two sub-levels: aural/oral and symbolic. Again, creativity/improvisation-symbolic is concerned with reading and writing and will not be discussed here. There is a subtle difference between creativity and improvisation. All improvisation involves a degree of creativity. Likewise all creativity involves a degree of improvisation. The difference between the two is that improvisation has more parameters that the student must improvise within, such as a harmonic progression like the blues. At the creativity/improvisation-aural/oral stage of learning, students are asked to create their own patterns within the specific context of the tonality or meter. For example, the student might be asked to respond to a given tonic pattern with a different tonic pattern. In order to do so, he or she must be familiar with the context, in this case the tonality. He or she must also recognize that the given pattern is tonic and must be able accurately to respond with a different tonic pattern. Because tonic function is specified as a parameter, this task is more improvisation than creativity. He or she will be able to either recall a familiar pattern or improvise an unfamiliar pattern. As the student creates more unfamiliar patterns, they become familiar, thereby increasing the student’s musical vocabulary. Meaningful improvisation requires that musicians possess a repertoire of musical patterns from which to draw upon when improvising. They must also be able to sequence the patterns logically within the context. Audiation makes this possible. Summary At least three significant points are evident in the research. First, a degree of convention, formal knowledge, and technique can be learned through direct instruction and practice. Second, analogous to a vocabulary of words to use when speaking, a 20 repertoire of patterns from which to build, or to begin building, improvisations is necessary. Third, a premium is placed on the ability to creatively and fluently create and organize patterns. Perhaps most noteworthy is the conflicting nature of these three points. On one hand, there are agreed upon conventions and an internalized (or at least memorized) set of patterns that may be learned and reinforced through drill. On the other hand, meaningful improvisation has a degree of uniqueness that is achieved by avoiding convention, and cannot be taught or learned directly. Gordon, Kratus, and Swanwick and Tillman all provide models that demonstrate how children Ieam to improvise and the processes involved during learning. There are important similarities in the models. All state that children must begin in an exploratory stage. Each stage of learning is dependant on the achievement at prior stages. The models allow the learner to revisit previous stages when necessary. In addition, each model provides music educators with a basis by which to make curricular decisions and evaluations. The point of this research is to attempt to provide students with the necessary skills and opportunities to begin building a repertoire of patterns, create an environment that is conducive to meaningful music making and audiation, and help guide them through the various stages of learning. Purpose With the intent of improving music pedagogy, more effectively designing instrumental music curricula, and furthering current research in the area of Music Learning Theory, audiation, and improvisation, the purpose of this research is to 21 determine how a Music Learning Theory-based improvisational and instrumental music curriculum affects student achievement in secondary instrumental music classes. Problems The problems of the study follow: 1. to determine whether instrumental music students who receive a Music Learning Theory-based improvisation instructional program have greater achievement in improvisation than students who do not receive a Music Learning Theory-based improvisational instruction 2. to determine whether instrumental music students who receive Music Learning Theory-based improvisational instructional program have greater improvisational readiness than students who do not receive Music Learning Theory-based improvisational instructional program 3. to determine the extent to which achievement in instrumental improvisation is related to music aptitude. 22 CHAPTER TWO Related Research Improvisation and improvisation pedagogy is increasingly being recognized as a worthy research topic. Some studies have been qualitative attempts to describe how great jazz musicians achieved their level of skill (Carlson, 1980; McKinney, 1978; MacDaniel, 1979). Furthermore, a number of researchers have studied and developed jazz improvisation methods (Aitken, 1975; Bash, 1983; Bumsed, 1978; Damron, 1973; Hores, 1982; Paulsen, 1985). Some studies have investigated improvisation as a treatment and have provided observations of student behaviors while improvising (Azzara, 1991; Bumsed, I985; Della Pietra, 1997; Flohr 1979; Joseph, 1982). Improvisation as Treatment In the following studies, improvisational achievement is not measured as a dependant variable. Rather, improvisation is part of the treatment, and its effects on achievement are the variables being measured. F lohr (1979) identified and described children’s behavior while improvising. Specifically, be characterized children’s initial responses to improvisational tasks, identified a sequence of behaviors children use when improvising, and identified the structure of children’s improvisations. Twelve children participated in this study, four each of four-, six-, and eight-year olds. Each age group consisted of two boys and two girls. Each subject met with the researcher individually for ten lS-minute sessions. They performed on a diatonic Orff xylophone with one mallet. 23 F lohr developed a three-phase improvisational curriculum. Phase 1 consisted of free explorations with the intent of allowing the subjects to experiment with the mallet, xylophone, and different sounds. Phase 2 consisted of short musical tasks directed by the researcher to guide the children’s explorations and develop improvisational responses. Phase 3 was exploratory improvisations, in which the subjects were asked to perform consequent responses to the researcher’s performance of “Hush Little Baby.” The researcher provided a bordun in Phase 3 to accompany the improvisations. These exploratory improvisations were transcribed for analysis. Once the improvisations were notated, the researcher identified the kinds of musical structure the subjects employed. Additionally, the researcher calculated the percentage of measures that imitated the rhythm of the bordun and the percentage of time spent in free exploration. From these figures, the researcher identified behavioral patterns that occurred during free exploration and exploratory improvisation. Flohr found many differences in the behaviors of the four-year olds and the six- and eight-year olds. The four-year old children spent more time exploring different sounds, while the older children were able to structure their improvisations. The older children maintained a greater tonal center, used more repetition and variation, and created larger musical structures, as well as considerably longer improvisations than the 4-year olds created. Della Pietra (1997) studied the effects of a constructivist instructional model for improvisation on students’ perception and reproduction of rhythm. He designed a constructivist model that involved three strategies: presentation, collaborative practice, and performance. The subjects were high school students; 17 were assigned to the 24 treatment group and 13 to the control group. The treatment group received 15 constructivist-based improvisation lessons for three and a half weeks. The members of the control group were enrolled in a high school piano class, and their instruction remained unchanged. During the instructional period, the experimental group received fifteen improvisation lessons based on presentation, collaborative practice, and performance using membranophones. The control group continued their ongoing piano study. The dependent variables included the perception of tempo, perception of meter, and performance of musical rhythms. The criterion measures for the study were the Music Aptitude Profile (MAP) and the researcherodesigned Rhythm Performance Measure (RPM), which, using a computer and drum machine, digitally recorded and transcribed student performance. The treatment group scored significantly higher in the perception dimension of the RPM. No significant differences existed in the dimensions of rhythm perception or reproduction between the two groups. Furthermore, qualitative data suggested that collaborative learning was an effective tool in building improvisational abilities among beginners. In a study about Dalcroze Eurythmics, Joseph (1982) investigated the effect of improvisation on the development of kindergarten children’s musical achievement. Joseph began with the hypothesis that children who receive Eurythmics-based instruction, with special emphasis on improvisation, will have greater achievement than children who receive similar instruction but without the improvisation component. The subjects were students from three kindergarten classes in two private schools. Two of the classes served as experimental groups and were taught by the researcher, who is a certified Dalcroze instructor. The third class was the control group and was taught by 25 another, who, although being a well-credentialed music teacher, was not a certified Dalcroze instructor. The control group received instruction without Eurythmics, and the experimental group received instruction with Eurythmics. Furthermore, the experimental group was divided in two; half of the experimental group was given Eurythmics instruction with improvisation and half without improvisation. Both the control group and the experimental groups were given a test at the beginning of the treatment period and again at the end of the treatment period. The researcher designed the test to determine the students’ music aptitudes and required the students to respond to music by either imitating musical patterns or creating different patterns through movement and sound. Because of time constraints, the test, which took approximately 15 minutes, was administered individually to a randomly selected group of 30 students, ten from each group. Present in the room during the test was the administrator and a judge. The test required the administrator to move, sing, and play the piano for the students. The judge used a Likert-type scale to rate each child’s performance. The test was divided into three sections, and the third section measured the children’s abilities to improvise. The children repeated and created musical patterns through chanting, clapping, and playing a drum while maintaining a consistent tempo. The results indicated to Joseph “that the time allotted to improvisation was profitable, supporting inclusion of improvisation in a Kindergarten Eurhythmics program” (p. 75). Furthermore, this section of the test also required the children to create their own music on a set of chromatic bells. Performances were rated based on their use of rhythm and 26 melody. Again, the children who received improvisation instruction were rated higher than those who did not receive any Eurhythmic instruction. Joseph found evidence to support the inclusion of improvisation in addition to Eurythmics training. She stated that “it would appear that the Experimental Groups receiving improvisation instruction were more adept at repeating patterns and grouping ideas than either the control group or the experimental groups not receiving improvisation” (p. 76). There are, however, several limitations to this study. Joseph acknowledges many of them that have to do with logistical matters, such as the teaching schedule for one of the classes changed mid-year with the enrollment of more students. The instruction period was inconsistent, because teachers were often late when bringing the students to class. The class that met at the end of the day was not only shortened to give the children time to prepare for dismissal, but many of the children were experiencing fatigue by this time of the school day. Additionally, the space provided for instruction was not always appropriate for the many movement activities. More important, however, Joseph did not control for teacher effect. It may be that the experimental group did better because of Joseph’s specialized training as a Dalcroze certified teacher, because she was a better teacher, or was Simply more personable and more able to successfully engage the children. Furthermore, the measure of aptitude used for the pre- and post-test more closely resembles a measure of achievement. Burnsed (1978) examined the effect of a jazz improvisation curriculum on middle school jazz and concert band students’ abilities to sight-read. The treatment consisted of improvisation activities that included repetition, imitation, and call and response using 27 pentatonic scales and a blues accompaniment. In the beginning, the students improvised in small groups; over time, however, solo improvising became more frequent. By the end of the treatment period, each student had the opportunity to improvise. Burnsed concluded that, although improvising had a positive affect on students’ attitudes, the improvisation instruction did not affect students’ ability to sight-read. Azzara (1993) examined the effect of audiation-based improvisation techniques and methods on student achievement in music. Using 66 fifth-grade instrumental music students, he first measured the students’ aptitudes using Gordon’s Musical Aptitude Profile (1998). Based on the students’ scores, they were identified as having high, middle, and low aptitudes and were placed into an experimental or control group. The researcher selected two instrumental music teachers to provide instruction to the two groups for the study. The researcher gave the two teachers instruction in the methods and techniques necessary to implement the audiation-based curriculum. All students received instruction once a week for 30 minutes. The students in the experimental group received additional instruction in improvisation. Following the treatment period, the students’ achievement was measured through their performance of three etudes. The students sight-read the first etude; prepared the second etude prior to the test, with guidance from the researcher; and without guidance, prepared the third etude prior to the test. Each student was audio recorded. Four independent judges rated the students’ performances using three different dimensions of a rating scale: tonal performance, rhythmic performance, and expressive performance. The researcher developed a five-point, continuous rating scale for each of the tonal and rhythmic dimensions, and a five-point additive rating scale for the expressive dimension. 28 The researcher reported a composite inter-judge reliability of .937. A two-way analysis of variance was used to determine the effect that improvisation instruction has on music achievement. The students who received instrumental instruction that included improvisation performed the etudes significantly better (p <.05) than those who had not received improvisation instruction. Azzara asserts that engaging in an improvisation curriculum positively contributes to the achievement of instrumental music students, and he recommends more research. With the proliferation of materials for students and teachers and improvisation’s role in musicianship, there is a need to continue studying how students learn to improvise, student behavior while improvising, improvisational curricula, and how improvisational curricula effects musical achievement. Improvisation as a Dependant Variable Other researchers have considered the effects of various treatments on improvisational achievement, using improvisational achievement as the dependant variable (Amchin, 1995; Guilbault, 2002; Partchey, 1974; Wig, 1980). In these studies, improvisation is not necessarily an aspect of the treatment. Rather, their focus is on the effects of the various treatments on improvisational ability. Guilbault (2002) studied the effect of harmonic accompaniment on the tonal improvisations of kindergarten and first grade students. Sixty-eight kindergarten students and 68 first grade students participated in this study. The students were divided into two groups: a treatment group and a control group. Both groups received instruction based on identical song and musical content. The treatment group, however, received song instruction with root melody accompaniment, 29 and the control group received song instruction without a root melody accompaniment. The lessons were based on Music Learning Theory, and each group received instruction in creativity and improvisation, among other activities. Three music specialists participated in the study, including the researcher. The three teachers met several times throughout the 25-week-long treatment period to attempt to control for teacher effect by making instruction as consistent as possible between teachers. Additionally, the treatment and control groups were distributed as evenly as possible among the teachers. After the treatment period, the students improvised and sang two songs individually for the researcher. The researcher recorded the improvisations, and the recordings were placed in random order and rated by three independent judges. The judges were instructed in the use of a five-point continuous rating scale that was designed by the researcher to measure the tonal strength of the improvisations. The researcher reported inter-judge reliabilities ranging from .74 to .80. Using a two-way analysis of variance, the researcher determined that the students who received instruction with a root melody accompaniment scored significantly higher (p < .05) on the improvisation measure than the students who did not receive instruction with a root melody accompaniment within each grade level. Additionally, the first-grade students received higher scores than the kindergarten students. Guilbault, consequently, recommends the use of root melody accompaniment when trying to develop children’s’ ability to improvise. Partchey (1974) compared the effects of feedback, models, and repetition on children’s ability to improvise. He selected 90 sixth grade students at random and assigned each student to one of three treatment groups. 30 The first treatment group received “delayed feedback” (p. 46). Each student in this group heard a tape recording of his or her own improvisation before playing another, giving these students the opportunity to reflect on their own performances and make judgments on how to improve their performances. The teacher provided no additional support or feedback. The second treat group received “pre-composed models” (p. 46). Each student in this group heard a model of an expert improvisation following their own improvisations. The researcher hypothesized that the model would serve as an external reinforcement from which the students would be able to expand their own ideas. The third group received conventional instruction, described as “repetition” (p. 47), and served as the control group for the study. To control for the possibility that practice, or the repetition of the experiment, might be affecting the students’ ability to improvise, the control group did not receive instructional or external reinforcement. Student achievement was assessed individually before and after instruction to control for the effect practice may have had on achievement. The treatment period consisted of three individual lessons. The same measure served as a post-instruction measure. Students listened to a piano accompaniment and then improvised a melody along with it. Three professional musicians, along with the researcher, served as judges for the study. The students’ improvisations were rated for creativity, beat competency, rhythmic integrity, and the rhythmic and melodic content of the improvisations. Partchey reported inter-judge reliabilities of “greater than or equal to .91” (p. 83). 31 The students who received their own improvisations as feedback before playing another improvisation made the greatest gains between the pre- and post-tests, but Partchey recommends that students receive positive or correct models as well as their own performances as feedback. It is unclear why he recommends this; perhaps he believes that it is just common sense. He also noticed that the students were able to make gains in the areas of creativity, while performance ability remained constant, suggesting that creative ability is not dependant on performance ability. Wig (1980) studied the effect of composition instruction on students’ abilities to improvise. He also examined the relationship between improvising and performing ability. He randomly selected 28 sixth and eighth grade instrumental music students. Each student participated in general music and concert band and received one instrumental music lesson each week. Wig was the director of the concert band. The students took a pre- and post-test. The dependant variables were the students’ creative use of pitch, intensity, and duration in their improvisation of a theme and two variations. The treatment period was seven weeks and consisted of music instruction in composition. The treatment period instruction was lead by the researcher. He designed the instructional sequence, scheduled the sessions, provided aural and visual models, gave constructive feedback, and provided encouragement. Each session followed the same sequence. The students began with a warm-up, performance of previous session’s material, peer evaluations, and presentation of new material. New material was presented in three ways. First, the researcher modeled new concepts. Second, the students explored 32 the new concepts on their instruments. Third, the students received a homework assignment supplementing the lesson. Each subject used a journal in which to keep notes and to write down their improvised themes or ideas. Formal notation was not necessary; in fact, the students were encouraged make up their own graphic representations if it would help them remember what they had previously created. During the first compositional strategy session, the students explored their instruments and described the various characteristic sounds that could be made, such as long and short, high and low, loud and soft, or fast and slow. The students noted these in their journals and used them as devices when creating original themes. The first assignment was for the students to practice these devices and be prepared to demonstrate them and any alterations they may have discovered during the next session. The second compositional strategy session began by asking the students to improvise an original melody or theme. The students notated their melodies in their journals. As each student performed his or her theme for the class, the other students wrote down the devices that were used. The students’ assignment was to improvise an original theme, notate it, and be prepared to perform it for the class during the next session. During the third session, the students performed variations of the themes they had created. In this session, as in the other two, the students were apprehensive about playing in front of their peers. During this session, the researcher introduced the concept of variation by retrograde. This session’s assignment was to compose a theme using all the devices of the first session and, in addition, a retrograde variation. 33 The fourth session’s compositional strategy was variation by inversion. Afier modeling the variation and writing it on the board, the students still could not identify it as an inversion. It was not until the theme and variation were juxtaposed, through notation on the board, that the students were able to identify the variation as “upside down” (p. 59). The assignment for the next session was to prepare a theme, retrograde variation, and inversion variation. The fifth session’s compositional strategy was retrograde-inversion variation. As with the previous sessions, the students were not able to identify the origins of the variation using aural/oral methods. It was not until the notation was provided on the chalkboard that the students were able to grasp the concept of retrograde-inversion. The students prepared a retrograde-inversion variation for the next session. During the sixth session, the students performed their variations for each other. By this time, the researcher noticed that the students were able to describe the music as well as able to interpret each other’s non-traditional notation with a high degree of accuracy. The researcher introduced the concept of embellishment during this session. The students prepared a variation by embellishment for the final session. During the seventh and final session, the researcher performed a theme and variations by retrograde, inversion, retrograde-inversion, and embellishment. The students listened to and identified which type of variation the researcher was using. In addition, the students had the opportunity to rehearse their themes and variations. Before the treatment sessions, the students were given a pretest to measure their ability to create a theme and variations of an original melody. The researcher designed the Measure of Melodic Improvisation Ability (MMAI) for this purpose. Additionally, 34 the Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale (WF PS) was used as a post-test to measure the relationship between music achievement and improvisation ability. As a part of the pre- and post-treatment measurement, the students were required to perform a theme and two variations. The students could decide for themselves if the variations would be retrograde, inversion, retrograde-inversion, or embellishment. MMIA consisted of three rating scales, one for the theme and the two variations. Each student’s performance was tape recorded and evaluated by three judges using MMAI and WFPS. Wig found somewhat low but acceptable intra-judge reliabilities. Wig found a significant difference (p < .001) in the subjects’ mean scores from the pre- to post-test. There was also a significant difference (p < .05) between the scores on the Measure of Melodic Improvisation and the rating scales from the Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale pre-tests. Wig concluded that the instruction (the content and skills presented, the learning environment, and teacher models and encouragement) in composition strategies did improve the students’ abilities to improvise. Furthermore, he found evidence to support the theory that students do not have to be proficient performers to learn how to improvise. Wig follows a meticulously sequenced instructional plan focusing on the content, the presentation of the content, and the manner in which the students are encouraged and allowed to assimilate the content. Wig defines melodic (improvisation as an “extemporaneously” (p. 6) created original melody. However, he neglects to explain when the students create the post-treatment melody. It sounds as if, for the pre-test, the students are required to improvise the melody spontaneously during the testing period, but for the post-test, the melody, although original, is composed and rehearsed prior to 35 the test. Furthermore, he does not indicate whether the students are allowed to use their journal notes during the post-test, or if the students notated the different variations along with their melody. Were they Spontaneous, in the sense that the students created them in real time during the testing period, or did the students have the opportunity rehearse and refine their improvisations as well as variations before they were tested? If so, they were composing rather than improvising. These questions affect the nature and interpretations of the study. Amchin (1995) studied the effects of level of teacher interaction on children’s ability to improvise. He included 129 students from six fourth and fifth grade general music classes from four elementary schools. Sixty-five were students assigned to the control group, and 64 students were assigned to the experimental group. The treatment period lasted for 23 weeks, with the students meeting twice a week for 15 minutes. Each instructional period followed a similar sequence of instruction. Instruction began with a warm-up that required the students to learn a melody. The melody was taught through a listen-and-play manner in which the researcher would play the melody on a xylophone and the students would echo it on their tonebar instrument. These melodies were C-pentatonic and in duple, triple, and compound meters. The researcher presented new melody each week. The second activity was an antecedent-consequent exercise, in which the researcher modeled an antecedent phrase to which the students provided the consequent phrase. In the experimental group, the students were surveyed after each response as to the differences between their own melody and the researcher’s melody, were asked if they could think of an alternate consequent phrase, and were given 36 the opportunity to play a second time. The control group had the opportunity play their melody only once, and there was no interaction between the researcher and the students. The measures that Amchin used that are of interest to the present study were the Measure of Creative Thinking Version 11 (MCTM-II), the Measure of Instrumental Creative Response (MICMR), and the Intermediate Measures of Musical Audiation (IMMA). MICMR was as a post-test only. The Measure of Creative Thinking Version 11 (Webster, 1987) is a series of ten musical tasks designed to measure students’ creative thinking abilities. The test purports to measure extensiveness, flexibility, originality, and syntax. Amchin used the author’s established reliabilities as proof of the test’s value. The researcher designed the Measure of Instrumental Creative Musical Response for this study to address the antecedent-consequent phrases that MCTM-II did not. MCMR asks the students to provide 15 consequent melodies, on a C-pentatonic keyboard, to the researcher-provided antecedent phrases. The test is divided into three sections, one section for duple, one for triple, and one for compound meter. The test is administered individually. Responses were audio-taped and then analyzed. Test items are based on melodies found in the first volume of Orff-Schulwerk, and progress from simple to difficult melodic phrases. Because MCMR requires that students are able to perform on tonebar instruments, it was administered only as a post-test measure, allowing the subjects to gain familiarity with the instruments during the treatment period. Amchin established the test’s reliability in a pilot study. MCMR uses a five point Likert-type scale to assess the students’ consequent phrases. Each item was rated with respect to melodic/scales content, rhythmic content, intervallic content, phrase length, tempo, meter, and overall quality. The combined 37 average scores from each test item provided each student’s final score. All the judges were certified Orff-Schulwerk teachers. Although, Amchin established inter-judge reliability in a pilot study, he did not calculate them for this study. There was no significant difference between mean scores from the control and experimental groups on the MCTM-II, IMMA, or MCMR. Amchin concluded that teacher-student interaction had no effect on the students’ creative responses in the context of this study. As an additional issue, Amchin attempted to develop a valid measure for evaluating student improvisations. MCRM demonstrated preliminary evidence of validity and reliability with elementary students. Summary Guilbault (2002), Joseph (1983), Partchey (1974), and Wig (1981) all found that instruction has an affect on children’s improvisations. Guilbault found that the addition of a root melody accompaniment along with rote song instruction positively affected children’s ability to improvise. Partchey found that different learning strategies improved children’s ability to improvise. Wig (1981) found that instruction in composition also improved children’s ability to improvise. Additionally, Azzara (1991) found that an improvisational curriculum positively affected children’s music achievement. Although Amchin (1995) did not find a Significant difference in the improvisational abilities between the control and experimental groups, he did provide an appropriate criterion measure. The effect of a specific improvisation curriculum on students’ ability to improvise has yet to be examined. The present study will synthesize the instructional aspects of 38 Azzara’s and Flohr’s (1979) studies with criterion measures that are similar to those of Guilbault, Joseph, Partchey, and Amchin. 39 CHAPTER THREE Design and Analysis Sample The subjects of this study are 6‘“, 7th, and 8‘“ grade wind and percussion students from a mid-Size suburban middle school in a Mid-Michigan university community. The student population is predominantly white middle and upper-middle class. Seventy-eight percent of the student body is white/non-Hispanic, the next largest group is Asian/Pacific Islander at 12%. Of the 51 1 students, 29 are eligible for free or reduced priced lunches, and gender is balanced within the school (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2004) From the school’s 6th, 7th and 8th grade bands, 101 wind and percussion students agreed to participate in this study (see Figure 5). One music teacher teaches the three groups. During the time of the study, however, a student teacher had limited teaching responsibilities with the three bands. The three groups meet five days a week for 55 minutes. The 6th grade meets in two separate classes: brass, and woodwind along with percussion. The 7th and 8‘h grade bands each meet as full ensemble. Nearly all participants began their instrumental education in the sixth grade. Improvisation typically is not a component of the instrumental music curriculum in this school. The 8th grade band primarily prepares concert pieces for festival and concert performances. The 6th and 7th grade bands use the Essential Elements band method and practice major scales in addition to preparing for performances. All groups receive periodic in—class playing tests of either scales or excerpts of current performance 40 pieces. Many of the students receive private instruction and participate in other musical activities inside and outside of school. Those who participate in the after-school jazz ensemble do receive limited opportunities to improvise, but little instruction. Figure 5. Grade level and Instrumentation of participants Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Totals Flute 9 5 2 l6 Oboe 1 2 2 5 Clarinet 5 5 4 14 Bass clarinet 1 1 1 3 Alto Saxophone 3 3 3 9 Tenor Saxophone 1 1 0 2 Baritone Saxophone 0 1 1 2 Bassoon 0 l l 2 Trumpet 8 5 6 19 French Horn 1 1 2 4 Trombone 4 2 2 8 Tuba 1 1 1 3 Mallet Percussion 5 6 3 14 Totals 39 34 28 101 41 Experimental Design Figure 6. Experimental Design Criterion Measure 12-week Instructional Period Criterion Measure B ca 8"1 Grade E 8 a, E 8 a) Q) 0 ad 3 '5 ad 5. m H 91 m M 8 O «I th 8 0 .EE .5 ‘5 7 Grade c: 2 'o b :1 ‘5 '3 3 c: o 8 c: o l: o 2 9‘ U r: 9‘ :3 u: r: o [h c: 3 B ,o O 6 Grade .2 s 5 V H On to a o 0 .22 E a, “O > > a e e f: "" Q. G. H ’5. E 8th Grade E 5 < 5-1 0‘ A II— :3 O 5 .8 5 U‘ ou-i O O.) 23. E 65 =3 >. E H o. o a .73' “’ 7th G d a g '0 t: 8 ra e '6 t: a 0 e a v E '-' "O .2 r: g .0 8 CI 8. I: El 0 O X o O E g m 9., 6‘“ Grade E :1: :1: A two-dimensional, treatment by levels, with repeated measures, design was used to determine the effects of the Music Learning Theory-based instruction and aptitude on improvisational ability and readiness in instrumental music students (see Figure 6). Procedures After the researcher’s faculty committee accepted the proposal, an application was submitted to the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCHRIS) (see Appendix A). Once UCHRIS approved the study, the researcher sought 42 and received permission to conduct the study from the school’s music teacher and administrators. A letter to the parents describing the purposes and procedures of the study, accompanied by a parental consent and student assent form, was distributed to the members of the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade bands (see Appendix B). In the letter, the researcher stated that participation in the study was voluntary, ensured confidentiality, and assured that students were able to withdraw from the study without consequence. One hundred and three consent forms were returned from those agreeing to participate. Two students, however, chose to withdraw from the study once instruction began. Prior to instruction, the researcher administered Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP) (Gordon, 1995) to determine each student’s aptitudes. According to the norms and procedures outlined in the test manual, students then were randomly assigned to either the experimental group or control group, controlling for aptitude. The researcher met with these groups once a week for 20 minutes during a 12-week-long instructional period. The researcher also administered the Harmonic Improvisation Readiness Records (HIRR) and Rhythm Improvisation Readiness Records (RIRR) (Gordon, 1998) to determine each student’s readinesses for improvisation as a pre-test and as post-test to determine the effect of the instruction on each student’s readiness to improvise. The researcher taught the control and experimental groups for the duration of the instructional period. As with any public school, there were many interruptions in the school day, especially toward the end of the school year. Attempts were made to avoid any conflicts, but some interruptions could not be avoided. When possible, the lessons were rescheduled, but this was not always possible and did not affect all groups equally. 43 Because of end of the year activities associated with advancing to high school, the 8th grade students missed instruction more often than the 6‘h or 7th grade students. In addition to HIRR and RIRR, at the end of the treatment period, each student was audio-recorded performing a consequent phrase to the researcher-designed Antecedent/Consequent Improvisational Measure (ACIM). Two independent judges and the researcher rated each performance for tonal and rhythmic achievement using the ratings scales developed for this study. Instruction All students received rote song instruction that consisted of melody and root melody instruction of Major Duple; Minor Duple; Major triple; Minor Triple; Mary had a Little Lamb; You Will Never Find Me; Oats, Peas, Bean and Barley Grow; and My Pony Bill (see Appendix D). The selection of treatment songs was based on the tonal content, including tonic and dominant functions in major or minor; rhythmic content, including duple or triple; and the technical appropriateness for beginning instrumentalists (see Figure 7). The key centers for the treatment songs were E-flat major and C minor. The researcher taught the students aurally, using piano accompaniment and instrumental modeling (see Appendix E). While Ieaming each song, the students heard the song played by the researcher several times. The students aurally learned the root melody first and accompanied the researcher by playing the root melody while the researcher played the melody. Once the students heard the song several times, they learned the song, one phrase at a time, aurally. Once the students were able to play both the melody and root melody independently with piano accompaniment, they took turns playing either the melody or root melody as small ensembles without piano 44 accompaniment. Della Pietra (1997) suggested that collaborative learning benefits not only achievement, but comfort and confident levels as well. Thus, the students were given the opportunity to volunteer to play the two parts in pairs for the rest of the group. This does not fit conventional definitions of collaboration in the sense the students were problem-solving together, but they were allowed give advice, explain something the researcher may not have made clear, and provide encouragement to one another. During the presentation of each song, the researcher gave instruction in discriminating the differences between major and minor, and duple and triple by juxtaposing the treatment songs. In addition to rote song instruction, the experimental group received tonal pattern instruction consisting of tonic and dominant functions in major and minor (see Appendix F) and rhythmic pattern instruction in duple and triple (see Appendix G). Figure 7. Tonalities and Meters of Treatment Songs Maj or Minor Duple Major Duple Minor Duple Mary Had a Little Lamb You Will Never Find Me Triple Major Triple Minor Triple Oats, Peas, Beans and Barley Grow My Pony Bil Using the tonic pitch, the students imitated the researcher by performing rhythm patterns in the meter of each song on their instruments. After imitating the researcher, the students improvised rhythm patterns on their instruments. Next, the students improvised 45 rhythm patterns in time and on the chord roots of each song. Last, they improvised rhythmic accompaniment and played the song in two parts as an ensemble. The tonal patterns consisted of tonic and dominant functions. The students learned the patterns by imitating the researcher’s patterns. Once the students learned a set of tonic patterns, they improvised different tonic patterns as a response. After sufficient practice imitating and improvising patterns in response to the researcher, students either played familiar patterns or improvised unfamiliar patterns within the harmonic and rhythmic context of the treatment songs. Next, the students improvised new melodies combining the tonal and rhythm patterns over the harmonic progression songs. For any student who was struggling or uncertain of what to play, the researcher advised them that the root melody was still acceptable and effective. Finally, they had the opportunity to play, voluntarily, their improvisations individually for the group while another student played the root melody as accompaniment. In an attempt to describe, provide practice opportunities, and ease the concerns of those who may have been uncomfortable improvising for the improvisational measure, the researcher provided both groups an opportunity to practice improvising consequent phrases and ask any questions they might have. Consequently, steps were taken to reduce stresses for the students when it came time to perform for the improvisation measure. Measurement Two standardized tests were used in this study. The Tonal Imagery and Rhythm Imagery tests of The Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP) (Gordon, 1995) were used to measure the students’ musical aptitude prior to treatment. The Harmonic Improvisation 46 Readiness Record (HIRR) and Rhythmic Improvisation Readiness Record (RIRR) (Gordon, 1998) were used to measure the students’ readiness for improvisation and as pre- and post-instruction measures. MAP, HIRR, and RIRR all require students to listen to pairs of patterns and decide if the patterns are the same or not the same. A third option of a ‘7’ is provided for those who are uncertain of the correct answer. This option exists to minimize the effect guessing may have on the scores and is ultimately scored as an incorrect response. MAP’S tonal imagery test consists of two subtests: Melody and Harmony. The Melody subtest is a 15-minute recording of 20 test items. The Harmony subtest is a 14- minute recording of 20 test items. The items on each subtest consist of two musical phrases played consecutively; the second phrase has more pitches than the first. The students are to decide whether the phrases are alike with the extra notes removed from the second phrase or, in other words, if the second melody is a melodic variation of the first. Rhythm imagery has two subtests: Tempo and Meter. Each subtest is an 18- minute recording of 40 items. The items on each subtest consist of two musical phrases played consecutively. The second phrase may be slower or faster than the first, for the Tempo subtest, or in a different meter for the Meter subtest. The students are to discern whether the two phrases are the same or different. Gordon composed the musical phrases solely for MAP and used professional musicians to perform them. The phrases are in many tonalities, keys, and meters. Gordon (1995) reports a composite reliability coefficient of .93 for grades 4-6 and .94 for grades 7-9 for MAP. 47 HIRR is a 17-minute recording of 43 pairs of harmonic patterns played in various tonalities. A harmonic pattern consists of three chords played in succession. Each pattern begins and ends with the tonic chord, with the second chord representing a different tonal function, such as dominant, subdominant, mediant, or submediant. The students are asked to discern if the pair of harmonic patterns are same or different. Gordon (1998) reports a composite reliability coefficient of .83 for grades 3-6, .86 for grades 7-8 and .84 for all grades. RIRR is a 20-minute recording and consists of 40 rhythmic patterns played in a Simple melodic line with an implied contrapuntal harmonic progression. RIRR measures whether students can audiate when that implied progression changes in real time. The students are asked to discern if the pair of rhythmic patterns are same or different. Since the students are to compare temporal relationships between the pairs of patterns, the patterns are actually “time” patterns. If a pattern is different, it is because one of the notes in the pattern has either a shorter or a longer duration than in the first pattern. There are four durations; in common time, those four durations would be notated as a quarter-note, half-note, whole-note, and a dotted-whole note. Gordon (1998) reports a composite reliability coefficient of .78 for grades 3-6, .79 for grades 7-8 and .81 for all grades. As outlined in MLT, student readiness for audiation and improvisation develops sequentially over time. Consequently, Gordon suggests that teachers administer the HIRR and RIRR at least twice during throughout normal music instruction in order to adapt instruction to individual needs. In the present study, however, the students’ scores were subjected to a Multivariate Analysis of variance with Repeated Measures to identify any effects instruction may have had on students’ readinesses. 48 As a second post-treatment measure, students play a consequent phrase to four antecedent phrases for the researcher-designed Antecedent/Consequent Improvisational Measure (ACIM). The researcher composed the four antecedent phrases with the same tonal and rhythmic content as the treatment songs: major-duple, minor-duple, major- triple, and minor-triple see (Appendix H). The antecedent phrases were based on audiation and were composed to guide the students’ audiation of tonality and meter. An introductory phrase was used to establish the tonality and meter of each antecedent phrase. The students responded to an antecedent phrase that was played on the same instrument as they played. The tempo marking for each phrase was an eighth note equals 200 beats per minute. Students performed their consequent phrases individually. Prior to the playing of each antecedent phrase, the researcher reminded the students that they were to improvise or make up their own melody that “fits” with the performed melody and informed them of the tonality, meter, and key center of each phrase. The researcher digitally recorded each improvisation. Materials and Equipment The researcher composed and performed the ACIM antecedent phrases using Finale 2005 music notation software on a Hewlett-Packard laptop computer. The phrases were generated for each instrument using SmartMusic SoftSynth digital instrument sounds. The researcher digitally recorded each student using an Olympus DJ 0 digital voice recorder. 49 Analysis Two independent judges and the researcher rated each improvisation using two continuous rating scales (see Figure 8). The researcher designed a tonal and rhythmic rating scale based on those of Azzara (1992), Amchin (1995), Gordon (2002), and Guilbault (2002). The tonal and rhythmic performance of the consequent phrases are measured using 5 point continuous rating scale. The rating scales were adapted and improved in a pilot study, which also establish acceptable inter-judge and inter- correlation reliabilities of the rating scales. 50 Figure 8. Improvisation Rating Scales 1931a; 5 — Maintains tonality and key center; implied harmonic progression underpin the improvisation 4 - Maintains tonality and key center; implied harmonic progression is identifiable only occasionally 3 — Maintains tonality and key center; Implied harmonic progression is not identifiable 2 — Tonality and key center are identifiable only occasionally; Implied harmonic progression is not identifiable; Improvisation is incomplete 1 — Tonality and key center are not identifiable; improvisation is not long enough to make a judgment; student played memorized melody Rhflhm 5 — Maintains proper meter and consistent tempo; rhythmic content is varied and well executed 4 — Maintains proper meter and consistent tempo; rhythmic content is unremarkable and may not always be executed properly 3 — Proper meter is identifiable; tempo may exhibit some inconsistencies 2 — Proper meter and consistent tempo are identifiable only occasionally; incorrect meter 1 — Meter and tempo are not identifiable; improvisation is not long enough to make a judgment; student played memorized melody 51 Means and standard deviations of student scores for each grade level and treatment group were calculated for MAP, pre- and post-test HIRR and RIRR, and ACIM ratings. Split- halves reliabilities, corrected with the Spearman—Brown Prophecy formula, were calculated for MAP, pre- and post-test HIRR and RIRR, and ACIM. A Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) was used to determine the effects of instruction across instructional groups and grade levels based on ACIM scores, and pre-and post-instruction HIRR and RIRR scores. To determine the extent to which achievement in instrumental improvisation is related to music aptitude the student scores on ACIM were correlated with student scores on MAP. 52 CHAPTER FOUR Results and Interpretations Improvisational Rating Scales Reliabilities At the conclusion of the 12-week instructional period, 87 of the 101 participating students assented to perform four consequent phrases to the researcher-designed Antecedent/Consequent Improvisational Measure (ACIM). Although they completed the instructional period, 14 of the students were uncomfortable being recorded for the measure and declined to be recorded. The improvisations were digitally recorded, and rated by two independent judges and the researcher. Using Cronbach’s alpha set at .05, inter-judge reliabilities ranged from .68 to .89, which were moderate but acceptable (see Tables 1, 2 and 3). The tonal and rhythmic improvisation achievement was rated using a 2- dimensional, 5-point continuous rating scale. The tonal and rhythmic content of the four phrases used in the ACIM were major/duple, major/triple, minor/duple, and minor/triple. Table 1 shows the inter-judge reliabilities for each of the four consequent phrases. There were two content areas for each dimension: major and minor for Tonal; and duple and triple for Rhythm. Table 2 shows the inter-judge reliabilities for the Tonal and Rhythmic content ratings. For example, the tonal scores for major/duple and major/triple were combined to produce the Tonal-Major scores. Table 3 shows the inter-judge reliabilities for the total scores of each dimension and the composite scores for ACIM. Means and standard deviations were calculated for the judges’ ratings of each consequent phrase performance, Tonal-Major, Tonal-Minor, Rhythm-Duple, Rhythm- Triple, Tonal-Total, Rhythm-Total, and Composite Scores (see Table 4). 53 Table I. Inter-judge Reliabilities for Improvisation Rating Scales Judges Judges Judges 1 & 2 2 & 3 l & 3 Tonality Dimension — Major/Duple 0.85 0.85 0.85 Tonality Dimension — Major/Triple 0.71 0.71 0.71 Tonality Dimension — Minor/Duple 0.79 0.73 0.85 Tonality Dimension -— Minor/Triple 0.78 0.70 0.76 Rhythm Dimension - Major/Duple 0.86 0.86 0.86 Rhythm Dimension - Major/Triple 0.75 0.75 0.75 Rhythm Dimension — Minor/Duple 0.75 0.75 0.72 Rhythm Dimension — Minor/Triple 0.74 0.70 0.7 8 54 Table 2. Inter-judge Reliabilities for Combined Content Scores of Each Dimension Judges 1 & 2 Judges 2 & 3 Judges 1 & 3 Tonal-Major 0.86 0.81 0.83 Tonal-Minor 0.68 0.68 0.74 Rhythm-Duple 0.89 0.86 0.88 Rhythm-Triple 0.83 0.80 0.81 Table 3. Inter-judge Reliabilities for Dimension Total Scores and Composite Score Judges 1 & 2 Judges 2 & 3 Judges 1 & 3 Tonal — Total Score 0.83 0.83 0.88 Rhythm - Total Score 0.89 0.87 0.86 Composite Score 0.90 0.89 0.91 55 Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations Table for Judges Ratings M Theo M SD Theo SD Tonal-Maj or/Duple 6.63 9 3. 14 2 Tonal-Maj or/Triple 6.57 9 2.67 2 Tonal-Minor/Duple 6.1 1 9 2.65 2 Tonal-Minor/Triple 6.51 9 2.68 2 Rhythm-Maj or/Duple 6.57 9 2.65 2 Rhythm-Maj or/Triple 6.23 9 2.66 2 Rhythm-Minor/Duple 6.69 9 2.76 2 Rhythm-Minor/Triple 6.39 9 2.56 2 Tonal-Maj or 13.21 18 5.16 4 Tonal-Minor 12.62 1 8 4.66 4 Rhythm-Duple l 3 .26 1 8 4.72 4 Rhythm-Triple 12.62 1 8 4.44 4 Tonal-Combined 25.83 36 8.97 8 Rhythm-Combined 25.89 36 8.05 8 Composite 51 .71 72 15.90 16 The observed means are consistently lower than the theoretical means, indicating that the distribution is skewed to the right. There are three possible explanations for this: the rating scale was too difficult, the task was too difficult, or the students were not adequately prepared for the measure. The standard deviation for the Tonal-Major/Duple Consequent Phrase scores is the only standard deviation that is more than 1 point greater than the observed standard deviation. With the exception of the Composite Score, the observed standard deviations are consistently greater than the theoretical standard deviations, indicating that there is a moderate to high degree of variance among student scores. 56 Reliabilities of the Music Aptitude Profile To determine the students’ tonal and rhythmic aptitudes, the Tonal Imagery and Rhythm Imagery dimensions of Music Aptitude Profile (MAP) were administered to the students. Each dimension has two subtests. Tonal Imagery consists of Melody and Harmony subtests, and Rhythm Imagery consists of Meter and Tempo subtests. Table 5 shows the split-halves reliabilities, corrected with the Spearman Brown Prophecy reported in the manual (Gordon, 1998) and the split-halves reliabilities, corrected with the Spearman Brown Prophecy of the present study. Table 6 Show the means and standard deviations reported in the manual (Gordon, 1998) and for the pre-instruction MAP raw scores for each grade level. Table 1. MAP Reported and Present Study Reliabilities Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Manual Study Manual Study Manual Study Tonal: Melody .76 .97 .78 .97 .79 .97 Tonal: Harmony .70 .96 .74 .92 .75 .91 Tonal Imagery .83 .97 .86 .98 .87 .96 Rhythm: Tempo .77 .97 .8] .95 .82 .96 Rhythm: Meter .75 .96 .77 .94 .79 .96 Rhythm Imagery .84 .98 .87 .94 .87 .95 57 Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations of MAP Raw Scores by Grade Level Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 M SD M SD M SD Tonal: Melody Manual 25.70 5.69 26.30 5.97 26.80 5.50 Study 25.95 5.69 31.23 5.22 28.93 5.58 Tonal: Harmony Manual 23.30 5.24 23.80 5.97 24.60 5.51 Study 22.59 5.01 28.83 5.30 28.14 5.85 Tonal Imagery Manual 49.10 9.81 50.30 11.00 51.80 9.89 Study 48.54 9.55 60.07 6.09 57.07 10.49 Rhythm: Tempo Manual 29.80 6.06 30.70 6.07 31.60 5.86 Study 30.82 6.74 32.79 10.43 33.32 5.46 Rhythm: Meter Manual 26.50 6.15 26.90 6.25 28.40 5.92 Study 26.03 7.53 28.63 7.23 28.44 6.34 Rhythm Imagery Manual 56.20 11.24 57.60 11.42 60.00 10.67 Study 56.85 13.19 61.41 8.67 61.76 10.96 For MAP, split-halves reliabilities, corrected with the Spearman Brown Prophecy, for each grade level were higher than those reported in the manual (Gordon, 1998). The 7th grade students demonstrated the greatest difference from the students in the standardization sample. However, those who participated in the standardization process were not necessarily musically select students. Gordon does not report the means and Standard deviations for the individual grades of music students, which could account for the lower means in the 7th and 8th grade standardization studies. 58 Reliabilities of Harmonic Improvisation Readiness Record and Rhythm Improvisational Readiness Record As a pre- and post-instruction measure, the Harmonic Improvisation Readiness (HIRR) and the Rhythm Improvisational Readiness Record (RIRR) were administered to the students. Table 7 shows the split-halves reliabilities, corrected with the Spearman- Brown Prophecy formula, reported in the test manual (Gordon, 1998) and for the present study. The reliabilities were calculated in accordance with those in the test manual. HIRR and RIRR reliabilities are reported for elementary school students, grades 1 through 6, and for middle school students, grades 7 and 8. The pre- and post-instructional HIRR and RIRR split-halves reliabilities, corrected with the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula are slightly higher for the present study than those reported in the HIRR and RIRR manual (Gordon, 1998) for 6th grade and for 7th and 8th grades combined. The means for the present study are nearly all greater than the means reported in the manual. The standard deviations for HIRR are within 1 point of those reported in the manual. The standard deviations for the RIRR are more than 2 points lower than the standard deviations reported in the manual. Table 8 shows the means and standard deviations reported in the manual and for the pre- and post-instructional HIRR and RIRR. 59 Table 7. HIRR & RIRR Reported Reliabilities and Pre- & Post-Instruction Reliabilities HIRR RIRR Grade Manual Pre- Post- Manual Pre- Post- Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction 6th 0.83 0.97 .93 0.78 0.94 .98 7th & 8th 0.86 0.93 .90 0.79 0.94 .99 Table 8. HIRR & RIRR Means and Standard Deviations Table by Grade Level M SD Manual Study Manual Study HIRR Pre-Instructional 6 27.70 30.36 6.23 5.72 7 & 8 27.70 29.65 6.00 6.04 Post— Instructional 6 27.70 28.00 6.23 5.72 7 & 8 27.70 29.25 6.00 6.81 RIRR Pre-Instructional 6 26.80 28.23 4.28 6.51 7 & 8 27.80 29.35 6.12 5.52 Post- Instructional 6 26.80 26.38 4.28 7.37 7 & 8 27.80 28.76 6.12 6.36 6O Differences in Aptitude among Instructional Groups and Grade Levels Using the results from MAP to control for aptitude, the students were randomly assigned to either the experimental group or control group. Tables 9 through 12 are the means and standard deviations for each group by grade level. Since each dimension of MAP was administered over a period of three days, not every student completed each section, which explains why the number of subjects changes depending on the subtest or dimension being analyzed. Only those who completed both subtests from each dimension were used in the analyses of Tonal and Rhythm Imagery dimensions. Furthermore, only those who completed all four subtests were used in the analyses of MAP composite scores. For example, if a student completed only three of the four subtests (i.e., Melody, Harmony, and Tempo, but not Meter), this student’s scores would have been used in the analyses of the three completed subtests and Tonal Imagery, but not Rhythm Imagery or Composite, Since the Meter subtest was not completed. 61 Table 9. Means Table by Groups for all grades for MAP Raw Scores n M SD Tonal: Melody Experimental 48 28.56 5.72 Control 48 28.44 6.1 1 Tonal: Harmony Experimental 48 27.06 5.67 Control 48 24.98 7.1 1 Tonal Imagery Experimental 48 55.63 10.76 Control 48 53.42 1 1.81 Rhythm: Tempo Experimental 46 32.41 6.52 Control 47 31.81 6.75 Rhythm: Meter Experimental 47 27.47 8.05 Control 47 27.53 7.33 Rhythm Imagery Experimental 47 59.85 13.76 Control 47 59.34 13.13 Composite Experimental 44 1 14.56 1 8.79 Control 45 1 12.40 21.94 62 Table 10. Means Table by Group for 6th Grade for MAP raw scores n M SD MAP Tonal: Melody Experimental 18 25.72 5.27 Control 19 26.16 5 .69 Tonal: Harmony Experimental 18 23.56 4.55 Control 19 21.68 5.37 Tonal Imagery Experimental 18 49.28 9.05 Control 19 47.84 10.19 Rhythm: Tempo Experimental 18 32.50 5.23 Control 21 39.38 7.632 Rhythm: Meter Experimental 18 27.00 8.07 Control 21 25.19 7.13 Rhythm Imagery Experimental 18 59.50 12.21 Control 21 54.57 13.86 Composite Experimental 1 9 1 07.82 1 7.21 Control 21 104.1 1 19.50 63 Table 11. Means Table by Group for 7th Grade n M SD MAP Tonal: Melody Experimental 16 30.81 5.56 Control 15 31.53 5.00 MAP Tonal: Harmony Experimental 16 23.56 4.55 Control 15 21.68 5.37 MAP Tonal Imagery Experimental 16 59.31 10.76 Control 15 59.40 1 l .62 MAP Rhythm: Tempo Experimental 16 31.88 8.66 Control 13 33.92 5.06 MAP Rhythm: Meter Experimental 17 27.12 9.06 Control 13 30.62 8.06 MAP Rhythm Imagery Experimental 17 58.88 17.23 Control 13 64.54 12.50 MAP Composite Experimental 18 116.50 21.63 Control 15 124.38 17.46 64 Table 12. Means Table by Group for 8th Grade n M SD MAP Tonal: Melody Experimental 14 29.64 5.26 Control 14 28.21 5.99 MAP Tonal: Harmony Experimental 14 29.93 4.83 Control 14 26.36 6.40 MAP Tonal Experimental 14 59.57 9.40 Imagery Control 14 54.57 11.257 MAP Rhythm: Tempo Experimental 12 33.00 5.36 Control 13 33.62 5.75 MAP Rhythm: Meter Experimental 12 28.67 6.99 Control 13 28.23 5.97 MAP Rhythm Imagery Experimental 12 61.67 11.87 Control 13 61.85 10.82 MAP Composite Experimental 14 114.56 18.79 Control 14 117.38 21.93 65 Eighty-eight students (n=88) completed all sections of MAP, 36 sixth grade students, 27 seventh grade students, and 25 eighth grade students. Of those 88 students, 43 were from the experimental group and 45 were from the control group. A Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) was used to determine the differences in MAP scores between instructional groups and grade levels prior to instruction. Table 12 shows Pillai’s Trace test for Significance. Hand and Taylor (1987) and Olson (1976) found Pillai’s Trace to be the most immune to violations of assumptions and the most robust of the MANOVA tests; it is used for this reason. Tables 13, 14, and 15 Show the results of the MANOVA’S for MAP and its dimensions. Table 16 is the ANOVA table for MAP Composite scores. Table 17 is Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoe test for multiple comparisons among grade levels. As desired, there was no significant interaction or differences according to instructional group. As expected, there was a difference between grade levels, with older students tending to receive higher scores, although this pattern was inconsistent. Table 13. Pillai’s Trace of Significance for MAP Effect Value f de Edf Sig. Intercept .98 818.72 4 79 .00 Grade Level .28 3.27 8 160 .00 Instructional Group .07 1.43 4 79 .23 Grade Level X Instructional Group .10 1.07 8 160 .39 66 Table 14. MANOVA of MAP Tonal Raw Scores Source MAP Type 111 SS df MS F Sig. Corrected Tonal: Melody 447.50 5 89.50 2.80 .02 Model Tonal: Harmony 893.99 5 178.80 5.64 .00 Tonal Imagery 2484.77 5 496.95 4.76 .00 Intercept Tonal: Melody 71228.05 1 71228.05 2232.29 .00 Tonal: Harmony 60769.29 1 60769.29 1916.29 .00 Tonal Imagery 263579.69 1 263579.69 2523.47 .00 Grade Level Tonal: Melody 443.75 2 221.88 6.95 .00 Tonal: Harmony 762.72 2 381.36 12.03 .00 Tonal Imagery 2320.14 2 1160.07 11.11 .00 Instructional Tonal: Melody .09 l .09 .00 .96 Group Tonal: Harmony 88.45 1 88.45 2.79 .1 O Tonal Imagery 94.27 1 94.27 .90 .34 Grade Level Tonal: Melody 6.03 2 3.02 .09 .91 X Instructional Tonal: Harmony 37.79 2 18.89 .60 .55 Group Tonal Imagery 68.22 2 34.11 .33 .72 Error Tonal: Melody 2616.46 82 31.91 Tonal: Harmony 2600.38 82 31.71 Tonal Imagery 8565.00 82 104.45 Total Tonal: Melody 74656.00 88 Tonal: Harmony 63608.00 88 Tonal Imagery 273960.00 88 Corrected Tonal: Melody 3063.95 87 Total Tonal: Harmony 3494.36 87 Tonal Imagery 1 1049.77 87 67 Table 15. MANOVA Table of MAP Rhythm Raw Scores Source MAP Type 111 SS df Mean S F Sig. Corrected Rhythm: Tempo 351 .14 5 70.23 1.69 .15 Model Rhythm: Meter 368.92 5 73.78 1.27 .28 Rhythm Imagery 1374.05 5 274.81 1.61 .17 Intercept Rhythm: Tempo 87632.92 1 87632.92 2104.37 .00 Rhythm: Meter 64111.54 1 6411 1.54 1105.48 .00 Rhythm Imagery 301654.87 1 301654.87 1770.60 .00 Grade Level Rhythm: Tempo 149.05 2 74.52 1.79 .17 Rhythm: Meter 174.83 2 87.41 1.51 .23 Rhythm Imagery 639.79 2 319.89 1.88 .16 Instructional Rhythm: Tempo .01 1 .01 .00 .99 Group Rhythm: Meter 16.57 1 16.57 .29 .59 Rhythm Imagery 17.29 1 17.29 .10 .75 Grade Level Rhythm: Tempo 188.27 2 94.13 2.26 .11 X Instructional Rhythm: Meter 184.20 2 92.10 1.59 .21 Group Rhythm Imagery 707.97 2 3 53.98 2.08 .13 Error Rhythm: Tempo 3414.75 82 41.64 Rhythm: Meter 4755.53 82 57.99 Rhythm Imagery 13970.27 82 170.37 Total Rhythm: Tempo 92285.00 88 Rhythm: Meter 69655.00 88 Rhythm Imagery 319552.00 88 Corrected Rhythm: Tempo 3765.90 87 Total Rhythm: Meter 51 24.44 87 Rhythm Imagery 15344.32 87 68 Table 16. ANOVA Table of MAP Composite Raw Scores Source Type 111 SS df MS F Sig. Corrected Model 6312.87 5 1262.57 3.48 .01 Intercept 112918525 1 112918525 3108.10 .00 Grade Level 5263.26 2 2631.63 7.24 .00 Instructional Group 30.82 1 30.82 .08 .77 Grade Level X Instructional Group 921.65 2 460.83 1.27 .29 Error 29790.95 82 363.30 Total 1 168834.00 88 Corrected Total 36103.82 87 69 Table 17. Tukey’s HSD Table among Grade Levels Map Grade Level MD SE Tonal: Melody 6x7 -5.21 1.44 .00 th = 6 ’" 2597 6x7 335 1.47 .06 7th at = 31.19 8... m = 2932 7x8 1.87 1.57 .46 Tonal: Harmony 6x7 -6.16 1 .43 .00 th _ 6 ’" ‘ 22.5 8 6x7 -5.86 1.47 .00 7th m = 28.74 8... m = 2844 7x8 .30 1.56 .98 Tonal Imagery 6x7 -1 1.37 2.60 .00 6th = 48.56 m 6x7 -920 2.66 .00 7th m = 59.93 3‘“ m = 57.76 7x8 2.17 2.84 .73 Rhythm: Tempo 6x7 -213 1.64 .40 th _ 6 "’"30'17 6x7 -315 1.68 .15 7th m = 32.30 8., m = 3332 7x8 .102 1.79 .84 Rhythm: Meter 6x7 -2.69 1.94 .35 6h = 25.39 m 6x7 -305 1.98 .28 7th m = 28.07 8th m = 28.44 7X8 '.37 2.1 l .98 Rhythm Imagery 6x7 -4.81 3.32 .32 01 = 6 m 55'56 6x7 -6.20 3.40 .17 7'h m = 60.37 39 m = 6176 7x8 -1.39 3.62 .92 Composite 6x7 -16.19 4.85 .00 th = 6 m 104'” 6x7 -1541 4.96 .01 7th m = 120.30 8111 m ___ 119-52 7X8 .78 5.29 .99 70 The Eflects of Instruction on Improvisational Ability Results Of the 101 participating students, 14 withdrew their assent to be recorded for Antecedent/Consequent Improvisational Measure (ACIM). Eighty-seven students (n=87) performed the four consequent phrases for ACIM. Of the 87 students, 36 were 6th grade students, 31 were 7th grade students, and 20 were 8th grade students. There were 45 students from the experimental group and 42 students from the control group. Two independent judges and the researcher rated the remaining students’ improvisations using a 2-dimensional 5-point continuous rating scale (see appendix C). Table 18 shows the means and standard deviations for the ACIM by instructional group, and Table 19 Shows the means and standard deviations for ACIM by grade level. 71 Table 18. Means and Standard Deviations by Group n M Theo M SD Theo SD Major Experimental 45 14.58 15.5 5.40 4.83 Control 42 11.74 15.5 4.51 4.83 Minor Experimental 45 13.49 1 5 .5 4.62 4.83 Control 42 11.69 15.5 4.58 4.83 Tonal Experimental 45 28.07 30.5 9.10 9.83 Control 42 23.43 30.5 8.28 9.83 Duple Experimental 45 14.09 15.5 4.81 4.83 Control 42 12.38 15.5 4.50 4.83 Triple Experimental 45 13.1 1 1 5.5 4.66 4.83 Control 42 12.10 15.5 4.20 4.83 Rhythm Experimental 45 27.20 30.5 8.36 9.83 Control 42 24.48 30.5 7.54 9.83 Composite Experimental 45 55.27 60.5 16.32 19.83 Control 42 47.90 60.5 14.69 19.83 72 Table 19. Means and Standard Deviations by Grade Level n M Theo M SD Theo SD Major 6 36 12.31 15.5 5.11 4.83 7 31 14.10 15.5 5.01 4.83 8 20 13.45 15.5 5.47 4.83 Minor 6 36 11.83 15.5 4.68 4.83 7 31 13.19 15.5 4.81 4.83 8 20 13.15 15.5 4.43 4.83 Tonal 6 36 24.14 30.5 8.73 9.83 7 31 27.29 30.5 9.01 9.83 8 20 26.60 30.5 9.29 9.83 Duple 6 36 13.19 15.5 4.74 4.83 7 31 14.00 15.5 4.74 4.83 8 20 12.25 15.5 4.68 4.83 Triple 6 36 11.39 15.5 3.77 4.83 7 31 14.03 15.5 4.73 4.83 8 20 12.65 15.5 4.66 4.83 Rhythm 6 36 24.58 30.5 6.92 9.83 7 31 28.03 30.5 8.77 9.83 8 20 24.90 30.5 8.47 9.83 Composite 6 36 48.72 60.5 14.59 19.83 7 31 55.32 60.5 16.48 19.83 8 20 51.50 60.5 16.86 19.83 73 For both the tonal and rhythmic dimensions of ACIM, the observed mean was lower than the theoretical mean, indicating that the scores are skewed to the right. The 7th grade students were the closest to meeting the theoretical mean in every dimension. The observed standard deviations all approximated the theoretical standard deviations. The observed standard deviations for the Major dimension were the only observed standard deviations greater than the theoretical standard deviations. The experimental group’s mean scores are higher than the control group’s in each area of the ACIM. A Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) was used to determine the effects of instruction across instructional groups and grade levels, based on ACIM scores. Tables 20, 21, and 22 are the MANOVA Tables for each dimension of ACIM. There were no significant interactions. However, there were significant differences in favor of the treatment group on Tonal-Major, Tonal-Combined, and Composite. Tonal-Minor, Rhythm-Duple, and Rhythm-Combined approached significance. There was significant difference between the 6‘h grade and 7th grade scores on the Rhythm-Triple improvisations (see Table 23). 74 Table 20. MAN OVA Table for Tonal dimension of ACIM Source ACIM Type 111 SS df MS f Sig. Corrected Model Tonal: Major 235.24 5 47.05 1.85 .11 Tonal: Minor 141.98 5 28.40 1.33 .26 Tonal: Combined 707.75 5 141.55 1.84 .1 1 Intercept Tonal: Major 14301.14 1 14301.14 563.69 .00 Tonal: Minor 13114.33 1 13114.33 615.27 .00 Tonal: Combined 54805.25 1 54805.25 714.31 .00 Grade Level Tonal: Major 48.04 2 24.02 .95 .39 Tonal: Minor 33.54 2 16.77 .79 .46 Tonal: Combined 157.79 2 78.90 1.03 .36 Instructional Tonal: Major 180.19 1 180.19 7.10 .01 * Group Tonal: Minor 80.21 1 80.21 3.76 .06 Tonal: Combined 500.84 1 500.84 6.53 .01 * Grade Level X Tonal: Major 12.22 2 6.11 .24 .79 Instructional Tonal: Minor 36.53 2 18.27 .86 .43 Group Tonal: Combined 78.67 2 39.34 .51 .60 Error Tonal: Major 2055.03 81 25.37 Tonal: Minor 1726.51 81 21.31 Tonal: Combined 6214.66 81 76.72 Total Tonal: Major 17465.00 87 Tonal: Minor 15726.00 87 Tonal: Combined 64957.00 87 Corrected Total Tonal: Major 2290.28 86 Tonal: Minor 1868.48 86 Tonal: Combined 6922.41 86 * The mean diflerence is significant at the .05 level. 75 Table 21. MANOVA Table for Rhythm dimension of ACIM Source ACIM Type 111 SS df MS f Sig. Corrected Rhythm: Duple 132.82 5 26.56 1.21 .31 Model Rhythm: Triple 233.44 5 46.69 2.58 .03 Rhythm: Combined 574.53 5 114.91 1.86 .11 Intercept Rhythm: Duple 14028.53 1 14028.53 638.34 .00 Rhythm: Triple 13164.27 1 13164.27 727.84 .00 Rhythm: Combined 54371.87 1 54371.87 882.18 .00 Grade Level Rhythm: Duple 33.00 2 16.50 .75 .48 Rhythm: Triple 119.45 2 59.73 3.30 .04“ Rhythm: Combined 214.18 2 107.09 1.74 .18 Instructional Rhythm: Duple 77.85 1 77.85 3.54 .06 Group Rhythm: Triple 39.59 1 39.59 2.19 .14 Rhythm: Combined 228.49 1 228.49 3.71 .06 Grade Level X Rhythm: Duple 35.50 2 17.75 .81 .45 Instructional Rhythm: Triple 98.67 2 49.34 2.73 .07 Group Rhythm: Combined 206.78 2 103.39 1 .68 .19 Error Rhythm: Duple 1780.10 81 21.98 Rhythm: Triple 1465.04 81 18.09 Rhythm: Combined 4992.32 81 61 .63 Total Rhythm: Duple 17220.00 87 Rhythm: Triple 15556.00 87 Rhythm: Combined 63860.00 87 Composite 254391 .00 87 Corrected Rhythm: Duple 1912.92 86 Total Rhythm: Triple 1698.48 86 Rhythm: Combined 5566.85 86 * The mean difierence is significant at the .05 level. 76 Table 22. ANOVA Table for ACIM Source Type 111 SS df MS f Sig. Corrected Model 2308.70 5 461.74 1.93 .10 Intercept 218353.37 1 218353.37 910.41 .00 Grade Level 652.89 2 326.44 1.36 .26 Instructional Group 1405.90 1 1405.90 5.86 .02* Grade Level X Instructional Group 480.49 2 240.25 1.00 .37 Error 19427.12 81 239.84 Corrected Total 254391.00 87 * p < .05 77 Table 23. Tukey’s HSD Table among Grade Levels MD SE Sig. Tonal: Major 6x7 -1.79 1.23 .32 6"‘m= 1231 6x8 -114 1.40 .70 7" m = 1397 7x8 .65 1.44 .90 8'“ m = 13.45 Tonal: Minor 6x7 -1.36 1.13 .46 6"‘m = 11.83 6x8 -132 1.29 .56 7"‘m = 1306 7x8 .04 1.32 1.00 8th m = 13.15 Tonal Combined 6x7 -3.15 2.15 .31 6"‘m = 24.14 6x8 -2.46 2.44 .57 7‘“ m = 2703 7x8 .69 2.51 .96 8th m = 26.60 Rhythm: Duple 6x7 -.81 1.15 .76 6'“m= 13.19 6x8 .94 1.31 .75 7"‘m = 1390 7x8 1.75 1.34 .40 8th m = 12.25 Rhythm: Triple 6x7 -2.64 1.04 .03 * 6‘“m= 11.39 6x8 -1.26 1.19 .54 7"‘m = 1407 7x8 1.38 1.22 .50 8th m = 12.65 Rhythm Combined 6x7 -3.45 1.92 .18 6'“m = 2458 6x8 -.32 2.19 .99 7"‘m = 2797 7x8 3.13 2.25 .35 8th m = 24.90 Composite 6x7 -6.60 3.79 .20 6‘h m = 4872 6x8 -2.78 4.32 .80 7*“ = ”-00 7x8 3.82 4.44 .67 8‘“ m = 51.50 * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. 78 Interpretations Tonal improvisation achievement was affected the most by instruction. This may be due to limiting the tonal content of the instructional melodies to only tonic and dominant, the use of root melodies, and the use of root melodies during rhythm pattern instruction. It is not surprising that Tonal-Minor was the least affected by instruction, because minor tends not to be emphasized in typical beginning instrumental instruction. Music students that have little experience playing in minor may need to devote more time to minor (and other tonalities not part of a typical music curriculum) to compensate for any deficiencies that they may have. Deficiencies in audiation and experience may adversely affect improvisational achievement. Although no significant difference was found in the Rhythm dimension, the results approached significance. This may be due to the students’ perceived importance of the Tonal dimension or “playing the right notes” rather than playing at the right time. The students indicated many times during the instructional period that they were most concerned with “playing the right notes.” Perhaps since improvising is generally not a part of typical instruction, the students seemed to either place a greater importance on the tonal dimension, or were so uncertain of themselves that they believed that “playing the right notes” demanded additional attention. Many of the rhythmically weak parts of the students’ improvisations were near phrase endings, at which time they appeared to be searching for the “right” note with which to end. Some students appeared to recognize when the ending note was not a chord tone, but did not appear to recognize when the ending note was a chord tone. In other words, the students appeared to understand or recognize when notes were “wrong,” but remained uncertain when notes were “right.” 79 If this is true, it suggests that teaching in a manner that juxtaposes different tonalities, meters, and harmonic progressions may help students learn to discern differences. During treatment in this study, since the students indicated that they were most concerned with the tonal dimension, the instructor tended to place greater emphasis on it to ease their concerns. Furthermore, during the instructional period, the time spent in minor/triple suffered the most from interruptions, which may explain why no significant difference was found for treatment conditions in triple, whereas duple approached significance. In any case, these results suggest that learning patterns based on chord function and meter does positively affect students’ abilities to improvise. The Effects of Instruction on the Improvisational Readiness of Secondary Instrumental Students Results Of the 101 students, 84 completed pre- and post-instructional administrations of the HIRR and RIRR. Of those 84, 34 were 6th grade students, 27 were 7th grade students, and 23 were 8th grade students. Forty-two were from the experimental group and 43 were from the control group. Table 24 shows the means and standard deviations according to treatment group. Tables 25 and 26 Show the tests for significant differences according to treatment and grade level on HIRR and RIRR. There were no significant differences (p > .05). Table 24. HIRR & RIRR Means and Standard Deviatons Table by Instructional Group 80 n M SD HIRR Pre- Instructional Experimental 44 29.84 5.851 Control 49 28.80 5.983 Post- Instructional Experimental 44 29.23 5.742 Control 49 28.06 6.893 RIRR Pre- Instructional Experimental 46 30.02 5.994 Control 49 28.71 6.850 Post- Instructional Experimental 46 28.61 6.126 Control 49 27.57 6.853 Table 25. MANOVA of Pre & Post-Instructional HIRR & RIRR Value de Edf Sig. Intercept .98 804.1 1 4 75 .00 Grade Level .09 .95 8 152 .48 Instructional Group .01 .1 5 4 75 .96 Grade Level X Instructional Group .03 .25 8 152 .98 81 Table 26. Measure Linear Contrasts table for Pre- & Post-Instructional Repeated Type [[1 SS df MS f Sig. Corrected Model Pre-HIRR 37.76 5 7.55 .22 .95 Post-HIRR 84.69 5 16.94 .42 .83 Pre-RIRR 66.58 5 13.32 .36 .88 Post—RIRR 191.93 5 38.39 .75 .59 Intercept Pre-HIRR 72649.72 1 72649.72 2 158.54 .00 Post-HIRR 66233.86 1 66233.86 1650.79 .00 Pre-RIRR 67498.84 1 67498.84 1806.16 .00 Post-RIRR 61645.88 1 61645.88 1 199.47 .00 Grade Level Pre-HIRR 1.46 2 .73 .02 .98 Post-HIRR 72.65 2 36.33 .91 .41 Pre-RIRR 41.87 2 20.93 .56 .57 Post-RIRR 180.08 2 90.04 1.75 .18 Instructional Group Pre-HIRR .08 1 .08 .00 .96 Post-HIRR .93 1 .93 .02 .88 Pre-RIRR 17.06 1 17.06 .46 .50 Post-RIRR 1.24 l 1.24 .02 .88 Instructional Group X Pre-HIRR 34.68 2 17.34 .52 .60 Grade Level Post-HIRR 13.76 2 6.88 .17 .84 Pre-RIRR .80 2 .40 .01 .99 Post-RIRR 13.57 2 6.79 .13 .88 Error Pre-HIRR 2625.23 78 33.66 Post-HIRR 3129.55 78 40.12 Pre-RIRR 2914.98 78 37.37 Post-RIRR 4008.77 78 51.39 Total Pre-HIRR 78323.00 84 Post-HIRR 71900.00 84 Pre-RIRR 72989.00 84 Post-RIRR 6745 1 .00 84 Corrected Total Pre-HIRR 2662.99 83 Post-HIRR 3214.24 83 Pre-RIRR 2981.56 83 Post-RIRR 4200.70 83 82 Interpretations There are two possible explanations as to why treatment did not appear to affect students’ achievement on HIRR and RIRR. Treatment included only major and minor, and duple and triple, whereas HIRR tests readiness to audiate major, minor, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian, and locrian tonalities and RIRR tests readiness to audiate duple, triple, and unusual meters. These tests may have been a more appropriate assessment of readiness if the treatment had included more tonalities and meters. Results may have been more positively affected if student scores for only major and minor, and duple and triple were examined for this study, or if treatment had juxtaposed more tonalities and meters. Second, it may be that these tests to do not adequately assess what they purport to measure. Except for the standardization studies, Westervelt (2002), in a study of the efficacy of HIRR, suggests that HIRR does not assess tonal strength as effectively as MAP Tonal Imagery. More research is needed into the validity of these tests. The Effects of Aptitude on the Improvisational Ability of Secondary Instrumental Students Results To determine the relationship between aptitude and improvisation ability, the students’ scores on MAP were correlated with the scores from ACIM using Pearson- Product-Moment Correlation (see Table 29). 83 Table 27. Pearson’s Correlation of Aptitude and Improvisational Achievement MAP Tonal Tonal Tonal Rhythm Rhythm Rhythm MAP Melody Harmony Imagery Tempo Meter Imagery Composite ACIM Tonal: Major .27 .11 .20 .05 -.08 -.02 .07 Minor .18 .11 .16 .13 -.04 .04 .10 Combined .25 .12 .20 .10 -.06 .01 .09 Rhythm: Duple .24 .09 .18 .01 -.04 -.03 .12 Triple .25 .11 .19 .03 -.05 -.02 .10 Combined .28 .12 .21 .02 -.O6 -.03 .13 ACIM Composite .28 .13 .22 .07 -.06 -.01 .12 Correlations are all near zero with the exception of those for the tonal dimension melody, which are moderate. This suggests that there is little relationship between the students’ scores on MAP and ACIM, with the possible exception of the correlation between melodic aptitude and improvisational achievement. These results are inconsistent with previous research (Azzara, 1992). Summary of Results and Interpretations The overall inter-judge reliabilities for the rating scales indicate an acceptable degree of consistency and agreement between the ratings of the three judges. MANOVA tests demonstrated that there was no difference between the experimental and control 84 groups prior to instruction. Differences did exist between grade levels, but differences did not exist within grade levels between instructional groups. Instruction did not affect middle school students’ readiness to improvise as determined by HIRR and RIRR. Additionally, and contrary to previous research, these results suggest that aptitude, according to this study, is not related to improvisational achievement. Instruction did affect the improvisational achievement of the students as measured by ACIM. This effect is most evident for the Tonal dimension, for which a significant difference was found between instructional groups in Tonal-Major and the Tonal-Total scores, and the Tonal-Minor score approached significance. Instruction did not appear to effect students’ improvisational achievement in the rhythm dimension, although the Rhythm-Duple and Rhythm-Combined scores approached significance. A statistically significant difference was found between instructional groups in the composite ACIM scores. These results appear to be consistent with pervious research (Azzara, 1992), which suggests that instruction positively affects middle school instrumental music students’ ability to improvise. 85 CHAPTER FIVE Summary, Limitations, and Recommendations Summary Many believe that improvisation, in any idiom, is an integral element of a comprehensive music education. (Azzara, 1991; Bitz, 1998, Bowman, 1988; Elliott, 1995; Flohr, 1981; Gordon, 1997; Kratus, 1996; McDaniel, 1974; Madura, 1996; Reimer, 2003; Sloboda, 1985). The Comprehensive Musicianship Project (CMP), National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), and the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project (MMCP) have included improvisation as a necessary component of a quality music education. Methodologies such as Orff, Dalcroze, and Kodaly have long included improvisation as an important activity in the curriculum (Azzara, 1991; Flohr, 1981; Kratus, 1991; McDaniel, 1974; Madura, 1996). Likewise, the third content standard of the National Standards for K-12 Music Education from MENC: The National Association for Music Education is “improvising various melodies, variations, accompaniments” (1994) Purpose With the intent of improving music pedagogy, designing more effective instrumental music curricula, and furthering current research in the area of Music Learning Theory, audiation, and improvisation, the purpose of this research was to determine how a Music Learning Theory-based improvisational instrumental music curriculum affects student achievement in secondary instrumental music classes. 86 Problems The problems of the study follow: 1. to determine whether instrumental music students who received a Music Learning Theory-based improvisation instructional program have greater achievement in improvisation than students who did not received a Music Learning Theory-based improvisational instruction 2. to determine whether instrumental music students who received Music Learning Theory-based improvisational instructional program have greater improvisational readiness than students who did not received Music Learning Theory-based improvisational instructional program 3. to determine the extent to which achievement in instrumental improvisation is related to music aptitude. Design and Procedures The design of this study was treatment by levels. Sixth, 7m, and 8th grade students were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group, controlling for aptitude. One hundred and one middle school instrumental music students participated in this study. The Harmonic Improvisational Readiness Record and Rhythmic Improvisation Readiness Record were used as pre- and post-treatment measures. Additionally, all students were administered the Music Aptitude Profile prior to treatment. Controlling for aptitude using the results from MAP, the students were randomly placed into either the 87 treatment or control group. The students received 20-minutes of formal instruction, from the researcher, once a week for 12 weeks. The instruction for all groups was based on Gordon’s Music Learning Theory, which included Ieaming melodies and root melodies by rote, playing alone and in groups, and identifying tonalities and meters. The treatment group received additional MLT- based pattern instruction, which the control group did not receive, that included imitating and improvising tonal and rhythmic patterns within and without context. After the treatment period, the students improvised a consequent phrase to the researcher designed Antecedent/Consequent Improvisational Measure. The students played four consequent phrases: major/duple, minor/duple, major/triple, and minor/triple. Two independent judges and the researcher rated the consequent phrases using a 5-point continuous rating scale for Tonal and Rhythm dimensions. Analysis The results from the post-instructional ACIM were subjected to a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) to determine the effects of a Music Learning Theory- based improvisational instruction. Pearson-Product-Moment-Correlation was used to determine if aptitude is related to improvisational ability of middle school students. A Repeated Measures MANOVA was used to determine if instruction had any effect on readiness from pre- to post-instructional administrations of the HIRR and RIRR. 88 Summary of Results and Interpretations Although these results are encouraging, caution should be used when generalizing these results to different situations. Music Learning Theory-based improvisational instruction affected the improvisational achievement of the students. Those who received the MLT-based rote-song and pattern instruction improvised better than those who only received only rote-song instruction. This effect is most evident within the Tonal dimension, for which a significant difference was found between instructional groups in Tonal-Major and the Tonal-Total scores; the Tonal-Minor score approached significance. Instruction did not appear to effect students’ improvisational achievement in the rhythm dimension; however, the results from Rhythm-Duple and Rhythm-Total scores approached significance. A statistically significant difference was found between instructional groups in the composite ACIM scores. These results appear to be consistent with previous research (Azzara, 1991) that suggests the Music-learning Theory-based rote-song and pattern instruction positively affects middle school instrumental music students’ abilities to improvise. The results suggest that a Music Learning Theory-based pattern improvisational instruction did not affect middle school students’ readiness to improvise as determined by HIRR and RIRR. Additionally, and contrary to previous research (Azzara, 1991), the results suggest that aptitude is not related to the improvisational achievement of middle school instrumental music students, with the possible exception of melodic aptitude. 89 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research The primary limitation of the present study was the lack of time available for instruction. Pressing (1988) believes that “distributed practice develops immediacy and consistency of results under variable conditions” (p. 140). Although there was statistical significance according to treatment, more time spent in instruction and practice would have no doubt been beneficial, and it may have improved the results in those areas that were approaching statistical Significance. The content and activities of each lesson were limited to what could reasonably be accomplished within twenty minutes and be retained from week to week. The students did not sing the melodies, root melodies, or patterns as recommended by Azzara (1992), Amchin (1995), Gordon (1998), Guilbault (2002), and Wig (1981). Furthermore, the music instruction focused on playing in E-flat major and C minor instead of a variety of key centers as recommended by Azzara (1992) and Gordon (1998). Some students were unable to retain what was learned in song instruction from week to week, and many students in the treatment group were unable to retain what was learned in pattern instruction. The limited instruction period was coupled with interruptions, which affected everyone to some extent, but the 8th grade students were affected the most. Rote-song and pattern instruction, according to Gordon (1998), should occur routinely each day. Future research Should attempt to focus on the effect of consistent, routine, and prolonged instruction, incorporating singing and playing in a multitude of tonalities, key-centers, meters, and harmonic progressions, on achievement. Perhaps an obvious solution is to provide the students with the notation of the melodies, but that may undermine the development of aural skills necessary to learn to 90 audiate and perpetuates the reliance on notation. Providing an effective way to assist students with retaining melodies aurally is an added benefit of including singing as a component of instruction. Azzara (1991) attempted to encourage students to practice on their own time by providing a home practice CD that contained the songs and patterns. Some believe that improvisation is indelibly related to instrumental technique (Azzara, 1991; Gordon, 1998; Kratus, I991; Sarath 2002). In the present study, the researcher assumed the students’ previous instrumental music instruction was sufficient preparation for instruction. This was perhaps a faulty assumption, and greater time Spent in exploration activities, to improve comfort levels as well as technical facility, may have more positively affected the results of this study. Future research should include exploration activities that focus on creating music within boundaries that are easily adhered to, thus allowing the students to become comfortable with the instrument while still creating music without notation and not devoting undue attention to perceived correctness. For example, creating melodic phrases, of any length or meter, that begin and end on a specific tone; or creating rhythmic phrases, of any length or tonality. Implications for Music Education and Conclusions Pattern instruction by tonality and chord function as well as meter along with opportunities to improvise patterns in the tonality, function, and meter seems to improve improvisational ability. Thus, more time Should be devoted to improvisation and pattern instruction in middle school instrumental music. Furthermore, these results appear to suggest that student achievement in improvisation can be affected in a group setting using and simple melodies, simple harmonic progressions in styles other than jazz. 91 The literature clearly indicates that improvisation is a fundamental (and grossly neglected) element of a comprehensive music education. Research should investigate the effects of exploring and creating melodies without notation, developing audiation Skills in different tonalities and meters, and developing a repertoire of patterns based on chord function and meter, from which to choose when improvising. Reliable criterion measures and rating scales should be developed and put into practice to help teacher assess student achievement. Furthermore, future research should also focus on how best in improve instruction in teacher training. 92 APPENDICES 93 OFFICE OF RESEARCH ETHICS AND STANDARDS 'ersity Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects lichigan State University 202 Olds Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 517/355-2180 FAX: 517/432-4503 Web: iunzanresearchmsuedu .-Mail, ucrihs@msu.edu Appendix A University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects Approval MICHIGAN STATE Initial IRB U N I V E R S l T Y Application Approval April 19, 2005 To: Cynthia Taggart 209 Music Practice Bldg. Re: IRB # 05—010 Category. EXPEDITED 2-6 Approval Date: , April 15, 2005 Expiration Date: April 14, 2006 Title: THE EFFECTS OF A MUSIC LEARNING THEORY-BASED IMPROVISATIONAL MUSIC CURRICULUM ON THE IMPROVISATIONAL ABILITY OF SECONDARY INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC STUDENTS The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to advise you that your project has been approved. The committee has found that your research project is appropriate in design, protects the rights and welfare of human subjects, and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal Wide Assurance and the Federal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CF R Part 50). The protection of human subjects In research is a partnership between the IRB and the investigators. We look forward to wdrking with you as we both fulfill our responsibilities. Renewals: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing your project, you must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration. If the project is com pleted, please submit an Application for Permanent Closure. Revisions: UCRIHS must review any changes in the project, prior to initiation of the change. Please submit an Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. If changes are made at the time of renewal, please include an Application for Revision with the renewal application. Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research, such as unanticipated problems. adverse events, or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects, notify UCRIHS promptly. Forms are available to report these issues. Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project, or on any correspondence with UCRIHS. Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email at UCRIHS@msu.edu. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, flea/Le Peter Vasilenko, PhD. UCRIHS Chair 94 Appendix B Parent Letter and Consent Form Dear Parents, The purpose of this letter is to ask your consent for your child to participate in my Master’s thesis “The Effects of a Music Learning Theory-Based Improvisational Music Curriculum on the Improvisational Ability of Secondary Instrumental Music Students.” This thesis is a requirement of the degree of a Master’s of Music Education that I am currently pursuing at Michigan State University. In order to improve music education the purpose of this study is to examine how children Ieam to improvise and how best to teach children. Specifically, the research will focus on the following: 1) To determine whether a specially designed instrumental improvisation instruction affects students’ ability to improvise. 2) To determine whether a specially designed instrumental improvisation instruction affects students’ readiness to improvise. 3) To determine the extent to which music aptitude is related to instrumental music students’ ability to improvise. 4) To determine the extent to which music aptitude is related to instrumental music students’ readiness to improvise. 95 This study will be conducted during your child’s regularly scheduled music class. Before the instruction begins the Music Aptitude Profile will be administered to determine your child’s aptitude. Additionally, the Harmonic and Rhythm Improvisational Readiness Record will be given to determine the extent to which your child is already ready to improvise. This test will be given both before and after the instruction period to determine the extent to which the instructional period affected your child’s readiness to improvise. After the instructional period it will also be necessary to record you child’s playing in order to assess his or her ability to improvise. These recordings will be analyzed by three independent judges. All aspects of your child’s involvement will be kept confidential. The only person listening to his or her recording will be the judges and me. The judges will know the children only by an assigned number, not by name. Participation is voluntary, and confidentially of participants will be kept in the strictest confidence. Furthermore, your child may withdraw from the study for any reason without any consequences. If you have any questions about the study, please call me at (517)347-7544 or email me at dougla97@msu.edu or my thesis advisor Dr. Cynthia Taggart at (517)432-9678 or taggartc@msu.edu. You may also contact the Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCHRIS) Dr. Peter Vasilenko at (517)355—2180 for questions about participants’ rights as human subjects of research. Once I receive written permission from you the study will be explained to your child. 96 Please know that your child will receive excellent instruction during the study and will grow musically. Through this research, and with the participation of your child, I hope to gain insight into how children Ieam and how best to teach children. Sincerely, Kenneth A. Douglas Graduate Student Michigan State University Before signing below, please read the above describing the study “The Effects of a Music Learning Theory-Based Improvisational Music Curriculum on the Improvisational Ability of Secondary Instrumental Music Students.” Your child’s participation in this study is voluntary and will remain confidential. Your child’s privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your child’s name will not appear in any report of results. There are no penalties for those who do not wish to participate, and those students that do choose to participate may withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. When the study is complete, the results will me made available to you upon your written request. 97 Within these restrictions, 1 agree to allow my child to participate in this research study. Student’s Name: Student’s Birth Date: I have read the above information and voluntarily agree to participate. Parent or Legal Guardian’s Signature: Date: 98 Appendix C Treatment Songs R. Grunow Major Duple BB7 Eb 1357 Eb 857 El’ 857 131’ 5b Maj or Triple R. Grunow El’ 1357 135 Bin 135 BB7 E5 1357 El’ Minor Duple R. Grunow c G7 R. Grunow G7 c G7 c G7 c G7 c Minor Triple 0 Copyright© 1999 by GIA Publishing, Inc, Chicago, Illinois All rights reserved. Used with permission. 99 Mary Had A Little Lamb Traditional El’ 131’ I357 EI’ El’ 135 1357 El Oats, Peas, Beans, & Barley Grow Traditional El Eb Bin 1357 Eb Eb Bbr El’ You W111 Never Find Me B. Bolton c 0 G7 c c 1: G7 c My Pony Bill A. Weichard c c 0 G7 c c c c G7 c Copyright© 2000, 2004 by GIA Publishing, Inc, Chicago, Illinois All rights reserved. Used with permission. 100 Appendix D Lesson Outline . Review pervious lessons melody and root melody . Play new melody for students 2.1. Have students keep beat in their heels and play the melody again 2.2. Ask if the meter is the same or different than the previous song 2.3. Take answers, play melody again, confirm correct meter 2.4. Ask if the tonality is the same or different than the previous song 2.5. Take answers, play melody again, confirm correct tonality . Teach students root melody through imitation . Play melody while students play root melody . Teach the melody to the students through imitation phrase by phrase 5.1. Assign some to play melody and some play root melody 5.2. Play several times, switching between melody and root melody . Ask for two volunteers to play the melody and root melody 6.1. Allow students to play melody and root melody as time allows The following is outline for teaching pattern instruction that only the Experimental Group received . Play rhythmic patterns for students to imitate on tonic 7.1. repeat as necessary . Play patterns for students to respond with different patterns 8.1. repeat as necessary 101 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Demonstrate adding rhythmic patterns to the root melody Students add rhythmic patterns to the root melody 10.1. Small groups or individuals switch between melody and root melody with rhythmic patterns 10.2. Repeat as necessary Play tonic patterns for students to imitate 11.1. repeat as necessary Play tonic patterns for students to respond with tonic different patterns 12.]. When Speaking or giving directions refer to the patterns as “tonic” patterns 12.2. repeat as necessary Demonstrate playing tonic patterns over root melody (not in time) Students play tonic patterns over the root melody 14.1. Demonstrate playing tonic patterns in time over root melody 14.2. Play SOL/MI when dominant chord sounds Students attempt the same 15.1. repeat as necessary Repeat steps 11 through 12 with dominant patterns Demonstrate combining different or more complex rhythmic patterns to tonal patterns in the context of the song Students play melody, root melody, and improvisations 18.1. repeat as necessary 18.2. advise those who are struggling that the root melody is acceptable Offer opportunities for solo or suet playing as time allows 102 Appendix E Tonal Patterns Major Copyright© 1999 by GIA Publishing, Inc, Chicago, Illinois All rights reserved. Used with permission. Appendix F Rhythm Patterns Dlphpuuu gr I'll :,”§:,, I, :,|l2:,:,l:,, ”2:11. |:,:," W int—WWW WWW Copyright© 1999 by GIA Publishing, Inc, Chicago, Illinois All rights reserved. Used with permission. 104 , Appendix G Antecedent/Consequent Improvisational Measure Major Duple l 1 1 1—1 p—-1 x I I I n I I I L 11 I I 1 I __ 4] I 1 Al I I I I I I II I 41 I I P-’l 4 I I V .I I I A A .I II A V I I I Minor Duple A 1 P1: _E Ti: Hui IL--. (1:: $1 :1 ,1 1.. ...li ELL Maj or Triple Minor Triple 105 REFERENCES Aebersold, J. (1967- 1999). Jazz aids (series of 59 sound recordings and texts). New Albany, IN: Author. Aitken, A. E. (1975). A self-instructional audio-imitation method designed to teach trumpet students jazz improvisation in the major mode. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon). Dissertation Abstracts International, 3 7(01), 18A. Albrio, F. L. (1998) Addressing the problem of attrition in the middles school string program by implementing jazz improvisation; A curriculum guide to develop improvisational skills with the middle school musician (Master’s thesis, University of Lowell). Masters Abstracts International, 27(01), 21. Amchin, R. A. (1995). Creative musical response: The effect of teacher-student interaction on the improvisation abilities of fourth- and fifth-grade students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(08), 3044A. Azzara, C. D. (1993). Audiation-based improvisation techniques and elementary instrumental students’ music achievement. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(4), 328-324. Azzara, C. D. (2002) Improvisation. In Colwell, R & Richardson, C. (Eds). The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (p. 188 -l98). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Azzara, C. D., Grunow, R. F ., & Gordon, E. E. (1997). Creativity in improvisation, book one and two. Chicago: GIA Publications [includes compact disk]. Baker, B. N. (1994). A creative approach to practicing jazz. New Albany, IN: Jamey Aebersold Jazz, Inc. Bash, L. (1983). The effectiveness of three instructional methods on the acquisition of jazz improvisational Skills (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(09), 2079A. Baudo, J. M. (1982). The effectiveness of jazz education on the enhancement of the characteristic traits associated with creativity in music; Implications for curriculum planning (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(10), 3252A. Belczyk, M. E. (1992) Using music aptitude and timbre preference test results to predict performance achievement among beginning band students. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University) Dissertation Abstracts International, 5 3 (05), 1438A. 106 Bitz, M. E. (1998). A description and investigation of strategies for teaching classroom music improvisation. (Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University) Dissertation Abstracts International 5 9(1 0), 1438A. Bowman, W. D. (1988). Doctoral research in jazz improvisation pedagogy: an overview. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 96, 47-76. Briscuso, J. J. (1972) A study of ability in spontaneous and prepared jazz improvisation among students who possess different levels of musical aptitude (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa). Dissertation Abstracts International, 4 7(08), 2787A. Brophy, T. S. (1999). The melodic improvisation of children ages six through twelve: A developmental perspective (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(09), 3386A. Burnsed, C. V. (1978). The development and evaluation of an introductory jazz improvisation sequence for intermediate band students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami). Dissertation Abstracts, 39(08), 4578A. Carlson, W. R. (1980). A procedure for teaching jazz improvisation based on an analysis of the performance practices of three major jazz trumpet players: Louis Armstrong, Dizzie Gillespie, and Miles Davis (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(03), 1042A. Coker, J. (1984). Complete method for improvisation. Lebanon, IN: Houston. Coy, D. A. (1999). A multisensory approach to teaching jazz improvisation to middles school band students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon). Dissertation Abstracts International, 5 0(1 1), 3508A. Coker, J ., Casale, J ., Campbel, G, & Greene, J. (1970). Patterns for jazz. (3rd Ed.). Miami, FL: CPP/Belwin, Inc Damron, B. L. (1973). The development and evaluation of a self-instructional sequence in jazz improvisation (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35(02) 1141A. Della Pietra, C.J. (1997). The effects of a three-phase constructivist instructional model for improvisation on high school students’ perception and reproduction of musical rhythm (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(06), 2125A. Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music Matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 107 Flohr, J. W. (1981). Musical Improvisation Behavior of Young Children. US. Texas, Accession No: ED201408 Flohr, J. W. (1981a). Musical improvisation behavior of young children. Denton, TX: Texas Woman’s University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED201408). Flohr, J. W. (1981b). Short-term music instruction and young children's developmental music aptitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(3), 219-23 Flohr, J. W. (1984). Young Children 's Improvisations: A Longitudinal Study. Denton, TX: Texas Woman’s University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED255318). Frierson-Campbell, C. (2000). The effects of audiation-based enrichment activities on second-year wind and percussion instrumental music achievement. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (03) 925A. Froehlich, H. C. (1979). The development of musical thinking: Case studies in improvisation (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39(11), 6617A. Gamble, D. K. (1989). A study of the effects of two types of tonal pattern instruction on the audiational and performance skills of first-year clarinet students. Doctoral dissertation, Temple University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 5 0(04), 893A. Gordon, E. E (1998). Harmonic improvisation readiness record and rhythm improvisation readiness record. [Test manual]. Chicago: GIA. Gordon, B. E (2000a). Delving more deeply into the nature of music aptitudes and the relevance of music aptitudes. Studies in harmonic and rhythmic improvisation readiness. [Monograph, Serial No. G-5353]. Chicago: GIA, 5-20. Gordon, E. E (2000b). An investigation into the background necessary for learning to improvise: the relation among questions constituting the rhythm improvisation readiness record, the harmonic readiness record, and the advanced measures of audiation. Studies in harmonic and rhythmic improvisation readiness. [Monograph, Serial No. G-5353]. Chicago: GIA, 21-34. Gordon, E. E (2000c). A comparison of music tests and students’ improvisation readiness based on longitudinal case studies. Studies in harmonic and rhythmic improvisation readiness. [Monograph, Serial No. G-53 53]. Chicago: GIA, 35-56. 108 Gordon, B. E (2000d). An addendum to the first three papers of the series: the relation among scores on the harmonic improvisation readiness record, the rhythm readiness record, and the complete musical aptitude profile. Studies in harmonic and rhythmic improvisation readiness. [Monograph, Serial No. G-5353]. Chicago: GIA, 57-59. Gordon, B. E. (1970b). Taking into account musical aptitude differences among beginning instrumental students. American Education Research Journal, 7(1), 41-53 Gordon, B. E. (1985). Research studies in audiation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 84, 34-50. Gordon, B. E. (1987). The Nature, description, Measurement and Evaluation of Music Aptitudes. Chicago, IL: G.I.A. Publications. Gordon, B. E. (1995). Musical Aptitude Profile. Chicago, IL: G.I.A. Publications. Gordon, E. E. (1997). Learning sequences in music. Chicago, IL: G.I.A. Publications. Gordon, B. E. (2003). Improvisation in the Music Classroom. Chicago, IL: G.I.A. Publications. Gordon, E.E, (1970a). First-year results of a five-year longitudinal study of the musical achievement of culturally disadvantaged students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18(3), 195-213 Grout, D. J. & Palisca, c. v. (2000) A history ofwestern music, 6th Ed. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Grunow, R., Gordon, B, & Azzara, C. (1999). Jump right in: The instrumental series, home-stuay cd. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications. Grunow, R., Gordon, E., & Azzara, C. (1999). Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications. Grunow, R., Gordon, B, & Azzara, C. (1999). Jump right in: The instrumental series, student book one. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications. Guilbault, D. M. (2002). An investigation of the effect of harmonic accompaniment on the developmental tonal aptitude, tonal achievement and tonal improvisation of children in kindergarten and first grade. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(12), 4256A Hand, D. J. & Taylor, C. C. (1987) Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Repeated Measures. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall. 109 Hargeaves, D. J ., Cork, C. A., & Setton T. (1991). Cognitive strategies of jazz improvisation: An exploratory study. Canadian Music Educator, Research edition, 3, 47-54. Hores, R. G. (1977). A comparative study of visual- and oral-oriented approaches to jazz improvisation with implications for instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39(04), 2121A. Humphreys, J. T. (1986). Measurement, prediction, and training of harmonic audiation and performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34(3), 192-99. Jessen, P. M. (1991). The effect of audiation on elementary students' rhythm improvisations (Doctoral dissertation, The University Of Manitoba). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31(04), 1460A. Joseph, A. S. (1982). A Dalcroze Eurhythmics approach to music Ieaming in kindergarten through rhythmic movement, eartraining, and improvisation (Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(02), 420A. Josuweit, D. (1991). The effects of an audiation-based instrumental music curriculum upon beginning band students’ achievement in music. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 3213A. Kratus, J. (1991). Growing with improvisation. Music Educators Journal, 78(4), 35-40. Kratus, J. (1996). A developmental approach to teaching musical improvisation. International Journal of Music Education, 26, 27—38. Lorenz, K. W. (1999). A comparison of the effectiveness of three teaching methods based on rote learning, improvisation, and tonal conceptual development on melodic performance skills achievement of music teachers in a beginning guitar class. (Doctoral dissertation, the University of North Carolina, Greensboro). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55 (02), 237A. Madura, P. D. (1996). Relationships among vocal jazz improvisation achievement, jazz theory knowledge, imitative ability, musical experience, creativity, and gender. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(3), 252-67. McDaniel, W. T. (1974). Differences in music achievement, music experience, and background between jazz improvising musicians and non-improvising musicians at the freshman and sophomore college levels (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa) Dissertations Abstracts International, 35 (1 2), 7948A. McDonald, J. C. (1991). The application of Gordon’s empirical model of learning sequence to teaching the recorder. The Quarterly. 2(1 & 2), 110-117. 110 Mckinney, J. F. (1978). The pedagogy of Lennie Tristano (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa). Dissertation Abstracts International, 3 9(07), 4110A. Miceli, J. S. (1998). An investigation of an audiation-based high school general music curriculum and its relationship to music aptitude, music achievement, and student perception of learning (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(02)441A. Milford, G. F. (2002) Effect of three different pulse stimulus modes on the rhythm reading achievement of beginning instrumentalists (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (06), 21 71A. Montano, D. R. (1983). The effect of improvisation in given rhythms on rhythmic accuracy in sight reading achievement by college elementary group piano students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Kansas City). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(06), 1729A. Moorhead G. & Pond D. (1978). Music for young children. Santa Barbra. CA: Pillsbury Foundation for the Advancement of Music Education. (Reprinted from the 1941— 1951 editions). Nettl, B (1998). An art neglected in scholarship. In Nettl, B & Russell, M (Eds). in the course of performance (pp. 1- 23). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Olson, C. L. (1976). On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analyses of variance. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 83: 579-586. Otero, E. Y. (2001). Beginning horn method book based on the music learning theory of Edwin E. Gordon. (Doctoral dissertation, University Of Northern Colorado). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(12), 4103A. Paulson, J. C. (1985). The development of an imitative instructional approach to improvising effect6ive melodic statements in jazz solos (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(10), 2957A. Pike, A. (19985). Improvisation: methods and models. In Sloboda, J. A. (Ed.). The musical mind: the cognitive psychology of music. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. (p. 139-169). Pressing, J. (1985) Improvisation: methods and models. In Sloboda, J. A. (Ed.). The musical mind; The cognitive psychology of music. Oxford, England; Oxford University Press. (p. 1 39- 169). Reimer, B. (2003) A philosophy of music education: advancing the vision. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall 111 Reinhardt, D. A. (1990). Preschool children’s use of rhythm in improvisation. Contributions to Music Education, 17, 7-19. Rogers, C. L. (1999). The effects of two instructional methods on two piano improvisation skills exhibited while performing hymn accompaniments by beginning adult piano improvisers. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina At Greensboro). Dissertation Abstracts International, Sarath, E (2002) Improvisation and curriculum reform. In Colwell, R & Richardson, C. (Eds). The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (p. 188 - 198). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sarath, E. (1996). A new look at improvisation. Journal of music theory, 40, 1- 38. Schenkle, S. M. (1980). A guide to the development of improvisational skills in the jazz idiom (Doctoral dissertation, Washington University). Dissertations Abstracts International, 41(03), 847A. Schmidt, C. P. & Sinor, J. (1986). An investigation of the relationships among music audiation, musical creativity, and cognitive style. Research in Music Education, 34(3), 160-72. Sloboda, J. A. (1985). The musical mind; The cognitive psychology of music. Oxford, England; Oxford University Press. Sloboda, J. A. (Ed.). (1988). Generative process in music, the psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. Skube, J. T. (2003). Implementation of the National Standards for music education within secondary instrumental music programs in the state of Michigan. (Masters Thesis, Michigan State University). Masters Abstracts International, 41 (04), 900. Swanwick, K (1988). Music, mind, and education. New York, NY: Rutledge. Walters, D. L. (1989). Audiation: the term and process. In Readings in music learning theory, Walters, D. L. and Taggart, C. C. (Eds). Chicago, Ill: Gia. Westervelt, T. G. (2003). An investigation of harmonic and improvisation readiness among upper elementary age children (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(11), 37722A. Whitman, G. G. (2001). The effects of vocal improvisation on attitudes, aural identification skills, knowledge of music theory, and pitch accuracy in sight- reading of high school choral singers. (Masters Thesis, University of Missouri). Masters Abstracts International, 4 0(01). 112 Wig, J. A. (1980). The effect of instruction in music composition strategies on middle school band students’ ability to improvise melodies. (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41 (1 0) 4324. Wilson, B. (1981). Implications of the Pillsbury Foundation School of Santa Barbra in perspective. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 68, 13-25. Zwick, R. A. (1987). Jazz improvisation: A recommended sequential format of instruction. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(03), 592A. 113 MICHlIGAN STATE UN III IIIIIIIIIII 1293 03 ERSITY LIBRA lllIIIIm 674