v..y—'-———v—V_.. v *—

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS

OF TWO METHODS OF STUDENT RESPONSE

USING A TAPED PROGRAM OF PRACTICE
MATERIALS FOR IMPROVING AURAL DISCRIMINATION

Thesis fothe Degree cf Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Rex J. HewIeH_
I966

mes"?

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
TWO METHODS OF STUDENT RESPONSE USING A
TAPED PROGRAM OF PRACTICE MATERIALS FOR
INPROVING AURAL DISCRIMINATION

presented by
Rex J Hewlett
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Eh ID . degree inJuiL

WWW/WM

Major r--‘ -----

Datem

 

0-169 I
l
I

 

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TWO

METHODS OF STUDENT RESPONSE USING A TAPED

PROGRAM OF PRACTICE MATERIALS FOR
IMPROVING AURAL DISCRIMINATION

by Rex J. Hewlett

In the fall of 1965, an experimental study was con-

ducted with part of the freshman theory classes at Central

Michigan University. Purposes of the study were to:

1.

Determine if improvement in aural discrimination
would be greater if the practice response to an
aural stimulus was played rather than written.
Learn if sight-singing progress would be greater
if the dictation practice response mode were
played rather than written.

Study the relationship of these two types of
practice on improvement in error detection type
of dictation.

Determine the effect of previous keyboard training
on the two practice methods.

Examine the relationship or the response mode to
high and low beginning levels of aural perception.
Observe any interaction between scholastic
aptitude and (a) achievement in aural perception,

and (b) the practice response mode.

1.

Rex J. Hewlett

Procedures

 

A set of dictation exercises was developed,
printed, and recorded on magnetic tape.
Dictation and sight—singing tests were

devised to serve as pre— and post-tests.

The study population was tested and divided
into two equated groups which were then
randomly assigned to the two practice methods.
The experimental group played all responses at
the keyboard; the control group used the tradi-
tional written response.

The resulting statistics were analyzed by rank
order correlations and Mann—Whitney U tests.
The 5 per cent level of confidence was estab-

lished as the significance level for the study.

Results
Nosignificant difference was found between the
two practice methods for overall dictation
improvement.
No significant difference in improvement in

sight-singing resulted from the two methods of

.practice.

Significant difference in favor of the experi-
mental group occurred in error detection dictation.
There was no significant relationship between

the two methods of practice and previous keyboard

experience in overall dictation improvement.

Rex J. Hewlett

In error detection significantly greater improve—
ment was shown by experimental group students with
previous keyboard experience. No significant
difference existed between practice methods for
the non-pianists.

Pre-test dictation score relationships with the
improvement resulting from the two practice
methods were not significant. A tendency was
noted for control group improvement to be greater
for those with low pre-test scores whereas experi-
mental group improvement was greater for those
with high pre-test scores.

Scholastic aptitude was a significant factor in
dictation improvement for the control group but

not for the experimental group.

Conclusions

 

The played response is a useful ear-training
practice technique and should be added to the
several existing practice methods.

Students who have piano background may find the
played response very helpful, especially in the
area of error detection.

Further study of the relationships between
extreme initial levels of perception and the

method of response was recommended.

Rex H. Hewlett

The relationship between scholastic aptitude
and the two methods of practice seemed worthy
of further study.

The need for more sophisticated equipment for
individual and laboratory classroom use was

recognized.

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TWO
METHODS OF STUDENT RESPONSE USING A TAPED
PROGRAM OF PRACTICE MATERIALS FOR
IMPROVING AURAL DISCRIMINATION

By

Rex J. Hewlett

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Music

1966

I

. "gr-T" I“ .’.' .‘ ’
ll ’1’ , ,‘I I, x —. /

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to the members of the guidance
committee: Dr. Richard Klausli, Dr. Merrell Sherburn,
Dr. Robert Sidnell, and Dr. William Sur, for valuable
assistance in this study.

Special acknowledgment is due to Dr. Sherburn,
who gave invaluable assistance in the development of the
experimental ideas and the programed materials, and to
Dr. Sidnell for his help in the statistical design and
preparation of the final report.

I am grateful to Dr. Sur, chairman of the com—
mittee, for continued encouragement and helpfulness

throughout the work before and during the research period.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . .
Experimental Hypotheses
The Experiment
Importance of the Study
II. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY . . . . . .
Development of the Program Materials
Development of the Practice Materials
Sampling Procedure
Experimental Controls
Other Controls
Evaluation Procedure
Student Procedure
Problems of the Study
III. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA.

Hypotheses
Summary

IV. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY .
Implications for Teaching
Recommendations for Further Study
Summary

BIBLIOGRAPHY .
APPENDICES
A. PRACTICE MATERIAL OF THE STUDY

B. DICTATION AND SIGHT-SINGING TESTS

iii

Page
ii

iv

1“

36

55

68

71
117

Table

10.

ll.

12.

13.

1A.
15.
l6.

17.

LIST OF TABLES

Series A-Order of Interval Presentation. .

Series B-Order of Presentation of Time
Patterns.

Series C Program .

Control Factor Scores of Study Population .

Mean Scores of the Total Population . . .

Mean Scores of the Experimental and Control
Groups . . . . . . . . . .

Student Practice Procedure . . . . . . .

Pre-test and Post-test Overall Dictation
Scores . . . . . . . . .

Pre-test and Post-test Error Detection Scores.

Pre-test and Post-test Written Dictation
Scores . . . . . . .

Dictation Pre-test and Post-test Scores
According to Keyboard Training Groups . .

Error Detection Gain Scores for Pianists and
Non-pianists o o o o o

Dictation Gain Scores for Students with High
and Low Dictation Pre-test Scores .

Pre-test and Post-test Sight-singing Scores

Comparison of Dictation Gain and A.C.T. Scores

Dictation Gain Scores for Students with High

and Low A. C. T. Scores . . . . .

Pre-test, Post-test Rhythm Scores. .

iv

Page
19

20
21
2A

25

25
31

38
39

Al

A3

45

A7
A9
51

52
53

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Relationship of per cent gain scores in
dictation to high and low dictation

pre-test scores . . . . . . . . 62

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The development of latent sensitivity to musical“
sound has long been accepted as fundamental in the train-
ing of a musician. Schools of music have provided for this
development through the music theory curriculum, which has
traditionally included classes in written theory, sight-
singing and ear-training. Contemporary pedagogical prac-
tice often combines these areas into one integrated course
in musicianship.

In such integrated theory courses, Murphy recognizes
six basic areas which should be considered: (1) writing,
(2) playing, (3) reading, (A) listening, (5) analyzing,
and (6) creating. He stresses that "listening is undeniably
the sole basis of musical activity."1

The aspect of musical listening which involves dis-
crimination between pitch and rhythm-~i.e., ear-training,
has been the subject of considerable attention which in
recent years has resulted in a number of new training
approaches. Such attention to this aspect of musical growth

is understandable if one considers that, in addition to

its necessity for adequate muSical performance, listening

 

1Howard A. Murphy, Teaching Musicianship (New York:
Coleman-Ross Company, Inc., 1962).

 

1

is of prime importance in all aspects of music teaching.
The private teacher as well as the conductor of musical
organizations must have an acutely developed sense of
aural discrimination.
The traditional classroom ear-training process in
A which the teacher plays exercises in melodic, rhythmic, or
harmonic dictation at the keyboard while the student listens
and then attempts to notate what he has heard, is a slow and
laborious procedure. The results are often questionable,
particularly for the upper and lower extremes of the class.
The gifted students are forced to drill in areas in which
they may already be capable of satisfactory work; the
students with little facility in dictation may receive in-
sufficient practice for achievement of satisfactory results.
An essential largely missing from this traditional
dictation procedure is the element of immediate reinforce—
ment or feedback. The importance of such reinforcement in
the learning process has long been recognized and it is the
basis for contemporary programed instruction techniques.
In discussing response and reinforcement, Lumsdaine
writes:
The function of feedback or correction/confirmation
following the student's response is closely related
to the role that the response itself is conceived to
have, and also to the degree of prompting prior to
responding. . . . The first function is that of
reinforcement in the sense of reward, presumed to
strengthen the benefits of immediately preceding
responding. The second function is that of providing

prompts or cues for an additional implicit response,
which may supercede, repeat, or fill in, at a covert

 

level, the immediately preceding response depending

on whether that response was, respectively, in

error, correct, or lacking.1

This second function of reinforcement is that which,

in addition to rewarding the student with the knowledge of
the response correctness, actually operates as a supple-
mental informational source. It might be considered
"directional" reinforcement which in the case of musical
stimulus-response procedure would involve (a) information
about an incorrect response, whether it was too high or
too low, too long or too short, and (b) a "negative reward"
for incorrect responses so that practice of errors would
not be continued. In their generalizations of the rein-
forcement theory, Lysaught and Williams call this kind of
reinforcement "differential reinforcement." Some of their

conclusions are:

1. An individual learns or changes the way he acts
by observing the consequences of his actions.

2. Consequences that strengthen the likelihood of rep-
etition of an act are called reinforcements.

3. The more quickly reinforcement follows the
desired performance, the more likely the behavior
will be repeated.

0 O O O O 0 O o o o o e O I

7. The learning behavior of a student can be
developed or shaped gradually by differential rein-
forcement--that is, by reinforcing those behaviors
which should be repeated and by withholding rein-
forcement following undesired acts.

 

 

1A. A. Lumsdaine (ed.), Student Response in Programmed
Instruction (Washington, D. 0.: National Academy of
Sciences, National Research Council, Publication 9A3),
Chapter 31.

2Jerome P. Lysaught and Clarence M. Williams, A Guide
to Programmed Instruction (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1963), Chapter I.

 

A possible implication from the above ideas is that,
in the development of aural perception, the reinforcement
might be stronger if the reSponse was one which could be
heard and compared aurally with the stimulus sounds. In
this process the student would be bypassing the notation
in favor of the actual sounds. This could conceivably
result in an extinguishing process if the student were
motivated, through hearing a distasteful sound, to correct
his erroneous response. Similarly this kind of overt,
sounded response could have a built-in prompting value
through the recognition of a too high or too low response.

While the written response can also indicate,
through comparison with the correct notation, whether the
response is too high or too low, the inherent learning
which could prevent a similar error on subsequent occasions,
may not be as strongly present as it might be in the
sounded response. This possibility would seem to be
worthy of further consideration.

Considerable study has been directed toward learning
the importance of the time lapse between the response
and the knowledge of the correctness of that response.
Ihrke comments on this aspect of reinforcement as it relates
to the response mode as follows:

It is important to point out that the write-in re-
sponse does not provide immediate or even accurate
feedback, since it requires at least ten seconds to
write and compare with the correct model. If this
visual comparison indicates that an error has been

made, it is still not known whether the student
heard correctly and wrote an error, or whether he

heard incorrectly and wrote the misinformation
correctly. Another problem . . . concerns the
student's capability in reading the correctness
or incorrectness of the response . . . If the
response consists of writing a check mark in a
box, the comparison with the correct answer is
simple. But if he is asked to HEAR the differ-
ence between his erroneous response and the
correct one, this may be considerably more com-
plicated, and require of him a proficiency and
ability which he at that moment does not possess.

l

The search for improved ear-training techniques
which could provide needed reinforcement has resulted in
a variety of self-help systems. One of these is the use
of the tape recording and disc recording for the presen-
tation of stimuli for individual practice in dictation.
This technique has been accepted as a useful tool in many
schools of music.

As early as 1949 studies using tape recorded
materials for ear-training practice were conducted by
Cookson at Northwestern University. His comparisons of
students practicing with conventional classroom ear-
training procedures and those using tape recorded drill
materials indicated the potential value of the latter
technique.2

Sherburn prepared an extensive set of taped materials

and developed effective procedural techniques which, over

 

1Walter R. Ihrke, "Trends in Music Education Research,"
Council for Research in Music Education, Bulletin No. 2
(Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 196“), p. 30.

2Frank B. Cookson, Recordings and Self—tutoring
(Cleveland, Ohio: The Brush Development Company, 19A9).

a period of years, have been proven to be valuable in the
improvement of aural discrimination. The practical value
of these teaching devices is clearly demonstrated by his
use of language laboratory facilities to provide practice
opportunities for large numbers of music students.1
Spohn discovered that melodic dictation students who
used tape recorded teaching materials for individual prac-
tice showed a 22.65 per cent greater decrease in errors
in dictation than those in the typical classroom situation.2
In a similar study Carlsen found significant differ-
ences in favor of the group using the taped, programed
materials and in a "side-effect" study he observed the
progress of the two groups for improvement in sight-singing.3
While the statistics indicated that the use of his materials
did not significantly affect the improvement of sight-
singing, subsequent evaluations by the theory teachers
did show a favorable relationship for the experimental
group. Further study of this problem was recommended.

Such studies were instrumental in establishing the

programed self-help materials as valid instruments of

 

lMerrell L. Sherburn, "Music in the Language Labora-
tory," Music Educators Journal, January, 196“, 109-110.

2Charles L. Spohn, "An Exploration in the Use of
Recorded Teaching Material to Develop Aural Comprehension
in College Music Classes" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Ohio State University, 1959).

3James C. Carlsen, "An Investigation of Programmed
Learning in Melodic Dictation by Means of a Teaching
Machine" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern
University, 1963).

learning. Other research has been directed toward dis-
covering effective methods of presenting stimuli to the
student and the effectiveness of various modes of student
response. To this end a number of electronic devices have
been developed which may prove useful in presenting aural
practice stimuli and in providing immediate knowledge of
response correctness. Some of these are adaptations of
the tape recorder; others combine the tape recorder with
other devices in more intricate, though not always practical,
arrangements.

An intonation training device was used by McQuerrey
in an attempt to improve sensitivity to interval intona-
tion‘.l

Ihrke describes experimental studies in which stu—
dent responses to notated rhythms were matched with an in-
audible signal on a two-track tape. Immediate reinforcement
was provided by flashing lights when errors occurred.2

Spohn carried out a four—pronged study of stimulus
and response mode combinations. Combinations used were:
(1) visual stimuli-written response, (2) visual stimuli-
oral response, (3) aural stimuli-written response, (A) aural

stimuli-oral response. The results of this study indicate

 

1Lawrence H. McQuerrey, "The Improvement of Sensitivity
to Interval Intonation Through Training With A Mechanical
Apparatus" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana
University, 1957).

2Walter R. Ihrke, "Automated Music Training," Council
of Research in Music Education Bulletin No. 2 (Urbana,
Illinois: University of Illinois, 196A), p. 6.

that the student response mode is sometimes more important
than the method of presenting the stimulus. While all

four of the combinations were determined to be effective
methods of practice, Spohn concluded that different methods
may be helpful to different people. Similarly it appeared
that one method was best for a certain task while a differ-
ent one would be more effective for a second area of
learning.1

If this diversity of usable practice techniques is
desirable, it would seem logical that research studies be
directed toward finding: (1) as many practical techniques
as possible which could be helpful to students in their
attempts to improve their aural perception, and (2) the
techniques which are most helpful for particular students
working with a specific musical element.

One technique which has been proposed as a useful
method for individual practice is a played response to an
aural stimulus. In considering the played response as a
subject for possible research, several questions arise.

l. Might there be strong reinforcement of

learning from hearing the response as'it
is played, and from the immediacy of the
response?

Spohn concluded that a sung response is an effective

method of improving aural comprehension; perhaps the

 

1Charles L. Spohn, "An Evaluation of Two Methods
Using Magnetic Tape Recordings for Programmed Instruction
in the Elemental Materials of Music" (final project report,
Prgiect 1407, Research Foundation, Ohio State University,
19 . .

effectiveness stems from the actual hearing of the

response rather than simply seeing it; perhaps temporal
proximity is a factor since knowledge for the correct—

ness of the response is possible within the response action
itself.

2. Will the definite physical activity involved

in the played response provide a keyboard
image which could assist in the learning
process?

Langsford, investigating the effects of varying
amounts of practice on improvement of aural comprehension,
observed the superior results for pianists and theorized
that

Knowledge of the piano keyboard and its associa-
tive value with certain pitches--i.e., mental
imagery of the keyboard while taking melodic
dictation may be of considerable value to some
students of melodic dictation.
If this theory is valid it leads logically to the conclu-
sion that a played keyboard response would provide this
helpful keyboard image.

3. Will such an image prove helpful in sight-
singing progress?

A. Will such practice be practical for students
without previous experience at the keyboard?

5. Will the student hear his incorrect response
and will hearing it enable him to be more
accurate in subsequent dictation situations?

6. Will written dictation suffer from a program
consisting of keyboard practice exclusively?

 

lHarry Langsford, "An Experimental Study of Effect

of Practice Upon Improvement in Melodic Dictation" (un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
1959 .

lO

7. Is the keyboard response technique a practical

one?

While the electronic devices mentioned previously
as being capable of providing immediacy and accuracy of
reinforcement are still in the developmental stage and
not readily available, the piano is already in general use
in the keyboard phase of theory classes. Its practical
value in terms of general use and availability is obvious;
the technique of procedure would have to be worked out.

In consideration of the importance of the above
questions it seemed advisable to devise an experimental
study to: (a) develop a technique of keyboard response
practice and (b) investigate the usefulness of such a

technique.

Statement of the Problem
Can a programed course in dictation, using tape
recorded stimuli and played responses at the keyboard,
along with only a minimal basic practice in written
responses, be more effective in teaching aural discrimin-
ation than the same programed materials using only written

response techniques?

Specific Questions for Investigation

1. Will a played response develop aural discrim-
ination as effectively as a written response?

2. Will sight-singing be favorably affected if
the student practices a played response
instead of a written response?

11

Experimental Hypotheses

 

In the form of hypotheses the questions are:

1. Improvement in aural discrimination will be
significantly greater when the practice response
to an aural stimulus is played than when it is
written.

2. Sight-singing progress will be significantly

greater when the dictation practice response
mode is played than when it is written.

Other Questions

 

Additional questions which will be considered in
this study are:

1. Will the played response be a more effective
practice method for error detection or corrective
dictation than the written response method?

2. What effect will previous keyboard training
have on the use of the keyboard response method?
Can a non-pianist make effective use of the key-
board response technique?

3. Does the response mode exert any significant
influence on the improvement of aural discrimi—
nation for students whose pre-test dictation
scores are at the extreme high and low ends of
the scale?

A. What interaction exists between scholastic

aptitude and (a) achievement in aural perception,
(b) response method in training aural perception?

The Experiment

 

An experimental design was developed in which two
groups of students were established and pre-tested. The
sampling process is described in Chapter II. The experi-
mental group practiced with a prepared set of tape recorded
exercises. Their reSponses to the recorded stimuli were

played back at the piano keyboard. Feedback was possible

12

in two ways: (a) an aural comparison of the played
response with a second presentation of the stimuli, and
(b) comparison of the response with a printed sheet of
correct reSponses. The control group used the same set
of materials but constructed written responses in the
traditional manner of dictation practice. Reinforcement
for this group consisted of a comparison of the response
with a printed sheet of correct answers. At the conclu-
sion of the experiment the two groups were tested again
and compared statistically for improvement in aural com-
prehension.

A complete description of experimental procedures

and the resulting data appears in Chapters II and III.

Importance of the Study

 

Presently accepted techniques of practice in ear-
training have not completely satisfied the needs of all
students who wish to study music. It has been recognized
that a generalizing of results of a particular practice
technique, while perhaps desirable, is not completely
possible and that research is needed to discover the par-
ticular methods of practice which will be valid and
practical for students with particular needs. Lumsdaine
emphasizes the importance of studying the response factor
in learning when he states that

Student responses and the techniques by which they

may be suitably controlled for effective learning
are of both practical and theoretical interest.

13‘
Their role in any systematic account of learning
is of central importance.1
This study might answer the question of whether the played
response would satisfy this kind of need in a practical

manner.

 

1A. A. Lumsdaine, "The Analysis of Student Response
as a Factor in Instruction," Student Response in Programmed
Instruction (Washington, D. 0.: National Academy of
Sciences-National Research Council, 1961), Chapter I.

 

 

CHAPTER II

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

Development of the Program Materials

 

The basic concepts which guided the development of

the materials for this experiment were:

1. Aural perception can be effectively strengthened
through the use of tape programed practice
materials.

2. Practice exercises for improving aural pitch
perception can be presented effectively
through iso—rhythmicetone patterns.

3. Rhythm perception can be as effectively improved
through exercises presented in a melodic context
as in exercises presented on a single repeated
tone.

9. Error detection is a valid technique for evalu-
ating the development of aural discrimination.

That taped programed materials can be effective
practice tools has been demonstrated by several observers
as noted in Chapter I.

Presenting exercises in pitch perception through
iso—rhythmic tone patterns is a well established practice.
Various sight-singing and dictation manuals using this
type of exercise have proven their usefulness through actual
practice. At least one experimenter, Reeves, in 195A dis-

covered that there is no significant difference in progress

14

15

in development of pitch perception if training material
is of the drill type instead of actual melodies.l

Admittedly the placing of time patterns in a melo-
dic framework would not present a purely rhythmic exercise
and might tend to distort statistics in this area; however,
there were other considerations for this study. Since the
ultimate goal of this type of research is the development
and testing of materials and techniques which might be
useful in actual teaching situations, the recognition of
the strong practical interrelationship between rhythm and
melody justified the use of rhythm within some melodic
pattern. This interrelationship seems more evident when
listening to isolated rhythmic structures than when hear-
ing isolated tone patterns.

Other considerations were the difficulty of playing
repeated tones at the keyboard, particularly for the non-
pianist, and the tendency of repeated single tones to
create unfavorable attitudes in listeners. In an informal
study made earlier by the writer, students were found to
react more favorably to each of several other techniques
of presenting rhythm than to repeated single tone presen-

tations.

 

1William Reeves, "An Exploratory Study of Two Sets
of Theories of Guthrie and Wheeler as they Relate to the
Development of Instrumental Musicianship" (unpublished Ph.
D. dissertation, University of California, 195A).

16

Murphy notes that error detection or "corrective
listening" dictation is a useful type of practice.

It is organized on the principle that one of the
most practical uses of aural sensitivity is the
detection of errors in music heard. This is a
perfectly reasonable assumption which has many
implications for teaching. Obviously conductors
constantly are required to do this very thing in
rehearsals, but it also applies with equal

validity to any musician who is called upon to

make decisions involving the eye versus the ear, 1
as for example, the teacher of applied music .

Development of the Practice Materials

 

It was decided that the study should be limited to
three areas: pitch, rhythm, and complete melodic dicta-
tion. Three series of exercises, one for each of the
areas to be studied, were written and recorded on magnetic
tape. Each series consisted of fifteen tapes approximately
twenty minutes in length.

Series A exercises were iso-rhythmic tone patterns.
The exercises progressed from the intervals believed to be
least difficult to hear, within a tonal context, to the
more difficult ones and from short three-note patterns to
a maximum of eleven notes.

Research studies regarding the difficulty of hearing
intervals are contradictory. Spohn observed that a cer-

tain order of difficulty prevails as follows: P8, M2, m2,

 

1Howard A. Murphy, Teaching Musicianship (New York:
Coleman-Ross Company, Inc., 1962), p. 73.

 

17

M3, PA, P5, M6, M7, m3, AH, m7, m6, progressing from least
difficult to most difficult.1
In an earlier study, Ortmann concluded that training
in interval hearing should proceed from small to large
intervals.2 More recently, Jeffries discovered that drill-
ing on intervals of increasing difficulty did not produce
better results than from a randomized order.3 In the
absence of established guidelines it was arbitrarily
decided that the order of presentation of intervals would
be: M2, m2, M3, m3, P5, P8, PA, M6, M7, m6, m7, AA.
Consideration for the non-pianists and the need for
basic simplicity prompted the decision to use the.
major keys of C, F, G, and D for the majority of exercises.
It was thus possible to avoid difficult and awkward finger—
ings and at the same time guard against the possible
limiting effects of an exclusive C major orientation. It

will be noted in Tables 1, 2, and 3 that the keys of Eb and

A major and a, c, d, and e minor were used in the higher

 

1Charles L. Spohn, "An Evaluation of Two Methods
Using Magnetic Tape Recordings for Programmed Instruction
in the Elemental Materials of Music," Project 1097 (Research
Foundation, Ohio State University, 1964), p. 13.

2Otto Ortmann, "Some Tonal Determinants of Melodic
Memoz%," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXIV (1933),
5" 7o

 

3Thomas Broad Jeffries, "The Effects of Order of
Presentation and Knowledge of Results on the Aural Recog-
nition of Melodic Intervals" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, University of California at Los Angeles, 1965).

18

tape numbers of the series when students had gained greater
facility at the keyboard. Table 1 shows the progressive
nature of interval use, clefs and keys in Series A exer-
cises.

Series B exercises were limited to practice in
rhythm perception. As noted earlier, all exercises were
presented within the same melodic framework; the first
five tones of the major scale were selected as a suitable
grouping.

Table 2 shows the rhythmic progress schedule for
Series B exercises as well as the clef, key and meter
involved in each exercise. It will be noted that only
the last three tapes of the series made use of a specific
meter; the others were simply rhythmic patterns without
concern for pulse accents.

Practice exercises in Series C combined pitch and
rhythm in complete melodic dictation. All materials used
in Series A and B were included in Series C exercises._
The program for Series C is shown in Table 3. The entire
set of exercises which made up the three taped series is

shown in Appendix A.

Samplipg Procedure
The population of this study consisted of students
in first year music theory classes at Central Michigan
University. Three laboratory sections were involved, two

of which were taught by the experimenter; the other by a

19

TABLE 1

SERIES A-ORDER OF INTERVAL PRESENTATION

 

 

TAPE CLEF KEY M2 m2 M3 m3 P5 P8 Pu M6 M7 m6 m? A“

 

1 G” c x x

2 G G,D x x

3 G C,F x x x x

u G/F G,C. x x x x

5 G/F F,D x x x x x X

6 G/F F,G x x x x x x

7 - ' G C,F x x x x x x x

8 F G,D x x x x x x x

9 G c x x x x x x x x
10 G F x x x x x x x x

11 G G x x x x x x x x x
12 G a x x x x x x x x x x x x
13 G/F d x x x x x x x x x x x x
in G/F F,e x x x x x x x. x x x x x
15 G c,Eb x x x x x x x x x x x x

 

“The G or treble clef and F or Bass clef are the only
clefs used throughout the study.

20

TABLE 2

SERIES B-ORDER OF PRESENTATION OF TIME PATTERNS

 

Tape Number

Time Patterns

I

 

l 2 3 A 5 6 7 8

9 10 ll 12 13 l“ 15

 

Whole units x x x x x x x x
Simple division x x x x
Dotted quarters x x
Syncopation x x x
Compound division x x

Unit subdivision
Dotted sixteenths

3-u meter
6-8 meter
9-8 meter
Key GCDAGCFG
Clef g f g f g f g g

x

X

X

X

X

X

X X

 

21

 

 

 

o m o w o m o c o m a w o mom
x x x hopes mum

x x x x x hopes an:

x x x popes 31m

x moves a:
x scena>aolnzm

x x x x nowma>fio 02509800
x x x x x x codenaoocmm
x x x x x x mono: hounded coupon
x x x x x x x x coamfi>fiv manefim
x x x x x x x x x x x x x moans macs;
x x x x x x x :<
x x x x x - we
x x x x M x x x x me
x x a:
x x x x x x x x x w:
x x x x x x x x x x x x x am
x x x x x x x x x x mm
x x x x x x x x x x x mm
x x x x x x x x x x x x x me
x x x x x x x x x x x x x m:
x x x x x x x x x x x x x me
x x x x x x x x x x x x x m:

ma :H ma NH Ha 0H m m u m m a m

 

nonesz onus

Espznm a mam>popCH

 

 

 

S<muomm o mmHmmm
m mags

22

member of the theory staff of the University. A fourth
section, designated as an honors section because of high
scores received on a theory and ear-training placement
examination given at Central Michigan University, was not

involved in this study.

Experimental Controls

 

Experimental controls for the study included:

1. Scores attained on a pre-test in aural
perception designed especially for this study.

2. Scores of a pre-test in sight-singing ability
designed for this study.

3. Percentile scores of the American College
Test given to all entering students at Central
Michigan University.

A. Results of a piano placement audition given
by the keyboard staff of the Department of
Music including information concerning previous
keyboard study.

The piano rating was an ordinal rating based on
actual performance and information concerning previous
study and the solos and studies involved in this experi-
ence. The information was used in this study primarily to
define whether a student had previously had any study in
keyboard or not.

The original group balance included nearly an equal
number of students from each piano rating group in each
of the study groups.

From these scores and ratings, two essentially

equivalent groups were formed and assigned randomly to the

two practice response modes. However, during the course of

23

the experiment the number of subjects was reduced to
twenty-nine due to normal attrition and certain other
factors which are discussed more completely later in this
chapter. Table A shows the tabulation of each of the
scored factors for all students whocompleted the study.
Table 5 shows the mean scores for each of the scored
factors and Table 6 gives the comparison of mean scores

for the two groups.

Other Controls

 

The teaching of the three laboratory sections was
planned so that learning experiences would be similar in
each section. Basically these experiences include
rhythmic, melodic and harmonic dictation, sight-singing,
keyboard practice and acquaintance with some of the standard
music literature. During the course of this experiment the
practice in rhythmic and melodic dictation was eliminated
from the laboratory class periods. Since students of both
the experimental and control groups were scattered through
all three sections, it was felt that any effects of teaching
differences would be minimized for the final comparisons.

The possibility of Hawthorne effect influencing the
final comparisons of the two groups in this experiment was
greatly reduced due to the fact that students at Central
Michigan University had not previously had an organized
tape practice program in ear-training; thus one group was

not considered more experimental than the other. Further

2A

TABLE A

CONTROL FACTOR SCORES OF STUDY POPULATION

 

 

 

Dictation Sight-singing Piano
Errors Errors A'C'T' %-iles Ratings*
93 8O 07 2
11A 60 81 3
10A 73 16 A
117 7A 16 3
109 79 21 A
111 59 10 3
118 A8 33 3
10A A9 10 1
99 A9 16 A
109 36 77 2
96 80 69 2
102 66 65 3
106 66 95 l
83 99 16 2
82 5A 33 2
80 28 AA A
98 59 65 l
111 AA 16 3
97 89 96 l
99 76 7A 1
88 51 39 l
76 33 65 2
108 32 33 1
108 83 AA 1
11A 66 83 A
117 63 29 2
119 69 88 3
118 76 33 A
11A 88 55 l

 

”Piano rating: A indicates highest rating, 1 the
lowest.

25

TABLE 5

MEAN SCORES OF THE TOTAL POPULATION

 

 

 

Scored Factors Mean SD
Dictation pre-test (errors) 103.2A 12.12
Sight-singing pre-test (errors) 63.08 18.62
A.C.T. percentile scores A5.83 28.A2
Piano placement ratings 2.3A ---

TABLE 6

MEAN SCORES OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS

 

 

 

Control Experimental
Scored Factors
Mean SD Mean SD
Dictation pre-test 10A.50 9.A0 101.93 13.50

(errors)

Sight-singing pre-test 65.57 17.01 60.73 19.32
(errors)

A.C.T. percentiles 38.00 31.15 53.13 23.59

Piano placement 2.6A --- 2.06 ---

 

26

any suggestion that one group might be expected to improve
more than the other was carefully avoided.

Students were informed that they would not be graded
on the pre-test or post-test results but that the tapes
covered a part of the course work over which they would

be tested, apart from the experiment itself.

Evaluation Procedure

 

It was necessary to determine the student levels of
aural perception at the beginning and the completion of the
study. Tests in sight-singing and dictation which could
serve-as both pre-test and post-test were essential. The
features desired in the tests included:

1. A dictation test composed of two sections

a. written dictation

b. error detection (including not only the
detection of errors but the correction
of these errors)

2. A sight-singing test of sufficient length
to provide a fair test of sight-singing
ability

3. Items of sufficient difficulty in each test
to provide a challenge to all students in
post-testing

A. Enough material of an elementary nature in

each test to make possible an adequate pre-
test judgment

None of the available standardized tests seemed to
meet all of these qualifications and a special test was
devised in each of the areas which would satisfy the

testing needs of the study.

27

Dictation Pre- and Post-Test

Items 1, 2, and 3 involved iso-rhythmic error detec-
tion. The test sheet contained examples which the students
were asked to compare with a played version in which certain
errors were inserted. Incorrect notes were to be circled by
the student and the correct note or accidental inserted.

If the student failed to circle an incorrect note, or if
he circled a correct note, a two-point error was recorded.
A one-point error occurred if the incorrect note was
circled but not corrected.

Item A was an exercise in rhythmic error detection.
In this exercise the beat unit was considered an entity,
and students simply placed a check mark below any beat
which was heard to be different from the printed version.
Failure to detect the differences correctly resulted in a
one-point error.

Items 5 and 6 were combined pitch and rhythm examples
in which a printed exercise differed from a played version.
Students were asked to circle each incorrect note or beat
unit and indicate with a letter P or R whether the differ-
ence was one of pitch or rhythm. A one-point error was
awarded for each failure to detect either a pitch or rhythm
difference.

The remainder of the test consisted of eight exer-
<3ises, four in iso-rhythmic dictation and four of complete

unalodic dictation. These eight exercises required a written

28

response. Each pitch was valued at one point, and on the
last four each beat unit was valued at one point.

The entire dictation test is shown in Appendix B.

Sight-Singinngre- and Post-Test

Items 1 and 2 were short scale number patterns to
be sung at any comfortable pitch level selected by the
student. Items 3, A, and 5 were eight measure melodies
selected because they contained problems covered in the
programed materials of the study, particularly those in
the area of pitch.

'Students were allowed approximately fifteen seconds
to look over each test item and then were asked to sing
the exercise through without stops if possible. Each stu-
dent's effort was recorded on tape for greater accuracy in
scoring. A pitch or beat unit which was sung incorrectly
was recorded as a one—point error. If both pitch and
rhythm were wrong a two-point error was scored. A stop or
hesitation sufficient to seriously break the rhythm was
recorded as a rhythm error. At certain pre-selected points
a student who had lost the tonality was stopped and given
the pertinent pitch, then asked to continue. A one-point
(error was recorded for each stOp of this nature.

The complete sight-singing test is shown in

Appendlx B.

29

Validipy and Reliabilipy of Tests

 

The assertion of validity for each of the tests is
based on the fact that the materials included in each test
were not different from those covered by the programed
materials of the study and are traditional musical consid-
erations in the first year theory course in ear-training
and sight—singing at Central Michigan University and other
institutions. In addition the responses required in the
tests are not different from those outlined in the objec-
tives of this study.

Both of the pre—tests were subjected to statistical
measures to check their reliability. Using the split-half
method, the reliability coefficients for the two tests
were found to be .75 for the dictation test and .7A for the

sight-singing test.

Student Procedure

 

All students were instructed to listen to each of
the forty-five tapes twice. Each exercise was played twice
on the tapes and an answer sheet was provided with each
tape, providing opportunity for reinforcement in the learn—
ing process.

The control group listened and constructed a written
response for each exercise. An immediate check with the
answer sheet was recommended. If the student wished, he
could.playthe exercise a third time while watching the

answer sheet for combined aural and visual reinforcement.

30

Those in the experimental group listened, then
played their response at the piano keyboard. A check
with the answer sheet after the second hearing and response,
or repeating the response along with the taped repeat of
the exercise provided reinforcement possibilities for this
group.

It was recommended that these students determine the
key of the exercises on a particular tape and play the
scale and tonic arpeggio in that key before starting their
practice; this would tend to lessen technical difficulties
for the non-pianists. In Series A tone pattern exercises,
students were asked to speak note names or scale numbers
while playing their responses. For the rhythm exercises of
Series B, the keyboard group was advised to use some system
of counting note values to help develop the image of the
note played. Table 7 shows the complete practice procedure
for both groups.

The pre—tests were given during the fourth week of
the semester and the students began use of the tapes in the
fifth week. The delayed beginning of the study was planned
to allow time for the students to become oriented to theory
classes, procedure of dictation, sight-singing, the key-
board, and notation of music.

Ideally, the dictation post-test would have been
given immediately after each student completed the tapes,

but it was not possible to schedule them in this way, and

31

TABLE 7

STUDENT PRACTICE PROCEDURE

 

 

Taped Stimuli Control Group Experimental Group
Exercise played Listen Listen
Silence Write exercise Play exercise
Exercise repeated Listen Listen OR play
Silence Finish writing Play

Check response Check response

Stop the tape for further checking on response OR proceed
to the next exercise.

 

the test was given after all twenty-nine students had com-
pleted their practice. It was felt that no great contami-
nation resulted since all but one student finished less

than one week before the post-test date. This one person
completed practice elven days before the test was given.

The sight-singing post-test was given as soon as each person
could be scheduled after he had completed the tapes.

Printed instructions concerning the practice proce-
dure and use of the equipment supplemented an oral presen-
tation of this material in each laboratory section by the
experimenter. A suggested schedule for tape use was
provided for each student. This was intended to help main—
tain an orderly pace which would be more meaningful than a
less regular pace; however, this did not restrict individuals

from progressing at a faster pace if desired.

32

Eqpipment and Facilities

 

Three complete sets of tapes were prepared for the
study. All were recorded at seven and one-half inches
per second, using an Ampex tape recorder, Model 601 and
an Altec microphone. These tapes were placed in the Music
Department record library; librarians checked out tapes
and listening equipment to the students.

Listening equipment available for this study

included:
A Wollensak tape recorders Model T-1515
l Revere tape recorder Model T-llOO
1 Revere tape recorder Model T-202
l Robyn tape recorder Model 200
2 Lafayette tape decks
l2 Koss headphone sets Model SP-3

Practice facilities available for the study included
forty-five practice rooms in the Music building, each of
which is equipped with a piano and electric outlets.
Additional facilities which could be used by the control
group were the tape decks in the listening area of the

Music building.

Problems of the Study

 

Certain difficulties encountered during the course
of the experiment should be noted. The first of these in—
volved a problem of motivation in one of the laboratory
sections which resulted in a number of students not com-
pleting the experiment. A second group of students was
lost between semesters as individuals dropped out or failed

the course. One student was hospitalized and unable to

33

complete the semester. These factors combined to reduce
the study population to twenty-nine students, fifteen in
the experimental group and fourteen in the control group.

These changes in the structure of the two groups,
though not substantially altering the dictation and sight-
singing mean scores, caused a greater variance in balance
in keyboard ratings and American College Test percentile
score means.

The scores of the two groups as finally constituted
were subjected to Mann-Whitney U tests with the following
1

results:

1. No significant difference existed for the
dictation pre-test. U = 100.

2. No significant difference existed for the
sight-singing pre-test. U = 93.50.

3. The difference for A.C.T. scores was sig-
nificant in favor of the experimental
group. U = 65.50.

As a result of the structural changes of the popula—
tion, the decision was made to use non-parametric statis—
tical measures to test the experimental data obtained from
the study. These tests are useful when certain assumptions

about the study population are not possible. Siegel

observes that

 

lThe Mann-Whitney U test is one of the most powerful
of the non-parametric tests. The statistic U has a known
sampling distribution from which it is possible to deter—
mine probability of occurrence.

3A

These newer 'distribution free' or non—parametric
techniques result in conclusions which require
fewer qualifications. Having used one of them, we
may say that 'regardless of the shape of the popu-
lation(s), we may conclude that . . .'. l

and further:
. . . because behavioral scientists rarely achieve
the sort of measurement which permits the meaning-
ful use of parametric tests, non—parametric
statistical tests deserve an increasingly prominent
role in research in the behavioral sciences.

A second problem which should be noted was the imprac-
ticability of effective monitoring of the individual practice
sessions. Laboratory facilities featuring electronic key-
boards and monitoring devices, had they been available,
could have reduced any contamination of data which may have
resulted from this lack of monitoring. Lacking this equip-
ment, an effort was made to control the practice sessions
by making regular spot checks during the times when the
practice tapes were available to the students, to determine
if they were carrying out the proper practice procedures.

It was possible to do this without interrupting the students
in their practice sessions.

It was not possible to control certain variables

which could have had some effect on the results of the study.

 

lSidney Siegel, Nopparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., Inc.,
1955), P- 3.

2Ibid., p. 31.

35

Such factors as musical maturation which involved student
participation in other classes, private lessons, perform-
ing organizations and recital attendance along with their
general physical and mental growth, are possible contamin-
ants.

All of the above mentioned problems are recognized
as impracticable to control and for purposes of replication
and generalization their control may not be essential. In
connection with this matter, Scott and Wertheimer make this
observation:

In laboratory studies, the particular functional
relationship observed may be in large part a
product of the special, artificial conditions of
the experiment. Such a restriction in generality
is likely to be particularly serious in those

'hold constant' experiments in which control of
extraneous variables artifically places them at
levels that would hardly be encountered in the sub-
ject's normal activity. A given experiment may
show conclusively a relationship between the inde—
pendent and dependent variables, which, however, is
demonstrated only under such peculiar circumstances
that the result is uninteresting, except as a
curiosity.1

 

1William A. Scott and Michael Wertheimer, Introduc-
tion to Psychological Research (New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1962).

 

CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA

At the conclusion of the practice period the informa-
tion obtained from the experimental procedures was com-
piled and subjected to statistical analysis. The content
of this chapter deals with the results of these analyses.
The conclusions and recommendations are a part of Chapter

IV.

Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis #1

Improvement in aural discrimination will be

significantly greater when the practice response

to an aural stimulus is played than when it is

written.

The first hypothesis was tested for significance of
the per cent decrease in error of the 15 students in the
experimental group and the 1A students in the control group.
The most suitable non-parametric test for this is the Mann-
Whitney U test. The value of U was found to equal 81.5.
For groups of this size El U of.66 or less is necessary for
significance at the 5 per cent level of confidence selected
for use in this study.

Although there was a slightly greater mean improvement

in the overall dictation scores by the experimental group

36

37

the difference was not significant and hypothesis #1 was
rejected.

Table 8 shows the pre-test, post-test per cent gain
scores and means for the two groups.

One of the additional questions raised in Chapter I
in connection with dictation improvement was:

Will the played response be a more effective

practice method for error detection or cor-

rective dictation than the written response

method?

The error detection section of the dictation test was
scored separately on both the pre—test and post-test.
Computation of the U for corrective dictation gains of

the two groups results in a U of 61. This difference is
significant at the 5 per cent level of confidence. The
conclusion is that the played response practice method is
significantly more effective in reducing errors of correc-
tive dictation than the written method. Question #1 would
be answered in the affirmative.

The pre-test, post-test scores and gains of the two
groups are shown in Table 9.

A related concern is a consideration of the effec-
tiveness of the two methods of practice in improvement of
written response. Will the control group produce signifi-
cantly higher gains than the experimental group when tested
only on written dictation?

The Mann—Whitney U for constructed dictation gain

is U = 97. Since a U of 66 or smaller is required for

38

TABLE 8
PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST DICTATION SCORES

 

 

 

 

Experimental Group Control Group
Pre Post % Gain Pre Post % Gain
76 A1 A6 83 6A 23
80 29 60 93 63 32
82 72 12 96 80 17
88 53 A0 99 79 20
97 77 21 102 77 25
98 100 -2 10A 82 21
99 56 33 10A 97 7
108 75 31 105 57 37
108 86 20 109 82 25
111 96 13 109 91 17
11A 80 30 111 73 3A
11A 83 27 11A 69 A1
117 89 2A 117 91 22
118 8A 29 118 75 37
119 82 31
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
101.93 7A.2O 27.67 10A.50 77.86 25.57

 

 

39

TABLE 9

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST ERROR DETECTION SCORES

 

 

 

 

Experimental Group Control Group
Pre Post % Gain Pre Post % Gain
25 9 6A 25 19 2A
18 5 72 23 1A 39
29 22 2A 30 26 13
32 15 53 33 3A -3
28 1A 50 30 26 13
33 35 -6 33 27 18
37 23 38 38 A6 -21
33 29 12 32 21 3A
A0 32 20 35 27 23
30 29 3 33 29 12
39 22 AA 32 33 -3
36 22 39 29 23 21
31 2o 3 30 28 7
A2 30 29 37 2A 35

38 25 3A
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
32.73 22.80 31.93 31.A3 26.93 15.1A

 

 

A0

significance at the 5 per cent level the conclusion is
that there is no significant difference between the two
groups in improvement in written dictation.

Table 10 shows the scores and mean gains of the two
groups for the written dictation section of the pre- and
post-tests.

Question #2 in Chapter I asked:

What effect will previous keyboard training have

on the use of a keyboard response practice method?

Will persons who have had no previous keyboard

experience be able to make effective use of the

keyboard response technique?

In order to test this question the dictation gain
scores were separated into two groups, those with no key-
board background (piano rating 1) and those with varying
degrees of previous training (piano ratings 2, 3, and A).
No attempt was made to consider the amount or quality of
training except that all those in the first group, here-
after called non-pianists, had had no previous keyboard
training and those in the second group, designated as
pianists, had previously had at least a semester of piano
instruction of some sort.

The U test was applied to the scores of the nine
non-pianists and twenty pianists. The result showed that
U = 83. For groups of this size a. U of 5A or less is
required for significance at the 5 per cent level. The
conclusion is that non-pianists do not differ significantly

from pianists in overall dictation gain scores when con-

sidered without regard to practice method.

Al

TABLE 10

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST WRITTEN DICTATION SCORES

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental Group Control Group

Pre Post % Gain Pre Post % Gain
51 32 37 58 A5 23
62 2A 61 79 A9 30
53 50 6 66 5A 18
56 38 32 66 A5 32
69 63 9 72 51 30
65 65 0 71 55 23
62 A3 30 66 51 23
75 A6 39 7A A6 38
68 5A 21 7A 55 25
81 67 17 76 62 18
75 58 23 79 A0 50
78 61 22 85 A6 A6
86 59 32 88 63 30
76 5A 30 81 51 37
81 57 30

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

69.20 51.A0 25.93 73.93 50.93 30.21

 

 

A2

Although seven of the nine non—pianists of the
study were students of the experimental group, a comparison
was made of dictation gain scores of control group non-
pianists and pianists. The U for this group was 10.5
which is not significant at the 5 per cent level and it
appears that there is no significant difference between
levels of piano experience for control group students in
the matter of dictation gain.

A similar comparison was made between the two piano
groups of the experimental group. The result was a U of
25. For this group this does not reach the 5 per cent
level of confidence and there was no apparent difference
in dictation gains as a result of variance in piano back-
ground in this group.

Table 11 shows the scores of per cent gain in dicta-
tion for the two degrees of piano background for the control,
experimental and combined groups.

The significantly higher gains of the experimental
group in error detection reported earlier in this chapter
introduce questions concerning the relationship between
the piano background and error detection gains for the two
methods of practice.

For those with no piano background the Mann—Whitney
U test of the gain difference between the experimental and
control groups results in a U of 3 which has a probability

of .167 and is not significant at the 5 per cent level

A3

TABLE 11

DICTATION PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST SCORES ACCORDING TO
KEYBOARD TRAINING GROUPS

 

 

 

 

Group Experimental . Control
Pre Post % Gain Pre Post % Gain
88 53 A0 10A 97 6
97 77 21 106 67 37
98 100 —2
99 66 33
Non-Piano 108 75 31
108 86 20
11A 83 27
Me an Me an Me an Me an Me an Me an
101.7 77.1A 19.86 105.0 82.0 21.50
76 A1 A6 83 6A 23
80 29 6O 93 63 32
82 72 12 96 80 17
111 96 13 99 79 20
11A 80 30 102 77 25
117 89 2A 10A 82 21
118 8A 29 109 82 25
Piano 119 82 31 109 91 17
111 73 3A
11A 69 A1
117 91 22
118 75 37
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

102.1 71.62 30.62 10A.5 77.17 26.17

 

AA

selected for this study. Error detection gains are not
significantly different between the two practice methods
for the students without previous keyboard training.

The comparison of the error detection gains of the
experimental and control groups of students who had had
previous keyboard training involved the scores of twenty
students, eight in the experimental group and twelve in
the control group. The mean per cent gain is 3A.00 for the
experimental group and 17.08 for the control group. The U
test for these scores results in a U of 22 which is signifi-
cant at the 5 per cent level of confidence. It appears
that among students who have had some keyboard training,
those who used the played practice response method made
greater gains in error detection than those who used the
written practice technique.

Table 12 shows the error detection gain comparisons
for the two piano groups. Such a great difference in mean
scores for non-pianists without attaining the 5 per cent
level is possible because of the numbers involved; two
were in the control group and seven in the experimental
group.

Question #3 of Chapter I was:

Does the response mode exert any significant

influence on the improvement in aural discrim—

ination for students whose pre-test dictation

scores are at the extreme high and low ends
of the scale?

A5

TABLE 12

ERROR DETECTION GAIN SCORES FOR PIANISTS AND NON-PIANISTS

 

 

 

 

 

Group Experimental Control
Pre Post % Gain Pre Post % Gain
32 15 53 '38 A6 - 21
28 1A 50 - 32 21 3A
36 22 39
Non-Piano 37 23 38
A0 32 20
33 29 12
33 35 - 6
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
3A.1A 2A.28 29.A3 35.50 38.50 6.50
25 9 6A 25 19 2A
18 5 72 23 1A 39
29 22 2A 30 26 13
30 29 3 33 3A - 3
39 22 AA 30 26 13
31 30 3 33 27 18
Piano A2 30 28 35 27 23
38 25 3A 33 29 18
32 33 - 3
29 23 21-
30 28 7
37 2A 35
Me an Me an Me an Me an Me an Me an

31.50 21.50 3A.00 30.83‘25.83 17.08

 

A6

To test this question the four highest scores of the dic-
tation pre-test were compared with the five lowest scores
of the same test for the experimental group. The inclusion
of a greater number of low scores in this comparison was
necessary as the result of tied scores at the low end of
the scale.

The U test was applied to the gain scores with a
resulting U of 5 which has a probability of .1A3. This
does not reach the level of significance decided as nec-
essary for this study and the answer to question #3 is
that there is no significant difference between gains of
high and low pre-test dictation score students in the
experimental group.

A similar application of the U test on the four
highest and four lowest pre-test dictation scores in the
control group shows a U of 2 which has a probability of
.57, almost reaching the 5 per cent level of confidence.
It should be noted that the per cent gain for the experi-
mental group was greater for students who had high pre-test
scores in dictation whereas in the control group those who
had the lowest pre-test dictation scores made the greatest
gains.

Table 13 shows the high and low dictation pre-test
scores and per cent gain scores for the experimental and

control group.

A7

TABLE 13

DICTATION GAIN SCORES FOR STUDENTS WITH HIGH AND
LOW DICTATION PRE-TEST SCORES

 

 

 

 

Group Experimental Control
Pre Post % Gain .Pre Post % Gain
76 Al A6 83 6A 23
80 29 60 93 63 32
82 72 12 96 80 17
High
Pre-Test 88 53 “O 99 79 20
Me an Mean Me an Me an Me an Me an
81.50 A8.75 39.50 92.75 71.50 23.00
11A 80 30 111 73 3A
11A 83 28 11A 69 Al
Low 117 89 2A 117 91 22
Pre-Test 118 8A 29 118 75 37
119 82 31
Me an Me an Me an Me an Me an Me an

116.u0 83.60 28.A0 115.0 77.0 33.50

 

 

A8

Hypothesis #2

 

Sight—singing progress will be significantly

greater when the dictation practice response

mode is played than when it is written.

The second hypothesis was also tested by means of
the Mann-Whitney U test. The mean per cent gain scores for
the two study groups were 30.87 for the experimental group
and 28.29 for the control group. The value of U = 10A.5
for these scores. Significant difference at the 5 per
cent level would require a U of 66 or less. It appears
that the two methods of practice show no significant dif-
ference in relation to sight-singing improvement and hypo-
thesis #2 is rejected.

Table 1A shows the pre-test and post-test scores and
means for the two groups in sight-singing.

Question #A in Chapter I concerned the existence of
interaction between scholastic aptitude and (a) achieve-
ment in aural perception and (b) the response method for
training aural perception. Consideration of this problem
was given by applying the following statistical measures:

1. Rank order correlation of dictation per cent

gain scores with American College Test per-
Gentiles.

2. Mann-Whitney U test of dictation gains between

experimental group students and A.C.T. per-

Gentiles.

3. Mann-Whitney U test of dictation gains between
control group students and A.C.T. percentiles.

The rank order correlation for dictation gain scores

and.A.C.T. percentile scores produced an r'= .308 which is

A9

TABLE 1A

PRE—TEST AND POST—TEST SIGHT-SINGING SCORES

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental Group Control Group

Pre Post % Gain Pre Post % Gain
33 1A 58 99 A2 57
28 1A 50 80 A9 39
5A 39 28 80 5O 37
51 36 30 A9 29 A1
89 73 18 66 A5 32
59 67 ~13 73 26 6A
76 38 50 A9 56 1A
32 A2 -31 66 A7 29
83 A0 52 36 AA -22
AA 36 18 79 A7 A1
66 21 68 59 28 53
88 67 2A 60 37 38
63 33 A8 7A 69 7
76 50 3A A8 51 -6
69 A9 29

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
60.73 A1.26 30.87 65.57 AA.28 28.29

 

 

50

not significant at the 5 per cent level of confidence. It
appears that the dictation gain is not related to the stu-
dent A.C.T. score in any significant manner.

Table 15 shows the computation of the rank order cor-
relation of A.C.T. percentile scores and dictation gain
scores for the entire study population.

To check the relationship between A.C.T. scores and
the experimental group dictation gains, the four highest
and five lowest A.C.T. scores of this group were selected.
The extra score in the low group was included as the
result of tied scores in that group. The U test resulted
in a U of 3.5 which has a probability of .075. The 5 per
cent level of significance was not reached and the differ-
ence in gains between students of high and low scholastic
aptitude was not considered significant.

Students of the control group who had the three
highest and nine lowest A.C.T. percentile scores were com-
pared. The larger number of low scores was used to main-
tain the same score range as used in the experimental group
above. The U of 3 for these scores was significant at the
5 per cent level and it appears that a significant differ-
ence exists between dictation gains of high and low scholas-
tic aptitude students who used the written dictation prac-
tice techniques. The students with high A.C.T. scores made

greater gains than those with low A.C.T. scores.

51

TABLE 15

COMPARISON OF DICTATION GAIN AND A.C.T. SCORES

 

 

 

Per Cent Gain A.C.T. Scores
A6 65
60 AA
12 33
A0 39
21 96

- 2 65
33 7A
31 33
20 AA
13 16
30 83
27 55
2A 29
29 33
31 88
23 16
32 7
17 69
20 16
25 65
21 16

7 10
37 95
25 77
17 21
3A 10
A1 81
22 16
37 33

r = .308

 

Table 16 shows the highest and lowest A.C.T. scores
and dictation per cent gains of the experimental and con-

trol groups.

52

TABLE 16

DICTATION GAIN SCORES FOR STUDENTS WITH HIGH
AND LOW A.C.T. SCORES

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental Control
A.C.T. Pre Post % Gain A.C.T. Pre Post % Gain
96 97 77 21 95 106 67 37
88 119 82 31 81 11A 69 39
83 11A 80 30 77 109 82 25
7A 99 66 33

Mean Mean
28.75 33-70

33 82 72 12 33 118 75 36
33 108 75 31 21 109 91 17
33 118 8A 29 16 83 6A 23
29 117 89 2A 16 99 79 2O
16 111 96 13 16 10A 82 21
16 117 91 22

10 10A 97 7

10 111 73 3A

7 93 63 32

Mean Mean

21.80 23.55

U = 3.5 p = .075 U = 3 p = .05

 

 

53

The rhythmic factors of the dictation test were

scored separately and the U test applied to the pre-test,

post-test scores of the two practice method groups.

The

result was a U of 10A. With U = 66 or less required for

the 5 per cent level of confidence, the difference in

scores of the two groups were not considered significant.

Table 17 shows the pre-test, post-test scores and

per cent gains for the two main study groups.

TABLE 17

PRE-TEST POST—TEST RHYTHM SCORES

 

 

 

 

Experimental Control

Pre Post % Gain Pre Post Gain
21 6 15 15 10 33
20 6 70 l9 12 37
1A 12 1A 1A 10 28
10 A 60 20 17 15

8 8 0 20 13 35

1A 7 50 19 17 ll
15 7 53 l9 l9 0
25 15 A0 21 2 90
l2 18 -50 20 10 50
30 22 27 27 15 AA
27 17 37 29 13 55
2A 11 5A 27 7 7A
32 19 A0 28 12 57
19 11 A2 32 15 53
27 13 52

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
19.20 11.73 37.33 22.1A 12.28 A1.57

 

10.

5A

Summary

The data of this chapter is summarized as follows:

Hypothesis #1 was rejected. No significant difference
was noted between the two study groups in overall
dictation improvement.

Hypothesis #2 was rejected. No significant difference
was discovered between the two groups in sight—singing
improvement.

Error detection improvement was significantly greater
for the experimental group.

Written dictation improvement was not significantly
different for the two practice methods.

No significant difference in dictation gain was
noticed between groups as the result of piano background.

Non-pianists were not significantly different in error
detection gains as a result of the practice technique
used but pianists were different in favor of the experi-
mental group.

Students who received high and low pre—test scores were
not significantly different in dictation gains in the
two groups although the control group showed a .057
probability of difference in favor of the low pre-test
students.

Rank order correlation between the A.C.T. scores and
dictation gain scores showed no significant relationship
for the population as a whole.

The highest A.C.T. score students showed greater actual
gains in dictation in both study groups. The control
group difference was significant at the 5 per cent level
and the experimental group at .075.

Improvement in rhythm dictation was not significantly
different for the two practice method groups.

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY

The data which is presented in Chapter III provides
considerable material for study. Although the two main
hypotheses are rejected, a fact which at first might
appear to minimize the value of the experiment, there are
other observations which may have important implications
for ear-training practice techniques. This chapter con-
siders the implications and recommendations resulting from
the data of Chapter III.

Experimental hypothesis #1 proposed that dictation
improvement would be greater for the experimental group
than for the control group. The data rejects this hypo-
thesis at the 5 per cent level of confidence. The mean
per cent gain for the control group was 25.57 and for the
experimental group, 27.67. While this latter gain was
not significantly higher than that of the control group,
neither was it significantly lower. This leads to the
conclusion that the played response practice method is
at least as useful as the generally used written response
method. Students who are having difficulty with written
responses may find the played response a more suitable

technique.

55

56

Before recommending the keyboard practice technique
for inclusion in the ear-training program, it is essen-
tial to consider its effect on written dictation. Will
written dictation be adversely affected by an absence of
transfer of learning from the played response? A
corollary to this is the question: Will error detection
or "corrective" dictation show a greater improvement with
the use of the played response method?

Approaching the first question it was found that
the pre-test, post-test mean per cent gain of the control
group was 30.21 compared with 25.93 for the experimental
group. The statistical analysis again disclosed that the
difference was not significant at the 5 per cent level.
Stated differently, the statistics reject the idea that
there was a significant difference in gain in written
dictation as the result of the practice method. Here
again the absence of difference has importance for the
study, inasmuch as the students of the experimental group,
although they did not practice with the written technique,
were able to show almost the same amount of improvement in
written dictation as those who practiced entirely with the
written method.

A conclusion of this study might be that, assuming
a basic amount of practice in the notation of music,
further practice in written dictation is not essential to

the development of a good aural-visual sensitivity.

57

Of greater importance to the pedagogy of ear-train-
ing, because of its obvious practical implications for
the teaching and conducting of musical performers, is the
discovery that in error detection dictation, the experi-
mental group gain was significantly higher than the con-
trol group, when piano background was not a considered
factor. The mean per cent gain for the control group was
15.1A and 31.93 for the experimental group. The Mann-
Whitney U test showed the difference to be significantly
higher for the played reSponse method at the five per
cent level of confidence.

These statistics indicate a definite superiority of
the played response technique over the written response
in the area of error detection. While the reasons for this
difference are not clear, a possible explanation may be
that the played response produces a greater continual in-
volvement with sound itself, thus providing more actual
practice in listening. The student who practices with
the written response technique may be expending greater
effort on notation than on actual listening.

Obviously there is need for further research in
this matter. This study involves only melodic and
rhythmic error detection; whether or not the superior
results of this kind of practice will extend to harmonic
dictation and error detection must still be determined.

Having established a potential usefulness for the

keyboard practice method in general, the impact of

58

previous keyboard training on the effectiveness of such
practice was considered. A study of the difference
scores in dictation for students who had no keyboard
background and for those with a semester or more of in-
struction revealed important results.

The data shows that the mean per cent gain scores
of non-pianists in overall dictation were lower than
those of the pianists when the experimental and control
groups were considered separately. These differences,
however, did not reach the required level of significance.
Similarly, when the scores of the combined groups were
considered, without regard for the practice method used,
the difference resulting from previous training was not
significant.

It appears that piano background is not a signifi-
cant factor in dictation improvement when the dictation
includes both written and corrective types. This is in
seeming contradiction with the earlier conclusions of
Langsford; however, the actual per cent gain scores do
show the same kind of relationship as he found.1 Perhaps
a replication of this study extending the population size,
would be in order.

A comparison of the effect of the two practice

methods on the overall dictation scores of pianists and

 

1Harry Langsford, "An Experimental Study of Effect
of Practice Upon Improvement in Melodic Dictation" (unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Unisvesity, 1959).

59

non-pianists showed the experimental group gains to be
slightly higher than the control groups but these gains
do not reach the 5 per cent level of significance. It
can be assumed that the presence or absence of previous
keyboard training does not greatly affect the usefulness
of either of the two practice methods for overall dicta—
tion.

To further test the influence of keyboard training
on the practice method results, its relationship with
error detection improvement was investigated. The improve-
ment shown by the students without previous keyboard ex-
perience was not significantly different between the
control and experimental groups. These non-pianists
seemed to perform equally well with either practice tech-
nique. Again the implication is that the played response
method will be at least as effective as the usual written
response practice even though the student has not had
previous training at the keyboard.

One should be cognizant of the fact, however, that
the mean scores in this comparison are greatly different;
29.A3 per cent gain for the experimental group; 6.50 per
cent for the control group. The rejection of significant
difference at the 5 per cent level is influenced heavily
by the number of scores involved. With seven scores in
the experimental group and only two in the control group,

and in view of the wide difference of scores, it seems

60

reasonable that further study involving larger populations
should be carried out with non-pianists using the played
practice response method.

Continuing the investigation of the effectiveness
of the played response in relation to keyboard experience
disclosed that among those with some previous keyboard
training there was significant difference between the
experimental and control groups in error detection. The
experimental pianists' gains were significantly higher
than those of the control group. This was a not unexpected
result, since the experimental group as a whole achieved
greater gains than the control group in error detection
dictation.

Another question considered in relation to overall
dictation gains was whether or not students who have
extreme high or low level pre-test scores in dictation
would benefit more from the keyboard practice method than
from the written method.

A comparison of the control group per cent gain
scores for the two levels indicated a difference which was
significant at .057, almost reaching the level for this
study. The mean difference was in favor of the students
with the low pre—test scores. There appears to be an
inverse relationship between amount of gain and the begin-
ning level as indicated by the pre—test scores of this

group.

61

For the experimental group a similar comparison
indicated that students with high pre-test scores made
greater mean gains than those with low pre-test scores,
but.the difference did not reach the 5 per cent level
of confidence.

It is interesting to note that the actual score
differences resulting from the two practice methods,
though not considered significant for this study, favor
opposite groups. The mean difference for the control
group indicated that students with high pre-test scores
who practice with written responses do not make as much
progress as those with low pre-test scores. Conversely,
the experimental group students who had the high pre-test
scores made more progress than the low score group.
Figure 1 shows these relationships.

As noted in the piano relationships earlier, and
now in regard to beginning levels of aural discrimination,
the experimental practice method seems to provide a tech—
nique for the student who is initially better equipped,
which may enable him to achieve higher levels of percep-
tion than the written response practice technique. At the
same time, it appears that the written practice method
does not provide better help than the experimental
method for the students who have low pre-test scores.

Both methods appear to have definite areas of usefulness.

62

.mohoom omoplond coapmuoao

30H one swan 0p cofipprHo CH monoow cfimm pcoo nod mo QaanOHpmHomlt.H onswfim

 

 

dsoou Honpcoo

 

lull monoom «moplopd 304
monoom pmoplond swam

 

 

dsonw Hmpcoefinodxm

 

63

Experimental hypothesis #2 proposed that the experi-
mental practice method would result in a superior improve-
ment in sight-singing over the control method. The tests
rejected this hypothesis at the 5 per cent level. Appar-
ently there was little relationship between practice
method and sight-singing improvement for this study.

The possibility is strong that other factors,
impossible to control experimentally, were operative here.
The amount of singing activity in which the student was
involved-~voice techniques classes, vocal ensembles, and
any other such activity--could have a particular influence
on the growth in sight-singing ability, especially for
those who had not done any singing before their college
enrollment. This factor varied not only between individ-
uals but with individuals as they changed classes between
semesters, making it impracticable to control. Any
resulting contamination would be difficult to assess as
to degree or direction.

Scholastic aptitude, as measured by the A.C.T. tests,
was considered in relation to dictation gain for the two
study groups. A rank difference correlation showed an
r = .308 which is not significant for the study. Apparently
there is little overall relation between dictation improve-
ment and scholastic aptitude in this study.

Previous studies have shown that the relationship

between scholastic aptitude and musical ability is not

6A

significant, but for the learning of musical skills such
as notation, the relationship is thought to be positive.
With this in mind it might seem logical to predict that
the written method of practice might be more closely
related to scholastic aptitude than the played response.
This is exactly what is demonstrated by the data of this
study. When comparing the highest and lowest A.C.T.
scores with the two practice methods it was found that no
significant difference existed within the experimental
group. For the control group the difference was signifi-
cant at the 5 per cent level in favor of the high A.C.T.
scores. It should be noted, however, that the experi-
mental level of significance was .075, indicating that
certain other factors, such as learning the keyboard and
counting, make the experimental method more than simply
an expression of musical ability.

In the matter of rhythmic improvement no significant
difference is demonstrated between the two practice
methods. The mean per cent gain score of 37.33 for the
experimental group is influenced by a negative gain of 50
per cent by one of the students. Both methods of practice
appeared to be effective in improving the rhythmic element
of aural perception.

A factor which has importance when rhythm is in-
volved in the practice, whether rhythm practice alone or

in combination with melody, is the time element. It was

65

discovered that when the rhythm gets as involved as simple
division of the beat, it takes longer to notate an
exercise than it does simply to play it back at the
keyboard. This factor is multiplied as the rhythmic prob-
lems become more complicated. While a comprehensive time
study was not included in the experiment, an example will
illustrate the relative amounts of time involved in the
two techniques. Exercise #1A-6 of Series C requires

approximately 15 seconds

 

to write in a simple copying situation; it can be played
in 7 seconds at M.M. = 72. Other examples offer more

striking evidence of the time saving element inherent in
the played response. Within a specified time span, this

could provide greatly increased opportunity for drill.

Implications for Teaching
The implications of this study for the teaching of
aural comprehension are as follows:

1. Since the keyboard practice response has
been shown to be a useful technique, it
should be made available as an additional
technique for practice in ear-training.

2. The played response appeared to be especially
useful in improving error detection. It
should be available to aid in this practical
aspect of ear-training.

66

3. Pianists may find the played response a
useful device for increasing their pro-
ficiency in ear-training. They should
be encouraged to make use of the technique.

A. Additional techniques of keyboard practice
may prove helpful and practical such as:
(a) paired practice in which two persons
send musical ideas back and forth at the
keyboard, and (b) practice responses to
taped harmonic dictation at the keyboard,
cadences, chord progressions, choral
phrases. -

5. The use of electronic keyboard devices,
some of which are already available, may
prove practical for whole classrooms
practicing responses to taped stimuli or
to stimuli produced by the instructor at
a master keyboard.

Recommendations for Further Study
As a result of the data obtained and the conclusions
drawn from the data, the following recommendations for
further study are suggested:

1. A study would be valuable to determine if the played
response could be useful in harmonic dictation and
the limits to which such dictation might be carried.

2. It would be useful to learn if the played response
practice would be practical and effective on instru-
ments other than keyboard instruments.

3. A study involving a larger population to check the
influence of keyboard training on overall dictation
improvement.

A. A three-pronged study using written, sung, and played
responses to aural stimuli to compare the effective-
ness of the three practice methods.

5. Further investigation of the apparent superiority of
the keyboard response technique as a training device
for students who achieve high levels of aural percep-
tion at the outset of their ear-training classes.

10.

11.

67

Summary

The findings of the study are summarized as follows:

The experimental method was found to be a useful device
for dictation practice, though not significantly better
than the written method for general dictation.

For error detection practice the keyboard response
technique was more effective than the written method
when considered without regard for piano background.

No significant difference between practice methods was
observed for the non—pianist group although the actual
mean gain score was higher for those in the experimental
group.

Students who practiced exclusively with the written
response did not show significantly greater improve—
ment in written dictation than those who practiced
only the played response.

Keyboard background is not a significant factor in
overall dictation improvement. Non-pianists were able
to achieve at about the same rate as the pianists.

In error detection, pianists had significantly higher
gains when the response was played than when it was
written. Non—pianists were not significantly differ—
ent for either practice method.

High and low extremes of dictation pre-test scores
were not significantly related to progress in
dictation.

Sight-singing progress was neither favorably nor
unfavorably affected by the experimental method of
practice.

Scholastic aptitude is apparently more closely related
to the written method than the played method, perhaps
because of the skills required for notation.

Rhythm gains are not significantly different between
practice method groups; both groups seemed to improve
considerably using the taped practice materials.

Dictation drill is less time consuming when the played
response is used than when a notated response is made.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

68

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Cookson, Frank B. Recordings and Self-tutoring.
Cleveland, Ohio: The Brush Development Company, 19A9.

Fish, Arnold and Lloyd, Norman. Fundamentals of Sight-
singing and Ear-training. New York: Dodd, Mead
and Company, 196A.

 

Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and Education.
New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1958.

Lindquist, Everett F. Design and Analysis of Experiments
in Psychology and Education. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin Company, 1953.

Lumsdaine, Arthur A. (ed.). Student Response in Programmed
Instruction. Washington, D. 0.: National Academy of
Sciences--National Research Council, 1961.

 

Lysaught, Jerome P. and Williams, Clarence M. A Guide to
Programmed Instruction. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1963-

 

 

Murphy, Howard A. Teaching Musicianship. New York:
Coleman Ross Company, Inc., 1962.

Ottman, Robert W. Music for Sight-singing. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956.

Scott, William A. and Wertheimer, Michael. Introduction
to Psycholpgical Research. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1962.

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behav-
ioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1956.

 

Articles and Periodicals

Ihrke, Walter R. "Automated Music Training," Council of
Research in Music Education, Bulletin No. 2 (Winter,
196A).

 

69

7O

Ihrke, Walter R. "Automated Music Training," Journal of
Research in Music Education, XI, No. 1 (Spring,

1963): 3‘20:

 

 

Ortmann, Otto. "Some Tonal Determinants of Melodic
Memory," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXIV
(September, 1933).

 

Sherburn, Merrell L. "Music in the Language Laboratory,"
Music Educators Journal, January, 196A, 109-110.

 

Project Report

 

Spohn, Charles L. "An Evaluation of Two Methods Using
Magnetic Tape Recordings for Programmed Instruction
in the Elemental Materials of Music." Project
Report, Project No. lAO7, Research Foundation, Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio, 196A.

Unpublished Material

 

Carlsen, James Caldwell. "An Investigation of Programmed
Learning in Melodic Dictation by Means of a Teaching
Machine." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, North-
western University, Evanston, Illinois, 1963.

Jeffries, Thomas Broad. "The Effects of Order of Presen-
tation and Knowledge of Results on the Aural Recog-
nition of Melodic Intervals." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California at Los
Angeles, 1965.

Langsford, Harry. "An Experimental Study of Effect of
Practice Upon Improvement in Melodic Dictation."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1959.

McQuerrey, Lawrence H. "The Improvement of Sensitivity
to Interval Intonation Through Training with Mechanical
Apparatus." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington, Indiana, 1959.

Reeves, William. "An Exploratory Study of Two Sets of
Theories of Guthrie and Wheeler as they Relate to
the Development of Instrumental Musicianship."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, 195A.

Spohn, Charles L. "An Exploration in the Use of Recorded
Teaching Material to Develop Aural Comprehension in
College Music Classes." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion,Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1959.

APPENDIX A

PRACTICE MATERIALS OF THE STUDY

71

72

Series A
Tape #1

 

73 Series A
Tape #2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7A
Series A

Tape #3

1
2
3
u

 

 

76

Seri
es
Tape #5A

1
2
3
u
5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

Series A
Tape #6

 

78

Series A
Tape #7

 

79

Series A
Tape #8

 

80

Series A
Tape #9

 

81 Series A
Tape #10

 

82

Series A
Tape #11

 

83 Series A
Tape #12

u

 

8A

Series A
Tape #13

3

    

 

 

85

Series A
Tape #lA

 

 

86

Series A
Tape #15

 

87

Series B
Tape #1

 

88

Series B
Tape #2

 

89

Series B
Tape #3

 

9O
Seri
es
Tape #AB

 

91 Series B
Tape #5

 

92

Series B
Tape #6

 

93 Series B
Tape #7

 

9A

Series B
Tape #8

 

95 Series B
Tape #9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

Series B
Tape #10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

Series B
Tape #11

   

98
Series B
Tape #12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

99 Series B
Tape #13

 

100 Series B
Tape #lA

 

101

Series B
Tape #15

 

102

Series C
Tape #1

 

 

103

Series 0
Tape #2

 

 

10A

Series 0
Tape #3

 

 

105

Series C
Tape #A

 

 

106

Series 0
Tape #5

 

 

107

Series 0
Tape #6

 

 

108

Series C
Tape #7

 

 

109

Series 0
Tape #8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

110

Series 0
Tape #9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

111

Series C
Tape #10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112

Series C
Tape #11

   

1A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

113

Series 0
Tape #12

 

 

11A

Series C
Tape #13

 

 

115

Series 0
Tape #1A

   

 

116

Series C
Tape #15

 

 

APPENDIX B

DICTATION AND SIGHT-SINGING TESTS

117

 

118
Sight-Singing Pre-Test

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. 1 6 A’ 2 8 3 5

 

 

 

 

 

 
   

l
l

 

 

IIArnold Fish and Norman Lloyd, Fundamentals of Sight-Singing
and Ear-Training (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 196A),
p. 138, #A. ‘ " "' '
*tRobert W. Ottman, Music for Sight-Singing (Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1956), p. 188, #20. ' '

 

 

 

 

119

DICTATION TEST-—STUDENT BLANK

CIRCLE incorrect pitches and make corrections.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Put check mark below each incorrect BEAT.

   

CIR each wrong note or beat & indicate with P or R for pitch or rhythm error.

 

Write what you hear. Use whole notes. D2

.. fir, :1

DA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

D3

C lete melodic dictation. Do as much as possible.

 

120

DICTATION TEST

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"'TITIIILIIIHIIUIIII

1293

     

IAIAIAIA”