""1 a ’V .. . rt; .1?” ‘ k u? .. V ' ""1,' - “‘f y, ‘ th‘fi ‘ _ _ , ;- V - 121—1 j ‘ . . 31293 01073 4162 mmmnmmmmnmn 1 L 1'23 I? A R Y Michigan State University [Ht-4:5" This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE MATERIALS FOR BEGINNING INSTRUMENTALISTS presented by Vito Puopolo has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mflaigéw Major prdiessor Date March 11. 1970 0-169 REMOTE STORAGE RSI? PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE '7 ll/ TELEWQWV CT 301012 203 Blue 10/13 p'JCIRC/DateoueFormsJOBJndd - p95 ABSTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE MATERIALS FOR BEGINNING INSTRUMENTALISTS by Vito Puopolo This study investigated the feasibility of struc— tured, programed practice with tape—recorded materials and its effect upon the performance achievement of beginning elementary cornet and trumpet students. The main purpose of the study was to facilitate the teaching and learning of instrumental performance through the application of programed procedure to individual prac— tice. Specific purposes were: (1) to determine the effect of programed practice upon performance achieve- ment, (2) to determine the relationships of music achieve— ment, social status, and 1.0. with both programed prac- tice and performance achievement. The main hypothesis was that structured practice with recorded tapes containing programed material would produce a significant difference in performance achieve- ment as compared with unstructured, non—programed prac- tice. In addition to the main hypothesis, the study examined: (1) interactions between programed practice and each independent variable, (music achievement, social status, and 1.0.) with respect to cornet performance achievement, and (2) the relationship of performance achievement (dependent variable) to music achievement, social status, and 1.0. The experimental population consisted of fifty— two fifth grade male beginning cornet and trumpet stu— dents drawn from six elementary schools in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Subjects were equated on the basis of music achievement as measured by the Elementary Music Achieve- ment Test, social status as determined by the Warner Scale 9; Social Status, and 1.0. measured by the Qtig. ,Quick-Scoring Beta Test for Grades 4—9. The experimental treatment consisted of structured daily practice with ten weekly twenty—minute tapes con- taining programed material. The control method consisted of daily twenty-minute practice of the same material, but in a non-structured manner without tapes. The effects of each mode of practice upon cornet performance achieve- ment were measured by the watkins-Farnum Performance Scale. Two-way analysis of variance, t—test, and cor- relation were the statistical procedures used in testing the hypotheses. The .05 level of significance was adopted as the criterion for accepting or rejecting the hypotheses. Programed practice was found to be significantly superior to non-programed practice as evidenced in per- formance achievement. The .01 level of confidence was achieved. Of the control group, students of above- average prior music achievement exhibited significantly greater cornet performance achievement than those of below-average prior music achievement. Of the experi- mental group, no significant difference in cornet per- formance achievement was found between students of above- average and below-average prior music achievement. There was no significant difference in cornet performance achievement between students of above—average and below- average social status, with or without programed prac- tice. 0f the control group, no significant difference in cornet performance achievement existed between above— average 1.0. students and those of below—average 1.0. However, in the experimental group, below—average 1.0. students showed significantly greater cornet performance achievement than those of above-average 1.0. No significant interaction existed between music achievement and programed practice, or social status and programed practice. A significant interaction existed between 1.0. and programed practice in terms of cornet performance achievement. This interaction seemed to account for the fact that a significant positive cor- relation existed within the control group between 1.0. and cornet performance achievement while non-signifi- cant negative correlation between the two variables existed within the experimental group. THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE MATERIALS FOR BEGINNING INSTRUMENTALISTS BY Vito Puopolo A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Music 1970 G _ all“ 36 (c , 2 2 ~ ,1 To Nelda ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Gratitude is expressed to the writer's thesis advi- sor, Dr. Robert G. Sidnell, for introducing him to pro— gramed learning, and for constant guidance and encour— agement. The writer's stay at Michigan State University was made possible by the research fellowship provided by Dr. Sidnell. The writer will gratefully remember the year as assistant to Mr. Richard E. Klausli, who breathed life into the world of music history. Many thanks go to Dr. Paul Harder, for his knowledge of programed learning in music theory; and Dr. William R. Sur, for kind patience and understanding. Appreciation is expressed to Mrs. Dorothy Smith, music teacher; and Mr. Harry Evans, music supervisor of the Baton Rouge Public Schools. Gratitude is expressed to the writer's mother, Maria Puopolo, for sacrifices which made his education possible. Appreciation is due the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for the grant which supported this study. iii Chapter II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significance of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Further Organization of the Report . . . . . . . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Studies Relating to Aural Perception . . . . . . Studies Relating to Sight—Singing . . . . . . . Studies Relating to Instrumental Instruction . . Studies Relating to 1.0. and Music Achievement with Respect to Instrumental Performance . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . Method of Gathering Data . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of Data-Gathering Instruments . . . PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . Pre-Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Data Relative to Method of Practice and Performance Achievement . . . . Analysis of Data Relative to Music Achievement and Method of Practice with Respect to Cornet Performance Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page I-‘ 1'" Oxbxlmmm 14 15 15 16 20 21 26 31 34 34 34 36 39 42 44 44 47 49 Chapter Analysis of Data Relative to Social Status and Method of Practice with Respect to Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Data Relative to 1.0. and Method of Practice with Respect to Performance Achievement .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Analysis of Data Regarding Programed Practice and Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attitudes of the Experimental Group Toward Programed Practice . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications of Programed Practice . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . APPENDIX D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 APPENDIX E O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 51 54 57 61 62 65 68 7O 73 74 75 76 80 153 156 160 164 166 171 Table II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. LIST OF TABLES Experimental Design for the Study . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables for the Sample . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Control Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Experimental Group Correlations of Independent Variables . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Cornet Performance Achievement Scores . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Cornet Performance Achievement Scores for Music Achievement Sub-Groups , , , , , , Analysis of Variance of Performance Achievement by Level of Music Achievement and Method of Practice . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Performance Achievement Scores for Social Status Sub-GrouPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Performance Achievement by Level of Social Status and Method of Practice , . , , , , , , , Means and Standard Deviations of Performance Achievement Scores for 1.0. Sub-Groups . Analysis of Variance of Performance Achievement by Level of 1.0. and Method of Practice vi Page 40 45 46 46 47 48 49 50 52 53 55 56 PLEASE NOTE: Some pages have indistinct print. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROPILMS. Table XIII. XIV. XVII. XVIII. XIX. Interaction Chart Above—Average Sub-Groups . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction Chart Below—Average Sub— Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction Between 1.0. and Programed Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations Between Performance Achievement and Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Scores and Data . . . . . . . Sums and Totals for Music Achievement Sub-Groups . . . . . . . . . . Sums and Totals for Social Status Sub—Groups . . . . . . . . . . Sums and Totals for 1.0. Sub—Groups vii Page 58 58 59 60 154 157 158 159 CHAPTER I Introduction Learning pertaining to the study of a musical instrument can be classified according to three major areas: (1) knowledges, (2) skills, and (3) attitudes. Though attitudes and values are considered to be learned, they are not taught. However, teachers are aware of the necessity of attitudes to motivation; therefore, through personal interaction with students, consciously influence attitudinal development. Knowledges and skills leading to improvement of instrumental music performance are the two kinds of learning actually taught. Attainment of the necessary knowledges and skills involves all the eight types of learning mentioned by Gagne: "...eight types of learning, called signal learning, stimulus- response learning, chaining, verbal—associate learning, multiple discrimination, concept learning, principle learning, and problem solving."1 1 RObert M. Gagne, The Conditions 9; Learning, (New Ybrk: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965), p. 33. During the private or class lesson, the teacher communicates to the pupil, the concept of a particular knowledge or skill. This he does either verbally or via his own music skill through demonstration. In either case, what is transmitted to the pupil is verbal or demon- strative description. The pupil attains a knowledge as he experiences its concept; in many cases this may be almost instantaneous. Acquiring music skill, which may or may not begin with the concomitant concept, requires learning to continue beyond concept. It must take place in the actual execution. Though at first far from per- fect, execution, after much practice, may come to coin- cide with concept. The practice intervening between the concept of a skill and its ultimate execution was a main concern of this study. In his private or class lesson, which consists of less than ten percent of time devoted to instrumental study, the child receives appraisal, correction, and new concepts. Then, for the remaining ninety percent of study time, he must actually teach himself the perform— ance skills and motor patterns needed to execute the con— cepts learned in his lessons. Consequently, the appli— cation of concepts and development of skills are depend- ent upon the child's limited capacity for patience, self- discipline, self—assessment, perserverance, and thorough- ness. He may: 1. Practice too fast, sacrificing accuracy for speed. 2. Spend most of the time practicing that which he can already do well and avoid that which is difficult. 3. Repeat material over and over without detecting or correcting mistakes. 4. Not remember a music concept correctly, thus practice it incorrectly. 5. Not know how to approach a particular problem by himself. The toll of such a faulty practice procedure is high. Musical growth is interrupted, even stunted, and valuable lesson time must be devoted to remedial work. In class situations, some who are ready for advancement must suffer boredom and frustration while waiting for bad habits and misconcepts of others to be corrected. In some instances these bad habits in performance, once formed, are never completely eliminated. All music teachers agree upon the paramount impor— 4 tance of careful, well directed, systematic practice. Yet, though they cannot be present while each student practices, teachers are guilty of its neglect. La Bach points out some of the difficulties: "Satisfactory progress is dependent on many factors, of course; but among the difficulties inherent in many situations, difficulties which too often lead to discouragement and dropping out, are these: 1. The teacher may meet with the stu- dents relatively infrequently, so that a sufficient check of progress and practice habits cannot be made often enough. 2. There may not be time in a lesson, to adequately explain or demonstrate new material to be practiced. 3. Students practicing at home often get little positive help or criticism from parents whose knowledge of music may be small. 4. The teacher is often not a competent performer on many instruments which he nevertheless must teach, and thus he is unable to demonstrate proper tone and technique in a lesson." The importance of performance in music education is clearly stated by Benn: "...if we are to aid students in becoming intelli- gent consumers of music, we must approach such responsibilities in terms of the musical discip- 2Parker La Bach, "A Device to Facilitate Learning of Basic Music Skills," Council for Research 12 Music Education, 4:7, Winter, 1965. line itself: that means the production of music in performance. We shall not bring all of our youngsters to the degree of virtuosity owned by the artists of our time, but to the degree that nature has endowed them, that our musician— ship has brought them, and our presentation of music has inspired them, that far will they have been brought to a sensitive awareness of the art of music." The type of performance mentioned above cannot exist without practice. The quality of individual practice will directly affect the quality of performance. The substance of the proposal of this study was that many children never arrive "to the degree that nature has endowed them" simply because of inefficient, inadequate practice. The Problem This study was concerned with the efficiency of individual practice, particularly, of beginning instru— mental students. The central problem was to adapt and evaluate programed instruction as a procedure for increasing the efficiency of individual practice. The level of efficiency desired was that which would be significantly evident in the acquisition of knowledges 3 . . Oleta A. Benn, "Excellence in Elementary Mu31c Programs," Perspectives ;Q_Music Education, ed. Bonnie C. Knowall M.E.N.C., Washington, D.C., 1966, p. 252. and skills necessary for instrumental music performance. Significance of the Problem It was a premise of this study that penetration of the problem of individual instrumental practice would provide insight which could advance the efficiency of teaching as well as individual practice, upgrade perform— ance, and elevate standards for future consumers of music. Purposes of the Study School instrumental instructors cannot, to maximum efficiency, teach the knowledges and skills essential to music performance because of two impossibilities: posses- sion of great proficiency on each instrument to be taught, and omnipresence to direct and guide the individual prac— tice and drill of each and every student. Young beginning instrumentalists cannot efficiently learn and acquire the concepts and skill, being inept at an incipient stage of musical experience to best direct their own individual practice and drill. The main purpose of this study was to facilitate the teaching and learning of instrumental performance through the application of programed proce- dure to l. The practice individual practice. Specific objectives were: To develOp assigned material into self-instruc- tional practice material on recorded tape. To test the feasibility of structured practice with this material in learning concepts and developing skills for performance on a musical instrument. To determine the relationships between perform— ance achievement and each of the following: (1) music achievement, (2) social status, C” 1.0. To determine the effect of music achievement, social status, and 1.0. upon programed practice with respect to performance achievement. Hypotheses main hypothesis of this study was that structured with recorded tapes containing programed material would produce a significant difference in performance achievement as compared with non-structured, non-programed practice. The main hypothesis was based upon the following assumptions: 1. The experimental method would direct subjects to concentrate practice on sections that needed work; the control method could not prevent subjects from practicing only sections which they liked or wanted to play. 2. The experimental method would provide constant reinforcement; the control method could not pre— vent repetition of errors without corrections. 3. The experimental method would direct subjects to practice drills slowly; the control method could provide no means for restraint of the urge to practice "a tempo" thereby minimizing accu— racy and maximizing unconscious acquisition of bad habits. 4. The experimental method would provide the aural concept for all notation; the control method could not. 5. The experimental method would be sequentially organized; the control method would not be. Investigation of the main hypothesis necessitated examination of the following null hypotheses: 1. There would be no significant difference in per— formance achievement between students of above— average prior music achievement and those of below-average prior music achievement. 2. There would be no significant interaction between prior music achievement and programed practice with respect to performance achievement. 3. There would be no significant difference in per- formance achievement between students of above— average social status and those of below-average social status. 4. There would be no significant interaction between social status and programed practice with respect to performance achievement. 5. There would be no significant difference in per- formance achievement between students of above— average 1.0. and those of be10w-average 1.0. 6. There would be no significant interaction between 1.0. and programed practice with respect to per— formance achievement. Scope of the Study This study dealt mainly with the effect of programed practice upon the performance achievement of fifty-two fifth grade beginning trumpet and cornet students. Music achievement, social status, and 1.0. were studied for effect upon performance achievement and interaction with 10 programed practice. Practice material was the weekly lesson as assigned in Band Class. Experimental and control groups were com— prised of all fifth grade beginning trumpet and cornet students from six elementary schools at East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana: Magnolia WOOdS Elementary School, River Oaks Elementary School, Villa del Rey Elementary School, Red Oaks Elementary School, Audubon Elementary School, and Broadmoor Elementary School Limitations of the Study Music achievement, social status, and 1.0. were examined insomuch as they are thought to relate to music performance achievement. For purposes of delimitation, the experiment was restricted to trumpet and cornet stu- dents. It must be recognized, however, that the programed format which was employed, and the findings which resulted may be applicable to practice on any musical instrument. §g§;_£_8ubjects. There were no female fifth grade trumpet or cornet students from any of the participating schools. Therefore, sex was not a factor. Practice Material. The weekly assigned material for individual practice by the subjects was the weekly lesson 11 exactly as assigned by the instrumental music teacher in Band Class. Except for the programed format, all explanations and demonstrations included on the experi— mental tapes reflected exactly the methods and philosophy of the instrumental music teacher. This study was not concerned with the effectiveness of particular method books used, manner or style of teaching, or order of pre- sentation of new concepts. Programing of the material was in strict accordance with the teaching principles, styles, and philosophy already being practiced in the music department of the East Baton Rouge Parish Public Schools. Length 2§_Time. The experiment commenced on March 3, 1969 and continued for ten weeks, excluding Easter vaca— tion. Practice material included only the concepts and skills being taught in Band Class during this period of time. Embouchure. Detection and correction of personal embouchure problems occurred during Band Class. The experimental tapes included explanations of correct embou- chure as it related to the exercises and tunes being prac— ticed. Tone Quality. Tone quality was not specifically 12 dealt with in the experimental tapes. Subjects were constantly urged to practice with the finest tone pos- sible. Tone quality was not included in the evaluation of performance achievement. £1223. Intonation was not specifically dealt with in the experimental tapes. It was expected, however, that the activity of listening and imitating would help develop good intonation. Evaluation of performance achievement did not include measurement of intonation. Definition of Terms It is appropriate that certain terms be defined, and for the purposes of this study, should be used with that particular concept in mind. ’Music achievement is musical ability as measured by the Colwell Music Achievement Test which included three areas: (1) pitch discrimination, (2) interval discrimi- nation, (3) meter discrimination. (A more precise description is given in Chapter 111.) Performance achievement is the ability to perform on a musical instrument (trumpet and cornet) as measured by the watkins-Farnum Performance Scale which provides for 13 measures of errors in pitch, tempo, length of note, expression, slurs, rests, pauses, and repeats. (See Chapter III for more detail.) Social status is socio-economic level according to the Warner Scale 2; Socio-Economic Status. Three cate- gories were used: (1) occupation of parent, (2) outward appearance of home. (3) neighborhood. Monitoring is defined as the supervision of the scheduled practice of each subject by a responsible adult. Programing 9;.practice is the arrangement of prac— tice material to a step—by-step format of problem solving, and drill of performance skills and concepts. Each drill consists of three basic stages: (1) model performance, (2) response, (3) reinforcement. Model_performance is the presentation of the piece, exercise, or isolated segment by the recorded trumpet, accompanied by a piano and narrator. The model trumpet performances were of a nearly professional musical qua— lity, recorded by a college trumpet student. The nar- rator provides counting of the meter as well as explana- tions when necessary. (A detailed description is given in Chapter 111.) Response is the stage when the subject, after hear— 14 ing the model, performs the same material, very slowly at first and gradually increasing tempo with each repe- tition until "a tempo" is reached. The student's response is accompanied by the piano and directed by the narrator. Reinforcement is the stage following response; it is a final model performance with which the student com- pares his respcnse. The student can compare by listen- ing or playing in unison with the recorded model. Structured practice is defined as practice time which has been systematically planned beforehand by the teacher: problematic sections are given more attention. Unstggctured pgactice is not planned. As he prac- tices, the student decides how the alloted time is to be apportioned. Further Organization of the Report The preceding pages of this chapter have presented a statement, definition, and discussion of the problem. The report continues in the following order: Chapter II, A Review of the Literature: Chapter III, Design of the Study: Chapter IV, Presentation and Analysis of the Data: and Chapter V, Summary, Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Studies investigating the possibilities of pro- gramed self-instruction in music can be classified in three general categories: (1) studies dealing with music knowledges, such as basic theory or music appre- ciation; (2) studies dealing with aural perception as an isolated area; (3) studies applying aural perception, together with other factors, to performance, such as sight-singing or conducting. Substantial research of programed instruction in the area of instrumental per- formance, specifically, instrumental practice, is vir— tually nonexistent. An important finding of this study, concerning 1.0. in relation to programed instrumental practice, prompted a survey of research dealing with 1.0. and instrumental performance. Several reports were found claiming to investigate 1.0. and its relationship to talent, aesthe- tic sensitivity, musicality, or music reading. Each study employed a correlation on 1.0. scores with test 15 16 scores of one kind of musical intelligence or another. Investigation of the relationship of 1.0. to actual instrumental performance seems to have been neglected. Literature pertaining to programed instruction in music is divided into three categories: (1) studies relating to aural perception, (2) studies relating to sight-singing, (3) studies relating to instrumental instruction. 1.0. — instrumental performance area includes one study. Studies Relating to Aural Perception At Ohio State University in 1958—59, Spohn1 ex- perimented with structured drill material in the devel- opment of melodic perception. A man objective of the investigation was the comparison of structured extra- class drill to unstructured extra—class drill. The material was kept in musical context. Results indi- cated that structured self-drill was significantly more effective. 1Charles L. Spohn, "An Exploration in the Use of Recorded Teaching Material to Develop Aural Comprehen— sion in College Music Classes" (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1959). 17 In 1960 Spohnz programed basic materials for self- instructional development of aural skills. Subjects consisted of seventy—seven freshmen enrolled in a music fundamentals class at Ohio State University. The drill material included melodic ascending intervals. A hier— archy of difficulty was fixed in the following order from easy to difficult: perfect octave, major second, major third, perfect fourth, perfect fifth, major sixth, major seventh, minor third, tritone, minor seventh, minor sixth. A main concern of the study was to determine whether intervallic dictation could be effectively learned by means of programed self-instruction. The evaluation ascertained that interval recognition could be significantly improved through programed self-instruc- tion. Carlsen3 in 1961-62, carried investigation of pro- gramed aural training beyond the status of supplemen- 2Spohn, "Programming the Basic Materials of Music for Self-Instructional Deve10pment of Aural Skills," Journal 2; Research ig Music Education, Vol. XI, No. 2, Fall 1963, pp. 91-98. 3James C. Carlsen, "An Investigation of Programed Learning in Melodic Dictation by Means of a Teaching Machine Using a Branching Technique of Programming" .(Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern Uni- versity, 1962). 18‘ tary drill; he included an outright comparison with teacher-instruction. The experimental group was sub- grouped to allow a comparison of linear programing technique with branching. The findings disclosed evidence of significantly greater effectiveness of pro- gramed self—instruction over teacher—instruction in the development of aural perception. No significant differ- ence were detected between the two techniques of pro— gramed instruction. In 1966-67 Sidnell4 applied aural-visual perception to instrumental performance as it relates to conducting. A matched pair of two group design was used with twenty— six members of an instrumental conducting class at Michi- gan State University. While reading along from a four- staved conductor's score, subjects listened to taped excerpts of four—part instrumental performances, each ‘excerpt containing one error. The control group, after two hearings, was expected to locate the error, determine whether it was an error of pitch or rhythm, identify the 4RObert G. Sidnell, "The Development of Self-instru— tional Drill Materials to Facilitate the Growth of Score Reading Skills of Student Conductors" (final report sub- mitted to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Bureau of Research,l968) pp.20. 19 erring instrument, indicate how it deviated from the conductor's score. For the experimental group the items were programed in the following manner: Frame 1. - student listens to excerpt and locates error; reinforcement follows. Frame 2. — a small segment encompassing the error is repeated, student deter- mines type of error: reinforcement follows. Frame 3. - a smaller segment focusing more closely upon the error is repeated, student indicates erring instrument: reinforcement follows. Frame 4. — erring instrument repeats Frame 3 alone, student notates error; rein- forcement follows. At the end of a ten-week period, evaluation revealed a significantly greater gain of experimental group over control group in score reading and evaluation of per- formance errors. Programed learning was proved effec— tive in the development of aural—visual skills relating to instrumental conducting. It is interesting to note that the programed format parallels what is believed to be the mental process of discovery and differentiation of errors as experienced by a conductor. 20 Studies Relating to Sight—Singing Research of programed instruction in sight—singing is a very recent activity. At the time of this writing, one such study had been completed. Kanable5 equated thirty high school students on the basis of tonal memory and error detection, and tone-matching ability. Fif— teen subjects studied individually by means of a tape recorder and programed text. A four—track tape recorder allowed the student to hear instructions, tonic chord, and a metronomic beat: to record his response; and to hear a playback of his response followed by a reinforce- ment. Treatment for the fifteen members of the control group consisted of twelve daily 50-minute class training sessions: for the experimental group it was limited to the twelve daily 50—minute sessions with the tape recorder. Results of the post-test showed no significant difference between programed individual instruction and classroom instruction. The reviewer believes that the lack of significance was 5Betty Kanable, "An Experimental Study Comparing Programed Instruction with Classroom Teaching of Sight- singing," Journal g; Research lg Music Education, XVII (Summer, 1969), pp. 217-226. 21 possibly attributable to several factors not considered by the investigator: 1. Twelve days could be insufficient time for the effect of programed instruction to take place. 2. More than one teacher was involved, possibly influencing the main effect. 3. Apart from method of presentation, material was not identical, though of similar type. ,4. No mention was made of sex, age, 1.0., or previous singing experience as possible variables influencing the main effect. Studies Relating to Instrumental Instruction In 1964-65 La Bach,6 in a pilot study, experimented with programed training in the specific area of instru— mental practice. He constructed a device consisting of a two—track tape recorder, speaker, micrOphone, and sev- eral power relay switches and controls. The device was designed so that students could record their practice of a given exerciSe, hear it played, then compare it 6Parker La Bach, "A Device to Facilitate Learning of Basic Music Skills," Bulletin 9; the Council for Research ig_Music Education, No. 4 (Winter, 1965), pp. 7-10. 22 with the playback of a pre—recorded model of the same exercise. Three different modes of practice routine were possible: (1) student performance, followed by student playback, followed by pre-recorded model per- formance; (2) pre-recorded model performance, followed by student performance, followed by student performance playback; (3) model performance, followed by student performance, student performance playback, followed by a repetition of model performance. The concern of the pilot study was the feasibility of the practice device. A controlled statistical evalua— tion of student progress was not attempted. La Bach, how- ever, was able to conclude: "1. All students indicated satisfaction or enjoyment in using the device. 2. Study of student practice, student opinion, and student performance indicated that some musical skills may well show significant improvement through use of the practice device."7 Practice was programed to the extent that aural perception was utilized in the discovery of one's own 7La Bach, "Pilot Project for Development of a Device to Facilitate Learning of Basis Musical Skills," (progress report submitted to the Department of Health Education and welfare, Cooperative Research Branch, 1966). p. 10. 23 mistakes. All discoveries were limited to the level of aural perception of each individual. At Pennsylvania State University Deihl and Radocy8 (1969) investigated computer-assisted instrumental instruction. The procedure included two separate stages: first, the listening program; second, the playing pro— gram. The computer-assisted listening program is described: "The listening:tems require comparison, matching and discrimination. They assume various formats. For example, items or frames might require discrimination between .two similar prerecorded versions of the cla- rinet (choose correct one), two similar vis- ual versions (indicate discrepancy), or aural-visual versions (indicate difference between recorded versions and notation). A typical frame presents three brief re— corded examples asking the student to select the one shown on the image display. In an- other case the student is shown a notated passage with a certain articulation pattern; after hearing a recorded version on clarinet which is almost correct, he is asked to re- spond by indicating the discrepancy as shown on the display screen. Such discrimination training should deter learning by mere rote imitation. Aural understanding and judgement are basic throughout the program." 8Ned C. Deihl and Rudolf E. Radocy, "Computer- Assisted Instruction: Potential for Instrumental Music Education," Qggncil for Research ig_Music Education, Bulletin No. 15 (Winter, 1969), pp. 2-7. 91bid., p. 6. 24 After the student demonstrates satisfactory aural discrimination at the computerized station, he partici- pates in the off the line playing program. The playing program consists of practice with a device functionally identical to the La Bach device. The authors describe it: "Such a device permits considerable flexi- bility in options available to each student. He can hear a prerecorded model, record his version, rerecord as he wishes, and hear the model followed by his recorded version for instant comparison. He may repeat the entire cycle as he chooses. In other cases he may record his version before he hears the pre— recorded model. He can also play without recording. Recording a duet part along with the model is another possibility if the engineers can modify the current equipment. The unit also allows the teacher to monitor all the students' recordings along with the models bylglaying the tape without inter— ruption." Program materials are presently being developed and administration of a revised program is planned for the winter of 1969. 11 The writer, in 1966-67, conducted a pilot study 10Ibid., p. 7. 11Vito Puopolo, "The Structuring of Practice Materials on Tape," (Unpublished pilot study, Michi- gan State University, 1966). 25 investigating the effects of structured individual instrumental practice with recorded tapes. All drills in the execution of new concepts were programed. Con- cepts included pitch discrimination, rhythm, fingering, and the use of chromatics - all within context of the assigned tunes. The subjects were members of a class at Michigan State University in which basic music theory and skill were taught. Recorder was the instrument to be studied. Each subject was given a weekly extra—class private lesson. Method and material were identical for both experimental and control groups. Mode of practice was the only difference: for control group it was un- structured, for experimental group it was structured and programed on tape. After six weeks, both were given a post-test which consisted of a composite of the con- cepts studied. Post-test scores of the experimental group showed significant gain over the control group. Structured practice could possibly have affected per- formance on a class final examination which included sight-singing and piano performance. A correlation of r = .91 was found between the class final examination scores and the post—test raw scores. The project indicated structured practice with recorded tapes to 26 affect significantly the learning of musical concepts and skills evidenced hi musical performance. The writer12 conducted a second pilot study with beginning cornet and trumpet students during spring of 1968 at Lucy Jefferson.Junior High School in Vicksburg, Mississippi. In spite of conditions very limiting to musical growth, post-tests indicated a significant gain by the experimental group over the control group. Nega- tive learning was found to be a factor distinctly affect- ing growth. Certain members of the control group achieved lower scores on the post-test than the pre~test. The regression was due to obvious bad habits which had been acquired after the pre-test. A gain was experienced by every member of the experimental group. Studies Relating to the 1.0. and Music Achievement with Respect to Instrumental Performance Holstrom13 investigated the relationships of 12Puopolo, "The Development of Materials for the Structuring and Programing of Individual Practice of Beginning Instrumentalists." (Unpublished pilot study, Alcorn A. & M. College, 1968). 13Lars—Gunnas Holmstrom, "Intelligence vs. Progress in Music Education," Journal g£_Research i§_Music Educa- tion, XVII (Spring, 1969), pp. 76-87. 27 separate factors of intelligence to certain areas of musical education. The F-Test by K. Harnqvist was used to measure four components of the intellect: (l) verbal understanding, (2) numerical ability, (3) inductive ability, (4) spacial ability. The areas of musical education were: ~singing, piano, string instruments, theory of harmony, musical ear, musical history, teach- ing ability, and pedagogic. The subjects were tested for the musical areas as part of an entrance test in the beginning of the fall semester at the Musical Academy (KMH) in Stockholm, Sweden. A music teacher examina- tion given at the end of the spring semester tested the same musical areas. Distribution of scores in the various tests was examined and correlations were employed. A significant nagative correlation was found between the entrance test in string instruments and inductive ability. It is interesting to note that a significant positive correla- tion existed between all intellectual variables and all the paper-pencil tests (theory of harmony, conducting, musical history, and teaching ability) included in the entrance examination; yet, correlations with the perform- ance tests (singing, piano, string instruments) were 28 seldom significantly different from zero. Correlation between the four intellectual variables and the paper-pencil tests included in the music teacher examination was significant at the .05 and .01 levels. Though some correlation existed between singing and inductive ability, and string instruments and numeri- cal ability, significant levels were not reached. The sample seems to be questionable. The group taking the entrance examination was different from the group taking the music teacher examination, and correla— tion coefficients differed greatly in each case. Size of sample also differed between the two groups. What can be concluded is that significant correlations (except for one negative correlation between string instruments and inductive ability which was not repeated with the second group) did not exist between musical performance and the various aspects of intelligence. Pinkerton14 attempted to determine what criteria were being used in the selection of students for public school instrumental music programs. A questionnaire was mailed to one hundred and fifty cities throughout the 14 . Frank W. Pinkerton, "Talent Tests and Their Application to the Public School Program," Journal;g§ Research i9 Music Education, XI (Spring, 1963L pp. 75-80. 29 United States and Alaska. Response from seventy-five perCent of the recipients constituted the data for the study. Student interest and recommendations of teachers seemed to be the most popular criteria. A particular interest of the present study was the weight given to tests of prior music achievement and 1.0. ratings. Over sixty-two percent of the respondents used music achieve— ment test for rough screening, grouping, and elimination from the instrumental music program. Over forty—two percent of the respondents used 1.0. ratings as a cri— teria for selection of students. The present study found level of prior music achievement to have no bearing upon performance achieve— ment of students using the programed mode of practice. Students of below—average 1.0. seemed to benefit more from programed practice and exhibited greater perform- ance achievement than students of above-average 1.0. Both prior music achievement and 1.0. had a direct bearing upon the performance achievement of students not using the programed mode of practice. 30 Throughout the academic year 1957—58, Porter15 investigated programed teaching of spelling to elemen- tary school children. Twenty-two weeks of spelling instruction were given to both sixth and second grade levels. Experimental groups were taught via teaching machine and control groups were taught in the usual manner. The sixth grade data (closest in age to subjects of this study) were of particular interest to the pre— sent study. Statistical results were: "1. Mean student achievement over the year in 'grade equivalent' scores: Experimental group 1.42 Control group 0.90 (sign test, 0.01) 2. Mean student achievement within experimental groups: Machine lessons 97.2% Book lessons 96.4% (sign test, 0.025) 3. First vs. second half of machine taught lessons: no significant difference. 4. 'Time at study' ratio: E/C = 1/3. 5. Miscellaneous correlations (rho); 1.0. vs. Achievement in: Experimental . group -.128 (n.s.) Control group +.343 ( .05) 15Douglas Porter, "Some Effects of Year Long Teach- ing Machine Instruction," Automatic Teachigg: The State .2; the Art, ed. Eugene Galenter, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959, pp. 85-90. LU p—I . . .spelling achievement as measured by stand- ardized achievement tests was significantly supe- rior for the experimental groups, and there is essentially no relationship between intelligence scores and achievement in the experimental groups, but a significant positive relationship in the con— trol groups."1 Some statistical results of the Porter study paral— leled those of the present study quite closely. Corre- lations (item 5) between 1.0, and achievement in experi— mental and control groups seemed almost to coincide with the correlations between 1.0. and cornet performance achievement of the present study. Summary A review of related literature reveals the follow— ing findings and conclusions: 1. In aural perception as an isolated area, drill with programed materials on tape is signifi- cantly more effective than non—programed drill. 2. In the area of aural perception, there is no significant difference between linear and branched techniques of programing. 161bid.. pp. 88-89. 32 In the area of aural perception, programed drill is found to be significantly more effec- tive than classroom instruction. In the area of visual/aural perception with respect to score reading and conducting, pro- gramed training is significantly more effective than nonprogramed training. In the area of sight—singing, there is no significant difference found between programed and unprogramed study. Efficiency of the research is questioned, however. No statistically consistent correlation of any significance has been found between variables of intelligance and music performance, vocal and instrumental. Prior music achievement and I.0. ratings (both are independent variables of this study) are significantly used as criteria for the selection of instrumental students. (See p. 73 for fur- ther discussion.) Programed spelling instruction, to children of similar age and grade level as subjects of the 33 present study,is found to be statistically superior to nonprogramed instruction. (See p. 70 for further discussion.) CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Locale The investigation took place in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In spite of its location (investigator com- muted over two hundred miles, round trip), Baton Rouge was chosen because of four important factors: 1. The music supervisor was familiar with programed learning, and extremely cooperative. 2. Teaching personnel are competent and research oriented. 3. The instrumental program is well organized. 4. A single instructor teaches band class in sev- eral schools. This arrangement eliminates teacher as a main source. Procedures The experimental population was comprised of fifty- two fifth grade male students in their first year of cornet or trumpet study. Subjects were drawn from six elementary schools in which band class was taught by the same teacher. 34 35 Practice material for both experimental and control .groups was identical. The weekly band assignment con- stituted the individual practice material. Practice occurred each school day during lunch hour, recess, or after school for a period of ten weeks. The practice of each subject was monitored by the music teacher, class- room teacher, or college practice-teaching students. Monitoring responsibilities included keeping attendance and certifying that each subject practiced the required time per scheduled session. Monitors also arranged for make-up practice sessions necessitated by absences, so at the post-test date each subject had completed the same amount of practice time on each assignment. For the experimental group each weekly lesson was programed and recorded on tape for self—instruction. Each programed lesson was recorded on a seven-inch reel master tape at a speed of seven and one-half inches per second, then reproduced on cassette copies, one to each experi- mental group member. The cassette players, when not in use, were left in the care of homeroom teachers. The student was required to bring his player, in which was inserted that week's cassette, his instrument and music each time he reported for daily individual practice. All 36 individual practice activity was directed entirely from the tape recording. (A detailed description of the tapes is given later.) The control group practiced the same material under identical conditions except for the programed tapes. The length of each practice session was matched to the dura- tion of the experimental practice tape for that given week. The experimental tapes were from twenty to twenty-five minutes in duration, varying from week to week. Description of the Program In the preparation of the experimental tapes, the investigator worked closely with the instrumental music instructor and exercised great care in maintaining consis- tency with her methods and terminology. The tapes were subjected to evaluation by a panel of experts headed by Dr. Robert G. Sidnell, Chairman of Music Education, Mich- igan State University. Each tape included: 1. Model cornet performance of all material. 2. Simple piano accompaniment for all model perform- ances, responses and reinforcements. 3. Verbal instructions, explanations, and counting 37 of meter during occurrence of all model per- formance, responses and reinforcements. The following format (See Appendix A for complete document.) was generally adhered to: 1. A brief reminder of problems to be encountered preceded each tune or exercise to be practiced. (new rhythms, new notes, fingerings, chromatics, new note values, phrasings, etc.) Student listened to model performance of tune or exercise while reading along from the score. While reading from the score, student listened to first isolated segment. Student played segment very slowly, then slightly faster, faster, and finally "a tempo". (Directed by recorded counting and piano accompaniment.) Student was asked if he remembered to cope with specific problems, for example, "Did you remem- ber to use the second valve for that F# on the third beat?" Student listened to reinforcement and compared. After each segment was drilled, student performed entire tune or exercise, then listened to rein- forcement. (According to recorded instructions, 38 student either listened to reinforcement or played in unison with it.) The following is the script of an excerpt from a practice tape: "Turn to page 29, number 171. As we per- form this for you, notice the 8th rests. Ready, listen." (model performance) m-\ . :[flr3r‘l*l* +31’lrlf3'4flf‘J-f‘31’ [9'1 f 3 f 4 /r.2r 3r 4 ,zsrescjstor. [fl +31) "Did you notice that when the 8th rests occurred, they were on the 'and' of the beat? Pay close attention as we perform measures 1 and 2 slowly. Ready, listen." (model) “‘5 \ I ,.1 f 33 r.q f- y ('42 * 3‘1 5&02 ”Now you play it: ready, play." (response, slow)1Again, ready, play." (response, slightly faster) ”Again, ready, play." (response, faster) ”Again, ready, play." (response, a tempo) "Did you sound like this? Ready, listen." (reinforcement) ”Now’measures 3 and 4: ready, listen." (model) n..- I*1*3* *l’lf345t"?- “Now you play it: don't forget the Bb. Ready, play." (response, slow) "Again, ready, 39 play." (response, slightly faster) "Again, ready, play.” (response, faster) "Again, ready, play." (response, a tempo) "Ybu should have sounded exactly like this: Ready, listen."(reinforcement) "The rhythm is slightly different for mea- sures S and 6. Ready, listen." (model) .I N - - I r42 r‘3 1*‘7 I rbsz r 5'7'5flwk “Now you play it: ready, play." (response, slow) "Again, ready, play.” (response, slightly faster) “Again, ready, play." tesponse, faster) "Again, ready, play." (response, a tempo) "Did you sound exactly like this? Ready, listen." (reinforcement) ”Now'measures 7 and 8: ready, listen." (model) r \\ ,1 3 rest, 319?. I'.2*3*4 "Now you play it: don't forget the Bb. Ready, play." (response, slow)'Again, ready, play.” (response, slightly faster) "Again, ready, play." (response, faster) "Again, ready, play.” (response,a tempo)"You should have played it exactly like this: Ready, listen." (reinforcement) ”New you play it all the way through from the beginning: ready, play." (response) “Now'play it together with our trumpet player: see if you are doing everything exactly as he is.” (response-reinforcement) Method of Gathering Data Subjects were pre—tested in three behaviors which 40 serve as the independent variables: (1) music achieve— ment, (2) social status, (3) 1.0. Music achievement was measured by the Music Achievement Test One: social status was determined by the warner §gglg 92 Social Status: 1.0. was determined on the basis of the Qgi§_guick Scoring Beta Test scored obtained from the school records. Scores from the three pre-tests were dichotomized at the mean. Subjects were placed in experimental or control group by a "flip-of—the—coin" method. Table I is a diagram of the resultant experimental design. Table 1. Experimental Design for the Study Experimental Control (with tapes) (without tapes) Music Above-Average Above-Average Achiev. Below-Average Below-Awarage Social Above-Average Above-Average Status Below-Average Below—Average 1.0. Above—Average Above—Average Below-Average Below—Average 41 Upon completion of ten weeks of practice, the post- test, the Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale, was administered in a room equipped with a tape recorder, metronome, chair, and music stand containing the appropriate test items. Testing procedure was as follows: 1. Testee reported individually to the testing room. 2. Tester read instructions aloud to testee and recorded testee's name. 3. Tester started the metronome at the appropriate marking, turned on the tape recorder, then left the room. 4. Tester waited behind the closed door until per- formance of all items at a given metronome mark- ing was completed, then entered the room to shut off the metronome and tape recorder, and repeat step three for the next set of items. Tape recordings containing each subject's name and post—test performance were sent to the scorer. Having no knowledge of which subjects belonged to experimental or control group, the scorer was able to maintain complete objectivity. Performance achievement scores within each of the three major groups, (music achievement, social status, ~\~ 42 I.Q.) underwent a two-way analysis of variance treat— ment. Significant F statistics were further investigated by means of the t-test and correlation treatment. The five percent level of confidence was accepted as the standard for the significance of the F, t, and r, statistics. Description of Data-Gathering Instruments The Beta Test for Grades 4-9 by Arthur S. Otis con- sists of eighty items including word meaning, verbal analogies, scrambled sentences, interpretation of proverbs, logical reasoning, number series, arithmetic reasoning, and design analogies. One score summarizes the eighty items. The coefficients as quoted average .91, and the standard error is four points. The Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale by John G. Watkins and Stephen Farnum is a series of musical exercises ofrincreas- ing difficulty presented for instrumental sight reading. The level of performance is determined by the number of errors made. Any error in a bar of music cancels the one point for that bar. Factors of music performance evaluated are pitch, tempo, length of note, expression, slurs, rests, pauses, and repeats. The student is stopped when he fails to score in two consecutive exercises. Metronome markings 43 are indicated for each exercise. Reliability coeffi- cients are from .87 to .94. Validity coefficients based on correlation with instructor ratings range from .68 to .87. I The Elementary Music Achievement Test by Richard Colwell contains three subtests: (l) pitch discrimina- tion, (2) interval discrimination, (3) meter discrimina- tion. A solo performance of each item is presented by phonograph recording. The reliability coefficient is reported as .88 (N = 7,710: SD = 10.41). Validity based on correlation with teacher ratings is .92 (N = 1,893). The warner Scale 9; Social Status contains scales for ratings of the following factors: (1) occupation of parent(s), (2) source of income (not used in this study), (3) houSe type, (4) dwelling area. Each of the four ratings is assigned a specific weight, then totaled for the final score. The reported multiple intercorrelation coefficient of the factors included in the scale is .972. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of structured practice with tape-recorded pro- gramed materials. The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of the study and analysis of the data procured in the course of the investigation. The data presented herein forms the basis for accepting or rejecting the hypothesis stated in Chapter I. Pre-Test Data Means and standard deviations of independent vari- ables for the experimental population are shown in Table II. The standard deviation for the Elementary Music Achievement Test shown in Tables II, III, and IV seem to be in agreement with the statistics reported on page 43. 44 (n 45 Table 11. Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables for the Sample (N = 52) Variables Mean S.D. Elementary Music Achievement Test I 57.55 9.74 Warner Scale of Social Status 23.69 6.68 Otis Quick-Scoring Beta Test 111.03 10.82 The number fifty-two represents subjects who par— ticipated in the entire experiment. Some students did not complete the experiment because of extended illness,_ drOpping from instrumental study, or moving to another city. Dichotomization of scores in each variable took place at the mean. A high social status score denotes low status; a low score denotes high status. Tables III and IV contain means and standard deviations of randomly selected experimental and con— trol groups. The means and standard deviations show no significant difference to exist between experimental and control groups. The 1.0. means and standard deviations seem to be slightly higher than normal. © 1971 Vito Puopolo ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 46 Table III. Means and Standard Deviations of Control Group (N = 25) Variable Mean S.D. 'Music Achievement 55.32 8.83 Social Status 24.04 5.89 1.0. 110.88 10.42 Table IV. Means and Standard Deviations of Experimental Group (N = 27) Variable Mean S.D. Music Achievement 59.62 10.08 Social Status 23.37 7.32 1.0. 111.18 11.17 Although not a primary purpose of this study, relationships between the independent variables was a question of interest. Correlation of independent variables is shown in Table V. 47 Table V. Correlations of Independent Variables (N =‘ 52) Variable Correlation Coefficient Music Achievement and Social Status .014 <<: P .05 Music Achievement and 1.0. .264 <<: I? .05 Social Status and 1.0. .255 < p .05 Analysis of Data Relative to Method of Practice and Performance Achievement The dependent variable, performance achievement on cornet or trumpet, Pegformance Scale. was measured by the Watkins-Farnum Table VI contains the means and standard deviations of performance achievement scores for the experimental group and control group. 48 Table VI. Means and Standard Deviations of Cornet Performance Achievement Scores* N Mean S.D. Experimental 27 31.41 19.59 Control 25 15.12 12.42 *Watkins—Farnum Performance Scale The standard deviations reveal greater homogeneity in the control group (raw scores range from 1 to 50) than the experimental group (raw scores range from 4 to 77). The mean difference of 16.29 between experimental and control groups is significant beyond the .01 level of confidence, yielding a E'of 3.6. This significance is ascertained by the resultant main effect of the two-way analysis of variance treatments shown in Tables VIII, X, and XII. The two—way analysis of variance treatments will test significance of the following: 1. Main effect - effect of programed practice upon cornet performance achievement. 2. The effect of each independent variable upon cornet performance achievement. 49 3. Interactions between programed practice and each of the independent variables in terms of cornet performance achievement. Analysis of Data Relative to Music Achievement and Method of Practice with Respect to Cornet Performance Achievement Table VII shows the means and standard deviations of performance achievement scores for above-average and below-average music achievement sub-groups. Table VII. Means and Standard Deviationscf Cornet Performance Achievement Scores for Music Achievement Sub-Groups Music Achievement _Experimental Group_ Control Group N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. Above-Average 16 33.18 22.82 9 26.0 14.08 Belowaverage 11 28.81 13.24 16 8.93 5.23 Means for the experimental sub—groups are signifi- cantly greater than means for the corresponding control sub-groups. The mean difference in cornet performance achievement between the experimental above-average music 50 achievement sub-group and the below-average music achievement sub-group is not significant. The mean difference in cornet performance achievement between the control above-average and below-average music achievement sub-groups seems to be significant. Further analysis of data is accomplished through a two-way analysis of variance treatment. Results are shown in Table VIII. Table VIII. Analysis of Variance of Performance Achievement by Level of Music Achievement and Method of Practice Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Variance Freedom Squares Square F Statistic Level of Music Achievement 1 1,788.92 1,788.92 5.56* .Method of Practice 1 4,266.11 4,266.11 13.33** Interaction 1 291.00 291.00 .91 Within 48 11,364.82 Total 51 17,710.85 *Significant at the .05 level **Significant at the .01 level 51 A null statement of the main hypothesis that structured practice with programed tapes would not produce a signi- ficant difference in performance achievement as compared with unstructured, non—programed practice is rejected. The F value of 13.33 for method of practice exceeds the .01 level of confidence. The null hypothesis that no significant difference in cornet performance achievement would occur between stu- dents of above-average music achievement and those of below~average music achievement is rejected. The F value of 5.56 for level of music achievement exceeds the .05 level of confidence. In attempting to pinpoint the sig- nificant difference, a t-test was used to compare the control above—average and below-average music achievement sub—groups. The 2 value was 2.71, which exceed the .05 level and is very close to the .01 level of confidence. The null hypothesis that no significant interaction would occur between music achievement and programed prac~ tice with respect to performance achievement must be accepted. The F value of .91 for interaction is not significant. Analysis of Data Relative to Social Status and Method of Practice with Respect to Performance Achievement 52 Table IX shows the means and standard deviations of performance achievement scores for above-average and below-average social status sub-groups. Table IX. Means and Standard Deviations of Performance Achievement Scores for Social Status Sub—Groups Experimental Group Control Group Soc1al Status N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. Above-Average 14 36.07 20.64 14 14.64 10.22 Below-Average 13 26.30 17.10 11 16.90 12.75 Experimental sub-group means seem to be signifi— cantly higher than the corresponding control sub-group means. The experimental above—average social status sub-group scored higher than the below-average social status sub-group. The control group below—average social status sub-group scored higher than the above— average sub-group. Significance of the mean differences is determined by a two—way analysis of variance treat- ment. The results of the two-way analysis of variance are presented in Table X. 53 Table X. Analysis of Variance of Performance Achieve- ment by level of Social Status and Method of Practice Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean F Variance Freedom Squares Square Stat. Level of . Social Status 1 486.20 486.20 1.85 Method of . Practice 1 4,412.41 4,412.41 l6.76** Interaction 1 540.50 540.50 2.05 Within 48 12,643.22 263.41 Total 51 18,082.33 **Significant at the .01 level A null statement of the main hypothesis that struc- tured practice with programed tapes would not produce a significant difference in performance achievement as com- pared with unstructured, non-programed practice is rejected. The P value of 16.76 for method of practice exceed the .01 level of confidence. The null hypothesis that no significant difference in performance achievement would occur between students of above-average social status and those of below—average social status is not refuted. The value of 1.85 for level of social status is below the .05 level of confi— 54 dence. The t-test, employed for further analysis yields a §_va1ue of 1.29 for experimental group and .79 for control group, both far below the .05 level of confi— dence. The null hypothesis that no significant interaction would occur between social status and programed practice with respect to performance achievement is not disproven. The F value of 2.05 for interaction is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. Analysis of Data Relative to 1.0. and Method of Practice with Respect to Performance Achievement Table XI shows the means and standard deviations of performance achievement scores for above-average and below-average 1.0. sub-groups. The small standard de— viation for the experimental below-average sub-groups implies a greater homogeneity of variance than the other sub-groups. (fl U1 Table XI. Means and Standard Deviation of Performance Achievement Scores for 1.0. Sub—Groups I Experimental Group Control Group '0' N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. Above-Average 14 26.15 17.09 12 19.75 15.15 Below-Average 13 42.33 2.26 13 10.70 7.04 Experimental sub-group means seem to be signifi- cantly higher than corresponding control sub-group means. Of the control group, the above-average sub-group scored higher in performance achievement than the below-average sub-group. Of the experimental group, it is interesting to note that the below-average sub-group scored higher in performance achievement than the above—average sub— group. Significance of the mean differences is deter- mined by a two-way analysis of variance technique. The results of the two-way analysis of variance are presented in Table XII. Table XII. 56 Analysis of Variance of Performance Achieve- ment by Level of I.Q. and Method of Practice f Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean F Variance Freedom Squares Square Statistic Level of I.Q. l 96.92 96.92 .38 Method of Practice 1 4,266.11 4,266.11 l7.07** Interaction 1 1,350.60 1,350.60 5.40* Within 48 11,997.21 249.94 Total 51 17,710.84 *Significant at the **Significant at the .01 level A null statement of .05 level the main hypothesis that structured practice with programed tapes would not produce a signi- ficant difference in performance achievement as compared with unstructured, non-programed practice is again rejected. The P value of 17.07 for method of practice exceeds the .01 level of confidence. The null hypothesis that no significant difference in performance achievement would occur between students 57 of above-average 1.0. and thosecf below-average 1.0. is not refuted. The P value of .38 for level of I.Q. is of no significance. The null hypothesis that no significant inter- action would occur between 1.0. and programed practice is rejected. The F value for interaction exceeds the .05 level of confidence. Further evidence for the rejection of the null hypothesis is supplied through application of the t-test. Although comparison of the control sub-group yields an insignificant t_va1ue of 1.81, experimental sub-group comparison produces a_§ value of 3.51, exceeding the .01 level of confidence. Additional Analysis of Data Regarding Programed Practice and Independent Variables Graphing mean scores of sub—groups demonstrates the interactions between programed practice and each of the independent variables. 58 Aaouucoo u o “Houcmsauwmxm u xv .0.H mdumum ucwEm>mH£o¢ Hmwoom cams: Jr .\0 0H ma ON mu on mm ov mv Aaouucoo n o “amucmswuomxm .O.H msumum amwoom ucmEm>0fl£o< cams: xv 0H ma ON mm on mm ov m? mmsouounsm omnuo>¢nzoaum unuso sawuoououcH >HX manna unsouonnsm omsuo>¢to>on< uuuno :Owuuuuoucu HHHN manna Performance Achievement Scores 59 The only significant interaction found, is that between 1.0. and programed practice. Table XV presents a graphic view of this particular interaction. Table XV. Interaction Between 1.0. and Programed Practice 45 - 4O - 3O - 25 - 20 - 10 - I.Q. Scores Above Below Average Average (x = experimental; o = control) 60 Another view of relationships between independent variables and performance achievement, and effects of programed practice is provided through correlations. The coefficients for product—moment correlations between performance achievement and each of the independent vari- ables are presented in Table XVI. Table XVI. Correlations Between Performance Achievement and Independent Variables Correlation Coefficients Variable Control Group Experimental Group Music Achievement .480* .330 Social Status -.080 .142 1.0. .385* -.182 *Significant at the .05 level The correlation coefficients do not differ substan— tially from control to experimental groups for both music achievement and social status. The coefficients shown for 1.0. are of particular interest. The control group corre- lation with performance achievement is a significant value of .385: for experimental group it is a nonsignificant value of -.182. The considerable difference between .385 61 for the control group and -.182 for the experimental group seems to be a result of the significant inter- action in terms of cornet performance achievement between I.Q., and programed practice. Attitudes of the Experimental Group Toward Programed Practice A questionnaire administered to members of the experimental group revealed the following attitudes: 1. Everyone preferred the programed method of practice to traditional non-programed practice. 2. Eighty-nine percent believed that the lesson material moved rather slowly. This seemed to be more of a reflection upon lesson material than upon format. Lesson material was geared to the progress of the band class as a whole, though programed practice increased the learning speed of the experimental group students. 3. About eighty percent preferred more playing and less listening to verbal explanations. 4. All believed they were profiting by programed practice. 62 Summary The main objective of this chapter was to make statistical analyses of data related to the effect of structured, programed practice upon performance achieve- ment of beginning elementary cornet and trumpet students. The relationship of programed practice to each indepen- dent variable, (music achievement, social status, I.Q.) and the relationship of each independent variable to performance achievement (dependent variable) were also areas of much interest. The main hypothesis and six accompanying null hypotheses were tested in the analysis of the data by means of a two-way analysis of variance treatment. Results of each two-way analysis of variance were further supported and clarified by application of t-tests and correlations. The following realizations were evident after computation of data treatment: 1. There was a statistically significant differ- ence in cornet performance achievement between students of the experimental group and those of the control group. 2. Within the control group, there was a statis- tically significant difference in cornet per- 63 formance achievement between the above—average music achievement and below-average music achievement sub-groups. No statistically significant interaction occurred between programed practice and music achievement with respect to cornet performance achievement. With regard to cornet performance achievement, the difference between students of above-average social status and those of below-average social status was not statistically significant. No statistically significant interaction occurred between programed practice and social status in terms of cornet performance achievement. The difference in cornet performance achievement between students of above—average I.Q. and those of below—average I.Q. sub—groups was not statis— tically significant. Interaction occurring between programed prac- tice and I.Q. with respect to cornet performance achievement was statistically significant. Cornet performance achievement and I.Q. scores of students practicing in the traditional non— programed manner showed a significant positive 64 correlation. However, students using the programed mode of practice showed a non— significant negative correlation to exist between cornet performance achievement and I.Q. The difference in correlation seems to be an effect of the interaction between I.Q. and programed practice. Students of the experimental group expressed satisfaction with programed practice. More active response and less listening was requested by the more advanced students. CHAPTER V Summary, Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations This study investigated the feasibility of structured, programed practice with tape-recorded materials and its effect upon the performance achievement of beginning ele- mentary cornet and trumpet students. The main purpose of the study was to facilitate the teaching and learning of instrumental performance through the application of pro- gramed procedure to individual practice. Specific pur- poses were: (1) to determine the effect of programed practice upon performance achievement, (2) to determine the relationships of music achievement, social status, and I.Q. with both programed practice and performance achievement. The main hypothesis was that structured practice with recorded tapes containing programed material would produce a significant difference in cornet performance achievement as compared with unstructured, non-programed practice. There were six accompanying null hypotheses: 1. There would be no significant difference in 65 66 performance achievement between students of above-average music achievement and those of below-average music achievement. 2. There would be no significant interaction between music achievement and programed practice with respect to performance achievement. 3. There would be no significant difference in per— formance achievement between students of above- average social status and those of below—average social status. 4. There would be no significant interaction between social status and programed practice with respect to performance achievement. 5. There would be no significant difference in per— formance achievement between students of above- average I.Q. and those of below-average I.Q. 6. There would be no significant interaction between I.Q. and programed practice with respect to per- formance achievement. A review'of literature related to programed learning in music performance revealed a concentration of research in aural perception as an isolated area. Meaningful study has been conducted in the area of aural—visual perception 67 in relation to conducting. Very little has been done with sight—singing. Research relating to programed learning in instru— mental performance with aural materials is in its pre- liminary stages. Except for some implications from three pilot studies, no evidence yet exists dealing with pro- gramed practice and performance achievement. There is no statistical evidence relating to the re- lationship between instrumental performance and I.Q. A Survey of music educators reveals that music achievement and 1.0. are heavily relied upon in recruitment of instru- mental students. A study of programed learning in the area of spelling with elementary students found a rather high correlation between 1.0. and spelling which was elimi- nated with the introduction of programed learning. This discovery is paralleled by an outcome of the present study concerning I.Q. performance and programed practice. All studies dealing with aural and aural-visual per— ception found programed instruction or drill to be signi- ficantly more effective than non-programed instruction or drill. Pilot studies dealing with instrumental perform- ance found programed instruction to be feasible. Existent evidence showed programed instruction in instrumental per- 68 formance to be promising. Fifty-two fifth grade male first-year cornet and trumpet students were equated according to music achieve- ment, social status and 1.0., and randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The three independent variables were measured by the Elementary Music Achieve- __m__e_r_i_t_ leg; 933, the Warner Scale 9; Social Status, and the 9_t_i_._§ M—Scoring 93353 '_1'_e_§_t_ jg; Grades 4:2. The Watkins- Farnum Performance‘ggglg was employed as the post-test. For ten weeks, experimental and control groups prac- ticed the same lessons. Mode of practice was the only difference between the two groups. The experimental group practiced with programed self—instructional tape-recordings: the control group practiced without the self—instructional recordings. Two—Way analysis of variance, t-test, and correlation were the statistical procedures used in testing the hypothe— ses set forth in Chapter I. Findings Hypotheses were tested pertaining to certain out- comes: (1) the effect of programed practice upon per— formance achievement, (2) the interaction between pro- 69 gramed practice and music achievement, social status, and I.Q., (3) the relationship of performance achieve- ment to music achievement, social status, and I.Q. 1. In terms of performance achievement, structured practice with programed material produced a dif- ference as compared with non-prognamed material. The difference was statistically significant at the .01 level of confidence. Performance achievement of the above—average music achievement sub-group, compared with that of the below-average sub-group showed a differ- ence which was statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence. Interaction between music achievement and pro- gramed practice, in terms of performance achieve- ment, was not statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence. Performance achievement of the above-average social status sub-group, compared with that of the below—average social status sub-group, did not show a difference which was statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence. Interaction between social status and programed 7O practice, in terms of performance achievement, was not statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence. 6. Performance achievement of the above-average I.Q. sub—group, compared with that of the below-average sub-group did not show a difference which was statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence. 7. Interaction between 1.0. and programed practice, in term of performance achievement, was statis- tically significant at the .05 level of confi— dence. 8. Correlation of 1.0. with performance achievement was significant at the .05 level of confidence for the control group, and of negligible signi— ficance for the experimental group. This find— 1 ing is supported by Porter. (See Chapter 11.) Conclusions Based upon an analysis of the outcomes of this inves— Douglas Porter,'Some Effects of Year Long Teaching Machine Instruction," Automatic Teaching: The State 9§_ ‘thguégg, ed. Eugene Galenter, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959, pp. 85-90. 71 tigation, the following conclusions are admissible: 1. When beginning instrumentalists practice with lesson material structured in a taped, self- instructional format as described in this study, a substantial increase of efficiency is noted. This efficiency in learning and applying nec- essary music performance concepts and skills is significantly evident in actual instrumental performance. 2. Students of above-average music achievement exhibit significantly greater performance achievement than students of below-average music achievement. When programed practice is included, however, students of above-average music achievement exhibit no significant dif- ference in performance achievement from stu- dents of below-average music achievement. It may be assumed that above-average music achieve- ment is not necessary for performance achievement. 3. There is no significant difference in perform- ance achievement between students of above— average and below-average social status. The inclusion of programed practice causes no sig- 72 nificant difference. With students using the conventional non-pro- gramed mode of practice there is no significant difference in performance achievement between those of above-average I.Q. and those of below- average I.Q. With students using the programed mode of practice those of below-average I.Q. seem to exhibit greater performance achievement than those of above-average I.Q. It may be assumed that with programed practice, above- average I.Q. is not necessary for performance achievement. In fact, students of below-average I.Q. may exhibit equal or greater performance achievement than those of below-average I.Q. There is a positive relationship between I.Q. and performance achievement. However, almost no relationship exists between I.Q. and perform- ance achievement when programed practice is used. This may be attributed to the signifi— cant interaction between I.Q. and programed practice in terms of performance achievement. 73 Implications of Programed Practice The adoption of a programed method of individual practice, such as the format described in this study, could have the following implications for instrumental music education: 1. More efficient, rapid growth in performance achievement - with above-average I.Q. and especially belowbaverage I.Q. students. Higher level of performance for elementary instrumental groups. More class time can be devoted to rehearsal, and less time devoted to correction of indi— vidual problems caused by inefficient practice. Pinkerton,2 (See Chapter 11) reports that in- structors rely entirely upon music achieve- ment and 1.0. ratings as criteria for selection of instrumental students. Students no longer need be rejected on the basis of that criteria. With programed practice, a student of below— average 1.0. or music achievement can achieve 2 , Frank W; Pinkerton, "Talent Tests and Their Appli- cation to the Public School Program,” Journal g; Research .ig Music Education, XI (Spring, 1963), pp. 75-80. 74 comparatively as well in performance as the student who is above-average in those areas. It is recognized that a certain minimum level in music achievement and 1.0. is required for performance achievement. Frustration of better students with slow group progress can be eliminated, thus reducing drop— out percentage. Discouragement of students of below-average I.Q. or music achievement, can be eliminated, thereby reducing drop-out percentage. Greater performance achievement of students may beget higher standards as consumers of music. Outcomes of this study may occur at other levels of instrumental study with older stu- dents. Recommendations In view of this study, a similar investigation to include subjects of lower I.Q. and music achievement is recommended. Such an investi- 75 gation may determine the minimum levels of 1.0. and music achievement necessary for mean— ingful performance achievement — with and with- out programed practice. 2. A similar study should be made at other levels of instrumental study to determine whether the effects of programed practice hold true at all ages and levels of instrumental study. 3. A study should be made of the interaction between programed practice and I.Q. A compari— son shoild be made between linear and branched techniques of programed practice in terms of this interaction. 4. A study should be made investigating reasons for the interaction between 1.0. and programed practice. Summary This chapter has summarized the study, presented findings, conclusions, implications, and has uncovered promising problems for further research. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Benn, Oleta A. "Excellence in Elementary Music Programs," Perspectives ig_Music Education, p. 252. ed. ' Bonnie C. Knowall. washington, D.C.: M.E.N.C., 1966. Best, John W. Research ig Education. Englewood Cliffs, New'Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1959. Gagne, Rdbert M. The Conditions‘gg Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. Garner, W. Lee. Programed Instruction. New Yerk: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966. Lefever, D. welty, in Oscar Buros (ed.). The Fifth Mental Measurement Yearbook. Highland Park, New'Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1959. p. 497. Miller, D. C. Handbook 2; Research Design and Social Measurements. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1964. Porter, Douglas. ”Some Effects of Year Long Teaching .Machine Instruction," Automatic Teaching: The State _o_f_ the _A_1_:_§_, pp. 85-90. ed. Eugene Galanter. New'Ybrk: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1963. Warner, W. Lloyd,.Marchia Meeker, and Kenneth Eells, Social Class :12 America: A Manual 3f Procedure for the Measurement g§_Socia1 Status. New YOrk:l Harper 5 Brothers, 1960. wert, James E., Charles Neidt, and J. Ahmann, Statistical Methods ig_Educationa1 and Psychological Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954. 76 I I’ll.i. I 77 Wing, Herbert D, in Oscar Buros (ed.). The Fifth Mental‘ Measurement Yearbook. Highland Park, New'Jersey: Gryphon Press. 1959. p. 387. Periodicals Carlsen, James C. "Implications of Recent Research Problems in Programmed Music Instruction," Council.£g£ Research. 2 Music Education, Bulletin No. 4 (Winter, 1965), 30-35. Deihl, Ned C. and Rudolf Radocy. "Computer-Assisted Instruction: Potential for Instrumental Music Education," Council fg£_Research 13 Music Educa- tion, Bulletin No. 15 (Winter, 1969), 2-7. Goldiamond, Israel, and Stanley Pliskoff. "Music Education and the Rationale Underlying Programmed Instruc— tion,” Music Educators Journal, LI, No. 4 (Feb- ruaryeMarch, 1965), 43-47. Holmstrom, Lars-Gunnas, "Intelligence vs. Progress in *w—w Education, XVII, No. 1 (Spring, 1969), 76-87. Ihrke, Walter R. "Automated Music Training," Journal gf Research ig,Music Education, XI, No. 1 (Spring, 1963), 3-20. Kanable, Betty. "An Experimental Study Comparing Pro— gramed Instruction with Classroom Teaching of flwflm Education, XVII, No. 2 (Summer, 1969), 217-226. La Bach, Parker. "A Device to Facilitate Learning of Basic Music Skills,“ Council for Research 13 Music Education, Bulletin No. 4 (Winter, 1965), 7-10. Pinkerton, Frank W. ”Talent Tests and Their Application to the Public School Program,“ Journal g; Research iggMusic Education, XI, No. 1 (Spring, 1963), 75-80 0 78 "Research Projects in Music Supported by the U.S. Office of Education," Music Educators Journal, LI, No. 3 (January, 1965), 38—39. Spohn, Charles L. "Music: An Important Subject for Learn— ing Research," Council for Research in_Music Education, Bulletin No. 1 (June, 1963), 11-17. Spohn, Charles L. "Programming the Basic Materials of Music for Self-Instructional Development of Aural Skills," Journal g; Research ig_Music Education, XL, No. 2 (Fall, 1963), 91-98. Unpublished Material Carlsen, James C. "An Investigation of Programmed Learn- ing in Melodic Dictation by Means of a Teaching Machine Using a Branching Technique of Program- ming." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, North— western University, 1962. Puopolo, Vito. "The Structuring of Practice Materials on Tape." Unpublished pilot study, Michigan State University, 1966. Puopolo, Vito. "The Development of Materials for the Structuring and Programing of Individual Prac- tice of Beginning Instrumentalists." Unpublished pilot study, Alcorn A. & M. College, 1968. Spohn, Charles L. ”An Exploration in the Use of Recorded Teaching Material to Develop Aural Comprehension in College Music Classes.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1959. Reports La Bach, Parker. "Pilot Project for Development of a Device to Facilitate Learning of Basic Musical Skills." Progress report submitted to the Department of Health Education and Welfare, Co— .operative Research Branch, Washington, 1966. 79 Sidnell, Robert G. "The Development of Self-Instruc- tional Drill Materials to Facilitate the Growth of Score Reading Skills of Student Con- ductors." Final Report to U.S. Department of Health, Education,and welfare, Office of Educa- tion, Bureau of Research, Washington, 1968. APPENDIX A 80 81 TEN WEEKLY PROGRAMED LESSONS, TAPED Definition of Terms Model performance - The taped performance by trumpet with piano accompaniment and vocal counting, of the piece, phrase, or measure to be played. Response - The student's performance of the piece, phrase, or measure under study. The student performs along with the taped piano accompaniment and vocal counting. Reinforcement - The model performance repeated, to which the student can compare his own performance. Response- Reinforcement - The student plays along with the model performance and compares while playing. Practice Tape One This is practice tape one. We will begin this les— son with a warm-up on the chromatic scale. Turn in your 82 book to the page on which you have the chromatic scale stapled. Listen very carefully now as we play. Try to keep your finger under each note as we perform it. Ready, listen. (model performance) CHROMATIC SCALE .13 I Did you notice that the C# and the Db have the same fingering? So do the D# and Eb, the F# and Gb, the G# and Ab, and also the A# and Eb. Now you play the chromatic scale. Don't blow loudly: instead, concentrate on buzzing the lips as smoothly as possible. Ready, play. (response) Now we will all play it together - our piano player, our trumpet player, and you. I will also count the beats for you as you play. Here we go now. One, two, ready, play. (response - reinforcement) Please turn now to page 27. This page deals with 8th notes which are usually played two to one beat. Listen very carefully now as we play number 159. Follow with your finger under each note as we play. Ready, 83 listen. (model performance) glz.+34ll*'3 ’2"3 1 +34 4 /.z+34 / 2+3412+345toa I 21+13 Now our trumpet player will rest and let you play the first measure. The first measure only, now. Here we go, ready, play. (response) I1 + 3 4510?. Did you play two 8th notes to the second beat? Was it exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) The next measure is quite the same except for the half— note following the two 8th notes. Ready, listen. (model performance) l l J I 41‘} 334.3flflfl It was one step higher and had the same rhythm except for that half note. Remember to hold the half note for the counts of three and four. Play the second measure now. Ready, play. (response) Did you do it exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) 84 Now let's play the first two measures together. Our trumpet player will play with you. Ready, play. (re- sponse-reinforcement) I 1_* 33.4 I 2.4» 3'4 Stan The rhythm is exactly the same in the next two measures, with the notes going a step higher each mea— sure. Listen carefully now to the next two measures. Ready, listen. (model performance) Now you play. Ready, play. (response) Did you play the 8th notes correctly? Did you play the half note correctly? If you did, it was exactly like this. (reinforcement) The next two measures have the same counting again. Ready, listen. (model performance) [2+3‘15toP. 0 2w} 3 Did you notice in the first of those two measures we had a Bb. The Bb was played on the count of four in that measure. It is a Bb because of the flat in the key signature. Listen to that measure only now. Ready, 85 listen. (model performance) I 2.+' E? 4 fifibfi Now you play that measure. Ready, play. (response) Now play that measure and the one following — those two measures together. Ready, play. (response) Did you also remember that note? The next two measures again have the same rhythm as before. Ready, listen. (model performance) I -1 f 53‘4 I 2.+ 3'4 jfivfl In the measure before the end, the fourth beat went up to A before coming down to F in the last mea— sure. Now you play those last two measures. Ready, play. (response) Was it exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now let's play all together, from the beginning and all the way through. One, two, ready, play. (response—reinforcement) Now look at number 160. Notice that the two 8th notes are on the third beat this time. Ready, listen. (model performance) 86 4 [1 3+4 l13 7““) 1234-4 13+ [13+ [23? [2. 3+4 [131135902 There is no flat on the key signature; so we played B’this time. Listen carefully to the rhythm of the first measure as we play. Ready, listen. (model performance) 1,1 3 +-‘1 SuTL This is the count we will follow all the way through. The only exception will be the measures with the dotted half note and quarter rest. Now you try to play the whole thing from the beginning. (response) Did you play the B instead of the Bb? Did you hold the dotted half notes for three beats and rest on the fourth beat where indicated? Play it through with our trumpet player and see if you are doing everything exactly the same as he is. Now look at number 161 and be ready to follow with your finger under each note. Ready,listen. (model performance) I .2 3+4+ I 1341+2f'34/23r3535top, ‘53 7 This time the 8th notes were played on the third beat and the fourth beat, making it a group of four 8th notes. Listen now to the first measure only. Ready, listen. (model performance) I ; ; 2'. 3 +4 + 5t”. Now you play that first measure. Ready, play. (response) The next measure is a step higher. The count— ing for this measure is quite easy. Ready, listen. (model performance) 1 - I 1 3 4 5‘0?- Now listen to the first two measures together. Ready, listen. {rode} performance) I J 11 I l I 1 ' I I I Now you play the first two measures. Ready, play. (response) Did you play those first two measures exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) The next two measures start on high E. Listen very carefully to these next two measures. Ready, listen. (model performance) 88 I23+p4+ I .z 3 45“}; Your bottom lip should be very hard when you play that high E. On that measure with the four quarter notes, it goes down from high E to D and C then it slurs down to G. Remember that slur. You will play these two measures now. Ready, play. (response) Did you do it exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) The next two measures are exactly like the first two measures in this exercise, so let's look at the last two measures. Notice now in the next to last measure, that the 8th notes are on a different part of the mea— sure. Let's listen to that measure alone. Ready, lis- ten. (model performance) III! I [4.1+ .3 4 5‘”. You try that measure now, remembering to make your bottom lip very hard for that high E. Ready, play. (response) Did you play the 8th notes correctly? If so, it was just like this. Ready, listen. (reinforce- ment) Now we will do the last two measures together. Ready, listen. (model performance) 89 Ir .7. + 3 .4 11 3*“‘25*°?‘ Now you try those last two measures together. Be ready for that high E. Here we go, ready, play. (re— sponse) Did you play those 8th notes correctly, now? Did you hold the C in the last measure for three beats and rest on the fourth beat? If you played it correctly, you sounded exactly like this. (reinforcement) Now let's play the whole exercise from beginning. You will play it alone now accompanied by our piano player. One, two, ready, play. (response) Now our trumpet player will join you. We will all play it to- gether. Try to make no mistakes. Here we go, one, two, ready, play. (response-reinforcement) Now, look at number 162. Here we also have groups of four 8th notes. They do not stay on the same pitch though, this time. The 8th notes move back and forth between two pitches. Listen very carefully, keeping your eyes glued to the music. Listen now as we do it for you; ready, listen. (model performance) 90 I+2+ 341~r1+34 12312.51; 34 4 1 .2 3 flséstaa Now listen very carefully as we do the first mea- sure for you, the first measure only. Listen very care- fully, try to notice everything that we do. Ready, listen. (model performance) We moved up and back between the C and D to those four 8th notes. Then we went from the C up to the D on the quarter notes, giving one beat each. Now you try that first measure alone. Ready, play. (response) Maybe that was a little too fast. Let's try it a little slower, so you can concentrate on exactly what you're doing here now. A little slower, one,two, ready, play. (response: response, slightly faster; response, faster; response, a tempo) Did you do it exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) 91 Now let's look at the next measure. Again, this moves back and forth between two different pitches, to the same rhythm as the first measure. Listen very care- fully now to that second measure. Ready, listen. (model performance) ) Ifaf-B‘Ist‘“ Now you try it. Ready, play. (response) Maybe we should slow this one down a little bit also to give you a chance to get the correct fingering there - keep your fingers moving. Let's try it slowly now. we'll do it very slow, about this tempo — one, two, ready, play. (response, slow) Let's do it again. Ready, play. (response, slightly faster) Again, ready, play. (response, slightly faster) Again, ready, play. (response, a tempo) Did you do it exactly like this? Ready, listen, (rein- forcement) Now let's look at the next two measures. we have exactly the same thing in the next measure except on two different notes, and then we have a dotted half note followed by a rest. Here we go, ready, listen. (model performance) 1+2 *3 4 1.7.3 "555:”, 92 Now you try those two measures. Ready, play. (response) Maybe we should slow that down a little bit. Alright, here we go, ready, play. (response, slow; response, slightly faster: response, a tempo) If you did it correctly, it sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) I hope you're tonguing each of these notes very carefully, that you are giving a good clear tonguing to each note. Now as we go on, the next two measures are just like what we had played before, so we'll jump on ahead to the last two measures of this little piece - the lasttwo measures. Listen care— fully as we play those last two measures. Ready, listen. (model performance) I+2+ 4 113””) Now you play those last two measures. Here we go, ready,;1ay. (response) Let's slow these two measures down a bit also - give you a chance to work that out. Here we go, ready, play. (response, slow) You're playing B now, we hope. Let's try it again. Ready, play. (response, faster) If you did it correctly, it sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now let's try it all the way through from the beginning. Our trumpet player will also join you, so 93 we'll all be doing it together. Right from the begin- ning now, starting on that low C. Here we go, one, two, ready, play. (reSponse-reinforcement) This completes practice tape one. Practice Tape Two This is practice tape two. We will warm up on the Ascending C Chromatic Scale in half notes this time. Ready, listen. (model performance) :- l J I .2 510?. ;_|.l) 1.! C3»ihl.1 I 1.! 1 0 Instead of blowing air out between the lips, think more of the lips doing the buzzing. Tongue each note clearly, whispering the word "tu" or "ta" each time you do it. Ready, play. (response) Did you sound exactly like this? (reinforcement) Now turn to page 35 to the top line of section A. The first two measures are lip slurs on Open G and open C. To slur up to C, you will harden the bottom lip. To slur back to G, you will soften the bottom lip slightly. There is no tonguing involved. Your lips will continue buzzing all the way through. Ready, listen. (model performance) 94 / \1 ,5374 1.1345”? Now you try it. Ready, play. (response) Did you do it exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now let's take the next two measures. This is a lip Slur between the F# and B. The second valve is kept down all the way through. Ready, listen. (model per- formance) ' 2 34 320’. .1 3 I Now you play it. Ready, play. (response) Did you play it exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) The next two measures are lip slurs on the first valve, between F and Bb. Ready, listen. (model performance) I 2. 3 .1 I _z :34! StoR Now you play it. Ready, play. (response) Did you sound exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now turn back to page 24. We will now perform Eggp- port March. Notice that there is one flat in the key signature. Do not forget the repeat signs. First trum— pets only: (on separate tape) You have rehearsed this 95 piece several times in band class; so you already know how it goes. We will play it and you play along with us to see if you are playing it the same as we are. Ready, play. (response-reinforcement) ' EASTPORT MARCH 96 Did you take both repeats? If you did, you stayed with us. If you lost your place, perhaps you forgot to repeat. Second trumpets: (on separate tape, same pro- cedure as above, alto line) Now turn to page 27 to number 164, entitled Pglly Welly Doodle. Notice the flat in the key signature. Also notice that this piece begins on the fourth beat. Listen to the pick ups and the first two measures only. Ready, listen. (model performance) I 2 3 4 Sto?, :2 I .3 4+ Now you play it. Ready, play. (response) Did you play the eighth notes correctly? Did you slur correctly? If you did, you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now take measure three, and stop at the rest in measure four. Ready, listen. (model performance) ( 2 NOSE, Ste}, Now play it. Ready, play. (response) Was it exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) 97 Now let's start with the next two 8th notes and continue through measures 5 and 6. Ready, listen. (model perform- ance) 4,,134‘1/2345np. Now you play it. Ready, play. (response) Did you remember the slurs? Was it exactly like this? Ready, listen. .(reinforcement) Now listen to the last two measures. Ready, listen. (model performance) Now you try it. Ready, play. (response) Did you sound exactly like this? (reinforcement) Now you will play it all the way through from the beginning. One, ready, play. (response) POLLY WOLLY DOODLY 4+].234+ l134/+.z+3+4r larestJ4+I2344-’234 z+z+3+1r ”~33”. Now play it again, together with our trumpet player. See if you are doing it exactly as he is. One, ready, play. (response-reinforcement) Our next piece will be from your other book entitled 98 First Performance. We are going to practice some of the march entitled Bugle Boy March. First trumpet only: (on separate tape) We are going to practice the section beginning at measure 14, taking the first ending, repeat— ing back from 14, repeating the whole section, taking the second ending this time and ending on the half note immediately following the second ending. Remember to tongue every single note. Our trumpet player is going to play with me. See if you are doing everything exactly like he is. Here we go at measure 14, one, two, ready, play. (response—reinforcement) @ ff 1.13112 4’ 23 4 ,2rngrvsrl/J34 1.134 I Did you play it exactly as he did? Did you remem— ber the F#, that it is the second valve? Second trum- pet: (same procedure as above, second part, on separate tape) A group of musicians will now perform that same section. All of the parts will be represented; flute, clarinet, trumpets, and trombone. You are to play along 99 with them. See if you can hold your own part. Don't forget the repeats. One, two, ready, play. (response— reinforcement) Did you play the F#s where they were indicated and did you follow the repeat sign? We will give you one more chance to play with our group. Remem- ber to follow the repeat sign and tongue each note. Ready, play. (response—reinforcement) First trumpets, if you played your part correctly, you sounded exactly like this. (reinforcement) Second trumpets, if you played your part correctly, you sounded exactly like this. (reinforcement) This completes practice tape two. Practice Tape Three This is practice tape three. We will warm up with the C ascending chromatic scale, this time in quarter notes. In four—four time, ready, listen. (model performance) tOR 1234’137’2’34’5 Now you play it. Ready, play. (response) Did you finger every note correctly? Did you buzz every single note? Did you tongue each note clearly? Let's 100 try it once more, together with our trumpet player, this time. Ready, play. (reSponse-reinforcement) Now turn to number 147, entitled Choral, on page 24. Notice the one flat in the key signature and the dynamic marking of pp - this means very soft. The main problem here is getting a breath without losing time. Notice the breath marks at the end of every two measures. First trumpets listen to the tOp line; second trumpets listen carefully to your part on the bottom line. Ready, listen. (model performance) CHORAL I l 3 '1 I J— 34 b""”‘°,~ " 2 3 ‘4 jb‘jhflo) '1 1.2 37/570,:(44/1'3 ‘I / J— 3 4 5‘03 Did you notice how our trumpet players were able to play this all the way through? They didn't have to stop and lose a count; they took their breaths very quickly, just before it was time to attack the next note. Now you are going to play it. See if you can do it that same way. Our trumpet players will join 101 you this time. You play it along with us; see if you can stay right with us. Remember now, the pp. - that means very soft. There is one flat in the key signa— ture; and you have those breath markings - you are to take them very quickly. Here we go - ready, play. (response-reinforcement) Did you take your breath very quickly, without losing any time from the count? Listen again as our two trumpet players perform it for you. One, two, ready, listen. (reinforcement) They took their breaths so quickly, that actually, you couldn't tell they were even breathing. Now turn to number 165 on page 27. This piece contains notes of many different values; quarter notes, half notes, dotted half notes, and many 8th notes. Remember that 8th notes are two to one beat. Listen carefully now. Ready, listen. (model performance) 165 4 I 2 + 340mat‘n3] 2,. 3 4 + / 2+ 3 fibreflbe) 1.1+ 34 +1 1+ 34bmtblr2+ 3 4 , l'gkest/StoP. 102 Listen now to the first two measures only. We will play them very slowly. (model performance) ll+34+il+34$toa Now you play those first two measures. Ready, play. (response, slow) Let's take it again. Ready, play. (response, slightly faster) Let's take it again, just a little faster. Ready, play. (response, a tempo) If you play it correctly, it sounded just like this. (reinforcement) Now listen very carefully as we perform for you, the next two measures — measures 3 and 4. Ready, listen. (model performance) 1 l,.__, + F a I 1 1 I'll . 1 1 1 a: 1 J 4 .1 I f ' {3:1 I l +- 3 ‘1 t- l l t 3 4 5130?. Now you try it. Ready, play. (response, slow) Again a little faster, ready, play. (response, slightly faster) Again, ready, play. (response, a tempo) If you played it correctly, you did it exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now we will do measures 5 and 6. Listen very carefully; ready, listen. (model performance) 103 ,1+34 + l243‘IS’0P. Now you try it. Ready, play. (response, slow; response, slightly faster; response, a tempo) If you Idid it correctly, it was exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now, measures 7 and 8. Ready, listen. (model performance) ,.1+ 3 4 ,g'3‘rest)5m Now you play these last two measures. Ready, play. (response, slow) We'll try it again. Ready, play. (response, sligntly faster) Once more, ready, play. (response, a tempo) The last two measures,if they were correct, sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now you play it all the way through from the beginning. Make sure you count these 8th notes correctly as you play. And be sure to take a quick breath at the end of every two measures — that is, right after each half note, you'll take a very quick breath before attacking the next note. From the beginning now, here we go, one, two, ready, play. 104 (reSponse) Did you do everything correctly? All the 8th notes, were they correct? Did you breath as you were suppose to? If you did, you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) We will do the whole thing through once more. This time you will play with us. Try to stay with us all the way through. Remember to breathe at the end of each two measures and to be able to come in right on the next beat. From the begin- ning, one two, ready, play. (response—reinforcement) Now turn to page 35 in your First Performance book. We are going to practice a section of the piece. ”Aloha Oe." We will begin on the half note before measure 37 on page 35. That half note is on the count of three. Listen very carefully as our first and second trumpets play it for you. First trumpets, follow along on your part; second trumpets, follow along on your part. Notice that there are two flats in the key signature, and in the fifth measure of the section, we have a sharp and some natural signs. Be ready. Ready, listen. (model performance) 105 1 3 4 I 1 3 234/ [.1 3 '4 I 34 1134 3 4 .2 3 quh 1 .z 3 4 I '2 I Now you will play with us. We have a whole group here to perform with us; a flute, trombone, two trumpets, and a clarinet. Follow along on your part; try not to get lost; watch those rests now from 37 until 41. Alright, we're going to come in right on the count of three, on that half note just before measure 37. Ready, play. (response-reinforcement) Did you observe the rests? In some measures you rested on 2 and 4, and in other measures you rested on 2 and 3. Be very observant of those rests. Watch again for your sharps, natural signs, and again be reminded that you have two flats in the key signature. We are going to do it once more. You'll play with us again. Be ready. Ready, play. (response—reinforcement) First trumpets, if you played your part correctly, you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Second trumpets, if you 106 played your part correctly, you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) This completes practice tape three. Practice Tape Four This is practice tape four. Today, let's begin our warmup with the chromatic scale ascending in quar— ter notes - about this tempo; one, two, three, four. Now you play it with our trumpet player. Ready, play. (response-reinforcement) 4- 1234 /134/1-34’5’°'7 Now go back. On each pitch, play the pattern of two 8th notes and a quarter. It would be counted one and two, one and two. Now you play this with our trum- pet player. One and two, ready, play. (response—rein— forcement) 2 I f / + 2- / f-l I + 2 /+-1- 1+ 2 I1-;2 5fifi§ Turn to page 28 in your Belwin book, in the middle of the page, to Rhythmic Variation, line 169. Line A is in plain quarter notes. Concentrate on a good attack 107 and buzzing your lips throughout the entire measure. Now you listen to our trumpet player do line A. One, two, ready, listen. (model performance) I 2 I 2 I 1 I .7. I .2 I 1 I , 2 I 2 570?, Now you play with our piano player. Line A, one, two, ready, play. (response) Did you buzz your lips? Did you have a pleasing attack? If you did exactly what you were told to do, you would have sounded like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now look at line B. This is the same tune, but in 8th notes. Listen as our trumpet player plays it for you. One and two, ready, listen. (model performance) ’f‘Zf-[fl‘f‘lf’l‘f/ 21+2+l+2+ I+2+12550P It takes two of these 8th notes to equal the same as one quarter note. Instead of holding the note all the way through the beat, you play two notes, like "one and.” Now let's try the first two measures. You listen as our trumpet player slows them down so you can tell where the 8th notes are. Ready, listen. (model per— formance) 1C8 I+1+ I f2+5m> Now you play with the piano, one and two, ready, play. (response) Now take those same two measures again; try to make them a little faster; make your attack clean. Ready, and play. (response) Did you use your tongue correctly? Let's go back and repeat them one more time. One and two, ready, play. (response, a tempo) If you did it correctly, you should have sounded like this. Ready, play. (reinforcement) Now look at the next two measures - that would be measures 3 and 4, on line B. Listen to our trumpet player as he plays these two measures for you. Ready, and listen. (model performance) [+41%- l lStOP. These two measures use both 8th notes and quarter notes. Notice that the third measure is 8th notes and the fourth measure is quarter notes. Now you go very slowly with these two measures. One and two and ready, play. (response) Now let's go over these two measures again. Make sure you are using your tongue correctly. “I"-.f‘l " '. 109 Ready and play. (response, slightly faster) Now one moretime - and you listen very carefully to yourself. Ready and play. (response, a tempo) If you did every- thing correctly, you should have sounded like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now if you'll notice, measure 5 and 6 are exactly like measures 1 and 2, so we'll skip to measures 7 and 8. Measure 7 is all 8th notes and measure8is a half note. Listen as our trum— pet player plays these two measures. (model performance) 1+ 2+ 1 1.510;,- Now you play measures 7 and 8. Slow them down, using your correct tongue attack. Ready and play. (response, slow) Go back and repeat them one more time, just a little faster. Ready and play. (response, a tempo) If you did everything correctly, you should have sounded like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now you should play all of line B. Try to do everything you have learned. Ready and play. (response) Now let's all three do it, you, the piano, and our trumpet player. Listen as you play with him and try to get everything exactly as he does it. Ready and play. (response- reinforcement) 110 Mrs. Smith just had you practicing 8th notes; she had you play them two to one coutn. Now look on the top of this page, at number 167. Here is a song with 8th notes all through. Regardless of the combination of 8th notes, whether two or four, or six, they are still always played two to one count. Listen very carefully as we play it for you andcknit forget that flat in the key signature - that means Bb, now. One, two, ready, listen. (model performance) I2+3+411+3+4 I2+3+4+If~l+31$tok Now pay close attention to the first two measures. Here we have some counts that are going to be played as two 8th notes to each count. We also have a high D here. Don't forget that it is played with the first valve. Here we go, the first two measures only, one, ready, listen. (model performance) ,2+34+13_+345to2 111 Now you try it, very slowly. Ready, play. (re— sponse, slow) Let's try it again. Ready, play. (re— sponse, slightly faster) Once more, a little faster. Ready, play. (response, a tempo) Did you play all the 8th notes correctly? Did you play that high D correctly? If you did it all correctly, it was exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now let's look at the next two measures. Listen very carefully as we play it for you. Ready, listen. (model performance) gl+34+|2+345t0? Now you try it, very slowly at first. Ready, play. (response) Let's take it again. Ready, play. (response, slightly faster) Once more, a little faster, ready, play. (response, a tempo) Did you sound exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now let's go on to the next two measures. Here we have four 8th notes in a row. Be ready for them. Ready, listen. (model per— formance) 112 Now you try it very slowly. Ready, play. (response, slow) Let's try it again. Ready, play. (response, slightly faster) Let's try it again, a lit— tle faster. Ready, play. (response, a tempo) Did you sound exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now let's take the lasttwwnmeasures. Listen very care- fully as we play it for you. Ready, listen. (model performance) 11+3+4+ I +l+345t0R In the first measure, we have six 8th notes in a row, and they go right into four more 8th notes in the last measure. Now we are going to try it very slowly, you and our piano player. Ready, play. (response, slow) Let's take those two measures again, a little faster. Ready, play. (response, slightly faster) Let's take it again. Ready, play. (response, a tempo) Did you do it exactly like this? Ready, listen. (rein- forcement) Now you are going to play it all the way through from the beginning. After every two measures, you are going to take that very quick breath that we practiced 113 on tape four. Here we go, ready, play. (response) Now our trumpet player will join you. Listen care- fully; as you play along with him, see if you are doing everything correctly, as he is. From the beginning now, ready, play. (response—reinforcement) This completes tape four. Practice Tape Five This is practice tape five. We will begin this lesson with the descending C chromatic scale in half notes. Concentrate on the fingerings as you listen to our performance. Ready, listen. (model performance) 1112/1I111115t04’. Now you play it; be sure to buzz your lips for two complete beats and to breath properly. Ready, play. (response) Did you finger the flats correctly? Did you buzz your lips for two complete beats each time? Did you breathe correctly? 114 Let's do it again, this time together with our trumpet player. Ready, play. (response—reinforcement) Turn to page 28, number 169, line d. Notice now the 8th rests are performed. Ready, listen. (model performance) 169 (d) c+l+lrltl+1+lr++ ,+.z+/+.1+I+.1+I.25toa The 8th rests, like the 8th notes, are two to one beats, and also counted one, and. Listen now to the first two measures only, as we slow down. Ready, listen. (model performance) [11+ 1+2+5ton For the first beat, we played on one and rested on and; for the second beat, we played on two as well as the and of two, for the two 8th notes. You play those two measures now. Ready, play. (response, slow; response, slightly faster; response, faster; response, a tempo) Did you sound like this? Ready, listen. (model per- formance) 115 I I a I a r 1+2. ?- ) f- 3:155». Did you notice that measure 4 was slightly different? For the second beat, we played on the beat and rested on the and of the beat, just like the first beat. Now you play measures 3 and 4. Ready, play. (response, slow; response, slightly faster; response, faster; response, a tempo) Did you sound like this? Ready, lisUen. (reinforcement) Measures 5 and 6 are exactly like mea- sures l and 2, so we will skip to measures 7 and 8. Ready, listen. (model performance) Now you play it. Ready, play. (response, slow; response, slightly faster; response, faster; response, a tempo) Did you sound exactly like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now you play it all the way through from the beginning being ready for the slight change of rhy- thm in measure 4. Ready, play. (response) Now play it together with our trumpet player; see if you are do- ing everything exactly as he is. Ready, play. (response— 116 reinforcement) Turn to page 29, number 171. As we perform this for you, notice the 8th rests. Ready, listen. (model per- formance) 1+1+3* *14' 34/#1+3r4+/+.2I—3<) /+.z+3+4 If1+34 /+-2+3+4 l23resgszo; Did you notice that when the 8th rests occurred, they were on the and of the beat? Pay close attention as we perform measures 1 and 2 slowly. Ready, listen. (model performance) l k 3 4 .snoR )-+-1+3+-4 +- Now you play it. Ready, play. (response, slow; response, slightly faster; response, faster; response, a tempo) Did you sound like this? Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now measures 3 and 4, ready, listen. (model performance) l+~l+3+4 +1+1+34$toa Now you play it; don't forget the Bb. Ready, play. (response, slow; response, slightly faster; 117 response, faster; response, a tempo) You should have sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforce- ment) The rhythm is slightly different for measures 5 and 6. Ready, listen. (model performance) I 2'+ 3 ‘f 2'+ :344 StOPL J + Now you play it. Ready, play. (response, slow; response, slightly faster; response, faster; response, a tempo) Did you sound exactly like this? Ready,listen. (reinforcement) Now measures 7 and 8, ready, listen. (model performance) Ifl+3+~4 I). Brest) Now you play it; don't forget the Bb. Ready, play. (response, slow; response, slightly faster; response, faster: response, a tempo) You should have played it exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now you play it all the way through from the beginning. Ready, play. (response) Now play it together with our trumpet player, see if you are doing everything exactly as he is. Ready, play. (response—reinforcement) "Tryout Number 14" has various groupings of 8th notes. Ready, listen. (model performance 118 114-34 ,114-340/24—3 41+2+3 4 [2+3 4 /+.2+34 1*23+4 ,2343tap, Pay close attention to measures 1 and 2 as we slow it down. Ready, listen. (model performance) 2+3 4 (+l'*343t°P' Now you play it; tongue each note clearly, whis— pering “tu” as you buzz your lips. Ready, play. (response, slow; response, slightly faster; response, faster; response, a tempo) YOu should have sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now measures 3 and 4. Ready,listen. (model performance) 4 Star. +.2 +- | 2.+ 3. I Now you play it. Ready, play. (response, slow, slightly faster, faster, a tempo) You should have sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforce— ment) Measures 5 and 6 are exactly like measures 1 and 2, so we will skip on to measures 7 and 8. Ready, listen. (model performance) 119 Now you play it. Ready, play. (response, slow, slightly faster, faster, a tempo) You should have sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforce— ment) Now, you will play it all the way through from the beginning. Ready, play. (response) Now play it together with our trumpet player, see if you are doing everything exactly as he is. Ready, play. (response— reinforcement) This completes practice tape five. Practice Tape Six This is practice tape six. We will begin this lesson with a review of some lip slurs. Turn to page 35, to section A. we will do the first only. Remember that only the first note of each group is tongued, the rest are all slurred. YOu play it together with our trumpet player. Ready, play. (model performance) a, 1.234 I234! / .2 373“)“. 34 l23‘7 120 Did you buzz your lips all through each slur? Did you hold the correct fingering all through each slur? Let's play together again. Ready, play. (response-reinforcement) Now we will do the descending C chromatic scale in quarter notes. Pay close attention to fingering as we perform it for you. Ready, listen. (model) ’f’l‘I’B +4 Il3wst,s¢.p, Now you play it. Ready, play. (response) Play it again, together with our trumpet player, see if you are doing everything exactly as he is. Ready, play. (response—reinforcement) Turn to page 29. We will review number 173, en- titled "Tryout Number 14." You will play it together with our trumpet pkweru Ready, play. (model performance) TRYOUT NUMBER 14 .4» ,2+34 1+1+3411+3 4 /+2+34 (1+34!*1+34/*,23+4/2345702 Now you play it alone. Ready, play. (response) Play it once more, together with our trumpet player to 121 see if you are doing everything exactly as he is. Ready,[flay. (response-reinforcement) Now look at number 176 on page 29. Notice how our trumpet player leaves a space between each of the stac— cato notes, which are indicated by the staccato dots. Ready, listen. (model performance) AMARYLLIS 1234 12.34 {.1 34. 1+ 2+ 3‘ I+2+ qsrap, Did you notice the slurs in the first and second endings? This time, we will perform measures 1 and 2 only. Ready, listen. (model performance) [71534 l'i34sr‘m Now you play, ready, play. (response) Did you leave a space between each staccato note? If you did, you sound- ed exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now measures 3 and 4. Ready, listen. (model perform— ance) 122 ll 34 l+1+ 3‘4 StoP. Now you play it. Don't forget the 8th notes and slurs in measure 4. Ready, play. (response) If you played the staccato notes correctly, you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) From here, the piece repeats back from the beginning, skips the first ending and ends with the second ending. Listen to the second ending only. Ready, listen. (model per- formance) [ I—V I+2+ 36:51‘03 Now you play it. Ready, play. (response) If you played the 8th notes correctly and slurred where you were supposed to, you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now you play it all the way through from the beginning. Don't forget the staccato notes, the 8th notes, the slurs, and the separate endings. Ready, play. (response) Now play it together with our trumpet player, and see if you are doing everything exactly as he is. Ready, play. (response—reinforcement) 123 Turn to page 30, to number 181. This is quite easy, so you will play it with us. Ready, play. (model per- formance) 1.2+ 34 I2+31Ia+34123rc$h )2+34/2*34 l2+ qlzsresrjsfop, Now look at number 182. This is exactly the same as 181 except for the tie. The first quarter note will be tied to the first of the two 8th notes of the second beat. Listen carefully to the first measure. Ready, listen. (model performance) I 1*3 4 Sta?- Did you notice that our trumpet player tied beats one and two together, then played again on and of beat two before playing the half note for beats three and four. Pay close attention as we perform all of number 182 for you. Ready, listen. (model performance) I2+34 I + 4! +3 123mm, Ilf‘34 [2"3 /l*3 23festlstbp' 124 Did you notice that the dotted quarter note followed by the 8th note was played exactly like the quarter tied to the first of two 8th notes? Listen again to measures one and two. Ready, listen. (model,sflow1y) ,14-34 ll+345toa Now you play it. Ready, play. (response; slow, slightly faster, faster, a tempo) Now look at measures 3 and 4. Ready, listen. (model performance) 1.1+ 3 4 123 «stator. Now you play it. Ready, play. (response; slow, slightly faster, faster, a tempo) If you did it correctly, you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (rein- forcement) Now look at measures 5 and 6. Ready, listen. (model performance) (1r34_l1+ 345tvi’. Now you play it. Ready, play. (response; slow, slightly faster, faster, a tempo) If you did it correctly, you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (rein— forcement) Now look at measures 7 and 8. Ready, listen. 125 (model performance) I). r 3 4 I13"‘t/5t°’°' Now you play. Ready, play. (response; slow, slightly faster, faster, a tempo) If you did everything correctly, you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (rein— forcement) Now play it all the way through from the begin— ning. Ready, play. (response) Did you play everything correctly? Did you remember, incidentally, that it is a 39 in the next to last measure? Play it together with our trumpet player to see if you are doing everything exactly as he is. Ready, play. (response—reinforcement) This completes practice tape six. Practice Tape Seven This is practice tape seven. We will begin this lesson with the ascending and descending chromatic scale on C. we will perform a dotted quarter and 8th note on each tone of the chromatic scale. Concentrate on the fingering as you listen. Ready, listen. (model performance) 126 1+ ’14.].1" 11* ‘2'. ‘2‘? 1+] 2 I I ' l 1.1+ nae-11* 11* "1* o I2+I [xi-1.1+ I.2+ ’24. ’14- /1+ /.2+ [1+ 1.1+ 1.1+ ’11. 2 Now you play it. Ready, play. (response) Did you give each note its correct value? Was your finger— ing correct? Play it again, this time with our trumpet player to seeif you are doing everything exactly as he is. Ready, play. (response—reinforcement) Turn to page 30, to number 187, entitled America the Beautiful. Here is a familiar song which also con- tains that dotted quarter and 8th combination. The. key signature indicates that both the B and E are to be flatted unless signified otherwise by a natural sign. Play it with us. We will begin on the count on 4. Ready, play. (model—response) 411+3412+341234113412r 41.2.. 4 .234 I 34124-3 Iz+341234123 /1*34I2+34/13 41.25 Did you observe the flats, expecially the Eb? Did you observe that one B#? Was your rhythm correct? Did you observe the breath markings? Play it alone now; see 127 if you can include all these very important details in your performance. Ready, play. (response) Play it again, this time together with our trumpet player. See if you are doing everything exactly as he is. Ready, play. (response-reinforcement) Now turn to page 32, to number 196. Here we have 16th notes, which are played four to one count. Look at the first measure. For beat one, we have to play four 16th, and for boat two, a quarter note. The 16th notes are counted one—a-and-a. You count that aloud with me, over and over again. Ready, count. One-a- and—a, one-a-and—a, one-a-and-a, one-a—and-a. Now we will play the first measure only. Ready, listen. (model performance) Itf-a .L StvP. Now we will play the first 4 measures. Ready, listen. (model performance) 128 Pay close attention now to the first 2 measures only. Ready, listen. (model, slowly) Now you play it. (response; slowly, slightly faster, faster, a tempo) If you played it correctly, you sounded exactly like this. (reinforcement) Now look at measures three and four. Ready, listen. (model performance) la+42+125t9P Measure three has 4 sixteenths on beat one, 2 eighths on beat two. The eights didn't move as fast because you need only 2 of them for 1 count. The six- teenths are twice as fast because you need 4 for one count. Listen to it once more. Ready, listen. (model, slowly) Now you play it. Ready, play. (response; slow, slightly faster, faster, a tempo) If you played it correctly you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now play it from the beginning to the double bar after measure four. Ready, play. (response) Play it again, together with our trumpet player to see if you are doing everything exactly as he is. Ready, play. (response-reinforcement) Now look at the second half of line 196. Ready, 129 listen. (model performance) 1 a-+¢! 1- * ’ 4 f 4 7' ,..+.a 2. + I :1 ShPl Now look at the first 2 measures of this section only. Ready, listen. (model slowly) lea-+4 l+14+a15toa Now you play it. Ready, play. (response; slow, slightly faster, faster, a tempo) If you played it correctly, you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Look now at the last 2 measures. Ready, listen. (model, slowly) lun~€1L 2.+’ ’ ‘1 Sum, Now you play it. Ready, play. (response; slow, slightly faster, faster, a tempo) If you played it correctly, you sounded exactly like this. Ready, listen. (reinforcement) Now you play those 4 measures; ready, play. (reSponse) Did you play 4 sixteenths to 1 count? Were the eights 2 to 1 count? Was the quarter note a full count, and the half note 2 full counts? 130 Play it again, together with our trumpet player to see if you are doing all of it correctly. Ready, play. (response—reinforcement) Now look at number 200, entitled "Mocking Bird." This contains the 4 sixteenth note pattern: it contains groups of eighth notes; it contains the 1 beat rest. Ready, listen. (model performance) [+234 1234” I234/234/ \1/_ 234 152 Did you observe all the rests? R member that your part has a rest indicated in places where the piano is still playing. Did you observe all the slurs? There were several ties also. Did you hold them long enough? And did you play all of the accidentals correctly? Let's do it again, this time our trumpet player will join you. I will count at the beginning exactly as I did before. One, two, three, ready, now, play. (re— sponse—reinforcement) You will have one more chance to play it alone. Be sure to play all those accidentals with correct fingering. Watch those ties and be sure to observe the rests and slurs. One, two, three, ready, now, play. (response) Let's play it again. This time our trumpet player will join you. Be sure you are doing everything exactly as he is —— the fingerings, the rests, the ties, and the slurs. This completes practice tape ten. APPENDIX B 153 154 TABLE XVII RAW SCORES AND DATA Experimental Group Control Group D m u u m u c U c c U c m C o m c w E m E E m E u m E w u m E m C H > .4 m H > C H > .4 m H > w w o m m s O m m m o m m 5 O m G -H-H .H,p . lH-H to -H-H -H u . ‘H-H 5'2 (D.CL‘ 0rd 0 H.131 23,2 (D.CZ 0m O 34.2 p 5 5 o o u - m U u s 5 U o u - m U m z z 4 m m H m d m z z 4 m m H m d Sub—Group 1: High MA., High 88., High I.Q. l 65 14 115 17 1 65 20 128 22 2 75 14 139 31 2 65 19 116 10 3 66 18 125 5* 3 66 23 118 50 4 77 23 115 77 4 63 20 112 17 5 65 14 128 55 6 66 17 122 10 Sub—Group 2: High MA., Low 88., Low I.Q. 7 65 36 97 52 5 64 31 110 26 8 63 27 102 70 6 70 33 106 19 9 66 28 105 23 7 69 25 90 8 Sub—Group 3: High MA., High 88., Low I.Q. 10 69 14 100 31 (Did not complete 11 61 14 109 63 the experiment) 12 65 18 108 31 Sub—Group 4: High MA., Low 88., High I.Q. 13 74 27 119 30 8 67 35 121 37 14 64 27 116 4 9 59 27 119 45 15 68 27 115 25 16 63 27 118 7 155 TABLE XVII (Continued) Experimental Group Control Group D m u u m u c 8 c c g g m m m E m E E m E u m E.m +) m E m c H > .4 m H > c H > .4 m H > m w o m m s o m m w u w m s o m 'U ,2 ----1 ~u-i +4 4.) \H -r-{ "C ,2 'H ~r-1 -r-1 4.) \H -v-1 5 m.c U m o H.C 5 m.c o m <3 H.C u D 5 U o u . m o .u s 9 o o u . m o m 2 2 d m m H a.<: m Z 2 ¢ m m H m 4 Sub—Group 5: Low MA., High 88., High I.Q. 17 42 20 112 18 10 50 23 118 15 18 47 23 125 31 11 51 18 124 15 12 52 14 119 9 (Did not complete 13 56 23 125 8 the experiment) 14 55 23 125 l 15 4O 18 112 9 Sub—Group 6: Low MA., High 88., Low I.Q. 19 58 16 108 63 16 52 17 106 14 20 46 20 87 32 17 58 21 110 17 21 49 18 109 41 18 50 20 106 3 19 50 14 89 2 Sub—Group 7: Low MA., Low 88., High 1.0. 22 56 27 115 17 (Did not complete 23 50 27 112 13 the experiment) Sub-Group 8: Low MA., Low 88., Low I.Q. 24 50 40 102 24 20 49 27 101 4 25 41 37 108 28 21 54 31 96 6 26 45 31 94 29 22 39 30 100 14 27 54 27 102 21 23 42 31 110 8 24 46 27 106 14 25 51 31 105 5 *This student had a physical handicap impeding performance achievement — discovered after data analysis. APPENDIX C 156 157 TABLE XVIII SUMS AND TOTALS FOR MUSIC ACHIEVEMENT SUB-GROUPS Experimental Control Total X = 531 X = 234 X = 765 2 _ 2 _ Above X — 25,943 X — 7,868 Mean N = 16 N = 9 N = 25 X = 317 X = 143 X = 460 Below 2 Mean x2 = 11,059 x = 1,699 N = 11 N = 16 N = 27 X = 848 X = 377 X = 1225 Total 158 TABLE XIX SUMS AND TOTALS FOR SOCIAL STATUS SUB-GROUPS Experimental Control Total X = 505 X = 182 = 687 Above x2 = 24,179 x2 = 4,466 Mean N = 14 N = 14 = 28 X = 342 X = 186 = 528 Below X2 = 12,794 x2 = 5,028 Mean N = 13 N = 11 = 24 X = 847 X = 368 X = 1215 Total N = 27 N = 25 = 52 TABLE XX 159 SUMS AND TOTALS FOR I.Q. SUB-GROUPS X = 340 X = 237 = 577 Above Mean X2 = 13,662 x2 = 7,435 N = 14 N = 12 = 26 X = 508 X = 140 = 648 2_ 2_ Below X — 23,340 X — 2,132 Mean N = 13 N = 13 = 26 X = 848 X = 377 = 1225 Total N = 27 N = 25 = 52 APPENDIX D 160 I‘ln. 1....1n .l hint §.In.! m\II|1 ‘uu!\7ll 161 50001.50... 0.0 H0: H . €00. .... 0.. .70 32.2.0 \.07..00030=. H020. 0.03700 0.0.2.0270... 03.. 7.0.0300...” ..0.0 0: 7.00 300.00. 07...... .C 3.07 7001:... 3030:. .5 5.03.0. 7.815.033... 0.... .8 30.0.. 7.0010... 30:0... 20:0 0.. .7000 .730 0020 3007.00 03. 07.: .0 500.0 400.73.". 7.... «0.707 «2......00 00000300.. 7000.. 0.. 057.03. .00.»? ..0... .1337 5.0013333: 9.7.00. 0 3.30 H.030... 9.7.00. 7 3.7.00 H.030... .00... m(~:.0..<0. 5.0015733: 9.7.00. 0 . H7..00..H0=0 $030.50. 9.7.0... 7 207.0000. .002 “0.17.0.3 0.00.70.00.30 .5310 0.... H110 30.0... 0.34.0.0 000.. 0: .70 «000.....3a 8000 0.1.5 0.0%.”... .753 .70 07.0020 mid. 5703! 00070030. .00... miner. 00:0" 0.:— W0. 60700.... 4.0:... 50. 50.7 0.0070: El- 'u"n'. ~00... H I 5.0.. 5.002.027.0300 60:03. 9.00.30.00- .0707 ..W0.........0..0=.l.70 07...... .0 70.03700 3.7.07 5.00.0... .0000 03 7.m70.. 0.... £7.07 02. .9221... 000 0. 70 300. 75...? 500.0. 500.00. 07...? .4770... .7: 07.... 53.003000. 00:525.. 0030.. .0 5.00.0 1.00... 70 «.00.... 70.5.0000... .H 00. 730000.50. 70.7 m: .70. 0.00 0.. 03.00.0305 0.... .5 .70 0.00 0.. 103.003. 0:00. .70 30070.. 20.00.. .0 5.5.0 30.. ..00. .70. .0707 m... 00.0.5030: mm 00 074.000 .70. 001.0 0m 00700. 0M0 0700.: 0000000 .70 07.73. .0 .0: 7.m70.. .703 .020... 9.07 0: 0803.0. 30.. .m «0.00. 70.040... .70 «0000.07 0.. 500.00 00.. 070.... £37 72.0.. ..0:..-. 0:... 7.00.0070... 07.77.00 $.93 .70» 70 07... m0 0 .0032. 00000.70. m000.......... 03:70.. 000.... 7... 0030 .00....0 7:. ..0.. 0.708 «040.10% 3000.70 .0031..." 00.7.2.0... 00.. «0100.2— .0..00..00. 4.7.0 .00. .0 00207038.. 7.. .70 70.; 0060100000 0» 2.050070 0.. 0.030303. 35.0 .000703. 40...» .0 .70 @0410... 5.0.: 0.. 7.0 .00... 0. .70 .00. 5.7032. .70. 30.... 0.5.030 .0007 0.57.3070 .040. £770... 02.0.10m 7.0 700.0 05... 3.07 0.0015735: .m 0.000.. 73. .0 3.?A. .0 00:00. .8 .7590. 5.00.0. 40.0 .0 300.0 007.03.05.03. m.=00 .. .0 .70 000.00» .003 0.. .70 .00.. .. 00: 003.0 .0 «.40 00.030 0 ..00..:m 0.. 000013. 00.. .0 .0... .705 0. 0000 ..0.. .70 0.70.. :00 H.030 0. H00. H. .0 9.7.00. 0. .70 70.70.00 $.00 00.022. 00 .70 200.78. .3020. 700050 .. .0 700.0 .0 .70 .030. 00:03.0 00330:... ~05... .5 p70 75.2.0190. 0.0.2.03. A470: .0107 7.8135030: .0 Sam... .5 .70 00;... 20.00 0.. 300.0 50.2.0300. 50.25.05; 0007 00 .70 0.030 7.7040 .70 m...0..0m. 5.030. .m .70 70:08... 000 .70 00:0. .0007...” 5.0.70. U.m0...:..:0..0= 0a .0707 $7.7 .08 ~70: 70:20.. .3020... .m 3.040 7.70.... 0.... 7000300 70.00203 £70.. .70 03.0700; .0 0.. 00....0030300 00.7.30? .0 03.7.75 0. p70 0.0.0:. «0.0.0: 0.. .70 2.7.03. .70 00.70.. .10.. 9.02.000 000. 3.35% 0.. 008.50 00.07.00.300 0. 70....m.0.0 .3020... 00 £0: 00 .0402. 3.03.07». 3.04 0 0030.08 7.00.30.00.00." .70 (Ira. 70.03.0340 7.0000... H: 7.0 007.00.. .00. 7030 .5 £7.07 7007 07070... 0.0 .70 .630 040 00.»... 0.... 70<0 .0... a..m0~.....=0..=m 00:04. 7:. 20 7.0.5.0.. .0 0.070 .70 700070.00 000.00.. .0000? 7.0. H70 70015301.... 190.. 0.. .70 0.70.. 7030 .m .700 «.00.: 7.0.0002. 0e0~ .70. 02,040.. 7v. 0 200070.00 0:300... 9.7.00. 7 :0... 7040.002. .0 3002.40 .0707 n..m0~.....:0..00 7.. 0 003.00.. 0.0000 .0 .70. 0.. .70 00.00. 300.00. 0.2.030... @350.— m.3~..0 00300100... .70 7.10:0... 3.0.... 0.00 00.0.: 0 «2.05.000 .0307 ..-II" "I.‘.'I'I...l—‘u§ .-.-I -IIIII’L- II‘ .'-’ .”"I "7|l| I74? -‘VII' I'.‘\ w . I I I I ll lllllll I IIIIIII ‘l‘lll. III! II I.‘ I.‘ I ...I..‘ ....‘u. .‘..-I 162 3.500.020: i ...... . ... ..0..... 3.330.... «...... £7.07 .0 3.070 7.0 003001003. 03.. .3 ....0 000000. 70 0.02.000 ...0 003.0 07.: 000.. .3 001.0335." 0.. .3 70.03.30. .3 001.0333? .70 000.. 0...03 00.0.30 .0 .70 003.0 .030 020.. 0.. ....030. 0.. 030 0.. 300 .0300. 70 302.0 .0 00.0.3 .70 .....0. 0..07 «0.. 0000000.. 0.. .3.030..03 03.. ..0.. 0.000.. 07000. .3... 7. 70.03.39 ..0 0:33.00 7.0 03....0 003000. 0. .70 3.0.0.... 0.... 7003.030 7w. «0.0.3.3.. 0020.: 0..0700 03.. ..0.....3." ...0 500.0 .0 .703. 00 .70. ..0 000003.000 330...... .70300 03.. 50....... ..00. 0....03. 03.. 070030303 0.. 0.00.0... $77.3 .70 3.00.0. 03.. .700 .....0700 00000.. 00. 0.. ... ...—.0 .0202. 303.70.. 0.. 0000.7.....00 ..00 0030.23.33 0.. .00. ..0..; 0:02.... 7.. .70 0.7....03 0.. .70 ....2. 30.0 30700 .7... 007.00. 3.000 00.2.1.0. .703 9.7.0... 0 .3 ..0 ...0013..30..030. $90040... 0.073.303. 3.001.303... $.77 .70 .00. 070.02. .70. .303... 0.. .70 3.02. 07:7... 000.... $.20 07... .0 07.0... 3.00.3.0... 0002.0 03 .7... 00... 00 3.0:. 030 000333.“... 7300203. .023 $.00 2.70.2. 0...... 0.0733303. .10... 00 70....3.“ .....0 0:00. 0.. .70 .00.. 07.0 9.00 .70 7.0.0.. 0.. £7.07 0..07 .0 70.03 m0..l.7.n700. 00 _0£00.. >.. .70007 3.00.. 0.. .70 000.... 03.. .70 .0007000 000.. .3 00073130.... .10... 0.. 9.7.00... 7 00000000.. 0 0.00.... 000740300. ..0.. 0 001.00. .00 $0... .70 0.0..0003000 $0.0 3000.7. 0000.... 7.0.7.0.. 70.3003 00.02.30 7.0700. 0.. .9000. 0..07. M00000 0703.2. 30 ......0003000 ... 7.700.... 703.003 .70 .£0 £000. 0730.02,. 02.02.03 0.. .70 .3000. 0..07 .000 007.300.... 700.70.. 0003 ..0.. 000 .3 .7... 007.00.. 9.7.00. 3 \080 .0030... 4.7.0 007.00. .0 0030000.. 0.. .m ..030. .3 0007 ..03 .70 000.. .0 02.0.02. .0 70.03 .0 .20 .0300 03... .0 70.03.30 $7.07 .030 .0 7.070... 00 $70.70.. .70 .0300 0.0 .70 00.30. .070 000.. 030.0000 000.. 4002.03 7v. ...—.30 .3 0 7.037 30.70.. .. m. 00 m .....0. .030 7.070... 00003.. .030 7.070... 0.. .70 .0300 .70 00.30.. 9.7.00. 7 3.700 00300. ...7.0 007.00. .0 0030000.. 0.. ... ..030. 7. 000.. ..03 .70 000.. .0 00:070.. .0 7007.0 £7.07 0.. .7000 .0300 0.3.0.. .0 .70 .0300? ...7... 02.07.00 .70 00.30 07... 00 ..000 .70 3.0.030 007.00.. 70. .0 3.2.0 .3000 003.07... 7.. .70 0.7....03 0.. 0 .77... .030. M030 ..050 02.0.00 .70 000.. .0 00.30000 .030 . $.77 .030 N. 03.. .703 .030 n .....7 .030 u. 0.70.. ..03... «2.0.00 .70 003000.003 0.. .0300 u 03.. w .M 073000;. 30. .70 030.00.. 03.. 02.3w 00 0 7.0.30.3... m3 .7... .0300 0000. .03... 303.03. .0 30000003. .n .70 000.. .0 .0 «0.0... 00003.0: .70 0003.. 0.. .70 an... .030 00 p70. 70 00.. 0030000 .0 3.... .030 w. >30f.0..0 000 330.0 .00. 73.3.0 ... 7.0570 ~00... N l 7:020. 6.002.007.0273 6030...... 5.0000373 870 7303.0. 0.0013300303 003 0.. ....00. . .0 0.0.0.. .0 0..07 0.00.73.32.03 .000. ... 70. 3.000000 0 7.0.7.0.... 07.7000... 07...:1..70. .0. 0000.05.30: 0.. ...0.0300 703.00.. 0..0700. W303... 0mm0 0.. 078.08 3.03.0.0 0007 00 7.2.. 777. 0003.7. 03.. 00003.. 0000000 .0 70 .000 7.3.7.3038. 03.. .000 000.0. .70.. ~000m0...03 0m 72030.0 .70. 00 08.03.00 03.. .7000 .70. .000. >0 0.000030% 0.. 000.0...00 00 .000.3m 3.000.303. .3 3.00.0 €7.07 .0 003%. 0.0.40... 0.. 70.032. .0 .0 00003.7... n0.. 0 00.30.10 0.3.0..- 0.0....w3m 0.. .70 3.00.0 00.. .0 ..0..0.0..0 .0 «0070700303 070:. 3.00.0 03.. 300.00. 00:02.0. H.700. .. .0 3000000.... .3 0: 3007...... 0..00..030 27000 .70 .000700 0035.03.00.00 ...... 000:0 0700. 0000.700 7. 3.00.0. @0730. a .....7000...,030 00:02.0... 000003... .3330. 2001.03... .3 .70 0.30.00. ..0..... 0000.7.0. .....0 1:00.030 0020.3 :00 200.30.. 000.00 .703 0 240.030 00:003.. ..0.. .70 0.7.7.030. .030 07.00 .70 000.. 030 .3000 005000.003 .0 70.0 7.3. 7007.0 0003 .70 30.0.0 0.. .70 73030.0. 27700. 3.33% 7.0 .030. 3.03.00... 07.0 002.03 0.. .70 .00. .0 000.0. ~00 ...0m300..0 00000000 0.300 ..0..0q0 .0 00.0.0.0 m3 .7... 0..00 0.003.“... .3...00.00 0770.. 0 .007 0.. 0370... 0.03.73m 0.. .70 003000. .000.000.0. 0.. 0 .007 0.. 000010300 .5 3.07.3“ 0007 7.7.0.303; 0700. «300.0. 9.7.00. 7 3.7.0000. 00003.0 00.30.20 0700000 ..003. ..0.7 003mm» 03.. 03 500.0. .70 003.00 70.3% 03.03% .7000 00.33.03 .0 004000. 00100 0.. 500.0 8.170070. 003.701.... .....7 .70 0030.0 .30.. m.<0 00 070.00.0«0 0.. 003.0 000:0. 7020.0... .3 0.073.303. .0033“ 30 9.7.0000 0.. 0007 7.00 :00 70.00.07. an .70 0.5.03. 000:... .70 00.02.00 00.. 03.. 700000.03 0700. .. 030 .3.m7. 0.0000. .70 7.5.700 30.37000 .0 70.0 0.. 0.7.03.0«0. 07.0 00.303.700.3m 0». 0000.700 ....03. .70 3.00.0 0.000 .0. 0.. 000000. 30. 037007.050 7. 0.. 007.3030... .00.. MH.030.<0 .00....m 700 0703.3 30 00.7.0300 0.. 33.701... 07.02.30 .7.0 007.00. ... 0..70.. $0.... .m00 .70 .ambd. 3.0.0.0....0 .4030... ..00 0 ..0.. 700000.03 0.. .7... 00.3... 20000.2. .0300 0.0 30. .0 70 0003.2. .3 ..0.0...3.3.3m 0.70.700 070 3.00.0 .3000 30.03.00 0.. 7.. .0000. 930700.00 .7.0 00.30 0...... 0.5.03.0. an 0 000.. 0703.0 007.00.03.03. ... M070... 0 70. 30. .3 M372...» 7 on .70 5:03.... 0.02.03.33.03 00.... .70 .000700 3.0... .3500 .700 .70 000.. 700 2.04.5.0 03.7.3533...“ 7... 309.0 3.000 00002.0..- _' L’s—w; llll H .163 .0 0000 $...7 .70 7.0.0008? 07.0007 7.. .70 30.0.70 .00. ..030. @300 .70 007.00.". 000 0.000... 00.0.07. .70 .$.0 300. 70 00... 0.70007 .0m0...00 .3 300000.3m 007.0..0303. .3 .7.0 0000. 9.7.00. 3 «070007.030 002003... ...—..0 007.00. .0 0030000.. 0.. .o ..030. .. 0070.000 .70 000.. .0 ..0..... .0 030 3000000 0.. .7000 .0300 03.. 700.70 $70.70.. 0.. .0300 000 00.0.07 0.00 7.. 0.00 ..70 0 000.0 0.. $70.70.. 0 0.000.. .00 $07.0... 000000 703.0003 03.. ....0 0030000....0 .0300. ...70 000.. 030$.000 7.. 7.73m .3 .70 7.037 30.707 m .000.0£.00.. ... 30000.. 0.. ..0 ..3 7007... 9.7.00. 7 20700000. 07.0 037.00. .0 00300007 0.. .7 ..030. .. 0070.000 .70. .70 000.. 70 07.0 .0 7.0..3m...0.. 300.0 .70. 3.0400 03.0.0700 .003 .70. 3.7.0.. .0000 .3 0 070000. ....0 000.. 700.700 $70.70.. .70 070000 39.00 «03000.... .3 0 000.0$..00 303300 00 «03000:... .0000 .003. 030 .030 .0 030.700 3300.3... 00000.07 .0300. .7322. 03000.. 03000 ... 03.73% 03.. 7.0.03.3... 0700.7 0007000 .7.0 07...... $...7.3 n 030... H00. ..030 000 030$.0007 0.3.7.0... .0 .7000 0.. M0780. ... m .000.0$..00.. H. 20000.. 0.. ..0 .... 7007... .030. .wl 7.0.00 5.00.73.33.03 «53.0.0 33.. 7.0.0.0 700.0... @0300... 5.0030033 7.0.0... .770 0..07. .0 0 7370303.... 0.. 300.0. ..00 03v. 0.7.3.00. ..0.. 0.. 070.7... .0 7.7.0.... $7.70... 0000m3...03 0. 700.0 30.0.0 0.030.300. >3 020003000 0.. 30.0.. .0 0000....0. 70.7 .3 000.003.. 0300 037 m3 70.03.3m. ..0.. .70 <00. 70.7 0. €00.03 300.0 0000 0 830.083. 30.0.. 00 ..0 700.0 ..00 07...73.0 03.... 037 30.0.... ...0 700.. $703 300.0 0703m00 ....03 0 700.0 .$.0 .0 .7000. 0.. $703 .70 30.0.. .0 .000m0.00. 00.....000 .70. 0030 ..00..3m ..0.. 00%..00 00.00 70 00.077070... .3 .70 0.073.300... 0.0«00 0. ....0 00... 0.. .70 .00.. 303.. 7.7.0003. .830 $000 ....07. m.30.0 3033.0.07.0 0030030 $000 0.3.07 03 0 07.4.73 30.00303: 0030030 3.000 70.0.0007 .3 .70 003.0... 0.. 000.3700 30.07.00. .70 30.003030 $.00 3007 .0 7.7.00.0 .70 00.00 7.. 0 000.00 0.. 700.0 0000073” 0007 .00. ..03. 0.....73. 30.003030 0007 00 .70 $60.. 7.007...0.03n.0. 037 7003 $000 07707 .0 30.07... ..030 .0 030700.00 .70 00.00... ..030 $000 00000707 7.. 0.... 03.000 0033.07 0... .0 37.00... .0300. H3 000.. 0000. ..70 000007300 00040.. .0 70 3.00.00 .0 .70 03... 00.00.07. m .__. >0. 3 000:... .70 730— .00... 0. .7... ..0... 0.30.0.0 0. .... :03... 0007 0.. $7.07 .0 0 070000. .0703 ..0..... 0 7.3773. 0.030300% 00700. 00...... 0.3.0.. 03 ...0 0.030. 0.... 7.0.07.3... 0 7003.030 000030037303. 00...... 000 00.07.07 .0 7.0.7.0....07 707.003 700.0 0.... .0.0.0 30.000. ...—.0 0.03.03. 0. 003m 7.3.70.7... 03. 703000 ....0 000700.00 .00. 00... .. .70 0.3.03.0 00v. 0..03..03 .0 .70 .007 0. 7037. ..0.....» $70 730$. 0 003.. $.07 0700... 73.. .. 000.00 .0 00033.00 ...0 00.00. .3 700.. ...0 002003 0.. 0.003.. 037 1.007 03.00... 03.. .0 00...... .70 303.30% 0. .70 30.07% .03.. 030...... .0 70.0 .3 70.03737... .70 000000. 0303.0... 10.3.00. .70. 000...... 0. .0073... 0030 77.25 300700.. 037 000.... 700 37.00.07 .70. 7.03.7007... 03... .0 .70 03.03. 0.. 730.03.. .70 003n .77 30. 07.00. .70 000070. .3 0.700 0.0070. 03703.0 0003.. .307. 3.0.. 730:. ...0 003.. 7... 70 30. 730$. 0300.... 0700. .70 003... ..0.. 70.0 30. 7.0000007 ..0 30.0.. .3 00.70.03. 70.0... .0 .3. 7:03.... .70 000....0 0.. ....0 000. 0. .70 .00.. ...70 000.. 70000 ...0 070000 0300. ...0 070000 70.3.. 0. 00.70.03. .23... .70. 70 700 ..30 .0 00.0777. .70 00.00 037 .703 000003.00 .70 0037.33.03 0.. 00003.07 03.. 030000307 00.000 00 70.73.. .3.0 0 700.0 00 .0.0.0 30.0... m.300 .70 30.07.00 000 000003.07 00 00.30.08 0700000. 0030 0.. .703 .003.30.0 70.000 .70 037 0.. .70 3000000. 7013.. 70.3.3 03 0 0.07.00 30.0 00 30.00. 07.0 .00....30..03 .3 30 .00.. 3.01.008 $...7 .70 7.000.3.30..3n 00$.00 0.. .70 ..030. 030.... $70 70.0 707 0.0000003 0002.00 .3 70.03.30 ..0.. 30.00 $..: 00.7.0.0 7.0700 000000 03 .7.0 00... .703 t... .7000 03703.0 $70 .007 00000.0300 .3 .7... 0070...... >30$.0..0 000 3070 7.. 7... .3." .3 .70 7.0370 300707 N 300.0 30.00.. .... 30.0.0 30.0.... 00 ..0 .... 7007... APPENDIX E 164 165 1...”. éymzmm wmifi. ...». 000...... 0.500. .7. >333» 7.577320 ......“ 0.».aner Egan .....0 ..mh. 0700.7 3030.... 70 70007 0.003 00::m0 03 000000- 303. 000.00 0. .3830. 70000 ...00. 0:7 75......Em 0000.. .m .70 7......» .00 03.. 030 0.. .7000 .000 3.5% 0.0 507.3% .70 0.70. 70.00 0700.7 70 00.3030... .. .70 70.0 .0. .....0 0. .70 .03. 0.0 7.0.7.5 30 .370... 0700.7 70 03050.07. / 7007 0. .70 .00. 0.0.00 070.000.00.300 .0 00.07 03 0 030300.... 000.0 57.07 .032 7.0.3 0 00.3m 0. ...... <00.. 7.m7 0.0.00 5.00. .0 .4... .00.. .0... 0.0.00 £700. ...7000 Bazm 000.00 000 000003.07 .3 «.00.. 70.0. .033 .3 007.0 0. .70 000.00 000 70007707 .3 .3007 3.000 70.0.. .3 0700.00 0. 03630 0.0.3.3... .0 000 .70 ..wb. 0700.7 0.00.0.3... 00.00 .0 .70 3.00.08.00.03... ..00..mom..030. 037 70733030 E23 .3 .070. 0700.00. .3 .70 0000 0. 000000703 037 0. 70700 ...00. .20 07030.0 00.- ...m 0.030 000 0.0070770. .. .0 08707.0 .70. 0.7.0.. 0. .70 07030.0 0.03 .30.. 70 0007 $7.7 0 0000030770 00.000.00.03 0. @007 000070. ...70 3.00. 3.30.0.0 0.3.0700. 3:73.03 .0 0.0707? 7.. .70 .03 3.7.07 3.00 0007 .3 .70 30.3 03.7.0.0 0. .0300....70. 7:. .00 70.7 00. 00003.03 37 70000 ...00 .0.00 307.70.00.03 $0.0 3.0070007 €7.07. .3 .70 .07....303. 0. .70 000003. .3¢.00..m0.0.0. 070.. 00.30 730090. 303 9.00 .70 03mg... 000.00. .3 00.30 00000. .70 30.0.0 0. .70 70.0 3.3.07.0 .30.. 00mm00. 0 0007000300 .00 0030 00007.0 .003 0. 003.3%. .. .30.. 5.0.. 70. 0.00. .70. 7.0.700 300073303 0.... 7000.00 0..... 7.0.700 00730303. 37 730030303 0. .7000 00.5w 0007...... 00.700. .00... 00 .70.. 000 000707 .0 305. 00.30.0373. mmfifiéxc .) 5.0.73. ..0..; O... ......m EaOm ...70 00.3%.. 03 .70 0000...... 0.0.00 07000030778 .00 0087.307 .30 0 0.3m.0 3300.00. .370... 7.. 000.37% .0 0007 030 0 (cam... 037 0000....3m 0 0.0.3.07 8.0. 0. .70 00008.0 03.3%. .070 £0.m...0 8.0 70007 03 3.70300 7.03 7.0 70000370 0.07.. 037 0.00 700.307 .0 000000 .70 3.03333 70....00 0.. 30.0.0.0... 0007.039... $4.03 .70 .maa 00. .400. .0. ...m000330 0.. ... .... 0.037.... :00 0. 0.0.0. .0. 0300:. 0. 5.0030 037 070.0300 0. 07.3033 .3 .70 ..0..“. 70.0.0 :73... 7.000 .00 070.00.013.00. 705.0400. .70 000700 0700.7 0007 .70 9770300 000.0307 .3 0700.00 .. 00 .0 .70 00.0. ....0 40.00 0. .7000 0730.00.07.00 .00 0.07.03.3m 000.07-07.00 7300303.. 0 To 0700.00 5 .00 - 700.00.00.03 0. .70 70.7.0003 0% 7.000 $0578. 00 000.0r 00>0c0 8?...an a .../4.0.x Om. mfi>udw fi..>gfidfifim.finm 70.0 000 0.3.07.0 .00 0.. .000 0. .70 03.3.70. .70 0073.... 070.77 70 307.0707 7.. 7.0 .0..0.<.3m $057.0. 000003.03 I‘ll-II.» . M00000 0. .3330 - $0000 .....00 0.00.730. >000 (00969-5 ...:Fm 7 «OF—.0 ..0: 3.5.20 03.3.0.0 3.3.2.00 0.. 003., .0002... 030.00.300.00 0 «.080 M33. 90.000.00.000 070050130 0.37 ...-33a 0033.33 037 ...-030 P7303 08003.03. 017.30. m3? ~. 000.000.0307 37 0800.08: 0. .050 75.30030 N. m03..-000..000.0307 037 30:00 0...- 0.0.0 0. .050 705300000 0. 0.0070 037 7.37.4... 0.0.70... 7. 9.7.07 $0.10....” 7. 00000.08... 0... 03...... . 00.3000...“ 0. 923.7170... $07-0; .N. €307.72. $97000 000000....3. 00.0.07 .000? 32.. 3.05,. a 03 00.... T... . mesa... 0m .3530 u. €700.37 5.03.... n. M307 £00.... a. 037.0 037 .08 0. «9.2... a. 30mg 7. 03.0.0 0070. .... 00770 007.0. 037 303.00.62.20 .3- 0030 I050 0.000.. 0:.m.30. «00.0 n. ...-0m.“ 700000 .3 «007 337.30: R. .50 a 70008 .3 307.03 337.003. L303»... 70000. .3 moc7 0037..- ..0.. a. . 0700000 .3 707 023.33.. 7. z 7.3-0.007 7030.0 .... 037.03 837.70... 000.33.... .3 0.70.00 000333. reams... a. m3»: 700000 ...... 7007 r...................... 033.. 700000 .3 307.03 000.7303 720..- . .3”. 040.. 0.00.8 20000 0000.. 03.7.0.0. m00.0 .0033507. 7. 207.030.007 700000 .3 707 0009- ..0... 0030.. 70008 .3 70.7 00373.00 .... >7 700000 .3 «.00.. 707 0037.00... 705...... 0 .3 0.000.300. 30. 3.03707 030.30. .. ..0.. 70.300 .2050 0.700.. 700.07 m3... .. N00070:. 7c000. N. <0Q 007 700000 a. 0007 00000 ... ><000mo 72.000 7. ..0»... 700000 a. 0000 700000 4. <0... 000. .65.... E073...“ >003 . . <3. .00... 000 0...... 22... 0.53. 03. m. 2......" .70 70300 0.75.70 37 0000.. .300. 70000 0000.... .....0000 1.... 000. 0.000 .3070. 0...... 9 >790 9.000%. 0.0.0 0... .3733; ...—“00 .73 040.1... ..0 .....00 2.0037 703000. 00000300.. 0.000 .3 moo7 003- 7.700. 0.0. 0. >500?“ 08.7330. 30.970.700.70. 30 70.30.0303 .3 .70 000.0 m. 70.0.... 040330. 0.0.. 0..). 0.0.... 70.7- .3... ..0 05.... 70.30.33... .... ..0..... 1...... 770.330 03.01:,” 08 m. 70:: 0033.72.07... ..0 04.03.07 0...... 700.... 37 0030.73 ... <5 .00... 0.03 0.5.0 303 0300707 730233.03 0.. .7000 00.3013 337 9.3.5.0333- : .0 0700. 3.00 080 E 3 PE: 3 5.3:... 70 2.!» 0:. 3055. 05703.75! 3 3379 9.030.. 00E. Du .730 07?..- 10H Hznrchb _ APPENDIX F 166 167 €>._._20-.>020; ..0.o§>znm 00>; mac-.0 M700. ..0. 7.. 2030 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 00.0 -ii-.- 30:030.: uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu <00; 907.07 ..| W700. in- :1}: i- :11- -0370 , 110.060 - .. 2.09.3.0. 9.22. > 00.30.. 0.0.50.0. 701.03% «30220 mc§a< 8.0703... 000.0 .0 #00003? 000.0: .000 0.3.0. _. 0000.0.0 000.0 _0 m..000 000.0 m. a .. _o a a u. .. a _o .. .. ... a _. .o .. .. m. .. a _o a .. 0. .. .. .o .. .. .... a a _o a a m. a .. _o .. .. 0. a .. .o a .. _o. a .. _o .. .. ... a a .o a a .n. a .. .... .. a .0. .. a .0 .. a _0. _. a .o a .. On)0m _.|. «00).. mnOam .1— ”0301.0 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 168 035220 01).: 400. 00030 3000" 9000.” on? 030 0:00 000 300050. 0‘ no r000 »:0 sesana 00 00010 010000 00 0 3.3.3:: "to 000:00 00 »:_0 0:00». 4:0 0.010.0 00.0: .0 001 n.-.:0n. ca 00000.: 00000000 2000” .3 can .a0n‘ca0nn0 000 0000.300 0: o~30a .3000030200 1... oc<.o:0_0 9.00 070 .0100 on~u<0 00 (1.000: .3 0:0 000» 000:. <<>._..A.Zm.m>.~ZcZ 33025)an mn>_.m meanmm OPPDmm «On 00223. 0.5.222 w>n302m n u m 3 c m $0 <00: unflu Hou ~~p~ L L LL ML L H : Hid-1H “FF! F H H nu I O n? r > L ”www.mdflww: wamwmwmmwwwmm 930.0150370030000300233000000000102. fin Luau: _< 0 _0 :L 0 Hmun< _fllu .OL. :00 0.30.. .0 MO 0.. 76:00 50 0300 2.: .00 >. )0 30 .233 .u 00 0:0 00 0:0 «020 00000 0* 00.500: uo 030 mo 5:: 0 I014 . 0 . 0 0 0H a” u L, . , _ U L; WuM0LLnLWWMWLMuLWMwL 003070313000? #4 f 41 4.45410mum wLMHLLL. mloS 33 00 30.2100 3 720 £9.00“ .. 032 m 2000 300cm: 30 300201 300050. . L w w. 30.8.0 30 3.00 9. 0200 U< c030 30 $300.0 .728 K00 03000000309 0 5401410 "TI$WWP_LIL a wnnquwflmLILLMLL | i M It N I Ir W H L H H H H H LNLLH H ‘ H NIILF N lb . I “ H I H ‘H “I“ N a H N r1 w N fl HIM“ { I“ PR: .0 95300 0* .0300 4 “.mfifldmw ‘N mmXH“VQmemenUfiJ mm mWLLLL FL Wm F L# a UL u WL u Ly I'Lflx LHL Ill FLLUW n u -WWWnyrh”MMnMwaIwmflwfiwLflwfi m_cq m 10.00 00 00:00.0 n . FLY: u .L “0 ILLSqu.I¢ .I ”00. m 50000.0 n_. .0038 Lu .8 LKVLN MWL “I“ u MW‘ ML “I” III H u LLII 0 WIVLLIJvLWLLLTLMWLMw” mnflwfim 3.1.025: ~Cm.. 7.0. 10. r232.»— chn 30.. a; 73. ~30 7.... _ 0 . _ 41 1 d .0011 5323... 33:308. 3332.03... C3120? 100500. 3%.». 3 s . J \. . I? _ p 7.». >: 301:0 500022.. 4 w m L m m m « «mHLI W H 0 w.“ I 0 w m m LrLLU m M H F ‘ H A“ 1‘ M Ir W F ‘ w “L I!!! «04' 169 1J1] V .7 f I 1. ID..[ -1131 T ‘7' V'I I??? Ilb-L-lh ... 5 s. a L '8 I m" " 8 I \. A I I v.- A I A— X fih I I v I AI-T- 101 y x I r x 1' T 1 '1' T I x x I - 1 l I ‘ v ii I II I 6” 513:“ .v r ‘- fl“ 1 r I W ‘33 “Us: .I x ' 0r .LA 9 ‘9 I: t“, if}! T 1 not =; 06m; APPENDIX G 171 I“ . .: The practice 1. Too much 2. Just the 3. Too much 4. Too much 172 STUDENT ATTITUDE tapes contained: talking right amount of listening and playing listening, not enough playing explaining 5. Not enough explaining 6. Just the right amount of everything The taped lesson: 1. Moved too fast 2. Moved too slow 3. Moved at just the right pace W0uld you like to have the practice tapes changed in any way? 1. Yes 2. No a) If your answer is yes, in what way would you like to have the practice tapes changed? K. ~~.‘ .' \ \ c ~ -"- r .—. I‘I"V.‘ ’1‘ a; 02.14;”. 0!. mum. ms: TE HICHIan sm UNIV. LIBRARIES LlLLLLLLLILLLLLllLLLlLL ILLILLLIILLILILLLLILLLLILLLLILLLILLLI 31293 62 0107341