.4- a .v—w-v ._.4- u . ”14.-.;- .r: j... 6’1" - o ' " J . ”7. a ”I I 1 . III IIIIII1I 1| \‘ “I ‘ EE’tE“:‘ 1 1 ‘ A I “ slhl‘ II}: III1II1EI1E3EEEJIE1‘11:IE 5 11'; II1E1EI‘ E1‘11111EIEEEE1EEEE EEEE1E EEEE ‘1‘: 11) EE’ 1111“ I. ."1WEE1 ~Imfi111I ‘ 1 i E I I “111 in 311111 ‘ “1:1 I E‘ ‘11 1 EE1‘EEE1E‘11 1 ‘ m 1E1E11EEIE 311 1‘ E111! E1|I ”I: IEILI‘ I31 EEE'E‘11I; IEE I EIEEEIIE: :1 1~EEI 1111 1E EEEI11EEEEE {II EEE1E11"1‘EEH1‘ 1r .1. E1131 11:11WEEE'1’IEI11EI'EE’E‘EIIJIE1? ;' @M1MWM1 1111111.. EEE“ '1'1E'1'IE"'-Ei HE "“‘E III! ‘1". gig ‘I1EII‘ EEEEE1 1‘1‘1I11 1&1; ii“ 21EEEEIEEE [WM 171‘, III{I_;I 1 E1111! 11 iIII E1‘EEEE IEEE” XII“; IE . 11111 1IIII'I IE I1 111E! 1.11171111111’119 E5" II'II 1 'EE' 1-, LE‘. EE.~E'IEEE _E-1IEEl| I EEK. {:E.1{1E;I ,‘EIL "1". . \ 1:411. .7.'I1§.E‘..5‘:‘1E:1::1"'!311|1511I'1{IvyIm‘:;~'|‘1 EIJ‘ EIEI1:IEEEE|EEE E1Iu'1E1‘El'ET11‘EIglEIEE’firEE‘U“ELI I11 1'EEtEEE-1":E1EE£‘IE L'IE'E "’111113111I1’21'I :III‘1~III‘I"IIIIIIII ."I'I-.I-' 11 III 1‘51: "1.19.1115?“ EEE1'EE1E’I1 '1‘EI11I’1EI1111-1t1 {E51 1 1,] II {ErEEEEI E E :E' EE I ‘E 11*“: 'E I HE 1,. HEEE'EE E E1 \ EIE-EE :lE IL‘E.E 71’1‘11I1E I 1 , L‘WIIEL' Hi -I “11"" I 11:1! E§E1EIE1EPEE E-EEIEKEJEEE.‘ El '1wEI‘EI’IE‘I-1I1 51EIE2EIEEE IE'IE‘QEJHREEEEETE EEI' 11,115”: 1"?EEEEEIIE‘I, EEIIEEE I1: Iii! IEE1 V 'Ei1E‘ I ’31:“ 0 I “X “mmdwmwwwwwwWMw W www.1qu! 11. E E1EE'"111:E“E11E>1EE “’3“? I. E131? IE11111111EE I EEE E E "I'IE111E1E E1‘E 1I1El 1EEE'E1’ EI'- II1“! ‘E "E #13111. " ‘I‘i €1,311 IE3: E I '3‘ III "1"I‘-‘I‘1‘I“I'I.“‘1‘ '11-'11 I‘."1I".'- I" 1111'1 1.25111 1151131 .i'III: . I 1. ,.I "IIIIII 1’11“.» ' M1 EjEEEEEkE1EE EEEEE111EEEE EIzhEIEI‘ EE‘EEEIEEIE‘IEEEE‘EEEEIEE'EE‘1151?;EEEEE1'EIEEE‘EE'EE‘1E11IE11EEE‘EiEErEiE 6 1 Il VII-£3; 1,1I1g1-1EE $733.11; 1%MWWWW“”WWIWIWW%®WI 11“1. 1 '5‘" 1%.: 9.1.- . ~22 I .' III“ I :.‘;E?E ’ v‘ p A ’E‘gaEIL‘ - n: .22 :1wa I. ‘vi " ‘1. Hz" I ' .nEIEzlE 3.‘ {ME .-. .1 II.1:1u.;s-. . 1..-.. 1:1157‘1111'1EE’IWW 52“ "I” -‘I Q.. Ir;: "9: ‘2: 4 ‘ IIEEEfiE‘u EE1E1E1EEEEEEE1EEE'EEEEEEEE11E'E» ‘ E: 3E . EIIE 1 11:1f1. I111..* - 31‘1”. : -?7:-:'::- ’:~—. I E 32 up,“ E‘. . '3 ,,. an“ {Ea}? IIIEEIEII IEEEIEEEI,JEE‘EEIEEi15:11EE11‘EIEEEEEE1EEJ'EEEEE I II ..... ['49 1:?“in iEng'ghiiE it ling; 4' :{g'ji ' I...“ 1III 1.12911. '1! ‘IuvI I‘W‘II .1. .1, . ..1-.. 31:11; WEI. 1 “”11 11..“ III 11 ”*1 ‘u., ~1Mm11114wWfix Im111mn IVWHIV "11Iu“kwfl%fl‘ wafirfiwdmwfwv . ~.I'IE!§II'~ :1‘."1I“I‘!I.I1IIE-i.11 1II1u11E1 IIIII1II1I INI‘F'III 1 ;. 1;? ‘IE‘EEE‘ ~ 16111.ng "Lug-{IE3} mhIWwIIW'I“h“ W"‘I1WMIF%mwm .1 I. ?V I“1' 11111I1W1111111111111I1I .1,“ ‘MWW1H1W113M11M11”EWWTQwTImwF?11‘ver. EIE11‘1111Eo1EIEIE131EEI11E“EEE I: (1M3 :1EE‘1EEEEEE‘EE ”(I 1‘1 E1E EE’EIEEEJEE III! LIEBEE'kiEgEi-fif‘lhn 115-; $11”! .13? EIITEEEIEEEEEEZJEERIEEE-E .Hf IIIIII‘IIIEIII:IiiIi111;I1.III:.I‘.:II1‘.1'.'.-1-1’1I3=1.’1I.“I““I1II IIIII’IEIEIEII'I‘I 3111* i’I'IIIIEI“IIII ’52 1*? WE 1E1. ‘ 3‘13 $3171'11133.1"1113151511311 1 111 III. III? ‘~I.-:?-’i~é1.§337:=‘2 I' . ‘I-IIII'I: III IIIE'E" 9:175 1 .1.” 1%M11111. a1wfl1w' 1” W%1fium%szwh I: 'I‘ MI. 1 "III: " . III. 1‘1", 1'911E111- . . t ‘ '1" “1"“ ”51" 2.5: ., .4 .IIEI I. II I I‘1‘II11I I E1.EEEE : jiII'I “IIIII.11‘;‘I-_IIIII . 1‘11' a: 13:11: My»: .1. ,, .1.- IW‘W“%I1III IIIW1KFW1I“; .1I11111111.11 W‘EEEEH 1M1 E11 1III1{E'E' H111EE1E1PE 1 “I “I! 1EEEEIE' 3:. is.“ 1. RE‘ I! 1‘ #1:.“ IIIEE E1IIEEEEEEE1I11EE11t1EEE 1E1EEEEEF 113E1E3EEE‘EE EEEEEE EEE; 1%; EEEE EE1{ I..EEEE ' EELE E .1Ij11""" L112: IIIII-‘I IE 1 111‘“ "‘E'I 'I'I1‘II1 “I; 11?» 171'”; E: EEE11'1I1'E11E1EEE‘ IEIE’EE IEIE1EEEEEEE'1EE I.II..I,.1.§11E:1EEEE1E111EEIIEEI131? E 1.1EE1E1I1IEEI. :E- I 1. 1 ~ . .1 :1 "I I""I"I I ’ I“ I ”'1‘" .I " .. I.:.: :II 1 "121111“? 11111 EE1 1EI1E1I’E1EEEEIEE111IEE11EE- 111E1I‘IE EEfil‘E'E111E‘1111EE1EIE111-1[Igu‘ 1 I; . 3.11.1141“, a. I 'iE Ii E .II" 1EEE2I“E1‘:III'EE1‘1 I1IIII1. EIEi‘EII ELEI11EIEI‘3I.IE?}I‘II‘1E=EE“3IEIE'I MEEEE = E E1113E11I1I'IE‘EE15E1 . {IE1 I'I 1EE§E111EEEEEEE1EEIE1EE 1'EEE11EEE’11'EIEEEEIEEI E1 "EEEII‘IP1EEEEEE EEEEEEIEi 1111-3. MI‘EREEEE 133g. EiIRSfiflg 111. 3512., . ’ I II "II :3; f'III‘ 1%111111111N11.wmmw1m1I1WW1II£1fim‘ E i‘i‘II 11 III ' 1‘1"“1'" 'IIéEII.§-1§".§!II‘:LI 4’11511E‘EEEEI‘I’EE EEE11E1 M ‘1 I‘ll 1 :1 ’fl 61“".1” 1II11IJ§1 31%. I 11gE~IE1II 1;. EEEEE1E1EEEI :1EIIH1I'11‘I m1“ EEE11‘11111E‘E1311E EE1‘![E1111;11E1EEIgI-IIE‘I1 :1“ ”31;? II ‘11:! . 1 ‘IwwmemI - . 1r I I111 11‘“ II 111E IE1 I IIIIII III. .1, 1I.I.:"..II:I wu1'1II1 “"II:' I .1 ' . 1EIE‘EEE 111' II1I1IIIIIIIE1‘1-EEIE E1EIE11E'1‘ I1EEE 111.2: 1% E1I‘111111 I‘III1'iI‘I'11‘EEI... EEE 1E‘E1E'EE “SPEEEEE “.E It 1% [1 E,.E‘a: . I {IiizEEEE ( 1P1 IIIIII E1EEE’EE1EE1EEE .14 11111! 11111 IIEIEIIEIEEI . .5. 311111111; .. E111I'1E1E EE1II - '1 11111'1-'II1I'.‘EIEE 'II E II III" I Iwm“wIHIII”IImI1%« ..'ix ’1 1 . £111 "32“! 1 1 .1 . I. 'E‘ " E I 1| 1‘11 .I. 19. ' Fs'III'I':II1I1 ’ ‘I’ W II M11N1 ‘11 I 1II.III11..I 11"...111...11111III"“I 111-..21.-I 11E1 w . 5.0—3 z_ .- Dina _ .c— :3? D. .4... .. “a. THESIS NIVERSITY Ll BRAR 3129301718 8will“ This is to certify that the thesis entitled A COMPARISON OF RHYTHM SYLLABLE SYSTEMS USED IN BEGINNING INSTRUMENTAL INSTRUCTION presented by Terrence E. Bacon has been accepted towards fulfillment . of the requirements for . degree in MASTER OF MUSIC EDUCATION Q ? :fl. {Q T’Qgfig (:3: Major professor Date—ilk)! 1 998 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY MIchIgan State Unlverslty PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE MTE DUE DATE DUE \ If; 5+ I 21720.11 0:: 1]” WM“ A COMPARISON OF RHYTHM SYLLABLE SYSTEMS USED IN BEGINNING INSTRUMENTAL INSTRUCTION b y Terrence E. Bacon A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF MUSIC EDUCATION School of Music 1998 ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF RHYTHM SYLLABLE SYSTEMS USED IN BEGINNING INSTRUMENTAL INSTRUCTION b Y Terrence E. Bacon The purpose of this Study is to explore the use of rhythm syllable systems as an educational tool. The problems of the study are to determine if the uses of the “1 e and a” system, Gordon rhythm syllables, or no syllables results in significantly different student achievement in terms of meter recognition and performance of duple and triple meter prepared and unprepared etudes. Eighty-one band students were divided into three groups. The teaching procedures used for each group were identical except for the rhythm syllable system used. After twelve weeks of instruction the subjects were administered a meter recognition test and the subject‘s performances of four rhythm etudes were rated by two independent judges using a rating scale. Subjects taught using either Gordon or no syllable system performed significantly better than those using the “l e and a” system in triple meter. No other Significant differences were found. Copyright by TERRENCE EDWARD‘BACON 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis could never have existed without the help and guidance of many. First, my deepest thanks goes to Dr. Cynthia Taggart, my committee chairperson, advisor, task-master, employment-provider, editor, and friend. She always took the time to answer one more stupid question and explain (yet again) statistical analysis (I promise to never miss another statistics lecturel). Second, I must thank the members of my committee, Dr. Judith Palac (you mean I hm to talk about Strings) and Dr. Linda Ciacchi (yes, I promise you will have plenty of time to read it, is two days enough?) for their contributions to the writing of this document. My gratitude goes to Mr. Greg Lindsey and Mr. Ross Brower for opening their program to me and providing me with subjects (insert mad scientist laugh here). I must also thank Mr. Valdy Gailitis, principal, and the “students enrolled in the beginning band program of a suburban middle school in central Michigan” (who shall, of course, remain nameless). Listening thank yous to Wes Broadnax (you’re right, these tapes are soooo funny) and Diane Lange (yes, I realize that there are 324 of these things and, yes, I do owe you!). Technical thank yous to Daryl Burghardt (you mean I can do this in under 10 hours if I use a synthesizer?) and Brad Uffelmann (how the #%*I do you get a pict file out of Finalel). Love of my life thank yous to my fiance/wife (it has been a race to see what would happen first, completion of this document or our wedding!), Marcy. She kept me inspired, on task, picked up the apartment while I was writing, and from breaking iv things when the computer went down (again and again) or tried printing 17,569 copies of a one page document. (Words of wisdom, do NOT try to plan a wedding and write a thesis at the same time!) Lastly, I wish to dedicate this document to my parents, Ernie (no dad, a M.M. will not make me rich) and Geri Bacon (no mom, I am not on drugs; Fisher’s PLSD is part of my thesis). Their ever-present help, guidance, love, occasional monetary contributions, and the pleasant nodding of their heads when they have no idea what I am talking about have made the completion of this work and my degree possible. Thanks mom and dad, 2 down, 1 to go! TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ viii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... ix 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 Early Research ..................................................................... 1 Studies Investigating Rhythm Syllable Systems ........... 5 Instrumental Method Books .............................................. 6 Music Learning Theory ..................................................... 11 Definitions of Rhythmic Terms ........................................ 13 Rhythm Syllable Systems .................................................. 15 Summary ............................................................................... [8 Purpose and Problems ........................................................ 19 11. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................. 20 Related Studies ..................................................................... 20 Summary ............................................................................... 24 III. METHOD ........................................................................................... 25 Subjects ................................................................................. 25 Criterion Measures .............................................................. 25 Procedures ............................................................................ 28 Teaching Procedures .......................................................... 29 Statistical Design and Analysis ......................................... 34 IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA .............................. 36 vi Introduction ......................................................................... 36 Results ................................................................................... 37 Summary of Results ............................................................ 48 Interpretations .................................................................... 48 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 5 2 Summary ............................................................................... 52 Conclusions ........................................................................... 5 3 Recommendations ............................................................... 54 Implications ......................................................................... 56 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 57 a. Lesson Plans .................................................................................. 57 b. Introductory Letter To Band Directors ..................................... 75 c. Consent Form ................................................................................. 77 d. Macro/Microbeat Patterns In Duple ......................................... 80 e. Macro/Microbeat Patterns In Triple ........................................ 81 f. Divisions Patterns In Duple ........................................................ 82 g. Divisions Patterns In Triple ....................................................... 83 h. Examples Used For Meter Recognition Test ............................. 84 i. Meter Recognition Test Answer Sheet ..................................... 86 j. Duple-Prepared Etude .................................................................. 87 k. Triple-Prepared Etude ................................................................. 88 l. Duple-Unprepared Etude ............................................................. 89 m. Triple-Unprepared Etude ............................................................ 90 n. Sample Judge Form ....................................................................... 91 o. UCRII-IS Approval .......................................................................... 92 p. Teaching Materials Used ............................................................. 93 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 96 vii Table 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. LIST OF TABLES Page Means and Standard Deviations for the Rhythm Imagery Subtest of the Musical Aptitude Profile ................................................... 37 ANOVA Table for Rhythm Aptitude .......................................................... 38 Item Difficulty and Item Discrimination for the Meter Recognition Test .......................................................................................... 40 ANOVA Table for the Meter Recognition Test ........................................ 41 Interjudge Reliability of the Rating Scale for Each Rhythm Etude.. 41 Rating Scale Means and Standard Deviations ........................... ' ............. 42 ANOVA Table for the Duple-Prepared Etude ........................................... 43 ANOVA Table for the Triple-Prepared Etude .......................................... 43 Fisher’s PLSD for the Triple-Prepared Etude ......................................... 43 ANOVA Table for the Duple-Unprepared Etude ...................................... 44 ANOVA Table for the Triple-Unprepared Etude ..................................... 44 Fisher’s PLSD for the Triple-Unprepared Etude .................................... 45 ANOVA Table for Both Duple Etudes ......................................................... 45 ANOVA Table for the Both Triple Etudes .................................................. 46 Fisher’s PLSD for the Both Triple Etudes ................................................ 46 ANOVA Table for Both Prepared Etudes ................................................... 47 ANOVA Table for Both Unprepared Etudes .............................................. 47 ANOVA Table for All Etudes ........................................................................ 48 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Notation and appropriate “1 e and a” rhythm syllables for duple and triple meter (macro/microbeats) .......................................... l6 2. Notation and appropriate “1 e and a” rhythm syllables for duple and triple meter (divisions) ........................................................... I6 3. Notation and appropriate Gordon rhythm syllables for duple and triple meter (macro/microbeats) .......................................... 17 4. Notation and appropriate Gordon rhythm syllables for duple and triple meter (divisions) ........................................................... 18 5. Rhythm etude rating scale ........................................................................ 27 ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION EanLRrEmh Instructors and Students in beginning instrumental music classrooms are often dependent upon the organization of popular band method books as their instructional tools. Many of these band method books contain the word “comprehensive” in their title (Pearson, 1982, 1993; Rhodes, Bierschenk, Lautzenheiser, and Higgins, 1991). The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary Of The English Language: Encyclopedic Edition defines “comprehensive” as “including much” or “all-inclusive” (Cayne, 1989, p. 201). Use of the term “comprehensive” in referring to these method books seems to be in conflict with the existing research into how children learn rhythm. These books address the learning of rhythm, but articles exploring the process involved in teaching rhythm make the observation that little experimental research has been done in this area compared with the process involved in teaching tonality (Bebeau, 1982; Colley, 1987). In order for these method books to be truly comprehensive, a better understanding of how to teach rhythm to beginning instrumentalists is necessary. Early information on how children learn rhythm came from Studies of children's auditory perception. Petzold (1969) designed several Studies to identify the ways in which children “[ageS 6 to 12] perceive and respond to the auditory presentation of musical sounds” (p. 82). While the report of Petzold's 2 studies did not include descriptions of the methodologies used, it did provide brief descriptions of the results. Petzold reported four results pertaining to rhythm learning. He reported that there was no Significant difference between boys and girls in the learning of rhythm. He found that children were more accurate when responding to the rhythmic content than to the melodic content on a melodic- rhythmic test item. There was no significant difference, though, in the accuracy of responses in comparisons between the melodic-rhythmic items and the pure rhythmic items. He also found that the ability to accurately respond to the aural presentation of rhythm patterns and to simultaneously maintain a Steady beat did not change significantly after second grade (age eight). Finally, he found that all children had difficulty maintaining a Steady beat at slower tempos, and that children aged seven and eight had great difficulty maintaining a tempo of sixty beats per minute. Other researchers have examined the instructional tools used to teach rhythm in the general music classroom (Bebeau, 1982; Colley, 1987; Cranberry-Gordon, 1994; Jessen, 1991; Palmer, 1974; Shehan, 1987; Siemens, 1969). These Studies have all provided valuable insights into methods of improving rhythmic instruction. While the general music classroom teachers often use different teaching techniques than those in the beginning instrumental classroom, many techniques may be applicable to both settings. In 1969, Margaret Siemens conducted a comparison between the Orff method of music instruction and traditional teaching methods. She divided four-hundred-fifty-eight fifth-grade general music students into two instructional groups. One group was instructed using the Orff method and the other using traditional teaching methods. Orff and traditional teaching methods were not defined. The two groups were compared using the results of 3 a student interest questionnaire and two musical achievement tests. Rhythm learning in this Study was not examined separately but was part of instruction for both groups. She determined that while the Orff group did not have ' significantly higher achievement, the Students “performed at a significantly higher level in interest and attitude, in choice of music as a favorite subject, and in enjoyment of rhythmic activities and part Singing” (p. 285). A weakness in the Siemens article is that it fails to identify the content and characteristics of traditional teaching methods. In her 1982 article, Muriel Bebeau provided a good description of traditional methods of teaching rhythm. In this method, the student needs to be cognizant of mathematical concepts to decode the notation. Bebeau identifies the five steps to decode notation as follows: ( 1) determine which symbol receives one pulse in the given meter Signature, (2) identify the symbol by name or meaning, (3) determine the durational value of the symbol, (4) set up a steady pulse response with accent on the appropriate pulse, and (5) make a rhythmic response on the appropriate pulse. (p. 109) The description continues with a typical example from the music classroom. For example, when asked to read in 4/4 meter the child must (1) know that the quarter note receives one pulse in 4/4 meter, (2) know that a dot adds half the value Of the note to the note, (3) recognize that half of two is one, thus the half note receives three pulses in this case, (4) set up a Steady pulse response (usually by verbally counting “one, two, three, four”), and (5) make a motor response on the appropriate pulse. (p. 109) As will be shown later, this complex process is used by several band method books to teach rhythm. 4 The study described in the article by Bebeau was a comparison between the traditional method of teaching rhythm and a simplified speech cue method. The Simplified speech cue method is a combination of elements from the Orff and [(0de methods. The speech cue method uses the Orff concept of “Speech cues that have durational value closely corresponding to the actual value of the notes with which they are paired” (p. 109). The Kodaly approach uses the pairing of set speech cues with rhythm symbols. Bebeau also included movement cues to aid instruction. Bebeau conducted two separate experiments with two different groups of third-grade students. The results from the two experiments indicated that students trained in the combination speech cue method had greater achievement on a rhythm reading test. She also observed that third-grade students taught using either method of instruction made significant improvement “in rhythm reading as a result of systematic, regular instruction” (p. 117). In her conclusions, Bebeau stated that She conducted her Study using only one meter because the mathematical skills required to transfer between differing meters are not well established in third grade. This creates a question about whether the speech cue method would be effective when teaching different meters. Bebeau's second observation was that the ability to maintain a Steady beat appears to be a requirement for accurate rhythm performance. In 1987, Patricia Shehan conducted a study to investigate the “development of music literacy, as well as to contribute to knowledge in the related areas of memory and mnemonics” (p. 120). She compared the effects of four presentation modes on the rhythmic performance of second- and sixth-grade students. For the study, Shehan used twenty-five second-grade 5 students and nineteen sixth-grade students from a parochial school in the suburban midwest. The four modes of presentation were audio-rhythm, audio- mnemonics, audio-visual, and audio-visual-mnemonics. As in Bebeau's study, the rhythms Shehan used were all notated in 4/4 meter. In the audio-rhythm mode, rhythms were presented on a woodblock. The audio-mnemonics mode used syllables based on the teaching of Japanese theater drums; the syllables were unfamiliar to the subjects. While the rhythm was being performed on a woodblock in the audio-visual mode, the subjects were shown a card with the notation pictured. In the audio—visual-mnemonics mode, the notation was shown while the theater drum syllables were used to perform the rhythm. The subjects were required to memorize and perform each of the presented rhythms on a woodblock. Shehan found two interesting results. She observed that regardless of what presentation mode was used, “older students consistently learned the patterns twice as quickly as the younger children” (p. 124). She also found that “the use of mnemonics in the aural and visual modes reduced the number of attempts necessary for an accurate performance, although not Significantly so” (p. 124). It Should be noted, though, that results should not be claimed if no significant differences are found. 5 l' I . . Bl l 5 II II S In 1974, Palmer compared the use of Kodaly and Gordon rhythm syllables to traditional methods in the general music classroom. One-hundred- thirty-six fourth-grade students from Orange County, FL were divided into two treatment groups and a control group. The rhythm subsections of Coiwell's Music Achievement Test I, Music Achievement Test 1], and Gordon's Iowa Test of Music Literacy-Level One were used to evaluate the rhythmic achievement 6 of the subjects at the start and at the conclusion of the study. After five months of instruction, student performances on a performance achievement test written by the researcher were recorded and evaluated by three independent judges using a five-point rating scale. Palmer found that both the Kodaly and Gordon groups performed better than the control grOup. Bernadette Colley, in 1987, compared the use of the Kodaly system, the Gordon system, and the word method in the general music classroom. One- hundred-sixty second- and third-grade Students enrolled in two schools in southern Maine were divided into experimental and control groups. After eleven weeks of instruction the subjects were evaluated on their ability to recognize a complete measure in 4/4 or 6/8 meter, to write the notation of a measure by adding the correct stems and beams to a series of note heads, and to perform a measure correctly by clapping without the aid of a given pulse. Colley observed that the subjects using the word method had the longest attention spans and the Kodaly group the shortest. She found that the Gordon group performed the examples with a consistent metrical stress, while the word method was the most effective for improving the subject's dictation and performance skills. Finally, both the Kodaly and Gordon groups had problems remembering the correct syllables. W All the studies discussed so far have been conducted in the general music classroom; Different systems of rhythm instruction are used in instrumental music settings. It is important to examine some of the materials available for use with the beginning band to understand how concepts of rhythm are presented. All of these method books either allude to or use some 7 form of “1 e and a” as a system to count rhythm. This has been referred to as the traditional method of rhythm instruction (Bebeau, 1982). Kohut (1973) discusses the uses of the “l e and a” system in his book Instrumental Music Pedagogy. He states that “the performer needs to be able to “feel” given note values, rhythmic figures, and patterns in order to play them correctly” (p. 18). To aid the performer in feeling the rhythm, Kohut recommends foot tapping. Several suggestions are made on how to mark foot position into a student's music and how to assist the student in keeping the tapping Steady. To further aid students, Kohut suggests some form of time counting also be written in their music. In his opinion, the best time counting system is the “1 e and a” system. In this system, each beat in Simple time is given a number and up to four divisions of the beat are assigned “e and a.” For example, in a measure of 4/4, a quarter note followed by two eighth notes, four Sixteenth notes, and a quarter note would be counted: one, two and, three e and a, four. In compound triple meter, the divisions are assigned “la 1e.” For example, in a measure of 12/8, a dotted quarter note followed by Six eighth notes and a dotted quarter note would be counted: one, two 1a le, three la le, four. In 1994, Gage conducted an investigation into the rhythm instructional materials from several popular band method books. Based on telephone interviews with four retail music dealers located in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kansas, and New York and visits to three dealers in Pennsylvania and Illinois, Gage identified fourteen band method books currently available. Six of these books were immediately eliminated from the study as not being “popular” due to a lack of sales. From the remaining eight books, the list was narrowed to the four most popular as identified by interviews with four experts. The four books are Yamaha Band Student: A Band Method for Group or Individual 8 Instruction (Feldstein and O'Reilly, 1988), Essential Elements: A Comprehensive Band Method (Rhodes et al., 1991), Standard of Excellence: Comprehensive Band Method (Pearson, 1993), and First Division Band Method (Weber, 1962). Gage's investigation of these books determined that all four “made adequate use of pedagogical techniques expecting a student's a) visual response, b) auditory response, and/or c) physical response” (p. iv). He determined that the content was Similar for the books, including instruction, rhythms used, terms, and concepts. Gage's final observation was that while content of the four method books was similar, the presentational sequence was not. The following is a brief analysis of the presentational sequence of some of the band method books currently available. The Rubank Elementary Method (Hovey, 1933) is one of the oldest-band method books still available for use. The first rhythm introduced is the whole note in 4/4 meter. The book then introduces half notes, quarter notes, eighth notes, and finally sixteenth notes. Students are instructed to count the rhythms by using the beat numbers and the word “and” for eighth notes. For example the rhythm of two quarter notes followed by four eighth notes in 4/4 meter would be counted as “1, 2, 3 and, 4 and.” The recommended syllables for four sixteenth notes are “1 da and da.” There are no different syllables recommended for triple meter. Sessions in Sound (Buehlman and Whitcomb, 1976) follows a similar progression to the Rubank Elementary Method, except that it stops with eighth notes. Rhythm counting is recommended and the recommended syllables are “1 and, 2 and, 3 and, 4 and” for continuous eighth notes. The same system is used for triple meter with the quarter note receiving the beat. In 1982, Pearson published his Best in Class: Comprehensive Band Method series. 9 Instruction in this series begins with whole notes, then continues with half notes, quarter notes, and finally eighth notes. The method offers no suggestions on how to teach rhythm. Instead, it instructs students to “Write in the counting on the blank lines. (Your director will tell you the counting system to use.)” (Pearson, 1982, p. 6) and provides blank lines under each note and rest. The Yamaha Band Student: A Band Method for Group or Individual Instruction (Feldstein and O'Reilly, 1988) follows the same progression as Sessions in Sound. The only difference is that it uses an ampersand (&) rather than the word “and” for eighth note counting. The same system is recommended for triple meter, using the quarter note as the beat. Method books began to change the order of note value introduction in response to information about how children cognitively process rhythm and meter. Gordon (1997) reports that research has been conducted 'to determine the difficulty levels of various rhythm patterns (p. 204-205). Studies, using large samples of Students of various ages, were used to determine if certain rhythm patterns were easy, moderately difficult, or difficult. The subjects were asked to compare pairs of rhythm patterns and determine if the second pattern was the same or different from the first. Through research it has been determined that the easiest patterns to learn are patterns in duple and triple meter using only the beat and equal divisions of the beat. This is in direct educational contrast with the practice of first introducing whole-notes, then half-notes as previously occured in instrumental methods texts. In Essential Elements: A Comprehensive Band Method (Rhodes et al., 1991), the first rhythms introduced are quarter notes in 4/4. The order of subsequent rhythms are half notes, whole notes, and eighth notes. The counting for continuous eighth notes is presented as “l & 2 & 3 & 4 &” and up 10 and down arrows are used to Show the position of the Student's foot. The same system is also used for triple meter with the time signature 314 using the quarter note as the beat. Pearson published his Standard of Excellence: Comprehensive Band .Method in 1993, and it is Similar to his Best in Class: Comprehensive Band Method. The order of rhythm introduction is the same, but the instructions have been altered. When each new note value is introduced, there are instructions for how many beats it receives in 4/4 meter. Occasionally the instructions “Write in the counting and clap the rhythm before you play” are placed below an exercise (Pearson, 1993, p. 6). Unlike Best in Class, there are no lines provided below the staff. The final method book to be discussed is Now Go Home and Practice (Probasco, Grable, Meeks, and Swearingen, 1994). This book, like Essential Elements: A Comprehensive Band Method, presents rhythms in the order of quarter notes, half notes, whole notes, and eighth notes. It also uses the up and down arrows to indicate the student's foot position while counting the rhythm. A graphic of a shoe is also provided to Show the correct position of the foot. The same system is used for triple meter, using the quarter note as the beat in 3l4. Before continuing, mention should be made of The Individualized Instructor (Froseth, 1973). This method book differs in many ways from the other books discussed. Teachers are instructed to first teach students to sing each exercise without notation before performing it on their instruments using the notation. Separate rhythm exercises are also provided. The first exercise is to teach the students how to keep a Steady beat. The students are asked to “practice marching, clapping, or drumming the big beat (Tempo Beat) in music” (p. 4). Continuous eighth-note rhythms in the book are counted using “1 ne 2 ac” in duple meter and “1 na ni 2 na ni” in triple meter. The 11 presentation of rhythmic concepts uses a different sequence than in the other method books previously described in that l) the material is presented first aurally, then with notation, 2) rhythmic concepts are presented first separately and then combined with melodic exercises, and 3) triple meter is introduced earlier and redefined as being in 618 with the dotted quarter note receiving the beat. Music—WW The necessity of maintaining a steady beat as preparation for rhythmic instruction has been established by many researchers (Bebeau, 1982; Gordon, 1993; Jessen, 1991; Jordan, 1989; Kohut, 1973; Petzold, 1969), but current theory and research calls into question the validity of the counting methods used in the previously described, popular instrumental method books (Gordon, 1993; Jordan, 1989; Taggart, 1989). Edwin Gordon (1993, 1997) has developed a theory of music learning presented in Learning Sequences in Music: Skill, Content, and Patterns: A Music Learning Theory. The theory is founded on Gordon's research into music aptitude and is based on the concept of audiation. Audiation is defined as “the ability to hear and to comprehend music for which the sound is not physically present (as in recall), is no longer physically present (as in listening), or may never have been physically present (as in creativity and improvisation)” (Gordon, 1995, p. 8). Gordon divides the learning process into discrimination learning and inference learning (Gordon, 1993). Discrimination learning is defined by Gordon as “the lower of two generic types of skill learning. In discrimination learning students are taught skills, content, and patterns by rote. . . . Discrimination learning is the readiness for inference learning” (Gordon, 1993, p. 383-384). Gordon defines inference learning as “the higher of two 12 generic types of skill learning. In inference learning students are guided by the teacher to learn Skills, content, and patterns by teaching themselves. Students are not taught by rote in inference learning” (Gordon, 1993, p. 387). Within these two categories, Gordon has further divided the process into hierarchical levels. Within discrimination learning, these levels are aural/oral, verbal association, partial synthesis, symbolic association-reading, symbolic association-writing, composite synthesis-reading, and composite synthesis-writing (Gordon, 1993, p. 55). Within inference learning there are three subsections: generalization, creativity/improvisation, and theoretical understanding. Each of these subsections has been further divided into hierarchical levels. Both generalization and theoretical understanding are divided into aural/oral, verbal association, symbolic association-reading, and symbolic association-writing. The creativity/improvisation subsection is divided into aural/oral, symbolic association-reading, and symbolic association-writing (Gordon, 1993, p. 55). For more information about Music Learning Theory, please refer to Gordon's text, Learning Sequences In Music: Skill, Content, And Patterns: A Music Learning Theory. Included in Gordon's Music Learning Theory is information pertaining to rhythm content learning sequence. Gordon (1993) equates rhythm with movement and states, “The coordination of movement in audiation may be the basis of rhythm aptitude” (p. 140). This theory is in direct contrast with the method books discussed earlier. Gordon (1993) goes on to state that “Most traditional explanations of rhythm in music, even when based on the metrical structure of poetry, disregard movement and are reduced to counting and fractions” (p. 140). This philosophy is echoed by Michael R. Rogers as he states, “For almost no other topic, however, is it so important to translate conceptual knowledge into sound and musical effect. To make sense, rhythm 13 must finally be felt as a physical activity and not just understood as a formation of symbols” (p. 143). According to Gordon's Music Learning Theory, most method books are starting rhythm instruction at the highest level of learning, theoretical understanding. Theoretical understanding, or music theory, according to Gordon (1993) “tries to explain why we perceive, sensate, and audiate as we do when we engage in musical thought and activities” (p. 100). At this highest level of Music Learning Theory students are taught “the relationship of arithmetic to rhythm” (Gordon, 1993, p. 101). This is where many of the above-stated method books begin, in that students are asked to learn rhythms from notation by counting. Gordon believes that this method of instruction is an attempt to take meaning from notated music, rather than giving meaning to the notation through audiation. He recommends that Students follow sequenced instruction by hearing and imitating short rhythmic patterns, associating those patterns with some form of rhythmic solfege, discriminating between individual patterns, reading and writing the patterns, audiating a series of familiar and unfamiliar patterns, and creating new patterns. It is only at this point, according to Gordon, that students Should be taught theoretical understanding. Dfi" EBII'I Gordon (1993) describes rhythm as containing three elements: macrobeats, microbeats, and melodic rhythm. Jordan (1989) presents these three elements as layers of audiation. The first layer contains the macrobeats, which are referred to in the traditional method as the beat. The second layer contains the microbeats or the divisions of the macrobeat. For example, in 4/4 meter, usually the macrobeats are quarter notes and the microbeats are the eighth notes. In 6/8 meter, usually the macrobeats are the dotted quarter 14 notes and the microbeats are the eighth notes. Jordan states that “While the macrobeat is fundamental to rhythm audiation, consistent tempo cannot be established without the concurrent audiation of macrobeats and microbeats” (1989, p. 28). The final layer contains the melodic rhythm itself. The melodic rhythm may be categorized as containing divisions, elongations, rests, ties, and upbeats. Basic meters are defined in traditional texts as being duple or triple. “When groups of beats with regularly recurring accents occur in music, we call it meter. If the groups fall in groups of two pulses, the meter is duple; when in groups of three, the meter is triple” (Benward and Jackson, 1983, p. 30). Meter is further classified by the terms “Simple” and “compound.” Benward and Jackson state “when the regular division of the unit is into two subdivisions. . . the meter is called simple” (p. 39). “In certain meters, however, the beat unit has three subdivisions. . . . This type of meter is called compound meter” (p. 40). The New Harvard Dictionary of Music (Randel, 1986) clarifies these definitions: Meters in Western music are of two principal kinds: duple or triple, depending on whether the basic unit of pulse recurs in groups of two or three. The recurrence of groups of four pulses, as in 4/4, may be termed quadruple meter but is also a special case of duple meter. A meter in which this basic pulse is subdivided into groups of three, however, is said to be a compound meter. Thus, 6/8 is a compound duple meter because it consists of two groups of three eighth notes (three groups of two eighth notes would be written as 3/4 and would be a Simple triple meter); 9/8 is a compound triple meter because it consists of three groups of three eighth notes. (p. 489) 15 The selection of the appropriate term for a meter is dependent upon the notation or time signature used by the composer. Most traditional beginning band programs use only Simple duple and Simple triple meter. Gordon does not use the terms “simple” and “compound” when discussing rhythm. He does use the terms “duple” and “triple” but redefines them in terms of macro- and microbeats. Gordon states that microbeats “are derived from the equal temporal division of macrobeats” (1993, p. 142). Usual duple meter is defined by Gordon as a series of macrobeats that are consistently divided by two equal microbeats. Usual triple meter is defined as a series of macrobeats that are consistently divided by three equal microbeats. The selection of the appropriate term for a meter is dependent on what the listener hears as the macrobeat. Future discussion in this study will use Gordon's definitions of duple and triple meter. W In 1989, Taggart published a comparison of rhythm syllable systems. She defined three criteria with which syllable systems may be judged. The first is that “syllables must be associated with how music is audiated rather than with how music is notated” (Taggart, 1989, p. 56). AS part of this criterion, she added the requirements that the system must: 1) relate to musical movement, 2) be based on beat function, 3) use the same syllables for all macrobeats, 4) use the same syllables for all microbeats within a given meter, and 5) be useful without seeing the notation. The second criteria is that “a rhythm syllable system should provide a means by which one can discriminate among meters and, to some extent, among the functions of rhythm patterns within those meters” (p. 57). The third criteria is that “a rhythm syllable system must have internal logic; the syllables within the 16 system must be comprehensive and must relate in a meaningful and logical way to each other” (p. 57). Taggart criticizes the “1 e and a” system for several reasons. Taggart's first criticism is that Students must see the notation in order to use this system. This violates her first criterion. It also requires that the students have a theoretical understanding of notation to learn rhythm. Her main problem with this system is that it was created for use only with duple meter. This requires that the same syllables are used for different beat functions within different meters (Figures 1 and 2). This violates the second criteria. Some band method books got around this problem by using the syllables “la-le” in place of “and-a” in triple meter. MILL Notation and appropriate “1 e and a” rhythm syllables for duple and triple meter (macro/microbeats). 1 2m3enla4afl 1m2m3afl456 W Notation and appropriate “1 e and a” rhythm syllables for duple and triple meter (divisions). Taggart's final criticism is that this system requires the students to count, which is a function of general intelligence, not musical aptitude. She states that this system “will lower potentially high achievement in students who have low intelligence but high music aptitude” (p. 62). Some positive aspects of this syllable system are that it is based on beat function rather than 17 note value and that it “relates to music as it is kinesthetically experienced” (p. 61). Figures 1 and 2 reveal a problem when the system is used with divisions of the microbeat in triple meter. To use the system in this situation, the numbers are associated with the microbeats and the syllable “and” is associated with the divisions. This situation further corrupts the internal consistency of the system. This violates Taggart’s third criteria. Further, in most of the method books previously discussed, the triple meter examples are presented in 3/4 with the quarter note receiving the macrobeat. Counting for these examples is presented as the same as that used for the duple meter examples in 2/4 and 4/4, which also violates Taggart’s second criteria. Gordon has developed a rhythm syllable system for use with Music- Learning-Theory-based instruction. An instrumental application of Music Learning Theory that uses this system is entitled Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series (Grunow and Gordon, 1989b). This system uses the syllable “du” for macrobeats, “de” for microbeats in duple meter, and “da di” for microbeats in triple meter. For example, two quarter notes followed by four eighth notes in 4/4 meter would be chanted “du, du, du de, du de”. A dotted quarter note and three eighth notes in 6/8 meter would be chanted “du, du da di” (Figure 3). Division of the microbeat in either meter use the syllable “ta,” pronounced “tah” (Figure 4) Dv. Du DuDoDuDe Dv. Du Da Di m3, Notation and appropriate Gordon rhythm syllables for duple and triple meter (macro/microbeats). 18 Du Du De DuTaDeTaDuDe DnTaDaTaDiTa DtDaDi Eignu Notation and appropriate Gordon rhythm syllables for duple and triple meter (divisions). Taggart approves of this system in her 1989 article. It meets all of her criteria for a good rhythm syllable system. It is based upon how music is audiated rather than notated. Unlike the “1 e and a” system, it uses a different set of syllables for duple and triple meter. It aids discrimination between meters and beat functions within different meters. The Gordon rhythm syllables are also applicable to unusual meters. Taggart states, “Gordon's rhythm syllable system can, therefore, be logically associated with every rhythm pattern that can be found in music” (p. 64). Summarx Some generalizations can be made from the studies discussed. The first is that regular instruction is necessary for student improvement in learning rhythm (Bebeau, 1982). The use of a rhythm syllable system as a mnemonic can aid student instruction in rhythm (Palmer, 1974; Shehan, 1987). Some rhythm syllable systems are more successful than others (Colley, 1987; Palmer, 1974). Finally, the ability to maintain a steady beat is a requirement for rhythm learning (Bebeau, 1982; Gordon, 1993; Jessen, 1991; Jordan, 1989; Kohut, 1973; Petzold, 1969). Additional information is needed concerning the use of rhythm syllable systems in beginning instrumental programs. 19 mm With the intention of improving rhythm instruction in beginning instrumental music, the purpose of this research is to explore the use of rhythm syllables as an educational tool. The Specific problems of the study are as follows: 1) To determine if a significant difference exists in duple-meter rhythmic sight-reading performance between sixth-grade beginning instrumental Students who were taught using the “1 e and a” system, Gordon rhythm syllables, or no syllable system. I 2) To determine if a Significant difference exists in triple-meter rhythmic sight-reading performance between sixth-grade beginning instrumental students who were taught using the “1 e and a” system, Gordon rhythm syllables, or no syllable system. 3) To determine if a Significant difference exists in duple-meter rhythmic prepared reading performance between Sixth-grade beginning instrumental students who were taught using the “1 e and a” system, Gordon rhythm syllables, or no syllable system. 4) To determine if a significant difference exists in triple-meter rhythmic prepared reading performance between Sixth-grade beginning instrumental students who were taught using the “l e and a" system, Gordon rhythm syllables, or no syllable system. 5) To determine if the “l e and a” system, Gordon rhythm syllables, or no syllable system is a better instructional tool to teach a sense of duple and triple meter. CHAPTERTWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Washes Palmer, in 1974, undertook a study to compare two sets of rhythm syllables in the general music classroom. The stated purpose of her study “was to determine the relative effectiveness of the Richards and Gordon approaches to rhythm reading for fourth-grade students” (p. 110). The system devised by Mary Helen Richards is based on the Kodaly system where the syllable “Ta” is associated with quarter notes and “Ti Ti” with two eighth notes. Taggart (1989) credits this system as having an internal consistency and states that the syllables can be used for most rhythm patterns. Some of the disadvantages of this system are the syllables are based on note value, requiring the user to know the note value to determine which syllable to chant. This means that a number of different syllables may be chanted for the macrobeat. The same syllables are used in different meters, preventing students from using the system to discriminate between meters. For this study, Palmer used one-hundred-thirty-Six fourth-graders enrolled in three elementary schools in Orange County, FL. Two intact classes from each school were used, for a total of Six classes. The two classes in one school were used as the control group. One class in each of the other two schools was used for the Gordon experimental group and the other for the Richards experimental group. Of the one-hundred-thirty-six subjects, forty- 20 21 eight were in the Richards group, fifty in the Gordon group, and thirty-eight in the control group. The subjects were administered the Musical Aptitude Profile as a test of musical aptitude. The rhythm subsections of Colwell's Music Achievement Test I, Music Achievement Test II, and Gordon's Iowa Test of Music Literacy-Level One were used to evaluate the rhythmic achievement of the subjects. A performance achievement test, written by the researcher, was also used. The test measured the subjectS’ ability to synchronize their responses to duple and triple meter excerpts, imitate rhythm patterns, and respond to rhythm notation. The performances were recorded and evaluated by three independent elementary music teachers using a five-point rating scale. All the subjects were administered the Musical Aptitude Profile and the rhythmic achievement measures prior to the study. The investigator administered instruction to both experimental groups. Instruction lasted for five months, with the groups meeting for three twenty-minute periods per week. The control groups received no special instruction. At the end of the instruction period, the subjects were again administered the measures of rhythmic achievement. Palmer found that both the Richards and Gordon groups performed better than the control group. She states that “While the performance ’ achievement difference between the Gordon and the Richards approaches indicates that the Gordon approach is statistically Significantly better than the Richards approach in the development of performance achievement, its practical Significance is questionable” (p. 117). Palmer concludes that, for the sample investigated, the results are inconclusive. She points out that the results may have been effected by the control groups having a different teacher from the experimental groups. She also makes the observation that 22 the students in both experimental groups expressed enthusiasm for instruction throughout the study. It is interesting that the researcher discounted their own findings in this study. Bernadette Colley (1987) conducted another study “to determine the relative effectiveness of three recitation systems on improving the rhythm- reading ability of elementary school children” (p. 224). The three rhythm syllable systems compared were the Kodaly system, the Gordon system, and the word method. The Kodaly and Gordon systems have been discussed previously. In the word method, words are associated with rhythmic patterns. In duple meter for example, the word “Maine” is used for a quarter note, “Kansas” for two eighth notes, and “Mississippi” for four sixteenth notes. The subjects used in this study were one-hundred-sixty second- and third-graders enrolled in two schools in southern Maine. The subjects were in eight intact classes, four second-grade classes and four third-grade classes. One class of third-grade students and one class of second-grade students from one school were used as the control group. The remaining six classes from the second school were used as the experimental group. Each of the three experimental groups used one third and one second grade class. The content and procedures used for instruction were identical for all groups, with the only difference being in syllable system used. The treatment lasted for eleven weeks. Instruction took place in the subjects’ regular general music classes. Subjects were evaluated on their ability to recognize a notated measure in 4/4 or 6/8 meter after listening to a recorded example, write the notation of a measure by adding the correct stems and beams to a series of note heads, and to perform a measure correctly by clapping without the aid of a given pulse. 23 Colley observed that the attention spans of the subjects varied with treatment. The Kodaly group was the first to lose interest, followed a couple of weeks later by the Gordon group. She states that a majority of the word group subjects remained interested throughout the study. She found that the Gordon group performed the examples with a consistent metrical stress. Both the Kodaly and Gordon groups had problems remembering when to use the correct syllables for divisions of the beat. The word method was the most effective for improving the subject's dictation and performance skills. A weakness noted for this method was that different pronunciations of the words created a different rhythm from the one to be associated with that rhythm. Colley states that her study was limited to using only one complete measure in 4/4 or 6/8 and further research using more complex rhythms is needed. It is also important to note that the four groups did not begin the study at the same levels of achievement. This discrepancy between groups calls the results into question. The word system used in this study has been found to have several problems. Taggart (1989) criticizes a Similar system for several reasons. To use this system, one must first read the notation. The words may be associated only with specific durations or patterns. This system may only be used to discriminate between meters that use macro- and microbeats in duple and triple meters. The greatest disadvantage to the word system is that it has no internal consistency; unfamiliar patterns require learning a new word association. AS in Palmer's study, the results leave many questions unanswered. The legitimacy of the tasks presented to the subjects at the conclusion of the Study is also questionable. 24 Summers Questions exist that need to be answered by additional research. The Palmer and Colley studies both occurred in the general music classroom. While the Gordon rhythm syllable system was compared to others in these Studies, it has yet to be compared to the “1 e and a” system in the beginning instrumental classroom. CHAPTERTHREE Subjects The subjects used in the study were selected from the one-hundred- three sixth-grade students enrolled in a suburban middle school in central Michigan. The students were voluntarily participating in the school's beginning band program. Instrument selection was made by the students, with teacher guidance, while they were enrolled in the fifth grade. The instruments selected by the students included flute, oboe, clarinet, trumpet, horn, baritone, trombone, and percussion. A letter of introduction explaining the study was sent home to all students and their parents (see Appendix C). All students who returned permission Slips were initially included in the study. Twenty-two students were eventually eliminated as they were taking private instruction, had missed one or more of the criterion measures, or had not returned the permission slip. The remaining eighty-one students were divided into three groups of twenty-four, twenty-five, and thirty-two students. This study was approved by the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at Michigan State University (see Appendix 0). C' . II The criterion measures used in this study were the Rhythm Imagery subsection of the Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP) (Gordon, 1995), four rhythm etudes composed by the researcher, a rating scale written by the researcher, 25 26 and a meter recognition test written by the researcher. The Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP) is a standardized test of stabilized musical aptitude. The test contains three subsections, Tonal Imagery, Musical Sensitivity, and Rhythm Imagery, of which only the latter was used. The test was used to insure that all three treatment groups had a normal distribution of rhythmic aptitude. The Rhythm Imagery subsection takes approximately fifty minutes to administer. The test contains two parts, Rhythm Imagery-Tempo and Rhythm Imagery- Meter. Each part consists of forty items, presented in twenty pairs. In the Tempo subtest, the subjects are asked to determine if a musical answer is different from a presented musical question. The musical answer is performed either faster, slower, or in the same tempo as the musical question. In the Meter subtest, the subjects are asked to determine if a musical answer is the same or different from a presented musical question. If- the answers are different, it is because the musical answer has a different meter and melodic rhythm than the musical question. The reliability coefficient for the Rhythm Imagery subsection for sixth graders on the MAP is reported in the test manual to be .84 (Gordon, 1995, p. 74). The study used four rhythm etudes composed by the researcher (see Appendices J, K, L, and M). All four etudes were eight measures in length and used rhythm patterns familiar to the subjects in an unfamiliar order. Two etudes were in duple meter and two were in triple meter. One duple-meter etude and one triple-meter etude were prepared by the student independent of teacher assistance. The remaining two etudes were sight-read in front of the researcher upon completion of instruction. A continuous five-point rating scale (Figure 5) written by the researcher was used by two independent judges to evaluate subject performance on the four etudes. Each judge recorded his or her ratings on a researcher-created judge form (see Appendix N). 27 5. Student performs etude with accurate divisions and macro/microbeat patterns. 4. Students performs etude with correct divisions pattern and most macro/microbeat patterns with no more than two errors. 3. Student performs etude with steady beat and most macro/microbeat patterns with no more than two errors. 2. Student performs etude with some steady beat and some correct macro/microbeat patterns. 1. Student performs etude with inconsistent beat. Rim Rhythm etude rating scale. The study also used a meter recognition test created by the researcher to evaluate the subject's ability to recognize duple and triple meter by listening to recordings of unfamiliar music (see Appendix H). Twenty musical examples in duple and triple meter were selected from R. W. Ottman’s Music for Sight Singing (1986). Some of the items used were altered from major tonality to harmonic minor tonality so that an equal number of items were performed in both tonalities. The test items were recorded into the memory of a Korg 01WIFD synthesizer using a standard piano sound. The items were then quantized to ensure that the examples were performed at a steady tempo and with accurate note values. The synthesizer was then used to transfer the examples to a cassette tape. The subjects were given an answer sheet numbered from one to twenty with “D,” “T,” and “7” as possible answers (see Appendix I). They were instructed to circle D if the example is in duple meter and T if the example is in triple meter. The subjects were asked not to guess and to circle “?” if they were not sure of the test item’s meter. 28 Mum The subjects regularly attended a forty-two minute band period every other day and were taught by one of two full-time instrumental teachers. The classes were grouped by instrument. The first instructor taught the clarinet, horn, flute/oboe, and percussion classes. The second instructor taught trombone, baritone, and cornet classes. All seven classes were distributed during the course of two days. Each homogeneous instrumental class was assigned to one of two instructional periods on either the odd or even days of the month. Two classes were held concurrently each period, in separate rooms, with different instructors, except for the clarinet group. The second instructor used the clarinet class time as a planning period. The students received no instrumental instruction prior to the start of the study. All instruction pertaining to the study was taught by the researcher. All other instruction was team-taught by the researcher and one of the full-time teachers. The researcher observed both full-time teachers and discussed teaching Styles. No appreciable difference in instruction was noted between the two instructors. Instruction of the researcher was observed by both full- time teachers to ensure that there was no appreciable difference in the instruction between treatment groups. Prior to the study, the subjects were administered the Rhythm Imagery subsection of the Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP) (Gordon, 1995) as a test of stabilized musical aptitude. This information was used to form three experimental groups, of approximately thirty subjects each, with a normal distribution of rhythmic aptitude. There were no significant differences between the groups according to aptitude. The first group of twenty-five students included those learning clarinet and horn. The second group of thirty-two students included those learning flute, oboe, and trombone. The 29 third group of twenty-four students included those learning baritone, cornet, and percussion. The three experimental groups received the same instruction taught by the researcher in terms of content and procedure. The materials used for instruction pertaining to the study were from Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series (Grunow and Gordon, 1989a), an instrumental application of Music Learning Theory. The only difference between the groups was in the syllable system used to teach rhythm. The first group (clarinet and horn) used the “1 e and a” system when chanting rhythms. The second group (flute, oboe, and trombone) used Gordon rhythm syllables. The third group (baritone, cornet, and percussion) did not use a syllable system; rather, the subjects used the neutral syllable “tab.” The period of instruction was twelve weeks. At the beginning of each band period, the researcher taught a five to ten minute rhythm lesson using the appropriate syllable system for those subjects (see Appendix A). The subjects’ regular instrumental instructors taught for the remainder of the period while the researcher observed. The text used by the regular instructors for all groups was Essential Elements: A Comprehensive Band Method (Rhodes et al., 1991). The regular instructors were instructed by the researcher in the use of the three syllable systems and continued to use the system assigned to each group in their own instruction. The two instructors and the researcher observed each other to ensure that the lessons presented to all groups were as equivalent as possible in quality and content. W Three types of rhythm lessons were taught by the researcher: coordination and rhythm readiness, rhythm pattern instruction, and 30 listening. The coordination and rhythm readiness and rhythm pattern instruction lessons were based on materials found in Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series (Grunow and Gordon, 1989b). The three listening lessons were created by the researcher. The coordination and rhythm readiness lessons were used in the first two weeks Of instruction (see Appendix A). “Coordination and rhythm readiness activities are designed to assist Students in developing physical coordination and rhythm readiness” (Grunow and Gordon, 1989b, p. 131). The activities aided students in maintaining a Steady macrobeat with their legs and tapping microbeats with their hands while chanting rhythm patterns. The activities were performed in both duple and triple meter. The activities included the following: 1. Move both arms in the same direction (up and down) to macrobeats while sitting with elbows resting on a desk or table top. 2. Move both arms in the opposite direction (one arm is up while the other is down) to macrobeats while Sitting with elbows resting on a desk top table. 3. Swing both arms in the same direction (front and back) to macrobeats while standing. 4. Sway the upper part of the body from side to side to macrobeats while sitting. 5. Move both feet (heels only -- up and down) to macrobeats in the same direction while sitting. 6. Move both feet (heels only) in the opposite direction (one is up when the other is down) to macrobeats while sitting. 7. Move both arms and both feet together in the same direction to macrobeats while sitting. 31 8. Stand and rock in place to macrobeats. With both feet on the floor, shift the weight from one foot to the other with knees bending. The weight should be on the heel of one foot when the weight is on the toes of the other. 9. Stand and rock in place to macrobeats. Tap thighs with both arms and hands to duple microbeats and with only hands to triple microbeats. 10. Sit and move both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and both arms and hands to duple microbeats and only hands to triple microbeats. (adapted from pp. 131-132) The activities were performed by the students with the researcher modeling the movement and chanting instructions to a steady beat. The rhythm pattern instruction lessons were taken directly from Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series. The series includes twenty lesson plans to be used by teachers. These lessons were used weeks three through nine of the study. The Specific lesson plans used from the series were 2B, 3B, 5B, and 7B, of which only the rhythm pattern instruction sections were used (see Appendices D, E, F, and G). In each lesson, eight two-measure rhythm patterns were introduced to the subjects on a neutral syllable. The subjects were asked to maintain a steady macrobeat in their heels while tapping microbeats with their hands. The researcher would chant the rhythm pattern over four macrobeats and gesture for the subjects to echo the pattern on the next consecutive macrobeat using the syllable “bah.” Once a majority of the subjects could perform the patterns comfortably on a neutral syllable, the words associated with the syllable system assigned to that group were used. The neutral syllable group continued to chant the patterns on the neutral syllable “tah.” The students were required to echo the patterns as a group and in solo, in familiar and unfamiliar order. 32 Notation for the rhythm patterns was introduced to the subjects in weeks five, ten, and eleven. The subjects were given a sheet containing the rhythm patterns notated in the same order in which the patterns were verbally introduced. The subjects were asked to echo the patterns while looking at the notation. They were then asked to perform the patterns on a comfortable pitch on their instruments. The students were required to perform the patterns as a group and in solo, in familiar and unfamiliar order. The final type of lesson taught by the researcher was the listening lessons. The three lessons were taught in weeks six through eight. Each lesson contained seven or eight musical examples (see Appendices A and O). A variety was used in each lesson including classical, jazz, Celtic, and popular music. As each example was played, the students were asked to find and tap macrobeats with their heels. Once a majority of the students had achieved this, they were then asked to find and tap microbeats with their hands. Using this information they were asked to indicate whether the meter of the example was in duple or triple meter. Each example was then briefly discussed. The purpose of these lessons was to generalize the meters to “real” music and to provide an entertaining diversion from the rhythm pattern instruction lessons. At the conclusion of the study, the subjects were administered the meter recognition test. They were asked to listen to twenty short recordings of unfamiliar music and identify the meter of each example. The examples were in either duple or triple meter. Each subject was given an answer sheet and asked to circle “D” if the recorded example was in duple meter, “T” if the example was in triple meter, or “?” if they were unsure. The meter recognition tests were corrected by the researcher. 33 The subjects were also asked to perform four short rhythm etudes. Each subject received a sheet containing one duple and one triple etude two instructional days before they were asked to perform. The subjects were instructed to prepare to perform the etudes on their instrument to the best of their ability. They received no assistance from their regular instrumental instructors or the researcher in their preparation. To record their performance, the subjects were called one at a time into a room in a different part of the building during their regular instructional periods. They were audio-taped performing the two prepared etudes and sight- reading the two unfamiliar etudes on their instrument. The researcher was present to assist the student with the process of recording. As the etudes contained rhythm only, the subjects were asked to perform the etudes on a comfortable pitch of their choice. Each subject was instructed to perform the etudes without stopping and to keep going if he or she made a mistake. The subjects were each asked if they had any questions and then were given a card with the notation of the two prepared etudes. The subject performed the duple- prepared etude first, then the triple-prepared etude after a short break. The card with the prepared etudes was replaced by a card with the two unprepared etudes. Each subject was given approximately thirty seconds to look at the duple-unprepared etude. Some subjects asked to begin their performance after sooner than thirty seconds. After performing. the duple-meter etude, each subject was given an additional thirty seconds to look at the triple- unprepared etude. As before, some subjects elected not to use all of the time. When finished with his or her performance, the subject was asked to return to class. The audio-tapes of the performances were rated for rhythmic accuracy by two independent judges using a five-point continuous rating scale. The 34 subjects’ performances were identified by number only on the audio tape to ensure anonymity. The two judges rated the student performances separately using the rating scale. The judges were both doctoral students from Michigan State University. One was a trombonist and wind conducting major and the other was a specialist in early childhood music and elementary classroom music education. Both had taught beginning instrumental music in public schools. Each judge was trained in the use of the rating scale by the researcher prior to listening to the subjects. The judges listened to random examples of student performances until they felt comfortable using the rating scale. Examples of both the duple-prepared and triple-prepared etude were used in the training. The judges rated the random examples and discussed the results. S"ID° 111' At the conclusion of the study, the reliability of the meter recognition test was determined using split-halves reliability. The results of the test were analyzed for the effect of the treatment by using one way analysis of variance and post hoc tests. If significant differences were found, it can be determined that the rhythm syllable system used by the Students in the group with the higher means aided instruction. The etude performance scores were analyzed using one way analysis of variance and post-hoe tests to determine if Significant differences existed between the three groups. Results were examined for the duple-prepared etude, triple-prepared etude, duple-unprepared etude, triple-unprepared etude, both duple etudes, both triple etudes, both prepared etudes, both unprepared etudes, and all four etudes. If significant differences were found, 35 it can be determined that the rhythm syllable system used by the students in the group with the higher means aided instruction. CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA Intmdnssism The purpose of this study was to explore the use of rhythm syllable systems as an educational tool to improve rhythm instruction in the beginning instrumental music classroom. The problems of the Study were to determine if the use of the “1 e and a” system, Gordon rhythm syllables, or no syllable system result in significantly different Student achievement in terms of: (1) recognition of duple and triple meter, (2) duple-meter rhythmic sight- reading performance, (3) triple-meter rhythmic sight-reading performance, (4) duple-meter rhythmic prepared-reading performance, and (5) triple- meter rhythmic prepared-reading performance. Testing this theory involved the administration of the Music Aptitude Profile (MAP) (Gordon, 1995) to ensure that all three treatment groups had a normal distribution of rhythmic aptitude. After instruction, the students were administered a meter recognition test written by the researcher. The subjects’ performance on four rhythm etudes (duple-prepared, triple-prepared, duple- unprepared, and triple-unprepared) were evaluated by two independent judges using a five-point continuous rating scale. The following statistics were calculated: (1) means and standard deviations of the MAP, (2) reliability of the MAP, (3) split-halves reliability for the meter recognition test, (4) interjudge reliability of the judges’ ratings for each rhythm etude, and 36 un; til] SC 37 (5) using analysis of variance, differences in scores as a result of treatment on the judges’ scores for the duple-prepared etude, triple-prepared etude, duple- unprepared etude, triple-unprepared etude, both duple etudes, both triple etudes, both prepared etudes, both unprepared etudes, and all four etudes. Results MemmLSnndaLLDexiatinanLthLMnsiLAmimdmec. The scores on the Rhythm Imagery subtest of the MAP were used to create three groups with similar rhythm aptitudes and diverse instrumentation. The means for the three treatment groups were somewhat lower than those of the standardization sample provided in the manual for MAP (Gordon, 1995, p. 75) (see Table 1). Also, the standard deviations for all three groups were smaller than the standard deviations reported in the MAP manual. Tablcl.MeanLand_Stmmm_Dexmmm_£cLflm_RhmmL1masmL.Suhtest_uLJhe II'IE'IEEII Rhythm Imagery Treatment Group Mean S. D. # of Subjects 1 e and a 51.32 7.21 25 Gordon 52.25 5.09 32 Neutral 53.21 6.64 24 Standardization Sample 56.20 1 1.24 (MA P Manual) Bl'l'l’ [13111 51 Elll'll'l 21201112. The split-halves reliability were determined for the Tempo and the 38 Meter sections of the Rhythm Imagery subtest of the Musical Aptitude Profile. The Split-halves reliability for the Tempo test, corrected using the Spearman- Brown Prophesy Formula, was .72 as compared to the reported reliability in the test manual of .77. The split-halves reliability for the Meter test, corrected using the Spearman-Brown Prophesy Formula, was .59 as compared to the reported reliability in the test manual of .75. The results of the MAP for the population used in this study is only moderately reliable. IreatmernJmLthtthAmimdLleta One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine if the differences between rhythm aptitudes of the three treatment groups were Significant before treatment. No significant differences were found, so the groups could be considered to be Similar in terms of rhythm aptitude (see Table 2). Table 2. WWW; DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Treatment 2 43.66 21.83 .56 .57 Residual 78 3065.40 39.30 p > .05 Wits, At the end of instruction, Students were administered the meter recognition test. The observed mean of the meter recognition test was 11.26, as compared to the theoretical mean of 13.34. This means that the test was somewhat too difficult for the students. The observed standard deviationsof the meter recognition test was 2.78, as compared to the theoretical Standard deviation of 2.22, meaning that there was more variability in the scores than would be present in a normal distribution. 39 Item difficulty and item discrimination were calculated (see Table 3). The item difficulty ranged from .31 to .81. The item discrimination ranged from .00 to .48. Using this information the test was split into equal halves and re-corrected. The Split-halves reliability, corrected using the Spearman- Brown Prophesy Formula, was .50, meaning that the test was only moderately reliable. The result of instruction on scores on the meter recognition test was determined using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). There were no significant differences according to treatment (see Table 4). 4O Thbkt3. I D'Efi I 1 I D. . . . E 1 II B .. Item Number Item Difficulty Item Discrimination 1 .68 .25 2 .51 .28 3 .73 .15 4 .56 .13 5 .43 .45 6 .74 .33 7 .33 .00 8 .63 .25 9 .31 .03 10 .44 .43 ll .79 .03 12 .81 .03 13 .40 .25 14 .70 .10 15 .45 .25 16 .55 .30 17 .66 .18 18 .54 .03 19 .66 .33 20 .36 .48 41 Table 4. Winn DF Sum of Squares Meanfi Square F-Value P-Value Treatment 2 29.18 14.59 1.93 .15 Residual 78 590.37 7.57 I'lBl'l'l'BlEElEE B'Sl Interjudge reliability for the two independent judges was determined for each rhythm etude. The results are presented in Table 5. The reliabilities ranged from .80 to .95. The high reliabilities indicate a high level of consistency of rhythmic performance evaluations between the two judges. Table 5. WWW §_hythm Etude Interjudge Reliability Duple-Prepared .80 Triple-Prepared .95 Duple—Unprepared .80 Triple-Unprepared .85 WWW For all triple meter etudes, the observed means were significantly lower than the theoretical means, creating a skewed distribution (see Table 6). The etudes were too difficult for the students. This was particularly true for those etudes in triple meter. The observed means for the performances of the duple meter etudes were slightly higher than the theoretical means. All observed standard 42 deviations were greater than the theoretical standard deviations, meaning that the scores were more varied than would occur in a normal distribution. Table 6. WW Etude Observed Mean Theoretical Mean Observed S.D. Theoretical S.D. Duple-Prepared 6.98 6 2.41 1.34 Triple-Prepared 3.79 6 2.71 1.34 Duple-Unprepared 6.57 6 2.48 1.34 Triple-Unprepared 4.88 6 2.58 1.34 Both Duple 13.54 12 4.40 2.68 Both Triple 8.64 12 4.96 2.68 Both Prepared 10.77 12 3.82 2.68 Both Unprepared 11.44 12 4.01 ' 2.68 All Etudes 22.21 24 7.29 5.36 Whine. The result of instruction on the performance of each rhythm etude and various combinations of etudes were determined using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoe tests. Those results are presented in Tables 7 through 18. Table Ttea p). sigl Tat U81: 43 Table 7- WWW DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Treatment 2 9.27 4.64 .79 .46 Residual 78 456.68 5.86 p > .05 In the performance of the duple-prepared etude, there were no significant differences according to treatment. Table 8. W51: DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Treatment 2 58.15 29.07 4.27 .02" Residual 78 531.29 6.81 p 5.05 Table 9. Wind: Treatment Group Mean Difference Critical Difference P-Value Gordon, 1 e and a 1.565 1.387 .0275“ Gordon, Neutral -.500 1.403 .4801 1 e and a, Neutral -2.065 1.485 . .0070* p 5.05 In the performance of the triple-prepared etude, the students instructed using Gordon rhythm syllables performed significantly better than the 44 students instructed using “1 e and a.” The students instructed using a neutral syllable also performed significantly better than the students using “1 e and a.” No significant differences were found between the students instructed using the Gordon rhythm syllables and those using a neutral syllable. Table 10. WW: DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Treatment 2 4.22 2.11 .34 .71 Residual 78 485.65 6.23 p > .05 In the performance of the duple-unprepared etude, there were no significant differences according to treatment. Table 11. WM: DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Treatment 2 51.83 ‘ 25.91 4.20 .02“ Residual 78 480.94 6.17 p 5.05 Table Gorc Sex in! [he 45 Table 12. WW Merit Group Mean Difference Critical Difference P-Value Gordon, 1 e and a 1.757 1.320 .0097* Gordon, Neutral .062 1.335 .9260 1 e and a, Neutral -1.695 1.413 .0193“ p 5.05 In the performance of the triple-unprepared etude, the students instructed using Gordon rhythm syllables performed significantly better than the students instructed using “1 e and a.” The students instructed using a neutral syllable also performed significantly better than the students using “1 e and a.” No significant differences were found between the students instructed using the Gordon rhythm syllables and those using a neutral syllable. Table 13. WW DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Treatment 2 1.51 .75 .04 .96 Residual 78 1544.59 19.80 p > .05 In the performance of both duple etudes, there were no significant differences according to treatment. 46 Table 14. WW QF Sum of Smes Mean Square F-Value P-Value Treatment 2 212.06 106.03 4.70 .01 * Residual 78 1758.56 22.55 p 5.05 Table 15. W Treatment Group Mean Difference Critical Difference P-Value Gordon, 1 e and a 3.260 2.523 .0120“ Gordon, Neutral -.500 2.553 .6976 1 e and a, Neutral -3.760 2.701 .0070* p 5.05 In the performance of both triple etudes, the students instructed using Gordon rhythm syllables performed significantly better than the students instructed using “1 e and a.” The students instructed using a neutral syllable also performed significantly better than the students using “1 e and a." No significant differences were found between the students instructed using the Gordon rhythm syllables and those using a neutral syllable. 47 Table 16. W DP Sum of Squares Mean Smre F-Value P-Value Treatment 2 35.78 17.89 1.23 .30 Residual 78 1130.76 14.497 p > .05 In the performance of both prepared etudes, there were no significant differences according to treatment. Table 17. WW DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Treatment 2 84.69 42.35 2.75 .07 Residual 78 1203.31 15.43 p > .05 In the performance of both unprepared etudes, there were no significant differences according to treatment. Table 11 ’ Treau Rcsid p) .01 RCCO mo< (re: 6111 till ins lh< b0 dif Fir 48 Table 18. W DF Sum of Sguares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Treatment 2 203.58 101.79 1.96 .15 Residual 78 4043.85 51.84 p > .05 In the performance of all etudes, there were no significant differences according to treatment. Wt: The results of the meter recognition test indicate that the test was only moderately reliable. There were no significant differences found for treatment on the test. While there were no significant differences for all etudes combined, differences as a result of treatment did occur for individual etudes. The students instructed using Gordon rhythm syllables and those instructed using a neutral syllable both performed significantly better than those taught using “1 e and a” on the triple-prepared, triple-unprepared, and both triple etudes. No statistical differences were noted between the students taught using Gordon rhythm’ syllables and those taught using a neutral syllable. Interpretations No significant differences according to treatment were found for the meter recognition test. The lack of significant differences may be due to the difficulty of the test, which resulted in a split—halves reliability of only .50. Finding significant differences between scores on an unreliable test is 49 statistically improbable. The examples used for test items may have been too difficult for the students to discern metrically. The following factors may also have caused a lack of significant differences for the meter recognition test, as well as the results found for the performance of the rhythm etudes. Significant differences were found to exist in the performances of some of the rhythm etudes according to treatment. Differences, although they were not statistically significant, in rhythm aptitude between the treatment groups may have affected the study. The subjects in the “1 e and a” group had a mean rhythmic aptitude of 51.32, while subjects in the Gordon group had a rhythmic aptitude of 52.25, and the neutral syllable group had the highest mean rhythmic aptitude of 53.21. As the MAP was found to be only moderately reliable, there may have been greater differences in rhythm aptitude between treatment groups. Success in performing the triple meter and unprepared etudes may have been a result of higher levels of rhythmic aptitude rather than syllable system used. While the subjects received equal instruction in duple and triple meter as part of the study, they did not have the opportunity to perform music in triple meter as part of regular instruction. Songs in triple meter were introduced for the first time as part of regular instruction by their instrumental teachers the recording week. Because triple meter was less familiar to the students, aptitude may have played a larger role in the triple meter performances than the duple meter performances. The use of more songs in triple meter as part of regular instruction may have changed the results. While the results do not indicate any such effect, the size of each class may also have had an effect on the results. Also, due to school scheduling, the 50 classes ranged in size from 5 to 30 subjects. Smaller homogeneous classes, which would allow the teacher to provide more individual attention to the subjects, were not possible at the study site. There are several possible reasons why both the Gordon group and the neutral syllable group performed significantly better than the “1 e and a” group. The subjects taught using the “l e and a” system often appeared to be confused during instruction. An aural/oral teaching style was used to present the material, and the students seemed to need the notation to make sense of the numbers used in the “1 e and a” system. No such confusion was observed with the other two groups. As observed by Taggart (1989), the “l e and a” system lacks an internal consistency. The same syllables were used for both duple and triple meters. When the triple meter divisions patterns were introduced to the subjects, the system had to be changed from “1 and a, 2 and a” to “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.” This required the students to relearn the counting system. This may have contributed to the subjects’ confusion, resulting in less triple-meter performance achievement. Differences in instrumentation of the groups may also have been a factor in the statistical differences found. Because of schedule limitations, all the subjects playing each instrument type were placed in a single treatment group. Therefore, the groups were not equivalent in term of instrumentation, nor were they balanced in terms of equal numbers of woodwind, brass, and percussion instruments. Some instruments may be easier to produce a distinct beginning to each tone than others. This may have affected the subjects’ ability to perform the etude correctly. Finally, perhaps the length of the study was too short. If the period of instruction had been longer, more of the results may have been statistically significant. A longer period of instruction may have given subjects additional 51 time to develop executive skills such as embouchure, articulation, posture, and breathing. The development of these executive skills may have improved the subjects’ performance in terms of perceived accuracy by the judges and may have lessened the effect of instrumentation on possible performance achievement. CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summau The study presented in the previous chapters was conducted in order to improve rhythmic instruction in the beginning instrumental classroom. A review of related literature found that no parallel studies exist. Two related studies were found that examined the use of rhythm syllables in the general music classroom. Palmer (1974) found that subjects instructed using Gordon or Richards (Kodaly) rhythm syllable systems performed better than a contr61 group. While the performance of the Gordon group was statistically significantly better than the Richards group, Palmer concluded that the results were inconclusive due to several factors. Colley (1987) found that subjects taught using the Kodaly and Gordon rhythm syllable systems lost interest sooner than subjects taught using the word system. While the Gordon group performed rhythmic examples with a consistent metrical stress, she concluded that the word method was the most effective for improving the subject’s dictation and performance skills. The related studies did not occur in the instrumental classroom and did not include the “1 e and a” rhythm syllable system. The purpose of this study was to explore the use of rhythm syllable systems as an educational tool to improve rhythm instruction in the beginning instrumental music classroom. The problems of the study were to determine if the use of the “1 e and a” system, Gordon rhythm syllables, or no 52 53 syllable system result in significantly different student achievement in terms of: (1) recognition of duple and triple meter, (2) duple-meter rhythmic sight- reading performance, (3) triple-meter rhythmic sight-reading performance, (4) duple—meter rhythmic prepared-reading performance, and (5) triple- meter rhythmic prepared-reading performance. This study included eighty-one subjects enrolled in the sixth-grade beginning band program of a suburban middle school in central Michigan. The subjects were enrolled in homogeneous band classes that met every other day for forty-two minutes. Each class was assigned to one of three treatment groups. Five to ten minutes of instruction pertaining to the study were given during each class. The duration of the study was twelve weeks. The teaching procedures used for each of the three groups were identical except for the rhythm syllable system used. All teaching for the study was done by the researcher. Instruction by the researcher was observed by two full-time instrumental teachers to ensure that there was no appreciable difference between classes and groups. All subjects were administered the Rhythm Imagery subsection of the MAP to balance the rhythm aptitude of each treatment group. At the conclusion of the study the subjects were administered a meter recognition test. The subjects performed four rhythm etudes, which were recorded and subsequently rated by two independent judges using a five-point continuous rating scale. Cnnslnsinns The results and conclusions for this study can be considered valid only for the population used in this study. No statistically significant differences were found for treatment on the meter recognition test. While there were no 54 significant differences for treatment for all etudes, differences did occur for individual etudes. The students instructed using Gordon rhythm syllables and those instructed using a neutral syllable both performed significantly better than those taught using “1 e and a” on the triple-prepared, triple-unprepared, and both triple etudes. No statistical differences were noted for the students taught using Gordon rhythm syllables and those taught using a neutral syllable. Overall, none of the treatment groups performed better than any of the others when examining performance on the meter recognition test or on all four rhythm etudes. Subjects taught using Gordon rhythm syllables or neutral syllables performed better on the triple etudes than the “1 e and a” group. Through researcher observation it was noted that the subjects taught using the “l e and a” system experienced more confusion than the other groups. These subjects required the notation to understand the “1 e and a” system, while the other groups did not. The results of this study indicate that Gordon or neutral rhythm syllables, when used with an aural/oral presentation teaching style, may be a better teaching system than what is used with popular band method books. It is also possible that aptitude may be a more salient factor in the rhythmic performance of students than the use of a specific rhythm syllable system. Recommendations The following recommendations based on this study are concerned with the need for further studies in the use of rhythm syllable systems as an educational tool in the beginning instrumental classroom. The lack of significant differences on the meter recognition test is attributable to the test being only moderately reliable (.50). The examples used 55 in the test may have been too difficult for the students to discern. Significant differences may have been found if easier examples, without melodic content, were used as test items. Additional pilot testing of the meter recognition test should be completed prior to a replication of this study. Replication of this study should include more musical exercises in triple meter as part of regular instruction. Essential Elements: A Comprehensive Band Method (Rhodes et al., 1991), the method book used for regular instruction, does not introduce songs in triple meter until page 12. This material was not reached until the testing week of the study. The subjects only received instruction in triple meter in the context of the study; therefore, the subjects were less familiar in performing music in triple meter. Future replication of this experiment should further divide instrument type between treatment groups. Due to school scheduling, all of the subjects playing a certain type of instrument (i.e., clarinet) were assigned to one treatment group. This grouping may have effected the results of the study. Future studies should attempt to have heterogeneous groupings of instruments within each treatment group. While the results do not indicate any such effect, the size of each class may also have had an effect on the results. Replication of this study should use small homogeneous classes of five to ten subjects. This would enable the teacher to provide more individual attention to the subjects. A contributing factor to student confusion may have been the presence of multiple instructors. While all instruction pertaining to the study was taught by the researcher, regular instruction was team-taught by the researcher and one of the regular instrumental teachers. Future studies should have only one instructor, who is not the researcher, teach all material to prevent any possible confusion. 56 Finally, a longer period of instruction would be recommended for future research. It would be interesting to see if the results found in this study would remain identical after a year of instruction. I l' . Existing literature supports the use of rhythm syllable systems as an educational tool in the general music classroom (Colley, 1987; Gordon, 1993; Palmer, 1974; Shehan, 1987; Taggart, 1989). Most band method books use some form of counting system to teach rhythm to beginning band students. This study suggests that the use of Gordon or neutral rhythm syllables may provide teachers with a better tool to teach students than the “l e and a” system, which is used in many instrumental methods books. Instrumental music teachers and college ' students preparing to teach instrumental music should be aware of alternative teaching methods to those provided in many published band method books. A teacher's initial use of an internally consistent rhythm syllable system, with an aural/oral presentation style, may provide beginning band students with a better tool to perform with more rhythmic proficiency in the future. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LESSON PLANS The teaching procedures were identical for all classes and treatment groups. The only difference in instruction was the rhythm syllable system used. Rhythm patterns were always performed first in a familiar order, then in an unfamiliar order. Students were asked to echo patterns in solo and in groups. LESSON] DI' . The students will develop coordination and rhythm readiness. The students will develop an internal sense of macro- and microbeat in duple meter. EHHILHU§ Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series, Teacher's Guide Book One Instructions for coordination and rhythm readiness activities on pages 131-132 I l' I l . Teacher will give instructions as a steady chant, to aid students in finding the beat, while performing the following activities with the students: 1. Move both arms in the same direction (up and down) to macrobeats while sitting with elbows resting on a desk or table top. 57 10. 58 Move both arms in the opposite direction (one arm is up while the other is down) to macrobeats while sitting with elbows resting on a desk top table. Swing both arms in the same direction (front and back) to macrobeats while standing. Sway the upper part of the body from side to side to macrobeats while sitting. Move both feet (heels only -- up and down) to macrobeats in the same direction while sitting. Move both feet (heels only) in the opposite direction (one is up when the other is down) to macrobeats while sitting. Move both arms and both feet together in the same direction to macrobeats while sitting. Stand and rock in place to macrobeats. With both feet on the floor, shift the weight from one foot to the other with knees bending. The weight should be on the heel of one foot when the weight is on the toes of the other. Stand and rock in place to macrobeats. Tap thighs with both arms and hands to duple microbeats. Sit and move both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and both arms and hands to duple microbeats. 59 LESSON 2 01° . The students will develop coordination and rhythm readiness. The students will develop an internal sense of macro and microbeat in duple and triple meter. Materials Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series, Teacher's Guide Book One Instructions for coordination and rhythm readiness activities on pages 131—132 mm Teacher will give instructions as a steady chant, to aid students in finding the beat, while performing the same activities from Lesson 1, with the following changes: 9. Stand and rock in place to macrobeats. Tap thighs with both arms and hands to duple microbeats and with only hands to triple microbeats. 10. Sit and move both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and both arms and hands to duple microbeats and only hands to triple microbeats. 60 LESSON 3 01° . The students will develop coordination and rhythm readiness. The students will develop an internal sense of macro- and microbeat in duple and triple meter. The students will begin to associate duple or triple meter with musical examples. Materials Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series, Teacher's Guide Book One Instructions for coordination and rhythm readiness activities on pages 131-132 G. F. Handel - Suite in D Major: Alla Hornpipe D. Grusin - Western Women I l' I l . Teacher will give instructions as a steady chant, to aid students in finding the beat while performing the same activities from Lesson 2 and listening to music in duple or triple meter. 61 LESSON4 DI . . To provide students with a vocabulary of macro/microbeat rhythm patterns in duple meter. To introduce macro/microbeat rhythm syllables in duple meter. Materials Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series, Teacher's Guide Book One Lesson plan ZB pages 40-41 I I' I l . Students will echo duple-meter macro/microbeat patterns on the neutral syllable “Bah” while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and both arms and hands to duple microbeats (see Appendix D for patterns). Students will echo duple- meter macro/microbeat patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and both arms and hands to duple microbeats (see Appendix D for patterns). 62 LESSON 5 01' . To provide students with a vocabulary of macro/microbeat rhythm patterns in triple meter. To introduce macro/microbeat rhythm syllables in triple meter. Materials Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series, Teacher's Guide Book One Lesson plan 3B page 48 I l' I I . Students will echo triple-meter macro/microbeat patterns on the neutral syllable “Bah” while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to triple microbeats (see Appendix -E for patterns). Students will echo triple-meter macro/microbeat patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to triple microbeats (see Appendix E for patterns). 6 3 LESSON 6 01' . Students will read, in notation, duple-meter macro/microbeat rhythm patterns in familiar and unfamiliar order. Students will perform on instruments, using notation, duple-meter macro/microbeat rhythm patterns in familiar and unfamiliar order. Materials Copy of page 15 from the student book of Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series for each student Students’ instruments leachinLJeshniane Students will echo (in familiar order) duple-meter macro/microbeat patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and both arms and hands to duple microbeats (see Appendix D for patterns) and looking at the patterns in notation. Students will echo (in unfamiliar order) duple-meter macro/microbeat patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and both arms and hands to duple microbeats (see Appendix D for patterns) and looking at the patterns in notation. Students will perform on their instruments (in familiar order) duple-meter macro/microbeat patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. Students will perform on their instruments (in unfamiliar order) duple-meter macro/microbeat patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. 64 LESSON 7 D! . . Students will read, in notation, triple-meter macro/microbeat rhythm patterns in familiar and unfamiliar order. Students will perform on instruments, using notation, triple meter macro/microbeat rhythm patterns in familiar and unfamiliar order. Materials Copy of page 17 from the student book of WW Sui.“ for each student Students’ instruments MW Students will echo (in familiar order) triple-meter macro/microbeat patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to triple microbeats (see Appendix E for patterns) and looking at the patterns in notation. Students will echo (in unfamiliar order) triple-meter macro/microbeat patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to triple microbeats (see Appendix E for patterns) and looking at the patterns in notation. Students will perform on their instruments (in familiar order) triple-meter macro/microbeat patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. Students will perform on their instruments (in unfamiliar order) triple-meter macro/microbeat patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. 65 LESSON 8 01' . Students will identify the meter of musical examples by moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to appropriate microbeats. Students will verbally identify the meter of musical examples as duple or triple meter. Materials CDs for the following songs (see Appendix P): Criminal - Duple A Change - Duple You Were Meant for Me - Duple Too Much - Duple Building a Mystery - Duple La Boda de Luis Alonso - Triple Valse - Triple I l' I I . Students will listen to the musical examples and attempt to move both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to appropriate microbeats. Teacher will model correct movement. Teacher will ask students to verbally identify the meter of the musical example as duple or triple. 66 LESSON 9 01' . Students will identify the meter of musical examples by moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to appropriate microbeats. Students will verbally identify the meter of musical examples as duple or triple meter. Materials CDs for the following songs (see Appendix P): Heart of the Highland - Triple Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring - Triple Cape Breton Jigs, McGurk’s - Duple Linus and Lucy - Duple Polonaise - Triple Stars and Stripes Forever! - Duple Scherzo - Duple I l' I l . Students will listen to the musical examples and attempt to move both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to appropriate microbeats. Teacher will model correct movement. Teacher will ask students to verbally identify the meter of the musical example as duple or triple. 67 LESSON 10 m. . To provide students with a vocabulary of divisions rhythm patterns in duple meter. To introduce divisions rhythm syllables in duple meter. Materials Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series, Teacher's Guide Book One Lesson plan 5B page 72 I I' I l . Students will echo duple-meter divisions patterns on the neutral syllable “Bah” while sitting and moving ‘both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and both arms and hands to duple microbeats (see Appendix F for patterns). Students will echo duple-meter divisions patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and both arms and hands to duple microbeats (see Appendix F for patterns). 68 LESSON 11 01° . Students will identify the meter of musical examples by moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to appropriate microbeats. Students will verbally identify the meter of musical examples as duple or triple meter. Materials CDs for the following songs (see Appendix P): Filr Elise - Triple Children 's March - Duple Bransle de la torche - Duple Jackie Coleman 's, Pigtown - Duple Sonata in C, 2nd Movement (Bach) - Triple Vivo - Duple Rocking the Cradle - Duple Giant Steps - Duple I l' I l . Students will listen to the musical examples and attempt to move both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to appropriate microbeats. Teacher will model correct movement. Teacher will ask students to verbally identify the meter of the musical example as duple or triple. 69 LESSON 12 D] . . To provide students with a vocabulary of divisions rhythm patterns in triple meter. To introduce divisions rhythm syllables in triple meter. Materials Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series, Teacher's Guide Book One Lesson plan 7B page 92 hashing—Jasmine Students will echo triple-meter divisions patterns on the neutral syllable “Bah” while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to triple microbeats (see Appendix G‘- for patterns). Students will echo triple-meter macro/microbeat patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to triple microbeats (see Appendix G for patterns). 70 LESSON 13 01' . Students will read, in notation, duple-meter divisions rhythm patterns in familiar and unfamiliar order. Students will perform on instruments, using notation, duple-meter divisions rhythm patterns in familiar and unfamiliar order. Materials Copy of patterns from Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series, Teacher's Guide Book One page 72 for each student Students’ instruments W Students will echo (in familiar order) duple-meter divisions patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and both arms and hands to duple microbeats (see Appendix F for patterns) and looking at the patterns in notation. Students will echo (in unfamiliar order) duple-meter divisions patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and both arms and hands to duple microbeats (see Appendix F for patterns) and looking at the patterns in notation. Students will perform on their instruments (in familiar order) duple-meter divisions patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. Students will perform on their instruments (in unfamiliar order) duple-meter divisions patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. 7 1 LESSON 14 01' . Students will read, in notation, triple-meter divisions rhythm patterns in familiar and unfamiliar order. Students will perform on instruments, using notation, triple-meter divisions rhythm patterns in familiar and unfamiliar order. Matuials Copy of patterns from Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series, Teacher's Guide Book One page 92 for each student Student’s Instruments IeaehinLJsehniane Students will echo (in familiar order) triple-meter divisions patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to triple microbeats (see Appendix G for patterns) and looking at the patterns in notation. Students will echo (in unfamiliar order) triple-meter divisions patterns using rhythm syllables while sitting and moving both feet in the same direction to macrobeats and hands to triple microbeats (see Appendix G for patterns) and looking at the patterns in notation. Students will perform on their instruments (in familiar order) triple-meter divisions patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. Students will perform on their instruments (in unfamiliar order) triple-meter divisions patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. 72 LESSON 15 01' . Students will review macro/microbeat and divisions rhythm patterns in duple and triple meter. Students will perform on their instruments, using notation (in unfamiliar order), macro/microbeat and divisions rhythm patterns in duple and triple meter. Materials Copy of patterns on page 15 from the student book of Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series for each student Copy of patterns on page 17 from the student book of Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series for each student Copy of patterns from Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series, Teacher's Guide Book One page 72 for each student Copy of patterns from Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series, Teacher's Guide Book One page 92 for each student Students’ instruments I l' I I . Students will perform macro/microbeat Students will perform macro/microbeat Students will perform 73 on their instruments (in unfamiliar order) duple-meter patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. on their instruments (in unfamiliar order) triple-meter patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. on their instruments (in unfamiliar order) duple-meter divisions patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. Students will perform on their instruments (in unfamiliar order) triple-meter divisions patterns while looking at the patterns in notation. Lessan_21an Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson 10 11 12 l3 14 15 74 Teaching Schedule Weekls) Used Week 1 and 2 Weeks 2 and 3 Week 3 Weeks 3 and 4 Weeks 5 and 6 Week 6 Week 6 Week 7 Weeks 7 and 8 Weeks 8 and 9 Week 9 Weeks 9 and 10 Week 11 Week 11 Week 12 APPENDIX B INTRODUCTORY LEITER TO BAND DIRECTORS Terrence E. Bacon 1224 Woodcrest Lane. Apt. 101, East Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 333-41399-mail: bacontorO pilot.msu.edu July 1, 1997 Mr. *tlt ****** ***# tilittt ** **#***#*.*’ MI ##ttIB Dear Mr. ******* My name is Terry Bacon and I will be a second year master's student in music education next fall at Michigan State University. I am working on a research study in teaching rhythm to beginning instrumental music students and am looking for a school in which to conduct my study. You and your program were recommended to me by Dr. Erbes as a possible site. The purpose of my research is to explore the use of rhythm syllables as an educational tool. I would like to compare the use of the “1 e and a” system, Gordon rhythm solfege (du ta de ta), and the use of a neutral syllable as teaching tools. The final design will be dependent on the existing instrumental program. For your consideration, the following is a brief description of what I would like to do. I would need three groups of students, with each group containing a mix of brass, woodwinds, and percussion. I would administer the rhythm subtest from Gordon's Musical Aptitude Profile to each student at the beginning of the study. Instruction would continue as normal over the ten week period of the study, except that students would be taught rhythm using “1 e and a,” “du ta de ta,” or a neutral syllable. Take home cassettes will be provided for the students. At the end of the study the students will be given four rhythm-only etudes, two in duple meter and two in triple meter. The students will prepare two etudes and sight-read the other two while being 75 76 video-taped. They will also be asked to identify the meter from recordings of unfamiliar music. I hope that you would be willing to assist me with this study. I will be available for the duration of the study to help with instruction on a daily basis. I also understand that this is an important time in a student's development as a musician and would be willing to alter the design of the study, with your assistance, to be as least intrusive as possible to your existing program. My own background is in beginning instrumental music. I will be in contact with you in a few days, but please call me with any questions or concerns. My phone number is 333-4139, and I am available any day prior to 3:00 PM. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Terry Bacon APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM Terrence E. Bacon 1735 Nemoke Trail Apt. 5. Haslett. Ml 48840 (517) 381-81339-mail: baconterOpilot.msu.edu August 14, 1997 Dear Band Families, My name is Terry Bacon and I am a graduate student at Michigan State University. I am conducting a research study in teaching rhythm to beginning instrumental music students in the ****** School District this Fall under the supervision of both Mr. **"** and Mr. "*"*. I, along with Mr. """ and Mr. *"*", am very excited about conducting this study with the students in **”**. The purpose of this letter is explain my study and to serve as a consent form for your son or daughter's participation. Very little research has been done on which is the most appropriate syllable system to use in teaching rhythm. The purpose of my research is to explore the use of rhythm syllables as an educational tool. ‘ I will be comparing three existing syllable systems as teaching tools, the “1 e and a” system, Gordon rhythm solfege (du ta de ta), and a neutral syllable system. The study will be conducted as part of the regular instruction your daughter or son will be receiving in the first ten weeks of the beginning band program. The study will in no way disrupt the normal activities of the band program. All the students will be administered the rhythm section of a published music aptitude test to aid instruction. This test will not be used to exclude your child from participation in class. The results of the test will be used to make sure that each of the three groups, one for each syllable system, are balanced in terms of the student's rhythmic potential. Each of the groups will be using one of the three syllable systems to aid their understanding of rhythm. Instruction will continue as normal over the ten week period of the study. All students will receive equal instruction, with the only difference being the syllables used when chanting rhythm. Take 77 78 home cassettes will be provided free of charge to help the students. At the end of the study, your son or daughter will be asked to perform four short rhythm exercises, in solo, on their instrument, while being audio taped. Two of the exercises may be prepared at home prior to taping, while the other two will be sight read at the time of taping. At this time, the students will also be asked to identify the meter from recordings of unfamiliar music. Preparation for both of these activities will be part of your daughter or son’s regular instruction so that they will not be unfamiliar. The results of these activities will not be included in the student's band grade. The study will be conducted within regular class time so that no additional meeting time will be needed. The results of these activities will be treated with strict confidence and the student's identities will remain anonymous in my thesis and any future report of the research findings. A copy of my thesis can be made available to your family on request. Participation in the study is voluntary and the students may withdraw at any time. The participation of your son or daughter in this study will help all music educators gain a greater understanding of how children could better be taught rhythm. I hope you will be as excited about the success of this study as myself, Mr. ****" and Mr. "*”"‘. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at home or via e-mail. I would like to thank your family in advance for your help and participation. Sincerely, Terry Bacon 79 RETURN TO YOUR DIRECTOR BY WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3 I have read the letter concerning my child's participation in the rhythm syllable study in their band program. I understand that their participation is voluntary, they may withdraw at any time, and their identity will remain anonymous. 1 have discussed this with them and consent to their participation in the study. Parent's Signature Date Student's Name (please print) I have read the letter concerning my participation in the rhythm syllable study in my band program. I understand that my participation is voluntary, I may withdraw at any time, and my identity will remain anonymous. I assent to my participation in the study. Student's Signature Date APPENDIX E MACRO/MICROBEAT PATTERNS IN TRIPLE From Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series Student Book One p. 17 © 1989 G.I.A. Publications Used with Permission 81 APPENDIX F DIVISIONS PATTERNS IN DUPLE From Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series Teacher's Guide Book One p. 72 o 1989 G.I.A. Publications Used with Permission 82 APPENDIX G DIVISIONS PATTERNS IN TRIPLE From Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series Teacher's Guide Book One p. 92 © 1989 G.I.A. Publications Used with Permission 83 APPENDIX H EXAMPLES USED FOR METER RECOGNITION TEST All examples are from R. W. Ottman’s Music for Sight Singing (1986), published by Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. The examples were recorded into the memory of a Korg 01W/FD synthesizer using a standard piano sound. The items were then quantized to ensure that the examples were performed at a steady tempo. The synthesizer was then used to transfer the examples to a cassette tape for playback. KEY Test# - Item number on Meter Recognition Test Ex# - Number of melody in Music for Sight Singing Page # - Page number of melody in Music for Sight Singing D/T - Recorded meter (Duple or Triple) of the melody Key - Tonality and Keyality of melody in Music for Sight Singing (+ = Major, - = minor) TS - Time signature of melody in Music for Sight Singing Notes - Additional information about the melody ms Exit PageiiD/‘L Key JCS—Hates l. 94 20 D D 4/4 quarter-note pick—up 2. 46 9 T Bb+ 3/4 2 eighth-notes pick-up 3. 60 11 T Bb+ 3/8 record in Bb harmonic minor 4. 196 46 D a- 2/4 eighth-note pick-up 5. 51 10 T E+ 3/4 2 quarter-notes pick-up 84 85 we # DIT Kn—Lflmes 6. 88 19 D Ab+ 4/4 half-note pick-up 7 45 9 D C+ 4/4 8 56 11 T Eb 3/ 2 record in Eb harmonic minor 9. 248 61 T G-l- 3/ 2 record in G harmonic minor 10. 104 23 D Ab+ 2/4 2 eighth-notes pick-up 11. 235 57 T Eb 3/4 12. 242 59 D e- 4/2 quarter-note pick-up 13. 96 21 D Db+ 2/4 14. 91 20 D E+ 2/4 15. 241 59 T f- 3/4 16. 102 22 T Ab+ 3/4 17. 199 46 D e- 2/2 18. 227 56 T Ab+ 3/4 19. 84 18 T E+ 3/4 2 eighth-notes pick-up 20. 195 45 D g- 2/4 APPENDIX I METER RECOGNITION TEST ANSWER SHEET Duple - Triple Recognition Test Last Name First Name Instrument Date Circle “D” for Duple Meter, “T” for Triple Meter, or “1’” if you are unsure. Circle only one answer for each test item. Do not guess. If you are not sure of an answer, circle “‘2”. 1) D T ? 11) D T ? 2) D T ? 12) D T '2 3) D T ? 13) D T ? 4) D T ? 14) D T ? 5) p T ? 15) D T ? 6) D T 9 16) D T a 7) p T '2 17) D T ? s) p T ? 18) D T 2 9) D T ? 19) D T '2 10) D T ? 20) D T ? 86 APPENDIX J DUPLE-PREPARED ETUDE 87 88 APPENDDI L DUPLE-UNPREPARED ETUDE W W 89 90 APPENDIX N SAMPLE JUDGE FORM Judge Name Duple Meter - Prepared Etude #1: 55555555555555555555555555555555555555555 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333 22222222222222222222222222222222222222222 55555555555555555555555555555555555555555 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333 22222222222222222222222222222222222222222 1111111111111111111llllllllllllllllllllll )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) \I))))135791357913579135791357913579135791 135791.11112222233333444445555566666777778 91 flflfieflll FAX. 517/432-1171 Insomnsuu~nw nannmuawauuy Mum MWaaunmmnann a-Hmmmnnmmm APPENDIX 0 versus APPROVAL MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY August 19, 1997 To: this Taggart 2 4 Music dg. RE: IRBI: 97-532 TITLE: A COMPARISON OF THO RHYTHM SYLLABLE SYSTEMS: IN A BEGINNING INSTRUMENTAL ENSEMBLE: GORDON VS. TRADITIONAL REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CA RY: TEGO l-A APPROVAL DATE: 08/15/97 The university Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS) rsviaw of this project is complete. I am pleased to adViss that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately rotectsd and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. herefors, the UCRIHS approved this progsct and any reVisions listed above. RIVISIOIB: snosnmrs/ ms UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date shown vs. Investigators planning to continue a prOJsct beyond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a progect is renewed) to seek ugdate certification. There is a maximum of four such expedite renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a preject beyond that time need to submit it again or complete IQVIOU. UCRTHS must review any changes in grocedures involving human subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To reVIBQ an approved protocol at an other time during the year. send your written request to the. CRIBS Chair. requesting revised npproval and referani tbs proyect's IRB O and title. Include in ur request a dsscr ption of the change and any revised ins rumants, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. Should either of the followin arise during the course of the work, investigators must noti UCRIHS promptly: (1) roblsms (unexpected side effects, comp aints, s c.) involving uman subjects_or 12) changes in the research environmant or new information indicating greater risk to the human sub acts than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved. be of any future helpé please do not hesitate to contact us If we can at (517)355-2180 or FAX (Sl?)4 Sincerely, DBH:b¢d vid 8. Wright. Ins Chair 171. 911,13 . cc: Terrance 3. Bacon 92 APPENDIX P TEACHING MATERIALS USED Apple, F. (1996). Criminal. On Iidal [CD]. Santa Monica, CA: Sony Music Entertainment Inc. Bach, l. S. (1993). Jesu joy of man’s desiring [Recorded by B. Trojan & D. Trojan]. On Celebrate] [CD]. Rochester, NY: Bruce and Dina Trojan. Bach, J. S. (1995). Sonata in C major, allegro [Recorded by J. Galway]. On W5 [CD]. New York: BMG Music. Beethoven, L. V. (1994). Fur elise [Recorded by M. Perahia]. On Immonalmm [CD]. New York: Sony Music. Bozza, E. (1996). Scherzo [Recorded by Tower Saxophone Quartet]. On W [CD]. Rochester, NY: Enjoydit! Records. Cape breton jigs, mcgurk’s. (1992). [Recorded by B. Smyth & A. McGlynn]. On WW [CD]. New York: Caroline Records, Inc. Coltrane, J. (1960). Giant steps. On Wm [CD]. New York: Atlantic Records. Crow, 8., & Trott, 1., Macleod, B. (1996). A change [Recorded by S. Crow]. On W [CD]. Hollywood, CA: A & M Records, Inc. Danzi, F. (1994). Polonaise [Recorded by J. Galway & S. Meyer]. On Qanzj [CD]. New York: BMG Music. Giménez, J. (1995). La boda de luis alonso [Recorded by Los Romeros]. On W [CD]. Mission San Luis Rey: Phillips Classics Productions. Grainger, P. (1990). Children’s march [Recorded by Michigan State University Symphonic Band]. On mm [CD]. Hollywood, CA: Delos International, Inc. 93 94 Grunow, R. F., & Gordon, B. E. (1989a). W 111mm Chicago: GIA Publications [includes audiocassette]. Grunow, R. F., & Gordon, B. E. (1989b). W W Chicago: GIA Publications. Grusin, D. (1989). Western women [Recorded by D. Grusin]. On 1111313111111 [CD]. New York: GRP Records, Inc. Guaraldi, V. (1995). Linus and lucy [Recorded by W. Marsalis]. On Lee M [CD]. New York: Columbia Records. Handel, G. F. (1992). Suite in d major, alla hompipe [Recorded by Orpheus Chamber Orchestra]. On WW [CD]. Hamburg: Deutsche Grammophon. Jackie coleman’s, pigtown. (1992). [Recorded by M. Molloy]. On mm W [CD]. New York: Caroline Records, Inc. Kilcher, J., & Poltz, S. (1994). You were meant for me [Recorded by J. Kilcher]. On Mum [CD]. New York: Atlantic Recording Corporation. Matthews, D., Beauford, C., Lessard, S., Moore, L., & Tinsley, B. (1996). Too much [Recorded by Dave Matthews Band]. On £13111 [CD]. New York: BMG Entertainment. McLachlan, S., & Marchand, P. (1997). Building a mystery [Recorded by S. McLachlan]. On 5.111.139.1118 [CD]. New York: Arista Records, Inc. Ottman, R. W. (1986). W113. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Praetorius, M. (1995). Bransle de la torche [Recorded by Los Romeros]. On W [CD]. Mission San Luis Rey: Phillips Classics Productions. Rocking the cradle. (1992). [Recorded by A. McGlynn]. On W mglLQLs [CD]. New York: Caroline Records, Inc. 95 Saich, J. (1991). Heart of the highland [Recorded by Capercaillie]. On 123111111111 [CD]. Danbury, CT: Green Linnet Records. Sor, F. (1995). Valse [Recorded by Los Romeros]. On W113: We: [CD]. Mission San Luis Rey: Phillips Classics Productions. Sousa, J. P. (1992). The stars and stripes forever! [Recorded by Eastman Wind Ensemble]. On W [CD]. New York: Sony Music. von Koch, E. (1996). Vivo [Recorded by Tower Saxophone Quartet]. On EMT—W [CD]. Rochester, NY: Enjoydit! Records. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Bebeau, M. J. (1982). Effects of traditional and simplified methods of rhythm-reading instruction. InnmaLnLReseathnMiLEdueatianZ). 107—119. Buehlman, B. & Whitcomb, K. (1976). 52mm Dayton, OH: The Heritage Music Press. Cavne. B- 8- (Ed)- (1989). Wu: Winn. New York: Lexicon Publications, Inc. Colley, B. (1987). A comparison of syllabic methods for improving rhythm literacy. W45“), ‘221-235. Feldstein, S. & O'Reilly, J. (1988). W W Van Nuys, CA: Alfred Publishing Co., Inc. Froseth. J. o. (1973). Wm nLhetemenenuLbeginninLnnsimmentaLmnsiLelasses. Chicago: GIA Publications. Gage. S. L. (1994). WWW . l I l . E I . . . I . I Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign. Gordon. R E- (1993). Learninx_sequenees_in_musie:_SkilL_enmem_and nanems:_A_mnsie_learninx_thennL. Chicago: GIA Publications. 00mm E- E- (1997). W W Chicago: GIA Publications. 96 97 Gordon. B. E. (1995). ManualJLthLmnsieaLamitndanflle. Chicago: GIA Publications. Gmnbem‘GMdO“. T- A- (1994). Aunxestiutinuuetenninmf O O U I ' I. 1 111 c :01 no 0‘ ‘ 010- .10 1-~ .I' I" ‘ 0'. It 0 W Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Alabama. Grunow, R. F., & Gordon, B. E. (1989a). W W Chicago: GIA Publications [includes audiocassette]. Grunow, R. F., & Gordon, B. E. (1989b). Mum—Th: W Chicago: GIA Publications. Hovey, N. W. (1933). WWW Miami, FL: Rubank, Inc. lessen. P. M. (1991). Wm: W Unpublished master's thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Jordan, J. M. (1989). Rhythm learning sequence. In D. L. Walters & C. C- Taggart (Eds). Readings_in_musie_leaming._theorx (pp. 26-36). Chicago= GIA Publications. Kohut. D. L. (1973). MW techniques_£nr_sehnol_hand_and_orehesm_direetnrs. Englewood CliffS. NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Ottman, R. W. (1986). WWW Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Palmer, M. (1974). Relative effectiveness of two approaches to rhythm reading for fourth-grade students. Wm 23(3), 110-118. 98 Pearson. B. (1982). MW San Diego, CA: Kjos West. Pearson. B. (1993). WWW 111911191. San Diego, CA: Neil A. Kjos Music Company. Petzold, R. G. (1969). Auditory perception by children. 1911mm W410). 82-37. Probasco, J., Grable, D., Meeks, D., & Swearingen, J. (1994). M39 Wine. Dayton, OH: Heritage Music Press. Randal. D. (Ed-)- (1986). IhLussLhanLaLdJietinuanLannsie. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Rhodes, T. C., Bierschenk, D., Lautzenheiser, T., & Higgins, J. (1991). Wed. Milwaukee. WI: Hal Leonard Publishing Corporation. Rogers. M. R. (1984). Wu numeULnednznziflthilnsnnhies. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Shehan, P. K. (1987). Effects of rote versus note presentations on rhythm learning and retention. WWW 31(2), 117-126. Siemens, M. T. (1969). A comparison of Orff and traditional instructional methods in music. WW6), 272-285. Taggart, C. C. (1989). Rhythm syllables: A comparison of systems. In D. L- Walters & C- C. Taggart (Eds). ReadiugLimeusieJeamiuuhenri (pp- 55- 65). Chicago: GIA Publications. Weber, F. (1962). MW Miami, FL: CPP/Belwin, Inc. HICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES HUI ”WI W W ”I W |||| 1| Will H IW WW “II “1| WI 31293017188511