THESlS

 

.‘W

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Musical Abilities of Three-Year-

Old Children: A Descriptive Analy-

sis of Pitch Discrimination, Con-

cept Formation, and Music Preference
presented by

Beverly R. Bletstein

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.n. degreein MUSiC Education

 

 

Major professor

 

Dmg August 12, 1983

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

4 , t
:‘,"n.; q. ,-

~~ ., .y. .‘ s.
. H ' r‘.‘-'P"4.‘-..a ‘dv- .

 

 

A .RlziTLlRNlINN'é ' MATERIALS:

‘ MSU.‘ -Place in book Hfdpi to

remove this'checkout from

 

 

 

 

w your record. F‘INES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

r 9,2 5‘ "a

 

 

 

 

 

MUSICAL ABILITIES OF THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN:
A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF PITCH DISCRIMINATION,
CONCEPT FORMATION, AND MUSIC PREFERENCE

By

/ W— f/fl

Beverly R. Bletstein

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Music

1983

©1984

BEVERLY R, BLETSTEIN

All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT
MUSICAL ABILITIES OF THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN:
A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF PITCH DISCRIMINATION,
CONCEPT FORMATION, AND MUSIC PREFERENCE
By

Beverly R. Bletstein

The problem was to study the musical capabilities of
three-year-old children in the areas Of pitch discrimina-
tion, music preference, and concept formation. Thirty-three
subjects completed the following three-part test battery:

1) Pitch Discrimination Test: Part I measured
the subjects' ability to identify ten paired
pitch patterns, three notes in length, as
being the same or different.

2) Music Preference Test: Part II contained five
paired items designed to measure the subjects'
preference for pre-twentieth or twentieth-
century music.

 

3) Concept Formation Test: Part III measured the
subjects' ability to label aural stimuli with
the appropriate terminology. Musical examples
were played for the following terms: loud,
soft, fast, slow, higher, lower, moves up
high, moves down low, moves up, moves down,
far apart, close together, skipping, and step-
ping. Each of these terms appeared on one or
both of the Concept Formation Tests.

 

The composite scores for the Pitch Discrimination Test

and Concept Formation Test for Groups I and II were 52.7%,

 

57.8%, and 50.6% reSpectively. The concept formation

results for Group II indicated that the subjects' responses

were probably affected by the serial position of the
responses. The subjects displayed a preference for
twentieth-century music with a score of 57% compared to M3%
for pre-twentieth-century music. However, their preferences
may have been affected by the serial position of the pre-
twentieth and twentieth—century excerpts.

Additional test results indicated that an average to
above average degree of musical activity occurred in most of
the subjects' homes. Furthermore, those subjects who scored

higher on the Pitch Discrimination Test obtained lower

 

scores on the Concept Formation Test. The subjects that

 

achieved the highest scores on the Pitch Discrimination Test
belonged to families who engaged in the least number of
musical activities. Finally, as the subjects (Group II)

scored higher on the Concept Formation Test, their

 

preference for pre-twentieth-century music increased.

To my parents, Bertha and Morris Bletstein

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank the members of the
guidance committee: Dr. Robert Erbes, Dr. Melanie Stuart,
Professor Beatrice Mangino, Dr. Russell Friedewald, and
Professor Ethel Armeling for their assistance in the comple-
tion of the dissertation. A special debt Of gratitude is
extended to Dr. Robert Erbes, Chairman of the doctoral
committee, for his guidance, encouragement, and support
throughout this project. In addition, much appreciation
goes to Dr. Melanie Stuart and Professor Beatrice Mangino,
whose expertise in the area of child development contributed
to the organization and administration of the test battery
used in the study.

I would also like to thank Dr. Ronald Newman for writ-

ing the test items for the Pitch Discrimination Test, and to

 

Mr. John McDaniel, Mr. Keith Lemmons, and Ms. Beth Rheude
for their contributions to the preparation of the test
tapes. A personal thank you is extended to Ms. Willa
Moriarty for reading and editing the dissertation, and to
Ms. Alice Kalush for her consultation on the programming and
analyzation of the data. Finally, I am indebted to my
parents, Mr. and Mrs. Morris Bletstein, for their love and
support, but most of all, for their undying faith in my
ability to achieve my goal.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . .

I.

II.

III.

IV.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . . . .
Sub-Problems . . . . . . .
Need for the Study
The Purpose . . . . .
Limitations .
Procedures .

Definitions .
Overview . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction . . . . . . . .
Theories of Cognitive Development .
The Nature-Nurture Controversy as it

to Music . . . . . . . .
The Measurement of Musical Aptitude

Music Research With Preschool Age Children

Additional Studies . . . . . . . . .
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Instrumentation and Hardware .
Part I Of the Test . . . .
Part II of the Test . . .
Part III of the Test . . .
The Pilot Study . . . . .
Population . . . . . . . .
Procedures for the Main Study
Questionnaire Development . . .
Subject Orientation and Testing
Analysis Of the Data . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Group Test Results . . . . . . . .
Home Musical Environment . . . . . .

Descriptive Statistics on Sub-Populations

summary 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

Applies

Page

vi

d—‘OONO‘OI—‘A

4-3-5

15
16

2H
30
35
49

81
92

105

Page
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Ability to Descriminate Paired Pitch
Patterns - Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Pre-Twentieth and Twentieth- Century Music
Preferences - Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Ability to Identify Musical Concepts -
Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
The Effects of Serial Position on the
Identification of Musical Concepts . . . . . . . 114
Home Musical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Comparisons Between the Pitch Discrimination,
Music Preference, Concept Formation, and
Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Behavioral Observations . . . . . . . . . . 119
External Factors Affecting the Test Procedures . . 121
Recommendations for Future Research
Written Response Modes and Visual Aids . . . . 123
Future Testing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 125
Concluding Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Appendix A-1 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 129
Appendix A-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Appendix A-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1N2
APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1H3
APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
APPENDIX E

Appendix E 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1N5

Appendix E-2 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 147

Appendix E 3 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1149
APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
APPENDIX G O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 15“

APPENDIX H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4-1. Pitch Discrimination Test Scores . . . . . 81
Table 4-2. Rank-Order of "Same and Different"
Responses to Part I - Pitch
Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Table 4-3. Music Preference Test Scores . . . . . . . 83

Table 4-4. Group I Concept Formation Test Scores
Rank-Ordered .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . 85

Table 4-5. Group I Scores for the Paired Concepts . . 85

Table 4-6. Group II Concept Formation Test Scores
Rank Ordered .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . 87

Table 4-7. Group II Scores for the Paired Concepts . . 88

Table 4-8. Group II Serial Responses for the
Concept Formation Test .. . .. . . .. . 90

Table 4-9. Group II Serial Responses for the
Paired Concepts .. . . .. . . .. . . .. 91

Table 4-10. Questionnaire: Total Scores . . . . . . . 92
Table 4—11. Questionnaire Response Scores . . . . . . . 94
Table 4-12. Hardware Items: Group I . . . . . . . . . 94
Table 4-13. Hardware Items: Group II . . . . . . . . . 95

Table 4-14. Pitch Discrimination and Pre-Twentieth-
Century Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Table 4-15. Pitch Discrimination and Twentieth-
Century Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Table 4-16. Pitch Discrimination and Concept
Formation - Group I . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Table 4-17. Pitch Discrimination and Concept
Formation - Group II . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Table 4-18. Pitch Discrimination and Questionnaire . . 98

vi

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

H-So

H-6.

Page

Pre-Twentieth-
Group I . . . . . . . . . .

Formation and
Music:

Concept
Century 101
Concept
Music:

Formation and Twentieth-Century
Group II 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 101
Pre-Twentieth-

Group II . . . . . . . . .

Formation and
Music:

Concept

Century 101

Twentieth-
Group II . . . . . . . . .

Formation and
Music:

Concept
Century 102
Questionnaire and Pre-Twentieth-Century

MUSic O O O O C O C O C C O O O O C O 0 O O 102

Questionnaire and Twentieth-Century Music . 102
Concept Formation and the Questionnaire:

Group I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Concept Formation and the Questionnaire: 105

Group II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Raw Scores for the Three-year-old

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Percent Scores for the Three-year-Old
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Raw Scores and Percentages for the Four-
year-OId SUbjeCtS o o o o o o o o o o o 0 1””
Raw Scores and Percentages for the Four-
year-Old Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . . . 159
"Same" and "Different" Responses/Frequency
Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Pre-Twentieth-Century Music/Frequency
Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Twentieth-Century Music/Frequency
Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Group I Scores for the First and Second
Responses 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 161
Frequency Distribution for Each Concept/

Group I O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 161

vii

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Frequency Distribution of Paired Concepts/
Group I O I O O O O I O O O I O O O 0

Frequency Distribution/Group I .

Group II Scores for the First, Second, and
Third Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequency Distribution of Paired Concepts/
Group II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequency Distribution of Paired Concepts/
Group II . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequency
in Serial

Distribution of Paired Concepts
Position/Group II . . . . . . .
Frequency Distribution/Group II . . .

Frequency Distribution of Serial Position
Responses/Group II. . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison Between Pitch Discrimination
and Pre-Twentieth-Century Music
Preference Scores . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison Between Pitch Discrimination
and Twentieth-Century Music Scores . . .

A Comparison Between Pitch Discrimination
and Concept Formation Scores/Group I .

A Comparison Between Pitch Discrimination
and Concept Formation Scores/Group II .

A Comparison Between Pitch Discrimination
and Questionnaire Scores . . . . . . . .

A Comparison Between Pre-Twentieth-Century
Music and Concept Formation Scores/
Group I D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

A Comparison Between Twentieth-Century
Music and Concept Formation Scores/
Group I O O O O 0 O O O O O O I O I O O O

A Comparison Between Pre-Twentieth-Century
Music and Concept Formation Scores/
Group II . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison Between Twentieth-Century
Music and Concept Formation Scores/
Group II . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

162

162

163

164

165

166
166

167

167

168

168

169

169

170

170

171

171

Table

Table

Table

Table

Page

A Comparison Between Pre-Twentieth-Century
Music and Questionnaire Scores . . . . . . 172

A Comparison Between Twentieth-Century
Music and Questionnaire Scores . . . . . . 172

A Comparison Between Questionnaire and
Concept Formation Scores/Group I . . . . . 173

A Comparison Between Questionnaire and
Concept Formation Scores/Group II . . . . . 173

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 3-1. PART I - PITCH DISCRIMINATION TEST FORMAT . 60
Figure 3-2. PART II - MUSIC PREFERENCE TEST FORMAT . . 63
Figure 3-3. PART III - CONCEPT FORMATION TEST FORMAT . 65
Figure 3-4. PART III - REVISED . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Introduction

 

Robert Petzold states that:

."the preschool and middle childhood years are

the most crucial in the development of children.

It is here that their attitudes toward music,

their interest in music, and the foundation or

successful musical learning are established.
This viewpoint has been reflected in an increasing effort to
conduct research concerned with the musical abilities of
preschool age children. However, the scope of such research
has been limited, and many questions regarding the pre—
schooler's musical abilities remain unanswered. Which
musical concepts have young children acquired and which new
concepts can realistically be learned? Does the child's
perceptions and understanding Of musical concepts follow
Specific patterns or stages of development? And finally,
how can music teachers utilize research findings to systema-
tically plan musical activities for preschool age children?

Although several Obstacles have inhibited previous
efforts to gather normative data on preschool age children,
accessibility of these children as subjects, and the avail-
ability Of appropriate measurements have been the two most
critical factors. For many years, preschool enrollments

were minimal, and early learning was subject entirely to

1

2

home environment. Now that more families house two working
parents, preschool enrollments have grown considerably.
Currently, psychologists, educators, and researchers have
greater access and exposure to children under the age of
five. While the problem Of accessibility has been mini-
mized, the development Of suitable music measurements for
young children is still in its primitive stages. The pre-
school music tests that do exist are unpublished and/or are
not presently in use. According to Greenberg, "".problems
in measurement may be the main deterrent toward continued
progress in research at the preschool music education
level."2

It is evident that more early childhood research is
necessary in the field of music, however, the best research
strategy has not yet been determined. At the present time,
it is impractical to administer musical aptitude tests to
preschool children, since the childfls mental and physical
capacities are changing constantly. Music educators could
gain a great deal of practical information by conducting
studies which examine the growth of the child at specific
age levels. Zimmerman, for one, stresses the value of a
develOpmental approach to music research. She states:

We still need developmental studies in music that

focus on the sequential changes in the

psychological structure of the individual as he

interacts with music. These changes, according to

the developmental viewpoint, are mediated by quite

different processes at various ages.

DeveIOpmental psychology can and should be the

foundation f life—span developmental research in
musicality.

3

A similar position is stated in a Music Educators National

Conference publication entitled Music in Early Childhood:

 

To know the child-~how he grows through language

and movement and how he thinks-~must be a prere-

quisite for any attempt to sequence those musical

understandings with which he will be interacting.

Our fifist concern then is not music, but the

child.

As additional research is conducted with preschool age
children, it becomes apparent that music educators have, in
the past, underestimated the musical abilities of young
children. Michel (1973)5, a prominent researcher in Ger—
many, states that, given suitable practice, tonal and modal
listening and singing, and melodic and harmonic listening
develop before the child enters school. Attention should be
directed toward the establishment of an accountable system
for selecting proper instructional strategies, subject con-
tent, and materials for implementing music curricula in
local preschool settings. Furthermore, positive efforts to
nurture musical development at an earlier age can only
strengthen public school music programs and give each child
a greater opportunity to reach his or her full musical
potential. In closing, the importance of early childhood
research in music is reiterated in a candid statement by
Greenberg: "The answers to many problems in music education
may lie at the preschool age. It is time to begin to focus
on the beginning of the human life cycle, for, if what is

known about the foundation is not solid, then all efforts to

build upon this foundation will be for naught."6

Statement of the Problem

 

 

The scarcity of measurements that will accurately eval-
uate the musical development of young children has retarded
the expansion of early childhood research. Logically speak-
ing, it is impossible to make long-term judgments in regard
to the musical aptitude or abilities of preschool age child-
ren. Nevertheless, the description of musical ability at
the preschool level is worthwhile in terms Of organizing
music instruction, and in determining reasonable goals for
each stage of development.

To design reliable and valid measurements for young
children has proved to be a difficult task. Two major
problems associated with test construction are the pre-
schooler's limited reading and writing skills, which is a
necessary prerequisite for successful completion of most
music tests. In addition, young children tend to be con-
fused by musical terminology (Zimmerman, 1971)7 which often
appears in the test directions. Other factors such as
attention span and item content must be considered in the
development of preschool music measurements. Previous re-
search has revealed that "very" young children are most apt
to center their attention on only one element at a time
(Zimmerman, 1971L8

Included in a series of recommendations by Greenberg
(1976), one finds:

Priority must be given to the formulation of some

theoretical base for, and structure to, the

development of preschool music curricula programs

and research. This basis must take into account
the major theoretical systems underlying the

5

cognitive, physical, social, and emotional

development of the preschool child, as well as

aesthetic theory and notions about musical growth

and sensitivity.

It is only through additional research that music educators
will be able to provide a strong theoretical base for the
musical development of children under the age of five.
Although everyone possesses varying degrees of musical abil-
ity, each individual should have the Opportunity to receive
a well-rounded music education, beginning at the preschool
level.

The extent to which young children become musically
competent is heavily dependent upon their development of aural
skills and their ability to communicate what is heard by using
meaningful terminology. Aural perception and discrimina-
tion, along with concept formation, should be major priori-
ties in conducting music research and planning future in-
struction. Likewise, an examination of musical preference
can be extremely useful in developing and revising curricula
at all levels, since the childwsinterests will inevitably
effect his or her musical achievement.

Based on these facts, the problem will be to study the
musical capabilities of three-year-old children in the areas
of pitch discrimination, music preference, and concept for-
mation. The primary questions to be answered are:

1. To what degree can three-year-Old children discriminate
between paired pitch patterns, three notes in length, as

being the same or different?

2. DO three-year-Old children have a greater preference for
pre-twentieth versus twentieth-century music?

6

3. To what degree can three-year-old children identify
aural representations of the following contrasting
terminology: loud versus soft, fast versus slow, high
versus low, up versus down, far apart versus close
together, and step versus skip?

Sub-Problems

1. Will the child base his or her responses to the given
paired items in Parts II and III according to their
serial position?

2. Will varying levels of the child's musical ability be
affected by home environment?

3. Does a relationship exist among pitch discriminatory

ability, the development of music preference, and
concept formation in children, three years of age?

Need for the Study

 

The present study has been influenced by a necessity to
understand the process Of musical development in young
children. Early childhood research in music must focus on
the acquisition of specific types of musical ability at the
preschool level, and it must discern if musical development can
be expressed in terms of age norms. The goal of this
particular research project is to contribute information on
the musical development of three year olds for two reasons.
First, little research has been done with this age group,
and secondly, the author hopes that the results of her study
will be useful in the future planning of preschool curricula.

In the past, early childhood studies in music have been
primarily concerned with the preschooler's ability to match
pitch, reproduce simple intervals, or sing in tune (Jersild
and Bienstock, 1931;10 Updgraff, Heiliger, and Learned,
1937;11 Smith, 1963).1‘2 Other areas of preschool music

7
research which have been given less attention, yet can be
considered equally important, are pitch discrimination,
preference, and concept formation. For example, the child
who has developed some ability to discriminate differences
in pitch will be better able to analyze and evaluate music
based on his or her listening skills.

As the preschooler's perceptions begin to take shape,
it is then essential that the child learn the appropriate
terminology or name for each concept. According to
Zimmerman:

Young children simply do not have an adequate

vocabulary and appropriate labels to attach to

their emerging concepts. At a minimum, school

music programs should enable children to talk

about the music experiences with the same level of

technical vocabulary that is characteristic of

other fields. We need further knowledge

concerning the role of language development and

its interagtion with the formation of music

concepts.

Concentrated efforts to measure the preschool child's
individual musical abilities could lead to the growth and
establishment of structured musical activities as part of
the preschool curriculum. Furthermore, a preschool program

of music instruction could contribute positively to the

expansion and refinement of public school music programs.

The Purpose

 

One important goal of music education is to provide an
opportunity for each individual to receive the best and most
complete instruction possible. This means that, to a large
degree, the success or failure of school music programs will

depend upon the ability of music educators to construct and

8

implement curricula which follow a sequential plan, and
coincide with the natural development of the child.

Montessori reminds her readers that adults are Often
too quick in judging the abilities of young children, and as
a result, inadvertently prohibit them from engaging in
activities which are necessary for normal physical and
mental development (The Secret of Childhood, 1962Lfiu
Standing, an advocate Of the Montessori Method, states that:

We must never forget that the child is potentially

a much higher being than we have hitherto imagined

and we must always treat him as such.... We are

concerned only with pointing out the general

principle that it is a scientifically established

fact that, when we do treat these little ones as

more elevated beings, they respond in a striking

manner. We find them absorbing ideas and

revealing sentiments which we should have imagined

far beyond their years. We also find them

spontaneously making discoveries in various fields

of knowledge which fill us with amazement. 5

Previously, the tendency of teachers of all fields has
been to underestimate the abilities of young children, and
music educators are no exception to the rule. Through
research, however, music educators are changing their atti-
tudes gradually and are acknowledging the fact that, within
reason, preschool age children have the ability to develop
and improve their basic music skills, if given the proper
training. Although progress is being made in the field Of
music research, it has not as yet been integrated into most
preschool curricula. Unfortunately, much more detailed re-
search on the musical abilities of young children has to be

done before music educators can defend the right of pre-

schoolers to be given organized music instruction.

9
Therefore, the purpose Of this study will be to provide
descriptive data on the three-year-Old child's ability to
discriminate differences in pitch, identify elementary
music concepts, as well as examine music preferences which
will aid in the future development of preschool music educa-

tion.

Limitations

The study of musical development can be examined in
relation to the child's ability to perceive and understand
the unique properties Of various elements such as rhythm,
pitch, harmony, tone color, and form. A number of research
approaches are possible, and each will call for the sub-
ject's ability to demonstrate either listening, performing,
or creative skills. For the purpose of this particular
research project, the author examined the element of pitch,
more specifically, the ability of three-year-Olds to dis-
criminate paired pitch patterns as being the same or
different. Each pitch discrimination task was confined to
the area of auditory perception, and the children were not
asked to reproduce what they heard.

The second part of the study has been designed to
determine if three year olds have acquired a preference for
pre-twentieth versus twentieth-century music at this stage
Of their development.

The final measurement has been constructed for the
purpose of evaluating the subject's understanding of basic

music concepts (loud-soft, fast-slow, high-low, up-down, far

10
apart-close together, and step-skip). In addition, the
study will include a comparative analysis between the
variables of pitch discrimination, concept formation,
preference, and home musical environment.

Each of the above measurements requires the subject to
respond only to a given auditory stimuli. The children will
not have to demonstrate any performance or creative skills.
Furthermore, this study is not intended to determine the
child's "talent for music." The sole purpose of this re-
search is tO gather descriptive data on specific components
which may or may not be present in children, three years Of
age. It is the author's Opinion that the development Of
standardized measurements for preschoolers is a goal for the
future, and will only be successful when additional informa-
tion on the musical abilities of young children is made

available to music educators and researchers.

Procedures

 

A three-part test battery will be administered to
thirty-three subjects, three years Of age, on three

consecutive days. Part I (Pitch Discrimination Test) and

 

Part II (Music Preference Test) are pre-taped and will be
administered in ten to fifteen-minute sessions on the first
and second days of testing. The items for Part III (Concept
Formation Test) will be performed "live" by the experimenter
in approximately fifteen-minute sessions on the third day of
testing. The subjects will be tested individually, and

their verbal responses will be tape-recorded. The

11
experimenter will read the test directions and test ques-
tions to the subjects as it appears in the test script

(Appendicesl7and G).

Definitions

 

Specific terms are used throughout this study and will
be defined as follows:

Musical Aptitude: "Musical aptitude refers to potential
talent in music. As with other forms of learning, high
aptitude does not necessarily mean high achievement will
result, but it does indicate that under favorable condi-
tions, high achievement is possible. A person who possesses
a high level of aptitude for music will have an ex-
ceptional awareness for musical sound. This awareness, or
talent, manifests itself in the manner in which a student is
readily able to grasp, see relations in, make generaliza-
tions from, and relatg and organize ideas presented through
the media of musicJ'

 

Intelligence: Intelligence refers to the ability of an
individual to interact and adapt to his environment.1

 

Ability: For the purpose of this study, ability will refer
to the child's readiness to learn various concepts. The
term ability will also be used in reference to the subjects'
test scores.

Capacity: Capacity is defined as an individual's innate
potential in music.

Child Development: "u.child development is a process that
entails sequential levels, phases, shifts, steps, or gtages
through which a child passes from infancy to youth."1

 

Serial Position: For the purpose of this study, serial
position will refer to a change in the order of presentation
of the two response choices for each item. The subjects
will be presented verbally with the correct response choice
last in the serial position test items (Concept Formation
Test - Group II). The term serial position will also be
used to indicate when a pre-twentieth or twentieth-century
excerpt in each paired item is played last.

 

 

Overview .

Four additional chapters, the Bibliography, Appendices

of Tables, and Test Materials will complete this study.

12

Chapter II will contain a Review of Related Literature
including theories of early childhood development, theories
of music aptitude and current tests, and specific research
studies conducted with preschool age children. Chapter III
states the Procedures for testing subjects participating in
this research project. Chapter IV will include an Analysis
Of Data. The study will conclude with a Summary, Conclus-
ions, and Recommendations for future research presented in

Chapter V.

13

NOTES

1Robert Petzold, "Child Development," Documentary
Report of the Ann Arbor Symposium, (Reston, Virginia: Music
Educators National Conference, 1981), p. 47.

 

 

2Marvin Greenberg, "Research in Music in Early
Childhood Education: A Survey With Recommendations,"
Council for Research in Music Education, NO. 45, (Winter

“9“677 "FT—8.

3Marilyn P. Zimmerman, "Child Development and
Music Education," Documentary Report of the Ann Arbor
Sym osium, (Reston, Virginia: Music Educators National
Con erence, 1981), p. 50.

 

 

 

 

 

 

”Barbara L. Andress, Hope M. Heimann, Carroll A.
Rinehart, and E. Gene Talbert, Music in Early Childhood,
(Washington, [DC Music Educators National Conference,
1973). p- 1.

 

 

5Paul Michel, "The Optimum Development of Musical
Abilities in the First Years of Life, " Psychology of Music,
Vol.1, NO. 2, (June 1973), p. 17.

 

6Greenberg, p. 16.

7Marilyn P. Zimmerman, Musical Characteristics of
Young Children, (Washington, D<3 Music Educators National
Conference, 1971), pp. 5-32.

 

 

8Ibid, p. 5-32.
9Greenberg, pp. 11-12.

loArthur T. Jersild and Sylvia F. Bienstock, "The
Influence of Training on the Vocal Ability of Three Year Old
Children," Child Development, Vol. 2, 1931, pp. 272-291.

 

11Ruth Updgraff, LOuise Heiliger, and Janet
Learned, "The Effect of Training Upon the Singing Ability
and Musical Interest of Three-, Four-, and Five- Year- Old
Chi.ldren," University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, Vol.

“I 1937, pp. 83-131.

 

 

 

14

12Robert B. Smith, "The Effect of Group Vocal
Training on the Singing Ability Of Nursery School Children,"
Journal of Research Ln Music Education, Vol. 11, (Fall 1963),
pp 137- W11"""""“

 

13Zimmerman, 1981, p. 52.

1“Maria Montessori, The Secret Of Childhood,
translated and edited by Barbara Barclay Carter, (Calcutta:
Orient Longmans, 1962).

 

 

15E. M. Standing, The Montessori Revolution iJ
Education, (New York. Schocken Books, 1966), pp. 96- 97.

 

16Ed Rainbow, "Constructs of Musical Aptitude,"
Journal of Research iJ Music Education, Vol. 13, (Spring,

1965), p. _4.

17Jean Piaget, The Origins of Intelligence, (New
York: International Universities Press, 1966), p. 3.

 

 

 

18Zimmerman, 1981, p. 49.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

 

Early childhood research is becoming more prominent as
educators of every discipline seek to increase the quality
of educational programs at all levels, as well as stimulate
individual potential and growth. Although past research of
preschool children has proved to be enlightening in many
respects, it has likewise been limited in scope, providing
only skeletal information on the capacities of preschool age
children. Many problems relating to the child's physical,
mental, and social development are apparent. At the same
time, it is necessary that educators interpret past and
present research in the context of each individual's poten-
tial and growth rate. While age norms are often helpful in
establishing boundaries for learning, this form of
categorizing children may sometimes be too rigid, placing
undue restraint on educational goals and objectives.

Regardless of the specific subject matter involved,
future research must take into account general cognitive and
affective characteristics underlying the child's develop-
ment. Without the integration of psychological and physical

factors of development with the unique attributes inherent

15

16

in a given subject area, it is doubtful as to the quantity
and quality of data that will be derived from future
research. Therefore, in presenting literature that speaks
to Specific musical capacities and abilities in young
children, a case will be made for the use of combined cogni-
tive, aptitudinal, and developmental theories as an instru-
mental key to the develOpment of measurements and research

methods.

Theories of Cognitive Development

 

Early pioneers in child psychology provided a theoreti-
cal foundation for the process of growth and development in
young children. Two of the most influential contributors to
the formulation of early child psychology were John Locke
(1632-1704) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Each, in
his own way, was responsible for many of the beliefs held by
modern child psychologists concerned with cognitive develop-
ment. Moreover, Locke and Rousseau not only inspired
scientific inquiry into the cognitive and affective aspects
of child development, but set the trend for two Opposing
theories which have long stimulated controversy among
psychologists. An examination of developmental theories
would be incomplete without reference to these two men.

During the sixteenth century, a theory known as
environmentalism began to evolve; however, it was not until
the latter part of the seventeenth century, under the
guidance of John Locke, that this theory became clearly

defined.19 Locke felt that all children were equally endowed

17

with a capacity to learn. The critical factor in each
child's achievement was the surrounding environment and the
individual's specific experiences. In the development of
his theory, Locke stressed the importance of presenting
appropriate behavior for the child to imitate. In addition,
Locke believed it was essential to shape the minds of young
children, rewarding positive behavior and showing disap-
proval for negative behavior when appropriate.20

It is clearly evident that Locke's theory has made a
definite impact on modern education, both in theory and
practice. Although there are differences between early and
modern theories of development and instruction, many of
Locke's beliefs have influenced the learning theories pre-
scribed later by Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner.21

Representative of an opposing viewpoint are the theo-
ries formulated by Jean Jacques Rousseau, who has influenced
notable figures in child development such as Gesell, Piaget,

and Montessori.22

Rousseau believed that "nature" was the
key to the child's growth, and that each child should be
free to explore his or her surroundings. Furthermore,
Rousseau was against presenting lessons to children before
they reached an appropriate level of development.23
Central to Rousseau's theory are four main stages of
development, paraphrased from Crain's text as follows:

1) Stage l: Infancy - Birth to Age Two

During this time, the child's experiences are
guided by the senses.

18

2) Stage 1;: Childhood - Age Two to Age Twelve

 

The child is now able to reason intuitively with
the aid of body movements and the senses, but is
unable to cope with abstract ideas and events.

 

3) Stage III: Late Childhood — Age Twelve to Age
Fi teen

This stage is a short transitional period before
the child enters adolescence. Although the child's
cognitive abilities have increased, information
processing is still concrete, rather than abstract.

4) Stage l1 Adolescence - Begins at Fifteen Years Old

 

The child's train of thought: begins to move along an
abstract continuum. Contrary to previous behavior,
the child now $33 a desire for social

relationships.

One of those who have followed in the footsteps of
Rousseau is Arnold Gesell. Like Rousseau, Gesell proposed a
set order of development that is guided by the science of
genetics. The prerequisite for learning certain psycho-
motor responses such as standing or walking, and likewise,
the acquisition of specific cognitive abilities, is dependent
on the child's readiness to cope with each task. While a
favorable environment may make it possible for a child to
reach his or her level of potential, it is not the basic
ingredient which directs the developmental process.25

Although Gesell would contend that all children
progress through a similar sequence of develOpment, each
individual's growth rate does vary.26 Consequently, parents
and teachers plan their activities with the child according
to their current abilities and readiness to undertake speci-

fic physical and mental tasks. As a result, Gesell has

established general norms of development for each age level,

19
which, given a reasonable amount of flexibility in interpre-
tation, can be helpful in analyzing the child's develop-
ment.27

The effect of Rousseau's theories in the field of child
develOpment is overwhelming, yet, for years there were only
minimal efforts made to apply the principles of cognitive
processing to the development of early childhood curricula.
As a result, a vast number of educational programs which
could be beneficial to the child and complement the sequence
of growth and development, have remained stagant and inef-
fective. There has, however, been some attempt to apply
cognitive developmental theories to an educational frame-
work. Under the direction of Maria Montessori, an educa-
tional philosophy that is sensitive to the child's cognitive
development and growth rate has evolved. The impact of
Montessori's educational programs should not be under-
estimated, for without her work, it is questionable whether
educational programs, beginning at the preschool level,
would have become a reality.

The key premise upon which Montessori's educational
program is based gives children the opportunity to learn at
their own rate of development, according to a maturational
process.28 Montessori strongly believed that children could
independently master specific tasks more efficiently on
their own if the individual had access to the proper
materials. In order to establish the right environment for

independent learning, Montessori carefully observed the

20

child's behavior while working with different materials.
Final selections of the learning materials were made on the
basis of her observations and the preferences of the
children.29

In constructing an educational program, Montessori
placed much importance on what she called "sensitive
periods," or in other words, those times when the child is
curious and ready to master specific tasks. Furthermore,
Montessori believed that if the child's sensitive periods
for learning were ignored, his or her development would
possibly suffer.3O Teachers in a true Montessori school are
careful not to interfere with the child's learning,
suggesting new material only if he or she seems ready to
take on the task.31

Although Montessori's educational program initiated
change from authoritative to child-centered education, it
did not promote the social-emotional development of the
child. In the Montessori school environment, there is
little interaction among the children; each individual works
alone. As a result, Montessori has been often criticized
for her lack of consideration for the social and emotional
development of the child.32 Consequently, it is possible that
some educators might find Montessori's philosophy to be an
example of two extremes--first, one that places blind faith
in the child's ability to take the responsibility for his or
her learning, and secondly, one that provides an environment

which inhibits social interaction and growth. Still,

21
Montessori has been instrumental in establishing a preschool
method which is designed to complement the cognitive
development of the young child.

Recent efforts have been made by Jean Piaget to account
for the environmental role in the child's develOpment.
Piaget's theory incorporates theories of development,
maturation, and cognitive processing. According to Jerome
Bruner, Piaget is an epistemologist, or in other words, one
who "is deeply concerned with the nature of knowledge per
se, knowledge as it exists at different points in the
develOpment of the child."33 In any event, Piaget considers
intelligence to be an adaptive process which is based on "an
equilibrium between the action of the organism on the
environment and vice versafleu According to Crain, Piaget
explains the child's activities in relation to these
biological tendencies, more specifically referred to as
assimilation, accommodation, and organization.35

In biological terms, "assimilation means taking in, as
in eating or digestion. In the intellectual sphere, we have
a need to assimilate objects or information into our
cognitive structures."36 Likewise, the individual often has
to make accommodations, or changes in his or her structures
when certain objects do not fit into the present scheme.

For instance, a baby eventually realizes that in order to
pick up a toy, he or she must first remove an obstacle that
is in the way.37 Finally, the infant learns to organize

two or more actions, or in terms of mental activities, the

22

individual constructs theories and organizes ideas into
understandable forms.38 The exact degree to which the en-
vironment influences the child's development is still un-
known. Nevertheless, deficiencies in the child's ability to
learn a particular subject matter may be affected by poor
environmental influences.

While Piaget has provided an explanation of how to
clarify the interaction between the individual and the en-
vironment, he is probably best known for his formulation of
four basic stages of development, which although somewhat
different in structure and theory, seem to be inspired by
Rousseau. Stage I, referred to as the sensory—motor period,
begins during infancy and extends to approximately two years
of age. During this time, the child learns about his en-
vironment through a physical interaction with surrounding
objects.39

Between the ages of two and seven, the child is in
Stage II, referred to as the "preoperational period." At
this point in the child's development "he is beginning to

think symbolicallydfiu)

However, ".uduring the entire
preoperational period, the child's thinking is basically
unsystematic and illogical. It is not until the age of
seven or so, the beginning of concrete operations (Stage
III: 7-11 years old), that thinking becomes organized on a

symbolic planen"u1 Although the child is now organizing his

thoughts more efficiently than in stages I and II, he or

23
she is still unable to fully operate with the objects in his
or her environment in a variety of contexts.

Piaget's final stage of development, or "formal
operations," occurs between the ages of eleven and fifteen.
During this last developmental stage, the child is able to
apply his cognitive knowledge to function within a variety
of contexts or situations.”2

The implications of child developmental theories toward
future research should not be overlooked. Each of the
previously mentioned theories began a chain of events which,
today, has culminated in an increased interest and awareness
of how children develop, both physically and mentally.
Although many have criticized theories based on set stages
of development, it is through this process that much
information has been provided which will not only educate
teachers about affective and cognitive patterns of growth,
but will also serve as guidelines for the selection and
implementation of appropriate research projects. As more
information in the field of child development emerges,
more opportunities will be available for constructing
better educational programs, particularly for young
children. The ultimate goal of educational research is to
produce a complete curriculum that benefits all children and
allows each individual to reach his or her peak level of

potential, while searching for his or her special talents.

24

The Nature-Nurture Controversy as 13 Applies 39 Music

 

The nature-nurture issue that is so clearly evident in
the history of child developmental theory has influenced
other specialized fields where aptitudinal research
prevails. It is no longer sufficient to conduct research
studies with young children that are solely based on
cognitive learning in a given subject discipline. Effective
research projects occur as a result of careful planning
which implies that all relevant information, directly or
indirectly related to a specific specialized area, be
considered in the construction and implementation of each
experiment. It is with these thoughts in mind, that the
author will examine the nature-nurture controversy as it
applies to music aptitude and achievement, with reference to
its effect on the development of educational programs
designed for use with young children.

In any study related to musical aptitude or capacity,
several questions come to mind. For instance, what is the
difference between capacity and ability? Are varying levels
of musical achievement contingent on heredity or do they occur
as a result of training? If indeed the degree of one's
musical attainment is due to inborn traits, how can these be
identified and measured with reasonable accuracy? And most
importantly, how will the measurement of musical capacity
affect the development and growth of music education?

A variety of definitions have been given to explain the

difference between capacity and ability. According to Max

25

Schoen, "ability is that which one has attained through
training, practice or experience; capacity is that which
enables one to attain a certain degree of ability. Capacity
is inborn, while ability is acquired on the basis of
capacity.“43 Generally speaking, Schoen's definition of
ability would satisfy most psychologists who have attempted
to make a distinction between the two terms. Another
possible eXplanation of capacity has been offered by Robert
Lundin. He states that the term capacity refers more
specifically to a "biological capacity," rather than to
"inborn behavior patterns or powers of the mind."uu

The nature of musical ability has been a controversial
issue among psychologists and researchers for many years.
In the early part of the twentieth century, Carl Seashore
was one of the most influential spokesmen in support of an
individual's potential being directly related to inborn
traits. Seashore contends that "we have inherited every
element of what we are or can become as human organisms.”l5
Similarly, Max Schoen believed that a person'sxnusical
talent varied according to the laws of nature:

Musical talent is first an inborn capacity.

Artistic musical performance rests ultimately upon

innate, inborn equipment. It is not something

that is acquired in one's lifetime, but the person

is born with it or without it. All that training

can do is tou%evelop that which already exists

potentially.

An opposing view, advocated by John Watson, is based

on the assumption that, given the proper environment, an

26
individual can develop any number of diverse skills. He
states:

."Give me a dozen healthy infants, well formed,
and my own specified world to bring them up in and
I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train
him to become any type of specialist I might
select-- doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief,
and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of
his talents, penchants, tendencies, agilities,
vocations, and race of his ancestors.

To adopt one of these theories in and of itself, could
prove to limit the scope of future research by attributing
various degrees of musical aptitude, or talent, exclusively
to inborn traits or environmental influences. Although
there appears to be an overwhelming support for giving most
of the credit to the theory of inherent traits, enough doubt
has been voiced by reputable psychologists that questions
its validity. Paul Farnsworth states: "It is now clear
that neither nature or nurture alone can make a musician.“‘8
He further clarifies this statement as follows:

."an ability is always resultant of the interplay

of heredity and environment. The organism limits

or facilitates achievement in many ways. The

environment likewise aids or inhibits. From these

two sets of interacting limitations and facilita-

tions abilities develop. Musical abilities seem

in general no more nor leis inherited than abili-

ties in many other areas.

According to Michel, much of the credit for early musical
attainment can be attributed to environmental influences.
He writes:

In all cases where early manifestation of Optimum

musical ability can be observed, it may be traced

back either to specific efforts of the child's

educators towards its development, or at least to

environmental congations which could stimulate
such development.

27
Révész states there is evidence that neither heredity or
environmental factors are alone responsible for varying
levels of musicianship:
Accordingly, the pure environmental theory and the
pure theory of heredity or aptitude are equally
limited. The latter disregards the development
predicated by the environment, the first overlooks
the fact that prediSposition forms the necessary
prerequisite to any development. Environment can
only have an effect on existing aptitudes, either
as a help or a hindrance. On the other hand,
natural aptitudes requgre environmental influences
for their development. 1
Additional controversy to the nature-nurture issue has
been invoked by a series of genealogical survey studies
(Haecker and Ziehen, 1930; Koch and Mjoen, 1931; and Feis,
191OL. The results, cited by Gordon, collectively imply
that:
1) if both parents are talented their children
will very likely be talented,
2) if only one parent of the two is talented
their children will usually be talented, and
3) if neither parent is talented their children
will be less talented than they. It was also
suggested that males as g group have more
musicality than females. 2
Much credibility of genealogical research in the field
of music stems from biographical documentations of famous
musical families. In the late nineteenth century, Galton
presented a biographical list of information for several
famous musicians, stating that Bach, Haydn, Mendelssohn, and
Mozart were "instances of hereditary genius."53 Others
attribute musicality to much more than hereditary factors.
Pronko's and Bowles' comments are in accordance with this

viewpoint:

28

When one considers how many family lines do not
show a succession of geniuses but only a sporadic
individual showing behavioral superiority, one
wonders how the traditional heredity dogma can
persist in the face of such facts. Note that most
often there is only one Beethoven, da Vinci,
Gutenberg, and so on, in an otherwise consistently
mediocre lineage. Indeed, it is a commonplace
observation that the world's outstanding men have
come from humble ancestry. Who can formulate the
hereditary "principle" tgfit operates in such a
strange, erratic manner?

Certainly a case can be made in favor of both
hereditary and environmental factors as contributors to
various levels of musical ability. As Paul Farnsworth
states:

If the geneological research proceeds far enough back
in time, the musician who believes in heredity can
always find a musical ancestor from whom his

musical ability may have come, while the environ-
mentalist can relish the absence of musical abili-
ties among his immediate ancestors and point to

some unrelated musician or teacher as the "source"

of the environmental pressures ggich have ante-

dated the musical achievements.

Each person'SIMusical achievement will vary, which may
give validity to the theory of inherent traits, however, the
results of genealogical studies are inconclusive. According
to James Mursell:

The results on family inheritance are open to all

the dubiousness inherent in the questionnaire and

biographical methods. ."Presumably all these

strikingly musical families offered about as

favored a musical environment as could be

imagined. ...How much was due to such

circumstances, and how much to the unique 6

prOperties of the germ plasm? We do not know.5

Likewise, when it comes down to measuring musical
capacities, there are differences of opinion among

psychologists and researchers as to the specific properties

29
which are representative of musical aptitude. Seashore
(1967)57 believes musical aptitude is made up of separate
sensory capacities, and that an individual can be superb in
one capacity and deficient in another. Max Schoen, like
Seashore, believes in talent as a derivative of inborn
traits, however, he does not support the theory of separate
sensory capacities as an approach to identifying various
levels of musical aptitude. According to Schoen, "".talent
for music is not a single power or capacity, but consists of
several groups of talents, each group, performing a specific
and definite function in the making of the artist."58

Mursell (1937)59 believes that musical talent is made
up of several mental processes.) The most basic are an
affective reSponsiveness to tone and tonal rhythmic pat-
terns, a perceptual awareness of tonal relationships, and a
perceptual awareness of rhythmic groupings. Mursell con-
tinues by stating:

Each of these, and particularly the second, can be

still further subdivided". the essential point is that

musicality depends upon and consists of an awareness of
tonal-rhythmic configurations or g8tal patterns and an
emotional responsiveness thereto.

Miller, in accordance with Mursell, prefers to view
musicality as a "whole" rather than separate inborn sensory
capacities, and lists the following as its components:

.uthe ability to comprehend complex abstract

tonal designs; to mentally synthesize relation-

ships between unlike elements in a given extended

context; to recognize possibilities for expressive

and dramatic profundity as these accrue and relate

to each other within a work; to detect and project

musical metamorphoses and transformations; to
transfer the learned from one musical situation to

30
the next; and, at any given moment in an extended
context, to remember, to be aware of, and to
anticipate so that the inner logic of a tot?1
structure is maintained and fully realized.
Similarly, Edwin Gordon (1971)62 identifies tonal, rhythmic,
and aesthetic expressive-interpretive attributes as com-

ponents of musical aptitude.

The Measurement of Musical Aptitude

 

 

Without a doubt, the source of musical aptitude, as
well as its specific components, are subject to the many
diverse opinions voiced by experts in the field.

Gordon explains the connection between musical aptitude and
education as follows:

Because of the limited quantity of research, the

source of musical aptitude cannot be explained.

As music educators, then, we should more

realistically be concerned with how best to help

students learn music and make the most of whatever
musical aptitudes they possess than with how to
determine the definite source of that aptitude.

Until we discover otherwise, let us at least be

content with the understanding that musical

aptitude comprises various dimensions, that it is

a product of innate potential and early

environmental influences, and that every student

we teach can be expggted to have at least some

musical aptitude...

Gordon6u believes it is necessary to know what specifically
"comprises" musical aptitude so that each student can
receive instruction conducive to his or her level of
potential.

It has been said that musical aptitude does not
stabilize until an individual reaches approximately nine or
ten years of age, or the fourth-grade level, (Gordon, 1971).65

Assuming this is true, how can music educators effectively

31
plan musical activities for preschool and primary school age
children? Our present methods of music assessment
include very few aptitudinal or achievement measurements
which are suitable for use with young children. After
measuring musical aptitude in young children Vance and
Grandprey have concluded:

Whether the assumption that one child has a

greater musical capacity than another is true can

only be determined by the study of the child some

ten or fifteen years later.". To give any test of

special aptitude too early may give merely a

measure ogématurity and not of the aptitude in

question.

It is difficult to pass judgment on the conclusions made by
Vance and Grandprey; it could be that the measurement of
musical aptitude of preschool children may prove to be
futile, however, much more research in this area is
necessary before such a statement can be accepted in good
faith.

Although preschool children undergo developmental
changes, and tend to demonstrate fluctuating abilities in
all areas of learning, it is still vital to establish an
instructional program which begins to introduce simplified
versions of musical concepts. In an article by Michel, he
criticizes an approach to musical learning which is planned
with specific age groups in mind. He states that, "the
essential process oflnusical development is always an
individual matter, in which age can only be one factor among

several and not the sole determinanbfl67 In addition,

Michel refers to research that has been conducted in the

32

German Democratic Republic, and comments on the results as
follows:

.nthe musical achievements of children,

particularly of preschool age, have, up to now,

been considerably underestimated, and that the age

"levels" oflnusical development, hitherto accepted

as being rigidly fixed, could, given suitable

development conditions, be to a great exggnt

anticipated, even proved to be spurious.

A few attempts have been made to develop and/or use
tests which measure the musical abilities of preschool age
children. In a research study conducted by Young, (1974)69,

the Primary Music Ability Test (unpublished), designed by

 

John Hill, was used as a criterion measurement for
determining the effects of instruction on the musical
abilities of disadvantaged preschool age children. Hill's
test included thirty-two items divided into six sections
(interval matching, unknown phrase imitation, single pitch
matching, familiar melody recognition, familiar rhythm
recognition, and unknown rhythm pattern imitation) designed
to measure melodic and rhythmic ability. Young found that
disadvantaged preschoolers receiving instruction were
significantly better than disadvantaged preschoolers
belonging to the control group. No difference was reported
between the disadvantaged subjects who received instruction
and the advantaged children who were assigned to the control
group. In addition, Young reports a coefficient of
reliability of .92, which he says "compares favorably" to

those reported by Hill.

33

A Rhythmic Ability Test constructed by McDowell
(1974)70 requires four year olds to reproduce given tempi
and rhythm patterns, and to determine if paired tempi and
paired rhythm patterns are the same or different. The test-
retest reliability for thirty-six subjects evaluated as a
single group was .45. In addition, McDowell found that
those subjects who were given training did not significantly
improve their rhythmic skills. It was concluded that
additional training was necessary for a significant
improvement in rhythmic ability to be evident. It may be
that with some revision, McDowell's test could become a
future standardized measurement for preschool children.

A more recent test has been designed to evaluate pitch
concept formation in preschool age children (Scott, 1977).71
The purpose of this study was twofold; first, the
preschooler's timbre preference was determined, and
secondly, there was an examination of the effect of timbre
preference on the preschooler's ability to identify pitch
register (Concept I), melodic contour (Concept II), and
interval size (Concept III). Scott's sample included thirty
subjects ranging in age from thirty-six to sixty months old.
Results from the pitch tests reveal that 37% of the subjects
were able to reach criterion on Concept I, 17% on Concept
II, and 18% on Concept III. As Scott hypothesized,
preschool age children seem to acquire the concept of pitch
register first, followed by melodic contour and interval

size. Results from the timbre test indicated that the

34
xlephone was most preferred by preschoolers, followed in
succession by the piano, clarinet, violin, and a sine wave.
Timbre preference, however, did not significantly effect the
preschooler's performance on the pitch tests. In general,
Scott found that four and five year olds had a better
understanding of pitch concepts than children between the
ages of three and four.

One measurement that has been designed to test the
affective responses of the preschool child has been deve-
loped by Aronoff (1968).72 She has suggested observing the
preschooler's initiative for participating in musical acti-
vities within the natural classroom setting. Aronoff has
also provided a test for preschool children which covers the
following areas: moving to the dynamics and tempo, rhythmic
patterns, and the highness and lowness of the music, keeping
the beat, singing melodic patterns and familiar tunes, play-
ing melodic patterns by ear, and recognizing tone color.
According to Greenberg (1976),73 the test has not been
published separately and there are no reports of its use.

At the present time, appropriate methods of measuring
musical aptitude in preschool age children are virtually
non-existent or unavailable» This situation will not change
until additional research is conducted to provide a
theoretical base from which standardized measurements can
eventually be developed. Additional information is sorely
needed that will uncover the musical capacities and

abilities of preschoolers, especially in reference to the

35
development of tonal concepts, an area which has fostered

very little research.

Music Research With Preschool Age Children

 

 

Music researchers have expended much effort in
determining the preschool child's ability to match pitch,
discriminate between two or more pitches, and vocally
reproduce songs or pitch sequences as a result of training.
In 1903, Monroe7” investigated the ability of children be-
tween the ages of two and six to reproduce and remember
scales and songs which were taught by rote. The results of
his research indicated that both abilities increase with
age. Regardless of age, the subjects were better able to
recall songs, rather than scales. Monroe attributes this
ability to contextual characteristics of the movement,
rhythm, and'subject matter of the songs. Although few
generalities or norms can be ascertained from one study of
this kind, Monroe was instrumental in stimulating future
research interests in the musical abilities of young
children.

In 1934, Jersild and Bienstock75 indicated that the
greatest improvement in singing occurred in children between
two and six years of age. In an earlier study (1931),76
Jersild and Bienstock reported a considerable increase in
the three-year-old child's vocal range, attributed to a six—
month training period. While the young child's strongest
singing range appeared to be middle C to second space A

(this concurs with Smith's finding, 1963),77 Jersild and

36
Bienstock indicated that some of the subjects extended their
range to A below middle C, and as much as two octaves higher
than middle C. The results prompted the authors to state
that "the score of the exceptionally capable children as
well as the scores of average children all indicate that a
child has the capacity to produce a wide range of tones at
an early age."78

Jersild and Bienstock have provided positive evidence
that the preschool child, regardless of varying levels of
capacity, can achieve some degree of success in improving
their singing skills. Their work has set a precedent for
future research studies in which the variable of training is
examined as a possible key to the improvement of the
preschool child's musical ability. Research of this kind is
significant, in that, the value of training has often been
associated with an increase in age, a belief most likely
based upon the fact that the mental and physical development
of preschool children changes frequently.

Additional research (Hattwick, 1933)79 supports the
efforts of Jersild and Bienstock in determining some norms
on the singing abilities of young children. Initially,
Hattwick recorded songs sung by subjects at the preschool,
first, and second grade levels to examine characteristics of
pitch range and pitch level in young children. All subjects
sang in a lower voice range than the printed version of the
same songs. In addition, preschool age children most often

sang in a narrower voice range than the song literature

37
presented in traditional music books. After a series of
practice sessions conducted with children four and one-half
to six years of age, similar results indicated that the
subjects still sang their songs at lower pitch levels than
the starting pitches given by the experimenter, and
continued to perform in a narrower pitch range than the
songbook versions of the same melodies. The results of
Hattwick's experiment, coupled with his thorough examination
of songbooks indicate that many of the pitch levels and
pitch ranges appearing in written song literature are not
based upon valid research, and consequently are in conflict
with the actual pitch levels and pitch ranges consistently
sung by young children.

A similar study by Drexler (1938)80 was designed to
determine the ability of children, three to six years old, to
sing a melody. All subjects received training on the words
and melodies for two nursery rhymes. Both songs were
written in 6 time and pitched in the key of C. Although
occasional fintervals of a fourth or fifth appeared, the
songs predominantly consisted of ascending and descending
seconds and thirds. As a result of her research, Drexler
concluded that the average number of tones sung incorrectly
decreased as the age of the subjects increased.
Furthermore, the older subjects were less apt to repeat the
same tones, a characteristic often associated with a
monotone type of singing which occurrs more frequently in

younger children. The older children had a greater ability

38
to sing intervals accurately, although Drexler indicated
that the greatest progress in differentiating seconds
occurred between three and four years of age.

Drexler's results confirm the work of Hattwick and
Jersild and Bienstock, as they indicate that children are much
more comfortable when singing at lower pitch levels. She
also reports that descending intervals of smaller size are
the easiest for younger children to master. Finally, on the
basis of a questionnaire completed by teachers and parents,
it was concluded that there is only a small relationship
between musical home environment and the ability of children
to carry a melody.

A different approach for teaching tone and rhythm was
investigated by Hissem (1933) on the premise that "children
learn to sing through observation and imitation."81 Twenty-
seven subjects, ranging from twenty-one to fifty-four months
old, were trained to reproduce tones of a C-major chord, as
well as simple rhythmic patterns over a period of eight
months. The instructional process was gradual, beginning
with the repetition of one tone, and eventually incorporat-
ing a total of six tones. Songs were created by adding
syllable names or by inventing words to accompany the
pitches and rhythmic patterns. Instruction related to the
singing of ascending and descending intervals of a perfect
fourth, fifth, and octave revealed that young children can

improve their vocal reproduction of simple tonal sequences.

39
As a result of her research, Hissem made the following

recommendations:82

1) Music instruction for young children should be
presented in its simplest form.

2) When singing, the child's natural starting pitch
should be used.

3) Presenting combinations of tones and rhythms should
be guided by the child's interests and capacities.

4) Children should be given the opportunity to hear
good music literature.

5) Experimenting with different tone colors will aid
in developing music appreciation.

Hissem's research is particularly important because of
her concentrated effort to teach pitch and intervals within a
tonal context. The use of a limited number of pitches and
the constant emphasis of tonality proved to be a successful
means for increasing tonal awareness in preschool children,

a process often discarded on the basis of age.

One of the most notable early childhood research
projects entailed a thorough investigation of the effects of
training on the singing ability of three-, four-, and five-
year-old children (Updgraff, Heiliger, and Learned, 193TL83
Initial pitch matching, interval, and phrase tests, three to
five tones in length, were individually administered to all
subjects prior to training. Nine songs with a vocal range
from B below middle C to fourth space E were presented to the
three experimental groups as part of the training segment.
Drills in pitch matching and intervallic singing were
incorporated into the training sessions, as well as

additional song materials when it seemed appropriate.

4O
Retests of the pitch matching, interval, and phrase tests
collectively'revealed that subjects receiving training
improved their singing ability on all variables measured,
while the phrase test produced the most discriminatory
results between each age level.

An extensive research project from the same decade
(1932; 1935) warrants a special detailed discussion. Under
the jurisdiction of the University of Iowa Child Welfare
Studies, a series of experiments were developed for the
purpose of examining various musical abilities of preschool
children, with specific attention directed toward problems
in measurement construction and design. As part of the
total project, Hattwick and Williams conducted several
experiments for the purpose of investigating pitch con-
sciousness in young children. The uniqueness of their re-
search stems from a constant effort to establish the most
desirable methods for measuring musical ability in preschool
age children, a task less vigorously pursued by their pre-
decessors.

Through the use of methods he calls "observational" and
"objective," Williams conducted an experiment on the
preschool child's ability to reproduce single tones and

short phrases vocally (The Measurement of Musical

 

Development, 1932).“ The observational method was based on

 

the child's ability to spontaneously repeat tones and
phrases performed by the teacher, while the objective method

was designed to include song instruction over a period of

41
one year. The results of Williams' study suggested that
neither method was more effective than the other. In rela-
tion to pitch consciousness in young children, Williams
found that even the best singers had trouble reproducing
wide intervals or intervals resulting from a leap up to high
pitches. As far as voice range is concerned, Williams
concluded that middle C to third space C appeared to be the
most natural for the young child.

In a follow-up study (The Measurement of Musical

 

Development ll, 1935)85, Hattwick found that voco motor

 

control in reproducing intervals increased with age. He
further concluded that singing, as a measurement

of discrimination, is limited when small intervals serve as
the stimuli. Other variables considered include the

tendency to exaggerate intervals and the ability to respond
directionally to simple intervals. For the most part, the
findings were inconclusive; many of the subjects who sang the
intervals in the right direction also tended to exaggerate
the distance of these pitches, however, in many cases,
opposite results were evident.

Another segment of this research project was devoted to
an examination of the relationship between immediate and de-
layed recall in preschoolers (1935).86 Procedures for the
former task required each child to immediately sing brief
tonal sequences introduced by Williams, which were then
recorded on the dictaphone and later transcribed into

musical notation. The prerequisite for testing delayed

42
recall was the implementation of several group training
sessions in which unfamiliar songs were taught to the
subjects. The results indicated that there were great dif-
ferences among young children in their performance on tasks
of immediate and delayed recall of pitch sequences. Inter-
estingly enough, there was more evidence of improvement in
learning patterns, rather than absolute reproduction of
pitch. Williams concluded that any possible relationship
between ability in immediate and delayed recall was ques-
tionable.

Additional contributions made by Hattwick and Williams
toward the measurement of pitch discrimination in preschool
and elementary children deserve acknowledgment. Some of the
important variables investigated were the use of appropriate
terminology, group versus individual testing, and written
versus verbal response modes. Both Hattwick and Williams
concluded that preschool age children scored higher on pitch
tests when the terms "going up" and "going down" as opposed
to "higher" and "lower" were used as descriptors of pitch
direction. Furthermore, Hattwick found that motivation, as
well as controlling the pace of the test, yielded better
results in group testing situations. When children must
respond verbally to pitch direction using the terms "going
up" and "going down," Hattwick suggests that individual
tests be considered as an alternative for children who may
not perform well on group tests. In addition, Hattwick's

research indicated that the use of written tests is not

'43
advisable until children reach the third-grade level.

Realistically speaking, Hattwick and Williams only
began solving the problems on the training and measurement
of pitch discrimination in young children, yet, their work
has probably been the most thorough research documented in
the twentieth century. Many of the results obtained from
research studies in the 1930's suggest that, with proper
training, young children can improve their ability to repro-
duce single pitches and short tonal phrases accurately.
Although it may be impossible to pinpoint exact levels of
musical capacity in preschool age children, it is likely
that positive increases in pitch and tonal abilities will
result if preschool music curricula include the appropriate
instruction. As preschoolers begin to develop their musical
abilities at an earlier age, more of these children are
likely to realize their full musical potential.

In an effort to follow in the footsteps of his
predecessors, Kirkpatrick (1962)87 conducted a study to
determine a five-year-old child's ability to sing melodies
in the correct tonality; the study also included an examina-
tion of the relationship between the child's home environ-
ment and individual singing ability. On the basis of tonal
maintenance and the percentage of tones which the child
sang in a given melody correctly, Kirkpatrick categorized
each as being a "singer" (90% accuracy), a "partial singer"
(75%-89% accuracy), or a "non-singer" (less than 74% ac-

curacy). The highest and lowest note of the child's range,

44
starting notes, the tonality of the songs performed, and the
percentage of correct notes sung were recorded on charts.
The results of this research support other findings (Jersild
and Bienstock, 1931;88 Updgraff, et al., 1937;89 Hattwick,
1933;90 Smith, 196391) which indicate that the singing range
of young children is noticeably lower than previously ex-
pected by music teachers or as reported in music series
books.

Specific results indicated that those children
classified as "singer" demonstrated an average vocal range
from G or A below middle 0 to approximately third line ER or
B. The "partial singers" were able to produce a similar
range of tones, however, there was less evidence of pitch
accuracy and tonality. The vocal range of "non-singers," as
would be expected, is considerably limited, extending from B
below middle C to first space F#, with a few children
reproducing tones from Bb below middle C to fourth space Eb.
Although there were a variety of starting tones chosen by
the children, the Db above middle C was most preferred, and
consequently, the key of Db-major was the prevailing
tonality. In addition to the singing results, Kirkpatrick
conducted a survey of the home environment of the subjects
by submitting a written questionnaire to the parents. A
strong relationship between the child's musical environment
and singing ability prompted Kirkpatrick to conclude that
the children classified as "singers" or "partial singers"

had experienced good musical environments in the home, while

45
the opposite was true for "non-singers."

Past musical research with young children has
predominantly focused on specific elements of pitch
consciousness. Four additional studies relate to the
identification of tone color before and after training, and
the music preferences of preschool age children. In an
experiment by Fullard (1967)92, children forty-two to fifty-
nine months old were given training on the identification
of six instrumental colors. Subjects were divided into two
groups; Group I listened to orchestral selections of the
instruments in Set A (violin, clarinet, and violincello),
and Group II listened to Set B (flute, viola, and French
Horn). After completing work with their assigned set of
instruments, each group then listened to the remaining set
of instruments. This procedure was chosen to determine if
either set of contrasting instruments was easier for the
children to learn. The subjects were introduced to the
pictures and names of all the instruments which served as
the method for identifying auditory stimuli for the re-
maining training and testing sequence.

The results of the study indicated that there was no
statistically significant difference in the difficulty to
learn instruments in Set A versus Set B, or in relation to
home environment. Fullard also indicates that learning the
first set of stimuli facilitates learning of the second set.
According to Fullard, the assimilation of information, when

systematically presented as in programmed form, may allow

46
for experimental testing of correlations between aptitude
and learning.

June Jetter (1978)93 developed a hierarchy of music
learning tasks for preschool age children. Using what she
calls Audio-Visual Identification Instruction methods and
materials, Jetter administered training to subjects for five
identification tasks--clarinet timbre, cello timbre,
trombone timbre, exact melodic repetition, and the half-step
interval. More than 67% of the subjects were able to
identify four to six examples of trombone, clarinet, exact
melodic repetition, and half-step intervals, while cello
identification yielded a score of 54%. Jetter's findings
suggest that young children can learn to identify
differences in tone color.

Other important results of Jetter's study indicate that
there was no significant difference in achievement due to
socio-economic status, age variation, or sex. In addition,
it was determined that the trombone and clarinet were more
frequently encountered by children in an out-of—school
setting. Jetter further concludes that listening to
unfamiliar melodies only once may not be enough to store an
entire pattern and identify it upon repetition, and it may
be that shorter pitch series require less practice by young
children than long pitch series.

A study by Schuckert and McDonald was designed to
modify the musical preferences of preschool children

(1968)9u. In this study, the experimenters were

47
interested in determining if a controlled exposure to less
preferred musical styles would broaden the preschool child's
musical appreciation. Classical and jazz music were chosen
as stimuli for this study. First, each child's preference
for classical or jazz music was established. Each child was
then exposed to the style less preferred while engaging in
various play activities. After four exposure periods to the
music, the subjects were again asked if they preferred
classical or jazz music.

Although the shifts in musical preference were non-
significant, almost half of the subjects changed their
preferences as expected. The rate of musical preference
shifts was 2:1 in favor of claSsical music. The study of
musical preference is still new, however, Schuckert and
McDonald have given several suggestions for future research
such as, providing better controls, lengthening the number
of exposure periods, and choosing styles of music that are
less diverse.

An interesting study of musical discrimination was
conducted by Greer, Dorrow, and Hanser (1973).95 The
purpose of this project was to teach simple music
discriminations to children, and then determine if this
instruction increased the subjects' listening time for
specific musical selections. The first experiment was
conducted with second and third graders to examine how the
discrimination training, coupled with high approval

conditions would effect the children's selection of music.

48
The musical styles chosen for the pre- and post-tests were
symphonic, rock, and white noise. Subjects were divided
into two treatment groups; the first group received musical
discrimination training, while the second group listened to
musical selections when engaged in non-musical activities.
The results indicated that there was no difference between
the two groups in selecting music. The authors further
concluded that at this age level many musical
discriminations have already developed.

Based on the above results, the authors conducted a
similar experiment with three-year-old children. Training
sessions included the same musical selections and
greater controls were added to the procedure. The post-test
results of this study indicated that the subjects from both
groups preferred the symphonic selections which were used in
the discrimination training sessions. Finally, the
experiments conducted with preschool and primary school
children indicated that adult approval was instrumental in
the increase of preference for symphonic music. After
reviewing the research of Schuckert and McDonald, and Greer,
Dorrow, and Hanser, it is clear that much more work in the
area of music discrimination and preference is necessary
in early childhood research.

An extensive investigation of music research conducted
with preschool age children has primarily yielded results in
the area of pitch consciousness. The most conclusive

outcomes of these pitch studies were as follows:

49

1) Young children tend to sing most comfortably at
pitch levels lower than those in written versions
of the same songs.

2) The most comfortable range for preschool age
children falls approximately between middle C and
second space A.

3) Training is a viable means for extending voice
range, matching pitch, and increasing the ability
to reproduce intervals or short pitch sequences.

4) Descending intervals are easier for young children
to sing as opposed to ascending intervals.
Similarly, accurate reproduction of wider intervals
present greater problems than intervals of a
smaller size.

5) The ability to vocally control pitch production is
more difficult for preschool children.

6) Written pitch tests are not practical modes of
measurement for preschool age children. Likewise,
individual testing sessions may serve as an option
for children who do not perform well in group
situations.

7) Phrase tests have been the most discriminatory

means of measuring pitch consciousness in young
children.

Additional Studies

 

In addition, Zimmerman (1971)96 states that the
successful measurement of pitch discrimination is difficult
due to the preschooler's confusion with descriptive terms
such as high and low, often mistaken for the terms big and
little. When teaching the terms high and low, the problems
may be reduced by describing pitches as same or different.
However, a distinction between the first and second pitch
must be clearly communicated to the child. In addition,
Zimmerman believes that visual aids can be helpful when

presenting high and low pitches or melodic phrases. In

50

relation to the acquisition of tonality, Zimmerman concludes
that this ability becomes more acute when the child is about
eight years old; until this time the child has difficulty
perceiving harmony.

A more general overview of musical growth is presented
1 in an article by Helmut Moog (1976).97 He states that
during the last few months of the child's first year of life
there is a considerable increase in musical sensitivity.
Moog also indicated that at about two years of age, children
begin to develop more attentive listening habits. Children
belonging to this age group can sing, although assimilation
of the diatonic scale is a slow process. Furthermore, Moog
reports that about 80% of all three-year-old children are
able to imitate pitch accurately, and about 50% can sing a
complete song with a high degree of correctness. Moog
indicates that there are great differences in a child's
ability to sing, and although this ability seems to be
innate, he concludes that it does increase with practice.

As far as harmony is concerned, Moog states that preschool
age children are unable to experience this element of music.
Kresteff (1963),98 states that there is very little
evidence of musical ability in the first year of life that

would give us substantial information about the child's
musical disposition. As early as age two, the child
imitates songs and tonal patterns, and is aware of melodic
direction, however, his reproduction of songs is much less

than perfect. In the third year of life, the child responds

51

to the moods and emotions of the music, though Kresteff does
indicate that it is not known how much of this reaction is
caused by rhythmic versus tonal content. According to
Kresteff, it is not until the child reaches the age of four
that he begins to show signs of musical maturity. He
states:

."the growing child in his fourth year makes his first

confident steps toward an inner awareness of tonal

order for the purpose of supplying his innate need for

organized means of musical expression and

communication. The tonal nucleus into which he first

acquires insight is one of utmost simplicity. Two

Eggizxgiaganced by a minor third is its entire span and

Kresteff's statement is important for future research
and preschool music programs, in that, there is some support
for the development of tonal awareness in young children.
It is fair to assume that advanced tonal abilities do not
develop until the age of eight, and therefore, the statements
of Zimmerman and Moog are justified. However, previous
research has indicated that preschool children, especially
after receiving instruction, markedly improve their ability
to reproduce single pitches and short tonal phrases. This
suggests that serious consideration must be given to the
implementation of additional research and curricula which
will minimize any doubt and serve to nurture the child's
potential.

In addition, any conclusions made on the musical
abilities of preschool age children must be explained in

relation to specific operational definitions of tonality.

It is possible to define tonality within a melodic or

52
harmonic structure. While young children may not be able to
identify or reproduce tonal music set within an harmonic
background, they may, in fact, be able to develop some
simple auditory and performance skills when the tonal
material consists only of melodies.

In general, preschool age children are undergoing
extensive change, both physically and mentally. An
investigation of their innate capacity alone may produce
rather questionable results. A supplementary approach may
be to continue pursuing research which serves to develop and
test various methods of instruction. This, in itself, would
be a successful means of establishing flexible norms on
various musical abilities for preschool age children, as
well as improve the preschool music curriculum. Jerome
Bruner places the nature-nurture controversy into perspec-
tive when he states:

What is significant about the growth of mind in

the child is to what degree it depends not upon

capacity but upon the unlocking of capacity by

techniques that come from exposure to BBe
specialized environment of a culture.1

53

NOTES

19William C. Crain, Theories of Development, (New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980),1£_6.

 

20Ibid., pp. 8-9.
21Ibid., pp. 199-221.
22Ibid., p. u.
2316id., p. 16.
2“Itid., pp. 1u-15.
251bid., pp. 23-2u.
26Ibid., p. 23.
27Ibid., pp. 28-32.
281bid., pp. 55-56.
2916id., pp. 60-61.
30Ibid., p. 56.
3‘Ibid., pp. 60-63.
32Ibid., p. 71.
33Jerome Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction,

(Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press-of Harvard
University Press, 1966), p. 7.

 

3”Jean Piaget, The Psychology of Intelligence,

(Totowa, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams, & Co., 1976), p.
7.

 

 

35Crain, p. 76.
36Ibid., p. 76.
37Ibid., p. 76.
38Ibid., p. 76.

54

39Muriei Beadle, A Child's Mind, (New York:
Anchor Books, published by arrangement with Doubleday & Co.,
Inc., 1971), p. 130.

 

”01bid., p. 132.
“1Crain, p. 82.
”ZBeadle, p. 137.

 

u3Max Schoen, The Psychology of Music, (New York:
The Ronald Press, Co., 1940), pp. 161- 162.

uuRobert Lundin, An Objective Psychology Lf Music,
2nd ed., (New York: The Ronald Press, Co., 1967), p. 206.

 

"SCarl Seashore, Psychology pi Music, (New York:
Dover Publications, Inc., 1967), p. 331.

 

“6Sonoen, p. 161.

”7John Watson, Behaviorism, (New York: W. W.
Norton & Co., Inc., 1924-1925), p. 82.

 

”8Paul Farnsworth, The Social Psychology 9: Music,
(Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1969), p. 156

 

 

“9Ibid., p. 158.
5°Mienel, p. 18.
51Geza Revesz, Introduction to the Psychology Lf

Music, translated by CWIZC DeCourcy, (Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press, 1954), p. 187.

 

 

52Edwin Gordon, The Psychology Lf Music Teaching,
(New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1971), 4.

 

 

53Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius: An Inguiry
Into Its Laws and Conseguences,’(London: MacMillan and Co.,

1859) p- 239.

5“N. H. Pronko & J. W. Bowles, Empirical
Foundations Lf Psychology, (New York: Rinehart & Co., Inc”
1956), p. 28.

 

 

 

 

 

55Farnsworth, p. 158.

56James Mursell, Psychology of Music, (New York:
W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1937), pp. 3341335.

 

57Seasnore, pp. 332-333.
53$choen, p. 162.

55
59Murse11, p. 323.
60Ibid., p. 323.
61Samuel D. Miller, "A Theory of Musicality as it
Correlates to General Intelligence," Oollege Musician, Vol.

17. 1977. P- 12-
62Gordon, p. 25.

 

63Ibid., p. 6.

6uIbid., p. 6.

65Ibid., pp. 5, 7.

66Thomas Vance and Medora Grandprey, "Objective
Methods of Ranking Nursery School Children on Certain

Aspects of Musical Capacity," Journal 3; Educational
Psychology, Vol. 22, 1931, p. 583.

 

 

67Miche1, p. 1n.
681bid., p. 14.
69William T. Young, "Musical Development in

Preschool Disadvantaged Children," Journal oi Research in
Music Education, Vol. 22, (Fall 197ES,IHL 155-169.

 

70Robert H. McDowell, "The Development and
Implementation of a Rhythmic Ability Test Designed for Four-
Year-Old Preschool Children," Doctoral Dissertation, Univer-
sity of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1974.

71Carol R. Scott, "Pitch Concept Formation in
Preschool Children," Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Washington, 1977.

72Francis W. Aronoff, "Guiding Cognitive and
Effective Learning in Pre-Kindergarten Music," Doctoral
Dissertation, Columbia University, 1968.

73Greenberg, p. 10.
7"Will S. Monroe, "Tone Perception and Music

Interest of Young Children," Pedagogical Seminary, 1903, pp.
144-146.

 

75Arthur T. Jersild & Sylvia F. Bienstock, "A
Study of the Development of Children's Ability to Sing,
"Journal g£_Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, No» 7, (October
1934), p. 488.

76Jersild and Bienstock, 1931, p. 290.

 

56
77Smith, p. 141.
78Jersiid and Bienstock, 1939, p. 989.
79Melvin S. Hattwick, "The Role of Pitch Level and
Pitch Range in the Singing of Preschool, First Grade, and

Second Grade Children," Child Deve10pment, Vol. M, 1933, Pp.
281-291.

 

80Ethel Natalie Drexler, "A Study of the
Development of the Ability to Carry a Melody at the
Preschool Level," Child Development, Vol. 9, No. 3,
(September 1938), Pp. 391-332.

 

81Irene Hissem, "A New Approach to Music for Young
Children," Child Develogment, Vol. 4, 1933,1L 308.

 

82Ibid., p. 317.
83Updgraff, Heiliger, and Learned, pp. 83-131.

8“Harold M.‘Williams, Clement Sievers, and Melvin
S. Hattwick, "The Measurement of Musical Development,"
University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, Vol. 7, No. 1,
1932’ pp. 67-91.

85Harold M. Williams and Melvin S. Hattwick, "The
Measurement of Musical Development IIJ'University of Iowa
Studies in Child Welfare, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1935, pp. 9-21.

 

 

 

 

 

86Ibido, pp. 87-9”.

87William C. Kirkpatrick, "Relationships Between
the Singing Ability of Pre-Kindergarten Children and Their
Home Musical Environment," Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Southern California, 1962.

88Jersild and Bienstock, 1931, p. 290.

89Updgraff, Heiliger, and Learned, pp. 83-131.

90Melvin s. Hattwick, 1933, p. 290.

9‘smith, p. 139.

92William G. Fullard, Jr., "Operant Training of
Aural Musical Discriminations with Preschool Children,"

Journal of Research in Music Education, Vol. 15, (Fall
19575, PP- 201-209.

 

93June Thompsen Jetter, "An Instructional Model
for Teaching Identification and Naming of Music Phenomena to
Preschool Children," Journal of Research in Music Education,

Vol. 26, No. 2, (SummEF‘1978)7"ppi"9fiififib?"

 

57

9”Robert F. Schuckert and Ruth L. McDonald, "An
Attempt to Modify the Musical Preferences of Preschool
Children," Journal of Research in Music Education, Vol. 16,

(Spring 19635, pp. 39-99.

 

95R. Douglas Greer, Laura Dorow, and Suzanne
Hanser, "Music Discrimination Training and the Music
Selection Behavior of Nursery and Primary Level Children,"
Council for Research in Music Education, No. 35, (Winter
1973). Pp- 30-93.

96Zimmerman, 1971, pp. 5-32.

 

97Helmut Moog, "The DevelOpment of Musical
Experience in Children of Pre-School Age," Psychology of
Music, Vol.1h No. 2, 1976, pp. 38-95.

 

98Assen D. Kresteff, "The Growth of Musical
Awareness in Children," Council for Research in Music
Education, No. 1, (June 1963), pp. 4-16.

 

 

991bid., p. 5.

100Jerome Bruner, "The Course of Cognitive Growth,"
American Psychologist, Vol. 19, (January 196”), p. 19.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Chapter III includes a discussion of the
instrumentation and hardware, pilot, sample population,
revisions, and procedures for this study. Copies of the
test items and script, practice examples, pilot scores,
letters of consent, and questionnaires are presented in the

respective Appendices (A-G).

Instrumentation and Hardware

 

The author designed a three-part test that attempts to
measure pitch discrimination, preference, and concept forma-
tion. Each portion of the test is outlined below:

Part I: This segment of the test contained a

measurement of the child's ability to

identify paired pitch patterns, three notes
in length, as being the same or different.

 

Part II: This segment contained a measurement of
the child's preference for traditional
music (eighteenth- and nineteenth-
century literature) versus contemporary
music (twentieth-century literature).

 

Part II This segment contained a measurement of
the child's ability to label a specific
set of aural stimuli by using the

appropriate terminology.

 

Part I of the Test

Part I was designed to measure the pitch discrimination

ability of three-year-old children based on a given series

58

59
of aural stimuli. The author established the criteria for
the item content of Part I. The test items were then
written by Dr. Ronald Newman for the purpose of establishing
content validity. Dr. Newman is an Assistant Professor of
Jazz Studies at Michigan State University, and has received
his Ph.D. degree in Theory-Composition.

The test was made up of a total of ten paired pitch
patterns, three tones in length (See Appendix A-1). Five of
the ten test examples were paired items in which both
patterns in a given pair were the same. The remaining five
test examples were paired items consisting of two different
pitch patterns in each pair. Only one note per pair was
changed, and the starting pitch remained the same within
each item. The interval of diSposition was either a half or
a whole step. After listening to each item, the child had
to determine if the pitch patterns in each pair were the
same or different.

The order of presentation for the same and different
pairs of pitch patterns were randomly assigned by choosing
the items from a container holding each of the written
examples. The pairs of items for the pitch discrimination
test were administered in the order presented in Figure 3-1.

Previous childhood research in music (Williams, 1932101;
Updgraff, et al., 1937;102 Bentley, 1966;103 Zimmerman,
197110”) indicated that the pitch patterns should be short,
in accordance with the limited memory skills of young
children. In a study by Updgraff, Heiliger, and Learned

(1937),105 the ability to reproduce phrases three, four, and

60

PART I
Item Number Same and Different Interval of
Responses Discrimination
1 Different Half Step
2 Same
3 Different Whole Step
9 Different Half Step
5 Same
6 Same
7 Different Whole Step
8 Different Half Step
9 Same
10 Same
Figure 3-1. Pitch Discrimination Test Format

five tones in length was found to improve with age. Part I
was confined to three-note patterns since the subjects were
only three years old, and would probably have difficulty
remembering longer pitch phrases.

Furthermore, it has been suggested that young children
tend to center their attention on only one musical element
at a time (Zimmerman, 1971).106 In an attempt to control
distracting elements, all tones in the pitch patterns were
performed in half-note values. All of the pitch patterns
were played within the dynamic levels of mezzo-piano and
mezzo-forte on the clarinet, there being no dynamic change
within each item.

The clarinet was chosen as the performance medium for
Parts I and II for two reasons. First, based on the
research of Jetter (1978)107 and Scott (1977),108 the author
concluded that many young children have been exposed to the

tone quality of the clarinet, and would find this instrument

61
to be a familiar sound source for the reproduction of
the test items. In addition, the tone quality of the
clarinet is comparable to the human voice, and therefore,
the resonance may be more acceptable to the young child.
Secondly, the contrasting pre-twentieth and twentieth-
century clarinet literature provided the author with a
variety of musical excerpts from which to choose. By keep-
ing the dynamic levels, timbre, duration, and tempo con-
stant, the subjects were less likely to be distracted, and
therefore, better able to concentrate exclusively on the
pitch patterns.

Similarly, the researcher believed that the subjects
would be distracted by hearing a metronome beat throughout
the performance of Part I. Instead, the author attempted to
establish a moderate tempo for the performer without the aid
of the metronome. It was then up to the performer to
maintain a steady beat. The maintenance of a strict tempo
marking was not considered to be crucial in determining the
child's ability to discriminate pitch, and would necessitate
a pause after taping each item to check the tempo with a
metronome. The researcher was concerned mainly with
controlling extreme variations in the tempo to eliminate any
factors that might draw the child's attention away from the

task.

Part II of the Test

Part II was designed to measure the musical preference

of three-year-old children. This portion of the test

62
consisted of five paired examples taken from pre-twentieth
and twentieth-century music literature (See Appendix A-2).
These two periods of music were chosen to provide a notice-
able contrast in the organization of sound material within
each paired item. The author consulted Ms. Roseann Hammill,
the Head Music Librarian at Michigan State University, in
the selection of appropriate clarinet literature from these
two musical style periods.

Each paired item was made up of an excerpt from
eighteenth- or nineteenth-century music and an excerpt from
twentieth-century music. The items consisting of
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century music were eight measures
long, with their twentieth-century counterparts as compara-
ble in length as possible. In addition, the pre-twentieth
and twentieth-century items were alternated to control bias
in the child's responses which may occur due to the order of
presentation for each excerpt. Items one, three, and five
presented the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century items as
the first example of the pair. For items two and four, the
twentieth-century items were played as the first excerpt of
the pair. The musical compositions from which the paired
items were taken appears in Figure 3—2.

The pre—twentieth and twentieth-century items for Part
II were matched as closely as possible according to similar-
ities in the movement or tempo of the music. The performer
set her own tempos for the musical excerpts in Part II. As
in Part I, it was up to the clarinetist to maintain a steady

beat. The author felt it was only necessary to control

63

PART II
Item Pre-Twentieth—Century Excerpts Twentieth-Century Excerpts
1 Composer: WolfgansgAmadeus Composer: Alban Berg11u

Mozart
Vier Stucke Fur Klarinette Und
Concerto fOr Clarinet and Klavier, op. 5, No. 2
Orchestra, in A Major K:_622,
Movement II

 

 

110 Composer: Ernst Krenek115

2 Composer: Ludwig van Beethoven
Trio for Piano, Clarinet, and Monologue fOr Clarinet Solo
Violoncello, op. 11 in Bb Major,

Movement I

 

 

 

3 Composer: Wblfgang Amadeus Mozart111 Composer: John Cage116

Concerto fOr Clarinet and Orchestra, Sonata for Clarinet
in A Major, K. 622, Movement I

 

 

112

4 Composer: Franz Krommer Composer: Igor Stravinsky117

 

 

 

 

 

Concerto lo Eo Major fOr Clarinet Three Pieces for Clarinet
and Orchestra Solo, No. 2
5 Composer: Richard Wagner113 Composer: Igor Stravinsky118
Adagio for Clarinet and Strings Three Pieces for Clarinet
Solo, No. 1

Figure 3-2. Music Preference Test Format

extreme variations in the tempos between the two musical
excerpts in each paired item.

Parts I and II were pre-recorded on a Pioneer RT-701
reel-to-reel tape recorder. The items were recorded on a
Scotch 207 quarter-track tape at 7 1/2 inches per second.
The author prepared the tape under the supervision of Mr.
John McDaniel, recording technician for the Music Department

at Michigan State University. After the items were

6“

recorded, Mr. McDaniel transferred the test examples to a
Scotch MBC cassette tape at 1 7/8 inches per second. The
tapes were then checked for accuracy by Mr. McDaniel and the
author. The cassette tapes were prepared for the adminis-
tration of the test to minimize the amount of hardware to be
tranSported, and to conform to the physical limitations of

the rooms.

3122212222232:

The final portion of the test battery (Part III) was
added after the completion of the pilot study. Part III was
included as a measurement of the subjects' knowledge of
simple musical terminology, since this is essential to a
basic understanding of music, and could prove to be crucial
in the future development and administration of music tests
for young children. The author developed an informal test
script and items to demonstrate the following pairs of
contrasting terms: (1) loud and soft, (2) fast and slow,
(3) higher and lower, (A) stepping and skipping as it refers
to interval size, (5) and its substitute terms close to-
gether and far apart (See Appendix A-3).

The test items for Part III were not pre-recorded in
order to keep the testing session informal. Due to the
increase in the number of items for this portion of the
test, the author believed that the subjects would be more
attentive to a "live" performance, and therefore, respond to
the test items more accurately. In addition, the live

performance of the test items allowed the author to control

65
the pace of the test administration to accommodate differ-
ences in attention span and response time for each subject.

The soprano glockenspiel was used as the performance
medium in Part III because it was the most compact melodic
instrument to transport to the preschools. One item for each
of the ten musical terms was performed by the author, and
the responses of the subjects were recorded on cassette
tapes. The response choices for each test item consisted of
a pair of contrasting terms, one of which described the
correct aural stimulus (See Figure 3-3).

Verbal directions and a verbal response mode were
incorporated into the test design for Parts I, II, and III.
The decision to use a verbal response mode was based upon a
study conducted by Hattwick (1935).119 He indicated that
written tests were not suitable for children prior to

entering the third-grade level. Parts I, II, and III were

PART III

Items Concepts Measured Response Choices for Each Concept

1-2 Loud Loud and Soft

3-9 Soft Loud and Soft

5-6 Fast Fast and Slow

7-8 Slow Fast and Slow

-10 Higher Higher and Lower
11-12 Lower Higher and Lower
13-1“ Far Apart Far Apart and Close Together
15-16 Close Together Far Apart and Close Together
17-18 Skipping Stepping and Skipping
19-20 Stepping Stepping and Skipping

Figure 3-3. Concept Formation Test Format

Figure 3-3 is a list of concepts measured and the contrast-
ing pairs of terms designated as response choices.

66

administered to each subject individually. This procedure

was followed to ensure that each subject answered the test

items without being influenced by another child's response.
In addition, Hattwick (1935)120 and Bentley (1966)121 have

suggested that in some cases young children perform better

on individual tests. This may be due, in part, to the fact
that the child is able to respond to the test items at his

or her own pace.

Finally, the test battery was designed to be brief and
informal in order to minimize the subjects' fatigue and
maintain their interest in the test tasks. Parts I and II
were administered in ten to fifteen minutes. Part III was
completed by each subject in approximately five to seven
minutes. Furthermore, no child was forced to participate in

the study.

The Pilot Study

 

A pilot study for Parts I and II was conducted in the
spring of 1981. This procedure aided the author in choosing
between three— and four-year-old children as a sample
population, and in refining procedures for the main study.
In addition, the pilot study was implemented to determine if
the children understood the directions and the tasks. The
subjects for the pilot study included five three-year-old
children from the Holy Cross Montessori School in Lansing,

and ten four-year-old children from the Music for Children

 

classes at Michigan State University. Letters of consent

were distributed to the parents and returned prior to the

67
administration of the test (Appendix B).

Parts I and II were administered to the subjects on two
consecutive days. The clarinetist for the pilot study was
Mr. Keith Lemmons, a doctoral student at Michigan State
University. The subjects were required to respond verbally
to the test items as explained in the previous section,
however, no formal script was written. Each test example
was announced on the tape. The first phrase of each paired
item was referred to as the "first song," and the second
phrase of each paired item was called the "second songJ'
These announcements were added to the test tape to aid in
the efficiency and organization of the test administration.
For the items in Part I, the subjects were asked if the
first and second songs of each paired example sounded like
the same song or two different songs. The subjects re-
sponded to Part II by stating their preference for either
the first or second song of each paired item. Each test
item was played once, at which time the tape was stopped,
and the responses immediately hand scored. The raw scores,
as well as individual and group percentages for the three-
year-old subjects are presented in Appendix C.

The Music for Children classes met only once a week for

 

eight weeks. In cooperation with Professor Beatrice
Mangino, the supervisor of the classes, the author decided
to keep the time of each testing session at a minimum. For
consistency, an equal number of items were selected from
Parts I and II. The order of same and different responses

for Part I was predetermined by random assignment.

68

Consequently, the author felt it was unnecessary to choose a
random sample from Part I for the pilot study. The first
five items of Part I were administered to six four-year-old
subjects. Since Part II consisted of only five items, this
portion of the test was administered in its entirety to the
remaining four-year-old children (four subjects). The pro-
cedures for the test administration were the same for these
children, with the exception that only one day of testing
per subject was necessary. Again, each test item was played
once and the subjects' responses were immediately recorded
on paper. The raw scores and the individual and group
percentages were calculated for the four-year-old subjects
(Appendix D).

The group average for the three-year-old children was
54% on Part I and 60% on Part II. The group scores of the
four-year-old children were comparable, being 60% for Parts
I and II. As indicated by the test scores, there was no
difference in the ability between three- and four-year-
old children to complete the test, although the four-year-
old subjects did have a slightly longer attention span than
the three-year-old subjects. The most confusing aspect of
the test was the taped announcements of the test items. The
children did not understand the difference between the
announcements of item numbers and the use of the phrases
"first song," and "second song" to introduce the two musical
examples in each pair. Similarly, stopping the tape after
every example to score the responses proved to be distract-

ing, and inhibited the efficiency of the testing sessions.

69

Population

 

The author selected three-year-old children as the

sample population for the main study for two reasons.

First, the results of the pilot study seemed to indicate

that no difference occurred between the ability of three- and
four-year-old children to reSpond to the test. Secondly,
three-year-old children have less frequently been chosen as
subjects for music research. A total of thirty-three
children participated in the study. Group I consisted of
twenty subjects in attendance at Kinder-Care Learning Centers
in the Okemos and Lansing areas, and Eastminster Child
Development Center in East Lansing. The testing of these
subjects took place in July, 1981 and February, 1982.
Thirteen additional subjects (Group II) from Resurrection

Day Care and Children Community Nursery, Inc. were tested
during December, 1982 and January, 1983.

The author was unable to gather precise data on the
socio-economic status of the subjects' parents. The
preschool directors preferred that the questionnaire be void
of any reference to socio-economic background, income, or
ethnic origin. With the aid of the preschool directors, the
author was able to establish that the subjects belonged to

middle and upper-middle class families.

Procedures for the Main Study

 

Questionnaire DeveIOpment

 

Prior to the implementation of the test, a revised

letter of consent was distributed to the parents of

70
prospective subjects (Appendix E-1). The new letter more
clearly defined the scope of the research and the protective
rights of the subjects. The letter was accompanied by an
eight-item questionnaire (the eighth item being optional)
for the parents to complete. In compliance with a request
made by the preschool directors, the questionnaire was
limited to a short number of items. The purpose of the
questionnaire was to determine if the children had previous
exposure to music in their home environment, and if such
exposure correlated with the subjects' performance on the
test. To avoid the problem of missing data, those subjects
who did not return the questionnaire were eliminated from
the study.

Two forms of the questionnaire were used in the main
study. Form A of the questionnaire was sent to the parents
of the twenty subjects (Group I) tested in July, 1981 and
February, 1982 (Appendix E-2). The author had an opportuni-
ty to increase the sample population by thirteen additional
subjects (Group II) during December, 1982 and January, 1983.
The parents of Group II subjects received the same question-
naire with two minor revisions (Appendix E-3). Item Two was
changed by deleting the response choice "every other weekJ‘
This revision was included to maintain consistency in the
response mode by keeping the number of possible responses at
four in each of the multiple choice items. Number Eight was
originally designed to ascertain if the child had access to
five specific pieces of hardware which were capable of

reproducing music. The rationale for Item Eight was based

71
on the premise that more hardware in the home increased the
probability of the child listening to music. The possession
of these hardware items did not necessarily indicate the use
of such equipment, therefore, Item Eight was rewritten to
determine how frequently each piece of hardware was used in

the home.

Subject Orientation and Testing

 

The author became acquainted with the children by
participating in some of their preschool activities prior to
the administration of the test. By doing so, the author
found that the children were less hesitant to leave their
teachers and classmates when it was time for them to be
tested. As a result, a complete set of data was collected
for the test battery. If a child was absorbed in a
preschool activity, the author waited until the child
finished the task before administering the scheduled testing
segment.

Each of the thirty—three subjects (Groups I and II)
were tested individually on three consecutive days. Part I
was administered on the first day, Part II on the second
day, and Part III on the third day. The availability of
room space at each of the preschools was limited. The
testing sessions were administered in preschool offices,
supply rooms, sick rooms, or vacant classrooms. In many
cases, it was impossible to control external interference
caused by noise generating from other preschool classrooms

in the same vicinity. To rectify this situation, the author

72
concentrated on keeping the subjects' attention on the test
tasks at all times.

Although the responses required by the subjects for
Parts I and II were the same as in the pilot study, proce-
dures were revised for the purpose of producing more accu-
rate results in the most efficient manner possible. Upon
the completion of the pilot study, the author concluded that
the subjects would benefit by hearing each item twice. This
decision was based upon the fact that the subjects were only
three years old and had not yet developed a high level of
auditory memory skills. New cassette tapes were prepared
and carefully timed so that the administration of Parts I
and II would remain ten to fifteen minutes in length.

Again, the tapes were checked by Mr. McDaniel and the author
for accuracy. The clarinetist performing the musical
examples for the new test tape was Ms. Beth Rheude, a
doctoral student at Michigan State University. In order to
keep the test length manageable, the tape was played
continuously, and the responses were recorded on blank cas-
settes, rather than hand scored.

The name of each individual and preschool was recorded
on the test tape before administering each portion of the
test. At the end of each example the subjects were given
fifteen seconds to respond before the next item was played;
in most instances, fifteen seconds was more time than the
subjects needed. To ensure a steady pace for the test
administration, the numbers on the counter of the tape re-

corder were notated, to allow the author to proceed readily

73
to the next item if necessary. Occasionally, a child needed
more than fifteen seconds to respond, at which time the
pause button was pressed to stop the tape until the subject
answered the test question.

Based on the pilot study, the author decided that a
uniform set of directions and test questions for Parts I and
II was warranted to maintain an acceptable level of
consistency. In addition, a practice example was included

in the Pitch Discrimination Test (Part I) to minimize the

 

possibility of incorrect responses due to the subjects'
misunderstanding of the task. Since Part II measured the
child's musical preferences, rather than the ability to
answer each question correctly, and because the subjects
from the pilot study understood the task, the author decided
it was not necessary to include a practice example for Part
II. The practice example for Part I and the test script
appear in Appendix F.

In the final revision for Parts I and II, the
announcements of each test item were eliminated from the
test tape. Instead, the author verbally announced each
successive test item as presented in the test script.
Originally, the first and second pitch pattern or musical
excerpt was announced on the test tape as the "first song"
and "second songp" Due to the confusion of the subjects,
the labels "No. 1" and "No. 2" were substituted for the
terms "first song" and "second song" to simplify the test
announcements, as well as the verbal responses required by

the subjects.

74

Part III was administered to twenty subjects (Group I)
in July, 1981 and February, 1982. The author played musical
examples that tested the subjects' ability to identify the
following ten concepts: loud, soft, fast, slow, higher,
lower, far apart, close together, skipping, and stepping.
The items for each of the ten concepts were played twice.
The author presented the subjects with a pair of contrasting
response choices for each test item which described what
they heard. The five pairs of contrasting terms which
served as possible response choices were loud and soft, fast
and slow, higher and lower, far apart and close together,
and skipping and stepping. The subjects' verbal responses
were recorded on cassette tapes for accuracy and convenience.

Several revisions were incorporated in Part III before
the remaining thirteen subjects (Group II) were tested in
December, 1982 and January, 1983. The author consulted
Professor Beatrice Mangino of the Music Education Area at
Michigan State University, before revising Part III.
Professor Mangino has worked extensively with preschoolers

in her supervision of the Music for Children classes at

 

Michigan State University.

The same musical items were used in Part III to
demonstrate each of the concepts, however, a new verbal
script was written to accommodate the revisions in the test
(Appendix G). In working with three year olds, Professor
Mangino has found the terms "moves up high" and "moves down
low" to be better descriptors of pitch direction, and less

confusing to the young child. These new labels were

75
substituted in place of the terms "higher" and "lower" in
the revised version of Part III. Similarly, young children
may not as yet have learned uniform labels to describe
various musical phenomena. Therefore, the addition of the
terms "moves up" and "moves down" were incorporated into
Part III as synonymous descriptors for "moves up high" and
moves down low" in subsequent performances of the same
musical examples.

The author performed one musical example for the
following set of twelve terms: loud, soft, fast, slow,
moves up high, moves down low, moves up, moves down, far
apart, close together, skipping, and stepping. Each of
these examples were played three times for a total of
thirty-six items. The subjects were required to choose the
correct response from given pairs of contrasting terms. The
pairs of response choices for Part III were loud and soft,
fast and slow, moves up high and moves down low, moves up
and moves down, far apart and close together, and skipping
and stepping.

The order of presentation for the thirty-six items was
assigned randomly by selecting the items from a container
holding the written musical examples. The order in which
the two response choices for each example was presented to
the subjects was changed in the test directions and test
questions for the twelve serial position items. For two
performances of each of the twelve concepts the correct
answer was presented as the first of the two possible re-

sponse choices. The correct answer was presented as the

76

second choice of the two possible responses in an additional

performance of the musical examples for each concept (refer-

red to as serial position). The order of test items and the

changes in serial position are notated in Figure 3-9.

PART III-REVISED

Items Concepts Measured Response Choices for Each Concept

._|

OOCDNOJZLUN-F
I 11:
U1

c—D
4

12a

Add
UT-tw

16a
17
18a
19
20
21
22a
23
24a
253
26a
27
28a
29
30a
31
32
338
3A
35
36a

Figure 3-4.

Moves Down Low
Stepping

Fast

Loud

Skipping

Moves Down Low
Close Together
Moves Up High
Moves Down

Far Apart
Moves Up High
Soft

Fast

Far Apart

Loud

Skipping

Soft

Moves Up High
Moves Down
Stepping

Moves Up

Moves Up

Close Together
Moves Down
Slow

Soft

Skipping

Slow

Far Apart
Moves Up

Close Together
Moves Down Low
Stepping

Slow

Fast

Moves Down Low and Moves Up High
Skipping and Stepping

Fast and Slow

Loud and Soft

Skipping and Stepping

Moves Down Low and Moves Up High
Close Together and Far Apart
Moves Up High and Moves Down Low
Moves Down and Moves Up

Far Apart and Close Together
Moves Down Low and Moves Up High
Soft and Loud

Fast and Slow

Far Apart and Close Together
Soft and Loud

Skipping and Stepping

Loud and Soft

Moves Up High and Moves Down Low
Moves Down and Moves Up

Stepping and Skipping

Moves Down and Moves Up

Moves Up and Moves Down

Far Apart and Close Together
Moves Up and Moves Down

Fast and Slow

Soft and Loud

Stepping and Skipping

Slow and Fast

Close Together and Far Apart
Moves Up and Moves Down

Close Together and Far Apart
Moves Up High and Moves Down Low
Stepping and Skipping

Slow and Fast

Slow and Fast

Concept Formation Test Format

Figure 3-4 is a list of concepts measured and contrasting
pairs of response choices in their exact order of presenta-
Changes in the serial position of the response
choices are notated.

tion.

77

As previously mentioned, the thirty-six items for Part
III were not pre—recorded. The author followed a verbal
script and played the items for each subject. Due to the
number of items, it was necessary to keep a continuous pace
for the administration of the test. The author decided that
it would be impossible to use a metronome or decibel meter
to determine tempo markings and dynamics for the loud, soft,
fast, and slow test items without significantly increasing
the length of the test. Instead, Willa Moriarty, a profes-
sional musician, responded to the actual loud, soft, fast,
and slow musical examples which were taped during each
subject's testing session (Part III). Ms. Moriarty con—
firmed that the experimenter played these items accurately.
By following this procedure, each subject was able to com—

plete Part III within fifteen minutes.

Analysis of the Data

A frequencies data analysis from the Statistical

 

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used in this
study. The data was analyzed on a CDC 6500 Computer at
Michigan State University. Group percentages for Parts I,
II, and III were calculated to determine the development of
concept formation, and the pitch discrimination ability of
the three-year-old children who participated in this study.
In addition, percent scores indicating the subjects' prefer-
ences for pre-twentieth and twentieth-century music were
calculated. Descriptive statistics on sub-populations were

evaluated among all parts of the test to determine if a

78
relationship existed between the development of concepts,
pitch discrimination ability, and preference. Additional
data were analyzed to determine the relationship between
home musical environment and the subjects' performance on
the test battery. The final segment of data analysis was
frequency distribution examining the number of correct re-
sponses to determine if the subjects' performance of Parts
II and III was effected by a change in the serial position

of response choices.

79

NOTES

101Williams, Sievers, and Hattwick, 1932. 99- 67'91-
102Updgraff, Heiliger, and Learned, P- 89-

103Arnold Bentley, Musical Ability io‘Young
Children and Its Measurement, (London: George G. Harrap &
Co., Ltd., 19687, p. 117.

10“Zimmerman, 1971, pp. 5-32.

 

 

 

 

105Updgraff, Heiliger, and Learned, p. 118.
106Zimmerman, 1971, pp. 5-32-

107Jetter, pp. 97-110-

108Scott, 1977.

109Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Concerto for Clarinet

and Orchestra in A Major, K. 622, Movement II, from Mozart's
Werke, (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Music Reprints), Vol.

27. 1955. p. 236.

 

 

 

110Ludwig van Beethoven, Trio for Pianofprte,
Clarinet, (or Violin) and Violoncello, 0p. 11 in BD Major,
Movement I, (London, England: Ernst Eulenburg Ltd” rLd.),
p. 11.

 

111Mozart, Movement I, pp. 211-212.

112Franz Krommer, Concerto lfl.§9 Major for Clari-
net and Orchestra, Movement II, from Musica Antiqua
Bohemica,(Prague: Artia,1953),;L 22.

 

 

113Richard Wagner, Adagio for Clarinet and
Strings, (New York: McGinnis & Marx, nALJ, p. 2.

11”Alban Berg, Vier StUcke FUr Klarinette Und
Klavier, Op. 5, No. 2, (Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania: Theodore
Presser Co., renewed copyright by Helen Berg, 1952), p. 5.

115Ernst Krenek, Monologue for Clarinet Solo, (New
York: Rongwen Music, 1958).

116John Cage, Sonata for Clarinet, (New York:
Henmar Press, Inc., 1963), p. 1.

 

80

117Igor Stravinsky, Three Pieces for Clarinet
Solo, No. 2, (New York: Belwin Mills Publishing Corp.,
n.d.), p. 2. »

 

118Igor Stravinsky, Three Pieces for Clarinet Solo,
No. 1,(New York: Belwin Mills.Publishing Corp.,rud.),;L 1.

 

119Melvin S. Hattwick, 1935, PP. 23-“5-
1201bid., p. 56.

121Bentley, p. 32.

CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS OF DATA

An SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences)
program was chosen to compute the test scores and descrip-
tive statistics for this study. The data presentation will
begin with a discussion of the group scores obtained on each
of the four measurements (iJe., pitch discrimination, pre-
ference, concept formation, and home musical environment).
In addition, comparisons between each of these variables
were calculated to determine if a relationship or pattern of

reSponse existed from one measurement to another.

Group Test Results

 

Raw scores and percent scores for the ten items on the

Pitch Discrimination Test (Part I-See Appendix A-1) are

 

presented in Table 9-1. The composite or average score for

the thirty-three subjects was 52.7%. For the ten items in

Table 9-1. Pitch Discrimination Test Scores

 

 

Raw Average Range of Mode Response Response
Score Percent Scores Type: Same Type: Different
N=33 Score
179 52.7% 30%-80% 50% 42.9% 63%
Range=50%

 

81

82

Part I, the range of the scores, as well as the mode, was
50%. Included in Table H-1 are the scores for the test
items according to the type of response required by the
subjects. The subjects scored 42.4% on the five times in
which the paired examples contained two of the "same" pitch
patterns. A group score of 63% occurred on the five paired
items that were made up of two "different" pitch patterns.
As indicated by the test results, this particular group of
three—year-old children scored considerably higher when the
paired items consisted of two different pitch patterns.
Further evidence of this trend in the test results is
indicated in Table 9—2. Each of the ten test items were
rank-ordered based on the percentage of correct responses.
In each case, the subjects scored higher on the items that
required hearing differences in a group of paired pitch

Table 4-2. Rank-Order of "Same and Different" Responses to
Part I-Pitch Discrimination

 

 

 

Item Raw Score Percent Correct Interval of
Number (No. of Score Response Discrimination
correct
responses)
N=33
7 25 75.8% Different Whole Step
4 22 66.7% Different Half Step
1 20 60.6% Different Half Step
8 19 57.6% Different Half Step
3 18 54.5% Different Whole Step
9 16 98.5% Same
2 15 45.5% Same
5 13 39.9% Same
6 13 39.9% Same
10 13 39.9% Same

 

 

83

patterns versus those items consisting of pairs of identical
pitch patterns. Based on a group score of 52.7%, the sub-
jects appeared to have an average ability to discriminate
paired pitch patterns, three notes in length, as being the
same or different.

The average group scores for the Music Preference Test,

 

along with the percentages for each of the pre-twentieth and
twentieth-century items are displayed in Table 4-3. The
subjects demonstrated a greater preference for twentieth-
century music with a score of 57% as opposed to 43% in favor
of pre-twentieth century music. Each of the five paired
test items consisted of an excerpt from existing pre-
twentieth and twentieth-century music literature (Appendix

lL-2).

Table 4-3. Music Preference Test Scores

 

 

Item Raw Score: Raw Score: Percent Percent
Number Pre-20th- 20th- Score: Score:
Century Century Pre-20th- 20th-
N=33 N=33 Century Century
1 1o 23 30.3% 69.7%3
2 20 13 60. 6%3 39. L11
3 11 22 33. 3% 66. 713
u 18 15 54.5%3 45.5%
5 12 21 36.4% 63.6%8

Average Pre-20th-Century Score=43%
Average 20th-Century Score=57%

 

aThese percent scores represent the pre-twentieth and twentieth-
century excerpts which were played as the second example for each of
the five paired items.

84

For items 1, 3, and 5 the twentieth-century items were
presented as the second musical excerpt of the pair, while
the pre—twentieth-century items were placed in the second
position for items 2 and 4. The scores for each of the five
paired items indicated that the subjects most often prefer-
red the second musical excerpt of each pair, regardless of
its content. Consequently, the subjects' preference for
twentieth-century music may have been largely due to the
fact that these items were played as the last example in
three of the five paired test items. The results of the

Music Preference Test strongly suggest that the responses of

 

these three-year—old subjects were influenced by the serial
position of the pre-twentieth and twentieth-century ex—
cerpts, therefore, no identifiable pattern in their pre-
ference for pre-twentieth and twentieth-century music can be
supported.

The results of the Concept Formation Test for the first

 

twenty subjects in Group I are listed in Tables 4-4 and 4-5
(See Appendix A-3). The ten concepts were rank-ordered from
the highest to the lowest score. The children demonstrated
the greatest degree of understanding on the concept "soft"
with a score of 7235%. The average group scores for the
remaining concepts were 70%-fast, 62.5%-higher and far a-
part, 60%-slow, 57.5%-loud, 55%-lower and skipping, 42&5%-
stepping, and 40%-close together. The average group score

for the Concept Formation Test was 57.8% (Table 4-4).

 

85

 

 

Table 4-4. Group I Concept Formation Test Scores Rank-
Ordered
Concepts Rank-Order: Total Raw Score Average Percent
Highest to of the 2 Items for Score for Each
Lowest Score Each Concept Concept
N=20
Soft 1 29 72.5%
Fast 2 28 70.0%
Higher 3 25 62.5%
Far Apart 3 25 62.5%
Slow 4 24 60.0%
Loud 5 23 57.5%
Lower 6 22 55.0%
Skipping 6 22 55.0%
Stepping 7 17 42.5%
Close Together 8 16 40.0%

Average Group Score=57.8%

 

 

 

 

Table 4-5. Group I Scores for the Paired Concepts
Concept Ayerage Concept Average Paired’ Range
Percent Percent Concept
Score Score Score
Soft 72.5% Loud 57.5% 65.0% 15.0%
Fast 70.0% Slow 60.0% 65.0% 10.0%
Higher 62.5% Lower 55.0% 58.8% 7.5%
Far Apart 62.5% Close 40.0% 51.3% 22.5%
Together
Skipping 55.0% Stepping 42.5% 48.8% 12.5%

 

The subjects scored 55% or above on all of the concepts except

for the terms stepping and close together.

86

In Table 4-5 the concepts were combined to form five
related pairs of terms (soft-loud, fast-slow, higher-lower,
far apart-close together, and skipping-stepping). The range
between the two related terms of each pair was calculated to
determine if the scores were comparable. The ranges
extended from 7.5% to 2235%. The greatest variance in the
scores occurred between the terms far apart and close
together, while the smallest difference appeared between the
terms higher and lower. The paired concepts soft and loud,
skipping and stepping, and fast and slow were 15%, 12.5%,
and 10% respectively. These results indicated that the
subjects did not understand the terms loud, slow, lower,
close together, and stepping as well as the corresponding
terms soft, fast, higher, far apart, and skipping.

The concepts were also evaluated as five pairs of
related terms (Table 4-5). This analysis was implemented to
determine the subjects' response to groups of parallel
terms. When the two related concepts of each pair were
averaged together, the terms soft and loud, and fast and
slow produced a high score of 65%. The next pair of
concepts which the subjects most often answered correctly
included the terms higher and lower, with an average score
of 58.8%. The test results for the terms far apart and
close together yielded a mean score of 51.3%, followed
closely by a score of 48.8% for the concepts skipping and

stepping.

87

The Concept Formation Test scores for the thirteen

 

subjects in Group II are shown in Tables 4-6 through 4-9
(new script appears in Appendix G). The twelve concepts
were rank—ordered according to the subjects' responses,
beginning with the highest score and ending with the lowest
score (Table 4-6). The three—year-old children in Group II

correctly identified the concept "fast" most frequently, as

Table 4-6. Group II Concept Formation Test Scores Rank-

 

 

Ordered

Concepts Rank-Order: Total Raw Score Average Percent

Highest to of the 3 Items for Score for Each

Lowest Score Each Concept Concept

N=13

Fast 1 35 89.7%
Soft 2 28 71.8%
Moves Up 3 25 64.1%
Skipping 4 24 61.5%
Loud 5 19 48.7%
Moves Up High 5 19 48.7%
Far Apart 5 19 48.7%
Slow 6 16 41.0%
Moves Down Low 7 14 35.9%
Stepping 7 14 35.9%
Close Together 8 13 33.3%
Moves Down 9 11 28.2%

Average Grogp Score=50.6%

 

 

indicated by a score of 89.7%. The least percentage of correct
answers occurred for the concept "moves down," signified by a
score of 28.2%. The additional test results for the Concept

Formation Test were 71.8%-soft, 64.1%-moves up, 61.5%-skipping,

 

48£7%-loud, moves up high, and far apart, 41%-slow, 35.9%-moves

down low and stepping, and 33.3%-close together. The average

88

group score for the Group II subjects was 50.6%. The concepts
fast, soft, moves up, and skipping were the only four terms for
which the subjects achieved scores above 50%.

Included in Table 4-7 are the combined scores of the
Group II subjects for each pair of related concepts.
According to the test results, the subjects responded
correctly to the fast and slow musical examples most often
as indicated by a score of 65.4%. The next highest score
obtained by Group II was 60.3% on the soft and loud items.
The scores for the remaining four pairs of concepts were
below 50%, beginning with 48.7% for the terms skipping
and stepping, followed by 46.2%-moves up and moves down,
42.3%-moves up high and moves down low, and ending with 41%-
far apart and close together.

In addition to the mean percent scores, the ranges

between the two concepts for each of the five pairs were

 

 

Table 4-7. Group II Scores for the Paired Concepts
Concepts Average Concept Average Paired Range
Percent Percent Concept
Score Score Score
Fast 89.7% Slow 41.0% 65.4% 48.7%
Soft 71.8% Loud 48.7% 60.3% 23.1%
Skipping 61.5% Stepping 39.9% 48.7% 21.6%
Moves Up 64.1% Moves Down 28.2% 46.2% 35.9%
Moves Up 48.7% Moves Down 35.9% 42.3% 12.8%
High Low
Far Apart 48.7% Close 33.3% 41.0% 15.4%

Together

 

89

calculated (Table 4-7). The largest difference in the scores
was 48.7% which occurred between the concepts fast and slow.
The subjects obtained an extremely high recognition score on
the items that were played fast, as opposed to a rather low
score for the items that were played slowly. The same
pattern of response, only to a lesser degree, was apparent
between the pair of terms moves up and moves down with a
range of 35.9%. The ranges for the other paired concepts
continued to diminish. The differences between the remain-
ing paired concepts were 23.1%, 21.6%, 15.4%, and 12.8% for
loud and soft, skipping and stepping, far apart and close
together, and moves up high and moves down low in that
order.

The three-year—old subjects in Groups I and II were
able to identify the concepts fast and soft most accurately.
Furthermore, Group I scored higher than Group II on eight of
the ten terms which appeared on both concept formation
tests. Group II achieved higher scores than Group I on the
musical examples that represented the terms fast and skip-
ping.

An additional factor which effected the test results
for Group II was the serial position of the test items.
Serial position referred to the order in which the two
response choices for each test item were presented to the
subjects. The correct answer was the second of the two
response choices for each of the serial position items. The

complete test results for the serial position reSponses are

90

listed in order from the highest to the lowest score in
Table 4-8. With one exception, the subjects achieved higher
scores on the test items in which the serial position of the
response choices for each pair of related terms was re-
versed. The subjects correctly answered the non-serial
examples for the concept fast with a score of 92.3% versus a
score of 84.6% when the term fast was offered as the second
response choice.

Table 4-8. Group II Serial Responses for the Concept
Formation Test

 

 

Concepts Raw Score: Percent Mean Percent Range

Serial Score: Score: Non-

N=13 Serial Serial
Far Apart 12 92.3% 26.9% 65.4%
Skipping 12 92.3% 46.2% 46.1%
Close Together 11 84.6% 7.7% 76.9%
Fast 11 84.6% 92.3% 7.7%
Soft 10 76.9% 69.2% 7.7%
Moves Up 10 76.9% 57.7% 19.2%
Moves Up High 9 69.2% 38.5% 30.7%
Moves Down Low 9 69.2% 19.2% 50.0%
Loud 7 53.8% 46.2% 7.6%
Slow 7 53.8% 34.6% 19.2%
Stepping 7 53.8% 26.9% 26.9%
Moves Down 5 38.5% 23.1% 15.4%

Average Group Score fOr Serial Responses=70.5%

Average Group Score fOr Non-Serial Responses=40.7%

 

 

In evaluating the test results for the other eleven

concepts it was determined that the ranges between the

serial and non-serial scores were as small as 7.6% for the

term loud,

and as large as 76.9% for the term close together.

91

Wide ranges between the serial and non-serial scores also
occurred on the concepts far apart (65.4%), moves down low
(50%), skipping (46.1%), moves up high (30.7%), and stepping
(26.9%). Furthermore, the average group score was 70.5% for
the serial responses and 40:7% for the non-serial responses.
All of the test results suggested that the average group
score, as well as the scores for the individual concepts,

were affected by an increase in the number of correct re-

sponses on the serial items.

Table 4-9. Group II Serial Responses for the Paired

 

 

Concepts
Concept Percent Concept Percent Range
Score Score
Skipping 92.3% Stepping 53.8% 38.5%
Moves Up 76.9% Moves Down 38.5% 38.4%
Fast 84.6% Slow 53.8% 30.8%
Soft 76.9% Loud 53.8% 23.1%
Far Apart 92.3% Close Together 84.6% 7.7%
Moves Up High 69.2% Moves Down Low 69.2% 0

 

In addition,

a comparison was made between the two

serial position responses in each of the six pairs of

related concepts (Table 4-9).

the terms skipping,

fast, moves up,

soft, far apart,

The subjects scored higher on

and

moves up high than on their counterpart terms stepping,

slow, moves down, loud, close together, and moves down low.
The ranges indicated that the greatest differences occurred
between the concepts skipping and stepping which was

calculated as 38.5%, followed closely by 38.4% between the

92

terms moves up and moves down. The remaining ranges were
30.8% between the terms fast and slow, 23.1% between soft
and loud, and 7.7% between far apart and close together.
Identical scores of 69.2% occurred for the pair of terms

moves up high and moves down low.

Home Musical Environment

 

Table 4-10 lists the questionnaire totals for the thirty-
three parents, with the highest raw scores representing the
highest levels of musical activity in the home. The total
possible raw score for the questionnaire was 19. When the
raw scores were tallied, twenty-seven of the thirty-three
parents scored 10 to 16 points (52.6%-84.2%) on the ques-
tionnaire. No more than five parents (15.2%) obtained the
same number of points, and this occurred only for raw scores

of 10, 14, and 15. Only one parent obtained each of the

Table 4-10. Questionnaire: Total Scores

 

 

Raw Score Frequency Percentage of the
N=33 Subject Population
7 1 3.0%
8 1 3.0%
9 1 3.0%
10 5 15.2%
11 3 9.1%
12 2 6.1%
13 3 9.1%
14 5 15.2%
15 5 15.2%
16 L; 12.1%
17 1 3.0%
18 1 3.0%
19 1 3.0%

 

93

three lowest scores (7,8,9) and the three highest scores
(17,18,19).

Specific scores for each of the items on the
questionnaire (Table 4-11) revealed that 97% of the parents
encouraged their children to join them in singing songs,
while only 60.6% of the parents encouraged their children to
play with musical toys or instruments. Slightly more than
half of the parents (18 or 54.5%) indicated that they sing
to their children frequently. Still fewer parents (42.4%)
reported that their children often engaged in singing while
playing with musical toys or instruments. Seventeen (51.5%)
of the parents indicated that they seldom played a musical
instrument, eleven (33.3%) never played an instrument, and
only five (15.2%) frequently played an instrument. Finally,
it was reported that only seven (21.2%) of the children
frequently played with musical toys or instruments, while
ten CML3%) occasionally played with musical toys, and
sixteen (48~5%) seldom played with musical toys. According
to the questionnaire results, both parents and children
participate in singing activities more often than playing
musical instruments.

The results of the hardware items (record player, tele-
vision, radio, reel-to-reel tape recorder, and cassette tape
recorder) for Group I (N=20) and Group II (N:13) appear in

Tables 4-12 and 4-13 respectively.

914

Table 4-11. Questionnaire Response Scores

 

 

 

 

 

Item Most of % of Occasional % of Seldom % of Never % of
Time/1X SP 3 1X-2X's SP a 1X-2X's SP 3 N=33 SP a
Daily Weekly Monthly
N=33 N=33 N=33
Parent Plays 5 15.2% 0 0 17 51.5% 11 33.3%
Instruments
Child Plays 7 21.2% 10 30.3% 16 48.5% 0 0
Instruments
Child Sings 14 42.4% 13 39.4% 6 18.2% 0 0
and Plays
Parent Sings 18 54.5% 15 45.5% 0 0 0 0
to Child
Item Yes % of No % of
SP a SP a
Parents Encourage Child to Play Instruments 20 60.6% 13 39.4%
Parents Encourage Child to Sing With Them 32 97.0% 1 3.0%

 

8SP is an abbreviation for subject population.

Table 4-12. Hardware Items: Group I

 

 

Hardware Raw Score: %:0wns Raw Score: %:Does
Items Owns Does Not Not Own
N=20 Own

N=20
Record Player 19 95% 1 5%
Television 20 100% 0 0
Radio 20 100% 0 0
Reel-to-Reel 9 45% 11 55%

Tape Recorder
Cassette Recorder 18 90%

N

10%

 

95

Table 4-13. Hardware Items: Group II

 

 

Item Use % of Use on % of Seldom % of Never % of
Often SP Occasion SP Use SP Use SP
(Raw) (Raw) (Raw) (Raw)
N:13 N=13 N=13 N=13
Record Player 9 69.2% 2 15.4% 0 0 2 15.4%
Television 10 76.9% 2 15.4% 1 7.7% 0 0
Radio 9 69.2% 1 7.7% 3 23.1% 0 0
Reel-to—Reel O O 0 O 3 23.1% 5 38.5%
Recorder
Cassette Tape 2 15.4 3 23. 1% 3 23. 1% 5 38.5%
Recorder

 

All of the parents in Group I reported owning a television
and radio. Nineteen (95%) of the parents indicated that they
owned a record player, followed closely by eighteen (90%)
who reported owning a cassette tape recorder. Only nine
(45%) of the parents reported owning a reel-to-reel tape
recorder. Each of the subjects came from homes that
contained at least three of the five hardware items. In
fact, seventeen of the subjects had access to four or five
of the hardware items. In each case (8 subjects) where four
of the five items were present in the home, the missing
piece of hardware was a reel-to-reel tape recorder. The
author believed that the large percentage of hardware found
in the homes of these twenty subjects provided favorable
conditions for music listening experiences. Nevertheless,

the use of such equipment in the home was not included as

96

part of the survey for Group I subjects, and therefore,
cannot be described.

Group II parents were asked to report if each hardware
item was used in their homes frequently, occasionally,
seldom, or never. As might be expected, the television,
was used in the home most often. Ten (76.9%) of the thirteen
parents indicated frequent use of the television, while two
(15.4%) reported occasional use, and only one (737%)
reported that family members seldom watched television.

Nine parents (69.2%) indicated that the radio and record
player were used often. Two parents (15.4%) reported using
the record player occasionally, while the remaining two
parents indicated that the record player was never used in
their homes. Additional results revealed that the radio was
played occasionally in one of the homes, and seldom was used
in the remaining three (23.1%) homes. The cassette and
reel-to-reel tape recorders were used far less than any of
the previously mentioned equipment. Only two (15.4%)
families used their cassette recorders frequently, three
(23.1%) reported occasional use, and three more families
seldom used a cassette recorder. The greatest number of
families (5 or 38t5%) indicated that they never played their
cassette recorders. Similarly, three (23.1%) parents seldom
used a reel-to-reel tape recorder, and ten families never

played a reel-to-reel tape recorder in the home.

97

Descriptive Statistics op Sub-Populations

 

In addition to the test scores, descriptive statistics
on sub-populations (this is also referred to as "break
downs" in SPSS programs) were included to determine if the
subjects' scores on each of the different measurements were
related. Tables 4-14 through 4-18 present the raw scores of
the Pitch Discrimination Test compared against the means
calculated for the pre-twentieth and twentieth-century
items,

the concept formation items, and the questionnaire.

Table 4-14. Pitch Discrimination and Pre-Twentieth-Century

Music

 

 

Correct Responses No. of Subjects Pre-20th- Standard
on the PDT N=33 Century Deviation
Mean Score
3-4 9 2.4444 1.0138
5-6 17 2.0000 .8660
7-8 7 2.1429 1.0690
Total 2.1515 Total .9395
Mean SD
Score

 

aPDT is an abbreviation for Pitch Discrimination Test.

 

Table 4-15.

Pitch Discrimination and Twentieth-Century
Music

 

 

Correct Responses No. of Subjects 20th- Standard
on the PDT N=33 Century Deviation
Mean Score
3-u 9 2.5556 1.0138
5-6 17 3.0000 .8660
7-8 7 2.8571 1.0690
Total 2.8485 Total .9395
Mean SD

Shore

 

98

Table 4-16. Pitch Discrimination and Concept Formation:

 

 

Group I
Correct Responses No. of Subjects Concept Standard
on the PDT N=20 Formation Deviation
Mean Score
5-6 11 11.4545 1.7529
7—8 5 10.4000 1.6733
Total 11.5500 Total 2.0384
Mean SD

Score

 

Table 4-17. Pitch Discrimination and Concept Formation:

 

 

Group II
Correct Responses No. of Subjects Concept Standard
on the PDT N:13 Formation Deviation
Mean Score
5-6 6 17.6667 4.3205
Total 18.2308 Total 3.1663
Mean SD

Score

 

Table 4-18. Pitch Discrimination and Questionnaire

 

 

Correct Responses No. of Subjects Questionnaire Standard
on the PDT N=33 Mean Score Deviation
3-4 9 14.4444 2.6977
5-6 17 12.9412 2.7035
7-8 7 11.8571 3.4365
Total 13.1212 Total 2.9236
Mean SD

Score

 

99

As the scores increased on the Pitch Discrimination Test

 

(Table 4-14) the means for the pre-twentieth-century items
fluctuated from 2.4444 down to 2.0, and then moved upward to
2.1429. Similar results occurred in a comparison between
the pitch discrimination test items and the subjects'
responses to twentieth-century music (Table 4-15). As

the number of correct responses on the Pitch Discrimination

 

loop increased, the mean on the twentieth-century examples
rose from 2.5556 to 3.0, and then decreased to 2.8571.
According to this variation in the direction of the means
for the pre-twentieth and twentieth-century examples, it was
concluded that the subjects' ability to respond correctly on

the Pitch Discrimination Test had no effect on their

 

preference for pre-twentieth or twentieth-century music.
However, when the pitch discrimination test scores were

compared to the means derived from the Concept Formation

 

IEEE for Groups I and II, it was determined that an inverse
relationship occurred between these two variables (Tables 4-
16 and 4-17). An increase in the pitch discrimination test
scores coincided with a decrease in the concept formation

test scores. The means for the Concept Formation Test for

 

Group I dropped from 13.25 to 10.40, while the means for
Group II decreased from 19.20 to 17.50. Consequently, those
subjects who were better able to discriminate pitch had a
lesser understanding of musical concepts. Likewise, the

subjects who scored higher on the Concept Formation Test

 

100

tended to obtain poorer scores on the Pitch Discrimination

 

Test.

 

Again, an inverse relationship was made between the
pitch discrimination test scores and home musical
environment (Table 4-18). Contrary to what might be
expected, less musical activity took place in the homes of

subjects who scored the highest on the Pitch Discrimination

 

 

Test. The mean scores obtained on the questionnaire dropped
from 14.4444 to 11.8571 as the number of correct responses

on the Pitch Discrimination Test increased.

 

The findings from the pre-twentieth and twentieth-century

Music Preference Test were compared with the results of the

 

Concept Formation Test for Groups I and II, and the

 

questionnaire (Tables 4-19 through 4-24). When the concepts
were broken down by the pre-twentieth and twentieth-century
items, the direction of the Group I mean scores fluctuated,
indicating that there was no relationship between the
subjects' music preference and their understanding of
musical concepts. The concept formation mean scores dropped
from 12.1429 to 11.0, rose to 12.0, and then decreased to
10.0 (Table 4-19). Similar results occurred in a comparison
between the Group I mean scores for the concepts and the
twentieth-century items. In this case, the order of the

mean scores was reversed (Table 4-20).

Table 4-19. Concept Formation and Pre-Twentieth-Century

 

 

Music: Group I
No. of Pre-20th- No. of Subjects Concept Standard
Century Items N=20 Formation Deviation
Preferred Mean Score
1 7 12.1429 2.1157
2 8 11.0000 2.0702
3 4 12.0000 2.1602
4 1 10.0000 0
5 O 0 0
Total 11.5500 Total 2.0384
Mean SD
Score

 

Table 4-20. Concept Formation and

Twentieth-Century Music:

 

 

Group II
No. of 20th- No. of Subjects Concept Standard
Century Items N=33 Formation Deviation
Preferred Mean Score
1 1 10.0000 0
2 4 12.0000 2.1602
3 8 11.0000 2.0702
4 7 12.1429 2.1157
5 O 0 0
Total 11.5500 Total 2.0384
Mean SD
Score

 

 

 

Table 4-21. Concept Formation and Pre-Twentieth-Century
Music: Group II 1
No. of Pre-20th- No. of Subjects Concept Standard
Century Items N=13 Formation Deviation
Preferred Mean Score
1 8 15.0000 0
2 8 17.7500 3.5757
3 1 18.0000 0
4 3 20.6667 .5774
5 O O 0
Total 18.2308 Total 3.1663
Mean SD

Score

 

102

 

 

 

Table 4-22. Concept Formation and Twentieth-Century
Music: Group II
No. of 20th No. of Subjects Concept Standard
Century Items N=13 Formation Deviation
Preferred Mean Score
1 3 20.6667 .5774
2 1 18.0000 0
3 8 17.7500 3.5757
4 1 15.0000 0
5 0 O 0
Total 18.2308 Total 3.1663
Mean SD
Score
Table 4-23. Questionnaire and Pre-Twentieth-Century

Music

 

 

 

 

 

No. of Pre-20th- No. of Subjects Questionnaire Standard
Century Items N=33 Mean Deviation
Preferred Scores
1 8 14.1250 2.5319
2 16 12.7500 3.3566
3 5 13.6000 1.8166
4 4 12.0000 3.1623
5 0 O 0
Total 13.1212 Total 2.9236
Mean SD
Score
Table 4-24. Questionnaire and Twentieth-Century Music
No. of 20th No. of Subjects Questionnaire Standard
Century Items N=33 Mean Deviation
Preferred Scores
1 4 12.0000 3.1623
2 5 13.6000 1.8166
3 16 12.7500 3.3566
4 8 14.1250 2.5319
Total 13.1212 Total 2.9236
Mean SD

Score

 

103

The results for GrOUp II subjects were quite different.
As the subjects' preference for pre-twentieth-century music

increased, the mean scores for the Concept Formation Test

 

also rose from 15.0 to 20.6667 (Table 4-21). Conversely, as
the degree of twentieth-century preferences increased, the

mean scores for the Concept Formation Test decreased from

 

20.6667 to 15.0 (Table 4-22). Those subjects who exhibited
a greater preference for pre—twentieth-century music

achieved higher scores on the Concept Formation Test. How-

 

ever, a greater preference for twentieth-century music coin—
cided with a lesser understanding of musical concepts.

Tables 4-23 and 4-24 present the questionnaire mean
scores broken down by the pre-twentieth and twentieth-century
music preference items. The mean scores for the question-
naire decreased from 14.125 to 12.75, then rose to 13.6, and
finally dropped to 12J)(Table 4-23) when compared to the
number of pre-twentieth-century items preferred by the sub-
jects. The mean scores for the questionnaire were the same,
only in reverse order, when compared to the subjects' pre-
ference for twentieth-century music (Table 4-24). The re-
sults presented in Tables 4-23 and 4-24 indicated that the
degree of musical activity in the home bears no relationship
to the subjects' preference for pre-twentieth versus twentieth-
century music.

The final break downs are displayed in Tables 4-25 and
4-26. A comparison was made between the total scores

obtained on the questionnaire and the mean scores achieved

104

by Group I on the Concept Formation Test (Table 4-25). The

 

first and last mean scores of 10.0 and 11.0 were each
obtained by only one subject, and therefore, were considered
to be extreme scores. When these extreme scores were
eliminated, the direction of the mean scores for the Concept

Formation Test varied, beginning at 10.5, rising to 13.0,

 

and then dropping to 11.25. The reversal in the direction
of the mean scores indicated that no specific pattern

existed between the degree of home musical environment and
music conceptualization for this particular group of three-

year-old subjects.

Table 4-25. Concept Formation and the Questionnaire: Group I

 

 

Questionnaire: No. of Subjects Concept Standard
Total Score8 ' N=13 Formation Deviation
Mean Scores
0- 8 1 1CLOO 0
9-11 4 10.50 1.7321
12-14 6 13.00 1.2649
15-17 8 11.25 2.4349
Hi=18 1 11.00 0
Total 11.55 Total 2.0384
Mean SD
Score

 

afiigher point scores indicate higher levels of musical

activity in the home.

105

Table 4-26. Concept Formation and the Questionnaire: Group II

 

Questionnaire: No. of Subjects Concept Standard
Total Score8 N=13 Formation Deviation
Mean Scores

 

O- 8 1 17.0000 0
9-11 5 17.2000 3.0332
12-14 4 19.7500 4.2720
15-17 2 19.5000 2.1213
Hi=19 1 16.0000 0
Total 18.2308 Total 3.1663

Mean SD

wae

 

aHigher point scores indicate higher levels of musical
activity in the home.

Similar results occurred in the break down between the
concept formation test scores for Group II and the total
number of points derived from the questionnaire. Again, a
low mean score of 16.0 and a high mean score of 17.0 were
each obtained by only one subject. The remaining three mean
scores rose from 17.2 to 19.75, and then decreased to 19J5
Table 4-26). This variation in the direction of the mean

scores for the Concept Formation Test revealed that the

 

subjects' ability to identify musical concepts correctly was

not affected by the degree of musical activity in the home.

Summary

The results of the Pitch Discrimination Test indicated

 

that the thirty-three subjects demonstrated some ability to
discriminate paired pitch patterns as being the "same" or
"different" based on an average group score of 52.7%. In

addition, these subjects achieved higher scores on the items

106

that consisted of a pair of different pitch patterns as
opposed to items made up of a pair of identical pitch pat-

terns. The scores from the Music Preference Test indicated

 

that the subjects preferred twentieth- rather than pre—
twentieth-century music, however, their preferences were
affected by the serial position of these excerpts for each
paired item. The group score of 57.8% on the Concept
Formation Test for Group I (N=20), and 50.6% for Group II

 

(N=13) indicated that the subjects appeared to have an
average to above average understanding of musical concepts.
Again, the serial position of the response choices affected

the scores for the Concept Formation Test (Group II).

 

Similarly, the results for the questionnaire revealed
that twenty-seven of the thirty-three parents scored 50% or
higher which suggests that an average or above average
degree of musical activity occurred in their homes.

The descriptive statistics on sub-populations revealed
that few patterns in the subjects' responses were evident
from one measurement to another. However, the subjects who

scored higher on the Pitch Discrimination Test had a lesser

 

 

understanding of musical concepts, and participated in fewer
musical activities in the home. Finally, as the subjects'
preference for pre-twentieth-century music increased, so did
their understanding of musical concepts (Group II). When
twentieth-century music was compared to concept formation
the outcome was reversed. As the subjects' preference for

twentieth-century music increased, their scores on the

107

Concept Formation Test decreased (Group II).

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Summary

The purpose of this study was to provide descriptive
data on the three-year-old child's ability to discriminate
differences in pitch, identify elementary music concepts, as
well as examine music preferences which will aid in the
future development of preschool music education. The test
battery was administered in three parts to thirty-three
subjects on three consecutive days. A questionnaire was
sent to the parents of the subjects in an effort to estimate
the degree of musical activity in the home.

Part I (Pitch Discrimination Test) consisted of ten

 

pairs of three-note pitch patterns designed to measure the
subjects' ability to identify the two patterns of each pair
as being the same or different. Part II was a Music

Preference Test consisting of five paired items taken from

 

pre-twentieth and twentieth-century music literature. The
subjects stated their preference for either the pre-
twentieth or twentieth-century excerpt for each paired test
item. The serial position of the pre-twentieth and
twentieth-century excerpts of each pair varied to determine

if the serial position of the responses had an effect on the

108

109

subjects' music preferences. Part III (Concept Formation

 

1333) was administered to the first twenty subjects (Group
I) to test their ability to identify the concepts loud,
soft, fast, slow, higher, lower, far apart, close together,
skipping, and stepping.

Based on the same musical examples, thirteen additional
subjects (Group II) completed a thirty-six-item Concept

Formation Test. The following twelve concepts were

 

included on the test: loud, soft, fast, slow, moves up
high, moves down low, moves up, moves down, far apart, close
together, skipping and stepping. The musical examples re-
presenting each concept were played three times in random
order. The serial position of each pair of response choices
was reversed once for each of the twelve concepts to deter-
mine if this would affect the subjects' answers. The cor-
rect response was presented as the second of the two
contrasting response choices for each serial position test
item.

In addition to the test results, descriptive statistics
on sub-populations were calculated to determine if a
correlation existed between each of the following pairs of
variables:
1) pitch discrimination and pre-twentieth-century music

preference;

2) pitch discrimination and concept formation;

3) pitch discrimination and home musical environment;

110

4) pre-twentieth-century music preference and concept
formation;

5) twentieth-century music preference and concept formation;

6) pre-twentieth-century music preference and home musical
environment;

7) twentieth-century music preference and home musical en-
vironment;

8) concept formation and home musical environment.

Ability £2 Discriminate Paired Pitch Patterns - Part I

 

The results of this study indicated that the three-year-
old subjects possessed a limited ability to discriminate
pitch patterns, three notes in length, as being the same or
different. In each case, the thirty-three subjects scored
higher on the paired examples in which a difference in pitch
of a whole or half step occurred between the two pitch
patterns of the pair. The scores for the five paired items
consisting of two different pitch patterns ranged from 54.5%
to 75.8%. The scores for the remaining five pairs of
identical pitch patterns were considerably lower. The
highest group score for the "same" test items was 48.5%.

For three of these items, the subjects obtained a low score
of 39.4%. Similarly, the discrepancy in the percentage of
correct responses for the ten individual items was reflected
in the average group score of 52.7%. The lowest score

obtained on the Pitch Discrimination Test was 30%, while the

 

highest score was 80%. However, the test results suggested

that these three-year-old children may have already

111

developed some capacity for discriminating pitch differences
and given the proper training it is possible that their
auditory skills would improve significantly.

The diversity in the test results for the 31222

Discrimination Test could also be attributed to individual

 

differences in the development of tonal memory, which is a
necessary skill for completing discriminatory tasks.
According to Carl Seashore:

Musical memory is a talent which is inherited in
vastly different degrees, the differences being
greater for this special capacity than for memory
capacity in general; one student may have more
than a hundred tEmes the capacity of another for
learning music. 2

Although the subjects attained only mediocre scores, the
early training of memory skills may improve their ability to
answer questions on future pitch discrimination tests.
Seashore further states that:

While retentive and serviceable memory is a very
great asset to a musical person, it is not at all
an essential condition for musical—mindedness. A
person may have naturally very poor memory of all
kinds and get along well in music"..
Furthermore, the possibility for the development
of memory is so very great that with careful
training a person with very poor memory may
improve this manyfold to the point of
serviceability. The musical mind that can
reproduce many repertoires with precision is,
however, a different mind from one which has
neither large scope nor fidelity in retention or
reproduction. But both may be musical. The
personal traits in memory and imagination color
and condition the musical life ang often set
limits to achievement in music. 2

112

Pre-Twentieth and Twentieth-Century Music Preferences - Part
II

 

Initially, the Music Preference Test results seemed to

 

support the three-year-old subject's preference for twentieth-
century music with an average group score of 57% versus a
score of 43% for the pre-twentieth-century excerpts. After
a more thorough study of the data, a strong preference for
twentieth-century music was questionable. More specifical-
ly, the preference choice of twentieth-century music ap-
peared to be affected by the serial position of these ex-
cerpts for the five paired items. The twentieth-century
excerpts were presented as the second example of the pre-
twentieth and twentieth-century pair for three of the five
test items. In each instance, the subjects preferred the
twentieth-century items. The same type of results occurred
when the pre-twentieth—century items were played as the
second example of the pair for the two remaining test ques-
tions. Although it is remotely possible that the subjects
did prefer twentieth-century music, it is more likely that,
for these particular items, the subjects' responses were
influenced by the serial position of the excerpts. Ad-
ditional preference testing is necessary to establish if a
preference for either pre-twentieth or twentieth-century

music can be identified.

Ability £2 Identify Musical Concepts--Part III

 

Based on a total possible score of 100%, the results of

the Concept Formation Test for groups I and II indicated

 

113

that the subjects had an average to above average under-
standing of musical concepts. The average group scores for
Groups I and II were 57.8% and 50.6% respectively. The two
terms answered correctly most often by both groups of sub-
jects were soft and fast. According to Kresteff (1963),124
children develop a sensitivity to loudness and softness in
the second year of life, however, the thirty-three three
year olds in this study did not achieve comparable scores
for the concept loud. Group I scored 7245% on the concept
soft and only 57.5% on the concept loud. Similarly, Group
II scored 71.8% on the "soft" test items as opposed to 48:7%
on the "loud" test items.

In addition, both groups of subjects displayed the
least understanding for the terms stepping, close together
(Groups I and II), and moves down (Group II). Group I
scored higher than Group II on eight of the ten terms that

were common to both Concept Formation Tests. Group II

 

subjects obtained a higher score for the terms skipping and
fast. The terms moves up high and moves down low were
substituted for the terms higher and lower on the Concept
Formation Test administered to Group II to determine which
pair of terms was the best descriptor for pitch direction as
evidenced by this test. As indicated by the test results,
the subjects (Group I) that were presented with the terms
higher and lower for response choices exhibited a better
understanding of pitch direction than the subjects (Group

II) who were expected to respond with the synonomous terms

114

moves up high and moves down low. Finally, Group I obtained
above average percent scores for the concepts far apart,
slow, fast, higher, lower, loud, soft, and skipping. Group
II only achieved above 50% for the concepts fast, soft,
moves up, and skipping.

The Effects of Serial Position op the Identification of
Musical Concepts

 

 

 

 

As previously mentioned, the serial position of the
response choices appeared to influence the musical
preferences of the subjects. The same type of pattern
occurred when the serial position for each pair of response
choices was reversed in twelve of the thirty-six items on

the Concept Formation Test (Group II). The correct answer

 

was presented as the second of two contrasting response
choices for each of the serial position test items. With
the exception of the concept fast, the subjects obtained
higher scores when the non-serial response mode was
employed.

The range of the scores between the serial and non-
serial response choices for each of the twelve concepts was
as small as 736% and as large as 76.9%. This increase in
the percentage of correct responses for eleven of the twelve
serial position items was evident in the average group
scores. The group score for'the serial response items was
70.5%, as opposed to 40.7% for the non-serial response

items. Therefore, it was impossible to determine if the

115

subjects'(Group II) scores were a true indication of their
knowledge of musical concepts.

The reason for the increase in scores for the serial
response items can only be Speculated. Perhaps the subjects
focused their attention on or only remembered the second of
the two response choices. Gesell and Ilg state that three-
year-old children display "marked individual differences in
interest and ability to listen to music."125 The results of

the Concept Formation Test are consistent with Gesell's

 

statement. The variation in the test scores for each of the
concepts, as well as between Groups I and II, suggested that
the degree of musical knowledge among the thirty-three

subjects fluctuated, making it difficult, if not impossible
to establish definite norms for concept develOpment at three

years of age.

Home Musical Environment

 

The questionnaire results for the thirty-three subjects
were based on a total of nineteen points, with the highest
point scores indicating the greatest levels of musical
activity in the home. In addition, the possession and/or
use of hardware for musical listening purposes was reflected
in the total scores. On the basis of the questionnaire used
in this study, twenty-seven parents obtained ten to sixteen
points (52.6% - 84.2%) which suggested that an average to
above average amount of musical activity occurred in the

majority of the subjectsfi homes. Total scores of seven,

116

eight, nine, seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen were obtained
by the remaining six families.

Collectively, the questionnaire scores revealed that
singing activities were pursued more frequently in the home
than activities which required the use of musical instru-
ments or toys. Furthermore, this survey indicated that
fewer parents sing to their children, as opposed to singing
with their children. According to Moog (1976),126 many
parents display a deficiency in their knowledge of early
childhood song repertoire. As a result, a large percentage
of parents who would like to sing to their children abstain
from such activity. Moog also states that the preschool
supplies young children with most of their song repertoire,
and thus, may be the reason singing activity in the homes of
these subjects was reported most often as a joint effort
between the parent and child.

The hardware items were assigned five of the total
points for the questionnaire. Twenty parents (Group I) were
asked only to report their ownership of each of the five
hardware items. Initially, the author believed that when
more hardware was present in the home the subjects had a
greater Opportunity to engage in music listening activities.
While conditions may be favorable for music listening to
occur, the possession of hardware items does not necessarily
guarantee that such equipment will be utilized to expose the
child to a variety of musical literature. With the

exception of the reel-to-reel recorder, each of the hardware

117

-items (record player, radio, television, and cassette
recorder) were owned by 90%-100% of the subjects' families,
which at best, can be evaluated as increasing the proba-
bility that the subjects took part in music listening
activities. The type of music literature played in the home
and the frequency of musical listening experiences was not
determined.

Thirteen children (Group II) were added to the subject
population at a later date. These subjects received the
same basic questionnaire, however, in reference to the
hardware items, the parents reported the relative frequency
to which each piece of equipment was used in their homes.
The television, record player, and radio were in use most
frequently in the majority of the thirteen families. The
cassette tape recorder was played much less frequently in
the home, while the reel-to-reel recorder was seldom or
never in use. The results of the hardware question
suggested that ten of the subjects had an opportunity to
listen to music quite often, although the parents were not
asked to list the types of musical literature played in the
home.

Comparisons Between the Pitch Discrimination, Music
Preference, Concept FormationL and Questionnaire Results

The final series of descriptive statistics were
calculated to determine if the subjects' test results on the
Pitch Discrimination Test, Concept Formation Test, Music

Preference Test, and questionnaire were related. When the

 

118

results of the Pitch Discrimination Test were compared to

 

the music preference mean scores it was concluded that the
subjects' ability to discriminate pitch differences was not
related to a preference for pre-twentieth or twentieth-
century music. On the other hand, an inverse relationship
existed between the test findings for the Piooo

Discrimination Test and the Concept Formation Test. As the

 

 

three-year-old subjects achieved higher scores on the Pitch

Discrimination Test their scores on the Concept Formation

 

 

Test decreased. Similarly, those subjects who scored the

highest on the Concept Formation Test obtained poorer scores

 

on the Pitch Discrimination Test.

 

The most unexpected results derived from the descrip-
tive statistics occurred in a comparison between the test
battery and the questionnaire. The author believed that the
degree of home musical environment would be closely related
to musical ability. However, the results of the descriptive
statistics indicated that the subjects' ability to identify
musical concepts and their musical preferences were not
affected by the degree of musical activity in the home.
Furthermore, the subjects who obtained higher scores on the

Pitch Discrimination Test belonged to families that engaged

 

in the least number of musical activities.
In the last set of data the pre-twentieth and
twentieth-century test results were compared to the mean

scores from the Concept Formation Test for Groups I and II.

 

As indicated by the test scores, a musical preference for

119

pre-twentieth or twentieth-century music was not related to
an ability to identify musical concepts for the subjects in
Group I. A correlation did exist between music preference
and concept formation for subjects in Group II. The
children that preferred pre-twentieth-century music dis-
played a greater knowledge of musical concepts, while the
children that chose twentieth-century music most often had a

lesser understanding of the same concepts.

Behavioral Observations

 

One of the most difficult problems in the administra-
tion of the test was keeping the subjects' attention on the
tasks. This particular group of three-year-old subjects
exhibited a wide range in attention span. Some of the
children were able to sit through each test with few pro-
blems, while others had a low tolerance to the testing
setting. Although the children were instructed to listen
carefully to the test items and refrain from talking, the
subjects often interrupted the author when giving verbal
directions. When the children spoke they usually asked if
they could go back to the classroom, or were curious about
the testing hardware. At times, a subject would attempt to
change the topic of conversation, especially at the begin-
ning of the testing session when they were being given
directions. As a result, the test directions would usually
be recited twice for these subjects.

Throughout the study, the author found that non-verbal

signs such as eye contact and a nod of the head to indicate

120

inappropriate behavior were helpful in directing the
subjects' attention to the test items. Likewise, the
subjectS'non-verbal behavior was effective in adjusting the
pace of the test administration for each child. For
instance, the subjects' facial expressions, wandering eyes,
and inability to sit still were the most common indicators
of a child's fatigue, boredom, or confusion with the test
tasks.

It was necessary that the children who were prone to
inappropriate behavior be given a gesture to indicate they
should be silent, or a reminder to listen to the musical
examples. This approach worked well with the majority of
the children. In the few cases where a typically distracted
child was being tested, the author would periodically pause
between test items if necessary to reiterate the importance
of being quiet while listening to the music. Whenever
possible, the test was administered with no interruptions,
however, with young children it is unrealistic to expect
absolute silence and concentration all of the time.
Therefore, each of the testing sessions was approximately
ten to fifteen minutes long, and was scheduled in the
morning when the children were expected to be less tired and
more alert.

The subjects (Group II) appeared to experience the
greatest amount of fatigue during the Concept Formation
.ISEE- This particular test took about fifteen minutes to

complete, and was the longest session in the testing

121

sequence. The length of the test may be, in part,

responsible for the difference in test scores between Groups
I and II. As previously mentioned, Group I achieved higher
scores than Group II for the majority of concepts that were

common to both Concept Formation Tests.

 

External Factors Affecting the Test Procedures

 

Scheduling testing sessions for thirty-three subjects
from five different preschools proved to be a difficult
task. Although four of the preschools were in session five
days a week, many of the children attended only two or three
times a week, and were dismissed within two to three hours
after their arrival. The fifth preschool to offer subjects
for the study was in session only two days a week for
approximately two hours. For some of the children,
attendance was sporadic and compounded the problem of
planning a definite testing schedule. Quite often, the test
administration took an extra week to complete or required a
subsequent visit to a particular preschool to test one
subject. Even when the daily attendance record was at its
peak, it was impossible to expect that all available three-
year-old children would be willing or able to adapt to the
testing environment. In the end result, the size of the
subject p0pulation was small. Obtaining large sample
populations continues to be an unsolved problem in early
childhood research due to the fluctuation in preschool

enrollments.

122

Several other factors had to be considered in
administering the tests. The flexibility of the daily
preschool routine accommodated the variance in the
dispositions of the young child, which in turn, demanded
that the testing schedule be adjusted accordingly. The
preschool activities changed from day to day, and no exact
times were assigned for recess and snacks. In addition, the
available room space for testing was less than ideal. The
testing rooms were generally close to the classrooms and
were often used as offices or to store supplies. The noise
from the surrounding classrooms, as well as the interrup-
tions by faculty, often added undesirable distractions dur-
ing the test administration.

In order to add to the reliability of the testing
procedures, preschool teachers need to plan activities that
will complement the testing schedule. The testing sessions
were much easier to manipulate when the children were work-
ing on individual projects, rather than participating in
group activities. Furthermore, the noise factor could be
diminished on most days if the recess hour coincided with
the daily testing schedule. Another alternative to the
testing problem would be to conduct research in the homes of
the subjects. While the field research would take consider-
ably longer to complete, it is possible that the children
would adapt to the test procedures much more readily in a
familiar environment where less distractions occur due to

classroom noise and interruptions.

123

Recommendations for Future Research

 

Written Response Modes and Visual Aids

 

A verbal response mode was chosen for this study since
the subjects were only three years of age. The test script
was helpful in maintaining consistency during the test
administration for each subject. Due to a lack of classroom
space, the use of a written group test for this study was
impractical. Nevertheless, the development of written
response modes that would be appropriate for early childhood
research in music is worth investigating for several
reasons. First, group tests could be seriously considered
as a viable method of testing if the written response was
adapted for use with young children. Moreover, the use of
written group tests could minimize scheduling problems,
while at the same time they would be more conducive to
testing larger sample populations. Secondly, a larger
sampling of test items would be possible with the use of
written group tests, and may be one solution to the
acquisition of more informative and reliable data. Finally,
the use of written response modes may aid young children in
keeping their attention focused on the test tasks by
actively checking, circling, or underlining their answers on
paper.

Much like a picture book tells a story without words,
researchers of early childhood need to continue to explore
the possibility of utilizing pictures and symbols in the

form of written response modes to represent aural stimuli.

124

For many years, visual aids have been effective in teaching
public school music. Call charts which accompany music
listening lessons, the use of the keyboard and Orff
instruments, and the use of step bells to demonstrate the
concepts stepping, skipping, up, and down are visual aids
which have been successful in teaching music to young
children.

In addition, a certain amount of musical terminology
must be defined for the completion of most music tests. In
testing young children it is unlikely that they will know
all of the necessary terminology to respond correctly to
concepts they may already understand. The difficulty lies
in determining whether or not the young child really
understands the test task. New terminology in the test
directions should be verbally presented along with visual

aids. In Edwin Gordon's Primary Measures of Music Audiation

 

 

(1979),127, a written response mode consisting of pictures
(smiling and frowning faces) was incorporated to represent
the concepts "same" and "differentw" Other visual aids have
been successful in teaching music concepts in the Music for

Children Class at Michigan State University. For instance,

 

stick figures have been used to visually represent the terms
long and short, while the concepts up, down, high, and low
have been demonstrated by raising or dropping an object.
Similarly, the appropriate picture or symbol should
accompany the aural stimuli in music tests for preschool age

children.

125

Future Testing Procedures

 

Each of the test items for this study was performed on
the clarinet or SOprano glockenspiel. A variety of dif-
ferent instruments should be substituted as the performance
medium in future studies to determine if timbre affects the
ability to discriminate pitch difference, identify concepts,
or influences music preferences. For example, the keyboard
is a much more precise instrument than the soprano glocken-
spiel, and therefore, may be a better choice of performance
medium to demonstrate concepts such as loud, soft, fast, and
slow. A number of variables may affect the young child's
music preference or ability to discriminate pitch dif-
ferences and identify musical concepts. The author recom—
mends that additional research examine the effects of rhyth-
mic pattern on the child's ability to identify specific
musical concepts and complete discriminatory pitch tasks.

The development of auditory skills is an essential
component in building musicianship. Additional data in the
area of pitch discrimination is necessary before an adequate
method of ear training can be devised for young children.
New research studies designed to test the young child's
ability to identify pitch differences at various intervals
is vital in choosing song repertoire and musical literature
for listening purposes. Furthermore, excerpts from familiar
songs may provide valuable information on the preschooler's
ability to match pitch, sing in tune, hear melodic varia—

tions, and identify changes in mode.

126

Concepts which were not included in this study, but are
recommended for future testing are short, long, thick and
thin texture, accent, and meter. Preschool age children are
naturally active, and therefore, need to be able to exert
their energy in a constructive and positive manner. In many
instances, it may be advisable to organize a series of test
questions which allow young children to participate actively
in the testing procedures. With adequate instructions, the
young child may be able to play random tones on the keyboard
or Orff instruments that are loud, soft, fast, slow, move
up, move down, or that step and skip. The children may also
be able to demonstrate their understanding of the terms high
and low by playing tones in a high or low register and by
identifying the thick and thin strings of the piano.

Preference testing may be less practical with three-
year-old subjects since these children probably have not
been exposed to a large number of musical selections. The
author still believes that young children have developed, or
are capable of developing and expressing certain likes and
dislikes upon hearing various types of music. In the
present study, the preference items were classified as
either pre-twentieth or twentieth-century music. Musical
excerpts from specific style periods should be included in
future preference studies. Other variables which may have
an effect on music preference are variations in tempo and
dynamics, and the addition of piano or orchestral

accompaniments.

127

Concluding Statement

 

In conclusion, the author recommends that future early
childhood studies in music be designed to measure only one
variable. As a result, larger samplings of test items would
be possible, especially in the areas of pitch discrimination
and music preference. The individual testing of preschool
children must be administered in several short sessions,
however, it is not unrealistic to organize research projects
that will produce an adequate amount of reliable data on the
musical abilities of the young.

Based on the average group scores for the test battery,
this particular group of three-year-old children have dis-
played an average ability to discriminate pitch differences
and identify elementary musical concepts, although some of
their correct answers may have occurred by chance. With
apprOpriate music instruction, three-year-old children may
be able to improve their musical abilities significantly.
Likewise, music preferences would evolve from an increase in
auditory skills and musical cognition, rather than by chance.
Testing to determine various methods of instruction, as well
as controlled studies which examine the effects of such
instruction on the musical achievement of young children,
can only be beneficial to the growth of early childhood

music education.

128

NOTES

122Seashore, p. 149.

1231616., p. 7.

12“Kresteff, pp. 4-10.

125Arnold Gesell and Francis L. Ilg, Child

Deve10pment: an Introduction to the Study of Human Growth,
(New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1949), p. 212.

 

 

 

126Helmut Moog, The Musical Experience of the
Preschool Child, translated by Claudia Clarke, (London,
England. Schott Music, 1976), p. 119.

 

 

127Edwin Gordon, Primary Measures of Music
Audiation: A Musical Aptitude Test for Kindergarten and
Primary Grade Children, (Chicago, Illinois: G.I A.
Publications, Inc., 1979), pp. 31, 32, 37, 38.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A-1

129

Pitch Discrimination 76st

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PartI
9 No 1 y 0 No.2
Ifimi n JV”
LU ‘7
J W.
D 0.1 D 71102.
11121112. 0 . 0
51} J
D 11101, {,L . 7110.2
Item 3 n 5’ ,9 1]
V A 3; 6 #0 H
D 140.1. 0 No.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130

pitch Discriminafion 7261'

parf I

No. i No. 2

12m 6

 

No.1 7% 2,
Item"?

 

Ihmg

 

No. 1 N02,

 

Itemio

 

APPENDIX A-2

131

PART H~Msic pm'rskswce {TEST

jam :1) No.1

Mozarf, Comm
Misfits, 111721, K6242“ Movement

'\

  
 
 
 

     

Adagio
C(ari‘neffo
principola in A

 
   

W0. 2

Berg, Mgr Sfflcka [1713)” Klarinette,
Und Elm/fer, op}: No.2,,

3211»- 1 1A: 0.. 52)
Kiarinefte/ CC

in
germ! ff was Jonqscmer.
PP

   
 
 

échofon

  

132

Item 2,) No.1

Kremk , ifzzznowgue far (:Zarz'mf ,SQ/Q

Ho dcrafo

       
 
 

   

79,4 >-

f>

\k. '
7:72
No.2,

Beefhoven, Eta, Bang, Clarinet, and
W, 0})11 in Bij,1"MO1/emcnf

Clem: fto
1n

 

 

133

1m 6} N01

Wzart, C
(2311251131, £7174, K0022,1377\’70vem2n‘f
74 2 r0
marine/6190 [L9 A d
windy/211173

 

 

No.2
Cog Q, ”5’0. 1’ ar' 19

Vimce

 

134

7.

Pee

No. 2

 

Y

I

 

Sfravimfiy ,
' 15
/\

No.1

(121,“,
= :
tubal—mm

Ifem 4)

.0131—

l! \
(c.1- I

 

 

b.

 

F121

£12

 

 

f Hi

411
Jfifil

h

 

 

 

i

135

No.2

Krommer, Concerto in 6” No; for
Clarinefand Orchestra, ZM‘WVemmf

Cfarz'nei‘fo
principafe in-B

 

 

136

Item [2) No.1

WagnenAdggmfiLCbmmdgi

A

   
  

Kfarineffe MB

137

No.2

Slam/("SKY . Warez Pieces for
Cfarinof Solo, -N0.i

Semprt p a, ”mo/to fro. 112110. #52.

 

APPENDIX A-3

138

CONCEPT FORMATION TEST

 

PART III

Items one through four are based on the following
musical example:

Item 1)

Item 2)

Item 3)

Item 4)

EXAMPEE 1

 

6-

"(Name of subject), I am going to play a few more
songs for you on this instrument. Listen to the
first song, and tell me if you think it sounds loud
or soft."

The experimenter plays Example 1 fortissimo.

 

"(Name of subject), do you think I played the song
loud or soft?"

The experimenter plays Item 1 again.

 

"(Name of subject), listen to the song I am going
to play. After I play the song, you tell me if it
sounds loud or soft."

The experimenter plays Example 1 pianissimo.

 

"(Name of subject), did I play the song loud or
soft?"

The experimenter plays Item 2 again.

 

"(Name of subject), listen to the next song, and
then you tell me if I played it fast or slow."

The experimenter plays Example 1 Allegro.

 

"(Name of subject), do you think I played the song
fast or slow?"

The experimenter plays Item 3 again.

"(Name of subject), listen to the song I am going
to play. After you hear the song, you tell me if I
played it fast or slow."

The experimenter plays Example 1 Adagio.

 

139

"(Name of subject), did I play the song fast or
slow?"

The experimenter plays Item 4 again.

Item five is based on Example 2, notated below:
EXAMPLE 2

 

9

Item 5) "(Name of subject), I am going to play another song
for you. Listen, and you tell me if the sound of
the song moves higher or lower."

The experimenter plays Example 2.

 

"(Name of subject), do the sounds of the song get
higher or lower?"

The experimenter plays Item 5 again.

Item six is based on the following example:

3

    

6-

Item 6) "(Name of subject), listen to the next song. After
I play the song, you tell me if it sounds like it
gets higher or lower."

The experimenter plays Example 3.

"(Name of subject), as I played the song, did it
sound like it was getting higher or lower?"

The experimenter plays Item 6 again.

Items seven and nine are based on Example 4. Items
eight and ten are based on Example 5.

EXAMPLE 4

 

Item 7)

Item 8)

Item 9)

Item 10)

140

EXAMPLE 5

 

6-

"(Name of subject), listen to the song I am going
to play. After you hear the song, you tell me if
it sounds like it is stepping (an analogy of
walking up and down steps, or climbing a ladder was
used) or skipping (jumping or leaping)."

The experimenter played Example 4.

 

"(Name of subject), did the song sound like it was
stepping or skipping?"

The experimenter played Item 7 again.

 

"(Name of subject), I am going to play another
song. After you hear the song, you tell me if it
sounds like it is stepping or skipping."

The experimenter played Example 5.

 

"(Name of subject), did the song sound like it was
stepping or skipping?"

The experimenter played Item 8 again.

 

(Name of subject), listen to the next song. After
I play the song, you tell me if each of the sounds
were close together or far apart" (These were
substituted for stepping and skipping in items 9
and 10. The experimenter speculated that these
alternate terms could be more familiar).

The experimenter played Example 4.

 

"(Name of subject), were the sounds in the'song
close together or far apart?"

The experimenter played Item 9 again.

 

"(Name of subject), I am going to play another
song. After you hear the song, I will ask you if
each of the sounds were close together or far
apart."

The experimenter played Example 5.

 

141

"(Name of subject), were the sounds in the song
close together or far apart?"

The experimenter played Item 10 again.

 

APPENDIX B

142

Dear Parents:

I am currently working on a dissertation for the completion
of a doctoral degree in Music Education at Michigan State
University. My research project requires the implementation
of a series of test items for three-year-old children. Each
set of test items is short and will be completed in three
brief meetings with individual children. Answers to two
basic questions will be the primary focus for this research,
as stated below:

1. Are three-year-old children able to discriminate
pitch patterns, three tones in length, as being the
same or different?‘

2. Do three-year-old children prefer traditional or non-
traditional music?

There will be no attempt to determine a child's musicality
due to the continuing flux in their development at three
years of age. I am merely concerned in knowing if three—
year-old children can discriminate differences in paired
pitch patterns, and if these children have developed a
preference for traditional or non-traditional music. By
gathering this type of data music educators have a better
idea of how to plan beginning musical activities for very
young children. It is with this goal in mind that I request
your permission to allow your child to participate in this
research project.

Thank you for your cooperation!

Beverly B etstein

Parent's Signature

 

APPENDIX C

143

Table C-1. Raw Scores for the Three-year-old Subjectsa

PART I PART II TOTAL SCORE FOR EACH SUBJECT

 

 

 

 

 

Subject 1 6 3 9
Subject 2 7 3 10
Subject 3 2 2 2
Subject 4 6 u 10
Subject 5 6 3 9

 

8The total of correct responses possible for the entire test
battery is fifteen. The raw scores for Part II indicate
the subject's preference for pre-twentieth-century music (a
total of five was possible).

Table C-2. Percent Scores for the Three-year-old Subjectsa

PART I PART II TOTAL SCORE FOR EACH SUBJECT

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject 1 60% 60% 60%

Subject 2 70% 60% 65%

Subject 3 20% 40% 30%

Subject 4 60% 80% 70%

Subject 5 60% 60% 60%

Group % 54% 60% 57% for entire
battery

 

8The percentage scores on Part II indicate a preference for
the pre-twentieth-century items.

APPENDIX D

1uu

Table D-1. Raw Scores and Percentages for the Four-year-old

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subjectsa
PART I PERCENT SCORES FOR EACH SUBJECT
Subject 1 3 60%
Subject 2 2 40%
Subject 3 3 60%
Subject 4 3 60%
Subject 5 4 80%
Subject 6 3 60%
Group Scores 18 60%

 

8The total of correct responses possible is five.

Table D-2. Raw Scores and Percentages for the Four-year—old

 

 

 

 

 

Subjectsa
PART II PERCENT SCORES FOR EACH SUBJECT
Subject 1 5 100%
Subject 2 2 40%
Subject 3 2 40%
Subject 4 3 60%
Group Scores 12 60%

 

8The total of correct responses possible is five. These
scores indicate the subject's preference for pre-twentieth-
century music.

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E-1

145

November 23, 1982
Dear Parent:

I am currently working on a dissertation for the completion
of a doctoral degree in Music Education at Michigan State
University. My research project requires the implementation
of a series of test items for three-year-old children. Each
set of test items is short and will be completed in three
brief meetings with individual children from your preschool.
The children will be asked to complete the three basic tasks
listed below:

1. Pitch Discrimination: The child will listen to ten
matched pitch patterns, three tones in length. The
child will then be asked if each given pair of
pitch patterns are the same or different (first day
of testing).

 

2. Preference: The child will listen to five paired
excerpts taken from existing musical literature.
The child will be asked which example of each pair
he or she prefers (second day of testing).

 

3. Concept Formation: The child will listen to
thirty-Six brief examples which demonstrate a
specific musical concept. The child will then
respond by choosing one of two contrasting
responses, such as loud or soft. The contrasting
musical terms to be used for this study are: loud-
soft, fast-slow, up-down, high-low, step-skip, and
close together-far apart (third day of testing).

 

This study has been reviewed and approved by my advisor and
doctoral committee. I have discussed my study with your
child's teacher and school administrator, and both have
given me permission to approach you. It will save me a lot
of writing if I may also have your permission to tape record
your child's responses. If you would prefer not to have me
do this, I will honor your wishes and your child can still
participate.

The results of this research will not be used to determine a
chilxfls musicality due to the continuing flux in their
development at three years of age. I hope that by gathering
this type of information, music educators will have a better
idea of how to plan beginning musical experiences for very
young children. It is with this goal in mind that I request
your permission to allow your child to participate in this
research project (a consent form is attached).

Thank you for :our cooperation,

everly B etstein

146

Consent Form (Please return to your child's teacher)

 

I have read the explanation above and hereby consent to my
child's participation in your research study. I understand
that my child is free to withdraw from the study at any time
without penalty. I understand that my child will remain
anonymous and that his or her response will remain
confidential. With these restrictions, I understand that
when the study is completed the overall results will be made
available to me upon request.

Date Signed

 

 

(Legal Parent or Guardian)

Teacher's Name

 

Child's Name

 

I grant permission for my child's responses to your tests to
be tape recorded. This recording will be made for con-
venience only, and will remain confidential.

Signed

 

APPENDIX E-2

I47

QUESTIONNAIRE (Form A)

 

Which of the following best describes how often you play
musical instruments? (Check one answer only)

At least once a day
Once or twice a week
Seldom

Never

 

How often would you say your child plays with musical
toys? (Check one)

At least once a day
Once or twice a week
Every other week

Once a month

Never

 

Do you encourage your child to play with his or her
musical toys?

Yes No

 

 

Check one of the choices which best completes the
following sentence: My child sings along while playing
with musical toys .

 

Most of the time
Occasionally
Seldom

Never

 

How often do you sing to your child? (Check one answer
only)

Most of the time

Occasionally

Seldom

Never

148

Do you encourage your child to sing along with you?

Yes No

 

 

Check any of the following items found in your home.

Record Player Tape Recorder
Television Cassette Recorder
Radio Other

 

Do you practice the suggested musical activities from
the preschool program with you child?

Yes No

APPENDIX E-3

149

QUESTIONNAIRE (Form B)

 

Which of the following best describes how often you play
musical instruments? (Check one answer only)

At least once a day
Once or twice a week
Seldom

Never

 

How often would you say your child plays with musical
toys? (Check one)

At least once a day
Once or twice a week
Seldom

Never

 

Do you encourage your child to play with his or her
musical toys?

Yes No

 

 

Check one of the choices which best completes the
following sentence: My child sings along while playing
with musical toys .

 

Most of the time
Occasionally
Seldom

Never

 

How often do you sing to your child? (Check one answer
only)

Most of the time
Occasionally
Seldom

Never

 

Do you encourage your child to sing along with you?

Yes No

150

Place a (1) next to the items that are used frequently
in your home, a (2) next to the items that are occa-
sionally used in your home, a (3) next to the items that
are seldom used in your home. If you do not own a parti-
cular item, or never use a particular item, place a (0)
in the appropriate blank.

Record Player Tape Recorder
(Reel-to-Reel)
Television
Cassette Recorder
Radio

Other (Please List)

 

 

Do you practice the suggested musical activities from
the preschool program with your child?

Yes

No

"m

Does not pertain to my preschool program

APPENDIX F

151

PRACTICE EXAMPLE

 

PART I

No. 1 No. 2

 

152
TEST SCRIPT-PART I

 

You will hear two short songs. Each time two songs are
played you will hear No. 1 or No. 2. After you hear the two
songs, you will tell me if No. 1 and No. 2 sound alike or
different. Listen carefully, and remember, you must tell me
if No. 1 and No. 2 sound like the same song, or if No. 1 and
No. 2 sound like two different songs. Let's do one
together (Do a Practice Example).

Do you understand what I want you to do? Let's begin.
You will hear two songs:

No. ‘1; No. 2
No. 1 will be played again; No. 2 will be played again.

Does No. 1 sound the same or different than No. 2? (Record
Answer)

Listen to the next two songs:

No. ‘1; No. 2

You will now hear No. 1 again; You will now hear No. 2

again.

Do No. 1 and No. 2 sound alike or different? (Record Answer)

Two more songs will be played:

No. 1; No. 2
Listen to No. 1 again; Listen to No. 2 again.

Are No. 1 and No. 2 the same song or two different songs?
(Record Answer)

Listen to the next two songs:

No. 1; No. 2
Now you will hear No. 1 again; Now you will hear No. 2 again.

Do you think No. 1 and No. 2 sound the same or different?
(Record Answer)

You will hear two more songs:

No. ‘1; No. 2
No. 1 will be played again; No. 2 will be played again.

Do No. 1 and No. 2 sound alike or different? (Record Answer)

Repeat Script.

 

153

TEST SCRIPT-PART II

 

You will hear two songs played on the tape recorder. Each
time you hear two songs you will hear a No. 1 song and a No.
2 song. Listen carefully, and you tell me if you like the
sound of No. 1 better, or if you like the sound of No. 2
better.

Do you understand what I want you to do? Let's begin.
Listen to these two songs:

No. 1; You will hear No. 1 again.
No. 2; You will hear No. 2 again.

Do you like the sound of No. 1 or No. 2? (Record Answer)
You will hear two more songs:

No. 1; Listen to No. 1 again.
No. 2; Listen to No. 2 again.

Which song do you like the best, No.1 or No.2?2 (Record
Answer)

Listen to the next two songs:

No. 1; No. 1 will be played again.
No. 2; No. 2 will be played again.

Do you like song No. 1 or song No. 2? (Record Answer)
You will hear two more songs:

No. 1; Now you will hear No. 1 again.
No. 2; Now you will hear No. 2 again.

Which song do you like the best, No. 1 or No. 2? (Record
Answer)

Two more songs will be played:

No. 1; Listen to No. 1 again.
No. 2; Listen to No. 2 again.

Do you like the sound of song No. 1 or song No. 2 the best?
(Record Answer)

APPENDIX G

154

TEST SCRIPT

 

PART III

Directions: I am going to play some songs for you. I will

 

ask you what you hear after I play each song,
so listen carefully (the correct answers are
underlined).8

Listen to the first song, and tell me if the song moves
down low or moves up high.

Did the song move down low or move up high?

 

Listen to the next song, and tell me if the song is
skipping, like walking up the stairs two steps at a
time, or stepping, like walking up the stairs one step
at a time.

Was the song skipping or stepping?

I am gong to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if I am playing the song fast or slow.

Did I play the song fast or Slow?

Listen to the next song, and tell me if I am playing the
song loud or soft.

Did I play the song loud or soft?

I am gong to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if I am playing the song loud or soft.

Did I play the song loud or soft?

Listen to the next song, and tell me if the song is
skipping, like walking up the stairs two steps at a
time, or stepping, like walking up the stairs one step
at a time.

Was the song skipping or stepping?

I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if the song moves down low or moves up high.

Did the song move down low or move up high?

 

aThis identifies the serial position items.

 

155

8. Listen to the next song, and tell me if each sound in
the song is close together, like walking up the stairs
one step at a time, or far apart, like walking up the
stairs two steps at a time.

Did I play each sound in the song close together or
far apart?

 

9. I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if the song moves up high or moves down low.

Did the song move up high or move down low?

 

10. Listen to the next song, and tell me if the song moves
down or up.

Did the song move down or up?

11. I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if each sound in the song is far apart, like
walking up the stairs two steps at a time, or close
together, like walking up the stairs one step at a time.

Did I play each sound in the song far apart or close
together?

 

12.8 Listen to the next song, and tell me if the song moves
down low or moves up high.

Did the song move down low or move up high?

 

13. I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if I am playing the song soft or loud?

Did I play the song soft or loud?

14. Listen to the next song, and tell me if I am playing the
song fast or slow.

Did I play the song fast or slow?

15. I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if each sound in the song is far apart, like
walking up the stairs two steps at a time, or close
together, like walking up the stairs one step at a time.

Did I play each sound in the song far apart or close
together?

 

16.3 Listen to the next song, and tell me if I am playing the
song soft or loud.

Did I play the song soft or loud?

aThis identifies the serial position items.

17.

18.8

19.

20.

21.

22.a

23.

24.3

25.8

156

I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if the song is skipping, like walking up the
stairs two steps at a time, or stepping, like walking up
the stairs one step at a time.

Was the song skipping or stepping?

Listen to the next song, and tell me if I am playing the
song loud or soft.

Did I play the song loud or soft?

I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if the song moves up high or moves down low.

Did the song move up higp or move down low?

 

Listen to the next song, and tell me if the song moves
down or up.

Did the song move down or up?

I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if the song is stepping, like walking up the
stairs one step at a time, or skipping, like walking up
the stairs two steps at a time.

Was the song stepping or skipping?

Listen to the next song, and tell me if the song moves
down or up.

Did the song move down or op?

I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if the song moves up or down.

Did the song move op or down?

Listen to the next song, and tell me if each sound in
the song is far apart, like walking up the stairs two
steps at a time, or close together, like walking up the
stairs one step at a time.

Did I play each sound in the song far apart or
close together?

 

I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if the song moves up or down.

Did the song move up or down?

8This identifies the serial position items.

26.8

27.

28.8

29.

3o.a

31.

32.

33-8‘

34.

157

Listen to the next song, and tell me if I am playing the
song fast or slow.

Did I play the song fast or slow?

I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if I am playing the song soft or loud.

Did I play the song soft or loud?

Listen to the next song, and tell me if the song is
stepping, like walking up the stairs on step at a time,
or skipping, like walking up the stairs two steps at a
time.

Was the song stepping or skipping?

I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if I am playing the song slow or fast.

Did I play the song slow or fast?

Listen to the next song, and tell me if each sound in
the song is close together, like walking up the stairs
one step at a time, or far apart, like walking up the
stairs two steps at a time.

Did I play each sound in the song close together or
far apart?

 

I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if the song moves up or down.

Did the song move op or down?

Listen to the next song, and tell me if each sound in
the song is close together, like walking up the stairs
one step at a time, or far apart, like walking up the
stairs two steps at a time.

Did I play each sound in the song close together or far
apart?

 

I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if the song moves up high or moves down low.

Did the song move up high or move down low?

 

Listen to the next song, and tell me if the song is
stepping, like walking up the stairs one step at a time,
or skipping, like walking up the stairs two steps at a
time.

8This identifies the serial position items.

158

Was the song stepping or skipping?

35. I am going to play another song for you. Listen, and
tell me if I am playing the song slow or fast.

Did I play the song slow or fast?

36.a Listen to the next song, and tell me if I am playing the
song slow or fast.

Did I play the song slow or fast?

3This identifies the serial position items.

APPENDIX H

 

159

PITCH DISCRIMINATION TEST: PART I

Table H-1. Frequency Distributiona

 

Raw Score Subjects Percentage of Subject
TOTALS N = 33 Population

 

12.1%
15.2%
33.3%
18.2%
15.2%

6.1%

(DNOU'I-C’LA)
NU'ION—AU‘IJ:

 

a Total possible score = 10.

Table H-2. "Same" and "Different" Responses/Frequency Distribution

 

 

Raw Score Subjects Percent of Raw Score Subjects Percent of
"Same" N = 33 Subject "Different" N = 33 Subject
Items Population Items Population

0 8 24.2% 0 1 3.0%

1 6 18.2% 1 3 9.1%

2 6 18.2% 2 6 18.2%

3 3 9.1% 3 9 27.3%

4 7 21.2% 4 8 24.2%

5 3 9.1% 5 6 18.2%

 

160
MUSIC PREFERENCE TEST: PART II

Table H-3. Pre-Twentieth-Century Music/Frequency

 

 

Distribution

Raw Score: Subjects Percentage of Subject
No. of Items N = 33 Population
Preferred

1 8 24. 2%

2 16 48.5%

3 5 15.1%

4 4 12.1%

5 0 0

 

Table H-4. 'Twentieth-Century Music/Frequency

 

Distribution
Raw Score: Subjects Percentage of Subject
No. of Items N = 33 Population

Preferred

 

1 4 12.1%
2 5 15.2%
3 16 48.5%
4 8 24.2%
5 O O

 

161

CONCEPT FORMATION TEST: PART III

Table H-S. Group I Scores for the First and Second Responses

 

 

Concept Raw Score: Percent Raw Score: Percent
First Score: Second Score:
Response First Response Second
N = 20 Response N : 20 Response
Soft 14 70% 15 75%
Loud 11 55% 12 60%
Fast 16 80% 12 60%
Slow 14 70% 10 50%
Higher 13 65% 12 60%
Lower 9 45% 13 65%
Far Apart 12 60% 13 65%
Close Together 9 45% 7 35%
Skipping 13 65% 9 45%
Stepping 6 30% 11 55%

 

Table H-6. Frequency Distribution for Each Concept/Group I

 

 

Concept Raw Percent Raw Percent Raw Percent

Score: Score Score: Score Score: Score

1 Correct 2 Correct Never

N = 20 N = 20 Correct

N = 20

Soft 5 25% 12 60% 3 15%
Loud 11 55% 6 30% 3 15%
Fast 8 40% 1O 50% 2 10%
Slow 8 40% 8 40% 4 20%
Higher 7 35% 9 45% 4 20%
Lower 8 40% 7 35% 5 25%
Far Apart 13 65% 6 30% 1 5%
Close Together 10 50% 3 15% 7 35%
Skipping 14 70% 4 20% 2 10%
Stepping 11 55% 3 15% 6 30%

 

1652

.om u occom announce scope m

 

 

um F op
am P mp
am 9 :—
am. m mp
now 2 mp
sop m Pp
mom 0 op
um F m
um P w
ccaomflsccs om u z namoop
woonnsm ho owmucoogmm muoofinsm ogoom 3mm

 

mH asoco\cowu:nfigunaa accoscocm .ma: wanna

 

 

o o o o umm m am: a gem c .cosm\caxm
o 0 amp m o 0 now mp umm m omo~oxumm
am _ amp m mom 2 «mm PF mm P gmzoq\gmnmwz
o o mom a «0m 0 no: m «op N 30Hm\ummm
nos m «mm m «mm s «mm m mm P ucomxcsoq
om u 2 cm H 2 cm u 2 cm H z
uooggoo Lo>mz aooLLoo : uoougoo m pooggoo N uooLLoo F
oLoom oLoom "ogoom ogoom "ocoom mcoom "ogoom ocoom uoLoom
pcmOLom 3mm acoocmm 3mm accosom 3mm acoogom 3mm acoogmm 3mm uqoocoo

 

H asocoxmaaoocoo noLHmm do cofipanficunfio xocoscogm

HHH Hm<m ”Emma 20HH<ZmOm Hmmozoo

.NI: canoe

163

CONCEPT FORMATION TEST: PART III8

Table H-9. Group II Scores for the First, Second, and Third Responses

 

 

Concepts Raw Percent Raw Percent Raw Percent

Score: Score Score: Score Score: Score

First Second Third

Response Response Response

N = 13 N = 13 N = 13
Soft 10 76.9% 810 876.9% 8 61.5%
Loud 7 53.8% 5 38.5% a 7 a53.8%
Fast 12 92.3% 12 92.3% 811 84.6%
Slow a 7 353.8% 3 23.1% 6 46.2%
Moves Up High 4 30.8% a 9 869.2% 6 46.2%
Moves Down Low 2 15.4% 3 23.1% a 9 369.2%
Moves Up 810 876.9% 9 69.2% 6 46.2%
Moves Down 3 23.1% 3 23.1% a 5 338.5%
Far Apart 3 23.1% 4 30.8% 812 892.3%
Close Together 1 7.7% 811 384.6% 1 7.7%
Skipping 6 46.2% 6 46.2% a12 a92.3%
Stepping a 7 853.8% 3 23.1% 4 30.8%

 

afThese scores were obtained for the serial position items.

164

 

.. . kflgfilmfifihh

 

 

sm.om a ss.m_ m ne.s F am.cs a meaccoom
ns.s P «F.mm m um.ca c u_.mm m mascoaxm
as.» P o o ss.s a sc.sm PP accommoe cacao
ss.s _ uz.mP m “F.mm m aw.mm s pence ems
sm.mm m o o «P.mm m sm.wm m egos mosoz
as.s _ sw.om : am.wm m s_.mm m a: mosoz
sm.om : o o am.wm m am.om : 303 exam nose:
0 o o o am.c= c «m.mm s swam a: nose:
u=.mF m Rs.mF m as.s _ am._c w _ scam
o o ao.cs o_ as.ms m ss.s a some
us.m_ m R:.m_ m sw.om s Rm.wm m macs
o c spam m “mam m 5mm m tom

m_ u 2 ms u z m, u z m. u z

poms—LOU Lm>mz powLLOU m pomLLOU N 300.200 P

wLoom "0.50m 9.58 n 0.50m 0.50m umLoom 9.50m ” 0.50m
acmOme 3mm pcoocom 3mm acoocmm 3mm ucmonmm 3mm uqoocoo

 

HH a30L0\mpqmocou voLfimm mo cofluznfltumfio >ocozcmgm .owlm magma

HHH Hm<m ”Hmmh onH<Zmom Hmmozou

165

 

530000
P010000

Iii!

n:.mF

n~.>

u—.mm

MPOOON

up.»

u=.mp
n=.mp
u=.mF
«m.o=
u—.mm

MONNN"

nm.wm
u:.mp
um.—o
nw.om
u=.mp
u=.mp

NNMCDNLH

aw.om
um.oo
an.»

am.o=
a:.mp
um.om

=N\O'—O\=’

RR R
00530!~
000NOF

cosmxcaxm
omoauxumm
58E:
332?:
seasons
88:53

 

mLoom
acoocom

otoom
3mm accuses

ocoom
3mm acoogom

ocoom
3mm accuses

3mm accused

paoocoo

 

HH asosu\muqmocoo cocwmm ho cOwusoHLumHo xocmscmcm

”Hmmh onh<2mOm hmmuzou

.FPI: manmh

CONCEPT FORMATION TEST:

166

PART III

 

 

 

 

 

Table H-12. Frequency Distribution of Paired Concepts in Serial
Position/Group II
Concept Percent Raw Percent Raw Percent
Score: Score Score: Score Score: Score
1 Correct 2 Correct Never
N = 13 N = 13 Correct
N : 13
Loud/Soft 7 7.7% 5 38.5% 1 O
Fast/Slow 4 30.8% 7 53.8% 2 15.4%
High/Low 4 30.8% 7 53.8% 2 15.4%
Up/Down 7 53.8% 4 30.8% 2 15.4%
Far/Close 3 23.1% 0 76.9% 0 O
Skip/Step 5 38.5% 7 53.8% 1 7.7%
Table H-13. Frequency Distribution/Group IIa
Raw Score Subjects Percentage of Subject
TOTALS N = 13 Population
15 4 30.8%
16 1 7.7%
17 1 7.7%
18 2 15.4%
20 1 7.7%
21 3 23.1%
25 1 7.7%

 

a Total possible score =

36.

 

CONCEPT FORMATION TEST:

I67

PART III

 

 

Table H-14. Frequency Distribution of Serial Position
Responses/Group IIa
Raw Score Subjects Percentage of Subject
Totals N=13 Population
4 1 7.7%
5 1 7.7%
7 2 15.4%
8 1 7.7%
9 3 23.1%
10 4 30.8%
12 1 7.7%

 

a Total Possible Score=12

Table H-15.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON SUB-POPULATIONS

A Comparison Between Pitch Discrimination and Pre-
Twentieth-Century Music Preference Scores

 

 

No. of Items No. of Subjects Pitch Discrimination Standard
Preferred N=33 Mean Score Deviation
1 8 5.7500 1.2817
2 16 5.0625 1.4818
3 5 5.4000 1.1402
4 4 5.0000 1.8257
5 O O O
Tbtal 5.2727 Total 1.3981

Mean SD

Score

 

 

Table H-16.

168

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON SUB-POPULATIONS

A Comparison Between Pitch Discrimination and Twentieth-

Century Music Scores

 

 

 

 

 

No. of Items No. of Subjects Pitch Discrimination Standard
Preferred N=33 Mean Score Deviation
1 4 5.0000 1.8257
2 5 5.4000 1.1402
3 16 5.0625 1.4818
4 8 5.7500 1.2817
5 O O 0

Total 5.2727 Total 1.3981
Mean SD
Score
Table H-17. A Comparison Between Pitch Discrimination and Concept
Formation Scores/Group I
Concept No. of Subjects Pitch Discrimination Standard
Scores N=20 Mean Scores Deviation
0- 8 1 7.0000 0
9-11 9 5.5556 1.0138
12-14 8 5.3750 1.5980
15-16 2 4.5000 .7071
Total 5.4500 Total 1.2763
Mean SD

Score

 

 

166?

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON SUB-POPULATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

Table H-18. A Comparison Between Pitch Discrimination and Concept
Formation Scores/Group II
Concept No. of Subjects Pitch Discrimination Standard
Scores N=13 Mean Scores Deviation
16-18 4 5.5000 2.3805
19-21 4 4.0000 1.4142
Hi=25 1 6.0000 0
Total 5.0000 Total 1.5811
Mean SD
Score
Table H-19. A Comparison Between Pitch Discrimination and
Questionnaire Scores
Questionnaire No. of Subjects Pitch Discrimination Standard
Totals N=33 Mean Scores Deviation
O- 8 2 7.5000 .7071
9-11 9 5.0000 1.3229
12—14 10 5.2000 1.2293
15-17 10 5.3000 1.4181
18—19 2 4.5000 2.1213
Total 5.2727 Total 1.3981
Mean SD

Score

 

 

Table H-ZO.

170

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON SUB-POPULATIONS

A Comparison Between Pre-Twentieth-Century Music and

Concept Formation Scores/Group I

 

 

 

 

 

Concept No. of Subjects Pre-20th-Century Standard
Scores N=20 Mean Scores Deviation
O- 8 1 2.0000 0
9-11 9 2.1111 1.0541
12-14 8 1.7500 .7071
15-16 2 2.0000 1.4142
Total 1.9500 Total .8870
Mean SD
Score
Table H-21. A Comparison Between Twentieth-Century Music and Concept
Formation Scores/Group I
Concept No. of Subjects 20th-Century Standard
Scores N=20 Mean Scores Deviation
0- 8 1 3.0000 0
9-11 9 2.8889 1.0541
12-14 8 3.2500 .7071
15-16 2 3.0000 1.4142
Total 3.0500 Total .8870

Mean
Score

SD

 

 

171

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON SUB-POPULATIONS

Table H-22. A Comparison Between Pre-Twentieth-Century Music and
Concept Formation Scores/Group II

 

 

 

Concept No. of Subjects Pre-20th-Century Standard
Scores N=13 Mean Scores Deviation
0-15 4 1.7500 .5000
16-18 4 2.2500 .5000
19-21 4 3.5000 1.0000
H1225 1 2.0000 0
Total 2.4615 Total .9674
Mean SD
Score

 

Table H-23. A Comparison Between Twentieth-Century Music and Concept
Formation Scores/Group II

 

 

Concept No. of Subjects 20th-Century Standard
Scores N=13 Mean Scores Deviation
0-15 4 3.2500 .5000
16-18 4 2.7500 .5000
19-21 4 1.5000 1.0000
H1225 1 3.0000 0
Total 2.5385 Total .9674
Mean SD

Score

 

172

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON SUB-POPULATIONS

Table H-24. A Comparison Between Pre-Twentieth-Century Music
and Questionnaire Scores

 

 

Questionnaire No. of Subjects Pre-20th-Century Standard
Totals N=33 Mean Scores Deviation
O- 8 2 3.0000 1.4142
9—11 9 2.0000 .8660
12—14 10 2.3000 .9487
15-17 10 2.1000 .9944
18-19 2 1.5000 .7071
Total 2.1515 Tbtal .9395
Mean SD
Score

 

Table H-25. A Comparison Between Twentieth-Century Music and
Questionnaire Scores

 

 

Questionnaire No. of Subjects 20th-Century Standard
Totals N=33 Mean Scores Deviation
O— 8 2 2.0000 1.4142
12-14 10 2.7000 .9487
15-17 10 2.9000 .9944
18-19 2 3.5000 .7071
Total 2.8485 Total .9395
Mean SD

Score

 

173
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON SUB-POPULATIONS

Table H-26. A Comparison Between Questionnaire and Concept Formation
Scores/Group I

 

 

Concept No. of Subjects Questionnaire Standard
Scores N=20 Mean Scores Deviation
O— 8 1 15.0000 0
9-11 9 13.4444 3.6780
12-14 8 13.7500 1.7525
15-16 2 14.0000 1.4142
Total 13.7000 Total 2.6577
Mean SD
Score

 

 

Table H-27. A Comparison Between Questionnaire and Concept Formation
Scores/Group II

 

 

Concept No. of Subjects Questionnaire Standard
Scores N=13 Mean Scores Deviation
0-15 4 10.5000 1.7321
16-18 4 13.2500 5.0580
19-21 4 12.5000 2.3805
Hi=25 1 14.0000 0
Total 12.2308 Total 3.1925
Mean SD

Score

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andress, Barbara L.; Heimann, Hope M.; Rinehart, Carroll A.;
and Talbert, E. Gene. Music 1o Early Childhood.
Washington, DAL: Music Educators National
Conference, 1973.

 

Aronoff, Francis W. "Guiding Cognitive and Effective
Learning in Pre-Kindergarten Music." Doctoral
Dissertation, Columbia University, 1968.

Beadle, Muriel. A Child's Mind. New York: Anchor Books,
published by arrangement with Doubleday & Co”
Inc., 1971.

 

Beethoven, Ludwig van. Trio for Pianoforte, Clgrinety (or
Violin) and Violoncello. Op. 11 inIBU Major,
Movement I. London, England: Ernst Eulenburg
Ltd., n.d.

 

Bentley, Arnold. Musical Ability 1o Young Children and Its
Measurement. London: George G. Harrap & Co.,
Ltd., 1966.

 

 

 

Berg, Alban. Vier StUcke Ffir Klarinette Und Klavier. Op.
5, No. 2, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania: Theodore
Presser Co., renewed copyright by Helen Berg,
1952.

Bruner, Jerome. Toward o Theory of Instruction. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, 1966.

 

Bruner, Jerome. "The Course of Cognitive Growths" American
Psychologist, Vol. 19, (January 1964).

 

Bryant, Peter. Perception and Understanding 1o Young
Children: 52 Experimental Approach. New York:
Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1974.

 

 

 

Cage, John. Sonata for Clarinet. New York: Henmar Press,
Inc., 1963.

 

Crain, William C. Theories of Development. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980.

 

174

 

175

Drexler, Ethel Natalie. "A Study of the Development of the
Ability to Carry a Melody at the Preschool Level."
Child Development, Vol. 9, No. 3, (September
19387.

Farnsworth, Paul. The Social Psychology oi Music. Iowa:
The Iowa State University Press, 1969.

 

Fullard, William G. "Operant Training of Aural Musical
Discriminations with Preschool Children." Journal
.2: Research lo Music Education, Vol. 15, (Fall
1967).

 

Galton, Francis. Hereditary Genius: £2 Inquiry Into Its
Laws and Consequences. London: MacMillan and

Co.,-T869.

Gesell, Arnold, and Ilg, Francis L. Child Development: go
Introduction 22 the Study of Human Growth. New
York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1949.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gordon, Edwin. Primaxy Measures of Music Audiation: A
Musical Aptitude Test for Kindergarten and Primary
Grade Children. Chicago, Ulinois: G.I.A.
Publications, Inc., 1979.

 

 

Gordon, Edwin. The Psychology of Music Teaching. New
Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1971.

 

 

Greenberg, Marvin. "Research in Music in Early Childhood
Education: A Survey With RecommendationsJ'
Council for Research 1o Music Education, No. 45,
(Winter 1976X7

 

 

Greer, R. Douglass; Dorow, Laura, and Hanser, Susan. "Music
Discrimination Training and the Music Selection
Behavior of Nursery and Primary Level ChildrenJ'
Council for Research lo Music Education, No. 35,
(Winter 1973).

 

 

 

Hattwick, Melvin S. "The Role of Pitch Level and Pitch
Range in the Singing of Preschool, First Grade,
and Second Grade ChildrenJ' Child Development,
Vol. 4,1933.

 

Hissem, Irene. "A New Approach to Music for Young
ChildrenJ’ Child Development, Vol.1“ 1933.

 

Jersild, Arthur T. and Bienstock, Sylvia F. "A Study of the
Development of Children's Ability to SingJ'
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 7,

(October—T934).

 

 

176

Jersild, Arthur T. and Bienstock, Sylvia F. "The Influence
of Training on the Vocal Ability of Three Year Old
Children." Child Development, Vol. 2, 1931.

 

Jetter, June Thompsen. "An Instructional Model for Teaching
Identification and Naming of Music Phenomena to
Preschool Children)’ Journal oi Research ip Music
Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, (Summer 197 .

 

 

Kirkpatrick, William C. "Relationships Between the Singing
Ability of Pre-Kindergarten Children and Their
Home Musical Environmentfl Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1962.

Krenek, Ernst. Monologue for Clarinet Solo. New York:
Rongwen Music, 1958.

 

 

Kresteff, Assen D. "The Growth of Musical Awareness in
Children." Council for Research io Music
Education, No. 1, (June 1963).

 

 

 

Krommer, Franz. Concerto io pp Major for Clarinet and
Orchestra, Movement II, from Musica Antiqua
Bohemica, Prague: Artia, 1953.

 

 

Landreth, Catherine. Preschool Learning and Teaching. New
York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972.

 

Lundin, Robert. 52 Objective Psychology oi Music, 2nd ed”
New York: The Ronald Press, Co., 1967.

 

McDowell, Robert H. "The Development and Implementation of
a Rhythmic Ability Test Designed for Four-Year-Old
Preschool Children." Doctoral Dissertation,
University of North Carolina at Greenboro, 1974.

Michel, Paul. "The Optimum Development of Musical Abilities
in the First Years of Life." Psychology oi Music,
Vol. 1, No. 2, (June 1973).

 

Miller, Samuel D. "A Theory of Musicality as it Correlates
to General Intelligence." College Musician, Vol.
17, 1977.

 

Monroe, Wil].£L "Tone Perception and Music Interest of
Young Children." Pedagogical Seminany, 1903.

 

Montessori, Maria. The Secret oi Childhood. Translated and
edited by Barbara Barclay Carter, Calcutta: Orient
Longmans, 1962.

 

 

Moog, Helmut, "The Development of Musical Experience in
Children of Pre-School AgeJ' Psychology oi Music,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 1976.

 

177

Moog, Helmut. The Musical Experience oi the Pre-School
Child. Translated by Claudia Clark, London,
England: Schott Music, 1976.

 

Moorhead, Gladys Evelyn and Pond, Donald. Music of Young
Children. Santa Barbara: Pillsbury Foundation
for Advancement of Music Education, 1978.

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Concerto for Clarinet and
Orchestra in A Major, K. 622, Movements I and II,
from Mozart's Werke. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Edwards Music Reprints, Vol. 27, 1955.

 

Mussen, Paul and Eisenbert-Berg, Nancy. Roots of Caring,
Sharing and Helping: The Development of Prosocial
Behaviorio hlldren. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman and Company, 1977.

Petzold, Robert. "Child Development." Documentary Report
of the Ann Arbor Symposium. Reston, Virginia:
Music Educators National Conference, 1981.

 

Piaget, Jean. The Origins of Intelligence. New York:
International Universities Press, 1966.

 

 

Piaget, Jean. The Psychology of Intelligence. Totowa, New
Jersey: Littlefield, Adams, & Co., 1976.

 

 

Pronko, N. H. and Bowles, J. W. Empirical Foundations oi
Ps chology. New York: Rinehart & Co., Inc.,
95 .

 

Rainbow, Ed. "Constructs of Musical Aptitudeu" Journal oi
Research io Music Education, Vol. 13, (Spring,
1965).

I I
Revesz, Geza. Introduction to the Psychology of Music.
Translated by'(3.I. C. DeCourcy, Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press, 1954.

 

 

 

Schoen, Max. The Psychology of Music. New York: The
Ronald Press, Co., 1940.

Schuckert, Robert F. and McDonald, Ruth L. "An Attempt to
Modify the Musical Preferences of Preschool
ChildrenJ' Journal of Research in Music

Education, Vol. 16,-(Spring 1968):

Scott, Carol R. "Pitch Concept Formation in Preschool
Children." Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Washington, 1977.

Seashore, Carl. Psychology of Music. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc., 1967.

 

 

178

Skinner, B. F. About Behaviorism, 1st ed., New York:
Knopf, 1974.

 

 

Skinner, B. F. The Technology oi Teachin . New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1958.

Smith, Robert B. "The Effect of Group Vocal Training on the
Singing Ability of Nursery School ChildrenJ'
Journal of Research io Music Education, Vol. 11,

WWI—1933).

Standing, E. M. The Montessori Revolution io Education.
New York: Schocken Books, 1966.

 

 

 

Stravinsky, Igor. Three Pieces for Clarinet Solo. Nos. 1
and 2, New York: Belwin Mills Publishing Corp”
n.d.

 

Updgraff, Ruth; Heiliger, Louise; and Learned, Janet. "The
Effect of Training Upon the Singing Ability and
Musical Interest of Three-, Four-, and Five-Year-
Old Children." Universiiy oi Iowa Studies io
Child Welfare, Vol. 14, 1937.

 

 

 

Vance, Thomas, and Grandprey, Medora. "Objective Methods of
Ranking Nursery School Children on Certain Aspects
of Musical Capacityfl' Journal oi Educational
Psychology, Vol. 22, 1931.

 

 

Wagner, Richard. Adagio for Clarinet and Strings. New
York: McGinnis & Marx, nJL

 

Watson, John. Behaviorism. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,
Inc., 1924-1925.

 

Williams, Harold M.;.Sievers, Clement; and Hattwick, Melvin
S. "The Measurement of Musical DevelopmentJ‘
University oi Iowa Studies io Child Welfare, Vol.
7, No. 1, 1932.

 

 

 

Williams, Harold M. and Hattwick, Melvin S. "The Measure-
ment of Musical Development 113' University oi
Iowa Studies io Child Welfare, Vol. 11, No. 2,
1935.

 

 

 

Young, William T. "Musical Development in Preschool Dis-
advantaged ChildrenJ' Journal of Research in

Music Education, Vol. 22, (Falf—79745. _—

Zimmerman, Marilyn P. "Child Development and Music
Education." Documentary Report oi the Ann Arbor
Symposium. Reston, Virginia: Music Educators
National Conference, 1981.

 

 

 

 

 

179

Zimmerman, Marilyn P. Musical Characteristcs oi Young
Children. Washington, ILC.: Music Educators
National Conference, 1971.