TEACHING AND REHEARSAL BEHAVIORS OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC TEACHERS

Marla Beebe

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF MUSIC

August 2007

Committee:

Elaine J. Colprit, Advisor

Nancy Sugden

© 2007

Marla Beebe

All Rights Reserved iii

ABSTRACT

Elaine J. Colprit, Advisor

The purpose of this study was to examine teacher verbalizations in band rehearsals. Three instrumental music teachers with two ensembles of different levels of playing experience were chosen as subjects. One rehearsal of each ensemble was recorded and divided into rehearsal frames. Using SCRIBE: Simple Computer Recording Interface for Behavioral Evaluation, data were collected relative to (a) aspects of music performance rehearsed, (b) sequence of instruction, (c) use of positive and negative feedback, (d) the effect of directives on student performance, and (e) articulation of performance problems in terms of instrumental technique or musical outcome. Primary attention was given to differences in teacher and student behavior depending on an ensemble’s level of playing experience. Results indicated that teacher modeling of targeted music passages led to substantial improvement in student performance. All directors described musical problems in terms of musical outcome more often than as change in physical behavior. Directives requesting change in physical behavior led to successful student performance more often than those requesting a change in musical outcome. iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Elaine Colprit and Dr. Nancy Sugden.

They encouraged me each step of the way, from helping me develop the content of the study through editing revisions. Each has helped me become a better researcher, writer, and thinker both during the thesis preparation process and as mentors outside of this context. Special thanks to the three directors who agreed to be a part of this study. They were more than willing to open their rehearsals and to allow me to analyze their teaching. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE...... 1

Introduction...... 1

Purpose of the Study ...... 3

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 5

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...... 15

Subjects...... 15

Procedure ...... 15

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS...... 18

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION...... 34

Suggestions for Further Research ...... 41

Implications for Music Education...... 41

REFERENCES ...... 43

APPENDIX A. TABLES...... 47 vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 New Music Ensemble Rehearsal Frame Timeline with no Performance Trial ...... 19

2 New Music Ensemble Rehearsal Frame with One Performance Trial ...... 20

3 New Music Ensemble Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Two Targets and Multiple

Performance Trials...... 21

4 University Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Director Modeling and Multiple

Performance Trials...... 22

5 University Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Director Modeling and Multiple

Performance Trials...... 23

6 High School Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Modeling a Corrective

Directive Early in the Frame...... 24

7 Seventh Grade Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Question

(Stu = Student Talk)...... 25

8 Seventh Grade Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Cycling (S/St = Student Talk) ...... 26

9 Seventh and Eighth Grade Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline Showing Concise

Instruction…...... 27

10 Beginning Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Modeling ...... 28

CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE

Introduction

Many researchers have investigated what constitutes effective teaching (Cavitt, 2003;

Goolsby, 1997; Hendel, 1995; Price, 1983; Yarbrough & Price, 1989). One area in which a teacher must be competent is in creating a logical sequence of instruction. Rosenshine (1976) pointed out in his review of research that general educators found direct instruction promising. In direct instruction lessons are scripted and arranged in small steps with clearly outlined goals and prescribed teacher feedback. This results in teacher-centered instruction and leaves little room for a student’s response to differ from what is expected. In a typical teaching situation a teacher must adapt the sequence of instruction to a variety of student responses. If, when reading, a student struggles to recognize certain words and consequently cannot read a selected passage, the teacher may need to deviate from a planned sequence to review these words. Music educators must make similar adaptations as well. For example, a band director may identify a section of a piece in which the trumpets are slowing the tempo. The band director initially focuses the sequence of instruction on maintaining a steady tempo. However, in the midst of this particular sequence of instruction, the band director may find that all students were not using the correct articulation in this passage. The band director might then diverge from his/her sequence to address that problem.

Music researchers have studied both sequence of instruction and feedback. Yarbrough and Price (1989) connected a model of direct instruction to music rehearsals. They pared down the direct instruction outline to a cycle of teaching called a sequential pattern of instruction. This sequence has three basic components: teacher presentation of task, student response, and reinforcement (approvals and disapprovals). Price (1983) found that when a teacher did utilize a sequence of academic task presentation, directions, student performance, and feedback, greater 2 gains were made in music improvement than in other treatment groups in which teachers provided neither verbal nor nonverbal feedback. In a complete teaching cycle a teacher responds to the students after they have performed the material. Yarbrough and Price (1989) also found that when experienced teachers gave approvals and disapprovals, disapprovals were delivered at a much higher rate than approvals whereas novice teachers were decidedly more approving in their verbal feedback. Kostka (1984) also examined the delivery of teacher feedback in her study of piano teachers of all experience levels and found that in the private lesson setting, the ratio of approvals to disapprovals was nearly 1:1.

Duke (1994) described teaching as comprised of “rehearsal frames” in which the teacher identifies a target and directs the student through a sequence of performance trials designed to move in incremental steps toward a performance goal (p. 84). A rehearsal frame ends when a target is finally played in its original context or when a teacher decides to move on. A target, as defined by Duke, is “the conductor’s identification of a specific musical-instructional goal”

(1994, p. 86). Each directive given by a teacher guides a student through successive approximations of a target. In addition to directives, teacher verbalizations typically include information, questions, positive and negative verbal feedback, and off-task talking (Duke, 1999).

Within rehearsal frames, a music teacher addresses certain areas of concern in student performance when selecting targets. Goolsby’s 1997 study comparing preservice and three career levels of teachers used these areas of concern as performance variables. They included posture, rhythm/tempo, dynamics, notes, and style. He found rhythm/tempo was addressed most frequently by all three career levels of teachers, but expert teachers also addressed tone, intonation, expression/phrasing, articulations, and guided listening to a greater degree than novices. In another study, Cavitt (2003) found intonation, articulation, and rhythm to be most frequently addressed by excellent band directors. 3 According to Saunders and Worthington (1990), succinct communication of directives results in more time for student performance. Goolsby (1996, 1999) found that experienced teachers spent more time on performance activities than verbal instruction. Hendel (1995) studied nine excellent elementary music teachers. She found they spent on average 10 seconds in instructional time per instructional task while adjusting to meet students’ learning needs and delivering appropriate feedback.

Empirical research has been conducted in order to examine the substance of teacher verbalizations. Cavitt (2004) applied the terms “knowledge of results” (verbalizing results as

“correct” or “incorrect” to the student), “knowledge of performance” (communicating what was wrong with a student’s performance), and “augmented feedback” (verbalizing the action or change in behavior the student should do to correct the problem). She found that in respect to intonation errors, in each rehearsal frame teachers averaged two and a half augmented feedback statements, two knowledge of results statements, and slightly less than two knowledge of performance verbalizations. Research has shown that the ability level of the students may change the type or frequency of verbalizations delivered by the teacher. The type of directions given by the teacher may differ as well as indicated by Colprit’s study (2003) in which students working from Suzuki books 1-3 received instructions on changing physical behaviors to a greater extent than more advanced students who received directives articulated as descriptions of musical outcome.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the present study was to examine teacher verbalizations in band rehearsals. Through systematic analysis of rehearsals I recorded data relative to (a) aspects of music performance, (b) sequence of instruction, (c) use of positive and negative feedback, (d) the effect of directives on student performance, and (e) articulation of problems in terms of 4 instrumental technique or musical outcome. Three music directors who each teach two ensembles of differing experience levels and levels of advancement were selected. Director A taught a college band comprised of non-music majors and less experienced music majors, and a new music ensemble comprised of graduate music majors. Director B taught a high school band and a middle school band. Director C taught a beginning band and a middle school band. One rehearsal of each ensemble was taped using a digital video camera, which was focused on the teacher. The videotapes were divided into rehearsal frames as defined by Duke (1994). Data on teacher verbalizations was recorded using SCRIBE: Simple Computer Recording Interface for

Behavioral Evaluation, Version 4.0.2 (Duke & Stammen, 2006). Frequency, rate per minute, proportion of rehearsal frame, and mean episode durations of specific teacher verbalizations comprised the data. Instances of positive and negative feedback were tallied as were the number of times a teacher communicated corrections regarding either musical outcome or instrumental technique. In addition, the quality of student performance trials were categorized as evidence of either a successful or an unsuccessful rehearsal frame. 5 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Many researchers have investigated what constitutes effective teaching (Cavitt, 2003;

Goolsby, 1997; Hendel, 1995; Price, 1983; Yarbrough & Price, 1989). During the 1970s general education researchers developed what they termed “direct instruction” (Rosenshine, 1979). One of the distinguishing characteristics of this method is its use of scripted lessons with small steps, clearly outlined goals, and prescribed teacher feedback. Considerable thought goes into writing a required sequence of instruction and some anticipation of student difficulties must be considered.

However, such rigidity leaves little room for a student’s response to differ from what is expected.

Rubin (1989) termed teachers who teach “by formula” as prescriptive teachers (p. 31). He continued by noting that even the least skilled teachers can follow the formula, but such teaching takes the teacher’s perceptive judgment out of the process. Consequently, this results in teacher- centered instruction.

Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) emphasized the use of a learner-centered environment in which the teacher is constantly diagnosing the students’ understanding of what is being taught and adjusting the instruction to match this. This incorporates Rubin’s (1989) more ideal teacher—the autonomous teacher who makes decisions based on a class’s needs. While a thoughtful teacher may reflect on the day’s lessons, has an idea as to which students “get it,” and plans the next lesson accordingly, astute teachers utilize “in-flight decision-making” behavior during the lesson (McNair, 1978-79). McNair (1978-79) utilized stimulated recall interviews to investigate how a teacher goes about making these in-flight decisions. Lessons from 10 teachers totaling 60 lessons were reviewed with each teacher in an effort to determine the thought process of teachers when they teach. The teachers did have a plan going into the lesson, but adjusted the lesson plan according to what they suspected was occurring in the individual students’ learning process. McNair also concluded that it isn’t so much that in-flight decision-making results in a 6 completely different instructional path, but rather a refining of the lesson in the teacher’s mind.

Morine-Dershimer (1978-79) found comparable results in a similar study. Westerman (1991) compared the decision-making process in expert and novice teachers. She noted that when expert teachers planned a lesson, they anticipated student problems. Therefore, if and when these problems arose, the teachers were able to quickly modify their instruction yet continue toward the same goal. Novice teachers, on the other hand, had three distinct aspects of their teaching: the planning, the teaching, and the evaluating. While master teachers certainly put considerable thought into their lessons, they are not bound to the inflexibility of a direct instruction model or a lesson plan, and have a grasp on the skill of in-flight decision-making.

While these studies involved general education teachers, music researchers have also studied both sequence of instruction and feedback. Yarbrough and Price (1989) conceived of a cycle of teaching, which is based on direct instruction, termed a sequential pattern of instruction.

This cycle of teaching has three basic components: teacher presentation of task, student response, and teacher reinforcement (approvals and disapprovals). Yarbrough and Price completed a study involving freshman music education majors (n = 30), sophomore music education majors

(n = 19), experienced instrumental music teachers (n = 15), and experienced choral music teachers (n = 15) in which lessons were evaluated for the existence of a complete sequential pattern of instruction. Results indicated that all but freshmen subjects spent a greater percentage of time using incorrect cycles of teaching than correct cycles of teaching. They also found that when experienced teachers gave approvals and disapprovals, disapprovals were delivered at a much higher rate than approvals, whereas the novice teachers were decidedly approving in their verbal feedback. Price (1983) compared a university band’s response to different instructional treatments. When a sequence of academic task presentation, directions, student performance, and 7 feedback occurred, greater improvements were made in student performance than in other treatment groups in which teachers provided neither verbal nor nonverbal feedback.

Speer (1994) studied sequential patterns of instruction in the private piano lesson setting.

Twenty-two piano teachers audio-recorded two piano lessons: one lesson was of a student under the age of 11 and the second lesson involved a student aged 11 or older. Transcripts of each tape were created and coded for certain elements of sequential patterns of instruction. These elements included: teacher presentation of academic musical information, modeling, coaching, directive comments, social-behavior comments, off-task statements, student performance, and student talk.

The researcher collected data on the durations of time spent in these different components or the number of times each element occurred. He also determined the total number of teacher reinforcing comments, approval/disapproval ratios for reinforcing comments, and specific/nonspecific ratios for reinforcing comments. In addition, Speer recorded incidents of reinforcement, and complete/correct, complete/incorrect, and incomplete teaching patterns. He found that teachers used academic teacher talk most often as their method of instruction as compared to teacher modeling and teacher coaching. Teachers spent only about six percent of the lesson time on verbal reinforcement and of that reinforcement, 63% was positive.

Based on his earlier studies and similar research, Price (1989) made several recommendations that may lead to improving one’s teaching. He emphasized that even before leading an ensemble through a performance attempt, teachers should provide students with an element in the piece on which to focus and explain how they were to execute it. By taking these initial steps, the teacher may be proactive and perhaps lessen the number of mistakes a student would make in the subsequent performance attempts. This in turn allows a positive environment in which to teach and learn. Price also suggested that teachers address one problem at a time.

Instead of listing each part of a music selection needing improvement, a teacher should improve 8 one aspect to an acceptable level and then move on to the next item. Again, this would improve students’ success rates and allow more opportunity for students to play.

Arnold (1995) suggested teachers videotape themselves teaching and focus on the use of sequential patterns of instruction. His study included two groups (N = 16) of instrumental music teachers: one that received operational definitions of terms related to sequential patterns of instruction and one group that did not. Subjects analyzed a series of four rehearsals, which they had taught. Results indicated that the focused observation of the experimental group led to a significant increase of time spent in music activities within a rehearsal and an increase in the frequency of complete teaching cycles.

Duke and Madsen (1991) investigated different performance outcomes of proactive and reactive teaching. Subjects of this study were 84 non-music majors in a university music fundamentals class. Subjects were instructed to teach a friend to sing the chorus of “Skip to My

Lou” while strumming a simple accompaniment on the guitar. One group of subjects was given a terminal objective (the friend can sing and play the song correctly) and the suggestion to make the lesson a positive experience for their students. The other group of subjects was given, in addition to these instructions, a detailed 12-step task hierarchy through which to direct their students. One result of the study found that the teachers who used the task hierarchy had students who performed accurately in 87% of performance trials. Students taught without the use of the task hierarchy performed accurately in 76% of the trials. The observers who analyzed the lessons also noticed that the students of teachers using a hierarchy performed the song at a more accomplished level than the other students.

Duke (1994) identified teaching as comprised of “rehearsal frames” (p. 84). He proposed this concept to determine the effectiveness of rehearsal technique in a band setting. In a rehearsal frame the teacher identifies a target, which is defined by Duke as “the conductor’s identification 9 of a specific musical-instructional goal” (p. 86). An example may be found in the intonation of a divided final chord played by the clarinet section. The teacher directs a student or section through a sequence of performance trials designed to move in incremental steps toward that performance goal. In continuing the example, the director may evaluate the intonation of the clarinetists playing the tonic and singling specific students out as needed, adding the fifth of the chord to the held tonic and adjusting those students as necessary, and finally instructing the clarinetists playing the third of the chord to fit their note into that open fifth interval. Once the intonation settles, the director may cue them to play the chord several times in tune from the attack, and then move from the penultimate measure into the final chord. A rehearsal frame ends when a target is finally played in the original context or when the teacher decides to move on. In this case, the director may instruct the entire ensemble to play the final chord and expect that the clarinet sections’ shaky intonation is resolved (which may or may not be the case and the director would have the option of either spending more time on the clarinet sections’ intonation or moving on to a new target). Important components of leading the students through these steps are the directives given by the teacher. In addition to directives, teacher verbalizations typically include information, questions, positive and negative verbal feedback, and off-task talking

(Duke, 1999).

Within rehearsal frames, a music teacher addresses certain areas of concern in student performance when selecting targets. Goolsby (1997) completed a study using these areas of concern as performance variables. They included intonation, posture, rhythm/tempo, dynamics, notes, and style. Goolsby selected 30 band directors of which 10 were expert teachers, 10 were novice teachers, and 10 were student teachers. He collected data from two videotaped rehearsals of each teacher by tallying the number of times teachers addressed these performance variables.

Goolsby found rhythm/tempo was addressed most frequently by all three career levels of 10 teachers. However, expert teachers also addressed tone, intonation, expression/phrasing, articulations, and guided listening to a greater degree than novices.

Cavitt (2003) viewed rehearsal videotapes of 10 expert instrumental music teachers. Four rehearsal tapes were collected from each teacher and divided into rehearsal frames. Cavitt recorded the category of the target from each rehearsal frame. Results indicated that intonation/tone, articulation, and rhythm to be most frequently addressed by these band directors.

According to Saunders and Worthington (1990), succinct communication of directives results in more time for student performance. Goolsby (1996) investigated time use in an instrumental ensemble rehearsal. Thirty band directors were videotaped conducting two rehearsals. Goolsby analyzed the tapes to determine the amount of time the director spent in various rehearsal activities. The experienced teachers spent more than twice as much time in performance activities than in verbal instruction. Conversely, the most inexperienced teachers

(student teachers) spent significantly more time in verbal instruction than did the experienced or novice teachers (p < .01). Goolsby concluded that “the percentage of class time devoted to actual performance seems to be a defining characteristic of the experienced teacher” (p. 295). In a later study (Goolsby, 1999) comparing novice teachers (n = 10) and experienced teachers’ (n = 10) rehearsal of an identical piece of music, results were comparable in that novice teachers

(m = 43.9) spent significantly more time giving verbal instruction in a rehearsal than experienced teachers (m = 32.1, p < .05). Once again, the experienced teachers spent the majority of rehearsal time in performance activities.

Teaching effectiveness encompasses both verbal and non-verbal behavior. Byo and

Austin (1994) investigated the behaviors of both novice and expert conductors. The subjects included six novice and six expert conductors. All subjects were videotaped conducting a band rehearsal. A 15-minute segment of this tape was isolated for study. The researchers labeled each 11 non-verbal behavior as one of six categories: Right Arm/Hand, Left Arm/Hand, Eye Contact,

Facial Expression, Body Movement, and Cuing. Each behavior was further categorized into up to five sub-categories under each label. Experts conducted in a more expressive manner and maintained eye contact to a greater extent than novices. Expert conductors were both similar and dissimilar in the ways they incorporated non-verbal gestures in their conducting. However, each was considered a highly accomplished director, suggesting to the researchers that beginning conductors need not consider one style of conducting to be the only correct method. Byo (1990) focused on non-verbal behavior and trained undergraduate conductors to demonstrate high- intensity and low-intensity gestures. These students were videotaped conducting specific intervals of high-intensity and low-intensity motions. Music majors, non-music majors, and high school band and choir students viewed the videotapes and indicated at what level of intensity the conductors were trying to convey. Subjects recognized the correct intensity level 77% of the time. Byo concluded that the intensity of conductor gestures can be discerned even in novice conductors by students of all age and ability levels.

Siebenaler (1997) analyzed teaching verbal and performance behaviors in piano lessons of both adults and children. Thirteen piano teachers selected one adult and one child and videotaped three consecutive lessons with each student. The researcher isolated an 8-12 minute segment of the lesson in which the student was working on a piece in progress. Specific teacher and student behaviors were coded and taken from the videos. The researcher then determined the quality of the students’ performance. Siebenaler analyzed the relationship between each teaching activity and the activity before it. An example of such a category would be “forward”—the assigned task is more complex than the one before it. Five expert piano teachers assessed the videotaped subjects on a 10-point scale as to the effectiveness of their teaching. Siebenaler found that less than five percent of a lesson excerpt incorporated teacher feedback. Regarding teacher 12 effectiveness, the experts considered lessons in which the teachers engaged in substantial performance, verbal instructions, and feedback to be more effective than lessons in which teachers were less dynamic in their teaching.

Price addressed the nature of feedback in his 1989 article, stating that it should be very specific. He noted that positive feedback tends to be less specific than negative feedback, which leads to a greater portion of rehearsal time devoted to communicating the details of negative feedback. Although not speaking specifically of music instruction, Tobias (1982) emphasized the multi-sided nature of feedback. Not only does it provide the student with confirmation of understanding or how to correct misconceptions, it also aids students in connecting new material to material already known. By encouraging advanced macroprocessing of instructional input— with feedback as a potential component—students may increase their level of achievement.

Kostka (1984) also addressed the delivery of teacher feedback in her study of private piano teachers. Forty-eight teachers agreed to be videotaped. A 14-minute section was extracted from each of 96 video-taped lessons. She found that regardless of the age of the piano students, the ratio of approvals to disapprovals was nearly equal.

Hendel (1995) studied nine excellent elementary music teachers. Hendel selected the teachers based on recommendations from local music supervisors and university music education faculty. Using both qualitative and quantitative measurement, she found these teachers were willing to adapt the rate of instruction to students’ learning needs. Furthermore, they did not sacrifice pacing to meet these needs. Hendel found the teachers averaged 10 seconds per unit of instruction time. In addition, teachers included reinforcement in 89% of the sequential patterns of instruction identified by Hendel.

Empirical research has been conducted to examine the substance of teacher verbalizations. Cavitt (2004) studied the type of feedback given by a band director in response to 13 incorrect intonation. She videotaped 10 excellent band directors conducting four rehearsals each for a total of 40 rehearsals. The rehearsals were divided into rehearsal frames and she selected 71 for extensive analysis. Cavitt applied the terms “knowledge of results” (verbalizing results as

“correct” or “incorrect” to a student), “knowledge of performance” (communicating what was wrong with a student’s performance), and “augmented feedback” (verbalizing the action or change in behavior a student should do to correct a problem). She found that in respect to intonation errors, in each rehearsal frame teachers averaged two and a half augmented feedback statements, two knowledge of results statements, and slightly less than two knowledge of performance verbalizations.

Skadsem (1997) studied the response of 144 college students and high school seniors to four ways in which a choral conductor can communicate dynamic change. These included conductor verbalization, printed dynamic markings, conductor gestures, and choir dynamic level.

The subjects sang “Michael, Row Your Boat Ashore” while listening to a choir through headphones, referring to the printed music in front of them, and watching a conductor on a TV screen. Changes in the choir’s volume, markings on the printed music, size of conducting gesture, and verbal instructions were used to create four conditions. Skadsem found that the most significant response to dynamic change occurred when subjects were given verbal instructions

(p < .01). This was consistent between high school and college students. While verbal instruction was the most effective method of communicating, the author advised readers to keep instructions as brief as the verbal instructions were in the study.

Colprit (2000) studied string lessons taught by 12 expert Suzuki teachers. The teachers chosen had been identified regionally or nationally as excellent teachers. An instructional segment of a work in progress was selected and divided into rehearsal frames. Utilizing SCRIBE

(Duke & Farra, 1997), Colprit recorded frequency and durations of chosen teacher and student 14 behaviors. She found rehearsal frames were composed of 45% teacher verbalizations.

Specifically, the main category of verbalization was directives, followed by information statements, approvals, questions, and disapprovals. The type of directions given by the teacher may differ, as indicated by Colprit’s study (2003). She studied 12 Suzuki teachers teaching string students of two levels of advancement. The students working from Suzuki books 1-3 received instructions on changing physical behaviors to a greater extent than more advanced students who received directives related to descriptions of musical outcome. For example, a beginning student may receive the specific verbal directive “move the second finger toward you.” More advanced students may be informed that F# was flat. 15 CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY

Subjects

Three experienced directors from a mid-western state were selected to participate in this study. Director A has taught instrumental music for 11 years in public schools, universities, and a professional ensemble. Director B has taught for eight years in the public schools and Director C has taught for two years in the public schools and was in the second year of teaching at a university lab school at the time of the videotaping. Each was director of at least two instrumental ensembles of different experience levels. Director A taught two ensembles at a mid- sized university: a band comprised of approximately 100 non-music majors and less experienced music majors (University Band) and a New Music Ensemble comprised of five graduate students. Director B taught two bands in a small school district: a seventh grade band of 25 students and a high school band of 61 members. Director C taught two bands in a small parochial elementary school: a seventh and eighth grade band of 75 members, and a beginning band of 70 students. All three band directors were male.

Procedure

Each director conducted two ensembles of differing music performance experience. The researcher defined performance experience as how long the students have played. With Directors

B and C, experience level was based on grade, while I considered students in University Band to have less playing experience than those in New Music Ensemble, but more experience than the public school students. One rehearsal of each ensemble was videotaped. Rehearsals were recorded in February and April using a Sony DCR-HC36 digital video camera and Sony

Premium Series digital videocassette tapes. The camera was placed in the back of the rehearsal room and focused on the director with the exception of one rehearsal. On this occasion, the 16 camera was placed to the side of the director in order to better hear his instructions delivered to the front row of players. Each rehearsal was approximately 35-50 minutes in duration.

I divided the videotapes of each rehearsal into rehearsal frames as defined by Duke

(1994). In a rehearsal frame a teacher identifies a target and directs a student through a sequence of performance trials designed to move in incremental steps toward a performance goal. “Warm- ups” used at the beginning of the rehearsal were included under the condition that they were used as a change agent, which was defined as a musical skill that was actively being worked on. Not included were warm-up activities such as a Bb concert scale in whole notes with no instruction given beyond telling the students to play it. The mean length of these rehearsal frames across all directors was between one minute and one minute and 25 seconds.

Each rehearsal frame was attached to the SCRIBE: Simple Computer Recording Interface for Behavior Evaluation program and data were collected using this program. The SCRIBE program allows a researcher to record frequency and duration of teacher and/or student behaviors. I recorded lengths of time that a teacher spoke; a teacher modeled (by singing, chanting, clapping, or playing on an instrument); and when individual students, small groups of students, or an entire ensemble played. The length of time that students talked was recorded as well. The teacher verbalizations (any spoken words in the course of a rehearsal) were then categorized as one of the following: (a) corrective directives—specific statements instructing students how to change either their behavior or the musical outcome given often in lieu of negative feedback, (b) directives—those “do-it” statements not related to altering a previously demonstrated student performance behavior, (c) positive feedback—comments telling students what they did well, (d) negative feedback—comments telling students what they did not do well,

(e) questions—inquiries in which a teacher expects a reply from students, (f) information— statements that supply students with some information, and (g) off-task—comments unrelated to 17 the target. Directives and those information statements explaining what students needed to do were further classified as either related to musical outcome or change in student physical behavior. For example, a teacher may direct a trombone student to play a passage more legato

(musical outcome) or the teacher may tell the student to maintain a continuous airflow between notes (change in behavior), which results in legato playing.

I judged rehearsal frames as successful or unsuccessful. A rehearsal frame considered successful contained a performance either matching the director’s expectation of the desired musical change (the target) or a closer approximation of it. An unsuccessful rehearsal frame lacked progress in students’ music performance between the initial performance and the final performance. In some cases I could not tell if improvement was made because I could hear only instrumentalists closest to the camera and performers across the room were not audible when the full band played. I also categorized each target by topic such as: (a) articulation,

(b) attacks/releases, (c) balance/blend, (d) dynamics, (e) intonation, (f) notes, (g) phrasing, (h) timing, and (i) tone. Other targets (such as “watching the conductor”) were classified as “other.”

The SCRIBE data was then exported to Microsoft Excel 2003 for analysis. For each teacher and student behavior I recorded frequency, rate per minute, time, percent of time, mean episode duration and standard deviation. The means of each were calculated for each ensemble.

In addition, the classifications of teacher verbalizations—corrective directives, directives, positive feedback, negative feedback, questions, information, or off-task— displayed frequency and rate per minute. I calculated means for each ensemble as well. Finally, each rehearsal frame had a total observation time and I computed a mean rehearsal frame duration for each ensemble rehearsal. 18 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS

Aspects of music performance targeted by the directors were categorized into 10 types: articulation, attacks/releases, balance/blend, dynamics, intonation, notes, phrasing, timing, tone, and other (e.g. watching the conductor). Timing included both rhythm and tempo targets.

Director A made dynamics a target most often (32.65% of targets) in University Band, while he made attacks/releases the predominant target (35.00% of targets) with New Music Ensemble (see

Appendix A, Table A1). In University Band, Director A addressed articulation (18.37% of targets), and attacks/releases (16.33% of targets). With his New Music Ensemble, Director A addressed performance aspects classified as “other” 25.00% of the targets and timing for 15.00% of the targets. Director A did not address tone as a target in University Band, and balance/blend, intonation, and notes as targets in the New Music Ensemble.

Director B emphasized timing as the target in 44.44% of the total targets with his seventh grade band, while focusing on balance/blend most often (25.93% of targets) with his high school band (see Appendix A, Table A2). In his seventh grade band, Director B targeted correct notes second most often (22.22% of targets) and articulation and tone (each with 14.81% of targets) less often than notes. In his high school band, Director B targeted attacks/releases (18.52% of targets) second most often and articulation and dynamics (each with 14.81% of targets) less often than attacks/releases. Director B did not work on balance/blend, dynamics, or intonation as targets in his seventh grade band; notes in his high school band; and phrasing in either band.

Director C selected articulation and timing as targets most often (each with 30.77% of targets) with his beginning band and timing most often (32.23% of targets) with his seventh and eighth grade band (see Appendix A, Table A3). Second most often, notes (15.38% of targets) were a target with his beginning band. With Director C’s seventh and eighth grade band, timing was followed by articulation and dynamics (19.35%) as targets most frequently selected. Four 19 performance aspects were not addressed as targets by Director C in rehearsals with either band: attacks/releases, balance/blend, intonation, and phrasing. In addition, he did not target tone with his beginning band.

During rehearsal of the New Music Ensemble, Director A delivered instruction most often in two sequences. A typical rehearsal frame, as described in Figure 1, followed one of these sequences. Director A provided an information statement to one ensemble member about the piece—in this case how he will conduct a segment. In addition to demonstrating the conducting pattern, he also modeled how her part fit in with his pattern. Then, instead of a performance trial, he moved on to a different target.

Figure 1. New Music Ensemble Rehearsal Frame Timeline with no Performance Trial.

Another sequence of instruction Director A used with the New Music Ensemble is

illustrated in Figure 2. The rehearsal frame was similar to the one explained previously except

Director A made one corrective directive requiring a change in behavior (ensemble members

missed an entrance), he explained how he would conduct that section, and this was followed by a

performance trial. As with most rehearsal frames involving a performance trial for Director A,

only one trial was required to achieve the target and the rehearsal frame was completed.

20

Figure 2. New Music Ensemble Rehearsal Frame with One Performance Trial.

Figure 3 illustrates a rehearsal frame in which more teacher and student behaviors were evident as were multiple targets. In this rehearsal frame Director A first targeted an entrance at which the bass clarinet and marimba were not entering at the same time. He told the students what was incorrect and that they should fix it. They ran a performance trial and it still was incorrect but Director A realized the reason was that the bass clarinet took longer to initiate a sound than the marimba. Director A gave this information to the students. They played another performance trial and this time it was correct, however Director A then asked for more emphasis on the first note of the entrance. He moved immediately to explaining and modeling articulation from the same passage with another ensemble member (the second target). The students played and Director A responded with positive feedback. 21

Figure 3. New Music Ensemble Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Two Targets and Multiple

Performance Trials.

The sequences of instruction used by Director A with University Band were different than the sequences observed in New Music Ensemble. The rehearsal frames were very similar across the University Band’s rehearsal in terms of order of teacher and student behaviors initiated by the teacher. Figure 4 illustrates a representative rehearsal frame from this rehearsal.

Director A identified the target which, in this case, was a very brief segment played by the

woodwinds. He modeled how he wanted it to sound, focusing on a rhythmic release on repeated

three note patterns. After the first performance trial he stated he wanted each three note pattern louder than the one before (a second target). The students played this, but not satisfactorily. He asked for more crescendo and then modeled again. After the third performance trial Director A was satisfied with how the woodwinds performed the short segment and put it in context with the 22 rest of the band. This pattern of correcting what was incorrect, use of modeling, and persistence is representative of Director A’s work with the University Band.

Figure 4. University Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Director Modeling and Multiple

Performance Trials.

A typical sequence of instruction used by Director B with his high school band was characterized by one of two patterns. An example is shown in Figure 5. Director B started out

with a directive given to the trombones, tuba and bass clarinet to play a multi-measure segment.

The students started, he quickly decided he just wanted to hear trombones and bass clarinet, and gave those students the directive to restart the segment. Director B then asked the snare drummer to play constant eighth notes and directed the trombones and bass clarinet to play their part along with the drummer. Although not spoken, Director B was targeting tempo. The trombones and bass clarinet played their part with the drummer, and then he directed them to play their part 23 alone again. Following the performance trial he quickly gave negative feedback on note accuracy and intonation, but added that he wanted to focus on keeping them in tempo. Director B gave them the corrective directive to make the speed of the notes line up with the tempo. He had the trombonists and bass clarinet do it again. He stopped a short way into it and then asked just the trombonists to play. Director B gave five directives, and then gave negative feedback and a corrective directive. The performance trial was partly successful (some students were successful, some were not) and Director B moved on to the next part.

Figure 5. High School Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Multiple Directives and

Performance Trials and Delayed Feedback.

Another representation of Director B’s sequence of instruction with the high school band

is shown in Figure 6. He began by directing “only the people that come in at count two with a

quarter note” to play. Director B led a performance trial. The trumpet section was supposed to 24 play as well, which he directed them to do for the next performance trial. He then gave a corrective directive indicating the need for space between notes. He modeled both the way they played it and the way it should sound. Director B led another performance trial that was successful and he affirmed with positive feedback that they played it correctly. In this representation of the second sequence of instruction, Director B gave a directive to play, followed by a corrective directive with modeling. This type of sequence with quick corrective directives early in the sequence and modeling was efficient and successful.

Figure 6. High School Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Modeling a Corrective Directive

Early in the Frame.

The sequences of instruction Director B used with his seventh-grade band were different than the order of teacher and student behaviors used with the high school band. He engaged in more dialogue with his students such as asking questions related to what the students were 25 working on. Figure 7 illustrates the sequence of instruction for one rehearsal frame in which asking questions occurred between performance trials. In this case the target was identified when he stopped the ensemble and said, “Why didn’t we start together?” The student gave an answer and Director B responded with a corrective directive saying they needed to breathe together.

Director B led the students through another performance trial and this time the entrance was correct. (The negative feedback was directed toward a snare drummer who played when he wasn’t supposed to.)

Figure 7. Seventh Grade Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Question (Stu = Student Talk).

Another representation of the sequence of instruction Director B used with his seventh- grade band is shown in Figure 8. The main feature of this sequence involved cycling or repeating a brief section over and over in a succession of student performance trials. The target was identified as a dotted-eighth-sixteenth rhythm students were playing incorrectly. Initially 26 Director B noted that students should know the rhythm as they had worked on it earlier in the rehearsal. After writing the rhythm on the board he asked a student to count it and the student did. Then students clapped the pattern four times in succession. Director B had the students who played that rhythm apply it to the measure in the piece. In addition they played the measure in the piece four times. Director B put that measure in context and the students played it correctly.

Figure 8. Seventh Grade Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Cycling (S/St = Student Talk)

Director C’s instruction patterns were consistently similar across rehearsal frames of both

ensembles. Director C was efficient in his work, giving concise directives, corrective directives,

and feedback. He was also persistent in reaching the level of performance for a target when

necessary. Figure 9 illustrates one such rehearsal frame from the seventh and eighth grade

rehearsal. In this frame Director C began by having the flute section play one measure and he

modeled it by singing. They played and then he told them to think about the note “A” and how

they should finger it. Director C had identified that note as being played incorrectly. Students

played again and the note was still played incorrectly. Director C said, “I’ll give you a hint—it’s

not A natural.” The next performance trial was improved but he then reminded them that the note 27 “E” was also to be played flat. Students did one more performance trial and they were successful in playing the note “A flat” and partially successful in playing the note “E flat.” Director C gave them this positive feedback and the target passage was put back in context. Not including the time spent playing the passage in context by the full ensemble, his sequence of instruction took

40 seconds and included four performance trials.

Figure 9. Seventh and Eighth Grade Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline Showing Concise

Instruction.

Director C also used modeling with both bands but more extensively with the beginning band, both by singing and playing his primary instrument (trumpet). Figure 10 is a timeline of a rehearsal frame in which he used modeling successfully with the beginning band. He began by telling students to look at the dynamic contrast indicated in the music. Students did a

performance trial. Director C gave negative feedback indicating he didn’t hear any dynamic 28 contrast. He gave them a corrective directive telling students that the passage was forte in the first three measures and piano in the next three measures. Students played another performance trial and little difference was heard in the dynamic contrast. Director C then told his students to finger along while he played the exercise on his trumpet. Students did so while he played and, following a reminder that the last note had five counts, students played the exercise with fewer mistakes and greater dynamic contrast.

Figure 10. Beginning Band Rehearsal Frame Timeline with Modeling.

Differences between a director’s use of positive and negative feedback for each level of

student performance experience was studied. As shown in Appendix A, Tables A4 and A5,

Director A gave more positive feedback than negative feedback to both ensembles. With New

Music Ensemble, Director A gave positive feedback at a rate of .61 per minute and negative feedback at a rate of .34 per minute. In the University Band’s rehearsal, Director A gave positive 29 feedback at a rate of .76 per minute and negative feedback at a rate of .54 per minute. Director B gave more negative feedback than positive feedback to his high school band, but more positive feedback than negative feedback to his seventh grade band (see Appendix A, Tables A6 and A7).

With the high school band, negative feedback was given at a rate of .28 per minute while positive feedback was given at a rate of .25 per minute. Director B gave positive feedback at a rate of .80 per minute and negative feedback at a rate of .53 per minute to his seventh grade band. As indicated in Appendix A, Tables A8 and A9, Director C gave more negative feedback than positive feedback to his seventh and eighth grade band and more positive feedback than negative feedback to his beginning band. In his seventh and eighth grade band rehearsal, Director

C gave negative feedback at a rate of .51 per minute and positive feedback at a rate of .39 per minute. With his beginning band, he gave positive feedback at a rate of .50 per minute and negative feedback at a rate of .47 per minute.

Directives were determined to be either directives or, more specifically, corrective directives. Directives were “do it” statements. Corrective directives were “do it” statements in which the director told the student what and/or how to change the previous performance trial to make it more correct. It often took the place of negative feedback. Each rehearsal frame was evaluated as successful or unsuccessful. Frames were considered successful if improvement could be heard in student performance in the targeted aspect of performance. Some students may not have been successful in reaching the end goal, but a performance trial was considered successful because it was a closer approximation of the ideal target.

Corrective directives were considered related to negative feedback, but not equivalent.

Negative feedback was a verbalization in which the director told the students that they did something wrong and he may have identified what they did that was incorrect. Corrective directives told the students what to do to correct the mistake. 30 Each rehearsal frame of Director A was evaluated as successful (see Appendix A, Table

A10). For his New Music Ensemble, Director A used directives in five out of ten rehearsal frames and corrective directives in eight out of ten rehearsal frames. Negative feedback is related to corrective directives in that both inform the student that a change in behavior is necessary. In the New Music Ensemble rehearsals, Director A only gave negative feedback in one out of ten rehearsal frames yet each was successful. Corrective directives were sufficient to produce a positive change in the students. The last rehearsal frame had no directives in it—Director A only modeled how the selection was supposed to sound and the students played it correctly. As shown in Appendix A, Table A11, Director A also had only successful rehearsal frames with his

University Band. In 21 out of 22 rehearsal frames he gave at least one corrective directive. Other directives were given at least once in 18 out of 22 rehearsal frames. In comparing negative feedback and corrective directives, negative feedback was only given in 11 out of 22 rehearsal frames, yet they were successful. As with the New Music Ensemble, corrective directives were sufficient enough in 10 out of 22 rehearsal frames to bring about success.

The high school band rehearsal of Director B consisted of 17 rehearsal frames and all but six frames were successful. As shown in Appendix A, Table A12, he used directives in 15 out of

17 rehearsal frames and corrective directives in 14 out of 17 rehearsal frames. In 13 out of 17 frames, Director B gave directives at a frequency equal to or greater than corrective directives. In the unsuccessful rehearsal frames, Director B used at least two directives and one corrective directive in each frame. In five out of these six rehearsal frames, Director B gave one statement of negative feedback as well. Appendix A, Table A13 illustrates the effect of directives on the performance of Director B’s seventh grade band. All except one of the 16 rehearsal frames were successful. Fifteen out of 16 rehearsal frames included directives and 11 included corrective directives, while seven of 16 frames included negative feedback. In 14 out of 16 frames Director 31 B gave directives at a frequency equal to or greater than corrective directives. One negative feedback and one corrective directive were used in the unsuccessful rehearsal frame.

Director C’s seventh and eighth grade band rehearsal included 17 evaluated rehearsal frames. Of these 17, four were unsuccessful (see Appendix A, Table A14). Each rehearsal frame contained at least one directive, or “do it” statement. Ten out of 17 frames included corrective directives and seven out of 17 had negative feedback. In all 17 frames, the frequency of directives was greater than or equal to the number of corrective directives. Two of the four unsuccessful rehearsal frames included neither corrective directives nor negative feedback. The third unsuccessful frame included negative feedback but no corrective directives and vice versa for the fourth unsuccessful frame.

Fifteen rehearsal frames from Director C’s beginning band were evaluated as either successful or unsuccessful (see Appendix A, Table A15). Out of the 15 frames, four were considered unsuccessful. Director C used directives in all rehearsal frames, corrective directives in 11 out of 15 rehearsal frames and negative feedback in nine of 15 rehearsal frames. In three out of 15 frames Director C gave directives at a frequency less than or equal to corrective directives. All unsuccessful frames included either corrective directives (three of the four) or negative feedback (two of the four).

Directives given by the directors were categorized as either “change in behavior” or

“musical outcome.” A change in behavior directive tells the student what action needs to take place to correct the error, most often a matter of instrumental technique. A musical outcome directive tells the student what the desired result of a change in behavior would sound like (e.g. crescendo).

All three directors used directives describing musical outcome more frequently than those requesting a specific change in physical behavior (see Appendix A, Table A16). In his New 32 Music Ensemble rehearsal, Director A gave change in behavior directives for a mean frequency of .41 per rehearsal frame and musical outcome directives for a mean frequency of 1.06 per rehearsal frame. Of the nine rehearsal frames that were evaluated (all as successful) and contained a directive, each rehearsal frame had at least one of either a change in behavior directive or musical outcome directive—never both in the same frame. With University Band,

Director A used a mean frequency of .22 change in behavior directives per rehearsal frame and a mean frequency of 2.00 musical outcome directives per rehearsal frame. Of the 20 rehearsal frames with categorized directives (all successful), only two had one category and not the other.

Unlike with the New Music Ensemble, when Director A gave a change in behavior directive, he also gave a musical outcome directive in 18 of 20 categorized frames.

As shown in Appendix A, Table A16, Director B gave directives related to change in physical behavior at a mean frequency of .29 per rehearsal frame and musical outcome directives at a mean frequency of 1.00 per rehearsal frame with his high school band. Of the rehearsal frames with categorized directives, 12 out of 15 had either a change articulated as a physical behavior directive or a musical outcome directive, but not both categories in the same frame.

When considering unsuccessful rehearsal frames, two of the six had a change in behavior directive and five of the six had targets expressed in terms of a musical outcome. With Director

B’s seventh grade band, he used a mean frequency of .39 change in behavior directives per rehearsal frame and a mean frequency of .65 musical outcome directives per rehearsal frames. Of the 11 rehearsal frames with categorized directives, six had change in behavior directives and eight had musical outcome directives. Eight of these 11 had either change in behavior directives or musical outcome directives but not both. Director B had one unsuccessful frame with the seventh grade band. In this frame there were no change in behavior directives and one musical outcome directive. 33 As shown in Appendix A, Table A16, Director C gave a mean frequency of .35 change in behavior directives per rehearsal frame and a mean frequency of 1.15 musical outcome directives per rehearsal frame with his seventh and eighth grade band. Fourteen frames had categorized directives with change in behavior directives in five rehearsal frames and musical outcomes directives in 13 frames. Eleven of the 14 had either change in behavior directives or musical outcome directives but not both. Two categorized rehearsal frames were unsuccessful. In one of these frames, Director C gave one change in behavior directive and no musical outcome directives. In the other rehearsal frame, Director C gave no change in behavior directives, but two musical outcome directives. With his beginning band Director C gave a mean frequency of

.54 change in behavior directives per rehearsal frame and a mean frequency of 1.45 musical outcomes per rehearsal frame. Twelve frames had categorized directives. Six frames had change in behavior directives and 11 rehearsal frames had musical outcome directives. Seven out of 12 frames had either change in behavior or musical outcome directives but not both. Four frames were evaluated as unsuccessful. Two had musical outcome directives but not change in behavior directives, one had one change in behavior directive but no musical outcome directive, and one frame had two of each category. 34 CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to examine teacher verbalizations in band rehearsals. Three music directors who each teach two ensembles of differing experience levels and levels of advancement were selected. The number of years of teaching experience varied among the directors from 4 to 11 years. After dividing rehearsals into rehearsal frames, I used

SCRIBE to record data relative to (a) aspects of music performance addressed in rehearsals, (b) sequence of instruction, (c) use of positive and negative feedback, (d) the effect of directives on student performance, and (e) articulation of problems in terms of instrumental technique or musical outcome.

Directors A and B addressed different aspects of performance in each of their ensembles, while Director C focused on the same aspects with each ensemble. Director A made dynamics a target most often in University Band but attacks and releases predominated as chosen targets with New Music Ensemble. The “other” 25% of target types with New Music Ensemble mostly involved ensemble issues. These included making sure the members understood how he would conduct a certain section. I asked Director A what aspects of his teaching he was working on. He stated that with the New Music Ensemble he is “always working on making sure I rehearse things that can’t be done by players individually in the practice room.” His choice of targets reflects this as attacks and releases can be ensemble related (e.g. all ensemble members releasing a note at the same time) and, as stated previously, “other” was largely comprised of ensemble issues. These aspects must be addressed primarily in the group setting and not in the practice room—just as Director A desires. Dynamics predominated as the most chosen target in

University Band. Director B addressed timing most often and notes were addressed commonly as well with his seventh grade band. This may be expected due to the experience level of the students. Interestingly, he addressed balance/blend 25.93% of the time with his high school band 35 and not at all with his seventh grade band. Timing, which consists of rhythm and tempo, was the most addressed target in both of Director C’s ensembles. Articulation was considered by Director

C important to address, which in some sense is related to timing. The aspects Director C worked on most closely support Cavitt’s study (2003) in which she found articulation and rhythm as two of the three musical aspects most frequently addressed by 10 expert instrumental music teachers.

Each director had different approaches to working on a performance goal or target, which may have been due to the maturity level of the bands. For example, in the rehearsal frame displayed in Figure 2, Director A told New Music Ensemble what needed to be done and then moved on without a performance trial. As graduate students and mature musicians, the members might be expected to fix problems on their own. In addition, the New Music Ensemble rehearsals had rehearsal frames in which only one trial was required to produce desired results—another indication of the maturity of the musicians. In University Band rehearsals, Director A was also successful in each rehearsal frame. A defining factor was that he persisted with performance trials until the rehearsal frame was successful.

Director B demonstrated a sequence of instruction that was a “delayed feedback” approach. In some frames he heard a group of students playing a section of music. Director B sometimes listened to that group again or listened to smaller group, then isolated who was the source of the problem. At this point he gave the students feedback. It may be more efficient to isolate the problem and provide feedback or corrective directives right away, and gradually put the problem area back in context. One example given earlier in Figure 6, shows that Director B was successful with a more concentrated approach. He essentially heard the incorrect isolated area once, gave a corrective directive, modeled, and then the students played it correctly.

Another interesting aspect employed by Director B was the use of asking his seventh graders questions. The students were involved in the lesson and listened to what was played around 36 them. This seemed a successful strategy, but may be most effective with a small group. (The band had 25 members.)

Both positive and negative feedback were employed by all three directors. Director A gave more positive feedback than negative feedback. However, he also made use of corrective directives and was able to bring about success without using negative feedback. Directors B and

C both provided more negative than positive feedback with their more experienced groups and more positive than negative feedback with their less experienced groups. This may be due to the age and maturity level of the students, but negative feedback is not always a poor choice of feedback with younger students. Delivered constructively, it can be productive. However,

Director A is a case in point in which positive feedback predominating over negative feedback was consistently successful. Yarbrough and Price (1989) found that experienced teachers gave disapprovals at a higher rate than approvals. In this study, the most experienced teacher, Director

A gave approvals at a higher rate than disapprovals, which does not support the Yarbrough and

Price study. However, Director A utilized corrective directives, which implicitly told the students that they were incorrect by giving them what to do to improve without providing negative feedback

In a similar vein, when considering the effect of directives on student performance, corrective directives can be enough to produce positive change. Director A used only corrective directives and no negative feedback in nine out of 10 rehearsal frames in the New Music

Ensemble rehearsal. The corrective directives were sufficient to enable students to play the target successfully. Director A used a similar approach with University Band and this resulted in similar outcomes. He used corrective directives in 21 out of 22 rehearsal frames, but only 11 of the 22 contained negative feedback. As with New Music Ensemble, all frames were successful.

The opposite can be found in Director B’s unsuccessful high school rehearsals. Of the six 37 unsuccessful rehearsal frames, he gave at least one corrective directive in each. However, he also gave negative feedback in five of the six frames. The effect of negative feedback on student performance cannot be determined in this study.

All three directors used musical outcome directives more than change in behavior directives. The experience level and maturity of the ensemble members appeared to play a role in

Director A’s use of the two types of directives. With New Music Ensemble, Director A never gave both musical outcome statements and change in behavior statements in the same frame.

One or the other was enough to bring about the desired result. However, in the University Band rehearsal Director A gave both musical outcome directives and change in behavior directives in

18 of 20 rehearsal frames. Perhaps the students with less experience needed both what to do and how to do it in order to be successful, whereas the more experienced students were able to make the necessary connection on their own. Directors B and C typically did not give both types of directives in the same rehearsal frame. Looking again at the unsuccessful rehearsal frames of

Director B with the high school band, two of six had change in behavior directives and five of six had musical outcome directives. Director A led successful patterns of instruction with his less experienced band and used both change in behavior and musical outcome directives in the rehearsal. Perhaps providing younger and/or less experienced students with more change in behavior directives would bring about successful results more frequently or more efficiently.

This is supported by Colprit’s study (2003), which found that students early in their Suzuki training received change in behavior instructions whereas more advanced students received more instructions stated in terms of musical outcome.

One of the most striking aspects of this study was the impact of modeling on the success of the students. Director A modeled frequently by singing instrumental parts to the ensemble members. Student performance improved in all Director A’s rehearsal frames. Director C also 38 modeled, however, in addition to his voice, he used a trumpet (his primary instrument) as well.

His students were most attentive and demonstrated the most rapid improvement when Director C played the unison line they were working on while they held their instruments in playing position and fingered along. Director C also asked students to listen carefully to a specific musical characteristic of his modeling. This focused observation aided students in listening for a specific music aspect instead of simply listening to a performance. At one point, Director C told the students he would model two musical characteristics of a passage incorrectly and students should identify the errors. The students were attentive during Director C’s modeling and two students were able to identify the two errors. The students’ performance trial following this modeling was successful in improving upon the characteristics that were highlighted in Director C’s modeling.

Director B used modeling occasionally but, when he did incorporate modeling in his instruction the students were successful.

Interestingly, with the exception of Director C modeling on trumpet for the trumpet students in his bands, all modeling was done using a different instrument (including the voice) than the students were playing. This seems especially notable for the students with very little experience (e.g. Director C’s bands) as the students were able to hear a different timbre and at times even a different octave, yet still make an application to their own playing. On a more complex level, the students were listening to a “musical outcome directive,” so, although a directive to change a behavior related to technique was not given by the director, the students were able to make the connection as to how to produce that musical outcome on their own instruments. In this case, listening to a “musical outcome directive” is enough instruction to produce success in the students.

If students’ apply what they hear modeled by the teacher, the quality of modeling is likely to affect the quality of student performance. Imprecise modeling may produce inaccurate student 39 performance, even if the imprecision is in an unrelated performance aspect. For example, a teacher may model dynamics correctly but perform incorrect articulations. Student performance following inaccurate teacher modeling may demonstrate desired improvement in dynamics, but students’ articulation may either be as incorrect as a previous performance trial or perhaps worse.

As the data showed, accurate modeling produced successful results. Perhaps directors should employ more modeling in their instruction.

The results of this study can be compared with Goolsby’s studies from the late 1990s. His studies looked mainly at the difference between novice and experienced directors. Goolsby

(1996) studied the percentage of class time dedicated to certain teacher behaviors. His results were given in terms of total rehearsal time, whereas the present study’s results are shown in terms of proportion of teacher and student behavior within rehearsal frames. He found the mean percentage of class time devoted to student performance was 51.20%. The percentages with the directors in the present study were comparable to Goolsby’s 1996 result (see Appendix A, Tables

A4-A9). The New Music Ensemble rehearsal with Director A included just 29.99% of the time as student performance. However, this was a small ensemble of very mature musicians, which may have had an impact on this result. That being said, the data recorded for the other ensembles showed each director was within approximately 11 percentage points of Goolsby’s average.

Goolsby also found that the experienced teachers in his study spent a mean duration of 25.1 seconds for performing segments and 17.4 seconds for teaching segments. The directors in the present study taught for a much shorter mean duration—at most an average of 10.7 seconds. The mean durations of full ensemble performance spanned a wide range of lengths. Director A, for example, allowed New Music Ensemble to play on average 47.1 seconds, yet Director B only spent an average of 8.7 seconds on a performance segment. These results may not be entirely 40 representative of most frames as an extremely long performance segment or an extremely short playing segment would skew the results.

Another focus of Goolsby’s work is the performance variables that directors address. He found that directors of all experience levels addressed rhythm most often (Goolsby, 1997).

Experienced directors also addressed tone, intonation, expression/phrasing, and articulations frequently. In the present study, Director A did not address rhythm with his groups at all. On the other hand, the performance variable most often addressed by Director B with seventh grade band was timing (44.44% of targets). At the high school level, however, timing was only identified as a target one time (3.70% of targets). Across all directors and ensembles, tone and intonation were not identified often either. Only Director B addressed either of these more than once and that being tone (14.81% of total targets in seventh grade band and 7.41% of targets in high school band). The only use of phrasing instruction in the present study was by Director A with University Band (8.16% of targets). Articulation, however, was an often used target for all directors, especially by Director C (30.77% of targets in beginning band and 19.35% of targets with seventh and eighth grade band). Goolsby also noted that expert teachers in his study used more demonstrations and what he identifies as “explanations of how performers were to achieve what was desired (p. 37).” This may be parallel to the “change in behavior” identifier in the present study. The use of demonstration is comparable to modeling and all directors in this study made use of it to some extent. The percentage of rehearsal frame duration devoted to modeling was as little as 1.42% for Director B’s high school band rehearsal to 9.41% for Director C’s beginning band rehearsal.

41 Suggestions for Future Research

The results of this study provide ideas for further research. Researchers may simply expand on the study using a more representative sample of directors (e.g. not all males) and a greater number of rehearsals. This is a descriptive study in which inferences cannot be made, whereas in an expanded study, quantitative analysis might prove fruitful. Another avenue for future research might incorporate using rehearsals from the same director only at different points in the students’ learning process. Do teacher verbalizations and other behaviors change as progress on a piece advances? Also, researchers may wish to look more carefully at the order in which change in behavior and musical outcome directives are used within a rehearsal frame.

What order works most successfully?

Implications for Music Education

The results of this study have aided me in re-evaluating my own teaching behaviors and providing ways to improve as an educator. Director A was an excellent director for me to observe as he displayed many teaching behaviors that brought about success. One of the most salient features of teacher behavior was modeling, which was not included as a focus of the study. Modeling was successful for all directors in improving student performance although each utilized it to a different extent and in different ways. Director B used singing a bit, but Directors

A and C used extensive modeling. Director A sang the passage being worked upon and, in fact, often did not do so only one time in a rehearsal frame. If students did not play a passage satisfactorily following his modeling, he would model again. He was also very comfortable with it as it came across as second nature for him to use in a rehearsal frame. Director C often used his primary instrument (trumpet) to model although he also employed singing at times. Students in both of his bands showed immediate improvement after he modeled the passages. In one rehearsal frame, Director C played the exercise while his students fingered along. The 42 improvement of the students following this process indicated to me that modeling with one’s instrument is effective in bringing about change in the students’ performances. That, and

Director A’s frequent and natural use of modeling inspire me to actively include modeling in my band rehearsals and to do so often.

Another result that was particularly noticeable to me was the use or lack of use of both kinds of feedback and corrective directives. As Director A demonstrated, frequent use of negative feedback may not be necessary for students to accomplish a target. While I will not give up the use of negative feedback as a teacher, I will employ the use of corrective directives to bring about change in students’ performances.

Finally, although all three directors used musical outcome directives more frequently than change in behavior directives, sequences of instruction appeared to be more successful when change in behavior directives were used. In my teaching I tend to phrase most directives in terms of musical outcome, even with younger, less-experienced students. There is a greater likelihood that I will bring about change more efficiently and effectively if I articulate directives in terms of change in physical behavior. 43 REFERENCES

Arnold, J. A. (1995). Effects of competency-based methods of instruction and self-observation

on ensemble directors’ use of sequential patterns. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 43, 127-138.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,

experience, and school. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Byo, J. L. (1990). Recognition of intensity contrasts in the gestures of beginning conductors.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 38, 157-163.

Byo, J. L. & Austin, K. R. (1994). Comparison of expert and novice conductors: An approach to

the analysis of nonverbal behaviors. Journal of Band Research, 30(1), 11-34.

Cavitt, M. E. (2003). A descriptive analysis of error correction in instrumental music rehearsals.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 218-230.

Cavitt, M. E. (2004). Information in rehearsal frames targeting intonation performance. Journal

of Band Research, 40, 38-52.

Colprit, E. J. (2000). Observation and analysis of Suzuki string teaching. Journal of Research in

Music Education, 48, 206-221.

Colprit, E. J. (2003). Teacher verbalization of targets in Suzuki string lessons. Bulletin of the

Council for Research in Music Education, 157, 49-61.

Duke, R. A. (1994). Bringing the art of rehearsing into focus: The rehearsal frame as a model for

prescriptive analysis of rehearsal conducting. Journal of Band Research, 30, 78-95.

Duke, R. A. (1999). Teacher and student behavior in Suzuki string lessons: Results from the

International Research Symposium on Talent Education. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 47, 293-307.

44 Duke, R. A. & Farra, Y. (1997). SCRIBE: Simple Computer Recording Interface for Behavior

Evaluation [Computer software]. Austin, TX: Learning and Behavior Resources.

Duke, R. A. & Madsen, C. K. (1991). Proactive versus reactive teaching: Focusing observation

on specific aspects of instruction. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music

Education, 108, 1-14.

Duke, R. A. & Stammen, D. (2006). SCRIBE: Simple Computer Recording Interface for

Behavior Evaluation (Version 4.0.2) [Computer software]. Austin, TX: Learning and

Behavior Resources.

Goolsby, T. W. (1996). Time use in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of experienced,

novice, and student teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 286-303.

Goolsby, T. W. (1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of three

career levels and preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 21-40.

Goolsby, T. W. (1999). A comparison of expert and novice music teachers’ preparing identical

band compositions: An operational replication. Journal of Research in Music Education,

47, 174-187.

Hendel, C. (1995). Behavioral characteristics and instructional patterns of selected music

teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 182-203.

Kostka, M. J. (1984). An investigation of reinforcements, time use, and student attentiveness in

piano lessons. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 113-122.

McNair, K. (1978-79). Capturing inflight decisions: Thoughts while teaching. Educational

Research Quarterly, 3(4), 26-42.

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1978-79). Planning in classroom reality: An in-depth look. Educational

Research Quarterly, 3(4), 83-99. 45 Price, H. E. (1983). The effect of conductor academic task presentation, conductor

reinforcement, and ensemble practice on performers’ musical achievement, attentiveness,

and attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 245-257.

Price, H. E. (1989). An effective way to teach and rehearse: Research supports using sequential

patterns. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 8(1), 42-46.

Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In P. L. Peterson & H. J. Walberg

(Eds.), Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings, and Implications. Berkeley, CA:

McCutchan Publishing Co.

Rubin, L. (1989). The thinking teacher: Cultivating pedagogical intelligence. Journal of Teacher

Education, 40, 31-34.

Saunders, T. C. & Worthington, J. L. (1990). Teacher effectiveness in the performance

classroom. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 8(2), 26-29.

Siebenaler, D. J. (1997). Analysis of teacher-student interactions in the piano lessons of adults

and children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 6-20.

Skadsem, J. A. (1997). Effect of conductor verbalization, dynamic markings, conductor gesture,

and choir dynamic level on singers’ dynamic responses. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 45, 509-520.

Speer, D. R. (1994). An anlaysis of sequential patterns of instruction in piano lessons. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 42, 14-26.

Tobias, S. (1982). When do instructional methods make a difference? Educational Researcher,

11(4), 4-9.

Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of Teacher

Education, 42, 292-305. 46 Yarbrough, C. & Price, H. E. (1989). Sequential patterns of instruction in music. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 37, 179-187. 47 APPENDIX A

Tables

Table A1

Frequency and Percentage of Performance Targets Addressed by Director A by Target Category and Experience of Ensemble

University Band New Music Ensemble

f % f %

Articulation 9 18.37 2 10.00

Attacks/Releases 8 16.33 7 35.00

Balance/Blend 1 2.04 0 0.00

Dynamics 16 32.65 1 5.00

Intonation 1 2.04 0 0.00

Notes 3 6.12 0 0.00

Phrasing 4 8.16 1 5.00

Timing 5 10.20 3 15.00

Tone 0 0.00 1 5.00

Other 2 4.08 5 25.00

Total Frames 49 20

48 Table A2

Frequency and Percentage of Performance Targets Addressed by Director B by Target Category and Experience of Ensemble

Seventh Grade Band High School Band

f % f %

Articulation 4 14.81 4 14.81

Attacks and Releases 1 3.70 5 18.52

Balance/Blend 0 0.00 7 25.93

Dynamics 0 0.00 4 14.81

Intonation 0 0.00 2 7.41

Notes 6 22.22 0 0.00

Phrasing 0 0.00 0 0.00

Timing 12 44.44 1 3.70

Tone 4 14.81 2 7.41

Other 0 0.00 2 7.41

Total Frames 27 27

49 Table A3

Frequency and Percentage of Performance Targets Addressed by Director C by Target Category and Experience of Ensemble

Beginning Band 7th & 8th Grade Band

f % f %

Articulation 8 30.77 6 19.35

Attacks and Releases 0 0.00 0 0.00

Balance/Blend 0 0.00 0 0.00

Dynamics 3 11.54 6 19.35

Intonation 0 0.00 0 0.00

Notes 4 15.38 5 16.13

Phrasing 0 0.00 0 0.00

Timing 8 30.77 10 32.23

Tone 0 0.00 1 3.23

Other 3 11.54 3 9.68

Total Targets 26 31

50 Table A4

Director A, New Music Ensemble: Mean Proportions of Total Frame Duration, Rate per Minute, and Mean Episode Duration and Standard Deviation for Observed Teacher and Student Behaviors within Rehearsal Frames

Mean

Percentage of Rate episode

total frame per duration

duration minute (in seconds)

M M M SD

Teacher talk 54.03 3.83 10.0 3.27

Corrective directive 1.78

Directive 0.82

Positive feedback 0.61

Negative feedback 0.34

Question 0.08

Information 1.99

Off-task 0.05

Teacher model 8.31 1.60 01.8 0.31

Tutti play 29.67 1.02 47.1 0.54

Small group play 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.00

Individual play 0.32 0.02 00.5 0.14

Student talk 3.00 0.66 00.6 0.24 51 Table A5

Director A, University Band: Mean Proportions of Total Frame Duration, Rate per Minute, and Mean Episode Duration and Standard Deviation for Observed Teacher and Student Behaviors within Rehearsal Frames

Mean

Percentage of Rate episode

total frame per duration

duration minute (in seconds)

M M M SD

Teacher talk 41.40 3.533 07.9 4.29

Corrective directive 1.88

Directive 1.71

Positive feedback 0.76

Negative feedback 0.54

Question 0.06

Information 0.67

Off-task 0.09

Teacher model 6.26 1.11 02.2 0.35

Tutti play 51.48 1.27 32.8 4.77

Small group play 4.32 0.51 00.9 0.14

Individual play 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.00

Student talk 0.05 0.03 00.0 0.00

52 Table A6

Director B, High School Band: Mean Proportions of Total Frame Duration, Rate per Minute, and Mean Episode Duration and Standard Deviation for Observed Teacher and Student Behaviors within Rehearsal Frames

Mean

Percentage of Rate episode

total frame per duration

duration minute (in seconds)

M M M SD

Teacher talk 43.90 2.86 10.7 5.65

Corrective directive 1.00

Directive 2.08

Positive feedback 0.25

Negative feedback 0.28

Question 0.03

Information 0.33

Off-task 0.36

Teacher model 1.42 0.20 00.7 0.07

Tutti play 30.78 0.75 18.1 0.27

Small group play 21.19 1.23 08.1 1.32

Individual play 0.25 0.02 00.3 0.00

Student talk 1.15 0.22 00.5 0.14

53 Table A7

Director B, Seventh Grade Band: Mean Proportions of Total Frame Duration, Rate per Minute, and Mean Episode Duration and Standard Deviation for Observed Teacher and Student Behaviors within Rehearsal Frames

Mean

Percentage of Rate episode

total frame per duration

duration minute (in seconds)

M M M SD

Teacher talk 55.00 4.72 09.4 4.89

Corrective directive 1.00

Directive 3.32

Positive feedback 0.80

Negative feedback 0.53

Question 0.92

Information 0.25

Off-task 0.21

Teacher model 2.34 0.42 00.9 0.08

Tutti play 22.38 1.22 08.7 1.50

Small group play 17.71 1.94 03.9 0.34

Individual play 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.00

Student talk 3.91 0.86 01.2 0.32

54 Table A8

Director C, Seventh and Eighth Grade Band: Mean Proportions of Total Frame Duration, Rate per Minute, and Mean Episode Duration and Standard Deviation for Observed Teacher and Student Behaviors within Rehearsal Frames

Mean

Percentage of Rate episode

total frame per duration

duration minute (in seconds)

M M M SD

Teacher talk 30.41 4.40 05.9 1.82

Corrective directive 1.10

Directive 3.67

Positive feedback 0.39

Negative feedback 0.51

Question 0.15

Information 0.56

Off-task 0.07

Teacher model 5.58 0.76 02.2 0.21

Tutti play 46.30 2.36 18.8 1.86

Small group play 9.09 0.99 02.4 0.54

Individual play 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.00

Student talk 0.04 0.03 00.0 0.00

55 Table A9

Director C, Beginning Band: Mean Proportions of Total Frame Duration, Rate per Minute, and Mean Episode Duration and Standard Deviation for Observed Teacher and Student Behaviors within Rehearsal Frames

Mean

Percentage of Rate episode

total frame per duration

duration minute (in seconds)

M M M SD

Teacher talk 47.10 4.35 07.8 2.34

Corrective directive 0.99

Directive 3.06

Positive feedback 0.50

Negative feedback 0.47

Question 0.33

Information 0.21

Off-task 0.14

Teacher model 9.41 0.82 04.9 0.68

Tutti play 35.85 2.75 10.1 1.69

Small group play 5.94 0.57 01.9 0.18

Individual play 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.00

Student talk 2.61 0.33 00.8 0.50 56 Table A10

Director A, New Music Ensemble: Form of Directives and Negative Feedback as it Relates to Success of Rehearsal Frame

Successful (S)/

Unsuccessful (U) Directives Corrective Directives Negative Feedback

Frames f f f

S 2 0 0

S 2 1 0

S 2 3 0

S 0 2 0

S 0 2 0

S 0 1 0

S 1 3 0

S 0 1 0

S 3 1 1

S 0 0 0

Note. The lack of directive use in the last frame is due to Director A simply modeling what he wanted and the ensemble played. 57 Table A11

Director A, University Band: Form of Directives and Negative Feedback as it Relates to Success of Rehearsal Frame

Successful (S)/

Unsuccessful (U) Directives Corrective Directives Negative Feedback

Frames f f f

S 1 1 2

S 3 2 0

S 6 9 1

S 3 4 0

S 5 2 0

S 0 2 1

S 2 3 1

S 5 2 0

S 1 4 2

S 1 1 0

S 0 2 0

S 2 1 0

S 0 0 1

S 2 1 0

S 0 1 0

S 1 1 2

S 2 3 1

58 Table A11, cont.

Successful (S)/

Unsuccessful (U) Directives Corrective Directives Negative Feedback

Frames f f f

S 1 2 1

S 3 1 0

59 Table A12

Director B, High School Band: Form of Directives and Negative Feedback as it Relates to Success of Rehearsal Frame

Successful (S)/ Corrective

Unsuccessful (U) Directives Directives Negative Feedback

Frames f f f

S 3 2 1

S 2 1 0

S 1 0 0

S 6 2 0

S 1 1 0

S 0 2 1

S 2 5 0

U 3 2 1

U 2 2 1

S 3 1 0

U 3 1 1

U 4 1 1

U 5 3 0

S 3 0 0

U 6 1 1

S 0 2 0

S 3 0 0 60 Table A13

Director B, Seventh Grade Band: Form of Directives and Negative Feedback as it Relates to Success of Rehearsal Frame

Successful (S)/

Unsuccessful (U) Directives Corrective Directives Negative Feedback

Frames f f f

S 9 2 0

S 2 0 0

U 3 1 1

S 3 0 0

S 9 2 1

S 2 3 2

S 0 1 1

S 4 3 0

S 2 1 2

S 1 1 0

S 2 2 0

S 2 0 1

S 6 1 0

S 8 0 1

S 6 1 0

S 1 0 0

61 Table A14

Director C, Seventh and Eighth Grade Band: Form of Directives and Negative Feedback as it Relates to Success of Rehearsal Frame

Successful (S)/

Unsuccessful (U) Directives Corrective Directives Negative Feedback Frames f f f

S 3 0 1

S 2 2 0

S 7 3 1

S 5 4 2

U 5 0 0

U 3 0 0

S 8 0 0

S 3 2 0

U 1 0 1

S 1 1 1

S 3 1 0

S 1 0 0

S 2 0 0

S 9 2 2

U 3 1 3

S 1 1 0

S 3 1 0 62 Table A15

Director C, Beginning Band: Form of Directives and Negative Feedback as it Relates to Success of Rehearsal Frame

Successful (S)/

Unsuccessful (U) Directives Corrective Directives Negative Feedback Frames f f f

S 6 1 0

S 7 4 0

S 5 2 0

S 3 0 1

S 1 2 1

S 4 0 1

S 1 1 1

U 3 4 0

S 4 1 1

S 5 9 0

U 2 0 1

S 6 2 1

U 10 6 0

U 2 1 1

S 3 0 1

63 Table A16

Mean Frequency of Directives Addressed by Change of Behavior or Musical Outcome within Rehearsal Frames

Change in Behavior Musical Outcome

M M Director A

New Music Ensemble 0.41 1.06

University Band 0.22 2.00

Director B

High School Band 0.29 1.00

Seventh Grade Band 0.39 0.65

Director C

Seventh & Eighth Grade Band 0.35 1.15

Beginning Band 0.54 1.45