AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RETENTION OF KEYBOARD SKILLS OF NON- MUSIC MAJORS AT THE COLLEGIATE LEVEL

Rachel D. Mauricio

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 2009

Committee:

Cynthia Stephens Benson, Advisor

Vincent J. Kantorski

© 2009

Rachel Mauricio

All Rights Reserved iii

ABSTRACT

Cynthia Stephens Benson, Advisor

The purpose of this study was to assess the retention of Class Piano skills of undergraduate non-piano Music Education majors. Twenty students, who had passed all

Class Piano requirements but who had not yet graduated, completed a survey regarding their Class Piano experience and took a skill playing exam in which they demonstrated scale playing, solo , harmonization, two-hand accompaniment, and score reading skills learned in Class Piano. The results of the study addressed the following: (a) how well former Class Piano students retained the skills learned in their courses, (b) what aspects of these skills were and were not retained, and (c) the relationship between the students’ perceptions and values of these skills and their ability to demonstrate retention.

All 20 students showed an overall retention of Class Piano skills, and 13 of the 20 students retained all five skills. The highest retained skill was harmonization, with 100% of the students showing retention, followed by two-hand accompaniment (95%), scales

(90%), solo accompaniment (90%), and score reading (81%). The students’ degree, instrument, number of semesters since last taking Class Piano, and number of Class Piano teachers did not seem to affect their ability to retain Class Piano skills. There was an occasional, although inconsistent, connection among how important or useful the students thought the skills were and whether or not the students thought they needed to improve or could still play the skills with the students’ actual ability to play the skills.

Generally, the students who considered a skill to be important, one they could still play, iv

and one they would use in teaching, was also a skill where they showed greater retention than those who did not consider the skill to be important or one that would be used in teaching.

Implications for Class Piano pedagogy include teaching scales in the context of exercises and more solo repertoire pieces, requiring scale performance tempos in order to ensure a high level of proficiency and retention is reached, consistently using and assessing dynamics and damper pedal more frequently in order to ensure that the students reach a proficient level in these areas, integrating choral warm-up, vocal score reading, and instrumental transposition exercises earlier and more frequently into the Class Piano curriculum, and consistently emphasizing and assessing proper posture at the keyboard. v

This thesis is dedicated to Mrs. Janice Cook, my first piano pedagogy teacher, my

inspiration to excel in my career as a music educator, and my friend. vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to Dr. Cynthia Stephens Benson, for her scholarly expertise and direction with this project, even during her sabbatical. I am also extremely grateful for her invaluable instruction, guidance, and support during my pedagogical endeavors at

Bowling Green, particularly in Class Piano.

Thank you to Dr. Vincent J. Kantorski, for his editing prowess, consummate professionalism, and generous gift of time to assist with the completion of this project.

Thank you to all the Music Education students who participated in my study.

Their contribution of time and effort has made this project possible.

Thank you to my graduate student colleagues, Christopher Baumgartner, Ryan

Yahl, Ellen Pagan, Janet Fu, and Pamela Klueck, for their assistance in either pilot testing or participant recruitment – or both – for my study.

Thank you to all my piano and piano pedagogy teachers throughout the years.

Their wisdom, pragmatism, and dedication have inspired me to continue on a career path where I hope to impart as much joy in music making and music teaching to my students as they have to me.

I would most especially like to thank my parents, my brother Andrew, and my fiancé Jared, for their ceaseless love and support. Without them I would not be where I am today. vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 3

Retention ...... 3

Learning ...... 4

Memory ...... 6

Research on Retention ...... 8

Recall ...... 10

Retention and Class Piano ...... 13

Research Question ...... 16

CHAPTER III. METHOD ...... 17

Survey ...... 17

Skill Playing Exam ...... 18

Evaluation and Scoring...... 19

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS...... 24

Survey ...... 24

Skill Playing Exam ...... 35

Overall Mean Score...... 36

Scales ...... 38

Solo Accompaniment...... 41

Harmonization...... 44

Two-hand Accompaniment...... 47 viii

Score Reading ...... 49

Hand Position and Posture...... 52

Keyboard Awareness...... 53

Pedal Usage...... 54

Comparison of Skill Playing Exam With Survey Responses ...... 55

Scales ...... 55

Solo Accompaniment...... 57

Harmonization...... 58

Two-hand Accompaniment...... 60

Score Reading...... 62

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION...... 65

Survey ...... 65

Skills Not Tested in the Skill Playing Exam...... 66

The Role of Piano Before and After Taking Class Piano ...... 68

How Well Do Former Class Piano Students Retain the Skills Learned in Their

Class Piano Courses?...... 70

What Aspects of Each Skill Were and Were Not Retained? ...... 70

Scales ...... 70

Solo Accompaniment...... 72

Harmonization...... 72

Two-hand accompaniment...... 73

Score Reading...... 73 ix

Hand Position and Posture...... 74

Keyboard Awareness...... 74

Pedal Usage...... 76

Is There a Relationship Between the Students’ Values of These Skills and Their

Ability to Demonstrate Retention? ...... 77

Implications for Class Piano Pedagogy ...... 78

Suggestions for Further Research...... 78

REFERENCES ...... 80

APPENDIX A. CONSENT LETTER...... 84

APPENDIX B. SURVEY ...... 87

APPENDIX C. SCALES TEST...... 91

APPENDIX D. SOLO ACCOMPANIMENT TEST ...... 93

APPENDIX E. HARMONIZATION TEST...... 95

APPENDIX F. TWO-HAND ACCOMPANIMENT TEST...... 97

APPENDIX G. VOCAL AND INSTRUMENTAL SCORES TEST...... 99

APPENDIX H. SKILLS TEST RUBRIC...... 101

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Quantitative Scores for Skills test...... 20

2 Students’ Year in School, Major, and Instrument...... 25

3 Students’ Number of Class Piano Teachers...... 26

4 Mean Ratings of Class Piano Skills...... 27

5 Number of Students Who Responded Positively to the Following Survey

Questions ...... 28

6 Other Music Classes Where Students Indicate They Use Class Piano Skills...... 29

7 Teaching and/or Performing Situations Where Students Use Class Piano Skills...... 30

8 Students’ Responses Regarding the Personal Use of Piano Skills ...... 31

9 Students’ Responses to Frequency of Use of Class Piano Skills...... 32

10 Number of Students Who Responded Positively to the Following Survey

Questions ...... 33

11 Students’ Suggestions on How to Improve and Practice Skills Before Student

Teaching ...... 34

12 Students’ Pre-College Piano Experience ...... 35

13 Students’ Overall Scores...... 36

14 Students Who Did and Did Not Demonstrate Retention of Each Tested Skill...... 38

15 Results of the Scales Portion of the Skill Playing Exam ...... 39

16 Mean Beats Per Minute (BPM) of Tempo Choice for Skill Playing Exam...... 39

17 Comparison of Overall Scales Score With Students’ Degree, Instrument, Years of Pre-

College Piano Experience, and Pre-College Accompanying Experience...... 40 xi

18 Results of the Solo Accompaniment Portion of the Skill Playing Exam...... 42

19 Comparison of Overall Solo Accompaniment Score With Students’ Degree, Instrument,

Years of Pre-College Piano Experience, and Pre-College Accompanying

Experience ...... 43

20 Results of the Harmonization Portion of the Skill Playing Exam ...... 45

21 Comparison of Overall Harmonization Score With Students’ Degree, Instrument, Years

of Pre-College Piano Experience, and Pre-College Accompanying Experience...... 46

22 Results of the Two-hand Accompaniment Portion of the Skill Playing Exam...... 47

23 Comparison of Overall Two-Hand Accompaniment Score With Students’ Instrument,

Years of Pre-College Piano Experience, and Pre-College Accompanying

Experience ...... 48

24 Results of the Score Reading Portion of the Skill Playing Exam...... 50

25 Comparison of Overall Score Reading Score With Students’ Instrument, Years of Pre-

College Piano Experience, and Pre-College Accompanying

Experience ...... 51

26 Students’ Hand Position and Posture Ratings Per Skill...... 52

27 Number of Times Students Looked Down at Hands Per Skill ...... 53

28 Amount of Students’ Correct Pedal Usage Per Skill ...... 54

29 Scales: Comparison of Skill Playing Exam Results With Survey Responses ...... 56

30 Solo Accompaniment: Comparison of Skill Playing Exam Results With Survey

Responses ...... 57

31 Harmonization: Comparison of Skill Playing Exam Results With Survey

Responses ...... 59 xii

32 Two-Hand Accompaniment: Comparison of Skill Playing Exam Results With Survey

Responses ...... 61

33 Score Reading: Comparison of Skill Playing Exam Results With Survey

Responses ...... 63 1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Since the 1950s, group piano classes have been incorporated into the curriculum for

university students, especially music majors (Skroch, 1991). Music Education majors who would

most likely use the piano in a classroom setting need to possess a set of functional piano skills

that facilitate teaching in private lessons and general music classes as well as directing ensembles. What these functional skills are, whether or not proficiency in these skills is required

by a university, and how they are effectively taught in a group setting have long been topics of

discussion for piano pedagogues, music education instructors, and public school teachers alike.

Over the past 50 years, research on these topics as well the establishment of proficiency

standards by the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) have contributed to the

significant development of Class Piano programs for Music Education majors. Important functional skills include sight-reading, harmonization, playing by ear, transposition, improvisation, technical development, critical listening, accompanying, playing chord progressions, and analysis (Skroch, 1991). As a result of this research and the development of educational standards, Class Piano courses are structured around simple, basic skills that are built upon until the students are learning to complete tasks that involve not only complex piano skills, but also practical situations where they will need to direct a class while at the piano.

Research related to Class Piano has been devoted to the learning of specific skills and the methods of teaching that would facilitate the learning of these skills; however, an important aspect of the learning process – retention – has received little attention in this research. The skills learned in Class Piano are practical skills that music education students will need in their teaching and performing careers; however, if students are not taught in a way to encourage retention, those practical skills may not be used effectively outside the classroom setting. 2

Furthermore, these classes are usually completed early on in a student’s academic career, and

while those students may be successful in their classes, the length of time between the

completion of their classes and the practical application of them in their careers might have an

effect on the retention of those skills. Other factors that affect retention, such as memory, learning, and recall are numerous and multi-faceted, and must also be taken into account when assessing retention.

When instructors teach their students new skills and concepts, their intention is that those students will not only do well in that class, but that they will also be able to apply those skills and concepts outside of the context of the classroom. While an assessment is made and a grade given at the end of every semester to show whether or not a student can execute the skills learned over the course of the semester, it is more difficult to ensure that a good grade will translate into

the practical application of those skills in a different setting. By measuring the retention of these skills after the student has completed all required semesters of Class Piano, one can more accurately assess the effectiveness of these courses, in which and for which the student spends a considerable amount of time learning these skills.

The purpose of this study was to assess the retention of Class Piano skills. Twenty undergraduate non-piano Music Education majors who had completed their Class Piano proficiency requirements participated. In this study, participants completed a survey regarding their Class Piano experience, followed by a playing exam that tested their current Class Piano proficiency level. The results analysis included the extent to which skills were retained, what aspects of each skills were and were not retained, and the relationship between the responses on the survey and the level of proficiency displayed by the participants.

3

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Retention

“Retention” refers to the preservation of learning experiences and their effects – basically, the length of time memories are stored in the brain (Bilodeau, 1964). Education research has focused mostly on teaching techniques that facilitate the learning of new materials and skills (Shehan, 1987); however, the focus is often on the process of memorization and the effectiveness of the teaching technique, rather than how long the information or skills are retained by the subjects. Furthermore, music-related studies dealing with retention only address short-term retention (Williams, 1975). Studies on long-term memory are usually not musically related (Bilodeau, 1964; Ericsson, 1995), and studies on the long-term retention of musical skills

(Duke, 2006; Simmons, 2006) have only been conducted in recent years.

It is important to address the issue of retention for a number of reasons. First, the retention of basic skills is necessary in order to learn a complex skill that is the composite of those basic skills. The more fluently one can execute a basic skill, such as a scale pattern on piano, the more easily the skill can be transferred to more complex piano skills (Péladeau, 2003), such as music reading or improvisation. Furthermore, the techniques used to teach such skills must be structured so as to facilitate not only immediate retention, but also taught and practiced in a way that allows students to retain the information for the longest period of time (Flieshman,

1962). In order to understand how to increase retention, one must be familiar with the different types of memory (Miller, 1956; Ericsson, 1995) and how information is stored. Performing musicians also encounter stressful learning and recall conditions, such as in ensembles or performance situations, which can cause recall-impairing performance anxiety (Tollenaar, 2008).

Combining a greater understanding of how memories are retained and recalled with the extant 4 research and literature on memorization and teaching techniques will facilitate not only the learning of new material, but also the transfer of skills to other aspects of musical learning.

Learning

In a review of findings from learning and memory retention studies, Magnesen (1983) stated the following percentages of retention when skills or material are learned in the following ways: 10% of what is read, 20% of what is heard, 30% of what is seen, 50% of what is seen and heard, 70% of what is said, and 90% of what is done and said (p. 3). These percentages show that stimulating the greatest variety of senses increases the amount of retention. In order to investigate specific factors that affect the retention of both skills and information, researchers have conducted studies using different learning methods appropriate to the task required of the subjects. Shehan (1987) tested the effectiveness of teaching tools used in teaching music literacy, specifically rhythm. Methods included mnemonics, vocalization, physical movement, and visual presentation or rote presentation. While some teaching philosophies indicate that rote presentation should be taught first, the study showed that the blending of rote presentation with mnemonics and visual aid was the most effective method of presentation, because the subjects had the most success in duplicating the patterns with this method. This study supports

Magnesen’s review (1983) by showing that the immediate internalization of a musical skill was facilitated by a combination of presentations, but because it was geared toward elementary-age beginners, it did not test the retention of the skill over an extended period of time.

Other studies, though not related to music, also address the learning method in relation to how much information is retained. In Flieshman’s study (1962), subjects were trained with a computer program that simulated an air-borne radar intercept mission. This perceptual-motor skill was learned in two ways: with guided practice and without. In the guided practice, subjects 5 were given directions on how to use the control mechanisms, while the unguided subjects were left to figure out how to use the controls themselves. The results showed that the guided subjects were more successful in both carrying out the skill and retaining the skill in the retests months later. With regards to music, it could be argued that self-taught learners absorb and retain information better because they have figured it out for themselves; however, as music involves many complex skills, those who wish to become expert musicians usually opt for guided practice, or lessons.

In a study on repertory memory involving novice and expert actors (Intons-Peterson,

1987), subjects were asked to begin memorizing a passage either immediately, without having read the entire passage – called “rote” – or after reading through the passage once – called “gist”

(Intons-Peterson, 1987, p. 492). The expert actors were already better at encoding information regardless of the method of learning; however, for the novice actors, “gist” memorization was more successful because an initial read-though allowed them to make a mental note of the grammatical landmarks that aided their memorization. In learning musical repertoire, musicians often listen to or read through an entire piece before learning or memorizing it, most likely for the same reason of having structural landmarks to facilitate learning and memorization.

A study on over-learning used a computerized flash-card program to help subjects practice drilling information for a college class (Péladeau, 2003), similar to the way in which musicians use repeated practice of skills in order to improve technique or learn a piece of music.

Computerized feedback seemed to yield positive results for the subjects’ learning, attitude, and overall performance in the class. Self-supplied feedback in another study was positively correlated with information retention in a reading-comprehension test (Swindell, 1993). 6

As the type of learning affects the retention of information of skills, one must also discuss

the capacity of the human memory and differentiate the type of memory in which the

information is stored. Each method of presentation in the aforementioned studies proved to be

more advantageous for either short-term or long-term memory, both of which are called upon in

a musical performance.

Memory

The processing of information goes through a number of stages before being stored in the

memory, a process that has fascinated both scholars and educators from every field. When information is received, it goes immediately to a “sensory-information store,” then to “short- term” memory, where it is held for a longer period of time as a result of encoding information,

then to “long-term” memory that holds a “permanent encoded image” of the information

(Williams, 1975, p. 54). With regards to short-term memory, human capacity of new information

is seven bits of information, plus or minus two (Miller, 1956). With the knowledge of our limited

information capacity, Miller suggests that the only way to remember larger amounts of

information is to “chunk” (Miller, 1956, p. 92) bits of information together into larger chunks in

a process called “recoding” (Miller, 1956, p. 93). Immediate recoding allows for temporary

storage of information, such as a phone number.

A melody pattern may be stored into short-term memory, but as a study by Williams

(1975) shows, there are severe limitations as to the retention of the melody. In this study, undergraduate senior and graduate music students were asked to listen to a pitch sequence, given a variable length of silence, and then asked to reproduce a certain pitch within the sequence. The results of the study showed that loss of information was a result of time between hearing and recall, the position of the pitch in the sequence, and the increased length of the sequence. One 7

important aspect of this study that must be taken into account, however, is that the study was not

ecologically valid in that most musical sequences are formed from patterns such as scales,

chords, and chord progressions, while the pitch sequence used in the experiment was completely

randomized. The retention of a melodic sequence would probably increase with a structural

relationship to the notes that the subject could recode into smaller, more memorable chunks of

information.

The process of transferring information from short-term to long-term memory is more involved than merely recoding information. For example, in reading keyboard music, musicians are taught to recognize chords rather than taking the time needed to read each note of each chord individually. Initially, this seems like a simple recoding exercise; however, in order to begin with single notes and turn them into chords that are easily recognized and played, one must be able to identify the notes in relation to his or her knowledge of the keyboard, music reading, and music theory in order to facilitate performance. Furthermore, frequent repetition of the performance is necessary to physically execute the skill within the context of reading music.

Skilled performers have a greater ability to store information and retrieve it over a longer period of time than unskilled performers, as evidenced by those who perform mental calculations, medical diagnosis or play chess (Ericsson, 1995). This study showed that each skill requires specific retrieval structures to be stored in long-term memory as opposed to short term memory, because skills were often called upon out of any particular order. An interesting aspect of “superior memory performance and increased working memory capacity” (Ericsson, 1995, p.

239) is that this skill only applies to the expert area of performance. The possession of superior memory requires expertise in the given area and includes both efficient encoding methods and 8

knowledge of the specific skill. Expert memory, similar to the kind described in Ericsson’s study

(1995), can be easily correlated to a musical skill, which often requires memorization.

With the knowledge of how short- and long-term memories are formed, one must also investigate how it is that information is forgotten, even after having been stored in long-term memory. In a study on motor skill tasks that were performed at the verbal cue of the researcher

(Bilodeau, 1964), retention of the skill was tested over periods of minutes, days, and weeks.

According to the study, “verbal skills are rapidly forgotten while motor skills are exceedingly well retained” (Bilodeau, 1964, p. 38). Performing on a , such as piano, requires motor skill and muscle memory, which, while needing to be reinforced by other encoded information such as musical structure, is usually the most immediate form of recall for musicians. What causes us to forget, however, is not only the result of the presentation of material and the time between learning and recall, but also of the conditions under which the material is either learned or recalled.

Research on Retention

Over the years, much research has been conducted on memorizing music, particularly piano music. The main focus of a study that Chaffin and Imreh conducted was to show the structural hierarchy used in memorizing the third movement of J.S. Bach’s Italian Concerto, a very technically and intellectually demanding piece (Chaffin, 1997). While part of the study addressed Imreh’s retention of the piece over two years later, it was additional information that helped to show how memorizing structure helped not only the memorization of the music but also the retention of the music for a longer period of time. The retention aspect of memorizing music is intriguing, and not much research has been conducted specifically on the retention and recall of memorized music or musical skill. 9

In both Chaffin’s and Intons-Peterson’s studies on memorization of music and theater

repertory respectively, retention was studied with regards to written material. While this has

implications for musicians regarding written music, there are many instances where music is

learned by ear or by rote – a perceptual-motor skill – and learning relies on physical repetition.

Furthermore, retention is solidified by listening for the correct notes and, for pianists, watching

the keyboard for accuracy. In a study by Fleishman and Parker (1962), the retention of non-

musical perceptual-motor skills was investigated from a number of angles. Studies previous to this one showed that perceptual-motor skills are retained over long periods without practice.

However, this study continued to explore other aspects of skill retention: how well a skill is retained without practice, the relation between the length of time without practice and the level of retention, how much re-learning is required in order to regain proficiency in a skill, and lastly, if the type of initial training is related to retention. The researchers found that the most important factor in retention of the skill was the level of proficiency achieved in the initial learning period, a result that could have possible implications for learning musical skills.

More recently, studies on the application of learning techniques to enhance performance and retention have been applied to the field of music education. In addition to studies that investigate how musicians memorize and retain repertoire (Chaffin, 1997; Willamon, 2002), several studies have broken down the learning and retention of music into specific musical skills.

These studies have addressed rhythm (Shehan, 1987) and pitch (Williams, 1975) while also investigating learning conditions and other factors that affect retention, such as sleep (Duke,

2006; Simmons, 2006), or, in the case of word-association retention, the effect of stress

(Tollenaar, 2008).

10

Recall

Many of the studies discussed so far have been under purely experimental conditions in order to limit the number of variables (Williams, 1975; Intons-Peterson, 1987; Fleishman, 1962).

However, studies in recent years have been conducted under more ecologically valid conditions in order to more accurately suggest practical applications for the results of the study. First of all, when learning music on a musical instrument, proficiency is only achieved over long-term study.

In between lessons or practicing, consolidation of information occurs in the memory, often after sleep (Duke, 2006; Simmons, 2006). This aspect of retention has yet to be applied extensively to the learning of musical skills. Second, a widely-discussed topic in music performance is that of performance anxiety, a form of stress that often inhibits retention and therefore hinders the performance. In the studies on memorization (Willamon, 2002; Chaffin, 1997), a public performance was the end result of the work that was observed during the study; however, less has been researched on exactly how, and to what extent, memory is affected in an anxiety- inducing performance situation.

“Memory consolidation” is the term used for the “process of physical change that occurs following active learning experiences” (Duke, 2006, p. 112). This means that memories are malleable and continue to change even after the experience has occurred. While awake, consolidation continues for up to six hours after learning or practice. While asleep, memories reorganize and are encoded or sometimes improved (Duke, 2006). Both non-music major (Duke,

2006) and music major (Simmons, 2006) college students were tested on simple and complex keyboard skills, respectively, and in both cases, the number of successful trials were always higher in the retests that occurred after the subject slept. This could imply that for learning a 11

musical instrument or musical skill, learning or practice should be distributed over periods of

time that include sleep, usually days, in order to improve retention.

With regards to performance anxiety, a musical performance can be the cause of acute

psychosocial stress, in which the performer is evaluated by others. Physically, this type of stress

causes increased cortisol levels in the body, which, when paired with sympathetic activity such

as increased heart rate, causes the impairment of information retrieval (Tollenaar, 2008).

Impairment is also increased because the performer is required to ignore environmental cues –

usually the audience – in order to focus on the memory retrieval. Performers have used pharmaceuticals such as beta-blockers in order to treat performance-anxiety; however, their

effects on memory retrieval have yet to be studied.

Expert musicians are adept at not only memorizing music but also coping with

performance anxiety in order to reduce its memory-impairing effects as much as possible.

Effective techniques for both of these issues as well as a number of other factors that affect the

retention of musical skills has long been a topic of interest to musicians. An integration of these

pedagogical techniques with the scientific understanding of how and why they affect learning

will lead to a better understanding of the human memory and thus, an improvement on the

teaching techniques used by musicians and music educators.

In the studies conduced by Duke (2006) and Simmons (2006), the non-dominant hand

was used in the keyboard skills experiments. The issue of handedness in general has been, to a

small degree, a topic of interest in both empirical research and in pedagogical journals. Attention

has been set on left-handed students and how their learning differs from right-handed students.

The left-handed student is said to be a “whole-to-part” learner, as opposed to the right-handed

student, who is a “part-to-whole” learner (Minasian, 2006). In order for the left-handed learner to 12 retain information better, the whole concept should be presented first. This is similar to the study on repertory memory in that the “gist” learners were better at recalling the passages when they had read the entire piece first instead of immediately memorizing (Intons-Peterson, 1987). Also, left-handed students learn better with visual aid, and could also be connected to the study on rhythm learning and retention (Shehan, 1987), where the blending of visual and aural presentation was the most effective teaching tool overall.

In addition to articles that give practical advice on memorizing, publications including strategies for recall are similar to the strategies for effective memorizing that are found in empirical research. Students are advised to analyze the score using structural “mapping”

(Schons, 2006), similar to the way it was used by an expert musician (Chaffin, 1997). They are also encouraged to see patterns in order to recode larger pieces of information into memorable chunks (Mayerovitch, 2002), as in the Miller study (1956). Such strategies not only foster a better understanding of the music, but the layers of kinesthetic, aural, and analytical memory also ward against the performance anxiety that impairs recall. Related to the study on the impairment of long-term memory retrieval during acute psychosocial stress (Tollenaar, 2008), is practical advice on how to practice concentration in order to keep one’s focus away from the negative effects of performance anxiety (Johansen, 2005; Lehrer, 2002). Students are encouraged to mentally rehearse, listen to recordings, and sing the melody in order to reinforce the memory.

When a performer is experiencing performance anxiety the impairment of recall that occurs can be mitigated significantly with the reinforcement of different methods of memorization. Lastly, retention of piano music over extensive periods of time must be addressed not only for concert pianists, but also for late intermediate or early advanced students who are building a repertoire of memorized pieces (Baker-Jordan, 2003). 13

Retention and Class Piano

After coming to a basic understanding of how memory works, the amount of time and

practice needed to achieve mastery, and techniques for retaining those skills both for skill

transfer and performance recall, it would be beneficial to test the possible educational

implications on student musicians, specifically in Class Piano. The National Association of

Schools of Music’s (NASM) Handbook includes standards of accreditation, one of which

includes “Keyboard Competency” for all professional baccalaureate degrees in music and all undergraduate degrees leading to teacher certification (NASM, 2008, p. 84). The NASM

Handbook also suggests the necessary specialization competencies for those pursuing a Bachelor of Music in Music Education, one of which includes “performance ability sufficient to use at least one instrument as a teaching tool and to provide, transpose and improvise ”

(NASM, 2008, p. 96). The teaching tool instrument of choice for most universities has been piano, and is taught in a group setting (Skroch, 1991). Group piano classes that develop

functional piano skills have become firmly established in the curricula of American colleges and

universities. In Class Piano, non-piano music majors may be required to take up to four

semesters of this course in order to prepare them for the piano skills they would use in their

musical careers. This requires not only the building of basic skills but also the transfer of those

skills to more complex skills.

Magnesen’s review (1983) also addressed five laws of learning, two of which are directly

related to retention: the Law of Exercise and the Law of Disuse. The Law of Exercise states that

“the more an act is repeated, the more quickly the habit will be established,” while the Law of

Disuse states that “skills not practiced and knowledge not used are largely forgotten” (p. 4).

While these laws appear to simply state common sense, they are not typically taken into account 14

when testing the skills and knowledge of students enrolled in courses such as Class Piano. If

students are expected to retain certain skills and knowledge over the course of four semesters,

which may or may not be consecutive, their retention – or lack thereof – should be taken into account when creating the curriculum for Class Piano courses. By testing students who have already completed their Class Piano courses, the retention of the skills learned in these courses can more accurately be evaluated.

Studies on university level Class Piano students have been conducted to test skills such as

error detection (Kostka, 2000), and functional skills such as sight-reading and harmonization

(Betts, 2000); however, participants have always been students who were enrolled in Class Piano

at the time, and retention was not tested. One study on the retention of former Class Piano

students’ keyboard skills was conducted by Burleson-Hines (1994) on harmonization,

improvisation, sight-reading, and scale playing. In discussing the results, Burleson-Hines

suggests that the data did not reveal why some skills were better retained than other skills. One possible reason as to why some skills are better retained than others could be the degree to which the student values the skill. Kostka’s study (1997) correlated Class Piano students’ attitudes towards a certain skill, called “valuing” (p. 275), and their ability to execute it, called “knowing”

(p. 275). Thirty-two undergraduate non-piano music majors who had completed their first year of piano study were asked to rate hand position, sight-reading, correct fingering, musicality, and good technique at the beginning of the semester. On the pretest, sight-reading and musicality were rated the highest in value but also rated as the least known of five skills. During the semester, students evaluated themselves at the end of every two-week unit using a Likert-type scale. At the end of the semester of instruction, the students rated the skills a second time. The results of the study showed a strong correlation between the students’ self-assessments and their 15 perception of “knowing” on the posttest. If a student values a skill and understands why it is important, that student will be more likely both to execute that skill successfully and to retain that skill after passage of time.

In the Burleson-Hines study (1994), 32 former Class Piano students, who had completed their proficiency requirements 12 to 18 months earlier, were asked to perform the same skills in which they had already shown proficiency while they were enrolled in the course. The purpose of the study was to determine whether or not these students could still demonstrate proficiency in these areas. Students from three universities were graded by both the researcher and their former

Class Piano instructor and graded on a 1-5 fail-pass grading scale for each skill, and also received an overall grade of fail or pass. The results showed that 94% of participants passed the harmonization test, 84% passed the improvisation test, 81% passed the sight reading test, 75% passed the scale test, and 56% passed all four playing tests. Because the scale test had the lowest percentage of passing grades, and because Burleson-Hines suggests that as scale playing is a foundational skill that facilitates more complex skills, more attention should be devoted to scale playing in the Class Piano curriculum. Burleson-Hines also suggested re-training programs for those who teach music in the classroom or direct ensembles in order to reinforce retention of piano skills.

Burleson-Hines’ study tested former Class Piano students who may or may not have graduated and who may or may not have acquired teaching jobs in music. Participants from

Burleson-Hines’ study who were tested after attaining a job as a music teacher may have had better retention based on their current teaching experience and not necessarily based on their

Class Piano training. By testing former Class Piano students from only one university who have not yet graduated, test results can be related to a specific curriculum and compared more equally 16 among students who have not yet had the experience of a full-time music teaching position.

Furthermore, solo accompaniment, two-hand accompaniment, and score reading were not tested.

Choral, instrumental, and general music teachers often use these skills, and testing the retention of these skills would be equally beneficial. Evaluating different components of each skill – such as exact tempo, note and rhythm accuracy, pedal use, accompaniment style, and keyboard topography awareness – rather than an overall 5-point rating may have revealed more information on which aspects of each skill are retained. Video taping each participant would allow for a more accurate assessment of these aspects. As Burleson-Hines’ data did not reveal why certain skills were better retained, perhaps a detailed survey regarding each student’s Class

Piano experience and perceptions may reveal more information that would help answer this question.

Research Question

The purpose of this study was to assess the retention of keyboard skills learned in Class

Piano by undergraduate non-piano music majors who have completed and passed the Class Piano proficiency requirements but who have not yet graduated. Based on extant knowledge of retention, learning, memory, Class Piano curricula as outlined by NASM standards, and the studies of Kostka (1997) and Burleson-Hines (1991), the following research questions were formed: (a) how well do former Class Piano students retain the skills learned in their courses, (b) what aspects of these skills were and were not retained, and (c) is there a relationship between the students’ perceptions and values of these skills and their ability to demonstrate retention?

17

CHAPTER III: METHOD

The purpose of this study was to assess the retention of keyboard skills of non-piano music majors at the collegiate level. By measuring the retention of these skills after the student has completed all required semesters of Class Piano, the effectiveness of these courses can be more accurately assessed. The students for this study consisted of 20 Music Education majors who had passed all four semesters of Class Piano required for their degree program but who had not yet graduated. Recruitment was completed in the following four ways: (a) contacting previous fourth semester piano classes students through e-mail, (b) contacting Music Education majors through a message from the student chapter of the Ohio Music Educators Association, (c) posting flyers, and (d) having announcements made by other graduate assistants teaching Music

Education classes. Interested students contacted the researcher via e-mail, and a 30-minute time block was scheduled via e-mail for each student to participate in the study. Each student signed a consent letter before beginning the study (See Appendix A). Since all students were students at the time of testing, they will be referred to in this study as students.

Survey

The study consisted of two parts: a survey portion and a skills portion. Each student first completed the survey (See Appendix B), which asked for year in school, degree program, instrument(s) played, and anticipated graduation date. Regarding the Class Piano courses, students were to respond to when they took the classes and the grades they received. The survey also asked students to (a) rate the importance of the skills they learned, (b) circle the skills they did not learn that they thought they should have learned, (c) circle the skills they did learn that they thought they did not need to learn, (d) circle skills they thought they could still perform, (e) comment on how they have used the skills they learned in Class Piano since completing the 18

course, and (f) describe the extent of their piano experience prior to taking the course. Finally,

students were to comment on how prepared they felt to use the piano in teaching situations.

Skill Playing Exam

After completing the survey portion of the study, students were given a playing exam on the skills that were in the curriculum and proficiency exams over the four semesters of Class

Piano. Students performed the skills on a Clavinova CVP-301 digital keyboard in the classroom where they had taken Class Piano courses. The level of difficulty of each skill on the exam was equal to the level of difficulty achieved during the Class Piano courses. Students were tested on the following five skills: (a) major and minor scales, (b) written out solo accompaniment, (c) harmonization, (d) two-hand accompaniment on a lead sheet, and (e) a two-part score reading excerpt. For each skill, students were allowed to look over the example silently and given two trials to play the example. If a student was satisfied with his or her performance on the first trial, the example did not need to be played a second time. If the student played a skill a second time, only the second trial was graded. Students were allowed to choose their own tempo for each skill.

For the first skill, students were asked to play four scales, two octaves each: (a) Eb major right hand, (b) D major in the left hand, (c) E harmonic minor right hand, and (d) G natural minor left hand (See Appendix C). For the written solo accompaniment and two-hand accompaniment skills, the test administrator played the solo line on a different piano while the student played the accompaniment part. The written solo accompaniment (See Appendix D) was

16 measures long and consisted of tonic, dominant, and secondary dominant (V7/V) chords. For the harmonization test (See Appendix E), the students were given no parameters except that they were permitted to use both primary (I, IV, V7) and secondary (ii, iii, vi) chords, as well as 19

secondary dominants (V7/V, V7/IV), to harmonize the 16-measure example. The two-hand

accompaniment (See Appendix F) was 19 measures long and consisted of major, minor, added

sixth, augmented, diminished, and dominant seventh chords. The score reading (See Appendix

G) was separated into two categories – a Soprano I, Soprano II, and Alto eight-measure excerpt for the Vocal Music Education majors, and a Horn and Cello nine-measure score excerpt for the

Instrumental Music Education majors. Vocal Education majors were asked to read the Soprano I

and Alto parts, while the Instrumental Music Education majors were expected to transpose the

Horn part in order to play it with the Cello part.

Evaluation and Scoring

Students were recorded during the playing exam. A Sony DCR-TRV19 digital video camera was placed to the right of each student, so that each student’s posture, hand position, pedaling, and amount of looking down at the keyboard instead of the page could be assessed. For scales, the camera was adjusted to show only the upper half of each student’s body, so that correct fingering could be more accurately scored. For the solo accompaniment, harmonization, two-hand accompaniment, and score reading skills, the camera was readjusted to show the student’s entire body as well as the . Before beginning the exam, the directions for each skill playing task was explained to each student. In order to evaluate each skill performance, a rubric was created to monitor correct notes, rhythm, steady tempo, tempo choice, hand position, posture, and, where applicable, fingering, dynamics, use of pedal, and keyboard awareness. Table 1 shows the scoring according to the number of notes, beats, fingering changes, and pedal changes as they apply to each skill.

20

Table 1

Quantitative Scores for Skills Test

Notes Rhythm Tempo Fingering Pedal Coordination

with

soloist

Scales 29 ___ 29 29 ______

Solo 35 48 48 ___ 16 48

Accompaniment

Harmonization 38 32 32 ___ n ___

Two-Hand 38 ___ 57 ___ 19 57

Accompaniment

Vocal Score 14 24 24 ___ 24 ___

14

Instrumental 42 36 36 ___ 27 ___

Score 20

For all playing skills, tempo choice was determined by watching the video of the performance and matching a metronome marking with the speed of the performance. Hand position and posture were evaluated as “Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” or “Poor” for scales as well as for every other skill. For posture, students received a rating of “Excellent” if they met all five of the following criteria: (a) sitting straight, with upper body weight evenly distributed over the 21

hips and not the back or tailbone (Mark, 2003, p. 46); (b) sitting on the front half of the bench,

facilitating movement from the sit bones (Mark, 2003, p. 49); (c) sitting an appropriate distance

from the keyboard, so that the elbows are slightly in front of the upper body to facilitate pedaling and movement from the sit bones; (d) both feet flat on the floor, roughly shoulder width apart; and (e) shoulders relaxed while playing. Students received a rating of “Good” posture if they met four of the five criteria, “Fair” if they met three of the five criteria, and “Poor” if they met one or two of the five criteria. With regards to hand position, students received an “Excellent” rating for meeting all five of these criteria: (a) forearm and wrist parallel to the keys; (b) fingers naturally curved, without being excessively curved or flattened; (c) finger joints not collapsing when playing; (d) fingers not lifting excessively high when playing; and (e) correct lateral alignment of the wrist, with no ulnar deviation (Fink, 2002, pp. 37-38). Just as with posture, students received a rating of “Good” hand position if they met four of the five criteria, “Fair” if they met three of the five criteria, and “Poor” if they met one or two of the five criteria.

Scales were scored and evaluated according to correct notes, fingering, steady tempo, tempo choice, hand position, and posture. Notes were counted correct if the correct was depressed, regardless of the timing of the depression. Fingering was counted correct if the patterns taught in class piano were used. Steady tempo was evaluated as correct if each note occurred in time, with one half point taken off for hesitating before the next beat and a whole point taken off for stopping completely before the next beat. The student’s tempo choice was

recorded based on each note played counting as one beat.

The written solo accompaniment was scored and evaluated according to the following

criteria: notes, dynamics, rhythm, steady tempo, tempo choice, use of pedal, coordination and

balance with the soloist, keeping eyes on the page, hand position, and posture. Scoring on notes 22 was broken into two categories per measure – the left hand and the right hand chord. Since the right hand chords remained the same throughout each measure, all notes in the right hand chord in each measure were counted as one note, rather than counted separately. The left hand remained the same for each measure and was counted as one note per measure, with the exception being measures 9 and 15, where the bass was counted as three separate notes.

Regarding dynamics, there were three different markings, f, ff, and p, and the performance of each dynamic change was evaluated with either a “yes” or “no.” Rhythm was scored according to each beat per measure. Steady tempo was also scored according to each beat per measure, with hesitations counted as a one half point deduction and complete stops in playing counted as a one point deduction. The use of pedal was evaluated with a “yes” or “no,” and was scored according to whether or not it was changed properly in each measure. Coordination and balance with the soloist were both scored in the same manner as steady tempo, with balance being scored according to whether or not the student’s playing overpowered that of the soloist on any beat of each measure. Keyboard awareness was evaluated according to the number of times the students looked down at their hands during each skill performance.

Scores and evaluations for harmonization were based on notes, rhythm, chord usage, correct progression between chords, correct matching of chords with melody, steady tempo, tempo choice, use of pedal, keyboard awareness, hand position, and posture. Notes of the melody were evaluated separately from the notes of the chords. Correct pedal usage was evaluated based on the number of chords chosen. Rhythm, steady tempo, tempo choice, keyboard awareness, hand position, and posture were either scored or evaluated in the same manner as the written score reading. The chords the students chose to use were also recorded. Scoring the correct notes 23 in each chord, correct progression between chords and correct matching of chords to the melody was based on the number of chords the student chose to use.

For the two-hand accompaniment lead sheet, each student was expected to choose an accompaniment style that incorporated the root of each chord in the left hand as a bass note and the chord tones in the right hand. Similar to the written solo accompaniment, the scoring for notes was separated into two categories for each measure – the left hand bass note and the right hand chord. Also evaluated was whether or not the student used chord inversions in the right hand to facilitate movement between chords, as well as whether chords such as dominant sevenths or augmented chords were resolved with the appropriate voice leading. Steady tempo, tempo choice, use of pedal, coordination and balance with the soloist, keyboard awareness, hand position and posture were evaluated in the same manner as the other skills. Score reading was scored for note accuracy according to the number of notes in each of the two score parts read, with rhythm, tempo, tempo choice, pedal usage, keyboard awareness, hand position and posture being scored or evaluated in the same manner as the other skills.

The video segments for each skill were watched by the researcher two to five times in order to accurately evaluate each student’s posture and hand position and to score correct notes, fingering, rhythm, tempo, pedaling, chord and accompaniment style choices. After scores and evaluations were completed and recorded on the rubric, they were organized in a spreadsheet for analysis. 24

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

The results of this study are divided into three sections: (a) the responses to the written survey, (b) data collected from skill playing exams, and (c) the comparison of the survey responses with the skill playing exam results.

Survey

The survey consisted of four sections. First, students were asked their year in school, degree program, instrument(s) played, and anticipated graduation date. Second, regarding the

Class Piano courses, students were to respond to when they took the classes and the grades they received. Third, the survey asked students to (a) rate the importance of the skills they learned, (b) circle the skills they did not learn that they thought they should have learned, (c) circle the skills they did learn that they thought they did not need to learn, (d) circle skills they thought they could still perform, (e) comment on how they have used the skills they learned in Class Piano since completing the course, and (f) describe the extent of their piano experience prior to taking the course. Fourth, students were to comment on how prepared they felt to use the piano in teaching situations.

Of the 20 students, there were three sophomores, 11 juniors, five first-year seniors, and one second-year senior. Fourteen students were Instrumental Education majors, followed by

Choral Education (n = 5), Performance – double major (n = 2), General Music Education (n = 1), and other (n = 1). The number of students totals more than 20 because one student was a double major in both Instrumental and Choral Education. The Performance majors listed were double majors in Music Education as well as performance. The “other” was a student who had changed majors after completing all of the Music Education requirements of Class Piano. The students’ main instruments included brass (n = 7), voice (n = 6), and woodwinds (n = 5) (See Table 2). 25

The number of instruments totals more than 20 because of the students who majored with two

main instruments.

Table 2

Students’ Year in School, Major, and Instrument

Students (n)

Year Sophomore 3

Junior 11

Senior (first year) 5

Senior (second year) 1

Major Instrumental education 14

Choral education 5

Performance (double major) 2

General music education 1

Other 1

Instrument Voice 6

Flute 3

Clarinet 2

Trumpet 2

Trombone 2

Tuba 2

(table continues) 26

Percussion 2

Euphonium 1

Harp 1

Violin 1

The anticipated graduation date of the students ranged from Spring 2009 to Fall 2011.

Four students took the two-semester track for those entering the Class Piano program with advanced piano skills, and 16 students took the four-semester track for those entering the Class

Piano program with little to no piano skills. All students completed their Class Piano requirements between one and six semesters prior to participating in the survey. Of the 19 students who responded to this question, ten had two teachers, five had three teachers, two had four teachers, and two had one teacher.

Table 3

Students’ Number of Class Piano Teachers

Students (n) Class Piano Teachers (n)

10 2

5 3

2 4

2 1

Note: The total number of students (n = 19) is less than 20 because one student did not respond to this question.

In the next section of the survey, students were asked to rate the skills learned in Class

Piano in order of importance on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the most important and 5 being the 27 least important (See Table 4). The skills that received a mean rating of 2 included scales, sight- reading, and harmonization. The skills that received a mean rating of 3 included two-hand accompaniment, keyboard style, and choral rehearsal. No one suggested any other skills to be rated in the “other” category.

Table 4

Mean Ratings of Class Piano Skills

Skill Mean rating

Harmonization 1.95

Sight-reading 2.00

Instrumental error detection 2.11

Score reading 2.26

Scales 2.30

Four-part hymn 2.39

Choral warm-up 2.45

Solo accompaniment 2.55

Two-hand accompaniment 2.60

Choral rehearsal 2.60

Keyboard style 3.00

Solo repertoire 3.25

Regarding Class Piano skills, students were asked to circle (a) skills they did not learn but thought they should have learned, (b) skills they did learn but did not think they needed to learn, and (c) skills they thought they could still play (See Table 5). Of the skills not learned that they 28

thought should have been learned, the largest number of students (n = 6) circled choral warm-up,

choral rehearsal, and instrumental error detection. None of the students circled scales, two-hand

accompaniment, keyboard style, or four-part hymn. Of the skills learned that they thought they

should not have been learned, the largest number of students circled keyboard style (n = 4), followed by choral rehearsal (n = 3), and scales (n = 2). None of the students circled sight- reading, harmonization, two-hand accompaniment, or four-part hymn. Of the skills that the students thought they could still play, most of the students circled scales (n = 19), followed by sight reading (n = 14), harmonization (n = 14), and two-hand accompaniment (n = 14).

Table 5

Number of Students Who Responded Positively to the Following Survey Questions

Skill Skills not learned Skills learned that I Skills I think I can

that I thought I thought I should not still play

should have have learned

learned

Scales 0 2 19

Sight-reading 1 0 14

Harmonization 1 0 14

Two-hand accompaniment 0 0 14

Keyboard style 0 4 6

Score reading 1 1 5

Four-part hymn 0 0 7

Choral warm-up 6 2 9

(table continues) 29

Choral rehearsal 6 3 5

Instrumental error detection 6 2 9

Solo accompaniment 1 2 10

Solo repertoire 5 2 7

Other 1 0 1

Students were next asked to describe the role of piano in other music classes (See Table

6). Of the 19 students who answered this question, five (26%) said they did not use the piano in any of their other music classes.

Table 6

Other Music Classes Where Students Indicated They Use Class Piano Skills

Class Students (n)

Choral methods 6

Aural skills 5

None 5

Learning solo or choir music 4

Private piano lessons 2

Theory 2

Composition projects 2

Choral arranging 2

Choral warm-ups 1

Jazz pedagogy 1

(table continues) 30

Conducting 1

Score study 1

In the descriptions of the role of piano in teaching and/or performing, there were eight distinct answers among the responses (See Table 7). Ten students (50%) said that they used piano to accompany either themselves, a soloist, or an ensemble.

Table 7

Teaching and/or Performance Situations Where Students Use Class Piano Skills

Teaching or performing situation Students (n)

Accompanying 10

Warm-up on instrument 4

Learning music 4

Intonation 3

Choral rehearsal 3

Teaching a class 3

Score study 1

None 1

In the descriptions of the role of piano in their personal use or pleasure, there were 13 distinct answers among the responses (See Table 8). Eight students (40%) said that they played piano for fun.

31

Table 8

Students’ Responses Regarding Personal Use of Class Piano Skills

Situation Students (n)

For fun 8

Choosing or playing solo repertoire 5

Accompanying 3

Playing with and for family 3

Playing hymns 2

Composing 2

Would play more if I had the time 2

Playing for stress relief 1

Seldom 1

Playing choral music 1

Playing etudes 1

Playing pop songs 1

Sight-reading 1

Students were also asked to describe how frequently they use Class Piano skills in the following situations since completing their Class Piano requirements: (a) other music classes, (b) teaching and/or performing, and (c) personal use or pleasure (See Table 9). In other music classes, the largest number of students circled infrequently (n = 8), followed by somewhat frequently (n = 6), very frequently (n = 4), and never (n = 2). In future teaching and/or performing, half the students circled very frequently (n = 10), followed by somewhat frequently 32

(n = 6), infrequently (n = 3), and never (n = 2). In personal use or pleasure, the largest number of

students circled somewhat frequently (n = 9), followed by infrequently (n = 8), very frequently

(n = 2), and never (n = 1).

Table 9

Students’ Responses to Frequency of Use of Class Piano Skills

Situation Very Somewhat Infrequently Never

frequently frequently

Other music classes 4 6 8 2

Future teaching and/or performing career 10 6 3 1

Personal use or pleasure 2 9 8 1

With regards to their future careers as music educators, students were asked to list the

skills that (a) they think they will use in teaching or teaching preparation, and (b) they think they

need to improve before teaching (See Table 10). Among the skills listed, 15 students (75%)

listed accompanying as a skill they thought they would need in teaching or teaching preparation,

followed by harmonization (n = 9), and choral warm-up (n = 9). The “other” skills for teaching

or teaching preparation were jazz chords (n = 1), score study (n = 1), and score analysis (n = 1).

Of the skills they felt they needed to improve before teaching, the largest number of students

listed sight-reading (n = 9), followed by score reading (n = 8), and harmonization (n = 6). None

of the students listed scales, instrumental error detection, or solo repertoire. The “other” skills to 33

improve before teaching were transposition (n = 3), theory review (n = 1), general hands together playing (n = 1), and accompanying (n = 1).

Table 10

Number of Students Who Responded Positively to the Following Survey Questions

Skills I think I will use in Skills I need to improve

Skill teaching or to prepare for before teaching

teaching

Scales 6 0

Sight-reading 6 9

Harmonization 9 6

Two-hand accompaniment 7 3

Keyboard style 2 1

Score reading 5 8

Four-part hymn 6 2

Choral warm-up 9 1

Choral rehearsal 4 1

Instrumental error detection 6 0

Solo accompaniment 15 4

Solo repertoire 2 0

Other 3 6

Students were asked to list ways that would help them improve or practice their Class

Piano skills, and 11 different responses were listed (See Table 11). One person did not respond to 34

this question. The largest number of students listed practice (n = 9), followed by private lessons

(n = 3), and integrating the use of Class Piano skills into other music classes (n = 3). Of the three students who suggested private lessons, one specified that private lessons should focus on functional skills, and one suggested that private lessons be offered either in addition to or instead of Class Piano.

Table 11

Students’ Suggestions on How to Improve and Practice Skills Before Student Teaching

Suggestion Students (n)

Practice 9

Private lessons 3

Have classes integrate Class Piano skill usage 3

Score reading practice 2

Have materials available to use for practice 2

Have a refresher course before student teaching 2

More time to practice 1

Work more slowly in Class Piano 1

Sight-reading practice 1

Suggest a daily routine for piano practice 1

Space piano classes throughout four years 1

Lastly, students were asked to describe the extent of their piano experience prior to coming to college (See Table 12). The largest number of students had between one and five years of piano experience (n = 8), followed by no formal lessons (n = 6), five to 10 years of 35 private lessons (n = 3), and 10 to 13 years of private lessons (n = 3). Four of the 20 students who responded to this question noted that they had accompanying experience in addition to five or more years of private lessons.

Table 12

Students’ Pre-College Piano Experience

Amount of experience Students (n)

Self-taught or no formal lessons 6

1-4 years private lessons 8

5-9 years private lessons 3

10-13 years private lessons 3

Skill Playing Exam

In the Class Piano courses, students are required to demonstrate proficiency in the skills they have learned by the end of the semester. Proficiency is defined by a grade C or higher, which is 70% or higher on a 100% scale. Students have “passed” a skill if they receive a 70% or higher on the proficiency exam for that skill, and have “failed” a skill if they receive a 69% or lower on the proficiency exam for that skill. This pass/fail evaluation is applied to the grading of the skill playing exam. Scores will be referred to as their numerical value as opposed to the number and percentage. Hand position, posture, the number of times students looked down at their hands during the performance, and the amount of correct pedal usage were not factored into the overall mean score for each skill. 36

Students were tested on the following five skills: (a) major and minor scales, (b) written out solo accompaniment, (c) harmonization, (d) two-hand accompaniment on a lead sheet, and

(e) a two-part score reading excerpt.

Overall Mean Score

The mean of all five skill playing exam scores was calculated in order to determine each student’s overall score (See Table 13). All overall scores were 81 or higher, which shows a generally high retention of Class Piano skills. Fifteen students (75%) scored between 80-89, and five students (25%) scored between 90-100. Of the five (25%) students who scored between 90-

100, four were instrumentalists, and the highest score belonged to a vocalist who is no longer a

Music Education major. Three of these students had more than 10 years of pre-college piano experience; however, one student with no pre-college piano experience had the third highest

overall score.

Table 13

Students’ Overall Scores

Student Degree Instrument Years of pre- Pre-college Semesters Overall

college piano accompanying since last % score

experience experience piano

class

9 BA Voice 12 1 93.75

15 I Harp 9 x 4 93.75

4 I/P 0 2 91.75

(table continues) 37

5 I 13 x 3 91.50

11 I 5 1 91.50

14 I Violin 2 x 1 88.25

16 I 5 1 88.25

10 C Voice 0 2 87.75

13 I/P 0 2 87.75

2 C Voice 3 1 87.50

8 I Flute 11 5 87.50

17 I Clarinet 7 x 4 87.00

12 I Trombone 0 4 86.50

1 I Flute 5 3 86.00

19 C Voice 0 1 85.00

19 I Trumpet 0 1 85.00

6 I Percussion 1 4 83.50

7 C Voice/tuba 0 6 83.50

3 C Voice 6 3 83.00

18 G Percussion 3 2 82.50

20 I 5 1 81.00

Note: I = Instrumental Education Major, C = Choral Education Major, G = General Music

Education Major, P = Performance Major.

While each students’ overall score was above 80, not all students scored above 70 on every individual skill, showing a lack of retention of those particular skills (See Table 14). The 38 highest retained skills were harmonization (100%), followed by two-hand accompaniment (95%) and scales (90%). Only 13 students (65%) showed retention of all five skills.

Table 14

Students Demonstrated Retention of Each Tested Skill

Skill Retained

n %

students

Harmonization 20 100

Two-hand accompaniment 19 95

Scales 18 90

Solo accompaniment 18 90

Score reading 17 81

All five skills 13 65

Note: The number of students who did and did not retain the score reading skill totals more than

20 because one double major read both scores.

Scales

For the scales portion of the skill playing exam, students were scored on note accuracy, correct fingering, and steady tempo (See Tables 15 and 16). Note accuracy and steady tempo mean scores were very high among all four scales, with no grade score less than 91 for either aspect. The mean score for fingering, which is vital to keyboard awareness and proficiency in general piano playing, was passing for Eb major (73), D major (75) and G natural minor (71). 39

The mean fingering score for E harmonic minor was below passing (62). While the mean fingering score for three of the four scales was passing with an 82 or higher, five students (25%) scored less than 70% on the Eb major fingering, nine students (45%) scored less than 70 on the

D major fingering, 11 students (55%) scored less than 70 on the E harmonic minor fingering, and nine students (45%) scored less than 70 on the G natural minor fingering. Students’ tempo choice for each scale is a reflection of their level of proficiency and comfort at the keyboard, and was also recorded. The fastest mean playing speed was for D major (116 Beats Per Minute), followed by G natural minor (114 BPM), Eb major (112 BPM) and E harmonic minor (108 BPM).

Table 15

Results of the Scales Portion of the Skill Playing Exam

Mean scores %

Skill Eb major D major E harmonic minor G natural minor

Notes 99 99 92 100

Fingering 73 75 62 71

Steady tempo 96 97 91 97

Overall 89 90 82 89

Table 16

Mean Beats Per Minute (BPM) of Tempo Choice for Skill Playing Exam

Scale Tempo choice mean (BPM)

D major 116

(table continues) 40

G natural minor 114

Eb major 112

E harmonic minor 108

The overall mean score for scales ranged from 54-97 (See Table 17). Of the seven students (35%) who scored between 90-100, three students had no pre-college piano experience.

Of the six vocalists who participated in the study, four scored between 90-100 and two scored between 80-89.

Table 17

Comparison of Overall Scales Score With Students’ Degree, Instrument, Years of Pre-College

Piano Experience, and Pre-College Accompanying Experience

Student Degree Instrument Years of pre- Pre-college Scales

college accompanying score %

piano experience

experience

1 I Flute 5 97

12 I Trombone 0 97

2 C Voice 3 94

9 BA Voice 12 92

19 C/I Voice/Trumpet 0 92

7 C Voice/tuba 0 90

15 I Harp 9 x 90

(table continues) 41

3 C Voice 6 88

14 I Violin 2 x 88

13 I/P Clarinet 0 87

4 I/P Flute 0 86

10 C Voice 0 86

5 I Tuba 13 x 82

11 I Trombone 5 82

17 I Clarinet 7 x 80

16 I Trumpet 5 78

8 I Flute 11 77

6 I Percussion 1 76

18 G Percussion 3 65

20 I Euphonium 5 54

Note: I = Instrumental Education Major, C = Choral Education Major, G = General Music

Education Major, P = Performance Major.

Solo Accompaniment

The solo accompaniment portion of the skill playing exam was scored based on accurate notes, rhythm, steady tempo, dynamics, ability to stay with the soloist throughout the performance and ability to balance with the soloist throughout the performance (See Table 18).

The overall mean score was passing with an 85, and the mean tempo choice was 89 BPM. The highest mean score aspect included steady tempo (99), followed by correct rhythm (98), and balance with soloist (96). Six students (30%) scored less than 70 on note accuracy, 18 students 42

(90%) scored less than 70 on dynamics, two students (10%) scored less than 70 on staying with the soloist, and two students (10%) scored less than 70 on balance with the soloist.

Table 18

Results of the Solo Accompaniment Portion of the Skill Playing Exam

Aspect of skill Mean %

Steady tempo 99

Rhythm 98

Balance with soloist 96

Stayed with soloist 94

Notes 80

Dynamics 41

Overall score 85

The overall mean score for solo accompaniment ranged from 65-100 (See Table 19). The two highest scores belonged to students who had not only between nine and 13 years of pre- college piano experience but also accompanying experience. Of the five students (25%) who scored between 90-100, all were instrumentalists, and only one had no pre-college piano experience.

43

Table 19

Comparison of Overall Solo Accompaniment Score With Students’ Degree, Instrument, Years of

Pre-College Piano Experience, and Pre-College Accompanying Experience

Student Degree Instrument Years of Pre-college Solo

pre-college accompanying accompaniment

piano experience score %

experience

5 I Tuba 13 x 100

15 I Harp 9 x 100

20 I Euphonium 5 94

8 I Flute 11 93

4 I/P Flute 0 91

9 BA Voice 12 88

11 I Trombone 5 88

17 I Clarinet 7 x 87

6 I Percussion 1 86

16 I Trumpet 5 86

14 I Violin 2 x 85

13 I/P Clarinet 0 84

3 C Voice 6 83

2 C Voice 3 81

10 C Voice 0 80

(table continues) 44

12 I Trombone 0 80

18 G Percussion 3 80

19 C/I Voice/Trumpet 0 76

1 I Flute 5 69

7 C Voice/tuba 0 65

Note: I = Instrumental Education Major, C = Choral Education Major, G = General Music

Education Major, P = Performance Major.

Harmonization

Harmonization was scored on both the analytical and execution aspects of the skill (See

Table 20). Students were scored on note accuracy in the melody, note accuracy in the chords chosen, rhythm accuracy in the melody, correct chord progression, correct matching of chords with the melody notes, and steady tempo. The overall mean score was passing with a 92, and the mean tempo choice was 69 BPM. The aspect with the highest mean score included melody notes

(98), followed by rhythm (97), and chord matching with melody (95). Two students (10%) scored less than 70 on chord notes, one student (5%) scored less than 70 on chord progression, one student (5%) scored less than 70 on chord matching with melody, and three students (15%) scored less than 70 on steady tempo. Students used between three and seven chords, and used a mean of four chords for the harmonization example.

45

Table 20

Results of the Harmonization Portion of the Skill Playing Exam

Aspect of skill Mean %

Melody notes 98

Rhythm 97

Chord matching with melody 95

Chord notes 90

Chord progression 86

Steady tempo 84

Overall score 92

The overall mean score for harmonization ranged between 87-100 (See Table 21).

Twelve students (60%) scored between 90-100, and eight students (40%) scored between 80-89.

Of the students who scored between 90-100, three had pre-college accompanying experience.

Table 21

Comparison of Overall Harmonization Score With Students’ Degree, Instrument, Years of Pre-

College Piano Experience, and Pre-College Accompanying Experience

Student Degree Instrument Years of pre- Pre-college Harmonization

college piano accompanying score %

experience experience

9 BA Voice 12 100

(table continues) 46

11 I Trombone 5 97

1 I Flute 5 95

4 I/P Flute 0 95

16 I Trumpet 5 95

3 C Voice 6 94

19 C/I Voice/Trumpet 0 94

14 I Violin 2 x 93

15 I Harp 9 x 91

17 I Clarinet 7 x 91

10 C Voice 0 90

18 G Percussion 3 90

13 I/P Clarinet 0 89

5 I Tuba 13 x 88

7 C Voice/tuba 0 88

8 I Flute 11 88

12 I Trombone 0 88

20 I Euphonium 5 88

2 C Voice 3 87

6 I Percussion 1 87

Note: I = Instrumental Education Major, C = Choral Education Major, G = General Music

Education Major, P = Performance Major.

47

Two-Hand Accompaniment

Two-hand accompaniment was scored on correct notes, steady tempo, ability to stay with

the soloist throughout the performance, and ability to balance with the soloist throughout the performance (See Table 22). The overall mean score was passing with a 95, and the mean tempo choice was 79 BPM. All students used proper voice leading and inversions when reading the lead sheet. All students scored 100 on staying with the soloist and balance with the soloist, followed by the mean scores of steady tempo (98) and note accuracy (80). Four students (20%) scored less than 70 on note accuracy, and three students (15%) did not use an appropriate two-hand accompaniment style.

Table 22

Results of the Two-Hand Accompaniment Portion of the Skill Playing Exam

Aspect of skill Mean %

Stayed with soloist 100

Balance with soloist 100

Steady tempo 98

Notes 80

Overall score 95

The overall mean scores for two-hand accompaniment ranged from 67-99 (See Table 23).

Of the 12 students (60%) who scored between 90-100, three had accompanying experience.

48

Table 23

Comparison of Overall Two-hand Accompaniment Score With Students’ Degree, Instrument,

Years of Pre-College Piano Experience, and Accompanying Experience

Student Degree Instrument Years of Pre-college Semesters Two-hand

pre- accompanying since last accompaniment

college experience piano % score

piano class

experience

11 I Trombone 5 1 99

5 I Tuba 13 x 3 96

4 I/P Flute 0 2 95

9 BA Voice 12 1 95

10 C Voice 0 2 95

18 G Percussion 3 2 95

15 I Harp 9 x 4 94

16 I Trumpet 5 1 94

8 I Flute 11 5 92

7 C Voice/tuba 0 6 91

13 I/P Clarinet 0 2 91

17 I Clarinet 7 x 4 90

2 C Voice 3 1 88

20 I Euphonium 5 1 88

(table continues) 49

14 I Violin 2 x 1 87

6 I Percussion 1 4 85

1 I Flute 5 3 83

12 I Trombone 0 4 81

19 C/I Voice/ 0 1 78

Trumpet

3 C Voice 6 3 67

Note: I = Instrumental Education Major, C = Choral Education Major, G = General Music

Education Major, P = Performance Major.

Score Reading

Score reading was separated into two categories – a Soprano I, Soprano II, and Alto eight-measure excerpt for the Choral Music Education majors, and a Horn and Cello nine- measure score excerpt for the Instrumental Music Education majors. Choral Music Education majors were asked to read the Soprano I and Alto parts, while the Instrumental Music Education majors were expected to transpose the Horn part in order to play it with the Cello part. The score reading portion of the skill exam was scored on correct notes, correct rhythm, and steady tempo

(See Table 24). Six students read the vocal score and 15 read the instrumental score. The overall mean score for the vocal score was 98 and the overall mean score for the instrumental score was

79. The mean tempo choice for the vocal score was 71 BPM and the mean tempo choice for the instrumental score was 58 BPM. For the vocal score, students’ mean scores for notes and rhythm in both parts was 100, with a mean steady tempo score of 92. The mean note accuracy score for the instrumental score was 69 for the F horn part and 80 for the cello part. The mean rhythm accuracy score for the instrumental score was 96 for the F horn part and 89 for the cello part. 50

Four of the 15 students (27%) scored less than 70 in the F horn part notes, two of the 15 students

(13%) scored less than 70 on the cello part notes, two of the 15 students (13%) scored less than

70 on the cello part rhythm, and nine of the 15 students (60%) scored less than 70 on steady

tempo.

Table 24

Results of the Score Reading Portion of the Skill Playing Exam

Vocal mean score Instrumental mean score

Aspect of skill Soprano I (top) Alto (bottom) F horn (top) Cello (bottom)

Notes 100 100 69 80

Rhythm 100 100 96 89

Steady tempo 92 - 59 -

The overall score for two-hand accompaniment ranged between 50-99 (See Table 25). Of

the seven students (35%) who scored between 90-100, five were vocalists, and four of the seven

had completed their Class Piano requirements one semester before participating in this study. Of the four students (20%) who scored below 70, all were instrumentalists.

51

Table 25

Comparison of Overall Score Reading Score With Students’ Degree, Instrument, Years of Pre-

College Piano Experience, and Accompanying Experience

Student Degree Instrument Years of pre- Pre-college Semesters Score

college piano accompanying since last reading

experience experience piano class % score

3 C Voice 6 3 99

10 C Voice 0 2 97

2 C Voice 3 1 96

9 BA Voice 12 1 96

19 C Voice 0 1 95

16 I Trumpet 5 1 93

8 I Flute 11 5 90

6 I Percussion 1 4 87

4 I/P Flute 0 2 86

18 G Percussion 3 2 85

5 I Tuba 13 x 3 84

14 I Violin 2 x 1 84

20 I Euphonium 5 1 83

7 C Voice/tuba 0 6 81

17 I Clarinet 7 x 4 78

19 I Trumpet 0 1 77

(table continues) 52

15 I Harp 9 x 4 75

1 I Flute 5 3 64

11 I Trombone 5 1 58

13 I/P Clarinet 0 2 56

12 I Trombone 0 4 50

Note: I = Instrumental Education Major, C = Choral Education Major, G = General Music

Education Major, P = Performance Major.

Hand Position and Posture

Hand position and posture were evaluated on a rating scale. In order to calculate the mean rating, number values were assigned to evaluations as follows: Excellent = 4, Good = 3, Fair = 2, and Poor = 1. The mean rating for hand position across all five skills was 3 (Good) and the mean rating for posture across all five skills was 2 (Fair). The students’ hand position and posture fluctuated among the skills (See Table 26), with much fewer students having Excellent posture than Excellent hand position.

Table 26

Students’ Hand Position and Posture Ratings Per Skill

Rating Studentsn) (

Scales Solo Harmonization Two-hand Score

accompaniment accompaniment reading

Hand Excellent 3 7 5 6 4

position

(table continues) 53

Good 8 8 8 9 8

Fair 6 5 6 5 8

Poor 3 0 1 0 0

Posture Excellent 0 1 1 0 1

Good 4 3 3 4 3

Fair 10 5 3 7 6

Poor 6 11 13 9 10

Keyboard Awareness

The number of times the students looked down at their hands instead of the music was recorded during each skill in order to assess the students’ keyboard topography awareness and general comfort at the keyboard (See Table 27). On average, students looked down at their hands the most during score reading (20 times), followed by two-hand accompaniment (17 times), harmonization (13 times), and solo accompaniment (10 times). The number of times students looked at their hands ranged from one to 20 while playing the solo accompaniment, from two to

21 during the harmonization, from five to 26 during the two-hand accompaniment, and from four to 57 during the score reading.

Table 27

Number of Times Students Looked Down at Hands Per Skill

Skill Mean Range

Scales n/a n/a

(table continues) 54

Solo accompaniment 10 1-20

Harmonization 13 2-21

Two-hand accompaniment 17 5-26

Score reading 20 4-57

Pedal Usage

Pedal usage was not a required component of any of the skills; however, both the amount it was used and amount it was used properly were evaluated (See Table 28). The largest number of students used pedal while playing the two-hand accompaniment (n = 5), followed by harmonization and score reading (n = 4), and solo accompaniment (n = 3). The mean score for proper pedal usage was highest for solo accompaniment (90), followed by harmonization (89), score reading (69), and two-hand accompaniment (67).

Table 28

Amount of Students’ Correct Pedal Usage Per Skill

Skill Students n (%) who used pedal Mean % correct pedal changes

Scales n/a n/a

Solo accompaniment 3 (15%) 90

Harmonization 4 (20%) 89

Score reading 4 (20%) 69

Two-hand accompaniment 5 (25%) 67

55

Comparison of Skill Playing Exam Results With Survey Responses

In order to find a correlation between the extent to which the students value the tested

skills with both their perceived ability and actual ability to play those skills, comparisons were

made between the students’ overall score for each skill and their survey responses. In Tables 22 through 26, the students’ overall score for every skill is compared with their importance rating for that skill and also with whether or not the students indicated that they (a) thought they would use that skill teaching, (b) thought they could still play the skill, and (c) felt they needed to improve the skill before beginning teaching. For all five skills, there did not appear to be a pattern between the importance rating, the overall mean score, or the survey questions.

Scales

For scales, the overall mean score consisted of the notes, steady tempo, and fingering means (See Table 29). Of the overall mean scores, seven students (35%) scored between 90-100, eight students (40%) scored between 80-89, three students (15%) scored between 70-79, and two students’ overall scores were below 70. Of the six students (30%) who thought they would use

scales in their teaching, three scored between 90-100, two scored between 80-89, and one scored

between 70-79. Nineteen students indicated that they thought could still play scales, and the one

student who did not scored a 65%. None of the students indicated that they felt they would need

to improve scales before teaching.

56

Table 29

Scales: Comparison of Skill Playing Exam Results With Survey Responses

Student Overall Importance Will use in Can still Need to

mean % rating teaching play improve

12 97 1 x x

1 97 4 x

2 94 1 x x

19 92 2 x

9 92 3 x x

15 90 2 x

7 90 1 x

14 88 1 x

3 88 2 x

13 87 4 x

4 86 3 x

10 86 1 x x

11 82 1 x

5 82 3 x

17 80 2 x x

16 78 1 x x

8 77 4 x

6 76 4 x

(table continues) 57

18 65 3

20 54 3 x

Solo Accompaniment

The overall mean score for solo accompaniment consisted of notes, rhythm, steady

tempo, dynamics, staying with the soloist throughout the performance, and balancing with the

soloist throughout the performance (See Table 30). For overall scores, five students (25%)

scored between 90-100, 12 students (60%) scored between 80-89, one student (5%) scored a 76,

and two students (10%) scored below 70. Of the 15 students (75%) who indicated that they will

use solo accompaniment in teaching, two scored between 90-100, 11 scored between 80-89, and

two scored below 70. Of the 10 students (50%) who thought they could still play solo accompaniment, four students scored between 90-100, and six students scored between 80-89.

Of the four students (20%) who indicated that they need to improve solo accompaniment before

teaching, one scored between 90-100 and three scored 80-89.

Table 30

Solo Accompaniment: Comparison of Skill Playing Exam Results With Survey Responses

Student Overall mean Importance Will use in Can still play Need to

% rating teaching improve

5 100 2 x

15 100 3 x x

20 94 3 x

8 93 2 x x

(table continues) 58

4 91 2 x

9 88 1 x

11 88 5 x x

17 87 3 x x

6 86 1 x x

16 86 1 x x

14 85 1 x x

13 84 5 x

3 83 3 x x

2 81 1 x x

12 80 3 x

10 80 4 x

18 80 2 x x

19 76 4

1 69 3 x

7 65 2 x

Harmonization

The harmonization overall mean score consisted of melody notes, rhythm, chord notes, chord progression, chord matching with melody, and steady tempo (See Table 31). Twelve students (60%) scored between 90-100 and eight students (40%) scored between 80-89. Of the nine students (45%) who indicated that they will use harmonization in teaching, eight scored between 90-100 and one scored between 80-89. Of the 14 students (70%) who thought they 59 could still play harmonization, nine scored between 90-100 and five scored between 80-89. Of the six students (30%) who thought they needed to improve harmonization before teaching, four scored between 90-100 and two scored between 80-89.

Table 31

Harmonization: Comparison of Skill Playing Exam Results With Survey Responses

Student Overall Importance Will use in Can still play Need to

mean% rating teaching improve

9 100 2 x x

11 97 1 x x x

1 95 2 x x

16 95 1 x x

4 95 1 x x

3 94 1 x

19 94 2 x x

14 93 2 x

17 91 2 x

15 91 2 x

10 90 1 x x

18 90 2 x x

13 89 5 x

7 88 1 x

20 88 3 x

(table continues) 60

5 88 4 x

12 88 2

8 88 2 x

6 87 1 x

2 87 2 x x

Two-Hand Accompaniment

The overall mean score for the two-hand accompaniment consisted of notes, steady tempo, staying with the soloist and balance with the soloist (See Table 32). All 20 students

scored 100 on staying with the soloist and balance with the soloist, which changed the overall

mean scores considerably and is a less accurate representation of how well the students were able

to read the lead sheet and play the notes correctly. Score comparisons use the notes and tempo

mean score only. Twelve students (60%) scored between 90-100, six students (30%) scored

between 80-89, one student (5%) scored between 70-79 and one student (5%) scored below 70.

Of the seven students (35%) who thought they would use two-hand accompaniment in teaching,

five scored between 90-100, one scored between 80-89, and one scored between 70-79. Of the 14

students (70%) who thought they could still play two-hand accompaniment, eight scored between 90-100, five scored between 80-89, and one scored below 70. Of the three students

(15%) who thought they needed to improve two-hand accompaniment before teaching, all three scored between 90-100.

61

Table 32

Two-Hand Accompaniment: Comparison of Skill Playing Exam Results With Survey Responses

Student Notes and Overall Importance Will use in Can still Need to

steady tempo mean % rating teaching play improve

mean %

11 99 99 3 x

5 96 98 4 x

4 95 97 1

9 95 97 4

10 95 97 3 x

18 95 97 1 x x x

15 94 96 3 x

16 94 96 1 x x

8 92 95 1 x x

7 91 95 2

13 91 94 5 x x x

17 90 94 3 x

2 88 93 1 x x

20 88 93 2 x

14 87 92 4 x

6 85 91 4 x

1 83 90 2 x

(table continues) 62

12 81 88 3 x

19 78 87 3 x

3 67 80 2 x

Score Reading

The overall mean score for vocal and instrumental score reading consisted of notes, rhythm, and steady tempo (See Table 33). Since there was one double major in both Choral and

Instrumental Music Education, 21 scores were included, but only 20 responses and ratings were included. The General Music Education major read the choral score. For overall scores, seven students (33.3%) scored between 90-100, with five choral and two instrumental; seven students

(33.3%) scored between 80-89, with one choral and six instrumental; three students (14.3%) scored between 70-79, with all three instrumental; and four students (19%) scored below 70, with all three instrumental. Of the five students (25%) who thought they would use score reading in teaching, two scored between 90-100, two scored between 80-90, and one scored between 70-

79. Of the five students who thought they could still play score reading, two scored between 90-

100, one scored between 80-89, and two scored between 70-79. Of the nine students (45%) who thought they needed to improve score reading before teaching, one scored between 90-100, three scored between 80-89, two scored between 70-79, and three scored below 70.

63

Table 33

Score Reading: Comparison of Skill Playing Exam Results With Survey Responses

Student Choral (C) or Overall Importance Will use in Can still Need to

instrumental (I) mean % rating teaching play improve

3 C 99 3

10 C 97 1 x x

2 C 96 2 x

9 C 96 3

19 C 95 4

16 I 93 1 x x

8 I 90 2

6 I 87 2 x

4 I 86 2

18 C 85 2

5 I 84 1 x x

14 I 84 4 x

20 I 83 2 x

7 C 81 1 x

17 I 78 3 x x

19 I 77 2 x x

15 I 75 1 x

1 I 64 2 x

(table continues) 64

11 I 58 5

13 I 56 4 x

12 I 50 2 x

Note: There are two rows for student 19, who was a double major in choral and instrumental education and read both scores. 65

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION

This chapter is divided into three sections: (a) aspects of the survey that were not tested in

the skill playing exam, (b) answers to the three research questions, and (c) implications for music

education and suggestions for further research. With regards to the discussion of results in relation to the Class Piano courses, students were either enrolled in a two-semester or four-

semester track of Class Piano. The two-semester track is for students with a considerable amount

of pre-college piano experience and technical facility, but who must still learn functional piano

skills as part of their Music Education degree requirements. The four-semester track is for

students with little to no pre-college piano experience or training. The same functional skills are taught in both classes. Regarding the discussion of the results of the skill playing exam, scores will be referred to as their numerical value as opposed to the number and percentage.

Survey

The sample of students in this study included every college year, Music Education degree program, and instrument family. There were considerably fewer Choral Education majors (n = 5) than Instrumental Education majors (n = 15); however, there did not seem to be a considerable difference in scores among Choral, Instrumental, or General Music Education majors, nor did there seem to be a considerable difference in scores between those who were instrumentalists and those who were vocalists. The number of Class Piano teachers per student also did not seem to affect the students’ scores in the skill playing exam.

In the skill ratings, students were asked to rate the listed Class Piano skills in order of

importance. It was expected that the students would rate the skills according to their personal

preference. However, some students asked for clarification as to whether they needed to rate the

skills according to the importance they were given in the class or according to how important 66

they themselves would rate the skills, which could mean that there may be a discrepancy in their

responses as to whether or not they rated the skills according to their own personal preference.

The mean ratings of all of the skills were high (1 or 2) to moderate (3) in importance on a five

point scale (1 = most important and 5 = least important), and the highest rated skills

(harmonization and sight-reading) are the same skills that are emphasized as highly important

throughout the Class Piano curriculum.

Skills Not Tested in the Skill Playing Exam

The skills addressed in the survey that were not tested in the skill playing exam were

keyboard style, four-part hymn, choral warm-up, choral rehearsal, instrumental error detection,

and solo repertoire.

Keyboard style, four-part hymn, choral warm-up, choral rehearsal, and instrumental error

detection are all skills that are introduced and taught during the third semester of the four-

semester Class Piano track and the second semester of the two-semester track. Solo repertoire is

a skill that is taught during the first two semesters of the four-semester track and the first

semesters of the two-semester track. It is not surprising that so few students indicated that they

would use solo repertoire in teaching because solo repertoire is not immediately relatable to

teaching situations; however, the reason solo repertoire is taught in Class Piano is for general

comfort at the keyboard and practice with performing on the piano in a public, and often stress-

inducing, situation (Tollenaar, 2008). Both of these aspects of the skill facilitate the use of piano

in teaching situations.

With regards to the skills that are only learned during one semester, there seemed to be a

connection between how important or useful the students thought the skills were with how well the students thought they could play the skills. Keyboard style and four-part hymn were both 67

generally considered to be relatively unimportant skills that would not likely be used in teaching,

nor were they skills that students generally felt they could still play. Class Piano students work

on these two skills for only one semester, and many students find them difficult to learn. Because

of this lack of practice and reduced emphasis of these skills in the following semester, it is not

surprising that students were more apt to feel that they not only retained the skill less but also to value it less.

It is interesting to note that while choral warm-up was a skill that instrumentalists and vocalists alike thought they needed to learn, only two vocalists thought they would use choral rehearsal in their teaching. While both of these skills are essential to either general music or choral teaching, perhaps their emphasis during only a relatively short time causes students to feel that they are not important skills. It is also interesting to note that while none of the students felt they needed to improve instrumental error detection prior to teaching, several students indicated transposition – an essential element in instrumental error detection – as a skill they felt they

needed to improve before teaching.

In order for more students to feel proficient with choral warm-up, choral rehearsal, and

instrumental error detection, perhaps more time should be spent on these skills, either within the

semester it is taught, or perhaps they should even be introduced in a previous semester, as would

be the case for those in the four-semester track. In the four-semester track, Music Education

majors could learn simple choral warm-ups based on the five-finger pentascales they learn in the

first three weeks of Class Piano, and later use very simple two- and three-voice scores for choral rehearsal. Simple two- and three-instrument scores with transposing instruments could be used for simple transposition exercises for instrumental error detection during the second or even first semester of the four-semester track. 68

The Role of Piano Before and After Taking Class Piano

Students were asked to describe the role of piano in their (a) other classes, (b) teaching

and/or performing career, and (c) personal use of pleasure, as well as the frequency of their piano

usage in these areas. Magnesen’s review (1983) citing the Laws of Exercise and Disuse may help

relate the extent to which students continue to use the piano and their retention of Class Piano

skills. Regarding the use of piano in other classes, the largest number of students listed Choral

Methods and Aural Skills. This is not surprising, given that piano is an essential tool in both

classes; however, the largest number of students said they used piano in other classes

infrequently. Five students (25%) said they did not use piano in any of their other classes. This

could be because some students had either not yet taken Choral Methods or already completed

their Aural Skills and Choral Methods classes. Other than accompanying, very few students

listed teaching or performing situations where they use piano. Ten students (50%) said they used

piano in their teaching or performing careers very frequently, and it is encouraging to know that

Class Piano skills are so often put to use.

Regarding the use of piano for personal use or pleasure, three students said they either did not have time to play piano recreationally or seldom played recreationally. The largest number of students use piano for personal use or pleasure either somewhat frequently or infrequently.

Almost all the students mentioned instances where they use piano “for fun,” which shows that, although these students do not have much time to play recreationally, piano skills are valued beyond academic requirements.

As stated in Magnesen’s review regarding the Law of Exercise (1983), it is important to find ways to help students continue to use and practice acquired skills in order to retain them. By asking students for their ideas on how they would improve or practice their piano skills before 69

student teaching, music educators can discover the students’ ideas on how to improve retention,

ways to implement these ideas into the Class Piano curriculum, and bridge the gap between an

ideal learning situation and the reality of balancing piano skill maintenance with the other

demands on a student’s time.

Nine students simply listed practice as a way to improve, but none provided any specific

detail on what kind of practice is needed for improvement. This shows that the students, while

aware of the need to practice in order to maintain a skill, have not necessarily formulated a plan of on their own. Others were more specific in their list of practice needs, suggesting sight-

reading and score reading practice, having materials available to them in general to practice, and

even asking for a suggested daily piano practicing routine, all of which are ideas that could be

implemented into a Class Piano curriculum.

Some suggested that piano be integrated more into other music classes. While the idea of

a Class Piano curriculum that corresponds with theory and aural skill classes has been a topic of

interest to many theory and group piano teachers, it is logistically difficult to materialize this idea

because of the varying needs of every class and teaching styles of every teacher. Because of this

challenge, there may be less of an effort to integrate piano skills into classes such as conducting,

general music education classes, or vocal pedagogy. Two students suggested a “refresher course”

in functional piano skills for interested students before student teaching or graduation, which is

one of the same suggestions Burleson-Hines (1994) made to improve the retention of piano

skills.

70

How Well Do Former Class Piano Students Retain

the Skills Learned in Their Class Piano Courses?

Overall, all students showed a high amount of retention of Class Piano skills. It was expected that the students with the most pre-college piano experience would score the highest; however, it was surprising that a student with no pre-college piano experience had the third highest overall score. There did not seem to be a substantial connection between the length of time since students took their last Class Piano course and their overall retention of the tested skills. According to Fleishman (1962), the length of time between training and recall does not affect retention as much as the initial level of proficiency achieved prior to the period of time without practice. Perhaps students’ proficiency scores could have been an indicator of retention rather than the length of time since the course was taken. It was also surprising that the number of semesters since taking Class Piano did not seem to affect the students’ overall scores. While the number of students who did not retain all five skills was very low, other factors within each skill may affect the perception of how well these skills were retained.

What Aspects of Each Skill Were and Were Not Retained?

Scales

As far as note and tempo accuracy on scales, the students scored very high overall. The mean tempo range (108-116 BPM) of the scale performances also showed that the students were fairly fluent in their performance of the correct notes at a steady tempo. This could be a result of the emphasis this skill received in Class Piano, but it could also be a result of transfer from the students’ own musical training on their primary instruments and in theory classes.

When musicians study their instrument, scale exercises are considered essential to the development of musical and technical skills on that instrument. Because of the constant use of 71

scales on their own instruments as well as the study of them in theory class, many students

maintain a strong conceptual knowledge of scale patterns and, at a slow tempo, can transfer this

knowledge to the piano. The difference in transferring the conceptual knowledge of scales from

one’s principal instrument to piano is fingering. The learning of scales with the correct fingering

patterns familiarizes students with the topographical patterns of the keyboard. This kinesthetic

awareness and comfort at the piano helps students with progressively more difficult skills that

are needed in order to be proficient at playing the piano: intervals, key signatures, chord

progressions, harmonization, transposition, sight-reading, and repertoire (Péladeau, 2003).

However, students need to achieve a level of fluency, rather than mere accuracy, in scale playing in order for this topographical awareness to transfer to the playing of other piano skills (Ericsson,

1995). A level of fluency in scale playing is shown not only by accurate notes, steady tempo, and speed, but also with correct fingering. Fluency in scale playing manifests itself with the transfer to other skills, such as reading scale exercises or pieces with scale passages with accurate fingering. While most students played the scales with note and tempo accuracy and somewhat fluent speed, very few played all of the scales with accurate fingering. These students may have been proficient in scale fingering patterns during their Class Piano courses, but the lack of correct fingering patterns in the skill playing exam shows very little retention of this essential element of both scale playing and proficient keyboard playing.

There are a number of reasons why the correct finger in aspect of piano playing may have been so poorly retained. One reason could be that students in Class Piano do not often reach a level of scale playing proficiency beyond playing correct notes, correct fingering, and steady tempo at any speed they choose. Requiring a level of proficiency in scale playing that shows fluency rather than mere accuracy, as well as performing scales in the context of scale reading 72

exercises, choral warm-ups, and solo or accompaniment repertoire may increase retention. As

Magnesen’s review on memory and retention skills (1983) suggested, stimulating the widest variety of senses increases retention, as does a variety of presentations of the skill in different contexts (Shehan, 1987).

Solo Accompaniment

The least retained aspect of this skill was dynamics. A reason for this lack of retention

may be that dynamics are not as emphasized in Class Piano as much as accurate notes, rhythm, steady tempo, and coordination between hands. Introducing dynamic markings and perhaps more

musical gestures in general from the very beginning of Class Piano is likely to increase retention

of this aspect of piano playing.

Harmonization

Harmonization had the highest rate of retention of the five skills, with all the students

scoring between 87-100 for this skill. Tempo choice was an aspect of the skill that was not

factored into scoring for any of the skills; however, taking into account the mean tempo choice may alter the perceived level of success in the execution of harmonization. The mean tempo choice was 69 BPM, which may mean that although students played with correct notes, rhythm, and steady tempo, this coordination was very slow and not fluent.

Another factor that may affect the retention results is the number of chords chosen. A majority of students used only primary chords (I, IV, and V7), which may be why they were fairly successful in executing the example. Most students who chose between five and seven

chords that included secondary chords and secondary dominants either played much more slowly

or did not play the secondary dominants correctly. If all students had been required to use

primary, secondary, and secondary dominant chords as they are with the harmonization portion 73

of their final proficiency examination, it may have been likely that students would show less

retention in this skill.

Two-hand Accompaniment

A majority of the students (n = 12) scored between 90-100 on notes and tempo, showing

a high amount of retention for this skill; however, one student did not show retention of two-

hand accompaniment. All of the students used chord inversions and proper voice leading, which

shows that they retained this essential aspect of lead sheet reading.

Score Reading

There was a large discrepancy between the score reading scores for the Choral Education

majors and the Instrumental Education majors. Both scores consisted of only two voices, but the

vocal score was considerably easier than the instrumental score. This is because the vocal score

parts did not have as great an intervallic range or rhythmic variety as the instrumental score. In

addition, students who played the instrumental score were expected to transpose one of the parts while playing the other in the written key. The vocal score may not have been as accurate a representation of the Class Piano final proficiency exam materials as the instrumental score.

Because of this discrepancy, those who read the vocal score seemed to have retained their score

reading skills considerably better than those who read the instrumental score. If the Choral

Education majors had been required to read all three staves of the given score, those scores

would be a more accurate representation of their score reading retention.

In general, the instrumental score had very low retention. Several students asked if they

were expected to transpose one of the parts. Several other students did not transpose the F horn

part when playing the example, which shows that they were unable to recognize that the F horn

part had a different key signature and needed to be transposed in order to play the correct 74

sounding pitches with the cello part. This brought the overall mean scores for note accuracy and

steady tempo down considerably. After the semester during which score reading is introduced

and taught, Instrumental Education majors are no longer required to read scores in Class Piano,

and are very unlikely to play transposing and non-transposing score parts together at the piano in

their academic coursework. The students’ disuse of this skill (Magnesen, 1983) in addition to its

emphasis during only one semester of Class Piano are both likely to have contributed

considerably to their lack of retention.

Hand Position and Posture

There was a slight but not substantial fluctuation in hand position and posture among all

five skills. The most notable difference between hand position and posture was that most of the

students either had Excellent or Good ratings for hand position and either Fair or Poor ratings for

posture. The largest contributing factor to poor posture during the skill playing exam was that

most Class Piano students sit too close to the keyboard. A reason for this could be that, while the

arrangement of keyboards in the Class Piano keyboard lab is far enough apart for students to sit

an appropriate distance from the keyboard, students may not sit at an appropriate distance in

order to leave room for the Class Piano instructor to navigate between the rows of keyboards

when testing or helping individual students. Another reason could be that proper hand position is

emphasized more than posture in Class Piano.

Keyboard Awareness

Keyboard awareness refers to the students’ general comfort at the keyboard. The more familiar the students are with the topographical patterns of the keyboard, the more they can rely on their kinesthetic sense rather than their visual sense for pitch reference when moving around the keyboard. A developed keyboard awareness facilitates keyboard playing, particularly with 75

music reading, because the visual senses are needed to read the music while the kinesthetic

senses are used to translate what is seen on the page into performed music. Although visually

looking down at the keyboard is sometimes necessary while reading music, a reliance on the

visual senses for keyboard playing during music reading shows a lack of topographical

familiarity, keyboard awareness, and essentially a lack of fluency while playing. Because four of

the five tested skills involved music reading, students’ keyboard awareness was tested by

counting the number of times they looked down at their hands instead of at the music.

It was expected that the more often students looked at their hands instead of the music

indicated a lack of keyboard awareness and playing fluency, which would result in lower playing

scores. For some students, this was the case; however, the number of times the students looked

down at their hands did not always seem to differ substantially between those who had higher scores and those who had lower scores. The difference in their keyboard awareness was not the number of times the students looked down at their hands but the length of time spent each time the students’ eyes were not on the page. In general, those who scored higher on the skill playing exam may have glanced down at their hands for only a very brief moment, either less than or equal to the frequency of those who had lower or below-passing scores. Those who did not score as high on the skill playing exam may have spent a longer time looking at their hands each time their eyes left the page. Frequent, long glances away from the page seemed to negatively affect students’ playing and scores – particularly steady tempo – much more than frequent glances away from the page that lasted only an instant.

Score reading seemed to be the least retained skill for the Instrumental Education majors, and it was not surprising that the mean number of times students looked down at their hands was the highest during this portion of the skill playing exam. It seemed that the biggest challenge in 76

playing the instrumental score was the need to visually (reading the music), aurally (determining

whether the pitch played or about to be played is correct), and kinesthetically (feeling the intervallic distance) connect with both the transposed part and the non-transposed part at the same time. The intervallic range was an octave for both parts, and it was apparent from the number of time students looked down at their hands that most students were extremely uncomfortable with this skill.

Pedal Usage

The use of the damper pedal is introduced in Class Piano during the first semester, but is not always a required component in the evaluation of these skills. It was not surprising, then, that so few students used pedal at all during the skill playing exam and that even fewer were able to use it properly. It is difficult to assess the retention of pedal skills because it is not often a critical element in the Class Piano grading rubric, and those who showed successful pedal execution during the skill playing exam were students who had ten or more years of pre-college piano training.

Is There a Relationship Between the Students’ and Values

of These Skills and Their Ability to Demonstrate Retention?

Only two students (10%) felt they learned scales but did not need to learn them, and both gave the skill very low ratings (4). One of those two students scored the highest overall on scales with a 97, which may mean that this student did not think he/she needed to learn scales because he/she was already fluent in performing them. It is not surprising that all the other students valued scale playing, possibly because of its importance in their technical and musical development on their own instruments. Nineteen of the 20 students in this study felt they could still play scales, which was expected, considering that this skill is emphasized during the first 77

two semesters of the four-semester track and the first semester of the two-semester track. It is surprising that so few of the vocalists felt they would use scales in their teaching, since the ability to play pentascales and scales in any key is necessary when warming up a choir or a private voice student.

The survey results showed that all students valued solo accompaniment. Not only was solo accompaniment a skill that most students felt they needed to learn but it is also one that they indicated that they often used. While this skill received a mean rating of only 2.55, or moderately important, a majority of the students (n = 15) thought they would use solo accompaniment in teaching. A majority of the students’ scores for solo accompaniment were 80 or above and only two scored below 70, which is congruous with the amount the students both value and use this skill (Kostka, 2000).

Of all the skills addressed in the survey, harmonization received the highest mean importance rating of 1.95. The highest importance ratings (1 and 2) came from nine students

(45%), all of whom thought they would use harmonization in teaching and seven of whom thought they could still play harmonization. For these students, there seems to be a relationship between how much they valued the skill, how well they felt they could play it, and how much they thought they would use it in teaching. The high level of retention, the importance ratings, and the confidence of students that they had retained the skill could be attributed to the fact that this skill is included in all four semesters of Class Piano.

The mean importance rating for two-hand accompaniment was moderately important

(2.6), but none of the students indicated that they should not have learned this skill.

Score reading was the fourth highest rated skill (2.26) in the survey, and only one student felt he/she did not need to learn score reading. Although score reading received a relatively high 78

importance rating, only five students felt they could still play score reading, five students thought

they would use score reading in teaching, and eight students felt they needed to improve score

reading before teaching. That score reading is introduced and taught only during one of the

semesters of Class Piano may have attributed to the students’ lack of confidence in their

retention of this skill and their desire to improve this skill before teaching.

Implications for Class Piano Pedagogy

Based on the results of this study, the following points may be useful to college level

Class Piano instructors:

1. Teach scales in the context of exercises and more solo repertoire pieces. Require scale

performance tempos in order to ensure a high level of proficiency and retention is

reached.

2. More time should be spent on acquiring a comfort with the topography of the keyboard

with chord playing as well as scales. Students are often required to perform a variety of

exercises and skills using chords; however, chord playing skills may be better retained if

they are in Class Piano for more semesters or meet more frequently.

3. Consistently use and assess dynamics and damper pedal more frequently in order to

ensure that the students reach a proficient level in these areas.

4. Integrate choral warm-up, vocal score reading, and instrumental transposition exercises

earlier and more frequently into the Class Piano curriculum.

5. Consistently emphasize and assess proper posture at the keyboard.

Questions For Further Research

Further recommendations for research include testing more skills addressed in Class

Piano, including keyboard style, four-part hymn and solo repertoire, as well as comparing the 79 retention of skills to students’ attitudes towards these skills. Also when testing these skills, use tempo as a measure of proficiency in skill playing, and use former Class Piano students’ final proficiency scores as a measure of initial level of achievement before testing retention. Future studies could also factor in keyboard awareness that includes the length as well as frequency that students look at their hands instead of the page. Testing the Class Piano skill retention of graduates with Music Education degrees with music education jobs may also inform group piano teachers as to how to teach students to not only learn functional keyboard skills, but also retain them. 80

REFERENCES

Baker-Jordan, M. (1999). How do your students practice to maintain contest and recital

repertoire? Keyboard Companion, 12, 11-14.

Betts, S. L., & Cassidy, J. W. (2000). Development of sight-reading and harmonization skills

among university class piano students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48,

151-161.

Bilodeau, E. A., & Levy, C. M. (1964). Long-term memory as a function of retention time and

other conditions of training and recall. Psychological Review, 71, 27-41.

Burleson-Hines, B. (1994). Post-proficiency examination keyboard skill retention of

undergraduate students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, 1994).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 3130.

Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (1997). ‘Pulling teeth and torture’: Musical memory and problem

solving. Thinking and Reasoning, 3, 315-336.

Duke, R., & Davis, C. (2006). Procedural memory consolidation in the performance of brief

keyboard sequences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 111-124.

Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102,

211-245.

Fink, S. (2002). Biomechanics of healthy pianistic movement. In K. Kropff (Ed.), A symposium

for pianists and teachers: Strategies to develop the mind and body for optimal

performance (pp. 33-44). Dayton: Heritage Music.

Fleishman, E. A., & Parker, J. F. (1962). Factors in the retention and relearning of perceptual-

motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 215-226. 81

Handbook of the National Association of Schools of Music. (2008). Reston, VA: National

Association of Schools of Music.

Intons-Peterson, M. J., & Smyth. M. M. (1987). The anatomy of repertory memory. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 490-500.

Johansen, K. (2005). What do you think about when you play? American Music Teacher, 55, 31-

33.

Kostka, M. (1997). Effects of self-assessment and successive approximations on “knowing”

and “valuing” selected keyboard skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45,

273-281.

Kostka, M. (2000). The effects of error-detection practice on keyboard sight-reading

achievement of undergraduate music majors. Journal of Research in Music Education,

48, 114-122.

Lehrer, P. A. (2002). An introduction to cognitive strategies and skills for practice and

performance. In K. Kropff (Ed.), A symposium for pianists and teachers: Strategies to

develop the mind and body for optimal performance (pp. 114-123). Dayton: Heritage

Music.

Magnesen, V. A. (1983). A review of findings from learning and memory retention studies.

Innovation Abstracts, 5, 3-4.

Mark, Thomas. (2003). What every pianist needs to know about the body. Chicago: GIA

Publications, Inc.

Mayerovitch, R. (2002). Mind over muscle. In K. Kropff (Ed.), A symposium for pianists and

teachers: Strategies to develop the mind and body for optimal performance (pp. 82-96).

Dayton: Heritage Music. 82

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity

for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Minasian, L. (2006). Handedness in piano playing: Biological principles of education. American

Music Teacher, 55, 19-21.

Péladeau, N., Forget, J., & Gagné, F. (2003). Effect of paced and upaced practice on skill

application and retention: How much is enough? American Educational Research

Journal, 40, 769-801.

Schons, S. (2006). Knowledge of music theory is essential to good reading and secure

memorizing. Keyboard Companion, 17, 20-22.

Skroch, D. (1991). A descriptive and interpretive study of class piano instruction in four-year

colleges and universities accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music with

a profile of the class piano instructor. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma,

1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 3854.

Simmons, A., & Duke, R. (2006). Effects of sleep on performance of a keyboard melody.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 257-269.

Shehan, P. K. (1987). Effects of rote versus note presentation on rhythm learning and retention.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 35, 117-126.

Swindell, L. K., & Walls, W. F. (1993). Response confidence and the delay retention effect.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 363-375.

Tollenarr, M., Elzinga, B., Spinhoven, P., & Everaerd, W. (2008). The effects of cortisol increase

on long-term memory retrieval during and after acute phsychosocial stress. Acta

Psychologica, 127, 542-552. 83

Willamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2002). The role of retrieval structures in memorizing music.

Cognitive Psychology, 44, 1-32.

Williams, D. B. (1975). Short-term retention of pitch sequence. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 23, 53-66. 84

APPENDIX A:

CONSENT LETTER 85

17 November 2008

Dear Bowling Green State University Student,

As a masters graduate student in the College of Musical Arts at Bowling Green State University, I am conducting my thesis research on the retention of keyboard skills of non-piano music majors at the collegiate level. In order to conduct this research, I need to test the skills that you have retained after completing all four semesters of Class Piano at Bowling Green State University. The information you provide will contribute substantially to a deeper understanding of (a) how information is retained, and (b) how to modify the Class Piano curriculum so that retention can be improved and the skills learned in these courses can be applied outside of the classroom.

First, I will ask you to complete a survey regarding your experience in Class Piano. Then, I will ask you to complete a series of tasks that you have previously completed during your Class Piano courses. While you perform the piano skills that are asked of you, you will be video taped so that I can more accurately assess the way in which you complete each task.

There are no known risks or benefits to you by participating in this study. Your identity will remain confidential; no request will be made for your name or any other information that would reveal your identity during the course of this study. Recordings of the subjects’ skills performances will be stored in a locked container and will be retained indefinitely.

All information you provide in the survey will remain confidential. Participation in this study is voluntary, and by completing the survey you consent to the use of the information you provide. The decision to participate in this study will have no impact on the relationship you may have with Bowling Green State University. It should take approximately 10 minutes for you to complete the survey and about 20 minutes for you to complete the Class Piano skills. You are free to withdraw from this research project at any time.

Please feel free to contact my advisor Dr. Cynthia Benson ([email protected]) or me ([email protected]) if you have any questions about this research project. You may also contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Review Board here at Bowling Green State University (---- @bgsu.edu) with questions about your rights as a research participant.

By signing this document, I understand its content, have had my questions answered, and agree to participate in the study.

______Subject’s signature Date

______Subject’s name (please print)

86

Rachel D. Mauricio Graduate Student College of Musical Arts Bowling Green State University

87

APPENDIX B:

SURVEY 88

SURVEY ON THE USE OF PIANO SKILLS

Please complete the following: Year: Sophomore Junior Senior (1st year) Senior (2nd Year) Major(s): Instrument(s): Anticipated graduation date:

When did you take Class Piano? 150: Fall Spring Year: 151: Fall Spring Year: 250: Fall Spring Year: 256: Fall Spring Year:

OR

154: Fall Spring Year: 257: Fall Spring Year:

What grade did you receive for each of the following semesters in which you were enrolled? Grade 150 – First semester ______151 – Second semester – (lots of scales) ______250 – Third semester – (score reading and hymn reading) ______256 – Fourth semester – (accompanying – group and solo) ______

154 – First semester for those who had piano experience before coming to BGSU ______257 – Second semester for those who had piano experience before coming to BGSU ______

How many different teachers did you have while taking class piano? ______

Please rate the following skills according to their importance: Most important Least important Scales 1 2 3 4 5 Sight-reading 1 2 3 4 5 Harmonization 1 2 3 4 5 Two-hand accompaniment 1 2 3 4 5 Keyboard style 1 2 3 4 5 Score reading 1 2 3 4 5 4-part score (hymn) playing 1 2 3 4 5 Choral warm-up 1 2 3 4 5 Choral rehearsal 1 2 3 4 5 Instrumental error detection 1 2 3 4 5 Solo accompaniment 1 2 3 4 5 Solo repertoire 1 2 3 4 5 89

Other (explain): 1 2 3 4 5

Which skills did you not learn that you feel you should have? (Please circle all that apply) Scales Sight-reading Harmonization Two-hand accompaniment

Keyboard style Score reading 4-part score (hymn) playing

Choral warm-up Choral rehearsal Instrumental error detection

Solo accompaniment Solo repertoire Other (explain):

Which skills did you learn that you feel you did NOT need to learn? (Please circle all that apply) Scales Sight-reading Harmonization Two-hand accompaniment

Keyboard style Score reading 4-part score (hymn) playing

Choral warm-up Choral rehearsal Instrumental error detection

Solo accompaniment Solo repertoire Other (explain):

Which skills do you think you can still play? (Please circle all that apply) Scales Sight-reading Harmonization Two-hand accompaniment

Keyboard style Score reading 4-part score (hymn) playing

Choral warm-up Choral rehearsal Instrumental error detection

Solo accompaniment Solo repertoire Other (explain):

Since completing all your Class Piano classes, describe the role of piano in your:  Other music courses

 Teaching and/or performing career

 Personal use or for pleasure

90

How often do you use the skills you learned in Class Piano?  Other music courses

Very frequently somewhat frequently infrequently never

 Your future teaching and/or performing career

Very frequently somewhat frequently infrequently never

 Personal use or for pleasure

Very frequently somewhat frequently infrequently never

Which skills do you think you will use in your teaching or teaching preparation?

Which skills do you feel you need to improve before student teaching?

What would help you to improve and practice these needed skills before student teaching?

Please describe the extent of your piano experience before taking Class Piano: 91

APPENDIX C:

SCALES TEST 92

Class Piano Skills

Please complete the following tasks. You have two trials to play each example. You may look at each example silently, but when you begin playing, that counts as your first trial. You may play each example a second time if you wish. You may not play any example more than two times.

Play the following scales, two octaves ascending and descending:

Right Hand Eb Major Left Hand D Major Right Hand e harmonic minor Left Hand g natural minor 93

APPENDIX D:

WRITTEN SOLO ACCOMPANIMENT TEST 94

 Take about a minute to look over this reading example silently, then perform the piano accompaniment part.

95

APPENDIX E:

HARMONIZATION TEST 96

 Harmonize the following melody. You may play the melody alone before harmonizing. Please label your chord choices with either Roman Numerals or chord symbols. You may use primary (I IV V) and secondary (ii iii vi) chords as well as secondary dominants (V7/IV V7/V). Perform the example.

97

APPENDIX F:

TWO-HAND ACCOMPANIMENT TEST 98

 Play through the following example as a two-handed accompaniment.

99

APPENDIX G:

VOCAL AND INSTRUMENTAL SCORES TEST 100

 If your degree is Vocal Music Education, please read the Soprano I and Alto from following example.

 If your degree is Instrumental Music Education, please read the following example.

101

APPENDIX H:

SKILLS TEST RUBRIC 102

103

104