Music Achievement" Test Scores of Fourth-Grade Students Taught by Two Different Methods: Kodaly ("Threshold to Music") and Traditional ("Making Music Your Own")
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1974 A Comparison of "Music Achievement" Test Scores of Fourth-Grade Students Taught by Two Different Methods: Kodaly ("Threshold to Music") and Traditional ("Making Music Your Own"). Marvin Albert Mcdaniel Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Mcdaniel, Marvin Albert, "A Comparison of "Music Achievement" Test Scores of Fourth-Grade Students Taught by Two Different Methods: Kodaly ("Threshold to Music") and Traditional ("Making Music Your Own")." (1974). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 2681. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/2681 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 75-1942 McDANIEL, Marvin Albert, 1937- A COMPARISON OF MUSIC ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES OF FOURTtfH3BU5b STUDENT^ TADGRT BY TWO DIFFERENT METHODS--KOd XlY (THRESHOLD TO MUSIC') AND TRADITIONAL cmrarntJsTr yootown). The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Ph.D., 1974 Music < Xerox University MicrofilmsAnn , Arbor, Michigan 48106 © 1974 MARVIN ALBERT McDANIEL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. A COMPARISON OP MUSIC » TEST SCORBS OP FOURTH-GRADS STUDKNTS TAUGHT BY TWO DIPFBRBMT METHODS--KOd Xl Y fi»miKgWQTa MUSIC) AND TRADITIONAL (MAimitl MUSIC YOUR OWN) A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Paoulty of tho Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Meohanieal College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for tho degree of Dootor of Philosophy in The Sohool of Musio by Marvin Albert McDaniel B.A., Louisiana Collage, 1959 M.M.B., Northwestern State College, 1963 August, 197<t ACKNOWLEDGMBMTS An experimental project like the one reported in thie paper ie not done by one alone. The investigator wiehee to name those whose direot influenoe sade the researoh possible. Personnel of the Bast Baton Rouge Parish Sohool Board were nost graoious in oooperating in the endeavor. Support by Mr. Harry Rvana, Musio Supervisor, was evident. Mr. Alvin DeCuir, Mr. 0. J. Vi Ilians* Mr. A. M. Toepfer, and Mr. George Baker--sohool principals— showed their approval throughout the project. The teaohero of the nine olasses used for experimentation are to be oosmended for their tolerance of the many interruptions they suffered. The patient endurance of the experimental prooess by all the students involved was nost gratifying. Direction for the projeot was shared by the faoulty members at Louisiana State University who served as dissertation oosmittee members and Dr. Bverett Timm* Dean of the Sohool of Musio. Leadership in setting up the projeot was given by Dr. Robert Shambaugh. Thanks is due Mr. Paul Stofft for so ably guiding the writing of the report. Statistioal help came from Dr. Barton Farthing and his staff in the Department of Experimental Statistios. ii Serving as additional oommittee members were Dr. Kenneth Klaus* Dr. Wallaoe McKenzie, and Dr. Charlie Roberts. The writer would be remiss if he did not bestow special thanks to his wife* Barbara, and children— Loren, Mark, and Marjean— for foregoing many hours of family sharing so this work could be completed. iii POREWOHD During recent yitri* several new "methods" of teaching music in the elementary schools have been introduced to American music teachers. Among these is one from Hungary, conceived by composer* educator* and scholar, Zoltan Kodaly (1882-1967). Seeing the tremendous success that Hungarian teachers were achieving, American educators sought to adapt these same techniques* materials* and methods« to use in this country. The writer himself was introduced to the Kodaly philosophy after having taught eleven years using traditional techniques. As a result sf having attended the Kodaly Workshop at Louisiana State University in the summer of 1972* he decided to use Kodaly principles in his role as a teacher of elementary general music in the school district administered by the Bast Baton Rouge Parish School Board. After a year of using the new method, it was decided that an objective comparison should be made of the Kodaly and the traditional methods to see if there were significant differences between the methods when measured by statistical procedures of experimental researoh. iv TABLE OP CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOREWORD LIST OP TABLES ABSTRACT CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION........... Statement of the Problem ........ Basic Assumptions............... Basic Hypotheses ............... Significance of the Problem. Delimitations................... Method of Investigation......... Development of Remainder of Report CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Kodaly ........................... Traditional. ............... Testing for Musical Achievement. CHAPTER 3. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF METHOD Kodaly ................................ Traditional............................. Summary Comparison of Methods........... Singing ............................ Moving..................... Listening ........................... Playing ............................ Creating............................ Reading ............................ CHAPTER 4. PROCEDURES AND SOURCES USED IN OBTAINING EVIDENCE ............................... 4? Evaluation .................................. 47 Tests of Musical Achievement.................... 1*7 Colwell Achievement Tests ...................... 49 Pretest...................................... 54 P o s t t e s t .................................... 55 Treatment..........................................56 Kod&ly. ...................................... 58 Traditional.................................... 59 CHAPTER 5. PRESENTATION OF PRETEST AND POSTTEST DATA . 60 Pretest Data ...................................... 60 Posttest Data...................................... 69 Posttest Adjusted for Pretest Data .............. 79 CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 91 Summary.............................. 91 Conclusions........................................ 92 Recommendations.................................... 99 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY............................... 101 APPENDICES...........................................106 A. Eighteen Thirty-Minute Lesson Plans for Teaching General Music from Threshold to Music in the Fourth Grade ..................... 106 B. Eighteen Thirty-Minute Lesson Plans for Teaching General Music from Making Music Your Own in the Fourth Grade.................... 195 C. Selected Examples of Supplementary Charts for Threshold £o ......................... 236 VITA................................................ 240 vi LIST OP TABLES 1. Simple Statistics for Pretest Compared with Published Norms for Fourth Grade ........ 62 2. Summary of Means Compearing Kodaly and Traditional Group Results from Pretest with Published Norms for Fourth Grade........... 64 3. Group Means* £ Values* and Levels of Significance (Pretest)..................... 65 4. School Means* £ Values* and Levels of Significance (Pretest) ....................... 66 5. School by Treatment Means* F Values and Levels of Significance (Pretest) ............. 68 6. Simple Statistics for Posttest Compared with Published Norms for Fourth Grade ............. 70 7. Summary of Means from Pretest and Posttest (N*204) ............................. 72 8. Summary of Means Comparing Kodaly and Traditional Group Results from Pretest with Published Norms for Fourth Grade........... 73 9. Group Means, £ Values* and Levels of Significance (Posttest)........................ 75 10. School Means* £ Values* and Levels of Significance (Posttest)........................ 76 11. School by Treatment Means* £ Values* and Levels of Significance (Posttest)............... 78 12. Summary of Means Comparing Kodaly and Traditional Group Results from Posttest Adjusted for Pretest with Published Nozms for Fourth Grade ........................ 81 13. Group Means* £ Values* and Levels of Significance (Posttest Adjusted for P r e t e s t ) ......................................82 vii 14. School Moans, £ Values, and Lavsls of Signifioanoe (Posttost Adjusted for P r e t e s t ) ..................................... 83 15. School by Treatment Means, £ Values, and Levels of Signifioanoe (Posttest) Adjusted for Pretest;.......................... 85 16. Summary of Means for Kodaly Group from Pretest, Posttest, and Posttest Adjusted for Pretest (N*110) .................. 87 17. Summary of Means for Traditional Group from Pretest, Posttest, and Posttest Adjusted for Pretest (N«9*0..................... 88 18. Significance of Pretest Adjustment on Posttest Means .............................. 89 viii ABSTRACT Experimental research reported in this dissertation was oonducted to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in musical achievement between students taught for eighteen lessons by the Kodaly method and students taught for eighteen lessons by the traditional method as measured by Colwell's Music Achievement Tests (Tests 1, 2, and 3)* Threshold to Music was used as a representative of the Kodaly method, while Making Music Your Own was used for the traditional method. Lesson plans are included in the Appendix to the report. Subjeots of