INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the ginal or document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph andI iroduce rai this document havabeen used, the quality is heavily dependent quality upon the of the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided help to you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. T h e . sign1 or "target” fo r pages apparently lacking from file document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possibl i to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated withrde a la round black m ark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and' thus cause a blurred mage. You will find a good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed definite a method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal motions with a.small overlap. ijecessary, If sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first rowajxl continuing on until complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual contsnt is of greatest value. however, a somewhat higher quality reproductior could be.made from "photographs" if essential to the understandingthe of dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog *er, num title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.
5 . PLEASE NO TE: Some pages may have indisl inct print; Filmed received.
Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zoilb Rood Ann Arbor,Michigan 48106 74-3340
WALLS, Clarence, 1943- THE IDENTIFICATION OF MUSICAL CONCEPTS BY ELEMENTARY CHILDREN FROM CONTRASTING RACIAL GROUPS AND SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTS.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1973 Education, music
U n iv e rs ity M icro film s, A XEROX C o m p a n y , A n n A rb o r, M ich ig an
© 1973
Clarence Halls
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
niCCCDTATiniU LlAC deem u iro n cu ucn cvAOTI \/ AC ocnciwc THE IDENTIFICATION OF .MUSICAL CONCEPTS BY ELEMENTARY
CHILDREN FROM CONTRASTING RACIAL GROUPS
AND SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTS
DISSERTATION
Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for 'the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Clarence Walls, B.S., M.A.
* * * * *
The Ohio State University
1973
Reading Committee: Approved By
Henry L. Cady
A. Peter Costanza Adv1ser David L. Meeker School of Music ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements are extended to all persons who assisted 1n this study. Without the cooperation of Dayton and Columbus, Ohio administrators, teachers, and children;
The Ohio State University faculty and students, research information would not have been obtained.
The assistance of the staff at The Ohio State
University Research Computer Center and The Ohio State
University Office of Evaluation is acknowledged. The writer wishes to express his appreciation to the radio station managers at WOSU, WCSU, WVUD; The Ohio State University
Student Union, personal friends, and relatives for the use of their record libraries. The valuable assistance provided by Mr. Dennis Zlatkin of The Ohio State University
Recording Studio 1n developing the audio-tape is recognized*
The writer also appreciates the assistance provided by the members of his committee: Dr. A. Peter Costanza,
Dr. Henry L. Cady, and Dr. David L. Meeker. The assistance of the chairman, Dr. Costanza, is especially recognized*
11 Words of encouragement and assistance from family members, especially my wife, are greatly appreciated.
111 VITA
January 24, 1943 ..... Born - Washington, D.C.
1964 ...... B.S. in Ed., Central State College, Wllberforce, Ohio
1964-1966 ...... Instrumental Music Instructor Public Schools of Dayton, Ohio
1967 ...... M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1967-1968 ...... Instrumental Music Instructor, Public Schools of Dayton, Ohio
1968-1971 ...... Music Director, Living Arts Program. E.S.E.A. Title III, Dayton, Ohio
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Music Education
Music Education. Dr. H. L. Cady and Dr. A. P. Costanza
Music History and Literature. Dr. R. L. Hoppin and
Dr. K. E. Mlxter
Woodwind Performance. Mr. W. P. Baker and Mr. K. Magg
1 v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 11
VITA ...... 1 v
LIST OF TABLES ...... vi1
Chapter
IT INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Purpose of the Study Need for the Study Problem Specified Hypothesis Sub-Hypotheses Assumptions Definitions Delimitations
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 16
Auditory Acu1ty Language Skills Musical Concepts and Listening Perception Discussion of the Related Literature
III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TEST OF MUSICAL CONCEPTS...... * ...... 49
Procedures Summary
IV. THE MAIN.STUDY ...... 77
Procedures Results v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Chapter Page
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 126
Summary Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
APPENDIX
A. Response Sheet, Listening Test, Form A . . . 139
B. Music Sources of Items and Correct Responses, Listening Test, Form B. Response Sheet, _ Listening Test, Form B ...... 143
C. Music Sources of Items and Correct Responses, Listening Test, Form C. Response Sheet, Listening Test, Form C ...... 150
D. Music Sources of Items and Correct Responses, Listening Tes^, Form D. Response Sheet, Listening Test, Form D...... 157
E. Musical Sources of Items and Correct Responses, McDonald Listening Test. Response Sheet, McDonald Listening Test . 164
F. The Walls Listening Test ...... 170
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 171
vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page
1. Trail I, Listening Test; Form A: Range, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Reliability Estimate ...... 60
2. Trail I, Listening Test; Form B: Summary Item D i f f i c u l t y ...... 61
3. Trial I, Listening Test; Form B: Item Analysis ...... 62
4. Trial II, Listening Test; Form B: Range, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Reliability Estimate ...... 65
5. Trial II, Listening Test; Form B: Aummary Item O i f f l c u l t y ...... 66
6. Trial II, Listening Test; Form B: Item A n a l y s i s ...... 67
7. Trial III, Listening Test; Form C: Range, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Reliability Estimate ...... 70.
8. Trial III, Listening Test; Form C; Summary Item Difficulty ...... 71
• ■ 9. Trial III, Listening Test; Form C: Item A n a l y s i s ...... 73
10. McDonald Listening Test: Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, and Reliability Estimates, A Schools and B Schools .... 87
11. McDonald Listening Test: Mean Difficulty, A Schools and B S c h o o l s ...... 89 vii LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) Table Page
12. McDonald Listening Test: Summary Item Difficulty Distribution, A Schools and B Schools ...... 90
13. McDonald Listening Test: Concept Mean Difficulty, A Schools and B Schools . . . 91
14. McDonald Listening Test: Differences Between Proportions of Correct Answers in A Schools and B Schools ...... 92
15. Walls Listening Test: Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges and Reliability Estimates, A Schools and B Schools .... 93
16. Walls Listening Test: Mean Difficulty, A Schools and B S c h o o l s ...... 94
17. Walls Listening Test: Summary Item Difficulty Distribution, A Schools and B Schools ...... 95
18. Walls Listening Test: Concept Mean Difficulty, A Schools and B Schools . . . 96
19. Walls Listening Test: Differences Between Proportions of Correct Answers in A Schools and B Schools ...... 97
20. McDonald and Walls Listening Tests: Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges and Reliability Estimates, A Schools and B Schools Combined ...... 98
21. McDonald and Walls Listening Tests: Mean Item Difficulty, A Schools and B Schools Combined...... 100
22. McDonald and Walls Listening Tests: Summary Item Difficulty Distribution, A Schools and B Schools Combined ...... 101
viii LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) Table Page
23. McDonald and Walls Listening Tests: Summary of Analysis of Variance. A Schools and B Sc h o o l s ...... 102
24. Correlation Matrix for all Variables .... 104
25. Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis Dependent Variable, McDonald Listening Test ...... 105
26. Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis Dependent Variable, Walls Listening Test ...... 106
27T McDonald Listening Test, A Schools: Range, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Reliability Estimate ...... 107
28. McDonald Listening Test, A Schools: Summary Item Difficulty ...... 108
29. McDonald Listening Test, A Schools: Item Analysis ...... 110
30. McDonald Listening Test, B Schools: Range, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Reliability Estimate...... Ill
31. McDonald Listening Test, B Schools: Summary Item D i f f i c u l t y ...... Ill
32. McDonald Listening Test, B Schools: Item Analysis ...... • 112
33. McDonald Listening Test, A Schools and B Schools Combined:- Range, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Reliability Estimate . . . 114
34. McDonald Listening Test, A Schools and B Schools Combined: Summary Item Di f f 1 cul ty ...... 114
1 x LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) Table. Page
35. McDonald Listening Test, A Schools and B Schools Combined: Item Analysis .... 115
36. Walls Listening Test, A Schools: Range, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Reliability Estimate ...... '. . . 117
37. Walls Listening Test, A Schools: Summary Item Difficulty ...... 117
38. Walls Listening Test, A Schools: Item A n a l y s i s ...... -...... 118
39. Walls Listening Test, B Schools: Range, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Reliability Estimate ...... 120
40. Walls Listening Test, B Schools: Summary Item D i f f i c u l t y ...... 120
41. Walls Listening Test, B Schools: Item Analys 1 s' ...... 121
42. Walls Listening Test, A Schools and B Schools Combined: Range, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Reliability Estimate...... 123
43. Walls Listening Test, A Schools and B Schools Combined: Summary Item Difficulty...... 123
44. Walls Listening Tes.t, A Schools and B Schools Combined: Item Analysis.... 124
x CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Many children's Inability to cope effectively with the formal education of the school 1s not due entirely to their ability or intelligence, but rather to factors related to their environment. Children from disadvantaged areas seem particularly limited. Shipman and Hess Indicate that "the poor--be they white, black, Mex1can-Amer1can or
Puerto R1can--br1ng their environment with them Into the schools. Society's sickness touches every subject 1n the curriculum, Including music.
The knowledge of environment upon a child's learning ability 1s of importance to all educators. Environment's role must be evaluated and explored 1f a curriculum that achieves successful participation on the part of all children 1s to be developed. It 1s for such exploration and evaluation that this study was conceived.
^Vera Shipman and Robert Hess, "Urban Culture; Aware ness May Save Our Skins," Music Educators Journal. 56:5 (January, 1970), p. 37.
1 2
THE PURPOSE
The main purposes of the study were (1) to determine whether or not differences exist between lower class black and middle class white children's identification of musical concepts presented Tn standard orchestral literature,
(2) to determine whether or not differences exist between
lower class black and middle class white children's Identi
fication of musical concepts presented in popular music,
(3) to determine what relationships exist between middle
class white children's identification of musical concepts
presented 1n standard orchestral literature and their
identification of musical concepts presented in popular music, their social status, race, and chronological age,
(4) to determine what relationships exist between lower
class black children's Identification of musical concepts
presented in standard orchestral literature and their
Identification of musical concepts presented in popular
music, their social status, race, and chronological age,
(5) to determine what relationships exist between middle
class white children's identification of musical concepts
presented in popular music and their identification of
musical concepts presented 1n standard orchestral litera
ture, their social status, race, and chronological age, and (6) to determine what relationships exist between lower class black children's Identification of musical concepts presented
1n popular music and their identification of musical concepts presented in standard orchestral literature, their social status, race, and chronological age.
The sub-purpose of this study was to design and construct a Listening Test of popular music which would effectively measure whether or not differences existed 1n w * the identification of musical concepts by children from contrasting racial groups and socioeconomic environments.
*
NEED FOR THE STUDY
A large body of literature supports the assumption that certain environmental conditions may retard psycholog ical processes, including Intellectual development. One comprehensive review of the effects of environmental improverishment on Intellectual development, by Clarke and
Clarke, presents data collected on adolescents and young adults who have experienced severe deprivation as a result 2 of cruelty, neglect, or parental separation.
2A. D. B. Clarke and A. M. Clarke, "Recovery From the Effects of Deprivation," Acta Psychologlca. 16:2 (1959), pp. 137-144. 4
In studying disadvantaged children with techniques of the experimental psychologists, Oeutsch found them to have inferior auditory discrimination, visual discrlmina-. tion, judgement concerning time, number, and other basic 3 concepts. He found that this inferiority was not due to physical defects of eyes and ears and brain, but was due to inferior habits of hearing and seeing and thinking.
Presumably, the family environment of these children did not teach them to pay "attention" to what was being said around them or to the visual scene. He postulated that these children were deprived of a sufficient variety of stimuli to which they were maturationally capable of responding, and were therefore less prepared for school learning. This viewpoint is supported by Hunt, who 1n discussing Piaget's developmental theories, points out that according to Piaget:
. . . the rate of development 1s 1n substantial part, but certainly not wholly, a function of environmental circumstances. Change in circumstances Is required to force the accomodative modifications of schemata that constitute development. Thus, the greater the variety of situations to which the child must
3 Martin Deutsch, "The Disadvantaged Child and the Learning Process" in The Disadvantaged Child, edited by Martin Deutsch et al. (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967), pp. 39-57. 5
accomodate his behavioral structures, the more differentiated and mobile they become. Thus, the more new things a child has seen and the more he has heard, the more things he 1s Interested In seeing and hearing. Moreover, the more variation 1n reality with which he has coped, the greater is his capacity for c o p in g4 .
Bruner reported, as a result of his studies of cognitive consequences of sensory deprivation, that children so deprived are handicapped not only 1n constructing models of the environment but also 1n developing strategies for evaluating Information. Russell suggested from.his studies that concept and language development, that 1s,
"meanlng--1deas" and "word--1deas", develop simultaneously and pointed out the consequent Importance of teaching disadvantaged children concepts and language at the same time.®
Deutsch, 1n observing lower class homes, Indicates that speech sequences seem to be temporally very limited
4 J. McV. Hunt, Intelligence and Experience (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1961), pp. 258-59.
5Jerome S. Bruner, "The Cognitive Consequences of Early Sensory Deprivation," 1n Sensory Deprivation, edited by Philip Solomon et al. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer sity Press, 1961), pp. 195-207.
®Dav1d H. Russell, The Dimensions of Children*s Mean ing Vocabularies In Grades Four Through Twelve, "University of California Publications in Education," Vol. 11, No. 5 (Berkley, Calif: University of California Press, 1954), pp. 315-414. 6 and poorly structured syntactically.^ Differences between middle and lower class language usage have been defined by
Bernstein. He reports that the middle class tends to use. a more formal language, oriented to relating concepts, while the lower class uses a more Informal language whose 8 referents are more likely to be concrete tasks or objects.
This difference might explain why Deutsch found that the middle class fifth grade child has an advantage over the lower class fifth grader 1n tasks where precise and some- 9 what abstract language 1s required for solution.
While examining vocabulary differences between disadvantaged children and the middle class population,
Figurel reported that in second grade the vocabulary of disadvantaged children was approximately one third that of middle class children and that in sixth grade the vocabulary was approximately one half. He stated further that second grade children 1n slum areas knew fewer than half of the • * words in the vocabulary of middle class preschool children.
Specifically, words such as sink, chimney, honey, beef
^M. Deutsch, op. cit.. p. 52. 8 Basil Bernstein, "Language and Social Class," Bri t- ish Journal of Sociology. 11 (September, I960), pp. 271-276.
9M. Deutsch, op. ci t.. p. 52. and sandwich were learned one or two years later by disadvantaged children. He pointed out* however, that some disadvantaged children did have rather large vocabularies but that these were not appropriate or adequate for school.^0
In the aforementioned literature dealing with the lower class child, there are two major problems of learning that seem to have implications for the music educator.
The first is the lower class child's inability to listen carefully and d1scriminatively. The second is that of inadequate verbalization. Since discriminative listening is the perceptual basis from which music learning proceeds and since effective learning in music must depend upon verbal communication between the student and the teacher, these findings would seem to have important implications for the music educator.
Is the child of middle class background any more advantaged in listening perception and verbalization about music than the lower class child? Does his relatively advantaged background help him to communicate about and deal more effectively with musical concepts than the lower
l°Allen J. Figurel, "Limitations in the Vocabulary of Disadvantaged Children: A Cause of Poor Reading," Improvement of Reading Through Classroom Practice, 9 (1964), pp. 160-175. class child? What Influence does the environment have upon the child's music learning ability? The answers to these questions are of the utmost Importance to music educators 1f they are to provide a curriculum and develop
Instructional materials and methods from which all children can learn.
In an effort to Investigate socioeconomic background as a factor 1n music concept development, McDonald con- .
* structed a Music Listening Test for a study which was designed to measure the conceptual understandings of fourth grade children from contrasting 'socioeconomic environments.
The music used for the Listening Test was excerpted from standard orchestral literature. The results of the Listen ing Test Indicated that middle class children were more efficient 1n "labeling" musical events than their lower class peers. However, the test Itself, while proving acceptable In terms of reliability (.742) for the middle class children, did not prove so for the lower class children. McDonald reported that the test's reliability of .134 for the lower class group Indicated that 1t was not an appropriate Instrument for these children.^
^Dorothy T. McDonald, "The Identification of Elemen tary School Children's Musical Concepts as a Function of Environment" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1970), p. 111. 9
The results of the study seemed to Indicate that the study should be repeated using both the McDonald Listening
Test and a similar listening measure using music more familiar to the lower class child's out-of-school experiences. This would perhaps more clearly determine whether or not a child actually possesses a clear understanding of those music concepts being measured.
This study repeated McDonald's study with the addition of a second Listening Test composed of music believed to be more familiar to lower class black children.
By doing so, another concept measure in music was developed and further research done to help understand the effects of environment on the learner's musical concepts.
PROBLEM SPECIFIED
This study was designed to determine whether or not significant differences exist between lower class black and middle class white children's Identification of musical concepts as measured by the Listening Tests developed for this purpose. In addition, the study investigated the relationship betv/een the factors of socioeconomic status, race, and chronological age of middle class white and lower class black children and their Identification of musical concepts presented in standard orchestral literature and popular music.
HYPOTHESIS
Children of differing socioeconomic backgrounds do not differ in their concepts of pitch, loudness, and duration; but they do differ In the identification of these concepts in terms of different musical traditions.
SUB-HYPOTHESES
(1) There Is no significant difference between m lower class black and middle class white children's
Identification of musical concepts presented in standard orchestral literature.
(2) There is no significant difference between lower class black and middle class white children's identification of musical concepts presented in popular music.
(3) There are no significant relationships between middle class white children's identification of musical concepts presented in the McDonald Listening Test and the popular music Listening Test, their Nam and Powers social status scores, race, and chronological age. 11
(4) There are no significant relationships between lower class black children's identification of musical concepts presented 1n the McDonald Listening Test, and the popular music Listening Test, their Nam and Powers social status scores, race, and chronological age.
(5) There are no significant relationships between middle class white children's Identification of musical concepts presented in the popular music Listening
Test and the McDonald Listening Test, their Nam and
Powers social status scores, race, and chronological age.
(6) There are no significant relationships between lower class blabk children's Identification of musical concepts presented 1n the popular music Listening
Test and the McDonald Listening Test, their Nam and
Powers social status scores, race, and chronological age.
ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions were made:
(1) It was possible to obtain the true
Identification of children's perception of musical concepts through.the administration of the Listening Test developed for this study*. (2) The school populations selected for this study
sufficiently represented contrasting racial and socio
economic backgrounds as to provide valid data for the
study.
(3) The fourth grade sample populations selected
were sufficiently representative of normal fourth grade
populations to allow reliable and valid norms for
comparison.
DEFINITIONS
Popular music: Operationally defined as that music
which was in vogue among the school age population at the
time of the study. In this study, the listening test of
popular music included Instrumental excerpts from the
following music Idioms: .
blues: Operationally defined as a slow,
steady, highly syncopated improvlsatlonal secular vocal
style of Afro-American origin consisting of three four- measure phrases, 1n which the voice slides, growls, and
cries to produce a "blue" tone quality expressive of
loneliness and a hard life. Accompanying Instrumentalists
Improvise an Instrumental commentary on the vocal melody.
It was from these Instrumental commentaries (and Instrumental 13 arrangements of vocal blues compositions) that the blues
listening test excerpts were taken.
jazz: Operationally defined as a secular music style of Afro-Amer1can origin, which was created
through the Instrumental transcription of blues, and 1s
characterized by Improvlsation, steady propulsive complex
rhythms, call and response between Instruments, percussive
techniques and a harmonic Idiom ranging from simple to complex.
"soul music”: Operationally defined as a
* secular music style based on the Afro-American tradition, particularly gospel songs, which has been combined with rock. This music 1s characterized by syncopated rhythms, a strong beat, shouts, growls, gospel harmony, earthy uninhibited lyrics, fervor, and emotional quality. The
Listening Test excerpts included only the Instrumental portions from vocal soul compositions and Instrumental arrangements of vocal soul compositions.
rock: Operationally defined as a White
American dominated music which 1s a synthesis of folk music and rock-and-roll. This music Is either vocal or instru mental and is characterized by syncopated rhythms, a strong driving beat, and repetition. Fox lists several types of 14
"rock" music and states that "rock" combined with church
hymns 1s known as "church rock"; with folk songs, "folk
rock"; with hillbilly, "billy rock"; with pop songs, "pop.
rock"; with the ragas of India, using the sltar, 1t is 12 "raga rock".
Musical concepts: In this study, a musical concept
was determined to be the Idea of a basic element of music.
Included 1n the study were the concepts of pitch, duration,
and loudness as these functioned within a frame of reference;
namely, within orchestral literature and popular music.
Listening Test: This study used Listening Tests
developed according to fche technique described 1n the
Andrews and Diehl study, Development of a Technique for 13 Identifying Elementary School Children's Musical Concepts.
The Listening Tests required written responses to musical
stimuli aurally perceived.
12 Sidney Fox, The Origin and Development of Jazz (Chicago: Follett Education Corporation, 1968), p. 22.
13 Frances M. Andrews and Ned C. Diehl, Development of a Technique for Identifying Elementary School Children^ Musical Concepts. U. S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 5-0233 (University Park, Pennsyl vania: The Pennsylvania State University, 1967). 15
Lower class Black students: Operationally defined as students from predominantly black populated elementary schools in Dayton, Ohio, with the highest poverty index based on the percentage of children in families receiving
Aid to Dependent Children.
Middle class White students: Operationally defined as students from predominantly white populated elementary schools 1n Dayton, Ohio, with the lowest poverty Index based on the percentage of children 1n families receiving
Aid to Dependent Children. 14 Also, the Nam and Powers social status classifi cation v/as admlnistered1 to each lower class Black and middle class White student to gain additional Information concerning
Individual socioeconomic differences.
DELIMITATIONS
This study will include the fourth grade populations of six schools in the city of Dayton, Ohio. These fourth graders may not be typical of other fourth grade populations.
l^Charl es M. Nam and Mary G. Powers, "Changes 1n the Relative Status Level of Workers in the United States, 1950-60," Social Forces, 47:2 (December, 1968), pp. IBS- 170. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The purpose of this chapter 1s to survey the literature related to concept formation In children from contrasting socioeconomic backgrounds, showing the theoretical development of the present study. The chapter will deal first with studies related to auditory acuity and language skills of the lower class child, and secondly
* with research directly related to musical listening perception and conception. The literature reviewed here Is admittedly selective and will deal with those studies and writings which seem especially relevant to this study. For other reviews of related literature, readers of this chapter are referred to reviews by 1 2 3 4 Andrews and Diehl, McDonald, Zimmerman, and King.
^Andrews and Diehl, op. cit. 2 McDonald, op. c11. 3 Marilyn P. Zimmerman, Musical Chracteristics of Children (Washington, D.C.: Music Educators National Conference, 1971), p. 12.
16 17
Auditory Acuity
Since discriminative listening 1s the perceptual basis from which music learning proceeds, the literature* dealing with the lower class child's auditory discrimina tion is pertinent to this study.
There are a number of studies which have differentiated between disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged children 1n their ability to discriminate between speech sounds. In studying disadvantaged children, Deutsch has found them to have inferior auditory discrimination. He found that this inferiority was not due to physical defects t of the ears, but was due to Inferior listening habits caused by environmental conditions.
The lower-class home is not a verbally oriented environment. While the environment 1s a noisy one, the noise 1s not, for the most part, meaningful in relation to the child, and for him most of it is background. In the crowded apartments, with all the daily living stresses, there is a minimum of non-instructional conver sation directed toward the child. In actuality, the situation 1s Ideal for the child to learn inattention. Furthermore, he does not get practice in auditory discrimination or feedback from adults correcting his enunciation,
^Carl D., King, "The Conservation of Melodic Pitch Patterns by Elementary School Children as Determined by Ancient Chinese Music" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1972). 18
5 pronunciation, and grammar.
In studies at the Institute for Developmental Studies,
Deutsch and associates have found significant differences
In auditory discrimination between lower class and middle g class children 1n the first grade.
In another study, McArdle, as reported by Deutsch, found young middle class children to be significantly superior to lower class children of the same age on a modification of the Boston University Speech Sounds Test.^
Similar findings were reported by Clark and Richards using the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test. The subjects were "Headstart" children attending the laboratory schools of the University of Wisconsin and private nursery school children. The investigators found a significant auditory deficiency in the economically disadvantaged population.
A comparison of children on the Wepman Test revealed the disadvantaged children to be significantly poorer 1n the
CP
Deutsch, op. clt. , p. 48.
6Ib1d.
^Cynthia P. Deutsch, "Environment and Perception" in Social Class. Race and Psychological Development edited by Martin Deutsch, et al. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., T9"6"8J7 p. 80. 19 ability to differentiate between phonemlcally similar 8 words.
In a survey conducted by Goldman, 226 high school graduates selected by Fish University for a U. S. Office of Education project were seen for hearing evaluation.
The hearing evaluation consisted of pure tone screen testing 1n small groups at F1sh University. The noise level 1n the test room was found by measurement to be entirely adequate for screen testing.
Although a total of 25 students, 11.1 percent of the population, failed the Initial test, only one student was found on retest to have an actual hearing loss, and the remaining 24 students passed a rescreen at zero g decibel (Odb) hearing level using the 1951 ASA standard.
One can speculate . . . that the limited verbal Interaction 1n the presence of high, noise levels frequently found In the disadvantaged home environment might Interfere with the acquisition
8 A. D. Clark and C. J. Richards, "Auditory Discrimination Among Economically Disadvantaged and Nondisadvantaged Preschool Children," Exceptional Children, 33 (December, 1966), pp. 259-262.
g Ronald Goldman, "Cultural Factors and Hearing," Exceptional Children, 35:6 (February, 1969), pp. 489- 490. 20
by the child of the ability to extract an auditory signal from a competing background.10
Reported 1n the same article were results of a school hearing survey 1n Sarasota County. Florida. In the report of the data compiled by McAdoo. 1t was found that, of the 3,634 second, fourth, and sixth grade pupils evaluated, 12 percent failed the Initial pure tone screen test. Although this percentage 1s somewhat higher than usua'lly found 1n a school survey, the author states that
1t Is certainly not phenomenal. A breakdown of the schools according to area, however, produced some
"startling results". ,
In only those schools in nondisadvantaged areas the percentage of screen test failure was only 5.6 whereas the percentage of failure 1n the disadvantaged neighborhood schools was 41.4. Furthermore, on followup testing, almost all the latter group were found to have normal hearing.11
Since effective learning in music must depend upon verbal communication between the student and the teacher, r * the literature dealing with the lower class child's language usage 1s Included 1n this review.
The lower class child has been found to have more difficulty with language skills when compared to his
10Ibid., p. 490. 11 Ibid* 21 middle class peers. This weakness In language usage among the disadvantaged youth may well be an outgrowth of poor \ auditory discrimination. Crow, Murray and Smythe indicate that:
A common weakness 1n language usage of deprived children stems from poor training 1n listening. The result 1s that the child 1s unable to discriminate auditory stimuli. To him, words are but a kind of noise, and he tends to become Inattentive to what is being said 1n his pres ence. Poor auditory discrimination affects 'language development adversely. 2
Unfavorable environmental conditions also Inhibit language development. This can be seen In the results of a series of studies flone at the Institute for
Developmental Studies by Martin Deutsch and associates regarding possible 1nter-relat1onshlps among language and some possible demographic variables. In these studies, the attempt was made to Identify patterns 1n the context - of background variables at the first and the fifth grade levels and to relate these* background patterns to specific cognitive and linguistic patterns.
The population Included a core sample of 292 children and an extended population of about 2,500 children
^2Lester D. Crow, Walter I. Murray, and Hugh H. Smythe, Educating the Culturally Disadvantaged Child: Principles and Programs (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1966), pp. 123-124. 22 of various racial and social-class groupings. Negro and white, lower and middle class children were Included.
Findings Indicated that lower class children,
Negro and white, when compared with middle class children, are subject to what the authors have labeled a "cumulative deficit phenomenon", which takes place between the first and fifth grade years.
Though there are significant socioeconomic and race differences seen in measured variables at first grade level, 1t 1s important to note that they become more marked as the child progresses through school.^3
Regarding language ordering skills, it was found that as the complexity of the levels Increased, from labeling, through relating, to categorizing, the negative effects of 14 social disadvantage are increased.
It is also true, 1n looking at the enumeration scores, that as labeling requirements become more complex and related to more diverse and variegated experience, lower class people with more restricted experience are going to have more difficulty in supplying the correct labels.
In a study comparing the child-reading environment of upper-lower and very low lower class families, Pavenstedt
1 9 'Martin Deutsch, "The Role of Social Class in Lan guage Development and Cognition," American Journal of Orthopsychology. 35 (1965), p. 80.
14Ibid., p. 86. 15Ibid - 23 found that normal personality development, even without
Intellectual stimulation, permits children from stable upper-lower class homes to adjust and learn 1n first grade. In contrast,-retardation and deviation 1n person ality development studied 1n children of disorganized
"mult1-problem" families, Interfere seriously with learning.^®
_ Many of the very low and lower class children formed their words so poorly that 1t was at first almost
Impossible to understand them at three and four years of « age. Words were used 1m1tat1vely and often quite out of context. Instructions, when attended to, were at times repeated but not translated into action. Concrete demonstrations were necessary.^7
John did a study examining certain patterns of linguistic and cognitive behavior 1n a sample of Negro children from various social classes. Three major levels of language behavior-labeling, relating, categorlzlng-- were analyzed. The findings Indicated that the middle
^Eleanor Pavenstedt, "A Comparison of the Child- Rearing Environment of Upper-Lower and Very Low, Lower Class Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 35 (1965), p. 89. 17Ibid., p. 95. 24 class children surpassed their lower class peers 1n possessing a larger vocabulary (WISC Vocabulary results) and a higher non-verbal 10 (Lorge-Thorndike). 1n their ability to produce a best-fit response (Verbal Identifica tion, Integrative Section), and 1n their conceptual sorting and verbalization behavior.^8 The middle class child was found to have an advantage over the lower class child In tasks requiring precise and somewhat abstract language.
The acquisition of more abstract and Integrative language seemed to be hampered by the living conditions 1n the homes of the lower-class children.
Using a stratified sample of 338 children 1n the
Kindergarten through the sixth grade from the Oakland,
California public schools, Loban attempted to describe accurately the use and control of language, the effective ness 1n communication,and the relationships among the subjects oral, written, and reading uses of language. The * ■ findings revealed that except for I1nk1ng-verb patterns and the use of partial expressions or Incomplete sentences, the differences 1n structural patterns tended to be small
1 8 - Vera P. John, "The Intellectual Development of Slum Children: Some Preliminary Findings," American Jour nal of Orthopvschlatry. 33 (1965), p. 821. 19Ib1d 25 between the low and high socioeconomic groups. Very
Important differences, however, did appear 1n the dexterity with which subjects used elements within the structured patterns. The high socioeconomic group used more clauses, Infinitives, and verbals than did the low socioeconomic group. Reading, writing, listening, and oral language showed a positive Interrelationship and 20 also a positive relationship with socioeconomic groups.
In an effort to devise a curriculum to meet the educational needs of disadvantaged kindergarten children, an exploratory study was undertaken by Robinson and
Nukerjl during the Spriftg 1964. The subjects were kinder garteners from a “special service" public school In
Brooklyn. The ethnic groups represented were Negro,
Puerto Rican, Jewish, Greek, Italian, and Chinese. The study was specifically concerned with guiding children
20Wa1ter Loban, "Language Ability in the Elementary School: Implications of Findings Pertaining to the Culturally Disadvantaged," 1n Improving Skills of Cultur ally Different Youth 1n Large Cities edited by Arno Jewett et al., U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Education, Bulletin No. 5 (Washington, D.C.: II. S. Government Printing Office, 1964, pp. 62- 68. 26
toward verbal forms of communication, generalizations* 21 and logical thinking.
An analysis of the children's language by the
researchers revelaed a lack of functional vocabulary, fluency, and standard forms of syntax. Concept development was lacking also as was revealed through a game 1n which the students were to classify grocery
items in a classroom "store".
It soon was evident that children lacked some fundamental concepts of classification. They mixed empty food cartons, canned goods, and cereal boxes Indiscriminately and made no effort to classify them 1n conversation or 1n fact.22 I After several teaching strategies were developed to advance their conceptual growth, an Increasing number of children tried to replace foods by category at clean-up time, and used classification with greater frequency and . accuracy.
But teacher Intervention was clearly needed with this class, In contrast to findings of a study In which middle class kindergarten children discovered for themselves.23
21 H. F. Robinson and R. Nukerjl, "Language Concepts, and the Disadvantaged," Educational Leadership. 23 (November, 1965), p. 135.
22Ib1d. , p. 141 23Ib1d 27
Musical Concepts and Listening Perception
A search of the literature reveals few Investiga tions of race and socioeconomic background as factors 1n
listening perception or musical concept development.
Therefore, the studies and writings reviewed 1n this section do not all deal specifically with racial, socio economic, or environmental influences on musical concept
learning. However, the studies reviewed In the following sections are concerned with conceptual learning in music or listening perception. Since musical learning depends upon our perceptions of the musical sounds that we hear, this review of related literature will commence with studies dealing with listening perception.
Listening Perception
Perhaps the most measured attribute of aural perception 1s that of pitch. Since pitch discrimination
1s fundamental to melodic understanding, researchers have experimented with different methods of teaching pitch discrimination. One method has been to use an overt behavioral task to portray pitch direction.
Using 24 four and five year old children, Williams did an experiment to test the possibilities 1n teaching 28 the use of the words high and low, or uostalrs and downstalrs In pitch discrimination. The training consisted of verbal Instruction, demonstration on the piano, slngln.g high tones and low tones, and having the children go upstai rs and downs tairs stepwise or by leaps as they prefereed. Approximately five minutes were devoted to this training. The children were then tested by being asked to demonstrate the pitch direction on the piano and later by being asked to close their eyes and guess whether the experimenter was going upstai rs or downstalrs.
The visual-auditory learning measured by the first test was successful with very little practice, all of the children*demonstrating correctly four times the proper direction. In the auditory test, the following percentages of children responded correctly (averaging the results for both directions on each test situation): scale, 90 percent; arpeggio, 72 percent; third, 52 percent; second, 52 percent; semi-tone, 54 percent.24
As far as Immediate memory 1s concerned, Williams asserts that:
This experiment demonstrates that a visual-auditory orientation on the piano to the verbal meaning high and low may be quickly established 1n normal children of this age. In the case of a stepwise scale
24Harold Williams, Clement Slevers, and Melvin Hattwlck, "The'Measurement of Musical Development," Un1 ver- sity of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 7:1 (1932), p. 15. 29
situation, the auditory orientation can also be quickly made. With narrower pitch ranges, however, this method failed . . . to obtain significantly more than a chance percentage of right responses from the group as a whole.25
In an effort to study some factors basic to early discrimination learning In children, Jeffrey experimented with 21 5-1/2 year old children from the University of
California Senior Kindergarten. The subjects were divided into three groups of seven each.
The criterion task was to learn to push two buttons, oriented to the left and right, differentially to two tones separated by three octaves and a fifth. Group I had training only on this task. Prior to testing on the criterion task, Group II subjects . were required to match the same two tones by singing, and Group III produced matching tones on a piano. Although subjects 1n Group II had difficulty making a match, they did seem to make differential responses, and when transferred to the button pressing criterion task, these subjects performed significantly better than those in Group I. The Group III subjects, who were required to produce matching tones on a piano, learned this quite readily and showed almost perfect transfer to the criterion task. Thus, Groups II and III differed significantly from Group I but not from each other. 5
25Ib1d.
25Wendell E. Jeffrey, “Variables 1n Early Discrlm ination Learning: II. Mode of Response and Stimulus Difference in the Discrimination of Tonal Frequencies," Child Development. 29:4 (December, 1958), p. 537. All subjects who met the criterion on the button pressing task were subsequently required to make this same response to stimuli differing by only five-eighths of an octave. There-was no evidence to transfer to these 27 new stimuli in any of the groups.
Another method used to teach pitch discrimination has been to require the child to respond vocally to a glveji musical stimulus.- Petzold, using students from the
Madison, Wisconsin elementary schools, did a study to determine the differences between children at each of the % first six grade levels 1n the ways In which they perceive and respond to the auditory presentation of musical sounds. The study contained two major aspects: (1) a longitudinal study of three groups of children covering a total period of four, five, and six years respectively; and (2) a series of one-year pilot studies dealing with rhythm, timbre, and harmony. All of the tests used during the project required that the children make some kind of overt musical response to an aural presentation of the test
Item. Petzold found that children Improved on all dimensions of auditory perception of musical sounds with 31
age. He also found that for most tasks, children reached
a plateau at Grade 3 and showed no significant Improvement
thereafter.33
Wolner and Py.le did a study to determine whether or
not children deficient In ability to discriminate pitch
remain deficient 1n spite of training. Their subjects were seven pupils who had been under musical Instruction
1n the Detroit schools-from five to seven years and had
not learned to distinguish one pitch from another, and
could not sing. After three months of training utilizing * the piano, tuning forks and vocal exercises, all seven
pupils learned to distinguish pitch with considerable
accruacy and to sing. The Investigators concluded that
considering the subjects used 1n their study, probably most pitch-deficient children could be trained to 29 distinguish pitch with considerable accuracy.
In an effort to determine which pitch Intervals were within children's discriminative abilities, Duell and
^Robert G. Petzold. Auditory Perception of Musical Sounds by Children 1n the First Six Grades. U. S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 1051 (Madi son, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin, 1966).
39Manuel Wolmer and W. H. Pyle, "An Experiment 1n Individual Training of Pitch Deficient Children," Journal of Educational Psychology. 24 (1933), pp. 602-608. 32
Anderson investigated pitch discrimination performance of
168 first, second, and third graders 1n a natural class room setting. Subjects judged pairs of pure tones pre sented by a tape recorder as either the same or different.
The standard ranged from 390 to 440 cps while the interval between the standard and the comparison ranged from 1/3 of a half-step to a major sixth. The findings were that
68 percent of the subjects discriminated intervals as large as and larger than a half-step; however, 4 percent did not discriminate differences as large as a sixth.
The percentage of correct discriminations increased with 30 both size of the interval and the age of the children.
The investigators concluded that this study raises doubts about the value of primary school music programs for some children, and they suggest a role for pitch discrimination 31 training 1f effective techniques can be devised.
In a study dealing with rhythmic perception which
Involved having children reproduce a periodic beat by tapping, Williams found failures in accuracy ranging from
300rpha Duel! and Richard C. Anderson, “Pitch Discrimination Among Primary School Children," Journal of Educational Psychology. 58:6 (December, 1967), p. 315.
31 Ibid. . p. 318. 33 approximately 75 percent of failure at age three to practically no failure at six years.32
Slevers used children from grades one through six • in a related study using Williams' tapping device.
Students were Instructed to reproduce, at four different speeds, two patterns: (1) two quarter notes and (2) an eighth and a quarter note. He found that accuracy In reproducing the patterns varied with age of subjects and speed of beat. Slower speeds were more difficult for the younger children than they were for the older children and the faster speeds were the easiest speeds for all children to tap. The second pattern was much more difficult to tap accurately than the first pattern. No child 1n tapping pattern (1) failed more than one speed, while 1n pattern
(2) five complete failures were found. Also noted was an
Increasing percent of correct responses through the first five grades with all children 1n grade six correctly 33 reproducing the patterns at any of the speeds used.
In another study, Slevers experimented with 216 children in grades one through four to determine the
32W1ll1ams, Slevers, and Hattwlck, op. c11. , p. 62.
33Ib1d., pp. 11-127. 34
Influence of complexity of pattern on rhythmic performance.
Using seven one-measure rhythmic patterns, he found an
Irregular development of the ability to reproduce the patterns; this development correlated positively with age.
He also found the correlations between chronological age and rhythmic ability were considerably higher than those found between rhythmic ability and intelligence. He concluded that rhythmic performance seems to Improve to some extent with age or maturation rather than with intelligence.34
In a study dealing with the perception of loudness,
Williams found evidence that the concept of relative loudness has become stabilized in practically all normal children by the time they are four years of age, 1n many cases even younger.
The children were tested by asking them to say "moo" loudly, then softly, and to beat drums or bells loudly and softly. Care was taken to avoid obvious suggestion by saying both terms equally loudly. All but one of a group of twenty-one four-year-olds responded correctly without hesitation. A still more remote type of suggestion (patterned after a common kindergarten procedure) was employed by requiring the children to respond appropriately to changes 1n the loudness with which a teacher played the piano. In this particular instance the response was to change the loudness of
34Ibid., p. 154. clapping the hands. Again practically no difficulty was encountered with the same four-year-old children. On the contrary, it was a game very much enjoyed on the occasions when it was used.35
A study dealing with pitch and loudness transposition
1n children and adults was conducted by Riley and McKee.
The subjects were 85 second graders. 37 third graders, and
73 adults. Th.ese subjects were trained in either a 500- cycle pitch discrimination or a 12-decibel loudness discrim ination and tested for transposition Immediately after reach ing criterion. Subjects of all three age groups transposed significantly more often in loud-ness than 1n pitch.36
Musical Concepts
In the preceding section, several studies 1n aural perception were reviewed. Each of these studies could also be considered under the heading of musical concept development, since It 1s the percept that germinates the concept.
Zimmerman Indicates that:
Conceptual development 1n musical learning Is dependent upon aural perception, since musical
351b1d. . p. 17.
360. A. Riley and J. P. McKee, "Pitch and Loudness Transposition in Children and Adults," Child Development. 34 (1933) , pp. 471-482. 36
learning begins with the perception of sound. From our various perceptions of music, we develop the musical concepts that permit us to make comparisons and discriminations, to organize sounds, to generalize, and finally to apply the emerging concepts to new musical situations.37
Therefore, this section, 1n essence, will be concerned with
additional studies investigating musical concept develop ment.
Although music educators 1n the past decades have
emphasized the importance of teaching the basic structural
concepts of music, few tests exist for measuring the
identification of musical concepts. In an effort to meet
this need, Andrews and Diehl 1n a (JSOE funded research
project designed a battery of musical concept measures
for use with elementary children. Verbal, Listening,
Manipulative, and Overt Measures were developed to measure conceptual understanding of the dimensions of
pitch, duration, and loudness. These measures were
administered to 214 randomly selected fourth-grade
children 1n Pennsylvania. Results Indicated that the
listening and verbal measures showed exceptional potential,
as practical measures of musical concept Identification.
37Zimmerman, op. c1t., p. 12. The manipulative and overt measures seem to have
possibilities for use with children having reading and
language problems and pre-schoolers. As measured by
this battery, attainment of concept of loudness was most 38 highly developed, followed by duration, •
The Andrews and Diehl study motivated other
researchers to Investigate musical concept development.
Using the Listening Measure and the Verbal Measure from
the Battery of Musical Concept Measures developed by
Andrews and Diehl, Laverty investigated the musical
* concepts of pitch, duration, and loudness among a socially
heterogeneous population of third, fifth, and seventh
graders. She found that the fifth graders scored
s1gni f1cantly higher than the third graders on pitch,
duration, and loudness, and the seventh graders scored
si gn1f1cantly higher than the fifth graders on pitch and
duration, but not on loudness. The most confusing concepts were those of ''higher1' and "lower", which the children 39 used to describe both pitch and loudness changes.
38Andrews and Diehl, o p . c11. , pp. 83-87.
39Grace E. Laverty, "The Development of Children's Concepts of Pitch, Duration, and Loudness as a Function of Grade Level" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, 1969). One of the few studies Investigating the socio economic environment as a factor in musical concept development was also motivated by the Andrews and Diehl study. McDonald constructed a Music Listening Test for a study which was designed to measure the conceptual understandings of fourth grade children from contrasting socioeconomic environments. The music used for the
Listening Test was exce.rpted from standard orchestral literature. The results of the Listening Test
Indicated that middle class children were more efficient
1n “labeling" musical events than their lower class peers.
However, the test Itself, while proving acceptable in terms of reliability (.742) for the middle class children, did not prove so for the lov/er class children. McDonald reported that the test's reliability of .134 for the lower class group Indicated that 1t was not an appropriate 40 Instrument for these children.
The Schnelder-Cady Evaluation and Synthesis of
Research Studies Relating to Music Education cites an early study done by Wheeler and Wheeler 1n 1933 which
40 ■* McDonald, op. d t . 39 investigated socioeconomic environment and music concept development. These Investigators reported the musical aptitude of mountain children 1n East Tennessee to be below the Seashore norms when compared to other subjects, but as a group, their scores were above those found by ten other
Investigators using non-mountain children as subjects.
A study by Shephard 1n 1942 which used the Kwalwasser-
Dykema Test with 104 pairs of subjects reported no statistically significant differences In verbalization I 41 between urban and rural children.
In a paper dealing with a comparison of the performance of culturally disadvantaged jun1or-h1gh students and culturally heterogeneous students on his
Music Aptitude Profile. Gordon reported that the differences between the mean scores for the two groups were negligible and not significant. The largest standard score difference found was for Musical Sensitivity Style test (2.6) which 42 favored the musically select culturally heterogeneous group.
^Erwln H. Schneider and Henry L. Cady. Evaluation and Synthesis of Research Studies Relating to Music Education." IT 5V Office of Education cooperative Research Project No. E-016 (Columbus. Ohio: The Ohio State University Research Foundation. 1965). p. 161.
4^Eclw1n Gordon, "A Comparison of Performances of Culturally Disadvantaged Students with that of Culturally Heterogeneous on the Musical Aptitude Profile," Psychology in the Schools. 4 (July, 1967), p. 261. In a study Involving 293 eight and nine year old school children from Sacramento. California. Boekelheide investigated the level and nature of musical growth as 1t pertained to certain .basic music listening skills. Tests were developed to assess musical growth in awareness of rhythmic and melodic movement; recognition of phrases which were similar and different, and recognition of the pitch levels of phrases; and sensitivity to mood and design.
Test results Indicated that 81 percent of the children had developed the listening skill needed to conceptualize
* the bodily movements required for an accurate representa tion of the rhythmic pattern. Only 27 percent of the children were able to relate more than half of the aural sound of a tonal pattern to Its notation. Twenty-five percent of the students answered all of the pitch discrim ination items correctly and 50 percent had half of the Items correct. Of the listening skills measured 1n this battery, conceptualization of form 1n music was the least developed 43 among the children tested.
^Viola Boekelheide. "Some Techniques of Assessing Certain Basic Music Listening Skills of Eight and Nine Year Olds" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1960). Peterson experimentally tested the use of notation as an aid to melodic understanding with 1,141 students, grades four through seven. In an effort to measure awareness of melodic content and listening process, a listening test was administered 1n a 58 minute session to a control group without notation and an experimental group with notation. Each example was played twice and the correct response was to be underlined. The listening response was regarded as dependent upon melodic concept formation derived from previous learning experience In school music classes. The results indicated that listening
f achievement was better with the use of notation than without 1t in the seventh grade, but made no significant 44 difference in grades four through six.
In a study to analyze the cognitive process involved in musical ability, Malnwarlng tested nine through eleven year old children for pitch and rhythmic pattern perception • * and auditory recall. He found that no consistent relation ships exist between perception of pitch differences and
4^Agda viola Peterson, "A Study of Development Listen ing Factors in .Children*s Ability to Understand Melody** (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music, 1965). 42 perception of rhythmic patterns and that age 1s an
Important factor 1n the development of cognitive abilities 45 as measured by his tests.
The research of Jean Piaget is well known and presents a graphic description of how children build a conceptual framework that enables them to Interpret their surroundings. The Plagetian theory has formed the theoretical basis for several studies in music education.
In one study. Pflederer devised musical tasks embodying the Plagetian principle of conservation of meter, tone, and rhythm to determine the responses of five and eight year old children to these tasks. She found that in seven of the eight tasks, the eight eight-year-old children were better able to conserve the concept 1n question than were the eight f1ve-year-old children. A primary implication of this pilot study was that overt interaction of the child with the musical problem to be solved seemed to be essential
45 James Malnwaring, "Experiments on the Analysis of Cognitive Process Involved in Musical Ability and 1n Music Education," British Journal of Educational Psychology. 1: Part 2 (1931), pp. 182-203. 46 Marilyn Pflederer, "Responses of Children to Musical Tasks Embodying Piaget's Principles of Conserva tion" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1963). Simon* as reported by Andrews and Diehl ,
replicating Plederer's tasks In a further study with six-
to n1ne-year-olds, found a general Improvement 1n the
performance with increasing age. Comparing visual concep
tual tasks Involving serlatlon and area conservation with musical analogues* he found that the musical tasks were more difficult than their visual analogues. Simon found
that pitch discrimination appeared extremely difficult*
requiring not only the perceptual ability to discriminate
between tones but also the conceptual understanding of the
terms "high" and "low" 1n music. Auditory serlatlon was
an almost Impossible task for the large majority of
subjects* even subjects who demonstrated a conceptual
understanding of serlatlon 1n the visual domain. Only In
the metric conservation task did any process of logical
i * Inference seem to be Involved. Simon concluded that assessing the individual roles of perception and conception 1n the tasks 1s difficult.4^
A series of five experiments by Zimmerman and
Sechrest were designed and administered to 679 elementary
and junior high school students over a two year period to
^ A n d r e w s a n d D i e h l , op. cl t . , p. 10. . 44 test the relevance of Jean Piaget's concept of conservation to musical learning. Musical tasks consisting of stimulus patterns and systematic variations of these patterns were, designed for each experiment, and experimental settings for individual experiments were varied. The subjects were tested for their ability to conserve an invariant aspect of the musical stimulus. Four of the experiments were preceded by a brief period of instruction; one experiment was preceded by six Instructional periods spread over two weeks. Results Indicated that (1) task performance progressively improved from younger to older age groups;
(2) improvement 1n conservation of tonal patterns was preceded by improvement in conservation of rhythm patterns;
(3) training to enhance conservation was most effective at ages five and seven; (4) change of mode, contour, and rhythm pattern Interfered with conservation more than change of Instrument, tempo, or the addition of harmony; * (5) a plateau 1n music conservation skills was reached in the fourth grade; (6) patterns 1n minor mode produced better rhythm conservation than those In major or atonal patterns;
(7) the Initial teaching of musical structure may best be pursued through the study of family music. 45
The presence of visuals 1n one experiment made a significant difference In the results. The conclusions emphasize the Importance of an early acquaintance with basic music structure and vocabulary and the need for
Instruction to decenter perception from the biasing aspects 48 of music by a consideration of musical variations.
King did a study concerning children's conservation of melodic pitch patterns. The study Involved the administration of an Investigator constructed twelve-1tem test, The Melodic Pattern Conservation Test (MPCT), to
180 urban and rural lower, middle, and upper class school children from grades one, five, and nine. In an effort to avoid social musical differences, the Investigator used culturally "neutral" musical examples on the MPCT In the form of twelve pairs of melodic pitch patterns from ancient
Chinese folk music. The researcher Investigated whether or not significant relationships existed between performance on the MPCT and grade level, social class, social environ ment, sex, home musical environment, and pre-test scores.
The results Indicated that grade level, social class, and
4 0 noMar1lyn P. Zimmerman and Lee Sechrest, How Children Conceptually Organize Musical Sounds, U. S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 5-0256 (Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University, 1968). 46
social environment contributed significantly to the ability
to conserve melodic pitch patterns. Sex and home musical
environment did not contribute significantly to the ability
to conserve melodic pitch patterns. Two other observations
were made: (1) a plateau seems to exist In the ability to
conserve melodic patterns for fifth grade subjects and (2)
there 1s a deficiency 1n children's ability to label
musical similarities and differences as revealed 1n the 49 verbal responses of the study.
Utilizing the properties of mathematical grouping
» which Piaget used to describe cognitive structures at the
concrete operational level, Neldlinger attempted to develop
a program of listening lessons which would enable the
student to perceive and conceptualize relationships In the
musical dimensions of time, pitch, loudness, timbre, and
simultaneity. A group of third grade boys and fourth grade
girls comprised the experimental and control groups used
for the study. The listening program consisted of recorded
exercises 1n which individual musical dimensions were
manipulated while others were held constant, and gradually
* the dimensions were assimilated with each other until all
49K1ng, op. clt. 47
five were activated. The control groups were taught by
traditional methods In listening while the experimental
groups utilized a system of pegs on a pegboard constructed
to represent the perceived musical dimensions. A compari
son of both groups pre and post test scores revealed no 50 significant difference In mean scores.
Discussion of the Related Literature
The content of this chapter has revealed a need for
research pertinent to the problem stated 1n Chapter I. The
literature reviewed concerning the lower class child has dealt primarily with the differentiation of the lower class child and the middle class child 1n terms of environment, auditory discrimination, language usage, and conceptual growth. A search of the literature revealed no studies directly Investigating the aforementioned differences 1n terms of music learning situations*
There 1s an inadequate representation of literature researched pertaining to the area of listening perception as 1t relates to factors of race and socioeconomic background.
In the studies reviewed concerning pitch, duration and
^Robert J. Neldlinger, "A Study 1n Teaching Musical Style and Form to Elementary School Children" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, 1967). 48 loudness discrimination, few differences 1n listening perception were attributed to the socioeconomic level of the population studied, and no differences 1n .listening perception was found to be directly attributed to race.
The literature reviewed concerning concept development dealt primarily with concept Identification, overt behavioral responses as aids to music concept learning and the conservation of various musical elements.
A few of these studies did investigate socioeconomic background as a factor 1n musical concept development, but no studies were Identif1able*as Investigations of racial differences In musical concept learning.
In consideration of the literature reviewed 1n this chapter and the need for additional research 1n the area of music concept development as 1t relates to racial differences and socioeconomic background, the present study seems appropriate. CHAPTER III
*
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TEST OF
MUSICAL CONCEPTS
The procedures of the study Included (1) the use of the McDonald^ Listening Test, which was composed of musical excerpts from orchestral literature and which was used to test children's concepts of pitch, duration, and loudness; (2) the selection of musical excerpts from popular music which could be used In a test of children's concepts of pitch, duration, and loudness; (3) the development of a listening measure, the Walls Listening
Test, for testing these concepts, (4) the use of both the
McDonald and Walls Listening Tests In a study of six racially and socioeconomically differing school popula tions; and (5) the analysis of the data derived from testing six student populations, from their race and age, and from a classification of the subjects according to Nam and
^McDonald, op. clt.
49 50
2 Powers. Chapter III will describe the development of
the test (Items 2 and 3 above)* and Chapter IV will
describe the main study of the six schools (Items 1, 4, and
5 above).
Procedures
The first objective of the study was to develop
a listening test using popular music which would measure
fourth grade children's concepts of musical pitch,
duration, and loudness. In order to fulfill this objec
tive, the same procedures used by McDonald for her
listening test construction were followed. These procedures
Included (1) selection of a test format, (2) selection of
test Items, (3) pre-testing the items, (4) analyzing the
Items through item analysis. The activities undertaken
In this phase of the study are described 1n the sections * which follow.
Selection of Test Format
The test of musical concepts developed for this study was an extension of the McDonald Listening Test.
2Nam and Powers, op. c1t. ' 51
The McDonald Listening Test was modeled after the Andrews and Diehl Listening Measure as described 1n the study.
Development of a Technique for Identifying Elementary 3 School Children’s Musical Concepts* In describing the
listening measure developed 1n their study, Andrews and
Diehl stated:
The Listening measure was developed to measure the subject's ability to Identify changes 1n the dimensions of pitch, duration, and loudness within the multidimensional frame of reference of orchestral music.4
Selection of Test Items
Item content.--In order to develop a listening test that corresponded with the listening test developed by
McDonald, three types of musical items were needed:
(1) a group of Items (musical excerpts) 1n which a predominant change 1n one concept occurred within the example; e.g., the music became higher, lower, slower, faster, louder, or softer;
(2) a second group of Items (musical excerpts) 1n which a predominant change 1n two concepts occurred within the example; e.g., the music became slower and lower,
3 Andrews and Diehl, op. ci t., pp. 17-26.
4Ib1d.. p. 17. 52 faster and softer, or some other combination;
(3) a third group of Items In which the excerpts would be paired. Each pair of musical excerpts would differ predominantly 1n one concept. For example, the second excerpt would be faster than the first, although they were closely related 1n melodic content.
The task of the Investigator was to find musical
Items that encompassed the needed musical concepts and appealed to lower class children.
Rationale for use of popular music.--A sound teaching practice 1s to begin at the student's level of understanding and extend upon that knowledge. This 1s particularly true of the lower class black student and relates to all curriculum areas including music. Simmons
Indicates that:
The primary concern 1n the musical training of the ghetto student 1s the attempt to reach the bedrock of his musical Interest and experience, and to lead him gently from this point Into an awareness of many kinds of music.
The most prevalent problem for music teachers 1n lower class black schools seems to be their approach to
50t1s D. Simmons, "Reach the Bedrock of Students Interest," Music Educators Journal. 56:5 (November, 1971), p. 41. 53 teaching music. In the majority of Instances, music teachers Insist on starting where the student 1s not, that 1s, with White Western European art music. Andrews remarks that:
The successful teacher of music 1n the disadvantaged areas must give up mass application of musical materials that have long constituted standard curriculurn.content and must forego the naive approach that assumes pupils will like and understand the music of Brahms, Stravinsky, and Bartok because -I, the teacher, do.6
Simmons gives a similar viewpoint when he mentioned that:
The music teacher must realize that students who come from broken homes are not going to respond to Beethoven or Mozart sonata unless an effort has been made first to understand their human and immediate musical needs.'
The lower class black child, in general, 1s popular music oriented. Rogers did a study to determine the musical preferences of children and factors Influencing these preferences. He developed a music preference test composed of serious classlclal music, popular classical music, dinner music, and popular music, and administered
1t to 635 randomly selected fourth, seventh, ninth, and twelfth grade students. He found that all children tested,
6Frances Andrews, “The Preparation of Music Educators for the Culturally Disadvantaged," Music Educators Journal, 53:6 (February, 1967), p. 43. 7simmons, op. cit., p. 39. regardless of their socioeconomic status, preferred popular music to serious classical, popular classical, and dinner music; but that the lower class students preferred popular music to a significantly greater degree Q than did the upper class students.
In order to develop a listening measure utilizing music more relevant to lower class children, excerpts from available recorded popular music compositions were used.
Sources of test items.--The necessary musical examples were acquired by extensive listening of popular music compositions. Recordings were secured from the following libraries:
The Ohio State* Un1verslty Radio Station (WOSU)
The Central State University Radio Station (WCSU)
The University of Dayton Radio Station (UVUD)
The Ohio State University Student Union Record
Collection
The Investigator's personal colledton, and the
personal collections of various friends.
8V1ncent R. Rogers, "Children’s Expressed Musical Preferences at Selected Grade Levels" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1956), pp. 91-92. 55
From these various sources* approximately 120 musical examples were collected. It was from these 120 musical examples that the 24 Item listening test of popular music, excerpts was developed.
Pretesting the Items and I tern Analys1s
To ascertain whether or not it was possible to develop a listening test using popular music which would measure fourth grade children's musical concepts of pitch* duration* and loudness, a series of trial tests was developed and administered. These test trials are described in detail 1n subsequent sections of this chapter. The Items on the test for the main study were those which had been found useful as a result of Item analysis Information obtained from each trial test.
Exploratory Trial-"March 28-29. 1973
Purpose.--A trial listening audio tape of 60 musical excerpts was prepared. This trial was designed to establish content validity and to indicate usable test items.
Subjects.--The subjects 1n this sample were seven graduate music education students and two music faculty members from Ohio State University. 56
Materials and procedures.--S1xtv musical excerpts* in audio taped form* were used for this trial. The answer sheet had the six possible choices (higher* lower* faster* slower* louder* softer) listed at the top. A copy of this answer sheet 1s found 1n Appendix A* designated as
Listening Test, Form A.
For items 1 thru 53, the subjects were Instructed to listen to each Item and to Indicate the one or two most obvious changes heard. Each of the 53 items was repeated once. For Items 54 thru 60* which had two different parts, the subjects were asked to Indicate how the second part differed from the first. These Items were not repeated. The subjects were also asked to write any comments that would assist the Investigator 1n the selection of test Items.
Results.--After scoring this listening measure, ali responses were compiled to determine which Items were
• ' clear and which Items were confusing for the subjects.
Any Item which seven or more of the nine subjects agreed upon was considered usable. Of the 60 Items, 43 were judged usable by the Investigator. Nineteen of these 43
Items were to be used on the first trial test which contained 24 Items plus 4 samples. 57
Discussion.--It was the Intent of the Investigator to develop a test of musical concepts modeled after the g McDonald Listening Test. Of the 43 Items judged usable,
19 corresponded with the Items used by McDonald 1n her
Listening Test. Further research was needed to acquire the s : > v eleven additional musical examples containing the musical concepts necessary to match McDonald's Listening Measure of 24 Items plus four samples. This was done, and the necessary examples were acquired. Using McDonald's
Listening Test multiple choice format as a model; a 24
Item, 4 sample response sheet and correspondlng audio tape was developed. The test was 1n three sections and contained three types of items as follows:
(1) 1n the first group of Items (musical excerpts), a predominant change In one concept occurred within the example; e.g., the music became higher, lower, slower, faster, louder, or softer;
(2) In the second group of Items, predominant changes in two concepts occurred within the example; e.g., the music became slower and lower, faster and softer, or some other combination;
^McDonald, op. clt. 58
(3) in the third group of items, the excerpts were paired. Each pair of musical excerpts differed predomin antly 1n one concept. For example, the second excerpt was faster than the first, although they were closely related 1n melodic content.
Each of the excerpts 1n the first two sections was repeated once. The paired excerpts in the final section were not repeated.
Trial I, Listening Test. Form B: April 12. 1973
Purpose.--The purpose of this trial was to establish content validity for a test using excerpts from popular music selected to measure fourth grade children's musical concepts and to determine whether or not the music items would have appropriate discriminating power for adults possessing a variety of musical experiences.
Subjects.--The subjects 1n this sample were 22 non- music major students who were enrolled 1n the course, Basic
Experiences in Music: Fundamentals designated as Music
270 at Ohio State University.
Materials and procedures.--The 24 Item audio taped recording was used in this trial. It included spoken directions and four sample Items. (A copy of sources of the musical Items in the sequence used on the tape and response sheet 1s presented In Appendix B. It 1s designated
Listening Test, Form B. ) The subjects were Instructed to listen to each example, choose the response describing the most Important change, and then listen to the excerpt again before marking the answer. After each sample Item, the tape was stopped to provide time for self-checking ' and discussion to assure understanding of the tast. There was a ten second pause after each of the 24 test Items.
The test Items ranged in length from 4 seconds to 38 seconds.
The length of the entire test was 25 minutes. The test, including explanations, was easily administered In a 45 minute class period.
Results.--In scoring this measure, each Item received one point. A complete Item analysis for the test was obtained from the Office of Evaluation at Ohio State
University. The Item analysis for Trial I, Listening Test,
Form B 1s presented In Tables 1,2, and 3. The scores for this trial ranged from 11 to 24 with a mean of 20.09 and a standard deviation of1 2.78. The Kuder-R1chardson "20" reliability estimate was .747 (see Table 1). 60
TABLE 1 TRIAL I: LISTENING TEST * FORM B
RANGE, MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION,
AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATE
Number I terns Range Mean S.D. Reliability Estimate
24 11-24a 14.66 1.58 .747
aTotal score possible = 24.
The mean Item difficulty was .163. This relatively low difficulty level would seem to indicate that the musical changes were quite easily discerned.
Items 14, 18, and 24 showed the highest difficulty level. Twenty one of the 24 Items were In the ''easy” and “very easy" ranges. A summary of the item difficulty Is given in Table 2. The difficulty index of each item is given 1n Table 2 with other data. TABLE 2 TRIAL I: LISTENING TEST, FORM B
SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY
Number Mean Difficulty of Items Difficulty Range Item Number o CM o o 1 . 20 .163 . 1 , 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
1 .21-.40 3
0 ' .41-.60 i 00 o . CV 3 . 14, 18, 24
The discrimination Index 1n this trial reflected the
ratio of the difference between the top 31.82 percent and
the lower 31.82 percent of the group. Eleven Items 1n this
trial had discrimination Indices of over 20 and thirteen
Items were below 20. Mean Item discrimination was 23.8.
Three Items had phi coefficients significant at the .01
level of confidence, and three Items were at the .05 level.
Eighteen Items had phi coefficients that were not signifi
cant. Table 3 presents the complete Item analysis and
the concept measured. 62
TABLE 3 TRIAL I: LISTENING TEST, FORM B
ITEM ANALYSIS
Diff. Phi Pol nt Di scrim. Concept I tern Level Coef. Bi s. r Index Measured
1 .045 • -426u .714 14.3 Loudness 2 .136 . 729 .204 42.9 Pi tch 3 .273 . 836a .534 57.1 Pitch 4 .136 .600 .204 28.6 Loudness 5 .045 .426 .714 14.3 Loudness 6 .136 .426 .394 14.3 Pi tch 7 .091 .426 .181 14.3 Duration 8 .045 .0 .007 0.0 Pitch 9 .0 .0 .0 0.0 Duration 10 .045 .426 .714 14.3 Duration 11 .0 .0 .0 0.0 Duration 12 .045 .426 .243 14.3 Duration, Loudness 13 .182 . 729 .652 45.9 Pitch, Duration 14 .727 .482 .237 28.6 Duration, Loudness 15 .091 .600 • .295 28.6 Pi tch, Loudness 16 .091 .600 .636 28.6 Pitch,Duration 17 .0 .0 .0 0.0 Duration, Loudness 18 .682 . 924a .575 71 .4 Pi tch, Loudness 19 .136 . 729b .633 42.9 Duration, Loudness 20 .0 .0 .0 0.0 Duration 21 .045 .426 .714 14.3 Loudness 22 .182 .426 .397 14.3 Pitch 23 .091 .600 .295 28.6 Loudness 24 .682 . 836a .469 57.1 Duration
aS1gn1f1 cant at .01 level.
bSigni f i.cant at .05 level.
Discussion.--The high mean, limited range, low difficulty level, and relatively large number of non-discriminating Items Indicated that this measure would
not be suitable for college students. However, the
purpose of this trial was not to provide information
about the measure's power as a discrimination test with
this group, but rather to test the discernlbi1ity of the
concept changes which occurred In the musical excerpts with a population of adults who possessed a variety of musical experiences. In addition, the Information
obtained would serve as a guide for further development
of a measure suitable for fourth grade students. The overall performance of this group indicated that the
predominant change 1n each musical item was discernible.
It was decided that this form of the test would be used with a group of fourth grade elementary school pupils to
determine whether or not the Items would have appropriate discriminating power with children. Any substantial
revision could then be made.
Trial II: Listening Test, Form B: April 18, 1973
Purpose.--The purpose of this trial was to test the
items and the format of the Listening Test II, Form A, with
fourth grade elementary school pupils and to Identify .
procedural difficulties and non-usable items. 64
Subjects.--The subjects In this trial were 30 fourth grade elementary school students at an elementary sch.ool in Columbus, Ohio. This school's population was described as ranging.from lower middle class to upper
lower class and was racially mixed (78 percent white and 22 percent black).
Materials and procedures.-"The 24 Item audio, taped recording used 1n Trial I was used 1n this trial.
The tape Included spoken directions and four sample Items.
Subjects were Instructed to listen to each Item, to
m choose the best answer, and then, to listen to the excerpt again before marking the answer. After each sample Item, the tape was stopped to provide time for i self-checking and discussion to assure understanding of the task. There was a ten second pause after each of the 24 test Items.
Results.--The Item analysis for Trial II,
Listening Test II, Form A are presented 1n Tables 4, 5, and 6. The scores ranged from 3 to 19 with a mean of
9.43 and a standard deviation of 3.05. The reliability estimate, based on the Kuder-R1chardson "20" formula, was .510. 65
TABLE 4 • TRIAL II: LISTENING TEST, FORM B
RANGE, MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION,
. RELIABILITY ESTIMATE
Number Reliability I terns Range Mean S.D. Estimate
3-19a 9.43 3.05 .510
Total score possible * 24. *
The mean Item difficulty for this trial was .607,
Indicating that It was a test of slightly above average difficulty for this group of children. Twenty one of the 24 items were in the "relatively easy", "average", and “relatively difficult" ranges. A summary of the
item difficulty is given 1n Table 5. The difficulty
index of each Item 1s presented in Table 6 with other data. TABLE 5 TRIAL II: LISTENING TEST, FORM B
SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY
Number Mean D1ff1culty I terns D1ffIculty Range Item Number . o o CM o 1 . .
0 •
r“* *■ CM o 1 • 5 . 5, 9, 11, 17, 21 «3- CO O 1 7~ . . 1, 2, 7, 16, 19, 20, 24
9 .607 .61-.80 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23 • 0 0 0 0 o 1 • 3 • 14, 15, 18
The Item discrimination Index for this group was based on the upper 30.00 percent and the lower 26.67 percent of the students1 mean scores. The mean Item discrimination was 29.2. Seventeen items had discrimination Indices of over 20 and seven Items were below 20. Ph1 coefficients for 5 Items were significant at the .01 level of confidence and for 6 Items at the .05 level. Thirteen Items had phi coefficients that were not significant. The results of the item analysis and the concept measured are presented
1n Table 6. . 67
TABLE 6 TRIAL II: LISTENING TEST, FORM B
ITEM ANALYSIS
D1ff. Phi Po1 nt Discrim. Concept Item Level Coef. Bis. r Index Measured
1 .600 .279 .219 18.1 Loudness 2 .600 . 760® .397 54.2 Pitch 3 .633 . 760a .413 54.2 Pitch 4 .700 .063 .098 - 4.2 Loudness 5' .300 .264 -.050 15.3 Loudness 6 .767 . 729a .436 44.4 Pitch 7 .600 .760® .397 54.2 Duration 8 .767 . 649 .438 43.1 P1 tch 9 .267 .625® .333 38.9 Duration 10 .667 -.063 -.031 - 4.2 Duration 11 .267 .575b ,. 333 25.0 Duratlon 12 .800 .383 .421 20.8 Duration, Loudness 13 .800 .522 .147 31 .9 Pitch, Duration 14 .933 -.411 -.169 -12.5 Duration, Loudness 15 .867 .203 .041 9.7 Pitch, Loudness 16 .467 .853® .483 65.3 Pitch, Duration 17 .333 .440 .332 27.8 Duration, Loudness 18 .833 . 637b .532 33.3 Pitch, Loudness 19 .533 . 468 .196 30.6 Duration, Loudness 20 .467 .613 .396 41.7 Duration 21 .267 .440 .382 27.8 Loudness 22 .767 .203 .180 9.7 Pitch 23 .733 . 522 .480 31.9 Loudness 24 .600 . 649b .352 43.1 Duration
aS1gn1fleant at .01 level.
^Significant at .05 level. 68
Discussion.--The students 1n this trial were very
responsive and cooperative. They responded readily to
the sample Items and appeared to understand the task. The
Investigator noted that the students enjoyed the test.
and some mentioned at the end of the testing period that * it was "fun" and “easy11. The class seemed to enjoy
listening to the music, and commented that 1t had a "nice
beat" and was "jazzy". On the whole, the students were quiet and attentive during the entire test. This was surprising to the investigator because It was a warm spring day. The room was hot, and It was the last period of the school day. Also*, there were students playing outside the window on the playground, and four bells sounded at various times during the testing period.
Although the students coped with these obstacles very well, the distractions may have resulted In lower performances on the listening test by some of the students. * * The Item analysis revealed 3 Items (No. 4, 10, 14) that were particularly confusing for the students, and this resulted In a negative discrimination Index for these Items.
The three Items contributed to the relatively low * reliability estimate of .510. After careful evaluation of the Items, the Investigator decided to replace examples 69
Number 4 and Number 14 with two other examples presenting
the same musical concepts. Although the correct response
for Item Number 10 was "slower", a large number of
students chose the response "softer". It was decided that
the response “softer" on Item Number 10 would be changed
to "lower".
After the listening test had been revised, creating
Form C, another school population which Included children
from a wider socioeconomic range was selected for a final
trial.
Trial III: listening Test. Form C: April 25, 1973
Purpose.--The purpose of this trial was to test the
items in the revised listening test with a different group
of fourth grade subjects and to obtain additional Informa
tion concerning the difficulty and discriminating power of the Individual Items before using them 1n the main study.
Subjects.--The subjects for this trial were 59 fourth
grade students attending two elementary schools 1n Dayton,
Ohio. These school populations were described as ranging
from upper middle class to lower class and were racially mixed (50 percent white and 50 percent black). 70
Materials and procedures.--The measure for this trial was the listening test designated as Listening Test* Form C
• w ' in Appendix C. The procedures used were identical to those
used 1n Trial II except a listening game was played with
the students before starting the listening test. This game
Included the investigator clapping his hands a certain num
ber of claps. This was done to relax the students and to
prepare them for listening.
Results.--The mean test score for this trial was
11.95 with a standard deviation of 3.74. Scores ranged
from 5 to 19. The Ruder-R1chardson ''20" reliability
estimate was .654. Table 7 presents this data.
TABLE 7 TRIAL III: LISTENING TEST, FORM C RANGE, MEAN. STANDARD DEVIATION, AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATE N=59
Number of Items Range Mean S.D. Reliability
24 5-19a 11.95 3.74 .654
aTotal score possible « 24. The mean Item difficulty was .502 which Indicated that it was a test of average difficulty for this group of students. Items of difficulty were relatively well- spread with eleven of the 24 Items 1n the “average" range.
Item difficulty, ranges are shown 1n Table 8. Specific difficulty index Is presented in Table 9 with the complete
Item analysis.
TABLE 8
TRIAL III: LISTENING TEST, FORM C
SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY
Number of Mean Difficulty I terns Difficulty Range Item Number o O M C 0 1 2 • • 11 ,21
5 .21-.40 4, 5, 9, 17, 20
.502 .41-.60 1, 2. 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 23, 24 0 1 O C 0 1 • 6 9 8 , 12, 14, 15, 18, 22
The Item discrimination Index for this group was based on the upper 25.42 percent and the lower 28.81 percent of the students' mean scores. The mean Item 72 discrimination was 39*3. Twenty Items had discrimination
Indices of over 20, and four Items were below 20. Ph1 coefficients for 14 Items were significant at the .01 level of confidence and for 3 Items at the .05 level.
Seven Items had phi coefficients that were not significant.
The results of the item analysis and the concept measured are presented 1n Table 9.
Discuss 1 on.--The students in this trial were extremely cooperative and friendly. They responded readily to the sample Items on the listening test and appeared to understand the task. An atmosphere of quiet and enthusiasm characterized the testing periods. The students enjoyed taking the test and listening to the music. Some students commented that they had heard some of the musical selections before, and some even had some of the records
1n their collection.
The Item analysis Indicated that this form of the test had a mean item difficulty of .502. This figure closely approached the 50 percent difficulty level suggested by Downie and Heath.The reliability estimate
^°N. M. Downie and R. W. Heath, Basic Statistical Methods (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p. 229. 73
TABLE 9 TRIAL III: LISTENING TEST« FORM C
ITEM ANALYSIS
D1ff. Phi Po1 nt Discrim Concept Item Level Coef. B1s. r Index Measured
1 .475 . 411b .250 26.3 Loudness 2 .576 .0 .025 0.4 Pitch 3 .576 .187 .085 12.2 P1 tch 4 .271 ,649a .419 40.4 Loudness 5 .339 • 836a .535 58.8 Loudness 6 .542 . 996a .758 93.3 Pitch 7 .542 ,956a .649 80.8 Duration 8 .763 . 397 ■ .231 21.6 Pi tch 9 .271 • 836a .501 58.8 Duration 10 .492 .383 .159 25.5 Duratlon n .119 . 588b .233 29.4 Duration 12 .712 . 905a .518 66.7 Duration* Loudness 13 .593 . 836a .435 61 .6 Pitch, Duration 14 .780 .279 .106 15.7 Duration, Loudness 15 .729 . 549a .355 35.7 Pitch, Loudness 16 .407 . 853a .459 63.9 Pitch, Duration 17 .322 .353 .272 21.2 Duration, Loudness 18 .627 -.016 .018 - 1.2 Pitch, Loudness 19 .508 . 770a .475 55.7 Duration, Loudness 20 .407 • 770a .514 56.5 Duration 21 .186 .649a .354 35.3 Loudness 22 .729 . 39 7 .202 21 .6 Pitch 23 .576 .383 .241 25.5 Loudness 24 .508 . 549a .285 37.3 Durati on
Significant at .01 level.
^Significant at .05 level. 74 of .654 met the standard for group measurement that
Nunnally had suggested.11 Only one Item, Number 18, was not discriminating well between students In the upper and lower percentage. This was possibly due to the short length of the excerpt (5 seconds). There was difficulty finding an excerpt 1n popular music that
Included the musical concepts of lower and louder. Three
Ohio State University music faculty members who heard the excerpt indicated that the Item did get noticeably lower and louder. Therefore, it was decided that this Item, Number
18, would be still included In the final test. On Item
Number 14, a large number of students chose the response
"faster and louder", although 1t was Incorrect. It was decided that the response "faster and louder" 1n Item
Number 14 would be changed to "slower and louder". In addition, many students chose the Incorrect response of
"lower and softer" In Item Number 15. The response
"lower and softer" 1n Item Number 15 was changed to
"lower and louder" on the final test.
The above mentioned changes necessitated a revision of the response sheet, and It was labeled Listening
lljum C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967), p..226, Test, Form D. The test 1n this form was to be used In the main study. (A copy of sources of the musical Items
1n the sequence used on the tape and response sheet Is presented 1n Appendix D. It Is designated as Listening
Test, Form D.)
Summary
The final Listening Test developed for use 1n the main study encompassed the following characteristics which seemed to meet the objectives for the study:
. 1. The test was appropriate 1n length. It could be administered with ease 1n a 45 minute class period, and It did not seem to exceed the maximum attention span of fourth grade students.
2. The format of the response sheet was appropriate for fourth grade students. Trial subjects had no difficulty
1n following the directions or l.n maintaining the pace of the test.
3. The musical Items were taken from popular music compositions which were more relevant to lower class students and Included the necessary musical concepts.
4. The test items provided a relatively balanced measure of the musical concepts Identified by Andrews and Diehl as Important structural elements of mus1c--p1tch, duration, and loudness.
5. The Items showed acceptable discrimination
Indices and difficulty levels with fourth grade student populations.
6 . The test was considered to have sufficient content validity to make it acceptable for the purposes of the main study.
7. The test was considered to have a reliability estimate which would be acceptable 1n a group measure of the variable being Investigated 1n the main study.
Consequently* the decision was made to utilize
Listening Test, Form D In the main study. CHAPTER IV
.THE MAIN STUDY
Following the development of the Listening Test
described in Chapter III. the procedures for the main study of the musical concepts of six racially and socio economically contrasting school populations included the
use of the popular music Listening Test developed by
the Investigator (hereafter referred to as the Walls
Listening Test) and a similar Listening Test developed by McDonald,^ which used classical music. (A copy of
sources of the musical items in the sequence used on the
Walls tape and response sheet is presented 1n Appendix D.
It is designated as Listening Test. Form D. A copy of sources of the musical Items 1n the sequence used on the
McDonald tape and response sheet 1s presented 1n Appendix
E. It 1s designated as the McDonald Listening Test.)
The procedures also Included the statistical treatment
of the data derived from testing the six student
^McDonald, op. clt. 77 78 populations with the data obtained concerning the students' race, age, and socioeconomic status.
Procedures
The main study of six schools Involved (1) the selection of six school populations from contrasting racial groups and socioeconomic environments, (2) the adminis tration of the McDonald Listening Test and the Walls
Listening Test 1n the six schools, (3) the compilation of data concerning the students tested, (4) the statistical treatment of the data obtained, and (5) the presentation of the results. These activities will be described 1n the following sections.
Selection of Contrasting Fourth Grade Populations
With the cooperation and assistance of the Dayton
City Schools associate director for research, six schools
In Dayton, Ohio, were selected for the sample populations. 2 Dayton, Ohio, with a population of 243,601 1n 1970 1s located 1n the southwestern portion of Ohio.
^U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Popula tion: 1970, Number of Inhabitants. Final Report PC(1)-A37 Ohio (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Printing Office, 1971), pp. 37-23. 79
The May 1971 ranking of Dayton, Ohio, elementary schools for the ESEA Title I Application was used to determine the following four groups of schools In Dayton:
Group 1: Schools with the highest poverty Index based on the percentage of children 1n families receiving
Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) (23 to 49 percent);
Group 2: The remainder of the schools qualifying for ESEA Title I funds (13 to 22 percent). .
Group 3: Schools next In line that fell short of qualifying (1.5 to 12 percent); and
Group 4: The most advantaged schools (no ADC to
1.4 percent).3
From the 14 Group 1 schools, one fourth grade class of students from each of three predominantly black schools were randomly selected to represent the lower class black population. (Each of these schools will be designated as
A Schools). All three of these schools were located 1n predominantly lower class sections of the city. The neighborhoods surrounding the schools consisted of housing ranging from low rent governmental projects, apartments,
3El1zabeth Lane (comp.), Research Conspectus (Dayton, Ohio: Division of Research, Department of Manage ment Services, Dayton Public Schools, 1971), p. 1. and houses to modest, well-kept apartments and houses.
The parents of the students attending A Schools were mostly "blue-collar" workers or recipients of ADC (Aid to Dependent Children). However, a few were professional and semi-professional people. The A Schools student population was approximately 99 percent black.
From the 16 Group 4 schools, one fourth grade class of students from each of three predominantly white schools were randomly selected to represent the middle class white population. (These schools will be designated as
B Schools.) All three of these schools were located 1n predominantly middle class sections of the city. The neighborhoods surrounding these schools Included moderately to expensively priced homes and a few apartments. Some homes were recently built and well-maintained. The parents of the students attending B Schools were mostly professional, semi-professional, and "blue-collar" workers.
The student population of B Schools was approximately
99 percent white.
Since A Schools were 99 percent black, with the highest poverty Index, and B Schools were 99 percent white, with the lowest poverty Index, the two groups of schools described were assumed to have represented sufficient contrast 1n race and socioeconomic level to provide useful data for the study.
Administration of the McDonald and Malls Listening Tests
The administration of both Listening Tests 1n the six schools was conducted from Apr11 30 thru May 10, 1973.
Each school was visited twice, with a week separating the visits. The Listening Jests used were alternated during the first testing periods so that three schools were given the McDonald Listening Test first, and three schools were given the Walls Listening Test first. One week later, the students were given the remaining test.
In A schools, the test was administered in the classrooms. The procedures followed were the same as 1n
i Trial III described 1n Chapter III. Before explaining the test, a listening game was played with the students.
The Investigator clapped his hands a certain number of times, and the students guessed the correct number of claps.
This activity was used to relax the students and to get them Into a frame of mind for listening. After the listen ing game, the response sheets for the appropriate listening test were distributed and the test was explained to the students. The classes were attentive and responsive. This 82
atmosphere prevailed throughout each testing period. During
the playing of the musical items, some students swayed
quietly 1n response to the music. In the time Interval
designated for marking the response sheet, quiet concen?
tration seemed to characterize the groups. Many students
expressed satisfaction at the end of the testing period.
Several commented that they enjoyed taking the test and
that 1t was "fun". In one classroom, the investigator
was invited by the students to return every week. Minor
distractions occurred during the testing periods. Announce
ments were made over the loud speaker and bells rang for
change of classes, but the students continued to concentrate
on the task at hand.
* The investigator returned the following week and
administered the remaining test. The procedures were the
same except the listening game was not played. The students
were just as responsive and cooperative the second time as « * they were the first time. Two of the classes had taken
the Malls Listening Test first and one class had taken
the McDonald Listening Test first. The 1nvestlgator noted
a decline 1n the enthusiasm of the students who had taken
.the Malls Listening Test first and the McDonald Listening
Test second. The opposite response was observed 1n the 83 class that had taken the McDonald Listening Test first and the Walls Listening Test second. The students were . asked by the Investigator which test did they prefer.
By a show of hands, approximately 99 percent of' the students seemed to prefer the musical examples 1n the Walls
Listening Test over the musical examples 1n the McDonald
Listening Test.
The testing of the three B Schools was done 1n the classroom also. Identical procedures were followed as described 1n the administration of the test 1n A Schools.
Students 1n B Schools were also responsive, cooperative, and friendly. During the playing of the musical Items, several students 1n each class were observed swaying to the music. In the time Interval designated for marking the response sheet, quiet concentration characterized the group throughout the testing period. Some distractions occurred, e.g., announcements were made over the loud
« ■ speaker and bells rang for class changes. However, the students did not seem disturbed by these Interruptions, and they remained on task. After the testing period, several students Indicated that they enjoyed the activity and thought 1t was easy. Many students wanted the Investigator
to return and allow them to perform the activity again 84
1 n the future.
As In the A Schools, the Investigator returned the
following week and administered the remaining test. The
procedures were identical to the second testing of A
Schools. The students were eager to perform the activity
again. Two classes had the McDonald Listening Test
9 administered first, and one class took the Walls Listening
Test first. The groups were responsive and cooperative
at this testing also. At the conclusion of the testing
period, the Investigator asked the students which listen
ing test did they prefer. A show of hands indicated
approximately 85 percent of the students preferred the
musical examples in the Walls Listening Test over the
musical examples in the McDonald Listening Test.
Compilation of Data
For each student, the following information was
compiled: McDonald Listening Test score, Walls Listening
Test score, race, chronological age, and a social status
number. The social status of the students was based on
the 1960 set of status scores by Nam and Powers. The
scores represent a socioeconomic classification of
occupational status based on the combined median levels of education and Income of males 14 years old and over» and 4 the number of persons 1n each occupation. Information concerning the occupation of one parent for each student was obtained from the student's school cumulative record card in order to determine the student's social status number. These comprised the data for the main study.
Treatment of Data
— The first purpose of this study was (1) to determine whether or not differences existed between lower class black and middle class white students’. 1dentlf1catlon of musical concepts as measured by the McDonald Listening Test, and
(2) to determine whether or not differences existed between lower class black and middle class white students'
Identification of musical concepts as measured by the Mails
Listening Test. In order to determine what differences,
1f any, existed the following statistical procedures were used:
1. An analysis of variance was used to determine the difference between the two school groups on the tests, the differences between the tests, and the Interaction
4 Nam and Powers, op. c11. , pp. 158-170. 86
between the two school groups and the tests;
2. A complete separate Item analysis was made to
determine the performance of each group of schools on
each listening test; and
3. An Item analysis was made to determine the
combined groups1 performance on each test.
The second purpose of the study was to examine the
relationship between the students1 Identification of musical
concepts as measured by the listening test scores and
their race, chronological ages, and economic status as measured by the Nam and Powers social status classification.
The following statistical procedures were used:
1. Correlation coefficients for all possible
pairs of variables within each group were derived, and
2. A stepwise regression analysis using correla
tion data was performed.
The analysis of variance, correlations, and step
wise regressions were computed by the Instruction and
Research Computer Center of The Ohio State University.
The Item analyses were computed by the Office of Evaluation
at The Ohio State University. RESULTS
McDonald Listening Test, A Schools and B Schools
Means, standard deviations, ranges, and reliability estimates.--In order to determine what differences existed
In the Identification of musical concepts as measured by the McDonald Listening Test between A Schools and B Schools; mean scores, standard deviation, ranges, and reliability estimates for the test scores 1n each group were determined. Table 10 presents these data.
TABLE 10
MCDONALD LISTENING TEST: MEANS. STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RANGES, AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATES A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS N = 70 N=*77
Schools Mean S.D. Range Reliability Estimate
A Schools 8.79a 3.08 4-16 .541
B Schools 1 2 .21a 4.23 3-23 .739
aTotal score possible 3 24.
An examination of Table 10 Indicates the differences between A Schools and B Schools. The range of scores 1n 88 the A Schools was from 4 to 16 with a mean of 8.79 and a standard deviation of 3.08. The Kuder-Richardson "SO" reliability estimate was .541 Indicating that the McDonald
Test was a measure of modest reliability for the A Schools.
The range of scores 1n the B Schools was from 3 to
23 with a mean of 12.21 and a standard deviation of 4.23.
The Kuder-Richardson "20" reliability estimate was .739
Indicating that the McDonald Test was a measure of acceptable reliability for the B Schools.
McDonald, using the same Listening Test 1n her study, reported for 55 lower class children a range of
3 to 13, mean of 6.44, a standard deviation of 2.08, and a Kuder-Richardson "20" reliability estimate of .134. The
35 middle class children test scores ranged from 4 to 20, with a mean of 10.77, a standard deviation of 4.18 and a
Kuder-Richardson "20" reliability estimate of .742.** By comparison, the lower class students In the present study
Increased 1n mean score and test reliability over the
lower class students 1n McDonald's study. The mean score
for the middle class students 1n the present study
Increased, but the test reliability was about the same as
^McDonald, op. cit. . p. 93. 89 that reported for the middle class students in McDonald's study. One may speculate whether or not the differences
1n mean score and test reliability between the two studies were due to the number of subjects tested, differences in locale, or the time differences between the two studies.
Item di fficulty.— An examination of the item difficulty ind ices for the two groups revealed the greater degree of diff iculty of the test for the students in A
Schools. Tabl e 11 presents the mean difficulty for the total test in each group.
TABLE 11
MEAN DIFFICULTY A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS t
Schools Mean Difficulty
A Schools .634
B Schools .491
Item difflculty distribution for A Schools was relatively wel 1 spread with 12 of the 24 items in the
"relatively difficult" range. The mean difficulty of .491 for B Schools was slightly below the 50 percent mean difficulty level recommended by Downie and Heath.® The
item difficulty distribution was relatively well spread
for B Schools also, with ten of the 24 Items 1n the
“average" range (see Table 12).
TABLE 12
MCDONALD LISTENING TEST: SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY DISTRIBUTION A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS
Difficulty Number of Items Number of Items Range A Schools B Schools
.00-.20 2 2
.21-.40 1 5
.41-.60 5 10
.61-.80 12 7
.81-1.00 4 0
Table 13 shows the mean Item difficulty for the. musical concepts measured. Items involving pitch were the
most difficult, and those involving duration were the
least difficult.
ft Downie and Heath, op. c1t.. p. 229. 91
TABLE 13
McD !)NALD LISTENING TEST: CONCEPT MEAN DIFFICULTY A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS
Concepts Measured A Schools B Schools
Loudness .538 .353
Pitch .685 .599
Duration .500 .448
Duration, Loudness .715 .491
Pitch, Loudness .902 .662
Pitch, Duration .657 .519
It is in teresting to note that McDonald, using this ' same Listening Test in her study, found the items involving pitch to be most difficult and the items involving 1oudness to be least di *ficult. ’^ ^ McDonald's findings agreed with 8 those of AndreW and Diehl.
Table H shows the percentage of students from A
Schools and B Schools responding correctly to Individual items on the McDonald Listening Test.
McDona o p • clt., p . 96. 8 Andrews and Diehl, op. ci t. . p. 87 92
TABLE 14
MCDONALD LISTENING TEST: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROPORTIONS* OF CORRECT ANSWERS IN A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS
Percentaqe of Correct Answers Item Number A Schools B Schools
1 Loudness 57.1 77.9 2 Pitch 45.7 49.4 3 Pitch 30.0 38.1 4 Duration 21.4 32.5 5 Duration 85*7 81.8 6 Loudness 34.3 57.1 7 Duration 61 .4 70.1 8 Loudness 44.3 62.3 9 Pitch 42.9 55.8 10 Loudness 22.9 57.1 11 Pitch 12.9 23.4 12 Duration, Loudness 34.3 59.7 13 Duration, Loudness 34.3 55.8 14 Pitch, Loudness 12.9 27.3 15 Pitch, Loudness 5.7 26.0 16 Duration, Loudness 22.9 49.4 17 Duration, Loudness 17.1 39.0 18 Pitch, Duration 34.3 48.1 19 Duration, Loudness 32.9 50.6 20 Duration 24.3 23.4 21 Loudness 87.1 81 .8 22 Pitch 25.7 23.4 23 Loudness 31.4 51 .9 24 Duration 57.1 68.8 Malls Listening Test. A Schools and B Schools
Means, standard deviations, ranges, and reliability estimates.--In order to determine what differences existed in the identification of musical concepts as measured by the Malls Listening Test between A Schools and B Schools; mean scores, standard deviations, ranges, and reliability estimates for the test scores 1n each group were determined.
Table 15 presents these data.
TABLE 15
MALLS LISTENING TEST: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RANGES, AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATES A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS N=70 Na77
Schools Mean S.D. Range Reliability Estimates
A Schools 11.87® 3.87 5-21 .681
B Schools 14.70a 4.14 6-23 .734
aTotal score possible a 24.
An examination of Table 15 Indicates the differences between A Schools and B Schools. The range of scores in
A Schools was from 5 to 21 with a mean score of 11.87 and a standard deviation of 3.87. The Kuder-Richardson "20" 94
reliability estimate was .681 and met the standard for q group measurement that Nunnally has suggested.
The range of scores 1n B Schools was from 6 to 23 . with a mean of 14.70 and a standard deviation of 4.14.
The Kuder-R1chardson "ZO" reliability estimate was .734
Indicating the Walls Listening Test was a measure of
acceptable reliability for the B Schools.
Item dlfflculty.--»An examination of the Item
difficulty Indices for the two groups revealed the
greater degree of difficulty of the test for the students
1n A Schools. Table 16 presents the mean Item difficulty
for the total test 1n eich group.
TABLE 16
WALLS LISTENING TEST: MEAN DIFFICULTY A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS
Schools Mean Difficulty
* * A Schools .505
B Schools •387
9 Nunnally, op. c1t., p. 226, 95
Mean difficulty of .505 for A Schools was close to the 50 percent mean difficulty level recommended by 10 Downie and Heath. Item difficulty for A Schools was relatively well spread with eleven of the 24 Items 1n the "average" range. The mean difficulty of .387 for
B Schools was below the 50 percent recommended level.
The Item difficulty distribution was relatively well spread for B Schools with eleven of the 24 Items 1n the
"average" range (see Table 17).
TABLE 17
WALLS LISTENING TEST: SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY DISTRIBUTION A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS
Di ff1culty Number of Items Number of Items Range A Schools B Schools
.00-.20 2 4 • .21-.40 4 7
.41-.60 10 ‘ 11 .61-.80 7 2 i 00 o o . * 1 0 •
10 Downie and Heath, op. cit. . p. 229. Table 18 shows the mean Item difficulty for the musical concepts measured. Items Involving pitch were the most difficult for both groups; however, those Items
involving duration were theleast difficult for A Schools and those Involving loudness were the least difficult for 6 Schools.
TABLE 18
- WALLS LISTENING TEST ; CONCEPT MEAN DIFFICULTY A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS
Concepts Measured. A Schools B Schools
Loudness .434 .244
* Pitch .648 .498
Duration .375 .340
Duration, Loudness .503 .373
Pitch, Loudness .657 .545
Pitch, Duration .564 .480
Table 19 shows the percentage of students from
A Schools and B Schools responding correctly to
Individual Items on the Walls Listening Test. 97
TABLE 19
WALLS LISTENING TEST: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROPORTIONS OF CORRECT ANSWERS IN A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS
Percentage of Correct Answers Item Number A Schools B Schools
1 Loudness 35.7 68.8 2 Pitch 51.4 64.9 3 Pitch 48.6 46.8 4 Loudness 60.0 75.3 5 Loudness 52.9 77.9 6 Pitch 30.0 55.8 7 Duration 44.3 51 .9 8 Pitch 15.7 46.8 9 Duration 75.7 83.1 10 Duration 55.7 39.0 11 Duration 88.6 92.2 12 Duration, Loudness 37.1 54.5 13 Duration, Loudness 31.4 45.5 14 Duration, Loudness 41.4 54.5 15 Pitch, Loudness 30.0 49.4 16 Pitch, Duration 55.7 58.4 17 Duration, Loudness 75.7 80.5 18 Pitch, Loudness 38.6 41 .6 19 Duration, Loudness 44.3 61 .0 20 Duration 64.3 75.3 21 Loudness 88.6 92.2 22 Pitch 30.0 36.4 23 Loudness 45.7 63.6 24 Duration 45.7 54.5 98
McDonald and Malls Listening Tests. A Schools and B Schools Combined
Means, standard deviation, ranges, and reliability estimates . — In order to determine what differences existed in the Identification of musical concepts by the combined schools (A and B) as measured by the McDonald Listening
Test and the Walls Listening Test; mean scores, standard deviations, ranges, and reliability estimates for the combined schools' performance on each test was determined.
Table 20 presents this data.
TABLE 20
MCDONALD AND WALLS LISTENING TESTS: MEANS. STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RANGES, AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATES A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS COMBINED N»147
Rel1abi11ty Schools Test Mean S.D. Range Estimates
A Schools and B Schools Combined McDonald 10.58® 4.10 3-23 .727
A Schools and * B Schools Combined Wal 1 s 13.35® 4.25 5-23 .738
a Total possible score ®. 24. 99
An examination of Table 20 Indicates the differences between scores on the McDonald Listening
Test and the Walls Listening Test. The range of scores for the McDonald Listening Test was from 3 to 23 with a mean score of 10.58 and a standard deviation of
4.10. The Kuder-R1chardson "20" reliability estimate « was .727 Indicating that the McDonald Listening Test was a measure of acceptable reliability for the combined schools.
The range of scores for the Walls Listening
Test was from 5 to 23 with a mean score of 13.35 and a standard deviation of 4.25. The Kuder-R1chardson
"20“ reliability estimate was .738 indicating that the Walls Listening Test was a measure of acceptable' reliability for the combined schools.
Item d1ff1culty.--An examination of the Item difficulty indices for the two tests revealed the greater degree of difficulty with the McDonald Listening
Test for the combined schools. Table 21 presents the mean Item difficulty for each test by the combined schools. 100
TABLE 21
k MCDONALD AND WALLS LISTENING TESTS: MEAN ITEM DIFFICULTY A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS COMBINED
Schools Test Mean Difficulty
A Schools and B Schools Combined McDonald .559
A Schools and B Schools Combined Wails .444
Mean difficulty of .559 for the McDonald Listening
Test was a little above the 50 percent mean difficulty
level, and the mean difficulty of .444 for the Walls
Listening Test was a little below the 50 percent level.
Item difficulty for both tests were relatively well
spread with 10 of the 24 items in the "average" range
for the McDonald Listening> Test, and 14 of the 24 Items 1n
the "average" range for the Walls Listening Test
(see Table 22). 101
TABLE 22
MCDONALD AND WALLS LISTENING TESTS: SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY DISTRIBUTION A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS COMBINED
D1 ff1culty Number of Items Number of Items Range McDonald Test Walls Test
.00-.20 2 3
.21-.40 3 4
.41-.60 10 14
.61-.80 7 3
.81-1.00 2 0
Analysls of varlance.--To provide additional
Information about possible differences between A Schools and B Schools, the McDonald Listening Test, the
Walls Listening Test, and the Interaction between the » ■ schools and the tests, an analysis of variance for factorial design with unequal cell frequencies was computed. Table 23 presents this data. 102
TABLE 23
MCDONALD AND WALLS LISTENING TESTS: A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Source of Variation SS DF MS F Sig.
1 . Diff. between schools 716.5901 1 . 716.5901 47.1180 .01
2 . D1ff. between tests 566.2034 1 . 566.2034 37.2296 .01
3. Interactlon between schools and tests 6.4255 1 . 6.4255 0.4225 NS
4. Error 4410.4414 290. 15.2084
The F value indicates a difference significant at the .01 level of confidence between the mean test scores of the A Schools and the B Schools (see item 1, Table 23).
The B Schools' (middle class white students) mean scores were significantly higher for both the McDonald Listening
Test and the Walls Listening Test than were the A Schools'
(lower class black students) mean test scores. This would suggest that these middle class white students were better able to identify musical concepts 1n standard orchestral music and popular music than were the lower class black students. 103
There was also a difference significant at the .01
level of confidence between the McDonald Listening Test
and the Walls Listening Test (see Item 2, Table 23).
Mean test scores for students from the A Schools and stud
ents from the B Schools were significantly higher for the
Walls Listening Test than for the McDonald Listening
Test. This Indicates that these students were better able
to Identify musical concepts presented 1n popular music
than musical concepts presented 1n standard orchestral music.
The Interaction between A Schools and B Schools, the McDonald Listening Test and the Walls Listening Test was not significant (see item 3, Table 23). That 1s, the difference between the mean scores of the A Schools and the B Schools on the McDonald Listening Test was not significantly different from the mean score differences between the A Schools' and the B Schools' performance on the Walls Listening Test.
Correlation matrix analyses results.--In order to obtain additional Information concerning the data collected 1n this study, a correlation matrix was computed utilizing all possible combinations of variables. This data 1s presented In Table 24. 104
TABLE 24
CORRELATION MATRIX FOR ALL VARIABLES
Variables 2 3 4 5 *
• 1 . Race (Black or White) 0. 41 7a 0.332a 0.075. 0.602a
2 . McDonald Test 0.675a >0.066 0.4023
3. Walls Test -0.038 0.422a
4. Age 0.090
5. Nam and Powers Status Classification
aS1gn1f1cant at .01 level. I
An examination of Table 24 Indicates that six correlations are significant at the .01 level of confidence.
Variable 2 or the McDonald Listening Test had the highest correlation with Variable 3 or the Walls Listening Test.
This Indicates a high degree of concurrent validity between the McDonald Listening Test and the Walls Listening Test.
Race and the Nam and Powers social status measure had the second highest correlation. The McDonald Test and the Walls
Test had correlations with the Nam and Powers social status measure significant at the .01 level of confidence; however* the latter test's correlation was slightly higher. This was attributed to the fact that the combined mean score for the Walls Listening Test was higher than that of the
McDonald Listening Test (see Table 20). Race correlated significantly with the McDonald Listening Test and the
Walls Listening Test. This can be attributed to the fact that the middle class white students responded well on both tests, and the lower class black students did not respond well on the McDonald Listening Test. All other correlations were not significant.
Stepwise Regression Analysis
Results •
A stepwise regression analysis as computed 1 n the
BMD02R program was utilized to examine the correlation between variable 2 (the McDonald Listening Test) and the four other variables. The data is presented in Table 25
TABLE 25 SUMMARY OF STEPWISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS DEPENDENT VARIABLE. McDONALD LISTENING TEST
o Variables R R2 Increase R
3. Walls Test 0.6752 0.4559 0.4559 1 . Race 0.7053 0.4975 0.0416 4. Age 0.7078 0.5009 0.0035 5. Nam and Powers Classifi cati on 0.7083 0.5017 0.0008 106
An examination of Table 25 Indicates that the
factor making the largest contribution to the scores
on the McDonald Listening Test was the Walls Listening
Test. The next contributor was race. These two
variables were the best predictors of performance on
the McDonald Listening Test. The other variables, age
and the Nam and Powers social status classifications were not predictors.
A second stepwise regression analysis as computed
1n the BMD02R program was utilized to examine the
correlation between *variable 3 (the Walls Listening Test)
and the four other variables. This data is presented in
Table 26.
TABLE 26 SUMMARY OF STEPWISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS DEPENDENT VARIABLE, WALLS LISTENING TEST
Vari ables R R2 Increase
2. McDonald Test 0.6752 0.4559 0.4558 5. Nam and Powers Classification 0.6950 0.4830 0.0271 1. Race 0.6959 0.4842 0.0012 4. Age 0.6960 0.4844 0.0002 107
An examination of Table 26 Indicates that the
factor making the largest contribution to the scores on the
Malls Listening Test was the McDonald Listening Test. The
next contributor was the Nam and Powers social status
classification. These two variables were the best pre
dictors of performance on the Walls Listening Test. The
other variables, race and age, were not predictors.
McDonald Listening Test: Item Analysis, A Schools
The item analyses for the McDonald Listening Test
administered in A Schools are presented 1n Tables 27, 28,
and 29. The scores ranged from 4 to 16 with a mean of
8.79 and a standard deviation of 3.08. The reliability
estimate, based on the Kuder-Richardson "20" formula, was .541 (see Table 27).
TABLE 27
MCDONALD LISTENING JEST, A SCHOOLS: RANGE, MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATE N*70
Number of Reliability I terns Range Mean S.D. Estimate CO o 24 4-16a 8.79 • 00 .541
aTota1 score possible « 24. The mean Item difficulty for this listening test was.
.634 which indicated that this test was relatively diffi cult for this group of students. Twelve of the 24 Items were 1n the "relatively difficult" range. A summary of the Item difficulty Is given in Table 28. The difficulty
Index of each Item 1s presented in Table 29 with other data.
TABLE 28
M c Do n a l d l i s t e n i n g t e s t , a s c h o o l s : SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY
Number of Mean D1 ff1culty I terns Difficulty Range Item Number
2 • .00-.20 5, 21
1 .21-.40 7
5 .41-.60 1,2.8, 9, 24
12 .634 .61-.80 3, 4. 6. 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23
4 .81-1.00 11 , 14, 15, 17
The Item- discrimination Index for this group was based on the upper 27.14 percent and the lower 28.57 percent of the students' mean scores. The mean Item 109 discrimination was 31.8. Sixteen Items had discrimination
Indices of over 20, and eight items were below 20. Phi coefficients for 15 items were significant at the .01 level of confidence* .and 4 Items were significant at the
.05 level of confidence. Five Items had phi coefficients that were not significant. The results of the Item analysis and the concepts measured are presented in Table 29.
McDonald Listening Test; Item Analysis. B Schools
The item analyses for the McDonald Listening Test * administered 1n 8 Schools are presented 1n Tables 30*
31, and 32. The scores ranged from 3 to 23 with a mean of 12.21 and a standard deviation of 4.23. The reliability estimate based on the Kuder-R1chardson "20" formula was
.739 (see Table 30).
The mean Item difficulty for this test was .491
Indicating that this test was of "average" difficulty for this group of students. Ten of the 24 Items were In the
"average" difficulty range. A summary of the Item difficulty 1s given In Table 31. The difficulty Index of each item 1s presented 1n Table 32 with other data. 110
TABLE 29 MCDONALD LISTENING TEST, A SCHOOLS: ITEM ANALYSIS
Diff. Ph1 Point Di scrim. Concept Item Level Coef. B1s. r Index Measured
1 .429 .637® .371 43.9 Loudness 2 .543 .562® .250 38.4 Pitch 3 .700 .203 .177 11.6 Pitch 4 .786 .368° .217 16.1 Duration 5 .143 . 411b .170 19.7 Duration 6 .657 .718® .353 47.9 Loudness 7 .386 .770® .374 54.5 Durati on 8 .557 .800® .464 58.9 Loudness 9 .571 .495® , .332 32.9 Pi tch 10 .771 . 383b .314 21 .8 Loudness 11 .871 .233 .096 11.1 Pitch 12 .657 .203 .177 11.6 Duration, Loudness 13 .657 .853® .529 63.7 Duration, Loudness 14 .871 .575® .304 26.3 Pitch, Loudness 15 .943 . 454b .277 15.8 Pitch, Loudness 16 .771 .740® .458 47.6 Duration, Loudness 17 .829 .637® .352 37.1 Duration, Loudness 18 .657 .509® .265 32.6 Pitch, Duration 19 .671 .809® .473 58.4 Durat1on, Loudness 20 .757 .685® .342 42.4 Duration 21 .129 .613® .347 30.0 Loudness 22 .743 -.324 -.150 -18.9 Pitch 23 .686 .294 .167 16.8 Loudness 24 .429 .637® .371 43.9 Duratlon
®Significant at 01 level. Significant at .05 level Ill
TABLE 30
MCDONALD LISTENING TEST, B SCHOOLS: RANGE, MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION, AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATE N«77
Number of Items Range Mean S.D. Reliability Estimate
24 3-23a 12.21 4.23 .739
aTotal score possible = 24.
TABLE 31
MCDONALD LISTENING TEST, B SCHOOLS: SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY
Number of Mean Difficulty I terns Difficulty Range Item Number
2 .00-.20 5, 21 CM o 1 5 * • 1 , 7, 8, 12, 24
10 .491 .41-.60 2, 3, 6, 9, 10. 13, 16,18,19, 23
7 .61-.80 4 , 1 1 , 14, 15, 17, 2 0 , 22 0 81-1,00 112
TABLE 32 MCDONALD LISTENING TEST, B SCHOOLS: ITEM ANALYSIS
D1ff. Ph1 Pol nt D1scr1m, Concept Item Level Coef. B1 s. r Index Measure
1 .221 . 729a .359 42.9 Loudness 2 .506 ,562a .295 38.1 Pitch 3 .519 . 836a .530 61.9 P1 tch 4. .675 . 482a .274 28.6 Duration 5 .182 . 649a .349 38.1 Duratlon 6 ' .429 . 562a .328 38.1 Loudness 7 .299 .324 .173 19.0 Duratlon 8 .377 . 905a .601 71.4 Loudness 9 .442 . 685a .390 47.6 Pitch 10 .429 . 869a .594 66.7 Loudness 11 .766 . 339“ .292 19.0 P1 tch 12 .403 . 575a .290 38.1 Duration, Lou< ness 13 .442 . 562a .272 38.1 Duratlon, LoutLness 14 .727 . 924a .562 71 .4 Pitch, Loudne:>s ' 15 .740 . 637a .426 42.9 Pitch, Loudne: s 16 .506 . 956a .577 81 .0 Duratlon, Loudness 17 .610 . 575a .370 38.1 Duratlon, Loutlness 18 .519 . 780a .462 57.1 Pitch, Du rati t>n 19 .494 . 935a .576 76.2 Duration, Loutlness 20 .766 . 588a ,321 38.1 Duratlon 21 .182 .094 .111 4.8 Loudness 22 .766 .156 .169 9.5 Pitch 23 .481 .869a .514 66.7 Loudness 24 .312 .156 .126 9.5 Duratlon
Significant at .01 level.
*S1 gn 1 f 1 cant at .05 level. 113
The Item discrimination Index was based on the upper 27.27 percent and the lower 27.27 percent of the students' mean scores. The mean Item discrimination was 43.5. Nineteen Items had discrimination Indices of over 20, and five Items were below 20. Pht coefficients for 19 Items were significant at the .01 level of confidence and for one Item at the .05 level. Four Items had phi coefficients that were not significant. The results of the Item analysis and concepts measured -are presented In Table 32.
McDonald Listening Test: Item Analysis. A Schools and B Schools Combined
The Item analyses for the McDonald Listening Test,
A Schools and B Schools combined, are presented in
Tables 33, 34, and 35. The scores ranged from 3 to 23 with a mean of 10.58 and a standard deviation of 4.10.
The reliability estimate, based on the Kuder-R1chardson
“20" formula was .727 (see Table 33).
The mean Item difficulty for this test was .559
Indicating that the test was of "average" difficulty for the combined groups of students. Ten of the 24 items were
1n the "average" range. A summary of the Item difficulty
Is given 1n Table 34. The difficulty Index of each Item 114
1s presented 1n Table 35 with other data.
TABLE 33
■ M c Do n a l d l i s t e n i n g t e s t , a s c h o o l s a n d b s c h o o l s COMBINED: RANGE. MEAN. STANDARD DEVIATION. AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATE N*147
Number of Items Range Mean S.D. Reliability Estimate
24 3-23a * 10.58 4.10 .727
aTotal score possible = 24.
TABLE 34
MCDONALD LISTENING TEST, A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS COMBINED: SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY
Number of Mean D1ff1culty I tem D1ff1cul ty Range Item Number
2 . 00** • 20 5, 21
3 .21-.40 1. 7. 24
10 .559 .41-.60 2, 6, 8, 9. 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 23
7 • .61-.80 3, 4, 14, 16, 17, 2 0 , 22
2 .81-1.00 11, 15 115
TABLE 35
MCDONALD LISTENING TEST * A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS COMBINED: ITEM ANALYSIS
Diff. Ph1 Point Di scrim. Concept I tern Level Coef. Bis. r Index Measured
1 .320 . 707a .406 49.0 Loudness 2 .524 .440® .264 29.4 Pitch 3 .605 .685* .429 48.0 Pitch 4 .728 .454* .279 25.6 Duration 5 .163 .454® .233 22.9 Duration 6 "" .537 .696® .391 . 49.3 Loudness 7 .340 .562® .266 35.9 Duration 8 .463 .891® .556 70.1 Loudness 9 .503 .718® .381 50.7 Pitch 10 .592 .884® .564 68.7 Loudness 11 .816 .411 a .259 21 .4 Pitch 12 .524 .536® .320 35.7 Duration, Loudness 13 .544 .696* .'417 49.3 Duration, Loudness 14 .796 .750® .501 49.6 Pitch, Loudness 15 .837 .522® .449 30.5 Pitch, Loudness 16 .633 .861® .581 65.0 Duration, Loudness 17 .714 .613® .421 39.2 Duration, Loudness 18 .585 .718® .403 50.1 Pitch, Duration 19 .578 .911® .551 73.7 Duration, Loudness 20 .762 .426® .291 25.1 Duration 21 .156 . 309 .147 15.7 Loudness 22 .755 -.094 .024 - 5.2 Pitch 23 .578 .673* .424 47.0 Loudness 24 .367 .549* .252 36.7 Durati on
Significant at .01 level.
^Significant at .05 level. 116
The Item discrimination Index for the combined groups was based on the upper 29.93 percent and the lower 25.17 percent of the students' mean scores. The mean item discrimination was 41.0. Twenty two Items had discrimination Indices of over 20, and two Items were below 20. Ph1 coefficients for 22 Items were significant at the .01 level of confidence and one Item at the .05 level. Only one Item had a phi coefficient that was not significant. The results of the Item analysis and concepts measured are presented In Table 35.
Walls Listening Test: Item Analysis, A School^
The Item analyses for the Walls Listening Test administered 1n A Schools are presented 1n Tables 36,
37, and 38. The scores ranged from 5 to 21 with a mean of 11.87 and a standard deviation of 3.87. The Kuder-
Rlchardson "20" reliability estimate was .681 (see Table
36).
The mean Item difficulty for this group was .505
Indicating that this test was of “average” difficulty for this group of students. Ten of the 24 items were 1n the "average” range. A summary of the Item difficulty 1s given 1n Table 37. The difficulty Index of each Item Is 117 presented 1n Table 38 with other data.
TABLE 36
WALLS LISTENINT TEST, A SCHOOLS: RANGE, MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATE N»70
Number of I terns Range Mean S.D. Reliability Estimate
24 5 -21a 11.87 3.87 .681
aTotal score possible * 24. '
TABLE 37
WALLS LISTENING TEST, A SCHOOLS: SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY
Number of Mean Difficulty I terns D1 ff 1 cul ty Range Item Number
2 .00-.20 11 , 21
4 .21-.40 4, 9, 17, 20
10 .505 .41-.60 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 16 19, 23, 24
7 .61-.80 1, 6, 12, 13, 15, 18, 22
1 .81-1.00 8 118
TABLE 38 WALLS LISTENING TEST, A SCHOOLS: ITEM ANALYSIS
Dlff. Ph1 Point D1 scrim. Concept Item Level Coef. B1s. r Index Measured
1 .643 .509* .302 33.3 Loudness 2 .486 .718* .382 50.0 Pitch 3 .514 . 495a .269 33.3 Pitch 4 - .400 . 707a .441 50.0 Loudness 5 .471 . 718a .361 50.0 Loudness 6 .700 .951 a .611 77.8 P1 tch 7 .557 . 637a .350 44.4 Duration 8 .843 . 522a .319 27.8 Pitch 9 .243 .790a .507 50.0 Duration 10 .443 -.094 -.059 - 5.6 Duration 11 .114 . 588a .'313 27.8 Duration 12 .629 . 941 a .584 77.8 Duration, Loudness 13 .686 . 673a .397 44.4 Pitch, Duration 14 .586 . 905a .516 72.2 Duration, Loudness 15 .700 .613 a .304 38.9 Pitch, Loudness 16 .443 . 426 .275 27.8 Pitch, Duration 17 .243 . 522a .326 33.3 Duration, Loudness 18 .614 .0 .087 0.0 Pitch, Loudness 19 .557 . 7°7* .387 50.0 Duration, Loudness 20 .357 .876* .523 66.7 Duration 21 .114 . 522a .278 27.8 Loudness 22 .700 . 279 .207 16.7 Pitch 23 .543 . 440b .231 27.8 Loudness 24 .543 . 869a .446 66.7 Duration
aSign1f1cant at ,01 level.
^Significant at .05 level. 119
The discrimination index for this test reflected the ratio of the difference between the top 25.71 percent and the lower 25.71 percent'of the group. Twenty one items had discrimination indices of over 20, and three items were below 20. Mean Item d1scrimination was 41.2.
Nineteen items had phi coefficients significant at the
.01 level of confidence and two Items at the .05 level.
Three Items had phi coefficients that were not significant.
Table 38 presents the complete item analysis and concepts measured.
Walls Listening Test: Item Analysis, B Schools
The item analyses for the Walls Listening Test,
B Schools, are presented 1n Tables 39, 40, and 41.
The scores ranged from 6 to 23 with a mean of 14.70 and a standard deviation of 4.14. The reliability estimate, based on the Kuder-RIchardson “20'' formula, was .734
(see Table 39).
The mean Item difficulty for this test was .387 indicating that this test was “relatively easy" for this group of students. Eighteen of the 24 items were in the
"relatively easy" and "average" difficulty ranges. A summary of the item difficulty 1s given in Table 40. The 120 difficulty 1nd;px of each Item 1s presented in Table 41 with other data.
TABLE 39
WALLS LISTENING TEST, B SCHOOLS: RANGE, MEAN, STANOARD DEVIATION, AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATE N**77
Number of Items Range Mean S.D. Reliability Estimate
24 6-23a 14.70 4.14 .734
aTotal score possible ■ 24.
TABLE 40
WALLS LISTENING TEST, B SCHOOLS: SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY
Number of Mean D1ff1culty • Items D1ff1culty Range Item Number
4 .00-.20 9, 11, 17, 21
7 .387 .21-.40 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 20, 23
11 .41-.60 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14. 15, 16, 18, 24
* 2 4 .61-.80 10 , 22 0 .81-1.00 121
TABLE 41 MALLS LISTENING TEST, B SCHOOLS: ITEM ANALYSIS
D1ff. Phi Po1 nt Discrim. Concept Item Level Coef. Bis. r Index Measured
1 .312 .718® .331 47.1 Loudness 2 .351 .891® .519 66.7 Pitch 3 .532 .454® .294 30.3 Pitch 4 " .247 .309 .133 17.5 Loudness 5 .221 .827® .476 57.1 Loudness 6 .442 . 891 a .567 70.4 Pitch 7 .481 . 760a .414 55.1 Duration 8 .532 . 809a .394 59.9 Pitch 9 .169 . 575a .428 32.8 Durati on 10 .610 . 588a .321 38.8 Duration 11 .078 . 536a .377 23.8 Duration 12 .455 .924® .577 75.2 Duration, Loudness 13 .545 . 760a .463 54.6 Pi tch , Duration 14 .455 .536® .255 35.6 Duration, Loudness 15 .506 .853® .535 65.2 Pitch, Loudness 16 .416 .468® .283 30.8 Pitch, Duration 17 .195 .760® .448 47.6 Duration, Loudness 18 .584 . 522® .264 35.1 Pitch, Loudness 19 .390 . 861 a .566 65.7 Duration, Loudness 20 .247 .440® .257 27.1 Duration 21 .078 .482® .225 19.0 Loudness 22 .636 . 661 a .400 43.6 Pitch 23 .364 .562® .226 36.6 Loudness 24 .455 .324 .255 20.8 Duration
®S1gn1ficant at .01 level. 122
The Item discrimination Index was based on the upper
24.68 percent and the lower 27.27 percent of the students' mean scores. The mean Item discrimination was 44.0.
Twenty two Items had discrimination indices of over 20, and two Items were below 20. Ph1 coefficients for 22
Items were significant at the .01 level of confidence.
Two Items had phi coefficients that were not significant.
The results of the item analysis and concepts measured are presented 1n Table 41.
Walls Listening Test: Item Analysis A Schools and B Schools Combined
The item analyses for the Walls Listening Test,
A Schools and B Schools combined, are presented In
Tables 42, 43, and 44. The scores ranged from 5 to 23 with a mean of 13.35 and a standard deviation of 4.25. The reliability estimated, based on the Kuder-R1chardson "20" formula was .738 (see Table 42).
The mean Item difficulty for this test was .444
Indicating that this test was of "average" difficulty for the combined group of students. Fourteen of the 24 Items were 1n the "average" difficulty range. A summary of the
Item difficulty 1s given 1n Table 43. The difficulty Index of each Item is presented In Table 44 with other data. 123
TABLE 42
WALLS LISTENING TEST, A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS COMBINED: RANGE, MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATE N = 1 47
Number of I terns Range Mean S.D. Reliability Estimate
24 5-23a 13.35 4.25 .738
aTotal score possible ■« 24.
TABLE 43
WALLS LISTENING TEST, A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS COMBINED: SUMMARY ITEM DIFFICULTY
Number of Mean Difficulty I terns D1ff1culty Range Item Number CM o o o i . 3 . 9, 11 , 21
4 .21-.40 4, 5, 17^ 20
14 .444 .41-.60 1 . 2, 3, 6, 7 , 1 0 , 12, 14 , 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, 24 3 .61— .80 8 , 13, 22
0 .81-1.00 124
TABLE 44 WALLS LISTENING TEST, A SCHOOLS AND B SCHOOLS COMBINED: ITEM ANALYSIS
D1ff Phi Point Di scrim. Concept I tern Level Coef. Bis. r Index Measured
1 .469 .649a .392 44.0 Loudness 2 .415 .827® .469 59.2 Pitch 3 - .524 . 468a .260 31.0 Pitch 4 .320 .575® .318 37.0 Loudness 5 .340 .760® .465 53.8 Loudness 6 .565 .911® .620 72.7 P1 tch 7 .517 .685® .387 48.2 Duration 8 .680 .7703 .433 54.8 Pitch 9 .240 .718® .467 45.1 Duration 10 .531 .172 .'079 1 0 . 8 Duration 11 .095 .562® .343 26.2 Duration 12 .537 .911® .596 72.9 Duration, Loudness 13 .612 .800® .452 57.3 Pi tch, Duration 14 .517 .740® .393 52.9 Duration, Loudness 15 .599 .770® .467 55.1 Pitch, Loudness 16 .429 .613® .272 41 .4 Pitch, Duration 17 .218 .707® .385 44.9 Duration, Loudness 18 .599 .203 .183 13.0 Pitch, Loudness 19 .469 .844® .504 63.4 Duration, Loudness 20 .299 .661® .400 44.3 Duration 21 .095 .440® . 256 18.9 Loudness 22 .667 .522® .318 31.9 Pitch 23 .449 .468® .217 31 .0 Loudness 24 .497 .600® .351 41 .0 Duration
®S1gn1f1cant at .01 level. The Item discrimination Index for the combined groups was based on the upper 26.53 percent and lower
28.57 percent of the students mean scores. The mean
Item discrimination was 43.8. Twenty two Items had discrimination indices of over 2 0 , and two Items were below 20. Phi coefficients for 22 items were significant at the .01 level of confidence. Two Items had phi coefficients that were not significant. The results of the item analysis and concepts measured are presented
in Table 44.
A summary of the findings presented in this chapter and conclusions based on the data follow in
Chapter V. CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
’ SUMMARY
The Purpose of the Study
Main purpose.--The main purposes of this study were (1 ) to determine whether or not children from contrasting racial groups and socioeconomic backgrounds, differed in musical concept development and (2 ) to determine whether or not significant relationships between chronological age, race, socioeconomic status, and musical concept identification existed.
The study investigated the following questions:
(1) Is there a significant difference between lower class black and middle class white children's Identifica tion of musical concepts p re s e n te d1 n standard orchestral literature?
(2) Is there a significant difference between lower class black and middle class white children's 126 . 127
Identification of musical concepts presented 1n popular music?
(3) Are there significant relationships between middle class white children's Identification of musical concepts presented 1 n standard orchestral literature and their Identification of musical concepts presented 1n popular music* their social status, race, and chronolog ical age?
(4) Are there significant relationships between lower class black children's Identification of musical concepts presented In standard orchestral literature and their Identification of musical concepts presented 1 n popular music, their social status, race, and chronological age?
(5) Are there significant relationships between middle class white children's Identification of musical concepts presented 1n popular music and their Identifica tion of musical concepts presented in standard orchestral literature, their social status, race, and chronological age?
(6 ) Are there significant relationships between lower class black children's Identification of musical concepts presented 1n popular music and their Identifica tion of musical concepts presented In standard orchestral 128 literature, their social status, race, and chronological age?
Sub-purpose.--The sub-purpose of this study was to design and construct a Listening Test of popular music which would effectively measure whether or not differences existed 1n the identification of musical concepts by children from contrasting racial groups and socioeconomic environments.
Methods and Procedures
Test development.--One of the two Listening Tests used 1n the main study was developed by McDonald.* The
Instrument consisted of musical excerpts taken from standard orchestral literature. The excerpts demonstrated musical concepts of pitch, duration, and loudness.
The second Listening Test used 1n the main study was designed for this Investigation. The Instrument consisted of musical excerpts taken from popular music compositions. The excerpts demonstrated musical concepts of pitch, duration, and loudness. The test was submitted to three trial administrations and item analyses for refinement before 1 t was used 1 n the main study.
^McDonald, op. c1t. Main study.--The popular music Listening Test known as the Walls Listening Test and the McDonald Listen ing. Test were administered to three fourth grade middle class white sample populations and three fourth grade lower class black.sample populations. From the cumulative school record cards, Information concerning chronological age, social status, and race were obtained for each student tested.
The data were treated in several ways. Item analysis of the student's performances on the tests provided
* Information about the test's relative reliability and difficulty within each group and within the groups combined.
An analysis of variance provided Information concerning differences between the two school groups on the tests, differences between the tests, and the interaction between the two school groups and the tests. Correlations were made of the following variables: (1 ) scores on the
McDonald Listening Test, (2) scores on the Walls Listening
Test, (3) race, (4) chronological age, and (5) Nam and
Powers social status scores. Stepwise regression analysis provided information about (1 ) the relationships between the McDonald Listening Test scores and the four other variables and (2) Walls Listening Test scores and the 130 four other variables.
Summary of the Findings
* Main purpose.--In order to Investigate the main purpose of the study* six null hypotheses were developed.
The findings are summarized below:
Null Hypothesis 1: There 1s no significant difference between lower class black and middle class white children's Identification of musical concepts presented 1n standard " orchestral literature (McDonald Listening Test).
This null hypothesis was rejected. An analysis of variance produced an F value significant at the .01 level of confidence Indicating that the McDonald Listening Test was more difficult for the lower class black students than for the middle class white students.
Null Hypothesis 2: There 1s no significant difference between lower class black and middle class white children's Identification of musical concepts presented 1n popular music (Walls Listening Test).
• * This null hypothesis was rejected. An analysis of variance produced an F value significant at the .01 level of confidence Indicating that the Walls Listening Test was more difficult for the lower class black students than for the middle class white students. 131
Null Hypothesis 3: There are no significant relationships between middle class white children's identification of musical concepts presented in the McDonald Listening Test and the Walls Listening Test, their Nam and Powers social status scores, race, and chronological age.
This null hypothesis was partially retained. A stepwise regression analysis was performed with the
McDonald Test as the dependent variable, and 1t Indicated a relationship between the Walls Listening Test scores and the McDonald Listening Test scores. There was also a relationship between race and the McDonald Listening Test scores. The other two variables were not predictors.
Null Hypothesis 4: There are no significant relationships between lower class black children's Identification of musical concepts presented 1n the McDonald Listening Test and the Walls Listening Test, their Nam and Powers social status scores, race, and chronological age.
This null hypothesis was partially retained. A stepwise regression analysis was performed with the McDonald
Test as the dependent variable, and 1t indicated a relationship between the Walls Listening Test scores and the McDonald Listening Test scores. There was also a relationship between race and the McDonald Listening Test scores. The other two variables were not predictors. 132
Null Hypothesis 5: There are no significant relationships between middle class white children's Identification of musical concepts presented 1n the Malls Listening Test and the McDonald Listening Test* their Nam and Powers social status scores, race, and chronological age.
This null hypothesis was partially retained. A stepwise regression analysis was performed with the Malls
Test as the dependent variable, and 1t revealed a relationship between the McDonald Listening Test scores
* and the Malls Listening Test scores. There was also a relationship between the Nam and Powers social status class ification scores and the Malls Listening Test scores.
The other two variables 'were not predictors.
Null Hypothesis 6 : There are no significant relationships between lower class black children's identification of musical concepts presented 1n the Malls Listening Test and the McDonald Listening Test, their Nam and Powers social status scores, race, and chronological age.
This null hypothesis was partially retained. A
* * stepwise regression analysis was performed with the Malls
Test as the dependent variable, and it revealed a relation ship between the McDonald Listening Test scores and the
Malls Listening Test scores. There was also a relation ship between the Nam and Powers social status classifica tion scores and the Malls Listening Test scores. The .other two variables were not predictors.
Sub-purpose. — To Investigate the sub-purpose of the study, an attempt was made to construct and develop a test consisting of recorded popular music excerpts which would effectively measure differences or lack of differences 1n Identification of musical concepts by children from Contrasting racial groups and socioeconomic environments. Through the use of appropriate test construction methods, such a Listening Test was refined for use In the main study. The test proved acceptable In terms of reliability and dlfflcuTty for middle class white and lower class black fourth grade children.
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Cone!us1ons
The following conclusions are formulated on the basis of the findings of this study and 1 n consideration of the limitations of the investigation.
(1) The results of both Listening Tests Indicate that middle class white children do appear to be more able
1 n Identifying musical concepts of pitch, loudness, and duration than do their lower class black peers. Whether this ability results from a higher degree of fluency with the language, better auditory acuity, or more experience with abstract tasks was not determined. One may speculate; however, that the research findings dealing with the auditory and motivational aspects of lower class children 1 n other subject areas may be applicable to music listening experiences also.
(2) Goth lower class black and middle class white students, as a group, scored higher on the Listening
Test composed of popular music than they did on the
Listening Test utilizing standard orchestral literature.
At the conclusion of the testing period 1n this study, the Investigator asked the students which of the two types of music used was preferred. By a show of hands, approximately 90 percent of the students preferred the popular music over the standard .orchestral music. One may conjecture that preference for the type of music used
Influenced the students' performance on the test.
It was also observed that lower class black students scored as well on the Listening Test composed of popular music as the middle class white students did on the Listening Test composed of standard orchestral music. This observation seems to support the hypothesis
of this study which states:
Children of differing socioeconomic backgrounds ■ do not differ 1n their concepts of pitch, loudness and duration; but they do differ In the identifica tion of these concepts 1n terms of different musical traditions.
(3) A stepwise regression analysis of the lower
class black and middle class white group's performance on
the McDonald Listening Test Indicated a relationship
betv/een (1) the McDonald Listening Test scores and Walls
Listening Test scores, and (2) the McDonald Listening
Test scores and race. This Indicates that performance on
the Walls Listening Test and race were the best predictors
of performance on the McDonald Listening Test. Chronolog
ical age and the Nam and Powers social status classification scores were not predictors.
(4) A stepwise regression analysis of the lower class black and middle class white group's performance on the Walls Listening Test revealed (1) a relationship between the Walls Listening Test scores and the McDonald
Listening Test scores, and (2 ) a relationship between the
Walls Test scores and the Nam and Powers social status classification scores. This Indicates that performance on the McDonald Listening Test and social status were the 136 best predictors of performance on the Walls Listening Test.
Chronological age and race were not predictors.
It Is Important to note that race was a factor
1n performance on the McDonald Listening Test of orchestral music, and 1t was not a factor on the Walls
Listening Test of popular music. It 1s concluded that both races related relatively well to popular music.
However, black students did not relate well to the standard orchestral music.
Implications for Music Education
Based on the conclusions obtained from this study, the following implications are made for music education:
(1) Since both middle class white and lower class black fourth grade children were better able to recognize musical concepts contained 1 n popular music rather than
1 n standard orchestral music, 1 t 1s suggested that popular music be utilized within the school music curriculum as a strategy for teaching musical concepts.
(2) Since lower class black students scored significantly higher on the Walls Listening Test of popular music than they did on the McDonald Listening
Test of standard orchestral literature, 1t 1s recommended 137 that popular music be utilized as the best "starting point"
in the development of musical concepts for the lower class black child.
(3) It can be concluded that the Malls Listening
Test is a valid and reliable measure of musical concepts.
Recommendations for Further Research
The following recommendations are made in
recognition of the limitations of the study:
(1) A study similar to the present study should
be conducted utilizing different population combinations, e.g., middle class white and middle class black; middle
class black and lower class white; lower class white and
lower class black; and/or lower class black and middle
class black. These additional studies would better
determine whether or not socioeconomic level and race
are factors 1 n musical concept identification.
(2) Both Listening Tests used 1n this study
should be administered individually to lower class black
students utilizing oral Instead of written responses to
the test items. This would perhaps more cle'arly determine whether or not the child actually possesses these musical .
concepts and can "label" them correctly. 138
(3) A listening test similar to those used in
this study should be developed which utilizes both vocal
and Instrumental music. The purpose of the test would be
to determine whether or not musical concepts Identified
1 n Instrumental music could also be Identified 1n vocal music and to what extent the voice or Instruments
Influenced a child's recognition of musical concepts.
(4) The Nam and Powers social status classification
needs to be updated to reflect present job-sodal status
relationship, and 1 t should Include jobs that are not
listed on the 1960 status measure. Also, a category
and number should be asdgned to Welfare recipients
and retired Individuals. APPENDIX A
Response Sheet, Listening Test, Form A
139 140
RESPONSE SHEET -- LISTENING TEST, FORM A
Choices: Higher, Lower, Faster, Slower, Louder, Softer
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
6 . * * * * 7.
8 *
* 9.
10. 11. 12 .
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19 . 20. 21. 141
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44. 142
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60. APPENDIX B
Music Sources of Items and Correct Responses, Listening Test, Form B.
Response Sheet, Listening Test, Form B
143 144
Musical Sources and Correct Responses Listening Test, Form B
Musical Source Correct Response
Sample A. Burt Bacharach: Make It Easy on Yourself, "Knowing When to Leave" louder
Sample B. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz. "McArthur Park" 1 ower
1. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz, "McArthur Park" softer
2. Modern Jazz Ouartet: Best of the Modern Jazz Quartet, "Django" 1 ower
3. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experiment, "South Street Stroll" higher
4. Isaac Hayes: To Be Continued, "Ike's Mood 1" softer
5. Young-Holt Unlimited: Just a Melody, "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" 1 ouder
6 . Wes Montgomery: Go1n‘ Out of My Head, "0 Morro" higher
7. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experiment, "Lonely Soul" slower
8 . Clarence Wheeler & the Enforcers: Doin' What We Wanna, "Hey Jude" lower
9. Burt Bacharach: Reach Out, "Alfle" faster
10. Wes Montgomery: Greatest Hits, "When A Man Loves a Woman" slower
11. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz, "Jesus Christ Superstar" fas ter 145
Musical Source Correct Response
Sample C. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experiment, "South Street Stroll" lower and slower
12 '. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz, "McArthur Park" slower and softer
13. Jimmy Smith: Newport in New York '72: The Jimmy Smith Jam Vol. 5 , "Ode to Billie Joe" lower and slower
14. Burt Bacharack: Make It Easy on Yourself, "Pacific Coast Highway" softer and faster
15.- Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz, "Jesus Christ Superstar" higher and softer
16. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experiment, "Lonely Soul" lower and slower
17. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz, "Jesus Christ Superstar" faster and louder
18. Chicago: Chicago, "Make Me Smile" lower and louder
19. Isaac Hayes: Shaft, "Shaft's Cab R1de" slower and softer
Sample D. Chicago: Chi cago, "Once Upon a Time" softer
20. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz, "Jesus Christ Superstar" faster
21. Ramsey Lewis Trio: Wade 1n the Water, "Up Tight" . . louder
22. Chicago: Chi cago. "The Road" lower
23. Blood, Sweat and Tears: Blood, Sweat and Tears, "Blues - Part II" softer 146
Musical Source Correct Response
24. Emmerson Lake and Palmer: Tarkus, "Battlefield" slower 147 RESPONSE SHEET— LISTENING TEST, FORMS Name . ■ ______Age ______Grade ______
Directions: We will hear some short musical examples. Each one will change in some way. Listen to the complete example and decide on the most important change. Read through the possible answers on your paper, but before marking your choice, listen again as the same example is repeated. After hearing the example the second time, put a check mark beside the answer you think is right. Check only one answer for each example.
SAMPLE A 3. 8 . softer lower lower higher faster higher louder hiqher faster -•1ower slower slower slower softer louder
SAMPLE B 4. 9. hiqher hi gher hiqher faster softer slov/er louder faster softer softer slower faster lower louder 1 ower
1. 5. 1 0. softer lower hiqher higher slower slower 1 ower hiqher faster faster louder louder louder softer softer
2 . 6 . I n . higher lower I 1 ov/er faster faster 1 slower slower • slov/er faster 1 ower softer louder louder hiqher 1 softer
7. 1 ov/er slower faster louder softer 148 2 Name In this section, each answer has two parts. For example, the music may get both higher and slower, or perhaps faster and louder. Choose the answer that has both parts right, but check only one answer for each example.
SAMPLE C higher and softer higher and softer lower and slower higher and slower higher and slov/er faster and louder lower and faster lower and faster faster and louder lower and slower
12. 17. slower and louder slov/er and softer faster and softer slov/er and louder .faster and louder faster and louder slower and softer higher and softer hiqher and louder faster and softer
13. .18. higher and softer higher and louder higher and slower lower and softer lower and faster higher and softer faster and louder lower and louder lower and slower slower and softer
14. 19. lower and slower slower and softer .faster and louder slower and louder faster and softer faster and softer higher and louder faster and louder higher and softer higher and louder
15. higher and louder higher and softer lower and slower faster and louder lower and softer 149 3 Name In this group, each example has two different parts. Listen to both parts and decide how the second part is most different from the first part. Check the answer which best describes this difference. Check only one answer for each example. Listen carefully as these are played, because they will not be repeated.
SAMPLE D softer faster 1 ov/er slower slower lower faster softer louder louder
-slower higher “ lower faster ” faster slower ~ softer louder ” higher softer
softer I faster louder lower slower higher lower slov/er faster louder APPENDIX C
Music Sources of Items and Correct Responses, Listening Test, Form C
Response Sheet, Listening Test, Form C
150 151
Musical Sources and Correct Responses Listening Test, Form C
Musical Source Correct Response
Sample A. Burt Bacharach: Make It Easy on Yourself. "Knowing When to Leave" louder
Sample B. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz. "McArthur Park" lower
1. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz. "McArthur Park" softer
2. Modern Jazz Quartet: Best of the Modern Jazz Quartet. "Django" lower
3. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experiment “South Street Stroll" higher
4. Dave Brubeck Ouartet: Bossa Nova USA, "Theme From June" softer
5. Young-Holt Unlimited: Just a Melody, "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" louder
6 . Wes Montgomery: Go1n* Out of My Head, "0 Morro" higher
7. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experiment, "Lonely Soul" slower
8 . Clarence Wheeler & the Enforcers: Doin' What We Wanna. "Hey Jude" 1 ower
9. Burt Bacharach: Reach Out, "Alfle" faster
10. Wes Montgomery: Greatest Hits, "When a Man Loves a Woman" s 1 ower
11. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz, "Jesus Christ Superstar" faster 152
Musical Source Correct Response
Sample C. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experiment. "South Street Stroll" lower and slower
12. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz, "McArthur Park" slower and softer
13. Jimmy Smith: Newport in New York '72: The Jimmy Smith Jam Vol. 5, "Ode to Billie Joe" 1 ower and slower
14. Dave Brubeck Ouartet: Gone With the Wind, "The Lonesome Road" softer and faster
15. Rov Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz. "Jesus Christ Superstar" higher and softer
16. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experiment. "Lonely Soul" lower and slower
17. Rov Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz. "Jesus Christ Superstar" faster and louder
18. Chicago:. Chicago, "Make Me Smile" lower and louder
19. Isaac Hayes: Shaft, "Shaft's Cab Ride" slower and softer
Sample D. Chicago: Chicago. "Once Upon a Time" softer CM o Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz. "Jesus Christ Superstar" faster
2 1 . Ramsey Lewis Trio: Wade 1n the Water. "Up Tight" louder
2 2 . Chicago: Chicago, "The Road" lower Musical Source Correct Response
23. Blood, Sweat and Tears: B1ood. Sweat and Tears. "Blues - Part II" softer
24. Emmerson Lake and Palmer: Tarkus. "Battlefield" slower 154 RESPONSE SHEET— LISTENING TEST, FORM C
Name ______Age Grade ~~ Directions: We will hear some short musical examples. Each one will change • in some way. Listen to the complete example and decide on the most important change. Read through the possible answers on your paper, but before marking your choice, listen again as the same example is repeated. After hearing the example the second time, put a check mark beside the answer you think is right. Check only one answer for each example.
SAMPLE A 3. 8. softer lower lower hiqher faster higher louder higher faster lower slower slov/er "slower softer louder
SAMPLE B 4. 9. higher higher higher faster * softer slower louder faster softer softer slower faster 1 ower louder lower
1. 5. 10. softer lower higher higher slower slower 1 ov/er hiqher faster faster louder louder louder softer 1 ov/er
2 . 6 . 1 1 . hiqher 1 ower lower faster faster slower slower slov/er faster lower softer louder louder hiqher softer
7. 1 ov/er slov/er faster louder softer 2 Name In this section, each answer has two parts. For example, the music may get both higher and slower, or perhaps faster and louder. Choose the answer that has both parts right, but check only one answer for each example.
SAMPLE C _ _ _ higher and softer higher and softer lower and slower higher and slower higher and slower faster and louder lower and faster lower and faster faster and louder lower and slower
1 2 . 17. slower and louder slower and softer "faster and softer slower and louder faster and louder faster and louder slov/er and softer hiqher and softer hiqher and louder faster and softer
higher and softer slower and louder higher and slower lower and slower 1 ov/er and faster higher and softer faster and louder lower and louder 1 ov/er and slower slov/er and softer
1 ov/er and slower slower and softer faster and louder slower and louder faster and slower faster and softer higher and louder faster and louder slower and softer higher and louder
higher and louder higher and softer lower and slov/er faster and louder lower and softer 156 3 Name In this group, each example has two different parts. Listen to both parts and decide how the second part is most different from the first part. Check the answer which best describes this difference. Check only one answer for each example. Listen carefully as these are played, because they will not be repeated.
SAMPLE D 2 2 . softer faster lower slower slower 1 ower faster softer louder louder
V
2 0 . 23. -slower hiqher lower faster faster slower softer louder hiqher softer
2 1 . 24. softer » faster louder lower slower hiqher lower slower faster louder APPENDIX D Music Sources of Items and Correct Responses* Listening Test, Form D
Response Sheet* Listening Test, Form D
157 158
Musical Sources and Correct Responses Listening Test* Form D
Musical Source Correct Response
Sample A. Burt Bacharach: Make It Easy on Yourself, "Knowing When to Leave" louder
Sample B. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz, "McArthur Park" lower
1. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz, "McArthur Park" softer
2 . Modern Jazz Ouartet: Best of the Modern Jazz Quartet, "Django" lower
3. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experiment, "South Street Stroll" higher
4. Dave Brubeck Ouartet: Bossa Nova USA, "Theme From June" softer
5. Young-Holt Unlimited: Just a Melody, "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" louder 6 . Wes Montgomery: Go1n' Out of My Head, "0 Morro" higher
7. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experiment, "Lonely Soul" slower
8 . Clarence Wheeler & the Enforcers: Doin* What We Wanna, "Hey Jude" lower
9. Burt Bacharach: Reach Out. "Alfle" faster
10. Wes Montgomery: Greatest Hits, "When a Man Loves a Woman" slower
11. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz, "Jesus Christ Superstar" faster 159
Musical Source Correct Response # Sample C. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experiment. "South Street Stroll" lower and slower
12'. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz. "McArthur Park" slower and softer
13. Jimmy Smith: Newport 1n New York *72: The Jimmy Smith Jam Vol. 5. "Ode to Billie Joe" lower and slower
14. Dave Brubeck Ouartet: Gone With the Wind. "The Lonesome Road" softer and faster
15. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz. "Jesus Christ Superstar" higher and softer
16. Freddie Hubbard: A Soul Experi ment. "Lonely Soul" lower and slower
17. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz. "Jesus Christ Superstar" faster and louder
18. Chicago: Chicago. "Make Me Smile" lower and louder
19. Isaac Hayes: Shaft. "Shaft's Cab R1de" slower and softer
Sample D. Chicago: Chicago. "Once Upon a Time" softer
20. Roy Meriwether Trio: Jesus Christ Superstar Goes Jazz. "Jesus Christ Superstar" faster
21. Ramsey Lewis Trio: Wade 1n the Water. "Up Tight" louder
22. Chicago: Chicago. "The Road" lower 160
Musical Source Correct Response
23. Blood, Sweat and Tears: Blood, Sv/eat and Tears, "Blues - Part II" softer
24. Emmerson Lake and Palmer: Tarkus. "Battlefield" . slower 161 RESPONSE SHEET— LISTENING TEST, FORM D Name ______School Grade Age Directions: We will hear some short musical examples. Each one will change in some way. Listen to the complete example and decide on the most important change. Read through the possible answers on your paper, but before marking your choice, listen again as the same example is repeated. After hearing the example the second time, put a check mark beside the answer you think is right. Check only one answer for each example.
SAMPLE A 3. 8 . • softer Tower 1 ov/er hiqher faster higher louder hiqher faster slower slower slower slower softer louder
SAMPLE B 4. 9. hiqher hiqher . hiqher faster softer slower louder faster softer softer siower faster lower louder 1 ower
1. 5. 1 0 . softer lower higher hi qher slower slower 1 ov/er hiqher faster faster louder louder louder softer lower
2 . 6 . 1 1 . higher lower lower faster faster slower slov/er slower faster lower softer louder louder hiqher softer
7. lower slov/er faster louder softer Name In this section, each answer has two parts. For example, the music may get both higher and slower, or perhaps faster and louder. Choose the answer that has both parts right, but check only one answer for each example.
SAMPLE C 16. higher and softer higher and softer lower and slower higher and slower higher and slower faster and louder lower and faster lower and faster faster and louder lower and slower
1 2 . 17. -slov/er and louder slower and softer faster and softer slov/er and louder faster and louder faster and louder slower and softer hiqher and softer hiqher and louder faster and softer
higher and softer slower and louder higher and slower lower and slower lower and faster higher and softer faster and louder 1 ov/er and louder 1 ov/er and slower slower and softer
19. lower and slower slower and softer slower and louder slov/er and louder faster and softer faster and softer higher and louder faster and louder slower and softer hiqher and louder
higher and louder higher and softer lower and slower faster and louder lower and louder 3 163 Name In this group, each example has two-different parts. Listen to both parts and decide how the second part is most different from the first part. Check the answer which best describes this difference. Check only one answer for each example. Listen carefully as these are played, because they will not be repeated.
SAMPLE D 2 2 . softer faster lower slov/er slower - lower faster softer louder louder
2 0 . 23. "slower hiqher lower faster faster slower softer louder higher softer
r
2 1 . 24. softer faster louder lower slower hiqher 1 ower slower faster louder APPENDIX E Musical Sources of Items and Correct Responses, McDonald Listening Test
Response Sheet, McDonald Listening Test
I
164 165
Musical Sources of Items and Correct Responses McDonald Listening Test
Musical Source Correct Response
Sample A. Sullivan: Iolanthe, "Overture" 1 ouder
Sample B. Rodgers: The King and I, "The March of the Siamese Children" lower
1. Plerne: Cydalise, "Entrance of the L1ttle Fauns" softer
2. Grieg: "Wedding Day at Troldhaugen" higher
3. Ravel: Mother Goose Suite, "Beauty and the Beast" 1 ower
4. Handel: Water Music, "Hornpipe" slower
5. Shostakovitch: Bal 1 et Sulte No. 1, "Pizzicato Polka" faster
6 . Thomson: The Plow that Broke the Plains, "Cattle" softer
7. Bartok: Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion, Movement 1 faster
8 . Handel: Royal Fireworks Music, "Mlnuetto No. 2" . 1 ouder
9. Thomson: Tuesday in November, "Fugue and Chorale on Yankee Doodle" higher
10. Schubert: Quintet In C, Opus 163, "Scherzo" softer
11. Salnt-Saens: Carnival of the Animals, "Fossils" lower 166
Sample C. Moussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition. "Bydlo" higher and louder
12. Grieg: Lyric Suite, "Norwegian Rustic March" slower and softer
13. Tschaikovsky: Swan Lake, "Czardas" faster and softer
14. Elgar: Wand of Youth Suite No. 1_, "Fairies and Giants" lower and louder
15. Bizet: Carmen Suite No. 2. "Changing of the Guard" higher and softer
16.' Ibert: Pivertlssement. "Parade" faster and louder
17. Rossini: William Tell Overture faster and softer
18. Taylor: Through the Looking Glass. “Garden of Live Flowers" lower and slower
19. Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique. Movement 1 slower and softer
Sample 0. Schumann: ."Wild Horsemen" lower
20. Copland: Appalachian Spring. "Shaker Tune" faster
21. Elgar: "Pomp and Circumstance No. 1" 1 ouder
22. Gounod: Faust Ballet Suite, "Waltz No. 1" lower
23. Haydn: Symphony No. 94. Movement 2 softer
24. Thomson: The Plow that Broke the Plains. "Cattle" slower 167 RESPONSE SHEET— MCDONALD LISTENING TEST Name ■______School Grade ______Age______Directions: We will hear some short musical examples. Each one will change in some way. Listen to the complete example and decide on the most important change. Read through the possible answers on your paper, but before marking your choice, listen again as the same example is repeated. After hearing the example the second time, put a check mark beside the answer you think is right. Check only one answer for each example.
SAMPLE A 3. 8 . faster 1ouder faster slower softer slower louder 1 ower louder -softer hiqher softer hiqher siower hiqher
SAMPLE B 4. 9. louder softer faster higher hiqher slower lower lower louder faster faster hiqher slower slower lower
1 . 5. 1 0 . faster faster faster slower slower slower louder softer louder softer hiqher softer hiqher lower lower
2 . 6 . 1 1 . faster faster louder slower slower softer louder louder lower higher softer hiqher lower 1 ower faster
7. softer slower faster higher lower Name
In this section, each answer has two parts. For example, the music may get both higher and slower, or perhaps faster and louder. Choose the answer that has both parts right, but check only one answer for each example.
SAMPLE C 16. slower and softer slower and softer slower and louder slower and louder faster and softer faster and softer faster and louder faster and louder higher and louder hiqher and louder
1 2 . 17. -slower and softer slower and softer slower and lower slower and lower faster and softer faster and softer faster and louder faster and louder lower and softer higher and softer
13. 18. slower and softer higher and softer slower and louder lower and louder faster and softer hiqher and slower faster and louder lower and slower higher and softer * lower and faster
14. 19. hiqher and louder slower and louder lower and softer slower and softer lower and louder faster and softer hiqher and softer faster and louder slower and softer higher and louder
15. higher and louder higher and slower higher and softer lower and softer lower and faster 169 3 Name . ______
In this group, each example has two different parts. Listen to both parts and decide how the second part is most different from the first part. Check the answer which best describes this difference. Check only one answer for each example. Listen carefully as these are played, because they will not be repeated.
SAMPLE D 2 2 . faster faster slower slower hi gher hiqher lower 1 ower softer ■ softer
* 2 0 . _ 23. louder 1 ower higher slower softer faster faster louder slower softer
2 1 . 24. 1ouder 1 ov/er slower faster faster slower softer - louder lower hiqher APPENDIX F
The Malls Listening Test
The Walls Listening Test is available on loan from the School of Music, The Ohio State Ui1vers1ty,
Columbust Ohio.
170 BIBLIOGRAPHY
171 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Bruner, Jerome S. "The Cognitive Consequences of Early Sensory Deprivation." Sensory Deprivation. Edited by Philip Solomon, et, al_. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961, 195-207.
Crow, Lester D., Murray, Walter I., and Smythe, Hugh H. Educating the Culturally Disadvantaged Child: Principles and Programs. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1966.
Deutsch, Cynthia P. "Environment and Perception." Social Class, Race, and Psychological Development. Edited by Martin Deutsch, et al . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968, 53-85.
Deutsch, Martin. "The Disadvantaged Child and the Learn ing Process." The Disadvantaged Child. Edited by Martin Deutsch, et a l . New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967, 39-57.
Downle, N. M. and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Row, 1965.
Fox, Sidney. The Origin and Development of Jazz. Chicago: Follett Education Corporation, 1968.
Hunt, J. McV. Intelligence and Experience. New York: Ronald Press Co., 1961.
Nunnally, Jum C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967.
Russell, David H. The Dimensions of Chi1dren*s Meaning Vocabularies in Grade Four Through Twelve. University of California Publications in Education, 172 173
11:5. Berkley: University of California Press, 1954, 315-414.
Zimmerman, Marilyn P. Musical Characteristics of Children. Washington, D.C.: Music Educators National Conference, 1971.
Arti cles
Andrews, Frances. "The Preparation of Music Educators for the Culturally Disadvantaged." Music Educa tors Journal. 53:6 (February, 1967), 42-44.
Bernstein, Basil. "Language and Social Class." British Journal of Sociology, 11 (September, 1960), 271-276.
Clark, A. D. B. and Clarke, A. M. "Recovery from the Effects of Deprivation." Acta Psycholog1ca, 16:12 (1959), 137-144.
Clark, A. D. and Richards, C. J. "Auditory Discrimination Among Economically Disadvantaged and Nondisadvan- taged Preschool Children." Exceptional Children, 33 (December, 1966), 259-262.
Deutsch, Martin. "The Role of Social Class 1n Language Development and Cognition." American Journal of Orthopsychology, 35 (1965), 78-88.
Duell, Orpha.and Anderson, Richard C. "Pitch Discrimina tion Among Primary School Children." Journal of Educational Psychology, 58:6 (December, 1967), 315-318.
Figurel, Allen J. "Limitations in the Vocabulary of Disadvantaged Children: A Cause of Poor Reading." Improvement of Reading Through Classroom Practice, . 9 (1964), 160-175.
Goldman, Ronald. "Cultural Factors and Hearing." Exceptional Children, 35:6 (February, 1969), 489-490. 174
Gordon, Edwin. "A Comparison of the Performance of Culturally Disadvantaged Students with that of Culturally Heterogeneous Students on the Musical Aptitude Profile.'' Psychology 1n the Schools, 4 (July, 1967), 260-262.
Jeffrey, Wendell E. "Variables 1n Early Discrimination Learning: II. Mode of Response and Stimulus Difference in the Discrimination of Tonal Frequencies. Child Development, 29:4 (December, 1958), 531-538.
John, Vera P. "The Intellectual Development of Slum Children: Some Preliminary Findings." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 33 (1963), 813-822.
Mainwarlng, James. "Experiments on the Analysis of Cognitive Process Involved in Musical Ability and 1n Music Education." British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1:2 (1931), 182-203.
Nam, Charles M. and Powers, Mary G. "Changes 1n the Relative Status Level of Workers 1n the United States, 1950-1960." Sod al Forces , 47:2 (December, 1968), 158-170.
Pavenstedt, Eleanor. "A Comparison of the Child-Rearing Environment of Upper-Lower and Very Low, Lower Class Families." American Journal of Orthopsy chiatry. 35 (1965), 89-98.
Riley, D. A. and McKee, J. P. "Pitch and Loudness Trans position 1n Children and Adults." Child Develop ment, 34 (1933), 471-482.
Robinson, H. F. and Nukerjl, R. "Language Concepts and the Disadvantaged." Educational Leadership; 23 (November, 1965), 246-247.
Shipman, Vera and Hess, Robert. "Urban Culture: Aware ness May'Save Our Skins." Music Educators Journal. 56:5 (January, 1970), 37-38. 175
Simmons, Otis D. "Reach the Bedrock of Students Interest." Music Educators Journal. 56:5 (November, 1971), 38-41.
Williams, Harold, Sievers, Clement, and Hattwick, Melvin. "The Measurement of Musical Development." Uni ver- si tv of Iowa Studies In Child Welfare. 7 :_1_ "(1932), 1-191.
Wolmer, Manuel and Pyle, W. H. "An Experiment in Individual Training of Pitch Deficient Children." Journal of Educational Psychology, 24 (1933), 602-608.
Reports
Andrews, Frances M. and Diehl , Ned C. Development of a Technique for Identifying Elementary School Child ren's Musical Concepts. U. S. Office of Education: Cooperative Research Project No. 5-0233. Univer sity Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, 1967.
Lane, Elizabeth (comp.). Research Conspectus. Dayton, Ohio: Division of Research, Department of Mange- ment Services, Dayton Public Schools, 1971.
Loban, Walter. "Language Ability in the Elementary School: Implications of Findings Pertaining to the Culturally Disadvantaged." Improving Skills of Culturally Different Youth in Large Cities. Edited by Arno Jewett, et aj_. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Education, Bulletin No. 5. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1964, 62-68.
Petzold, Robert G. Auditory Perception of Musical Sounds by Children in the First Six Grades. U. S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 1051. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin, 1966.
Schneider, Erwin H. and Cady, Henry L. Evaluation and Synthesis of Research' Studies Relating to Music Education. U. S. Office of Education: Cooperative 176
Research Project No. E-016. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Research* foundation, 1965,
U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population: 1970. Number of Inhabitants. Final Report PC (1)-A37 Ohio. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Printing Office, 1971 , 37-23. ■ ■ Zimmerman, Marilyn Pflederer and Sechrest, Lee. How Children Conceptually Organize Musical Sounds. U. S. Office of Education: Cooperative Research Project No. 5-0256. Evanston, Illinois: North western University, 1968.
Unpublished Materials
Boekelhelde, Viola. “Some Techniques of Assessing Certain Basic Music Listening Skills of Eight and Nine Year Olds." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1960.
King, Carl D. "The Conservation of Melodic Pitch Patterns by Elementary School Children as Determined by Ancient Chinese Music." Unpublished Ph.D. disser tation, The Ohio State University, 1972*
Laverty, Grace E. "The Development of Children's Concepts of Pitch, Duration, and Loudness as a Function of Grade Level." Unpublished Ed. D, dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1969.
McDonald, Dorothy T. "The Identification of Elementary School Children's Musical Concepts as a Function of Environment." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1970,
Neldlinger, Robert J. "A Study 1n Teaching Musical Style and Form to Elementary School Children." Unpub lished doctoral dissertation, Washington Univer sity, 1967.
Peterson, Agda Viola. "A Study of Development Listening Factors in Children's Ability to Understand Melody." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music, 1965. 177
Pflederer, Marilyn. "Responses of Children to Musical Tasks Embodying Piaget's Principles of Conserva tlon." Unpublished doctoral d1ssertation» University of Illinois, 1963.
Rogers, Vincent Robert. "Children's Expressed Musical Preferences at Selected Grade Levels." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1956.