Toidati;:G0' BR :! 2.7.1M65--- POE:; DATE "I,11:6*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUUENT-REttifiE- BD, 110 U.5 95. PS 007 939 - At IOdR Xoung, .V-iIlia0.-1. , i4sicand tae- Ditadvad:_i.Teaching-Lear,ping Project iith_ Headstart Teachers and)thildren. Final . ,,.t . _ . /NSTITUTION StephenF. /1-,Iptih State Univ., Racogdochel--,,-7Tez. SPONS A:G2NcY pffice_qfganEation (D10.44 Washt.ngtOn b.t. BurPaii -i:,7-- -ofAi'ted-edh.i_ - = toidAti;:g0' BR :! 2.7.1M65--- POE:; DATE "I,11:6*.. 73 .. _ _ ____,,.. _ CONTRACT W74;"4 -, ERRS PRICE, */ 41E3=1 14.59 .P1.IIS V4SITX0-t. DESCRIPTORS *Diad,Van'#9.94 Louth; *Il*rid4cd Tea. .C11: ItiruPA'tiou; Instrnctional Uaterials; rearf.'imf4- ,ICUIT4:tiOs; Manuals; ilusical Instruments; *I1047.%g Educp -4.on-t. *PresChpol Edacation;Preschool,tirogt;ams: xrTIM, EyaluAtion; 'Vocal 8usic;:Wirksbop:5 -.. -,_ IbBicak*B17.5_ Projct Read Start . This -Addy -invest lgatedthe_ effectiveness -of a music 7-or rai,desi nedlespeciallyfor disadvantaged Children: ,and bi_pertonnel already involved in the operation of tbadSt4t,-prograis. A,total-of 12 Ueadttart ceiliers in-Texas_and 746iiitiana_ were included-, 2 of which constituted the control grogp., EaCkteather participated in a 3-day vork1op and was supplied- With simple iniria,uthents, several recordings, and-.a lesson' manual fcontaining 90 lessons)! Subjective and objective evaluations of the teachers were made during the workshops. kteaSures of final_ability And atOunt and percentage of improvement yere used to determine the -progress of the 76 experimental and 33 control children IRdiVidually, the experimental children Showed comparatively fewer regressions and far more individual imprOvement than did the control grOup.- It was found that Headstart teachers, given minimal training and d4 ection, _produced subqtantial iMprOvement in tha music ability Of their-Children. The .report Ss diyided: into three sections; (1) introduCtion and method*, 14' resultS, and (3) 'conclusions and reCommendations. Appendixes maks up two - ',hinds of the report and inclOde source materials and the full teaching tanual.(BD) . (*****4 ,,*************-4,x******************************#******tc***** * DooumenU aoguired by ERIC include many informal unpublished * mflterials not ayailable from other sources. ERIC makes every effort * to ootain the best copy available. nevertheless, items of marginal * * reprod,ncibility,are often encountered and this affect* the quality * * of microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available *_ * viathe C DocumentReproducttheiot Service (EARS). EDRS is not * * responsiblfor the quality of the original document. ReproductiOns * * suPplied by ,PRS are the-best that can be made,from the original. * ***#***********44*****************,*************************Ty********* 4" 'FINAL REPORT Project :Number 2 FO 65. -Graig Number DEC -6 -72 -0741 (5a5) THE'lfiTS ApVANTAGED; toTE4001q0.4EARO*G,:iniojEdT V4TH STh12Z tfii4HERS:Mb -T. Young U S. DEP*, TMENT Or HEALTH. EDUCATION &WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE Or EDUCATION sye ii F, Auttin,-S,t4ba UTtivorsity THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN-REPRO gce EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN Ar!tion POINTS Or VIEW QR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE Nacoadoches, Texas 75961 SENT Or FICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTEOA EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY November 1, 1973 -f The research reported here:p w spirtormed pursuabt. to a grant with the Offect f Edoco4ori,v:sepepartineittof 0"." Health, 'Education, and Welfare,- Coll:tractorsundertaking en such projects under GovernmentSponsOship are -ehdpuiag- ed to express freely their professional *dgment in the conduct of the project.Points, of view-er --pinions. stated do not, therefore, necessarily reprP-sent official Office ofi. EducationEducation position or policy. 0 4-- .i.,,1 U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Education' Bureau of Regearch .0 CONTENTS SECTION ONE SUMMARY I NTR ODVOiTION PurPoSe 011-hp-Stucly 11 BackgfOundlleSearch 1-1 `Debign, of the: Study 14 Data Analysis 16 , 18 METHODS I Selecting: Teachers 18 Selection, °Ming Materials 20 Teaching- Outline 20 Teaching' l%.4.6nual 20 Other Teadhing Materials 22 Supplementary Materials 22 Tea chery,Training'-Workshop .22 Teacher Characteristics 23 I Evaluation o #-:Teachers 23 -Evaluation-of C h flare n 25 Project SuperVision 28' REFERENCES FOR .SECTION ONE 2.9 SECTION TWO RESULTS '31 Sample Size .32 Experimental Teacher Data 32 \-# C. E)cperiniental 'School Data 44 0 ontrO .80-4044,1ja,ta 52 Ptperifiient0).4iil'Oentrol Qfoup Comparisons 56 Toablier. t)OikficalArinii and diOtip,144c4i4ornent 62 -ZYIAt1O01.1)0elopinent-4,0-.0 4140 rah 65 Ratin001414renfs; Songs `for MeeItalic Difficulty 72 Aii-0- Cliff& Voice Ilange 73 ,. ,... 4 4 ,.1. REFERENCES FOR ,gp:TION bv.o,:: ..#., o. SECTION .TfiREZ Qpildtlisicms! 8S -.Conclusions. 86. 143,.;Orninendationa 06' BIBLIOGRAPRY it, 13 APPENDICES I.'Sources. of Songs, and Materials * I I t TtaOhing iVidnuai. 90 III: Criterion Te it . .... 273 0#0 5 jay .ILLUSTRATIONS Summary Table One: Comparisons Of,IrnprOvernentand Final Musical Ability Ifor ExPerimental at-yd.,Control SchbO1S- G.= urnmary Table ?two: Correlationi-Of.Stilec -leacher ,QUalitieS Withi Group Improvement 'Children- 8 Figure Pretest,, PoSttgat,' and Gain $o.cres fOc Four 11irtischool GrOupa 13 Figure 2: Maximum-Vocal-.Range,of >Kindergarten and- .,. 1 PiestiGrade Children (and);'Fitch--RegiOn- within which. AcOUracy, was Attained by-257E, (jr.ifidgeOf',0aelf . 15 cssificatti. on, : Figure 3: The Development of.SingingAbility in Children 17 Figure 4: Experimental Design .19 / Figure 5: Headttart Schools Involved in the Study 21' , Figure 6: Musical ,Concepts in the. -OrderIntroduced: 23 Figure 7: Teadher Training Workshop Schedule . 26 Table One: Means and. Standard Deviationa onlour ITML Testkfor EXperimental Teachers rand ITML Moms 'Sample Students 36 . \ Table TWO:'SubjectiVe Ratings andAbilities Acquired During' :Pretraining Workshop 39, Table Three: Interconrelations Between Pretest Scores, PoatteSt Scores, and Correlations Between, Pm and Post Administrations of ITMI, Subtests 41 a. 4, Table FouTI'llitercorrelations, Betwee Eight SubjeOtive, E. Ratings, Of Teacher Abilities , 43 Table 'f?).ve: °Relationships of Eight Subjective'" Ratings to Iowa- Tests of Milsic Literacy TeSts 45 . Table Sik:.Experlinental Children: ImpreveMent in MeleidieAbllity 47 f Table Severf:-:Expe-tiiii ita-1 ,dhilfiren: Improvement in RhYthMid 49 Table EighttlEXperimental Children: Improvement in_ ilitAusIdianship 51 Table Ninee-Experithental Children: 'improvement in Total Musical'Ability 53 Table Ten: Individual Improvement in Experimental Children Table Eleven: Control Children: ImProvement All Musical 57 s Table Twelve: Individual Improvernent of Control Children 59 Table Thif,teen: Comparisons/f ,Improvement and Final Musical Ability'for ExperiMentalairl-,Control Schools 60 Table Four -teen: Relative AOhlev'ement of Individual Experimental Schools Compared .to Control Group- Table Fifteen: CorrelatiOns of Selected Teacher Qualities with groupinprovement Of Experimental Children 6S 1 . TableSiXtepIntercorrelations of Improvement in Specific Mus)d Abilities for .Experimental Children 69 Table/Seventeen: Melody Test: Itiefri Characteristics and Ease. of Performance Figure 8: Pour.&Lag'sContaining Musical Characteristics of Varying Difficulty' iv 4 pie. Figure 9: VOcal,,Accuracy of Children with Ability to Sing One to Three': Pitches. Cweqtlf 76 Figure 16:- Vocal Acc'uracy of Children. with Ability to Sing Four to Six, Fitches'C'orreotly . 77 'Figure 11: Vocal Accuracy Ofithildren with Ability to Sing Seven to Nine FitcheS:- Correctly 78 / ..... Figuie. 12; Vocal., AccuracyAcCUracy of Children withAbility to-Sing ,Ten or More Pitches- Correctly 79 , 1 Table- ighteen.:Pregueney with which Duple and Triple, . Rhythms were Perf&trhed bit.xperiiinental and Control -ij'ildren,. 82 ('*:7.4 o 1. , N.\ ACMOWLEDbEMENTS c;1%'' \ incere.-aRpreotation is extended to the followir,4. :ladies who srvectad,experiMenlat.licatichers in Pioject and tittcOes.enct sdittpistrIt tiOr allowing Ott; to -liattiOpatia .casie Virginia, Oates f-Patikala yTaylor ,,e0deisori 1,AggOTEtFawfgr4 14a401V446,140-tan- 1.0\6?0 00* MOCi.fie-P060101.- ,i , ppieCiatib0.1k-alSo.eXtenicted,tb-the teachers end adMiniOr, ta. bf.the\follOWingisChoblicWho-served _as control ._ ..,:,_ . ,,, a/Chi:bola'for- :iit0i00 ,...,-, .A . Carter. S pet.'714jaadStartZentei- .,Marshall,.Texes Mansfip d Headataftiee 'ter-- -Mansfield:,, LouiSiana -: .. e following pe ple served-es testora and .helped. in numeroue'br.ways:. ) a 'Leslie -H lm r Sheryl' LaMhert Janice = riklin , Darland-Handy Gladys_ aSt Fally, appreciation is extended to the following individuals 'Of:...itePhen F. Austin State.Universitir whow allowed the project to Conducted and who assisted, With advide and encouragemeri4 Ralph Steen, President srApu Di William Turner, ,Ligari-, "School of 'Fine Arts Dr Ki-E Hall, Head, Departinent of Musibs_ Dr4 Richard Voigtel, Office of Development Dr. William T. YOung Associate Professor Music Education cv I. 2 ' Z 4 0 LI) o *0g0 .11r o . C3 E - P 0 c4 o 144 ca 4 fa ti , SUMMARY 4 9 The purpo0 of the present study*was -to investiga.te-the. effectiveness- of_a music program, designed especially for disadvantaged chitdiert, when this-Pregraerwas_itnplemented,'"by pertiOnnel-elready, involved in operation of,BeadStart and simitargtesehoole. The study had. tWo.primary.Objectlifee: ; . I: -'To discover if -a typical. HeadstakteachOst could be in,a,-Iiinited'amoUnt of time, to coritiudi'a remedial-PeasehOol-muSic:prograthfor -disadyantaged-Children,