The Effects of Conducting-Gesture Instruction on High School

THE EFFECTS OF CONDUCTING-GESTURE INSTRUCTION ON HIGH SCHOOL

STRING ORCHESTRA STUDENTS’ RECOGNITION OF AND PLAYING

RESPONSE TO COMMON MUSICAL CONDUCTING EMBLEMS

James W. Thompson

A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Music

The University of Utah

August 2012

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Copyright ! James W. Thompson 2012

The University of Utah Graduate School

STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL

The dissertation of James W. Thompson has been approved by the following supervisory committee members:

Jessica Napoles , Chair April 26, 2012 Date Approved

Robert Baldwin , Member April 26, 2012 Date Approved

Hasse Borup , Member April 26, 2012 Date Approved

Joelle L. Lien , Member April 26, 2012 Date Approved

Kenneth L. Monson , Member April 26, 2012 Date Approved

and by James E. Gardner , Chair of the Department of Music and by Charles A. Wight, Dean of The Graduate School. ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of conducting-gesture instruction on high school string orchestra students’ recognition of and playing response to common musical conducting emblems. Musical conducting emblems were defined as nonverbal movements or gestures used by conductors to convey meaningful musical information to a group of ensemble musicians. In order to counteract the problem of high school string students’ lack of consistently following common conducting-gestures, the researcher modified and expanded upon the previous work of Cofer, who taught common conducting-gestures to seventh-grade band students.

Participants were string students (N = 51) from two similar high school orchestras that were given a multiple-choice “pencil and paper” pretest to see how many of 18 conducting-gestures could be correctly identified while watching a prepared video- recording of a conductor demonstrating those gestures. An informal analysis identified the most difficult gestures of the pretest so that instruction could focus on those gestures.

Each school’s orchestra was divided into experimental groups (n = 26) and control groups (n = 25). The experimental groups received five sessions of researcher- designed conducting-gesture instruction activities, while the control groups did not. After a post- “pencil and paper” test was given to all participants, which was identical to the pretest, a “playing test” was administered consisting of each participant’s performance of

a simple four-measure melody 12 times while watching the demonstration of those 12 gestures on a video-recorded presentation. This performance exam provided information about participants’ ability to transfer their instruction on conducting-gestures into performance responses.

Using a repeated measures ANOVA with two between-subjects factors (school and group) and one within-subjects factor (test), a statistical analysis was performed on the data from the pre- and post- “pencil and paper” tests. Results indicated a significant main effect for test F (1,47) = 35.92, p < .001, partial !" = .43, as well as a significant interaction between test and group F (1,47) = 19.40, p < .001, partial !" = .29, which demonstrated that the groups scored higher on the posttest than on the pretest.

For the “playing test,” a two-way ANOVA with two between-subjects factors

(school and group) was conducted on the data, which came from the ratings of three independent judges who evaluated each participant’s audio-recorded playing test on a 5- point Likert-type scale. Results indicated a significant main effect for group, F (1,43) =

4.16, p < .05, partial !" = .08, which demonstrated that the participants of the experimental groups scored higher than those of the control groups.

According to the results of this study’s two measures, the general research question, “Can short-term conducting-gesture instruction improve high school string students’ conducting-gesture recognition and playing responses?” was answered in the affirmative.

! ! ! ! ! "#!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! To my devoted and loving wife, Linda. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... x

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... xii

Chapter

I INTRODUCTION ...... 1

The Problem ...... 1 Purpose of the Study ...... 3 Research Questions ...... 4 Definitions of Terms ...... 5 General Hypothesis ...... 6

II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 7

Conducting Pedagogy ...... 8 Conductor Methodology ...... 8 ! ! ! Conducting theories ...... 9 Conducting curriculum ...... 11 Conducting assessment techniques ...... 22 Physical Skill Development ...... 29 Gestures ...... 30 Expressivity ...... 34 Movement-based exercises ...... 34 Aural Skill Development ...... 36 Error detection skills ...... 37 Detecting errors while performing ...... 38 Programmed instruction ...... 43 Score study methods ...... 45 Teaching for transfer ...... 51 Conducting Technology ...... 52 Synchronization ...... 53

Conducting Competencies ...... 57 Verbal vs. Nonverbal Communication ...... 57 Eye contact, facial expressions, and body movement ...... 57 Gestures ...... 66 Perception Studies ...... 79 Aesthetic responses ...... 79 Perceptions of conductors ...... 81 Expressive vs. Nonexpressive Conducting ...... 86 General expressive vs. strict conducting ...... 86 Effect of conducting on ensemble performance ...... 89 Teacher/Conductor Behavior and Effectiveness ...... 97 Conducting behavior ...... 97 Conductor traits ...... 106 Conductor/teacher intensity ...... 112 Conductor modeling ...... 114 Rehearsal techniques ...... 117 Conductor and ensemble relationships ...... 121 Conducting Emblems as Conducting-Gestures ...... 124 Need for the Present Study ...... 130 Purpose of the Study ...... 133 Research Questions ...... 134 Null Hypotheses ...... 134

III METHOD ...... 136

Participants ...... 136 Materials ...... 139 Pilot Studies ...... 143 Design ...... 145 Procedure ...... 147 Administration of Pretest ...... 148 Administration of Experimental Group Treatment Sessions ...... 150 Instruction Session #1 (25 minutes duration) ...... 150 Instruction Session #2 (20 minutes duration) ...... 152 Instruction Session #3 (40 minutes duration—some of this session was video-recorded for documentation purposes) ...... 152 Instruction Session #4 (20 minutes duration) ...... 155 Instruction Session #5 (20 minutes duration, 15 minutes video- recorded ...... 155 Administration of Control Group Sessions ...... 156 Session #1 (25 minutes duration) ...... 156 Session #2 (20 minutes duration) ...... 157 Session #3 (20 minutes duration, but not video-recorded yet) ...... 157

vii

Session #4 (20 minutes duration, second half video-recorded at School B)...... 157 Session #5 (15 minutes, and some of School A’s session video- recorded) ...... 158 Administration of Posttest ...... 158 Administration of the Playing Test ...... 159 Evaluation of the Playing Tests ...... 164

IV RESULTS ...... 166

Pencil and Paper Tests ...... 167 Pretest ...... 167 Posttest ...... 170 Statistical Analyses ...... 174 Descriptive statistics ...... 174 Analytical procedures ...... 176 Playing Test ...... 178 Statistical Analyses ...... 180 Descriptive statistics ...... 180 Analytical procedures ...... 187 Individual Gestures ...... 189

V SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ...... 192

Summary ...... 192 Related Literature ...... 192 Purpose and Need ...... 195 Procedure ...... 196 Discussion ...... 198 Pencil and Paper Tests ...... 198 Pretest ...... 198 Posttest ...... 201 Playing Test ...... 202 Answers to Research Questions ...... 208 Null Hypotheses ...... 211 Limitations ...... 213 Implications for Music Educators ...... 215 Recommendations for Additional Research ...... 218

APPENDICES

A. DETAILED DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR SCHOOLS A AND B ..221

! viii

B. PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ...... 224

C. PARENT CONSENT FORM ...... 228

D. E-MAILED PERMISSION STATEMENT FROM SCHOOL A’S PRINCIPAL ...... 233

E. E-MAILED PERMISSION STATEMENT FROM SCHOOL B’S PRINCIPAL ...... 235

F. E-MAILED AGREEMENT STATEMENT FROM ORCHESTRA TEACHER AT SCHOOLS A AND B ...... 237

G. APPROVAL LETTER FROM JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT ...... 239

H. APPROVAL STATEMENT FROM UNIVERSITY OF UTAH’S IRB ...... 241

I. LIST OF 18 COMMON CONDUCTING-GESTURES AND DEFINITIONS .....243

J. PENCIL AND PAPER TEST ANSWER FORM ...... 245

K. LIST OF 12 CONDUCTING-GESTURES FOR PLAYING TEST ...... 248

L. AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL EXCERPT ...... 250

M. LESSON PLANS FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS ...... 252

N. INSTRUCTIONS FOR JUDGES ...... 256

O. RATINGS ANSWER FORM FOR JUDGES ...... 259

REFERENCES ...... 264

LIST OF TABLES!

Table Page

1. Pre- and Post- Pencil and Paper Test Raw Scores (18 Possible Points)………….171

2. Group Means and Standard Deviations for Pencil and Paper Test……………….174

3. School’s Combined Means and Standard Deviations for Pencil and Paper Test...175

4. Results of ANOVA for Pencil & Paper Test (Within-Subjects Effects)…………176

5. Results of ANOVA for Pencil & Paper Test (Between-Subjects Effects)……….176

6. Playing Test Raw Scores of Gestures 1 – 12 (15 Possible Points per Gesture)….181

7. Schools’ Combined Group Means and Standard Deviations for Playing Test…..186

8. Results of ANOVA for Playing Test (Between-Subjects Effects)……………….187

9. Means and Standard Deviations for Group per Individual Gesture……………...190

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Interaction Effect Between Test and Group……………………………………..177

2. Group Means for Playing Test by School……………………………………….186

3. Comparison of Means of Combined Schools’ Groups, School A’s Groups, and School B’s Groups…………………………………………………………188

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to express my appreciation to Dr. Jessica Napoles, my supervisory committee chair, for her many hours of consultation, support, and patience in helping me complete this study. I also extend thanks to Dr. Robert Baldwin for his time and wonderful mentoring during my 2 years of private applied conducting lessons. I also wish to thank the other members of the supervisory committee, Dr. Joelle Lien, Dr. Hasse

Borup, and Dr. Kenneth Monson, for their friendship, advice, and encouragement.

Additionally, I wish to extend thanks to Jenna Baumgart, who allowed me to use her orchestra students as the participants of this study, as well as the music facilities of her two schools.

Most of all, I express my appreciation to my wife, Linda, and my five children,

Rosalyn, Spencer, Austin, Alexis, and Natalie. Without their love and patience over many months, this project would have never been completed.

! ! ! ! ! !

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

Several researchers agree that good conducting in a large ensemble setting is important, especially in music teaching situations (Cofer, 1998; Grechesky, 1986; Kelly,

1997; Price, 2006; Price & Chang, 2001, 2005; Price & Winter, 1991). Effective nonverbal communication includes conducting-gestures or conducting-emblems (Cofer,

1998; Grechesky, 1986; Van Weelden, 2002) because at an actual concert, there can be no more stops and starts, verbal instructions, singing of parts, tapping the conductor’s stand in time, or any other rehearsal techniques that music ensemble teachers often use to prepare an ensemble for a performance. Clearly, much energy and time could be saved during rehearsals if conductors of student ensembles could make better use of their nonverbal communication skills or conducting-gestures (Sidoti, 1991). However, this efficiency can only occur if the students can recognize and correctly respond to the conducting-gestures (Cofer, 1998).

After many years of teaching public high school orchestra classes, the present researcher found frequent frustration with students not responding quickly to his conducting-gestures, both during rehearsals and at times even during performances. This was especially true when an ensemble was sight-reading (or when the group was still

2 quite unfamiliar with a piece), an understandable issue given that the students are busy dealing with just reading the notated pitches and rhythms for the first time (or second time), and are not particularly concerned about looking up at the conductor.

However, even after many rehearsals, the researcher frequently found that during performances on stage, that some of the students, especially those at the back and at the distant sides of the orchestra (i.e., string basses or the back of the first and second violins) would often either rush or fall behind the beat. Even looking frantically at those sections and conducting with extremely exaggerated patterns to get them “back on,” the researcher often found that he could not get their attention because their eyes were buried deeply in their music without glancing upward to “check in” with his conducting- gestures.

Furthermore, the present researcher has found that young people do not generally watch on their own for conducting-gestures in their day-to-day rehearsals. Instead, they seem to only react after being verbally reminded by the conductor of changes in dynamics, bowing styles, or tempo, and the like--even when such markings are printed in the music. Only occasionally do students remember those changes at the very next rehearsal. Of course, the students are expected to have a pencil to mark such things, especially bowings, but even then they seem to “zone out” while playing, and frequently forget to observe those detailed nuances.

Perhaps the main reason high school string students do not watch better is because they were never adequately taught to watch a conductor. Unfortunately, another reason might be because their teachers/conductors often give up and do the “easier thing” in rehearsals by continually giving out verbal instructions, which are often the very same 3 instructions they gave the previous day. In other words, teachers do not insist that their students continually watch for conducting-gestures for anything besides an occasional cue.

A third reason, which perhaps only pertains to bands and orchestras, has to do with the seating arrangements. This is especially true for string players, because there has to be a large enough space in between their seats so that they do not accidentally poke each other with their bows. Additionally, because their chairs are set up in a large semi- circle where many of them only get a side view of the conductor, the students have conditioned themselves to not look at the conductor because they cannot easily tell what the conductor is doing anyway if they do look.

It is the present researcher’s contention that given the proper instruction and continual insistence on watching for conducting-gestures, students will learn to pick up most musical communications from not only their own teacher/conductor, but also any time anyone stands on the podium before them, like a college or professional guest- conductor. This is turn should not only improve the students’ overall musicianship, but it should definitely improve their abilities to readily recognize and respond to basic common conducting-gestures.

Purpose of the Study

After a thorough search of the related literature to the present study, the present researcher found that no other researcher had specifically investigated high school string students’ conducting-gesture recognition and playing response to basic conducting- gestures. In order to counteract the aforementioned “lack of watching” conducting- gestures, the present researcher saw a need for carrying out the present study. 4

Therefore, the main purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of gesture instruction on high school orchestra (string) students’ recognition and response to a set of common conducting-gestures. More specifically, the present researcher sought to use two dependent measures, a multiple-choice “pencil and paper” test and a “playing test,” to determine whether there would be differences between a control group of high school string students (who would not receive conducting-instruction) and an experimental group (who would receive instruction).

Research Questions

For each of the following specific research questions, the researcher set an a priori alpha level at .05. The questions closely correspond with the present study’s aim to investigate the effects of conducting-gesture instruction on the recognition and response of high school string (orchestra) students to common conducting-gestures (referred to in the research literature as emblems).

1. Will participants who receive conducting-gesture instruction and associated learning activities perform better on a multiple-choice “pencil and paper” test identifying these conducting-gestures than those who do not?

2. Will participants who receive conducting-gesture instruction perform better on a “playing test” in response to these conducting-gestures than those who do not?

3. Will participants from two different schools perform similarly on both test measures?

4. Will participants increase their “pencil and paper test” scores between the pretest and posttest of the “pencil and paper” measure?

The above specific research questions can be summarized with one general 5 question: “Can short-term conducting-gesture instruction improve high school string students’ conducting-gesture (or conducting-emblem) recognition and playing responses?”

Definitions of Terms

In the field of music education, the terms string students, conducting-gestures, emblems, musical conducting emblems, conductor-behavior, gesture recognition, and playing response may be interpreted differently by different people. In order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, these terms were operationally defined in this study as follows:

1. String students: Students enrolled in an orchestra class at an educational

institution--such as a public high school--who play the traditional string

instruments associated with an orchestra, such as violins, violas, cellos, or string

basses.

2. Conducting-gestures: The nonverbal efforts of a music conductor to use mostly

hand and arm movements to communicate not only the basic meter or tempo of a

piece of music, but also the more subtle musical nuances, such as dynamic

changes, bowing styles, and/or articulations.

3. Emblems: Using parts of the definition given by Sousa (1988), who revised and

expanded the definition of emblems by Ekman and Friesen (1969, 1972), the

present researcher offers the following definition: Emblems are those nonverbal

acts which have a direct verbal translation usually consisting of a word or two, or

a phrase, and which are most often deliberately used with the intent to send a

particular message to other persons who know the emblem’s precise meaning and 6

interpretation.

4. Musical conducting emblems: Those nonverbal movements or gestures used by

musical conductors to convey meaningful musical information to a group of

musical ensemble musicians, who can precisely understand the conductor’s

musical communications.

5. Conductor-behavior: The way a conductor conducts a musical ensemble, in terms

of the nonverbal communication techniques used by teachers, college ensemble

directors, or professional conductors, whether they are in front of a group of

beginners, high school students, or professional symphony orchestras.

6. Gesture recognition: The ability or skill of ensemble musicians to correctly

identify a conductor’s musical communications and/or interpretations.

7. Playing response: The correct actual performance or playing (according to a

conductor’s intent) of an ensemble musician in reaction to a conductor’s gestures.

General Hypothesis

In short, even though the present study proposes several null hypotheses, the following general single directional hypothesis summarizes the general intent of the present investigator to demonstrate its veracity: High school string orchestra students receiving short-term conducting-gesture instruction, as well as experiencing rehearsal procedures using mostly conducting-gestures with only minimal verbal instruction, will demonstrate higher scores on both a “pencil and paper” multiple-choice identification test and a playing performance test than similar string orchestra students not experiencing the conducting-gesture instruction.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Due to the large amount of studies, dissertations, and journal articles related to the field of music ensemble conducting (more specifically, those related to music education settings), the present researcher has organized the following summaries of related literature using a modified version of the large categories and numerous subcategories put together by Acklin (2009), in a “meta-analysis” study entitled, The Effect of Conducting on Ensemble Performance: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. The two largest categories include two overarching themes: conducting competencies and conducting pedagogy, whereas the next largest include the following: (a) verbal vs. nonverbal communication, (b) perception studies, (c) teacher/conductor behavior and effectiveness, (d) conductor methodology, (e) physical/aural skill development, and (f) conducting technology. Each of these in turn is further divided into subcategories where the individual groups of related studies are summarized by the present researcher.

The summaries contained in the overarching “conducting pedagogy” category will be presented first in this chapter, since they are the least relevant to the present study, although they are important. This overarching “conducting pedagogy” category includes numerous studies whose authors addressed teaching conducting to university music students interested in becoming conductors (or teachers) of music ensembles, but did not

8 necessarily address gesture recognition or response of ensemble musicians. Conversely, the summaries of the studies of the other overarching category (“conducting competencies”) will be presented second, since they are the most relevant to the present study, in that their authors addressed conducting traits and conducting behavior in general. Finally, a special third category of summaries will include those studies having the very most relevance to the present study, in that those researchers addressed the instruction of conducting-emblems and/or conducting-gestures to ensemble musicians in educational settings.

Conducting Pedagogy

The following large section of this literature review is devoted to reporting the numerous studies having to do with educating student conductors (especially those attending colleges and universities). Proper conducting pedagogy is vital for these students to master clear conducting skills, which in turn should translate into good music- teaching skills. Additionally, current music teachers could also benefit from the summaries of these studies, so that they too could better present conducting-gesture instruction to their students. The following “next largest” categories of research pertaining to “conducting pedagogy” include methodology, physical skill development, aural skill development, and conducting technology.

Conductor Methodology

This first major category of conducting pedagogy includes the methodology that both new conductors and conducting-teachers should understand. Conducting methodology not only includes the literature on conducting theories, but also the 9 conducting curriculum of colleges and universities, complete with conducting assessment techniques.

Conducting theories. The following researchers (or authors) addressed several theories of conductor learning (including “musical shape” or “miming”), and also several exercises, approaches, and modeling strategies related to conductor training.

In a study by Lewis (1999), musical shape was defined as “that which creatively exposes and actualizes in performance the organization or lack thereof of all intrinsic elements within a given score” (p. 1). The concept of conducting a preconceived shape without interrupting the aural image of a musical work is one of this study’s basic premises. Additionally, the study claims that conducting musical shape is a means to intentionally provide aesthetically pleasing performance experiences.

In his article, MacKay (2008) explained how the technique of mimes could be applied to conducting so that teachers can talk less and conduct more. Because MacKay actually took time to study the art of mime, he concluded that every bodily movement is deliberate. He then suggested the same for conducting music.

Orzoleck (2002) investigated a method designed to enhance the musical expressiveness of student conductors by using exercises aimed at developing the expressive effectiveness of the conductors’ movements and gestures. The participants were members of two beginning college conducting classes who were assigned to either an experimental or control group, and who then were video-recorded conducting a preselected band piece. A panel of three experts then scored the participants’ video-recorded conducting performances using a researcher-prepared tool designed to assess the expressiveness of the performances. Three more judges assessed the basic conducting 10 skills of each participant’s video-recording. All of the participants conducted the musical selection during the first week of their semester class as a pretest. An analysis of the expert judges’ evaluation indicated that the experimental group had improved notably from pretest to posttest in their ability to conduct expressively. A major conclusion of the study was that the use of exercises aimed at developing the expressiveness of the participant’s movements and gestures resulted in the participants’ ability to conduct more expressively. Also, his or her learning of basic conducting skills was not affected by the study of those exercises.

A study by Sinclair (2000) presented an in-depth description of the systematic approach to conductor training developed and used by B. R. Henson (1997), whose approach incorporated score and historical study techniques, listening skills, choral and orchestral techniques, and baton technique. The Conductors Institute on the campus of

Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas, is where the data collection for the study took place, including using structured interviews, surveys, and video-recorded master class and conducting lab sessions to aid in the documentation and presentation of

Henson’s pedagogy. A major conclusion of the study was that Henson’s systematic approach to conductor training, especially with regard to the development of baton technique in the conducting laboratory, warrants the attention of those in the fields of conducting training and choral music education.

The purposes of a study by Stalter (1996) were to define a conductor’s process model, to identify the skills needed by a conductor for each stage of that model, and to examine current materials and methodologies pertaining to that model. The process model was designed to serve as a foundational framework on which students may place 11 knowledge gained from further education and experiences. The findings of 12 interviews with several teachers and/or conductors on their practices and beliefs regarding the process model were presented, along with discussion of the analysis and critique of 10 conducting textbooks. The final conclusion was that overall, conducting textbooks did not articulate a typical conducting process model in a clear, logical manner even though parts of the model were present throughout various textbooks. The teacher responses indicated that the introduction of the process model was essential and that the process could be expanded by the life-long accumulation of conducting experiences. Finally, a number of conclusions were drawn that were relevant to conducting instruction and to the future development of conducting materials.

Conducting curriculum. Through their studies, the following researchers focused on the wide variety of curriculum content (including textbooks) pertaining to the undergraduate and graduate level courses in conducting.

Boardman (2000) set out to determine the content and current teaching practices in the undergraduate instrumental conducting course among several institutions offering a degree or certification in music education. The rank order of instructional categories taught or reviewed in a conducting course sponsored by Region Seven of the National

Associations of Schools of Music, was the result of a survey of the teachers involved in the course. The categories were the following: Conducting Technique, Conductor

Attributes, Rehearsal and Classroom Issues, Musical Knowledge and Skills, Ensemble

Knowledge, and Conducting History and Careers. Using a 5-point Likert-type scale, the teachers rated the importance of the topics mostly in the same order as the aforementioned list, excepting the addition of Evaluation and Observation ranked 12 immediately following Musical Knowledge. The survey’s results indicated that teachers needed to reconsider what they are teaching in the instrumental conducting course and to develop teaching strategies that incorporate all categories of instruction that they rated as important.

A study by Carlton (2003) provided a comparative guide of conducting textbooks for both conducting teachers and students, by only considering those texts emphasizing the physical movements in conducting. The authors of six conducting textbooks selected for a comparison of approaches were the following: Green (1987), Hunsberger and Ernst

(1992), Kohut and Grante (1990), Labuta (1982), McElheran (1989), and Rudolf (1994).

Carlton noted areas of strong agreement and disagreement among these authors and concluded that their textbooks served specific types of students based on their educational level, ability, number of students enrolled in a class, course requirements, additional available resources, one- or two-semester sequence, and personal preferences of the teacher.

Fry (1990) put together an extensive bibliographic list for the purpose of increased familiarity with conducting resources. The bibliographic references used included the following: Music Index; Library of Congress-Books: Subjects,

Comprehensive Dissertation Index; UMI Dissertation Information Service

Comprehensive Dissertation Query Service, and the University of North Carolina at

Greensboro Library card catalog. The compilation listed only English-language books and dissertations concerned with the technique of conducting and were viewed as a first installment to a long-term documentation of resources which could be beneficial to anyone interested in improving their instrumental music conducting. 13

The applicability of the Dreyfus Taxonomy of Skills Acquisition to musical conducting was examined in a study by Gaddis (1992). The five stages of the Dreyfus

Taxonomy include the following: (a) Novice, (b) Advanced Beginner, (c) Competent, (d)

Proficient, and (e) Expert. Twenty college/university teachers of conducting were asked on a survey to rate the level of difficulty using a scale from 1 to 10 of 45 conducting gestures/situations. The survey also asked each teacher if a perception existed among conducting students that expert conductors broke fundamental rules of conducting—and if so, how that situation was explained by the teachers. Additionally, the survey asked the teachers to examine a characteristics outline of the Dreyfus Taxonomy and then to apply

45 conducting gestures/situations to one of the five levels of the taxonomy. Results of the survey indicated that the rating of the level of difficulty by the teachers of conducting was inconsistent in numerical assignments. Eighty-five percent of the participants agreed that the perception existed that experts break fundamental rules of conducting and that the most frequent explanation was that even though rules may appear to be broken, a thorough grounding in conducting fundamentals was necessary for effective communication in rehearsals or performance. The next most frequent response was that effective communication from the conductor to the ensemble and audience was the ultimate goal, and that whatever works to accomplish that communication was the best method. Within the 45 gestures/situations, motor skills were consistently rated lower in terms of level of difficulty and in application to lower stages of the taxonomy than were expressive gestures/situations. As a result of the study, a skills-acquisition taxonomy for musical conducting was developed, which could prove to be helpful in the standardization of teaching musical conducting among colleges and universities. 14

The purpose of a study by Gruner (1993) was to design a computer-assisted instruction program for error detection skills development and then to evaluate that program’s effectiveness in training beginning conductors to identify rhythm and pitch errors within 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-voice synthesized music excerpts from existing band literature. The study’s participants were taken from a pool of undergraduate instrumental music education majors at Ball State University and were randomly assigned to treatment/experimental and control groups prior to the administration of the Acoustic

Error Detection Skills Inventory as a pretest. The treatment group used the Computer

Error Detection Skills Program for approximately 8 hours during an 8-week period. A posttest was then given to both the control and treatment groups, resulting in a significant improvement for the treatment group, but not for the control group. The results suggested that the Computer Error Detection Skills Program was effective and the viability of using synthesized sound sources for training was confirmed.

In a study by Haldeman (2001), the availability of systematic instruction at the graduate level to prepare beginning collegiate conductors to teach conducting was investigated. To determine whether 1024 instructors of undergraduate conducting received explicit instruction in the pedagogy of conducting from their respective institutions, a survey was conducted. One finding of the survey was that while 25% of current teachers of undergraduate conducting received pedagogical instruction, the majority of them created their own method of teaching, or simply adopted the method that they themselves were taught. Additional findings suggested that a significant number of teachers felt under-prepared to begin teaching conducting, and that further instruction in conducting pedagogy would have improved their teaching preparedness. Included in 15 the study were suggestions for integrating conducting pedagogy into the graduate program, as was a documentation of a pedagogy course offered by Florida State

University.

Haynes (1994) endeavored to study the approaches to nontechnical communication in conducting textbooks printed in the United States from 1972 through

1991. Nontechnical communications were defined as the transference of noncodified information that had direct or indirect bearing on musical performance, between conductor and members of the ensemble. Additionally, four broad classifications of nontechnical communication were defined: impulse of will, empathy-based modes, figurative language, and figurative gesture. It was noted that even though the categories of will, empathy-based modes, figurative language, and figurative gesture were useful, the complex nature of any art shows such distinctions to be artificial and flawed.

Additionally, it was pointed out that most textbooks from the period 1972 through 1991 did not reflect recent scholarship on behavior and communication. However, there were some developments of topics in nontechnical communication. Further study was suggested for exploring areas including Green’s concept of impulse will, Kinyon’s topics such as speech and drama, and the possible impact of each textbook based on actual numbers sold.

Krause (1983) addressed the importance of stance and gesture in assisting young singers to maximize their vocal potential. The study’s purpose was to set forth basic facts about principles for working with a student’s voice in the context of the choral rehearsal or general music class. The following subjects were presented: (a) a brief description of the bodily functions involved in singing, (b) material about a young person’s voice, (c) 16 discussions of physiological range versus practical singing range, (d) an explanation of the registers and “moveable break,” (e) the use of body movements to develop posture and breathing skills, (f) how to find and develop the head voice, (g) how the choral director acts as a model, and finally, (h) a series of conducting gestures that assist in creating musical responses from singers. The gestures described and illustrated by photographs may also be applied to conducting any choir.

In a study by Porter (2000), an exploration into the development of a conducting class for “nonconductors” for the purpose of fulfilling a recent mandate from the National

Association of Schools of Music (NASM) was undertaken. NASM’s reason for the requirement was that conducting experiences were appropriate and necessary for proper development as a professional musician. Additionally, from a review of the literature, the researcher found that eye contact and facial expression in language development, social interaction, effective teaching, and particularly in music conducting, were all important.

As a starting point for the experimental conducting course, eye contact and facial expression were utilized as a measurement of expressivity in conducting. The students of the course participated in exercises specially designed to enhance their nonverbal communication, as well as learning to conduct an ensemble by only using the face, without the use of hands or arms. Later, hand and arm gestural behaviors were slowly added to their conducting repertoire. For comparative purposes, student participants in the exploratory course were “paired” with students in a regular traditional conducting course. Both a quantitative and qualitative analysis indicated that the nonmusic education majors were fully capable of achieving comparable conducting skills when compared to their traditional counterparts. 17

The purpose of a study by Romines (2003) was to examine general demographics and operational curricula of undergraduate instrumental music conducting classes by administering a survey to gather opinions regarding effective methods to approach the concerns of balance, blend, and intonation in an ensemble. A questionnaire, sent to 150 colleges and universities, was divided into three segments: demographics, operational curricula, and pedagogical information. Some of the more important conclusions drawn from the survey’s responses included the following: (a) time restraints present within the undergraduate instrumental conducting framework, (b) the responsibility of covering the pedagogical tasks of a conductor to a course other than the undergraduate conducting course, (c) a discrepancy existed regarding the stated importance of lab and peer ensembles and the amount of time students were allotted for conducting those groups, (d) the actual amount of time spent conducting by students was limited, (e) a majority of the respondents stated that they believed basic techniques and rehearsal procedures should be presented during conducting classes, (f) a small discrepancy existed between what instructors stated was important to provide and what was actually taught related to the elements of tone quality (balance, blend, and intonation) in the undergraduate instrumental conducting courses, and (g) that undergraduate instrumental conducting instructors must often compromise their curricular offerings because of time limitations.

Further research was recommended in the area of curriculum reorganization.

In a study by Runnels (1992), an attempt was made to determine current practices in the teaching of instrumental conducting at the undergraduate level among colleges and universities within a specific geographic region, through the use of a survey sent to the instrumental conducting instructors at 151 colleges in a six-state region. Similar to other 18 studies, the survey was divided into three parts: (a) demographic questions regarding the institution and the music unit, (b) questions related to the training and experience of the instructor of undergraduate instrumental conducting, and (c) questions regarding content and methodology used in undergraduate instrumental conducting courses required for music majors at the institution. Of those responding to the survey, 39.1% conducted concert bands, 35.9% conducted wind ensembles, 25% conducted full orchestras, 6.3% conducted string orchestras, 32.8% conducted a small ensemble, and 14.1% did not conduct ensembles. Most respondents indicated some percentage of time allotted to private instruction and cumulatively they listed over 30 different course texts and other sources. The information presented in the study may assist in the development of conducting courses at the undergraduate level.

Shepherd (1992) developed an instructional tool where deliberate incorporation of critical thinking activities into the conducting classroom could be achieved. A second aspect of the study was to provide descriptive data examining whether the use of critical thinking techniques would be feasible and beneficial to the development of undergraduate conducting students. First, a feasibility study was undertaken to field test critical thinking materials in the laboratory sections of a basic conducting class. Two groups (experimental and control) were used, where the experimental group participated in critical thinking activities and the control group just received additional skill instruction. No significant differences were found between the two groups, but an

Attitude Survey showed that the critical thinking activities appeared to stimulate critical thinking in the experimental group, which also indicated higher self-confidence levels than did the control group. A Curriculum Proposal and a Conductor’s Critical Thinking 19

Workbook were developed in an attempt to describe various methods where critical thinking could be incorporated into the traditional conducting curriculum. The design of the Workbook could be adapted for each individual instructor’s use, regardless of which textbook was being utilized. It was also structured for use with flexibility in or out of the formal conducting class setting.

The purpose of a study by Snow (2006) was to construct a supplement to the most commonly used undergraduate conducting texts that teach the correction of wind intonation deficiencies. Because there seemed to be a lack of information about wind intonation deficiencies presented in existing materials for undergraduate conductors, this study was designed to address the wind intonation topic and to provide musical examples and exercises to help the young conductor gain an understanding of the factors that adversely affected the intonation of wind instruments. Various expert music educators contributed to the body of literature on the intonation subject, as well as the inherent problems of musical instruments and harmonic intervals as they relate to acoustics. Those resources were essential in the development of individual tuning charts to reinforce musician’s awareness of the general pitch tendencies of their instruments and the systemization of intonation deficiencies found in earlier research. In general, the study was a valuable resource for conductors struggling with wind intonation and served as a timesaving reference for instructors with limited rehearsal time.

A study by Spencer (2000) examined the process of awakening the musician in young conductors and presented strategies for teaching conducting through musicianship.

A conducting curriculum that utilized current and relevant learning theories, music education ideologies, and philosophies of the creative process and musical intelligence 20 was recommended. The study’s goal was to assist pedagogues with issues surrounding curriculum design so that students could emerge from their beginning conducting sequence as independent and communicative conductors. The most interesting chapter of the study investigated curricular implications for teaching conducting through musicianship, and identified nine areas within the traditional approach that needed attention and change. Those nine areas were the following: assessment; creating context; sequence of skills; score study; turning the score into a physical image; technical function; practicing the art; channeling, which is to teach to varied learning styles; and designing creative problem-solving lessons. Additionally, that chapter offered general strategies for implementing musicianship and creativity into the conducting curriculum.

Weller (1987) investigated 19 instrumental conducting programs identified as

“most successful” to determine the sound sources used and other aspects of a successful conducting program. The study was a three-phase descriptive study, where phase one surveyed 500 members of both the American Bandmaster Association and College Band

Directors National Association to select a panel of experts in conducting. Phase two consisted of the experts selecting 20 successful instrumental conducting programs to be examined in phase three. Phrase three used the 20 “successful conducting programs” to determine the amount of live or recorded sound sources used in instrumental conducting classes, the advantages for live and recorded sound sources, whether the sound source used had any effect on the successfulness of the program, whether live ensembles were drawn from the class, and whether there were other factors that would strongly influence the success of the program. The responses from the selected programs included several recommendations. One of the most important was that live ensembles outside of the 21 conducting class should frequently be made available to conducting students. Another was that live sound sources should be used the majority of time for a conducting experience. Finally, recorded sound sources do not teach the necessary instigating motions or leadership skills for conducting.

The purpose of a study by Wyatt (1974) was to develop and test auto-tutorial instructional materials for university choral conducting students. The study’s materials were designed to aid students in directing, determining the cause of, and providing solutions to problems of vocal production in choral ensembles. Those materials were divided into three subject areas: phonation, resonance, and breathing. The materials were then developed according to a 10-step systematic instructional model. The evaluative procedure then involved two groups of students from the target population, who were divided into experimental and control groups. A pretest was given to both groups, and then the experimental group was given a set of instructional materials. A posttest was then given to both groups, and the resultant differences were checked for significance.

Results indicated that improvement as measured by the posttest was significantly greater among those students who proceeded through the program (experimental group) than those who did not (control group).

In a study by Zirkman (1984), the educational objectives of conducting classes for undergraduate student through doctoral students were examined. Not only were there three basic methods of evaluation, but there were 173 behavior objectives that were also included as part of the review process. Articles relating to the preparation of the conductor and conducting curricula were also reviewed, as well as specific conducting textbooks and the conclusions from related research. A survey instrument was developed 22 for the study, which was mailed to teachers of conducting at 18 selected schools. Several important conclusions were found. The first was that compositions of Bach were the most frequently used in conducting classes, followed by Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Handel,

Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Holst, and Stravinsky. Another was that while most teachers provided practical conducting experiences daily or weekly, they did not provide ample opportunities to conduct live ensembles. Finally, teachers felt there should be more classes, more class meetings, and a greater variety of conducting classes required, especially at the undergraduate level. Some of the more important recommendations made by the study included the following: educational objectives should be clearly stated for conducting courses at all levels; conducting course should be developed for opera, ballet, theater, oratorios, and jazz ensembles; and live ensembles should be frequently and consistently made available to conducting students.

Conducting assessment techniques. In addition to curriculum content, the following researchers addressed several techniques that assessed the effectiveness of conducting learning methods. Such assessment techniques could serve as important sources of testing how well various conducting curriculum designs influence the success of novice conductors’ learning.

The purpose of a study by Fleming (1977) was to evaluate the development of choral conducting skills affected by guided practice materials used in conjunction with the videotape recorder. The researcher targeted two modes of conducting practice in her efforts to develop the study’s materials. The two modes were self-practice using conducting selections of the students’ choice, and guided self-practice incorporating the video-recorder and specified conducting selections. The participants were college 23 students participating in a beginning choral conducting class at Florida State University.

The study’s hypothesis was that at the end of one 10-week quarter of study there would be a significant difference in conducting skill between those students who utilize guided- practice materials with the video-recorder (experimental group) and those who do not utilize those materials (control group). Results indicated that the guided- practice materials did make a significant difference in the performance scores of the experimental group.

Gonzo and Forsythe (1976) described a project that involved a series of video- recordings demonstrating the principles of teaching employed in the rehearsal settings of junior high, senior high, and college choral organizations. To help prospective music teachers understand the relationship among teacher, learner, and student in the music classroom, the video-recordings were produced as teaching aids for college music education classes. The recordings were presented in the college music education classes, after which the college students discussed what they had seen. The college students were also able to check out the video-recordings for personal viewing. In addition, graduate students (professor’s assistants) showed the recordings to groups of the undergraduates as part of a quiz activity. It was possible to have an experimental and control group, since there were two sections of the course being offered. A “posttest only” control group design was used to test whether the class of undergraduates receiving the video-recorded material would differ significantly from the control class in terms of observational skills, knowledge of behavioral principles, and attitude toward the course. There were significantly fewer incorrect responses in the observation tests from the experimental group. The experimental group also reported a higher level of interest in the course. 24

Johnson, Price, and Schroder (2009) attempted to determine whether preservice music educators could discriminate between novice and expert choral directors irrespective of the proficiency of the choral ensemble. Additionally, a secondary purpose was to compare study results elicited in the United States with those from participants in

Europe, South America, and Asia. The participants of this study viewed video-recordings of four different choral conductors from the United States; 2 were proficient and experienced, and 2 were novices. The video-recordings also showed the conductors in the following counterbalanced settings: (a) an accomplished conductor conducting a fine choral ensemble, (b) an accomplished conductor conducting a poor choral ensemble, (c) a novice conductor conducting a fine choral ensemble, and (d) a novice conductor conducting a poor choral ensemble. The participants then wrote observational comments and assigned each conductor an evaluative numeric rating. The results of a quantitative data analysis indicated that the participants evaluated the skills of the conductor and not the proficiency of the ensembles. Additionally, the results indicated that there were not only differences between participants from different continents, but also vast differences regarding the topics on which the participants commented.

The purpose of a study by Leppla (1989) was to compare the effects of guided and unguided video-recording modeling on the acquisition of five basic conducting skills by beginning conductors. The five basic conducting skills included posture and baton position, preparatory beat, rebound, gesture, and legato style. Using a prominent, experienced conductor as a model, two video-recordings were prepared—one containing demonstrations of the five basic conducting skills using a visual model only, and the other containing the same demonstrations accompanied by detailed verbal instructions. 25

The participants were students from the beginning-conducting classes at Ohio State

University who were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups.

Experimental Group A received the “modeling-only” treatment, while experimental

Group B received the “guided modeling” treatment. At the end of a 6-week treatment period, the participants all conducted a live ensemble performing a Bach choral to demonstrate their newly acquired five basic conducting skills. Each participant’s “live ensemble” session was video-recorded, and then a panel of instrumental conducting experts was asked to evaluate each recording using a Basic Skills Conducting Skills

Evaluation Form developed for this study. The results of a t-test and a Mann-Whitney U test indicated no significant differences between the groups on any of the five basic conducting skills. Nonetheless, the overall results gave positive encouragement to the continued study of video-recorded modeling in beginning conducting instruction.

In a study by Osman (1989) the question, “Would a conductor who exhibited specific communication skills be judged as more effective by amateur choral members than a conductor who did not exhibit those skills?” was examined. The purposes of this study were to design the Communication Skill Evaluation Instrument (CSEI), administer it to amateur choral ensembles, and use the data to determine the efficacy of the instrument. Following a pilot study, which utilized a prepared video-recording, an edited recording presented five conductors in a rehearsal situation that represented both strong and weak communication skills. Fifteen conductors validated the list of skills included on the CSEI before the edited recording was prepared. The participants included singers from high schools, amateur adult groups, and some adult experts. About half of the amateur group used the CSEI in evaluating the five conductors, while the other half 26 ranked the conductors subjectively without a guide. The experts were asked to make their evaluations both objectively and subjectively. The results of these analyses indicated that the subjective evaluations of the conductor’s communication skill did correspond with the evaluation of subjects using the CSEI. Additionally, a significant association was found among CSEI scores for the various groups of high school, amateur adults, and experts. Furthermore, a strong association was found among CSEI scores for a new group of 30 adult participants. Still further, test-retest scores for a homogeneous group of 30 adults showed a significant association. Finally, the CSEI did allow a statistically reliable discrimination concerning both good and bad communicators in the choral rehearsal. A recommendation was made that the CSEI might be useful in developing undergraduate curricula, as a checklist for conducting teachers and students to assess communication skill in the rehearsal, as well as assessing the communication effectiveness of choral practitioners with their own ensembles.

Phillips (1997) investigated the enhancement of the student conducting experience by the use of video self-evaluation (VSE). The study’s specific objectives were to determine if growth in conducting skills differs for music students who engaged in VSE as compared with those who did not, and to identify students’ attitudes and perceptions of the VSE process. The participants (N = 14) were divided into experimental and control groups, who were video-recorded each time they conducted. The members of the experimental group: (a) viewed their personal video-recordings after each time they conducted, (b) evaluated their conducting skills using the 10 criteria of a “Conducting

Techniques” subscale, and (c) entered their self-evaluations as brief written comments.

Additionally, each participant’s pretest and posttest video-recorded rehearsals were rated 27 by use of the “Conducting Techniques” subscale in Likert-type format. To confirm the comparability of the two groups, low interjudge reliability precluded the use of pre-test scores for their intended purpose, but a comparison of posttest mean scores by use of a one-tailed t-test for independent samples indicated there was no significant difference in conducting skills between the two groups. After the VSE portion of the study, the experimental group members were interviewed with three main resulting points. First, the students felt the VSE was advantageous to their conducting development. Second, the

“Conducting Technique” criteria helped the students focus as they performed the VSE.

Third, the benefits of the VSE could be enhanced by direct participation of the teacher in reviewing the video-recordings and planning strategies for improvement.

Price (1985) examined the effect of a competency-based program on basic conducting skills and student attitudes. The program mainly consisted of a pretest, six practica, and a posttest. A laboratory chorus enabled the student-conducting participants to practice modeling appropriate beat patterns, tempi, dynamics, styles, preparations, releases, cues, and eye contact. The program also included student self-observation of each practicum and written critiques. The participants were then surveyed to assess their perceptions of this competency-based approach to conducting. Results indicated that student participants gained in all eight conducting skill categories, and they tended to report a higher percentage correct than did trained observers, even though this discrepancy decreased as the program progressed. Additionally, participants gave the program a positive overall rating and felt they had learned more than average when compared with comparable courses. 28

Scott (1996) investigated the effects of visual diagnostic skills development as pedagogical tool in the acquisition of basic conducting techniques. A conducting pretest/posttest, measuring mastery of conducting skills, a written pretest/posttest, measuring mastery of visual diagnostic skills, and two sets of instructional video- recordings, were the study’s treatment and testing materials. While one group of participants experienced instruction and demonstration of the conducting techniques under investigation, the other group experienced an additional diagnostic section providing opportunities for error detection. On the written posttests, both groups showed significant improvement. However, the conducting posttest scores declined as the conducting pretest scores increased for the second group having the additional diagnostic section. The most improved conducting skills were with those participants who had little prior conducting experience.

Yarbrough (1987) explored relationships between two types of behavioral self- assessment and posttest conducting achievement scores. After observing video- recordings of themselves conducting, the students from six different conducting classes wrote self-critiques, used observation forms for self-evaluation, and took a posttest.

Relationships between verbal reinforcements in self-critiques, correct self-evaluation marks, and correct posttest scores were all examined. The results of several analyses indicated a significant and positive correlation between correct posttest scores and correct self-observation marks, and a nonsignificant but positive correlation between correct posttest scores and verbal self-reinforcements.

In another study by Yarbrough, Wapnick, and Kelly (1979), the effect of two video-recording feedback techniques on improvement in conducting skills of beginning 29 conductors was compared. One technique consisted of sessions spent with an experienced conducting instructor, while the other technique used sessions in which each student independently viewed video-recordings with behavioral observation forms and checklists.

Both pre- and posttests consisting of four-measure examples in 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, and 6/8 conducted by each student were video-recorded for subsequent analysis. One control group was both pre- and posttested, and the other was only posttested. After a team of judges rated each student’s pre- and posttest conducting examples on accuracy of beat pattern, cueing, preparatory beats, cutoffs, tempo, style, dynamics, eye contact, and frequency of mannerisms, two other dependent measures were utilized consisting of an instructional rating survey and a verbal content analysis of critiques written after each feedback session. Results of the study’s analysis indicated no significant pretest and posttest gains for both experimental groups. There were no significant differences between experimental groups or between control groups; however, there were significant differences between experimental and control groups. Additionally, more deference to instructor authority was found in the instructor feedback group than in the observation group. Furthermore, the instructor feedback group had more statements concerning technique, eye contact, score preparation, and mannerisms; whereas the observation form group had more statements concerning facial expression, body movement, and rehearsal time; and both groups had approximately equal numbers of statements concerning verbal content.

Physical Skill Development

A vital component of ensemble conducting is a director’s ability to manipulate his or her muscle/motor skills. This is especially true for the arms and hands that are 30 consistently used in conducting-gestures. In addition to the studies addressed later in the

“conducting competencies” category of this literature review, several more studies covering gestures, conducting expressivity, and movement-based exercises are summarized in the next section.

Gestures. While nonverbal communication has been addressed extensively in the research literature (and will be in this literature review as part of the “conducting competencies” section) with respect to facial expressions, eye contact, and other physical characteristics, one could consider that conducting is yet another form of nonverbal communication that conductors use. Conducting-gestures are a topic of many research studies, and the researchers below addressed the teaching or pedagogy of conducting- gestures.

The purpose of a study by Dease (2007) was to investigate the effects of differential feedback (external vs. internal feedback) on the closed-hand position of conductors (palm down) while conducting. The participants were undergraduate and graduate music majors who were divided into two groups (choral and instrumental), who were then further randomly divided into one of three conditions: external, internal, and control. The external feedback condition consisted of the participants balancing a coin on top of their hand while conducting, while the internal feedback condition consisted of the participants being instructed on how to stabilize their wrists and hand so that they faced the ground while conducting. In order to assess the effect of these variables on the duration of the conductor’s closed-hand position while conducting, a pretest/posttest design was used. Results revealed that all groups were equal at pretest and that there were significant differences between pretest and posttest, but there was no significant 31 difference from pretest to posttest between choral and instrumental groups. Additionally, there was no significant difference from pretest to posttest by treatment group (external, internal, and control) and by choral and instrumental groups. However, there was a significant interaction when pretest and posttest by treatment groups were analyzed, indicating that the amount of time spent in closed-hand conducting during the pretest and posttest was contingent upon the treatment group. Since the hypothesis of this study was that an external feedback strategy (e.g., coin on the back of the hand) that focuses the attention of the learner on the effect of his or her movement would result in a measurable increase in the desired conducting motor behavior (e.g., closed-hand conducting), the study’s results, in essence, indicated a clear rejection of the null-hypothesis. However, even though the times for closed-hand conducting in both groups at treatment seemed positive, over-generalization is cautioned.

Eastwood (1989) performed a study where two modes of information feedback were examined. There were two modes (knowledge of performance and concurrent feedback) that were provided by using a video digitizer. The three participant groups, one receiving no feedback, one receiving feedback at each session (100%), and the other receiving feedback every other session (50%), made up the test population. The participants followed a metronome tone using standard beat patterns, but the groups receiving feedback heard an additional ictus tone derived from the ictus of their own patterns. The steadiness of errors before and after 9 weeks of treatment and a follow-up session, which used no feedback or metronome tone, was carefully measured. Results revealed that on the posttest, the 100% and 50% groups had significantly lower error scores, and the 50% group scored significantly lower than the 100% groups. In the 32 follow-up analysis, the 100% and the 50% groups had significantly lower scores, and the

50% group scored significantly lower than the 100% group. Only the 100% group showed a significant increase in errors from the posttest to the follow-up. In spite of this one result of a significant increase in errors by the 100% group from the posttest to the follow-up, the treatment sessions seemed to have worked for the 100% and 50% groups.

In other words, receiving video feedback, either frequently (100%) or even 50% less than

“frequently,” seems to suggest that undergraduates in a conducting class can lower their error scores (i.e., making fewer errors with the treatment than without the treatment).

The effects of teacher-student feedback through video-recording upon the acquisition of selected basic conducting skills was investigated by Keller (1979). The participants were 19 students enrolled in a college beginning-conducting course, who were divided into a control group (N = 11), and into an experimental group (N = 8).

Twelve of the students reported having had some previous conducting experience, but none reported any prior training. The experimental group underwent training using the video-recorder in providing feedback. The control group underwent training with the

“traditional approach” of receiving feedback in the form of teacher criticism and class comments. A Conducting Evaluation Form (CEF) was developed and used to measure each fundamental conducting behavior, including the following: posture and baton position, preparatory beat, ictus, phrase indication, cueing, and fermata. A pretest/posttest model was used to test the basic skills to be evaluated, by having the participants conduct a brass quartet arrangement of “March On” from Aida. A panel of three judges scored each participant’s performance on the pretest and posttest. Some of the more important conclusions, as a result of several statistical analyses, were that video- 33 recording feedback was an effective technique in the teaching of basic conducting skills, and that video-recording feedback was most effective in improving the skills of fermata, cueing, and posture and baton position, whereas it was least effective for the skills of preparatory beat, phrase indication, and ictus. Additionally, participants receiving video- recording feedback showed the greatest amount of improvement in posture and baton position, and the control group of participants showed the greatest improvement in the skill of ictus. Finally, the use of the CEF was an effective instrument in providing feedback to the participants. As an implication for the teaching of beginning conducting students, video-recording feedback was an important tool, but only for certain fundamental skills.

Powell (2008) set out to determine the effect of psychological conducting, as outlined in Elizabeth A. H. Green’s The Modern Conductor (2004), on the conducting abilities of students in a beginning instrumental conducting class. The participants (N =

32) were college students enrolled in two sections of the same introductory instrumental conducting course. One section served as the control group (n = 16) and the other section served as the treatment group (n = 16). Each participant conducted a pretest and a posttest consisting of the same four musical excerpts. Three expert conductor-teachers evaluated the video-recordings of the pre- and posttests using the researcher-designed

Conducting Ability Measure. Results indicated that there were no significant differences in the total overall mean gain scores of both groups. However, the control group had a higher mean score for the left-hand parameter for each excerpt and an overall higher mean gain score for the releases parameter. The treatment group obtained higher mean gain scores on the beat-pattern dynamics, articulation, phrasing, and total expressive 34 parameters, even though these differences were not statistically significant. The most important conclusion was that the Conducting Ability Measure was a highly reliable instrument for ranking the performances of the participant conductors.

Expressivity. As has been mentioned previously, conductor expressivity is another important facet of conducting pedagogy.

A study by Plaag (2006) described an apparent lack of instruction in expressive conducting-gestures in the literature and in college undergraduate conducting classes.

Additionally, the study recommended the infusion of expression into conducting-gestures at the beginning stages of conducting. The theories of Rudolph Laban were also examined as a means of assisting new conducting students when learning expressive conducting, and as a handbook for first-semester conducting students using Laban's theories. The handbook was designed to accompany Elizabeth A. H. Green's classic textbook on conducting, The Modern Conductor (1987).

Movement-based exercises. The art of conducting is complex because it requires both musical and physical skills to do it well. The following researchers addressed conducting-exercises that are movement-based.

The purpose of a study by Billingham (2001) was to create a conductor's gestural vocabulary that could be used to demonstrate stylistic elements in choral music. Using the Laban Movement Theory elements of Effort and Body assigned to specific choral music examples, which demonstrated differences in articulation, rhythm, and phrase shape, the study explored both Laban Movement Theory and Bartenieff Fundamentals as they related to body movement and application to conducting gestures. Some of the study's conclusions were that all gestures were evaluated in terms of their ability to 35 communicate the desired response. Additionally, six of the eight designed gestures were deemed as successful, with two needing further modification. Furthermore, implications for teaching choral conducting as well as conducting choirs were drawn, including applying the Laban Movement Theory to conducting gestures as a useful tool for creating expressive conducting gestures.

Running (2008) investigated the effects of a method designed to enhance the musical expressiveness, specificity, and comfort of student conductors through the use of acting exercises. The study's participants were made up of a beginning college conducting class, where one treatment group received instruction in the area of theater- based movement exercises, and the other treatment group received traditional instruction in conducting gestures. Questionnaires were also used with the groups prior to and following its implementation to assess changes in the participants' attitudes. In addition, the specificity and expressivity of the participants were assessed through the review and scoring of video-recording conducting performances by a panel of experts. After the scores from the experts were used to examine any effects of the treatment, some of the more important results of a statistical analysis included the theater exercises designed to improve the expressivity, specificity, and comfort levels of beginning conductors had a positive effect on the ability of the conductors to perform physical conducting gestures.

Additionally, students were receptive and acted favorably to incorporating exercises designed to increase their conducting expressivity. Finally, even though there were no significant interactions between the control and experimental groups among any of the study's research questions, both methods seemed to allow for student growth equally. 36

In a study by Yontz (2001), the effectiveness of Laban-based principles of movement and previous musical training on undergraduate beginning-conducting students' ability to convey intended musical content was examined. The participants were

91 undergraduate-beginning conducting students who were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. One group received instruction in the area of Laban-based movement, and the other received instruction in the area of expressive gestures. After the treatment periods ended, the students were administered a video-recorded posttest. Later, the students' ability to convey intended musical content through their conducting was evaluated by three university conducting professors using the "Conductor Evaluation

Guide II" developed by Stephen W. A. Miller. Results consisted of the following. First,

Laban-based movement appeared to have value as an instructional tool for undergraduate beginning conducting students. Second, conducting orientation, which is the tendency to see oneself as an instrumental or choral conductor, did not significantly affect student's ability to convey intended musical content. Third, there was no significant interaction between conducting orientation and the conducting treatments investigated.

Aural Skill Development

In addition to the development of physical skills, the development of aural skills is also extremely vital to good conducting. How else can a conductor, especially in teaching situations, know when even the tiniest problems of an ensemble need to be corrected? The following section addresses five categories of studies: error detection skills, detecting errors while performing, programmed instruction, score study methods, and teaching for transfer. 37

Error detection skills. The following two researchers addressed the importance of obtaining competent skills in ear training and error detection.

In a study by Ellis (1989), the effect of concurrent performance on the ability of three groups of musicians to detect tempo change was examined. Ninety participants were tested under two conditions: (a) listening for tempo changes in a series of metronomic “click tracks,” and (b) listening for tempo changes while concurrently reading and performing music excerpts in synchronization with the click tracks. Results showed that the detection ability of high school musicians who had previously practiced the music was less inhibited by the playing task than was the same ability of similar students who had not practiced the music. Additionally, the detection ability of college and professional musicians who had not practiced the music was also less inhibited by the playing task than was the detection ability of high school musicians who had not practiced the music. Finally, for all groups, the ability to detect tempo changes was inhibited by the playing task.

The purposes of a study by Gonzo (1971) were to determine whether differences exist between undergraduate music majors preparing for teaching careers in music and experienced secondary level choral teachers in regard to their ability to detect pitch errors, as well as to obtain certain types of data that might serve as the basis for recommending changes in teacher education programs, especially in terms of what could be emphasized, improved, or changed in order to develop pitch error detection more fully. The study's participants included undergraduate music majors (N = 62), and experienced secondary school choral teachers (N = 38). A test was developed by the researcher in order to determine whether an individual has the ability to detect pitch 38 errors, and later was administered to each participant. Some of the more important findings of the study included the following. First, there was no significant difference between experienced choral teachers as a group and undergraduate music majors as a group with regard to their performance on the pitch error detection test. Second, teachers with 6 to 10 years of experienced performed significantly better on the test than did the undergraduate students. Third, both students and teachers agreed regarding which test items were easy, moderately easy, and difficult. Fourth, students who had maintained an

A average in 2 years of music theory performed significantly better on the test than students with a lower average. Fifth, of the college music courses considered in the study, choral arranging was the only course significantly related to performance on the test.

Detecting errors while performing. In addition to setting the tempo of a piece being prepared for performance, a conductor should also have a working knowledge of diagnostic skills with regard to detecting intonation errors. Even after all the rehearsing is seemingly done for a performance, such skills are still necessary during a dress rehearsal

(or even during a performance) in order to direct split-second corrections. The following researchers specifically addressed the learning processes needed for novice conductors or teachers to detect tempo, pitch, and other similar-type errors.

DeCarbo (1982) set out to accomplish three main purposes: (a) design two different approaches, using the same content, that would provide training in error- detection skills for college undergraduate instrumental music students; (b) administer the materials to a sample of such students under experimental conditions; and (c) evaluate the effectiveness of the two formats in developing error-detection skills. The participants were divided into two groups. One received instruction in conducting experience for 16 39 class sessions, and another received instruction in programmed materials for 16 class sessions. Using a conducting test and a written test, the effects of each teaching method were measured. Results showed that the conducting experience group scored significantly higher than the programmed materials group on the conducting test, which was performed on the podium. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups on the written test. In other words, training in error-detection skills using programmed instruction did not transfer to a conducting situation as well as training in error-detection skills using live, podium-based instruction. However, training in error- detection skills using a podium-based instructional format may transfer as well as training using a programmed format to nonconducting situations, such as score reading or score study. In essence, using the live, podium-based instruction method was a better method of teaching error-detection skills.

In a study by Duke, Geringer, and Madsen (1991), the perception of beat across a range of stimulus speeds was examined using monotonic stimuli. The study's participants came from four age groups (graduate, undergraduate, high school, and junior high) and two levels of music participation (music major/enrollment in band versus no participation in organized music activities). Not only were 13 sets of consecutive periodic 349.23 Hz

(F4) tones presented at various speeds in randomized orders, but also the rates of the 15- second examples in terms of tones per minutes (i.e., 40, 60, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 100, 120,

140, 160, 200, and 240). The tasks of the participants were to listen to each example and to tap the perceived beat or pulse. Results indicated that college music majors and other listeners responded differentially. Music majors tended to identify beat tempos between

70 and 120 beats per minute (bpm) regardless of the speed of stimulus tones presented. 40

Even though a similar tendency was apparent in the responses of the remaining participants, a majority tapped beats identical to the stimulus tones across all rates of presentation. In other words, the nonmusic participants seemed to perceive the stimulus tones as beats, regardless of the rate of presentation, while the trained musicians tended to perceive beat tempos within a defined range across all stimulus speeds.

Jones (1996) examined the effect of positive and negative visual stimuli on choral conductors' and choral singers' ratings of selected elements in the choral evaluative process. Excerpts of two choral pieces (one fast and one slow) were presented to the study's participants (40 choral conductors and 40 singers) in audio-only and audio-video conditions. The visual presentations were predesigned as either positive or negative.

There were seven categories in which the participants were asked to evaluate the excerpts, including the following: tone quality, intonation, rhythm, balance and blend, technique, interpretation and musicianship, and diction. Results of an analysis of the potential effects of visual stimuli on the ratings for the seven categories suggest the following. First, for both the slow and fast pieces, the addition of negative visual stimuli to aural examples significantly lowered the conductors' and singers' ratings. Second, both the conductors' and the singers' ratings were inconsistent with the addition of positive visual stimuli to aural examples. Third, the effect of the visual stimuli on the ratings may be related more to musical tempo and observers' previous musical training than to adjudication criteria. Fourth, the positive visual stimuli may favorably affect the conductors' ratings-- however, those ratings appeared to have been more significantly affected when actual aural content would be considered positive without the added visual stimuli. Fifth, the conductors' and singers' ratings may have been significantly lowered by 41 negative visual stimuli, regardless of whether aural content is positive or negative. Sixth, conductors appeared to be more susceptible than singers to the impact of visual stimuli on choral evaluation. Seventh, the degree to which singers were susceptible to the impact of visual stimuli may have been related to the tempo of the piece being evaluated. Eighth, for the slower pieces, singers may have been most susceptible when the visual stimuli was negative. Ninth, the preference of the singers for faster tempos might possibly have eclipsed the impact of the visual stimuli in the choral evaluation. Thus, these combined results suggested that the effect of visual stimuli on specific musical elements in the choral adjudication process could have a significant impact on how judges (both conductors and singers) rate the performances of choirs in an adjudicated event.

The purpose of a study by Stiffler (2004) was to explore the effects of context on the performances of self-evaluation and musical error detection. Undergraduate conducting students from two universities performed self-evaluation and error detection in conducting or nonconducting contexts. While the conducting context did not significantly affect self-evaluation or conducting skill, self-evaluation was approximately

12% higher in comparison of self- or trained observer evaluations of participant performance. Additionally, a strong negative correlation existed between conducting skill and the accuracy of self-evaluation. In other words, accuracy increased as conducting skill increased, and accuracy decreased as conducting skill decreased. There were several other important results. The first was that conducting context significantly affected error detection skill. Second, participants in the conducting context indicated more nonexistent errors than the participants in the nonconducting context. Third, a combination of five “accuracy of self-evaluation” and two “self-evaluation predictor” variables was 42 successful in explaining 90% of the variability in total conducting skill. Fourth, “accuracy of self-evaluation” offered the greatest assistance in predicting and explaining variability in total conducting skill, rather than self-evaluation or error detection. Finally, “accuracy of self-evaluation” and “concurrent performance of teaching skills” seemed to have posed significant problems in music teacher education; thus, future research should explore methods of self-evaluation that incorporate accuracy and should develop instructional methods that assimilate essential teaching skills.

Williams (1984) conducted an exploratory study to investigate possible criteria for designing instruction and evaluation for teaching diagnostic aural skills that cannot be evaluated on a dichotomous scale, and to provide implications for future research. In order to record the responses of beginning conducting students, advanced conducting students, and professional conductors, the Exploratory Inventory of Diagnostic Aural

Skills (EIDAS) was developed for diagnosing audio-recorded band performances. The

EIDAS consisted of five sections with five examples in each section, according to the following categorical divisions: (a) conductors were to rate (forced response) the performance level of a specified number of musical elements for each example, (b) conductors were requested to list (open response) three short-range or long-range rehearsal priorities, and (c) “overall” was rated in each of the examples. Results indicated that group variances appeared to be most similar when diagnosing high-level performances and least similar when diagnosing low-level performances. Additionally, when differences among group variances were significant, the professional conductors varied less, whereas there was more variation with the beginning-conducting students.

Furthermore, tempo and dynamics appeared to be the only two elements most easily 43 discriminated. Finally, the forced response format appeared to be superior to the open response format. Some of the recommendations for future research included the following: first, determining the limit of freedom that can be given when collecting data from professional conductors; second, determining the possible effects of style, grade level, and familiarity with the musical composition; third, determining if a causal relationship exists between the variability of the beginning conducting students and the number of elements per example; fourth, establishing criteria for teaching diagnostic aural skills in tempo and dynamics.

Programmed instruction. A frequently overlooked conducting skill is the ability to study and understand conductor scores. For many novice conductors, the process of hearing an ensemble while on the podium is different from the process of performing in a musical ensemble. Thus, the following researchers addressed efforts to develop video-recording auditory models and their computer-based counterparts.

In a study by Fry (1992), the effectiveness of Computer Based Interactive

Videodisc (CBIV) instruction was explored when used as a supplement to class instruction in beginning conducting. The study’s procedure involved ascertaining the instructional objectives of the beginning-conducting course at VanderCook College of

Music. Additionally, determining which objectives were amenable to a CBIV treatment and selecting learning experiences pertinent to the attainment of those objectives, were parts of the study’s procedure. Furthermore, the study involved developing a CBIV program to involve students in those selected learning experiences. Finally, evaluating the results of the program would be the last objective. Using a Planned Evaluation and

Review Technique chart, the investigator identified eight steps in the research process 44 and then video-recorded and transferred them to videodisc. The study’s participants were students enrolled in the Conducting I class who were randomly assigned to either Section

A, who were given access to musical scores and the CBIV program, or Section B, who were given the scores, but only an audio-recording of the same musical selections. After a posttest, which covered baton technique, cueing, and musical communication and interpretation, three experienced conductors evaluated the conducting skill of all of the students. Additionally, a questionnaire was given to the students of Section A. Results indicated that: (a) students in Section A appeared to have been more successful in achieving the instructional objectives of the beginning conducting course (Conducting I) than those of Section B, (b) student responses to the CBIV materials were highly positive, and (c) the Computer Based Interactive Videodisc is a valuable tool in conducting instruction. A suggestion for further research is that this type of study should have a strict experimental design.

The purpose of a study by Jordan (1980) was to evaluate the effectiveness of video-recorded instruction when used as a supplement to classroom instruction in beginning conducting classes at the University of Illinois. Previous to the study, video- recordings were developed that incorporated the component tasks of basic conducting skills, including three types of gestures for fermata, and three types of gestures for cues.

Several university instrumental and choral conductors (and teachers of conducting) were video-recorded conducting small vocal ensembles. Each recording contained 15 to 20 examples containing various conducting problems to be solved by the participant conductors. Additionally, each video-recording employed an average of five identical repeated demonstration exercises. A posttest of the selected gestures was developed that 45 incorporated musical examples of each type of gesture demonstrated in the video- recorded instruction. Sixty participants were chosen from the beginning conducting classes from both the University of Illinois (UI) and Illinois State University (ISU). The experimental group (UI conducting students) experienced a 5-week treatment period using the previously described video-recordings and a set of traditional printed materials designed for beginning conducting students. The control group (ISU conducting students) was only given the printed materials for their treatment. Results from the posttests indicated a very favorable increase in scores of the experimental group from three independent judges. Additionally, written comments from members of the experimental group strongly advocated work with the video-recordings. The control group’s responses revealed that practice with printed materials alone, devoid of feedback, was difficult, frustrating, and virtually useless.

Score study methods. The following researchers addressed the use of error- detection tests to measure the effectiveness of different score study methods, as well as numerous other approaches to score study.

In a study by Crowe (1996), the effects of four score study styles on the pitch and rhythm error-detection abilities of beginning conducting students were investigated. The score study styles included the following: (a) no score study, (b) study with score alone,

31 examples using sampled sounds ranging from one to eight parts, four computer- assisted tests were developed. Additionally, a counterbalanced design was used to control for effects of presentation order so as to score study style and individual test. Results indicated that score study with a correct aural example was significantly more effective 46 than study with the score alone. No significant difference was found between score study at the keyboard and any other score study style, but there were significant differences in test scores attributable to the number of parts in examples. Error detection became more difficult as the number of parts increased.

Hamilton (1994) set out to create and gain consensus of an essential curriculum for teaching score study in the undergraduate instrumental conducting class. The study’s research questions were: (a) What methods, materials, and evaluations should be used to teach score study? and (b) Are there significant differences between the ranked opinion scores of those who conduct a band or wind ensemble only, teach undergraduate instrumental conducting only, and those who conduct a band or wind ensemble and teach undergraduate instrumental conducting? A three-round questionnaire was used to develop a recommended curriculum for teaching score study. A model curriculum, based on a literature review and a survey of area college band directors, was sent to the Delphi population of the College Band Directors National Association. Results indicated no significant differences in the mean rankings of the items by group membership. The discriminant analysis showed that none of the categories significantly predicted group membership. Overall, the study resulted in a curriculum which included 80 separate items in seven major categories to be used in the undergraduate conducting course to teach score study.

The purposes of a study by Hopkins (1991) were to determine the relative effectiveness of four approaches to score study on undergraduate music students’ ability to detect errors in choral performance, to examine the relationship of scores by pianists and nonpianists, and to examine the extent to which subjects found nonexistent errors in 47 performances. The four approaches included using a piano, using a recording, sight- singing, and silent inspection, all to study four compositions on 4 days. Deliberate pitch and rhythm errors served as the stimuli on audio-recorded performances. As the study’s participants listened to the recordings while following the scores, they were instructed to circle and notate the errors they detected. Results indicated that more rhythm errors than pitch errors were detected and notated, and that the participants were more adept at error detection than error notation. Additionally, using a recording was found to be significantly more effective than using a piano, but no other significant differences emerged between other pairs of approaches. Finally, pianists achieved higher scores than nonpianists, but the difference was not significant; and all but 1 participant perceived the presence of nonexistent errors.

In a study by Silvey (2009), the effects of score study on novice conductor’s nonverbal and verbal conducting behaviors were investigated. Eleven undergraduate conducting students (participants) conducted and rehearsed a live brass quartet after being presented with a brief musical excerpt of which they had no prior knowledge. The participants in the experimental group (N = 6) received two individual 30-minute score study tutorials, while the control group (N = 5) received no assistance. All of the participants experienced an initial conducting session before being divided into groups.

After 1 week, the participants conducted and rehearsed the ensemble for a second time.

Three experienced conductors and the brass quartet members (all of whom were not aware of the experimental condition) evaluated the participant’s conducting in terms of eye contact, facial expression, effective gesture, ability to lead toward a musically accurate performance, knowledge of the score, and pacing. Results indicated that 48 significant differences were found between the score study and control conditions.

Additionally, the brass quartet members’ ratings for eye contact and knowledge of the score were higher for the participants who studied the score. Finally, no significant differences were found between conditions in the ratings given by the experienced conductors. In addition, at the conclusion of the second rehearsal, the brass quartet members accurately identified five of the six conductors who had received score study assistance and four of the five conductors who had not. The experienced conductors were asked to identify the order of the two video-recordings of each conductor and they accurately identified the order of five of the six score study conductors’ video-recordings.

The participants’ video-recordings in the control group were identified as mostly inaccurate and reflected much disagreement among the experienced conductors. Finally, there were three characteristics that distinguished those who engaged in score study from those who had not: (a) more meaningful, instrument-specific eye contact; (b) greater confidence and comfort; and (c) more effective gestures and other nonverbal behaviors in rehearsal, all of which seemed to result from a more clearly defined interpretation of the music.

The purpose of a study by Swinehart (1994) was to determine whether timbral variance affects the score-reading ability of novice conductors. Additionally, the differences in the participants’ responses as difficulty levels of discriminational tasks increased were also investigated. Thirty college instrumental music majors who had completed the foundational conducting courses and who represented the four families of orchestral instruments served as the study’s participants. The Test of Score-Reading

Ability (TSRA) was an investigator-developed tool consisting of 20 concert pitch score 49 excerpts. Each excerpt was four measures long and required the participants to respond at three discrimination levels: error observation, error placement, and error identification.

Recordings by single or multiple timbre acoustic ensembles or those of single or multiple timbre-synthesized ensembles accompanied the excerpts. Randomly inserted into the performances with equal numbers occurring in acoustic and synthesized items were rhythm errors (n = 32) and pitch errors (n = 30). Results indicated significant differences between the participant’s abilities to detect errors in acoustic versus synthesized items, and between single versus multiple timbre items. Based on these results, the researcher concluded that timbral variance did affect the error-detection ability of novice conductors when reading from the score. The data also suggested that training for score-reading skills based on acoustic sounds would be more successful in preparing conducting students for error-detection tasks than would training with single timbre synthesized sounds. The results also indicated that instrument background did not significantly affect score-reading ability, and that the abilities to hear that an error occurred and place where it occurred in the score were closely related and were accomplished with significantly greater ease than error detection.

Trevino (2008) examined the issue of whether or not the use of an aural model during score study would increase the amount of expressive gesture exhibited by an undergraduate conductor. Two groups of conducting students (experimental and control) studied a score with and without an aural model, and after a score study period, each group member was video-recorded conducted the score twice—once with an aural model present, and once without. The experimental group members listened to a recorded aural model while studying and conducting a printed score, while the control group members 50 studied and conducted the same score silently. Each participant’s video-recordings were independently viewed and rated by three expert observers using the Expressive

Conducting Achievement Measure (ECAM), which was developed in a previous study by the investigator. Results indicated that the experimental groups’ use of an aural model while studying showed a significant treatment effect for group assignment. Additionally, the follow-up tests indicated a significant difference between experimental and control groups. Furthermore, the experimental group participants showed a much higher performance mean score than the control group participants when conducting with the audio-recording. Finally, the use of an aural model during score study can increase gestural expressivity in conducting performance.

Also of interest was a study by Van Oyen and Nierman (1998). These researchers examined the effects of two score preparation approaches (extended analysis treatment and extended analysis treatment plus recorded examples) on the on-podium error- detection ability of beginning undergraduate conductors. The participants were 47 undergraduate music majors who were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups or a control group. Additionally, the study utilized a pretest/posttest control group design.

The effects of the analysis approaches on the error-detection ability from the podium were analyzed. Results indicated no significant differences, but additional analysis showed errors in tone were easier to detect than errors in articulation for the extended analysis treatment group.

The value of score study cannot be emphasized enough in conductor training. No matter which training method is used, a conductor who is not comfortably familiar with a score cannot effectively communicate his interpretations to his or her ensemble, nor can 51 he or she effectively detect errors, nor can he or she make corrections. In addition to score study, a conductor’s knowledge of music theory, as well as understanding the stylistic characteristics of a piece from a particular historical period, are essential components of being an effective conductor, as well as being an effective teacher of conducting.

Teaching for transfer. Frequently, students do not naturally make connections between subjects unless they are taught to do so. The following two researchers address this phenomenon, in terms of making broad transfers from music theory and music history to conducting.

In a study by Fiese (1990), the effects of nonmusical cues on the rankings of music scores of undergraduate conducting students were examined based on their judgments of quality. Four wind band scores (previously selected and ranked by university conductors and composers) were prepared in three different conditions: (a) with correct nonmusical information, (b) with incorrect nonmusical information, and (c) without any nonmusical information. Significant differences existed between the judges and the three experimental groups of participants, and the experimental group receiving incorrect nonmusical information demonstrated an inverse pattern of response (meaning that the mean ranks of the judge’s scores and those of the three experimental groups indicated different populations). This inverse pattern indicated a rejection of the null hypothesis, which was that the mean scores for each of the three experimental conditions should have nonsignificant differences. Results also suggested that undergraduate conducting students should use nonmusical cues when making qualitative decisions 52 regarding wind band scores, rather than relying on characteristics inherent to the music itself.

Strouse (1987) set out to develop a comprehensive and carefully detailed approach to score preparation, which would be adaptable to all kinds of music. A

Comprehensive Approach to Score Preparation (CASP) was developed as a result of reviewing selected approaches to score preparation and general musical analysis techniques. The CASP was based upon three levels of deductive analysis: Level I—Basal

Structure Analysis, which explores the score in terms of musical elements that may be translated directly into gesture without further study of structural comparisons, Level II—

Review of Supplementary Information, which surveys the historical and stylistic background of the work and composer, and Level III—Detailed Structural Analysis, which identifies the individual components of the musical structure as each relates to the larger structure and to the conductor’s emotive interpretation. One conclusion of the study was that the musical experience affects various modes of emotional energy in appreciative listeners as well as nonappreciative listeners. Another was that the elements of the conductor’s musical interpretation are transmitted to the players and to the audience by means of the conductor’s personality. Finally, the musical elements of articulation, dynamics, and tempo are the most important determinants of variation in musical interpretations.

Conducting Technology

The use of the ever-growing sophistry of computers, along with their capacity to capture motion using digital-imagery, has also had a striking effect on research related to music conducting. The following section of the present study’s related literature review 53 summarizes several studies or articles whose authors addressed the computer technology now available to researchers.

Synchronization. The following researchers addressed the work of several other researchers who used computer-imagery and other related technology to explore how conductors and the musicians they direct relate in synchronization experiments.

In a study by Bertini and Carosi (1993), an attempt was made to describe an interface, which was designed and developed to allow an automatic synthesis system to be controlled by a human conductor. The goal of the system was to endow electronic music with the expressiveness and feeling characteristic of live performances by recognizing the movements and gestures made by a conductor during a live performance.

A special conductor’s baton and a personal computer with an image acquisition board connected to a camera comprised most of the system’s components. A small lamp placed on the tip of the baton allowed the conductor’s movements to be detected by the camera.

These movements were then digitized as light point position changes and then stored. The data acquired by the system were applied as input parameters of an algorithmic compositional environment, all to synchronize human and machine performances, to learn conducting movements, and to control algorithmic compositions in real time.

Kun (2004) designed and implemented a responsive/interactive system for conducting and conducting pedagogy. Using a Vicon 8i motion capture system and

Max/MSP graphical programming environment, the system provided real-time visual and aural feedback, sensitive to the baton of a conductor. In other words, the system was designed to provide opportunities for conductors and conducting students to practice baton technique in a responsive/interactive setting that simulated a live performance, 54 through its ability to analyze changes in the trajectory, velocity, size of gesture, and angles. Additionally, simultaneous visual feedback was made possible by projecting any combination of informative displays (including the notated music being conducted, dynamics, tempo, beat plane, beat number, parameters of the gestural sets, and the motion of the baton) on a screen in front of the conductor. This system was the first of its kind in terms of real-time, responsive/interactive environment for conducting, and using motion capture technology.

A study by Luck and Sloboda (2007) was built upon previous work that identified a transfer of a physical skill, such as arm and hand movements, to a related task such that musicians were more accurate when synchronizing with conductors’ gestures if they themselves had some prior conducting experience. Using rather simple conducting gestures instead, the study presented the participants with life-size point-light representations of traditional three-beat conducting gestures, and then asked them to tap in synchrony with the beat in each case. As was demonstrated in previous work, the participants with previous conducting experience demonstrated higher levels of synchronization accuracy compared to those without such experience. Additionally, a positive relationship between tempo and accuracy was identified, while the first beat of each measure received the most accurate responses overall. In this context, the transfer of basic hand and arm movement skills highlights the benefit of offering conducting instruction to ensemble musicians in order to improve their synchronization with the conductor.

Nakra (2000) presented the design and implementation of the Conductor’s Jacket

(CJ), which was a unique wearable device that measures physiological and gestural 55 signals, together with the Gesture Construction, which was a musical software system that interprets those signals and applies them expressively in a musical context. In order to keep the device from interfering or encumbering the gestures of a working orchestra conductor, 16 sensors were incorporated into the CJ. Unlike many gesture-sensing systems, the CJ not only was able to gather positional and accelerational data, but it also was able to sense muscle tension from several locations on each of the conductor’s arms.

Three professional conductors and 3 students served as the study’s participants during 12 hours of rehearsals and performances. The results of an analysis of the data revealed 35 significant features that seemed to reflect intuitive and natural gestural tendencies.

Additionally, results indicated that muscle tension and respiration signals reflected several significant and expressive characteristics of a conductor’s gestures. Furthermore, the results allowed the researchers to present nine hypotheses about human musical expression, including ideas about efficiency, intentionality, polyphony, signal-to-noise ratios, and musical flow state. Finally, the study described the Gesture Construction as a musical software system that analyzed and performed music in real-time based on the performer’s gestures and breathing signals, all to form features that could be used to generate real-time expressive effects by shaping the beats, tempos, articulations, dynamics, and note lengths in a musical score.

In another article, Nakra (2002) described several novel methods that have been developed to interpret and synthesize music to accompany conducting gestures. The

Conductor’s Jacket, which was a sensor interface that gathers its wearer’s gestures and physiology, was the central technology used in the project. Using a bank of software filters to extract numerous features from the sensor signals, real-time expressive effects 56 of shaping note onsets, tempos, articulations, dynamics, and note lengths in a musical score, were generated. The end result was a flexible, expressive, real-time musical response. The purpose of the article was to describe the Conductor’s Jacket software system in detail, especially its architecture, algorithms, implementation issues, and resulting musical compositions.

In a study by Serrano (1993) the participants’ response to music conducting motions simulated on a computer screen were examined. Forty musicians and 40 nonmusicians responded to a point of light moving around on a computer screen simulating the tip of a conductor’s baton, and then were asked to press a button every time they perceived a beat portrayed in the motions. The study’s hypothesis was that the speed and direction of conducting motions from any given beat to the next play an important role in the observers’ ability to anticipate and synchronize their motor activity. The study’s experimental design allowed for an examination of visual perception of simulated conducting motions showing distinct motion behaviors in isolation from actual sound or other sensory cues. Results indicated that both musicians and nonmusicians responded with a high degree of uniformity to a type of conducting motion resembling the motion produced by gravitational forces. In other words, the conducting motions of the musicians and nonmusicians accelerated going down, decelerated going up, and followed a parabolic trajectory when moving to either side. However, a motion that is inversely proportional to the motion produced by gravity yielded mixed results in that nonmusicians responded more uniformly than did musicians, as the musicians were divided according to two distinct interpretations of where the beats occurred within the simulated conducting patterns. 57

Conducting Competencies

Verbal vs. Nonverbal Communication

Conducting an orchestra, whether it is a group of student or professional musicians, employs the use of both verbal and nonverbal communication skills. Some of the world’s best conductors know how to wisely use these skills (especially their nonverbal skills), which have been perfected to such a point that the musicians who follow those conductors can do so with little effort or confusion. Thus, the development of proper recognition and response to common conducting-gestures as nonverbal communication methods among public school music students could be a worthy goal for many music teachers.

Eye contact, facial expressions, and body movement. Conducting behavior also includes what a conductor does with his or her eyes, face, and body while in front of an ensemble (or even what the musicians’ eyes should be doing while watching a conductor). The following researchers specifically addressed the attributes of eye contact, facial expressions, and body movement.

Byo (2001) wished to examine student musician’s eye contact with a conductor in an attempt to systematically obtain data relative to the following question: During what musical events and under what conductor-related conditions do student musicians tend to look at a conductor? Results included that slower-paced music provided opportunities for student musicians to look at the conductor that faster-paced music did not. Additionally, music characterized by frequent change was more conducive to watching the conductor than static music. Finally, the participants’ rate of eye contact was nearly the same 58 regardless of whether the conductor looked at the group or at the score. This finding seemed to indicate that looking at the conductor is more of a function of printed part issues than conductor influence. These conclusions were based on the observation that a group of high school musicians looked at the conductor much more frequently during a chorale than during a march.

The purpose of a study by Carvalho (1997) was to explore the relationship between conductor use or nonuse of a score, and choral students’ attitude and attentiveness. There were four experimental conditions: Score/Low eye contact (SL),

Score/High eye contact (SH), No score/Low eye contact (NL), and No score/High eye contact (NH). The observation of video-recorded performances was used to assess the student participants’ attentiveness, and their attitude toward the two approaches to conducting was examined through a researcher-developed questionnaire. Findings included the following. First, the participants’ patterns of eye contact were consistent across treatments for each of the performed pieces observed. Second, the behavior of the participants seemed to be more conditioned to aspects related to the structural organization of the experimental pieces than to the factors of the study. Finally, third, the overall pattern of responses to the questionnaire seemed to indicate that the participants generally favored both eye-to-eye communication with the conductor as well as the security of a score.

As a continuation or contribution to the research on physical movement as a choral rehearsal technique with older students, Chagnon (2001) thoroughly examined two previous empirical studies to better understand the researchers’ respective theories as to why movement is a viable teaching tool, and how it can be used effectively in rehearsals. 59

From the previous research, a database of movement activities was created, and then a collective case study was designed to investigate how three additional choral directors used movement-based activities. The observation of rehearsals and conducting interviews with both the directors and members of their respective choirs served as the method of collecting data. The findings were compared with the database to determine whether any additional physical activities were used. Results indicated that indeed movement is an effective instructional technique in choir rehearsals and that it encompasses a variety of bodily-based activities ranging from simple finger gestures to whole-body motions such as walking. Additionally, results suggested that physical activities are a viable teaching tool in choral rehearsals with adult learners regardless of the level of their vocal and musical skills. Furthermore, one’s creativity is the only limiting factor on the choice of movements so that conductors can develop their own pedagogy based on their comfort level as well as their needs using movement.

The purpose of a research project by Dan (2005) was to explore the use of facial expressions for instrumental conductors by way of examining psychological studies, acting and miming philosophies, and conducting and music education studies. An important focus of this study was to discern whether facial expressions effectively expressed conductors’ intent. A second focus included the exploration of the effectiveness of a set of exercises based on ideas from philosophical and theoretical approaches to facial expressions. Three conducting students were trained by the researcher using a set of suggested encoding exercises, as well as an exercise for decoding facial expressions for the ensembles. A video-recording of the encoding exercises occurred, as well as the decoding exercises, and both were analyzed. The 60 encoding exercises were deemed as effective through observations of the participant’s progress, based on three variables: participant’s personality, level of stick technique, and pacing of their development. Results of the decoding exercise indicated that the orchestra members’ perceptions of facial expressions were varied. However, the orchestra members were able to distinguish negative expressions from positive expressions, and they were able to distinguish high energy or strong expressions from low energy or weak expressions.

Frederickson (1994) attempted to determine the effect of losing a visual

(conductor) and/or aural (ensemble) stimulus on the ability of band members to perform a piece of music with an ensemble. Undergraduate band members (N = 120) who individually played their instrument while watching a video-recording of a conductor and listening to a band via headphones served as the study’s participants. The experimental groups lost the sound of the band, the picture of the conductor, or both, after the first 16 measures. The control group continued to watch and hear the full stimulus recording, which resulted in their receiving the highest accuracy ratings. The group that could only see the conductor was rated almost identically with the group who could only hear the ensemble, and both were rated higher than the group that lost the entire stimulus. An analysis for instances of eye contact with the conductor occurred by evaluating the video- recordings of the control group of participants, who looked up at the conductor nearly

28% of the time.

Fried (2001) addressed nonverbal communication for teachers by specifically discussing hand and arm gestures, facial expressions, and whole body language and 61 stance. Because Fried is a string player, teacher, and conductor of youth symphonies, his comments were especially appropriate for the present study.

Gillis (2008) discussed how the effective conductor is an individual who is able to demonstrate clear technique and a repertoire of gestures germane to all styles of music.

Cueing with a variety of physical gestures (e.g., hands, head, face, etc.), the independence of right and left hands, and communicating through nonverbal means (eye contact, facial expression, stance, carriage, presence, etc.) were all addressed in the article. Additionally,

Gillis mentioned the need for a conductor to show more and talk less in rehearsal. A conductor’s “showing” not only includes utilizing an array of gestures for a variety of styles, but also expressing the music itself. Additionally, minimizing verbal comments to only include those pertaining to information that cannot be shown on the podium, such as historical information, analogies, and musical concepts, was also discussed.

The main purpose of a study by Harden (2000) was to determine the effect of conductor eye contact on ratings of overall conductor effectiveness. Participants of the study included 339 high school choral students, whose video-recorded performances were analyzed from observer’s responses. There were four different conditions of eye contact that were analyzed: constant, nearly constant but not present at significant points

(i.e., entrance cues and cadence points), moderate overall but present at significant points, and no eye contact. The conductor ratings were then analyzed to determine how various levels of eye contact related to each observer’s overall evaluation. Additionally, the study also examined how observer familiarity with the composition being conducted may affect a rating of the conductor. Results indicated significant differences in conductor ratings as a function of the eye contact condition. Additionally, overall moderate and 62 constant eye contact conditions were rated significantly higher than the other two categories. Furthermore, participants’ written responses confirmed the aforementioned finding, but the order was reversed with “constant” receiving a higher percentage (75%) of positive comments, compared to 71% of the comments associated with “moderate overall” eye contact. Finally, results indicated that previous knowledge of the composition produced significantly higher conductor effectiveness ratings. Thirty-seven percent of the responses to the question, “Which factor most affected your rating?” mentioned eye contact. Twenty-four percent listed facial expression, 21% listed gesture, and 18% listed other factors. Sixty-three percent of those who listed eye contact as their main influence also mentioned eye contact at least 50% of the time under best or worst aspect during the four conducting presentations.

In a study by Orman (2010), the effect of virtual reality immersion on eye contact, directional focus, and focus of attention of 38 undergraduate conductors was examined.

After a pretest conducting trial of a live ensemble, the experimental groups were immersed in a virtual ensemble environment with (n = 13) or without (n = 12) motion- tracking. The control participants (n = 13) did not receive any virtual reality exposure, but all participants completed focus of attention questionnaires and live ensemble posttest conducting. Results indicated a significant increase in mean eye contact and directional focus from pre- to posttest for all groups. However, among groups there were no significant differences, nor were there significant interactions. An analysis of the focus of attention questionnaires indicated that the results of virtual reality participants with motion-tracking were nonsignificant, even though their attention focused more on eye contact than the participants of the other groups. Future decisions regarding appropriate 63 adaptations of virtual reality for music teaching and learning could benefit from the results of this study.

VanWeelden (2002) attempted to investigate whether perceptions of a conductor’s body type were a factor when judging the conductor and ensemble performances. Additionally, relationships between the conductor’s visual appearance characteristics (e.g., eye contact, facial expression, and posture) and ensemble performance ratings, evaluator confidence in the conductor, and overall effectiveness of the conductor, were explored. Results indicated that neither the conductor’s body type nor the gender or college major of the evaluators affected the ratings of the ensemble performances or of the conductor. However, when the conductors were viewed in a certain order, performance ratings were affected. Even though eye contact was not strongly related to performance ratings, there were moderate to moderately strong relationships between the performance ratings and conductor facial expression, evaluators' confidence in the conductor, conductor posture, and overall conducting effectiveness.

In another study (VanWeelden & MacGee, 2007), the effect of musical style and conductor race on perceptions of ensemble and conductor performance was examined. As part of the study, evaluators rated a White conductor-led ensemble higher than a Black conductor-led ensemble conducting the same prerecorded excerpt of Western art music.

The Black conductor ensemble was rated higher than the White conductor ensemble when conducting the same prerecorded excerpt of spiritual music. The same held true for conductors’ body expressions, eye contact, facial expression, and posture ratings when the White group conducted the Western art excerpt, and for when the Black group 64 conducted the spiritual excerpt. Results indicated that music style and conductor race significantly affected ratings of ensemble and conductor performance, but the race of the evaluator was not a significant factor in the evaluations of ensemble performance or conductor body expressions. Thus, this study addressed the issue of certain biases with respect to music genre.

Wöllner (2008) investigated the perception of conductors’ body movements under different viewing conditions with a multimodal within-subjects design. Four excerpts from a Beethoven symphony were video-recorded with five conductors of differing levels of experience and musical expressiveness. Three conditions were manipulated on the video-recordings as follows: (a) only the face was visible, (b) only the arms were visible, and (c) the whole body was visible in simulated peripheral vision. Without sound, 127 musically trained or untrained participants first watched randomly presented video sequences according to the aforementioned conditions. For each sequence, the participants were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert-type scale both affective (emotional) and communicative items (i.e., the general expressiveness of each video sequence, the subjectively perceived amount of information of the video sequence, the arousal present in the conductor’s movements, and the valence of the communicated emotions). Then, complete video sequences with sound were presented as a reference and were also rated by the participants. Results indicated that the video sequences that presented the conductors’ faces resembled the reference significantly better than the arms only or the peripheral conditions with respect to expressiveness ratings. The sequences showing the arms were judged as more expressive and clear. For the movements of all of the conductors, clear interpretation differences between the four Beethoven symphony 65 excerpts appeared even for the conditions without sound. Differences between the conductors were related to their affective or emotional behavior and to the evaluations of the four conducting excerpts. Overall, the results generally highlight the importance of facial behavior for expressive conducting.

The purpose of a study by Yarbrough and Price (1981) was to examine video- recorded teacher and performer behavior during several high school ensemble rehearsals to determine the predictability of frequency of off-task behavior by several carrier variables, (e.g., performance time, nonperformance time, frequency of social and academic approvals and disapprovals, stops, complete and incomplete teaching units, errors, and teacher eye contact). Six high school ensemble teachers and randomly selected students from two mixed choruses, three bands, and one orchestra were the participants in this study. Using two cameras and a special effects generator for a split- screen effect, video-recordings were made for later analyses. Using a multiple regression analysis, the predictability of off-task behavior carrier variables was examined, and then using a repeated measures design, the variability of off-task behavior caused by individual teacher differences was accounted for. Results showed a strong relationship between off-task behavior and individual teachers, teacher eye contact, and nonperformance activity.

As has been described by the aforementioned researchers, eye contact, facial expressions, and a conductor’s body movements (which are all forms of conductor nonverbal communication) all contribute greatly to the overall conducting presentation.

However, one of the most important parts of conducting behavior often occurs in a conductor’s gestures, which is the topic of the next section. 66

Gestures. Clear and concise conducting is most often demonstrated in the conductor’s arm and hand gestures (and their intensity). Clear and consistent gestures should be developed by all conductors, especially those working with student musicians.

The following researchers demonstrated just how important conducting gestures are, especially in terms of how they affect a music ensemble.

Byo (1990) attempted to determine whether high and low contrasts of gestural intensity could be determined by college undergraduate beginning conductors, and whether independent observers could recognize those contrasts. A researcher-developed video-recording showing beginning conductors in 1-minute demonstrations of intensity contrasts was viewed by high school music students, undergraduate music majors, and graduate music majors, who labeled each 15-second interval according to perceived contrast of intensity, and indicated an overall intensity rating for each conductor. Results showed a 775 correct response rate, and analysis suggested a significant difference in mean correct response between all other participants and the graduate group.

Additionally, there were no significant differences in mean intensity ratings among participants, but there was a high degree of reliability among the four experimental groups on overall intensity ratings.

Davidson and Liao (2007) conducted a study in which they attempted to explore the link between gesture (hand and arm movement) and voice when teaching children and to examine how the children used those gestures in singing. To collect information from the respondents, semistructured interviewing techniques and observation were used on 5 children individually. Results indicated there was a link between childrens’ singing voices and their use of gesture by observing the Dalcrozian mirror and follow games. 67

Some of the specific gesture patterns included “pushing, raising hand, side swinging, ear side circling, gathering, flicking, swinging side to side, and pushing down and releasing,” all names that the children of the study used to describe the gesture patterns. The gesture functions would be defined as being for focus, guidance, support, good intonation, and sensation. Additionally, for a more effective gesture and a more successful sound, some specific teaching techniques were required. Most importantly, gesture techniques helped the children to not only improve their vocal techniques, but also their vocal faults.

In Ford’s (2001) study, both conscious and unconscious gestures of the hands and arms in general society were discussed, as well as the possible benefits of using conducting gestures that draw upon the general gestures used in nonverbal communication. An important conclusion of the study is that even though the introduced new approach to conducting gesture is not a replacement of traditional conducting patterns, it does offer a way for a conductor to apply thoughtful applications of nonverbal, communicative gestures to conducting. These in turn not only can enhance and clarify a conductor’s musical intent, they could also increase the efficiency of rehearsals.

In a study by Fuelberth (2003), the effect of left-hand conducting-gesture on inappropriate vocal tension in singers was examined. Singers (N =103) from three populations of varying levels of expertise performed a musical selection while watching a video-recorded example of a conductor using a variety of left-hand conducting-gestures.

Six left-hand conducting conditions were examined which included the following: (a) left hand, no change; (b) left hand, fisted gesture; (c) left hand, palm up; (d) left hand, palm down; (e) left hand, stabbing gesture; and (f) left hand, sideways, phrase-shaping gesture. 68

With only the right hand maintaining a steady beat pattern serving as the control measures, the experimental measures included both the right-hand beat pattern and the various left-hand conducting conditions. Results indicated significant differences in vocal tension ratings for all conducting conditions except the palm down condition. The fisted and stabbing gestures generated the highest t-ratios. Using the Continuous Response

Digital Interface (CRDI) system, the researcher conducted a post hoc analysis of tension responses of 30 singers with the highest mean difference scores. Those results demonstrated that the general shape of the data stream was similar for all conducting conditions during the control measures and a varying increase in inappropriate vocal tension levels for the experimental measures. The judges used in the study indicated their reasons for high inappropriate vocal tension ratings by circling perceived characteristics of tension on an evaluation sheet. The most frequently cited were visible characteristics demonstrated by tension in the face, jaw, neck, and shoulders, along with audible characteristics including fluctuation in intonation, difficulty executing higher pitches, and harsh tone quality. Finally, evidence of tension in one muscle group was almost always associated with evidence of tension in another group, indicating that tension may have a domino effect for the singer.

The purpose of a study by Fuller (2000) was to assess managed preparatory gestures and their viability as an alternative to other common gestural approaches to short spaces between phrases that are a fraction of the unit pulse and that include an off-the- beat release. Forty-eight community and college singers were randomly assigned to one of three choirs to perform two unison examples—one in duple meter and the other in compound meter, both containing off-the-beat releases. Using four gestural treatments, 69 each of the three choirs was video-recorded singing both examples. Subsequently, without knowledge of which treatment was used, 21 experienced adjudicators were asked to assess the sung examples for precision of releases, unity of breathing, precision of entrances, and expressiveness at the phrase punctuation points being evaluated. A one- way analysis of variance indicated statistically significant overall differences for unity of breathing, precision of releases, precision of entrances, and expressiveness in both examples. Statistically significant differences between managed preparatory gestures and metric conducting patterns resulted from a series of post-hoc t-tests, indicating that managed preparatory gestures had the higher mean score.

Gallops (2005) examined the effect of nonverbal conducting gesture on musicians’ stylistic response and whether conducting gestures alone elicit consistent musical responses from musicians. Utilizing a Gestural Response Instrument (GRI) for an analysis, it was determined that some experienced conductors successfully utilized nonverbal conducting gestures to communicate specific musical interpretations, even if the use of verbal and facial cues was eliminated. Results showed that the existence of a perpetual contract that facilitates nonverbal communication is expressed through gestural conducting. Most importantly, however, is that some experienced conductors lacked the gestural technique and vocabulary necessary to convey prescribed musical decisions while others were very proficient at it.

The purpose of a study by Gambetta (2005) was to introduce and test the effectiveness of a unique, interdisciplinary approach to conducting gesture based on key principles of Laban Movement Analysis (LMA). Four conductors of varying levels of proficiency and backgrounds served as the study’s participants, who after a pretest 70 conducting performance of the opening 154 measures of Beethoven’s Overture to

Coriolanus, Op. 62, completed 5 hours of LMA training administered by the investigator.

This training required the participants to use homework assignments and in-class participatory exercises as the means to incorporate the newly acquired skills into their conducting. Both the pretest and posttest performances were video-recorded, and then the data were analyzed by two expert panels of two conductors and two LMA specialists, respectively. A poststudy interview of each participant conducted by the investigator collected a third channel of data included in the findings. Results indicated that significant changes in movement choices and an expanded range of movement possibilities for all 4 participants could be attributed to LMA training. Not only did the conductor panel concur that the changes they observed constitute a positive development among the 4 participants, but the participants themselves agreed the LMA training was of great value. Thus, an important conclusion of the study was that LMA instruction could be a valuable addition to any conductor’s training regardless of experience, proficiency, or area of specialization.

Karpicke (1987) performed a study that set out to accomplish two purposes: (a) to develop an instrument to assess the gesture capability of orchestra conductors in direct relation to ensemble response, and (b) to explore the relationship between gesture effectiveness and performance quality. The following procedure was utilized. First, a panel of experts reviewed a list of conductor gesture functions, characteristics, and contexts that had been synthesized by the researcher from the conducting literature, which resulted in a list of 10 conductor gestures that became the base for the Gesture

Response Instrument (GRI). Second, 20 high school orchestra directors were video- 71 recorded under controlled performance conditions where 10 of them were designated as

“stronger” gesturers and the other 10 were designated “weaker” by three music administrators Third, a unique scoring method was developed for the GRI which takes both conducting gesture and immediate orchestra response into account. Fourth, using the

GRI, four trained observers scored each of the 20 video-recorded performances. Finally, fifth, the results of a generalizability analysis determined that the GRI is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used to assess conductor gesture effectiveness in relation to ensemble response, and that its use may be recommended to assess gesture/response capability in a variety of musical contexts and performance conditions. Additionally, the

GRI could be used as a conductor training feedback tool.

Kelly (1997) investigated the effects of conducting-instruction on beginning band students’ performance of legato and staccato musical styles, and phrasing and dynamics.

One hundred fifty-one band students from eight beginning band ensembles were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. After they were pretested as a replicator to help control for any possible biases, the experimental bands received 10 minutes of basic conducting instruction per class during a 10-week period. Posttest results demonstrated that individuals in the experimental bands improved significantly more than did the individuals in the control bands only in their rhythmic performance, rhythm-reading, and phrasing abilities. No differences were found with regard to legato and staccato, dynamic performance, or overall performance. However, Kelly concluded that conducting was a useful tool in teaching rhythm and phrasing in an ensemble setting.

In a study by Kolesnik (2004), a system providing a set of tools that contains extensive functionality for identification, classification, and performance with conducting 72 gestures was proposed as a uniform process that could be applied toward analysis of both indicative and expressive gestures. Training and recognition procedures were applied toward both right-hand beat- and amplitude-indicative gestures, as well as left-hand expressive gestures. A continuous recognition of right-hand gestures was incorporated into a real-time gesture analysis and performance system in both the Eyesweb and

Max/MSP/Jitter environments.

Lewis (1977) developed a Choral Conductor Observation System (CCOS) in a study which attempted to provide a more specific form of feedback using both video- recordings and a specific set of objectives to look for as college conducting students evaluated their own conducting behaviors. Results of the study indicated that the CCOS could serve as an extra form of feedback, which could be used to objectify a conducting instructor’s evaluation of student progress.

The purpose of a dissertation by Lonis (1993) was to develop a model-conducting course grounded in learning theory. A variety of textbooks on conducting were analyzed to determine the types of gestures most commonly taught and the methods most widely used to teach them. Then, Benjamin Bloom’s research on taxonomic structures, mastery learning, and automaticity was applied to the teaching of gestures of a model course that was developed and applied at the University of Missouri in Columbia. An important finding of the study was that using Bloom’s theories to teach conducting gestures could enhance the learning of those conducting skills.

Luck and Toiviainen (2006) examined the features of conductors’ gestures with which ensemble musicians synchronize their performances and developed automatic feature extraction methods for the analysis of audio and movement data. To record the 73 gestures of an expert conductor directing professional musicians over a 20-minute period, an optical motion capture system was used. Additionally, a simultaneous audio recording was made of the performance of the professional musicians’ ensemble, and this recording was synchronized with the motion capture data. Four excerpts were chosen to be analyzed, two in which the conductor communicated the beat with high clarity, and two in which the beat was communicated with low clarity. Twelve movement variables were computationally extracted from the data and cross-correlated with the pulse of the ensemble’s performance. Results of the analysis indicated that the ensemble’s performance tended to be most highly synchronized with periods of maximal deceleration along the conductor’s trajectory, followed by periods of high vertical velocity.

In another study where Luck was the principal researcher (Luck & Nte, 2008), the characteristics of conductors’ temporal gestures and musicians’ ability to synchronize with them were investigated. A new approach of studying conductor gestures and conductor-musician synchronization was developed and a first experiment to demonstrate the feasibility of that approach was carried out. Additionally, a computer-based environment capable of manipulating and displaying conducting gestures, as well as recording participants’ responses, was also developed resulting in the creation of several new pieces of computer software. An important conclusion of the study was that the experiment successfully demonstrated the feasibility of the new approach.

In a third study, Luck (2010) built upon previous work that demonstrated a visual channel was more informative than an audio channel in the perceptual judgments of a performer’s level of expression. In this study, the relationships between the kinematics

(or motions) of conductors’ expressive gestures and the ratings of perceived expression 74 were investigated. Point-light representations of two professional conductors were presented to participants who provided ratings of perceived valence, activity, power, and overall expression using a virtual slider interface. The relationships between these ratings and 11 kinematic or motion variables were examined using linear regression procedures.

Results indicated that higher levels of expressivity were conveyed by gestures characterized by increased amplitude, greater variance, and higher speed of movement.

By using an exploratory research method, Miller (1988) employed a posttest only control-group design to investigate the relationship of training in Laban Movement

Theory (which is a method and language for interpreting, describing, visualizing, and notating all types of human movement) to the ability of college conducting students to gesturally communicate selected parameters of musical interpretation, dynamics, articulation, and tempo, at the end of one semester of conducting study. Participants were

60 conducting students from the first-semester conducting classes at four universities. A panel of experienced conductors (or teachers) evaluated the gestural entering behavior level of the participants by viewing video-recordings of them and employing the researcher-designed Conductor Evaluation Guide I. A second evaluation was made at the end of the first semester by the same panel, again by viewing a video-recording of the participants’ conducting and using the researcher-designed Conductor Evaluation guide

II. A two-factor Analysis of Covariance was then used to evaluate the data. Results indicated there was a significant interaction for the treatment (Laban Movement Theory training) versus dependent variable (conducting students’ ability to communicate gesturally). However, among treatment cells for the dependent variable in post-hoc comparisons, no significant interaction was found. Furthermore, no significant interaction 75 was found for treatment versus entering behavior level, which indicated that for all three levels of entering behavior, the experimental treatment seems to be consistent. Finally, an investigation of the means of treatment cells adjusted for the covariate of entering behavior indicates that the Laban-influenced groups achieved higher means than the control groups. In short, the use of Laban Movement Theory in conducting classes appears to be a promising area for further research.

Napoles (2006) pointed out in her study that ideally, most musical communications should occur with conducting-gestures (especially at the high school level) and that when certain types of teacher verbalization occurs for too long (e.g., preaching about the beauty of classical music or dealing with discipline problems) students are more likely to indulge in off-task behavior.

In another recent study, Napoles (2011) examined the relative effectiveness of two forms of communication: verbal instructions and conducting-gestures. While watching a video-recording of a conductor and reading verbal instructions, 44 high school choral students performed Music Alone Shall Live. Experienced choral teachers (N

= 30) then listened and rated the articulation and word stress of the students on a Likert- type scale. Results showed that experienced teachers perceived more staccato articulation and word stress when the students responded to verbal instructions rather than conducting gestures. Additionally, results indicated the experienced teachers also perceived even more staccato and word stress when both the verbal instructions and conducting gestures were used together in performances, thereby justifying the need for conductors to send consistent messages through both verbal and nonverbal (gestural) means. 76

The purpose of a study by Patterson (1984) was to describe conducting gestures used by high school choral conductors to communicate selected technical qualities, performance styles, and expressive events. A researcher-constructed observation instrument (Observation Notation Chart) using descriptions of conducting gestures mentioned in conducting textbooks and research studies on conducting, as well as suggestions from choral conducting experts, was employed. The four most common means (gestures) of expression were: body, arm, hand/finger, and head/face. For each of the following technical qualities, the frequency of gesture usage was calculated: (a) balance among parts, (b) desired tone quality, (c) precise intonation, (d) proper diction, and (e) adequate breath support. Additionally, commonality of use among conductors was tabulated for the styles of legato, staccato, and marcato, as well as the expressive events of accelerando, rallentando, crescendo, and diminuendo. Eight conductors of

SATB choirs, which were both video- and audio-recorded, performed 22 selections, representing a broad sampling of high school choral literature. Experts in choral conducting were then used to select incidents of technical qualities and performance styles, and to verify observations of expressive events. Commonality of usage and frequency charts were developed to display the observation data. Results indicated that some gestures, especially facial, were used by over 50% of the conductors, and a description was provided of common gestures for each of the technical qualities, performance styles, and expressive events.

The effect of psychological conducting, as per Elizabehth A. H. Green in The

Modern Conductor (1987), on the conducting abilities of beginning undergraduate conducting studies was the subject of a study by Powell (2008). The students (or 77 participants) were members of two sections of the same college introductory instrumental conducting course. The treatment group wrote and conducted psychological conducting exercises as part of the course curriculum, while the control group only followed the exact same course syllabus, schedule, and class activities of the treatment group. A pretest and a posttest consisting of the same four musical excerpts was administered to both groups. A panel of three expert conductor-teachers evaluated video-recordings of the pre- and posttests for each participant on four technical and four expressive parameters using the researcher-designed Conducting Ability Measure. An ANOVA with repeated measures indicated that there were no significant differences in the total overall mean gain score for the left-hand parameter for each excerpt and an overall higher mean gain scores for the releases parameter. On the beat-pattern, dynamics, articulation, phrasing, and total expressive parameters, the treatment group obtained higher mean gain scores than the control group, although those differences were not statistically significant. The

Conducting Ability Measure was deemed a highly reliable instrument for ranking student conductor performances as a result of reliability analyses.

In an article by Prime (2008), a few practical exercises designed to teach students how to respond to conducting-gestures and to save time in rehearsal by eliminating unnecessary verbal commands were outlined. Some of the more important suggestions were as follows: (a) take 5 minutes to teach a basic four-pattern, and then try 2/4, 3/4,

5/4, or even 7/4; (b) make sure the downbeat (or beat one) and the last upbeat (or preparatory beat) are obvious; (c) have students count out loud while watching a conducting pattern, but then change within 15 seconds; (d) go to a fluid legato pattern and then a staccato pattern to see if the students respond by counting in similar styles; (e) 78 go to dynamic changes while the students are still counting aloud; (f) next go to random ff single-note cues and have the students shout those ff’s; (g) then move to having the students play an easy scale, first with four quarter notes on the same scale degree, but after a few seconds change tempos; (h) next move to single quarter notes per scale degree, and then mix in an occasional 3, 5, or 7 pattern; (i) after a few days, do not speak very much, and remove six words from your vocabulary—faster, slower, louder, softer, shorter, and longer; (j) begin warming up on scales that are in the keys of some of the group’s programmed pieces; and (k) continue to practice minimum verbiage during rehearsals.

Wöllner (2008) investigated the perception of expressive movements used by conductors, as seen from three different positions with a multimodal, repeated-measures design. Observers evaluated the video-recordings of several conductors with musical training using continuous and retrospective measures. Results indicated that watching conductors from the woodwind and first violin sections (frontal and left-hand side) is perceptually more informative compared to viewing conductors from the right-hand side.

Conductors’ expressive musical intentions, even in “visual-only” video sequences, were easily observed from the frontal position. Additionally, cross-correlations between the quantitative characteristics of conductors’ movements and observers’ continuous expressiveness responses revealed a tendency for different response time lags, which in turn were related to the general affective behavior of individual conductors.

Conducting gestures indeed affect an ensemble. Whether it is before, during, or after conducting, the conductor is constantly using nonverbal cues to communicate his or her musical interpretations to the members of that ensemble. 79

Perception Studies

Not only does a conductor have to be concerned with how to communicate musical interpretation through nonverbal means, he or she has to be aware of how those communications will be perceived by both the members of the musical ensemble directed, and the audience who will be listening and/or watching the ensemble’s performance. The next section reports the studies of many researchers who addressed issues related to the perception of conductors.

Aesthetic responses. The abstract feeling of emotions is very much a part of the human experience, especially in terms of experiencing live musical performances. Thus, the perceptions of both the performing musicians and the audience members are very much connected to aesthetic responses. The following researchers investigated such responses with regard to peoples’ perceptions of musical tension, intensity, or expressiveness.

The purpose of a study by Adams (1994) was to investigate the effect of visual/aural conditions on the participants’ emotional response to music. The participants consisted of two groups, musicians and nonmusicians, who were randomly assigned to three experimental groups: visual only, aural only, and visual/aural. An audio-recorded excerpt of Mahler’s Symphony No. 2 served as the stimulus for the experimental conditions. The participants were asked to indicate the degrees of their felt emotional response by manipulating a Continuous Response Digital Interface (CRDI) dial during the stimulus condition. Results indicated no significant difference between musicians and nonmusicians for the aural only and visual/aural conditions. However, for the visual only condition, a significant difference was found. Using a qualitative analysis of individual 80 and collective response graphs, all of the participants differentiated across the music stimulus excerpt. In addition, in response to listening to music and to listening/watching the video-recording, there were subtle differences among both the musicians and nonmusicians.

Napoles (2011) examined the influences of presentation modes on perceptions of expressive choral performance. Four choral selections, each conducted by a different conductor in two ways, using expressive conducting gestures and using strict conducting gestures, served as the stimulus recording. There were three groups of participants: (a) those who listened to eight audio excerpts, (b) those who listened and reviewed the conductor from the rear, and (c) those who listened and viewed the conductor from the front. The participants then answered questions concerning tone quality, expressivity, and the overall performance. Results indicated significant differences between conducting style and presentation modes. Performances where the conductor was viewed from the front were rated lowest. Participants rated performances conducted with an expressive gesture higher than performances conducted with a strict gesture in all three presentation modes.

The purposes of a study by Peddell (2004) were to (a) investigate how the participants’ expressiveness ratings were influenced by modes of conductor behavior, (b) evaluate and identify factors that influenced the participants’ ratings, and (c) assess the effectiveness of a Personal Digital Assistant with Continual Responses Digital Interface software to measure participants’ expressiveness ratings. The participants were made up of undergraduate nonmusic majors, undergraduate music majors, and graduate music majors enrolled in a large Midwest state university. The most important finding was that 81 participants with previous conducting experience and/or higher levels of college music education commented more on conductor behaviors than musical elements, and that the opposite occurred for participants without conducting experience and/or with lower levels of college music education. It appears that experience increases sensitivity to conductor behaviors.

In a second study by Peddell (2008), three issues were investigated: how participants’ real-time ratings of perceived expressiveness were influenced by observing conducted musical stimuli from five observational perspectives, which factors may have influenced participants’ expressive ratings, and the assessment of the validity and reliability of the Personal Digital Assistance with Continuous Response Digital Interface software used in this study. Results indicated that the factors of “musical experience” along with “stimuli and conductor behavior” were markedly reliable and moderately valid for measuring continual response rate.

Perceptions of conductors. Nonmusical attributes, such as the appropriateness of a conductor’s stage behavior or dress, his or her physical attractiveness, or even the length of time that a person spends listening, can influence performance ratings (in a contest or festival setting) and others’ perceptions of musical performances. Several researchers addressed these perception issues.

Brittin (1992) explored the accuracy and speed with which viewers identified conductor beat patterns that accelerated, decelerated, or remained constant. Both music majors and nonmusic majors watched a professional conductor on a prerecorded video with no audio stimuli. Results indicated that the music majors were significantly more accurate at detecting tempo decrease than tempo increase, than the nonmusic majors. 82

Additionally, the music majors were significantly more accurate at detecting deceleration.

Nonmusic majors were significantly more accurate at identifying acceleration. For correct answers, the participant response time averaged about 6 seconds. Slower tempos’ decelerations and faster tempos’ accelerations appeared more easily identified as compared to the opposite condition. These results have some implications for both performers and conductors.

Even though a study by Duke and Henninger (2002) did not specifically address school music groups, they tested whether observer’s perceptions of private music lessons were affected by the type of verbalizations used by teachers to make corrections. A comparison of verbal corrections that were labeled as directive statements and those that were labeled as negative feedback statements resulted in no meaningful differences in the study’s participants after viewing two different types of video-recorded private lessons,

(one using directive statements and the other negative feedback statements). Interestingly, on a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, the participants rated both lessons highly positively.

Additionally, few participants identified any aspect of the teacher’s feedback when they were asked to cite differences between the two lessons.

Johnson, Fredrickson, Achey, and Gentry (2003) conducted a study that systematically examined the relationship between identified nonverbal elements of the conducting and assessments of student and professional conductor performances. An attempt was made to pair five basic conducting elements (e.g., right arm movement, left arm movement, eye contact, facial expression, and body movement) with the overall perception of the conducting performance and the focus of attention during that performance. There were three groups of participants who viewed excerpts of 15 student 83 and professional conductors. Results indicated that the right arm was the most consequential element for student conductors, and that the left arm and facial expression were more important for the professionals.

In another study authored by Johnson, Darrow, and Eason (2008), an attempt to determine if a relationship existed between skilled and novice music teachers’ nonverbal behaviors and their perceived effectiveness and rapport was made. The study’s participants were observed under one of four conditions (audio/video, audio-alone, video- alone, and transcript-only of teaching session). Results indicated that the evaluations of rapport and effectiveness were highly rated. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses suggested that teachers’ ratings and comments were influenced by the teachers’ ability to observe their own nonverbal behaviors.

The purpose of a survey by Lanier (2006) was to discover if there was a need to reconsider requirements that conducting students should only learn right-handed conducting. A survey instrument was distributed on two worldwide “on-line” information forums to conductors, performers, teachers, and students. There were three main questions that the survey attempted to answer: (a) What was the attitude of students, teachers, performers, and conductors toward right- or left-handed conductors? (b) Was there a relationship between handedness of conductors and predictable success beyond the college classroom? and (c) Was there a relationship between current teaching trends in musical conducting and those in educational philosophy and technique regarding right- and left-hand dominance in students? Results indicated that 6.8% of female musicians and 17.9% of male musicians considered themselves to be left-handed, but 18.3% of females and 18.3% of males preferred the left hand for writing. Only 7.3% of male and 84

3.7% of female respondents conducted with the left as the dominant hand. Even though

98% of the respondents believed that children should be allowed to use their preferred hand in daily activities, 52% of the responding conducting instructors believed that students should be taught to conduct with the right hand. Many of the respondents

(46.6%) had performed under a left-handed conductor, although none of them preferred a left-handed conductor, but 62% did indicate they had no preference for either left- or right-handed conductors. Eleven percent of the respondents claimed to be left- handed conductors, and only 14% felt some degree of resistance to their left-handed style of conducting from ensembles. However, 33% of the left-handed conductors felt there was some limitation to their advancement as a conductor due to their left-handedness. Finally, even though 52% of those respondents who taught conducting required students to conduct with a prominent right hand, even if left-handed, 48% of those instructors did permit students to conduct left-handed. Further research was recommended to minimize the trauma and/or learning impairment that could result if a student is forced to switch from a dominant hand.

There were three research questions addressed in a study by Owens (1992).

Which of a variety of teaching/conducting presentations from the podium appealed to the individual members of the ensemble? Which of a variety of teaching/conducting presentations were believed by individual participants to facilitate the greatest retention of musical ideas? Which of a variety of teaching/conducting presentations did individual participants believe provided the greatest transfer of musical ideas? Interviews were held with 12 students as well as their teacher/conductors representing a middle school and college band. Two 30-minute ensemble rehearsals were video-recorded from which two 85 instructional episode recordings were made to help in the interviews. Results of the study indicated that of the 12 students, 6 claimed kinesthetic sensory modality preference, 5 preferred visual learning, and 1 preferred auditory learning. By and large, students believed the most appealing and effective rehearsals consisted of: (a) a variety of balance of instructional strategies that addressed each modality preference; (b) direct involvement for a majority of time; (c) expressive gestural language and multimodal instruction; (d) metaphor, key word illustrators, gesture, and dual tracing, all of which assisted in information processing, retention, and transfer, regardless of modality preference. In short, the college student participants felt that classes should focus on maintenance activities, while the middle school participants preferred more elaborative activities.

Silkebakken (1998) attempted to identify those visual attributes of the conductor that may enhance, detract, or have a neutral effect on the observer’s evaluation of the conductor’s performance. Through an analysis of responses among various subgroups that make up the listening audience, the identification of these attributes was determined.

Several band directors were video-recorded as they each conducted a simulated performance of the same audio-recorded band composition. Using a rating scale developed by the researcher and refined through a pilot study, a panel of university conductors rated each conductor’s performance. As a result, the three highest and the three lowest scoring conductors were selected for further evaluation by a larger group of observers, who were selected from four different populations (e.g., undergraduate nonmusic majors, undergraduate music majors, average concert-goers, and high school/college band directors). Out of 15 visual attribute categories, “expressiveness” alone was the best predictor of the rating given for Overall Visual Effect through a 86 multiple linear regression analysis. Significant differences between rear and front view ratings were found across all attributes and observer groups, implying that agreement between front and rear ratings depends on the attribute being rated as well as the discriminating ability of the rater. The “style” variable had the least effect on the ratings given for each attribute category and contributed to only two significant interactions for the total study. The greatest number of significant differences was provided by the

“observer group” variable, suggesting that group differences among observers were more likely to influence ratings than observed differences in conducting style.

Expressive vs. Nonexpressive Conducting

Exploring the artistic and expressive qualities of conducting represents another area of research. While it is true that most musicians prefer expressive conducting to nonexpressive conducting, numerous studies have been devoted to determining the extent of how much the expressiveness of a conductor can contribute to an ensemble’s performance.

General expressive vs. strict conducting. While regular time-beating seemingly can keep an ensemble together, and may even produce a flawless musical performance, both audiences and ensemble members have demonstrated strong preferences for expressive conducting. The following researchers specifically addressed the differences between expressive and “strict” conducting in various situations.

The purposes of a study by Krudop (2003) were to determine the effect of expressive ensemble response through the efficient use of kinesic gestures (body movements) in individual conducting styles, and to design a unit of study for undergraduate choral conducting students providing for the exploration of conducting 87 elements beyond the basic psychomotor, historical, organizational, and administrative components most commonly taught. The results of the respondents to a survey developed by the American Choral Directors Association identified the degree to which kinesics and/or emotionally expressive techniques of instruction were implemented into college undergraduate conducting classes. Additionally, the respondents provided copies of undergraduate choral conducting courses taking place at their institution, which were used to determine at what extent instruction in kinesics, or emotionally expressive conducting techniques, were being provided. Another survey developed by the Virginia

Music Educators Association was also used where the respondents identified gestures commonly used for eliciting emotional response, as well as to evaluate the importance of a variety of gestures to elicit both technical and emotionally expressive ensemble response. In addition to the surveys, eight choirs of varying age and experience levels were video-recorded performing a selected composition: first, with the conductor demonstrating a neutral level of gesture, and second, with the conductor employing a heightened level of kinesics. A panel of raters was used to evaluate the video-recordings in order to determine the level of difference attributed to the increased kinesics concentration. Results of the surveys, course content examinations, video-recorded rating panel observations, as well as conductor interviews were combined to design a unit of study to be used as a tool for expansion of the general undergraduate choral conducting course.

Mathers (2009) discussed the use of illustrators, affect displays, and regulators, which were considered to be categories of nonverbal communication through which conductors could employ a more varied approach to body use, gesture, and nonverbal 88 communication. These categories employ the use of a conductor’s arms and hands, face, eyes, and body, in a way that is currently being missed by many conducting programs.

Depending on the skill level of an ensemble, or the level of experience the ensemble has of the work at hand, or the requirements of the music, conductors can have a framework to apply the aforementioned categories by using three gestural modes: declamation, corrective, and narrative. More use of illustrators and affect displays by conductors at all levels of entering behavior could be made in order to access the declamatory mode, regulators, and affect displays, as well as the narrative mode. These modes in turn could promote the enhancement of expressive conducting beyond just the beat patterns.

The purpose of a study by Nagoski (2010) was to synthesize recent conducting research into a coherent model of how the brains of conductors, ensemble, and even audiences necessarily function synchronously. The resulting model incorporates several concepts. A conductor guides the ensemble through performance by embodying the emotional intent of the composer. Expression can be made and perceived through a conductor expressing emotion with the body, face, posture, and gesture, as well as the ensemble members perceiving, understanding, and translating, as well as the audience members perceiving the emotional content of a performance from cues in the sounds of the music and the bodies and movements of both the performers and the conductor. The process of sending and receiving said signals is the same as the process of any human communication which can be both spontaneous, unconscious messages and symbolic, intentional messages communicated simultaneously, and where the receiving ability is dependent on the aptitude for empathy and culturally relevant education of attention. The brain naturally is ready to send and receive communication. The study demonstrated the 89 concept of “communal music-making” as an activity that has been a part of human society due to its practical purposes as well as it taking advantage of the human brain’s neural proclivity by rewarding the music participant with an activation of the brain’s pleasure centers.

Effect of conducting on ensemble performance. A musical ensemble’s performance represents the culmination of several rehearsal sessions. The relationship between conductor and ensemble members, especially in terms of communicating interpretations and/or expressiveness, plays an important part in how well the performance is executed. The following researchers addressed the effects of conducting on the performances of ensembles, and other related issues.

The purposes of a study by Acklin (2009) were to provide an overview of experimental and descriptive research lines with the field of conducting, and to examine the effect of conducting on ensemble performance through the meta-analytic techniques of “best-evidence synthesis.” The best-evidence synthesis is a process that compares similar studies through the common statistical metric of effect size, where the results can be discussed for practical applications in the relative terms of small effect size, medium effect size, and large size. After reviewing over 400 research works of related literature,

23 studies, divided into five categories, met the “inclusion” criteria. While some research suggested that expressive conducting only influenced listener perception, other research indicated that specific conducting-gestures did, in fact, shape the sound of an ensemble.

There was a positive and large effect size in the area of conducting-gesture instruction with young ensembles. Other studies indicated that conducting-gestures were effective, but only within a combination of other rehearsal techniques, suggesting that many skills 90 define conductor competencies. Still other studies explored the synchronization between conductor and ensemble members suggesting that musicians with previous conducting experience maintain steadier tempos while following a conductor than musicians without conducting training.

The purpose of a study by Hawkins (1991) was to determine if large advanced choirs and beginning choirs of any size could be trained to sing effectively without the benefit of conducting gestures during performances. The study’s participants consisted of the directors and the members of 10 large advanced choirs, as well as the directors and the members of nine beginning choirs. Both the advanced and beginning choirs were randomly divided into experimental and control groups, where the experimental groups were directed and control groups were nonconducted. After 6 weeks of preparing two selections for festival use, an audio-recording was made of each participating choir.

Serving as independent judges, 10 experienced collegiate and high school choral directors were asked to evaluate the recordings using John Cooksey’s (1974) Revised Choral

Performance Rating Scale. There were no significant differences between group means for either the large advanced or beginning choirs on six different variables. The final conclusion was that under the conditions defined in the study, both the large advanced and beginning choirs in the specified geographic area were able to sing effectively without being conducted during performance.

House (1998) examined the effects of two conducting conditions, expressive and nonexpressive (time beating), on the expressive performance and attitudes of instrumental musicians. Additionally, the study sought to determine the effects of presentation order and interactions. The participants were senior trumpet players either 91 working toward a college music degree, or who at least had an equivalent background in professional performance experience. Each participant performed individually a newly composed etude under both conducting conditions while viewing a demonstration conductor on a video-recording. On a scale of 1 (little expression) to 10 (highly expressive), three expert judges assigned a single expressiveness score for each participant. The participant attitude data were collected using responses on a survey instrument. Results showed that expressive performances were rated higher under the expressive conducting treatment than under the nonexpressive treatment. Performer attitudes were significantly higher for the expressive treatment than the nonexpressive treatment. The researcher concluded that expressive conducting contributed to expressive performances and more favorable performer attitudes toward the conductor.

Laib (1994) concluded that after 10 bands had experienced two pieces of music twice, once conducted expressively, and once conducted nonexpressively, students in the bands overwhelmingly preferred the expressively conducted performance on an opinion questionnaire. The performances were audio- and video-recorded, and the recordings were sent to six experienced band adjudicators. Not surprisingly, the adjudicators also preferred the expressively conducted performances in each pair 90.9% of the time.

In a study by Morrison, Price, Geiger, and Cornacchio (2009), an attempt was made to examine whether a conductor’s use of high-expressivity or low-expressivity techniques affected the evaluations of ensemble performances that were identical across conducting conditions. Using two excerpts from Percy Grainger’s “Walking Tune,” two conductors each conducted two 1-minute parallel segments of that piece. Each conductor directed one excerpt using high-expressivity techniques and one using low-expressivity 92 techniques. Using a 10-point Likert-type scale, the study’s participants watched a video of the conducting segments set to a single audio-performance of the piece by a college wind ensemble, and evaluated the ensemble’s expressivity. Half of the participants also rated the conductor’s expressivity using a second identical Likert-type scale. Results indicated that ensemble expressivity was rated significantly higher for the high- expressivity conductors. Additionally, among participants evaluating both conductor and ensemble, there was a significant moderate correlation between the ratings.

In a study by Morrison and Selvey (2011), (which was part of an ongoing series) an examination of whether a conductor’s use of gesture in a manner considered either “expressive” or “inexpressive” affected listeners’ evaluations of an ensemble performance was made. The results of the series’ prior studies had indicated that among college music students, instrumental performances led by conductors deemed as

“expressive” were evaluated more positively than those led by “nonexpressive” conductors when the performances were identical. This study’s purposes were to determine whether a similar response pattern would be observed among younger and less experienced music students, including choral performance examples, and to compare the responses against evaluations of performances presented in an audio-only condition. The participants were students enrolled in secondary level music classes, who rated the expressivity of two pairs of two identical performance excerpts using a 10-point Likert- type scale. The first group watched a video-performance of the excerpts featuring conductors who demonstrated either high-expressivity or low-expressivity conducting techniques. The second group only heard the same excerpts presented in an audio-only format. Results indicated a significant effect of conducting condition on both the 93 conductor and the choral performance evaluations for the first group of participants.

Additionally, when compared with the evaluations of the second group of participants, the performance ratings for the low-expressivity conducting technique were significantly lower. Finally, there was no difference between the high-expressivity and audio-only ratings.

Additionally, Price and Winter (1991) focused on both the performance and opinions of students (N = 52) toward expressive conducting-gestures and “strict conducting,” which was described as “little or no body movement, no expressive gestures, no group eye contact, and few facial expressions.” Expressive conducting was described as involving “frequent body movement, numerous expressive gestures, plenty of group eye contact, and frequent approval and disapproval facial expressions.” Again, the results of the study indicated no significant difference between the performances under strict or expressive conductors. There were, however, significantly more positive opinions expressed by the students about the expressive conductors.

Price and Chang (2001) sought to examine one aspect of the relationship between conducting and ensemble performance. Upper-classmen music education majors rated the expressivity of video-recorded conducting as well as identical audio-recorded excerpts.

The excerpts were of conductors and their middle or high school bands performing at a district band festival. No significant differences were found between ratings of conductor

(video only) and ensemble (audio only) expressivity. Even though the correlation between video and audio ratings was not significant, the ratings within the audio and video excerpts were found to be quite consistent between raters from different universities. 94

As a second study in a series investigating the relationship between conducting and ensemble performance, Price and Chang (2005) set out to further examine the associations between conductor, ensemble performance expressivity, and festival ratings.

The study’s participants were asked to rate the expressivity of video-only conducting and parallel audio-only excerpts from state-level concert band festivals. Across festival ratings, there were significant differences among the scores for conducting; however, there were no significant differences for ensemble performances. Additionally, there was a significant interaction between the festival ratings and video and audio excerpts. In this study, the relationship between expressivity of conducting and expressivity of ensemble performances was not found, contrary to what some previous research had indicated.

There was no relationship found between expressivity of ensemble performance and festival ratings. This lack of an apparent relationship of expressive conducting to expressive performance found here duplicates, in part, the results of the earlier study by

Price and Chang (2001).

In a third study, Price (2006) examined the relationship among conductors, ensemble’s performances, and festival ratings. The participants scored excerpts of both video-only conducting and audio-only performances in a state-level concert festival of nine bands, including three each that received ratings of Superior, Excellent, and Good.

Among the scores for conducting, no significant differences were found, but among ensemble performance scores with bands receiving Superior ratings scoring higher than those receiving lower ratings, there were significant differences. No relationship was found between the scores given to conductors and their respective ensemble’s performances. The investigator concluded that the overriding issue was that a definite 95 lack of relationship between conducting and performance was found thus far in this and other studies. In general, music ensemble directors in educational settings were advised to instruct their ensembles in such a way that conducting could be effective.

In a study by Price, Morrison, and Mann (2011), the previous work of Morrison,

Price, Geiger, and Cornacchio (2009) was examined in an effort to further research the effect that conductors have on the assessment of ensemble performances. In this study, the same recordings and orders were used, but the participants were nonmusic majors.

Additionally, the participants of this study were asked to list one item for the conductor or ensemble being evaluated, in addition to assessing the conductor and ensemble performances. Results indicated that there was a difference in the conductors’ evaluations that were similar to the 2009 study. There was also a difference in the ensemble ratings depending on the conductor style (even though it was the same performance). However, the effect sizes for the ensembles were smaller, as expected, but still consequential. The study concluded that further research was needed when assessing performances with other factors, such as live or video-recorded performances, especially when considering what effect this might have on musicians’ perceptions of the performance quality or the effect the performance has on the assessment of the conductor.

In an unpublished study by Rashley (2001), the effect of strict or expressive conducting styles on university music majors was explored. Two conditions (strict and expressive conducting styles) were presented to the members of a university orchestra (N

= 44) who then responded to a survey that asked for opinions about the conducting conditions and their perceptions of the correct way to conduct. Results of the survey indicated that the orchestra preferred the expressive condition over the strict condition. 96

Additionally, their perceptions were in favor of the expressive condition except in relation to the conductor’s steady beat. The members of two freshmen music major classes then watched video-recorded excerpts of an orchestra rehearsal where both conducting conditions were demonstrated. The first class (N = 12) watched the excerpts with the sound turned off and they significantly preferred the expressive condition on the basis of visual information from the conductor alone. The second class (N = 12) watched the excerpts with the sound on and they too preferred the expressive condition. Five expert faculty adjudicators were then requested to rate the conditions based on audio- information alone, and they preferred the strict condition. The investigator concluded that a large part of expressiveness in music is due to its visual impact.

The purpose of a study by Sidoti (1991) was to determine the extent to which high school instrumentalists were able to perform selected musical expression markings while following the conducting-gestures of a conductor. The participants, who were members of four high school bands, were given a copy of four unmarked melodies to practice for 3 days. They were also given a nine-question pencil and paper quiz designed to determine each student’s understandings of the eight musical markings. Next, the participants were asked to perform the four melodies with expression markings while following a conductor on a video-recording. The conductor merely beat time non-expressively for half of the marked expressions, and for the other half, the expressions were conducted with a corresponding gesture. The participants were also asked to play eight four-measure single pitch exercises, where each contained one of the expression markings, to determine their ability to perform the markings unencumbered by rhythmic or note patterns. Each performance was both audio-recorded and evaluated. A three-way analysis of variance 97 was performed on the conducting conditions, and as a result, a significant difference was found between expressive and nonexpressive conducting with performances being more accurate under the expressive conducting condition. The eight expression markings were also significantly different as were the schools.

Indeed, expressive conducting usually results in expressive music-making, whether it is in rehearsal or performance. However, it is important for conductors to realize that both ensemble musicians and audiences desire and expect a great deal of expressiveness to not only be produced and heard, but in live situations, to also be easily visible. In the next section, a discussion will ensue of specific conductor characteristics, especially for those conductors who are in teaching situations.

Teacher/Conductor Behavior and Effectiveness

Conducting behavior. Numerous researchers have addressed conducting behavior (or the way conductors conduct an ensemble) in terms of nonverbal communication techniques used by teachers, college ensemble directors, or professional conductors, whether they are in front of a group of beginners, high school students, or profession symphony orchestras. The following researchers performed studies that demonstrated this point.

One of these researchers was Berz (1983), who set out to develop an instrument designed to classify observed nonverbal communication behaviors displayed by conductors. The instrument followed the outline of a seven-channel framework of nonverbal communication put forth by earlier researchers. Fifteen conductors were video- recorded during rehearsals of a wide range of performance settings, after which the recordings were analyzed and the detected behaviors were notated on cards. The cards 98 then were grouped according to similarity of observed behaviors when compared with lists of behavior, which had been developed from existing instruments selected from conducting textbooks. A two-part instrument was then developed by the researcher, where the first consisted of a multicategory, time-sampling system, and the second was a checklist system. Three music graduate students took part in determining the inter- observer reliability of the researcher’s Music Conductor Observation Instrument (MCOI).

Conclusions of the study included the following: (a) the MCOI was a viable means of classifying the nonverbal communication behaviors of conductors, (b) the observers familiar with the nature of conducting were able to use the system, (c) the MCOIs use was deemed practical, and (d) the MCOI was recommended for use in research investigating the nature of conductors’ nonverbal communication.

The results of a study by Byo and Austin (1994) indicated that expert conductors as a group used significantly different nonverbal paths than novice conductors to arrive at laudable measures of artistic success. Additionally, the act of scripting was found to be an alternative, if not highly effective, means of encouraging novices to emulate what the experts do on the conducting podium.

Civikly (1973) examined the effect of three forms of teacher nonverbal communication (minimum, maximum, contradictory) on two measures of teacher effectiveness: student cognitive achievement and affective responses to teaching situations. Three student characteristics were also analyzed in relation to the dependent measures, which included grade point average, sex, and reason for attending college. Two major stages were used to conduct the research: a descriptive stage and an experimental stage. The experimental stage consisted of three video-recorded 30-minute college 99 lectures by a trained teacher-actor. The first recording showed the instructor remaining in a stationary position (minimum). The second showed the instructor demonstrating a large amount of physical activity (i.e., hand gestures and vocal expressions). The third also showed the instructor as active, but his nonverbal behaviors contradicted his verbal behaviors. Next, a researcher-developed 20-item multiple-choice test was given to the student participants to measure their cognitive achievement. The test was given as a pretest before the participants viewed one of the three video-recorded lectures, and then again immediately after as a posttest. About 2 weeks later, the same test instrument was given to the participants a third time to determine their lecture retention. Statistical analyses were conducted on the data from 208 participants and resulted in several important conclusions. Even though there was a significant difference between the experimental conditions and the control condition, there was no apparent difference for the achievement scores as a function of teacher nonverbal communication. Additionally, there were no significant differences as per the participants’ affective reactions from the maximum nonverbal condition compared to the minimum nonverbal condition—just as there were no significant differences between the maximum and minimum, and the contradictory condition. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between males and females in the cognitive and affective responses for each of the three nonverbal conditions. However, there were significant differences between the cognitive affective measures of the participants with low grade point averages. Finally, there were no significant differences among the participants who indicated “academic goals” as their primary reason for attending college. 100

In a study by Daellenbach (1970), observable music performance learning behaviors, ranging from verbal activity to attending behavior, were investigated. One of the main purposes of the study was to develop an objective encoding and classification system by video-recording 17 music students during 34 10-minute video-recorded learning sequences. The data indicated two results of significance. First, the 17 participants exhibited relatively few occurrences of verbal behaviors; and second, the participants spent little class time verbalizing; thus, both supported the premise that research limited to the study of verbal behavior may not present a comprehensive view of the learner.

Ekman and Friesen (1969) discussed and summarized five categories of nonverbal behavior in terms of origins, coding, and usage. The five categories included the following: emblems, illustrators, regulators, affect displays, and adaptors. The most important aspect of the study was its descriptions for coding nonverbal behavior across the five categories.

The purpose of a study by Francisco (1994) was to determine the relative effects of verbal communication, visual communication, and modeling (used individually and in combinations) on performance improvement of high school bands. The rehearsals of 25 conductors and bands at 15 summer music camps were both audio- and video-recorded, after which examples of conductor communication behavior were identified and categorized by expert judges. Using a precommunication performance as a reference, the judges rated each postcommunication performance as either no improvement, improvement, or inaudible. Results of the study indicated that: (a) the type of communication had a statistically significant effect on ensemble improvement scores; (b) 101 visual communication when used alone was significantly less likely to improve ensemble performance than a combination of verbal, modeling, and visual as well as a verbal and modeling combination; (c) verbal communication and a combination of verbal, modeling, and visual was significantly more likely to improve ensemble performance than visual communication and a combination of verbal and visual; (d) the combinations of two types of communication were not necessarily more likely to improve ensemble performance than the use of either of the component types of communication by itself; (e) technique was a significantly easier problem to correct than intonation, interpretation, balance, tone quality, or rhythm; and (f) rhythm was a significantly easier problem to correct than intonation.

Ginsborg, Chaffin, and Nicholson (2006) reported a content analysis of the verbal commentaries made between a singer and a pianist/conductor during two rehearsals for a performance of Ricercar I from Stravinsky’s Cantata. The performers began identifying features of the music to use as performance cues that could be used to coordinate their actions. An analysis of their recorded verbal comments illustrated how the musicians together resolved differences in their conceptualizations of the compositional structure of the piece, as well as how they coordinated their music-making through the use of shared performance cues.

Ostling (1977) presented a summary of available research on nonverbal communication having implications for conductors of musical ensembles. A thorough discussion of the research in five areas of nonverbal communication that relate directly to conducting included the following: facial and hand expressions, eye contact, body motion, posture, and the expression of emotions. The most important conclusion of the 102 study was that the aspects of conducting can be learned as acquired skills of nonverbal patterns of behavior which might not exist in one’s natural repertoire of nonverbal behavior, thus pointing out that persons introverted by their natural personality can assume the necessary traits of the extrovert on the podium assuming them quite naturally due to an understanding of the conducting task.

Roshong (1978) offered the following conclusions in a study that addressed the effect of specific nonverbal conducting elements on student perceptions of teaching effectiveness in a classroom rehearsal environment: (a) the observational instrument developed in the study is a viable means of recording both the type and quality of the participants’ nonverbal behavior that occurred during video-recorded teaching/conducting episodes; (b) the categorization of the episodes in the activities of starting, stopping, sustaining, and instructing presented a method of placing the conductors’ nonverbal behavior in the context of the musical rehearsal; (c) the inter- observer reliability estimates, when viewed in relation to the short observer training time, indicate that the instrument was easy to use by observers who were familiar with the task of conducting; (d) the method of observation made it possible to define the patterns of nonverbal behavior demonstrated by the participants during a particular rehearsal event; and (e) there were some commonalities (e.g., facial approval and forward movement during starting, stopping and sustaining events, facial disapproval, eye contact with the group, and movement away during instruction) of nonverbal behaviors observed during specific rehearsal events that were displayed by the study’s participants. In general, this study further revealed that there might be patterns of nonverbal behaviors that are common to experienced conductors. 103

In her first study, Skadsem (1996) instructed the regular classroom teacher of 37 student participants to teach them a simple folk song. After the student participants were tested individually, they watched a video-recording of an unidentified conductor, listened to a choir through headphones, referred to written musical examples, and sang along with conductor video-recordings. The participants’ performance responses were audio- recorded and then evaluated by three judges. The results indicated significant differences among the four instructional stimuli (verbal, written, gestural, and choral stimuli) except for gestural and choral, and gestural and written. Simply put, the study suggested that verbal instruction is superior to the other three instructional stimuli only in some instances. Skadsem explained that this was because the verbal reminders only applied to dynamic observations and not to overall musical performance.

In Skadsem’s (1997) second study, a similar effort was made to determine the effects of certain conductor behaviors on individual singers’ (N = 144) dynamic responses to music. The results again indicated that verbal instruction from the conductor elicited significantly stronger dynamic performance responses than did the other three instructional conditions. Again, the study’s caveat was that verbal instruction only worked well with inexperienced performers because they did not know how to respond to conducting gestures as much as more experienced ensemble members might in a college or professional situation. Nevertheless, the results suggested that while verbal instruction is a necessary element in the teaching process, teachers must learn to use it in moderation and that it loses its effectiveness if it is overused. Skadsem also advised teachers to seek alternative instructional techniques that use nonverbal behaviors. In addition, conductors 104 especially should learn to communicate instructions (regarding dynamics specifically), effectively and efficiently through gestures and increased eye contact.

In a study by Stauch (1986), the types, intensities, and patterns of individual, simultaneous, and sequential nonverbal communication behaviors exhibited by three college choral directors were investigated. The study’s purpose was to determine whether the directors’ verbal activities contradicted or supported the nonverbal behaviors, by video-recording each participant for 2 hours during rehearsals. After the researcher conducted an analysis, 23 different gesture behavior types were disclosed. Nongesture behaviors were also examined, which led to several conclusions. The first was that gaze/facial expression levels were higher when the participants looked at the ensembles as opposed to the score. The second was that frequent changes in posture were observed and they tended to occur more frequently with cue and preparation gestures. Finally, the third was that proxemic variables revealed that movement did not occur frequently, and when it did, the speeds were slow and the distances were small. (The term “proxemic” was described as the spatial separation that individuals maintain in various social and/or interpersonal situations such as conducting in front of an ensemble.) Additionally, examinations of gesture and nongesture behaviors indicated corresponding increases in gaze/facial expression levels when the participants looked at the ensembles. It is important to note that this increase in expression level occurred prior to cues or simultaneously with preparations and that these gestures were frequently accompanied by a postural change but without proxemic movement. Finally, the verbal behaviors of all of the participants were generally supportive of nonverbal behaviors. 105

Wang (2001) investigated the relative importance of verbal and nonverbal behaviors during interpersonal communication in applied private music lessons. The participants included 12 instrumental instructors and 12 undergraduate college students, who were video-recorded for 1 hour during a private lesson as per each student and teacher pair. Five-minute excerpts were randomly chosen and compiled, and then 20 graduate music majors evaluated the compiled excerpts under audio-visual or visual-only conditions using a researcher-developed evaluation form containing a 5-point Likert-type scale and a one-item global-rating scale. Results indicated that except for the adjective

“friendly,” no significant score differences for the adjective items or overall effectiveness were found between the evaluators. However, many adjective items were strongly correlated with each other, both negatively and positively.

Yarbrough (1975) addressed student preferences for expressive conducting by calling it “high magnitude” conducting. Magnitude was defined as, “what a conductor can do to make a rehearsal more exciting.” This study involved four mixed choruses (N =

207 students) rehearsing under three conditions: (a) with a regular conductor, (b) with a high magnitude conductor, and (c) with a low magnitude conductor. Even though the results indicated no significant differences in musical performance, attentiveness, or attitude ratings, there was a difference in mean attitude ratings toward the experimental conductor between the high and low magnitude conditions. Additionally, the students in the study preferred a high magnitude conductor.

With all of the aforementioned studies in mind, it can be surmised that a conductor’s communication techniques to his or her ensemble members, or in other words his conducting behavior, is a complex and necessary topic when dealing with 106 nonverbal conducting skills in the musical sense. Whether a conductor is in front of a professional symphony orchestra, or just a group of student musicians in a school setting

(which was what most of the above research addressed), or even in a private conducting- lesson situation, his or her nonverbal behavior (including gestures) constitutes not only how efficient rehearsals function, but also how well the final performance is executed.

Conductor traits. Teacher effectiveness and nonverbal behaviors are two concepts that can be linked together in both school music situations and other community-based music ensembles. A music teacher and/or conductor cannot expect to be very efficient or effective if he or she does not possess a working knowledge of the characteristics associated with good conducting and/or teaching. The following researchers or authors addressed how conductor-traits help motivate students and/or ensemble musicians to perform at high standards.

Armstrong and Armstrong (1996) discussed what characteristics best described a successful conductor. Among attributes such as “fine musicianship,” or “excellent organizational and disciplinary skills,” or putting together “a musically satisfying program,” or “demonstrating musical growth in his or her students,” the authors emphasized the need for conductors (including most music educators) to have a

“transforming” impact on their students (p. 22). The idea of “transformation” includes such concepts as “charisma and enthusiasm, shared vision, producing through people, positive modeling, empowering others, or encouraging the heart” (pp. 23 – 24). Most vitally, “transformation” is more about a conductor who inspires loyalty and teaches a skill in a way that the students become “devoted, capable musicians and persons” (p. 24). 107

The purposes of a study by Bell (2000) were to examine the attitudes of adults and how they relate to their community chorus experience, and to survey adult amateur singers regarding their views toward the choral conductor’s rehearsal behaviors. Ten community choruses of a major metropolitan area participated in a researcher-designed survey, where 457 singers ranked 36 conducting behaviors that might occur in a rehearsal. Results indicated that singers rated conductor personal behaviors ahead of technical skills and musical skills. Five of the most important conducting behaviors were as follows: (a) gives clear and easy-to-understand directions, (b) shows enthusiasm during rehearsal, (c) hears a “problem area” and corrects the error, (d) selects music to match the group’s ability, and (e) instills confidence in the singers. These same five conducting behaviors were consistently ranked in the top 10 behaviors in all but two subpopulations. The study concluded with recommendations for effective conductor training and teaching strategies for undergraduate preservice music education majors who might engage with adult amateur musicians.

Deegan (2007) sought to discover the unique characteristics existing among 160 community orchestras and their conductors through surveys questioning what types of community orchestras existed, the experience and education of the conductors, what community orchestra finances were like, what the community orchestra’s role in the individual community was, what the community orchestra’s role in education was, and how the choice of literature performed compared with that of professional orchestras. The survey’s results indicated a presence of an active community orchestra culture in the

United States, which according to the researcher represented a “significant artistic and commercial impact.” Community orchestras also provided a venue for new composers, 108 obscure American composers, and leaders who were from various walks of life, with opportunities to love music.

A study by Ervin (1975) set out to develop and assess a systematic method of observation that could evaluate “conductor effectiveness,” which was defined as “the behaviors of a conductor, which result in the relatively short term goal of improvement of performance” (p. 5). Thirty-seven junior high, senior high, and college level instrumental and vocal conductors were video-recorded in 10-minute durations. The recordings were then viewed and evaluated by a panel of five judges on a 7-point scale. Additionally, a list of 35 variables designed to discriminate between good and bad conductors was also constructed, which after analyzing the judges’ evaluation scores, resulted in ranking the tapes of 14 conductors with the highest and 14 with the lowest scores. These then were coded by the researcher to indicate the frequency for each of the 35 variables. Using a stepwise discriminant analysis program to determine which variables were the best discriminators, 11 variables were selected as per their discriminating power and distinctness from other variables. These variables included eye contact, expressive conducting gestures, pitch theme units, volume theme units, other musical theme units, reinforcement theme units, discipline/punishment theme units, “being on task” theme units, nonmusical direction theme units, and teaching function theme units. These 11 variables were then further analyzed to provide a linear formula to predict conductor ability, and then they were incorporated into a systematic method of observation. The recordings of the various conductors were again placed in a high and low group according to the new method, and when compared with that of the original judges, 84% of the cases were found to be in agreement. 109

The purposes of a study by Hunter (2003) were to: (a) determine if there was a significant relationship between the interpersonal communication skills of music education students and teaching effectiveness, (b) determine if there was a significant relationship between the interpersonal communication skills of music education students and conducting/rehearsal technique, and (c) determine if there was a significant difference between the conductor and ensemble perception of the conductor’s interpersonal communication skills. The participants were 30 music education students

(who had completed at least one semester of conducting instruction) who completed three

10-minute microrehearsals (that were video-recorded) with an ensemble. After completing the third microrehearsal, the ensemble’s members completed a Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) for each conducting participant to determine his/her perceived interpersonal communication style profile. Additionally, each conducting participant completed the QTI using his/her ideal responses to determine an ideal interpersonal communication style profile. For each participant, the video-recordings of the first and third microrehearsals were evaluated by three judges using the Survey of

Teaching Effectiveness. This evaluation was done in order to determine teaching effectiveness and the Conductor Observation Form to determine conducting effectiveness. Data were analyzed to determine if significant differences existed between interpersonal communication skills, teaching effectiveness, and conducting effectiveness.

Results indicated that 11 participants were identified as having helpful/friendly interpersonal communication styles, 11 participants were identified as having understanding interpersonal communication styles, and 8 participants were identified as having strict communication styles. Not only were significant differences found to exist 110 between interpersonal communication skills, teaching effectiveness, and conducting effectiveness, but also a low degree of association was found between ideal interpersonal communication styles and perceived interpersonal communication styles.

In a study by Madsen (2003), an examination of whether accuracy and delivery of teacher instruction and student attentiveness would affect evaluative perceptions of teacher effectiveness was undertaken. The participants were 168 musicians who were grouped according to experience level. The participants viewed and evaluated a video- recording of eight teaching segments for teaching effectiveness. The results indicated a significant difference due to experience level and teaching segments. Additionally, the secondary students rated a teacher giving inaccurate instruction as relatively high when the teacher demonstrated high delivery and the class was attentive. Furthermore, an analysis of the descriptive data suggested that all four of the “experience level” groups attended to the delivery of the teacher more than any other variable. Finally, experienced teachers attended to the accuracy of instruction more than did any other “experience level” group, and middle school teachers attended to student attentiveness, or perceived classroom management skills of the teacher more than any other group.

In an effort to increase the knowledge base regarding student motivation and to identify ways in which conductors influence students’ motivation in college choirs,

Saunders (2005) used a mixed methods approach to gather student and conductor perspectives from three university choral settings using questionnaires, observations, and interviews, which were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative techniques designed to identify emergent themes from the participants’ perspectives.

Results indicated that a love of music was the most influential factor in student and 111 conductor motivation to continue participating in college choir settings. Additionally, conductors and families also significantly influenced students’ initial motivation toward college choir participation. Furthermore, 10 elements of effective conducting were identified. Finally, the results included suggestions aimed at helping conductors avoid ineffective practices.

In a study by Teachout (1997), the responses of preservice teachers and experienced teachers to the question, “What skills and behaviors are important to successful music teaching in the first 3 years of experience?” were compared. These responses could be considered as adding much to the general description of good conductor traits. The participants were randomly selected groups of 35 preservice teachers and 35 experienced teachers who were given a list of teacher skills/behaviors and asked to rate the level of importance of each item using a 4-point Likert-type scale.

Of the 10 top-ranked items for each group, seven were common to both groups. On six of the 40 items, there existed a difference of 10 or more rankings between the groups. Nine of the 40 items were ranked equally or within one ranking of each other; and as each of the items was placed into one of three broad skill categories (personal, musical, or teaching), both groups rated personal and teaching skills as significantly more important than musical skills.

Woodbury (1955) investigated the attitudes of both the members and conductors of several professional symphony orchestras toward their leadership (principal players and conductors). The participants included 103 members of eight major symphony orchestras and 12 recognized conductors, who responded to a questionnaire asking for opinions and ratings of 19 conductor traits. Some of the most interesting results of the 112 questionnaire’s analysis included the following: (a) musical ability was paramount, including good baton technique; (b) conducting from memory is better but not always adjunct to leadership; and (c) conductor behavior (e.g., not addressing individual players by their first names, but rather by “Mr. or Mrs.”). As components of the third finding, having good reasons for stopping a piece in rehearsal, can serve as a teacher-- not just conductor, uses rehearsal time efficiently, no excessive talking (lecturing), no use of sarcasm, and especially no use of fear as a means for achieving musical ends, were also addressed.

Conductor/teacher intensity. One important attribute of teaching/conducting effectiveness is the level of intensity a conductor can exhibit while on the podium. The following researchers addressed intensity as a vital concept in terms of teacher enthusiasm, affect, and magnitude.

In a study by Bender (2010), the assessments of musicians of conductor effectiveness under the conditions of high/low gestural intensity coupled with high/low performance quality were examined. The participants were made up of 40 undergraduate instrumental music students at a Southwestern university, who were randomly divided into high and low performance-quality groups. While viewing two video-recorded excerpts focusing on a band director using high or low intensity conducting-gestures, the participants were instructed to evaluate the conductor’s effectiveness. Generally, the participants rated high intensity conducting as more effective than low intensity conducting. Not surprisingly, a high quality performance helped the conductor seem more effective than a low quality performance. When high gestural intensity was observed with a high quality ensemble performance, conductor effectiveness scores were 113 higher than when those gestures were paired with a low quality performance. Also, when the low or high quality performance was paired with low gestural intensity, assessments of conducting effectiveness were similar.

Johnson and Frederickson (1995) investigated the effect of four types of video- recorded feedback on the conductor-intensity behaviors of university music students trained using a video-recorded model. The four types of feedback included the following:

(a) aural commentary, (b) written comments, (c) behavioral self-assessment, and (d) control. Through a two-way mirror, a researcher observed the participants and evaluated their intensity on a positive/negative continuum using a Continuous Response Digital

Interface (CRDI). The results indicated that the participants in the aural commentary condition achieved the most positive posttest results even though the participants in the written comments condition showed the most improvement from pretest to posttest.

While the participants in the treatment utilizing the behavioral self-assessment showed the least improvement, among the participants, a clear preference emerged for the treatment conditions utilizing instructor feedback or self-assessment conditions.

Implications for teaching conductors also emerged and were discussed.

The purpose of a study by Madsen, Standley, and Cassidy (1989) was to investigate teacher intensity, which was defined as, “the global attributes of enthusiasm combined with an astute sense of timing in relation to classroom management and effective subject presentation and delivery” (p. 1). An attempt was made to ascertain whether high and low contrasts in teacher intensity could be taught to and then demonstrated by prospective music education student teachers, and whether other music education majors untrained in the concept of intensity could recognize these contrasts. 114

Results of the study indicated that intensity could be defined, easily taught to prospective teachers, ably demonstrated, and recognized with high reliability across various levels of sophistication within the college music education curriculum.

In an article by Madsen (1990), a series of eight experiments attempting to isolate those issues and variables contributing to teacher intensity were discussed. The results of the experiments led to several implications for general music instruction. Knowledge of the subject matter, effective delivery, and sequencing of the subject matter were deemed very important. Additionally, the eight studies seemed to indicate that some school subjects such as music are more reinforcing than others (e.g., once the music starts in a classroom, it carries the momentum of the class well, but when it stops, the group members become off-task during transitions or “getting ready” periods). Furthermore, during music performance classes, an extremely high level of intensity quickly evaporates when a conspicuous wrong note, a memory lapse, or lack of energetic concern to performance detail occurs. Finally, a teacher must have a good sense of timing and an immediate and omnipresent sense of student attentiveness.

Conductor modeling. Another attribute of teaching effectiveness is conductor modeling, which comes under the general overarching category of conducting competencies. The following researchers demonstrated how modeling could also be a good motivator for guiding music students and/or ensemble musicians toward the goal of having an outstanding performance.

In a study by Bergee (2005), novice, intermediate, and expert orchestra conductors were compared. Two novice conductors, 1 graduate student in orchestral conducting, and 1 expert conductor directed a university orchestra through a section of 115

Brahms’s Symphony No. 2, first movement. The conductors attempted to verbalize their thought processes while conducting, while being wired for sound. The episodes were video-recorded for use later during “one-on-one” interviews. The “think-aloud” protocols were recorded, transcribed, and categorized. Analysis of the interviews, the protocols, and a second expert conductor’s critiques revealed that the novices focused attention on surface aspects (i.e., rhythm and cueing) and experienced difficulty performing multiple tasks. The intermediate conductor displayed a better command of fundamental conducting processes but did not verbalize, and the expert conductor focused more on establishing concepts of balance and style. Additionally, the interviews suggested a self- directed orientation (e.g., reflecting on how they personally felt) for the novices, and an ensemble-directed orientation (e.g., reflecting on how they perceived the ensemble’s reactions) for the intermediate and expert conductors.

Dickey (1991) hypothesized that modeling was more effective than verbal instruction among typical middle school band classes. For 10 weeks, two of four middle school bands (N = 128) were taught with verbal instruction and the other two with modeling instruction. After a pretest and posttest for ear-to-hand skills, kinesthetic response skills, and music discrimination skills, the two classes receiving modeling instruction achieved significantly higher scores on tests of ear-to-hand skills and kinesthetic skills, but not on a test of general music discrimination skills. His findings suggested that the use of modeling strategies such as melodic echoes or rhythmic movement could result in increased ear-to-hand and kinesthetic response skills.

Taylor (1989) examined the effects of a sensitizing procedure used by high school band conductors on the ability of high school band students to perform selected 116 articulation styles. The researcher recorded demographic data and band ratings in several performance quality categories and compared them between conductors in the study groups and among the findings in this and other similar studies. Twenty high school band directors were randomly and equally assigned to a sensitizing group and a contact-control group. During various stops in rehearsal, the sensitizing conductors described the manner in which articulation styles were to be played. Additionally, a visual demonstration of the conducting gesture to be used to convey the style was provided to sensitize the students to the gesture. At the conclusion of the 15-minute rehearsal treatment period, a posttest consisting of three sections of music exercises was administered. For the first section, articulation marks appeared on both the conductor’s score and the band’s parts, and the conductors used appropriate gestures. For the second section, articulation marks appeared only on the band parts, and the conductors used mere time beating. For the third section, articulation marks appeared on only the conductor’s score, and the band members followed the appropriate conducting-gestures for the articulation style. Results indicated no significant differences between the two groups in the accurate performance of articulation styles or the amount of time required to change from one articulation style to another. There was, however, a significant difference among the performance accuracy of selected articulation styles, with legato receiving the highest ratings, followed by staccato, and with marcato receiving the lowest ratings. A significant difference was also found among the three sections of the posttest, with highest ratings received when the conductors merely beat time, followed by performance ratings of the first section, and with lowest ratings being given for the third section. These findings suggested that high school band musicians could mostly follow conducting-gestures, in terms of accurately 117 performing articulation styles after receiving a 15-minute treatment period focusing on those articulation styles.

Rehearsal techniques. Teacher and/or conductor effectiveness can usually be measured best by what occurs during rehearsals. Regardless of what ensemble members might believe, the teacher or conductor is mostly responsible for how much is accomplished during a rehearsal. The teacher/conductor not only plans rehearsal objectives, but also sets the tone, the intensity, and more importantly, the pace of the rehearsal. The following researchers addressed specific research techniques.

A case study was conducted by Buell (1990) who identified and examined factors contributing to success in effective teaching/conducting practices in symphonic band and wind ensemble settings. Research questions were posed in three theoretical areas. The first was the role of conducting, gesture, and verbal and nonverbal communication. The second was teaching the goals of conceptual understanding, technical development, and quality performance. The third was the development of student understanding, retention, and transfer of learning in the instrumental ensemble experience. In simpler terms, the study examined the relationship between successful teaching/conducting practice and elements of selected educational theory. By way of triangulation from video-recorded instruction, participant interviews, and researcher observations, an analysis of the data corroborated the factors appearing to contribute to the overall teaching/conducting effectiveness of the study’s 1 band director participant. The study’s main conclusion was that effectiveness in teaching/conducting was not the result of any single factor, such as exceptional musicianship, conducting technique, or personality, but instead, it involved the establishment of positive learning environments, the appropriate linking of teaching 118 strategies to instruction goals, and the use of instructional behaviors sympathetic to individual differences to students. Thorough score-study and continuous development of personal musicianship were indicated to be requisites of effectiveness in teaching/conducting.

In a two-part study by Goolsby (1997), both the verbal instruction used during 60 rehearsals by expert, novice, and student teachers, as well as the changes in instruction evidenced by preservice teachers in 22 rehearsals, were investigated. The preservice teachers were exposed to guided observation as part of an instrumental methods course.

Results showed that the expert teachers devoted more time to overall ensemble sound

(including guided listening, more instruction or explanations on intonation, and more demonstrations). The novice teachers spent the most time tuning individual notes, while the student teachers spent the most time correcting wrong notes. Benefits of the study included gains for the undergraduates in terms of less emphasis on wrong notes and more emphasis on rhythm/tempo and style.

The purpose of a study by Harris (1999) was to explore how a conductor communicates musical feeling to musicians in an ensemble. The types of experiences or activities that may enhance a conductor’s ability to communicate musical feeling were identified, and educational methods appropriate for collegiate conducting curricula were established. The interviews of 12 experienced conductors, which were audio- and video- recorded, consisted of 10 questions derived from the study’s three major research questions. The three main research questions were the following: (a) How does a conductor develop a feeling for a piece of music? (b) How does a conductor communicate feeling and enable musicians to connect emotionally to a piece of music? 119 and (c) How could this information influence the education of future conductors? An analysis of the interviews produced summaries and conclusions of the research questions, a list of recommendations for collegiate conducting curricula, and recommendations for further research. Concerning the conductors’ responses to the question of how to communicate feeling, the following important conclusions were made. First, ascribing emotions or attaching a narrative to a piece of music without an existing text is an important tool for sharing musical feeling. Second, the attachment of physical motion to the emotional content of a piece of music, using dance or basic movement exercises, may enhance students’ perceptions of musical feeling. Third, the conductor’s physical movements, gestures, and facial expressions must properly reflect the character and mood of the music.

Pontious (1982) conducted a descriptive study of the rehearsals of five high school band directors as the first step in the development of a profile of the rehearsal behaviors of successful high school band conductors. Various rehearsal components (i.e., affective or emotional nature of the rehearsals, elements of instrumental performance that concerned the conductors, and techniques they used to resolve those concerns) were examined and analyzed. The findings revealed that conductors were direct or non- supportive (without consideration of the ensemble member’s feelings) over 78% of the time in their verbal interaction. More than 50% of the time was devoted to references concerning the elements of instrumental performance to phrasing/dynamics and rhythm.

Conductor talk took up 42% of the active rehearsal time, while the remaining 58% was spent on rehearsal trials. Verbal explanation was the explicative technique used most often, and the conductors all employed a synthesis-analysis-synthesis rehearsal pattern. 120

The researcher recommended additional studies of wider dimensions as well as correlation studies in order to provide teacher training standards and predictors of conductor success.

In one of his earlier studies, Price (1983) examined the effect of conductor academic task presentation, reinforcement, and student performance on attentiveness, achievement, and attitude of university symphonic band members. The band underwent three treatment conditions over a period of five rehearsals. The treatment conditions were as follows: (a) directions followed by ensemble performance; (b) academic task presentations followed by directions and ensemble performance; and (c) academic task presentations, directions, and ensemble performance, followed by conductor reinforcement. Results showed that attentiveness was a function of both performance time and treatment, and that all treatments resulted in gains for music achievement.

Treatment #2 resulted in the smallest and Treatment #3 resulted in the largest gains.

Ratings by the students in terms of rehearsal enjoyment and “conductor as a good teacher” were significantly related to treatments, with Treatment #3 as the most preferred.

Sherrill (1986) analyzed the rehearsal and conducting techniques of eight school band teachers using a systematic analysis of rehearsal video-recordings. The participants included four junior high and four senior high school band conductors who were video- recorded rehearsing their groups at their own schools. Eight recordings containing nearly

7 hours of material were reviewed by the researcher to produce a master recording that provided examples of individual conducting behavior. Four main categories of teaching/conducting were found as a result of the researcher’s analysis. These categories were: tuning and warming up, intonation, balance, and rhythm. However, only minimal 121 examples were found in the following subcategories: odd meter passages, unusual or difficult rhythms, and mixed meter. Unfortunately, other desired examples of conducting behavior, such as facial expression, eye contact, and expressive beat patterns, were found to be minimal.

Worthy (2003) conducted a study where an expert conductor was video-recorded rehearsing two different ensembles, a high school honor band and an intercollegiate honor band, which resulted in two complete chronicles of the rehearsal process. With both groups, hundreds of rehearsal frames were identified which had specific targets categorized for each rehearsal frame. The frequency and duration of certain conductor behaviors (talking and modeling) and student behaviors (talking, full ensemble performance, section performance, and individual performance) were recorded in selected rehearsal frames. With the college ensemble, the conductor was more likely to address multiple targets simultaneously, while with the high school ensemble, the conductor was more likely to focus on single targets. Additionally, in the high school ensemble, shorter and more frequent conductor talking episodes were observed than in the college rehearsals, indicating that the conductor rehearsed the high school group at a faster pace.

Conductor and ensemble relationships. Perhaps nowhere does the concept of expressive conducting have more relevance than during the rehearsals of musical ensembles. In such situations, the conductor is faced with “winning” over the ensemble members in terms of how well the various pieces to be programmed will correspond to his or her wishes. The following researchers addressed the delicate relationships between conductor and ensemble. 122

Arcaya (1975) attempted to understand the process by which a musical work evolves from conception to performance in an orchestral musical setting by choosing to examine phenomenological psychology for a research method. While the first part of the study discussed general phenomenological theory, the second described in detail the particular way in which phenomenology was applied to the study. The results were presented in five different ways: (a) general themes relevant to the phenomenon were presented from the interviews with practicing orchestra conductors, (b) a structure describing the conducting of a musical work and integrating the previous themes was reported, (c) general themes relevant to the phenomenon were presented from the interviews from orchestra players, (d) these general themes were followed by a structure which integrated the themes and reported the experience of being conducted in playing a musical work, and (e) an integrated structure was presented which combined the dual perspectives of conductors and players into the overall finding of how a conductor and the orchestra interact to produce a musical performance. The study’s findings served as a model for all social interaction and communication by illuminating the workings of the imagination and perception in general. Results revealed much about the nature of gestures and nonverbal communication with implications for a psychology of music. The researcher suggested a different manner of doing social psychological research following the phenomenological model.

In a study by Boerner and Von Streit (2007), the degree to which a conductor’s transformational leadership and orchestral musicians’ positive group mood affect on the orchestra’s performance was explored. Two hypotheses were put forth. The first was that the conductor’s transformational leadership style fostered the artistic quality of an 123 orchestra’s achievement only if it was accompanied by highly positive group mood among the musicians. The second was that positive group mood among the musicians fostered the artistic quality of an orchestra’s achievement only if was accompanied by the conductor’s transformational leadership style. The hypotheses were tested through questionnaires administered to 208 musicians from 22 German symphony orchestras.

Results indicated that neither the conductor’s transformational leadership nor the musicians’ positive group mood alone fostered success. Instead, only the interaction between the two was effective at promoting orchestral performance.

Matthews and Kitsantas (2007) examined whether collective efficacy, group cohesion, and perceived motivational climate in a music ensemble predicted instrumentalists’ perceived conductor support. The participants were 91 skilled high school instrumentalists who responded to a number of surveys. The researchers proposed that the participants’ perceptions of collective efficacy, group cohesion, and a task- involving motivational climate cultivated by the conductor could predict conductor support. Results indicated that, collectively, the variables accounted for 46% of the variance in the participants’ perceptions of a supportive conductor. The study’s findings may provide guidance as to how conductors can create learning environments that instill a strong sense of support for their instrumental players.

The previous large section of studies addressing the general topic of conducting competencies, including everything from nonverbal communication to teacher/conductor effectiveness, clearly indicated how great the desire is of researchers to learn what makes conductors function well. Most assuredly, successful conducting and/or teaching music through conducting may require an individual many years to develop. However, in order 124 to hasten that mature development, a beginning music teacher (or conductor) should try to implement into his or her conducting/teaching techniques many of the findings that the previously summarized research has produced.

Conducting Emblems as Conducting-Gestures

First, in terms of addressing nonverbal communication, Ekman and Friesen

(1969) used the term “emblem” to label one of five major categories of nonverbal behavior. They described the usage of emblems as:

Emblems occur most frequently where verbal exchange is prevented by noise, external circumstances, distance, by agreement, or by organic impairment. In such instances, emblematic exchange carries the bulk of messages, which would typically be communicated through words. (p. 64)

Later, Ekman and Friesen (1972) revised and extended their definition with the following:

Emblems are those nonverbal acts (a) which have a direct verbal transition usually consisting of a word or two, or a phrase (b) for which this precise meaning is known by most or all members of a group, class, subculture, or culture, (c) which are most often deliberately used with the conscious intent to send a particular message to the other person(s), (d) for which the person(s) who sees the emblem usually not only knows that is was deliberately sent to him, and (e) for which the sender usually takes responsibility for having made that communication. (p. 357)

From this definition, music conductors can use such “emblems,” through certain physical gestures, to convey precise musical meanings or common interpretations.

Emblems pertain to musical conducting because they are used to nonverbally communicate specific messages to other people (ensemble musicians) with the understanding that those people know exactly what those emblems mean and can respond to them in their performance. 125

Sousa (1988) described the term “musical conducting emblem” as being synonymous with conducting-gesture by stating, “conducting-gestures were those nonverbal gestures used by an instrumental conductor to communicate specific musical ideas through the use of the hand and arm movements” (p. 8). Roebke (2005) further defined conducting emblems as the “actions of any part of the body, although typically they involve the hands, head orientation, facial muscular movement, and/or posture” (p.

6).

Nonetheless, Sousa (1988) investigated how common gestures of instrumental conductors (or emblems) could be successfully identified by a sample of junior high, high school, and college instrumental ensemble musicians. Results indicated that the total population of the participants (ensemble members) was able to successfully identify 19 out of the initial 55 common gestures initially shown to them through video-recorded demonstrations. Additionally, significant differences were found among the groups in their abilities to understand those common gestures, meaning that the older and more experienced college-level ensemble-musicians demonstrated a significantly larger increase in their gesture understanding and recognition than either the high school or junior high groups. Due to the fact that there was no formal instruction of conducting- gestures before any identification assessments were implemented, Sousa’s study bears only a slight resemblance to the present study. Thus, the biggest difference between

Sousa’s work and the present study was that the main objective of the present study was to test the effectiveness of a special treatment involving a set of conducting-gesture instruction lesson plans as the independent variable. 126

Another researcher employing the term “conducting-gesture” for “emblem” was

Grechesky (1986), who posited that most musical communications should occur with conducting-gestures without extensive verbalization. In his study, he used the video- and audio-recordings of 11 directors of randomly selected high school bands that were then evaluated by a panel of expert judges. By examining each bands’ audio- recordings and the video-recordings of each conductor, the judges attempted to determine which were

“musical” and which were “less musical.” Results indicated that of 24 original behavior variables, 11 had an effect on rank. These 11 variables included verbal explanation, instruction, verbal imagery, stationary body movement, approaching body movement, departing body movement, approving facial expression, disapproving facial expression, and left hand usage to show dynamics, emblems, and illustrators. Additionally, results indicated that while some verbal explanation is necessary, “verbal imagery” had a much stronger impact on student musicians. The results also suggested that minimal time should be spent on talk or instructions about nonmusical matters. Conductors of the more musical groups displayed significantly more body movement. Approving facial expressions had a positive effect on performance. More use of the left hand and coordination of the right and left hand yielded better performance results. Finally, emblems and illustrators, iconic behaviors, had the most powerful effect of any of the variables (e.g., observed conducting behaviors and rank order). This study strongly relates to the present study in that emblems or common conducting-gestures can have a powerful and positive effect on the performance of student musicians. But before that happens, the student musicians need to be able to correctly recognize and respond to those common gestures. 127

Still, another researcher likening “emblems” to “conducting-gestures” was Mayne

(1992), who investigated the use of conductor facial expression on the performer’s ability to interpret common conducting-gestures (or emblems). Two video-recordings were used to show the same conductor demonstrating the same 53 gestures in matching order. The only difference between the two recordings was the conductor’s added use of facial expression on the second recording. Instrumentalists of junior high, high school, and college levels, were then randomly assigned to view the first video-recording or the second; then, using a multiple-choice pencil and paper test, the participants were requested to select which answer best described each conducting-gesture example.

Results indicated that with all grades combined, or when comparing similar grade levels, the use of facial expression did not significantly increase the instrumental performers’ abilities to interpret the study’s 53 common conducting- gestures. However, one should not generalize that facial expression does not affect conducting, since conducting involves much more than isolated gestures. Significant differences did result when different grade levels were compared to each other. The percentage of correct responses increased as grade level increased, with and without facial expression, suggesting the need to continue to teach specific conducting-gestures and to visually sensitize the performers to those common gestures. Mayne’s study is very relevant to the present study, in that they both emphasized the need to teach correct response to common conducting-gestures.

Additionally, another researcher addressing “emblems” was Roebke (2005), who examined and analyzed the effect of specific nonverbal behaviors on college music education majors’ perceptions of teaching effectiveness in the environment of an 128 instrumental music ensemble (band) rehearsal. The study’s participants were collegiate level students from four universities who observed one of two different video-recorded teaching episodes. In one of the episodes, the teacher/conductor exhibited defined emblems (types of conducting gestures), whereas in the other, the teacher/conductor inhibited the use of defined emblems. The participants were asked to rate the effectiveness of the teacher using a measure developed by the researcher. Results indicated that participants assessing the nonverbal exhibitor reported a mean score that was significantly higher with regard to overall teaching effectiveness than the mean score of participants assessing the inhibitor condition. Participants perceived a nonverbal exhibitor model to be significantly more effective than a nonverbal inhibitor model with respect to teaching behaviors. Similarly, the participants perceived a nonverbal exhibitor model to be more effective than a nonverbal inhibitor model with respect to musical competence. Some areas of agreement were found among perceptions of music education students between nonverbal exhibitor and nonverbal inhibitor models.

Finally, Cofer (1995, 1998) also addressed “emblems” and/or “conducting- gestures” in an important study. In fact, Cofer’s study had the most influence on the present study’s design. In other words, the present study was designed to be a replication and extension of the Cofer study, in that they both were/are attempts to investigate the effects of short-term conducting-gesture instruction on certain instrumental music students’ recognition of and performance response to common conducting-gestures (or emblems). One of the main purposes of the Cofer study was to examine the proportion of students successfully recognizing conducting-gestures to determine which ones could be considered as musical conducting emblems. Another purpose was to investigate the 129 influence of test format and instruction on gestures achieving musical conducting emblem status. The participants were 60 seventh-grade wind instrumentalists divided into a treatment and a control group. The treatment group (n = 30) received instruction for 5 days designed to improve their recognition and response to common conducting gestures.

The control group (n = 30) participated in a warm-up procedure designed to review certain concepts of musical expression without the use of conducting-gestures. A multiple-choice paper and pencil test and an individual musical performance measure served as two dependent measures of conducting gesture recognition. Statistically significant differences in favor of the treatment group for the pencil and paper test were the results of an independent t-test. Additionally, a MANOVA analysis revealed statistically significant differences also in favor of the treatment group for the individual musical performance test. A comparison of the two dependent measures resulted in a high-positive relationship between the two (r = .82). Furthermore, results of a comparability test indicated that the treatment group performed as well on the pencil and paper test as the performance test, and that 16 gestures reached musical conducting emblem status for the treatment group on both dependent measures. However, for the control group, only three gestures reached this status on the performance test, while only

11 reached of them reached it on the pencil and paper test. The most important conclusion of the study was that short-term conducting gesture instruction is effective in improving the recognition and performance of musical conducting emblems for seventh- grade band students. Even though the present study borrowed many of Cofer’s methods, the most notable differences were that string players instead of woodwind and brass players were used as the participants, and that the present study’s participants were 130 considerably older and more experienced than the seventh-grade students used as participants in the Cofer study.

Need for the Present Study

The authors of the previously cited studies, articles, or reports, examined the numerous attributes related to conducting, whether they be directing various sizes (and abilities) of vocal, band, and orchestra ensembles, or teaching conducting-gestures to college conducting students and/or music teachers. These cited studies fell into three categories: (1) conducting pedagogy, (2) conducting competencies, and (3) conducting emblems/gestures.

The first two categories contained the largest number of related studies. Under the conducting pedagogy category, studies addressing conducting methodology, physical skill development, aural skill development, programmed instruction, and conducting technology, were summarized. Additionally, the studies addressing nonverbal communication, perception, expressive versus nonexpressive conducting, and teacher/conductor behavior and effectiveness were summarized under the conducting competencies category. Finally, the summaries of the third category, conducting emblems/gestures, were also presented.

Of these many studies, only a few had a direct relation to the present study. After careful consideration, the present researcher placed those few into two broad categories:

(a) those that dealt with string players in ensembles of educational, community, or professional orchestras; and (b) those that addressed the use of conducting-gestures or gesture-instruction to improve the recognition and response of ensemble musicians in general. 131

The first category included the following researchers: Arcaya (1975), Bergee

(2005), Boerner (2007), Deegan (2007), Karpicke (1987), Rashley (2001), and Woodbury

(1955). Among these researchers, most addressed the conducting and leadership attributes of professional orchestra conductors working with professional orchestral musicians. However, Karpicke and Rashley were the only ones who explored orchestra conducting in educational settings. Rashley focused on the preferences of college orchestra students for either “strict” or “expressive” conducting, while Karpicke addressed the development of an instrument to assess conducting-gestures in orchestra performances, which would mostly benefit those persons involved in conductor-training.

Even though these last two researchers were education-related, they did not reflect the present researcher’s intent to address the effectiveness of gesture-instruction recognition toward the ensemble members themselves.

The second category included a much larger group of researchers, who generally addressed the relationship between conducting-gestures and the response of ensemble members. This group included Cofer (1998), Davidson and Liao (2007), Ford (2001),

Gallops (2005), Kelly (1997), Kolesnik (2004), Luck (2010), Luck and Nte (2008), Luck and Toiviainen (2006), Miller (1988), Nakra (2000), Napoles (2011), Patterson (1984),

Prime (2008), Sidoti (1991), Skadsem (1997), Strouse (1987), and Wöllner (2008).

However, only three of them specifically addressed the concept of teaching conductor- gesture recognition to ensemble members.

One of these was Sidoti (1991), who attempted to determine the extent to which high school instrumentalists (band students) were able to perform selected musical expression markings while following the conducting-gestures of a conductor. Similar to 132 the present study, the participants were high school music students who were given a

“pencil and paper” quiz designed to determine each student’s understandings of musical markings or terms indicating various musical styles or nuances. Additionally, the participants of the Sidoti study were also asked to perform simple melodies with several musical markings printed on the music of their melody-excerpts, while watching a conductor on a video-recording. However, unlike the excerpts of the present study’s

“playing test,” which had no musical markings other than an “upbow” indication, the melodies of the Sidoti study contained eight musical markings, which were designed to test the participants’ abilities to execute the given markings while watching the video- recorded conductor. The conductor in the Sidoti study merely beat time nonexpressively for half of the marked expressions, and for the other half, the expressions were conducted with a corresponding gesture. In contrast, the present study’s video-recorded conductor demonstrated various common gestures in an effort to test the participants’ abilities to respond to the gesture styles (or emblems) being presented. Nonetheless, enough components of the Sidoti study were similar to those of the present study to make it worth mentioning here.

Another researcher was Kelly (1997), who investigated the effects of conducting- gesture instruction on the performance of beginning band students in terms of legato and staccato musical styles, as well as phrasing and dynamics. The fact that conducting- gesture instruction was a major part of this study, as well as having included both a pretest and posttest to measure participant learning, make Kelly’s work similar to the present researcher’s study. However, there were/are some differences. One is that the participants of Kelly’s study were beginning-level musicians, presumably elementary-school aged, 133 and probably had little previous experience following a conductor. In contrast, the present study’s participants were high school-aged individuals, presumably somewhat experienced at following a conductor, and probably had some prior knowledge of some conducting-gestures. Another difference is that the Kelly study involved band instrumentalists, while the present study involves traditional string or orchestral instruments.

Finally, as was noted earlier, Cofer (1998) had the most influence on the present study’s design. Again, the most striking differences between the two were that string players instead of woodwind and brass players were used as the participants in the present study, and that the present study’s participants were considerably older and more experienced than the seventh-grade students used as participants in the Cofer study.

Given all that previous research has provided, including studies done with choral or band students, there exists little information about how orchestral string students respond to common conducting-gestures. The fact that the present study involved public high school string students makes it quite unique, because this particular population has not been thoroughly researched.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether short-term instruction in common conducting-gestures would significantly improve high school string students’ ability to recognize and respond to those gestures. More specifically, in the present study, the researcher sought to investigate the effects of conducting-gesture instructions using two dependent measures, a multiple-choice “pencil and paper” test and an individual

“playing test” measure. The researcher wished to determine whether there would be 134 differences between control groups (who did not receive conducting-instruction) and experimental groups (who did receive instruction) on a population of high school string students divided into experimental and control groups.

Research Questions

The specific research questions associated with the present study’s aim to investigate the effects of conducting-gesture instruction on the recognition and response of high school string (orchestra) students to conducting-gestures are listed below. (It is important to note that for each question and null hypothesis, the researcher set an a priori alpha level at .05.)

2. Will participants who receive conducting-gesture instruction perform better on a “playing test” in response to these conducting-gestures than those who do not?

3. Will participants from two different schools perform similarly on both test measures?

4. Will participants increase their “pencil and paper test” scores between the pretest and posttest of the “pencil and paper” measure?

Null Hypotheses

The present study investigated the following null hypotheses: (Again, with an a priori alpha level set at .05.) 135

1. There will be no significant difference on the multiple-choice “pencil and paper” identification test between the participants who receive conducting-gesture instruction and associated learning activities and those who do not.

2. There will be no significant difference on the “playing test” between the participants who receive conducting-gestures instruction and those who do not.

3. There will be no significant difference between the participants from two different schools on both test measures.

4. There will be no increase in the “pencil and paper test” scores between the pretest and posttest of the multiple-choice “pencil and paper” identification tes

CHAPTER III

METHOD

Participants

High school string students of two different public high school string orchestras of the same large suburban school district in the state of Utah, representing mixed gender and mixed grades (10 – 12), served as the subjects or participants for this study (N = 51).

Altogether there were 25 males, 26 females, 19 seniors, 12 juniors, 19 sophomores, 12 first-violin players, 12 second-violin players, 11 viola players, 11 cello players, and 5 bass players, from both schools. Ages of the participants ranged between 15 and 18 years, with the average being 16.20 years of age. The number of years studying privately ranged from 0 to 9 years (according to self-reports from the participants) with the average being only 1.6 years, largely due to the fact that 29 of the 51 participants had no private lessons on their respective string instruments (albeit many of them indicated they had studied piano with a private teacher). The average number of years the participants had played in a “conducted orchestra” was 4.6 years (again according to self-reports). A complete listing for each school’s total demographic data is included in Appendix A (e.g., total student population, numbers of males and females, numbers of different ethnic or racial background, numbers of students receiving free or reduced lunch, and types of music courses offered and taught in each school’s music department).

137

Each student orchestra was made up of approximately 25 members and had similarly balanced instrumentation (e.g., each orchestra had at least 6 first violins, 6 seconds, 5 violas, 5 cellos, and 2 basses). Each section had enough players to produce a relatively full string ensemble sound. Each school’s orchestra was divided into two groups—(a) an experimental group and (b) a control group. Additionally, the general playing ability of the student participants in each of the two orchestras was determined by consulting with their regular orchestra teacher. This was done so that the researcher could not only determine that the two orchestras were similar, but that when they were divided into their respective experimental and control groups, they would also be similar in their collective overall playing ability. When it came time to divide each orchestra into experimental and control groups, their regular teacher was consulted to ensure similar overall playing abilities.

The two orchestras were selected from schools who fit the following criteria: (a) school populations needed to be about the same size and contain a similar mixture of ethnic cultures and races, (b) the schools’ surrounding adult communities needed to be at about the same socio-economic level, and (c) the regular orchestra teacher of each school needed to agree to allow the researcher to take time out of his or her regular in-class rehearsal routines for several weeks in order to conduct the present study. (In the case of the present study, the two selected orchestras were from two similar schools that both had the same regular orchestra teacher, which reduced the possible confounding variable of teacher effect.)

In order to comply with the University of Utah’s Institutional Review Board

(IRB) policies set forth to protect human subjects, each potential participant received 138 notice (mainly from an in-person introductory visit by the researcher to each orchestra class) that he or she was invited to participate in a research study involving rehearsal techniques through conducting-gestures by way of reading and signing a student consent form (see Appendix B). Additionally, each student participant was informed that he or she needed to have his or her parents (or legal guardians) complete and sign a special parent “permission” or “consent” form (see Appendix C). These forms indicated that even though the regular orchestra teacher fully supported the study, no student was asked to participate against his or her own will, nor against the will of his or her parents.

Additionally, the students were informed that their participation or nonparticipation in the study would not play any part in their grade for orchestra class.

The student and parent consent forms (as well as a verbal explanation from the researcher during the first in-class introductory visit) also indicated that the research would consist of taking about 30 minutes of each class period over the next several weeks, and that none of it would involve the singling out of any individual in front of the others, nor any other potentially damaging psychological or embarrassing action. The researcher also explained that the orchestra would eventually be evenly divided into two separate groups for those 30 minutes (one to go with their regular teacher and one to stay with the researcher), and that at times, the groups would be video-recorded in order to document some of the study’s procedures.

The potential participants were also informed that each of them would later be individually audio-recorded, but that no individual names would be included in the study’s data collection or write-up. Moreover, they were told that their school’s orchestra was not the only one participating in the research, but that they would not find out what 139 the other school was until after the experiment was completed (as well as a few other preliminary findings).

In addition to collecting the permission or consent forms from both the participants, as well as their parents, the researcher sought and received written approval statements from the principals of both high schools, the regular orchestra teacher, and the corresponding district research review committee (see Appendices D through G), all prior to meeting with the student participants for the first time. These written statements and/or forms were submitted to the University’s IRB, who gave final approval several weeks before the study began (Appendix H).

After passing out both the student and parent permission/consent forms on the day of the researcher’s introductory visit, the regular orchestra teacher assisted by taking another 2 days to collect the signed student and parent forms. All except 2 students consented to participate in the study, and those 2 students were directed to go to a separate practice room during the subsequent treatment sessions.

Materials

In preparation for the stimulus video-recording, the researcher conducted a thorough review of literature and utilized the definitions of 18 different conducting gestures (see Appendix I) from a study by Cofer (1998) in order to develop a “pencil and paper” multiple-choice identification test. This test would be used for the study’s first dependent measure, both as a pretest and a posttest to be given to all of the participants before and after the treatment sessions.

Using an Olympus Stylus-7010 digital camera capable of audio and digital video- recording, the researcher video-recorded himself demonstrating three samples each of the 140

Cofer study’s 18 conducting gestures (totaling 54). The video-frames only included the researcher’s upper torso and arms, so as to focus only on the baton and hand/arm gestures. The researcher’s head and face were not included in the video-frames. Because many research studies on conducting indicate that facial expression and eye contact are very important aspects of conducting (Byo, 2001; Carvalho, 1997; Dan, 2005;

Fredrickson, 1994; Harden, 2000; Mayne, 1993; Orman, 2010, Wöllner, 2008), the researcher deliberately chose to provide no facial cues to the participants.

The 18 conducting gestures (used not only for the “pencil and paper” tests, but also during the conducting-gesture instruction treatment sessions) included the following: piano, forte, subito piano, subito forte, legato, tenuto, accelerando, ritardando, and two forms of crescendo, decrescendo, staccato, marcato, and fermata. In order to select which video-recorded demonstrations of the 54 samples (3 x 18) were the best representations of those 18 gestures and as a validity check, two expert adjudicators (one university orchestra and one university choral ensemble conductor) were asked to view the samples and to determine which would best represent each conducting-gesture. This task was completed with 100% reliability computed with the formula “agreements divided by the sum of agreements and disagreements” (i.e., 18 divided by 18 plus 0 = 1 =

100%) resulting in a determination that there was a superior example for each gesture.

The researcher then constructed the “pencil and paper” video-recorded test with the conducting-gestures appearing in a random order. The video-recorded segments of each gesture took between 20 and 25 seconds each, resulting in about a 6-minute presentation without pauses. However, during the administration of the test, the researcher planned to manually pause the video-recording between each gesture 141 demonstration for about 15 seconds to give the participants ample time to mark their answer sheets. The total administration of the test was estimated to take approximately 13 minutes.

A researcher-constructed answer sheet was developed (see Appendix J), which contained 18 multiple-choice items. The following demographic information was requested: (a) a four-digit code that the participants could easily remember, such as the last four numbers of their telephone number or address; (b) grade in school; (c) age; (d) gender; (e) instrument; (f) number of years playing in an orchestra that was conducted; and (e) number of years in private lessons.

Additionally, the answer sheet had a blank for the date, an item for circling whether the test was the pretest or the posttest, a list of the 18 gesture names (without definitions or explanations), a practice item addressing how many beats per measure were being demonstrated by the test administrator (the researcher), and a printed set of instructions for taking the test. All of this was done prior to the researcher’s first visit with the study’s potential participants.

The researcher also prepared a video presentation for the participants’ individual playing tests (the second dependent measure). This video-recording consisted of three samples for 12 of the original 18 gestures (see Appendix K). Since 5 of those 18 gestures could be demonstrated in two different ways (e.g., a crescendo gesture could either be demonstrated by just the right hand increasing the size of the beat pattern from small to large, or it could be done with just lifting the left hand up while keeping the thumb up and the palm at an upward angle), all redundant gestures were removed. From the results of an informal pilot test, the tenuto gesture seemed too difficult for the participants to 142 distinguish from the legato gesture, and it was also removed from this portion of the playing test. The final list of the 12 gestures used for the playing test stimulus video- recording included the following: piano, crescendo, subito forte, decrescendo, legato, marcato, accelerando, fermata, forte, staccato, subito piano, and ritardando.

At the same time that the expert adjudicators were evaluating the original 18 gestures, they also came to a 100% agreement on which 12 video-recorded samples out of a total of 36 were the best to be used for the playing test, again by using the formula

“agreements divided by the sum of agreements and disagreements” (i.e., 12 divided by 12 plus 0 = 1 = 100%). These video-recordings also included an audio setting of the researcher counting aloud, “one, two, three” in order to set the tempo for a short melody excerpt that was to be played by each participant when taking the playing test. The total duration of this video stimulus was about 5 minutes, which included between 20 and 25 seconds for each individual gesture. During the administration of this test, the researcher planned to allow the video stimulus to play continuously while each participant individually attempted to play an actual melody that was being conducted on the video screen.

In the playing test, each participant was going to be asked to play the first four measures of America the Beautiful in the key of C Major, complete with the pick-up note,

12 different times, while viewing the prepared video—all while being audio-recorded as well. The melody segment of America the Beautiful was chosen because it was a familiar melody and because of its opportunities for musical expressiveness.

Using the computer composition program Finale, the researcher printed a sheet containing the four-measure melody excerpt in three different clefs: treble for the violins, 143 alto for the violas, and bass for the cellos and basses (see Appendix L). The printed excerpt did not contain any dynamic, accent, slur, or tempo markings—but did have the first pick-up note indicated with an “up-bow” marking. Additionally, the audio-recorder used for the playing tests was an Olympus digital voice recorder (VN-5200PC) that could easily download many sound recordings onto a computer through a USB port and cable.

Pilot Studies

Several weeks before visiting the orchestra classes of the study’s preselected two high schools, the researcher informally administered the “pencil and paper” identification test to a group of practicing school orchestra teachers at “Trade Secrets,” a music teacher conference held in June 2011. Because the video-recorded excerpts of the present study had not yet been developed, each of the 18 conducting-gestures from the Cofer (1998) study were demonstrated live by the researcher, while the group of eight orchestra teachers attending the researcher’s presentation placed their answers on pieces of provided scratch paper. The purpose of giving the test was to provide the teachers with a sampling of what they could do to begin teaching their own students more about conducting-gestures, as well as to receive feedback from them on how clear or appropriate the test items were for school orchestra students.

The teachers verbally indicated that the components of the “pencil and paper” test

(as well as a sampling of some of the gesture-instruction activities that they had seen demonstrated by the researcher) were in fact a reasonable measure of and approach to teaching school orchestra students how to improve their conducting-gesture recognition skills. The teachers all scored high on the informal “pencil and paper” test (e.g., 16 or more out of 18). However, since the purpose of the presentation was mainly to 144 demonstrate one possible method to increase school orchestra students’ recognition of conducting-gestures, the resulting “pencil and paper” test scores of the teachers were not considered consequential. Instead, the researcher was primarily interested in the teachers’ comments concerning the validity of the “pencil and paper” test.

Additionally, just a few weeks before visiting the actual schools approved for the present study, the researcher also informally administered the “pencil and paper” test

(complete with the video-recorded excerpts of the 18 conducting-gestures and answer sheets) to his own string orchestra students at the high school where he was teaching

(where none of those students had any affiliation with the participants of the study’s preselected high school orchestras). After collecting and correcting the student answer sheets, the researcher performed a brief informal analysis to see which test items were answered most correctly (or incorrectly). The researcher had already predicted that the tenuto gesture would be the most difficult to identify, so it was no surprise to see that indeed, the tenuto gesture was answered incorrectly most often by the students of his own school. Hence, this informal analysis reinforced the researcher’s decision to eliminate the tenuto gesture from the playing test, although it was retained for the “pencil and paper” test due to it being an important gesture to learn about as an ensemble member.

As a result of these two pilot studies, the researcher determined that the “pencil and paper” test would be an adequate measure. However, in order to strengthen the test’s validity, the researcher decided to make the test into a “pretest/posttest” model.

Furthermore, results from the pilot studies reinforced the researcher’s decision to also include a playing test in the study.

145

Design

The present study’s basic research design was to be a pretest/posttest control group design. This quantitative experiment examined whether the instruction of conducting-gestures would yield a greater recognition of those gestures (measured both visually and through playing or performance exams.) The researcher intended to determine whether the focused instruction of conducting-gestures affect how well a group of high school string players could learn to recognize and play in response to common conducting-gestures.

The researcher decided that there needed to be at least two high school orchestras of similar size in order to provide an adequate sampling for the experiment. Additionally, the students of the orchestras needed to represent average public high-school string musicians who mostly did not have private lessons or play in district, region, or state honors orchestras. The researcher’s main desire was to develop something that not only would aid struggling public school string programs where opportunities to participate in a full ensemble or having access to private instruction was limited, but also something that could be used to strengthen the ensemble-playing skills of those students already participating in well-functioning orchestras and/or who have studied extensively with a private teacher.

The researcher’s step-by-step procedure was as follows:

1. Introduce the general nature of the study to the potential participants of two similar school orchestras, but not in so much detail that the control groups would know the study’s exact purposes. The participants would only be told that the study would be addressing various rehearsal techniques as presented by both the regular teacher and the 146 researcher, and that their musical skills would probably improve as a result of participating in the study.

2. Administer a “pencil and paper” multiple-choice pretest to all participants that entailed identifying 18 basic conducting gestures while viewing a video-recorded demonstration of each gesture on a large screen at the front of the rehearsal room.

3. Conduct a preliminary informal analysis to see which gesture items were the most difficult to recognize (and also the easiest) so that during the conducting-gesture instruction sessions, those particular gestures could be given extra attention.

4. Divide each orchestra into equal experimental and control groups, ensuring similar instrumentation in each with the assistance of the regular orchestra teacher.

5. For the next several class meetings of each orchestra, send the control groups with their regular orchestra teacher to a separate room to participate in a series of regular rehearsals without the teacher demonstrating any conducting. (The teacher was to only tap the conductor stand, or sing, or count, or even play along on his or her own instrument throughout the rehearsal on whatever piece(s) the group was preparing for their next performance.)

6. Have the students of the experimental groups remain with the researcher to participate in a series of conducting-gesture instruction activities over the same period

(see Appendix M).

7. Administer the same “pencil and paper” multiple-choice test that was used as the pretest to all of the participants (now the posttest) in the same manner as before, complete with a prepared video-recording of the 18 gestures appearing on a large screen in front of the class. 147

8. On subsequent days following the treatment, set up a “playing test” location outside of the regular rehearsal room for all participants to come in individually and play a simple four-measure melody 12 different times while viewing 12 basic conducting- gestures presented on a prepared video-recording. The participants’ playing tests would also be audio-recorded, cataloged, and placed on a master compact disc (CD).

9. Recruit three independent experienced orchestra or applied string teachers as judges to listen to the playing test recordings and evaluate or rate each one on a 5-point

Likert-type scale according to how they perceive each participant’s audio-recorded execution of the 12 gestures included on the gesture-demonstration test.

10. Conduct a statistical analysis not only of the collected data or scores of the

“pencil and paper” pretests and posttests, but also on the data or scores coming from the three orchestra or applied string judges who rated the individual audio-recordings of the playing test.

Procedure

The following is based on the researcher’s daily log describing what occurred during each visit of the 7-day treatment or testing period at each school, not including the initial introductory visit or the follow-up visit addressing some of the preliminary results of the “pencil and paper” pre- and posttests:

Note: Since both schools of the study had the same regular orchestra teacher, it was customary for both orchestras to rehearse the same music and to perform together at the same location—typically alternating auditoriums.

148

Administration of Pretest

In order to determine the initial knowledge of the participants’ ability to recognize common conducting-gestures, the researcher asked all of the participants to complete the

“pencil and paper” pretest. The pretest (and later the posttest) consisted of watching a prepared video-recording projected up in front of the class on an 8’ by 8’ screen, while attempting to mark the appropriate answer on a prepared answer sheet (see Appendix J).

The answer sheet, which was photocopied on yellow paper, contained the aforementioned information blanks, 13 Italian terms indicating bowing and articulation styles, some descriptions of why conducting is important on the front side, and 18 four-point multiple- choice items complete with one practice item on the back side.

After the answer sheets were passed out and an effort was made to ensure that each participant had a writing utensil, the researcher instructed the participants that there was to be no talking, no looking at others’ answers, and that none of the Italian terms could be explained or defined at that time. Additionally, the participants were told to circle the word “pretest” at the top of the answer sheet, and to fill in the blanks for a four- digit number that they could easily remember, because it would be later used as their private identification number on other occasions throughout the duration of the study.

After giving the participants about 5 minutes to complete the front side of their answer sheets (e.g., filling in the demographic information), the researcher reiterated the instructions for the test, as follows:

“When the video begins you will see a brief segment of a conductor using a nonverbal gesture. Watch each segment in its entirety, then choose the answer that best describes the musical element that is being communicated by the conductor. You will 149 have 15 seconds to decide on your answer, and then the next segment will begin. Some of the above elements can be used twice.”

As a practice example, the researcher then stepped up to the podium and physically demonstrated a conducting pattern of 5 beats per measure for the practice item.

The practice item had four possible answers: (a) 2 beats per measure, (b) 4 beats per measure, (c) 3 beats per measure, and (d) 5 beats per measure. Upon seeing that the participants had marked their answer sheets, the researcher asked by show of hands,

“How many beats per measure were being demonstrated?” Most of the participants raised their hands, and the researcher called on one of them to answer. Not only did the individual answer correctly, it seemed that most of the group agreed that it was easy to see that there were 5 beats per measure being demonstrated for the practice item.

Next, the researcher started the prepared pretest video by pressing the “play” button on a laptop computer that was connected by a cable to the classroom’s ceiling- mounted video projector. Because the video-recorded test did not include sound, the researcher verbally announced aloud which numbered test-item corresponded to which video segment with about a 15-second pause in between, giving time for the participants to choose and mark the best multiple-choice answer for that particular item. After the tests were completed, the answer sheets were collected and marked A for School A or B for School B in the upper left corner of the front page. The entire test took about 13 minutes to complete, not counting the time allotted for the practice item or the filling out of the demographic information.

As has already been mentioned, the regular orchestra teacher had recommended which participants should go into either the experimental group or into the control group. 150

The researcher requested that the participants be evenly divided, not only to maintain a balanced instrumentation, but also to ensure that each group had about the same ratio of

“confident” players to “weaker” players in each section. At School A, there was a total of

26 participants, with 13 in the experimental group and 13 in the control group. At School

B, there initially were a total of 25 participants for both the instruction sessions and the

“pencil and paper” posttest. (However, as the study continued on for audio-recording each participant’s playing test, 4 of School B’s participants became “statistical mortalities,” in that 1 transferred out of the class, another went in the hospital for surgery, and 2 others were absent for the playing test time period.) School B’s groups initially began with 13 in the experimental group and 12 in the control group.

The experimental groups remained in the regular rehearsal room with the researcher at each school, and the control groups went with their regular orchestra teacher either into School A’s ensemble room, or into School B’s nearby lunchroom.

Administration of Experimental Group Treatment Sessions

A detailed description of what occurred during each treatment session follows:

Instruction Session #1 (25 minutes duration). Note: The various conducting- instruction treatment activities for the experimental groups were based in part on the strategies presented by Prime (2008), in a journal article entitled, “Getting Your Students to Watch and Respond.” These activities or strategies were adapted by the researcher (see

Appendix M).

After instructing the participants not to discuss the details of any of the instruction sessions with the participants of the control group, the researcher passed out to each 151 experimental-group participant a paper handout (see Appendix I) containing the names and descriptions or definitions of all 18 conducting-gestures that appeared on the pretest.

The participants were asked to read over the handout while the researcher drew on the white board in front of the classroom visual representations of three basic conducting patterns. The first gestural pattern drawn was in 4/4, the second in 3/4, and the third in

2/4.

The researcher initially demonstrated each drawn gesture, and then with his back toward the group (in order not to confuse the participants with mirror-image issues), he asked the participants to physically conduct along with him those same gestures. This exercise was intended to give the participants the opportunity to physically feel some of the most rudimentary gesture movements that a conductor experiences while leading an ensemble. In addition, two studies that involved exploring how well their participants could synchronize to a conductor’s gestures, Luck and Nte (2008) and Luck and Sloboda

(2007), suggested that the participants with previous conducting experience demonstrated higher levels of synchronization accuracy when asked to tap in synchrony with the beat of life-size point-light representations of traditional three-beat conducting-gestures. Thus, the researcher integrated the activity of having the experimental group participants actually experience the basic 2/4, 3/4, and 4/4/ patterns by physically making those conducting motions in hopes of making them better “followers” of conducting-gestures.

The researcher then demonstrated and described aloud each of the first nine gestures appearing on the handout. The participants were again asked to conduct along with the researcher for each gesture in 4/4 time, so that they could practice and physically feel each gesture’s motions. 152

At the end of the session, the white board was erased, the handouts were collected, and the participants were reminded not to divulge to the control group what happened during their instruction session.

Instruction Session #2 (20 minutes duration). Again, the researcher passed out the handout describing and naming the 18 conducting-gestures. Following a quick demonstration and verbal review of the first nine gestures, the researcher continued with a detailed demonstration and explanation of the last nine gestures, with special emphasis on the legato and tenuto gestures. As with the first session, the participants of the experimental groups were asked to physically conduct each gesture along with the researcher in order to reinforce gesture recognition. Through informal observation, it became clear to the researcher that all of the participants’ arm movements were being executed correctly during this activity.

Next, the participants were asked to play a two-octave C Major scale in both half notes and then in quarter notes (4/4 time) while observing and responding to a variety of different gestures (taken from the handout) demonstrated by the researcher. The researcher changed gestures every two to three measures so that by the time the group had played through the scale twice, the participants had the chance to observe and respond to all 18 gestures. The purpose of this exercise was to simulate the playing test the participants would be taking later. At the end of the session, the handouts were collected so as to not fall into the hands of any participant in the control groups.

Instruction Session #3 (40 minutes duration--some of this session was video- recorded for documentation purposes). Both the experimental and control groups started out by remaining in the rehearsal room with the researcher for the first activity, 153 which consisted of passing out a paper handout to each pair of participants sharing the same music stand. The handout (see Appendix L) contained a printed excerpt of the first four measures of America the Beautiful in the key of C Major without any other markings except an “up-bow” mark on the first pick-up note. It also consisted of four lines: the top line for the violins, the second for the violas, and the third for the cellos, and the fourth for the basses, all in their respective clefs. The researcher then turned on a video camera located at the back of the room, which was mounted on a small tripod. He then went to the podium and instructed the entire group to play through the excerpt twice, but without conducting—only counting aloud and then showing a cut-off gesture at the excerpt’s end.

The purpose of this activity was to allow all of the participants (both experimental and control groups) to be exposed to both the reading and the sound of the excerpt, since the key of C might have been very different from any version the participants had played before—especially for the F-natural on the downbeat of the third measure. After asking if there were any questions about the excerpt, and turning off the video camera, the researcher instructed the control group members to pass in their excerpt handouts and to follow the regular teacher into their designated separate areas for rehearsal. The participants of the experimental group were instructed to keep their excerpt handout on their music stands and to remain in the room.

The video camera was turned back on and from the podium, the researcher directed the participants to count aloud as he demonstrated various conducting gestures.

The participants were instructed to use various inflections in their voices to show their intended fortes, pianos, or marcatos, etc. according to the researcher’s gestures.

Next the researcher began an “identify-the-gesture” game by having the 154 participants raise their hands if they knew the name of a particular gesture being demonstrated. Approximately five gestures were shown and guessed correctly by the participants who were called on to answer.

The participants were then instructed to play the first four measures of America the Beautiful as the researcher systematically went through each of the 18 conducting- gestures in reverse order of the way they were originally listed on the first handout

(Appendix I). Again, the legato and tenuto gestures were given extra attention. It became apparent to the researcher that the participants no longer needed the original gesture list in order to recognize or remember the names of the gestures because, through informal observation and listening, the researcher could tell that the participants were able to execute the various gestures correctly as they played through the America the Beautiful excerpt.

Finally, the group was asked to take out White Christmas, a selection being worked on in their regular in-class rehearsals, and the researcher began directing a rehearsal applying several different conducting-gestures. White Christmas was chosen because it contained frequent opportunities for the researcher to utilize many of the same conducting-gestures on which the group had been receiving instruction. However, since the participants had little previous rehearsal time on the piece, it was evident that they were not watching or responding very well to the researcher’s corresponding conducting- gestures to the piece’s various printed nuances (e.g., crescendos, pianos, or subito fortes).

Contrary to what the researcher had originally planned to do, he chose to sing along in a few places in order to help the various sections of the group learn the basic notes and rhythms of their parts. At the end of the session, the America the Beautiful excerpt 155 handouts were collected.

Instruction Session #4 (20 minutes duration). The researcher directed another game of “identify-the-gesture-by-raise-of-hands,” with one modification. The participants could call out the name of the gesture as soon as the researcher had completed a particular gesture’s demonstration. All 18 of the gestures were demonstrated in a random order from how they appeared on the first handout (Appendix I). It seemed that the group as a whole could readily recognize the gestures since the majority of the participants were answering aloud the names of the gestures very quickly as soon as they were demonstrated. (Only a portion of this session was video-recorded since the researcher also wanted to video-record what was going on with the control group for documentation purposes.)

After a few minutes of the aforementioned activity, the researcher instructed the participants to do some “in-seat” private practicing on White Christmas while he stepped out to set up the video camera on the control group. Upon returning, the researcher directed a short rehearsal on White Christmas, only this time, the participants were playing the piece much better, and were actually watching and responding to the researcher’s various conducting gestures according to what was printed in the parts and on the conductor score. Again, at the end of the session, the participants were reminded to not discuss what had occurred in their instruction session with any of the control group’s participants.

Instruction Session #5 (20 minutes duration, 15 minutes video-recorded).

The researcher announced that this was going to be the last day of gesture-instruction (or review) and that the next session would involve the posttest version of the “pencil and 156 paper” identification test. The participants were then asked to play a two-octave C Major scale while watching the researcher demonstrate various conducting-gestures in random orders. Here again, the researcher made a special effort to review the more difficult gestures. The half-note version of the scale was not very successfully executed for the gestures of staccato or marcato, so the quarter-note version of the scale was implemented to make it easier to recognize and respond to the gestures being presented. Since only a few gestures could be shown during a single “ascending and descending” of the scale, the researcher directed the group to play the scale three times in order to fully cover all 18 gestures.

A little more demonstration and discussion of some of the more challenging gestures ensued for the purposes of a solid review, since the posttest would not occur until the following week, due to a 1-day break from school for a teacher planning day.

Administration of Control Group Sessions

A detailed description of what occurred during each session of the control groups will be explained with the following:

Session #1 (25 minutes duration). For this first session, the regular orchestra teacher talked through some of the new pieces the orchestra had just received to be programmed for their next performance. For both schools, one of these pieces was a string orchestra and choir arrangement of White Christmas, which the researcher planned to later rehearse with the experimental groups. As part of the agreement between the researcher and the regular orchestra teacher, there was to be no conducting during the control groups’ sessions. The regular orchestra teacher could clap, sing, or tap the conductor’s music stand with the baton, or even play along on her own instrument 157

(violin), but no physical conducting could occur. By the same token, during the experimental groups’ sessions, the researcher was not to clap or count aloud during rehearsal.

Session #2 (20 minutes duration). The regular orchestra teacher had the participants of the control groups take their instruments along with their new holiday pieces to their designated separate room. Without conducting, but only tapping on a music stand, the regular teacher instructed the students to play through these pieces, with most of the work done on White Christmas. Throughout the session, the group received numerous verbal corrections addressing their pitch and rhythm errors. Again, the regular teacher exhibited no physical conducting. However, during the remainder of the time spent in regular in-class rehearsals (when the researcher was not present) the teacher would return to her normal conducting practices.

Session #3 (30 minutes, but not video-recorded yet). After the control group had completed the combined activity (with the experimental group) of playing through the four-measure melody excerpt of America the Beautiful and having separated into their respective rooms, the regular orchestra teacher took her personal violin into the designated rooms and played along with the control group participants as they rehearsed

White Christmas. Additionally, they rehearsed a few other pieces they needed to prepare for their next performance. No actual conducting took place, only numerous verbal instructions.

Session #4 (20 minutes duration, second half video-recorded at School B).

The regular teacher again had her own violin and played along with the control group participants as they rehearsed various spots of their music, (i.e., Armed Forces Medley, 158 which was what the orchestras collectively were preparing for a special Veteran’s Day performance with their schools’ bands). Many starts and stops occurred, in addition to verbal instruction, but no physical conducting.

Session #5 (15 minutes, and some of School A’s session video-recorded). The regular teacher used her own violin in directing and playing along with the group in rehearsal. During the time that the researcher came in to observe, a video-recording was made of the teacher leading the group in a C Major scale several times, each time using a different bowing style. As always, no actual conducting took place.

Administration of Posttest

On the day of the posttest, there was no separation of the treatment and control groups. Instead, all of the participants remained in the regular orchestra rehearsal room at both schools to take the “pencil and paper” identification posttest in the same manner as the pretest (except the practice item consisted of the researcher demonstrating a 3/4 conducting pattern instead of a 5/4 pattern). The participants were instructed to do their own work without talking, and to choose the answer that best represented what they were seeing on the large screen at the front of the classroom. Additionally, the participants were asked to fill in the blanks with the same four-digit number that they had written on their pretest, and to circle the word “posttest” at the top of their answer sheets, which were photocopied onto light green paper in order to make it easier to distinguish between the pre- and posttests. Furthermore, the participants were asked to write a “T” at the top of their light green answer sheet if they were in the researcher’s group (experimental group), or a “C” if they were in their regular orchestra teacher’s group (control group).

After the posttests were completed at both schools, the researcher collected the 159 answer sheets, and later marked them with A’s or B’s for School A or B. Additionally, he explained to all of the participants that on later visits, each individual would be asked to perform a playing test in a separate room. The researcher explained that no individual names would be used, but that each participant should remember their four-digit number that they had placed on their “pencil and paper” test answer sheets. The participants were also told that they would be playing the same four-measure melody excerpt of America the Beautiful (which they saw and played-through 2 weeks prior) for their audio- recordings while viewing a prepared video-presentation of the researcher demonstrating various conducting-gestures. The researcher also promised them all a treat of doughnuts on his last visit as a gesture of appreciation for their willingness to be participants in the study.

Administration of the Playing Test

During the researcher’s subsequent visits to each of the participating school orchestras, starting the next day after the “pencil and paper” posttests and continuing on through about the first week of the following month, the participants were invited to leave their in-class regular orchestra rehearsal (with their instrument and bow in hand) one at a time and to report to the researcher, who was set up in a separate designated room. At School A, the designated room was a separate ensemble room located between the instrumental and choir rehearsal rooms; at School B, the separate room was the unoccupied Little Theatre located down the hall.

In each of these separate rooms, the researcher had set up the following: (a) a laptop computer sitting on top of an upright piano with the screen placed in an easily observable position; (b) a set of 12 video-recorded segments (ready to be shown on the 160 laptop computer’s screen) of the researcher demonstrating 12 different conducting- gestures using the first four-measures of the America the Beautiful melody as the test excerpt; (c) a music stand with a sheet containing the four-measure test excerpt in three different clefs (Appendix L); (d) an Olympus VN-5200PC audio-recorder ready to be switched on at the proper time; (e) a notebook pad with a sheet entitled “audio-recording log” for the researcher to write down each participant’s four-digit identification or code number, instrument, date of recording, and track number; (f) a conductor baton ready for the researcher to physically demonstrate a few practice examples before the participant would be audio-recorded while watching the video-recorded excerpts; and (g) the same

Olympus Stylus-7010 camera used to prepare the “pencil and paper” video-recorded tests, prepared to video-record just some of the participants as documentation of how a typical “playing test” proceeded.

The following steps occurred in approximately the same order each time a participant entered the separate room ready to take their “playing test.”

1. The participant was asked to take a look (without playing yet) at the sheet placed on the music stand (see Appendix L) while the researcher began to write in the day’s date on the “audio-recording” log. The date was logged in case the researcher or the judges rating the individual playing test recordings wanted to review them.

2. After a few seconds (about 10) the participant was then asked to play the four-measure excerpt of America the Beautiful that was placed on the music stand, on his or her instrument as practice. If rhythm or pitch errors occurred, the researcher would verbally correct the individual, and would instruct him or her to play it again. If the participant was having trouble getting all the way through the excerpt without errors, the 161 researcher allowed the participant an extra minute or two to get used to the surroundings.

Depending on the individual, the researcher would simply ask the participant if he or she felt ready to continue.

3. Still in the “practice phase,” the researcher would then stand nearly in front of the participant (not directly in front because the computer and music stand were in the way) and would physically conduct him or her (with the baton in hand) by first counting off, “one, two, three” and then gesturing him or her to come in on beat four with the first pick-up note of the four-measure excerpt. During each participant’s first playing, the researcher would make no tempo or gesture changes in his conducting.

4. Next the researcher explained to the participant that he would be making gesture changes, and that the participant should try to follow those gesture changes while playing the excerpt. Usually the changes would go from legato to staccato, or there might be a fermata, or there would be a subito piano immediately following a forte. Depending on how well the participant followed the gestures, the researcher would repeat this part of the practice phase two or three times in order to allow the participant to experience at least three gesture changes.

5. The researcher would then tell the participant that the audio-recorder was being turned on, and that he or she should announce aloud his or her same four-digit identification number that was used on his or her “pencil and paper” tests, either School

A or B, the date, and his or her instrument, all while the researcher was writing them down in the “audio-recording log.”

6. The researcher would then explain that there would be a series of 12 different conducting-gestures appearing on the screen of the laptop computer. 162

Additionally, each time the voice on the video counted off, “one, two, three”, the participant was to begin playing the excerpt on beat four, as shown on the sheet placed on the music stand, all while simultaneously watching and following the conductor’s gestures on the screen. The researcher also explained that only one gesture would be demonstrated at a time during each showing of the four-measure excerpt, and that before the next gesture would begin, he would verbally announce when the next numbered gesture would appear. (The numbered gestures were spaced about 5 seconds apart.)

7. This procedure would continue until all 12 of the prepared video excerpts had been shown, as the participant made attempts to perform according to the various conducting-gestures being presented. At the end of the recording session, the researcher instructed the participant to announce his or her own four-digit identification number once more, the date, the school, and on which instrument he or she had just played.

8. The audio-recorder would then be turned off, and the participant would be thanked and sent back to his or her regular rehearsal room.

9. If it was decided by the researcher to video-record a participant, which occurred about three or four times throughout this part of the study, the researcher would first ask for the participant’s permission. Again, an occasional video-recording of some of the participants’ playing test experience was performed randomly for documentation purposes.

10. As per previous instructions, the next participant would be waiting in the hallway just outside the designated “audio-recording” room, and as 1 participant would finish, the researcher would invite the next in.

During the second week of the following month after the posttest, the 163 researcher along with the regular orchestra teacher made a final check by counting and comparing the four-digit identification numbers between the audio-recording log list and the list that was compiled from the “paper and pencil” tests, to see if all of the participants had taken the playing test. Upon doing this, the researcher discovered that four participants from School B, who had taken both the pre- and post- “pencil and paper” tests, had not taken the playing test. After announcing those four identification numbers to School B’s orchestra members, and having no one respond that any of those were his or her numbers, the regular orchestra teacher confirmed from her roll book that each one of those four for various reasons had not been present in class during the

“playing-test” phase of the study. (One had transferred out of the orchestra class, another had entered the hospital for surgery, and the other 2 had been absent for class during the second half of November.) Thus the researcher decided that these 4 would be claimed as

“statistical mortalities.”

On his last visit to each school, the researcher purchased and brought doughnuts for each participant (and for the regular orchestra teacher). During this time, a group discussion ensued regarding what the purposes of the study were and what some of the preliminary results from the “pencil and paper” tests meant. The researcher encouraged the participants to pay closer attention to their teacher’s conducting-gestures both during rehearsals and performances, and to become familiar enough with their orchestra music

(by enough individual practicing) so that they could afford to focus more on their teacher’s interpretations of a piece’s musical nuances instead of burying their eyes into their music stands. Most of the participants agreed that it was interesting to be a part of the study, and that they appreciated being made more aware of watching and responding 164 better to a conductor.

Evaluation of the Playing Tests

After compiling the participants’ audio-recordings and “burning” them onto a master compact disc (CD) in a random order, the researcher wrote some explicit instructions for three experienced orchestra-teacher friends to serve as independent judges or evaluators of the participants’ playing tests (see Appendix N). Two of the judges were female veteran private violin teachers of more than 20 years, and the third judge was a male retired high school orchestra teacher/conductor of more than 30 years.

Upon making a personal visit to each judge to verbally explain how to evaluate or rate the playing test audio-recordings consistently, the researcher gave to each of them an envelope containing the following: (a) a compact disc (CD) copy of the audio-recordings of each playing test; (b) a digital video disc (DVD) copy of the video-recorded segments of the 12 conducting-gestures that the participants were supposed to follow as they played the four-measure excerpts to serve as reminder of the stimuli provided to the participants; (c) a hard copy of the playing test excerpt (Appendix L); (d) an instruction sheet (Appendix N) reiterating the training discussed during the researcher’s personal visit to the judges; and (e) a prepared set of answer sheets (see Appendix O) also containing some brief instructions, and listing each participant’s four-digit identification numbers down the left side (in the order they occurred on the audio CD), and across the top, a list of the 12 conducting-gestures (also in the order they were played on the audio

CD). The judges would be using this answer sheet to record their responses or ratings to each participant’s performance of the playing test.

The judge’s answer or scoring sheet (Appendix O) also contained the names 165

(Italian terms) and definitions of each of the 12 conducting-gestures, as well as directions to evaluate or rate the participants’ recordings of each gesture on a Likert-type scale from

1 to 5 (with 5 being the most correct, and 1 being the least correct). The researcher decided to use only 12 of the original 18 gestures because five of them were duplicates of the same gesture; and one of them, the tenuto gesture, seemed too difficult for the participants to differentiate from the legato gesture in terms of sound.

Additionally, the answer sheet (in addition to the instruction sheet) directed the judges to not consider intonation, rhythm, or tempo (except for the accelerando and ritardando gestures) and other issues not related to the gesture when assigning a rating. A suggested date of 3 weeks from receiving their packets was given for the judges to finish their tasks.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The present study investigated the effects of conducting-gesture instruction on high school string students’ recognition of and performance response to basic conducting-gestures or emblems. Over a period of approximately 2 weeks (or five class- meetings), the experimental group (n = 26) received a set of researcher-developed conducting-gesture instruction activities designed to increase the experimental groups’ recognition of 18 selected conducting-gestures. The experimental groups were taught by the researcher, while the control groups (n = 25) were taught by the regular orchestra teacher, who was the teacher at both of the participating high schools. During the five class-meetings of treatment, the experimental groups received approximately 20-30 minutes of instruction in each school’s regular rehearsal room, and the control groups went to separate nearby rooms (for the same 20-30 minutes) to participate in rehearsal activities with their regular orchestra teacher that did not involve conducting.

After the treatment period was completed, two measures were utilized in order to determine to what degree the participants were able to recognize and respond to a set of predetermined conducting-gestures. The first was a pretest/posttest multiple-choice

“pencil and paper” identification measure used to assess the participants’ visual recognition abilities of 18 selected conducting-gestures. The second was an individual

167 performance or playing test, which was used to assess the participants’ playing response abilities to 12 of the initial selected conducting-gestures. While all 51 string student- participants completed the pencil and paper measures (pre- and posttests), 4 of these initial participants became statistical mortalities (for various reasons) by the time the playing test portion of the study was implemented. This resulted in a total of only 47 participants being present for the playing test.

Pencil and Paper Tests

The scores (number of items answered correctly) from both the pre- and posttest

“pencil and paper” measures were collected and tabulated from the participants’ completed answer sheets (see Appendix J for sample answer sheet with the correct answers marked). The pre- and posttests were identical (although they were taken approximately 2 weeks apart) and there were 18 items. Each test item called for the participants to correctly choose one of four multiple-choice responses after watching a 6-

8-second video-recorded demonstration of a single conducting-gesture. There were 18 total possible points, and one point was awarded for each correctly circled answer.

Pretest

Before being divided into experimental and control groups, all of the participants from both schools (N = 51) were given the “pencil and paper” conducting-gesture identification pretest. The pretest answer sheets were photocopied onto yellow-colored paper in order to facilitate differentiation between pretest and posttest answer sheets

(which were photocopied onto light green paper). Before the pretest completed answer sheets were submitted, the participants were asked to write at the top of the front page 168 either an A or a B, indicating whether they attended School A or School B. After collecting the answer sheets, the researcher hand-corrected them and recorded each score in the blank labeled “Pretest score” located at the bottom of the back page of each answer sheet. All of the pretest scores were then collectively placed into a researcher-kept log where each participant’s pretest score was paired with his or her individual four-digit identification number, and their scores were grouped according to school (School A or

B). In order to ensure an unbiased division of each school’s orchestra participants into experimental and control groups, the researcher did not compute means of the pretest until after the score data were collected from the posttests as well.

However, in order to see which gesture items were the most difficult to recognize

(and also the easiest) so that during the conductor-instruction sessions those particular gestures could be given extra attention, the researcher immediately conducted a preliminary informal analysis of the pretest’s individual gesture scores before beginning the treatment sessions. The informal analysis consisted of counting up the number of times each gesture test item was incorrectly answered and then looking to see which items had the highest counts.

The results of the informal analysis included the following: (a) the tenuto gesture was the most difficult gesture to identify because the test item representing that gesture was answered incorrectly 23 times at School B and 19 times at School A, totaling 42 times out of a possible 51, since there were 51 participants who took the pretest. The gesture receiving the next highest count of incorrect answers was the legato gesture, which was answered incorrectly 20 times at School B and 19 times at School A, totaling

39 times. The third most difficult gesture to identify correctly was the “forte” gesture, 169 which was answered incorrectly 15 times at School A and 21 times at School B, for a total of 36 times out of a possible 51.

The two easiest gestures to identify on the pretest were those items representing the crescendo and the decrescendo gestures by utilizing the conductor’s left hand and arm, which made these two gestures easier to recognize than most of the others. A few of the other less difficult gesture items (in terms of being answered incorrectly less than a total of 5 times) were accelerando (2 times), ritardando (3 times), and fermata (3 times).

All of the other pretest items were answered incorrectly at least 6 or more times, indicating that the participants collectively had some previous knowledge of some of the

18 gesture terms on the pretest and could recognize several of them more easily than others.

When the means of the pretest were finally computed, the overall resulting raw scores ranged from 8 to 18 points out of a possible 18, with the mean being 12.29 and the standard deviation being 2.15. These scores demonstrated that most of the participants had some prior knowledge of the video-recorded conducting-gestures and what they were called (not surprisingly after having played under some sort of conductor since their middle-school years). When tabulating which pretest items were answered correctly most frequently, it appeared that some of the more familiar gestures included the following: crescendo, accelerando, piano, fermata, decrescendo, and ritardando. 170

In order to discern which pretest scores were from the experimental groups and which ones were from the control groups (because at the time of the pretest the participants had not yet been divided into their respective experimental and control groups), the researcher asked the participants to write on their posttest answer sheets

(when that time came) a “T” if they were in the orchestra room with the researcher, or a

“C” if they were in a separate room with the regular orchestra teacher during the

“treatment period.” The dividing of each orchestra occurred during the next class meeting after the pretests were taken. Later (after the posttests were taken), with those markings on the posttest answer sheets (T or C), the researcher was able to match the four-digit identification numbers that each participant wrote on their answer sheets of both the pretest and the posttest.

Table 1 displays the raw scores (number correct out of 18) for both the pretest and posttest of each participant along with each participant’s four-digit identification number

(labeled Code #). The numbers in the “difference column” of Table 1 indicate that if a participant scored higher on the posttest than on the pretest, the number was positive—if they scored lower, the number was indicated with a minus sign. Additionally, the “T or

C” column shows whether the participant was in the experimental group (T) or the control group (C), and an A if the participant was in the orchestra of School A, and/or a B if the participant was in the orchestra of School B.

Posttest

The “pencil and paper” posttest was administered in exactly the same manner as the pretest (including using the same video-recorded presentation). However, the posttest was given approximately 2 weeks after the treatment sessions of the experimental groups. 171

Table 1. Pre- and Post- Pencil and Paper Test Raw Scores (18 Possible Points)

School A School B

TorC Code# Pre- Post- Difference TorC Code# Pre- Post- Difference

AT 1704 12 18 6 BT 9625 11 18 7

AT 6572 13 18 5 BT 8038 11 18 7

AT 8606 12 18 6 BT 4404 12 18 6

AT 9123 18 18 0 BT 0099 12 18 6

AT 2547 16 18 2 BT 1366 14 18 4

AT 4975 12 18 6 BT 5139 16 17 1

AT 3948 12 16 4 BT 4531 14 16 2

AT 5700 15 16 1 BT 2796 11 16 5

AT 2012 12 16 4 BT 2083 17 16 -1

AT 5973 13 16 3 BT 3175 8 14 6

AT 1613 14 15 1 BT 1945 13 14 1

AT 3927 11 15 4 BT 9189 8 12 4

AT 8632 10 14 4 BT 6799 8 4 -4

AC 5726 12 17 5 BC 1963 13 15 2

AC 2054 15 14 -1 BC 0820 15 14 -1

AC 1270 15 13 -2 BC 3535 11 14 3

AC 0001 13 13 0 BC 9446 11 13 2

AC 0222 12 13 1 BC 8239 11 13 2

AC 2112 11 13 2 BC 2898 13 13 0

172

Table 1. Continued

School A School B

TorC Code# Pre- Post- Difference TorC Code# Pre- Post- Difference AC 1331 11 13 2 BC 5589 10 13 3

AC 4544 13 12 -1 BC 1021 13 13 0

AC 5661 12 12 0 BC 7196 13 12 -1

AC 0206 10 11 1 BC 9684 11 12 1

AC 2230 14 11 -3 BC 1995 11 10 -1

AC 4209 12 11 -1 BC 3205 11 10 -1

AC 9191 9 10 1

173 were completed. Additionally, the posttest answer sheets were identical to the pretest answer sheets—except they were photocopied onto green-colored paper. There were 18 items on the posttest, and each test item called for the participants to correctly choose one of four multiple-choice responses after watching a 6 to 8-second video-recorded demonstration of a single conducting-gesture. There were 18 total possible points and one point was awarded for each correctly circled answer.

Upon completing the posttest, the participants were asked to write at the top of the front page either an “A” or a “B,” depending on if they attended School A or School B, and a “T” if they were with the researcher’s group, or a “C” if they were in the group with the regular orchestra teacher. After collecting the answer sheets, the researcher hand-corrected them and recorded each score in the blank labeled “Posttest score” located at the bottom of the back page of each posttest answer sheet. Using the participants’ four digit identification numbers that had been written on the answer sheets of both the pretest and posttest, the researcher matched both answer sheets and stapled them together.

He then wrote each pretest score (taken from the yellow answer sheets) into the blanks labeled “Pretest score” on the light green answer sheets. In this way, both the pretest and posttest scores of each participant could be seen simultaneously and compared.

Next, all of the posttest scores were collectively written in the researcher’s log alongside of the previously entered pretest scores and the participants’ individual four- digit identification numbers. The scores were grouped according to school (either School

A or B) and according to whether they were in the experimental or control groups, very similarly to how they appear in Table 1.

174

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics. Table 2 shows the resulting means (and standard deviations) from both the pretest and posttest for all of the participants (N = 51). As can be seen in Table 2, the pretest mean of School A’s experimental group was 13.08 (SD =

2.15), and School B’s was 11.92 (SD = 1.44). The pretest mean of School A’s control group was 12.23 (SD = 1.79), and School B’s was 11.92 (SD = 2.90). Even though there appears to be a difference between the pretest means of both schools’ experimental groups (e.g., School A = 13.08 (2.15) and School B = 11.92 (1.44)), and a difference between the pretest means for both school’s control groups (e.g., School A = 12. 23

(1.79) and School B = 11.92 (2.90)), those differences are small, indicating that the participants’ pretest scores as a whole did not vary dramatically. In other words, before being divided up into experimental and control groups, the participants from both schools were able to correctly recognize about two-thirds of the video-recorded gesture demonstrations on the pretest.

Table 2. Group Means and Standard Deviations for Pencil and Paper Test

Group Pretest Pretest Posttest Posttest School A School B School A School B

Control 12.23 (1.79) 11.92 (1.44) 12.54 (1.76) 12.67 (1.50)

Experimental 13.08 (2.18) 11.92 (2.90) 16.62 (1.45) 15.31 (3.90)

175

However, when comparing the ranges of both schools (as seen in Table 1), it appears that on the pretest, School A scored slightly higher than School B, as indicated by the highest and lowest ranges of the raw scores. For example, for School A, the highest pretest score was 18 out of 18 and the lowest was 9 out of 18--but there was only

1 participant with an 18 and 1 with a 9. For School B, the highest pretest raw score was

17 out of 18 and the lowest was 8 out of 18—but there was only 1 participant with the 17 and 3 with 8. Nonetheless, even if School A scored slightly higher than School B on the pretest, it does not change the fact that the differences were not large.

Table 3 displays the overall mean of the pre-test for the experimental groups of both schools (n = 26) as 12.50 (SD = 2.50). As can be seen in Table 1, the overall pretest raw scores ranged between 8 and 18. For the control groups of both schools (n = 25), the resulting pretest scores ranged from 9 to 15, with 12.08 as the mean (SD = 1.61).

Of special importance in these descriptive statistics are two preliminary findings.

First, the means between the pre- and posttests for the combined experimental groups of both schools appear to show a large difference (e.g., 12.50 vs. 15.96) (see Table 3).

Second, the posttest means of the combined experimental groups appear to show a large difference between the posttest means of the combined control groups (e.g., 15.96 vs.

12.60) as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Schools’ Combined Means and Standard Deviations for Pencil and Paper Test

Group Pretest Posttest

Combined Control 12.08 (1.61) 12.60 (1.61)

Combined Experimental 12.50 (2.58) 15.96 (2.96)

176

Analytical procedures. The total “pencil and paper” test scores per participant served as the study’s first dependent measure, while test (pre- or post-), school (A or B), and group (control or experimental) were the independent variables. Using a repeated measures ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test with two between-subjects factors (school and group) and one within-subjects factor (test), a statistical analysis was performed.

Table 4 shows the complete results of the within-subjects effects, and Table 5 shows the complete results of the between-subjects effects.

Table 4. Results of ANOVA for Pencil and Paper Test (Within-Subjects Effects)

Source SS df MS F p partial !2

Test 101.39 1 101.39 35.92 =.001 .433

Test * School .132 1 .132 .047 =.829 .001

Test * Group 54.76 1 54.76 19.40 =.001 .292

Test * School * Group .566 1 .566 .200 =.656 .004

Test Error 132.66 47 2.82

Table 5. Results of ANOVA for Pencil and Paper Test (Between-Subjects Effects)

Source SS df MS F p partial !2

School 11.17 1 11.17 1.47 =.231 .030

Group 91.23 1 91.23 12.04 =.001 .204

School * Group 8.24 1 8.24 1.09 =.302 .023 Interaction

Error 356.15 47 7.58

177

There was a significant main effect for test F (1,47) = 35.92, p < .001, partial !" =

.43.The overall pretest scores (M = 12.29, SD = 2.15) were lower than the posttest scores

(M = 14.31, SD = 2.92). Additionally, there was a significant interaction between test and group, F (1,47) = 19.40, p < .001, partial !" = .29, which indicated that the pre- and posttest scores varied depending on group (experimental or control). See Figure 1 for an illustration of the interaction effect between test and group.

10 Experimental Group

8 Control Group

0 Pretest Posttest

Figure 1. Interaction Effect Between Test and Group

178

The “pencil and paper” test scores for the control group indicated a difference of

.52 (12.60 ! 12.08 from Table 3). For the experimental group, the scores indicated a difference of 3.46 (15.96 ! 12.50 from Table 3). Furthermore, there was a significant main effect for group, F (1,47) = 12.04, p < .001, partial !" = .20. The posttest scores of the control group (M = 12.60, SD = 1.61) were lower than the posttest scores of the experimental group (M = 15.96, SD = 2.96). There were no other significant main effects or interactions.

Playing Test

The second dependent measure used to determine to what degree participants could respond to conducting-gestures was the playing test. The playing test was used to quantify the participants’ playing response abilities to 12 of the initial 18 selected conducting-gestures. While the “pencil and paper” test measured the participants’ ability to recognize basic conducting-gestures, it did not test for transfer. In other words, a high school orchestra student’s ability to recognize a conducting-gesture is a different skill than being able to apply that recognition ability to his or her performance. Thus, the playing test was incorporated into the present study to see if the participants of the experimental group could transfer their gesture-recognition skills to their individual playing of a simple melody while watching a video-recording of a conductor (the researcher) demonstrating several common conducting-gestures.

Four of the participants from School B became statistical mortalities and did not take the playing test. (One of them transferred out of the orchestra class, another had surgery and was in the hospital, and the other 2 were absent during the time the playing tests were administered.) The loss of these participants resulted in a total of 47 179 participants being present for the playing test, with 26 from School A and 21 from School

B. There were 13 participants in School A’s experimental group and 13 in School A’s control group. There were 11 participants in School B’s experimental group and 10 in

School B’s control group.

Over a period of two and a half weeks, the playing tests were administered individually to each of the remaining 47 participants. The playing test consisted of the students individually entering a separate room from their regular rehearsal room and being asked to play from a prepared sheet containing an excerpt of the first four measures of America the Beautiful (see Appendix L) in each clef (treble, alto, and bass). Each participant was told to execute (through his or her playing) the proper nuance or style of whatever gesture was being shown in the prepared video-recording. A sequence of 12 different conducting-gestures was shown in the video-recording so that each participant could respond to the gestures one at a time while playing the excerpt a total of 12 times.

(Only 12 of the original 18 conducting-gestures were selected to be on the playing test because the researcher wanted to reduce the redundancy created by at least five of the gestures having the possibility of being conducted in two different ways.) Each of the participants’ playing tests was audio-recorded and identified by the participant saying aloud his or her four-digit identification number at the beginning and end of each audio- recorded playing test.

The audio-recordings were then randomly grouped and copied onto three audio compact discs (CDs). Three independent judges (adult string teachers with a mean 23.5 years teaching experience) were recruited by the researcher and each was given a CD copy of the playing test recordings with instructions to listen to and rate each of the 180 participants’ audio-recordings on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 1 being the least representative of a given video-recorded gesture, and 5 being the most representative of a given video-recorded gesture. This scale was designed for the judges to rate the participants on how well they each responded through their playing to the video-recorded playing test cues. The judges were instructed to write down their scores (1 – 5) for each participant on a prepared answer-sheet for each of the 12 gestures. (See Appendix O for an illustration of the scoring sheet.)

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics. The answer sheets were collected from the judges and their data were compiled onto a single answer sheet, complete with the computed totals and means for each participant. Table 6 displays the data from the 12 gestures of the playing test, as well as a point total out of 180 (12 x 15) and the mean score (out of 15) for each participant. A total of 15 points were possible on any one gesture if all three judges rated an individual participant’s playing a perfect 5. However, no participant scored perfectly on every gesture, but six of them scored quite well (i.e., above 150 for their total with their means above 13.00).

Additionally, a comparison was made of each gesture’s awarded points (1 – 5) from each judge, resulting in an observable difference of only one point or a spread (in nearly every case) between all three judges’ ratings of any one particular gesture-item. In other words, the researcher was satisfied that the three judges were collectively fairly consistent for each student’s rating of each gesture. Furthermore, the researcher concluded that the judges had fully understood their instructions to not consider

Table 6. Playing Test Raw Scores of Gestures 1 – 12 (15 Possible Points per Gesture)

Code # School TorC Piano Cresc. Sub-Forte Decresc. Legato Marcato Accel. Fermata Forte Staccato Sub-Piano Rit. Total Mean

1331 A C 9 12 10 13 12 13 14 11 12 9 5 14 134 11.67

6572 A T 8 13 11 12 7 13 14 9 13 14 11 13 138 11.50

1613 A T 6 11 9 13 10 13 14 14 12 12 12 14 140 11.67

5700 A T 12 14 10 7 11 13 14 12 14 12 8 14 141 11.75

0820 B C 12 14 13 13 9 14 15 15 12 12 14 13 159 13.25

2083 B T 14 13 15 15 14 15 15 15 12 13 14 15 170 14.17

3535 B C 12 5 12 13 7 12 14 13 13 13 12 13 128 10.67

1366 B T 11 13 14 11 7 13 14 13 13 13 12 13 147 12.25

4975 A T 13 7 11 13 4 7 13 7 8 9 13 12 112 9.75

1704 A T 12 13 14 12 8 11 14 14 13 10 9 14 144 12.00

3948 A T 11 9 11 13 9 13 13 14 6 5 6 4 114 9.50

5661 A C 10 7 11 11 5 12 9 6 8 9 12 12 112 9.33

1945 B T 10 13 11 13 12 14 13 6 12 6 7 13 130 10.83 181

Table 6. Continued

Code # School TorC Piano Cresc. Sub-Forte Decresc. Legato Marcato Accel. Fermata Forte Staccato Sub-Piano Rit. Total Mean

0099 B T 12 12 10 13 11 12 13 13 11 10 12 7 136 11.36

1021 B C 9 12 11 8 10 11 11 14 12 13 4 7 122 10.17

8038 B T 13 13 13 14 10 13 15 14 11 14 14 14 158 13.17

4209 A C 11 8 11 8 5 8 10 4 8 4 13 13 103 8.58

8606 A T 9 9 11 12 7 12 13 7 12 11 11 14 128 10.6

0001 A C 10 10 13 11 8 13 13 5 13 9 4 14 123 10.25

4544 A C 12 10 12 13 12 13 14 14 15 14 10 14 153 10.25

2547 A T 11 13 14 13 12 14 13 15 13 14 15 13 160 13.33

3205 B C 12 13 11 6 12 5 9 4 12 5 10 12 109 9.08

9446 B C 8 10 8 11 5 11 6 6 10 7 5 4 91 7.58

9189 B T 10 14 4 14 12 13 12 14 12 14 4 12 135 11.25

1995 B C 12 6 7 13 12 11 7 14 9 7 13 14 125 10.42

9684 B C 9 11 12 10 10 7 10 8 11 7 8 13 116 9.67

0222 A C 7 12 12 12 11 8 14 14 13 8 9 13 133 11.08 182

Table 6. Continued

Code # School TorC Piano Cresc. Sub-Forte Decresc. Legato Marcato Accel. Fermata Forte Staccato Sub-Piano Rit. Total Mean

0206 A C 8 12 8 10 9 4 4 6 7 3 10 4 85 7.08

1270 A C 10 10 7 13 12 13 13 14 11 12 13 14 142 11.83

9123 A T 11 13 13 11 9 12 13 14 13 14 8 13 144 12.00

9191 A C 10 9 10 13 10 10 11 12 12 11 6 6 120 10.00

2112 A C 7 8 12 14 12 14 13 12 12 13 5 14 136 11.33

2054 A C 9 12 11 11 13 9 13 11 12 6 11 13 131 10.92

9625 B T 12 12 13 13 11 13 8 8 9 10 4 5 118 9.83

2898 B C 11 10 9 8 11 4 13 6 6 4 4 4 90 7.50

8293 B C 11 7 7 5 9 8 7 13 5 4 4 4 84 7.00

5139 B T 13 13 13 13 10 10 11 13 12 9 12 15 144 12.00

1963 B C 12 10 12 9 12 11 14 14 13 4 13 13 137 11.42

6799 B T 10 6 4 4 5 4 4 3 5 4 3 3 50 4.17

3175 B T 10 6 9 11 7 7 13 11 8 12 13 9 116 9.67 183

Table 6. Continued

Code # School TorC Piano Cresc. Sub-Forte Decresc. Legato Marcato Accel. Fermata Forte Staccato Sub-Piano Rit. Total Mean

2796 B T 13 8 8 12 9 9 11 12 10 9 12 10 127 10.58

8632 A T 12 14 14 13 12 14 12 15 12 15 12 14 156 13.00

5973 A T 8 13 13 12 11 9 14 15 11 5 9 12 130 10.83

5726 A C 7 13 13 13 12 12 11 9 12 14 8 12 136 11.33

2230 A C 6 8 8 12 12 5 4 4 12 6 13 7 101 8.42

2012 A T 10 10 10 14 11 13 13 5 12 10 4 4 118 9.83

3927 A T 13 14 9 10 12 13 13 11 12 13 13 12 145 12.08

184

185 intonation, rhythm, or tone quality when assigning a rating to each participant’s “playing” of a particular gesture-item, since their ratings for each gesture and each participant were so similar.

The mean of the entire group’s (N = 47) total score out of 180 points was 127.15

(SD = 22.86), and the total mean score was 10.61 (SD = 1.91) out of 15. The participants’ total scores ranged from 50 to 170 (out of 180), and their means ranged from 7.00 to

14.17 (out of 15). Furthermore, Table 6 indicates that the lowest score on any single gesture was 3, occurring on the fermata, subito piano, and ritardando gestures by 1 individual participant. The highest scores were 15, occurring on several gestures by only

5 participants, also shown in Table 6 (i.e., subito forte, decrescendo, marcato, accelerando, fermata, forte, staccato, subito piano, and ritardando).

Table 7 displays the combined means (and standard deviations) for both schools and groups based on their means out of 180. For the experimental groups of both schools

(n = 24), a mean of 133.58 (SD = 23.24) was computed. For the control groups of both schools (n = 23), a mean of 120.44 (SD = 20.88) was computed.

Figure 2 illustrates the dramatic increase between the playing test’s mean scores of the experimental groups and the slight increase between the groups of each school.

Additionally, the differences between the mean of School A’s experimental group (n =

13) as 136.54 (SD = 14.42) and School B’s experimental group (n = 11) as 130.09 (SD =

17.76) are displayed by the bars on the left side of each pair in Figure 2. Furthermore, the differences between the mean of School A’s control group (n = 13) was 123.77 (SD = 19.

01) and the mean of School B’s control group (n = 10) was 116.10 (SD = 23.39) are displayed as well by the bars on the right side of each pair in Figure 2. 186

Table 7. Schools’ Combined Group Means and Standard Deviations for Playing Test

Group

Combined Control 120.44 (20.88)

Combined Experimental 133.58 (23.24)

"'#!

"&$!

"&#!

"%$!

789442!:! 789442!;! "%#!

""$!

""#!

"#$! ()*+,-.+/012!3,45*! 64/0,42!3,45*!

! Figure 2. Group Means for Playing Test by School

187

Similar to the results of the “pencil and paper” tests, the preliminary computations of the playing tests clearly indicated some important differences between the various groups of participants of this study. First, there was a difference between the means of the combined experimental groups of both schools and the means of the combined control groups of both schools (e.g., M = 133.58, SD = 23.24 vs. M = 120.44, SD = 20.88) as indicated in Table 7. Second, the means of each school’s experimental group were higher than the means of each school’s control groups (e.g., M = 136.54, SD = 14.42 vs. M =

123.78, SD = 19.00 for School A and M = 130.15, SD = 31.11 vs. M = 116.10, SD =

23.39 for School B) as illustrated in Figure 2. All of these score differences on the playing test point toward the apparent success of the conducting-gesture instruction sessions on the experimental groups of each school.

Analytical procedures. The total playing test scores per participant served as the study’s second dependent variable, while the scores of each school and of each group served as the study’s second independent variable. A two-way ANOVA (Analysis of

Variance) with two between-subjects factors (school and group) was conducted. Table 8

Table 8. Results of ANOVA for Playing Test (Between-Subjects Effects)

Source SS df MS F p partial !2

School 578.04 1 578.04 1.16 =.29 .026

Group 2077.14 1 2077.14 4.17 =.05 .088

School * Group 4.33 1 4.33 .01 =.93 .001

Error 21433.35 43 498.45

188 shows the complete results, which indicated a significant main effect for group, F (1,43)

= 4.16, p < .05, partial !" = .08.

Since the scores of the combined control groups (M = 120.43, SD = 20.88) were lower than the scores of the combined experimental groups (M = 133.58, SD = 23.24), as was shown in Table 7, and since there was a significant main effect for group (Table 8), the conductor-gesture instruction (treatment sessions) had a positive effect on the participants of both schools’ experimental groups in terms of their applying their gesture- recognition skills to their playing. Figure 3 illustrates the differences between the experimental and control groups for the playing test, comparing the schools’ and the

789))2!;!345.1,*.-062!

789))2!;!()-01)2!

789))2!:!345.1,*.-062!

789))2!:!()-01)2!

()*+,-./!345.1,*.-062!

()*+,-./!()-01)2!

"#$! ""#! ""$! "%#! "%$! "&#! "&$! "'#! !

Figure 3. Comparison of Means (out of 180) of Combined Schools’ Groups, School A’s Groups, and School B’s Groups

189 combined scores.

Individual Gestures

In order to determine which conducting-gestures were either most difficult or most easy to respond to on the playing test, a calculation of the mean and standard deviation for each gesture was performed based on the raw scores of the participants.

There existed a certain amount of prior recognition and response skills among all of the participants before the treatment sessions due to their experiences in a conducted ensemble, but having the additional instruction via the treatment sessions, the experimental groups of both schools demonstrated a higher level of response skills on the playing test than did the participants of the control groups. Table 9 displays the means and standard deviations for the experimental, control, and combined groups for each individual gesture.

As can be seen in Table 9, the most difficult conducting-gesture to respond to overall on the playing test, was the subito piano gesture, whose combined mean was 9.43

(SD = 3.60) out of 15 points, with 9.91 (SD = 3.62) for the experimental groups and 8.39

(SD = 3.59) for the control groups. Another low scoring gesture on the playing test was the staccato gesture, whose combined mean was 9.60 (SD = 3.63) with 10.75 (SD = 3.21) for the experimental groups and 8.39 (SD = 3.59) for the control groups. A third difficult gesture was the legato gesture, whose combined mean was 9.77 (SD = 2.45) with 9.63

(SD = 2.48) for the experimental groups and 9.91 (SD = 2.47) for the control groups.

The easiest, or at least, the most recognized and most “correctly responded-to” gesture was the accelerando gesture, with a combined mean of 11.70 (SD = 2.96) with

12.58 (SD = 2.34) for the experimental groups and 10.78 (SD = 3.30) for the control 190

Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations for Groups per Individual Gesture

Gesture Experimental Control Combined Exp. & Control

Piano 10.79 (2.28) 9.79 (1.91) 10.28 (2.15)

Crescendo 11.54 (2.41) 10.13 (2.40) 10.85 (2.48)

Subito Forte 11.00 (2.90) 10.43 (2.04) 10.72 (2.51)

Decrescendo 12.00 (2.34) 10.87 (2.49) 11.45 (2.46)

Legato 9.63 (2.48) 9.91 (2.47) 9.77 (2.45)

Marcato 11.67 (2.68) 9.91 (3.22) 10.81 (3.06)

Accelerando 12.58 (2.34) 10.78 (3.30) 11.70 (2.96)

Fermata 11.42 (3.60) 10.00 (4.03) 10.72 (3.84)

Forte 11.08 (2.30) 10.61 (2.70) 10.85 (2.44)

Staccato 10.75 (3.21) 8.39 (3.73) 9.60 (3.63)

Subito Piano 9.91 (3.62) 8.39 (3.59) 9.43 (3.60)

Ritardando 11.21 (3.78) 10.74 (3.91) 10.98 (3.81)

groups. The accelerando gesture seemed to easily elicit a “get faster” playing response.

The second highest scoring conducting-gesture was the decrescendo gesture, with a combined mean of 11.45 (SD = 2.46) with 12.00 (SD = 2.34) for the experimental groups and 10.87 (SD = 2.49) for the control groups. Finally, the third most easily or “correctly responded-to” gesture was the ritardando gesture, with a combined mean of 10.98 (SD =

3.81) with 11.21 (SD = 3.78) for the experimental groups and 10.74 (SD = 3.91) for the control groups. 191

Table 9 also indicates that the experimental groups scored higher than the control groups on almost every gesture, except for the legato gesture on the playing test. (The mean of the control groups was 9.91 compared to 9.63 of the experimental groups for the legato gesture.) Additionally, in some instances, the difference between the means of the experimental and control groups was notably large, (e.g., crescendo, decrescendo, marcato, accelerando, and fermata). Furthermore, the means between the experimental and control groups of the staccato gesture (being one of the most difficult to respond to on the playing test) demonstrated a large difference as well.

With all of the above descriptions of the present study’s analytical and statistical results, it became quite clear that the treatment sessions (conducting-gesture instruction activities) had a more positive effect on the participants of the experimental group than those of the control group. The discussion presented in Chapter 5 will address this issue in further detail.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Summary

Related Literature

Over the many years of teaching public high school orchestra classes, the present researcher frequently found among students a general lack of adequate response to basic conducting-gestures, both during rehearsals and at times during performances. In an effort to help counteract this problem, the present researcher chose to modify and expand upon the work of previous researchers in the area of teaching student-members of musical ensembles to not only better watch their conductors, but to quickly recognize and respond to common conducting-gestures (or emblems).

In Chapter II’s Review of Related Literature, many studies, articles, or reports examining the numerous attributes related to conducting were cited. Those studies mostly fell into two broad categories: (a) conducting pedagogy and (b) conducting competencies.

The conducting pedagogy category included studies that addressed teaching conducting skills to college music students interested in becoming conductors (or teachers) of music ensembles, but did not address gesture recognition or response to ensemble-musicians.

These studies were considered the least relevant to the present study. Conversely, the studies included in the conducting competencies category addressed conducting traits and 193 conducting behavior in general, which were considered more closely related.

A third category included those studies that were particularly relevant to the present study, in that they addressed the instruction of conducting-emblems (the most common conducting-gestures) to ensemble-musicians in educational settings. This third category was further divided into two subcategories: (a) those dealing with string players in ensembles of educational, community, or professional orchestras; and (b) those that addressed the use of conducting-gestures or gesture-instruction to improve the recognition and response of ensemble-musicians in general.

In the first subcategory, Karpicke (1987) and Rashley (2001) were the only researchers who explored orchestra conducting in educational settings. Rashley focused on the preferences of college orchestra students for either “strict” or “expressive” conducting, while Karpicke addressed the development of an instrument to assess conducting-gestures in orchestra performances, which would mostly benefit those persons involved in conductor-training. Even though these two studies were education- related, they did not reflect the present researcher’s intent to address the effectiveness of gesture-instruction recognition toward ensemble members themselves.

The second subcategory included a larger group of researchers, who generally explored the relationship between conducting-gestures and the response of ensemble members. Of these, only four specifically addressed the concept of teaching conducting- gesture recognition to ensemble members. These four were Sousa (1988), Sidoti (1991),

Kelly (1997), and Cofer (1998).

Sousa (1988) investigated how common conducting-gestures could be successfully identified by a sample of junior high, high school, and college instrumental 194 ensemble-musicians. Sousa was also one of the first researchers to use the term

“emblems” to apply to the gestures used by music conductors. Sousa defined musical conducting-emblems as “nonverbal gestures used by an instrumental conductor to communicate specific musical ideas through the use of the hand and arm movements” (p.

8). The difference between Sousa’s work and the present study was that Sousa only sought to name the types of gestures that could be identified by ensemble-musicians, while the main objective of the present study was to test the effectiveness of a treatment involving a set of conducting-gesture instruction lesson plans as the independent variable.

Another researcher was Sidoti (1991), who attempted to determine the extent to which high school instrumentalists were able to perform selected musical expression markings while following the conducting-gestures of a conductor. The main difference between the Sidoti study and the present study was that there were expression markings placed on the musical excerpts used for the performance portions of the Sidoti study, while the present study had no musical markings on the musical excerpts used for the playing tests.

Kelly (1997) investigated the effects of conducting-gesture instruction on the performance of beginning band students in terms of legato and staccato musical styles, as well as phrasing and dynamics. Here there were major differences as well. One was that the participants of Kelly’s study were beginning-level musicians, presumably elementary school aged, and probably had little previous experience following a conductor. In contrast, the present study’s participants were high-school-aged individuals, believed to be somewhat more experienced at following a conductor, and they probably had some prior knowledge of some common conducting-gestures. Another difference was that the 195

Kelly study involved band instrumentalists, while the present study involved traditional string or orchestral instruments.

Finally, Cofer (1995, 1998), whose study most resembles the present study (and who seemingly used the terms “gestures” and “emblems” interchangeably), investigated the effects of short-term conducting-gesture instruction on seventh-grade band students’ recognition of and performance response to common conducting-emblems (or gestures).

Similar to the present study, the Cofer study utilized both a multiple-choice “pencil and paper” measure and an individual performance or “playing” measure, to determine whether short-term instruction in common conducting-gestures significantly improved the ability of student-ensemble members to recognize those gestures (or emblems).

However, the present researcher was interested in exploring the abilities of high school string students (who are generally more experienced and capable of learning more complex musical skills than seventh-graders) to better respond to conducting-gestures after receiving a period of focused short-term gesture-instruction. Additionally, even though the present researcher borrowed many of Cofer’s methods, the most notable differences were that string players (rather than woodwind and brass players) were the participants in the present study, and that the present study’s participants were considerably older and more experienced than the participants in the Cofer study, who were seventh-grade band students.

Purpose and Need

Since no other researcher had specifically investigated high school string students, in terms of teaching conducting-gesture recognition and playing response, the present researcher saw a need for undertaking the present study. Thus, the main purpose of the 196 present study was to determine the effects of gesture instruction on high school orchestra

(string) students’ recognition and response to a set of common conducting-gestures.

Using two dependent measures, a multiple-choice “pencil and paper” test and a “playing test,” the present researcher sought to determine whether there would be differences between control groups of high school string students (who did not receive conducting- instruction) and experimental groups of high school string students (who did receive instruction).

Procedure

The first dependent measure, which was a “pencil and paper” multiple-choice identification test, was initially given to the present study’s participants as a pretest to determine their prior knowledge of 18 basic conducting-gestures (the same 18 used in the

Cofer study). Those gestures included piano, forte, subito piano, subito forte, legato, tenuto, accelerando, ritardando, and two forms of crescendo, decrescendo, staccato, marcato, and fermata (see Appendix I). The participants were the string players of two high school orchestra classes having the same orchestra teacher. Without disclosing the study’s details, the researcher administered the pretest to all of the participants with a set of video-recorded gesture-demonstrations shown on a large screen in front of the regular rehearsal rooms of each school. The participants were instructed to watch each demonstrated gesture, then circle the best response out of four possibilities on a researcher-designed answer sheet (Appendix J). The researcher then conducted an informal preliminary analysis to determine which test items were incorrectly answered the most. The preliminary analysis was performed because the researcher needed to know which conducting-gestures would require the most attention in the upcoming instruction 197 sessions.

On the next day, with the help of and suggestions from the regular orchestra teacher, each of the school’s orchestras were divided into experimental and control groups, making sure that each group had adequate instrumentation and that the playing abilities of each group’s participants were about equal. In other words, the regular orchestra teacher helped ensure that no one group ended up with an imbalance of “better” or “stronger” players, leaving the other group with an imbalance of “weaker” players.

For the next five class-meetings at each school, the experimental groups remained in the regular orchestra room and worked with the researcher, while the control groups went with their regular orchestra teacher to a separate nearby room. During those sessions, the researcher engaged the experimental groups in a series of conducting- gesture instruction activities (see Appendix M) based on an article by Prime (2008).

Meanwhile, the regular orchestra teacher led rehearsals with the control groups without any conducting—instead she tapped on a music stand, sang, or played along with the student participants on her violin. After the “treatment” or instruction sessions were completed, the researcher administered the same “pencil and paper” multiple-choice test that was used as the pretest (now the posttest) to all of the participants in the same manner as before.

Following the posttest, the researcher set up a “playing test” location outside of the regular rehearsal room for all participants to individually play a simple four-measure melody 12 different times while viewing 12 basic conducting-gestures presented on a prepared video-recording (see Appendix K). These individual playing tests were audio- recorded, cataloged, and placed on a master compact disc (CD). Copies of the CD were 198 sent to three independent experienced string teachers who were instructed to listen to the playing test recordings and rate each one on a 5-point Likert-type scale according to what extent they perceived each participant’s audio-recorded performance had adhered to the

12 conducting-gestures on the playing test video presentation.

Upon receiving the judges’ completed ratings sheets (see Appendix O), a statistical analysis was conducted not only on the collected data or scores of the “pencil and paper” pretests and posttests, but also on the data or scores of the “playing tests.” In addition to computing the means and standard deviations pertaining to the basic descriptive statistics of both measures (“pencil and paper” test and playing test), further statistical analyses consisted of the following: (1) a repeated measure ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) with two between-subjects factors (school and group) and one within- subjects factor (test) for the “pencil and paper” pre- and posttests, and (2) a two-way

ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) with two between-subjects factors (school and group) was used for the playing test.

Discussion

Pencil and Paper Tests

Pretest. From an informal analysis of the pretest scores, which consisted of counting the number of times each test item was incorrectly answered and then looking to see which items had the highest counts, the present researcher determined the following.

First, the tenuto gesture was the most difficult gesture to identify because the test item representing that gesture was answered incorrectly 23 times at School B and 19 times at

School A, totaling 42 times out of a possible 51, since there were 51 participants who took the pretest. Second, the gesture receiving the next highest count of incorrect answers 199 was the legato gesture, which was answered incorrectly 20 times at School B and 19 times at School A, totaling 39 times.

Because these gesture-names (tenuto and legato) appeared to be similarly demonstrated in the video-recorded presentations of the “pencil and paper” tests, the participants could have easily confused one for the other. Or more likely, the participants might not have been familiar with those particular terms when reading them on the answer sheet (perhaps because of their limited experience playing under middle school conductors/teachers who did not often use those specific terms in their rehearsal procedures). Additionally, another reason could have been that the participants did not have enough experience watching the subtle differences in conducting-gestures that their previous teachers had (or had not) used.

The third most difficult gesture to identify correctly was the “forte” gesture, which was answered incorrectly 15 times at School A and 21 times at School B, for a total of 36 times out of a possible 51. One explanation for this might be that because the other three possible responses as multiple-choice answers for that test item (which were subito forte, marcato, and staccato) were so similar in connotation (in terms of quick conducting motions), the participants were confused just enough to guess incorrectly, since they probably were not very familiar with all of those terms to begin with.

The two easiest gestures to identify on the pretest were those items representing the crescendo and the decrescendo gestures by utilizing the conductor’s left hand and arm. These two gestures are quite opposite in nature, mainly because a conductor can lift the left hand and arm in an upward motion for crescendo, or in a downward motion for decrescendo, all while the right hand and arm keep a steady conducting pattern. 200

Certainly, there are other ways to demonstrate crescendo or decrescendo, (i.e., gradually increasing the size of the right hand’s beat pattern for crescendo or decreasing the size for decrescendo) which were also demonstrated as two other test items, but the left hand and arm probably seemed the most obvious to the participants taking the pretest. Additionally, the participants probably had heard their regular teacher(s) use these particular two terms (or had seen them printed in their music over the years) more frequently than “marcato” or “subito piano,” for example, throughout their ensemble experiences from middle school to high school. In essence, these reasons could explain why these particular two items on the pretest resulted in only being answered incorrectly one time out of a possible 51 times.

A few of the other less difficult gesture items (answered incorrectly less than a total of 5 times) were accelerando (2 times), ritardando (3 times), and fermata (3 times).

All of the other pretest items were answered incorrectly at least six or more times, indicating that the participants collectively had some previous knowledge of some of the

18 gesture terms on the pretest and could recognize several of them more easily than others. In fact, the computations of the pretest means indicated that collectively, the participants correctly recognized 68% of the gesture items (M = 12.29, SD = 2.15 out of

18). This percentage, mean, and standard deviation further indicated that the participants had a reasonable amount of previous knowledge of common conducting-gestures, but still lacked familiarity or recognition ability on some of the more subtle gestures.

With the above information about which conducting-gestures were more difficult to recognize on the pretest, the present researcher tailored the gesture-instruction sessions to emphasize or reinforce the recognition of the more difficult gestures such as “tenuto” 201 or “legato” (see Appendix M). In fact, due to the gestural similarity between the tenuto and legato gestures, the present researcher omitted the tenuto gesture from the playing test (to come later) in order to avoid further confusion.

Posttest. The descriptive results of the posttest demonstrated a substantial increase in scores over those of the pretest for the experimental groups (n = 26) of each school. The mean for the pretest (M = 12.50, SD = 2.50) and the mean for the posttest (M

= 15.96, SD = 2.96) indicated a gain of 3.46 points for the experimental groups, which was statistically significant (see Table 3). This difference appears especially dramatic in

Table 1 where there were 11 participants who answered all 18 posttest items correctly, one who answered 17 correctly, and 7 who answered 16 correctly, compared to the pretest where only 1 participant answered all 18 correctly, 1 answered 17 correctly, and 1 who answered 16 correctly. These high raw scores on the posttest point toward the apparent success of the “treatment” or conducting-gesture instruction sessions on the gesture recognition ability of each school’s experimental groups.

As further evidence of the treatment sessions’ success, Table 3 displays the large difference between the posttest means of the combined experimental groups (M = 15.96,

SD = 2.96) and the posttest means of the combined control groups (M = 12.60, SD =

1.61). A 3.36-point gain of the experimental groups over the control groups also demonstrated a significant difference. Additionally, it is notable that there was a slight difference for the control groups between the pretest and the posttest (e.g. M = 12.08, SD

= 1.61 vs. M = 12.60, SD = 1.61) indicating a small gain of .52 points (see Table 3). This very small increase may have occurred because the participants of the control group gained at least some increased awareness of conducting-gestures and their accompanying 202

Italian names from experiencing the “pencil and paper” pretest.

Figure 1 clearly illustrates not only the dramatic difference (increase) between the mean scores of the “pencil and paper” pre- and posttests for the experimental groups, but also the dramatic difference (increase) between the posttest mean scores of the experimental group and those of the control group. Again, these significant differences showed that the treatment sessions had a positive impact on the participants of the experimental groups of both schools.

Finally, the results of a repeated measures ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test with two between-subjects factors (school and group) and one within-subjects factor

(test) indicated that there was a significant main effect for test (F (1,47) = 35.92, p <

.001, partial !" = .43). Additionally, there was a significant interaction between test and group, F (1,47) = 19.40, p < .001, partial !" = .29, which indicated that the pre- and posttest scores varied depending on group (experimental or control). Tables 4 and 5, as well as Figure 1, help to illustrate the interaction effect between test and group, which further demonstrates causation, in that the treatment sessions helped the experimental groups of both schools not only score higher on the “pencil and paper” posttest than the control groups, but also show significant improvement for the experimental groups between the pretest and posttest.

Playing Test

Having the ability to recognize conducting-gestures does not necessarily mean student musicians can or will respond correctly or quickly to common conducting- gestures, as should happen in a conducted ensemble rehearsal or performance. Thus, a true test of whether the participants of the experimental groups had learned any new 203 gestures that they did not know before the treatment sessions came in the form of having all of the participants (experimental and control groups) take the playing test, which consisted of audio-recording each individual participant’s attempts at following the gestures presented in the playing-test’s video-recorded stimuli. This procedure required approximately two and a half weeks to accomplish, and approximately 4 weeks later, the rating process performed by the independent judges was also completed. Soon afterward, the statistical analyses were conducted on the judges’ rating data.

In order to determine which conducting-gestures were either most difficult or most easy to respond to on the playing test (as a matter of interest for future research), a calculation of the mean and standard deviation for each gesture was performed based on the raw scores of the participants. Similar to the informal analysis of the “pencil and paper” pretest, the results indicated that there existed a certain amount of prior skill among all of the participants before the treatment sessions began. This was probably due to the participants’ previous experiences in conducted ensembles.

Another notable result of the means and standard variations calculations for each individual gesture of the playing test was that the most difficult gestures to respond to overall were the subito piano and staccato gestures. The combined mean of the subito piano gesture was 9.43 (SD = 3.60) out of 15 points, with 9.91 (SD = 3.62) for the experimental groups and 8.39 (SD = 3.59) for the control groups. Across all three of these mean scores, the subito piano gesture received the lowest, perhaps because the participants (especially those of the control groups) confused it with the fermata gesture.

The participants probably noticed the conductor on the playing test video-recording suddenly raising his hands, arms, and baton, from a position about even with his middle 204 abdomen to a position even with his shoulders, including a drastic decrease in the size of the gesture to an extremely small pattern. This drastic change perhaps made many of the participants erroneously think that the conductor had stopped conducting, indicating a fermata, thus a big confusion. By the time the real fermata gesture came up on the playing test video-recording, the participants probably did not even think about the subito piano gesture being different.

The combined mean for the staccato gesture, which was the second lowest scoring-gesture, was 9.60 (SD = 3.63) with 10.75 (SD = 3.21) for the experimental groups and 8.39 (SD = 3.59) for the control groups. The similarity between the staccato and marcato gestures, and the participants’ apparent confusion of the two, could be one reason for these lower means, even though the experimental groups scored well on the marcato gesture.

A third difficult gesture was the legato gesture, whose combined mean was 9.77

(SD = 2.45) with 9.63 (SD = 2.48) for the experimental groups and 9.91 (SD = 2.47) for the control groups. Even though the experimental groups scored slightly lower than the control groups on this particular gesture, the participants (the experimental groups mostly this time) might have confused the legato gesture with the piano gesture due to both of them appearing quite similar.

The easiest, or at least, the most recognized and most “correctly responded-to” gesture was the accelerando gesture, with a combined mean of 11.70 (SD = 2.96) with

12.58 (SD = 2.34) for the experimental groups and 10.78 (SD = 3.30) for the control groups. The accelerando gesture seemed to easily elicit a “get faster” playing-response, perhaps because many of the participants seemed to naturally “rush” their playing 205 responses to most of the other gestures on the playing test. (The researcher believes many of the participants were quite nervous having to play alone not only in front of a seemingly intimidating “older” gentleman—who was the researcher and who was 55 years old--but also in front of an audio-recorder which could be perceived as intimidating.) Perhaps many of the participants wanted to hurry and complete the playing test, because they did not feel very confident or comfortable.

The second highest scoring conducting-gesture was the decrescendo gesture, with a combined mean of 11.45 (SD = 2.46) with 12.00 (SD = 2.34) for the experimental groups and 10.87 (SD = 2.49) for the control groups. The decrescendo gesture was made very obvious by the conductor on the playing test video-recording initially raising his left arm (with palm down) and then gradually lowering it while keeping the beat pattern steady with his right hand. This seemed to be a very noticeable gesture, especially among the experimental groups, as indicated by their high mean score of 12.00 (the highest mean of any of the gestures for the experimental groups).

Finally, the third most easily or correctly “responded-to” gesture was the ritardando gesture, with a combined mean of 10.98 (SD = 3.81) with 11.21 (SD = 3.78) for the experimental groups and 10.74 (SD = 3.91) for the control groups. Similar to the accelerando gesture (only completely opposite) the participants seemed to readily notice the ritardando gesture’s obvious change not only in the speed of the conducting pattern but also its dramatic increase in size.

Nonetheless, having the additional instruction via the treatment sessions, the experimental groups of both schools demonstrated a higher level of response skills on the playing test than did the participants of the control groups. Table 9 shows the means and 206 standard deviations for the experimental, control, and combined groups for each individual gesture.

The results of the descriptive statistics computations for the playing test (see

Table 6 for raw scores) indicated that the mean of the entire group’s (N = 47) total score out of 180 points was 127.15 (SD = 22.86), and the total mean score was 10.61 (SD =

1.91) out of 15. Additionally, the means (and standard deviations) for the control groups

(n = 23) was 120.44 (SD = 20.88), and for the experimental groups (n = 24), the mean was 133.58 (SD = 23.24). Similar to the results of the pencil and paper tests, these computations clearly indicated large differences between the various groups of participants, mostly in terms of experimental vs. control groups (see Table 7).

Although there appeared to be a difference between the mean of School A’s experimental group (n = 13) as 136.54 (SD = 14.42) and School B’s experimental group

(n = 11) as 130.09 (SD = 17.76); it was not statistically significant. Additionally, the differences between the mean of School A’s control group (n = 13), which was 123.77

(SD = 19.01), and the mean of School B’s group (n = 10), which was 116.10 (SD =

23.39), was also not statistically significant. Even though there could be some speculation as to why there were some differences, it was beyond the scope of the present study to analyze or explain the differences between schools. It is sufficient to say that even though

School A’s overall scores of the pre- and posttests and the playing tests tended to be slightly higher than those of School B (see Figure 2), the statistical tests in general revealed no significant main effect for group, thereby justifying treating these two schools as one population.

The results of a two-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test with two between- 207 subjects factors (school and group) indicated that there was a significant main effect for group (F (1,43) = 4.16, p < .05, partial !" = .08) for the playing test (see Table 8). This significant main effect, as well as the scores of the combined experimental groups (see

Table 7), clearly indicated that the conducting-gesture instruction sessions helped the experimental groups of both schools score higher overall on the playing test than the control groups of both schools.

However, one should not accept that conducting-gesture instruction automatically cures the “lack of watching the conductor” problems of every public high school orchestra. The present researcher was astonished at how many of the participants, especially those of the experimental groups, were not able to play “in sync” or “in time” with the video-recorded conductor during their individual playing tests, but were still able to execute the conducting-gestures correctly. Some of the participants often would rush by playing one or two beats ahead of the conductor’s beat, but still would demonstrate a beautiful decrescendo, for example. Additionally, many of the participants played severely out of tune and often executed wrong notes (i.e., constantly playing an F-sharp instead of F-natural in the playing test’s four-measure except, which was the first four measures of the melody to America the Beautiful in C Major). This even occurred after the researcher allowed each participant to practice the excerpt at least twice before turning on the audio-recorder, and at times attempting to correct the participant’s rhythmical and/or pitch errors before starting the playing test. Perhaps results with more sophisticated musicians would differ.

In general, the researcher surmised that the participants who had studied privately and who were used to playing solo in front of a person who they perceived as an 208 authority (such as their private teacher, an auditioner, a judge at a solo contest, or even the researcher) scored higher than those having less confidence in their playing, regardless of whether they were in the experimental or control groups. However, since the independent judges rating each recording were instructed to not consider poor intonation, wrong notes, or incorrect rhythms as part of their rating evaluation, most of the participants still were able to score well, especially those who were in the experimental groups.

Answers to Research Questions

The specific research questions associated with the present study’s aim to investigate the effects of conducting-gesture instruction on the recognition and response of high school (string) orchestra students to common conducting-gestures (or emblems) were answered as follows: (It is important to note that for each question and null hypothesis, the researcher set an a priori alpha level at .05.)

The answer to this first research question is a “yes,” but only in very general terms. Not every participant in the experimental group of this study scored better than those of the control group on the “pencil and paper” posttest, but many did. While there were quite a few high scores from the control group, there were more in the experimental group, thus increasing the posttest mean of the experimental groups more than the mean of the control group (see Figure 1). 209

2. Will participants who receive conducting-gesture instruction perform better on a “playing test” in response to these conducting-gestures than those who do not?

The answer to this research question is a “yes” as well, for the same reasons as put forth in the answers to the first research question. There were also some high scores from the control group on the playing test, but not enough to match or surpass the mean of the experimental group (see Figure 2).

3. Will participants from two different schools perform similarly on both test measures?

The answer to this question is “yes” in that the experimental groups from each school scored higher on both measures than the control groups of each school. While the data show some slight differences between each school’s collective performance on the two test measures (i.e., School A’s scores on both the “pencil and paper” test and the playing test were somewhat higher than School B’s), those differences were not statistically significant. Additionally, it was not the purpose of the present study to demonstrate that one school’s orchestra could out-perform another. Instead, the present researcher only sought to find out if conducting-gesture instruction might influence a typical group of high school orchestra students to perform better at recognizing and responding to common conducting-gestures by using the participants of School A and B as a sampling.

4. Will participants increase their “pencil and paper test” scores between the pretest and posttest of the “pencil and paper” measure?

The answer to this research question is a definite “yes,” especially for the experimental groups (excepting one “outlier” participant of the experimental group 210 whose score was four points lower on the posttest than on the pretest). As shown in the columns labeled “Difference” in Table 1, every experimental group participant’s number was positive by at least 1 (excepting the outlier), indicating that they all improved between the pre- and post- “pencil and paper” test. Some experimental group participants improved by as many as 6 points, while 1 even improved by 7 points--but most improved by about 3 to 4 points.

On the other hand, the control groups did not fair so well. As shown in Table 1, there were several control group participants who scored poorer on the posttest than on the pretest with the poorest being a negative 3, while 7 of them were at the negative 1 level, and there was 1 negative 2. Additionally, there were 3 zeros from the control group, indicating no change between the pre- and posttest.

However, overall, the control groups’ scores collectively increased .52 points between pretest and posttest. Apparently, the mere fact that a slight majority of the control group participants improved slightly between the two “pencil and paper” tests indicated that having the experience of taking those tests made them somewhat more familiar with the conducting-gestures. Alternatively, with such a small sample size, one score could have had the potential to increase the mean substantially.

Another curious observation was that the pre- and post- “pencil and paper” tests not only allowed the participants to apply or to raise their awareness of their prior knowledge of conducting-gestures, the tests also allowed those who received the treatment sessions opportunities to learn new musical concepts, such as recognizing and responding to unfamiliar terms and gestures.

In short, all of the research questions can be summarized with one general 211 question: “Can short-term conducting-gesture instruction improve high school string students’ conducting-gesture (or conducting-emblem) recognition and playing responses?” According to the results of the present study, the answer is “yes” in most cases, but there might exist some school orchestras where a significant number of the students either cannot or will not learn new musical skills—especially if they are not open to instruction from their teacher/conductor.

Null Hypotheses

The following four null hypotheses were proposed as items to be investigated by the present study (.05 was the set a priori alpha level):

1. There will be no significant difference on the multiple-choice “pencil and paper” identification tests between the participants who receive conducting-gesture instruction and associated learning activities and those who do not (i.e., p > .05).

Similar to the answer to the first research question, the results of the statistical analyses (see Tables 4 and 5) provide data to reject this null hypothesis, because indeed, there was a significant difference (p = .001) on the “pencil and paper” posttest between the participants who received conducting-gesture instruction (the experimental groups of both schools) and those who did not (the control groups of both schools).

2. There will be no significant difference on the “playing test” between the participants who receive conducting-gestures instruction and those who do not (i.e., p >

.05).

The results of the study’s statistical analyses (see Table 8) provide data to reject this null hypothesis. There was a significant difference (p = .047) on the playing test 212 between the participants who received conducting-gesture instruction (the experimental groups) and those who did not (the control groups).

3. There will be no significant difference between the participants from two different schools on both test measures.

The results of the study’s statistical analyses indeed provide data (see Table 2 and

Figure 2) to reject this null hypothesis, in that both school’s experimental groups scored higher than the control groups of both schools on both measures (i.e., the mean for

School A’s experimental group on the “pencil and paper” posttest was 16.62 (out of 18), and the mean for School A’s control group on the “pencil and paper” posttest was 12.54, demonstrating a positive difference of 4.08 points; and the mean for School B’s experimental group on the “pencil and paper” posttest was 15.31, and the mean for

School B’s control group on the “pencil and paper” posttest was 12.67, demonstrating a positive difference of 2.64 points; additionally, the mean for School A’s experimental group on the playing test was 136.54 (out of 180), and the mean for School A’s control group on the playing test was 123.77, demonstrating a positive difference of 12.77 points; and the mean for School B’s experimental group on the playing test was 130.09 (out of

180), and the mean for School B’s control group on the playing test was 116.10, demonstrating a positive difference of 13.99 points).

4. There will be no increase in the scores between the pretest and posttest of the multiple-choice “pencil and paper” identification test.

This final null hypothesis corresponds to the answer of the fourth research question, and similar to the other questions and null hypotheses, the statistical analyses demonstrated a clear rejection of this null hypothesis as well (see Table 3 and Figure 1). 213

Indeed there were significant increases in the scores of the experimental groups between the pre- and post- “pencil and paper” tests (i.e., the mean score on the “pencil and paper” pretest for the combined experimental groups was 12.50, and the mean score on the

“pencil and paper” posttest for the combined experimental groups was 15.96, demonstrating a positive difference of 3.64 points).

These four null hypotheses could be summarized into one directional hypothesis and stated as follows: High school string orchestra students receiving short-term conducting-gesture instruction, and experiencing rehearsal procedures using mostly conducting-gestures with only minimal verbal instruction, will demonstrate higher scores on both a “pencil and paper” multiple-choice identification test and a playing performance test than similar string orchestra students not experiencing this treatment

(i.e., the mean of the combined “pencil and paper” posttest scores of the experimental groups was 15.96 (out of 18), and the mean of the combined “pencil and paper” posttest scores of the control groups was 12.60, demonstrating a positive difference of 3.36 points—see Table 3 and Figure 1).

Limitations

While a generalization of the present study’s findings or conclusions may seem logical, there is not enough evidence to predict that every high school’s orchestra students will actually improve their recognition of and response to conducting-gestures, if their teachers were to implement a set of conducting-gesture instructions similar to the present study’s into their teaching regime. There are numerous variables involved, any one of which (or any combination of) may or may not influence how successful a conducting- gesture instruction program might be. Additionally, this sample size was relatively small, 214 and may perhaps be unique to this demographic, teacher, or type of student.

Some of those variables might include the following: (a) the overall playing ability of the students as a whole, in that if the students are too busy struggling with fingerings, reading difficult rhythmical passages or numerous accidentals, or trying to play in tune, then no matter what kind of conducting is going on, the students probably will not be noticing; (b) the attitude of the students, in that if students do not want to watch their conductor (because they are too busy engaging in social activities, for example), it is extremely difficult to motivate them to do so; and (c) the conducting skills of the teacher, in that if the teacher cannot conduct consistently with the same gestures designed to elicit the same responses, the students probably will not be able to respond with much consistency either.

Another limitation of the present study might be that the participants might have scored differently had they been able to watch a live person as the conductor delivering the playing test stimuli instead of a video-recording appearing on the relatively small screen (11” x 7”) of the researcher’s personal laptop computer. However, a live person would have had a difficult time being absolutely consistent executing the various conducting-gestures of the playing test for every participant taking the playing test. Thus, experimental control was prioritized over a natural setting. Nevertheless, perhaps a larger screen would have been better.

Still another limitation might be that because the participants’ regular orchestra teacher was not used to delivering any sort of conducting-gesture instruction, there may have been some “experimenter effect” with an unfamiliar teacher, resulting in large standard deviations for the study’s means. These large standard deviations indicated a 215 great deal of variability within the participants.

In addition to the study’s small sample size, and/or that the regular teacher might have been previously demonstrating conducting-gestures differently than the researcher, may have been the reasons in part for some of the participants’ high rate of inaccurate gesture recognition on the “pencil and paper” pre- and posttests.

Furthermore, the study did not take into account the issue of long-term retention.

Could the participants have scored as well if the “pencil and paper” posttest and/or the playing test were given several weeks (even months) after the conducting-gesture instruction sessions? Perhaps if the researcher had instructed the regular orchestra teacher to implement more “gesturing” (as per those gestures taught/reviewed during the instruction sessions) and much less verbalization into his or her daily rehearsal routine, the participants could still score higher on the “pencil and paper” posttest.

Finally, the study did not provide a means to measure the issue of eye contact to tell whether the participants of the experimental group were in fact watching the researcher’s conducting-gestures during the instruction sessions. Perhaps having an additional observer record the number of the participants actively watching the conducting-gestures at various time intervals during a rehearsal could serve as a type of measure to quantify the issue of eye contact.

Implications for Music Educators

In addition to attempting to improve the recognition and responses of high school

(or any other age-group) orchestra students or ensemble members, there are several other benefits to implementing a set of conducting-gesture instruction activities into a rehearsal routine. 216

An obvious one is that once students learn to respond correctly (and quickly) to their conductor’s gestures, a great amount of otherwise wasted time in rehearsals could be saved. Sidoti (1991) made this same observation with, “It seems clear that if a conductor can express, through nonverbal gestures, what would otherwise be verbalized, a considerable amount of rehearsal time would be saved” (p. 5). Indeed, the conducting- gesture is a nonverbal form of communication that musicians have adopted with the goal to be recognized as an efficient substitute for verbal explanation.

A second benefit is that a conductor or teacher would not have to verbalize as much in order to communicate his or her desired musical interpretations of a piece during rehearsals. Sidoti (1991) stated, “This time could then be used for more in-depth rehearsals and even greater results” (p. 5). Additionally, McCoy (1985) further reiterated this point with, “Verbalization as a teaching tool is necessary, but loses its effectiveness the longer and more frequently it is used” (p. 12).

A third benefit is that students will become better ensemble-musicians in that because they will have had practice watching a conductor more closely, they might be able to apply that skill to other ensemble situations (i.e., when they get to college, have a guest conductor, or if they ever procure a job where they get paid to perform in an ensemble). As a part of the conducting-gesture instruction sessions, the present researcher engaged the participants of the experimental groups in some activities that involved physically making conducting beat patterns and gestures themselves in order to more fully understand or recognize the common gestures being taught. Luck and Sloboda

(2007) and Luck and Nte (2008) addressed this same point in their studies by suggesting that participants with previous conducting experience made better followers of 217 conducting-gestures.

Another benefit of conducting-gesture instruction is that students could become more focused, quieter, or perhaps less “off-task” during rehearsals if they realized they will not be receiving multiple verbal reminders of what the printed nuances (i.e., changes in dynamics, tempos, styles, etc.) are in the music. Instead, students would have to watch their conductor/teacher closely to confirm that those printed nuances should occur where they are supposed to in the music.

Finally, it just makes sense to have student musicians expand their knowledge of conducting-gestures (along with their recognition and response skills), so that even during a performance on an unfamiliar stage (which is what frequently happens to high school groups who participate at region or state contests or are on a concert tour), the students can adapt more easily to the slightly different sound their ensemble produces because of the different acoustic properties unique to that unfamiliar stage and auditorium. Additionally, student musicians having increased response skills might better be able to recover from an otherwise complete disaster (i.e., where the group has to come to an unplanned stop during a performance caused from the counting or rhythmical errors of other ensemble members) by closely following the conductor’s anxious cues to get the group back on track.

In short, the results of the present study suggest that if a high school orchestra teacher/conductor spends a small amount of rehearsal time teaching his or her students to recognize and respond to common conducting-gestures, most of those students could quickly learn to respond to the gestures in an appropriate and timely manner.

Additionally, the results suggest that teachers should solidify and be consistent with their 218

“pool” of basic conducting-gestures so as to reinforce their students’ recognition and response to those gestures. Nonetheless, even if a group of students does not learn to immediately respond correctly to their conductor’s basic gestures, any instruction addressing conducting-gestures can only enhance an ensemble’s collective musical skills.

Recommendations for Additional Research

The following recommendations are suggested for future investigation:

1. Replicate the present study with high school band or choral students. Although

Kelly (1993) studied beginning-band students, and Cofer (1995, 1998)) studied

seventh-grade band students, high schools students are more experienced, and it

would be interesting to see if they as a group would compare with the present

study’s high school-aged orchestral participants.

2. Replicate the present study, but add to the main hypothesis: “participant ensemble

musicians will play more expressively from having participated in a series of

conducting-gesture instruction activities,” and then design an appropriate measure

to test it (i.e., incorporate learning activities that teach more expressive playing in

the instruction sessions, and then ask independent judges to rate the playing test

excerpts for expressivity as well).

3. Replicate the present study, but expand the conducting-gesture instruction

activities to include a great deal more rehearsal time on pieces that are being

prepared for a performance with minimal verbalization. (Unfortunately, during

the present study’s treatment sessions, the orchestras from the participating

schools had just finished one concert, and had just begun rehearsing their next

pieces when the present researcher began the gesture instruction sessions—so 219

they were not fully ready to really watch the researcher for his nonverbal

conducting-gestures because they were still unfamiliar with those pieces.)

4. Replicate the present study, but formally survey (with a written questionnaire) the

participants afterward to see if they felt that their participation in the study helped

to improve their musical skills, especially in terms of knowing specifically what

certain conducting-gestures meant, and how to respond to them better. Here a

poststudy attitude measure might be useful for directors.

5. Replicate the present study, but place more emphasis on having the participants of

the experimental groups execute the physical mimicking of certain conducting-

gestures in the conducting-gesture instruction sessions. Perhaps they could even

each take some turns at getting up on the podium to conduct their classmates in

order to experience what it is like to depend on others to make the ensemble

sound together.

6. Replicate the present study, but extend the conducting-gesture instruction

sessions for a much longer period of time to allow for a more complete

habituation to following conducting-gestures with only minimal verbalization.

That way, the participants would have more opportunity to retain long-term what

they had learned in terms of recognizing and responding to common conducting-

gestures.

7. Finally, replicate the present study, but do more to identify the participants having

extensive private study on their respective instruments, and then compare their

results with those participants having less private study. The results might give

more impetus to how private lessons can enhance the conducting-gesture 220 recognition and response skills (and overall success) of students participating in a musical ensemble (which would probably delight most ensemble directors).

APPENDIX A

DETAILED DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR

SCHOOLS A AND B ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

222

The following demographic information was e-mailed to the researcher (February 1, 2012) as per his request to the Jordan School District.

SCHOOL A: 2011-12

Student Entity Counts Report Total student population: 2306 Total number of male students: 1177 Total number of female students: 1181 Total number of students on free or reduced lunch: 637 Number of sophomores (10th graders): 794, 414 males, 391 females, 247 free/reduced lunch Number of juniors (11th graders): 788, 406 males, 421 females, 203 free/reduced lunch Number of seniors (12th graders): 714, 357 males, 369 females, 187 free/reduced lunch

Race Code Distribution White: 1630 total, 807 males, 823 females Hispanic/Latino Ethnicity: 469 total, 233 males, 236 females Asian: 66 total, 35 males, 31 females Black or African American: 32 total, 12 males, 20 females Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 27 total, 16 males, 11 females American Indian or Alaskan Native: 13 total, 11 males, 2 females Multi-racial: 66 total, 32 males, 34 females

Music Courses Offered Chamber Orchestra Concert Orchestra Guitar 1 Guitar 2 Guitar 3 Symphonic Band Concert Band Jazz Band Marching Band Percussion Ensemble Acapella Choir Womens Choir Madrigals Musical Theater Music Composition Music 1010 Music Independent Study

223

SCHOOL B: 2011-12

Student Entity Counts Report Total student population: 1695 Total number of male students: 940 Total number of female students: 831 Total number of students on free or reduced lunch: 646 Number of sophomores (10th graders): 634, 355 males, 295 females, 258 free/reduced lunch Number of juniors (11th graders): 561, 328 males, 308 females, 254 free/reduced lunch Number of seniors (12th graders): 480, 257 males, 228 females, 134 free/reduced lunch

Race Code Distribution White: 1177 total, 627 males, 550 females Hispanic/Latino Ethnicity: 345 total, 182 males, 163 females Asian: 35 total, 18 males, 17 females Black or African American: 22 total, 16 males, 6 females Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 33 total, 14 males, 19 females American Indian or Alaskan Native: 16 total, 9 males, 7 females Multi-racial: 65 total, 35 males, 30 females

Music Courses Offered Chamber Orchestra Concert Orchestra Guitar 1 Guitar 2 Wind Symphony Concert Band Jazz Band Marching Band Percussion Ensemble Concert Choir Ladies Choir Mens Choir Madrigals Musical Theater American Music History ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

APPENDIX B

PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 225

! CONSENT DOCUMENT

Dear Interested Student Participant,

You are being asked to take part in a research study conducted by a graduate student of the University of Utah’s School of Music. Before you decide to participate, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Take time to read the following information carefully. Please ask if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Participation or non-participation will not in any way affect your orchestra letter grade or standing with your teacher. Your teacher will also be participating in the study, but in a different way than you. You may withdraw from participating at any time without any penalty or pressure. Should you decide to not participate, or withdraw later on; an alternative educational activity will be provided by your teacher. Every effort will be made to keep confidential your individual name and the name of your school. In other words, a coding system will be used in the study’s final analysis as to keep individual identities anonymous.

BACKGROUND The purpose of the study is to investigate the effects of two types of high school orchestra rehearsal procedures. The results of the study will be used to provide other orchestra teachers a method to help expedite in-class rehearsal time, as well as promote more accurate student performances in concerts.

STUDY PROCEDURE 1. For those students agreeing to participate, there will be a written preliminary “pre-test” to ascertain how much previous knowledge of “rehearsal techniques” they have before the study begins. 2. The orchestra will then be randomly divided into two equal-sized groups of similar instrumentation; (1) those that will experience a series of special instruction, and (2) those that will experience detailed verbal instructions. 3. For five consecutive rehearsal days (class meetings), one group will remain in the orchestra room and work with the researcher. Then for the next 20 to 30 minutes on each of those five days, the researcher will engage that group in a series of rehearsal-technique activities on a piece that the orchestra is already preparing for a concert. 4. During those same five days, the second group of students will go to a separate room and will also spend their 20-30-minute time period engaged in various rehearsal- technique activities led by their regular orchestra teacher. 4. On the sixth day of rehearsal, both groups of participants will take another written “pencil & paper” multiple-choice/matching test. No student names will be collected, but each test paper will receive an assigned coded number. 5. Beginning on the seventh day, and continuing on other subsequent days until the next series of tests are completed, each individual student will bring his/her instrument into a designated room and will be asked to play a prepared written musical excerpt. Additionally, each student’s performance will be audio-recorded, and in order to maintain 226 confidentiality, a special coding system will be utilized to identify which recordings came from which group of students. 6. The collected student scores of the “pencil & paper” test will undergo various inferential statistical analyses. 7. The audio-recordings of the students’ playing tests will be sent to a group of other orchestra or private string teachers who will evaluate and score them for musical nuance accuracy. Then those scores will also undergo various statistical analyses.

RISKS The risks of this study are minimal. You may feel a little embarrassed about having your playing audio-recorded, but you should not worry about that too much, since no one, including your teacher, will know who was recorded when, except for possibly the researcher, who will label your recording with a special code to ensure anonymity. Again, no student names will be disclosed anywhere in this study.

BENEFITS Participation in this study cannot guarantee an immediate improvement in student performance. However, possible benefits include (1) developing a better understanding of how to help an orchestra teacher or conductor make rehearsals more efficient, and (2) developing better “listening and watching” musical skills.

ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES As has already been mentioned, if you do not want to take part in the study, your teacher will provide an alternative musical educational opportunity, (i.e. personal practice or study hall time) during the 30-minutes (+or-) of each class period taken up by the aforementioned treatments of those students agreeing to participate in the study.

CONFIDENTIALITY Again, as has already been mentioned, your data will be kept confidential. The data and records will be stored in a locked filing cabinet or on a password protected computer located in the researcher’s work space. Only the researcher and possibly his University faculty advisor will have access to this information. Additionally, in order to indicate “validity” in the study, an occasional video-recording of the treatment periods will occur. However, the video-recording will mainly focus on the researcher and not on the students. Furthermore, in publications, neither your name nor the name of your school (nor your teacher) will be disclosed. The only possible identifying factors in the study will be the approximate demographic location and socio-economic level of the community surrounding the school.

PERSON TO CONTACT If you have questions, complaints or concerns about this study, or if you feel you have been harmed as a result of participation, you can contact the principal investigator (researcher), Mr. James (Jim) Thompson at (801) 671-4690 (cell) or (801) 272-3683 (home) or (801) 256-5176 (office). If no one immediately answers, please leave a detailed message and the researcher will return your call as soon as possible. Additionally, the researcher’s office e-mail is!!"#$%&'()#*%)+,!)-."+./%'-/0'&)-1. 227

INSITITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD: Contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) if you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant. Also, contact the IRB if you have questions, complaints or concerns which you do not feel you can discuss with the investigator. The University of Utah IRB may be reached by phone at (801) 581- 3655 or by e-mail at [email protected].

RESEARCH PARTICIPANT ADVOCATE: You may also contact the Research Participant Advocate (RPA) by phone at (801) 581-3803 or by email at [email protected].

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION Remember it is up to you to decide whether to take part in this study. Refusal to participate or the decision to withdraw from this research will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. This will not affect your relationship with the investigator nor your teacher.

COSTS AND COMPENSATION TO PARTICIPANTS There will be no costs to student participants; nor will there be any financial compensation. Additionally, there will be no “extra-credit” awarded by your orchestra teacher for participation in the study.

CONSENT By signing this consent form, I confirm I have read the information in this consent form and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I will be given a signed copy of this consent form. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study.

______Printed Name of Participant

______Signature of Participant Date

James W. Thompson______Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent

______Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

APPENDIX C

PARENT CONSENT FORM ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

229

Parental Permission Document

Dear Parents,

Your child is being asked to take part in a research study conducted by a graduate student of the University of Utah’s School of Music. Before you decide to give permission for your student to participate, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Take time to read the following information carefully. Please ask if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. A student’s participation or non-participation will not in any way affect his/her orchestra letter grade or standing with his/her teacher. The school’s regular orchestra teacher will also be participating in the study, but in a different way than your child. A student may withdraw from participating at any time without penalty or pressure. Should you decide not to allow your child to participate, or if he/she withdraws later on, an alternative educational activity will be provided by the school’s orchestra teacher. Every effort will be made to keep confidential your child’s individual name and the name of the school. In other words, a coding system will be used in the study’s final analysis in order to keep individual identities anonymous.

BACKGROUND The purpose of the study is to investigate two types of high school orchestra rehearsal procedures. The results of the study will be used to provide other orchestra teachers a method to help expedite in-class rehearsal time, as well as to promote more accurate student performances in concerts.

STUDY PROCEDURE 1.For those students participating in the study, there will be a written preliminary “pre-test” to ascertain how much previous knowledge of “rehearsal techniques” they have before the study begins. 2.The orchestra will then be randomly divided into two equal-sized groups of similar instrumentation; (1) those that will experience a series of special instruction; and (2) those that will experience detailed verbal instructions. 3. For five consecutive rehearsal days (class meetings), the first group will remain with the researcher who will engage that group in a series of special rehearsal- technique activities on a piece that the orchestra is already preparing for a concert. 4. During those same five days, the second group of students will go to a separate room and will also spend their 20-30-minute time period engaged in various rehearsal-technique activities led by their regular orchestra teacher. 5. On the sixth day of rehearsal, both groups of participants will take another “pencil & paper” multiple-choice/matching test by watching a prepared video- presentation concerning rehearsal techniques. No student names will be collected, but each test paper will receive an assigned coded number. 6. Beginning on the seventh day, and continuing on other subsequent days until the next series of tests are completed, each individual student will bring their instrument into a designated room and will be asked to play a prepared written 230 musical excerpt while watching another prepared video of a conductor using conducting-gestures to direct the various musical nuances called for in the excerpt. Additionally, each student will be audio-recorded, and in order to maintain confidentiality a special coding system will be utilized to identify which recordings came from which group of students. 6. The collected student scores of the “pencil & paper” test will undergo various inferential statistical analyses. 7. The audio-recordings of the students’ playing tests will be sent to a group of other orchestra teachers and college graduates who will evaluate and score them for musical nuance accuracy. Then those scores will also undergo various statistical analyses.

RISKS The risks of this study are minimal. Your child may feel a little embarrassed about having his/her individual playing being audio-recorded, but he/she should not worry about that too much, since no one, including the orchestra teacher, will know who was recorded when, except for possibly the researcher, who will label each recording with a special code to ensure anonymity. Again, no student names will be disclosed in the study.

BENEFITS Participation in this study cannot guarantee an immediate improvement in performance quality. However, possible benefits include (1) developing a better understanding of how to help an orchestra teacher or conductor make rehearsals more efficient, and (2) developing better “listening and watching” musical skills.

ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES As has already mentioned, if you do not want your child to take part in the study, the school’s orchestra teacher will provide him/her with an alternative educational opportunity, (i.e. personal practice or study hall time) during the 30-minutes (+or- ) of each class period taken up by the aforementioned treatments of those students participating in the study.

CONFIDENTIALITY Again, as has already been mentioned, your child’s data will be kept confidential. The data and records will be stored in a locked filing cabinet or on a password protected computer located in the researcher’s work space. Only the researcher and possibly his University faculty advisor will have access to this information. Additionally, in order to indicate “validity” in the study, an occasional video- taping of the treatment periods will occur. However, the video-recording will only focus on the researcher and not on the students. Furthermore, in publications neither your child’s name nor the name of the school (nor that of the orchestra teacher) will be disclosed. The only possible identifying factors used in the study will be the approximate demographic location and socio-economic level of the community surrounding the school.

231

PERSON TO CONTACT If you have questions, complaints or concerns about this study, or if you feel your child has been harmed as a result of participation, you can contact the principal investigator (researcher, Mr. James (Jim) Thompson at (801) 671-4690 (cell) or (801) 272-3683 (home) or (801) 256-5176 (office). If no one immediately answers, please leave a detailed message and the researcher will return your call as soon as possible. Additionally, the researcher’s office e-mail is [email protected].

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD: Contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) if you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant. Also, contact the IRB if you have questions, complaints or concerns which you do not feel you can discuss with the investigator. The University of Utah IRB may be reached by phone at (801) 581- 3655 or by e-mail at [email protected].

RESEARCH PARTICIPANT ADVOCATE: You may also contact the Research Participant Advocate (RPA) by phone at (801) 581-3803 or by email at [email protected].

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION It is up to you to decide whether to allow your child to take part in this study. Refusal to allow your child to participate or the decision to withdraw your child from this research will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which your child is otherwise entitled. This will not affect your or your child’s relationship with the investigator nor the school orchestra teacher.

COSTS AND COMPENSATION TO PARTICIPANTS There will be no costs to student participants, nor will there be any financial compensation. Additionally, there will be no “extra-credit” awarded by the orchestra teacher for students participating in the study.

CONSENT By signing this consent form, I confirm I have read the information in this parental permission form and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I will be given a signed copy of this parental permission form. I voluntarily agree to allow my child to take part in this study.

______Child’s Name

______Parent/Guardian’s Name

232

______Parent/Guardian’s Signature Date

______Relationship to Child

__James W. Thompson_____ Name of Person Obtaining Consent

______Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

APPENDIX D

E-MAILED PERMISSION STATEMENT FROM

SCHOOL A’S PRINCIPAL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 234

From: Todd Quarnberg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:01 PM To: 'James Thompson' Subject: RE: Approval Statement for University of Utah Institutional Review Board

I give permission and am excited to have Jim Thompson working with our Orchestra program. I know Jim Thompson and trust and expect great work from him. Should you require any additional information please call the school.

Todd Quarnberg

Principal Copper Hills High School 5445 W. New Bingham Hwy. West Jordan, Utah 84081 [email protected] Phone: (801) 256-5300 FAX: (801) 256-5393

APPENDIX E

E-MAILED PERMISSION STATEMENT FROM

SCHOOL B’S PRINCIPAL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 236

From: Paul Argyle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 8:30 PM To: 'James Thompson' Subject: RE: Request for Statement

James Thompson has permission from Jordan School District and West Jordan High to conduct research using Ms. Jenna Baumgart’s classes and students as participants in his doctoral project. Thanks. If you have questions, please contact me at the school

Paul Argyle Principal West Jordan High ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! APPENDIX F

E-MAILED AGREEMENT STATEMENT FROM REGULAR

ORCHESTRA TEACHER AT SCHOOLS A AND B

238

To whom it may concern:

I have been in contact with Jim Thompson regarding his upcoming research and have agreed to allow him work with my orchestra(s) in conjunction with this research. If you have need of further information please contact me at the following numbers or email - Thank you. [email protected] (H) 801-266-3812 (C) 801-859-9990

Jenna Baumgart Director of Orchestras West Jordan/Copper Hills High Schools ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! APPENDIX G

APPROVAL LETTER FROM JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT

240

APPENDIX H

APPROVAL STATEMENT FROM UNIVERSITY OF UTAH’S IRB

242

IRB_00049408 The Effects of Conducting-Gesture Instruction on High School String Orchestra Students' Recognition Of and Performance to Common Conducting Emblems Approved Thompson 7/3/2013

APPENDIX I

LIST OF 18 COMMON CONDUCTING-GESTURES

AND DEFINITIONS

244

Conducting-Gestures

1. Piano: indicated by a small four-beat pattern.

2. Forte: indicated by holding the left-hand palm outward and inward with tension.

3. Subito piano: indicated by a sudden decrease in the distance of the beat pattern from the body.

4. Subito forte: indicated by a sudden increase in the distance of the beat pattern from the body.

5. Crescendo: indicated by lifting the left hand, thumb up, palm at an upward angle.

6. Crescendo: indicated by increasing the size of the pattern from small to large.

7. Decrescendo: indicated by gradually lowering the left hand with the palm facing the performers.

8. Decrescendo: indicated by decreasing the size of the pattern from large to small.

9. Staccato: short and separated indicated by using no rebound after the ictus point.

10. Staccato: short and separated indicated by using a small rebound.

11. Legato: indicated by a smooth, connected, and flowing pattern.

12. Tenuto: indicated by pulling upward or sideways after each ictus point.

13. Marcato: a series of accents indicated by using no rebound after the ictus point.

14. Marcato: a series of accents indicated by including a rebound after the ictus point.

15. Accelerando: indicated by increasing the speed of the beats while simultaneously decreasing the size of the pattern.

16. Ritardando: indicated by decreasing the speed of the beats while simultaneously increasing the size of the pattern.

17. Fermata: indicated by keeping the left hand in motion.

18. Fermata: indicated by “freezing” both the left and right hand.

APPENDIX J

PENCIL AND PAPER TEST ANSWER FORM

(correct answers underlined)

246

Circle one: Pre-Test Post-Test

Today’s date: ______

MULTIPLE-CHOICE PENCIL-AND-PAPER TEST

4-Digit Code ______(last 4 numbers of telephone number, address, or any other easy to remember number)

Grade: ______

Age: ______

Gender: Circle one F M

Instrument: Circle one 1st Violin 2nd Violin Viola Cello Bass

Number of years playing in an orchestra that is conducted: ______

Number of years in private lessons: ______

CONDUCTING GESTURES

Instrumental conductors make use of nonverbal gestures to communicate or show specific musical ideas or elements. The purpose of the following questions is to evaluate the effectiveness of these gestures to communicate specific musical elements to performers. During the course of this survey the following terms will be used:

Piano Forte Subito piano Subito forte Crescendo Decrescendo Staccato Legato Tenuto Marcato Accelerando Ritardando Fermata

When the video begins you will see a brief segment of a conductor using a nonverbal gesture. Watch each segment in its entirety, then choose the answer that best describes the musical element that is being communicated by the conductor. You will have 15 seconds to decide on your answer, then the next segment will begin. Some of the above elements can be used twice.

247

QUESTIONS: Circle the best answer—

Practice Example: a) 2 beats per measure b) 4 beats per measure c) 3 beats per measure d) 5 beats per measure

1. a. accelerando b. fermata c. legato d. crescendo

2. a. subito piano b. tenuto c. staccato d. ritardando

3. a. subito piano b. decrescendo c. forte d. crescendo

4. a. ritardando b. accelerando c. subito forte d. staccato

5. a. forte b. staccato c. piano d. fermata

6. a. marcato b. tenuto c. fermata d. decrescendo

7. a. decrescendo b. crescendo c. marcato d. staccato

8. a. marcato b. staccato c. piano d. subito piano

9. a. subito forte b. forte c. marcato d. staccato

10.a. staccato b. legato c. marcato d. forte

11.a. tenuto b. legato c. piano d. ritardando

12.a. subito piano b. fermata c. decrescendo d. legato

13.a. staccato b. marcato c. subito forte d. forte

14.a. marcato b. legato c. subito forte d. forte

15.a. ritardando b.decrescendo c. legato d. piano

16.a. piano b. crescendo c. tenuto d. legato

17.a. subito forte b. subito piano c. accelerando d. fermata

18.a. tenuto b. accelerando c. crescendo d. legato

Pre-test score______Post-test score______

APPENDIX K

LIST OF 12 CONDUCTING-GESTURES FOR PLAYING TEST

249

Select Conducting-Gestures for Playing Test

1. Piano: indicated by a small four-beat pattern.

2. Crescendo: indicated by lifting the left hand, thumb up, palm at an upward angle.

3. Subito forte: indicated by a sudden increase in the distance of the beat pattern from the body.

4. Decrescendo: indicated by gradually lowering the left hand with the palm facing the performers.

5. Legato: indicated by a smooth, connected, and flowing pattern.

6. Marcato: a series of accents indicated by using no rebound after the ictus point.

7. Accelerando: indicated by increasing the speed of the beats while simultaneously decreasing the size of the pattern.

8. Fermata: indicated by “freezing” both the left and right hand.

9. Forte: indicated by holding the left-hand palm outward and inward with tension.

10. Staccato: short and separated indicated by using a small rebound.

11. Subito piano: indicated by a sudden decrease in the distance of the beat pattern from the body.

12. Ritardando: indicated by decreasing the speed of the beats while simultaneously increasing the size of the pattern.

APPENDIX L

AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL EXCERPT

251

APPENDIX M

LESSON PLANS FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS

253

LESSON PLANS FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Session #1 (Oct. 19 & 24, 2011) a. Pass out a paper handout listing all 18 gestures and their definitions, and ask the students to read it over while you draw on the board three basic beat patterns—4/4, 3/4, and 2/4. b. With your back toward the students, demonstrate the 4/4 gesture and have the students mimic the same gesture with you. (Look over your shoulder to see if everyone is doing it reasonably well.) c. Explain that “beat one” or the “downbeat” has to be very obvious, so that anyone watching can immediately and unmistakably know where and what “one” is. d. Also explain the importance of the last “up beat” or “preparatory beat,” in that the “preparatory beat” establishes a tempo. d. Do the same for 3/4. e. Do the same for 2/4, but mention that 2/4 is like a “backward J” without too much of a rebound. f. Demonstrate and verbally describe aloud each of the first nine gestures appearing on the handout. As each is described and demonstrated, ask the students again to mimic the gesture, so that they themselves can physically feel each gesture’s motions. Be sure to emphasize that some of the gestures can be done two different ways and keep checking to see if all of the students are executing each gestures properly—especially with exaggerated movement on “beat one.” g. Collect the handouts so that they don’t fall into the hands of the control group.

Session #2 (Oct. 25 & 26, 2011) a. Pass out the same paper handout containing the names and definitions of the 18 gestures. b. Review the first nine gestures that were covered in the first session. c. Continue demonstrating and verbally describing the last nine gestures of the handout, and again have the students mimic them with your back turned. Continually observe to see if every student is executing the gestures—especially the more difficult ones like tenuto, legato, or subito piano. d. Have the students play a two-octave C Major scale, first in half notes, then in quarter notes in 4/4/ time. After the students are fairly familiar with the scale conducted evenly 254 and still in 4/4 time, try demonstrating a few of the easier gestures from the handout and change them about every two or three measures (e.g. piano, forte, crescendo, decrescendo, fermata, accelerando, or ritardando). e. While still having the students playing the scale, move on to the rest of the handout’s gestures until all 18 of them have been demonstrated with the students responding to them at least twice, but give special emphasis and review to the more difficult gestures. f. Collect the handouts.

Session #3 (Oct. 27 & 28, 2011) a. Pass out a separate handout containing the melody of the first four measures of America the Beautiful in C Major, complete with an “up bow” marking above the first pick-up note. Explain that the top line on the handout is for the violins, since it is in treble clef; the middle line for the violas (in alto clef); and the third and fourth lines respectively are for the cellos and basses (in bass clef). b. Have the students count aloud as you conduct through various gestures. Explain to them that they should use various inflections in their voices to show their intended fortes, pianos, or marcatos, etc. according to your conducting-gestures. Repeat this until you observe that most of the group is following well with their voice inflections. c. Next, begin a game of “identify-the-gesture” by having the students raise their hands if they know the name of a particular gesture that you are demonstrating. Repeat this until most of the students have been called upon to answer, and that you have covered all 18 gestures. d. Instruct the students to now play through the America the Beautiful excerpt (which should still be sitting on their stands in front of them) starting of course, with an up bow on the first pick-up note. Repeat if often enough, and slow enough, and without any “tricky” conducting-gestures, so that the group can play it both rhythmically correct and in tune.

e. Next, begin demonstrating various conducting-gestures from the first handout’s list (even though by this time, the students shouldn’t need that handout) as the students play in unison through the American the Beautiful excerpt. Only one gesture should be demonstrated for each time the excerpt is played. Again, start with the easy gestures, and work toward the more difficult ones until all 18 have been sufficiently covered. f. Proceed to a piece the group already has in their music folders that they are preparing for their next concert. Take a minute and talk through the various dynamic markings, tempo changes, and/or even staccato and marcato markings. Explain that when these markings appear in their music, they should “check in” with the conductor to see just how much piano or forte or accelerando is occurring.

255 g. Next, explain that as the students begin to play the piece, they should also be looking at the conductor either directly during the piece’s slow parts, or at least, be conscientious of the conductor’s gestures in their peripheral vision. (Explain what “peripheral vision” is— in fact conduct an exercise where the students deliberately don’t look directly at your gestures, and then change time signatures on them to see if they notice.) h. Begin the piece, and conduct according to the markings indicated in the score. Keep verbal explanations to a minimum. Rehearse until the class period ends. i. Collect the America the Beautiful handouts.

Session #4 (Oct. 31 and Nov. 1, 2011) a. Begin by directing another game of “identify-the-gesture-by-raise-of-hands,” only this time allow the students to call out the name of the gesture as soon as you’ve completed its demonstration. Try to call on different students each time, and continue until all 18 gestures have been covered—but do the gestures in reverse order of how they were listed on the first handout. Continue until you feel the most of the group is raising their hands and are answering correctly, especially for the more difficult gestures. b. Continue with a conducted rehearsal (but with limited verbal instruction) on the piece the group is preparing for their next concert for the allotted time period. Remind the students that they should not be discussing what is occurring during the experimental groups’ session with the students of the control group.

Session #5 (Nov. 2 & 3, 2011) a. Begin with playing the two-octave C Major scale in quarter notes and in 4/4/ time, while expecting the students to follow your several conducting-gesture changes every two or three measures. Repeat until all 18 gestures have been demonstrated at least twice. b. Specifically, review the more difficult gestures, like tenuto, legato, subito piano, decrescendo, etc.. c. Explain that this session will be the last instruction period until they take the posttest at during your next visit. d. Ask if there is any questions, or anything anybody wants to review.

APPENDIX N

INSTRUCTIONS FOR JUDGES

257

Dear Orchestra/String Teacher Colleague:

Thank you so much for agreeing to act as an independent adjudicator for a section of my PhD. research project. The attached answer sheet is designed to facilitate your careful evaluation (scoring) of the recordings of the project's student participants attempting to correctly execute the musical nuances of twelve basic conducting gestures, while viewing a videoed conductor on a lap-tap computer screen. The enclosed compact disc (CD) contains the audio recordings of the 47 participating students (who at least were present to be recorded) arranged in a "pre-randomized" order. In other words, you as a judge will not know whether the student is from a previously assigned experimental or control group, as to not bias your evaluation.

For each student's recording segment, you will first hear the student stating his/her special 4-digit identification number (and sometimes me repeating it), the letter code for which school he/she attends (either A or B), the date the recording was made, and which instrument he/she plays (and probably not exactly in that order). Next you will hear me (the investigator) say, "Number 1" (for example), which would correspond to the first conducting-gesture about to be shown on the lap-top computer screen directing the student to play a 4-measure excerpt. The student will have on a music stand in front of him/her a generic printed piece of music (the 4-measure excerpt) which is the first 4- measures of "America the Beautiful" in the key of C Major, complete with the pick-up note. You will next hear the videoed conductor (again, which is me) count off, "1, 2, 3..." establishing a comfortable tempo for the student to know when to begin playing the pick- up note on beat 4, while watching the lap-top computer screen (also set in an easily viewable position). The student will then attempt to follow the particular gesture being shown on the screen, which would be the case for "Number 1”, a "piano" gesture. If you feel you need an extra moment or two to decide on a score to assign, you can pause your audio player or computer.

After deciding a score to assign, mark a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in the appropriate blank on the answer sheet. Please rate the student on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most correct and 1 being the least correct. Intonation, rhythm, and even tempo (except for the "accelerando" and the "ritardando" gestures) are NOT to be considered (no matter how good or bad they are) when assigning a rating. You could then "unpause" the audio player and continue on with "Number 2" following the same procedure as outlined above; and then of course go on to "Number 3," and so on until all 12 gestures have been listened to and scored.

You will also find an attached sheet listing the conducting-gesture names and their definitions so that you can know what exactly to listen for. (I’ll also include a DVD copy of the same 12-gesture videoed test that the students were taking with your packet of instructions.)

At the end of each student's segment of playing all 12 gesture excerpts, the student will repeat aloud his/her 4-digit identification number, the school code letter, the date, and his/her instrument (again not necessarily in that order). Please be aware that 258 even though the students were given a chance to practice the 4-measure excerpt before the recording began, many still had problems with tempos (mostly), as well as a few intonation and rhythmic issues. Some students complained that they had trouble following the video's tempos due to the small size of the computer screen. (I personally think they just lack experience in following a conductor—but I have no proof of that, nor is that important to address in this study.)

Again, please do NOT consider intonation, rhythm, or even tempo, in your scoring (except of course, for the "accelerando" and "ritardando" gestures). And again, thank you so much for your participation in this project. Please know that your name will not be used in any publication of the final Phd. dissertation. If you have any questions or concerns, please e-mail or call me (hikenazi@gmail or cell: (801) 671-4690). Please complete your evaluations in a timely manner (before the 3rd week of December), but be sure to be well rested and attentive when you work on the listening/judging/scoring. In other words, you may not want to do this task all at once--take frequent breaks--maybe over several days. Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Jim Thompson

APPENDIX O

RATINGS ANSWER FORM FOR JUDGES

260

JUDGING ANSWER SHEET

Judge: A B C (Circle One)

Number of years teaching experience (either privately or in a school)______

Approximate dates evaluations were performed: ______to ______

DIRECTIONS: On the next 3 pages, please use the given tables to rate to what degree the participant executed the corresponding conducting-gesture appropriately on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the least correct, and 5 being the most correct). Intonation, rhythm, and tempo (except for the “accelerando” and “ritardando” gestures) and other issues not related to the gesture should NOT be considered when assigning a rating. Write a “1, 2, 3, 4, or 5” for each student’s rating in the appropriate corresponding grid cell for each gesture. The 12 Conducting-Gesture items will sound in the following order (as they also appeared in the videoed performance test). A definition of each gesture is also given.

1. Piano: indicated by a small four-beat pattern. 2. Crescendo: indicated by lifting the left hand, thumb up, palm at an upward angle. 3. Subito forte: indicated by a sudden increase in the distance of the beat pattern from the body. 4. Decrescendo: indicated by gradually lowering the left hand with the palm facing the performers. 5. Legato: indicated by a smooth, connected, and flowing pattern. 6. Marcato: a series of accents indicated by using no rebound after the ictus point. 7. Accelerando: indicated by increasing the speed of the beats while simultaneously decreasing the size of the pattern. 8. Fermata: indicated by “freezing” both the left and right hand. 9. Forte: indicated by holding the left-hand palm outward and inward with tension. 10. Staccato: short and separated by using a small rebound. 11. Subito piano: indicated by a sudden decrease in the distance of the beat pattern from the body. 12. Ritardando: indicated by decreasing the speed of the beats while simultaneously increasing the size of the pattern.!

261

262

263

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! REFERENCES

Acklin, A. I. (2009). The effect of conducting on ensemble performance: A “best- evidence” synthesis. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3385224)

Adams, B. L. (1994). The effect of visual/aural conditions on the emotional response to music. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9434127)

Arcaya, J. M. (1975). A social psychological investigation of orchestra conducting: The evolution of a musical work from inception to performance. (Doctoral dissertation.) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (7608255)

Armstrong, S., & Armstrong, S. (1996). The conductor as transformational leader. Music Educators Journal, 82 (6), 22-25.

Bailey, W. (2009). Conducting: The art of communication. New York: Oxford University.

Bell, C. L. (2000). An examination of adult amateur community chorus and choral conductor rehearsal behavior, with implications for music education. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9959331)

Bender, T. S. (2010). The effect of conductor intensity and ensemble performance quality on musicians’ evaluations of conductor effectiveness. Journal of Band Research, 46 (1), 13-22.

Bergee, M. J. (2005). An exploratory comparison of novice, intermediate, and expert orchestral conductors. International Journal of Music Education, 23 (1), 23-36. doi: 10.1177/0255761405050928

Bertini, G., & Carosi, P. (1993). Light baton system: A system for conducting computer music performance. Interface, 22 (3), 243-257.

Berz, W. L. (1983). The development of an observation instrument designed to classify specific nonverbal communication techniques employed by conductors of musical ensembles. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8400532) 265

Billingham, L. A. (2001). The development of a gestural vocabulary for choral conductors based on the movement theory of Rudolf Laban. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3023489)

Boardman, S. M. (2000). A survey of the undergraduate instrumental conducting course in Region Seven of the National Association of Schools of Music. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (0801671)

Boerner, S., & Von Streit, C. F. (2007). Promoting orchestra performance: The interplay between musicians’ mood and a conductor’s leadership style. Psychology of Music, 35 (1), 132-143.

Brittin, R. V. (1992). Perceptions of conducting: Accuracy in detecting modulated beat. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 113. 1-8.

Buell, D. S. (1990). Effective rehearsing with the instrumental music ensemble: A case study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9025698)

Byo, J. L. (1990). Recognition of intensity contrasts in the gestures of beginning conductors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38 (3), 157-163.

Byo, J. L. (2001). Student musicians’ eye contact with the conductor: An exploratory investigation. Contributions to Music Education, 28 (2), 21-35.

Byo, J. L., & Austin, K. R. (1994). Comparison of expert and novice conductors: An approach to the analysis of nonverbal behaviors. Journal of Band Research, 30 (1), 11-34.

Carlton, W. G. (2003). A guide for conducting teachers: Physical movement taught in six selected instrumental conducting textbooks and an annotated bibliography. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3103647)

Carvalho, E. D. (1997). Choral students’ attentiveness and attitude as related to conductor’s score utilization and eye contact. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9842513)

Chagnon, R. D. (2001). A comparison of five choral directors’ use of movement to facilitate learning in rehearsals. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3002819)

Civikly, J. M. (1973). A descriptive and experimental analysis of teacher nonverbal communication in the college classroom. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (7418011) 266

Cofer, R. S. (1995). The effects of conducting-gesture instruction on seventh-grade band students’ recognition of and performance response to musical conducting emblems. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9603017)

Cofer, R. S. (1998). Effects of conducting-gesture instruction on seventh-grade band students’ performance response to conducting emblems. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46 (3), 360-373.

Cooksey, J. (1974). An application of the facet-factorial approach to scale construction in the development of a rating scale for high school choral music performance. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (7511878)

Crowe, D. R. (1996). Effects of score study on beginning conductors’ error-detection abilities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44 (2), 160-171.

Daellenbach, C. C. (1970). Identification and classification of music learning behaviors utilizing videotape recording techniques. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (7104452)

Dan, K. (2005). Facial expression and eye contact used by instrumental conductors: Practical applications and exercises. (Doctoral dissertation.) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3166080)

Davidson, J. W., & Liao, M. (2007). The use of gesture techniques in children’s singing. International Journal of Music Education, 25 (1), 82-96.

Dease, J. P. (2007). The effect of differential feedback on closed- versus open-hand conducting position. (Doctoral dissertation.) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3301541)

DeCarbo, N. J. (1982). The effects of conducting experience and programmed materials on error-detection scores of college conducting students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30 (3), 187-200.

Deegan, B. D. (2007). Conducting amateur musicians: Leadership of community orchestras in the united states. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 11-29.

Dickey, M. R. (1991). A comparison of verbal instruction and nonverbal teacher-student modeling in instrumental ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39 (2), 132-142.

Duke, R. A., Geringer, J. M., & Madsen, C. K. (1991). Performance of perceived beat in 267

relation to age and music training. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39 (1), 35-45.

Duke, R. A., & Henninger, J. C. (2002). Teachers’ verbal corrections and observers’ perceptions of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50 (1), 75-87.

Eastwood, W. (1989). The effects of concurrent knowledge of performance feedback on the acquisition of a motor skill in the undergraduate conducting class. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9005320)

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 3, 49-98.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1972). Hand movement. Journal of Communication, 22, 353-374.

Ellis, M. C. (1989). The effect of concurrent music reading and performance on the ability to detect tempo change. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37 (4), 288-297.

Ervin, C. L. (1975). Systematic observation and evaluation of conductor effectiveness. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (7611761)

Fiese, R. K. (1990). The effects of nonmusical cues on the rankings of music scores by undergraduate conducting students based on judgements of quality. Journal of Band Research, 25 (2), 13-21.

Fleming, R. J. (1977). The effect of guided practice materials used with the videotape recorder in developing choral conducting skill. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (7724759)

Ford, J. K. (2001). Implications for non-verbal communication and conducting gesture. Choral Journal, 42 (1), 17-23.

Francisco, J. M. (1994). Conductor communication in the ensemble rehearsal: The Relative effects of verbal communication, visual communication, and modeling on performance improvement of high school bands. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9542638)

Fredrickson, W. E. (1994). Band musicians’ performance and eye contact as influenced by loss of visual and/or aural stimulus. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42 (4), 306-317.

Fried, E. (2001). Using body language to express the music in conducting. American 268

String Teacher, 51 (3), 68-70, 72-73.

Fry, R. J. (1992). Development and trial of a computer-based interactive videodisc program in a course in fundamentals of conducting. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (930527)

Fry, W. E. (1990). Books and dissertations on the technique of instrumental conducting: A select bibliography. Journal of Band Research, 26 (1), 30-43.

Fuelberth, R. J. V. (2003). The effect of left hand conducting gestures on inappropriate vocal tension in individual singers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 62-70.

Fuller, G. A. (2000). Effects of metric conducting patterns, subdivided patterns, managed preparatory gestures, and no conducting on choral singers’ precision and expressiveness at phrase punctuation points less than the unit pulse. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9974630)

Gaddis, J. R. (1992). Application of the Dreyfus Taxonomy of Skills Acquisition to musical conducting. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (9222849)

Gallops, R. W. (2005). The effect of conducting gesture on expressive-interpretive performance of college music majors. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3188406)

Gambetta, C. L. (2005). Conducting outside the box: Creating a fresh approach to conducting gesture through the principles of Laban Movement Analysis. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3201144)

Gillis, G. H. (2008). Conductor responsibilities and rehearsal preparation. Canadian Music Educator, 49 (4), 36-39.

Ginsborg, J., Chaffin, R., & Nicholson, G. (2006). Shared performance cues in singing and conducting: A content analysis of talk during practice. Psychology of Music, 34, 167-194. doi: 10.1177/0305735606061851

Gonzo, C. L. (1971). An analysis of factors related to choral teachers’ ability to detect pitch errors while reading the score. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19 (3), 259-271.

Gonzo, C. L., & Forsythe, J. (1976). Developing and using videotapes to teach rehearsal techniques and principles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 24 (1), 32- 41.

Goolsby, T. W. (1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of 269

three career levels and preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45 (1), 21-40.

Grechesky, R. N. (1986). An analysis of nonverbal and verbal conducting behaviors and their relationship to expressive music performance (aesthetic, gestural). (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8513459)

Green, E. A. H. (1987). The modern conductor: A college text on conducting based on The principles of Nicolai Malko as set forth in his the conductor and his baton (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Green, E. A. H. (1996). The modern conductor: A college text on conducting based on The principles of Nicolai Malko as set forth in his the conductor and his baton (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Green, E. A. H. (2004). The modern conductor: A college text on conducting based on The principles of Nicolai Malko as set forth in his the conductor and his baton (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gruner, G. L. (1993). The design and evaluation of a computer-based error detection skills development program for beginning conductors utilizing synthetic sound sources. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9319878)

Haldeman, R. K. (2001). The availability of instruction in conducting pedagogy offered In United States graduate schools of music. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3021551)

Hamilton, C. V. 5 (1994). A recommended curriculum for teaching score study in the undergraduate instrumental conducting class. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9517613)

Harden, M. C. (2000). The effect of differentiated levels of conductor eye contact on high school choral students’ ratings of overall conductor effectiveness. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9974577)

Harris, F. E. (1999). The communication of musical feeling and its implications for preparing future conductors. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9937858)

Hawkins, K. N. (1991). An analytic comparison of performing competence among east Tennessee high school choirs that are prepared to sing without benefit of a conductor to choirs performing with a conductor. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9214324)

Haynes, G. A. (1994). Non-technical communication in conducting and its presentation 270

in selected textbooks. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9530625)

Henson, B. R. (1997). B. R. Henson Interview—December 29, 1997/Interviewer: Robert Sinclair in The conducting pedagogy of B. R. Henson: A systematic approach to conductor training. (Doctoral dissertation Appendix D ). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9999315)

Hopkins, J. E. (1991). The effect of four approaches to scores study on student conductors’ ability to detect errors in the performance of choral music. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9210841)

House, R. E. (1998). Effects of expressive and nonexpressive conducting on the performance and attitudes of advanced instrumentalists. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9911083)

Hunsberger, D., & Ernst, R. E. (1992). The art of conducting (2nd ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Hunter, L. R. (2003). The relationship between interpersonal communication skills, teaching effectiveness, and conducting effectiveness of music education students. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3119953)

Johnson, C. M., & Frederickson, W. E. (1995). The effect of aural commentary, written comments, and behavioral self-assessment of conductor intensity. Journal of Band Research, 30 (2), 27-38.

Johnson, C. M., Darrow A., & Eason, B. (2008). Novice and skilled music teachers’ nonverbal behaviors and their relationship to perceived effectiveness and rapport. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 178, 73-83.

Johnson, C. M., Fredrickson, W. E., Achey, C. A., & Gentry, G. R. (2003). The effect of nonverbal elements of conducting on the overall evaluation of student and professional conductors. Journal of Band Research, 38 (2), 64-79.

Johnson, C. M., Price, H.D., & Schroder, L. K. (2009). Teaching evaluations and comments of pre-service music teachers regarding expert and novice choral conductors. International Journal of Music Education, 27 (1), 7-18.

Jones, J. R. (1996). The effect of positive and negative visual stimuli on choral conductors’ and choral singers’ ratings of selected elements in the choral evaluative process. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9629006)

Jordan, G. L. (1980). Videotape supplementary instruction in beginning conducting. 271

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8017958)

Karpicke, H. A. (1987). Development of an instrument to assess conducting gesture and validation of its use in orchestral performance. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8806226)

Keller, J. C. (1979). The effects of video tape feedback on the acquisition of selected basic conducting skills. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8009299)

Kelly, S. N. (1997). Effects of conducting instruction on the musical performance of beginning band students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45 (2), 295- 305.

Kohut, D. L., & Grant, J. W. (1990). Learning to conduct and rehearse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Kolesnik, P. (2004). Conducting gesture recognition, analysis and performance system. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (MR06516)

Krause, D. W. (1983). The positive use of conducting stance and motion to affect vocal production and to assist musicality in the training of children’s choirs. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (0552760)

Krudop, D. W. (2003). An examination of the use of kinesics in eliciting expressive ensemble response and its application in an undergraduate choral conducting curriculum. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3137774)

Kun, J. V. (2004). A real-time responsive/interactive system for musical conducting using motion capture technology. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3135261)

Labuta, J. (1982). Basic conducting techniques (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Laib, J. R. (1994). The effect of expressive conducting on band performance. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9404667)

Lanier, B. (2006). Research report: A survey of training and perceptions regarding right- handed and left-handed musical conductors. Choral Journal, 46 (12), 87-92.

Leppla, D. A. (1989). The acquisition of basic conducting skills by beginning conductors: 272

A comparison of the effects of guided and unguided videotaped modeling. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9001987)

Lewis, D. M. (1999). Conducting musical shape. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9949703)

Lewis, K. G. (1977). The development and validation of a system for the observation and analysis of choral conductor gestures. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (7732171)

Lonis, D. J. (1993). Development and application of a model for the teaching of conducting gestures. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (93149070)

Luck, G. (2010). Perception of expression in conductors’ gestures: A continuous response study. Music Perception, 28 (1), 47-57.

Luck, G., & Nte S. (2008). An investigation of conductors’ temporal gestures and conductor-musician synchronization, and a first experiment. Psychology of Music, 36 (1), 81-99.

Luck, G., & Sloboda, J. A. (2007). An investigation of musicians’ synchronization with traditional conducting beat patterns. Music Performance Research, 1 (1), 26-46.

Luck, G., & Toiviainen, P. (2006). Ensemble musicians’ synchronization with conductors’ gestures: An automated feature-extraction analysis. Music Perception, 24 (2), 189-199.

MacKay, G. (2008). Mimes and conductors: Silent artists. Music Educators Journal, 94 (5), 22-28.

Madsen, C. K. (1990). Teacher intensity in relationship to music education. Bulletin for the Council for Research in Music Education, 104, 38-46.

Madsen, C. K. (2003) The effect of accuracy of instruction, teacher delivery, and student attentiveness on musicians’ evaluation of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51 (1), 38-50.

Madsen, C. K., Standley, J. M., & Cassidy, J. W. (1989). Demonstration and recognition of high and low contrasts in teacher intensity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37 (2), 85-92.

Mathers, A. (2009). The use of gestural modes to enhance expressive conducting at all 273

levels of entering behavior through the use of illustrators, affect displays and regulators. International Journal of Music Education, 27 (2), 143-153. doi: 10.1177/0255761409102322

Matthews, W. K., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Group cohesion, collective efficacy, and motivational climate as predictors of conductor support in music ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55 (1), 6-17.

Mayne, R. G. (1992). An investigation of the use of facial expression in conjunction with musical conducting gestures and their interpretation by instrumental performers. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9238449)

McCoy, C. W. (1985). The ensemble director as effective teacher: A review of selected research. Update: The Application of Research n Music Education, 3 (3), 9-12.

McElheran, B. (1989). Conducting technique for beginners and professionals (Rev. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Miller, S. W. A. (1988). The effect of Laban Movement Theory on the ability of student conductors to communicate musical interpretation through gesture. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8809040)

Morrison, S. J., Price, H. E., Geiger, C. G., & Cornacchio, R. A. (2009). The effect of conductor expressivity on ensemble performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57 (1), 37-49.

Morrison, S. J., & Selvey, J. D. (2011, February). The effect of conductor expressivity on choral ensemble evaluation. In M. Broton (Chair), International Symposium for Research in Music Behavior. Symposium conducted in Barcelona, Spain.

Nagoski, A. (2010). Thoughtful gestures: A model of conducting as empathic communication. Choral Journal, 50 (9), 19-30.

Nakra, T. M. (2000). Inside the “Conductor’s Jacket”: Analysis, interpretation and musical synthesis of expressive gesture. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (0801701)

Nakra, T. M. (2002). Synthesizing expressive music through the language of conducting. Journal of New Music Research, 31 (1), 11-26.

Napoles, J. (2006). The relationship between type or teacher talk and student attentiveness. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16, 7-19.

Napoles, J. (2011, February). The influences of presentation modes on high school 274

musicians’ perceptions of expressive choral performance. In M. Broton, (Chair), International Symposium for Research in Music Behavior. Symposium conducted in Barcelona, Spain.

Napoles, J. (2011). Verbal instructions vs. conducting gestures: Is one more effective than the other? Manuscript in progress, School of Music, University of Utah.

Orman, E. K. (2010). Effect of virtual reality exposure on eye contact, directional focus, and focus of attention of novice wind band conductors. Journal of Band Research, 46 (1), 1-12.

Orzolek, D. C. (2002). The effect of imagery and movement exercises on the ability of students to conduct expressively. Journal of Band Research, 37 (2), 61-78.

Osman, N. E. (1989). The development of the Communication Skill Instrument: An instrument designed to assess the communication skill of the conductor in the choral rehearsal. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9000425)

Ostling, A. (1977). Research on nonverbal communication with implications for conductors. Journal of Band Research, 12 (2), 29-43.

Owens, G. W. (1992). Student perceptions of appealing and effective music rehearsals: Toward retention and transfer of learning. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9230178)

Patterson, R. S. (1984). Conducing gestures used by high school choral directors. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8502262)

Peddell, L. T. (2004). Influence of conductor behavior on listeners’ perception of expressiveness. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3137189)

Peddell, L. T. (2008). Factors influencing listeners’ perception of expressiveness for a conducted performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 47-61.

Phillips, K. W. (1997). Enhancement of the student conducting experience by use of video self-evaluation. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9724268)

Plaag, J. F. (2006). An overview on and recommendations on expressivity in conducting pedagogy. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3212142)

275

Pontius, M. F. (1982). A profile of rehearsal techniques and interaction of selected band conductors. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8302966)

Porter, A. M. (2000). The development of an exploratory conducting course for nonmusic education majors. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9971770)

Powell, S. R. (2008). The effect of Elizabeth A. H. Green’s conception of psychological conducting on the ability of beginning instrumental conducting students to communicate through gesture. (Doctoral dissertation.) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3314866)

Price, H. E. (1983). The effect of conductor academic task presentation, conductor reinforcement, and ensemble practice on performers’ musical achievement, attentiveness, and attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31 (4), 245- 257.

Price, H. E. (1985). A competency-based course in basic conducting techniques: A replication. Journal of Band Research, 21 (1), 61-69.

Price, H. E. (2006). Relationships among conductor quality, ensemble performance quality, and state festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54 (3), 203-214.

Price, H. E., & Chang, E. C. (2001). Conductor expressivity and ensemble performance: An exploratory investigation. Contributions to Music Education, 28 (2), 9-20.

Price, H. E., & Chang, E. C. (2005). Conductor and ensemble performance expressivity and state festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53 (1), 66-77.

Price, H. E., Morrison, S. J., & Mann, A. (2011, February). Effect of conductor expressivity on ensemble evaluations by nonmusic majors. In M. Broton (Chair), International Symposium for Research in Music Behaviro. Symposium in Barcelona, Spain.

Price, H. E., & Winter, S. (1991). Effect of strict and expressive conducting on performances and opinions of eighth grade students. Journal of Band Research, 27 (1), 30-43.

Prime, D. G. (2008). Getting your students to watch and respond: Teach students how to respond to conducting gestures. Canadian Winds, 6 (2), 87-88.

Rashley, B. (2001). Effects of strict and expressive conducting on the perception and performances of university music majors. Unpublished manuscript, School of Music, University of Kentucky, Lexington. 276

Roebke, J. P. (2005). The effect of specific nonverbal conducting elements on student perceptions of teaching effectiveness in a classroom rehearsal environment. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3203449)

Romines, F. D. (2003). A survey of undergraduate instrumental conducting curricula. Journal of Band Research, 38 (2), 80-90.

Roshong, J. C. (1978). An exploratory study of nonverbal communication behaviors of instrumental music conductors. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (7902216)

Rudolf, M. (1994). The grammar of conducting (3rd ed.). New York: Schirmer Books.

Runnels, B. D. (1992). Practices in the teaching of instrumental conducting at the undergraduate level among colleges and universities in the Upper Midwest. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9224630)

Running, D. J. (2008). Conductor as actor: A collaborative method for training conductors through dynamic muscularity. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3299420)

Saunders, A. T. (2005). The role of motivation in the choral setting: Teacher beliefs and their impact on choral conductor behavior and choral student motivation. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3174400)

Scott, D. E. (1996). Visual diagnostic skills development and college students’ acquisition of basic conducting skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44 (3), 229-239.

Serrano, J. G. (1993). Visual perception of simulated conducting motions. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9422818)

Shepherd, C. C. (1992). A strategy for incorporating critical thinking into the curriculum. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9327867)

Sherrill, M. H. (1986). An analytical study of videotaped rehearsal and conducting techniques of selected junior and senior high school band conductors. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8614150)

Sidoti, V. J. (1991). The effects of expressive and nonexpressive conducting on the 277

performance accuracy of selected expression markings by individual high school instrumentalists. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9105212)

Silkebakken, D. L. (1988). The effect of conductor visual attributes on the observer’s evaluation of conducting performance. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8904361)

Silvey, B. A. (2009). The effects of score study on novices’ conducting and rehearsal behaviors. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3379787)

Sinclair, R. L. (2000). The conducting pedagogy of B. R. Henson: A systematic approach to conductor training. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9999315)

Skadsem, J. A. (1996). The effect of verbal, written, gestural, and choral stimuli on singers’ performance responses to dynamic changes in music. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 33, 28-42.

Skadsem, J. A. (1997). Effect of conductor verbalization, dynamic markings, conductor gesture, and choir dynamic level on singers’ dynamic responses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 509-520.

Snow, D. B. (2006). A conductor’s guide to wind instrument deficiencies: A practical addendum to the undergraduate conducting text. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3225233)

Sousa, G. D. (1988). Musical conducting emblems: An investigation of the use of specific conducting gestures by instrumental conductors and their interpretation by instrumental performers. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8820356)

Spencer, M. C. (2000). Conducting pedagogy: Teaching through musicianship. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9968102)

Stalter, T. J. (1996). The conductor’s process model and its presentation in current conducting materials and methodologies. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9622498)

Stauch, T. J. (1986). An examination of nonverbal communication behaviors of selected collegiate choral directors. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8622359)

Stiffler, B. D. (2004). The effects of conducting and non-conducting contexts on teacher 278

self-evaluation and musical error detection. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3131030)

Strouse, L. H. (1987). From analysis to gestures: A comprehensive approach to score preparation for the conductor. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8713554)

Swinehart, T. E. (1994). The effect of timbral variance on the score-reading ability of novice conductors. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9517085)

Taylor, J. W. (1989). The effect of conductor sensitization on ensemble response to articulation styles in high school bands. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9011276)

Teachout, D. J. (1997). Preservice and experienced teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors important to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45 (1), 41-50.

Trevino, A. R. (2008). The effect of the use of an aural model during score study on undergraduate music majors’ conducting gesture. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3318463)

Van Oyen, L. G., & Nierman, G. (1998). The effects of two approaches to instrumental score preparation on the error detection ability of student conductors. Contributions to Music Education, 25 (2), 85-97.

VanWeelden, K. (2002). Relationships between perception of conducting effectiveness and ensemble performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50 (2), 165- 176.

VanWeelden, K., & McGee, I. R. (2007). The influence of music style and conductor race on perceptions of ensemble and conductor performance. International Journal of Music Education, 25 (1), 7-19.

Wang, W. (2001). Verbal versus nonverbal communication in music performance instruction. Contributions to Music Education, 28 (1), 41-61.

Weller, K. J. (1987). Sound sources in successful college instrumental conducting programs. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8713686)

Williams, T. N. (1984). Exploratory inventory of diagnostic aural skills: An investigation of possible criteria for designing instruction and evaluation for teaching diagnostic aural skills to instrumental conducting students, with implications for 279

future research (band music). (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8505326)

Wöllner, C. (2008). Perceiving conductors’ expressive gestures from different visual perspectives: An exploratory continuous response study. Music Perception, 26 (2), 129-143.

Wöllner, C. (2008). Which part of the conductor’s body conveys most expressive information? A spatial occlusion approach. The Journal of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music, 12 (2), 249-272.

Woodbury, W. (1955). Leadership in orchestra conducting. Journal of Research in Music Education, 3 (2), 119-130.

Worthy, M. D. (2003). Rehearsal analysis of an expert wind conductor in high school vs. college band rehearsals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 156, 11-19.

Wyatt, L. D. (1974). The development and testing of auto-tutorial instructional materials for choral conducting students. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (7500984)

Yarbrough, C. (1975). Effect of magnitude on conductor behavior on students in selected mixed choruses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23 (2), 134-146.

Yarbrough, C. (1987). The relationship of behavioral self-assessment to the achievement of basic conducting skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35 (3), 183- 189.

Yarbrough, C., & Price, H. E. (1981). Prediction of performer attentiveness based on rehearsal activity and teacher behavior. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29 (3), 209-217.

Yarbrough, C., Wapnick, J., & Kelly, R. (1979). Effect of videotape feedback techniques on performance, verbalization, and attitude of beginning conductors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 27 (2), 103-112.

Yontz, T. G. (2001). The effectiveness of Laban-based principles of movement and previous musical training on undergraduate beginning conducting students’ ability to convey intended musical content. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3023961)

Zirkman, R. A. (1984). Review of educational objectives for conducting classes for the undergraduate through the doctoral degree. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (8423047) !