Effects of Teacher Approval and Disapproval of Music and Performance Familiarity on Middle School Students' Music Preference Kevin Lee Droe

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 Effects of Teacher Approval and Disapproval of Music and Performance Familiarity on Middle School Students' Music Preference Kevin Lee Droe

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF MUSIC

EFFECTS OF TEACHER APPROVAL AND DISAPPROVAL OF

MUSIC AND PERFORMANCE FAMILIARITY ON MIDDLE

SCHOOL STUDENTS' MUSIC PREFERENCE

KEVIN DROE

A dissertation submitted to the College of Music in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2005

i The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Kevin Droe defended on May 26, 2005.

John M. Geringer Professor Directing Dissertation

Patrick Meighan Outside Committee Member

Clifford K. Madsen Committee Member

Patrick Dunnigan Committee Member

Steven N. Kelly Committee Member

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Michelle Droe, for her never ending love and belief in me, to my daughter, Anjah Droe, for teaching me so much everyday, and to my parents, Les and Donna Droe, for inspiring me to venture out and never look back…but visit often.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... viii List of Figures...... xi Abstract...... xii

1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 Need for study...... 3 Purpose statement and Research Questions...... 3 Definition of Terms...... 4 Limitations ...... 5

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE...... 6 Music Preference...... 6 Models of Music Preference ...... 6 Factors of Music Preference...... 7 Tempo ...... 9 Familiarity...... 10 Music Stimulus ...... 12 Ethnicity and Social Factors ...... 13 Performance Literature Preference ...... 14 Adult and Peer Influence ...... 15 Approvals and Disapprovals from Teachers...... 17 Modeling...... 21 Summary ...... 22

3. METHOD...... 23 Participants...... 23 Treatment ...... 23 Rehearsal Procedure...... 25 Music Preference Survey ...... 26

4. RESULTS...... 27 Research Question #1...... 28 Listening Preference ...... 28 All Schools Comparison ...... 28 Listening Preference by Treatment Group...... 31 Summit Listening Preference ...... 31 Pride and Glory Listening Preference ...... 33 Listening Preference by Rehearsal Condition...... 34

v Target and Non-target Listening Preference Correlation ...... 36 Performance Preference...... 36 Performance Preference by Treatment Group ...... 37 Summit Performance Preference...... 37 Pride and Glory Performance Preference...... 38 Performance Preference by Rehearsal Condition ...... 39 Target and Non-target Performance Preference Correlation ...... 41 Concert Selection...... 42 Research Question #2 ...... 44 Familiarity by Rehearsal Experience...... 44 Listening Preference...... 44 Summit Familiarity...... 44 Pride and Glory Familiarity...... 45 Performance Preference ...... 46 Summit Familiarity...... 46 Pride and Glory Familiarity...... 47 Research Question #3 ...... 48 Familiarity Correlation...... 49 Summit Familiarity...... 49 Pride and Glory Familiarity...... 49 Piece Treatment Correlation ...... 50 Summit Familiarity...... 50 Pride and Glory Familiarity...... 51 Research Question #4...... 51

5. DISCUSSION ...... 53 Purpose...... 53 Summary of Procedure...... 53 Summary of Results ...... 54 Research Question #1 ...... 54 Listening preference...... 54 Performance preference ...... 55 Research Question #2 ...... 55 Listening preference...... 55 Performance preference ...... 55 Research Question #3 ...... 56 Research Question #4 ...... 56 Discussion ...... 57 Research Question #1 ...... 57 Research Question #2 ...... 58 Research Question #3 ...... 58 Research Question #4 ...... 59 Implications for Music Education...... 59 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 60

vi APPENDICES A. Preference Response Sheet ...... 62 B. Human Subjects Approval Memorandum ...... 63 C. Parent Consent Letter...... 64 D. Student Assent Letter...... 65 E. Instructions to Participating Directors – Part I (treatment)...... 66 F. Instructions to Participating Directors – Part II (survey)...... 69 G. Composer Letter...... 70 H. Survey Instructions to Participants ...... 71 I. Music Preference Survey Presentation Orders ...... 72 J. Time Log...... 73 K. Table of Means and Standard Deviations for Listening Preference ...... 74 L. Comment Categories...... 75 M. Participating Directors Open-ended questions...... 76 N. Sample Approval Score – Summit ...... 79 O. Sample Disapproval Score – Pride and Glory...... 82 P. Suggested Approvals and Disapprovals...... 85 Q. School Demographics ...... 87 R. Recording Information...... 88

REFERENCES ...... 89

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 97

vii LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Design of Rehearsal Conditions...... 24

Table 2: School Treatment Conditions and Number of Participants...... 28

Table 3: One-Way ANOVA with Repeated Measures for Listening Preference Ratings Between Schools...... 29

Table 4: Means and Standard Deviation of all Ratings...... 29

Table 5: One-way ANOVA of Summit Listening Preference Ratings Between Treatment Conditions...... 32

Table 6: Summit Listening Preference Ratings Means and Standard Deviations ...... 32

Table 7: One-way ANOVA of Pride and Glory Listening Preference Ratings Between Treatment Conditions ...... 33

Table 8: Pride And Glory Listening Preference Ratings Means and Standard Deviations...... 33

Table 9: One-way ANOVA of Non-targeted Listening Ratings by Rehearsal Condition...... 34

Table 10: Listening Means and Standard Deviations of Non-targeted Pieces by Rehearsal Condition...... 36

Table 11: Correlation Between Targeted and Non-targeted Listening Preference Ratings by Rehearsal Condition ...... 36

Table 12: One-way ANOVA of Summit Performance Preference Ratings Between Treatment Conditions ...... 37

Table 13: Summit Performance Ratings Means and Standard Deviations ...... 38

Table 14: One-way ANOVA of Pride and Glory Performance Preference Ratings Between Treatment Conditions ...... 38

viii Table 15: Pride And Glory Performance Preference Ratings Means and Standard Deviations ...... 39

Table 16: One-way ANOVA of Non-targeted Performance Ratings by Rehearsal Condition...... 39

Table 17: Performance Rating Means and Standard Deviations of Non- targeted pieces by Rehearsal Condition...... 40

Table 18: Correlation of Targeted and Non-targeted Performance Preference Ratings by Rehearsal Condition ...... 41

Table 19: Summary of Significant Differences ...... 42

Table 20: Concert Choice: Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-square Values by Treatment Condition ...... 43

Table 21: Concert Choice: Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-Square Values by Selection ...... 44

Table 22: One-way ANOVA of Summit Listening Ratings by Rehearsal Experience...... 45

Table 23: Means and Standard Deviations of Summit Listening Preference Ratings by Familiarity Condition ...... 45

Table 24: One-way ANOVA of Pride and Glory Listening Ratings by Rehearsal Experience...... 46

Table 25: Means and Standard Deviations of Pride and Glory Listening Preference Ratings by Familiarity Condition ...... 46

Table 26: One-way ANOVA of Summit Performance Ratings by Rehearsal Experience...... 47

Table 27: Means and Standard Deviations of Summit Performance Preference Ratings by Rehearsal Experience ...... 47

Table 28: One-way ANOVA of Pride and Glory Performance Ratings by Rehearsal Experience...... 48

Table 29: Means and Standard Deviations of Pride and Glory Performance Ratings by Familiarity Condition ...... 48

Table 30: Correlation of Summit Listening and Performance Preference Ratings by Familiarity Condition ...... 49

ix Table 31: Correlation of Pride and Glory Listening and Performance Preference Ratings by Familiarity Condition ...... 50 Table 32: Correlation of Summit Listening and Performance Preference Ratings by Treatment Condition...... 50

Table 33: Correlation of Pride and Glory Listening and Performance Preference Ratings by Treatment Condition...... 51

Table 34: Frequencies of Comments by Category...... 52

x LIST OF FIGURES

1 Listening Preference Ratings Means ...... 31

2 Non-Targeted Listening Preference by Rehearsal Condition ....35

3 Non-Targeted Performance Preference by Rehearsal Condition...... 40

xi ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of approvals and disapprovals about the music from the teacher and rehearsal familiarity on the students’ preference for the music. Eight middle schools participated in the study with students (N

= 440) ranging from sixth to eighth grade. Each of the eight schools was assigned a different treatment condition. Teachers were given either one or two pieces to rehearse with their most advanced level band while giving treatment comments (approval, disapproval, or instruction only) that were provided in a score. Teachers rehearsed the piece(s) for a total of five rehearsals. After the fifth rehearsal, students were given a listening survey to rate their preference for six examples of band music including the two pieces that were used in the study. Students also rated their preference for performing the treatment pieces and were ask to choose one for possible performance.

Results of this study indicate that the treatment conditions had a significant effect on both listening and performance preferences. Approval was not significantly different than instruction only or no experience, but significantly different than disapproval in both pieces. The approval condition increased the students’ reported music preference more than the disapproval condition. Findings related to the effect of performance familiarity on music preference were inconsistent between the two pieces and the two measures of music preference. In conditions where both treatment pieces were rehearsed in class, students tended to have the same preference for both pieces, regardless of treatment. In conditions where only one piece was rehearsed, the teacher’s approvals and disapprovals had the following effect: higher preference for the approved piece and lower preference for the disapproved piece. Results of this study could be useful to music educators to

xii increase student preference for music performed in class and to improve the music classroom experience. Future research should incorporate actual concert music and include concert performance as a factor that may influence music preference.

xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Musical taste, attitude, and preference seem to be a complex and elusive area of human nature to study. Initially, one needs to decide specifically what to study: What are the differences, if any, between taste and preference? Is musical taste defined as what music people listen to or is it related to the style of music people prefer? Can taste change from day to day or is it a long-term characteristic of one’s attitude about music that may change over long periods of time? Is preference simply the act of liking or disliking a musical stimulus? These and other questions should continue to be addressed in order to provide a comprehensive account of musical taste and preference. There are many questions about how to measure music preference. Although taking a listing of what CD’s and recordings an individual may have collected might be a way to record empirical data, it is perhaps not a valid measurement of listening preferences. It is probable that there are many more recordings in one’s personal library than are actually listened to. Given advances in the form of mobile and personalized digital music, people have the opportunity to listen to music more frequently and in varying formats. Personal music listening can occur in the home, at the work place, in the car, during exercise and may be in the form of radio, wireless broadcasts, or hardware recordings. Listening to music for personal enjoyment is not restricted to concerts. Much of music listening today is digital and could possibly lend itself to possibilities of measuring listening behavior more easily than in the past. Is what people say they listen to the same as what people actually listen to? When people are given musical stimuli choices to choose from, is it a valid measurement of music preference or musical selection behavior? Are Likert-type rating scales a reliable measurement of musical preference? Since music is an art form that occurs over time, as opposed to visual art, is a static rating after the experience a reliable measurement of preference? What are the reasons for studying preference in relation to music education? One of the purposes of music education should be to expand knowledge of music styles and music preference. Students exiting a music program have an expanded basis for choosing music and perhaps an increased preference for music than before they started (Gregory, 1994a; LeBlanc, Sims, Siivola, & Obert, 1996; Teachout, 1993). Preference in the music classroom can also be studied as an aid for student retention in music. Anthony (1974) analyzed reasons that students reported for staying in or dropping out of band in the Iowa public schools. The most cited reason for staying in band was for the enjoyment of playing. The second most cited reason for staying in band was "liking the music that is played in classes." The preference of the students toward the music that is played in class could affect many aspects of students’ experience including the enjoyment of performance, the desire to practice and improve, on-task behavior and musical growth.

1 In Vision 2020, Paul Lehman (Lehman, 2000) examined the National Standards in music and presented concepts for addressing the standards. The music program, as described by Lehman, “can play an essential role in providing a rewarding and satisfying life for every man, woman, and child in the nation” (p. 101). It was proposed that music programs function under the general premise that “if teachers use good music, and if they teach it well, students are likely to be engaged and to learn” (p. 101). Music educators are faced with the task of teaching music to students and expanding the students’ knowledge and basis for choice in music. A music educator attempts to broaden taste and increase preference for music while using music that students will both learn from and enjoy. Educationally, music teachers need to make well-informed decisions about the curriculum, that is, music used in the classroom. Elliot (1995) described the act of making music as musicing. Many times people confuse performing with actually being on a stage or in concert. Elliot’s term of musicing is an “inceptional property of music as an auditory presence” (p.49). This term stresses the importance of performing music and that “performing and improvising through singing and playing instruments lies at the heart of music as a diverse human practice” (p.49). Another goal of music ensemble educators is to increase the level of musicianship of the students. According to Elliot, music education should be concerned with “teaching and learning musicianship” (p.72). Teaching musicianship involves having the student participate in the musicing as well as having the student learn about music and its potential. Using research from music education, ethnomusicology, and sociology of leisure, Gates (1991) developed a theory of music participation. Music participation is defined as “a specific pattern of behavior, the effect of which is to take some part in the production of some class of material and/or psychological objects, in this case, music” (p. 4). By this definition, examples of those that participate in music include dancers, musicians, producers, and instrument makers. Gates makes distinctions between different levels of music participants: professionals, apprentices, amateurs, hobbyists, recreationists and dabblers. The level of musicianship that one attains is not necessarily connected with the level of participation. Gates recognizes that at the young band level, the different levels of participation are combined into the same classroom: In the beginning bands and orchestra (as in pre-high school choruses) there may be a large percentage of those who see music activity as a form of play, recreation or a curiosity, especially among those who drop out within the first three years. Beginners whose personal value systems classify music participation as play, but who find that the recreational benefits do not exceed the personal costs, will leave the activity without much hesitation or psychological stress. For the amateur and apprentice participants, those who see music activity as serious leisure or (potential) work, ceasing musical activity is not easily done; dropping out exacts a relatively high emotional cost. (p. 13)

2 Need for the Study

It seems possible that when students prefer the music they are playing in a music class, positive attitudes toward music and the music class develop. Examining and analyzing the music preferences of students could aid a music ensemble director to enhance the educational experience of the students. Retaining students in the band program is another goal of teachers. Determining what variables tend to predict the retention of students in band could help educators adapt their curriculum to meet the needs of the students that are not being retained. Research has shown that attitude in music class and self-concept are related variables (Bowman & VanderArk, 1982; Klinedinst, 1991). Although attitude and retention have not been found to be highly correlated, attitude has been correlated with other non-musical variables such as reading and self-concept (Klinedinst, 1991). Self-concept in music has also been found to be one of the strong indicators of prolonged music study (Klinedinst, 1991). Although there has been much research on listening preferences, there is limited research on preference for performance literature (Gregory, 1994a; Siebenaler, 1999; Teachout, 1993). This is especially true for the young band or middle school level band. Research relevant to the performance literature preference of students has concentrated on aspects of the music itself, performance factors, referential factors and environmental factors. Preference for music has been studied in relation to approvals and disapprovals from the director or cooperating adults (Dorow, 1977; Greer, Dorow, Wachhaus, & White, 1973). The approvals and disapprovals in previous studies were applicable to the academic or social behavior of the students. The only study that was found to direct approvals towards the music itself (Pantle, 1982) involved listening preferences of college age students. The effect of familiarity on students’ preference for listening has been studied extensively (Gregory, 1994a; Hargreaves & Castell, 1987; Ritossa & Rickard, 2004). In such studies, familiarity is referred to as hearing the musical stimulus prior to preference measurement. On investigation isolated the effects of familiarity involving actually performing a piece of music, but that study related to students’ perception of tension in music (Fredrickson, 1999).

Problem Statement and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of music teacher approvals and disapprovals of selected music and familiarity on the students’ preference for both the reinforced music and other excerpts. The following research questions were asked: 1. Do approvals and disapprovals from the music teacher given to music performed in class affect students’ preferences for that music? Will students prefer music that receives approval from their director? Will students not prefer music that receives disapprovals from their director?

3 2. Does familiarity developed by rehearsing or performing a piece of music affect the music preference of students? 3. Is there any relationship between listening preference and performance preference? 4. What aspect of a piece of music do students most refer to as a reason for preference?

Definition of Terms

Approval A spoken verbal comment, body gesture or facial expression that relates endorsement of the musical stimulus

Disapproval A spoken verbal comment, body gesture or facial expression that relates negative aspects regarding the musical stimulus

Listening preference Music preference related to liking or disliking the sound of a musical stimulus measured by rating on a 5-point scale

Performance preference Music preference that describes the inclination to want to perform or not perform a musical stimulus measured by rating on a 5-point scale

Preference Short-term, immediate decisions about like or disliking musical stimulus

Rehearsal Conditions The combination of treatments for the two rehearsal pieces: approval and instruction only, disapproval and instruction only, approval only, disapproval only.

Treatment Conditions The approvals or disapprovals, spoken or communicated non-verbally, from the teacher about the music rehearsed in class

Limitations

The following limitations should be considered regarding interpretation of the findings in this study and in generalizing the results beyond the subjects that participated. Only middle school-aged students participated in the study. Ages ranged from 11 to 14 and only included students who had played in band the previous year. In most cases, the composition of the band was determined by auditions the previous year. The two treatment pieces received approvals or disapprovals, but the teachers who administered the approvals and disapprovals were not trained to deliver the suggested

4 comments and rehearse the music. Although having each teacher teach a prepared lesson for each rehearsal would make for a higher level of control, asking teachers to change their teaching style would most likely inhibit the delivery of the treatment. Since the first part of the study required students to not have knowledge of the treatment, major changes in the teacher’s style might have drawn attention to the treatment. Teachers were limited to only ten minutes of rehearsal for each rehearsal and were limited to five rehearsals for each piece. The same composer wrote the two pieces used in the study. Both pieces were written in the same tonality, in the same key, in the same meter, with the same instrumentation and with the same tempo markings. The two pieces needed to be different enough to be identified during the study, yet similar enough to elicit parallel responses for preference. Thus, the study was limited to unpublished pieces that were similar in style. The final limitation of the study was the lack of control regarding scheduling of the music to be rehearsed. The specific days and order in which the music was rehearsed in class was left up to the discretion of the participating directors. It was possible that the treatment piece(s) was rehearsed in the same order each day or following the same director-selected piece each day. For example, a director could schedule rehearsal of the treatment piece immediately following rehearsing one of the students’ favorite pieces, thus possibly increasing dislike of the treatment piece. The timeline of treatment for each school was different, although all treatments occurred during the first three months of the second semester.

5 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Music Preference

Music preference has been the subject of many studies. The fields of music education as well as music business have interests in determining what music people prefer to listen to. Knowing what factors contribute to the enjoyment of music could guide educators to the appropriate music and approximate sequences of music for their students to experience. In business, knowing what music people like could shed light on purchasing patterns of consumers. Overall, music preference is an area of research whose answers provide us with more information about the human condition. Music preferences are characteristic of change throughout one’s life. “Musical preferences result from a complex mixture of musical, personal, and environmental characteristics” (Radocy & Boyle, 2003, p.379).

Models of Music Preference

Comprehensive reviews of research in music preference (Abeles & Chung, 1996; Radocy & Boyle, 2003; Wapnick, 1976) have not only addressed measurement of preference but also theoretical models of preference. In the 1980’s, Albert LeBlanc developed a model of listening preference that was based upon a hierarchical structure of variables which influence musical preference or taste (Leblanc, 1980, 1981). The entry level of the model involves input variables related to the sound source. The subsequent levels consider the physical and cognitive variables that work as gates and filters. Gates either allow or deny musical stimulus input and filters allow partial elements of the musical stimulus to pass. At the next level, the musical stimulus is subjected to influences of affective nature. Based upon the previous variables as influences, the listener then makes cognitive decisions about the stimulus. These decisions result in either further stimulus as a means to gain more information, acceptance followed by further stimulation or rejection of the stimulus which could still result in further stimulation accompanied by the changing of the affective variables and the cognitive decision making. This ability to re-sample the musical stimulus addresses the situation that may occur when someone does not like music upon initial listening but then experiences increases in preference later.

6 Although there are many variables in the model, relatively few have been isolated for study. The most frequently studied appear to be tempo, style and performance medium (Leblanc, 1981; LeBlanc, Colman, McCrary, Sherrill, & Malin, 1988; LeBlanc & Cote, 1983; LeBlanc & Sherrill, 1986; LeBlanc et al., 1996; Montgomery, 1996; Reynolds, G., 2000). Some studies have examined the effect of attention on listening (Madsen & Geringer, 1990; Madsen & Geringer, 2001; Madsen, Geringer, & Fredrickson, 1997). Many more variables of the model deserve study. A second model used to study preference is music complexity, which forms the basis of Walker’s (1980) “hedgehog” theory. The “hedgehog” theory addresses the relationship between complexity and preference. Walker’s theory relates individuals’ behavior of disregarding the stimulus (sound, visual or tactile) to that of the hedgehog’s behavior. Each individual possesses an optimum complexity level that yields an optimum preference. Infrequent stimuli and very frequent stimuli result in low preference. Too little complexity as well as too much complexity results in the listener ceasing to attempt to process the stimulus. As the complexity of the stimulus reaches optimum level, the preference for the music increases and the listener attempts to process more of the stimulus. Stimuli that move closer to optimum complexity are preferred and stimuli that move away from optimum complexity are not preferred. Repetition of the stimulus creates simplification of the complex stimulus. If the stimulus is too complex, the repetition will increase preference. If the stimulus is already below optimum complexity, repetition will decrease preference. North and Hargreaves (1997) approach the study of musical preference and taste from the perspective of social psychology. North and Hargreaves summarize the approach of social psychology into three key features: (1) an eclectic approach by applying different levels of individual-social analysis, (2) reciprocity exists between the individual and the environment and (3) social cognition, applying the information processing analogy to social representation (p. 7). Music preference in these terms becomes more associated with social factors than the music stimulus itself. Geringer and Madsen (2001) developed a model of meaningful listening that is based upon the listener’s focus of attention. The model suggests that the listener must focus attention on the stimulus before any other information can be gained or processed. The model takes into consideration situations in which people hear background music but the music is not processed. Once the individual has focused attention on the musical stimulus, the person’s aural discrimination ability and emotion provide a basis for meaningful listening. Discrimination and focus affect the emotional state of the listener. In turn, the emotional state affects the focus of attention and subsequent discrimination.

Factors of Musical Preference

Music can be experienced in multiple ways: listening, performing, composing, analyzing, and movement. Listening behaviors are difficult to study because of the cognitive processing involved in the act of listening combined with the personal and aesthetic experience people attribute to music. Kuhn (1980) provided a comprehensive

7 review of measurement for music attitude. Within this review, Kuhn gave the following definitions: Attitude: positive or negative attitudes feelings associated with psychological objects (p. 4) Opinion: verbal expression of attitude (p. 5) Taste: learned disposition to approach or avoid certain generic musical styles (p. 5) Preference: the act of choosing, esteeming, or giving advantage to one thing over another through a verbal statement, rating scale response, or choice made from among two or more alternatives (p.6). These were further expanded upon by Price (1986), McCrary (1993) and LeBlanc (1996). Abeles and Chung (1996) comprehensively reviewed music preference research. A distinction was made between music preference and musical taste in terms of durational value. “Taste is considered a relatively stable, long-term valuing, while preference is characterized by a shorter term commitment” (p. 326). Music preference is one kind of response to music. When music is heard, the listener responds by making preference judgments about the music. Other type of responses include emotional and affective. Abeles and Chung grouped research into three areas to be studied: (1) listener attributes related to preference, (2) factors that affect listeners’ preference and (3) characteristics of music that affect preference. In Abeles and Chung’s review of listener preferences, listener attributes are grouped into two main areas of focus: personality and gender. Personality studies (Butler, 1968; Cattell & Anderson, 1953; Schutz & Lang, 1963) have examined the relationship between music preference and personality. The aim of these studies was to find if people with certain personality traits prefer certain types of music. These tests utilized the IPAT Music Preference Test of Personality to determine correlations between personality and music preference. Results of these studies indicated a general relationship between music preference and personality. Other studies of personality and music preference have used other measures, such as semantic differentials (Cantor & Zillman, 1973), drawings, and behavior observation (Fisher & Fisher, 1951). The aim of these studies was to help psychologists identify behavior patterns in both normal and mentally ill patients. Lewis and Schmidt (1991) compared music preference responses as measured on the Music Listener Response Scale (MLRS) to combinations of personality types as indicated by the Meyer-Briggs type Indicator (MBTI). The MBTI measures four different scales related to personality types: Sensing-Intuition, Extraversion-Introversion, Thinking-Feeling and Judgment-Perception. The MBTI combines these four personality poles and examines interactions between the four. The MLRS measures responses to music using twenty questions concerning physical and cognitive actions. The authors concluded that “individual differences in personality offer some degree of explanatory power in questions concerning response to music” (p. 316). Study of the second listener attribute, gender, as described by Abeles and Chung (1996), has revealed contradicting and inconclusive results. While some research has found music listening preference to be affected by gender (Johnson & Knapp, 1963; Montgomery, 1996; Turner, Fernandez, & Nelson, 1996), other research has found no difference between males and females (Bradley, 1972; Breger, 1971; Conway, 2000; Long, 1971; Siebenaler, 1999). Abeles and Chung acknowledge the environmental effect

8 upon gender that can lead to any difference between males and females. “A majority of the evidence reported suggests that difference in musical preference is not likely to be due to the gender of the listener” (p. 316). Other aspects of listener attributes that affect music preference are socioeconomic status, musical aptitude and achievement. One difficulty in exploring these factors has been the inconsistent measurement used for each. Studies using socioeconomic status as an independent variable do not have a standardized method of assessing socioeconomic status. A number of different tests exist to test musical aptitude and musical achievement. These tests differ further depending upon the age of subjects, thus making it very difficult to compare subjects of different ages. Abeles and Chung (1996) reviewed factors not related to the listener’s personality or gender that affect musical preference. These factors include training (short and long term), familiarity, repetition, expectation, and adult approval. Long-term training (i.e. studying music) has been found to have an effect on music preferences (Burke & Gridley, 1990; Duerksen, 1968; Geringer, 1982; Gregory, 1994a; Hargreaves, Messerschmidt, & Rubert, 1980; Long, 1971). Short-term music training (i.e. music analysis, extra-musical information) has been found to be a factor for music preference with related music stimuli (Bradley, 1971; Shehan, 1998). In reference to more general music preference, short-term training has not been found to have an effect (Clarke, 1970; Greer, Dorow, & Hanser, 1973; Standifer, 1970). Evidence also indicates a strong relationship between repetition and preference. Repetition has been used as a method to control for familiarity in research. Studies have shown that repetition does increase preference (Bradley, 1971, 1972; Getz, 1966). Repetition has been theorized to affect the perception of complexity, which in turn may affect preference in the inverted-U shape (Breger, 1971; Hargeaves, 1982; Hedden, 1974; Heyduk, 1975). The inverted-U shape theory states that the relationship between complexity and preference resembles the inverted-U shape. Other characteristics of the musical stimuli that influence music preference include intonation and tone quality (Madsen & Geringer, 1976; O'Keefe, 1975), and tempo (Leblanc, 1981; LeBlanc et al., 1988). Musical taste, as defined by Abeles and Chung (1996) is a “relatively stable, long- term valuing” (p. 326). Factors that affect taste are similar to those that affect preference, including personality, gender, general aptitude and age. Additionally, more factors related to environment affect musical taste: race, social factors and political orientation. These environmental factors interact with themselves and are difficult to isolate.

Tempo

Tempo appears to be one of the most studied musical aspects in relation to preference (Leblanc, 1981; LeBlanc & Cote, 1983; LeBlanc & McCrary, 1983; Montgomery, 1996). Most research has concluded that tempo does have an effect on preference. LeBlanc and McCrary (1983) isolated the tempo variable from other elements of study. They asked 163 fifth and sixth grade students to listen to 24 musical examples that corresponded to slow, moderately slow, moderately fast and fast tempos. Students rated their preference for each example by completing a 5-point dislike to like scale. Results indicated a high correlation between increases in tempo and increases in

9 preference. There was also an inverse relationship between increases in tempo and variability of the rating. The examples that had the lowest preference had the widest range of ratings. The examples with the higher ratings (faster tempo examples) had the least amount of variability. In a subsequent study, Leblanc, Colman, McCrary, Sherril and Malin (1988) extended the age of the listeners. Instead of only using fifth and sixth grade students, the age range was from third grade to university level. Results of this study supported the earlier findings regarding a general preference toward faster tempi. This study also supports earlier findings of higher ratings at younger ages with a gradual decline in preference with age. Montgomery (1996) studied the effect of tempo on preferences in students in grades kindergarten though 8th grade. Fifteen musical examples were used: five slow tempo, five moderate tempo and five fast tempo. Since the age of the students extended down to four-year olds, only a 3-point Likert-type rating scale was used. Results indicated a higher preference for selections of faster tempo at all grade levels. A significant difference was found between the younger ages and older ages in the ratings. The younger ages rated examples higher than the older students. Another difference between ages was the rating discrimination between different tempi. There was no significant difference between older and younger children for their ratings of the fast tempo examples, but there was a difference in the moderate and slow tempo examples. The older students revealed a significantly higher rating for the fast tempo examples than for the slow tempo examples. In the younger ages, differences were smaller. This same trend was seen in gender. There was no significant difference between boys’ and girls’ preference of fast tempo selections but there was a difference in slow and moderate examples. The boys rated the slow and moderate tempo examples significantly lower than the girls. Results of this study supported earlier research that found a relationship between tempo and preference at all age levels. Additional information from this study, the smaller difference of ratings at younger ages, could be useful to music educators. Educators might consider introducing slower tempo pieces to younger children who seem to be more open regarding slower tempo. At older ages, the difference in preference between fast and slow tempo increases.

Familiarity

When examining factors that influence preference, familiarity received increased attention starting in the middle of the twentieth century. “Familiarity is the assumption of having heard it somewhere before. Predictability, as a result of repeated exposure to same or similar music” (Price, 1986, p. 153). Getz (1966) studied the effects of familiarity through repetition on music preferences. Seventh grade music students (N = 339) listened to 40 musical examples of classical music over a ten-week period. The selections used were unfamiliar pieces by familiar composers. Five of the examples, previously rated and representative of the range of preference were repeated during the ten-week experimental period. The other musical examples served as decoys. Results indicated that familiarity though repetition did have an overall positive correlation with preference. Melodic repetition within each piece did not have a significant correlation with preference. The most frequently cited reason for liking an example was fast tempo and

10 familiarity through repetition. The most frequent cited reason for disliking an example was volume that was too loud. Bradley (1971) studied the effect of familiarity produced by repetition. Bradley had 7th graders listen to repetitions of contemporary art music for a span of fourteen weeks. Using a pretest-posttest design, students were asked to rate their preferences for tonal, polytonal, atonal, and electronic music. Posttest results indicated a significant gain in preference for three of the contemporary music categories indicating that repetition of music can affect the preference for that music. Familiarity has also been found to contribute to a perception of emotion in music. In studying the possible effects of replacing the word “liking” for “pleasantness” on Likert-type scales developed from a circumplex model by Russell (1981) and adapted by North and Hargreaves (1997), Ritossa and Rickard (2004) studied the effects of familiarity. Their study replicated a previous study by North and Hargreaves (1997) that was based on the circumplex model of emotion. Subjects rated pleasantness, liking, arousal and familiarity as well as matching emotions to four songs of full length. Whereas the North and Hargreaves study used ‘pleasantness,’ the Ritosa and Rickard study used both ‘pleasantness’ and ‘liking’ to examine correlations between the two variables. It was concluded that the emotions associated with the music could be predicted from ratings of familiarity, pleasantness and arousal. Familiarity has been found to positively affect the music preference of elementary aged children. Siebenaler (1999) studied the effect of familiarity of songs from the MENC’s Get America Singing…Again (1996) on music preference. Third, fourth and fifth graders (N = 160) rated ten songs for familiarity and preference on 5-point Likert- type scales. Over the course of ten weeks, ten songs from Get America Singing…Again were rehearsed in the classroom and recorded. At the end of each practice session, students completed another Likert-type scale survey for preference of how well they thought they performed the music. The students were more likely to like the songs they were familiar with. After rehearsing a song, the preference for that song increased with the exception of one song that required singing in the Spanish language. The better the students felt about their performance of a song, the higher the preference for that song. Results of this study support the findings of previous studies that familiarity with the musical selection increases preference for it. It seems to be that students ask to perform music that they know and have performed before. There is also evidence that familiarity is not always a strong factor in determining preference towards music. Gregory (1994a) examined listening preferences of 6th graders, high school musicians and college musicians. Subjects listened to selections in the styles of 20th century, standard orchestral repertoire, selections from the Silver Burdett/Ginn elementary music series, and current jazz recordings. Results indicated an instrument bias in high school subjects that was not as strong in college: the high school students were more likely than their college counterparts to prefer selections involving their own instrument. The highest ratings for orchestral music came from college musicians. The most familiar of all the music was selections from the Silver Burdett/Ginn elementary music series. Although it was the most familiar, it did not receive the highest preference ratings. The findings of the Gregory study suggest that training in music does affect music preference. The existence of the instrument bias in high school and college-aged subjects would also suggest that music preference could be related to the instrument

11 played by the subject, or on a larger scale, related to one’s own performance background and history. It may be useful to distinguish between listening familiarity and familiarity acquired through performance. When musicians perform music, they participate in music making decisions that are not the same as when listening to music. It seems reasonable to assume that a musician who performs a piece of music might perceive the music differently than someone who listens without playing. However, this has not been demonstrated. Fredrickson (1999) examined the effects of performing Holst’s First Suite in E Flat on the perception of tension in the music. Three groups of students were used: high school wind ensemble members (n = 60), college choral students (n = 32) and college wind ensemble members (n = 60). The instrumental groups rehearsed the piece and then two weeks later listened to the first movement of it and responded to perceived tension in the music using a CRDI dial. The choral students only listened to the music and responded to perceived tension using the CRDI. For the most part, the patterns from the CRDI responses were similar in all three groups and Fredrickson found no significant difference between the three groups. The experience of rehearsing and performing a piece of music apparently did not affect the perception of tension in the music. Familiarity for music is increased through training. Geringer (1982) compared the verbal music preference and music selection behavior of college music majors, non- majors and elementary aged students. Geringer found that training did have an effect on music preference with college music majors preferring classical composers and non- majors and elementary aged students preferring popular composers.

Musical Stimulus

The presentation of the music stimulus can affect the preference of the listener. Gregory (1994b) studied the effects of different instrumentation on the listening preferences of middle school students and music majors. Both groups listened to three recordings. All recordings were from classical western art music and contained original instrumentation at the beginning and ending of the excerpt. The middle of each selection was modified using either a synthesized stimulus (synthesizer) or acoustical ensemble (brass quintet and mandolin quartet). Results indicated that preference for the synthesized version of musical excerpts was not significantly different from the original instrumentation. When an acoustical ensemble was interchanged for the music stimulus, preferences reported by both middle school students and music majors declined significantly. Although perhaps many music educators and musicians might not prefer the sound of a synthesizer to the actual instruments, Gregory’s study indicates the opposite for the middle school children. This difference in preference could also be attributed to whether or not the change in instrumentation is subtle or extreme. A Bach concerto with original instrumentation versus a synthesizer version may be more acceptable than to hear Copland’s Rodeo performed by a mandolin quartet versus the original scoring. It would appear also that students are sensitive to continuous music presentations and are affected by breaks in the music. Research has investigated listening patterns in young children. Sims and Nolker (2002) examined the listening patterns of kindergarten children while listening to two lullabies. Each lullaby was played in an instrumental or vocal version in order to find if

12 the medium in which a melody is played affected the listening pattern. Listening patterns were determined using operant listening that required children to hold down a button to listen to the music. Results indicated that the medium of the musical stimulus did not have an effect on the listening patterns in young children. As mentioned in Abeles and Chung’s (1996) review of musical preference, research on familiarity has sometimes produced an approximation of an inverted-U shaped curve (McMullen, 1974; Vitz, 1966). This concept has also been associated with complexity (Hargreaves, 1982). With complexity, at the ends of the curve when complexity is either extremely low or extremely high, preference is low. There is a point of optimum complexity at which each person reports his or her highest preference. This point is the top of the inverted-U curve. Hargreaves and Castell (1987) tested this model of familiarity and preference using six different age groups of children from four to fourteen years old. Each subject listened to twenty examples of melodies. Five selections were familiar nursery rhymes, five were unfamiliar folk songs, five were melodies that were near approximation to real melodies and five were distant approximation to melodies. There were main effects for both familiarity and approximation of melody. The results did relate to the inverted-U shaped curve revealing that very familiar melodies and low familiar melodies had the lowest preference. In older students, age was related to familiarity through exposure in school. Preference level also declined with age. Long-term music training (i.e. major in college) has been shown to affect listening patterns to aspects of music. Although listening patterns do not indicate preference, finding the elements most listened to by music majors and non-music majors might help explain the preference differences among listeners. Madsen and Geringer (1990) studied the listening patterns of music majors (N = 60) and non-music majors (N = 60) using a Continuous Response Digital Interface (CRDI). Participants indicated what element of the music their attention was focused on as the music progressed. The four elements used in the study were rhythm, dynamics, timbre and melody. Participants were also allowed to select a region on the CRDI to indicate “everything.” Results revealed a difference in listening patterns between majors and non-majors. The music majors tended to spend most of the listening time on melody and then rhythm. The non-music majors tended to spend most attention on dynamics, then melody and then timbre.

Ethnicity and Social Factors

Research has studied the difference in preferences as related to ethnicity or minority status. Many authors acknowledge that differences in preferences reflect differences in social cultures and are not related to race. McCrary (1993) examined the effects of the listeners’ and performers’ race on music preference. Middle school students (N = 102) and university (N = 112) listened to twenty musical examples performed by either white or black performers. The musical selections represented four generic music styles: pop, jazz, folk and gospel. All examples used in this study were audio only. The listeners could not visually identify the race of the performers. The participants were asked to rate their like or dislike for the selection using a 7-point scale. The participants were also asked to approximate the race of the performer using a 7-point rating scale. One end of the scale indicated black and the other end indicated white. Results of the study found that black students were more accurate at identifying the race of the

13 performer and that white performers were easier to identify than black performers. As for preference, there was no significant difference between preferences for black and white performers among white listeners. There was a significant difference in preference for white and black performers among black listeners. The black listeners preferred black performers to white performers. The results of this study support other evidence that social cultures do affect music preference. A second measurement in the study examined response to questions about social interactions between blacks and whites. This second measurement was administered two weeks after the first measurement and was never associated with the previous study. Results of the second measurement revealed a tendency for blacks and whites to prefer social interactions with people of the same race or ethnic background. In a similar study with pre-adolescent students from public and private schools, McCrary and Gauthier (1995) examined the effect of the performers’ ethnic identity on music preference. Students enrolled in general music classes listened to 16 short vocal examples. Twelve of the examples represented the following styles recorded between 1950 and 1965: rock (4 examples), folk (4 examples), and jazz (4 examples). The other four examples represented contemporary pop and classical examples. Contrary to McCrary’s (1993) study, there was no difference between black and white students’ preference for white or black performers. There was also no significant difference between the two treatment groups: knowing the ethnicity of the performer and not knowing the ethnicity of the performer. When African American listeners listened to the African American performers, they were more likely to inquire about the ethnicity of the performer. Killian (1990) examined the effects of model characteristics of the performer on music preference of students. Junior high school students (N = 179) were asked to rate performers from an audio recording of We Are the World. Students then watched the We Are the World video and were asked which three solos they would choose to perform if they were asked to record one. Generally, females rated female performers higher and males rated male performers higher. Students also tended to select performers of the same race as the performance models. Geringer and Solís Guerra (2002) compared the music preference patterns of school aged children in Mexico to those of the United States. Fifth-grade students (N = 159) listened to eight musical examples from a variety of genres. Students responded with nine-point rating scales. Results from accompanying questions indicated that students in Mexico, without a general music program, were more likely to prefer classical music and show interest in learning it. The same was not true of the American students. Mexican students from low socio-economic regions tended to provide higher preference ratings than those of the American students.

Performance Literature Preference

In most music ensembles, the music that educators select to be performed in class becomes the curriculum for the class. In a band class, a band director selecting a certain title for the band to study is similar to the English literature teacher selecting which books are to be read in class. One difference is that a band usually is working on many pieces at any given time. A literature class usually only reads one book at a time. Because a choral,

14 band or orchestra director has some control over the curriculum, it is important to select music based on criteria (Sheldon, 1996; Thomson, 1998). According to Reynolds (2000), “… music educators can make no more important decision than the selection of the material with which we teach our students” (p.33). Although the importance of selecting appropriate and quality music has been emphasized in music education, possible effects of the selected music literature have not been extensively studied. Whereas music listening preference and listening selection has been studied frequently, research regarding student preference for performing literature has been limited. Siebenaler (1999) and Fredrickson (1999) were cited earlier. Teachout (1993) examined the top reasons reported by young band musicians for selecting a piece of music as their favorite music to perform. Middle school band members (N = 159), grades seven through nine, were asked to select a favorite piece of music from the pieces they were rehearsing in band class. Using a Likert-type scale on sixteen questions, students rated reasons why they selected the piece they did. Four of the questions were examples of environmental factors, four were examples of referential factors, four were examples of musical factors and four were examples of performance factors. Teachout concluded that performance factors rated highest in the reasons students gave for selecting a favorite piece. Performance factors rated significantly higher than referential and environmental factors, which were not significantly different from each other. The results illustrate that students value the musical and performance elements of music played in the classroom.

Adult and Peer Influence

The influence of adults on music preference of students also has been studied. Radocy and Boyle (2003) indicated that social influence affects all music preference. “Musical preferences are more than an interaction of inherent musical characteristics and individual psychological and social variables. Societal pressures influence preferences. A person making a musical choice considers opinions of others who are significant in his or her life, as well as cultural messages in and about the music” (p.371). Most studies regarding adult influence began in the late 1960’s. Steele (1967) examined the effect of adult social reinforcement on preference for music stimuli on children with mental retardation. The study consisted of eight male subjects, age 14-17, who were all given the choice of two different musical stimuli using a button- manipulated recorder that could select between the two musical options. After taking baseline information, two conditions of social reinforcement were administered: continuous and differential. For continuous social reinforcement, the experimenter gave verbal and non-verbal reinforcement of every selection decision. The differential social reinforcement condition consisted of the experimenter giving praise for the least preferred musical stimuli. Results revealed that the adult differential social reinforcement could affect the musical selections of the subject. Continuous social reinforcement, where every selection is praised, did not affect preference. Selections of subjects after the experimental conditions were removed appeared to return to baseline, indicating that adult social reinforcement was only effective while the adult was present.

15 Research on conformity began with the studies of Solomon Asch (1951; 1952; 1956). Asch examined the effect of majority groups on the judgment patterns of a minority of one. Individuals were placed in groups in which the majority judgment was experimentally controlled to either agree or disagree with the individual. Tasks to assess judgment included simple visual perceptions such as the length of a line. Asch (1951) found that the majority judgment did influence the minority individual but that the influence varied. Later, Asch (1956) studied the conditions responsible for the majority influence. Individuals who were independent of group judgment tended to stay independent. A minimum of three individuals is needed in a group to have influence over a minority of one. Groups in excess of three did not increase the effect. Individuals were more likely to make accurate judgments if the final judgment did not need to be announced publicly, but could be kept private. Inglefield (1972) examined personality attributes related to conformity behavior. Eighteen experimental subjects were selected based on extreme test scores. Results indicated that conformity behavior existed in all personality types. A significant difference in preference scores existed between dependent and independent personality types. The subjects identified as dependent personality types were more likely to conform to the preferences of the group than the independent types. Radocy (1976) studied the effects of authority figures on the music performance judgments of college music majors. Subjects listened to identical recordings of musical performances. Groups differed by the amount of biased information given (none, moderate bias or strong bias) provided by an authoritative figure. Students tended to express their performance judgments according to the authority figure, but this tendency interacted with order and style period. Furman and Duke (1988) modeled studies after the research of Asch using music and non-music majors. In one experiment, individuals were placed in a confederate group that disagreed with the individual’s music preference of the provided orchestral music recording. The results were distinct for music and non-music majors. “Although subjects’ preference were affected by the responses of the confederates, music majors and non- music majors responded in different ways to the experimental conditions (p. 229).” The publicly stated preferences of non-music majors were significantly affected by the preferences of others. Research related to peer or social influence was reviewed by Fredrickson (1997). He identified the major areas where social factors can have the greatest influence on students and their behavior. When students participate in an ensemble, musical aspects may not dictate their behaviors. When one is in a group of people, such as a musical ensemble, social skills and techniques of social interaction are utilized. “Many of our musical memories are part of a social context that, later on, may seem secondary to the music event” (p. 29). The reasons given for participation in a music class were classified by Madsen and Kuhn (1994) as being either “good” or “real.” “Good” are the reasons people will state and believe to be the best reasons for making decisions. “Real” reasons are those that actually function in making the decision. “Our aesthetic experiences in music may be our “good” reasons for choosing music as a profession, but it is just as possible that the social contexts in which we first experienced music may be our “real” reasons for having made music our career” (Fredrickson, 1997, p.29).

16 Ethnicity and gender are also factors that influence perceptions of music and music class. Fredrickson stated that the effect of race “seems to be as strong as that of gender in its influence upon some young peoples’ choices in musical situations” (1997, p.30). The difference of perception and music participation related to gender can be noticed in the gender stereotypes of instruments played in a musical ensemble (Conway, 2000). Although differences can be observed, they are not related to biological reasons, but rather social reasons. For example, girls may have seen flute associated with girls so therefore they choose flute as their performance instrument. To examine the effect of peers and adults on music preference, Alpert (1982) studied the effect of disc jockey, peer, and music teacher approval of music on music selection and preference of students. Eighty-two fifth graders were divided into four groups. Each group listened to 30-second excerpts of rock, country and classical music. Each selection had approvals at the beginning and at the end of the excerpt from either a disc jockey, peer or music teacher. The fourth group listened to excerpts with no approvals. Student preference was measured by music selection behavior (MSB), verbal preference response (VPR) and music type preference (MTP). Results indicated that although there was a significant correlation between the MSB and VPR, there did not appear to be an effect for music type responses and approvals. Disk jockey and teacher approval increased classical music listening and preference while peer approval decreased it. MTP was more associated with music selection behavior than with verbal preference responses. Disc jockey, teacher or peer approvals had no effect on preference or selection behavior for rock music.

Approvals and Disapprovals from Teachers

Approvals and disapprovals given by teachers are effective instructional tools. At the most basic level, approvals and disapprovals are the essential feedback that students need in order to learn correct academic and social behavior. Approvals can be divided into four types: approval of appropriate social behavior, approval of appropriate academic behavior, approval of inappropriate social behavior and approval of inappropriate academic behavior (Madsen & Madsen, 1998). The latter two approvals constitute errors. Disapprovals can be divided into four groups in a similar manner: disapproval of appropriate social behavior, disapproval of appropriate academic behavior, disapproval of inappropriate social behavior and disapproval of inappropriate academic behavior. The first two disapproval types constitute errors. Approvals and disapprovals, when applied contingently, can affect both social and academic performance (Madsen & Madsen, 1998). Early research into approvals and disapprovals studied the frequency and ratio of approvals and disapprovals used by teachers. Forsythe (1975) compared the attentiveness of elementary students (grades K-6) within music as opposed to regular classes. Using nine teachers, observations of 214 music classroom and 98 regular classroom observations were made. Observers reported off-task behavior in both types of classrooms. Off-task behavior included students engaged in behaviors other than the one requested by the teacher. Approvals and disapprovals (both verbal and non-verbal) were recorded. Along with this, observers also recorded approval and disapproval errors.

17 Approval errors were occurrences when the teacher approved inappropriate behavior and disapproval errors were occurrences when the teacher disapproved appropriate behavior. Results from Forsythe’s study indicated that music teachers gave in-class approvals at a higher rate than regular classroom teachers. The average music teacher approval/disapproval ratio was 55/38 whereas the average regular teacher approval/disapproval ratio was 22/67. Results also revealed that music classrooms had a significantly lower percentage of students off-task than the regular classroom. Error rate of approvals and disapprovals also affected off-task behavior in classroom. Classrooms where the approval and disapproval error rate was the lowest also had the lowest percentage of students off-task. Kuhn (1975) varied the approval and disapproval ratios given to fifth-grade students. One group received 80% approvals and 20% disapprovals. Another group received 20% approvals and 80% disapprovals. A third group did not receive any feedback and a fourth group did not receive any of the experimental instruction. Students were observed for on-task attentiveness during class, individual musical performance and self-reported attitude towards the music class. Kuhn found that the high approval rate resulted in significantly more students following the rules and being on task. There was no significant effect of the approval/disapproval ratios on either performance or attitude. This study raises the question regarding the importance of the rules enforced in music classes. Proper classroom behavior did not result in higher individual performance or higher perceived attitude of class. It is possible that following classroom rules improves group performance but not individual performance. Regardless, a high approval ratio from a teacher can affect the social behavior of a class in a positive manner. The effect of approvals and disapprovals may be related to age. Contrasting results with older students indicate that perhaps the role of approvals and disapprovals may change with age. In a similar study, Murray (1975), studied the effects of the 80 percent approval/20 percent disapproval and 20 percent approval/80 percent disapproval ratios used in Kuhn’s study applied to high school choruses. Observers recorded off-task behavior during rehearsal and participants completed an attitude scale survey at the end of the experimental treatment. Results from Murray’s study contradicted Kuhn’s results. In Kuhn’s study, when measuring self reported attitude, there was no significant difference between groups. Murray found that the 80 percent approval/20 percent disapproval groups reported a significantly higher attitude. Whereas Kuhn observed significantly less off-task behavior from fifth grade students in a general music class receiving 80 percent approval/20 percent disapprovals, Murray found no significant difference in off-task behavior between the different groups. The two studies differed on the manner in which musical performance was measured. Whereas Kuhn measured musical achievement individually using a musical achievement test, Murray used a panel of five judges to give a performance rating based on a recording made of the group. Neither Kuhn nor Murray found a significant difference between treatment groups for either individual or group musical performance. The inconsistent results of these studies may be related to the ages of the students or possibly the type of class from which participants were selected. Kuhn randomly selected students from the fifth grade. Murray used high school chorus students who had chosen the class as an elective. This may explain the differences in classroom behavior

18 and performance. The high school music ensembles were already at an advanced level of performance prior to the study. The fifth grade students were being instructed in new material. Through repeated rehearsals with a director, the high school students were more familiar with expected classroom behavior than fifth graders experiencing a new environment. Can teachers be trained to give higher approval rates and recognize the need to give approvals? This is of special interest to music teacher training programs in which candidates are learning methods for increasing performance and improving classroom behavior. Madsen and Duke (1987) tested the effect of teacher training on the ability to recognize the need for giving both approval/disapproval for appropriate/inappropriate behavior as opposed to giving only disapproval for inappropriate behavior. Undergraduate music education majors were enrolled in a six-week training session in behavioral techniques. Subjects watched a video of fifty video-taped examples of student behavior in a classroom: 18 scenes of junior high students in seatwork; 15 scenes of high school students sitting in their seats, working, and engaged in discussion with the teacher; and 17 scenes of an elementary classroom where students were asked to work quietly. Subjects responded by using timed intervals to supply their recommendations concerning the teacher’s response to the student behavior depicted in the example. Results of the pretest supported the findings of previous research related to higher rates of disapprovals in classrooms. Subjects responded with recommendations of disapproval to inappropriate behavior more often than recommending approvals for appropriate behavior. Pre-test results also revealed a low use of proximity, difficulty in specifying behavior and a tendency to give more approvals to younger students. Post-test test results revealed a significant increase in recommended approvals for appropriate behavior. Results also indicated an increase in ignoring behavior to decrease occurrence and approving the behavior of an on-task student to make the behavior of an off-task student decrease. There was also a decrease in poorly defined statements that did not recommend an action or behavior. From this study it can be concluded that music education students can learn to identify situations in which they recognize opportunities to give contingent approval. This aspect of teacher interaction does not appear to be “natural” and must be trained. Sims (1985) studied the effects of teacher affect and student listening activities during music listening on preschool children's attention, paired-comparison piece preference, time spent listening, and piece recognition. Ninety-four pre-school aged children were divided into four groups. Independent variables consisted of high teacher affect, low teacher affect, active listening activity and passive listening. High teacher affect consisted of eye contact and smiling facial expressions with music. Low teacher affect consisted of no eye contact and no facial expressions. Students in the group that participated in active listening made hand gestures along with the music. The passive listening group only listened to the music. Students were post-tested for verbal preference by having two selections played for them and then selected their favorite one by picking the relevant 3x5 card. Students were videotaped for behavior observation. Operant music behavior was measured by how long a student held down the “play” button while listening to the two selections. Recognition was measured by asking the subject if they knew or did not know the music. Results indicated that the students in the high affect teacher group had a higher rate of group attending behavior. The students in the active

19 listening group showed more on-task behavior than the passive listening group. There was no significant effect of teacher affect and listening activities on preference for the performance selection. From this study, the modeling of the teacher had an effect on the class behavior but not on the music preference of the students. Approvals and disapprovals are important tools of teachers within a classroom; they can affect both social and academic behavior. Research has examined the effect approvals and disapprovals have on preference. Greer, Dorow, Wachhaus, and White (1973) were the first to examine what effect adult approvals and disapprovals have on students’ music selection behavior. Subjects were divided into four groups with a fifth group serving as the control. Groups received instruction from a clinician (authority in the field of the music being taught, i.e. jazz or classical) but the clinician did not know what approval or disapproval ratio was being used. The observer of the class would walk around and whisper approvals or disapprovals in subjects’ ears. Approvals and disapprovals were all social. The same method was used in a repeated listening design. The control group received no instruction in music. Using an OMLR (Operant Music Listening Recorder), students in a pretest-posttest design listened to twenty minutes of music that consisted of classical, jazz, rock, electronic and white noise examples. Results revealed that students listened to more of the taught music after the treatment than before. The students in the low approval group had a tendency to avoid the taught music. These findings were supported by a later study by Dorow (1977). This study was very similar to the Greer, Dorow, Wachaus and White study with the exception of a few areas. The previous study utilized aides to give approvals while the teacher was teaching the lesson on the treatment music. Dorow used a single teacher, the same one who was teaching the lesson, to supply all the approvals. In the previous study, the approval rate was determined a priori. In the Dorow study, the ratio of approvals to disapprovals was recorded. Whereas the previous study had five music types, Dorow only used three musical stimulus types for the treatment: piano, rock and white noise. Results showed that the high approval group increased time listening to piano and decreased time listening to white noise. For the most part, the music selection behavior for rock music remained unchanged between the pre-test and post-test. The approvals and disapprovals administered in the previous studies were directed towards the students and were directed toward either social or academic behavior. An additional study has viewed the effect of approvals and disapprovals toward the music itself on music preference. Pantle (1982) studied the effect of teacher approval of music on music selection behavior and music verbal preference of college students. Eighty-five students enrolled in a music appreciation class were divided into two groups. One piece of music was taught with instructor approval, the other without. The difference between the groups was that while one piece was being approved in one group, it was not being approved in the other group. Teaching sessions were conducted in small groups listening to a taped lesson with a voice on the tape that would give approvals of the music. Post- test measures included the OMLR (Operant Music Listening Recorder) with which participants selected either a classical piece or a Top-40 piece. Another post-test included a Verbal Preference Rating (VPR) of the selections. Results indicated that time spent listening to music was positively related to their verbal preference rating. Results also revealed that teacher approval of music did not cause subjects to select those pieces more than pieces that received no teacher approval or those works that were not taught.

20 Familiarity with and knowledge about specific classical pieces did not cause the subjects to select the piece whether it was approved or not approved. Music instruction in the study, including approvals, was pre-recorded on tape and played for students. If the approvals had come directly from the actual teacher in class, such interactions plausibly may have had more of an effect on the students’ preference.

Modeling

Modeling has been shown to be one of the most effective teaching strategies that teachers use. In music, modeling is important because much of what students do in a music class requires sound reproduction. Similar to how young children learn to pronounce sounds, words, and later begin to form sentences, students of music often learn correct timbre and styles of performing from the modeling of others. “Students learn to make increasingly complex musical discriminations through modeling, via both musically appropriate and inappropriate demonstration” (Dickey, 1992, p.36). Modeling has been found to be very effective in teaching musical performance (Dickey, 1992; Henley, 2001; Sang, 1987; Zurcher, 1975) Hamann and Miller Walker (1993) studied the prominence of role models for African-American students (N = 811) enrolled in public schools in Cleveland. Students completed surveys related to role models. Results indicated that 36 percent of the respondents indicated they had a role model who is a music teacher. Of that 36 percent, 34 percent of the respondents indicated a teacher role model of the same ethnicity. Zurcher (1975) examined the effect of model-supportive practicing on beginning brass players. Beginning brass students, grades 4-6 (N = 43) were given audiocassette tapes to practice with at home. The tapes provided instruction and play-along performances with which the students could practice. Each week for six weeks, students were assessed on the following musical abilities: correct notes, pitch, fingerings, tempo, rhythm, and total practice time. Students were divided into two groups that alternated experimental treatment (with tape) and control (no tape) during the six-week period. Results revealed that practice along with a performance model improved musical ability. Modeling has been found to be a more effective strategy for practicing technical passages than practicing with gradual increases in tempo. Henley (2001) studied the effects of practicing with a model example at performance tempo as opposed to practicing at a slow tempo and gradually increasing tempo until it is at performance tempo. Sixty high school students participated in the study and were divided into three groups: (1) practicing at performance tempo with model, (2) practicing slow and then gradually increasing tempo and (3) alternating practice tempo with performance tempo. In a pre-test/post-test design, students were assigned an etude to practice and then perform. Results revealed that the modeling only group made significantly better improvements in performance than the other two conditions. The other two conditions were not significantly different from each other. Modeling has been found to affect music selection preference. Baker (1980) taught lullabies or capstan chanties to 75 elementary school students. The students were divided into two groups. One group learned to sing the songs at appropriate tempo and the other group learned to sing the songs at an inappropriate tempo. For instance, in the inappropriate group, lullabies were taught using a fast tempo and capstan chanties were

21 taught using a slow tempo. At the conclusion of lessons, students indicated verbal preference for the music as well as using a Music Selection Recorder (MSR) to record how much time was spent listening to each piece. Results indicated that the tempo at which the teacher and students learned the songs in class affected the way the students preferred to hear the songs sung and the way they thought the songs were 'correctly' performed. The teaching of the songs and the modeling of the teacher had an effect on the music preference of the students.

Summary

Music preference has been studied in order to answer questions regarding reasons why some music is preferred over other music. Models of music preference have been developed to identify factors that could influence preference and possibly explain and predict music preference. The factors that influence music preference can be musical, social and emotional. Approvals and disapprovals to student behavior can affect student behavior and student music preference. Approvals and disapprovals about the music, depending on the person delivering it, can also affect music preference. It seems important to investigate whether approvals or disapprovals from a teacher about the music itself can affect music preferences of students.

22 CHAPTER 3: METHOD

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of music teacher approvals and disapprovals of music on music preference of students. The following research questions were asked: 1. Do approvals and disapprovals from the music teacher given to music performed in class affect students’ preferences for that music? Will students prefer music that receives approval from their director? Will students not prefer music that receives disapprovals from their director? 2. Does familiarity developed by rehearsing or performing a piece of music affect the music preference of students? 3. Is there any relationship between listening preference and performance preference? 4. What aspect of a piece of music do students most refer to as a reason for preference?

Participants

Eight middle school bands participated in the study. Schools were chosen by the researcher’s familiarity with each band program and previous observations of the teacher. Selected schools met the following criteria to be considered for inclusion in the study: (1) offered an advanced level band (2nd and 3rd year players), (2) directors had at least three years teaching experience, (3) participating classes had the same director from the previous year, (4) at least twenty students enrolled per class and (5) band classes met at least three times a week. All middle schools participating in the study were public schools. Three of the middle schools were in California, two were in Colorado and three were in Florida. Schools represented various socio-economic conditions and enrollment sizes (See Appendix Q).

Treatment

Four of the schools were given two selections of band music to rehearse for five rehearsals. These schools were chosen based on schedule and rehearsal time. They either had longer class periods due to block scheduling or had more flexible days to rehearse

23 music. The other four schools were given only one of the two selections to rehearse. The pieces selected for this study, Summit and Pride and Glory, were written by the same composer, Kirk Vogel and were unpublished. It was thought that two selections by the same composer would help make the level of difficulty comparable. Both pieces were similar in instrumentation, tempo, meter, key and length. The design of the treatment in this study included eight schools (See Table 1). Two schools received treatments in which the music of Summit was approved by the teachers and two schools received treatments in which the music of Summit was disapproved. Two schools received treatments in which Pride and Glory was approved and two schools received treatments in which Pride and Glory was disapproved. For each pair of schools within a treatment condition, the other selection that was not being targeted received instruction-only at one of the schools and was not rehearsed at the other. Table 1 displays the treatment design and describes the treatment condition for each of the schools.

Table 1 Design of Rehearsal Conditions

School Summit Pride and Glory

1 Approval Instruction Only 2 Approval No Experience 3 Disapproval Instruction Only 4 Disapproval No Experience 5 Instruction Only Approval 6 No Experience Approval 7 Instruction Only Disapproval 8 No Experience Disapproval

Directors were instructed to give either approvals or disapprovals, specific to the music, during the rehearsal of the treatment music. Approvals from the director consisted of both verbal and non-verbal cues. Examples of verbal approvals were, “I love this one,” “This is my favorite,” “This one is cool,” or “Don’t you like that melody?” Examples of non-verbal approvals were smiles, nods, thumbs-up and body language that consisted of moving to the music. Examples of verbal disapprovals were, “Oh no, not this one,” “I’ve never really liked this one,” “This is not the best piece ever written,” or “Let’s get through it.” Examples of non-verbal disapprovals were frowns, sighs, or shaking head. A complete list of suggested approvals and disapprovals is given in Appendix R. The instructors were asked to give careful attention and distinguish between approvals and disapprovals of the music itself and the approvals and disapprovals of the 24 students in the class, or their performance of the music. Corrections about the music performance itself were made in all classes but the director was instructed to be specific to help the participants to differentiate between the comments about the music and the comments about the performance. For instance, a correction to the approval piece group could be, “Everyone needs to play the dotted quarter longer so that this beautiful melody will sound wonderful.” An approval for appropriate musical performance to the disapproval group could be, “Everyone played real well even though the music isn’t that good.”

Rehearsal Procedure

Starting in the first month of the second semester, directors were given scores and parts for the treatment music. The provided scores included suggested approvals or disapprovals (depending on the condition) for the director to use during rehearsal. Each score contained 25 different comments spaced throughout the score. Because each director has a different teaching style, the comments in the score were “suggested” comments. The directors could use the comments that were in the score or create comments of their own that matched their teaching style. Each director was instructed to give out five treatment comments during each rehearsal. To keep track, each director was given a stack of five cards that were numbered one through five. Each time a director made a comment, he or she would turn over a card. The instruction-only conditions consisted of feedback about performance, but no approvals or disapprovals about the music itself were given. During the no-experience conditions, groups did not rehearse the selection. They were not exposed to the music in any way. Before the first rehearsal, the director read a mock letter from the composer explaining that the composer had just written some new music and was asking the middle school to make a recording of it (Appendix G). The students were under the assumption that the reason they were rehearsing this new music was to supply a recording for the composer. This was done so that the directors in the disapproval conditions would have a reason for disapproving the music. Under normal circumstances, music directors would not disapprove the music selected for performance because the director is the person who selected it. For five rehearsal periods, each ten minutes long, directors rehearsed the experimental pieces. Directors were allowed to rehearse the pieces on consecutive days or distribute the rehearsals across two or three weeks. The frequency of rehearsal was expected to match the frequencies of other pieces being rehearsed in class. Directors completed time logs to record rehearsal dates and times. Directors were videotaped during rehearsals. At the conclusion of five rehearsals, directors made a mock recording in class. Recordings, if actually made, were not used in this study. The purpose of the study was to assess music preference and not quality of performed music.

25 Music Preference Survey

One week following the final day of the treatment period, students participated in a music preference survey. Parent consent forms (Appendix C) and student assent forms (Appendix D) were sent home and returned with parent and student signatures. During the music preference survey, each student was given a preference response sheet (Appendix A) that requested age, the student’s instrument and gender to provide demographic information. All students had parental consent and agreed to participate. Students in each school listened to six excerpts of pieces for young band ensembles performed by a college ensemble. Two of the listening examples were recordings of Summit and Pride and Glory. The other examples were taken from repertoire for young bands. Two of the other four listening selections, The Nutcracker and Ode to Joy, were arrangements for band based on familiar melodies. The last two selections, Enter the Phoenix and Praises, were unfamiliar pieces for young band. A pilot study (n = 51) had been conducted to identify two pieces for young band that were considered familiar by middle school students. The Nutcracker and Ode to Joy were rated the highest for familiarity. All selections were at approximately the same tempo: moderately fast. Each selection had a duration of approximately 45 seconds. Four different orders of presentation were used (Appendix I). All instructions were included on the CD that contained the music examples (Appendix H). The instructions requested the students to rate the six selections regarding preference on a five-point Likert-type scale provided on the response sheet. A 1 on the response sheet represented “don’t like very much” and a 5 represented “like very much.” After listening to the first six examples and rating preference for each, students listened again to examples of the two treatment pieces, Summit and Pride and Glory. They were asked to rate how much they would like to perform each treatment piece on a concert. Students used a five-point Likert-type scale to rate their performance preference. The rating scales represented their answer to the question, “How much would you like to perform this piece in a concert with your band?” A 1 represented “Definitely No” and a 5 represented “Definitely Yes.” The last two items on the response sheet asked the student to choose between the two treatment excerpts. They were asked, “If you had to choose one of the two previous examples to perform on a concert, which one would you choose?” and to provide a short written comment explaining the reason they made their choice.

26 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of approvals and disapprovals from a teacher on preferences for rehearsed music in a middle school band setting. Two pieces of music, Summit and Pride and Glory by Kirk Vogel served as the treatment selections. Students from eight middle schools participated. Four of the schools (1, 3, 5 and 7) rehearsed both selections. Two schools (2 and 4) only rehearsed Summit and two of the schools (6 and 8) only rehearsed Pride and Glory. Summit music received approval from the director in two schools, disapproval from the director in two schools, instruction only in two schools and no instruction in two schools. Similarly, Pride and Glory music received approval in two schools, disapproval in two schools, instruction only in two schools and no instruction in two schools. The treatment consisted of five rehearsals in the assigned condition. Subsequent to the conclusion of the fifth rehearsal, students participated in a group listening survey that consisted of the two treatment selections, two unfamiliar selections and two familiar selections. The listening survey consisted of three parts. The first part requested students to listen to the six recorded examples of music for young band (the two treatment excerpts, two unfamiliar excerpts and two familiar excerpts) and rate their preference for each. The second part asked students to listen to recordings of the two treatment pieces only and rate their preferences regarding performance of the selections. The third part of the survey asked students to choose which of the two examples from the second part they would rather perform if given the opportunity and then to provide a short reason for their choice. Students reported preference ratings using five-point Likert-type scales. For listening preference, a “1” indicated “Don’t like very much” and “5” indicated “Like very much.” For the performance preference ratings in the second part of the survey, a “1” indicated a response of “Definitely not” to the question of whether or not they would like to perform it on a concert. A “5” indicated “Definitely yes.” The last item asked students to circle the example they would rather perform in a concert. No titles were provided during the listening survey. For the third part of the survey, choosing which example for performance, students circled either “Example A” or “Example B.” Incomplete surveys (n = 2) were not used. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS (version 11.0.2, 2003) software. The significance level in all the statistical tests for the rejection of the null hypothesis was .05. Analysis of variance techniques (ANOVA) were used to analyze the ratings data. Post-hoc analyses were conducted using Tukey-tests. Analyses of the concert performance choice were analyzed with the Chi-square goodness of fit test.

27 Students in eight classes completed the treatment and the survey (N = 440). Participants consisted of 239 males and 201 females. There was no significant difference, χ2 (1, N = 440) = 3.82, p > .05, between the number of males and the number of females that participated in the study. Participants represented grades ranging from 6 through 8 with an average age of 13.34 years. Table 2 presents the distribution of participants across schools and provides the treatment condition for each school. For example, School 1 had 67 students who received approval comments from the director about the piece Summit. These students received only rehearsal instruction on the piece Pride and Glory, with no approval or disapproval given specifically to the music.

Table 2 School Treatment Conditions and Number of Participants

Summit Pride & Glory School Condition condition N

1 Approval Instruction Only 67 2 Approval No experience 41 3 Disapproval Instruction Only 41 4 Disapproval No experience 56 5 Instruction Only Approval 78 6 No experience Approval 61 7 Instruction Only Disapproval 38 8 No experience Disapproval 57 Total 440

Research Question #1

Do approvals and disapprovals from the music teacher given to music performed in class affect students’ preference for that music? Will students prefer music that receives approvals from their director? Will students not prefer music that receives disapprovals from their director?

Listening Preference

All Schools Comparison

In order to address the first research question, listening preference ratings of the eight schools were compared using a repeated measures ANOVA. Table 3 presents the 28 repeated measures ANOVA of the preference ratings for the six excerpts grouped by school. Significant main effects were found for both schools, F (7, 431) = 9.57, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .20, and for excerpt ratings F (5, 2155) = 19.04, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .04.

Table 3 One-Way ANOVA with Repeated Measures for Listening Preference Ratings Between Schools

Source df SS MS F p

Schools (between) 7 25.61 3.66 9.57 < .01 Between error 431 988.52 2.29 - - Listening ratings 5 104.67 20.93 19.04 < .01 Schools x ratings 35 576.67 16.48 15.00 < .01 Within error 2155 2369.65 1.10 - -

The highest rated selection for listening preference was The Nutcracker (M = 3.56, SD = 1.30) and the lowest rated selection was Ode to Joy (M = 2.92, SD = 1.23) (See Table 4). Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations for all ratings across all schools.

Table 4 Means and Standard Deviation of all Ratings

Selection M SD

The Nutcracker 3.56 1.30 Praises 3.32 1.20 Pride and Glory 3.14 1.21 Enter the Phoenix 3.06 1.14 Summit 3.00 1.38 Ode to Joy 2.92 1.23

Brackets indicate no significant difference between spanned mean pairs, p >.05

29 However, there was a significant difference in the two-way interaction between school and ratings, F (35, 2155) = 15.00, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .20. Figure 1 contains a graphic representation of the means of all schools’ ratings across all listening excerpts. The bottom of the figure provides a legend to describe the treatment condition at each school. “A” represents approval, “D” represents disapproval, “I” represents instruction only and “N” represents no experience. School 1, 5, 6 and 8 show little difference between the treatment pieces. Schools 3 and 7 show a moderate difference and schools 2 and 4 show the largest difference between treatment excerpts. School 1, 6 and 7 show an effect that contrasts with the other five schools. In the other schools (2, 3, 4, 5 and 8), the approved treatment piece was rated higher than other treatment piece and the disapproved treatment piece was rated lower than the other treatment piece. This trend appeared to be reversed in schools 1, 6 and 7. The treatment piece that received approval was rated lower than the other piece or the disapproved treatment piece was rated higher than the other piece. Figure 1 also shows that schools were similar to each other in ratings for The Nutcracker and for Praises, except for School 8 where Praises was rated extremely high. Seven out of the eight schools rated Ode to Joy lower than The Nutcracker. Overall, Figure 1 displays the difference between the two treatment pieces and the other listening examples with the listening examples showing larger differences in preference. The four non-treated pieces tend to be more similar in preference, both between and within schools, than the two treated pieces.

30 Listening Preference Rating Means

4.5

3.5

3 Rating Mean 2.5

1.5 Summit Pride and Glory Praises Enter the Phoenix The Nutcracker Ode to Joy

Treatment Listening excerpt S - Summit Schools and Conditions P&G - Pride and Glory 1 (S: A, P&G: I) 2 (S: A, P&G: N) 3 (S: D, P&G: I) A - Approval D - Disapproval 4 (S: D, P&G: N) 5 (S: I, P&G: A) 6 (S: N, P&G: A) I - Instruction only 7 (S: I, P&G: D) 8 (S: N, P&G: D) N - No experience

Figure 1. Graph of Listening Preference Ratings Among Schools

Listening Preference by Treatment Group

In order to address differences between treatments, more specifically for the second part of the first research question (preferences following approvals or disapprovals), student ratings were grouped by the four different treatments: approval, disapproval, instruction only or no experience. Both of the treatment pieces received ratings from these four treatment conditions and are analyzed separately. Ratings were examined using both the reported listening preference ratings and the reported performance preference ratings as separate measures. These two preferences were not combined in a single analysis since the contexts of the ratings were different. For the listening preference scale, treatment pieces were presented along with four other excerpts. For the performance preference evaluation, only the two treatment excerpts were presented.

Summit Listening Preference

Table 5 presents a one-way ANOVA of the Summit listening preference ratings between the four treatment conditions. Listening preference ratings for Summit were 31 found to be significantly different between the four treatment conditions, F (3, 436) = 45.39, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .24 (Table 5).

Table 5 One-way ANOVA of Summit Listening Preference Ratings Between Treatment Conditions

Source SS df MS F p

Treatment groups 198.71 3 66.24 45.39 < .01 Within subjects 636.29 436 1.46 - - Total 835.00 439 - - -

Table 6 presents the Summit means and standard deviations for the four treatment conditions. Post-hoc comparisons of means were analyzed with Tukey tests. For Summit preference ratings, the approval and instruction only condition ratings were significantly different than the no experience condition ratings, which were significantly different than the disapproval condition ratings (p < .05) (see Table 6). The listening preference ratings for the approval treatment were not significantly different than the instruction only treatment (p > .05). Ratings of the disapproval treatment were significantly different from all other treatments, and mean ratings were lower than all other means.

Table 6 Table of Summit Listening Ratings Means and Standard Deviations

Treatment M SD N

Approval 3.73 1.24 105 Instruction only 3.50 1.23 102 No experience 2.99 1.08 97 Disapproval 2.07 1.25 136

Brackets indicate no significant difference between pairs of means using the Tukey test p >.05

32 Pride and Glory Listening Preference

Table 7 presents a one-way ANOVA of the Pride and Glory listening preference ratings between the four treatment conditions. Listening preference ratings for Pride and Glory were found to be significantly different between the four treatment conditions, F (3, 436) = 8.86, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .06 (Table 7).

Table 7 One-way ANOVA of Pride and Glory Listening Preference Ratings Between Treatment Conditions

Source SS df MS F p

Treatment groups 37.03 3 12.34 8.86 < .01 Within subjects 607.51 436 1.39 - - Total 644.54 439 - - -

Table 8 presents the Pride and Glory means and standard deviations for the four treatment conditions. Post-hoc comparisons of means were analyzed with Tukey tests. For Pride and Glory preference ratings, the approval condition ratings were significantly different than all other condition ratings (p < .05). There was no significant difference in Pride and Glory listening preference ratings between the disapproval, instruction only and no experience treatment groups (p > .05).

Table 8 Table of Pride And Glory Listening Preference Ratings Means and Standard Deviations

Treatment M SD N

Approval 3.68 1.26 82 Disapproval 3.11 1.29 117 Instruction only 3.10 1.16 145 No experience 2.78 1.00 95

Brackets indicate no significant difference between spanned pairs of means using the Tukey test p >.05

33 Listening Preference by Rehearsal Condition

There were four possible types of rehearsal conditions: approving one piece with no rehearsal of the other, disapproving one piece with no rehearsal of the other, approving one piece and rehearsing the other with instruction only, and disapproving one piece and rehearsing the other with instruction only. Schools were grouped into these four conditions to assess the effects of the different rehearsal conditions and possible generalization effects between pieces. A generalization effect could occur if the students generalize the rehearsal treatment (approvals or disapprovals) to the other piece because the same composer wrote both pieces. Each school contained a targeted treatment piece and a non-targeted treatment piece. The targeted treatment piece was the one that received approval or disapproval. The non-targeted treatment piece received either instruction only or was not rehearsed. For example, at School 1, Summit received approval during rehearsal and Pride and Glory received only instruction during rehearsal. School 1 was in the “approval and instruction” group where Summit was the targeted piece and Pride and Glory was the non-targeted piece. At School 2, Summit received approval during rehearsal and Pride and Glory was not rehearsed. School 2 was in the “approval only” group where Summit was the targeted piece and Pride and Glory was the non-targeted piece. The effect of the targeted piece can be seen from the analyses of listening and performance preferences grouped by treatment condition (for example, Tables 5 and 7). In order to assess the effect of rehearsal condition and generalization across pieces, a one- way ANOVA of the non-targeted listening ratings between the rehearsal condition groups was conducted. Table 9 presents a one-way ANOVA of the four rehearsal conditions with the non-targeted piece listening preference ratings as the dependent measure. It can be seen that there was a significant main effect of the four rehearsal conditions, F (3, 436) = 28.51, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .16.

Table 9 One-way ANOVA of Non-targeted Listening Ratings by Rehearsal Condition

Source SS df MS F p

Rehearsal condition 95.12 3 31.71 28.51 < .01 Within subjects 484.87 436 1.11 - - Total 579.99 439 - - -

34 Figure 2 shows the listening means of the non-targeted treatment pieces for the four rehearsal conditions. It can be seen that ratings for the non-targeted piece in the approval and instruction group was higher than the other three rehearsal conditions.

Non-Targeted Listening Preference by Rehearsal Condition

3.5

2.5 Rating Mean 2 Non-targeted Listening Preference

1.5 Approval and Disapproval Only Disapproval and Approval only Instruction Instruction School Condition Figure 2. Graph of Listening Means of Non-targeted Pieces by Rehearsal Condition

Table 10 presents the listening rating means and standard deviations of the non- targeted pieces within each rehearsal condition. Post-hoc comparisons of means were analyzed with Tukey tests. The non-targeted listening preference mean for the approval and instruction group was significantly different (p < .05) than the other three rehearsal conditions. There were no other significant differences between groups (p > .05).

35 Table 10 Listening Means and Standard Deviations of Non-targeted pieces by Rehearsal Condition

Rehearsal Condition M SD N

Approval and Instruction 3.88 1.00 108 Disapproval Only 3.04 0.97 113 Disapproval and Instruction 2.78 1.13 140 Approval only 2.67 1.11 79

Brackets indicated no significant difference between pairs of spanned means using the Tukey test, p > .05

Target and Non-Target Listening Preference Correlation

A correlation test was conducted to assess whether listening preference ratings for the targeted piece were related to the listening preference ratings of the non-targeted piece for each rehearsal condition. Table 11 presents the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the target and non-target excerpts listening ratings for each rehearsal condition. All relationships between the two ratings were positive and significant with the exception of the approval only group. The approval and instruction only condition had the highest correlation (r = .70) between targeted and non-targeted listening ratings.

Table 11 Correlation Between Targeted and Non-targeted Listening Preference Ratings by Rehearsal Condition

Rehearsal Condition Pearson r N

Approval Only .09 79 Approval and Instruction .70 † 108 Disapproval Only .35 † 113 Disapproval and Instruction .27 † 140

† indicates significant correlation, p < .01.

Performance Preference

Performance preference was the rating students gave to answer the question “Would you like to perform this selection in a concert?” The scale contained “Definitely 36 not” on one end and “Definitely yes” on the other end of a five-point scale. Only the two treatment pieces, Summit and Pride and Glory were rated for performance preference.

Performance Preference by Treatment Group

In the same manner as the analysis of the listening ratings, student ratings were grouped by the four different treatments: approval, disapproval, instruction only or no experience. Both of the treatment pieces were rehearsed using these four treatment conditions and are analyzed separately.

Summit Performance Preference

Table 12 presents a one-way ANOVA of the Summit performance preference ratings between the four treatment conditions. Performance preference ratings for Summit were found to be significantly different between the four treatment conditions, F (3, 436) = 60.48, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .29 (Table 12).

Table 12 One-way ANOVA of Summit Performance Preference Ratings Between Treatment Conditions

Source SS df MS F p

Treatment groups 248.03 3 82.68 60.48 < .01 Within subjects 595.97 436 1.37 - - Total 844.00 439 - - -

Table 13 presents the Summit performance preference means and standard deviations for the four treatment conditions. Post-hoc comparisons of means were analyzed with a Tukey test. For ratings of Summit performance preference, the approval condition ratings were significantly different than the other three treatment groups. The instruction only condition ratings were significantly different than the no experience condition and disapproval condition ratings. The performance preference ratings for the no experience treatment were not significantly different than the disapproval treatment (p > .05).

37 Table 13 Table of Summit Performance Ratings Means and Standard Deviations

Treatment M SD N

Approval 3.49 1.39 105 Instruction only 3.05 1.32 102 No experience 1.98 0.95 97 Disapproval 1.69 0.99 136

Brackets indicate no significant difference between means using the Tukey test p > .05

Pride and Glory Performance Preference

Table 14 presents a one-way ANOVA of the Pride and Glory performance preference ratings. Performance preference ratings for Pride and Glory were found to be significantly different between the four treatment conditions, F (3, 436) = 6.10, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .04 (Table 14).

Table 14 One-way ANOVA of Pride and Glory Performance Preference Ratings Between Treatment Conditions

Source SS df MS F p

Treatment groups 31.42 3 10.47 6.10 < .01 Within subjects 746.68 436 1.71 - - Total 778.10 439 - - -

Table 15 presents the Pride and Glory performance preference means and standard deviations for the four treatment conditions. Post-hoc comparisons of means were analyzed with Tukey tests. For Pride and Glory performance preference, the no experience and approval condition ratings were significantly different than the disapproval condition ratings (p < .05). There were no other significant differences between groups for Pride and Glory performance preference ratings (p > .05).

38 Table 15 Table of Pride And Glory Performance Preference Ratings Means and Standard Deviations

Treatment M SD N

Performance preference No experience 3.07 1.04 95 Approval 2.90 1.38 82 Instruction only 2.70 1.35 145 Disapproval 2.34 1.40 117

Brackets indicate no significant difference between pairs of spanned means using the Tukey test, p > .05

Performance Preference by Rehearsal Condition

In the same manner as the analysis of listening preference, performance preference was analyzed by rehearsal condition. In order to address the effect of rehearsal condition and possible generalization across pieces, a one-way ANOVA of the non- targeted performance ratings between the rehearsal condition groups was conducted. Table 16 presents a one-way ANOVA of the four rehearsal conditions with the non-targeted piece performance preference rating as the dependent measure. It can be seen that there was a significant main effect for the four rehearsal conditions, F (3, 436) = 16.15, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .10. The non-targeted performance preference mean from the approval and instruction group (M = 3.37, SD = 1.36) was significantly different (p < .05) than the disapproval only group (M = 2.65, SD = 1.02), the disapproval and instruction group (M = 2.42, SD 1.19) and the approval only (M = 2.33, SD = 1.27), which were not significantly different from each other (see Table 17).

Table 16 One-way ANOVA of Non-targeted Performance Ratings by Rehearsal Condition

Source SS df MS F p

Rehearsal condition 70.49 3 23.50 16.15 < .01 Within subjects 634.30 436 1.46 - - Total 704.80 439 - - -

39 Figure 3 shows the performance rating means of the non-targeted treatment pieces for the four rehearsal conditions. It can be seen that ratings for the non-targeted piece in the approval and instruction group is the highest of the four rehearsal conditions. The other three non-targeted piece performance rating means are approximately the same.

Non-Targeted Performance Preference by Rehearsal Condition

3.5 3

2.5

2 1.5 Rating Mean 1 0.5 Non-targeted Performance Preference

0 Approval and Instruction Disapproval Only Disapproval and Approval only Instruction School Condition

Figure 3. Graph of Performance Means of Non-targeted Pieces by Rehearsal Condition

Table 17 Performance Rating Means and Standard Deviations of Non-targeted pieces by Rehearsal Condition

Rehearsal condition M SD N

Approval and Instruction 3.37 1.36 108 Disapproval Only 2.65 1.02 113 Disapproval and Instruction 2.42 1.19 140 Approval only 2.33 1.27 79

Brackets indicate no significant difference between pairs of spanned means using Tukey test, α = .05

40 Target and Non-target Performance Preference Correlation

A correlation test was conducted to assess whether the performance preference ratings for the targeted piece were related to the listening preference ratings of the non- targeted piece for each rehearsal treatment condition. Table 18 presents the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for the target and non-target performance ratings for the rehearsal conditions. All relationships between the two sets of ratings were positive and significant with the exception of the disapproval only group. The approval and instruction only condition had the highest correlation (r = .75) between targeted and non-targeted performance ratings.

Table 18. Correlation of Targeted and Non-targeted Performance Preference Ratings by Rehearsal Condition

Rehearsal Condition Pearson r N

Approval Only .38 † 79 Approval and Instruction .75 † 108 Disapproval Only .05 113 Disapproval and Instruction .24 † 140

† indicates significant correlation, p < .01,

Table 19 presents a summary of the significant differences between treatment groups for both Summit and Pride and Glory listening and performance preferences. Direction and amount of difference can be found on tables 6, 8, 13, and 15. As seen in Table 19, the only comparisons that were significantly different in both preference measures and for both pieces were between the approval group and disapproval group (p < .05). Ratings from the approval group were significantly higher than the disapproval group.

41 Table 19 Summary of Significant Differences

Instruction No Disapproval Only Experience

S / P&G S / P&G S / P&G

Approval Listening Δ / Δ - / ΔΔ / Δ Performance Δ / ΔΔ / - Δ / -

Disapproval Listening Δ / - Δ / - Performance Δ / - - / Δ

Instruction Only Listening Δ / - Performance Δ / -

S = Summit P = Pride and Glory Δ = Significant difference, p < .05 - = No significant difference, p > .05 Square indicates significant difference in both listening and performance preference for both Summit and Pride and Glory

Concert Selection

The final measure on the listening survey asked the students to choose between Summit and Pride and Glory to possibly perform on a concert. For the Summit treatment groups, Chi-square analysis revealed a significant difference between performance selections for the approval group, χ2 (1, N = 105) = 9.76, p < .01, and the disapproval group, χ2 (1, N = 136) = 60.88, p < .01, but not for the instruction only group, χ2 (1, N = 102) = .88, p = .77 and the no experience group, χ2 (1, N = 97) = 2.64, p = .10. (Table 20). When the instructor approved Summit, students chose to perform it more frequently than Pride and Glory. When the instructor disapproved Summit, students chose not to perform it more frequently than Pride and Glory. Only those students who received instruction on Pride and Glory chose to perform it more frequently than Summit. For the Pride and Glory treatment groups, Chi-square analysis revealed a significant difference between performance selections in the instruction only group, χ2 (1, N = 146) = 10.42, p < .01, but not in the approval group, χ2 (1, N = 82) = .02, p = .89, the disapproval group, χ2 (1, N = 117) = .86, p = .35 and the no experience group, χ2 (1, N = 95) = 3.42, p = .06 (Table 20).

42 When analyzing the distribution of a particular concert performance choice, there was a significant difference in the frequencies of Summit choices for all four Summit treatment groups, χ2 (3, N = 197) = 24.22, p < .01, and all four Pride and Glory treatment groups, χ2 (3, N = 197) = 8.34, p < .01 (Table 21). There was a significant difference in the frequencies of Pride and Glory selections in all four Summit treatment groups, χ2 (3, N = 243) = 71.57, p < .01, and all four Pride and Glory treatment groups, χ2 (3, N = 243) = 25.43, p < .01 (Table 21).

Table 20 Concert Choice: Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-Square Values by Treatment Condition

Pride and Summit Glory Total χ2 p

Summit Treatment Approval 69 36 105 9.76 < .01 † % of treatment 66% 34% Disapproval 22 114 136 60.88 < .01 † % of treatment 16% 84% Instruction only 49 53 102 0.08 0.77 % of treatment 48% 52% No experience 57 40 97 2.64 0.10 % of treatment 59% 41% Pride and Glory Treatment Approval 42 40 82 0.02 0.89 % of treatment 51% 49% Disapproval 64 53 117 0.86 0.35 % of treatment 55% 45% Instruction only 53 93 146 10.42 < .01 † % of treatment 36% 64% No experience 38 57 95 3.42 0.06 % of treatment 40% 60%

† indicates significant difference, p < .05

43 Table 21 Concert Choice: Frequencies, Percentages and Chi-Square Values by Selection

Treatment Appr. Disappr. Instruct. No Total χ2 p Treatment Only Exper.

Summit Treatment Summit selection 69 22 49 57 197 24.22 < .01† % Summit selection 35% 11% 25% 29% Pride and Glory 36 114 53 40 243 71.57 < .01† % Pride selection 15% 47% 22% 16%

Pride and Glory Treatment Summit selection 42 64 53 38 197 8.34 < .05† % Summit selection 21% 32% 27% 19% Pride and Glory 40 53 93 57 243 25.43 < .01† % Pride selection 16% 22% 38% 23%

† indicates significant difference, p < .05

Research Question #2

Does familiarity developed by rehearsing or performing a piece of music affect the music preference of students?

Familiarity by Rehearsal Experience

To address the second research question, participant ratings were grouped into two categories: those having rehearsal experience with a treatment piece and those not having rehearsal experience with the treatment piece. For instance, all students’ ratings were grouped into those who experienced Summit in rehearsal and those who didn’t. Separate analyses of listening and performance preferences for both Summit and Pride and Glory were conducted to evaluate the effect of rehearsal experience.

Listening Preference

Summit Familiarity (Listening Preference)

Table 22 presents a one-way ANOVA of the Summit listening preference ratings between the two rehearsal experience conditions. Listening preference ratings for Summit were not significantly different between the two rehearsal conditions, F (1, 438) = 0.01, p = .92 (Table 22). 44 Table 22 One-way ANOVA of Summit Listening Ratings by Rehearsal Experience

Source SS df MS F p

Experience group 0.02 1 0.02 0.01 .92 Within subjects 834.98 438 1.91 - - Total 835.00 439 - - -

Table 23 presents the means and standard deviations of the Summit listening preference ratings grouped by familiarity condition. Ratings for those with rehearsal experience (M = 3.01, SD = 1.46) and no rehearsal experience (M = 2.99, SD = 1.08) were similar.

Table 23 Means and Standard Deviations of Summit Listening Preference Ratings by Familiarity Condition

Familiarity Condition M SD

Rehearsal experience 3.01 1.46 No Rehearsal experience 2.99 1.08

Pride and Glory Familiarity (Listening Preference)

Table 24 presents a one-way ANOVA of the Pride and Glory listening preference ratings between the two rehearsal conditions. Listening preference ratings for Pride and Glory were found to be significantly different between the two familiarity conditions, F (1, 438) = 10.92, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .02 (Table 24).

45 Table 24 One-way ANOVA of Pride and Glory Listening Ratings by Rehearsal Experience

Source SS df MS F p

Experience group 15.68 1 15.68 10.92 < .01 Between error 628.87 438 1.44 - - Total 644.55 439 - - -

Table 25 presents the means and standard deviations of the Pride and Glory listening preference ratings grouped by familiarity condition. Pride and Glory listening preference ratings in the rehearsal experience group (M = 3.24, SD = 1.25) were significantly different (p < .05) than the no rehearsal experience group (M = 2.78, SD = 1.00).

Table 25 Means and Standard Deviations of Pride and Glory Listening Preference Ratings by Familiarity Condition

Familiarity Condition M SD

Rehearsal experience 3.24 1.25 No Rehearsal experience 2.78 1.00

Performance Preference

Summit Familiarity (Performance Preference)

Table 26 presents a one-way ANOVA of the Summit performance preference ratings between the two rehearsal experience conditions. Performance preference ratings for Summit were found to be significantly different between the two familiarity conditions, F (1, 438) = 18.07, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .04.

46 Table 26 One-way ANOVA of Summit Performance Ratings by Rehearsal Experience

Source SS df MS F p

Experience group 33.43 1 33.43 18.07 < .01 Within subjects 810.57 438 1.85 - - Total 844.00 439 - - -

Table 27 presents the means and standard deviations of the Summit performance preference ratings grouped by familiarity condition. Summit performance preference ratings in the rehearsal experience group (M = 2.64, SD = 1.46) were significantly different (p < .05) than the no rehearsal experience group (M = 1.98, SD = .95). The mean was higher those who rehearsed Summit than for those who did not.

Table 27 Means and Standard Deviations of Summit Performance Preference Ratings by Rehearsal Experience

Familiarity Condition M SD

Rehearsal experience 2.64 1.46 No Rehearsal experience 1.98 0.95

Pride and Glory Familiarity (Performance Preference)

Table 28 presents a one-way ANOVA of the Pride and Glory performance preference ratings between the two rehearsal experience conditions. Performance preference ratings for Pride and Glory were found to be significantly different between the two familiarity conditions, F (1, 438) = 8.58, p < .01, partial Eta2 = .02.

47 Table 28 One-way ANOVA of Pride and Glory Performance Ratings by Rehearsal Experience

Source SS df MS F p

Experience group 14.99 1 14.99 8.58 < .01 Within subjects 763.11 438 1.75 - - Total 778.10 439 - - -

Table 29 contains the means and standard deviations for performance preference ratings for Pride and Glory in the two familiarity conditions. Pride and Glory performance preference ratings in the no rehearsal experience group (M = 3.07, SD = 1.04) were significantly different (p < .05) than the rehearsal experience group ratings (M = 2.63, SD = 1.39). The mean of those who rehearsed Pride and Glory was lower than those who did not.

Table 29 Means and Standard Deviations of Pride and Glory Performance Ratings by Familiarity Condition

Rehearsal Condition M SD

Rehearsal experience 2.63 1.38 No Rehearsal experience 3.07 1.04

Research Question # 3

Is there any relationship between listening preference and performance preference?

To address the third research question, three sets of Pearson correlations were conducted: 1) correlation of listening and performance preference by familiarity condition, 2) correlations of listening and performance preference by piece treatment condition and 3) overall correlation of listening and performance preference by treatment.

48 Familiarity Correlation

Summit Familiarity

A correlation test was conducted to assess whether the Summit listening preference ratings were related to the Summit performance preference ratings for both of the rehearsal experience conditions. Table 30 presents the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the Summit listening and performance ratings for both familiarity conditions. Both familiarity conditions revealed a positive and significant correlation between the two sets of ratings. Participants who rehearsed Summit had a higher correlation (r = .72) between listening and performance preference ratings than did those who did not rehearse Summit (r = .51).

Table 30. Correlation of Summit Listening and Performance Preference Ratings by Familiarity Condition

Familiarity Condition Pearson r N

Rehearsal .72 † 343 No rehearsal .51 † 97

† indicates significant correlation, p < .01, two-tailed

Pride and Glory Familiarity

A correlation test was conducted to assess whether the Pride and Glory listening preference ratings were related to the Pride and Glory performance preference ratings for both of the rehearsal experience conditions. Table 31 presents the Pearson product- moment correlation coefficients for the Pride and Glory listening and performance ratings for both familiarity conditions. Both familiarity conditions revealed a positive and significant correlation between the two sets of ratings. Participants who rehearsed Pride and Glory had a higher correlation (r = .62) between listening and performance preference ratings than did those who did not rehearse Pride and Glory (r = .34).

49 Table 31. Correlation of Pride and Glory Listening and Performance Preference Ratings by Familiarity Condition

Familiarity Condition Pearson r N

Rehearsal .62 † 345 No rehearsal .34 † 95

† indicates significant correlation, p < .01

Piece Treatment Correlation

Summit Treatment

A correlation test was conducted to find if the Summit listening preference ratings were related to the Summit performance preference ratings for each of the treatment conditions (approval, disapproval, instruction only and no experience). Table 32 presents the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the Summit listening and performance ratings for each treatment condition. All treatment conditions were significantly positively related (p < .05). The instruction only condition had the highest correlation (r = .65) and the no experience condition had the lowest correlation (r = .51).

Table 32. Correlation of Summit Listening and Performance Preference Ratings by Treatment Condition

Treatment Condition Pearson ra N

Approval .60 † 105 Disapproval .61 † 136 Instruction Only .65 † 102 No Experience .51 † 97 Overall .68 † 440

† indicates significant correlation, p < .01

50 Pride and Glory Treatment

A correlation test was conducted to find if the Pride and Glory listening preference ratings were related to the performance preference ratings for each of the treatment conditions (approval, disapproval, instruction only and no experience). Table 33 presents the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for the Pride and Glory listening and performance ratings for each treatment condition. All treatment conditions were significantly positively related (p < .05). The approval condition had the highest correlation (r = .72) and the no experience condition had the lowest correlation (r = .34).

Table 33. Correlation of Pride and Glory Listening and Performance Preference Ratings by Treatment Condition

Treatment Condition Pearson r N

Approval .72 † 82 Disapproval .70 † 117 Instruction Only .49 † 146 No Experience .34 † 95 Overall .55 † 440

† indicates significant correlation, p < .01.

Overall, correlations between listening and performance preferences were positive and significant (r = .68 and .55 for Summit and Pride and Glory respectively). Listening preference ratings for Summit (M = 3.00, SD = 1.38) were higher than the performance ratings for Summit (M = 2.50, SD = 1.39). Similarly, listening preference ratings for Pride and Glory (M = 3.14, SD = 1.21) were higher than the performance ratings for Pride and Glory (M = 2.72, SD = 1.33).

Research Question #4

What aspect of a piece of music do students most refer to as a reason for preference?

To address the fourth research question, the final question on the survey asked students to give a brief reason why they made the decision they made for concert performance choice. These comments were grouped into six categories: musical, performance related, referential, the combination of musical and performance related, the 51 combination of musical and referential, other, and blank. Agreement reliability for the categorization of comments with an independent observer was found to be .82. Chi- square analysis revealed a significant difference in frequencies, χ2 (6, N = 440) = 554.26, p < .001 (Table 33), between the seven categories of comments. Musical reasons were the most frequently reported reason for selecting the piece for performance, accounting for almost one-half of all comments (47%). Performance-related was the second highest category listed by respondents (20%). Table 34 contains frequency of comments for each of the categories and the respective percentage of total comments.

Table 34 Frequencies of Comments by Category

Comment category Frequency Percentage

Musical 207 47% Performance 90 20% Musical and performance 30 7% Referential 5 1% Musical and referential 3 1% Other 103 23% Blank 2 < 1% Total 440

52 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of approvals and disapprovals from the teacher about the music being performed in class on the students’ preference for the music, both listening and performance related. A secondary aspect was to determine whether familiarity through rehearsal experience affects music preference. The following were posed as research questions: Do approvals and disapprovals from the music teacher given to music performed in class affect students’ preferences for that music? Does familiarity developed by rehearsing or performing a piece of music affect the music preference of students? Is there any relationship between listening preference and performance preference? What aspect of a piece of music do students most refer to as a reason for preference?

Summary of Procedure

Eight middle schools participated in the study with students (N = 440) ranging in grades from sixth to eighth. Participants included 239 boys and 201 girls. Each of the eight schools was assigned a different rehearsal condition. Teachers were given either one or two pieces to rehearse with their most advanced level band while giving treatment comments (approval, disapproval, or instruction only) about the music that were provided in a score. Teachers rehearsed the piece(s) for a total of five rehearsals. The same composer wrote both treatment pieces, in the same key, in the same meter and with the same tempo markings. The second part of the study required participating students to listen to six music examples and then rate their listening preference for each on a five-point scale. The six examples included the two treatment pieces, two band arrangements of familiar melodies and two unfamiliar band pieces. The next part of the survey contained excerpts from the two treatment pieces and asked the students to rate their preferences for performing each in a concert. The last question on the survey asked the students to select which of the two previous examples (Summit and Pride and Glory) they would prefer to perform in a concert and to provide a short written reason for making the choice they made.

53 Summary of Results

Research Question #1

The first research question addressed the effect of approvals and disapprovals of music from the music teacher on the music preference of the students. Results indicated that there was an effect of approvals and disapprovals on the students’ music preferences, both for listening and for performance. This study used two pieces of music for treatment so that the effect of a single piece would be minimized. The effect of treatment (approvals, disapprovals, instruction only and no experience) was analyzed separately for the two pieces using listening preference and performance preference as separate measures.

Listening Preference

Listening preference was measured by students’ ratings of how much they liked the example during the listening survey. There was a significant treatment effect (p < .05) for Summit on listening preference. The ratings in the approval and instruction only groups were higher than the no experience and disapproval groups. The no experience group ratings were also higher than the disapproval group ratings and there was no significant difference between the approval and instruction only group. The listening preference ratings for Pride and Glory were not the same as the listening preferences for Summit, although there was a significant treatment effect. The approval treatment groups gave significantly higher ratings than all other groups. There was no significant difference in listening ratings between the disapproval, instruction only and no experience groups for Pride and Glory. Listening preference for the non-targeted piece was analyzed to compare groups by rehearsal condition (approval and instruction, approval only, disapproval and instruction and disapproval only). There was a significant effect of rehearsal condition on listening preference for the non-targeted piece (p < .05). The listening preference mean for the non-targeted piece of the approval and instruction group was significantly higher than all other groups. There was no significant difference between the other three groups. Significant correlations (p < .05) were found between the listening preferences of the targeted and non-targeted pieces for the approval and instruction group, the disapproval group and disapproval and instruction group. The association (r = .70) between the target and non-target pieces for the approval and instruction group was the strongest.

54 Performance Preference

Performance preference was measured by the students’ ratings of how much they would like to perform the pieces in a concert. There was significant effect of treatment on performance preference for Summit (p < .05). The approval group reported higher ratings than all other groups. The instruction only group also reported higher ratings than the no experience and disapproval groups. There was no significant difference between the no experience and disapproval groups. Performance preferences for Pride and Glory also showed significant effects of treatment. The no experience group and approval group had higher ratings than the disapproval group. There were no there significant differences between all other groups. Performance preference for the non-targeted piece was analyzed between groups by rehearsal condition (approval and instruction, approval only, disapproval and instruction and disapproval only). There was a significant effect of rehearsal condition on performance preference. Ratings of the non-target piece for the approval and instruction group were higher than all other groups. There was no significant difference between the other three groups. Significant correlations were found between performance ratings of targeted and non-targeted pieces for the approval only group (r = .38), the approval and instruction group (r = .75), and disapproval and instruction group (r = .24). The last measure of the survey asked students to choose which piece of the two treatment pieces they would rather perform. Across the Summit treatment conditions, the approval group and the disapproval group reported significant chi-square values (p < .05). For the Summit approval group, more students selected Summit. For the Summit disapproval group, more students selected the other piece (Pride and Glory). In the Pride and Glory treatment conditions, the instruction only group was the only group to report a significant value.

Research Question # 2

Does familiarity developed by rehearsing or performing a piece of music affect the music preference of students?

Listening Preference

Listening preferences for both Summit and Pride and Glory were analyzed by comparing rehearsal experience groups (rehearsal experience and no rehearsal experience). There was no significant effect of rehearsal experience on Summit listening preference (p > .05). There was, however, a significant effect of rehearsal experience on Pride and Glory listening preferences (p < .05). Those who rehearsed Pride and Glory reported a higher listening preference than those who did not.

Performance Preference

Performance preferences for both Summit and Pride and Glory were also analyzed to compare rehearsal experience groups. There was a significant effect of rehearsal experience on both Summit and Pride and Glory performance preference (p <

55 .05), however the direction of effect was different between the two pieces. Those who had rehearsed Summit reported a higher performance preference than those who did not, but those who had rehearsed Pride and Glory reported a lower performance preference than those who did not.

Research Question #3

Is there any relationship between listening preference and performance preference?

The association between listening and performance preferences was analyzed with Pearson product-moment correlation tests. First, correlations were grouped by rehearsal familiarity condition. There was a significant correlation (p < .05) between Summit listening and performance preference ratings for both groups of familiarity condition (rehearsal experience and no rehearsal experience). Correlations were higher for those who rehearsed the piece (r = .72) than those who did not (r = .51). There was also a significant correlation between Pride and Glory listening and performance preference ratings for both groups of familiarity condition. Those with rehearsal experience (r = .62) had a higher correlation than those with no rehearsal experience (r = .34). Secondly, the association between listening and performance preference was analyzed by treatment group. There was a significant correlation (p < .05) between Summit listening and performance preference ratings for all treatment groups (approval, disapproval, instruction only and no experience). There was also a significant correlation between Pride and Glory listening and performance preference ratings for all treatment groups. The highest correlation occurred in the Pride and Glory approval groups (r = .72) and the lowest correlation occurred in the Pride and Glory no experience group (r = .34). Listening preference ratings for both pieces were higher than performance preference ratings.

Research Question #4

What aspect of a piece of music do students most refer to as a reason for preference?

The final question on the survey asked students to give a brief reason for why they made the decision they made for the concert performance choice. Musical reasons were the most frequently reported category. The next frequent category (excluding the category of “other”) was the performance-related reasons.

56 Discussion

Research Question #1

For listening and performance preferences, approvals of the music given by the teacher had a significant positive effect. This finding does not agree with an earlier finding by Pantle (1982) that showed that approvals by the teacher did not affect music preference. Pantle’s study used college students listening to recordings of approvals from the teacher. The current study used middle school students with live teacher approvals and disapprovals. The approval group reported the highest preference ratings for both Summit and Pride and Glory. For listening preference, it can be concluded that approvals of music positively affected music preference compared to no experience or disapprovals. Regarding performance preference, the only significant difference found in both the Summit and Pride and Glory treatments was between the approval group and disapproval group. Ratings from approval groups were significantly higher than those in the disapproval groups. Caution should be noted in the interpretation of these results. In the design of the study, all “instruction only” treatments were paired with either an approval or disapproval treatment. As an example, one of the directors in the disapproval and instruction only condition made the comment that her students “really hated playing the Vogel pieces.” Although only one of the pieces was being disapproved of in class, it was perceived by the teacher that the students were making a generalization across both pieces due to the same composer wrote both pieces. In order to address the possibility of preference being generalized across pieces, the rehearsal conditions were compared. There were four possible types of rehearsal conditions: approving one piece (no experience with the other piece); disapproving one piece (no experience with the other piece); approving one piece and instructing the other; and disapproving one piece and instructing the other piece. By grouping the schools in this manner, each school contained a “target piece” and a “non-target piece” regardless of whether it had been assigned Summit or Pride and Glory for treatment. If no generalization of preference between the two pieces occurred, the listening and performance preference ratings for the non-targeted piece would be similar in all rehearsal conditions. The results of this comparison made it clear that students did indeed generalize their preference across the two pieces in the approval and instruction rehearsal condition and the disapproval and instruction condition. For example, in rehearsal conditions in which the targeted piece received approval and the non-targeted piece received instruction only, both sets of ratings for the two pieces (performance and listening) were highly correlated and not significantly different. Although the correlations were not as high, the same was true for disapproval and instruction only conditions. Outcomes for the two pieces, Pride and Glory and Summit were somewhat different in this study. This may be attributed to the musical quality of the pieces. Although both pieces were written by the same composer, in the same key, with the same tempo marking, in the same meter, the two are not of equal musical quality. Two of the directors commented that they personally preferred Pride and Glory to Summit.

57 Even though most schools followed the pattern of approvals having a positive effect on preference and disapprovals having a negative effect on preference, two of the schools (6 and 7) did not following this pattern. At School 6, Pride and Glory was to receive approval from the director. However, the piece was ranked as the third lowest for listening preference. After reviewing the videotape of the treatment, it was observed that the teacher actually used a high frequency of disapprovals to students during instruction and often paired the treatment approvals with an instructional disapproval. An example was, “I like this melody, but not when you play like… (models poor tone).” School 7 was to receive disapproval for Pride and Glory and instruction only on Summit. Ratings from that school revealed much higher ratings for Pride and Glory (receiving disapprovals) than for Summit (instruction only). When talking to the director following the study, he mentioned that his students “really liked Pride and Glory no matter what I said.” In fact, this director commented after the study that he liked Pride and Glory better than Summit.

Research Question #2

Results from this study indicate that the experience of rehearsing a piece of music in class does affect preference. Overall, however, the direction of this effect was inconclusive. In the case of Summit, the performance preference ratings from students who had rehearsed it were higher than those who had not, but the listening preference ratings of the two rehearsal experience groups for Summit, including approvals and disapprovals, were almost equal. In the case of Pride and Glory, the performance and listening preference ratings were affected significantly by the rehearsal experience but were different between the two kinds of preference. The listening preference ratings for the rehearsal experience group was higher than the non-rehearsal experience group, yet the performance preference ratings for the non-rehearsal experience groups were higher than the listening preference ratings. These differences in listening and performance preference make it difficult at this point to make an overall conclusion about the effect of rehearsal experience. With a few exceptions (Pride and Glory listening preference and Summit performance preference), this outcome does not support earlier research that found rehearsal of music to increase preference (Siebenaler, 1999). Both pieces were not consistent between listening and performance preference or between the pieces themselves. These findings are consistent with other previous research (Gregory, 1994a) that found no predictable connection between performance familiarity and preference for an excerpt.

Research question #3

In all treatments and rehearsal experience conditions, listening and performance preference ratings had a significant and positive relationship. From the results of this study, it can be concluded that listening preference and performance preference are related. Listening preferences tended to be rated higher than the performance preferences on the 5-point rating scales. This could be attributed to the performance level of the students taking the survey. Many comments from the response sheet included references to the music being too easy for them to perform in a concert. This would indicate that

58 although the two preference measures are related, students do differentiate between preferences for listening and for performance. Previous research has found a relationship between verbal preference and operant music listening (Geringer, 1982) and also between verbal music preference and music selection (Alpert, 1982) This study found a relationship between verbal listening preference and verbal performance preference. It can be concluded that preferences for listening to music are associated positively with preference for performing the music.

Research question #4

The comments that students wrote in reference to the reason for their choice of piece to perform on a concert were categorized into the following categories: musical, performance, referential, combinations of these, and other. The most frequent reported reason for making the choice they made was for musical reasons. Most reasons made reference to the sound of the piece with the next frequent reasons relating to the performance of the piece. Students from School 4 showed extreme opinions about the selection of music. School 4 received disapproval treatment for Summit and provided comments such as: “B (Pride and Glory) is less repetitive. B has variety of ‘sections’ or parts. The dynamics make the song sound like a higher level band” and “I hate Summit by Kirk Vogel and you can't make me play it.” After reading the comments, one could presume what treatment comments were used by the teacher in class. For example, many student comments from School 1 (approval for Summit) contained references to the good low brass parts and different sections having melodies in Summit. Many student comments from School 4 contained comments criticizing the repetitiveness of Summit. Although both schools rehearsed the same music, comments obviously were different. This finding supports the effectiveness of teacher comments regarding the music subject matter. The “other” category included comments that did not fit in the other categories. Some students made comments such as “It was good” or “I like it.” Although these indicate preference evaluations, comments such as these do not provide a basis for selection other than preference. Other examples in this category included comments that were not relevant to the study, such as “I like the letter B.” These findings support earlier research of Teachout (1993) in which musical reasons were rated significantly higher in importance for preference of performance literature. Similar to the Teachout study, this study found musical reasons to be more frequently reported than performance reasons.

Implications for Music Education

The music preferences of students may have a large effect on the both the learning environment in the classroom and how students learn in class. It seems likely that students who are asked to rehearse music that they like could be more responsive and exhibit more on-task behavior in class. The focus of the students’ attention to the music being rehearsed in class is an important component of a teacher’s lesson. Further, it also

59 seems likely that a student playing music he or she prefers will have a more enjoyable experience in class. Given that there are many factors that influence music preference, results of this study indicate that approvals and disapprovals of music from the teacher can influence the music preference of students. Although exceptions include situations in which teachers need to rehearse music for ceremonies or special events, it is not likely that teachers will choose music for their class that they themselves do not prefer. This study was set up to re-create that possible situation in order to assess the effect of not only approvals but also disapprovals. It is also possible that the act of rehearsing a piece of music has an effect on music preference that is independent of comments from the teacher. All eight participating directors were asked to answer five open-ended questions at the conclusion of the study (Appendix L). Responses from directors were inconclusive regarding how much effect their comments had on the students’ preference. At some schools, the teachers knew the comments had an effect and at others the teachers were not able to make an assessment. Another aspect of the study that one director responded to was the forced action to make approvals or disapprovals in class. The teacher wrote the following to answer the question, “Did the treatment situation (i.e. giving approvals or disapprovals) affect your teaching? Please explain: Yes, the treatments did affect my teaching, I'm sure of it. I was much happier during rehearsal. I had fun with the students pointing out the positive aspects of the piece. I was curious myself to the outcome of the study which made it an engaging time for me. I also wasn't so focused on the performance aspect (right notes, etc.) but the overall music.

It is also possible that students have difficulty discriminating between approvals and disapprovals to the music itself as opposed to approvals and disapprovals to the students for their musical or social behavior. In the case of the previous teacher’s comments, the approvals could have functioned as approvals for the students, thus improving the class environment and on-task behavior.

Recommendations for Future Research

Results of this study indicate that comments from the teacher regarding the music being rehearsed can influence music preference. Results also indicate that rehearsal experience itself is a factor in music preference. Recommendations for research include consideration of a design to assess the effect of both the approvals of the director and performance familiarity with the piece. Future research should probably not include emphasis on disapprovals of music. Although the condition of disapprovals was in effect for some schools in this study, there is little practical application of it to music education. Disapprovals in this study may have functioned more as lessons in music discrimination than verbal indications of preference. Future research could examine the effects of lessons in music discrimination on music preference in band classes.

60 Future research in this area should include music that is either at the level of the group or is currently being performed in class. The music for this study was below the developmental level of each band. This was done so that the music could be learned in a short amount of time. Unfortunately, this apparently had a negative effect when assessing performance preference. Although students might rate the music favorably to listen to, the ratings were lower for performance preference. Future studies should use music at the level of the band and rehearse the music for a longer amount of time than five days. If possible, using music that the band will perform in concert could provide a more realistic basis to assess whether music preference is affected by the concert performance of the music as opposed to only rehearsing the music. This study extended the literature in this area of music preference in relation to school music programs. Earlier research found an effect of approvals on music preference (Alpert, 1982; Greer, Dorow, Wachhaus et al., 1973). Other research found no effect of recorded teacher approvals of music (Pantle, 1982). The present study found an effect of teacher approvals of music on music preference of students. Further study in this area is encouraged so that more information about student music preference can be acquired to aid music educators in the development of curriculum as well as in retention of students in music programs.

61 APPENDIX A: PREFERENCE RESPONSE SHEET

62 APPENDIX B: HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

63 APPENDIX C: PARENT CONSENT LETTER

64 APPENDIX D: STUDENT ASSENT FORM

65 APPENDIX E: INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPATING DIRECTORS – PART I (TREATMENT)

Dear participating director,

Thank you again for your participation in this study. Information from this study will hopefully help us to understand more about student preference for music played in instrumental music classes. As educators, we are always looking for ways to improve our students’ experience in our class. Your participation in this study will help us to gain more knowledge as to why students prefer some music over others. Obviously, there are many more factors that affect a student’s preference for the music played in class than the director’s comments about the music. This study attempts to isolate the director’s influence of verbal comment given in rehearsal.

Participating group The participating group will be the most advanced ensemble that you direct at your school. The group must contain 7th and/or 8th grade students. 6th graders that are in the class because of high performance skills can also be included. The ensemble can be split between two or three class periods. If so, the treatment comments (written in the score - not rehearsal comments) given in one class would need to be repeated for all other classes.

Materials needed

• Treatment score (included) – this is the score(s) with suggested treatment comments printed in the score. If you are assigned to make approvals or disapprovals, you have been sent two scores for each piece. The other score is absent of comments so that it can be used by you in the future. • Comment cards (included) – (approval and disapproval directors only) these are cards with numbers on it to keep track of how many treatment comments you have made. • Timer – each piece needs to be rehearsed for ten minutes for five rehearsals. • Video recording capability (VHS, SVHS, Hi8, DVC or DVD) • Audio recording (looking) capability – making a recording is not required. The students will be under the pretense of making a recording.

Time-line

The treatment period will consist of five rehearsals of ten minutes on each treatment piece. This could one or two pieces depending on how many pieces you are assigned. If you are given one piece, you would need to rehearse it for five rehearsals spending ten minutes on it each rehearsal. If you assigned two pieces, each piece would need to be rehearsed for ten minutes. Both pieces can be rehearsed on the same day or separate days. Rehearsals do not need to be on consecutive days but the time in between rehearsal cannot exceed one school day (weekends excluded).

66 Instructions for director: Prior to class

1. Please review treatment score before rehearsal as you would rehearsing any other piece with your band.

2. The score is marked with suggested treatment statements. These are comments to be made during rehearsal. Please change the wording of the comments to accommodate your speaking style so that it will sound natural to the students.

3. Distribute parts to students. Copies can made to accommodate all students. Parts can be distributed prior to or on the same day as the first rehearsal.

During class sessions

1. Start video camera. Please make sure there are no students being recorded visually. It should be a close-up shot of the director. Too close is better than getting some students in the screen.

2. Set timer for ten minutes

3. Place comment cards on director podium stand.

4. For the first rehearsal please read the Letter from Composer.

5. If you are making approvals or disapprovals, you will need to make five comments relating to the music per rehearsal. After each treatment comment made, turn over comment card. There are five treatment cards. After turning over the fifth card, all remaining comments in the rehearsal will be rehearsal comments, not comments towards the music. Those directors assigned to make no comments about the music will not need comments cards.

6. If you are making approvals or disapprovals, these comments are to be directed at the music and composer, not towards the students or their performance of the music. For instance, if you are to give approvals about the music, you could say that you like the music but give instructions to the ensemble to play it better and/or tell the ensemble they play well. Or if you are to give disapprovals, you can say that you don’t like the music and still give instructions to the ensemble for performance and/or tell the ensemble they are playing well but the music itself is bad.

7. Comments in the score are suggested. The director is allowed to create his/her own comments relating to the music.

67 8. If you are assigned to make approvals or disapprovals, at the conclusion of each rehearsal, make a general statement about the music. For example: “I really like that” or “I really don’t like that.” This does not count as one of the five treatment comments.

9. If you are assigned to make approvals or disapprovals, at the beginning of each rehearsal, except the first, make a general statement about the music. For example: “I like this music” or “I really don’t like this music.” This does not count as one of the five treatment comments.

10. If you are assigned to make no comments about the music, please make only rehearsal comments. These are comments to improve the performance of the ensemble but do indicate approvals or disapprovals of the music itself.

11. At the conclusion of the fifth rehearsal, pretend to make a recording for the composer. Make one appropriate comment after recording: approval, disapproval or no comment.

This concludes the Part I of the participation.

Part II is a listening response study that involves playing examples of band music for the students and having the students rate their preference for the examples. The materials for this will be sent separately along with parent permission and student consent forms to be signed.

Glossary: Approval – comment made by director that compliments the music in a positive manner

Disapproval – comment made by director that criticizes the music in a negative manner

Rehearsal comments – comments from the director used in the rehearsal to correct performance aspects of the ensemble. These comments can be approvals and disapprovals towards students’ performance or social behavior in class but are not directed towards the music itself.

Treatment comments – approval or disapproval comments given by the director that are only directed at the music, but not towards the ensemble or individuals.

Treatment piece – the piece of music supplied by the researcher to be rehearsed in class

Thank you again for your help in this study.

68 APPENDIX F: INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPATING DIRECTORS – PART II (SURVEY)

Dear participating director –

PART II

Once again, thank you so much for providing your time and class for this study. Enclosed in this envelope are the following: 1. Listening survey CD 2. Parent consent/student assent forms (60 copies) 3. Listening surveys (60 copies) 4. Extra copies of consent form and survey to make copies 5. A blank video tape to replace the video tape you are sending me 6. Return-addressed envelope to send surveys and tape back

The parent consent forms need to go home prior to the listening survey. If a student does not return the form, he or she can still take the survey and turn in the form later.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SURVEY 1. If more than 60 students are taking the survey, make copies using the white originals provided. 2. All students need a pencil for the survey. 3. Pass out “Band Music Survey” form to each student. 4. Play CD and pause to answer questions when the narrator on the CD instructs you to do so. 5. Collect all forms from all students, even those who have not yet turned in a consent form. 6. Enclose consent forms, surveys and tape of your teaching during Part I in envelope provided and mail. Do not return CD. If for some reason, you have lost that envelope, please send the materials to:

Kevin Droe 1192 Lovers Lane Tallahassee, FL 32317

Please keep band music that was sent to you for Part I. This is for you to keep in your library. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Kevin Droe [email protected] 850.445.8198

69 APPENDIX G: COMPOSER LETTER

January 8, 2005

Dear director-

I have just written some new music that I would like to get a recording of. The reputation of your school and your director is such that I would like to ask you to record it. A recording of my music would be used to give to publishing companies for possible publication. It would also allow me to hear what it sounds like so that I could make any changes to it before sending it off to get published.

I look forward to hearing how my music sounds like played by a real middle school band.

Thank you and your students for bringing my music to life.

Sincerely,

Kirk Vogel Greeley, CO

70 APPENDIX H: SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS

CD INSTRUCTIONS (included at beginning of survey CD)

“Thank you for participating in this Band Music Survey. Please pause the CD and then resume again after all students have filled in the information at the top of the survey.”(pause)

“Part I: You are about to listen to six examples of band music for first or second year bands. For examples 1 through 6, please circle the number corresponding to how much you like each example. For instance, after listening to Example 1, you would circle ‘5’ if you really liked it or circle ‘1’ if you really didn’t like it. Please pause the CD to answer any student questions and then resume to begin Part I. “

“Example 1” (example 1) “Example 2” (example 2) “Example 3” (example 3) “Example 4” (example 4) “Example 5” (example 5) “Example 6” (example 6)

“Part II: You will now listen to two more examples of band music for first and second year bands. For examples A and B, please circle the number corresponding with how much you would like to perform the music in a concert if you were in a first or second year band. For instance, after listening to example A, you would circle “5” if you definitely would like to perform it in a concert or circle “1” if you definitely would not like to perform it in a concert. Please pause the CD to answer any student questions and then resume to begin Part II.”

“Example A” (example A) “Example B” (example B)

“Part III: If you had to choose between example A or example B to perform in concert, which would you choose? Please circle your choice and then include a short reason why you chose it. When you are finished, hold on to your survey until collected by your teacher. This concludes the Band Music Survey. Thank you again for your participation.”

71 APPENDIX I: MUSIC PREFERENCE SURVEY PRESENTATION ORDERS

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Schools 6 and 7 1 and 3 2 and 8 4 and 5

Ex. 1 Praises Nutcracker Ode to Joy Enter the Phoenix

Ex. 2 Ode to Joy Enter the Phoenix Praises Nutcracker

Ex. 3 Summit Pride and Glory Pride and Glory Summit

Ex. 4 Enter the Phoenix Praises Nutcracker Praises

Ex. 5 Pride and Glory Summit Summit Pride and Glory

Ex. 6 Nutcracker Ode to Joy Enter the Phoenix Ode to Joy

Ex. A Pride and Glory Summit Summit Pride and Glory

Ex. B Summit Pride and Glory Pride and Glory Summit

72 APPENDIX J: TIME LOG

PREFERENCE STUDY

Teacher name

School

Please record dates of the rehearsals:

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Pride and Glory

Summit

Date of “recording session”

Date of Part II

73 APPENDIX K: TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR LISTENING PREFERENCE.

74 APPENDIX L: COMMENT CATEGORIES

M – Musical Comments related to the overall musical value of the piece. Comments are directed the whole piece and not to specific sections that would indicate performance. Comments in this category would include: “I like how it sounds,” “It sounds good,” “I like the beat,” “More exciting,”

P – Performance Comments related to the performance of the piece. Comments are indicative of a musician commenting about performing the work. Comments in this category would include: “I’ve played it,” “I like the sax part,” “The clarinet part is interesting,” “I liked playing it,”

R – Referential Comments related to the referential or extra-musical associations of the piece. Comments of this nature do not include musical elements but possible associations the music brings to the listener. Comments in this category would include: “Reminds me of parade,” “Makes me feel happy,” “Painted colorful pictures in my mind.” “The audience will really like it.”

O – Other Comments that don’t categorize into the other three groups. These include blanket statements about liking the piece but without any musical element reference. Comments in this category include: “I just like it,” I hate/like the composer,” “It’s cool,”

75 APPENDIX M: POST STUDY DIRECTOR OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS

1. Do you think the study had an effect on your students? Please explain.

School 1 I think the students enjoyed the process of rehearsing the pieces and had success with the process. Their behavior was positive and willing to rehearse on days that we did the pieces. In the end, the process could have eroded trust with students after divulging the study but this group was only mildly shocked that I would lead them on. They were curious about the outcomes of the study.

School 2 I can't think of any significant effect it had on the students, but it had an effect on me and my teaching.

School 5 I think it had a temporary effect on my students. At the time it was a very big deal. As I bring it up during rehearsal they can relate to whatever analogies I talk about. I don't think it changed their view of the world.

School 8 My students were able to listen with a keener awareness to the music they perform.

2. Did the treatment situation (i.e. giving approvals or disapprovals) affect your teaching? Please explain.

School 1 Yes, the treatments did affect my teaching, I'm sure of it. I was much happier during rehearsal, I had fun with the students, pointing out the positive aspects of the piece, I was curious myself to the outcome of the study which made an engaging time for me. I also wasn't so focused on the performance aspect (right notes, etc.) but the overall music. School 2 Yes. I found it difficult to stay positive when the kids were doing so terrible. I was supposed to compliment the composition and I couldn't even recognize what was being played. Some of the kids were smiling because they thought I was being sarcastic. I kept the numbers and use them to monitor my positive comments about the student's performance. School 5 Yes! It forced me to be more positive and not continually talk about the same old things that we talk about while rehearsing bands. I really tried to not force the music and I was able to have more fun with the approval piece. School 8 "The students perceived me as being negative and since I am normally ""positive"" this surprised them.

76 3. Do you think the treatment situation affected the overall environment of the class during the rehearsal? Please explain.

School 1 Yes, I think the students were much more positive during rehearsals when all I had to say was nice things (relatively) School 2 Yes. Positive (approvals) comments tend to motivate better than only pointing out the problems. School 5 A little, yes. Like I said for number 2, it was a little more relaxed and positive. I try to make rehearsal fun, but as we approach a deadline it gets a little hairy sometimes. The treatment situation helped make the environment a little different for me. I'm not sure that the students would have noticed a difference though. School 8 It caused my students to question more and I felt that they were perhaps enlightened to other musical ideas and styles.

4. Do you think your approvals or disapprovals, depending on what you were assigned, affected how the students liked the music? Please explain.

School 1 I'm not sure...it created an environment for happier interactions. I bet if I had given disapprovals, the response toward the pieces would have been negative...but as for positive...I don't know. School 2 I didn't look at the results, but I know that kids like music that they're familiar with. Every year I get complaints about the new music I select. They only want to play what we played the previous year. School 5 Yes! My students liked both pieces, but during the actual rehearsals they leaned towards the approval piece for sure. After the survey the band seemed to lean more 50% - 50%. I think that the non approval piece was starting to sink in and it grew on them a little more. School 8 "Not at all. The students had no problem agreeing or disagreeing with me. This group of students thinks for themselves.”

5. Did you find it difficult to present the comments (approvals or disapprovals) during rehearsal? Please explain.

School 1 The numbers definitely helped. At times I found it difficult to insert specific comments regarding the music (if I didn't totally believe them myself). School 2 Yes. See #3 School 5 No. I did find it hard to keep track of how many though. Even though you had a very simple format with the number cards, I still

77 didn't want to keep track. It seems easier for me to just throw out positive comments rather then keep track. School 8 "No, it was a very straight forward and simple assignment. Thank you."

Other

School 1 Overall, the survey was really a fun part for the kids to participate in. They liked the listening and ranking part. They wished the CSAP was as enjoyable!

78 APPENDIX N: SUMMIT (APPROVAL TREATMENT SAMPLE)

79 80 81 APPENDIX O: PRIDE AND GLORY (DISAPPROVAL TREATMENT SAMPLE)

82 83 84 APPENDIX P: SUGGESTED APPROVALS AND DISAPPROVALS

Approvals

1. The tuba part is well written. 2. This is a very interesting beginning. 3. The composer wrote the clarinet in a good range here. 4. That trumpet part is well written. 5. This composer writes well for instrument. It sounds full here. 6. The composer wrote good dynamics here. 7. Here is that melody again. I'm starting to really like it. 8. I like how the melody keeps coming back. 9. Bassoons: isn't it nice to have something written well for you? 10. The trombone chords here are written very well. 11. The melody is very exciting here. 12. I like the sound of that chord. What is it? F Major. Nice chord. 13. I like how the percussion parts are written here. 14. I'm really liking this piece. It grows on you. 15. I like how the composer wrote more eighth notes here for the snare part. It creates excitement for later in the piece. 16. This piece really develops into a nice piece. 17. I really like this piece. 18. This has a great ending to it. 19. I like how the rest of the instruments get soft so that we can hear the bells. Very well written. 20. That snare part must be fun play. I like how it sounds. 21. I like how the lower voices here come in to support the rest of the band. 22. When the low voices have the melody here, I really like what the composer wrote for the rest of the band. 23. The composer sure did write cymbals crashes in the right places. 24. I like what the composer wrote here. It sounds really good. 25. This part is very interesting. I like how it sounds.

Disapprovals

1. I'm glad that's over. 2. I wish there were more instruments playing at the beginning. 3. This snare is not very exciting. 4. This melody is boring. 5. Low brass & woodwinds must be bored with all those quarter notes. 6. The composer should have included the alto saxophones here. 7. This chord progression here is not interesting at all. 8. Horns and tenor saxophones: I'm sorry there are so many quarter notes. 9. There isn't enough articulation in this piece. 10. This melody sounds strange here. 85 11. This section is too short. It doesn't make any sense. 12. I wonder if this composer knows anything about wriiting for instruments to play in a comfortable range. 13. This alto sax/horn thing does not sound good the way the composer wrote it. 14. Here's that same boring melody again. 15. This piece sounds like the composer needed to end it in a hurry. 16. Why did the composer write the 2nd clarinets so low? It doesn't sound good 17. I don't like what the composer wrote for the flutes here. 18. I don't like what the composer wrote here. Not exciting. 19. Here's that same boring melody again. 20. I wish the composer would have written something more interesting here. 21. I think this part is written too loud to hear the trumpets & horns. Oh well. 22. This is a strange melody. It doesn't fit with the rest of the music. 23. These half notes don't make any sense. They can't be heard. 24. This is not good harmonic writing here. 25. I wish the percussion part was more exciting. There's not much to it.

86 APPENDIX Q: SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS

School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

# participating 67 41 41 56 78 61 38 57 in study

State CO CA FL CO CA FL FL CA

Class length (min) 90 48 45 47 56 60 45 45

Classes per week 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

School enrollment * 630 868 1153 761 1181 922 977 1130

% students participating 57 67 9 18 41 19 18 32 in free or reduced-price lunch program *

* Source: GreatSchools, Inc.

87 APPENDIX R: RECORDING INFORMATION

Praises Spears, Jared Grand Mesa Music Zeal 2004 UNC Symphonic Band

Pride and Glory Vogel, Kirk Unpublished 2005 FSU Concert Band

Summit Vogel, Kirk Unpublished 2005 FSU Concert Band

Enter the Phoenix Vogel, Kirk KJOS 2004 Promotional recording

The Nutcracker Tchaikovsky, P.I. Arr. Ed Huckeby C L Barnhouse Music Company Promotional recording

Ode to Joy Beethoven, L. Arr. Elliot Del Borgo FJH Music Company Inc. Promotional recording

88 REFERENCES

Abeles, H. F., & Chung, J. W. (1996). Responses to Music. In D. A. Hodges (Ed.), Handbook of Music Psychology. San Antonio: IMR Press.

Alpert, J. (1982). The effect of disc jockey, peer, and music teacher approval of music on music selection and preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30(3), 173-186.

Anthony, J. (1974). Student perceptions of factors related to discontinuance from Iowa public high school band programs in districts of 10,000 or more students. Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI-A 35/12, 7939.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men; research in human relations (pp. 177-190). Oxford, England: Carnegie Press.

Asch, S. E. (1952). Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1-70.

Baker, D. S. (1980). The effect of appropriate and inappropriate in-class song performance models on performance preference of third- and fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 28(1), 3-17.

Bowman, B. A., & VanderArk, S. D. (1982). The relationship of music aptitude, music background, self-esteem and social status of [sic] the attitudes of elementary students towards music. In P. E. Sink (Ed.), Research symposium on the psychology and acoustics of music. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.

Bradley, I. L. (1971). Repetition as a factor in the development of musical preferences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19(3), 295-298.

Bradley, I. L. (1972). Effect on student musical preference of a listening program in contemporary art music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20(3), 344-353.

Breger, I. (1971). The affective response in the perception of sound stimuli. Journal of General Psychology, 84(2), 317-322.

89 Burke, M. J., & Gridley, M. C. (1990). Musical preferences as a function of stimulus complexity and listeners' sophistication. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71(2), 687- 690.

Butler, J. H. (1968). Personality factors as correlates of receptivity to electronic music. Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI-A 29/12, 4514.

Cantor, J. R., & Zillman, D. (1973). The effect of affective state and emotional arousal on music appreciation. Journal of General Psychology, 89, 97-108.

Cattell, R. B., & Anderson, J. C. (1953). The measurement of personality and behavior disorders by the I. P. A. T. Music Preference Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 446-454.

Clarke, P. (1970). Children's information seeking about the symphony. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 19, 1-15.

Conway, C. M. (2000). Gender and musical instrument choice: A phenomenological investigation. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 146, 1-17.

Dickey, M. R. (1992). A review of research on modeling in music teaching and learning. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 113, 27-40.

Dorow, L. G. (1977). The effect of teacher approval/disapproval ratios on student music selection and concert attentiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25(1), 32-40.

Duerksen, G. L. (1968). A Study of the Relatioship Between the Perception of Musical Processes and the Enjoyment of Music. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 12, 1-8.

Elliot, D. J. (1995). Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fisher, S., & Fisher, R. L. (1951). The effects of personal insecurity on reactions to unfamiliar music. Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 987-990.

Forsythe, J. L. (1975). The Effect of Teacher Approval, disapproval, and Errors on Student Attentiveness: Music Versus Classroom Teachers. In C. K. Madsen, R. D. Greer & C. H. Madsen (Eds.), Research in Music Behavior: Modifying Music Behavior in the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fredrickson, W. E. (1997). Social influence and effects on student perception and participation in music. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 15(2), 29-32.

90 Fredrickson, W. E. (1999). Effect of musical performance on perception of tension in Gustav Holst's first suite in E-flat. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(1), 44-52.

Furman, C. E., & Duke, R. A. (1988). Effect of Majority Consensus on Preference for Recorded Orchestral and Popular Music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36(4), 220-231.

Gates, T. J. (1991). Music Participation: Theory, Research, and Policy. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 109, 1-36.

Geringer, J. M. (1982). Verbal and operant music listening preference in relationship to age and music training. Psychology of Music, Special Issue: Proceedings of the Ninth International Seminar on Research in Music Education, 47-50.

Geringer, J. M., & Solis Guerra, A. M. (2002). Preferences of 5th-Grade Children in Mexico and the United States for School and Non-School Excerpts. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 153, 12-17.

Getz, R. P. (1966). The Effects of repetition on listening response. Journal of Research in Music Education, 14(3), 178-192.

Greer, R. D., Dorow, L. G., & Hanser, S. B. (1973). Music discrimination training and the music selection behavior of nursery and primary level children. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 35, 30-43.

Greer, R. D., Dorow, L. G., Wachhaus, G., & White, E. R. (1973). Adult approval and students' music selection behavior. Journal of Research in Music Education, 21(4), 345-354.

Gregory, D. (1994a). Analysis of listening preferences of high school and college musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(4), 331-342.

Gregory, D. (1994b). Preferences of middle school and undergraduate instrumentalists for acoustic and synthesized transcriptions. Journal of Band Research, 29(2), 97- 105.

Hamann, D. L., & Miller Walker, L. (1993). Music Teachers as role Models for African- America Students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(4), 303-314.

Hargeaves, D. J. (1982). Preference and prejudice in music: A psychological approach. Popular Music and Society, 8, 13-18.

Hargreaves, D. J. (1982). The development of aesthetic reactions to music. Psychology of Music, 47, 50-58.

91 Hargreaves, D. J., & Castell, K. C. (1987). Development of liking for familiar and unfamiliar melodies. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 65-69.

Hargreaves, D. J., Messerschmidt, P., & Rubert, C. (1980). Musical preference and evaluation. Psychology of Music, 8(1), 13-18.

Hedden, S. K. (1974). Preferences for single tone stimuli. Journal of Research in Music Education, 22(2), 136-142.

Henley, P. T. (2001). Effects of Modeling and Tempo Patterns as Practice Techniques on the Performance of High School Instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(2), 169-180.

Heyduk, R. G. (1975). Rated preference for musical compositions as it relates to complexity and exposure frequency. Perception and Psychophysics, 17(1), 84-90.

Inglefield, H. (1972). Conformity behavior reflected in the musical preference of adolescents. Contributions to Music Education, 1, 56-67.

Johnson, O., & Knapp, R. H. (1963). Sex differences in aesthetic preferences. Journal of Social Psychology, 61, 279-301.

Killian, J. N. (1990). Effect of Model Characteristic on Musical Preference of Junior High Students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(2), 115-123.

Klinedinst, R. E. (1991). Predicting performance achievement and retention of fifth-grade instrumental students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(3), 225-238.

Kuhn, T. L. (1975). The Effect of Teacher Approval and Disapproval on Attentiveness, Musical Achievement, and Attitude of Fifth-Grade Students. In C. K. Madsen, R. D. Greer & C. H. Madsen (Eds.), Research in Music Behavior: Modifying Music Behavior in the Classroom (pp. 40-48). New York: Teachers College Press.

Kuhn, T. L. (1980). Instrumentation for the measurement of musical attitudes. Contributions to Music Education, 8, 2-15.

Leblanc, A. (1980). Outline of a proposed model of sources of variation in musical taste. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 61, 29-34.

Leblanc, A. (1981). Effects of Style, Tempo, and Perfroming Medium on Children's Music Preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(2), 143-156.

LeBlanc, A., Colman, J., McCrary, J., Sherrill, C., & Malin, S. (1988). Tempo preferences of different age music listeners. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36(3), 156-168.

92 LeBlanc, A., & Cote, R. (1983). Effects of tempo and performing medium on children's music preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31(1), 57-66.

LeBlanc, A., & McCrary, J. (1983). Effect of tempo on children's music preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31(4), 283-294.

LeBlanc, A., & Sherrill, C. (1986). Effect of vocal Vibrato and performer's sex on children's music preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34(4), 222- 237.

LeBlanc, A., Sims, W. L., Siivola, C., & Obert, M. (1996). Music style preferences of different age listeners. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(1), 49-59.

Lehman, P. (2000). How Can the Skills and Knowledge Called for in the National Standards Best Be Taught? In C. K. Madsen (Ed.), Vision 2020. Reston, VA: MENC.

Lewis, B. E., & Schmidt, C. P. (1991). Listeners' Response to Music as a Function of Personality Type. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(4), 311-321.

Long, N. H. (1971). Establishment of standards for the Indiana-Oregon Music Discrimination Test based on a cross-section of elementary and secondary students with an analysis of elements of environment, intelligence, and musical experience and training in relation to music discrimination. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 25, 26-35.

Madsen, C. K., & Duke, R. A. (1987). The effect of teacher training on the ablility to recognize need for giving approval for appropriate student behavior. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 103-109.

Madsen, C. K., & Geringer, J. M. (1976). Preferences for trumpet tone quality versus intonation. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 46, 13- 22.

Madsen, C. K., & Geringer, J. M. (1990). Differential patterns of music listening: Focus of attention of musicians versus nonmusicians. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 105, 45-57.

Madsen, C. K., & Geringer, J. M. (2001). A Focus of Attention Model for Meaningful Listening. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 147, 103- 108.

Madsen, C. K., Geringer, J. M., & Fredrickson, W. E. (1997). Focus of attention to musical elements in Haydn's symphony #104. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 57-63.

Madsen, C. K., & Kuhn, T. L. (1994). Contemporary Music Education (2nd ed.). Raleigh: NC: Contemporary Publishing Co. 93 Madsen, C. K., & Madsen, C. H. (1998). Teaching/Discipline: A Positive Approach for Educational Development. Raleigh: Contemporary Publishing Company of Raleigh.

McCrary, J. (1993). Effects of listeners' and performers' race on music preferences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(3), 200-211.

McCrary, J., & Gauthier, D. (1995). The effects of performers’ ethnic identities on preadolescents’ music preferences. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 14(1), 20-22.

McMullen, P. T. (1974). Influence of number of different pitches and melodic redundancy on preference responses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 22(3), 198-204.

MENC. (1996). Get America Singing...Again! Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard Corporation.

Montgomery, A. P. (1996). Effect of tempo on music preferences of children in elementary and middle school. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(2), 134-146.

Murray, K. C. (1975). The Effect of Teacher Approval/Disapproval on the Performance Level, Attentiveness, and Attitude of High School Choruses. In C. K. Madsen, R. G. Greer & C. H. Madsen (Eds.), Research in Music Behavior: Modifying Music Behavior in the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

North, A. C., & Hargeaves, D. J. (1997). Liking, arousal potential, and the emotions expressed by music. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38(1), 45-53.

North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1997). The social psychology of music. In A. C. North & D. J. Hargreaves (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

O'Keefe, V. (1975). Psychophysical preference for harmonized musical passages in the just and equal-tempered systems. Perceptional and Motor Skills, 40, 192-198.

Pantle, J. E. (1982). The Effect of Teacher Approval of Music on Music Selection and Music Verbal Preference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Price, H. E. (1986). A Proposed Glossary for Use in Affective Response LIterature in Music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34(3), 151-159.

Radocy, R. E. (1976). Effects of authority figure biases on changing judgments of musical events. Journal of Research in Music Education, 24(3), 119-128.

Radocy, R. E., & Boyle, J. D. (2003). Psychological Foundations of Musical Behavior. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. 94 Reynolds, G. (2000). Relationships between musical aptitude and musical preference among high school students. Contributions to Music Education, 27, 78-90.

Reynolds, R. H. (2000). Repertoire is the Curriculum. Music Educators Journal, 87(1), 31-33.

Ritossa, D. A., & Rickard, N. S. (2004). The relative utility of 'pleasantness and liking' dimensions in predicting the emotions expressed by music. Psychology of Music, 32(1), 5-22.

Sang, R. (1987). A study of the relationship between instrumental music teachers' modeling skills and pupil performance behaviors. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 155-159.

Schutz, C., & Lang, G. (1963). The reliability of music preferences under varying mood conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19, 506.

Shehan, P. K. (1998). Transfer of preference from taught to untaught pieces of non- Western music genres. Journal of Research in Music Education, 33(3), 149-158.

Sheldon, D. A. (1996). Selecting music for beginning and developing bands. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 6(1), 6-15.

Siebenaler, D. (1999). Student song preference in the elementary music class. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(3), 213-223.

Sims, W. L. (1985). The effect of high versus low teacher affect and passive versus active student activity during music listening on pre-school childrens’s attention, piece preference, time spent listening and piece recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Sims, W. L., & Nolker, D. B. (2002). Individual differences in music listening responses of kindergarten children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(4), 292- 300.

Standifer, J. A. (1970). Effects on aesthetic sensitivity of secondary general music courses designed to develop perception of elements of musical expressiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18(2), 112-125.

Steele, A. L. (1967). The effects of social reinforcement on the musical preference of mentally retarded children. Journal of Music Therapy, 4, 57-62.

Teachout, D. J. (1993). The importance of musical, environmental, performance, and referential factors on junior high band students' preferences for performance literature. Contributions to Music Education, 20, 25-31.

Thomson, J. (1998). The Repertoire is the Curriculum. The Instrumentalist, 53(6), 10-13.

95 Turner, M. L., Fernandez, J. E., & Nelson, K. (1996). The effect of music amplitude on the reaction to unexpected visual events. Journal of General Psychology, 123(1), 51-62.

Vitz, P. C. (1966). Affect as a function of stimulus variation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 74-79.

Walker, E. L. (1980). Psychological complexity and preference: A hedgehog theory of behavior. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

Wapnick, J. (1976). A review of research on attitude and preference. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 48, 1-20.

Zurcher, W. (1975). The Effect of Model-Supportive Practice On Beginning Brass Instrumentalists. In C. K. Madsen, R. D. Greer & C. H. Madsen (Eds.), Research in Music Behavior: Modifying Music Behavior in the Classroom. New York: Tteachers College Press.

96 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kevin Lee Droe was born on December 5, 1967 in Whittier, California, the son of Leslie Glenn Droe and Donna Marie Droe. He holds a Bachelors of Music Education, Bachelors of Music in Saxophone Performance and Masters of Music Education from the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, Colorado. Prior to his return to graduate school, he taught in the Colorado public schools for twelve years teaching middle school and high school band, high school choir and elementary general music.