OBSERVATION AND EVALUATION OF TWO COMPOSER-TEACHERS OF PRE-COLLEGE

CHIA-FANG TU

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF MUSIC

August 2008

Committee:

Cynthia Benson, Advisor

Robert Satterlee

ii

ABSTRACT

Cynthia Benson, Advisor

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between composing and teaching piano music, and to reveal the definitive characteristics of composer-teachers’ teaching styles.

Two currently active composer-teachers had agreed to participate in this study. The observation of subjects’ teaching was analyzed using the computer software program-SCRIBE in order to obtain quantitative data. In the observation analyses, both teacher behaviors and student behaviors were observed and documented systematically. The observed teacher behaviors include giving information, giving directive instruction, asking questions, giving feedback and modeling. The observed student behaviors include student playing, asking questions, talking on or off task, achieving performance goals or not achieving performance goals. In addition, an interview protocol was used to collect the qualitative data for this study. The interview protocol consisted of ten questions regarding the composer-teachers’ musical background, composition experiences, and the relationship between composing and teaching piano music.

The results provided specific data on the subjects’ teaching behaviors and students’ learning processes. The interviews also revealed the relationship between composing and teaching piano music and the reward of being a multi-tasked musician. The results and the discussion may serve as a resource for other piano teachers. This study may also provide a model of successful composer-teachers for teachers who are interested in composing for their students.

iii

In dedication to my father

“May your spirit fly! Through the window of the soul”

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study could not have been completed without Dr. Cynthia Benson who not only served as my advisor but also encouraged and challenged me throughout the journey. Many thanks to her knowledge in the field, fresh ideas, ongoing energies and generous donation of time that guided me through the process of writing this thesis. I would also like to acknowledge and give thanks to Dr. Robert Satterlee who had been extremely patient and supportive throughout my academic program. Finally, thanks to my family and my husband for their encouragements and support to do what I felt was right to do. Thanks to all of you who helped me complete this challenge.

Thank you again. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER I. LITERATURE REVIEW...... 3

General Introduction ………………………………………………………………... 3

Historical Review...... 3

The Present Study...... 7

CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY...... 9

Subjects…………………………………………………………………………….. 9

Design ……………………………………………………………………………… 10

Instruments and Procedure...... 11

SCRIBE Analysis ...... 12

Observation…...... 14

Interviews…………………………………………………………………………... 15

CHAPTER III. RESULTS...... 16

SCRIBE Analysis Results...... 16

Subjects’ Response to Interview Questions...... 21

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 28

REFERENCES ...... 33

APPENDIX A. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...... 37

APPENDIX B. CONSENT LETTER...... 38 vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Level, Age, and Lesson Time of Observed Students of Teacher A...... 14

2 Level, Age and Lesson Time of Observed Students of Teacher B...... 14

3 Teacher A: Means of Frequencies and

Percentages of Time of Teacher Behaviors ...... 17

4 Teacher A: Means of Frequencies and

Percentages of Time of Student Behaviors...... 18

5 Teacher B: Means of Frequencies and

Percentages of Time of Teacher Behaviors ...... 19

6 Teacher B: Means of Frequencies and

Percentages of Time of Student Behaviors...... 20

1

INTRODUCTION

Piano pedagogues before the 21st century not only taught piano but also composed and performed. Pedagogues of the past composed regularly, performed their own compositions and taught them to their students. Master composers such as Johann

Sebastian Bach composed works intended to teach composition and performance.

However, the current role of the piano teacher has changed. Commonly, teaching and composing have been separated into two different roles for today’s musicians. Modern music teachers do not compose on a regular basis, perhaps due to the advantages of having easy access to a huge selection of repertoire on the market (Robinson, 1995).

However, there are still some musicians who follow in the master composer / pedagogues’ footsteps of being a musician with multiple roles.

Most modern piano teachers create their teaching curricula according to the method that they have discovered would best serve their students’ needs. Teachers also use supplementary materials that are easily found on the market. Numerous masters’ compositions and originally composed new piano repertoire are also available as teaching materials. Composer-teachers have the opportunity to develop individualized material for students and to create music that will suit students’ needs specifically. They also communicate with students directly and closely through their own music. The advantage of assuming two roles gives the composer-teacher more freedom in choosing teaching materials.

Perhaps their teaching curriculum and style are different from non composer- teachers because of their multiple roles. There are numerous studies which have previously described the characteristics of expert teachers and effective teaching styles 2

(Ascari, 2003; Beres, 2003, Hudak, 2004). There are also studies examining the compositional process (Abeles, 1992Cooper, 2005; Colgrass, 2004). However, there were no studies found that discussed the relationship between composing and teaching piano music. Although we are unable to observe J.S. Bach’s teaching in relation to his

compositions, we are able to do this with today’s composer-teachers and to examine the

interrelationship between composing and teaching piano music. It is also beneficial for

teachers to explore when and how the roles of musicians have changed and to examine

current composer-teachers who have followed in their musical predecessors’ footsteps.

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between composing and

teaching piano music and to reveal any definitive characteristic of composer-teachers’

teaching styles. Two composer-teachers had been selected according to their highly

acknowledged reputation as composer-teachers in this field. They compose and publish

pedagogical pieces for students of various levels and are active independent teachers.

Observations of subjects’ teaching and interviews were conducted in order to determine

any relationship between composing and teaching piano music, which may serve as a

resource for other piano teachers and composer-teachers.

3

CHAPTER I

LITERATURE REVIEW

Piano teachers today can easily access a huge selection of piano repertoire

available on the market. There are numerous piano methods, repertoire books, technique books, and also masterpieces from which to choose. It may seem needless for a teacher to be a composer at the same time. Teachers can easily find materials to support their teaching curricula. It is indeed very convenient for modern educators to find teaching

material in a music store as well as in music stores around the world due to Internet

technology. However, as piano teachers, we often feel that there is no “perfect method”

on the market that will completely suit each student’s needs. The sequence of a teaching

method might not match one’s curriculum, and the quality of the music might not always

be the best. One solution is to look for more supplementary material in order to teach

different topics, such as hand position, fingering, technique, voicing, and pedaling. As

Robinson (1995) pointed out, the challenges of finding a right material for teaching is

twofold: one is finding the high-quality music that contains both technical drill and

musical context; the other is looking for materials that will suit each student’s learning

sequences.

Historical Review

Piano pedagogues did not always enjoy the convenient access to the variety of

music and material that are available today. Many piano pedagogues were “composer-

teachers”. They created their own teaching methods and also composed teaching

materials for their students. There were numerous great composer-teachers in history, but

modern musicians usually do not consider the pedagogical intent of their compositions. 4

When thinking of the great composer-teachers in history, has to

be mentioned. Bach had over eighty individual private students in composition and performance (Termini, 1993). Bach taught his students a clean and clear touch using exercises employing all the fingers on both hands. He composed teaching pieces for his

students to enjoy playing in addition to the technical drill that all of his students had to

practice for at least six to twelve months. For example, the Six Little Preludes and the

Two-Part Inventions were meant to be enjoyed while practicing technique (Termini,

1993). Bach also taught composition in his lessons. According to Schweitzer (1911),

“The pieces that Bach made his students play also served as examples in composition.”

The two “Clavierbuchlein” collections are great examples showing Bach’s teaching intentions in composition and performance (Robinson, 1995). He created the

Clavierbuchlein von Wilhelm Freidemann Bach for his eldest son, and Clavierbuchlein

der Anna Magdalena Bach for his wife. Both of the albums contain technique exercises

and can also serve as compositional exercises. They were created individually to suit

different students’ needs. The notebook for W.F. Bach was created when Wilhelm

Friedemann was only ten years old, and was meant to provide practical knowledge of

keyboard playing. Therefore, the fingering charts and tables of ornament and clefs were

included in the notebook. This notebook may have also intended to serve as

compositional exercises. As Robinson (1995) stated, “ There is also the possibility that

Bach left some of the compositions incomplete, to serve as models for his son’s

continuing attempts at compositional imitation” (p. 21). On the other hand, Bach was

emphasizing the more advanced principle of figured bass in the notebook of Anna

Magdalena. Bach’s interest in individualizing instruction is shown clearly through these 5

two examples. It also shows that J.S. Bach was not only one of the most important

composers in music history but also one of the most influential and pioneering

pedagogues in history.

Many of Bach’s pupils also became influential pedagogues later in history.

For example, C.P.E. Bach wrote the most important method book of the late 18th century and early 19th century, “Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments.” He also composed a set of pieces called “Probestucke,” which provided examples and illustrative materials for the book (Uszler, 2000). Another famous composer-teacher was

Muzio Clementi (1752-1832). His influential publication, “Introduction to the Art of

Playing the Pianoforte” emphasizes legato touch. He also published “Gradus ad

Parnassum,” which were originally composed teaching materials. Most are still playing and teaching his pedagogical pieces today. (1791-1857), a student of Beethoven’s, wrote a four-volume pedagogical work. His studies and exercises are also well-known in piano studios. In his work, he wrote about the problem of sitting at the keyboard, fingering, and musical expression, as well as his point of view on how to play Beethoven’s works. In the romantic genre of the 19th century, Chopin and Liszt were both master composers of keyboard music, but their pedagogical influences were often overlooked. Although Chopin struggled though his teaching career in Paris, he still

taught his pupils well about solid technique exercises and expression (Eigeldinger, 1986).

In Chopin’s teaching, he focused mainly on developing touch according to the natural

differences of each finger. Chopin’s real impact was through his own music that inspired

the variety of beautiful sound created from the keyboard instrument. In comparison with

Chopin, who struggled with his teaching career, Liszt was a piano teacher for more than 6

forty years and had many famous pupils in his late years. Starting from 1869 until his

death in 1886, Liszt devoted a long period time to teaching, and most of his teaching was

in a master class format. He also started to compose general exercises in 1868 and

completed twelve volumes of technical studies in 1880 (Uszler, 2000). In these

exercises, Liszt emphasized the whole arm action with octave passages, and the octave

exercises were to be practiced from one end of the piano to another. He also advised

students to practice repeated-note exercises. His pupils, William Mason, Arthur

Friedheim, and Amy Fay described in their publications how influential Liszt’s teaching

was to them (Uszler, 2000). There were more important musicians in 19th century piano history, such as Robert Schumann, Clara Schumann, and Johannes Brahms, who were all playing multiple roles as active teachers, composers and performers. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the revolution of new piano techniques was influencing the pedagogical aspects of keyboard playing. Important pedagogues such as Thomas

Fielden, James Ching, and Otto Rudolf Ortmann were all publishing works to state their own points of view about the new piano techniques. As Uszler (2000) stated, “ The twentieth century also brought the advent of substantial number of pedagogical writing based on interview with famous performers and/or pedagogues” (p. 317). Piano pedagogues seemed to concentrate more on how to practice the instrument more efficiently and assemble a wide variety of information about piano playing instead of how to compose for the instrument as the pedagogues in past centuries did.

After examining great composer-teachers in pedagogy history, it is shown that these great pedagogues taught each student differently according to the student’s individual need. They also composed and created their own teaching pieces in order to 7

suit the needs of their teaching curricula. Termini (1993) stated that the basic principles

of good teaching are constant over time and space, and the specific personalities are

inspiring, demanding, and open-minded. Good teachers will seek to inspire students’

imagination and help them with solid technique because technique is one of the tools of

the trade. On the other hand, teaching technical skills need to serve the goal of helping

students express the musical ideas through performance or composition.

The great piano pedagogues in the past have shown us how musicians could play multiple roles and composers and teachers. Previous studies have also pointed out that good teaching is constant over time (Termini, 1993; Uszler, 2000). However, as time

changed, not only the role of being a musician had changed, but also the pedagogical aspects had changed. Most piano pedagogues had changed from being both composers and teachers to being only teachers who do not compose on a regular basis. The basic principles of good teaching apply through time, but the teaching styles and the learning

process could be varied due to the changing roles of today’s pedagogues.

The present study

In the 21st century, the role of professional musicians has changed from centuries ago. Professional musicians in the past played multiple roles as performers, teachers and composers. The professional life of today’s musicians usually only concentrated on playing one role or another, which means the roles have been separated into only being a teacher or a composer. There are numerous studies which have described the role of being a piano teacher in today’s world (Auchter, 1966; Goldberg, 1999; Hudak, 2004; Li,

2004; Uszler, 2000). There is also research examining the role of being a composer in the

20th century (Ehle, 1983; Harrington, 1985; Nash, 1961), and the compositional process 8

(Abeles,1992; Colgrass, 2004; Cooper, 2005). However, there was no study found that

has described the roles of being a composer and a teacher at the same time in the 21st century. There was also no study found that revealed the relationship between teaching and composing piano music; therefore, this study will focus on observing and evaluating the teaching style of two successful published composers of educational music for various levels of piano students.

Upon examining the examples from the history of keyboard pedagogy and discovering how master composers have also been teachers, exploring if this practice still exists and what today’s composer-teachers’ teaching styles are alike may be of interest of modern piano teachers. This study will focus on examining the relationship between teaching piano and composing teaching materials for students. There were no studies found that discussed the teaching styles of today’s composer-teachers and the relationship between their teaching and composing. It would be beneficial for students and teachers to see how these modern educators follow in the master composer-teachers’ footsteps while creating their own pedagogical repertoire for their students. This study will also provide detailed information on successful composer-teachers’ compositional processes in order to serve as a resource for new teachers or student-teachers.

9

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between composing and teaching piano music and to reveal any definitive characteristics of composer-teachers’ teaching styles. The two subjects of this study were chosen for their reputation as composer-teachers in the field. Both of the subjects are studio piano teachers and are also

published composers of teaching materials for piano students from elementary to early

advanced levels. Both of the subjects actively teach, compose, and publish.

Upon meeting the criteria of a composer-teacher an invitation to participate in this

study was sent to both subjects via email. The researcher obtained the consent from both

of the subjects to participate in this study. Subjects agreed to be observed when teaching

and also participated in an interview for this study. To protect their confidentiality, the

participants will be referred to as Teacher A and Teacher B, and all observations and interview transcripts will remain in the researcher’s possession at all times and be used only for the purpose of this study.

Teacher A has been a private studio teacher for over thirty years and teaches students from beginning to early advanced levels. Teacher B has been a private studio

teacher for over twenty years and teaches students who are predominately at the

advanced level. Both subjects have published teaching materials for piano students in the

format of solos and duets.

10

Design

This study was a multiple case study, which used mixed-methods to obtain both qualitative and quantitative data. A semi-structured interview with each of the subjects was used to collect qualitative data and systematic analysis of the observations of subjects’ teaching served as the quantitative data of this study. Morse (2002) mentioned the advantages of using mixed-methods:

By using more than one method within a research study, we are able to obtain a

more complete picture of human behavior and experience. Thus, we are better

able to hasten our understanding and achieve our research goals more quickly

(p.189).

Axinn (2006) also stated, “… by combing multiple methods it is possible to elicit important new insights into the causes and consequences of beliefs and behaviors.”

The purposes of this study are to understand the relationship between a composer- teacher’s teaching and composing activities and to reveal the definitive characteristics of teaching styles. By using both qualitative and quantitative methods, the research questions could be answered more completely and have an integral result for this study.

As Bogdan and Biklen’s (1998) stated:

In qualitative research, the researcher enters the world of the people he or she plan

to study, gets to know them and earns their trust, and systematically keeps a

detailed written record of what is heard and observed…(the researcher) feel that

action can best be understood when it is observed in the setting in which it occurs

(p. 5). 11

Li (2004) also indicated:

The main purpose of employing a qualitative interview design instead of using

a quantitative survey was to gather in-depth insights…(p. 75).

Therefore, the interviews were designed to understand the concepts and the background

of subjects’ teaching and composing experiences. The details regarding composer-

teachers’ compositional processes and teaching experiences were allowed using a

qualitative research design.

Instruments and Procedure

The lesson observation was completed prior to the interviews in order to expand the questions and gather more in-depth information. The researcher completed observations of each subject’s teaching including lessons with students at different ages and levels, then a semi-structured interview was conducted after the observations.

The quantitative data collection also played an important role in this study. The

researcher observed one lesson of five different students from each subject. These

lessons were video taped with a digital video camera and systematically analyzed with a

computer software program, SCRIBE. The camera was set up at an angle in which both

the teacher and student could be seen. The lessons were systematically observed in order

to assess the teaching style of each subject. Using the computer software, SCRIBE, to

collect quantitative data helped to create a more methodical process.

The interview protocol (See Appendix A) contains ten questions that were

designed to understand the background of the subjects’ compositional processes, teaching experiences, and the relationship between their teaching and publishing career. Upon subjects’ agreement, the interviews were tape recorded with a digital recorder. 12

SCRIBE Analysis

SCRIBE, Simple Computer Recording Interface for Behavioral Evaluation, is a computer software used to analyze teaching events systematically. Users can label events in live observations or in QuickTime movies. In this study, the researcher converted the recorded lessons into QuickTime movies and used the SCRIBE software to observe and analyze the teaching. The researcher created three categories, (a) Teacher Behaviors, (b)

Student Behaviors, and (c) Student Performance. The teacher behaviors were separated into two further categories, which were verbal and modeling. For the verbal category, nine behaviors were created in order to observe the teaching systematically. The verbal behaviors were as follows:

1. Information: explanation of concept or skill.

2. Directive: specific task to be carried out by the student.

3. Directive with specific performance goals: specific task to be carried out by the student with a specific goal indicated. For example, asking student to play a phrase with a softer our louder sound rather than just asking student to play the phrase again.

4. Question: inquiry by the teacher to the student.

5. Non-specific positive feedback: approval comments on the performance without indicating a specific learning behavior, with the use of words such as “nice”,

“great” or “wonderful”.

6. Specific positive feedback: approval comments on performance that indicates a specific learning behavior. For example, “ that was the most beautiful legato sound that I heard from you.” 13

7. Non-Specific negative feedback: disapproval comment without indicating a

specific learning behavior.

8. Specific negative feedback: disapproval comments indicating specific learning

behavior.

9. Corrective feedback: feedback given to correct student performance in the form

of directive, information or question.

For the teacher modeling category, there were two behaviors: directive modeling

and informative modeling. Directive modeling occurred when the teacher demonstrated a

new concept for the student to try in the lesson, and informative modeling occurred when

the teacher demonstrated in order to offer additional information, but not necessarily for

the student to try during the lesson.

In the student category, there were five behaviors: (1) student play: the student is

actually playing the instrument, (2) answering question: the student answers the teacher’s

questions, (3) asking question: the student asks teacher questions, (4) talking on task: the

student talks and the topic is related to the learning process, and (5) talking off task: the

student talks during the lesson but the topic is not relating to the learning process.

Another category, which was further separated from this student category, was the student performance. This category observed the success rate of performance trials

during the lesson.

The SCRIBE program allowed the researcher to monitor the behaviors while watching the recorded lessons; the program would calculate the frequencies and the percentage of time for each behavior. In order to gather a more accurate observation, 14

each lesson was watched three times due to the simultaneous events that happened during a lesson. The means of this data served as the quantitative portion of this study.

Observations

The researcher observed one lesson of five different students from each subject, which consisted of different age groups and levels. The students in Teacher A’s studio that were observed for this study were from beginning to early advanced levels (see Table

1). Students in Teacher B’s studio were predominately in the early advanced to advanced levels, and between the ages 9 and 17 ( see Table 2).

Table 1 Level, Age, and Lesson Time of Observed Students of Teacher A ______Student 1 2 3 4 5 ______Level Early Early Beginning Early Late Advanced Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate

Age 15 12 7 11 16

Lesson time 1hr ½ hr ½ hr ½ hr ½ hr

Table 2 Level, Age, and Lesson Time of Observed Students of Teacher B ______Student 1 2 3 4 5 ______Level Advanced Early Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced

Age 10 9 17 16 14

Lesson time 1hr 1hr 1hr 1hr 1 hr ______

15

Interviews

After observing and tape recording five lessons, an interview was scheduled with each of the subjects. The interview lasted approximately an hour, and there were ten questions on the interview protocol (see Appendix A). The interview was audio recorded with a digital recorder.

16

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

This chapter is divided into two sections: (1) the quantitative data from the means of the SCRIBE analyses of the teaching observations, (2) the qualitative data from the subjects’ response to the interviews. The interview provides a more complete presentation of the subjects’ background, experiences, and the relationship between their two careers of teaching and composing.

SCRIBE Analysis Results

In this study, the data was analyzed using the SCRIBE software program, which offered a systematic approach to evaluating the teaching. The means of the data showed that Teacher A spent an average of 45% of the observed lesson time giving information, directive instruction, feedback, modeling and asking questions. Within the teacher’s behavior, the larger portion (11.6 %) was spent on giving directive instruction, 6 % on

giving information, and 6% on modeling. In the directive instruction behaviors, 73% was

directive with specific performance goals. Teacher A asked an average of 5 questions

and gave average of 7.2 times of feedback. Out of 7.2 times of feedback, 3.4 were

specific positive feedback (see Table 3).

Students of Teacher A spent an average of 43.83% of the observed lesson time in

actual playing. Students’ success rate of performance trials was 80%. Students’

answered each of teacher’s questions during the observed lesson time, and students never

talked off task in the lessons (see Table 4).

17

Table 3 Teacher A: Means of Frequencies and Percentages of Time of Teacher Behavior. ______Student ______Behaviors (Verbal) Overall Mean 1 2 3 4 5 ______

Information 10.43% 4.10% 8.30% 2.70% 5.60% 6.23%

Directive 0.00% 5.30% 1.00% 7.10% 0.00% 3.00%

Directive-Specific Goal 14.38% 8.10% 7.50% 4.20% 8.80% 8.60%

Ask Question 5 4 6 6 4 5.0

Feedback- NSP 3 5 0 0 3 2.2

Feedback- SP 6 4 4 0 3 3.4

Feedback – NSN 0 0 1 0 0 0.2

Feedback – SN 0 0 0 0 0 0

Feedback – Corrective 0 0 2 2 3 1.4

______Behavior (Model) Overall Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Directive 13.84% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 6.60% 4.29%

Information 3.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.20% 2.04%

______Note. NSP= Non Specific Positive SP = Specific Positive NSN= Non Specific Negative SN = Specific Negative ______

18

Table 4 Teacher A: Means of Frequencies and Percentages of Time of Student Behaviors ______Student ______Behaviors 1 2 3 4 5 Overall Mean ______

Play 44.60% 41.70% 45.72% 49.19% 37.92% 43.83%

Answer Question 5 4 6 6 4 5

Ask Question 0 0 0 1 0 0.2

Talk on task 0 0 0 0 0 0

Talk off task 0 0 0 0 0 0

______Student Performance 1 2 3 4 5 Overall Mean

Achieve Goals 85% 75% 81% 76% 81% 80%

Not Improved 15% 25% 19% 24% 19% 20%

______

The results showed that during the observed lesson time, Teacher B spent the

largest percentage of time on modeling (33.61%), followed by 12.44% on giving

information, and 9.88% on directive instruction. In directive instruction, 80% were directive with specific performance goals. Teacher B gave an average of 5.6 positive feedback statements (specific and non specific), and 1.2 negative feedback statements

(specific and non specific) during each observed lesson time (see Table 5). Teacher B’s students spent 27.71% of the observed lesson time playing the instrument. The means of the success rate of the performance trials were 66%, and students did not talk off task in any of the lessons (see Table 6). 19

Table 5 Teacher B: Means of Frequencies and Percentages of Time of Teacher Behaviors ______Student ______Behaviors (Verbal) Overall Mean 1 2 3 4 5 ______

Information 11.29% 14.20% 26.90% 7.40% 2.40% 12.44%

Directive 0.62% 7.60% 0.00% 0.10% 0.09% 1.68%

Directive-Specific Goal 15.70% 7.80% 7.20% 4.40% 6.26% 8.20%

Ask Question 3 0 1 1 0 1

Feedback- NSP 6 2 3 2 3 3.2

Feedback- SP 3 4 1 1 3 2.4

Feedback – NSN 0 3 0 2 0 1

Feedback – SN 0 1 0 0 0 0.2

Feedback – Corrective 5 1 1 3 5 3

______Behavior (Model) 1 2 3 4 5 Overall Mean

Directive 5.60% 17.90% 14.50% 14.91% 2.10% 11.00%

Information 14.20% 16.70% 21.60% 25.33% 30.00% 21.61%

______Note. NSP= Non Specific Positive SP = Specific Positive NSN= Non Specific Negative SN = Specific Negative ______

20

Table 6 Teacher B: Means of Frequencies and Percentages of Time of Student Behaviors ______Students ______Behaviors 1 2 3 4 5 Overall Mean ______

Play 34.80% 23.40% 15.66% 22.14% 42.55% 27.71%

Answer Question 3 0 1 1 0 1

Ask Question 0 0 0 0 0 0

Talk on task 0 0 0 0 0 0

Talk off task 0 0 0 0 0 0 ______Student Performance 1 2 3 4 5 Overall Mean

Achieve Goals 57% 68% 75% 57% 73% 66%

Not Improved 43% 32% 25% 43% 27% 34%

21

Subjects’ Response to Interview Questions

1. When did you start composing and publishing on a regular basis? Was it first for your students?

Teacher A responded that he started composing and had won composition competitions since he was in the sixth grade. He always enjoyed his composition assignments as a music major in college. He kept composing consistently, and his nine piano ensembles were published by Kjos in 1977. He had made his decision of being an active composer when he moved back to Ohio in 1978. As he recalled, “I still remember when I was teaching my students with some methods, and I was thinking that surely there are ways to teach the same concepts with more interesting music.”

On the other hand, Teacher B said that composition has always been part of her passion; she was consistently composing since she was in the college. The first of her 200 compositions was published in 1985. Teacher B imparted, “ … I have been fortunate to know a few great artists who generously extended themselves to me. I had brought my pieces to William Gillock in 1984 at a M.T.N.A. conference; he encouraged me and become a trusted friend… Lynn Freeman Olson heard my piece the next year and had promoted my work in a selfless way since then…” She loves to express herself not only through playing piano but also through writing the melodies she had in her mind. Teacher B also mentioned that her daughter was always one of the most important inspirations of her composition.

2. Describe the compositional process that may or may not have evolved over the years. 22

Teacher A stated that he is a kinesthetic person and prefers to try out melody lines, harmonic progressions, or interesting gestures on the piano to see where his ear would take him. He also mentioned, “ I never write anything down until I have the first phrase figured out; the first phrase sets the level and the character of the whole piece.”

Teacher B also prefers to play a certain style on the piano before she starts composing in that style. She plays and listens to the masters’ pieces in order to feel the “atmosphere.” She addressed, “ … before I start composing a series of pieces in the impressionistic style, I would play Debussy’s pieces to get the atmosphere of the style.” Teacher B also described that she thought composers have to be alone to think and create, so she would schedule her creative time, which can be hours of working alone, and it helps her to have clear thoughts when composing. Teacher B also stated that arts and literature are a fascinating part of music study and it effects and inspires her as a composer.

3. Do you consider the individual student when you compose a new piece?

Both of the teachers do not always think of a specific student when they compose, but would imagine how could they teach this piece to different students. Teacher A explained, “ … I don’t think of a specific student when I compose, but I would always imagine how would I teach this piece. If I cannot come up with an easy description, then this section is too hard for the student.” Teacher B mentioned,

“ I don’t always have a specific student in my mind when I compose, but sometimes when I dedicated a piece to someone, I will be thinking of them when I compose the music.” She also mentioned that she would like to have students who are learning her 23 music to experience the singing melody and develop , musicianship, and the ears at the same time.

4. What is the relationship between your teaching and composing? Does one inspire the other?

Both of the teachers agreed that teaching and composing definitely inspired each other. Teacher A stated, “…sometimes when I hear a student play a wrong chord or a wrong note, I would think that it is an interesting sound and might try it later in my composition.” He further explained that he would always have a theoretical student in mind when he composes and to make sure that the piece is interesting and not too complicated at the same time.

Teacher B also shared that she could not imagine doing only teaching or composing without the other. Even with the busy publishing schedule, she would still keep teaching. She also mentioned, “ I would get new ideas about the technical exercises when I have my students try my technique book…” Teacher B had her students work on her technique exercise series and was consistently inspired from the interaction with students.

5. How do you approach teaching your own pieces? Is it different from teaching others’ composition?

Both of the teachers agreed that there are no big differences between teaching their own composition and teaching others’ works. Effective teaching strategies apply to both. Teacher A stated, “…students need to know the music, they need to understand why and how the music is working. If they mentally understand the concept of a piece, it will be easier to practice later.” Teacher A always breaks a 24 piece into small sections and make sure students understand each concept of the piece, no matter if it is his own composition or not. At the same time, Teacher B also mentioned, “ I don’t think there is a difference between teaching my own composition and others. When I teach pieces by Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, I need to make musical connections with them just like how I understand my own composition.”

She always helps her students to see the details of the scores and want to be true to a composer’s intentions.

6. Do you include composition activities in your teaching?

Both of the teachers do not include composition in their regular teaching curricula.

They would both encourage students to compose and would love to help with their works, but they both believe that composing should not be forced or required.

Teacher A shared, “ I don’t usually give out composition assignments but when students bring in their works, I would help them check on it, and I usually find that they try to put too many things in a piece of music.”

Teacher B also imparted, “ I don’t think composing should be forced, so I don’t usually include composition in my teaching curricula. When I have students who are really interested in composing, I would definitely help them with their works.”

Teacher B believes that students could benefit from practice composing as it would help them to understand the elements of music and to see music from a different perspective.

7. What has been the favorite piece for your students? Do you have your own favorite?

Teacher A responded that he had heard students having different favorite pieces, such 25 as the “Concerto in G”, “White Teeth”, and “Lady Elephant Minuet”, and some duet pieces. He tried to compose pieces in a variety of styles so that each student will be able to find something that they like. Teacher A mentioned that he loves to compose duet pieces, and also enjoyed working the duet pieces with his students.

Teacher B responded that she had heard students and other teachers mention her

“Duet Valse Sentimental Adeux”, and the “Dances for Two” as favorites. She also prefers composing duets and seeing students play her duet pieces. She mentioned that there were some pieces that represent meaningful moments in her life. Such as the

“French Movie Waltz”, which was the last piece that she played for her mother, and

“Lyric Moments” which she composed for her daughter.

8.How do you balance your schedule between teaching, composing, and publishing?

Both of the teachers agree that it is very difficult to find a balance with the busy schedule between composing, teaching, and doing workshops. Teacher A stated, “ I could do fewer workshops if I would have said no, but I see it as one way to make my living in music. I also enjoy interacting with teachers and students who are working on my music.” Teacher A also addressed that he never imagined himself doing so many workshops when he first started his publishing career.

As an active , composer, clinician and teacher, Teacher B also finds it is very challenging to balance her busy schedule, she stated, “ … as most working mothers will report, balancing work and family can be stressful, and it rarely goes like clockwork. Sometimes you hope that you could be at two places at the same time, it is very difficult to find the balance with the crazy schedule, but you just need to cherish every moment that you have and make good use of it.” Both of the teachers 26

believe that it is hard to balance schedules, but one just has to find a way to manage

the time that he or she has.

9. What is the biggest reward of being an active composer-teacher?

Teacher A mentioned that to listen to students perform his pieces really made him

feel excited about it. He is willing to compromise his schedule to do more workshops

because it is truly a joyful connection to see students express themselves through his

composition. “ Sometimes I will go to a festival where students play all of my

compositions, and I get to work with them on it. I felt really excited to be able to

listen to different students perform my works.” He also shared that he would receive

letters from teachers and students, and that he answers every one of them.

Teacher B had a similar point of view with this question. She enjoyed seeing

students from all over the world playing her music. She responded that, “ when I was

in Japan doing the workshops, and I heard students play my compositions beautifully,

I was really touched.” She also stated that it is truly the greatest reward to see her

work being published throughout the world, so students can communicate through

this universal language of music.

10. What advice do you have for new teachers who are interested in composing?

Both of the teachers believe that no one should be discouraged by anyone else about their passion for composition. Even though one may get rejected by the publishers or others, the passion of composition just should not be stopped. Teacher A responded,

“…there are differences between composing for students, publication, and just enjoying composing. When one gets rejected from a publisher, it does not mean he or she needs to stop composing music.” Teacher A mentioned that he also was rejected from a publisher 27 in the past, but he learned to never give up. He suggested that teachers who would like to try to publish their pieces should find the publishers who specialize in educational piano music and just keep trying. Teacher B also suggested that one should not discouraged by anyone and give up his or her passion about composition. Teacher B also had experiences of receiving negative comments on her composition when she was in college, but she never gave up her passion about composing. As she responded, “ To be able to share the music in my mind with others is truly the greatest joy and reward as a composer.” Both subjects imparted that no one should be turned down by others about their passion in composition, one should keep enjoying the processes of creating music.

28

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to: (1) to explore the relationship between

composing piano music and teaching piano music, and (2) to reveal any definitive

characteristics of composer-teachers’ teaching style. The discussion was based on the

literature review and the data that was collected through the observation and interviews.

The literature review of the study suggested that in the history of piano pedagogy, there were a number of master composers who were also important pedagogues and virtuoso performers. It was common to be a composer, a performer and a teacher at the same time, such as J.S. Bach, C.P.E. Bach, Clementi, Czerny and Liszt (Termini, 1993).

The musicians of the past composed for their students and created individualized material and curricula for each student. Compared to the musicians of the past, today’s piano teachers have the advantage of access to a huge selection of repertoire on the market.

Because of the modern technology of printing and electronic sources, there is easy access to varied and numerous pieces that teachers can use with their students. However, one also needs to be careful with the quality of the music and different editions on the market.

When looking into piano pedagogy history, the researcher found that the role of the musicians had changed from being a composer, teacher, and performer all at once to only being a composer or only being a teacher. Observing two of the composer-teachers who follow in the master composers’ footsteps and still play multiple roles as professional musicians allowed the researcher to explore the relationship between composing and teaching piano music. It was also beneficial in revealing the characteristics of composer- teachers’ teaching styles. 29

According to the observation data, the researcher found that teaching styles were

varied, but both teachers were effective in using similar teaching strategies. For example,

the SCRIBE data collected through the lesson observation indicated that both of the composer-teachers gave out directive instruction with a specific performance goal. This seemed to help students understand the goal of each performance trial, and this would, in turn, help them recall the learning process when they practiced between lessons. The success rate of performance trials being higher than the nonsuccess rate may be due to the same strategy. Although Teacher B spent more time on modeling and giving further information, and Teacher A’s lessons included more student play time, each student was able to succeed perhaps due to the use of the specific performance goals with in the lesson.

When looking at the SCRIBE data, one could find that both of the composer-teachers asked questions during the lessons, and the students answered all the questions, which led to the performance goal that the teachers were giving. It was found valuable to see that experienced composer-teachers would ask questions to help students understand the performance goal more independently.

The data also indicated that composer-teachers could have different ways of giving feedback, but the purpose of giving feedback was to help students be successful. The data showed that Teacher A gave more specific positive feedback than negative feedback, while Teacher B gave more corrective feedback. Both specific positive feedback and corrective feedback were shown to lead students to a further understanding of the performance goal, since it all led to successful performance.

Besides the quantitative data that were collected through the lesson observation, 30 the interviews served as the qualitative data in order to explore the relationship between composing and teaching piano music. According to the subjects’ responses to the interview, both of the subjects enjoyed being a composer and a teacher at the same time.

As musicians, it was indivisible for them to be a composer and a teacher. One inspired the other, and the two different roles worked tightly together. Teacher A stated that he always had a theoretical student in his mind when he composed, and Teacher B mentioned that she would find new ideas when she helped students with technique exercises. Both of the subjects mentioned that it is hard to balance the busy schedule that they had as published composers and active teachers. What kept them as musicians with multiple roles was seeing students performing and communicating through their compositions. Another interesting fact that the researcher found from the interviews was that both of the composer-teachers thought that there were no differences between teaching their own compositions and that of others. Teacher A stated that he always tries to make the learning process logical for students so that they can practice on their own, no matter who the composer is. Teacher B noted that she always tried to help students make a musical connection with the pieces that they are working on, not only with her own compositions but also with all the master composers’ pieces.

In the interview protocol, one of the questions asked was if the composer-teacher included composition instruction in their teaching. Both of the subjects responded that they do not include composition activities in their regular teaching curricula. They both agreed that composition can be encouraged but should not be forced. They would help students who are interested in composing and give feedback on their composition, but did not give composition assignments to each student. Compared to the past, Bach had 31

included composition in his lessons around three hundred years ago, and until today,

modern educators and researchers are still advocating the benefits of teaching composition to young children. As Byrne (2001) notes in his article, “ The task of composing music, even at the very elementary level described in this study, involves understanding and using concepts that are central in musical theory and have connections with other curricular areas.” Researchers believe that musical activities such as composition and performance have value beyond the area of music in that they help create critical thinking in other fields that children are learning (Byrne et al. 2001).

Studies reveal that compositional processes can help children build the ability of creativity, imagination, and divergent thinking, but this complex cognitive task is not understood well enough and promoted enough in today’s system.

(Byrne, 2001; Pither, 1992; Lapidaki, 2007). It is interesting to see that both of the composer-teachers do not teach composition regularly as the past master pedagogues did.

This study provided rich and detailed information on the two successful composer-teachers’ teaching styles and compositional processes, which could serve as a valuable resource for new teachers or student-teachers. The findings of this study indicated that teaching styles could be varied and still lead to students’ successful learning experiences. It also revealed that being a composer and a teacher at the same time could be beneficial for both the students and the teachers. As both of the teachers mentioned in the interview, they enjoyed seeing different students perform their composition and communicate through their music. The reward of being a published composer is to see how music can be a universal language that connects people around the world. 32

As the study was completed, the researcher suggests that further research could be

conducted with a larger sample pool that involves more composer-teachers in order to

collect a more complete data on different composer-teachers’ teaching styles. Future research could also include different subjects who only compose pedagogical repertoire

and those who also publish complete teaching methods. Interviews with students could also be included in the study, which will provide students’ points of view on the differences of learning from a composer-teacher and a non composer-teacher. In order to reveal the relationship of composing piano music, teaching piano music, and teaching

how to compose piano music, the interviews with teachers who include composition

activities in their teaching could also be comprised into the study.

During the process of completing this study, the researcher also found the lack of a complete account of piano pedagogy history and recommends further research in this area. It would be truly beneficial for the modern piano teacher to learn about piano pedagogues in the past, including their teaching styles, the methods they used, and their teaching curricula. It would also be interesting to know how pedagogical aspects have changed over time. The researcher hopes that today’s teachers would use this study as a starting point to conduct further studies not only about piano pedagogy history but also to investigate how the ever-changing role of the piano teacher affects the student learning process and success.

33

References

Ascari, D. P. (2003). The art of effective piano teaching. Bloomington, IN : 1stBooks

Library.

Ashley, D. (1981). Maria Curcio-Diamand: Portrait of an artist-teacher (interview).

Clavier, 20(9), 12-14.

Auchter, N. H. (1977). A Study of Successful Pre-College Piano Teachers. D.M.A.

dissertation, The University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music, United

States, New York. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I

database. (Publication No. AAT 7801396).

Axinn, W. G. (2006). Mixed method data collection strategies. Cambridge; NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Barton, M. (1999). Pianists in Partnership. Music Teacher, 68, 20-21.

Beres, K. E. (2003). Marienne Uszler's contributions to piano pedagogy. D.M.A.

dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, United States , Oklahoma.

Retrieved June 10, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database.

(Publication No. AAT 3082942).

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education. Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bridges, D. (1989). Effective music lessons for young childfree: some problems and

contradiction. International Journal of Music Education, 14, 44-47.

Byrne. (2001). Thinking music matters: Key Skills and Composition. Music Education

Research, 3(1), 63-75. 34

Cortot, A. (1975). In search of Chopin (Cyril, Cyril, & R. Clarke, Trans.). London:

Peter Nevill Ltd. (Original work published 1952).

Cooper, S. (2005). Cultivating Composition and Creativity. General Music Today, 18(3),

6.

Colley, A. (1992). An expert-novice comparison in musical composition. Psychology

of Music, 20 (2), 124-137.

Ehle, R. C. (1983). Ideas in composition and theory (Role of the composer in Western

concert music). American Music Teacher, 33(1), 30-33.

Eigeldinger, J. (1986). Chopin: Pianist and teacher as seen by his pupils (Shohet,

Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published

1951).

Gibbs, P., & Stacy, M. (1977). Effective Piano teaching. American Music Teacher, 27(1),

33-39.

Goldberg, D. L. (1999). Piano pedagogy in New York in the late twentieth century:

Interviews with four master teachers. D.M.A. dissertation, City University of

New York, United States -- New York. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from

Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 9924809).

Johnson, R. (2007). Perspectives in Pedagogy. Keyboard Companion, winter 2007,

6-13.

Hallquist, R. (2002). Learning music together: an interview with Marvin Blickenstaff.

Early Childhood Connections, 8, 7-14.

Harrington, E. M. (1985). Some Observation on the Sociological Role of the

Composer in the 20th Century (Censorship, Rock Music, International). 35

D.M.A. dissertation, The Ohio State University, United States ,Ohio.

Retrieved June 12, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database.

(Publication No. AAT 8526127).

Hudak, A. L. (2004). A personal portrait of Frances Oman Clark through the eyes of

her most prominent students and collaborators. D.M.A. dissertation, The

University of Texas at Austin, United States, Texas. Retrieved June 10, 2008,

from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3143271).

Hughes, W. D. (1990). J.S. Bach: composer and pedagogue. The Piano Quarterly,

38(151), 48.

Kassner, K. (1998). Would better questions enhance music learning? Music Educators

Journal, 84(4), 29-36.

Laoidaki, E. (2007). Learning from Masters of Music Creativity. Philosophy of Music

Education Review, 15(2), 93-117.

Li, K. L. (2004). Usage and development of piano method books in Taiwan:

Interviews and observations with piano teachers. Ph.D. dissertation, The

University of Oklahoma, United States, Oklahoma. Retrieved June 10, 2008,

from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3120035).

Morse, J. (2002). Principles of mixed and multi-method research design. In A.

Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and

Behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nash, D. (1961). The role of the composer. Ethnomusicology, 5(2), 81-94.

Robert, W. (1985). Bach the music master: Teaching a tradition. Clavier, 24(3), 12-17. 36

Robinson, M. (1995). J.S. Bach as teacher. The Clavierbuechlein. American Music

Teacher, 44 (5), 18-21.

Schweitzer, A. (1911). J.S. Bach. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel.

Uszler, M. (2000). The well-tempered keyboard teacher. New York: Schirmer Books.

Termini, O. (1993). Great teachers in music history. American Music Teacher, 43(3), 20-

23.

Williams, K. T. (2005). The Art of Effective Piano Teaching. (Review of the book The

Art of Effective Piano teaching) American Music Teacher, 54(5), 95-96.

37

APPENDIX A

Interview Protocol

1. When did you start composing and publishing on a regular basis? Was it first for

your students?

2. Describe the compositional process that may or may not have evolved over the

years.

3. Do you consider the individual student when you compose a new piece?

4. What is the relationship between your teaching and composing? Does one inspire

the other?

5. How do you approach teaching your own pieces? Is it different from teaching

others’ composition?

6. Do you include composition activities in your teaching?

7. What has been the favorite piece for your students? Do you have your own

favorite?

8. How do you balance your schedule between teaching, composing, and

publishing?

9. What is the biggest reward of being an active composer-teacher?

10. What advice do you have for new teachers who are interested in composing?

38

APPENDIX B

CONSENT LETTER

Dear Composer-Teacher:

I am a graduate student in piano pedagogy at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. I am specifically interested in the compositional and teaching process of pre-college piano and would appreciate you allowing me to visit your studio for one day to observe your work and interview you regarding your teaching and compositional styles. My focus is to determine characteristics of successful piano instruction and composition at the pre- college level that would assist present and future piano teachers in efforts to improve their teaching.

Your participation is voluntary. There are no known risks or benefits to you by participating. If you decide to not participate, this will not impact your relationship with the institution. Your identity will not be identified by name in any publications or presentations; no request will be made for your name or any other information that would reveal your identity. All observations and interview transcripts will remain in the researcher’s possession at all time and will used only for purpose of the study. The observation and interview will take approximately four hours.

Thank you for allowing me to observe your work and interview you. The information you provide will contribute to a deeper understanding of piano instruction and composition as well as the instruction of future piano teachers.

Sincerely,

Chiafang Tu

I, , give consent to Sarah Tu to observe my work and interview me. I have been informed that all such data will be kept strictly confidential, that I will remain anonymous, and that I may withdraw from this study by contacting Chiafang Tu at [email protected]. I may also contact the Chair, HSRB at 419-372-7716 with questions or concerns about participant rights.

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Cynthia Benson, [email protected]

Sign: ______Date: ______