For the Bachelor's Degree in Music Edu Cation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This dissertation has been G2—749 microfilmed exactly as received BURKHALTER, N. Laurence, 1920- ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE APPLIED MAJOR AREA OF INSTRUCTION FOR THE BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN MUSIC EDU CATION. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1961 Education, teacher training University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan ESTABLISHING- CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE APPLIED MAJOR AREA OF INSTRUCTION FOR THE BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN MUSIC EDUCATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By N. Laurence Burkhalter, L.T.C.L*, B.S.M., M.M, The Ohio S ta te U n iv e rs ity 1961 Approved ty A dviser Department of Education ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to thank Dr* William B. McBride for his counsel and encouragement during the writing of this dissertation* The writer is also indebted to Dr. Earl Anderson and Dr* Norman Phelps for their constructive assistance* Special thanks are due to Mrs* Iydla Kinzer, Dr* William Poland, and Dr. D. Eansoo Whitney for their generous assistance with the statistical aspects of this study* i l TABLE o r CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ LIST OP TABLES................................................................................................................ C hapter I INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... Statement of the Problem and Purpoee Need for the Study Procedure for Present Study Summary I I RITISV or PUBLISHED STANDARDS AND OTHER RELATED LITERATURE Curricular Standards Recommended by Professional Organizations State Certification Related Literature Summary I I I PROCEDURE IN COLLECTING DATA................................................................... The Q u estio n n aire Part I: Performing Competency Part II: Studio Teacher Responsibility Part III: Implementation Fart IT: Instructional Emphasis Information Pertaining to the Respondent Procedure in Building and Hailing Questionnaire Discussion of Population Selected for Study Limitations of the Study IT RESULTS OF THE SURVEY: DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE OF THE CRITERIA Proficiency Required for College Entrance Proficiency Required for Graduation Additional Performance Skills Insights Concerning Performance Pedagogical Insights Related to the Major Performance Area Summary It Table of Contents (continued) C hapter Page T THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STUDIO TRACKER. 79 Additional Performance Skills Insights Concerning Performance Pedagogical Ineights Related to the Major Performance Area Summary VI IMPLEMENTATION 07 THE APPLIED MUSIC PROGRAM THROUGH CURRICULAR REtjJIREMENTS, INSTRUCTION, AND EXAMINATION . I l l Preparation for College Entrance Instruction and Examination Public Performance and Recital Attendance Instruetional Emphasis Summary VII THE INTER-RELATIONS OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DATA........................1^0 Part I: Importance of C riteria and Degree of Responsibility of the Studio Teacher Additional Performance Skills Insights Concerning Performance Pedagogical Insights Related to the Major Performance Area Part II: Patterns of Agreement among Respondents of Various Job Categories Directors of Schools of Music College Teachers of Applied Music College Teachers of Music Education College Teachers of Music Education and Applied Mueic Supervisors of Music Instruction in Public Schools Part III: C riteria Ranked According to Mean Scores Summary V III SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 170 Summary Conclusions and Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY 192 APPENDIX 195 AUTOBIOGRAPHY 227 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Source of Tentative Criteria for Questionnaire ........................... 34- 2. Questionnaires Mailed and Returned ..................................................... 45 3. Dual Classification of Respondents ..................................................... 31 4. Mean Ratings of Admission Standards by Job Classification. • 32 3* Mean Ratings of Graduation Standards by Job Classification . 33 6 * Comparison of Mean Scores on the Importance of Additional Performance Skills by Job Classification and by Performance Medium C lassification ...................................................... 33 7 . D iffe re n c e s in Means on Item 2 Under A d d itio n a l Perform ance S k i l l s ................................................................................................................ 61 5. Differences in Keans on Item 4 Under Additional Performance S k i l l s ................................................................................................................ 62 9 . Differences in Means on Item S Under Additional Performance S k i l l s ................................................................................................................ 62 10. Comparison of Mean Scores on the Importance of Insights Concerning Performance by Job Classification and by Perform ance Medium C l a s s i f i c a t i o n ............................................ 66 11. Differences in Means of Job Classifications on Item 1 Under Insights Concerning Performance ............................................ 68 12. Differences in Means of Job Classifications on Item 6 Under Insights Concerning Performance ............................................. 69 1 3 . Differences in Means of Instrument Classifications on Item 6 Under Insights Concerning Performance .......................... 69 14. Comparison of Mean Scores on the Importance of Pedagogical Insights Related to the Major Performance Area by Job Classification and by Performance Medium Classification. • 72 1 3 . Differences in Means of Instrument Classifications on Item 1 Older Pedagogical Insights ..................................................... 7^ ▼ v i List of Tables (continued) Table Page l6. Comparison of Mean Scores by Job and by Performance Medium Classification Indicating the Degree of Studio Teacher Besponsibility in Providing Additional Performance Skills ...................................................... SO 17> Paired Differences in Means of Job Classifications on Item 1 Under Additional Performance S k ills ........................ S3 IS. Faired Differences of Means Under Instrument Classification Groups on Item 2 Under Additional Performance Skills . • S 3 19* Paired Differences of Mieans Under Job Classification Groups on Item 3 Under A dditional Performance S k ills * * • 84 20. Paired Differences of Means Under Job Classification Grouje on Item 7 Under Additional Performance Skills . S3 21. Faired Differences in Means Under Instrument Classification Groups on Item 7 Under Additional Performance Skills . S3 22. Paired Differences in Mean Scores Under Job Classification Groups on Item 8 Under Additional Performance Skills . 86 2 3 . Faired Differences in Means Under Instrument Classification Groups on Item 8 Under Additional Performance Skills . 87 24. Comparison of Mean Scores by Job and by Performance Medium Classification of the Bespondent Indicating the Degree of Studio Teacher Besponsibility in Providing Insights Concerning Performance. ............................... 39 23* P a ire d D iffere n ce s in Means Under Job C la s s ific a tio n s on Item 2 Under Insights Concerning Performance ........................... 91 2 6 . Paired Differences in Means Under Job Classifications on Item 4 Under Insights Concerning Performance . 92 2 7 . Paired Differences in Means Under Instrument Classification For Item 4 Under Insights Concerning Performance ..... 93 28. Paired Differences in Means For Job Classifications on Item 3 Under Insights Concerning Performance ......................... 94 29* Paired Differences in Means Under Job Classifications for Item 6 Under Insights Concerning Performance ......................... 93 3 0 . Paired Differences in Means Under Instrument Classification fo r Item 3 Under Insights Concerning Performance ..... 93 v i i List of Tables (continued.) Table Page 31* Paired Differences in MeanB Under Job Classifications for Item 7 Under Insights Concerning Performance .................. $6 32. Comparison of Ifean Scores by Job and by Performance Medium Indicating the Degree of Resptasibllity of the Studio Teacher in Providing Pedagogical Insights Belated to the Major Performance Area ............................................................... 99 33* Paired Differences in Means of Job Classification Croups on Item 1 Under Pedagogical Insights .................................................. 101 3h. Paired Differences in Means of Job Classification Croups on Item 3 Under Pedfgogical Insights ........................................... 102 33* Paired Differences in Means of Instrument Classification Croups on Item h Under Pedagogical Insights .......................... IO3 3 6 * Paired Differences in Means of Job Classification Croups on Item 3 Under Pedagogical In sig h ts ..................................................10h 37* Faired Differences in Means of Instrument Classification CroupB on Item 3 Under Pedagogical Insights ................................ IO5 38. Paired Differences in Means of Job Classification Croups Croups on Item 7 Under Pedagogical Insights .....................................IO5 39* Paired Differences in Means of Job Classification Croups Croups on Item S Under Pedagogical Insights ....................................... 106 hO. Responses classified by Job on How Many Yecrs of