1459804

1459804
2009
ii
 iii

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of aural rhythmic dictation on

the sight-reading abilities of seventh- and eighth-grade band students. Students in

this study (N=128) were enrolled in band at a suburban Kansas middle school and

were between the ages of 12 and 14, all of whom received at least 45 minutes of

instructional time in band five days a week. The null hypothesis for this study stated

that there would be no difference found between the group who completed aural

rhythmic dictation exercises and those who read and played the same rhythms.

Participants were assigned to be in either the control or experimental groups,

depending on the class schedule. In their respective groups, participants either played

or notated rhythms three times per week for five minutes each. The data analysis

indicated that there was no significant difference found overall between students who

completed aural rhythmic dictation exercises and those who played the rhythms.

However, both the control and experimental groups demonstrated significant

differences from pre- to post-test. This study offers information regarding rhythmic

dictation, suggesting ideas for further research focused on instrumental students

sight-reading abilities.
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To my mom and dad, John and Elaine Scego, whose continual generosity, humor,

love, and support I truly admire.

To Dr. Debra Hedden, to whom I will always hold in high regard for her guidance,

patience, encouragement, and meticulousness.

To my coworkers and friends: Jonathan Wiebe for helping me with the recordings

and Kimberly Michaelis for your advice and direction.

And to my students who keep me smiling everyday.

 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.....iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSiv

TABLE OF CONTENTS...v

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION.1

Operational Definitions......2

Purpose & Problems..4

Research Questions4

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE6

Sight-reading Studies.6

Memory & Vision in Sight Reading10

Common Errors in Sight Reading11

Other Factors Affecting Sight Reading12

Characteristics of Sight Readers..13

Strategies for Improving Sight-Reading Skills15

Approaches for Better Sight Reading..15

Learning a Musical Language..18

Rote versus Note & Notational Representation...19

Rhythm Learning.21

Strategies for Learning New Rhythms.22

Vocalization, Word Association, & Movement...25

 vi

Audiation..27

Dictation & Aural Skills Studies..28

Summary..30

III. METHODOLOGY...32

Participants...32

Procedure.........32

IV. RESULTS.37

V. DISCUSSION41

Conclusion Regarding Data.41

Further Research..45

Implications for Music Education46

REFERENCES48

APPENDICES.........57

I. APPENDIX A. Bar Graph of Mean Test Scores58

II. APPENDIX B. Bar Graph of Instrument Familys Post-test Scores.60

 1

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Performance when reading music for the first time has long since been a

struggle for beginning and intermediate students alike, and few instrumental music

teachers would argue that sight reading is given sufficient attention in the classroom.

Researchers have concurred that sight reading should be a skill taught in the music

curriculum for a variety of reasons. Gromko (2004) stated that better sight readers

are simply better performers. Price, Blanton, and Turner (1998) advocated that the

primary goal for most instrumental music teachers is to have their students be

proficient at reading music and Allen (1987) noted that better sight-reading skills led

to more enjoyable experiences in music. Therefore, the purpose for conducting this

study was to determine if aural rhythmic dictation exercises had an impact on the

sight-reading skills of band students at the middle school level.

Past research deemed rhythm the most difficult and frequent contributor to

mistakes when sight reading (Bebeau, 1982; Boyle, 1970; Lowder, 1973; Shehan,

1987). One researcher stated that more investigation was warranted for music-

reading instruction using rhythmic-perception skills and for experiencing rhythms

aurally and visually (Miller, 1988). In addition, rhythm-reading skills were named

the strongest predictor in regards to high sight-reading scores (Elliot, 1982). With

this in mind, it was evident that further research pairing rhythmic exercises and sight-

reading assessments should be conducted.

 2

Operational Definitions

The term sight reading was used to describe the activity of playing music seen

for the first time on an instrument. For the purpose of this study, however, the

students saw the same eight measures of music twiceonce during the pre-test and

once during the post-testto accurately measure if improvement had been made.

The Harvard Dictionary of Music (Apel, 1944) defined sight reading as the ability

to read and perform music at first sight, i.e., without preparatory study of the piece

(p. 679). Sight reading was also explained as the unpremeditated performance of

notated music (Sloboda, 1985, p. 68).

Sight readers were musicians who read and performed a piece of music for

the first time. For the purposes of this study, students performed music without prior

knowledge of the piece.

During the treatment period, students read or notated eight-beat rhythm

patterns. In order to have been a pattern, the rhythm had to be two- to four-measures

in length (Hicks, 1980), so in this study the rhythm patterns alternated between two-

and four-measure patterns, but all rhythms had eight total beats. For example, most

rhythms were two measures long with four beats each.

Audiation referred to the inner-hearing of music that was being heard or had

been heard in the past (Gordon, 1999). Students used audiation to notate music.

Audiation was also described as the seeing of sounds and the visualization of what

had been heard (Ester, Schieb, & Inks, 2006). In short, it was aurally perceiving

sound (Gordon, 1999, p. 42).

 3

Dictation was what the teacher had played to the students as they notated the

music. For example, the students notated from their aural perception what the teacher

had dictated.

Rhythmic perception was how students identified and notated the rhythms

they were hearing (Miller, 1988). What one student perceived as a correct rhythm

pattern may not have been the same as another students perception of that same

rhythm pattern.

Clapping and counting was an activity designed to assist students in playing

rhythms correctly. During this movement activity students tapped their foot, counted

aloud each beat, and clapped where notes occurred.

Ear-playing was playing what the student audiated. Rather than playing from

written notation, the student learned by listening to others play and recreated what

had been heard. Another term for ear-playing was rote learning (Mark, 1996; Shehan,

1987).

The Sight-Reading Test I (SRT I ) referred to the pre-test the students took

prior to the treatment period. The Sight-Reading Test II (SRT II) was the post-test

students took after they completed the treatment period.

 4

Purpose and Problems

There has been a great deal of interest in sight reading, its importance in

instrumental music, and what physiological factors make some students better at sight

reading than others. There has been, however, little information given to teachers on

what activities and musical training can make students better sight readers, especially

at the middle school level. Conversations at music clinics, workshops, and in-service

meetings have focused on how much students sight read in their music classes, what

types of mistakes were most frequent when students sight read, how teachers

mentally prepared students to sight read music, and what strategies aided students in

becoming better sight readers.

This study specifically investigated if there was a difference in sight-reading

abilities between students who notated rhythms from aural dictation exercises and

those who performed those same rhythms by reading and playing them. The purpose

of this study was to compare sight-reading abilities of seventh- and eighth-grade

students who completed aural rhythmic dictation exercises with the abilities of those

who did not.

Research Questions

In this study, the following questions were explored: (a) Was there a

difference in pre- and post-test scores between students who completed aural

rhythmic dictation exercises and those who only played those same rhythms? (b)

Was there a difference in scores among the instrument groups of brass, woodwinds,

and percussion? (c) Did students who were enrolled in private lessons or participated
 5

in additional music ensembles score differently from those who did not? (d) Did

grade level or sex demonstrate differences in score?

 6

CHAPTER TWO

Review of Literature

Whether it has been used for an audition, as a means to quickly prepare for a

concert, or as part of a state contest requirement, sight reading has been an essential

skill for musicians to acquire. Ever since notated music has been in circulation, the

skill of sight reading has been an important part of musicianship for novices and

professionals alike (Luce, 1965; Wiltshire, 2006). Lehmann and McArthur (2002)

considered sight reading to be an indispensable part of any audition and therefore

of the musicians training (p. 137). Sight reading, on any level, was said to have been

a fundamental skill that all musicians needed in order to grow musically, and by

allowing students to be better sight readers, more literature could be learned during

the school year (Gaylen, 2005; Osborne, et al., 1976).

According to some secondary-level instrumental teachers, sight reading is

often neglected because of contest schedules or its detraction from rehearsal time.

While this skill is overlooked in some schools, it is important, especially for those

students who continue to use their musical abilities past formal education (Osborne,

et al., 1976). Consider a musician in a community band or orchestra not having the

skill set to read music at sight. Time would need to be spent practicing alone until

enough progress was made for the musician to once again join the group. Had the

musician been taught strategies to sight read music or been exposed to supplemental

activities in earlier years to help his or her sight-reading skills, the musician may have
 7

been able to join the group sooner, eliciting a more enjoyable experience for the both

the musician as well as the ensemble.

Sight-reading Studies

Since sight reading has been said to involve a number of skills including

perception, kinesthetics, memory, and problem solving, it is not surprising that so

much research has been devoted to the topic as well as how to evaluate sight-reading

skills (Lehmann & McArthur, 2002). Students evaluated growth in sight reading

can also be an effective way to track musical development. There were a variety of

reported methods to record student growth in sight reading, whether it was a

standardized test or simply the counting of rhythmic and melodic errors. (Allen, 1987;

Bebeau, 1982; Boyle, 1970; Elliot, 1982b; Gaynor, 1995; Karas, 2005; Lowder, 1973;

Luce, 1965; Mann, 1991; McPherson, 1994; Townsend, 1994).

In one such study, Elliot (1982b) researched what variables correlated with

high sight-reading abilities. A few notable variables were technical proficiency,

rhythm-reading ability, sight-singing ability, and cumulative grade point average.

Students took the Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale Test (a technical proficiency

evaluation) a sight-singing test, and a rhythm-reading test. The strongest relationship

found was between the Watkins-Farnum Performance Test and the rhythm-reading

test. Rhythm-reading ability also was reported high when paired with technical

proficiency scores. Elliot concluded that there was strong reason to believe that

rhythm-reading abilities had a relationship to a students ability to sight read music

and that the practice of reading rhythms should be done frequently to improve sight-
 8

reading skills (Elliot, 1982b). In addition to the relationship between rhythm-reading

abilities and sight-reading scores, other factors included number of years enrolled in

private instruction and number of pieces performed and sight read at the high school

level (Townsend, 1991).

Another sight-reading study conducted with high school students focused on

identifying (a) the most common sight-reading mistakes, (b) a possible relationship

between sight reading and playing rehearsed repertoire, (c) the mistakes with respect

to the students variance in age and experience, and (d) what strategies worked best to

improve sight reading (McPherson, 1994). Once again, the Watkins-Farnum

Performance Scale Test was used as well as the Australian Music Examinations

Board performance examination. Results indicated that in the early stages of learning

an instrument, sight-reading skills and rehearsed music skills were not significantly

correlated. Also, during the sight-reading tests, both groups of students mistakes

occurred when the students attempted to repair an error by repeating notes.

McPherson also found that students who scored the lowest on the sight-reading tests

took little notice of the key and time signatures, whereas students who scored in the

top 25% chose a more self-regulatory approach and took time to study these

important aspects. An earlier sight-reading study required students to look at the key

and time signatures before beginning (Luce, 1965), an aspect emphasized in

McPhersons four characteristics of good sight readers (1994): (a) scan the music for

key and time signatures and any other important information, (b) employ mental

rehearsal of the difficult parts, (c) focus attention on upcoming problems and
 9

fringe musical markings, (d) self-monitor or in other words, affirm that what was

being played was accurate.

In an additional study involving sixth-grade clarinetists, one group of students

was issued a tape-recorded practice model to which to listen to while practicing at

home while another group was only given in-class instruction and no additional help

at home. After using the Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale test for both pre- and

post-testing, results showed that there were no significant differences between the

students who used the tape-recorded models and those who practiced at home without

them. The data also suggested that the tapes had no effect on students sight-reading

abilities and performance skills (Anderson, 1981).

In contrast to studies using standardized tests and evaluation procedures, other

researchers used their own methods of measurement, as was the case in a study

examining practice behaviors of eighth-grade instrumental students (Rowher & Polk,

2006). In this investigation students were measured on melodic accuracy, rhythmic

accuracy, tempo, interpretation, and articulations. Using a very basic scoring method,

categories were ranked from zero to five with the last categoryarticulationacting

as bonus points if students played them correctly (2006). In a sight-reading study

using seventh- through twelfth-grade clarinetists as subjects, test scores were deemed

either rhythmic or non-rhythmic (Gregory, 1972). Although factors such as tempo

were considered errors, articulations and expressiveness were not.

 10

Memory and Vision in Sight Reading

Reading any kind of printed material has been said to require three steps

recognition, interpretation, and processing (Furneaux & Land, 1999). Sight reading

was considered to have a number of simultaneous physical and mental processes that

called for the musician to acquire a great deal of information and act on it quickly.

When a poor sight reader attempted to play a piece for the first time he or she

assimilated the following steps: (a) Determine what note receives one beat in the

context of the time signature, (b) identify the note by name or by meaning, (c)

determine how long each note is to be played, (d) define an appropriate steady tempo

and pulse, e) play the correct rhythm in context to the established tempo and pulse

(Bebeau, 1982, p. 109).

These abstract thinking skills were only a few steps a sight reader may have

utilized while reading a piece. Schlueter (1984) stated that musicians must consider

fingerings, posture, embouchure, breath support, tone production, intonation, and

articulations when playing a piece of music. While these were all important parts of

being a musician, the sight reader primarily considered notes, rhythms, key, and time

signature. Additional parts of the reading process, according to Hicks (1980),

included recognizing notation that represented pitch, rhythm, and interpretive

symbols that indicated expression (p. 53).

 11

Below is a comparison made by Lehmann and McArthur (2002) for

performance and practice strategies when sight reading (p. 145):

Comparison of strategies used by pianists when practicing for rehearsed performance

and for sight reading
Practicing for Performance Practicing Sight Reading
Correct your mistakes Maintain rhythm and meter
Look at hands when playing Avoid look at hands
The details are important The big picture is important
Correct fingering is crucial Get to notes however you can
Avoid errors and omissions Errors and omissions are ok

Common Errors in Sight Reading

While it may seem that key-signature related or melodic errors would have

been the most common mistakes students made when sight reading, the most

frequently-occurring errors seen in sight-reading studies were, in fact, rhythmic errors

(Bebeau, 1982; Boyle, 1970; Lowder, 1973, McPherson, 1994; Shehan, 1987).

McPherson (1994) specifically pointed out that two-thirds of all errors in sight

reading were rhythmic errors. Rhythm has been called the most important part of

music (Dalby, 2005) and the most important element of sight reading (Allen, 1987).

Rhythm is described as the organization of sound and silence across time and is an

essential component of all music (Sink, 1983, p. 102). If students were not given the

fundamental lessons in rhythm reading, their musical experiences were most likely

going to be limited (Boyle, 1970).

Some of these same studies indicated that while rhythm was the chief problem

in sight reading, there was a strong correlation between rhythmic and melodic

mistakes. If there was a pitch error, it was usually followed or accompanied by a

 12

rhythmic error (Lowder, 1973; Sink, 1983). Sink reasoned that melody played a part

in the way rhythms were perceived by students and that may have subconsciously led

to rhythmic errors (1983).

Other Factors Affecting Sight Reading

There were a number of factors influencing why musicians made certain

mistakes when sight reading. One example was the tempo at which sight readers

were asked to perform literature. In Pierces study (1992), it was found that very

slow and very fast tempi were not helpful to sight readers when they attempted to

play a piece for the first time. Another aspect that impacted sight-reading ability was

the amount of literature the musician had performed in the past.

There has been some debate on whether or not sight reading could be

improved simply by just reading more literature. In particular, one study suggested

that by sight reading more often, the student would simply be a better sight reader

(Osborne, et al., 1976). McPherson (1994) agreed to a limited extent, but delineated

between two groups of musiciansthe novices and experts. As the student

progressed and gained experience, McPherson stated that the more literature that the

musician read, the more sight-reading skills improved. However, in opposition to

Osborne et al., (1976), McPherson (1994) maintained that inexperienced students

sight-reading skills were not improved by playing more literature (1994). The most

likely reason that the novice students sight-reading skills did not improve was that

the students fundamental skills had not yet fully developed to effectively

accommodate improved sight reading.

 13

Private study and years of ensemble experience were also factors that

influenced sight-reading scores (Ferrin, 2003; Mann, 1991; Townsend, 1991).

Wheeler (1992) also found a strong positive correlation between sight-reading skills

and private lessons but only in wind players, not percussionists.

Students who were exposed to supplemental instruction in the areas of

improvisation and aural skills had higher sight-reading abilities than those students

who only used traditional methods during class, such as the band method book

(Karas, 2005). In addition, Price, Blanton and Turner (1998) discovered that students

who played music excerpts as opposed to playing daily drills were better sight

readers.

Academic factors were also indicators of higher sight-reading scores. Non-

musical factors that indicated higher potential in sight-reading skills were high

reading achievement and high ACT scores (Gromko, 2004; Mann, 1991). Good sight

readers also had high math scores on achievement tests and higher grade point

averages (Ciepluch, 1988; Gromko, 2004).

Characteristics of Sight readers

Musicians who were considered successful sight readers were not successful

by coincidence. There were specific qualities that good sight readers possessed that

novices did not. For instance, good sight readers generally had fewer coordination

problems and anticipated how music would be phrased (McPherson, 1994). Good

sight readers always first sacrificed musical aspects on the page such as articulations

and expressiveness in order to play correct notes and rhythms (McPherson, 1994).
 14

Furneaux and Land (1999) noticed that good sight readers not only saw more notes

than poor sight readers, but that they also saw patterns rather than individual notes.

In addition to seeing patterns of notes, Osborne et al. (1976) recorded that good sight

readers read at least one measure ahead, if not more. Smith (1988) also saw that there

were more eye fixations in good sight readers and that they read notes at a faster rate

in a more comprehensive manner.

Boyle (1970) found that students who took the time to clap or tap rhythms

before playing them had more success. Another preparatory step good sight readers

employed was using inner-hearing, meaning that they mentally read the piece before

playing it (Junda, 1994.) Poor sight readers were said to have lacked spontaneity,

were mechanical, and had poor coordination between their eyes, ears, hands, and

the sound they produced (McPherson, 1994, p. 228).

Expert sight readers read music by mentally representing sound as an image

with spatial and temporal dimensions (Gromko, 2004, p. 12). Good sight readers

read more notes in less time, focused more attention on difficult parts of the music,

looked further ahead in the music while playing, and were able to mentally represent

sounds as whole images instead of fragmented notes (McPherson, 1994; Goolsby,

1994). Gaynor (1995) revealed that by teaching inexperienced students how to chunk

pieces of information together, their scores were significantly raised. Likewise,

Sloboda (1985) reported that advanced sight readers used familiar patterns as a

musical vocabulary and recognized these patterns as one unit of information. More

advanced sight readers were also said to have had a better short-term memory
 15

(Shehan, 1987) and more eye fixations and did so faster at a more frequent rate

(Smith, 1988).

Strategies for Improving Sight-Reading Skills

Questions regarding sight reading and the variability of performance

characteristics have been topics of discussion among both researchers and educators.

Such topics of discussion included what skills made certain people better sight

readers, what physiological components were attributed to better performance, and

what strategies good sight readers employed before and during performance

opportunities (Lehmann & McArthur, 2002). The following attempted to explore

some of the more common techniques, strategies, and methods music researchers

have tried.

Approaches for Better Sight Reading

Educators and researchers agreed that having a strategy when sight reading

was the best way to ensure success (Gromko, 1994; McPherson, 1994; Osborne, et

al., 1976). By verbally prompting students to first scan the piece to look at the key

and time signatures, repeat signs, and accidentals was just one of the ways students

achieved better sight-reading scores (Luce, 1965; McPherson, 1994, Osborne, et al.,

1976). In addition to mental preparedness, educators required students to clap, tap, or

in some way feel the rhythm of the piece before beginning. Pierce (1992) referred to

these and other kinesthetic activities as transfer skills. His research indicated that in

addition to counting and clapping, sizzling, or blowing air through the tongue and

hard palette near the front two teeth to create the sound of a sizzle, also aided in
 16

rhythmic stability. However, there was no difference found when the clapping,

counting, and sizzling were combined. Stockton (1982) also promoted the idea of

using kinesthetic activities before sight reading as a means to improve student

confidence and success.

When choosing sight-reading material, some agreed that it was important to

select a wide variety of literature (Lowder, 1973; Townsend, 1991). Lowder (1973)

also believed that in addition to choosing appropriate literature, technical skills in the

form of scales and patterns in a variety of keys aided in students success. By

stressing that rhythm and tempo consistency were the priorities rather than pitch

accuracy, the students had a better chance of making it through the piece without

stopping (Lowder, 1973; Osborne, et al., 1976). Additionally, by using method books

that included sight-reading etudes allowed for more sight-reading practice on a more

regular basis (Grutzmacher, 1987; Townsend, 1991). In contrast, Price, Blanton, and

Turner (1998) encouraged using concert repertoire as a means of improving sight

reading rather than drills that isolated technical facility.

Priest (2002) found that playing by ear was an ability that related not only to

sight reading but also to improvisation, composing, and listening. This was

associated with Osbornes et al. (1976) suggestion in the Six Commandments of

Sight Reading to know your instrument. A complete list of their Six

Commandments and associated suggestions were: (a) Sight read more: We learn by

doing. (b) Develop the proper attitude: Every new piece of music is an opportunity

to develop better sight-reading skills. (c) Develop your powers of concentration. (d)
 17

Dont stop: Skip what is too difficult. (e) Know your instrument: Recognize sound

patterns and rhythms. (f) Analyze the music before playing it: Look ahead for

difficult rhythms, overall tonality, style and expression and finally repeat signs, da

capos, etc., (Osborne, et al., 1976, p. 65).

There was also a similar list that included reading aloud or doing the

following before playing a piece: (a) look at the key and meter, (b) count and clap

rhythms, (c) tap rhythms, (d) read note names, (e) finger the notes without playing

them, and (f) read the notes in time. It is also recommended that teachers start with

the simplest sight-reading exercises to give students more confidence and to stress

that the underlying beat cannot be interrupted (Osborne, et al., 1976).

Robert Petzold, researcher and well-known music pedagogue, organized

levels of music reading in terms of first aurally perceiving what the piece will sound

like, then visually perceiving through notation, and finally taking previously learned

information and integrating it with the new (MacKnight, 1975). More rules included

having a good sense of intonation on ones instrument; having strong aural perception

and rhythmic stability; and being able to hear inwardly what is to be played outwardly

(Junda, 1994). Of course, students who were in the beginning stages of learning their

instruments would not have acquired these skills and would take a few years to

develop abilities including aural perception and inner-hearing. However, when

students become advanced enough to begin sight reading it was recommended that

they take a sight-reading assessment at least two to three times a yearonce in early

fall to gain a sense of what the reading level is; once mid-year, or during the contest
 18

and festival time; and lastly in late spring, when the students skills are at their peak

(Osborne, et al., 1976).

Learning a Musical Language

According to Gordon (2003) there were four vocabularies music and language

shared: listening, speaking, reading and writing, with listening considered the most

important. Given that children listen an entire year before speaking and read after

four to five years after speech has begun, it would seem that the early years of music

instruction could be more beneficial if students first listened and played music rather

than read it (Dalby, 1999; Gordon, 1999; Hicks, 1980; Lipterote, 2006). By the age

of six, children were said to have had a vocabulary of approximately 13,000 words

(Pinker, 2006). It would seem appropriate to let students first listen, then play what

they had heard, and lastly write or notate the music. Without this natural progression,

students may become overwhelmed when reading notation and learning a new

instrument are coupled (Sloboda, 1985).

Sloboda (1985) added that children were very well-versed in spoken language

before reading it and were therefore better at sight reading language text. Once

children learned to read, they practiced it by reading books, periodicals, articles, etc.

(Osborne, et al., 1976). It was something that was applied every day to their lives.

Music was considered simply another language that required a variety of experiences

before comfort was achieved. Until they practiced music reading enough, they would

not be fluent in the language.

 19

Rote versus Note and Notational Representation

As American music education evolved, so did its purposes, teachings, and

methods of study. Early on, when printed materials were not available and music was

a means to serve the church, familiar folk songs and religious melodies were passed

down through generations via rote learning (Shehan, 1987). In fact, some cultures

were said to still not have had a notational representation system and that they relied

solely on memorization practices (Sloboda, 1985).

Even the early American instrumental method books placed a strong emphasis

on aural-skills training, much like in the Pestalozzian school of thought, but as newer

methods began to circulate there was much less emphasis on the aural skills and focus

turned to notation (Schleuter, 1984). In fact, in the late 19th century, MENC stated

that the purpose of public school music education was to read music, but thereafter, at

the turn of the 20th century, teachers opted for less drill and favored more song

methods (Elliot, 1982a). In 1946, however, the organization reaffirmed that music

reading remained highly important in American music education (1982a). Of course,

opposition was soon to follow and so the arguments remained.

Although the debate continued, the sizable amount of research and literature

available shed a new and more definitive light on how students learned and how

teachers employed new methods of instruction. While some studies suggested that

rote teaching did not yield positive results in regards to music-reading skills (Smith,

2006), other researchers and educators believed that rote-before-note was a viable and

productive way to teach music (Conway, 2003; Dalby, 2005; Esther, Schieb, & Inks,
 20

2006; Gordon, 1988; Kendall, 1988; Liperote, 2006; Mursell, 1943). Highly popular

methods such as the Suzuki method encouraged students to listen, imitate, and move

to the music before performing it (Mark, 1996; Shehan, 1987). Kendall (1988) also

believed that there was an overemphasis placed on visual notation and not enough

time spent listening to music and demonstrations. He wrote that aural and visual

recognition of notation can enable students to read melodic and rhythmic patterns

based on previous aural experience (Kendall, 1988, p. 217).

Traditionally, many of the beginning instrumental method books required

students to read notation in order to play their instruments (Ester, Scheib, & Inks,

2006). Because of the visual complexity of music, students confusion was only

compounded, which possibly contributed to the unnecessary student drop-out rates

among beginning instrumentalists (Dalby, 2005; Esther, Sheib, & Inks, 2006).

Conway (2003) agreed that tone playing should be introduced first in instrumental

curriculum as it provided the most success. Liperote (2006) believed that without

notation, students could focus attention more on meter, style, harmonic progression,

et cetera. She believed that, like with the Suzuki method, early listening and moving

activities only enhanced performance skills, and did not detract from them (2006).

The Suzuki method also allowed students to visualize what they had already played,

moved, and listened to rather than forcing them to first decode the music first

(Tellstrom, 1971). Method books, such as Standard of Excellence (Pearson, 1996)

and Essential Elements (Lautzenheiser, et. al., 2000) attempted to place more aural

emphasis in its books through composition and fill-in-the-note exercises.

 21

Rhythm Learning

Since rhythmic inaccuracy was found to be the most common error in sight-

reading assessments (Bebeau, 1982; Boyle, 1970; Lowder, 1973; Shehan, 1987), it

stands to reason that instrumental teachers might have focused on supplemental

activities dealing with rhythm. When trying to improve sight-reading skills, Elliot

(1982a) suggested that the regular practice of reading rhythms was beneficial in

improving sight-reading scores. McPherson (1994) stated that improving students

facility to assimilate rhythmic figures could increase the amount of eye fixations

during sight reading, thus allowing the student to read further ahead in the music.

Encouraging students to abstractly think about rhythms did not help them retain

rhythms (Shehan, 1987). For example, if a teacher were to communicate that a triplet

is equally divided into one beat, the result was less effective than having the student

feel the triplet by clapping or tapping the rhythm before playing it.

Many researchers agreed that movement was one of the most efficient ways to

facilitate rhythm learning (Bebeau, 1982; Boyle, 1970; Dalby, 1999; Dalby, 2005;

Grutzmacher, 1987; Hicks, 1980; Stockton, 1982). Ferrin (2003) posited that

kinesiology activities may have helped sight-reading skills, especially at the novice

stages of learning how to play an instrument. However, in many instances,

especially at the late primary and secondary levels, instrumental teachers disregarded

the implications of such studies. Perhaps this was due to the intense focus on contest

and concert preparation or possibly inexperience when it came to implementing such

techniques (Elliot, 1995).

 22

Strategies for Learning New Rhythms

If sight reading is considered to be largely dependent on the students ability

to learn, maintain, and recall rhythmic patterns quickly and by sight, it was obvious

then that educators understand how students learned rhythms and used strategies that

facilitated such retention. Rhythm was said to be a phenomenon of grouping and

balance (Tellstrom, 1971). Patel and Peretz (1997) described rhythm as the

temporal and accentual patterning of sound. By choosing music that was beamed

appropriately and showing students how music could be read in chunks rather than by

individual notes, teachers could help students read more notation in a shorter period

of time (McPherson, 1994).

There was a substantial amount research supporting the idea that syllable

systems were highly effective when teaching students new rhythms (Conway, 2003;

Dalby, 1999; Dalby, 2005). While many instrumental music teachers tried explaining

new rhythms using traditional methods that included mathematics and visual notation

(Hicks, 1980), Dalby (2005) argued that mathematics and rhythmic audiation were

two very different cognitive processes and should be kept separate when explaining

such abstract concepts.

Hicks (1980) also stated that teachers explained conceptual ideas such as

meter in relation to mathematics. He suggested that instead of using both time

signature numbers, to only show the top number. This took away any confusion with

what may have appeared to be a fraction to some students (1980).

 23

Syllable systems used in Kodaly and the Gordon methods allowed students to

experience rhythms without notation through common words and nonsense syllables

associated with each notes durational value (Conway, 2003; Dalby, 2005). In other

words, if the student was to audiate and eventually perform the rhythm, they,

according to Dalby (2005), must have been able to experience it firsthand, even if it

was without notational representation. Dalbys study also revealed that the marriage

of rhythmic movement and the syllabic system were best for comprehension and

long-term retention (2005).

At the late primary and throughout the secondary levels of instrumental music

study, teachers, in general, used these effective techniques less often and relied on

more mathematical concepts to teach rhythm (Ester, Sheib, & Inks, 2006). One

theory may have been that teachers used mathematical terms to standardize the

different ways students had been taught to count rhythms (Strouse, 2007). Popular

rhythm counting methods at the secondary levels included the traditional 1-e-+-a, 2-e-

+-a and 1-ti-ta-te, 2-ti-ta-te.

Although it may have been reasonable to assume that as students grew older,

they understood mathematical and abstract concepts more easily, syllable systems

may, in the long-term, have been more effective at learning new rhythms and

retaining them (Conway, 2003). Students may have been able to retain rhythms more

easily if a consistent methodology or approach was used across the curriculum

between all of the grade levels.

 24

One problem often reported in beginning instrumental method books was the

frequent use of whole- and half-notes in the early pages of instruction. These longer

note values lacked the rhythmic context that students needed to internally feel the

underlying beat (Dalby, 1999). In addition, it was very difficult to experience,

through kinesthetic activities, whole-note and half-note values.

Since rhythms were usually felt, moved to, chanted, and imitated first, it was

apparent that notation could wait until students were fully comfortable with

experiencing rhythm before seeing it (Colley, 1987; Conway, 2003; Dalby, 1999).

Mursell (1943), in accordance with Pestalozzi, also stated that it was most important

to have students feel and hear the rhythm before seeing it represented visually. The

students needed to have a listening vocabulary before they had a notational

vocabulary (Hicks, 1980, p. 54).

Thackray (1969) conducted a study involving non-music students who

responded to rhythm in three different ways to investigate which method of study was

most effective for retaining rhythm. The students were asked to move, perform, and

perceive music aurally and visually. Retention of rhythm was tested by having the

students reproduce the rhythm they just heard, moved to, or saw. Although the

results were not conclusive, there was a weak correlation between students who could

move to the rhythm and perform the rhythm.

As the students began to learn new rhythms it was important, according to

Gromko (2004), to remember that the newly-learned rhythm must be mentally

reviewed and made meaningful in order to be correctly recalled in a sight-reading

 25

activity. One researcher found that the combination of visual and aural presentation

worked best for learning new rhythm patterns (Shehan, 1987). Webster and

Zimmerman (1983) found that children who had a poor memory perception benefited

more from seeing the rhythm prior to reproducing it.

Barbe and Swassing (1979) categorized three types of learning styles

kinesthetic, aural, and visual. Even though most people integrated these modes of

learning and did so more equally as they aged, there were one or two modes that

children preferred (Milone, 1981). This was important for beginning band and

orchestra teachers to understand as they taught new concepts to students. Persellin

(1992) conducted a study using the three different modalities of learning. She found

that the younger students gravitated towards learning aurally and kinesthetically and

often could not remember the visual notation. With maturation, however, they

retained rhythms more easily when concepts were taught visually or multi-modally

(Persellin, 1992). To only use visual representation, as most method books have, was

said to have not maximized the number of students learning styles.

Vocalization, Word Association, and Movement

Approaches and methodologies including work from Carl Orff and Zoltan

, both proponents of movement in music, were proven to be effective in the

improvement of sight-reading and rhythmic skills (Bebeau, 1982; Mark, 1996). In

addition to the use of movement, the Orff approach required students to use a pattern

of spoken words to decode rhythms (Bebeau, 1982). For instance, instead of students

dividing the beat into four equal parts, the teacher might have asked the students to
 26

say the word Cal-i-forn-ia repeatedly in order to feel how four syllables fit into one

word. In this way, students were not required to use abstract mathematical skills to

decode a rhythm pattern and could easily recall what word sounded like the rhythm.

In Bebeaus study, this was referred to as speech cues (1982). She also found that

speech cues led to less stopping during a piece and that the students felt more

comfortable being independent of each other when multiple parts were introduced at

one time. Palmer (1976) and Shehan (1987) also agreed that this type of word

association aided students in retaining rhythms.

Aural training also had a positive impact on sight reading (Sheldon, 1998).

Mann (1991) agreed that aural training used in the Kodaly method had an effect on

sight-reading skills; however, the gains were small and were only for less experienced

sight readers. There was no improvement using these methods for advanced sight

readers. A study conducted by Luce (1965) found that there was a significant

correlation between students who played by ear and those who scored well on sight-

reading assessments (1965).

Although many of the beginning instrumental method books introduced one

note at a time, usually in whole-note form, Grutzmacher (1987) found that vocalizing

popular melodies benefited sight reading more than did the slow introduction from

whole note to half note to quarter note and subsequent subdivisions. In contrast,

another study found that tonal training in the form of singing melodies aided in ear-

playing but did not have an impact on sight-reading skills (Christian, 2003).
 27

Audiation

Edwin Gordon (1999) coined the term audiation and maintained that

audiation takes place when we hear in our minds music we have performed in the

past or have just performed (p. 42). It was more simply stated as aural perception.

Gordon wrote that audiation was to music as thought was to language (1999). In one

of his books, Gordon defined it as hearing and comprehending in ones mind the

sound of music that is not or may never have been physically present (Gordon, 1988

p. 361). Dalby (1999) described it as hearing music in the mind (p. 22). Likewise,

Junda (1994) explained it as inner-hearing or the ability to internalize musical

sounds (p. 40). Others stated that audiating while performing music is like thinking

while speaking a language (Hiatt & Cross, 2006, p. 48).

In regards to sight reading, audiating was said to have been an essential skill

that students used as a preparatory step in order to be more accurate sight readers

(Ester, Scheib, & Inks, 2006; Junda, 1994). By imagining sounds they were using

notational audiation. In order to be good sight readers they needed to be able to

both translate notation into sound and vice versa (Ester, Schieb, & Inks, 2006; Hiatt

& Cross, 2006). Hiatt and Cross (2006) agreed that audiation only enhanced sight-

reading skills and without audiation students had a more difficult time evaluating and

discriminating what was accurate about their playing (Mursell, 1943).

When sight reading music, musicians were believed to be translating sound in

their minds and putting it into a musical context (Gordon, 1999). Gromko (2004)

stated that sight reading correlated with sight reading rhythms, reading achievement,
 28

audiating, and performing other literature. Conway (2003) recommended that

instrumental teachers include some type of audiation activity in the classroom to

improve music reading. However, audiating tonal and rhythm patterns was not

observed in instrumental classes (Dalby, 1999). Liperote (2006) stated the following:

With the ability to think in sound, students can read music with comprehension by

associating a new visual experience with a familiar aural experiencea sensible

sequence, considering that music is an aural art (p. 51).

Dictation and Aural Skills Studies

Although there has been little attention devoted to aural dictation studies and

the effects of aural dictation on music learning, aural dictation could possibly benefit

students in the areas of critical listening, composing, transcription, and arranging

(Klonski, 2006). Particularly in the areas of arranging and composing, aural dictation

exercises could help students share ideas with others through notation (Priest, 2002).

Using undergraduate instrumental music education majors, Sheldon (1998)

gave students in the experimental group 50 extra minutes of sight-singing and aural-

skills training to find if additional aural skills training had any effect on error

detection in band literature. The control group received instruction for only the

normal class time. Ear-training exercises were taken from beginning band method

books and progressively became more difficult in the ten-week time period. At the

end of the treatment period, both groups of students were asked to mark the errors.

Sheldon found that those students receiving the extra sight-singing and aural-skills

training were more accurate in recognizing both pitch and rhythmic errors and did not
 29

mark correct pitches and rhythms as incorrect. Both groups were better at detecting

rhythmic errors as opposed to pitch errors in the post-test. The researcher believed

that by focusing more on sight-singing and audiation exercises, the groups may have

done as well at identifying pitch errors as they did rhythmic errors (Sheldon, 1998).

Whereas Sheldon (1998) separated melody and rhythm in his aural skills tests,

Klonski (2006) was opposed to separating pitch and rhythm in dictation exercises.

He stated that, [d]ictation isnt a single activity; its multifaceted, requiring

numerous listening skills and a clear understanding of how to integrate those skills in

support of one another in a unified listening experience (p. 55). He also said that by

asking the listener to extract elements of rhythm and melody rather than to listen

holistically, the musician would be able to use the acquired skills from the intended

dictation exercises in actual performance situations.

The goal of these dictation exercises was not to learn how to notate rhythms,

but to experience music in a different way so it could impact other music reading

activities. Rhythmic dictation might have, through aural and visual means, helped

develop the inner ear and the students audiation skills (Klonski, 2006).

Larson (1977) found that there was a stronger relationship between error

detection and dictation skills as opposed to error detection and sight-reading

activities. Similarly, Sheldon (1998) also found that dictation helped in the detection

of errors.

By using aural-skills training methods such as singing with solfege syllables,

students were better at playing melodies by ear even though sight-reading scores were
 30

not affected. It was concluded that using tonal training from the students method

books would only help students ear-playing abilities without detracting from sight-

reading skills (Bernhard, 2003).

Another study required second- and third-grade students to notate, clap, and

recognize rhythm patterns. During the treatment period, three groups were taught

rhythms using three different methodsthe Gordon method and the Kodaly method--

both of which were monosyllabic in nature, and by word association, which was

multi-syllabic (Colley, 1987). (Multi-syllabic examples may have included words

such as O-re-o to represent a triplet and E-liz-a-beth to represent sixteenth notes.)

Results of the study showed that all three aspectsrecognition, dictation, and

performancehad the greatest improvement using the word association method of

teaching (Colley, 1987). This study only used duple rhythms in 4/4 and 6/8.

Researchers agreed that duple patterns were easier to audiate than triple patterns

(Gordon, 1976; Hofstetter, 1981). During such dictation exercises, it was

recommended that students sing and tap as needed in order to correctly notate the

rhythm (Klonski, 2006; Osbourne, 1976).

Summary

If one of the chief concerns and goals was to have students become better

musicians and sight readers in the language of music, it would be important that

teachers use a variety of strategies, exercises, and assessments to improve and track

students progress of music-reading skills. As students completed their formal music

training in school, the promise of continuing their musicianship in the community

 31

could have been dependent on the sight-reading skills and approaches taught in their

music classrooms. Strategies to encourage better sight reading included, first and

foremost, rhythm learning and retention, which was facilitated by movement

activities and vocalization of the rhythms about to be played.

In addition to better rhythmic skills, students were alerted to common

mistakes such as key-signature errors and accidentals in the music. Movement

activities outlined in the works of Orff and Kodaly were also helpful to students

before playing new literature.

In regards to sight-reading assessments, there were a number of different tests

that researchers had used to gather information about sight-reading abilities. While

the Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale test had been frequently used, others had

opted to focus on only one of two aspects of sight reading, such as rhythmic and

melodic inaccuracies, articulation mistakes, or pitch focus. In the following study,

the researcher explored if aural rhythmic dictation exercises had an impact on the

sight-reading abilities of middle school band students by administering pre- and post-

tests measuring melodic and rhythmic mistakes only.

 32

CHAPTER THREE

Methodology

Participants

Students who participated in this study were from a suburban Kansas middle

school. Participants came from a middle-to-high income area and were between the

ages of 12 and 14 years old. All students were in either the seventh or eighth grades.

Five students were Hispanic, five were Indian, four were African-American, three

were Asian, one was a Pacific Islander, and 110 were Caucasian (N=128). Seventy-

nine of the subjects were male and 49 were female. Students in this study had one to

five years of experience on their instrument, with most students having had two to

three years experience.

All students received at least 45 minutes of instructional time in band five

days a week. Nineteen of the students received an extra forty-five minutes of jazz

band every day and forty-five students were enrolled in private lessons.

Prior to this study, all students had participated in only a few aural rhythmic

dictation exercises as a class, but not individually. All students, as seventh graders,

had played from the Award Winning Rhythms (Ayola, 1985).

Procedure

Before conducting this study the researcher obtained approval from the

universitys Human Subjects Committee. Consent forms were then sent home to be

signed by the parents or guardians of each student. Most forms were sent via email

and returned with parent and guardian signatures. The consent forms stated that all
 33

information collected, both written and electronically recorded, would remain

confidential and not have any effect on the students grades. Participation was not

mandatory; however, all students returned a signed consent form. Both students and

parents were told that the studys purpose was to explore the impact of aural rhythmic

dictation on sight-reading skills. It was also explained to them that the control group,

while not completing the aural rhythmic dictation exercises, would be practicing

rhythms by playing them instead of notating them. Each group had the possibility of

improving their sight-reading skills. In other words, the control group was not

missing a learning opportunity by participating in this study.

Once consent forms were signed and returned, students were pre-tested using

the Sight-Reading Test I (SRT I). All tests were taken during the students normal

band class times. Students were given step-by-step instructions explaining what book

to use, what measures to play, and how to record themselves before taking the SRT I.

One at a time, the student entered the practice room, sat down in the chair, and

opened his or her instruments book, Fourteen Weeks to a Better Band, to page 6. On

the Boss Digital Recording Studio BR 900 CD he or she pressed the record button

and then the play button. (All settings, levels, and the microphone had been

adjusted prior to students entering the room.) Each participant was then asked to say

his/her first and last names. Next, each participant played the first eight measures of

Blues No. 1. After playing the prescribed set of measures, the student pressed the

stop button, left the room and returned to band class. Once a class had finished

recording, the recordings were burned to a CD by the researcher. The researcher then
 34

listened to each students performance and recorded the number of mistakes. The

total correct score a student could have made was 64, comprised of eight points

possible per measure. Four points were awarded for rhythm and four points for

correct pitches in each measure.

The students were divided into two groups. Selection criterion was based on

class size. First, fifth, and seventh periods were in the experimental group. Second

and fourth hours were in the control group. Because the students did not meet

together, they were unaware of the treatment the other classes had undergone. The

control group (n=55) played rhythms on the overhead projector from Award Winning

Rhythms (Ayola, 1985). Each weeks lessons were played as follows:

Week 1 Lesson 5 Half- & quarter-notes, &

quarter-rests
Week 2 Lesson 6 Quarter- & eighth-notes
Week 3 Lesson 8 Quarter-, eighth-, & dotted
quarter-notes
Week 4 Lesson 9 Combination of Lessons 5,
6, & 8 in 4/4 time
Week 5 Lesson 10 Combination of Lessons 5,
6, & 8 in 2/4 time
Week 6 Lesson 11 Syncopation with quarter-
and eighth-notes
Week 7 Lesson 14 Sixteenth-notes in sets of 4
Week 8 Lesson 15 Sixteenth notes in sets of 2

The control group played only three sets of eight-beat rhythm patterns per

lesson. Rhythms were played three times per week. Only 2/4 and 4/4 time signatures

were reviewed. If rhythms were not played correctly the first time, students were

asked to clap and count the rhythm patterns before they tried playing them again.

Seventh-grade students played rhythms on the concert pitches B-flat, E-flat, A-flat,
 35

D-flat, F, and C. Because eighth-grade students were exposed to more concert

pitches prior to this study, they used the same pitches as the seventh-grade students

but used G-flat, C-flat, E, A, D, and G in addition.

The experimental group (n=73) used the same lessons and rhythms as the

control group but, instead of playing the rhythms, students used their own rhythmic

perception to notate them on staff paper provided by the researcher. The students

were told the time signature and number of measures. The researcher played, on

trumpet, the rhythms three times each on a concert F. While each rhythm was being

played, the researcher snapped her fingers to maintain a consistent tempo and steady

beat for the students. During the time the students were notating, they were not

discouraged from tapping their feet, clapping and counting, saying or singing the

rhythm aloud, or moving to the rhythm. After each rhythm was played three times,

the researcher revealed the correct rhythm on the overhead projector. Because of the

large class sizes, individual work was not checked for accuracy; however, students

papers were checked at random by the researcher during the activity. After each

rhythm was revealed, the researcher asked the students to raise their hands if their

answers were correct. Students kept their work in their music folders for the entirety

of the study. They deposited all of their work with the researcher with their names on

it once the eight-week period was finished. After the eight-week treatment period, all

students were post-tested. The SRT II was given in identical manner as the SRT I

had been administered.

 36

Once all students had recorded themselves, the researcher listened to the CD

recordings and recorded the scores, represented by the number of mistakes made by

each student. Scores were then analyzed using three types of statistical analyses.
 37

CHAPTER FOUR

Results

This study specifically questioned if there was a difference in sight-reading

abilities between students who notated rhythms from aural dictation exercises and

those who performed those same rhythms by reading and playing them. The purpose

of this study was to compare sight-reading abilities of seventh- and eighth-grade

students who completed aural rhythmic dictation exercises and students who did not.

Students who participated in this study were from a suburban Kansas middle school,

were between the ages of 12 and 14 years old, and came from a middle-to-high

income area.

Before the data were analyzed, a Pearson chi-squared test of independence

was used to determine if there were differences among the subgroups within the

general population of students who participated. It was found that there were not

statistical differences between any of the following subgroups: sex, instrumentation,

enrollment in jazz band, and private lesson enrollment.

Statistical analyses of the data provided the following results:

Research Question 1: Was there a difference in pre- and post-test scores between

students who completed aural rhythmic dictation exercises and those who played

those same rhythms?

Data analysis of post-test scores indicated that there was not a significant

difference (F (1,2)=.631, p =.429) between students who completed aural rhythmic

 38

dictation exercises and those who did not on post-test scores. A t-test, however,

showed that both the treatment group (t (72) =-3.23, p =.002) and the control group

(t (54) =-3.397, p =.001) had made significant improvement from their mean pre-test

scores. Table 1 presents the mean scores and their differences. (Also see Figure 1 in

the appendix.)

Table 1

T-test Results of Pre-test and Post-test Sight-Reading Scores by Control and

Treatment Groups

Pre-test Post-test Comparison

Type of Treatment n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean Sig.

Played Rhythms 55 50.63 12.03 55 54.09 8.46 55 -3.45 .001*

Notated Rhythms 73 46.12 17.89 73 50.71 12.35 73 -4.58 .002**
* = significance at the .001 level
** = significance at the .002 level

Research Question 2: Was there a difference in scores among the instrument groups

of brass, woodwinds, and percussion?

After using a one-way ANOVA to determine that there was a significant

difference (F (2,3) = 6.912, p =.001) between one or more pairs of instrument groups,

each groups mean post-test scores were measured against each other using a

Bonferroni pairwise comparison. Results indicated that the woodwinds made the

fewest errors (M=5.02, 7.81%), followed by the brass (M=13.75, 21.48%), and last,

percussion (M=27.95, 43.67%). (Also see Figure 2 in the appendix.)

 39

Research Question 3: Did students who were enrolled in private lessons or

participated in jazz band score differently from those who did not?

The data suggested that there was not a significant difference (F (1,2) = 3.477,

p =.066)) between the general population of students and those who took private

lessons. There was also no significant difference found (F (1,2) = 3.00, p = .086) in

post-test scores between students who were in jazz band and those who were not.

Research Question 4: Did grade level or sex demonstrate differences in score?

Again, using a one-way ANOVA it was determined that post-test scores

between grade levels were not significantly different (F (1,2) = 3.228, p = .075).

Similarly, post-test scores were not significantly different between males and females

(F (1,2) = 3.200, p = .076). Table 2 presents the significance of each subgroup in

relation to the general population of students:

Table 2

Difference of Scores Between Grade Level, Sex, Students Enrolled in Private Lessons
and Students Enrolled in Jazz Band

Factor Mean Square F p

Grade Level 380.40 3.23 .075

Sex 359.94 3.20 .076
Private Lessons 404.302 3.45 .066
Jazz Band 351.74 3.00 .086
NS
 40

Although the treatment did not demonstrate significant differences, both

control and experimental groups significantly improved their scores. Differences in

scores were found between the woodwinds, brass, and percussion with the

woodwinds scoring highest, followed by the brass, and last, percussion. No

significant differences were found in regards to grade level, sex, enrollment in private

lessons, and in jazz band involvement.

 41

CHAPTER FIVE

Discussion

Conclusions Regarding Data

The purpose of this study was to determine if aural rhythmic dictation skills

would have an effect on sight-reading abilities of seventh- and eighth-grade students.

There was no significant difference in sight-reading abilities between the two groups;

therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The results also indicated that the two

groups were not significantly different when examining sex, instrumentation,

enrollment in jazz band or in private lessons, and grade level.

Although the null hypothesis of the study was not rejected, both groups

improved their scores by approximately four points each from pre- to post-test.

Because of the complex nature of the strategies and materials introduced during the

eight-week period of instruction, a number of factors impacting students growth in

their sight-reading abilities could be attributed to the rise in scores.

However, since rhythm was named the most difficult and frequent contributor

to sight-reading errors (Boyle, 1970) and because both activities focused on rhythmic

improvement, the higher scores could conceivably be due to both groups of students

having had extra rhythmic activities each week (Bebeau, 1982; Elliot, 1982b;

Lowder, 1973; Shehan, 1987). It was interesting to find that both groups had nearly

identically improved their scores, despite the fact they participated in two different

activities. It might be assumed that the extra rhythmic exercises had a positive

outcome on the post-test scores. Possible causes that could have affected the growth
 42

in scores included new and more technically demanding concert repertoire, sight-

reading strategies suggested during regular class time, movement activities used in

conjunction with new rhythms (Ferrin, 2003; Gromko, 1994; McPherson, 1994;

Osborne, et. al., 1976; Pierce, 1992; Price, Blanton, & Turner, 1998), and a new focus

on rhythmic aspects.

The post-test scores of the instrument groups--woodwind, brass, and

percussion-- showed significant differences between woodwind and brass and

between woodwind and percussion. Interestingly, the woodwinds scored highest of

the three groups, then brass, and finally percussion. The difference in scores,

particularly in regards to the percussion scores, could have been attributed to the low

number of percussionists (n=17). Percussionists were also required to play the

sight-reading test on a bell set rather than on a snare drum which could have led to

lower scores. Another possible contributing factor to the lower scores was that

percussionists were not required to play the bell set as often as other percussion

instruments during class time and in their private lessons. Additionally,

percussionists rarely practice the bell set because they do not have the instrument at

home. Woodwind players, especially flute, clarinet, oboe, and alto saxophone

players, may have scored the highest because of the frequent technical demands they

encounter in concert repertoire. Brass players, while occasionally asked to play

difficult musical passages, are not, in general, as challenged as the woodwind players

are in terms of typical band literature.

 43

Years of private lessons and time spent in jazz band did not, surprisingly,

yield significantly higher test scores. A previous study indicated that students who

participated in improvisation exercises, much like what would be taught in a jazz

band, would produce higher sight-reading scores (Karas, 2005). Private lessons were

also said to have been a strong indicator of better sight-reading abilities; (Ferrin,

2003; Mann, 1991; Townsend, 1999; Wheeler, 1992) however, there may have been

differences between this study and others concerning what students were being taught

and the frequency of their attendance in private lessons and jazz band. For example,

if the students in the previously mentioned study participated in improvisation

activities daily during jazz band and only twice a week in the researchers jazz band,

then improvisation might have a greater effect on sight-reading abilities. Private

lesson experience may have varied between the students in this study and other

studies. Because the students in this study had only been playing their instruments

for a few years, they may not have had the length of experience or accrued sufficient

sight-reading skills to demonstrate significant differences.

Post-test scores were also not statistically different between grade levels.

According to McPherson (1994) students with little performance experience playing

their instruments did not improve their sight-reading scores simply by playing more

literature. More experienced students, though, did show growth. In this case, the

eighth-grade students would have been expected to show higher post-test scores than

their seventh-grade counterparts but they did not. Due to the students closeness in

age, this may not have been a factor in sight-reading abilities. Because seventh and
 44

eighth-grade students were in both the control and experimental groups, the changes

were more difficult to determine.

There is no extant research investigating differences between male and female

sight-reading abilities. Since the results were not statistically different, the sex of the

students did not seem to play a part in sight-reading abilities. Because all students,

regardless of sex, were being taught using the same activities, curriculum, and

materials, it is not surprising that sex did not impact the scores.

During this study, students were not prompted to choose a specific tempo.

Students, in general, chose medium tempi. Pierce (1992) stated that a medium tempo

was most beneficial to sight readers. In the current study, if students did not begin at

a medium tempo, they generally would begin at a very fast tempo. Two possibilities

may have been at fault. First, nervousness may have been a factor and secondly,

students may have perceived the piece as too easy for them, prompting them to play

faster. If this study were to be replicated, it might be important to establish a medium

tempo to better control for differences in results. During this study, students were not

prompted to play at a specific tempo.

Pre- and post-test scores may have been skewed because some students

mistakenly interpreted the title of the sight-reading test. The title of the piece, Blues

No. 1, prompted some students to swing the eighth notes. Technically, these rhythms

were incorrect and the researcher scored these students accordingly. Choosing a

piece without a title or instructing the students to play with strict eighth notes might

have yielded more accurate scores.

 45

Although there was no difference found between the two learning activities,

the students who notated the rhythms found the activity to be challenging, interesting,

and enjoyable. The students who were asked to play the rhythms often complained

that they were bored during the activity and became tired of it quickly. This was

most likely due to the fact that the students in the control group had frequently seen

these rhythms in their music previously and were not particularly motivated to repeat

something that they could already demonstrate. The students that notated the rhythms

saw the activity as a competition to get as many possible correct each day. The more

complex the rhythms became, the more they seemed to enjoy notating them and

finding out if they were correct.

While the control group in this study may not have found their rhythm-

learning activity as enjoyable as the experimental group did, it is important to point

out that both groups scores were positively affected with similar results, regardless

of the activity type. Students in the control group may have supposed that reviewing

these basic rhythms was regressive in nature; but, as the results showed, there was no

significant difference between students who thought they were being challenged by a

new activity and students who were demonstrating previously learned skills.

Further Research

Further research influencing sight-reading scores may include melodic

dictation at the middle school level. Because rhythmic errors were usually

accompanied by a melodic error in this and other studies, it would be beneficial to

further study its effects on sight-reading abilities (McPherson, 1994). Other possible
 46

factors impacting rhythm reading and thus affecting sight-reading scores might

include word association and audiation activities with students (Conway, 2003;

Dalby, 2005; Esther, Scheib, & Inks, 2006; Gordon, 1999).

More objective testing instruments may also be considered for future research.

With the introduction of new technology and measuring tools, such as SmartMusic,

researchers can accurately and more efficiently score students without bias. In

addition to new computer software, the use of a video camera would have added an

interesting perspective on how students prepare before sight reading music. Without

the opportunity to watch the students play their tests, it was not clear how many

students took the time to study the music before beginning. It also would have been

insightful to see which students tapped their foot while playing.

Implications for Music Education

Since reading-rhythm abilities are strong predictors of sight-reading abilities

(Elliot, 1982b) and the students scores from this study were raised during the eight-

week period of treatment, it is feasible that supplemental activities involving rhythm-

reading skills be incorporated into weekly lessons. The students were only exposed

to these rhythmic activities three times per week at five minutes each, yet

significantly improved their post-test scores. This might be of importance to teachers

searching for new strategies to improve music-reading skills in both the classroom

and to do so in a consistent fashion. Whether students are exposed to new rhythms

through movement and audiation activities, through word association, or through

 47

notation exercises, they will be receiving skills that aid improvement in sight reading

and ultimately, performing.

Sight reading is a skill that assists students in continuing their musicianship

long after they have completed high school and college. Giving them the skills to

further their musical endeavors beyond formal training will cultivate their lifelong

performance of music.
 48

References

Allen, D.H. (1987). The effect of mastery of selected music theory and ear training

skills presented in a computer assisted format on the sigh playing

performance of second-year band students. Unpublished masters thesis,

University of MissouriKansas City, Kansas City.

Anderson, J.N. (1981). Effects of tape-recorded aural models on sight-reading and

performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, (1), 23-30.

Apel, W. (1944). Harvard dictionary of music. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

Ayloa, E.L. Award winning rhythms. San Diego: Neil A. Kjos Music Company.

Barbe, W., & Swassing, R. (1979). Teaching through modality strengths: Concepts

and practices. Columbus: Zaner-Bloser Inc.

Bebeau, M.J. (1982). Effects of traditional and simplified methods of rhythm-

reading instruction. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, (2), 107-

119.

Bernhard, C.H. (2003). The effects of tonal training on the melodic ear playing and

sight reading achievement of beginning wind instrumentalists. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 54 (06). (UMI No. 3093857)

Boyle, J.D. (1970). The effect of prescribed rhythmical movements on the ability to

read music at sight. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18, (4), 307-

318.
 49

Christian, B.H. (2003). The effects of tonal training on the melodic ear playing and

sight reading achievement of beginning wind instrumentalists. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 64 (06). (UMI No. 3093857)

Ciepluch, G.M. (1988). Sightreading achievement in instrumental music

performance, learning gifts, and academic achievement: A correlation study.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 49 (06). (UMI No. 881008)

Colley, B. (1987). A comparison of syllabic methods for improving rhythm literacy.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 35, (4), 221-235.

Conway, C. (2003). Good rhythm and intonation from day one in beginning

instrumental music. Music Educators Journal, 89, (5), 26-31.

Dalby, B (1999). Teaching audiation in instrumental classes. Music Educators

Journal, 85, (6), 22-25, 46.

Dalby, B. (2005). Toward an effective pedagogy for teaching rhythm: Gordon and

beyond. Music Educators Journal, 92, (1), 54-60.

Elliot, C.A. (1982a). The music reading dilemma. Music Educators Journal, 68, (6),

33-34, 59-60.

Elliot, C.A. (1982b). The relationships among instrumental sight-reading ability and

seven selected predictor variables. Journal of Research in Music Education,

30, (1), 5-14.

Elliot, D. (1995). Music matters. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ester, D.P., Scheib, J.W., & Inks, K.J. (2006). Takadimi: A rhythm system for all

ages. Music Educators Journal, 93, (2), 60-65.

 50

Ferrin, C.E. (2003). Music reading calisthenics: The effect of a consistent regimen

of sightreading and the effect of educational kinesiology upon the music

sightreading skills of high school music students. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 64 (08). (UMI No. 3100977)

Furneaux, S., & Land, M.F. (1999). The effects of skill on the eye-hand span during

musical sight-reading. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 266, (1436), 2435-

2440.

Galyen, S.D. (2005). Sight-reading ability in wind and percussion students: A

review of recent literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music

Education, 24.1, (14), 57.

Gaynor, J. (1995). Music reading comprehension: The effect of aid to chunking and

melodic predicting on sight reading performance achievement of secondary

school instrumental music students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56,

(12). (UMI No. 9611506)

Goolsby, T. (1994). Profiles of processing: Eye movements during sight-reading.

Music Perception, 12, (1), 97-123.

Gordon, E.E. (1976). Tonal and rhythm patterns. New York: State University of

New York Press.

Gordon, E.E. (1988). Learning sequences in music: Skill, content, and patterns.

Chicago: GIA.

Gordon, E.E. (1999). All about audiation. Music Educators Journal, 86, (2), 41-44.

Gordon, E.E. (2003). Learning sequences in music, 7th ed. Chicago: GIA.
 51

Gregory, T.B. (1972). The effect of rhythmic notation variables on sight-reading

errors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20, (4), 462-468.

Gromko, J.E. (2004). Predictors of music sight-reading ability in high school wind

players. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52, (1), 6-15.

Grutzmacher, P.A. (1987). The effect of tonal pattern training on the aural

perception, reading recognition, and melodic sight-reading achievement of

first-year instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 35, (3), 171-181.

Hiatt, J.S., & Cross, S. (2006). Teaching and using audiation in classroom

instruction and applied lessons with advanced students. Music Educators

Journal, 92, (5), 46-49.

Hicks, C.E. (1980). Sound before sight strategies for teaching music reading. Music

Educators Journal, 66, (8), 53, 55, 65, 67.

Hofstetter, F.T. (1981). Computer-based recognition of perceptual patterns and

learning styles in rhythmic dictation exercises. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 29, (4), 265-277.

Junda, M.E. (1994). Developing readiness for music reading. Music Educators

Journal, 81, (2), 37-41.

Karas, J.B. (2005). The effect of aural and improvisatory instruction on fifth grade

band students sight reading ability. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66,

(12). (UMI No. 3199697)

 52

Kendall, M.J. (1988). Two instructional approaches to the development of aural and

instrumental performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36,

(4), 205-219.

Klonski, E. (2006). Improving dictation as an aural-skills instructional tool. Music

Educators Journal, 93, (1), 54-59.

Larson, R.C. (1977). Relationships between melodic error detection, melodic error

detection, and melodic sight-singing. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 25, (2), 164-271.

Lautzenheiser, T., Higgins, J., Menghini, C., Lavender, P., Rhodes, T.C., &

Bierschenk, D. (2000). Essential elements. Milwaukee: Hal Leonard

Publishing Company.

Lehmann, A.C., & McArthur, V. (2002). Sight reading. In R. Parncutt & G.E.

McPherson (Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance

(pp.135-138). New York: Oxford University Press.

Liperote, K.A. (2006). Audiation for beginning instrumentalists: Listen, speak,

read, write. Music Educators Journal, 93, (1), 46-52.

Lowder, J.E. (1973). Evaluation of sight-reading test administered to freshman piano

classes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 21, (1), 68-73.

Luce, J.R. (1965). Sight-reading and ear-playing abilities as related to instrumental

music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 13, (2), 101-109.

 53

MacKnight, C.B. (1975). Music reading ability of beginning wind instrumentalists

after melodic instruction. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23, (1),

23-24.

Mann, R.G. (1991). The use of Kodaly instruction to develop the sight-reading skills

of undergraduate flute students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52,

(06). (UMI No. 9124822)

Mark, M.L. (1996). Contemporary music education. Belmont: Schirmer.

Maxwell, R. (1974). Fourteen weeks to a better band. Oskaloosa: C.L. Barnhouse

Company.

McPherson, G.E. (1994). Factors and abilities influencing sightreading skill in

music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, (3), 217-231.

Miller, R.E. (1988). Contributions of selected music skills to music sight reading

achievement and rehearsed reading achievement. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 50, (02). (UMI No. 8908779)

Milone, M. (1981). An introduction to modality-based instruction. Columbus:

Zaner-Bloser, Inc.

Mursell, J.L. (1943). Music in American schools. New York: Silver Burdett

Company.

Osborne, M.E., Wright, M.E., Adams, G.W., Ranucci, E.R, Garofalo, R.J., Wagstaff,

J.A., Swanzy, et al. (1976). The idea bank: Teaching sight-reading. Music

Educators Journal, 62, (7), 62-69.

 54

Patel, A.D., & Peretz, I. (1997). Is music autonomous from language? A

neuropsychological appraisal. In I. Deliege & J. Sloboda (Eds.), Perception

and cognition of music (p. 202). East Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd.

Pearson, B. (1993). Standard of excellence: Comprehensive band method. San

Diego: Neil A. Kjos Music Company.

Persellin, D.C. (1992). Responses to rhythm patterns when presented to children

through auditory, visual, and kinesthetic modalities. Journal of Research in

Music Education, 40, (4), 306-315.

Pierce, M.A. (1992). The effects of learning procedure, tempo, and performance

condition on transfer of rhythm skills in instrumental music. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 40, (4), 295-305.

Pinker, S. (2000). The language instinct. New York: Harper-Collins.

Price, H.E., Blanton, F., & Parrish, R.T. (1998). Effects of two instructional methods

on high school band students sight-reading proficiency, music performance,

and attitude. UpdateApplications of Research in Music Education, 17, (1),

14-20.

Priest, T. (2002). Creative thinking in instrumental classes. Music Educators

Journal, 88, (4), 47.

Rohwer, D., & Polk, J. (2006). Practice behaviors of eighth-grade instrumental

musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, (4), 350-362.

 55

Schleuter, S.L. (1984). A sound approach to teaching instrumentalists: An

application of content and learning sequences. Kent: Kent State University

Press.

Shehan, P.K. (1987). Effects of rote versus note presentations and rhythm learning

and retention. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35, (2), 117-126.

Sheldon, D.A. (1998). Effects of contextual sight-singing and aural skills training on

error-detection abilities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, (3),

384-395.

Sink, P.E. (1983). Effects of rhythmic and melodic alterations on rhythmic

perception. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, (2), 101-113.

Sloboda, J. (1985). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, D.J. (1988). An investigation of the effects of varying temporal settings on

eye movements while sight-reading trumpet music and while reading

language aloud. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, (02). (UMI No.

8910066)

Smith, N. (2006). The effect of learning and playing songs by ear on the

performance of middle school band students. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 68, (03). (UMI No. 3255935)

Stockton, J.L. (1982). An experimental study of two approaches to the development

of aural meter discrimination among students in a college introductory class.

Dissertation Abstracts Internation, 43, (718A). (UMI No. DA82-178056)

 56

Strouse, L.H. (2007). Improving rhythm reading in middle school band. Teaching

Music, 14, (5), 35.

Tellstrom, A.T. (1971) Music in American education: Past and present. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Thackray, R. (1969). Rhythmic abilities and their measurement. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 17, (1), 144-148.

Townsend, B.G. (1991). Relationships between sight-reading ability of college

freshmen wind instrumentalists and music experience, band experience, and

music aptitude. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, (12). (UMI No.

9214290)

Webster, P.R., & Zimmerman, M. (1983). Conservation of rhythmic and tonal

patterns of second through sixth grade children. Bulletin of the Council for

Research in Music Education, 3, (1), 28-49.

Wheeler, M.R. (1992). A comparative analysis of melodic and rhythmic music

reading skills of percussion and wind instrument students in selected North

Carolina high schools. Dissertation Abstracts Internations, 53, (10). (UMI

No. 9303961)

Wilthshire, E.S. (2006). The effect of visual and aural congruence on the sight-

reading of music notation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, (07).

(UMI No. 3224312)

 57

APPENDICES
 58

APPENDIX A

Bar Graph of Mean Test Scores

 59

Mean Score Improvement

56

54

52

50
Mean Score

Pre-test Score
Post-test Score
48

46

44

42
Read Rhythms Notated Rhythms
 60

APPENDIX B

Bar Graph of Instrument Familys Post-test Scores

 61

Mean Number of Mistakes Made on Post-test

30

25

20
Mean Number of Mistakes

Woodwind
15 Brass
Percussion

10

0
Instrument Family