The link information below provides a persistent link to the article you've requested.

Persistent link to this record: Following the link below will bring you to the start of the article or citation.
Cut and Paste: To place article links in an external web document, simply copy and paste the HTML
below, starting with "<a href"
To continue, in Internet Explorer, select FILE then SAVE AS from your browser's toolbar above. Be
sure to save as a plain text file (.txt) or a 'Web Page, HTML only' file (.html). In FireFox, select FILE
then SAVE FILE AS from your browser's toolbar above. In Chrome, select right click (with your mouse)
on this page and select SAVE AS

Record: 1
Title: Teachers' Verbal Corrections and Observers' Perceptions of
Teaching and Learning
Authors: Duke, Robert A.
Henninger, Jacqueline C.
Source: Journal of Research in Music Education, 4/1/2002, Vol. 50,
Issue 1, p. 75-87
Publisher Information: MENC: The National Association for Music Education
Publication Year: 2002
Description: We tested whether observers' perceptions of private lessons
are affected by the type of verbalizations used by teachers to
make corrections in student performance. We compared
verbal corrections that were expressed as directive
statements (i.e., specific directions to change some aspect of
performance in a subsequent trial) and verbal corrections
expressed as negative feedback statements (i.e., negative
evaluations of student performance in a preceding
performance trial). Participants viewed two videotaped private
lessons. In one lesson, all corrections of student performance
errors were expressed as directions to change some aspect
of performance in the subsequent trial. In the other lesson, all
corrections were expressed as negative feedback statements
followed by a direction to play again. Subjects responded
using a paper-and-pencil questionnaire with 10 statements
about the teacher and student in each lesson. There were no
meaningful differences in subjects' responses between the
two lessons, both of which were rated highly positively. Asked
to cite differences observed between the two lessons, few
subjects identified any aspect of the teacher's feedback.
Document Type: research article
Language: English
ISSN: 00224294
19450095
Availability: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345694
 Rights: Copyright 2002 Society for Research in Music Education of
MENC
Accession Number: edsjsr.3345694
Persistent link to this record http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
(Permalink): direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.3345694&site=eds-
live&authtype=ip,cookie,uid
Cut and Paste: <A href="http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.3345694&site=eds-
live&authtype=ip,cookie,uid">Teachers' Verbal Corrections
and Observers' Perceptions of Teaching and Learning</A>
Database: JSTOR Journals

TEACHERS' VERBAL CORRECTIONS AND OBSERVERS' PERCEPTIONS OF

TEACHING AND LEARNING
We tested whether observers' perceptions of private lessons are affected by the type of
verbalizations used by teachers to make corrections in student performance. We compared verbal
corrections that were expressed as directive statements (i.e., specific directions to change some
aspect of performance in a subsequent trial) and verbal corrections expressed as negative feedback
statements (i.e., negative evaluations of student performance in a preceding performance trial).
Participants viewed two videotaped private lessons. In one lesson, all corrections of student
performance errors were expressed as directions to change some aspect of performance in the
subsequent trial. In the other lesson, all corrections were expressed as negative feedback
statements followed by a direction to play again. Subjects responded using a paper-and-pencil
questionnaire with 10 statements about the teacher and student in each lesson. There were no
meaningful differences in subjects' responses between the two lessons, both of which were rated
highly positively. Asked to cite differences observed between the two lessons, few subjects identified
any aspect of the teacher's feedback.

Teacher feedback is widely accepted as a primary component of effective instruction in all

disciplines. Published textbooks about teaching and learning devote considerable attention to the
role of feedback in the teaching-learning process, and the topic of teacher feedback is prominently
featured in the research literature in education. In fact, in the experimental and descriptive research
on music teaching published over the last quarter century, verbal feedback is the most widely
studied component of teacher behavior (Duke, 2000).

The work of expert teachers has been examined extensively in music education, and the data from
this research show not only what experts do in classrooms, rehearsals, and lessons, but also what
differentiates the teaching of experts from the teaching of other experienced teachers and novices.
Careful analysis of the results reveals remarkably consistent findings about the role of feedback in
effective music instruction, findings that are in some ways at variance with commonly held notions
about what excellent teaching should comprise.

Systematic observation of music performance instruction shows that expert teachers' verbal
feedback differs from the verbal feedback of nonexperts in terms of rate, content, and specificity.
Expert teachers give feedback frequently, approximately 1-2 feedback statements per minute in
most analyses. These high rates of feedback are not a result of experts' giving feedback after every
student performance trial, however--in fact, experts generally give feedback following fewer than
30% of all student performance trials--but are a result of experts' fast pace of instruction. Individual
episodes of teacher and student activity in experts' lessons and rehearsals are shorter in duration
than are episodes observed in the teaching of nonexperts (Buckner, 1997; Goolsby, 1997;
Siebenaler, 1997), and this rapid alternation between teacher activity and student activity creates
frequent opportunities for students to respond and receive feedback about their performance (Duke,
Prickett, & Jellison, 1998).

The content of feedback also differs between experts and others. Experts give negative feedback at
rates that are equal to or greater than corresponding rates of positive feedback. Teachers of
secondary-level performance classes in particular tend to give more negative feedback than positive
feedback, but nevertheless maintain very high levels of student attentiveness (Carpenter, 1988;
Cavitt, 1998; Derby, 2001; Madsen & Alley, 1979; Yarbrough & Price, 1981, 1989; Younger, 1998),
an effect that has been attributed to the reinforcing qualities of music participation, but one that has
not been explained empirically. In group comparisons, expert teachers, experienced teachers, and
teachers whose work is rated highly by expert observers all provide more negative feedback than do
other teachers with whom they are compared (Buckner, 1997; Carpenter, 1988; Siebenaler, 1997;
Speer, 1994; Yarbrough & Price, 1989).

Interestingly, the type of student behavior to which feedback is directed (e.g., social or academic) is
not typically identified in music research that includes feedback as a dependent measure. In those
investigations in which the topic of the negative feedback is reported, and in which high proportions
of negative feedback are observed in the classes and lessons of experienced and expert teachers,
the negative feedback is directed almost entirely toward students' performance skills and not their
social behavior (Carpenter, 1988; Kostka, 1984; Yarbrough & Price, 1981).

Experts' feedback statements also differ from the feedback statements of other teachers in terms of
specificity. Experts provide more specific positive feedback than do other teachers, and give much
less nonspecific positive feedback (Cavitt, 1998; Goolsby, 1997; Siebenaler, 1997). Positive
feedback statements given by nonexpert teachers with relatively high rates of positive feedback are
often nonspecific (Colprit, 2000; Goolsby, 1997; Hendel, 1995; Speer, 1994), but most all teachers'
negative feedback statements are more specific than their positive feedback (Carpenter, 1988;
Yarbrough & Price, 1989).

In sum, the teaching of experts is characterized by high rates of specific positive and negative
feedback, rates which are facilitated by experts' structuring frequent student response opportunities.
In comparison to the verbal feedback of experts, the verbal feedback of nonexperts is generally less
frequent, more positive, less specific, and more often directed toward students' social behavior.

Informed discussion of feedback in teaching is complicated by the different labels applied to

feedback in the published literature, especially with regard to teachers' negative evaluations of
students' work. In contrast to the ready acceptance of the terms positive feedback, approval, and
positive reinforcement in the literature in music education, the terms used for negative evaluations of
students' performance and behavior are inconsistently applied (Duke, 2000). Negative feedback,
corrective feedback, disapproval, and negative reinforcement all appear in the music education
lexicon, and although these terms have different meanings, they are generally applied to the same
type of verbalization. In this investigation, we use the term negative feedback, which we define as a
negative evaluation of a student's behavior or performance (Duke, 1999).

There is a history in our discipline of categorizing verbal corrections based on the structure of the
verbalizations rather than on the information they convey. For example, if following a student's
performance of a given passage a teacher were to comment, "The sixteenth notes were uneven. Try
it again," the teacher's statements would be categorized as a disapproval or negative feedback
statement ("The sixteenth notes were uneven.") and a directive ("Try it again."). If, following the
same performance, the teacher were to have said, "Try it again, and make the sixteenths more even
this time," these statements would both be recorded as directives.

It seems generally accepted that the second way of responding to the student's performance is
"more positive" in that it avoids straight-forwardly pointing out an error in the student's work (in this
case, playing unevenly) and instead provides direction as to how to perform more successfully in the
subsequent trial. The statements in both examples, however, convey the very same information to
the learner about the preceding and subsequent performance trials ("You just played the passage
unevenly; play again, but more evenly this time."). When there are frequent alternations between
student performance trials and teacher verbalizations, as is the case in most music performance
settings, each negative feedback statement may imply a direction to change some aspect of the
performance in a subsequent trial, and each specific directive may imply a negative feedback
statement about the preceding trial. Thus, in the course of music instruction, specific directives and
specific negative feedback statements may serve similar functions (i.e., to communicate to the
student that something about his or her performance needs to change), and, if this is true, then it
may not be appropriate to categorize teacher verbalizations in a way that implies that all negative
feedback statements are similar, that all directive statements are similar, or that all negative
feedback statements are functionally different from all directive statements.

Although there seems to be a general consensus that conveying corrective information through
verbal directives is preferable to conveying corrective information through negative feedback, this
question has been subjected to little empirical investigation in the context of complete teaching
episodes that culminate in the accomplishment of a recognizable goal. Whether these types of
verbalizations actually exert different effects on the learners to whom they are directed remains an
open question.

To test whether students' performance achievement and attitude would be affected differently by
verbal corrections expressed as negative feedback statements and verbal corrections expressed as
directives, we taught 25 fifth and sixth graders and 25 college undergraduates to play the soprano
recorder under two experimental conditions (Duke & Henninger, 1998). In one condition, the teacher
conveyed corrective information primarily through negative feedback as described above; in the
other, the teacher conveyed corrective information primarily through directives (i.e., specific
directions to change some aspect of performance in a subsequent trial), avoiding negative feedback
statements. We found that performance achievement and attitude were unaffected by the
experimental conditions. Elementary students and undergraduates, all of whom successfully
accomplished the target performance goal, expressed highly positive attitudes about their
experience. The finding that learners could successfully achieve a music goal and view the
experience positively, irrespective of the rates of negative verbal feedback from the teacher,
highlights the importance of performance achievement as a primary factor influencing students'
attitudes and perceptions of self-efficacy.

Our purpose in the present investigation was to determine whether third-party observers'
perceptions of teaching and learning are affected by different forms of verbal correction when viewed
in the context of successful lessons. Earlier investigations of expert observers' evaluations of music
teaching have failed to show a relationship between overall ratings of teaching quality and feedback
(Carpenter, 1988; Madsen, Standley, Byo, & Cassidy, 1992). In the current investigation, we showed
undergraduate music education majors videotape recordings of two of the recorder lessons from our
earlier investigation (Duke & Henninger, 1998), one each from the two experimental conditions
described above, and asked them about their perceptions of the students and the teacher observed.

METHOD
Subjects were 51 undergraduate students enrolled in teacher preparation programs in the Schools of
Music at The Ohio State University, Columbus, and The University of Texas at Austin. All subjects
were tested in groups during regularly scheduled classes in the music education curricula in their
respective institutions.

Subjects viewed videotapes of two complete private lessons that we selected from among the 50
lessons recorded in our earlier investigation (Duke & Henninger, 1998). In each lesson, a fifth-grade
student was taught by rote to play a one-line accompaniment for the theme to Sesame Street on the
soprano recorder. Both lessons were taught by the same teacher. Throughout the learning
procedure, the teacher explained and demonstrated each part of the task, and performed along with
the student until the student was able to perform independently. When the student had learned to
play the accompaniment part correctly, the lesson culminated with the target performance task: a
duet performance in which the teacher played the melody while the student played the single-line
accompaniment. The duration of each lesson was not predetermined; each lesson continued until
the performance goal had been accomplished successfully. The lessons were recorded in a typical
elementary classroom with a stationary videocamera on a tripod in full view.

In the Directive Lesson, the teacher made corrections in the student's performances primarily by
stating specific directives, which were defined as commands describing how the student should
perform in a subsequent performance trial. In response to a student's playing too loudly, for
example, the teacher directed the student to play again and identified what should be done
differently in the subsequent trial (e.g., "Try that again, and play a little softer this time."). The
teacher avoided negative feedback statements during the entire lesson; that is, the teacher avoided
negative, evaluative statements about individual student performance trials.

In the Negative Feedback Lesson, the teacher corrected the student's performance errors by
identifying what was wrong with the student's performance in a preceding trial. In response to a
student's playing too loudly in this condition, for example, the teacher first identified the error in the
preceding trial and directed the student to play again (e.g., "You played too loudly that time; try it
again.").

The teacher made no conscious attempt to change her personal demeanor between the two
experimental conditions and there were no obvious differences in the teacher's emotional tone when
delivering negative feedback statements and when delivering directives. The only independent
variable that was controlled systematically was the content of the teacher's verbalizations when
identifying aspects of students' performances in need of correction.
Although the teacher taught using a planned sequence of activities leading toward the culminating
duet performance, the sequence was adapted ad hoc in accordance with the needs of each student.
We made no attempts to control other categories of teacher verbalizations during the learning
procedure, but we selected lessons for this experiment that were closely matched in terms of the
relevant variables.

The numbers of teacher verbalizations, student performance trials, and the lesson durations for each
of the two lessons are shown in Table 1.( n1) The total number of feedback statements and the time
required to reach the target performance goal were nearly identical in the two lessons. Of course, in
keeping with the design of the research, the number of negative feedback statements in the
Directive Lesson was low compared to the number of negative feedback statements in the Negative
Feedback Lesson (see Table 1). Complementarily, the number of directive statements in the
Directive Lesson was high compared to the number of directive statements in the Negative
Feedback Lesson. Although the teacher found it impossible to avoid all negative feedback
statements in the Directive Lesson and to avoid all specific directives in the Negative Feedback
Lesson, the rates of negative feedback statements and directive statements seemed adequately
differentiated between the two lessons. These data indicate that there were no systematic
differences in the rates of feedback between experimental conditions.

Subjects viewed the two lessons during a single class meeting. The Negative Feedback Lesson was
shown first. After viewing each lesson, subjects expressed their perceptions first by responding to 10
statements about the student and the teaching in the videotape. The statements are printed below.

The student seemed to enjoy learning to play the recorder.

The student seemed to find it difficult to play the recorder.

I believe that this student would choose to continue learning to play the recorder.

This lesson seemed like a negative experience for the student.

The student seemed bored learning to play the recorder.

The student seemed confident about playing the song learned.

The teacher was helpful.

The student seemed frustrated during the lesson.

The teacher was encouraging and positive.

This lesson exemplified effective teaching.

Subjects responded to each statement using four-point Likert-type scales ("strongly disagree,"
"disagree," "agree," "strongly agree"). We purposely chose four-point scales to obviate a neutral
response and create a forced choice between agreement and disagreement. Following the
presentation of the second lesson, we asked subjects to describe any differences they had observed
between the two lessons. Their statements were later analyzed and categorized according to
content.
RESULTS
Subjects' responses were analyzed with a repeated measures ANOVA (University by Lesson).
There were no differences between the responses collected from the two universities on any of the
10 items on the questionnaire, F ( 1, 49) < 1.3, p > .26. The mean responses to the 10 statements
for the Directive Lesson and the Negative Feedback Lesson are shown in Figure 1. Note that four of
the statements were worded negatively, such that a subject's "disagreement" with these statements
indicates a positive response. Subjects' responses to the two lessons were not significantly different,
F ( 1, 49) < 3.85, p > .05, for 9 of the 10 questionnaire items, but subjects rated the Negative
Feedback Lesson higher than the Directive Lesson on the questionnaire item, "The teacher was
encouraging and positive," F ( 1, 49) = 9.22, p < .005, rating the lesson with a 2:1 ratio of
positive:negative feedback higher than the lesson with a 10:1 ratio of positive to negative feedback.
Although the mean responses to this item are significantly different from one another, the magnitude
of the difference is too small to be meaningful. There was no significant interaction between
University and Lesson on any of the 10 items.

The mean responses concerning subjects' enjoyment of the activity ("The student seemed to enjoy
learning to play the recorder.") and the teacher's helpfulness ("The teacher was helpful."), positive
approach ("The teacher was encouraging and positive."), and effectiveness ("This lesson
exemplified effective teaching.") were particularly high for both lessons, this despite the substantial
differences in the frequencies and rates of negative feedback statements between the two
conditions.

DISCUSSION
The results of this study and the results of our earlier investigation (Duke & Henninger, 1998) show
that, in the context of successful lessons in which students had frequent opportunities to respond
and in which there were high rates of positive feedback, the verbalizations used to make corrections
in student performance did not affect student attitude or achievement, nor did they affect observers'
perceptions of teaching and learning. Of course, our results are confined to the perceptions of 50
students and 51 observers; nevertheless, these findings demonstrate a need for continued research
and deliberate, informed discussion of this aspect of teaching and learning, as they call into question
prescriptions about effective teaching that advise teachers against making straightforward comments
about incorrect aspects of students' performance skills.

Not only did subjects in the current study rate both lessons highly positively, but, when asked to
describe the differences between the two lessons, few observers mentioned the teacher's
verbalizations, even though the differences in the corrective statements resulted in vastly different
ratios of positive and negative feedback. These results were quite unexpected. Although the
students in the lessons did not respond differentially to the two feedback conditions when the
lessons were taught (Duke & Henninger, 1998), we had anticipated that observers would be
influenced by the differences in the feedback ratios depicted in the videotapes.

It is important to note that the teaching to which subjects responded in this investigation embodied
all of the characteristics of expert teaching described in the review of literature. Episodes of teacher
activity and episodes of student activity were generally brief, resulting in a high level of interactivity
and numerous student response opportunities. Of course, within a given interval of instructional time,
the number of student response opportunities, a known correlate of effective instruction, is inversely
proportional to the duration of each performance trial. The shorter the duration of each student and
teacher activity episode, the greater the number of episodes and thus the greater the number of
opportunities to perform, repeat, refine, and receive feedback, both positive and negative. The tapes
presented in this investigation exemplified this highly interactive lesson structure. The teacher not
only gave frequent positive verbal feedback, but also structured the sequence of performance tasks
so that the students and observers recognized students' successful accomplishment of proximal
goals (near-term goals) throughout the lessons.

These results also raise important issues about systematic observation of teaching. Virtually all the
published research in our discipline differentiates between specific negative feedback statements
and directive statements, and much of the pedagogical literature discusses potentially deleterious
effects of negative feedback, in some cases proscribing the use of negative feedback entirely.
Careful examination of the research in music education reveals a different reality about the
application of negative feedback in excellent teaching, however. Expert teachers give negative
feedback at rates equal to or greater than the rates of positive feedback, a finding that is strikingly
consistent in studies of music teaching in context (Duke, 2000). The only exceptions to this have
been observed in the lessons of Suzuki string teachers, who consistently give positive feedback at
very high rates (Colprit, 2000; Duke, 1999).

Furthermore, there seems to be little evidence in the published literature that negative feedback, in
the context of successful lessons, adversely affects students' attitudes or levels of achievement, nor
does negative feedback affect evaluations of teaching by third-party observers. If this is true, then
those of us involved in systematic observation of teaching must reconsider many of the widely
promulgated taxonomies of teacher verbalizations, many of which are based on syntactic structure
rather than function.

It seems generally accepted at present that, following incorrect student performance trials, it is
preferable to tell a student what to do in a subsequent trial rather than identify errors in a preceding
trial. The data in music education do not support this position, at least, not in the context of
successful lessons in which students have many opportunities to respond. How did such conclusions
about negative feedback come about, and why do they persist in the face of countervailing data? We
offer two possible explanations, one of which concerns the way feedback data have been reported in
our literature and the other of which concerns the entangled relationships among the components of
teaching in context.

There is scant experimental literature in music education that describes the effects of positive and
negative feedback in authentic settings, and the results of what little research does exist show
smaller or null effects of various types of feedback on student attitude, attention, and achievement
(Duke, 2000). Much of the research literature that is cited as a basis for prescriptions about verbal
feedback is descriptive research in which the relationships between feedback and teaching
effectiveness are defined through correlation. Almost none of this research differentiates between
feedback that is directed toward students' academic skills, including performance, and feedback that
is directed toward students' social behavior. When correlations are obtained between high rates of
negative feedback, student inattentiveness, negative evaluations by observers, or poor student
achievement, it may be that the negative feedback observed is directed primarily toward students'
social behavior and not their academic performance (Madsen & Alley, 1979). This notion is
consistent with the feedback observed in the teaching of experts, whose frequent negative feedback
statements are directed almost entirely toward students' performance skills.
Further clouding explanations of teaching effectiveness is the fact that feedback is an inseparable
part of a complex social interaction between teachers and students. Although we in the research
community often measure feedback as if it exists in a vacuum, feedback in teaching is highly
contextualized, and the situational variables associated with any utterance defined as feedback are
as numerous as they are consequential.

One variable that seems of primary importance is the structure of student performance trials that are
the subject of feedback. Expert music teachers' instruction, like the teaching depicted in the
videotapes of the current study, is characterized by numerous repetitions of tasks; that is, students
are given multiple opportunities to "do it again." When there are many opportunities to repeat, there
are opportunities to correct errors identified in earlier trials that are the focus of negative feedback.
An expert teacher's attention to a given detail of performance seldom ends with a negative feedback
statement. The negative feedback defines a proximal goal and sets up the subsequent trials that
lead to its accomplishment. Thus, observers in the present study may have rated the Negative
Feedback Lesson positively because the rehearsal of all of the proximal goals ended with successful
performance trials.

Contrast this with the teaching of some nonexperts in which attention to a given detail often ends
with negative feedback, with the student having no immediate opportunity to successfully correct the
problem identified by the teacher. In this case, the negative feedback is part of a larger picture of
instructional inadequacy, the heart of which may not be the negative feedback at all, but the fact that
the student is unable to correct the errors that are identified. Both students and observers may view
such negative feedback as ineffective or even detrimental to the accomplishment of instructional
goals.

This contextualized view of negative feedback shifts the focus of attention from how much to when,
and seems to comport with the data on expert teachers in music, who give positive and negative
feedback at high rates and whose students have multiple opportunities to make improvements in
their performance through multiple repetitions of individual performance tasks. The current data and
the results of previous investigations suggest that high rates of negative feedback are not a causal
factor in ineffective teaching, but may be symptomatic of deeper flaws in the instructional process. If
this is true, then working to modify the rates and proportions of positive and negative feedback in the
teaching of novices may be an ineffective strategy for improving teaching absent commensurate
efforts to effectively structure sequences of instructional tasks. It is important to remember that
students in performance classes receive feedback about their skill in nearly every performance trial,
and these tangible indications of progress may be much more powerful than verbalizations from the
teacher. Skillful teachers create positive learning experiences moment to moment, not only by giving
positive feedback, but by carefully structuring the challenges that students face in each performance
trial.

NOTE
(n1.) In this analysis, we defined directive statements as commands indicating that the student or
students take some specific action in a subsequent performance trial (e.g., "Make this more
smooth." "Try to blow a steady stream of air."). Indications of where to begin playing (e.g., "Start at
the beginning.") or other nonspecific commands regarding what to play (e.g., "Try that again.") were
not included in this verbalization category. Positive and negative feedback statements were defined
as any evaluative statements that describe the performance of the student in a preceding
performance trial (e.g., "That was terrific." "You're still a little behind."). Each discrete subject
performance, either alone or together with the teacher, was counted as a performance trial. The
performance trial total includes "false starts" and other trials in which the subject was unable to
complete the assigned task. The time to reach the performance goal was measured from the
teacher's first instruction to the end of the final duet performance. Introductory comments and social
greetings at the beginning of the lesson and closing statements were not included in the time
measurement.

Table 1 Positive Feedback Frequency, Negative Feedback Frequency, Directive Frequency,

and Time to Reach Performance Goal (in Minutes) for the Directive and Negative Feedback
Conditions
A - Condition
B - Positive feedback n
C - Positive feedback rpm
D - Negative feedback n
E - Negative feedback rpm
F - Specific directives n
G - Specific directives rpm
H - Performance trials n
I - Performance trials rpm
J - Time (in mins) to reach performance criterion

A B C D E F
G H I J

Directive 41 2.7 4 0.3 16

1.0 46 3.0 15.4

Negative 30 1.9 15 1.0 9

0.6 60 3.9 15.5

Note. rpm = rate per minute.

GRAPH: Figure 1. Subjects' (N = 51) mean responses to 10 statements concerning the lessons
observed. Directive Lesson = corrections of student performance errors were expressed as
directions to change some aspect of performance in a subsequent trial. Negative Feedback Lesson
= corrections were expressed as negative feedback statements followed by a direction to play again.

REFERENCES
Buckner, J. L. J. (1997). Assessment of teacher and student behavior in relation to the
accomplishment of performance goals in piano Lessons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin.

Carpenter, R. A. (1988). A descriptive analysis of relationships between verbal behaviors of teacher-

conductors and ratings of selected junior and senior high school rehearsals. Update: Applications of
Research in Music Education, 7 (1), 37-40.

Cavitt, M. E. (1998). Systematic observation of error correction procedures in the rehearsals of

excellent middle school and high school band directors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin.

Colprit, E. J. (2000). Observation and analysis of Suzuki string teaching. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 48, 206-221.

Derby, S. E. (2001). Rehearsal of repertoire in elementary, middle, and high school choirs: How
teachers effect change in student performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of
Texas at Austin.

Duke, R. A. (1999). Teacher and student behavior in Suzuki string lessons: Results from the
International Research Symposium on Talent Education. Journal of Research in Music Education,
47, 293-307.

Duke, R. A. (2000). Measures of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin of the Council
for Research in Music Education, no. 143, 1-48.

Duke, R. A., & Henninger, J. C. (1998). Effects of verbal corrections on student attitude and
performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 482-495.

Duke, R. A., Prickett, C. A., & Jellison, J. A. (1998). Empirical description of the pace of music
instruction. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 265-280.

Goolsby, T. W. (1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of three career

levels and preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 21-40.

Hendel, C. (1995). Behavioral characteristics and instructional patterns of selected music teachers.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 182-203.

Kostka, M. J. (1984). An investigation of reinforcements, time use, and student attentiveness in

piano lessons. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 113-122.

Madsen, C. K., & Alley, J. M. (1979). The effect of reinforcement on attentiveness: A comparison of
behaviorally trained music therapists and other professionals with implications for competency-
based academic preparation. Journal of Music Therapy, 16 (2), 70-82.

Madsen, C. K., Standley, J. M., Byo, J. L., & Cassidy, J. W. (1992). Assessment of effective teaching
by instrumental music student teachers and experts. Update: Applications of Research in Music
Education, 10 (2), 20-24.

Siebenaler, D. (1997). Analysis of teacher-student interactions in the piano lessons of children and
adults. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 6-20.

Speer, D. R. (1994). An analysis of sequential patterns of instruction in piano lessons. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 42, 14-26.

Yarbrough, C., & Price, H. E. (1981). Prediction of performer attentiveness based on rehearsal
activity and teacher behavior. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 209-217.

Yarbrough, C., & Price, H. E. (1989). Sequential patterns of instruction in music. Journal of Research
in Music Education, 37, 179-187.

Younger, K. G. (1998). Analysis of effective and ineffective instructional sequences in intermediate

level band and orchestra rehearsals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at
Austin.

Submitted August 6, 2001; accepted February 20, 2002.

~~~~~~~~
By Robert A. Duke, The University of Texas at Austin and Jacqueline C. Henninger, The Ohio State
University

Robert A. Duke is a professor of music in the School of Music, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX 78712-1208; e-mail: bobduke@mail.utexas.edu.

Jacqueline C. Henninger is an assistant professor of music education in the School of Music, The
Ohio State University, 106-G Hughes Hall, 1899 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210; e-mail:
henninger.13@osu.edu. Copyright 2002 by MENC: The National Association for Music Education.

Copyright of Journal of Research in Music Education is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.