CHAPTER 3- METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

In this action research project, I conducted four cycles of testing in my intermediate

middle school band class to determine if adding singing into the rehearsal would improve my

students’ ability to detect pitch errors. The students in my intermediate middle school band class

have one to three years of previous playing experience and are in seventh or eighth grade. Before

Cycle 1 began, I received approval from my principal to conduct this action research project as

well as distributed permission slips for the students and their parents to sign agreeing to be a part

of the project.1 Of the 41 students in my intermediate band class, 35 returned the permission slip.

Of the 35 students that returned their permission slip 26 were girls and 9 were boys.

METHODOLOGY

During each of the four cycles students were tested on a scale and a line in their Essential

Elements Book 1 method book. For the purpose of this paper we will call the method book

exercises MBEs. The scales chosen had been taught previously, however the MBEs had not. The

scales and MBEs were chosen based on my pacing guide for the 2018-2019 school year.2 The

testing measures used were pre- and post-tests, a questionnaire, and video recordings. I also kept

a journal to record observations about my teaching, the implementation of this project, and

students’ responses to singing.

Each cycle was approximately three weeks long. Students were given a pre-test on their

MBE on Monday and a pre-test on their scale on Tuesday in week one. Singing was incorporated

1 See Appendix 1

2 See Appendix 2
on both the MBE and scale on the rest of the school days in the week. Students had the

opportunity to sing the MBE for four days before their post-test and sing their scale for a total of

eight days. The following Monday in week two was when the post-test for the MBE was given. I

then gave the post-test for the scale on the Monday in week three. Percussionists played on either

bells or marimba for all scales and MBEs. Students and I were to count their pitch errors,

although rhythm errors were addressed because there were quite a few throughout the study. I

counted the errors as the students played their playing test and circled the pitches they played

incorrectly. Once students were done playing their test, they were instructed to look over their

music and determine which pitches they played incorrectly to calculate their number of pitch

errors. At the end of each cycle the results were calculated and averaged per student by dividing

the number of pitch errors by the number of students tested. Sufficient mastery of each MBE or

scale was considered equal or less than one pitch error per student.

CYCLE 1

Cycle 1 focused on testing my current method of teaching. For scales it included:

● identifying the notes affected by the key signature

● writing in the notes affected by the key signature
● saying the notes names
● saying the note names while fingering the notes
● starting at a much slower tempo and speeding it up

For method book exercises (MBEs), I did all of the previously listed techniques in addition to

saying the rhythm. On the first day of testing I had the students play MBE #92 from their

Essential Elements Book 1.3 This was the first time they had seen this line and the first time I had

ever given them a pre-test. My process for testing students is to roll a dice to determine which

3 See Appendix 3.
section would go first, each section is assigned a number. The trumpet section was to go first,

and my top trumpet player played first. This benefitted the students with strong audiation skills

because they got to hear how it sounded correctly before they had to play. This also showed me

which students’ audiation skills needed improvement.

I conducted a pre-test on their Bb Major Scale on the following day. However, they had

just had 2 months off from playing due to summer break and they were a bit rusty. I administered

their post-test for method book exercise (MBE) #92 from Essential Elements Book 1 in week 2

and their post-test for Bb Major Scale in week 3. During the pre-test and post-test, I counted how

many pitch errors the students made and wrote them on their rubric. After they played I asked

them to identify how many notes they thought they played incorrectly, if any, to determine how

well they were able to detect their errors and wrote that down as well.4 After Cycle 1 was

finished I adjusted the process for recording their errors so I could see their improvements more

accurately. The adjustment was to have the students have a copy of the score and have them

circle the notes they played incorrectly.5 So instead of them telling me a number of how many

errors they made, they could show me on a copy of their music that they turned in at the end of

the class. They were supposed to mark the score right after they played so they would better

remember which errors they made.

CYCLE 2

Cycle 2 began one week after the completion of Cycle 1 with a pre-singing questionnaire on

the students’ perceived skills with error-detection, general views on singing, and whether they

4 See Appendix 7.
5 See Appendix 8.
believed singing could help them improve on error-detection.6 This questionnaire was completed

through Google Forms. This cycle included a pre- and post-test on the Eb Major Scale and was

supposed to test MBE #106 in Essential Elements Book 1, however they were progressing so

quickly through the method book that I ended up testing them on MBE #113.7 After the pre-tests

I taught the students the solfege syllables and they wrote these down in their notes section in the

binders. They also wrote the syllables above their notes for both their scale and MBE. I thought

this would make it easier for them to follow along. Once I began teaching the scale and MBE, I

maintained the following order of steps:

● Sing the line with moveable Do solfege while using the keyboard (It might have been
better if I hadn’t used the keyboard, but I was not confident in my singing abilities or my
ability to stay on pitch)
● Have the students sing with me and keyboard
● Have the students sing without me, but I still played the keyboard

Depending on what my students needed I also incorporated the previously used steps from Cycle

1 which were:

● identifying the notes affected by the key signature

● writing in the notes affected by the key signature
● saying the notes names
● saying the note names while fingering the notes
● starting at a much slower tempo and speeding it up

The students and I each had a copy of their music where we circled the pitch errors they

made.8 Students were supposed to fill out the music score right after they finished playing their

test and then turn in the score at the end of class. After the tests were completed, I analyzed the

data and prepared for Cycle 3. Students weren’t filling out the music scores properly. Students

were either circling whole measures when one pitch error was made, or they weren’t circling

6 See Appendix 13.

7 See Appendix 4.
8 See Appendix 9 and 10.
anything and just writing the number of pitch errors they made at the top of the page. Due to this

I reviewed how to write in their results at the beginning of Cycle 3.

CYCLE 3

Cycle 3 began one week after the completion of Cycle 2 and consisted of all the previous

tests and steps of teaching, but these tests were conducted on the Ab Major Scale and MBE #136

in Essential Elements Book 1.9 Students had a lot of difficulty with the rhythm on MBE #136,

but I don’t believe it affected their pitch errors because the rhythm errors were due to not holding

longer notes full value. After the tests were completed, I analyzed the data and prepared for

Cycle 4. I also made sure to focus more on the rhythm in Cycle 4.

CYCLE 4

Cycle 4 began approximately five weeks after the end of Cycle 3 due to their first concert

of the year in November, parent teacher conferences, and Thanksgiving break. Cycle 4 also

consisted of conducting a pre- and post-test on a scale and MBE, but these tests were conducted

on the Bb Chromatic Scale and MBE #163 in Essential Elements Book 1.10 Due to time

constraints students sang their chromatic scale on a neutral “la” syllable instead of movable Do.

Students struggled to remember the solfege syllables on the major scales so it was decided that

including the new syllables for chromatic would have taken too much time for the students to

master. MBE #163 has very few notes but was more difficult with rhythm, so we spent an extra

amount of time isolating rhythms. A week after the final post-test, students filled out the post-

singing questionnaire to see if their thoughts had changed about their perceived skills with error-

9 See Appendix 5.

10 See Appendix 6.
detection, general views on singing and whether they believed singing had helped them improve

on error-detection.11 After these tests were completed, I analyzed the data and determined my

next steps in improving my students’ ability to detect errors.

CHAPTER 4- RESULTS

CYCLE 1

Cycle 1 consisted of testing the students on current teaching practices to get a control

sample before adding singing. Students were tested on the Concert Bb Major Scale and MBE

#92. Testing began at the start of the school year, after an 8-week summer break. Only pitch

errors were calculated, although rhythm errors were addressed because there were quite a few.

11 See Appendix 15.

Calculations were averaged per student by dividing the number of pitch errors by the number of

students tested. Sufficient mastery of each MBE or scale was considered equal or less than one

pitch error per student.

MBE #92 is a short line. It consists of 4 measures and its purpose was to introduce

concert E natural apart from the key signature. On the pre-test for MBE #92 students averaged .

97 errors per person, however they guessed that they averaged 2.47 errors per person. It was

surprising to see them overexaggerate their errors. On the post-test, which was conducted one

week later, students averaged .36 errors per person, and they did a much better job of guessing

their errors by averaging .79 errors per person. This was a 63% improvement in their note

accuracy.
12

Low Brass (trombone, baritone and tuba) and trumpets had the most pitch errors in the

pre-test, and they were also the groups that overexaggerated how many errors they actually

made. They recognized that they made a lot of errors, but they couldn’t pinpoint where their

errors actually were.

Table 1- MBE #92 (Average pitch errors per person by section)

All Flute Clarinet Saxophone Trumpet Low Brass Percussion

Pre-test- 2.4 2.38 1.86 0 3.8 4.5 1.33

Guessed 7

Pre-test- .97 .88 .86 2 1.2 1.5 .5

12 Tim Lautzenheiser, et al. “Essential Elements for Band: Comprehensive Band Method. Flute
Book. Book 1.” (Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard, 2004), 19.
Actual

Post-test- .79 1 1.11 .5 1 .5 0

Guessed

Post-test- .36 .67 .56 0 .2 0 0

Actual
* Bold numbers represent sufficient mastery of MBE.

Concert Bb Major Scale was the first scale they ever learned in the previous year or

years, but because most music is written in concert Bb Major, we review it every year. During

the pre-test students guesses averaged 1.84 errors per person, however they actually averaged

1.68 errors per person. The post-test was given 2 weeks later where their guesses averaged out

to .94 errors per person when in actuality, they averaged out to .58 errors per person. This is less

than 1 mistake per person and 65% improvement on note accuracy. This scale is exceptionally

difficult for clarinet due to them having to go over the break and a lot of their pitch errors were

due to this.

Clarinets and low brass had the most pitch errors, but for the pre-test they guessed less

pitch errors than they actually made. This showed that they weren’t hearing their pitch errors.

Their post-test showed that they were now hearing their pitch errors more clearly.

Table 2- Concert Bb Major Scale (Average pitch errors per person by section)
All Flute Clarinet Saxophone Trumpet Low Brass Percussion

Pre-test- 1.84 1.56 2.86 0 2.75 1.67 1.33

Guessed

Pre-test- 1.68 1.11 3 0 2 2.67 .83

Actual

Post-test- .94 .44 2 0 1.6 1 0

Guessed

Post-test- .58 .11 1.75 0 .2 1 0

Actual
* Bold numbers represent sufficient mastery of Scale.

CYCLE 2

Students were hesitant to start singing in Cycle 2, which began one week after the end of

Cycle 1. This was also their first-time singing movable Do solfege since elementary school.

Because of this, I had them write in the solfege syllables in their music for this cycle to give

them a little extra help remembering the syllables.

Cycle 2 began with a pre-test of MBE #113, students were supposed to be tested on MBE

#106, but they were moving so quickly through their method book that we ended up working on

MBE #113. This line is 16 measures long and written in concert Bb Major. There are no

accidentals, but there are dotted quarter notes and dotted half notes. During the pre-test students

guessed that they missed an average of 4 notes per students, when in actuality they missed 4.56

notes per student. The post-test showed that the students guessed that they missed an average of

2.12 notes per student when they actually missed an average of 1.58 notes per student. Because

they had never heard the line before, students couldn’t hear what it was supposed to sound like

and therefore couldn’t accurately tell which notes they missed. They did a much better job of

guessing their incorrect notes on the post-test. Their accuracy improved by 65%. However, I was

not pleased with the progress they made in this cycle because the students still had an average of

over 1 pitch error per student as shown below in Table 3.

 13

Based on the data, flutes and percussion struggled the most on the pre-test, but percussion

was able to make the most improvement. Flutes did not improve as much and ended up

averaging the most errors per student in their section. I believe this was due to a lack of

practicing and nerves during the playing test.

Table 3- MBE #113

All Flute Clarinet Saxophone Trumpet Low Brass Percussion

Pre-test- 4 2.56 3.29 0 5.6 2.33 7.83

Guessed

Pre-test- 4.56 4 2.86 .5 4.2 4 9.33

Actual

Post-test- 2.12 1.44 2.22 .5 3.8 3 1.67

Guessed

Post-test- 1.58 2.11 1.33 1 1.8 2 1

Actual
* Bold numbers represent sufficient mastery of MBE.

Cycle 2 also consisted of the Concert Eb Major Scale. Students averaged 2.58 pitch errors

per student during the pre-test, but they guessed 1.70 pitch errors per student. It’s interesting how

during the pre-test they guessed lower than during the post-test. I suspect that this is due to the

students not knowing how the scale is supposed to sound. During the post-test they guessed 2.09

pitch errors per student when they actually did 1.25 pitch errors per student. Although they

13 Tim Lautzenheiser, et al. “Essential Elements for Band: Comprehensive Band Method. Flute
Book. Book 1.” (Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard, 2004), 22.
improved, they only improved by 52%. Clarinets and flutes struggled the most on the pre-test,

however flutes improved dramatically whereas clarinets did not.

Table 4- Concert Eb Major Scale

All Flute Clarinet Saxophone Trumpet Low Brass Percussion

Pre-test- 1.70 1.56 3.38 0 2.4 1 0

Guessed

Pre-test- 2.58 2.78 5 1.5 1.8 2.33 .17

Actual

Post-test- 2.09 1 5 2 2.8 1.67 0

Guessed

Post-test- 1.25 .78 3.29 1.5 .8 1 0

Actual
* Bold numbers represent sufficient mastery of Scale.

CYCLE 3

Cycle 3 consisted of the Concert Ab Major Scale and MBE #136. It was supposed to be the

Concert F Major Scale, but I got confused with my scale order and ended up doing the Ab Major

Scale instead. As stated before, students were moving very quickly through their MBEs, so after

Cycle 1, MBE lines were chosen based on where we were in the book at that particular time. At

this point in testing, students were getting used to the rigorous amount of testing however they

were still expressing their dislike of singing.

The pre-test for MBE #136 came first. This line is 16 measures long when you don’t take

the repeat and only play the second ending, which is what we did. We had already worked on 1st

and 2nd ending with a different MBE, so I didn’t see a problem skipping that step. MBE #136 is

written in the key of Concert Eb Major and had zero accidentals. There were quite a few dotted
half notes and some dotted quarter notes and the students struggle with the rhythm quite a bit. On

the pre-test students guessed that they made an average of 3.72 errors per student, when they

actually averaged 3.34 errors per student. During the post-test students guessed that they

averaged 3.06 pitch errors per student when they actually averaged 1.62 pitch errors per student.

This was a 51% improvement in accuracy. Clarinets and trumpets had the highest errors in the

pre-test. Trumpets were able to improve to the class average, however clarinets made very little

improvement.
14

Table 5- MBE #136

All Flute Clarinet Saxophone Trumpet Low Brass Percussion

Pre-test- 3.72 2.78 4.33 2 6.67 7.33 1.5

Guessed

Pre-test- 3.34 1.11 6.22 2.5 7.67 2.33 1

Actual

14 Tim Lautzenheiser, et al. “Essential Elements for Band: Comprehensive Band Method. Flute
Book. Book 1.” (Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard, 2004), 26.
Post-test- 3.06 2.22 5 0 5.8 2.33 .5
Guessed

Post-test- 1.62 .33 4.22 0 1.6 1 .5

Actual
* Bold numbers represent sufficient mastery of MBE.

Concert Ab Major Scale showed some substantial improvement with the students. In the

pre-test they guessed that they averaged 2.27 errors per students when they actually averaged

2.53. The post-test showed that they guessed 1.06 errors per student when they really averaged .

71 errors per student. This scale showed the greatest accuracy improvement of 72%. They were

also under the average of 1 pitch error per student.

Table 6- Concert Ab Major Scale

All Flute Clarinet Saxophone Trumpet Low Brass Percussion

Pre-test- 2.27 1.67 2.33 0 2.5 8.67 .5

Guessed

Pre-test- 2.53 1.33 3.50 1.5 2.25 9.33 .5

Actual

Post-test- 1.06 1.25 .75 0 1.8 2.67 0

Guessed

Post-test- .71 .63 1.25 0 .4 1.67 0

Actual
* Bold numbers represent sufficient mastery of Scale.

CYCLE 4

There was a five-week gap between Cycle 3 and Cycle 4 due to the fall concert, parent

teacher conferences, and Thanksgiving break. However, by the time we got to Cycle 4 students

no longer objected to singing. They also projected more and were singing more in tune. Cycle 4

consisted of testing MBE #163 and the Concert Bb Chromatic Scale.

 MBE #163 was much shorter than the last two MBEs tested, being only eight measures

long. It also consisted of only four note pitches throughout. It is written in the key of Concert Eb

Major, but it’s really just an Ab Major Triad. The rhythm was far more difficult than the notes, so

we spent quite a bit of time singing and counting the rhythm. Students guessed that they

averaged 7.33 pitch errors per student, when they actually averaged 4.30 pitch errors per student

on the pre-test. On the post-test the students did improve a great deal with an accuracy

improvement of 76%. They guessed that they averaged 1.63 errors per student, they actually

averaged 1.03 errors per student. Clarinets and saxophones had the greatest pitch errors in the

pre-test, they also had the largest improvements with saxophones having zero errors on their

post-test and clarinets averaging .38 errors on their post-test. Trumpets, however, increased in

errors on their post-test by going from 4.2 to 4.6 average errors per student. Initially, I thought

the reason trumpets did so poorly on their MBE #163 was because they were focusing on their

chromatic scale, or they just weren’t practicing enough. However, after analyzing the data it

showed that one trumpet player played almost every note too high, producing 23 errors whereas

the rest of the section performed quite well.

15

Table 7- MBE #163

All Flute Clarinet Saxophone Trumpet Low Brass Percussion

Pre-test- 7.37 4.57 13.29 5.5 10.6 6 3.33

15 Tim Lautzenheiser, et al. “Essential Elements for Band: Comprehensive Band Method. Flute
Book. Book 1.” (Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard, 2004), 31.
Guessed

Pre-test- 4.30 3.29 8.57 7 4.2 2 1.17

Actual

Post-test- 1.63 .67 2 .5 5.6 .5 0

Guessed

Post-test- 1.03 .67 .38 0 4.6 .5 0

Actual
* Bold numbers represent sufficient mastery of MBE.

For the Concert Bb Chromatic Scale, I gave the students a choice on singing their notes

on a neutral “la” syllable or continuing with Solfege, the students chose to sing on the neutral

syllable “la”. Students guessed that they averaged 3.58 pitch errors per student when they

actually averaged 2.71. At the post-test students guessed that they averaged 1.41 errors per

student when they actually averaged .81 errors per student. The percent of accuracy improvement

was 70%. Low brass and clarinets struggled the most on this scale. They were able to make a

substantial improvement; however, low brass was not able to reach sufficient mastery.

Table 8- Concert Bb Chromatic Scale

All Flute Clarinet Saxophone Trumpet Low Brass Percussion

Pre-test- 3.58 3.89 3.86 2.5 3.8 8.33 0

Guessed

Pre-test- 2.71 3.22 3.86 3 1.2 5.33 0

Actual

Post-test- 1.41 1 1.43 .5 1.8 5.33 0

Guessed

Post-test- .81 1.22 1 0 .2 2.67 0

Actual
* Bold numbers represent sufficient mastery of Scale.
PRE-SINGING QUESTIONNAIRE

Students were given a questionnaire after Cycle 1 but before the beginning of Cycle 2 to

gauge their thoughts on singing. 32 out of 35 participants completed the questionnaire. I asked

the students to measure their level of awareness towards pitch errors and rhythm errors. 37.5% of

students said they could always tell when they were making pitch errors. 46.9% of students said

they could mostly tell when they made pitch errors. I asked students to describe what they could

hear when looking at a new piece of music, ranging from nothing to all notes and rhythms.

40.6% of students said they could hear all notes and rhythms and 34.4% of students said they

could hear most notes and rhythms.16

Next, I asked them their desire to sing. Not surprisingly, 37.5% of students said they

never want to sing in band and 25% said they almost never wanted to sing in band. For the next

question I asked the students to tell me their thoughts on singing. 50% said they don’t like it, but

25% said they either liked the idea of singing or loved it. 43.8% of students believe singing could

help improve the band, and 50% were unsure and said it might improve the band. They believed

that singing would help them make less errors on notes and rhythms, but specifically notes.17

Table 9- Pre-Singing Questionnaire

1=Never, 5=Always 1 2 3 4 5

Student’s ability to detect 0% 0% 15.6% 46.9% 37.5%

pitch errors

Student’s ability to detect 3.1% 6.3% 31.3% 46.9% 12.5%

rhythm errors

Student’s desire to sing in 37.5% 25% 18.8% 12.5% 6.3%

16 See Appendix 14.

17 See Appendix 14.
class

POST-SINGING QUESTIONNAIRE

Once we were done with testing, students were given a similar questionnaire to complete.

All 35 students completed this post-singing questionnaire. I was very pleased with the responses

the students gave. From the pre-singing questionnaire to the post-singing questionnaire students

became less sure, or more aware of their limitations when identifying pitch errors. For instance,

37.5% of students said they could always detect pitch errors in the pre-singing questionnaire

where now only 22.9% students believed they could always detect pitch errors in the post-

singing questionnaire. The lowering of this number suggests that students have become more

aware of their pitch errors. Another example to suggest this is that 46.9% of students said they

could mostly tell when they made pitch errors in the pre-sing questionnaire and now 54% of

students believe that they can mostly detect pitch errors. The increase of this number suggests

that the students who believed that they could always tell when they were playing pitch errors are

now more aware that they can’t always tell. The next question asked students their belief on their

ability to detect rhythm errors. From the pre-singing questionnaire to the post-singing

questionnaire the data suggests that most students believe their ability to detect rhythm is average

with 31.3% of students selecting 3 out of 5 on the questionnaire in the pre-singing questionnaire

and 42.9% of students selecting 3 out of 5 on the post-singing questionnaire. As for students

identifying what they could hear the first time they look at a piece, the numbers stayed pretty

close to the same with 40% being able to hear both notes and rhythms and 31.4% being able to

hear most of the notes and rhythms in the post-questionnaire.

 The next question asked students if their ability to detect pitch errors had improved and

94.3% said that it had improved. 77% also believed their ability to detect rhythm errors had

improved. Their desire to sing also changed for the better with only 11.4% saying they never

want to sing in class. 42.9% were neutral on singing in class. 88.6% of students believed that

singing helped them improve in band and 48.6% believed that it helped improve their ability to

play correct notes.18

Table 10- Post-Singing Questionnaire

1=Never, 5=Always 1 2 3 4 5

Student’s ability to detect 0% 5.7% 17.1% 54.3% 22.9%

pitch errors

Student’s ability to detect 0% 11.4% 42.9% 31% 14.3%

rhythm errors

Student’s desire to sing in 11.4% 20.0% 42.9% 17.1% 8.6%

class

18 See Appendix 16.