The Effect of Specific Nonverb PDF

THE EFFECT OF SPECIFIC NONVERBAL CONDUCTING ELEMENTS ON
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS IN A CLASSROOM

REHEARSAL ENVIRONMENT
A dissertation submitted to the College of Fine and Professional Arts

of Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
John P. Roebke
December, 2005
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
UMI Number: 3203449
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3203449
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
Dissertation written by
John P. Roebke
B.M., Hastings College, 1989
M.Mus.Ed., University of Colorado, 1992
Ph.D., Kent State University, 2005
Approved by
ir, Doctoral Dissertation Committee
, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee
Accepted by
Director, School of Music
• CWXjjDblk_s. Dean, College of Fine and Professional Arts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................... iv
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................v
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 1
Need for the Study.....................................................................15
Purpose of the Study..................................................................16
Variables.....................................................................................17
Research Questions................................................................... 18
Definition of Terms................................................................... 19
Limitations................................................................................. 20
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............................................ 21

Studies in Nonverbal Communication.....................................21
Studies in Nonverbal Aspects of Conducting......................... 25
Issues of Teaching Effectiveness............................................. 36
III. METHODOLOGY................................................................................. 42
Development of PTEM.............................................................43
Treatment Tape..........................................................................45
Participants.................................................................................49
Collection of Data..................................................................... 49
Scoring of PTEM.......................................................................52
Analysis of Data........................................................................ 52
IV. RESULTS................................................................................................53
Preliminary Analysis of Data................................................... 54
Presentation of Data.................................................................. 54
V. DISCUSSION........................................................................................ 59
Summary of Findings................................................................60
Discussion and Implications....................................................62
Conclusions................................................................................70
Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research.... 71
APPENDIX
A. Perception of Teaching Effectiveness Measure...................................74
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................77
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I offer my sincere and grateful appreciation to Daryl Kinney who provided
support and enthusiasm in guiding this project to completion. Thanks also to Wayne
Gorder who was a model of wisdom, civility, and intellectual curiosity, to Janet Meyer
who helped me begin my research, to Dwayne Wasson who offered much needed
support, encouragement, and stability as my project drew to a close, and to John Lee and
Jere Forsythe for guidance along the way.
Thank you to persons who assisted with the collection of data for this project,
especially Laurie Lafferty, Tad Greig, John Venesky, Dan Schmidt, and Angela Adkins.
Many thanks to all who helped me throughout this endeavor, especially the
students, faculty, and staff at Waterloo High School, as well as Betsy Page, Nancy
McCracken, Bob Stadoulis, Fr. John Jerek, and the parishioners of University Parish for
their interest and encouragement.
Most of all I thank my loving wife, Carmen, for keeping me clothed and well fed,
and for always remembering my best qualities while overlooking my flaws.
iv
DEDICATION
To my late father, Andrew,
who always was very impressed by the letters P - H - D,
and to my mother, Linda,
who tempered Dad’s exuberance by saying the letters only mean,
“Piled Higher and Deeper,”
both constant advocates for my continuous pursuit of education.
* * *
AMDG
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Instrumental music teachers encounter a variety of conducting/teaching styles
through the course of their education and teaching experience. Many teachers tend to
teach as they were taught, some with a greater degree of success than others. While the
tendency may exist to emulate a middle or high school teacher, all teachers pass through
a teacher education program before entering the professional realm. One significant
factor affecting teacher preparedness in the classroom is effective teacher education.
The purpose of a teacher education program is to provide pre-service teachers
with information, skills, and experiences they need to become successful classroom
teachers. At the broadest point of dissemination, the information content may include
learning theory and basic school law. Technology skills may encompass topics from film
projectors to cutting-edge computer-assisted instruction. Pre-service teachers accumulate
educational experiences both in and beyond the halls of the university. But, in each area
of educational expertise, there are field-specific elements of teacher preparation.
Teacher education programs in colleges and universities address the development
of content-specific teaching skills. These are the skills unique to any academic
discipline. The more thoroughly prepared teachers are to educate students in their
classrooms, the more significant the results of those students’ learning experiences will
be.
Educators of pre-service music teachers need to be aware of the perceived
effectiveness of skills and professional practices imparted to their students. In this
endeavor music educators provide the pre-service music teacher with information and
skills specific to the discipline of music. One such skill specific to music education is
conducting.
The skill of conducting includes the development of specific gestures. This set of
conducting gestures is part of the broader field of nonverbal communication. Knowledge
of effective use of nonverbal components in conducting is one component of music
teaching that may contribute to effective music instruction.
Conducting
In the investigation of nonverbal components of conducting, it is necessary first to
review information from three main areas. The first area is the practice of conducting. A
second area is the issue o f gesture in conducting. Finally, the area of research in
conducting is addressed.
Conducting, as a practice, is defined in a variety of ways. In consulting an Italian
dictionary one finds that maestro is defined as “a master teacher or instructor” (Melzi,
1976, p. 210). Webster’s (1997) defined a conductor as “a person who directs an
orchestra or chorus, communicating to the performers by motions of a baton or the hands
his or her interpretation of the music” (p. 426). In practice, the conductor’s responsibility
is one of communication and interpretation. “Like all semiotic activities, conducting is
construed in terms of a hierarchy of meanings which complement each other: time-
3
beating movements - the signs of conducting - exist only as basic aspects of authority
over features of performance” (Galkin, 1988, p. 767). These definitions fail to address
the reality that in the United States most conductors are school music teachers.
A significant aspect of conducting is the gesture, or nonverbal behavior.
“Nonverbal behavior is not a single, unified phenomenon with but one type of usage, one
origin and one form of coding. Instead, facial and body behavior involve a number of
quite different behaviors” (Ekman & Friesen, 1969, p. 62-63). The development of
effective nonverbal behaviors can be a significant, if not imperative, element in the
training of a teacher/conductor. Ostling (1977) went so far as to suggest that it is possible
that aspects of conducting may be learned as acquired skills in nonverbal patterns of
behavior.
A variety of research has focused on identification and categorization of the
elements of conducting. In 1983, Berz conducted a study for the purpose of developing
an instrument designed to classify specific nonverbal conducting techniques. Berz
indicated in his introduction, “Since nonverbal communication is very important to a
conductor, it is also important to determine how a conductor uses nonverbal behaviors to
communicate” (Berz, 1983, p. 2). Hausmann (1984) conducted a similar study of coded
gestural analysis, which took into account and controlled the music used in the study. He
found in his results that gestures determined by and appropriate to a specific musical style
made a difference in ensemble interpretation. In his summary of research in music
teacher effectiveness, Brand (1985) commented, “Frequent eye contact, use of physical
gestures, and variation of facial expressions and speaking voice are characteristics of
4
many effective directors.” A study by Dickey (1988) compared verbal and nonverbal
instruction techniques. Through his study, involving four middle school band classes
receiving all verbal or all modeling instruction, he found that all-nonverbal instruction
was a more efficient means of teaching than was all-verbal instruction.
Different gestures convey different meanings. Green (1987) reduced expressive
conducting gestures into two types: “the active gestures, requiring a response from the
players, and the passive gestures, which ask only for silence, no sound, from the members
of the ensemble. The active gestures are accompanied by much impulse of will on the
conductor’s part; the passive gestures show an apparent lack of this factor” (p. 47). If a
gesture conveys no meaning, it should not be incorporated into conducting. McElheran
(1966) emphasized the importance of cleanliness in conducting technique. “Be sure that
everything you do has a purpose, and that it has a specific effect on the music. Otherwise
eliminate it. The players see your arms flapping around enough as it is, without having
the scene cluttered with meaningless frills” (p. 63).
As several researchers have worked to codify and categorize nonverbal
conducting gestures, it should be noted that gestures commonly taught in conducting
classes and used by conductors sometimes fail to convey intended meaning to
performers. This idea is found in the orchestra pedagogy book, Training the High School
Orchestra. “The motions necessary to communicate clearly with an orchestra are more
varied than the diagrams in conducting manuals would lead us to believe” (Rothrock,
1971, p. 178). In his dissertation, Sousa (1988) investigated the relationship between
5
conducting gesture and player response. His study sample included musicians ranging
from 7th grade to university graduate student. In his conclusion he states:
It can no longer be assumed that the conducting gestures commonly taught

in the college classroom and recommended in conducting textbooks have
universal interpretation by instrumental performers. Even the college
population did not recognize all of the gestures thought to be in common
usage. It should also be noted that only seven of the fifty-five
instrumental conducting gestures had 100% recognition by the college
students (p. 90).
Without understood meaning, the value of the communication that takes place between
conductor and ensemble is limited.
In research linking the practice of instrumental conducting with nonverbal
communication, few researchers have referred to primary literature of nonverbal
communication research. For instance, Berz (1983), Francisco (1994), Grechesky
(1985), and Sousa (1988), each suggested the need for research beyond their dissertations
combining the areas of conducting and nonverbal communication. Buell (1990) was
specific in his recommendation for future research in asking, “Are there elements of
gestural communication relating to expression in music which can and should be taught?”
(p. 164).
6
Nonverbal Communication
Nonverbal communication on the part of the conductor and reception by the
ensemble is the essence of conducting. A definitive element of conducting is the
nonverbal gesture. As a well-developed area of social science, the field of
communication is replete with information germane to this issue.
Ekman and Friesen (1972) describe emblems as nonverbal acts that have a direct
verbal translation. Emblems are used to convey specific messages to other people. A
linguistic translation of an emblem is usually a word or a short phrase. By definition, the
message of an emblem could be verbalized without significantly altering its meaning.
Emblems most often occur when verbal communication is prevented by external
circumstance (e.g., between pilot and landing crew), by distance (e.g., between hunters
spaced apart from each other in the field), by agreement (e.g., while playing charades), or
by organic impairment. Emblems can be either arbitrarily or iconically coded. This
means that one might use an emblem that looks something like the message it conveys
(e.g., Churchill’s “V for victory” sign), or meaning may be agreed upon for an emblem of
an arbitrary nature (e.g., a shrug of the shoulders for “I don’t know”). Emblems can
involve actions in any part of the body, although typically they involve the hands, head
orientation, facial muscular movement, and/or posture.
Emblems are developed primarily through enculturation. That is, the meaningful
translation of an emblem is understood primarily by members of a specific group or
culture (Johnson, Ekman & Friesen,1975). Thus, by definition, emblems require some
sort of explanation in order to be correctly interpreted by the recipient. This may explain
the conclusions of Sousa (1988) that student musicians correctly interpreted few
conducting gestures. Cofer (1998) suggests that research be pursued which examines the
effect of conducting-gesture instruction on student learning in a rehearsal situation. In
practice, this would meet the definition of emblem by creating meaningful nonverbal
gestures understood by both the sender and the recipient.
In addition to emblems, illustrators are movements or gestures that are directly
related on a moment-to-moment basis with the elements of speech, and they may
augment what is being said verbally (e.g. a gesture tracing a line of thought). Illustrators
are similar to emblems in that they are used with awareness and intent, although the use
of illustrators is usually in peripheral, not focal, awareness. Illustrators differ from
emblems in a number of ways. Many illustrators do not have as precise a verbal
definition as emblems. For some illustrators there is no obvious or agreed upon verbal
translation of the act. Also, illustrators do not occur without conversation, while
emblems typically occur when the communicants cannot or choose not to converse.
Illustrators help the speaker explain and the listener understand what is said.
They also serve a self-priming function, helping a speaker through hesitations in his or
her speech or thought, and accelerating the flow of ideas (Ekman & Friesen, 1972).
Illustrators are socially learned. It is hypothesized that children learn illustrators during
language acquisition. Their chief function is probably to get the attention of adults, and
to help the child with a minimal vocabulary explain concepts for which he or she does not
yet have words (Ekman & Friesen, 1972). While children use illustrators for attracting
attention, adults may use illustrators advantageously to teach children. A study involving
the educational use of illustrators (Goldin-Meadow, Kim & Singer, 1999) showed that
students learn better when instruction is accompanied by matching gestures than they do
with gesture-less instruction.
Another element of nonverbal behavior is that of facial expression. “Although
nonverbal acts such as facial displays are often acknowledged to have communicative
value, the information and process by which we use nonverbal acts (including facial
displays) to convey information has been considered distinct from that underlying spoken
language” (Chovil, 1991, p. 142). While researchers have demonstrated similarity in
interpretation of facial displays of emotion across literate cultures, some nonverbal
communication researchers would argue that facial expressions of emotion are
specifically learned within a given culture. There is, however, “unambiguous evidence of
universality ... for the expressions of happiness, anger, disgust, sadness, and combined
fear/surprise” (Fridlund, Ekman & Oster, 1987, p. 159).
Facial expressions of emotion can provide accurate information about the
occurrence and intensity of pleasant, or positive, as compared to unpleasant, or negative,
emotional states. Observers of facial expressions also can distinguish among several
specific negative and positive emotions (Ekman & Oster, 1982). In Motley’s research
(1993) he showed that receivers in conversational situations attribute the sender’s
emotions more on the basis of the emotion assumed to be resulting from the shared
context than on the sole basis of the sender’s facial expression. It follows then that
interpretation of facial expression in conversation is heavily dependent upon the verbal
context (Motley, 1993).
9
Music Teacher Education
In order to meet the needs of students in our schools pre-service teachers must be
taught skills specific to their particular cognate area. The typical musical experience of
middle and high school students in public schools is in the area of large ensemble
participation. A resulting expectation is that music educators will be skilled conductors.
The National Association of Schools of Music handbook recommends that, “The
prospective music teacher must be a competent conductor, able to create accurate and
musically expressive performances with various types of performing groups and in
general classroom situations” (p. 84). Areas of instruction specified by NASM include
score reading and analysis, performance practices, and baton technique. Teachers of pre
service music educators in colleges and universities are faced with the task of imparting
these conducting skills within three to five semesters of instruction (Johnson,
Fredrickson, Achey & Gentry, 2003).
Differences in the development of conducting/teaching skills among music
teacher training programs results in a wide variety of conducting/teaching methods
implemented by teachers in the classroom. Some educators feel that the rehearsal of an
instrumental ensemble is best facilitated through frequent and consistent verbal
explanation (Byo & Austin, 1994). Other teachers believe that instrumental music
students learn best in a rehearsal situation involving nonverbal communication with
minimal discussion (Willard, 1986). Regardless of the method employed, clarity in
communication to the ensemble is the goal of the conductor’s technique.
10
Students involved in a dynamic classroom environment encounter previously
unknown ideas every day. Nonverbal conducting technique is not enough to explain
every situation in a satisfactory manner. Verbal communication on the part of the teacher
and consequent interaction between the teacher and learners are necessary components to
a productive educational process. “To teach is to communicate. To teach effectively
requires that positive human relationships be established between the teacher and his
students. Possession of superior musicianship and knowledge of methodology is not
enough” (Kohut, 1973, p. 8).
Nonverbal behaviors are a part of the pedagogical repertoire in which teachers
should be trained. Hunnicutt (1999) demonstrated that pre-service teachers trained in the
use of selected nonverbal behaviors had fewer student disruptions in their classes than the
untrained control group had. Yarbrough (1975) found that student ensembles rehearsed
and performed better with high magnitude teacher behavior than with low magnitude
teacher behavior. High magnitude behavior includes such nonverbal characteristics as
demonstrative facial gestures, expressive use of emblems in conducting, and vocalic pitch
variance implying enthusiasm on the part of the teacher.
Further, Grechesky (1985) found that one of the conductor behaviors related to
more expressive musical performances was a combination of verbal explanation and
verbal imagery. “It was shown that some verbal explanation is necessary in rehearsal, but
that verbal imagery has a much stronger affect on ranking. The use of metaphor,
analogy, simile, and other imagery can help clarify the musical conception for the group”
(Grechesky, 1985, p. 151).
11
The identification and evaluation of effective teaching techniques may provide
useful information to those who prepare future teachers. Students are the primary
audience of both effective and ineffective teachers. In fact, research has demonstrated
that high school age students know the difference between effective and ineffective
teachers, at least by perception if not through an understanding of pedagogical technique
(Aubrecht, Hanna & Hoyt, 1986). This perception of effective teaching may provide a
means toward categorizing specific behaviors contributing to teaching effectiveness. “An
objective observer can provide perceptions that are informative and useful for instructors
and leaders who are caught up in their own subjective interpretations of day-to-day
activities” (Acheson & Gall, 1992, p. 47).
Educational researchers have codified many components of effective teaching.
Yuzdepski and Elliott (1985) collected 19 components of effective teaching which they
found to have significant research documentation including:
1) Plans, Organization, and Implementation

- Arrangements and procedures worked out in advance of instruction by
the teacher and the extent to which these are appropriate and used.
2) Academic Learning Time
- The time a student is engaged with instructional materials or activities
that allow a high level of success for that student.
3) Teacher’s Expectations
- The appropriateness of the teacher’s predictions of the individual’s or
group’s achievements in a particular content area.
4) Teacher’s Awareness
- Alertness to pupil behavior at all times; “withitness,” having “eyes in the
back of one’s head.”
5) Concurrent Tasks Management
- The efficiency and ease with which a teacher handles various classroom
activities at the same time.
6) Pace o f Instruction
12
- The rate at which learning experiences are provided for pupils by the
teacher.
7) Classroom Management
- The teacher’s facility to anticipate, prevent and deal satisfactorily with
pupils’ interpersonal and academic difficulties. Success in appropriately
disciplining pupils.
8) Feedback to Pupils
- Verbal and non-verbal responses to students.
9) Time on Task
- Engaged time; the time a student is attending to instruction in a
particular content area.
10) Enthusiasm
- Teacher’s display of eagerness and zeal.
11) Clarity of Instruction
- The communication of the teacher is such that the students are totally
informed about what they should be doing, where to do it, and for how
long, in order to ensure that students do not lose time because they are
confused or because they are waiting for decisions to be made.
12) Task Oriented / Businesslike Orientation
- The degree of academic focus and the teacher’s directness in providing
academically focused instruction.
13) Variability of Instruction
- The appropriate use of variety in providing learning experiences for
pupils.
14) Flexibility
- The ease with which the teacher adapts and adjusts satisfactorily to
varying factors in the classroom setting.
15) Understanding of Instructional Goals
- The pupils’ comprehension about what they should be doing, where to
do it, and for how long.
16) Teacher Centred / Direct Instruction
- An instructional strategy where time spent on instruction is sufficient
and continuous, content covered is extensive, goals are clear to students,
materials are structured and sequential, questions are low level to produce
many correct student responses, student progress is monitored, feedback is
immediate and correct responses are reinforced. With direct instruction,
the teacher sets the goals, plans the activities, chooses the material;
questions are convergent, not divergent; interaction is structured, not
authoritarian; tasks are cognitive oriented, not humanistic.
17) Praise and Encouragement / Criticism
- The appropriate use of positive (e.g., praise and encouragement) and
negative (e.g., criticism) reinforcement methods.
18) Individualization of Instruction
13
- Teaching adapted to the background, ability, and needs of individual

learners.
19) Questioning Techniques
- Matching the types of questions asked of the student to the
characteristics of the student and to the instructional objectives.
They were cautionary in commenting that, “The nineteen criteria [are not] intended to be
utilized as an exhaustive checklist for evaluating teacher performance. The intent is
solely to indicate ... those teaching behaviors which have been empirically shown to
correlate with student achievement” (p. 51).
Saunders and Worthington (1990) made several comments relevant to teacher
effectiveness in the music classroom. “Research findings concerning the academic
classroom are not easy to apply to the music performance classroom due to a number of
characteristics unique to the group-rehearsal setting” (Saunders & Worthington, 1990, p.
26). They identified strategies that may promote teaching success in the performance
classroom by comparing the role of teacher in rehearsal situations to that of the teacher in
an academic classroom. One of the primary factors in this comparison was
communication. “No matter how well a lesson is planned or how skillful the teacher
might be at making decisions, the link that transfers ideas from the teacher to the student
is communication. .. .Directors who can communicate their ideas quickly and efficiently
will make the best use of limited rehearsal time, allowing more time for actual
performance” (p. 27-28).
Good teachers tend to have successful music programs, while the quality of music
programs facilitated by poor teachers tends to be lower. In seeking an answer to the
question of the wide variety in quality of school music programs, Baker (1982) stated,
“The answer is simple. To a great extent it is the difference between good teaching and
incompetent teaching.... A music program has little chance of success if poor teaching is
not recognized and corrected” (p. 5-6). Baker also provided descriptions of several
teacher-evaluation methods. Her descriptions included evaluative judgments as to their
accuracy and appropriateness to the music classroom. These teacher-evaluation formats
included: traditional rating systems - subjective in nature, the observer must make
subjective judgments within limited criteria for evaluation; checklists - consisting of a
series of categorized behaviors to be checked; selective verbatim - word-for-word
transcript of classroom dialogue; interaction analysis - measuring the number and type of
teacher-student interactions occurring during a class period. Baker stated that, “A
detailed search of the literature, correspondence with individual school districts, and a
nationwide mail search to Departments of Education revealed that only a minimal amount
of research has been conducted in the field of music teacher evaluation” (p. 80).
In his research into teacher evaluation Berz (1983) found that, “Numerous
attempts have been made to obtain objective measurements of teacher behaviors in the
classroom. However, a great many of these systems have concentrated solely on verbal
behaviors” (p. 34). Brophy (1993), in a review of relevant research, proposed several
broad areas in which music teachers might be appropriately evaluated. One of these
areas was the effective use of nonverbal strategies.
15
Need for the Study
An important factor bearing upon teacher preparedness in the classroom is the
acquisition of information by the pre-service teacher during the course of his or her
teacher education program. The purpose of any teacher education program is to provide
pre-service teachers with the information, skills, and experiences they need to become
successful classroom teachers. The more thoroughly prepared teachers are to educate
students in their classrooms, the more significant the results of those students’ learning
experiences will be.
In order to serve the needs of their constituency, educators of pre-service teachers
must be knowledgeable regarding the perceived effectiveness of the skills and methods
imparted to their students after these students become professional teachers. In this
endeavor, music educators provide the pre-service music teacher with information and
skills specific to the discipline of music.
Conducting, as it is taught to most music education students, includes the
development of specific gestures. These conducting gestures, being elements of
nonverbal communication, warrant some understanding of nonverbal communication.
Effective communication leads to effective teaching. Knowledge regarding effective use
of nonverbal components in conducting should result in effective music instruction. The
increase of knowledge in this area requires examination of the associated factors of
conducting, nonverbal communication, and pre-service music teacher preparation.
Teacher education programs intend to educate students by teaching them skills to
become effective teachers. Not all skills leading to effective teaching have been
16
identified. Research should be done to identify the effect of non-verbal symbols on
music teaching. Music teachers need information regarding teaching effectiveness which
can be used to make them better teachers. If the use of defined emblems in music
teaching situations increases the effectiveness of the classroom teacher then these skills
should be addressed in teacher training programs.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research was to examine and analyze the effect of specific
nonverbal behaviors (i.e., conducting emblems) on music education majors’ perceptions
of teaching effectiveness in the classroom environment of the instrumental music
ensemble (band) rehearsal. The nonverbal behavior of interest was the emblem,
specifically housed within the paradigm of conducting gestures. The current research
focused on a comparison of the presence or absence of defined emblems in
teaching/conducting situations.
College music education majors were engaged as subjects for this study for
several reasons. First, because of their background and experience as music students
themselves, music education majors have the ability to discriminate between good and
bad teaching (Aubrecht, Hanna & Hoyt, 1986; Murray, 1994). Second, they are being
trained to be teachers, therefore they should be thinking about what constitutes good
teaching. Third, they have experience in ensembles and should be able to identify and
evaluate conducting gestures (Sousa, 1988). Fourth, they may benefit directly from this
17
line of research. Finally, they may hold a personal interest in participating in this type of
study.
Variables
The independent variable in this research was the defined emblem as a specific
nonverbal behavior. This variable was manipulated at two levels: nonverbal exhibitor
and nonverbal inhibitor. The nonverbal exhibitor defined emblems as conducting
gestures. The nonverbal inhibitor used the same gestures as the nonverbal exhibitor, but
gave only verbal explanation without the concurrent gesture.
Ekman and Friesen (1972) described emblems as nonverbal acts that have a direct
verbal translation, which are used to convey specific messages to other people.
Meaningful translation of an emblem is understood primarily by members of a specific
group or culture (Johnson, Ekman & Friesen,1975). Because emblems by definition
require some sort of explanation in order to be correctly interpreted by the recipient the
lack of explanation negated the emblematic value.
The defined emblem is the key component of this study. Students may fail to
interpret conducting gestures correctly because their teacher/conductor did not define the
gesture adequately. If indeed this is the case the teacher may not be as effective as he/she
could be, and students may not be learning as well as they might.
A summary o f terms and definitions specific to this project appears later in this
chapter. The dependent variable is the numerical score derived from the use of the
Perception of Teaching Effectiveness Measure (described later).
Research Questions
This study was designed to answer the following research questions:
1. Do music education majors perceive a difference in overall teaching effectiveness
between nonverbal exhibitor and nonverbal inhibitor?
2. Do music education majors perceive a difference in teaching effectiveness
between nonverbal exhibitor and nonverbal inhibitor with respect to teaching
behaviors?
between nonverbal exhibitor and nonverbal inhibitor with respect to musical
competence?
4. Do areas of agreement exist between composite evaluations of the nonverbal
exhibitor model and the nonverbal inhibitor model?
In order to answer these research questions two rehearsal situations were scripted
by the researcher. The first situation included the use of a nonverbal exhibitor. For
example, the teacher/conductor demonstrated the emblem concurrently with a verbal
definition. The second rehearsal situation involved a nonverbal inhibitor. In this case the
teacher/conductor presented a verbal explanation without a corresponding gesture. An
adjudication instrument developed by the researcher for the purpose of assessing
perceived teaching effectiveness, which includes items related to teaching behaviors and
musical competence, was used in assessing each rehearsal situation.
19
Music education students from four mid-western colleges and universities
comprised the adjudicator sample for this study. Participants received instruction for
using the adjudication instrument. These participants watched one of the video samples,
the distribution of which was randomized. Following the viewing of the video sample
participants completed the adjudication instrument. Upon completion of the adjudication
process, the participants received an explanation of the research.
Data were assessed using appropriate descriptive and inferential statistical
measures. The independent variable was the presence or absence of the defined emblem.
Significance levels were set atp < .05.
Definition of Terms
Nonverbal communication: “Those attributes or actions of humans, other than the use of
words themselves, which have socially shared meaning, are intentionally sent or
interpreted as intentional, are consciously sent or received, and have the potential
for feedback from the receiver” (Burgoon & Saine, 1978, p. 9-10).
Emblems: nonverbal gestures intended by the sender to communicate meaning, the
meaning of which has been translated verbally by the sender to the receiver
(Johnson, Ekman & Friesen, 1975).
Nonverbal Exhibitor model: predominantly exhibited defined emblems within the context
of the demonstration video.
Nonverbal Inhibitor model: predominantly inhibited the use of defined emblems within
the context of the demonstration video.
20
Teaching effectiveness: a judgment based on a comparison between the observation of
two teaching samples. Although the classic interpretation of effective teaching
relies on a measurement of desired change in pupil behavior attributed to teacher
influence (Aubrecht, Hanna & Hoyt, 1986), for the purposes of this study
teaching effectiveness will be based on measurement of process rather than
product.
Limitations
One limitation of this study was the selection of convenient samples of
adjudicators. Random sampling of adjudicators was beyond the scope of this research
project. Because of this, it is understood that results of this research may not necessarily
be generalized to other situations. While the adjudicator sample may not be randomized,
it is representative of the described population. Generalization of results should be made
with caution.
A second limitation of this study is the definition of teaching effectiveness. True
teaching effectiveness could be, and oftentimes is, measured through student achievement
or behavioral outcomes as a result of the teaching technique. Because this study did not
focus on this particular way of measuring teacher effectiveness, conclusions with regard
to the effectiveness of teaching behavior is relegated to perceptions of collegiate music
education majors, which may or may not translate to student outcomes. Further research
which investigates the use of emblems in regard to student outcomes would be a logical
follow up to the present investigation.
21
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This review of related literature addresses the topics of nonverbal communication,
nonverbal aspects of conducting, and issues related to teacher effectiveness. It is
pertinent to this current research project to demonstrate that students are able to recognize
a teacher’s use of appropriate nonverbal teaching gestures. Nonverbal gestures specific
to conducting have been identified. These gestures may be taught and learned by
conducting practitioners. In order for a conducting gesture to be an effective
communication emblem, the intended meaning conveyed by the conductor must be
understood similarly by the student. The issue of evaluating music teacher effectiveness
is complex, but it is possible to isolate the components of such given an appropriate
instrument. That is, students, working within certain given evaluative parameters, can
identify gradated differences in teaching effectiveness
Studies in Nonverbal Communication
Ekman and Friesen (1969) state that the relationship of the nonverbal act to verbal
behavior is an aspect of usage. This includes awareness, intentionality, and external
feedback. According to these researchers, interactive nonverbal behaviors are acts by one
person that influence or modify the behavior of another person or a group of persons.
22
They also comment that many socially interactive nonverbal behaviors may be formally
taught or imitated. These ideas are significant to both teaching and conducting.
Ekman and Friesen (1972) define emblems as those nonverbal acts which have a
direct verbal translation usually consisting of a word or two, or a phrase, for which the
precise meaning is known by most or all members of a group, class, subculture or culture.
Emblems are most often deliberately used with the conscious intent to send a particular
message to other persons for which the persons who see the emblem usually not only
know the emblem’s message, but also know that it was deliberately sent to him or her.
Significant in this present research project is the premise that students are aware
of the presence or absence of nonverbal behaviors demonstrated by a teacher. A study
involving the educational use of illustrators (Goldin-Meadow, Kim & Singer, 1999)
showed that students learn better when instruction is accompanied by matching gestures
than they do with gesture-less instruction. Eight teachers were asked to instruct 49
children individually on mathematical equivalence as it applied to addition. Each of the
participating teachers used gesture to convey problem-solving strategies to the students.
Gestured strategies either reinforced or differed from strategies conveyed in the context
of instructional speech. These researchers found that students were more likely to
correctly interpret and demonstrate understanding of teacher speech when it was
accompanied by matching gestures than by no gestures at all. Students were less likely to
reiterate teacher instruction when it was accompanied by mismatching gestures than by
instruction accompanied by no gesture. Children were able to comprehend problem
solving strategies from the teachers’ gestures and incorporate them into their own speech.
23
This research demonstrates that students notice when teachers use gestures that express
task-relevant instructional information.
Hunnicutt (1999) published a study demonstrating the effective use of nonverbal
techniques in a teaching setting. This study, which included both experimental and
control groups of pre-service teachers in their senior year, was designed to provide
insight into the use of selected nonverbal behaviors as a behavior management tool in the
elementary and middle school setting. Participants in the experimental group were
trained in the use of selected nonverbal behaviors including dress, haptics, kinesics, and
proximity. The control group received no training. The researcher designed an
observation instrument and trained a group of pre-service teachers to use it. These
observers were unaware that any training had been provided to any of the participants.
Participants were observed three times. While no significant difference was reported,
Hunnicutt noted that the experimental group maintained a lower mean number of
disruptions throughout the three observations. This research helps support the idea that
teachers trained in the use of content specific nonverbal techniques may be more
effective classroom managers.
A study by Thompson (1997) investigated whether nonverbal communication
skill influenced opinion. This study examined the question of whether a person's level of
skill in nonverbal communication is linked to leadership effectiveness as defined by the
ability to influence opinion. Participants were 105 teachers and future teachers enrolled
in education courses in a large, southern university. The research treatment was a three-
step process. Subjects first completed a one-question opinionnaire to establish initial
24
opinion on a given topic. Subjects then were exposed to a videotaped presentation of the
opposite opinion. Finally, subjects were given the same one-question opinionnaire to
indicate any change in opinion because of treatment. Independent variables were high or
low levels of nonverbal skill as viewed on the videotapes. The dependent variables were
change or no change of opinion. Results suggested that there was no statistically
significant relationship between nonverbal communication skill and the ability to
influence teacher opinion.
Thompson described three major findings pertinent to this study. The first was
that high-level nonverbal communication might not be significantly related to an ability
to change opinions, especially strongly held opinions. Secondly, in a presentation, the
use of high-level nonverbal communication skill is likely to take a 25% longer length of
time than using low-level nonverbal communication skill for presenting the same
material. Finally, supporting the findings of related literature, Thompson indicated that
attitude shift seemed to be related to more than one variable, such as the topic, the
speaker, the setting, and other variables. A high level of nonverbal communication in
and of itself may not affect opinions.
Nonverbal exhibitor and nonverbal inhibitor models in this research project were
designed based on the work of Ekman and Friesen (1969, 1972) who described
interactive nonverbal behaviors as acts by one person that can modify the behavior of a
group. They defined emblems as nonverbal acts having simple but specific verbal
translations for which the precise meaning is understood by members of a group. This
project relied on the assumption that observers notice the use of nonverbal
25
communication. Goldin-Meadow, Kim & Singer, (1999) demonstrated that students
notice when teachers use gestures that express instructional information. The focus of
this project was a comparison of the use or non-use of the emblem. Opinions related to
other aspects of teaching were not sought. Thompson’s (1997) study shows that
nonverbal communication in and of itself may not affect opinions. Finally, with regard to
the potential value of incorporating effective nonverbal communication skills into
teaching behaviors, Hunnicutt’s (1999) research helps support the idea that teachers
trained in the use of content specific nonverbal techniques may be more effective
classroom managers.
Studies in Nonverbal Aspects of Conducting
Significant to this project is the connection between nonverbal behavior and
conducting. Ekman & Friesen (1969) described nonverbal behavior as having multiple
developments, conventional understandings, and uses. Ostling (1977) suggested that
aspects of conducting may be learned as acquired skills in nonverbal patterns of behavior.
The development of effective nonverbal behaviors may be an essential element in the
training of a teacher/conductor.
Berz (1983) conducted a study for the purpose of developing an instrument
designed to classify specific nonverbal conducting techniques. Rehearsals of 15
conductors representing a wide range of performance settings were videotaped. These
tapes were analyzed through repeated viewings, and detected behaviors were recorded on
cards. The cards then were grouped according to similarity of observed behavior and
26
compared with previously established behavior lists. A two-part instrument was
developed from these behavior groupings. The first part was a multi-category, time-
sampling system accounting for seven categories of non-static behavior: gaze, facial
expression, posture, proxemic (space usage), right hand, left hand, and vocalic
(communicative function of the voice separate from verbal meaning). The second part
was a checklist system accounting for eight categories of static behavior: type and size of
ensemble, room conditions, lighting conditions, physical background, podium factors
(usage, dimensions, construction, condition), music stand, dress and personal appearance,
baton (usage, length, color), and chronemic (time spent in performance activities/time
spent in nonperformance activites). It was concluded that the instrument developed was a
viable means to the classification of nonverbal conducting behaviors (Berz, 1983).
A 1994 study by Byo and Austin set out to devise and field test a method by
which nonverbal conducting behaviors could be documented as demonstrated in a
rehearsal setting. They also wanted to compare the nonverbal repertoire of novice
conductors (n = 6) to that of accomplished university band conductors (n = 6). Novices
were pre-service teachers in instrumental music. Experts were experienced conductors
who were nationally recognized for consistently outstanding levels of performance.
A nonverbal script consisting of four categories - right arm/hand gestures, eye
contact, facial expression, and body movement - was developed from videotape
recordings of 15-minute rehearsal segments for each expert and novice conductor. The
script format provided a means of recording chronological sequences of nonverbal
behaviors and time spent in each behavior. Gestures of the left arm/hand and cuing were
27
documented by counting occurrences in some cases and obtaining cumulative timings in
others.
Data in this research describe the nonverbal behaviors exhibited by conductors
and suggest no one standard of excellence. As was evidenced by the large standard
deviations, the expert conductors when compared to each other were as dissimilar as they
were similar in their nonverbal behavior. Despite this nonverbal variety, the experts as a
group were significantly different from the novices in several categories. Results served
to expose general nonverbal characteristics that separate experts from novices and
suggest aspects of a general sort of standards which novices might be encouraged to
pursue. Additionally, the act of scripting may function as an alternative means of
inducing beginning conductors to see more clearly what they do on the podium.
Hausmann (1984) produced a similar study of coded gestural analysis that took
into account and controlled the music used in the study. The purpose of this study was to
develop a procedural model for the choral conductor that presented in sequential fashion
the various components contributing to choral artistry. Results of this study offered
solutions for transferring analytical information into verbal and nonverbal
communication.
With his study Hausmann provided a systematic plan for score study by posing
two questions related to transference. First, how will the musical style affect your
conducting gestures? Secondly, what rehearsal and performance procedures can be used
to reinforce the unique style characteristics of the music? The author went on to present a
coded gestural analysis system that isolated and defined gestural possibilities. This
28
gestural shorthand system was to be used to select and record gestures that were
appropriate to the stylistic dictates of the score. In addition, a rehearsal sequencing
model was presented which was based on the ideal that the rehearsal of choral
components should relate directly to the musical characteristics of the score in order to
have an ensemble perform with appropriate technique and style. Hausmann concluded
that the procedural model presented in this study could provide pedagogical tools for the
training of choral conductors. This procedural model might become an effective and
comprehensive approach to the problem of transferring analytical insights to a chorus.
Finally, Hausmann thought that this model could provide a systematic and
comprehensive design for the study of choral music.
Cofer (1998) investigated the effects of short-term conducting gesture instruction
on seventh-grade band students' recognition of and performance response to conducting
gestures. It also examined the proportion of students successfully recognizing gestures to
determine which gestures could be considered musical conducting emblems. Finally, it
investigated the influence of instruction and test format on gestures achieving musical
conducting emblem status. Subjects of Cofer’s study were 60 seventh-grade wind
instrumentalists from a state university town. Treatment group subjects (n = 30) received
instruction designed to improve their recognition and response to common conducting
gestures for five consecutive days. The control group (n —30) participated in a warm-up
designed to review concepts of musical expression without the use of conducting
gestures. Two dependent measures of conducting gesture recognition were employed in
29
this study: (1) a multiple-choice paper-and-pencil measure and (2) an individual musical
performance measure.
An independent /-test revealed statistically significant differences in favor of the
treatment group for the multiple-choice paper-and-pencil test (p < .001). Additional
analysis by MANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in favor of the
treatment group for the individual musical performance test (p < .001). The two
dependent measures were compared to determine whether they measured conducting
gesture recognition. Results indicated that a high, positive relationship existed between
the two measures (r = .82). Test comparability also was analyzed. Results of this
analysis showed that the treatment group performed as well on the multiple-choice test as
the performance test. Sixteen gestures reached musical conducting emblem status for the
treatment group on both dependent measures. While eleven gestures reached musical
conducting emblem status for the control group on the multiple- choice paper-and-pencil
test, only three reached this status on the performance test. Results of this study indicated
that short-term conducting gesture instruction wa’s effective in improving the recognition
and performance of musical conducting emblems for seventh-grade band students.
A study by Dickey (1988) compared verbal and nonverbal instruction techniques.
This study concerned the comparative effects of verbal instruction and modeling
instruction on instructional effectiveness in instrumental music classrooms. The primary
hypothesis maintained that modeling was more effective than verbal instruction. Four
middle school band classes, two taught for ten weeks with verbal instruction and two
with modeling instruction, were pre- and post-tested for ear-to-hand skills, kinesthetic
30
response skills, and music discrimination skills. Videotapes of classes were analyzed to
compare the efficiency of the two methods and to verify the absence of researcher and
teacher bias. The two classes receiving modeling instruction demonstrated significantly
greater ear-to-hand skills and kinesthetic response skills, although not general music
discrimination skills, compared to the two classes receiving verbal instruction. These
findings suggest that the use of modeling strategies and devices such as melodic echoes
and rhythmic movement to music could lead to increased ear-to-hand skills and
kinesthetic response skills. Dickey believed this finding implied that modeling strategies
and devices should play a more prominent role in instrumental music pedagogy and
should be addressed in pre- and inservice instrumental music teacher training.
Mayne (1992) went so far as to isolate facial expression as nonverbal gesture in
conducting. The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of facial expression by
the conductor on the performer's ability to interpret common musical conducting
gestures. Instrumental performers compared their interpretation of conducting gestures
without facial expression, to the same gestures with facial expression. The author
examined three specific questions: Does the use of facial expression by conductors affect
the ability of instrumental performers to interpret musical conducting gestures? Does the
interpretation of conducting gestures across three grade/experience levels vary between
gestures without facial expression to the same gestures with facial expression? And, are
specific conducting gestures affected more than others by the use of facial expression?
Two videotapes were used for administration of this study. Both tapes used the
same conductor demonstrating the same 53 gestures in matching order. The only
31
difference between the two tapes was the conductor's added use of facial expression on
Tape 2. Junior high, high school, and college instrumentalists were randomly assigned to
view Tape 1 or Tape 2. Using a multiple-choice paper and pencil instrument, subjects
were asked to select the answer which best described each conducting gesture example.
Results indicated that with all grade levels combined, or when comparing like grade
levels, the use of facial expression did not significantly increase the instrumental
performer's ability to interpret the 53 common conducting gestures used in the study.
The author emphasized that a generalization should not be made that facial expression
does not affect the art of conducting, since conducting involves much more than the 53
isolated conducting gestures used in the study. The study produced results that indicated
significant differences resulted when different grade levels were compared against each
other (junior high to high school to college). With and without facial expression, the
percentage of correct responses increased as grade level increased, suggesting the need to
continue to teach specific conducting gestures and to visually sensitize the instrumental
performers to these common conducting gestures.
Sousa (1988) investigated the relationship between conducting gesture and player
response. Sousa’s review of the literature in the area of instrumental conducting revealed
that instrumental conductors communicate specific musical ideas nonverbally through the
use of a specific and common gestural system. The purpose of this study was to
investigate the common nonverbal gestures taught and used by instrumental conductors,
and the interpretation of these gestures by instrumental performers. In order to realize
this purpose, three procedural steps were followed. A list of 55 specific nonverbal
32
gestures commonly used by instrumental conductors to communicate musical concepts
was established. A videotape was prepared utilizing one conductor demonstrating,
without sound, each of the 55 gestures. The videotape was shown to a sample of junior
high school, high school, and college instrumental performers to measure the
effectiveness of the gestures to communicate specific musical ideas.
Nineteen commonly used instrumental conducting gestures were successfully
identified by the total population of instrumental performers as well as for each of the
individual population groups. The total population of instrumental performers
successfully identified nineteen additional gestures. Two gestures were not recognized
by the high school students. Nineteen were not recognized by the junior high school
group. Seventeen commonly used conducting gestures were not successfully recognized
by the total population.
Significant differences were found among the groups in their abilities to
understand the gestures that are commonly used by instrumental conductors. A
significant increase in the ability to recognize these gestures appeared to have taken place
between the junior high school level of experience and high school, as well as between
the high school and college level. Each of these increases was accompanied by decreases
in the variability of the scores. According to Sousa, ensemble experience not only had a
significant effect on a student's ability to recognize these gestures, but also on a group's
homogeneity in terms of understanding nonverbal conducting gestures.
Grechesky (1985) found that one of the conductor behaviors related to more
musical performances was a combination of verbal explanation and verbal imagery. This
33
study examined the conducting behaviors exhibited by the conductors of randomly
selected high school bands in central Indiana. Verbal and nonverbal behaviors were
observed, categorized, and analyzed to determine how they affected band performance.
An expert panel of judges evaluated audiotapes that were musically representative of
each band. The bands with the highest scores were designated as “musical” and those
with the lowest scores were designated as “less musical.” The eleven bands in the sample
were videotaped in a rehearsal and performance of the first and second movements of
Brevities by Robert Keyes Clark. Each band had the same amount of rehearsal and
performance time and had not seen the music prior to the experimental session.
Additionally, the same panel of judges evaluated audiotapes made of the performance
portion for each band.
Conducting behaviors were observed and coded from the videotapes. These
observed behaviors were the independent variables; rank order as a determinant of
performance quality was the dependent variable. Through correlation and regression
analysis, eleven variables were identified as having an effect on rank. Grechesky (1985)
indicated six findings. First was that some verbal explanation was necessary in rehearsal,
but verbal imagery had a much stronger impact on ranking. Second was that minimal
time should be spent on talk or instructions about nonmusical matters. The third was that
the conductors of the more musical groups displayed significantly more body movement.
Fourth, approving facial expressions had a positive effect on performance, whereas
disapproving facial expressions had a negative effect. Fifth, conductors who
demonstrated more use of the left hand, and coordination of right and left hands had
34
better results. And sixth, emblems and illustrators had the most powerful effect of any of
the variables. Grechesky felt that the findings indicated that conductors who sharpened
their nonverbal communication skills could have a positive effect on their groups'
musical performance.
A study of verbal behaviors of teacher/conductors (Carpenter, 1986) contained
evidence that the quality and frequency of initiating behaviors and feedback behaviors
had an effect on the quality of band rehearsals. The purpose of the study was to describe
both qualitative and quantitative aspects of junior high and senior high band teacher-
conductors' behaviors, and to determine if there were specific factors in the verbal
behaviors of teacher-conductors that are predictive of overall ratings of rehearsals. Data
were collected through the use of two researcher-constructed forms. A panel of experts
used the first form to qualitatively rate teacher/conductor personal qualities,
procedures/organization, pedagogy, and error detection skills during total rehearsals. The
second form was used by two other judges to categorize specific verbal behaviors of
teachers, including specific or general approval and disapproval feedback to social and
musical behavior, musical element attended to, and techniques used to initiate behavior.
Results indicated that teacher/conductors were more disapproving than approving and
more likely to attend to musical behavior than social behavior. Feedback behaviors were
better predictors o f overall rehearsal ratings than initiating behaviors. The frequency of
attending to various musical elements was not predictive of a highly rated rehearsal,
although the type of musical element was related to ratings. Differences between junior
and senior high rehearsals were evident throughout the study.
The purpose of a study by Francisco (1994) was to determine the relative effects
of verbal communication, visual communication, and modeling, used individually and in
combinations, on performance improvement of high school bands. Twenty-five
conductors and bands at 15 summer music camps were audio- and videotaped in
rehearsal. Following the rehearsals, examples of conductor communication behavior
were identified and categorized from the videotapes by expert judges. The corresponding
pre-communication and post-communication performances were then identified from the
audio tapes and edited to a set of evaluation tapes in a series of paired performances, with
the pre-communication performance presented first. Expert judges reviewed the
evaluation audiotapes. Using the pre-communication performance as a reference, the
judges rated each post-communication performance as (a) no improvement, (b)
improvement, (c) inaudible. All audible examples were subjected to statistical analysis
except those in the categories of modeling and visual/modeling, which had occurred with
insufficient frequency to evaluate. Francisco used a series of multiple regression
analyses on ensemble improvement scores as the dependent variable to determine the
relative effects of the various types of communication on performance improvement.
Other issues addressed included the relative difficulty of correcting performance
problems in the categories of tone, intonation, rhythm, technique, interpretation, and
balance, and the significance of judge differences and interaction between judges and
types of communication.
According to Francisco, results of the study demonstrated that the type and
purpose of communication had a significant effect upon ensemble improvement scores.
36
Visual communication, when used alone, was significantly less likely to improve
ensemble performance than verbal/modeling/visual, verbal communication, and
verbal/modeling. The combination of verbal/modeling/visual was significantly more
likely to improve ensemble performance than visual communication and verbal/visual.
Combinations of two types of communication were not necessarily more likely to
improve ensemble performance than was the use of either of the component types of
communication by itself.
Researchers concluded that effective use of nonverbal communication by
conductors improved classroom achievement (Carpenter, 1986) and ensemble
performance (Cofer, 1998; Francisco, 1994; Grechesky, 1985). Researchers also
concluded that these behaviors were identifiable and teachable (Austin, 1994; Berz, 1983;
Byo & Dickey, 1988; Hausmann, 1984). These ideas along with Sousa’s (1988) finding
that many commonly used conducting gestures were not recognized correctly by middle
school, high school or college instrumental music students and Mayne’s (1992) research
suggesting the need to visually sensitize instrumental music students to specific
conducting gestures led to the formulation of this project.
Issues of Teaching Effectiveness
As may be deduced from preceding material, elements of nonverbal
communication along with aspects of conducting are issues pertinent to music teacher
effectiveness. The issue o f evaluating music teacher effectiveness is in itself a complex
issue.
37
A study by Buell (1990) identified and examined factors contributing to success
in effective teaching/conducting practice. The investigation focused on the symphonic
band and conducted wind ensemble settings. Research questions centered on three broad
theoretical areas: (a) the role of conducting, gesture, and verbal and nonverbal
communication in effective teaching/conducting; (b) teaching to the simultaneous goals
of conceptual understanding, technical development, and quality performance; (c) the
development of student understanding, retention, and transfer of learning in the
instrumental ensemble experience. The study examined the relationship between
successful teaching/conducting practice and elements of selected educational theory.
Data from analysis of videotaped instruction, subject interviews, ensemble-member
interviews, and researcher observations were triangulated to corroborate factors that
appeared to contribute to the subject's teaching/conducting effectiveness. The purpose of
the subject interviews was to determine why the instruction took the form that it did and
how the subject's background and beliefs guided observed instructional behaviors. The
purpose of the student interviews was to determine if, and to what degree, instruction was
efficient. The nature of the student's learning, and its transferability, were also examined.
Effective instruction in this study was characterized by: (a) a varied, creative use of
speaking, singing, and movement in different sensory-modal combinations; (b) a linking
of specific teaching strategies to specific instructional goals; (c) an abundant use of multi
modal instruction.
Multi-modal instruction was a factor in generating instructional efficiency.
Students learned quickly, retained what they had learned, and were able to transfer their
38
learning to other musical settings. Buell concluded that effectiveness in
teaching/conducting was not the result of any single factor such as exceptional
musicianship, conducting technique, or personality. It involved the establishment of
positive learning environments, the appropriate linking of teaching strategies to
instructional goals, and the use of instructional behavior sympathetic to individual
differences in students. Continuous development of personal musicianship and thorough
score-study were indicated to be requisites of effectiveness in teaching/conducting.
In a study by Aubrecht, Hanna and Hoyt (1986) two classes of each of 400 high
school teachers were rated for teaching effectiveness by the teachers and by their students
using the same instrument. This instrument, the IDEA Form H from the University of
Kansas Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development, was developed to help high
school faculty improve their instructional effectiveness. This instrument is comprised of
nine general instructional goal items and 24 teacher behavior items, all rated with a five-
point Likert-type response. Separate factor analyses yielded highly similar underlying
dimensions. Convergent validity coefficients were significant for all factors. These
findings provide support for the validity of high school student ratings of instruction.
Murray (1994) reviewed research on whether or not student evaluations could
provide reliable and valid information on the quality of college teaching. He concluded
that both validity and reliability could be assumed. Murray demonstrated that student
ratings were found to show acceptable levels of intra-tester and inter-tester reliability. He
also found a moderate positive correlation between student ratings of teaching and
objective measures o f student achievement.
39
A study by Baker (1981) identified the music teaching competencies
characteristic of effective music teaching. In this study five major processes were used to
construct a music teacher evaluation survey. These included evaluating responses to a
questionnaire sent to 119 music educators and general administrators, the synthesis of
689 recommended competencies into 60 major items, deriving the 30 most crucial
competencies to be used on each area-specific form, constructing the pilot test form, and
revising the form. Analysis of data from the survey indicated that participants considered
six criterion categories as essential to the identification of important music teacher
competencies: instructional skills, interest in work and in pupils, classroom management,
musical scholarship and musicianship, personality qualities, and quality of concert
performances. This survey also showed that music teachers as a whole consider the most
crucial competencies to be: enthusiasm for teaching coupled with caring for students,
maintaining strong yet fair discipline, and observing student enjoyment and interest in
music. The conclusions of this research were that the evaluation of music teaching
should be regarded as different and separate from teacher assessment in general. General
teaching forms do not sufficiently reflect the specific teaching behaviors, characteristics,
and qualities essential to excellence in music teaching.
Brophy’s (1993) research questioned whether it is appropriate to evaluate music
educators exclusively on general competencies, or whether effective music teaching
involves certain teaching behaviors, characteristics, and attributes that are so significantly
unique that they demand their own set of evaluative criteria. Brophy reviewed selected
relevant research from 1989 to 1993, discussed pertinent practical issues involved in the
40
evaluation of public school music teachers, and synthesized eight general areas for
further development as potential criteria for music teacher evaluation, including personal
characteristics, musical competence, and the effective use of nonverbal strategies.
Research conducted by Baker (1981), Brophy (1993), and Buell (1990)
demonstrated some of the difficulties in measuring and evaluating effective teaching. As
Buell (1990) concluded that teaching effectiveness was not the result of any single factor,
this project examines only one aspect of music teaching. The current research separated
components of musical competence and teaching behaviors as suggested by Baker (1981)
and Brophy (1993). Aubrecht, Hanna and Hoyt (1986) and Murray (1994) surmised the
ability of students to reliably measure behaviors related to teaching effectiveness, which
was a factor in this project.
Restatement of Purpose
teaching/conducting situations. Specific research questions were as follows:
41
behaviors?
competence?
42
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Purpose
The purpose of this research was to examine and analyze the effect o f specific
behaviors?
competence?
43
Issues of the selection of subjects, the construction of a measurement instrument, the
development of a treatment device, and assessment of the data will be discussed below.
Development of the Perception of Teaching Effectiveness Measure
The instrument for assessing subjects’ perception of conductor/teacher
effectiveness was the Perception of Teaching Effectiveness Measure (PTEM). This
instrument, designed by the researcher, was an 18-item Likert-type response assessment
survey. The researcher chose to use six levels of response to avoid the neutral response
of “no difference” or “no opinion.” Format recommendation for this instrument was
taken from Patten (1998). As per the recommendations for assessment items, item
concepts for PTEM were modified from various sources including Acheson and Gall
(1992), Aubrecht, Hanna and Hoyt (1986), Baker (1981), Brophy (1993), and Yuzdepski
and Elliott (1985). Although Patten (1988) recommended an instrument containing 25
items, the two most frequently used item counts were 10 and 15 (Acheson & Gall, 1992;
Aubrecht, Hanna & Hoyt, 1986; Baker, 1981; Brophy, 1993; and Yuzdepski & Elliott,
1985).
Items used by the researcher in the construction of this instrument were written to
reflect two broad areas of assessment: teaching behaviors and musical competence.
Statements related to these areas follow:
Musical Competence:
This teacher/conductor seemed musically creative.
This teacher/conductor provided good musical information to students.
44
This teacher/conductor was skillful in communicating musical ideas.

This teacher/conductor helped the ensemble to play expressively.
This teacher/conductor was helpful in guiding students to develop musical skills
for future learning.
This teacher/conductor encouraged the band to play with good technique.
This teacher/conductor helped the ensemble play with a good sound.
This teacher/conductor was knowledgeable about music.
Teaching Behaviors:
This teacher/conductor used a variety of teaching methods.
This teacher/conductor cared about student learning.
This teacher/conductor had good teaching skills.
This teacher/conductor gave clear instructions.
This teacher/conductor had a firm grasp of the material he/she presented.
This teacher/conductor provided students with appropriate feedback.
This teacher/conductor maintained good eye contact with the students.
This teacher/conductor communicated information clearly to the students.
This teacher/conductor helped the ensemble play better.
This teacher/conductor made certain that students understood his/her presentation
of the material.
Content validity was established through the examination of previous researchers’
teaching assessment instruments. In the construction of an instrument for the evaluation
of instrumental music teachers, Baker (1981) used items reflecting teacher behaviors and
musical competence. Similarly, Brophy (1993) discussed the use of broad areas of music
teacher evaluation including personal characteristics and musical competence. Brophy
provided no actual evaluation instrument, just criteria for the development of such an
instrument. Aubrecht, Hanna and Hoyt (1986) used an instrument that included student
self-evaluation items in instructional effectiveness as well as teacher behavior items.
Yuzdepski and Elliott (1985) described nineteen areas of assessment including clarity of
instruction, feedback to pupils, concurrent tasks management, and other areas related to
teacher behaviors and subject competence.
In order to establish the validity of the instrument, three university professors in
music education and conducting critiqued these statements. Revisions as per their
recommendations included clarification of wording and broadening of items evaluated.
Redundant items were removed and replaced with distinct items. Some examples
include: one item changed from “This conductor seemed creative” to “This
teacher/conductor seemed musically creative;” another changed from “This conductor
was not enthusiastic” to “This teacher/conductor gave clear instructions;” and a third
changed from “This teacher was helpful in guiding students to develop skills for future
learning” to “This teacher/conductor made certain that students understood his/her
presentation of the material.”
After revising items according to expert feedback, another version of the
instrument was evaluated by experts. Being satisfied with the content of the instrument, a
pilot test was conducted to ascertain the reliability of the PTEM. The PTEM was
administered to eight high school instrumental music teachers; four viewed each
treatment type. Cronbach’s alpha, which measures how well a set of items measures a
single unidimensional construct, indicated that the instrument was sufficiently reliable (a
= .90).
Treatment Videos
The development of the treatment videos for this study involved scripting two
rehearsal situations. The first script contained a majority of nonverbal exhibitors, while
the second script contained a majority of nonverbal inhibitors. Because “pure” scripts
46
isolating one type of emblem over another would appear contrived in video
representations, it was decided that each example would be composed primarily of
nonverbal exhibitors or nonverbal inhibitors, but neither video would be comprised
exclusively o f one or the other.
The musical selection chosen for this project was Grainger’s Ye Banks and Braes
O ’Bonnie Doon. The researcher chose this piece because of its lack of technical
difficulties for young players and its short duration (approximately two minutes). Each
teaching episode lasted approximately eight minutes. The researcher chose to script ten
items for comment in each piece because this number was manageable and reasonable
within the context of a rehearsal situation.
Script 1 was labeled as Nonverbal Exhibitor. In this situation the
teacher/conductor defined 80% of the emblems used as conducting gestures. The
emblems were defined by verbal description of the desired musical responses with
simultaneous demonstration of the nonverbal gestures. For example, prior to beginning
the piece the conductor described the meter verbally while demonstrating the motion of
the conducting pattern. Gestures in bold were demonstrated concurrently with verbal
description.
BEGINNING: “Ye Banks and Braes in 6/8—the pattern looks like this.”
(Conductor shows a 6 pattern.)
“Stretch the first note.”

(Conductor shows a lifting gesture with the baton following.)
MEASURE 3: “Place a slight accent in the third bar on the fourth beat.”
47
(Conductor shows a cross-motion accent appropriate to beat 4.)
MEASURE 12: “In measure 12 we need to crescendo.”

(Conductor enlarges pattern by pulling hands apart.)
MEASURE 13: “In measure 13 we need to decrescendo.”

(Conductor decreases pattern by bringing hands together.)
MEASURE 17: “In measure 17, if you have a tie make sure you’re making the
connection.”
MEASURE 18: “At measure 18, listen for balance between the melody and
the descending eighth-notes; we need to hear the melody.”
MEASURE 25: “In measure 25, put a slight break between beats five
and six; everyone take a breath there.”
(Conductor emphasizes the luftpause at the appropriate place.)
MEASURES 30: “In measure 30, we need to hear the accents on the eighth-notes.”
(Conductor shows emphasis for each accented beat.)
MEASURE 33: “On the final release, the sound should evaporate with the tuba
being the last sound heard.”
(The conductor gradually closes the fingers on his left hand.)
Script 2 was labeled as Nonverbal Inhibitor. In this situation the
teacher/conductor did not define most emblems. In 80% of the cases, only a verbal
description of the desired musical response was presented by the teacher/conductor to the
students. Gestures in bold were demonstrated concurrently with verbal descriptions.
BEGINNING: “Ye Banks and Braes in 6.”
“Stretch the first note.”

(Conductor shows a lifting gesture with the baton following.)
MEASURE 3: “In the third bar, put a slight accent on the sixteenth-note on the
fourth beat.”
48
MEASURE 12: “In measure 12, make sure we hear a crescendo.”
MEASURE 13: “Then decrescendo in measure 13.”
MEASURE 17: “If you have a tie in measure 17, be sure you’re connecting the
notes.”
MEASURE 18: “At measure 18, listen for balance between the melody and the
descending eighth-notes; we need to hear the melody.”
MEASURE 25: “In measure 25, put a slight break between beats five and six;
everyone take a breath there.”
(Conductor emphasizes the luftpause at the appropriate place.)
MEASURES 30: “In measure 30, make more out of the accented eighth-notes—
make them lead to the dotted quarter in the second half of the bar.’
MEASURE 33: “On the final release, watch. Pick a finger for your release,
with the tuba being last.”
(The conductor gradually closes the fingers on his left hand.)
The researcher acted as teacher/conductor model in the scripted situations. A
high school ensemble was convened and rehearsed in the musical selection. The
presentation of each script was recorded on videotape, with the help of a music teaching
colleague, using a portable VHS camcorder (Magnavox CVK332AV01). The video
camera was aimed so as to capture the face and upper body of the conductor. None of the
high school instrumentalists were identifiable on the demonstration videos. Each
teaching episode lasted approximately eight minutes.
To control for any possible effects owed to ensemble performance, the ensemble
was instructed to play consistently regardless of the gestures given in recording the test
videos. Several rehearsals were given to practicing consistency in performance
49
regardless of gesture. Because both video samples used in administration of the
measuring instrument were recorded during the same rehearsal period, samples were
similar. The video camera operator and another music educator verified similarity of
performance samples. Furthermore, college students evaluating the video samples saw
only one version; they could not compare the two different versions before responding to
the evaluation instrument.
Participants
Participants (N= 101) in this study were a volunteer sample of instrumental music
education majors from four Midwestern university undergraduate music programs.
Schools from which subjects volunteered to participate were selected because of the
willingness of the respective instructors to participate in this research. Two of the
schools were medium-sized state universities, and two were small private colleges.
Collection of Data
For each college or university instructor who indicated a willingness to
participate, the researcher assembled a package of materials including measurement
instruments (PTEMs), a videotape, and instructions for the proctor. Measurement
instruments were color coded to correspond with the two different video samples. This
color-coding scheme served the need of the researcher and had no bearing on the
subjects.
50
At the beginning of the experimental session, each subject received a blank copy
of the Perception of Teaching Effectiveness Measure (PTEM) [Appendix A], Following
distribution of the PTEM, the proctor read aloud the following instructions to
participants:
In music education, as in any academic or scientific field, a process of

experimental research improves practice. This study is part of a research
project intended to improve instrumental music teacher preparation. If
you choose to participate in this project you will be asked to view a
videotape showing a portion of a band rehearsal. Following the viewing
of this rehearsal sample, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire
related to the video example. Throughout the process your anonymity will
be maintained. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary
and not connected with your grade in any way. You may choose not to
participate or discontinue participation at any time without penalty or
prejudice.
(Allow time for any students not wishing to participate to leave at this
time.)
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research project. Your

participation in this study poses no risks to your safety beyond those
normally encountered in everyday life. Your privacy is protected by
anonymity. No identifying information or marks on the response form are
necessary. All individual responses will be held in confidence by the
researcher.
The purpose of this research is to explore possibilities for the

improvement of instrumental music teacher training. Please read through
the Perception o f Teaching Effectiveness Measure (PTEM) so you are
familiar with its contents. (Allow a moment for perusal.) After you have
watched the videotape, please complete the PTEM by circling the
numbered response closest to your position regarding each statement.
(At this time show the video sample in its entirety. At its conclusion,
please repeat the following instruction:)
Please complete the PTEM by circling the numbered response closest to

your position regarding each statement.
51
Upon completion of the verbal instructions, subjects viewed the treatment
videotape. Each teaching episode contained a rehearsal of Percy Grainger’s Ye Banks
and Braes O ’ Bonnie Doon utilizing one of the emblem schemes described above. After
viewing the video sample, the students completed the PTEM.
Once all subjects completed their questionnaires, the researcher provided them
with a more specific explanation of the research project by reading the following:
Thank you for completing the assessment measure. The specific focus of
this research is to determine the significance of emblem definition in
nonverbal rehearsal communication. An emblem is a nonverbal gesture
that holds identical meaning for the sender as well as the receiver. If a
conductor uses a gesture in a rehearsal, he or she assumes that the players
understand the meaning of the gesture.
If your PTEM sheets were blue, you observed a majority of gestures

simultaneously demonstrated and defined by the teacher/conductor. If
your PTEM sheets were yellow, a majority of the gestures you observed
were undefined.
The researcher intends to compare the results to determine if observers

perceive a significant difference in the effectiveness of one method over
the other.
If you have any questions about this research project, please address them
to your instructor who will relay them to the researcher.
Once again, thank you for your participation.
Scoring of Perception of Teaching Effectiveness Measure
As research materials packages were returned, the researcher examined PTEMs
for accurate completion. Of 101 completed instruments returned, four were discarded as
unusable because respondents circled multiple Likert numbers for individual response
items (e.g., the subject drew an ellipse around the three and the four in response to a
single statement). Remaining instruments (N = 97) were numbered and responses were
entered into a statistics program for analysis.
Analysis of Data
The main variable of interest in this study was the construct of nonverbal
emblems used in conducting/teaching. This variable was comprised of two levels. In
Level 1 (nonverbal exhibitor) the majority of the emblems exhibited by the
teacher/conductor were defined. In Level 2 (nonverbal inhibitor) the majority of the
emblems used by the teacher/conductor were undefined. The dependent variables were
means of scores collected from the measurement instruments. Because the intent was to
determine whether means of two groups were statistically different from each other a t-
test was used. The a priori alpha level for this study was set at .05. Results of the study,
including descriptive and inferential statistics are presented in Chapter IV.
53
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
teaching/conducting situations.
Collegiate level subjects from four universities observed one of two different
videotaped teaching episodes. In one episode the teacher used a preponderance of
nonverbal exhibitors, while in the other episode, the teacher used a preponderance of
nonverbal inhibitors. Subjects (music education majors) were asked to rate the
effectiveness of the teacher using the Perception of Teacher Effectiveness Measure
(PTEM) developed by the researcher.
As research materials packages were returned, the researcher examined PTEMs
for accurate completion. O f 101 completed instruments returned, four were discarded as
unusable because respondents circled multiple Likert numbers for individual response
items (e.g., the subject drew an ellipse around the 3 and the 4 in response to a single
54
statement). Remaining instruments (N= 97) were numbered and responses were entered
into a statistics program for analysis.
Preliminary Analysis of Data
In order to determine that differences in subject responses were not significantly
related to subjects’ institutions, an independent samples Mest was employed to compare
scores by institution. A comparison was made between institutions one (n = 23) and two
(,n = 29), which evaluated the nonverbal exhibitor tapes (M= 76.65, SD = 8.00 to M=
72.19, SD = 13.04, respectively). An independent samples Mest confirmed no significant
differences between groups [7(50) = 1.40,/? = .17]. Similarly, a comparison was drawn
between institutions three (n = 17) and four (n = 28), which evaluated the nonverbal
inhibitor tapes (M= 67.76, SD = 15.50 to M = 61.11, SD = 14.18, respectively). Again,
an independent samples Mest confirmed no significant difference [7(43) = 1.47,p = .15].
Consequently, further analyses were able to combine institutions, and focus on the main
variables of interest.
Presentation of Data
Research Question 1: Do music education majors perceive a difference in
overall teaching effectiveness between nonverbal exhibitor and nonverbal inhibitor?
The first step in answering this question was to calculate means and standard
deviations for a composite score taking into account all questions on the PTEM. For each
55
group means were calculated by adding total scores reported by individual subjects then
dividing by the number of subjects.
Subjects (n = 52) assessing the nonverbal exhibitor condition perceived teaching
effectiveness to be higher than those subjects (n = 45) viewing the nonverbal inhibitor
condition (M= 74.42, SD = 13.60 to M = 63.62, SD = 14.88, respectively). To explicate
further the nature of this finding, an independent samples t-test was employed to test
whether the nonverbal exhibitor mean was significantly higher than the nonverbal
inhibitor mean. The Mest confirmed a significant difference [/(95) = 3.74, p < .001],
teaching effectiveness between nonverbal exhibitor and nonverbal inhibitor with respect
to teaching behaviors?
In order to determine subjects’ perceptions of teaching behavior, items on the
PTEM pertaining to the actual practice/implementation of instruction were examined in
isolation. These items consisted of:
This teacher/conductor used a variety of teaching methods.

This teacher/conductor cared about student learning.
This teacher/conductor had good teaching skills.
This teacher/conductor gave clear instructions.
This teacher/conductor had a firm grasp on the material he/she presented.
This teacher/conductor provided students with appropriate feedback.
This teacher/conductor maintained good eye contact with the students.
This teacher/conductor communicated information clearly to the students.
This teacher/conductor helped the ensemble play better.
This teacher/conductor made certain that students understood his/her presentation
of the material.
56
Examining perceptions of teaching effectiveness exclusively revealed that
subjects {n = 52) who viewed the nonverbal exhibitor condition perceived teaching
effectiveness to be higher than those subjects (n = 45) who viewed the nonverbal
inhibitor condition (M = 38.23, SD = 6.22 to M = 33.69, SD = 7.07, respectively). To
explicate further the nature of this finding, an independent samples Mest was employed
to test whether the nonverbal exhibitor mean was significantly higher than the nonverbal
inhibitor mean. The Mest confirmed a significant difference [7(95) = 3.67,p < .001],
to musical competence?
In order to determine subjects’ perceptions of musical competence, items on the
PTEM pertaining to the musical competence of the director were examined in isolation.
These items consisted of:
This teacher/conductor seemed musically creative.

This teacher/conductor provided good musical information to students.
This teacher/conductor was skillful in communicating musical ideas.
This teacher/conductor helped the ensemble to play expressively.
This teacher/conductor was helpful in guiding students to develop musical skills
This teacher/conductor encouraged the band to play with good technique.
This teacher/conductor helped the ensemble play with a good sound.
This teacher/conductor was knowledgeable about music.
Examining perceptions of musical competence exclusively revealed that subjects
(n = 52) who viewed the nonverbal exhibitor condition perceived teaching effectiveness
to be higher than those subjects (n = 45) who viewed the nonverbal inhibitor condition
(M = 36.19, SD = 7.84 to M = 29.93, SD = 8.34, respectively). To explicate further the
nature of this finding, an independent samples /-test was employed to test whether the
nonverbal exhibitor mean was significantly higher than the nonverbal inhibitor mean.
The /-test confirmed a significant difference [/(95) = 3.80,/? < .001].
Research Question 4: Do areas of agreement exist between composite
evaluations of the nonverbal exhibitor model and the nonverbal inhibitor model?
As the above research questions revealed composite significant differences with
respect to overall means, teaching effectiveness means and musical competence means, it
was decided to analyze each item on the PTEM individually to determine if occurrences
of agreement were evidenced on particular items. Occurrences of agreement were
defined as those individual questions not manifesting a significant difference between the
groups. Examining the individual items from the PTEM, revealed that responses to four
items were not statistically different. Specifically, there were no significant differences
ip > .05) in responses between subjects (n = 52) viewing the nonverbal exhibitor
condition and subjects (n = 45) viewing the nonverbal inhibitor condition for the
following:
Item 1: This teacher/conductor seemed musically creative (M = 3.79, SD = .96 to
M = 3.40, SD = 1.30, respectively);
Item 3: This teacher/conductor provided good musical information to students (M
= 4.04, SD = .93 to M = 3.87, SD = 1.22, respectively);
Item 9: This teacher/conductor gave clear instructions (M = 4.83, SD = 1.10 to M
= 4.84, SD = 1.0, respectively); and
Item 15: This teacher/conductor communicated information clearly to the students
(M = 4.48, SD = 1.13 to M = 4.31, SD = 1.06, respectively).
Mean scores for these individual items for each group ranged from 3.40 to 4.84
with close standard deviations. This indicates that participants generally agreed with
these statements regardless of the nonverbal manipulation employed by the researcher.
For every other PTEM question, a significant difference was evidenced with the verbal
exhibitor condition being rated significantly higher than the verbal inhibitor condition.
59
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Restatement of the Purpose and Research Questions
behaviors?
competence?
60
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1: Will music education majors perceive a difference in
overall teaching effectiveness between nonverbal exhibitor and nonverbal inhibitor?
To evaluate this question total PTEM scores were calculated. The highest
possible score for the PTEM was 108. Subjects assessing the nonverbal exhibitor
reported a mean score of 74.42 (SD = 13.60), which was significantly (p < .001) higher
with regard to teaching effectiveness than the mean score of 63.62 (SD = 14.88) reported
by subjects assessing the inhibitor condition. This finding indicates that music education
students do indeed perceive a difference in teaching effectiveness based on emblematic
nonverbal behavior, and that predominant use of emblems rated a higher score than did
nonuse.
to teaching behaviors?
For this question mean scores from PTEM items regarding teaching behaviors
were calculated. The highest possible score for these nine items was 54. The mean score
reported by those music education students who observed the nonverbal exhibitor
condition was 38.23 (SD = 6.22). This was significantly higher (p < .001) than the mean
score of 33.69 (SD = 7.07) reported by those who observed the nonverbal inhibitor
condition. This implies that the perception of teaching behaviors by music education
students is positively related to emblematic nonverbal behavior.
61
Question 3: Do music education majors perceive a difference in teaching
effectiveness between nonverbal exhibitor and nonverbal inhibitor with respect to
musical competence?
Evaluation of this question required the calculation of mean scores for PTEM
items related to musical competence. The highest possible score for these nine items was
54. The mean score reported for subjects assessing the nonverbal exhibitor condition was
36.19 (SD = 7.84). This was significantly (p < .001) higher than the mean score of 29.93
(SD = 8.34) for those assessing the nonverbal inhibitor condition. This result suggests
that use of emblematic nonverbal behavior is regarded positively by music education
students with regard to musical competence.
Question 4: Do areas of agreement exist between composite evaluations of the
nonverbal exhibitor model and the nonverbal inhibitor model?
While the above research questions revealed differences with respect to overall
means, an examination of individual items from the PTEM revealed similarities between
the two groups of respondents. Specifically, there were no significant differences (p >
.05) in responses between subjects viewing the nonverbal exhibitor condition and
subjects viewing the nonverbal inhibitor condition for four items.
For the PTEM items “this teacher/conductor seemed musically creative,” “this
teacher/conductor provided good musical information to students,” “this
teacher/conductor gave clear instructions,” and “this teacher/conductor communicated
information clearly to the students” mean scores were similar. Mean scores for these
individual items by group ranged from 3.40 (SD = 1.30) to 4.84 (SD = 1.00). This
62
suggests that respondents generally agreed with these statements regardless of the
nonverbal manipulation.
Discussion and Implications
Results of this research indicate that music education majors generally rate a
nonverbal exhibitor model as better than a nonverbal inhibitor model when evaluating
teaching practice. Similarities, however, may be found among certain aspects of teaching
practice such as oral communication and musical creativity. Along with implications for
improving professional training, there also are questions requiring further exploration.
Similarities (i.e., no significant statistical difference) between teaching models
were found between four pairs of PTEM item responses. Respondents viewing both the
nonverbal exhibitor and the nonverbal inhibitor shared common opinions regarding two
statements dealing with musical competence: “This teacher/conductor seemed musically
creative,” and “This teacher/conductor provided good musical information to students.”
Responses for these items were between the “somewhat agree” and “somewhat disagree”
captions on the Likert scale. Because of the even number of Likert responses there was
no neutral choice for those whose preferred response might have been “no opinion.” A
lack of musical creativity may have been perceived by respondents because of the tightly
scripted nature of the rehearsal videotapes (see Chapter III).
In the same way, both groups of respondents generally agreed with two
statements aimed toward teaching behaviors: “This teacher/conductor gave clear
instructions,” and “This teacher/conductor communicated information clearly to
63
students.” Mean responses for these items fell between the “somewhat agree” and
“agree” captions on the Likert scale. In this situation it seems the perception of
instructional clarity was unaffected by nonverbal behavior.
All other pairs of responses yielded significant differences between the nonverbal
exhibitor and the nonverbal inhibitor. In each case the nonverbal exhibitor rated higher
mean scores than the nonverbal inhibitor. Elaboration on these differences follows.
The four smallest statistically significant mean differences (A = 0.60 or smaller)
between teaching models were found in statements related to teaching behaviors. For the
statements: “This teacher/conductor cared about student learning,” and “This
teacher/conductor had a firm grasp of the material he/she presented,” both groups of
respondents indicated agreement with the nonverbal exhibitor group rating a higher level
of agreement than the nonverbal inhibitor group. For the statements: “This
teacher/conductor used a variety of teaching methods,” and “This teacher/conductor
provided students with appropriate feedback,” respondents generally answered between
“somewhat agree” and “somewhat disagree” with the nonverbal exhibitor group aligned
with the side of agreement and the nonverbal inhibitor group aligned with the side of
disagreement.
The four greatest mean differences (A = 0.80 or greater) between teaching models
involved three statements related to musical behavior: “This teacher/conductor helped the
ensemble to play expressively;” “This teacher/conductor was helpful in guiding students
to develop musical skills for future learning;” and “This teacher/conductor helped the
ensemble play better;” and one statement related to teaching behavior: “This
64
teacher/conductor made certain that students understood his/her presentation of the
material.” In each of these cases, respondents to the nonverbal exhibitor tended to agree
with the statements, while respondents to the nonverbal inhibitor tended to disagree.
Connecting a gesture with verbal instruction seemed to increase the perception
that the activities of the teacher/conductor were contributing to better ensemble
musicianship. This may be related to the effect described in Yarbrough’s (1975) research
linking high magnitude teacher/conductor behaviors, which included expressive use of
emblems in conducting, to positive student ensemble performance. Similarly, the
dynamic teaching/conducting behavior may have contributed to the perception that the
teacher/conductor model made certain that students understood the material presented.
The six remaining statements with mean differences between 0.61 and 0.79
yielded varying responses. For the statements: “This teacher/conductor was skillful in
communicating musical ideas;” “This teacher/conductor had good teaching skills;” and
“This teacher/conductor encouraged the band to play with good technique;” nonverbal
exhibitor respondents agreed while nonverbal inhibitor respondents disagreed. These
results continue the general pattern of higher scores for the nonverbal exhibitor.
Both groups, however, agreed with the statements: “This teacher/conductor
maintained good eye contact with the students,” and “This teacher/conductor was
knowledgeable about music.” Because the scripted sequences for the video samples were
memorized by the teacher/conductor model, a high level of eye contact could have been
observed in both situations. The perception of both sample groups that the
65
teacher/conductor was knowledgeable about music may have been determined by the
similarity of scripted verbal information conveyed to students in the video samples.
Conversely, both sample groups disagreed with the statement: “This
teacher/conductor helped the ensemble play with a good sound.” The scripted material
did not include comments relating to ensemble sound. The video samples contain no
instructional suggestions to the students about improving their blend, balance, or tone
quality. Thus, the music majors evaluating the video samples perceived this statement
negatively.
Results of this research reinforce findings of previous research demonstrating the
importance of linking appropriate nonverbal behavior with the educational process.
Participants perceived the nonverbal exhibitor model to be more effective, overall as well
as with regard to teaching behaviors and musical competence, than the nonverbal
inhibitor model. Along with Francisco (1994), who found that visual communication,
when used alone, was significantly less likely to improve ensemble performance than
verbal/modeling/visual, this research demonstrated the importance of emblemizing
conducting gestures by linking the verbal definition with the nonverbal gesture.
Likewise, Cofer (1988) found that gesture instruction was effective in improving the
recognition and performance of conducting emblems. As this research seemed to
indicate that the teacher/conductor’s use of emblem had a positive effect on the
perception of teaching effectiveness, Grechesky’s (1985) study demonstrated that
emblems and illustrators had a more powerful effect than any of the teaching/conducting
variables. And, as this research connected specific nonverbal behaviors with the
66
perception o f teaching effectiveness, Hunnicutt’s (1999) research supported the idea that
teachers trained in the use of content specific nonverbal techniques may be more
effective classroom managers.
Questions remain. Buell (1990) concluded that teaching effectiveness was not the
result of any single factor. This research project seems to bear that out. Because
agreement was found between sample groups’ perceptions of instructional clarity (“This
teacher/conductor gave clear instructions,” and “This teacher/conductor communicated
information clearly to students”), some element of oral communication may transcend the
strength of the nonverbal emblem. Interestingly, respondents had one of their greatest
differences based upon understanding of material (This teacher/conductor made certain
that students understood his/her presentation of the material). This may be due to the fact
that respondents to the nonverbal exhibitor observed the teacher/conductor repeatedly
connecting a gesture with a verbal definition whereas respondents to the nonverbal
inhibitor observed mostly verbal instruction. Further investigation may be warranted
regarding the development, implementation and effectiveness of verbal instructional
behaviors used by experienced teachers.
Another area for further exploration may involve the differentiation of
instructional gesture and meaningful gesture—the difference between traffic-control
gestures and purely expressive gestures. The current research examines gesture as a
mode of instruction. Teacher/conductors may use meaningful gestures to facilitate
instruction. Within a musical context, however, a gesture may be meaningful without
being instructional.
67
Meyer (1956) discussed the idea that the human experience of musical stimuli is
inextricably linked to experiences of nonmusical stimuli.
Both music and life are experienced as dynamic processes of growth and decay,
activity and rest, tension and release. These processes are differentiated, not only
by the course and shape of the motions involved in them, but also by the quality
of the motion (p. 261).
A teacher/conductor may represent “growth and decay” or “tension and release” with
gestures that have no direct verbal definition. These types of gestures may communicate
meaningful information to musicians without also conveying instructional information.
Furthermore, Langer (1957) posits the symbolization of human reality facilitated
by music. In her view, signs are different from symbols. Signs contain something of
what they signify, whereas symbols convey abstractions of concepts. She discusses the
idea that music is neither the cause nor the result of feeling, but rather the symbolic
expression of feeling. This being the case, gestures used by a conductor to guide a
musical performance may likewise be signs or symbols. While signal gestures may
convey verbally definable information, symbolic gestures may be meaningful but less
directly definable.
Results of this current research support the idea that nonverbal behaviors are
effective in aiding classroom instruction. Findings from research questions one, two and
three bear out the notion that students perceive a teacher who uses defined emblems as
more effective than a teacher who does not. This may be because the teacher/conductor’s
use of defined emblems contributes to an increased perception of teaching intensity.
68
Nonverbal conducting behaviors are necessary elements pertaining to the
instrumental music ensemble rehearsal classroom. Data from this study reinforce the
notion that coupling conducting emblems with verbal descriptions of their meaning lead
to more effective teaching practice as perceived by music education students. Such
nonverbal gestures specific to conducting may be taught and learned by conducting
practitioners. With his study, Hausmann (1984) developed a systematic plan for score
study including a coded gestural analysis system that isolated and defined gestural
possibilities for teacher/conductors. Byo & Austin (1994) found general nonverbal
characteristics that separated expert conductors from novice conductors and suggested
standards which novices might be encouraged to pursue.
Instrumental music teachers encounter a variety of conducting/teaching styles
through the course of their education and teaching experience. One significant factor
affecting teacher preparedness in the classroom is effective teacher education. The more
thoroughly prepared teachers are to educate the students in their classrooms, the more
significant the results of those students’ learning experiences will be. Educators of pre
service music teachers need to be aware of the perceived effectiveness of the skills and
professional practices imparted to their students. Results of this research have
implications for educators of pre-service teachers. Specifically, empirical evidence
showing the benefit of the incorporation of nonverbal behaviors such as defined
emblems, illustrators, and posed facial gestures within the context of instrumental
classroom teaching may help pedagogues improve the content of their instruction.
69
Educators of pre-service teachers should incorporate methods to enhance and refine these
skills in their curricula.
As conducting students are encouraged to develop a vocabulary of gestures, they
should be taught to think about what the desired effects of the gestures are and how these
effects might be described to students in various developmental stages.
Teacher/conductors in the classroom should be aware of the effectiveness of their
rehearsal communication. If a gesture does not elicit an appropriate response, then verbal
explanation of the gesture concurrent with the physical demonstration of the gesture may
be helpful. As evidenced in these results, a definition coupled with an emblem appears to
have a positive impact on teacher effectiveness, both in musical and general teaching
competencies.
Results from this research project indicate that music education students perceive
a teacher/conductor who incorporates defined emblems into his/her rehearsal as more
skillful in communicating musical ideas than the teacher who does not use defined
emblems. This research also suggests that teacher/conductors who use defined emblems
are perceived to help ensembles play better than those who do not. Other researchers
including Carpenter (1986), Cofer (1988), Francisco (1994), and Greschesky (1985)
reported similar findings.
In many cases instrumental ensembles in school settings include students new to
the ensemble each year (e.g., incoming freshmen, transfer students, newly auditioned
members, etc.). This means that the teacher/conductor’s repertoire of gestures is new,
and possibly foreign, to some of the learners. The teacher/conductor should be aware of
70
this and should review the intent of various conducting gestures so that the gestures
become emblematic to everyone in the ensemble.
Results of this research suggest that the teacher/conductor who explains the
meaning of most of his/her gestures as they are given, thereby defining emblems, is
perceived as being more helpful in guiding students to develop musical skills for future
learning than the teacher/conductor who did not define most gestures. These findings
bear out previous research showing that even commonly employed conducting gestures
must be defined for greatest rehearsal effectiveness (Sousa, 1988), and that students must
also be sensitized to the use of these gestures (Mayne, 1992).
Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from the analysis of the data:
1. Music education majors perceive a nonverbal exhibitor model to be more
effective in teaching than a nonverbal inhibitor model.
effective in teaching than a nonverbal inhibitor model with respect to teaching behaviors.
effective in teaching than a nonverbal inhibitor model with respect to musical
competence.
4. Areas o f agreement exist among the perceptions of music education students as
they evaluate nonverbal exhibitor and nonverbal inhibitor models specifically in terms of
instructional clarity. Evaluators of both teaching models believed that the
71
teacher/conductor gave clear instructions, and that the teacher/conductor communicated
information clearly to students.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
This study was limited to music education majors from four Midwestern colleges.
As with any research involving limited respondents the researcher cannot assume that
results are generalizable to the greater population. Since, however, the goal of the
research was to determine the relationship between verbal exhibitors and nonverbal
exhibitors, generalizability was not a primary concern of this study. Future research may
replicate this study with a larger population to determine whether results are applicable to
a general population of music majors.
A second limiting factor was the possible effect posed by the nonverbal element
of facial expression. Other researchers have found that facial expression can affect
emotional and informative aspects of communication (Chovil, 1991; Ekman & Oster,
1982). The researcher controlled this factor by modeling for each experimental video
segment so that facial expressions were as consistent as possible between the different
scripted segments. Future research may be designed so as to further isolate use of
emblematic gesture by eliminating facial expression.
As a result of this study the researcher suggests that music teacher preparation
programs consider dedicating appropriate instructional time toward the teaching of
emblematic nonverbal behaviors, especially in the area of conducting.
72
Research may be conducted in which teachers described by their colleagues as
effective teacher/conductors are videotaped in real rehearsal situations. These video
samples could be evaluated to find the proportion of defined and undefined gestures to
determine whether a pattern exists.
While much research seems to support a positive correlation between expressive
gesture and teaching effectiveness, Price & Chang (2001, 2005) found no such
correlation. Thus, additional research is needed in the use of gesture by music teachers
and its relationship to instruction in the music classroom.
Effectiveness of oral instruction in the music rehearsal classroom is another area
for additional research. One such study might measure the effectiveness of oral
instruction. Longitudinal research might be done to learn whether teachers get better at
giving instruction as they gain experience. Another project might involve determining
whether effective oral instruction compensates for ineffective nonverbal information.
Furthermore, an investigation combining the results of this study with the added
dimension of teaching intensity as a variable may determine the role teaching intensity
plays compared to use of emblematic gestures as students perceive teaching
effectiveness.
Because personalities of individuals vary, as do classroom environments,
examples of successful teaching may be found in widely different packages. “Within
each teacher’s experience, even within as brief a time scale as a single lesson or
rehearsal, there exists a range of differences with regard to each aspect of the teacher’s
performance” (Duke, 1999, p. 22). Finding common paths to dynamic, effective
73
instruction seems to be the initial goal of much educational research including this paper.
Whether we teach K -12 or in a university, whether our students are developing musicians
or those who want to teach developing musicians, when we find a practice that enhances
student learning we should consider adopting and adapting it to our own teaching and
sharing it with teachers for the future.
74
APPENDIX A
Perception of Teaching Effectiveness Measure

Circle the response closest to your position regarding each statement.
1. This teacher/conductor seemed musically creative.
Strongly Agree A gree Som ew hat Agree Som ew hat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
6 5 4 3 2 1
2. This teacher/conductor used a variety of teaching methods.
6 5 4 3 2 1
3. This teacher/conductor provided good musical information to students.
Strongly Agree Agree Som ew hat Agree Som ew hat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
6 5 4 3 2 1
4. This teacher/conductor cared about student learning.
6 5 4 3 2 1
5. This teacher/conductor was skillful in communicating musical ideas.
6 5 4 3 2 1
6. This teacher/conductor had good teaching skills.
Strongly Agree Agree S om ew hat Agree Som ew hat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
6 5 4 3 2 1
75
7. This teacher/conductor helped the ensemble to play expressively.
Strongly Agree Agree Som ew hat Agree Som ewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
6 5 4 3 2 1
8. This teacher/conductor was helpful in guiding students to develop musical skills

6 5 4 3 2 1
9. This teacher/conductor gave clear instructions.
Strongly Agree Agree Som ew hat Agree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
6 5 4 3 2 1
10. This teacher/conductor had a firm grasp of the material he/she presented.
6 5 4 3 2 1
11. This teacher/conductor encouraged the band to play with good technique.
Strongly Agree Agree S om ew hat Agree Som ew hat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
6 5 4 3 2 1
12. This teacher/conductor provided students with appropriate feedback.
Strongly Agree A gree S om ew hat Agree Som ew hat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
6 5 4 3 2 1
76
13. This teacher/conductor maintained good eye contact with the students.
6 5 4 3 2 1
14. This teacher/conductor helped the ensemble play with a good sound.
Strongly Agree A gree Som ew hat Agree Som ewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
6 5 4 3 2 1
15. This teacher/conductor communicated information clearly to the students.
6 5 4 3 2 1
16. This teacher/conductor was knowledgeable about music.
Strongly Agree A gree Som ew hat Agree Som ewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
6 5 4 3 2 1
17. This teacher/conductor helped the ensemble play better.
6 5 4 3 2 1
18. This teacher/conductor made certain that students understood his/her presentation
of the material.
6 5 4 3 2 1
77
REFERENCES
Acheson, K. A. & Gall, M. D. (1992). Techniques in the clinical supervision o f teachers.

New York: Longman.
Aubrecht, J. D., Hanna, G. S. & Hoyt, D. P. (1986). A comparison of high school student
ratings of teaching effectiveness with teacher self-ratings: Factor analytic and
multitrait-multimethod analyses. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
46(1), 223-231.
Baker, P. J. (1981). The development of music teacher checklists for use by

administrators, music supervisors, and teachers in evaluating music teaching
effectiveness. (UMI No. 8201803)
Berz, W. L. (1983). The development of an observation instrument designed to classify

specific nonverbal communication techniques employed by conductors of musical
ensembles. (UMI No. 8400532)
Brand, M. (1985). Research in music teacher effectiveness. Update, 3 (2), 13 - 16.
Brophy, T. (1993). Evaluation of music educators: Toward defining an appropriate

instrument. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 029).
Buell, D. S. (1990). Effective rehearsing with the instrumental music ensemble: A case
study. (UMI No. 9025698)
Burgoon, J. K. & Saine, T. (1978). The unspoken dialogue: An introduction to nonverbal

communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Byo, J. L. & Austin, K. R. (1994). Comparison of expert and novice conductors: An

approach to the analysis of nonverbal behaviors. Journal o f Band Research, 30
(1), 1 1 -3 4 .
Carpenter, R. A. (1986). A descriptive analysis of relationships between verbal behaviors

of teacher-conductors and ratings of selected junior high and senior high school
band rehearsals. (UMI No. 8618756)
Chovil, N. (1991). Social determinants of facial displays. Journal o f Nonverbal

Behavior, 15 (3), 1 41-154.
Cofer, R. S. (1998). Effects of conducting-gesture instruction on seventh-grade band

students’ performance response to conducting emblems. Journal o f Research in
Music Education, 46(3), 360 - 373.
78
Colwell, R. & Goolsby, T. (1992). The teaching o f instrumental music (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Corporon, E. (1997). The quantum conductor. In R. Miles (Ed.), Teaching music

through performance in band (pp. 11-26). Chicago: GIA.
Cutietta, Robert A. (1990). Adapt your teaching style to your students. Music
Educators Journal, 76. (6), 31-36.
Dickey, M. R. (1988). A comparison of the effects of verbal instruction and nonverbal

teacher-student modeling on instructional effectiveness in instrumental music
ensembles. (UMI No. 8907022)
Duke, R. A. (1999). Measures of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin

fo r the Council o f Research in Music Education, 143, 1-48.
Duke, R. A. & Henninger, J. C. (2002). Teachers’ verbal corrections and observers’

perceptions of teaching and learning. Journal o f Research in Music Education, 50
(1), 75-87.
Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories,

origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49 - 98.
Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1972). Hand movements. The Journal o f Communication,

22, 353-374.
Ekman, P., & Oster, H. (1982). Review of research, 1970 - 1980. In: P. Ekman (Ed.),
Emotion in the human face (2nd ed.) (pp. 147 - 173). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
Erbes, R. (1982). Music teacher education: Toward the twenty-first century. In R.

Colwell (Ed.). Symposium in music education. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Francisco, J. M. (1994). Conductor communication in the ensemble rehearsal: The

relative effects of verbal communication, visual communication, and modeling on
performance. (UMI No. 9542638)
79
Fridlund, A. J., Ekman, P., & Oster, H. (1987). Facial expression of emotion. In: A. W.
Siegman and S. Feldstein (Eds.), Nonverbal behavior and communication (2nd
ed.) (pp. 143 - 224). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fry, W. E. (1990). Books and dissertations on the technique of instrumental conducting:

A select bibliography. Journal o f Band Research 26 (1), 30-43.
Galkin, E. W. (1988). A history o f orchestral conducting: In theory and practice. New

York: Pendragon.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Kim, S., & Singer, M. (1999). What the teacher’s hands tell the
student’s mind about math. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 91(4), 720 - 730.
Grainger, P. A. (1949). Ye Banks and Braes O ’ Bonnie Doon. New York: G. Schirmer.
Grant, J. W. & Drafall, L. E. (1991). Teacher effectiveness Research: A review and

comparison. Bulletin o f the Council for Research in Music Education, 108, 31-
48.
Grechesky, R. N. (1985). An analysis of nonverbal and verbal conducting behaviors and

their relationship to expressive musical performance. (UMI No. 8513459)
Green, E. A. H. (1987). The modern conductor (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Hamann, D. L., Baker, D. S., McAllister, P. A., Bauer, W. I. (2002). Factors affecting
university music students’ perceptions of lesson quality and teaching
effectiveness. Journal o f Research in Music Education, 48 (2), 102-113.
Hausmann, C. S. (1984). A procedural model for the transference of analytical insights

into verbal and nonverbal communication in choral music. (UMI No. 8404796)
Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.). New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Hunnicutt, V. A. W. (1999). Training in the use of selected nonverbal behaviors to reduce

student disruptions in the classroom. (UMI No. 9909068)
Hunsberger, D. & Ernst, R. (1983). The art o f conducting. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Johnson, C. M., Fredrickson, W. E., Achey, C. E., & Gentry, G. R. (2003). The effect of
nonverbal elements of conducting on the overall evaluation of student and
professional conductors. Journal o f Band Research, 38 (2), 64-79.
80
Johnson, H. G., Ekman, P, & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Communicative body movements:

American emblems. Semiotica, 15 (4), 335-353.
Kohut, D. L. (1973). Instrumental music pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.
Langer, S. K. (1957). Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism o f reason, rite,
and art (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Leinsdorf, E. (1981). The composer’s advocate: A radical orthodoxy fo r musicians.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Madsen, C. K., Standley, J. M., & Cassidy, J. W. (1989). Demonstration and recognition
of high and low contrasts in teacher intensity. Journal o f Research in Music
Education, 37 (2), 85-92.
Madsen, K. (2003). The effect of accuracy of instruction, teacher delivery, and student
attentiveness on musicians’ evaluation of teacher effectiveness. Journal o f
Research in Music Education, 51 (1), 38-50.
Mayne, R. G. (1992). An investigation of the use of facial expression in conjunction with

musical conducting gestures and their interpretation by instrumental performers.
(UMI No. 9238229)
McElheran, B. (1966). Conducting technique for beginners and professionals. New

York: Oxford University Press.
Melzi, R. C. (1976). The Bantam new college Italian and English dictionary. New York:
Bantam.
Meyer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.
Miller, P. W. (2000). Nonverbal communication in the classroom. Munster, IN: Miller &
Associates.
Motley, M. T. (1993). Facial affect and verbal context in conversation: Facial expression
as interjection. Human Communication Research, 20 (1), 3 - 40.
Murray, H. G. (1994). The impact of formative and summative evaluation of teaching

in North American Universities, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
9(2), 117-132.
81
National Association of Schools of Music (2005). National Association o f Schools o f

Music Handbook 2005-2006. Reston, VA: NASM.
Ostling, A. (1977). Research on nonverbal communication with implications for

conductors. Journal o f Band Research, 12 (2), 2 9 -4 3 .
Patten, M. L. (1998). Questionnaire research: A practical Guide. Los Angeles: Pyrczak

Publishing.
Price, H. E. & Chang, E. C. (2005). Conductor and ensemble performance expressivity

and state festival ratings. Journal o f Research in Music Education 53 (1), 66-11.
Price, H. E. & Chang, E. C. (2001). Conductor expressivity and ensemble performance:

An exploratory investigation. Contributions to Music Education 28 (2), 9-20.
Price, H. E. & Winter, S. (1990). Effect of strict and expressive conducting on

performances and opinions of eight-grade students. Journal o f Band Research, 27
(1), 30-43.
Random House Webster's unabridged dictionary (2nd ed.) (1997). New York: Random
House.
Rothrock, C. (1971). Training the high school orchestra. West Nyack: Parker
Publishing.
Rudolph, M.(1994). The grammar o f conducting (3 rd ed.). New York: Schirmer.
Saunders, T. C. & Worthington, J. L. (1990). Teacher effectiveness in the performance

classroom. Update: Applications o f Research in Music Education, 8 (2), 26-29.
Sousa, G. D. (1988). Musical conducting emblems: an investigation of the use of specific

conducting gestures by instrumental conductors and their interpretation by
instrumental performers. (UMI No. 8820356)
SPSS version 13.0 fo r Windows. (2004). Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Swanwick, K. (1999). Teaching music musically. New York: Routledge.
Thompson, J. B. (1997). The relationship between nonverbal communication skill and

effectiveness in influencing opinion. (UMI No. 9822848)
Willard, R. (1986). Speak less, communicate more. The Instrumentalist, 40(6), 3 8 - 4 1 .
82
Yarbrough, C. (1975). Effect of magnitude of conductor behavior on students in selected

mixed choruses. Journal o f Research in Music Education, 23 (2), 134-146.
Yuzdepski, I & Elliott, L. (1985). Planning for an evaluation o f teaching performance.

Alberta Department of Education, Planning Services Branch. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 270 399).

The Effect of Specific Nonverb PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effect of Specific Nonverb PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EFFECT OF SPECIFIC NONVERBAL CONDUCTING ELEMENTS ON

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS IN A CLASSROOM

A dissertation submitted to the College of Fine and Professional Arts

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

B.M., Hastings College, 1989

M.Mus.Ed., University of Colorado, 1992

Ph.D., Kent State University, 2005

ir, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Director, School of Music

• CWXjjDblk_s. Dean, College of Fine and Professional Arts

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................... iii

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............................................ 21

I offer my sincere and grateful appreciation to Daryl Kinney who provided

Jere Forsythe for guidance along the way.

their interest and encouragement.

and for always remembering my best qualities while overlooking my flaws.

To my late father, Andrew,

who always was very impressed by the letters P - H - D,

and to my mother, Linda,

who tempered Dad’s exuberance by saying the letters only mean,

“Piled Higher and Deeper,”

both constant advocates for my continuous pursuit of education.

Instrumental music teachers encounter a variety of conducting/teaching styles

factor affecting teacher preparedness in the classroom is effective teacher education.

The purpose of a teacher education program is to provide pre-service teachers

projectors to cutting-edge computer-assisted instruction. Pre-service teachers accumulate

of educational expertise, there are field-specific elements of teacher preparation.

Teacher education programs in colleges and universities address the development

effectiveness of skills and professional practices imparted to their students. In this

conducting gestures is part of the broader field of nonverbal communication. Knowledge

of effective use of nonverbal components in conducting is one component of music

teaching that may contribute to effective music instruction.

In the investigation of nonverbal components of conducting, it is necessary first to

Conducting, as a practice, is defined in a variety of ways. In consulting an Italian

1976, p. 210). Webster’s (1997) defined a conductor as “a person who directs an

orchestra or chorus, communicating to the performers by motions of a baton or the hands

is one of communication and interpretation. “Like all semiotic activities, conducting is

construed in terms of a hierarchy of meanings which complement each other: time-

A significant aspect of conducting is the gesture, or nonverbal behavior.

effective nonverbal behaviors can be a significant, if not imperative, element in the

training of a teacher/conductor. Ostling (1977) went so far as to suggest that it is possible

that aspects of conducting may be learned as acquired skills in nonverbal patterns of

A variety of research has focused on identification and categorization of the

an instrument designed to classify specific nonverbal conducting techniques. Berz

indicated in his introduction, “Since nonverbal communication is very important to a

conductor, it is also important to determine how a conductor uses nonverbal behaviors to

made a difference in ensemble interpretation. In his summary of research in music

was a more efficient means of teaching than was all-verbal instruction.

Different gestures convey different meanings. Green (1987) reduced expressive

gesture conveys no meaning, it should not be incorporated into conducting. McElheran

the scene cluttered with meaningless frills” (p. 63).

As several researchers have worked to codify and categorize nonverbal

conducting gestures, it should be noted that gestures commonly taught in conducting

classes and used by conductors sometimes fail to convey intended meaning to

from 7th grade to university graduate student. In his conclusion he states:

It can no longer be assumed that the conducting gestures commonly taught

conductor and ensemble is limited.

In research linking the practice of instrumental conducting with nonverbal

communication, few researchers have referred to primary literature of nonverbal

communication research. For instance, Berz (1983), Francisco (1994), Grechesky

Nonverbal communication on the part of the conductor and reception by the

ensemble is the essence of conducting. A definitive element of conducting is the