MENC: The National Association for Music Education

Comparison of the Unit Study and Traditional Approaches for Teaching Music through
School Band Performance
Author(s): Robert J. Garofalo and Garwood Whaley
Source: Journal of Research in Music Education, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Autumn, 1979), pp. 137-142
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of MENC: The National Association for
Music Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3344964
Accessed: 10-10-2017 05:43 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc., MENC: The National Association for Music Education are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Research in
Music Education

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:43:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Garofa lo-Wha ley/137

COMPARISON OF THE
UNIT STUDY AND TRADITIONAL
APPROACHES FOR TEACHING
MUSIC THROUGH SCHOOL
BAND PERFORMANCE

Robert J. Garofalo
Garwood Whaley

This study compared two approaches for teaching music concepts and skills
through school band performance: (1) the Unit Study Composition and (2)
the traditional rehearsal procedure. The comparison used two secondary
school bands in a parallel-group design. Both bands rehearsed one work from
a projected performance repertory. Students in each band were given an
author-generated pre-, post, and post-posttest. After a five-week experi-
mental period, the assessment data were collected from each group and
subjected to standard statistical procedures. The support of each research
hypothesis at a significant level indicated that students taught with the Unit
Study Composition approach acquired conceptual knowledge, aural skills,
and performance proficiency to a significantly greater degree than students
taught with the traditional approach.

Key Words: aural discrimination, instrumental organization, literature (music),

music contest, performance ability, rehearsal.

The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of teaching

comprehensive musicianship using the Unit Study Composition cur-
riculum model (Garofalo, 1976). The Unit Study Composition is a
learning module that provides a systematic introduction to basic
music concepts related to the structural elements of music and historical
styles. These include melody, harmony, rhythm, bandstration, dy-
namics, texture, form, and the historical context of music. The materials
of the Unit Study Composition include (a) analytical and historical
notes, (b) a list of concepts, subconcepts, and behavioral objectives,
(c) glossary of music terms, (d) activities and assignments with options,
and (e) a means for concrete evaluation. These materials are de-
veloped into a lesson plan for teachers and a study guide for students.
Three elements of the Unit Study Composition were selected as the

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:43:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
138/J RME

basis of this study--conceptual knowledge, aural skills, and performance

proficiency. Based on these elements, three hypotheses were formulated.
After five weeks of study by control and experimental groups:
1. Students in the experimental group will develop a higher level of
conceptual knowledge related to the structural elements of the rehearsal/
performance composition' than students in the control group.
2. Students in the experimental group will be able to identify aurally,
with greater accuracy, melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic elements used in
the rehearsal/performance composition.
3. Intonation, technique, balance, interpretation, and musical effect
by the experimental group will be superior to that of the control group in
the ensembles' final performance of the rehearsal/performance composi-
tion.

Procedure

This study used two secondary school bands of similar ability and mem-
bership in a parallel-group design. The groups were matched by com-
paring school and ensemble enrollments, rehearsal durations, difficulty
levels of performed literature, formal instruction, ages and grades of the
students, and occupations of the students' parents. In addition, the com-
petence of each conductor was compared by documenting their education
and training (degrees earned and institutions graduated from), teaching
experience (years of experience, levels), professional activities (performance,
publications, administration), and so on. Both groups were subjected to an
author-generated preassessment evaluation of conceptual knowledge, aural
skills, and overall ensemble proficiency.
The study began with both groups rehearsing Spectrum along with other
works from a projected concert repertory. The control group was taught
Spectrum using traditional rehearsal procedures, with emphasis placed on
developing short-range performance goals (the instrumental skills needed
to perform the music selected for the next program), rather than broadly-
based educational goals. The experimental group was taught the work
through the Unit Study Composition approach. Both groups were again
tested at the end of the five-week instructional period and a performance
tape was made. The results were then compared with the preassessment
evaluation to derive statistical inferences. A panel of three qualified and
unbiased adjudicators evaluated the final performance tapes.
A multiple-choice test comprised of 50 terms related to the structural
elements of music measured students' conceptual knowledge. The terms,
which were extrapolated from the rehearsal/performance composition,
related both to twentieth-century serial composition and music of earlier
periods.

1 The rehearsal/performance composition used in this study was Spectrum by Herbert

Bielawa (Shawnee Press, 1967).

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:43:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Garofa lo-Wha Iley/139

A listening test was employed to evaluate the students' aural discrimina-

tion abilities. The test was comprised of melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic
elements that are characteristic of twentieth-century serial music and
music of earlier periods. Each of the following representative examples was
played on the piano three times. The students were instructed to notate as
accurately as possible the sounds that were played.

Melodic and Interval Dictation

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f) (g) (h)

Chord Dictation

(a) (b) (c) (d)

wI II U i ,-II 7 AD"-
Rhythm Dictation

(a) (b) (c) (d)

3 L3-- 3

Results

The data collected from both groups were subjected to computed means
and standard deviations, and paired observation t-tests. In addition, cor-
relation coefficients for pairs of variables on the post and post-posttests were
obtained. The Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design, suggested by Camp-
bell and Stanley (1966), was modified to include a post-posttest evalua-
tion. Six weeks after the posttest, a post-posttest evaluation was admin-
istered to the experimental group to measure the degree of retention.

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:43:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
140/JRME

At the conclusion of the five-week experimental period, the final per-

formance tapes of Spectrum were evaluated by three experienced adjudica-
tors using criteria established by the National Interscholastic Music Activi-
ties Commission (NIMAC) of the Music Educators National Conference.
To establish the initial performance levels of the control and experimental
groups, the adjudicators evaluated a tape recording of the 1976 District X
Band Festival of the Virginia Band and Orchestra Director's Association.2
The adjudicators' numerical scores for each category-intonation, tech-
nique, balance, interpretation, and musical effect-were averaged. The
scores of the control group and experimental groups were compared to
ascertain the difference on performance levels between the two groups. To
determine the level of each group's performance of Spectrum at the con-
clusion of the study, the same procedure was followed.
As illustrated in Table 1, the first research hypothesis was supported at
a statistically significant level. Students in the experimental group de-
veloped a higher degree of conceptual knowledge related to the structural
elements of music than students in the control group. The significant cor-
relation between post and post-posttest evaluations by the experimental
group indicated that the level of retention was extremely high. Because
there was no significant difference between the pretest and the posttest
scores (conceptual knowledge and aural skills tests) of the control group,
the post-posttest was not administered.
As shown in Table 2, the second research hypothesis was also supported
at a statistically significant level. Students in the experimental group were
able to aurally identify devices used in Spectrum with greater accuracy than
students in the control group. Again, the performance of the experimental
group under post and post-posttest conditions was highly correlated.
Based on the ratings of the three adjudicators as noted in Table 3, the
third research hypothesis was supported. After listening to a performance
tape of both groups, the adjudicators concluded that the experimental
group's performance of Spectrum was superior to that of the control group.
The adjudicators unanimously awarded the experimental group a rating
of I (Superior).

2The three adjudicators represented high school, university, and military bands. They
were James E. Dash, director of bands, Mt. Vernon High School, Alexandria, Virginia;
Joseph Kanyan, associate professor of music and band director, George Mason Uni-
versity, Fairfax, Virginia; and Frederick W. Boots, associate bandmaster (retired), the
United States Army Band, Washington, D.C. Both control and experimental groups
received a II (Excellent) rating by these adjudicators for their performance at the District
X Band Festival of Virginia. Although both groups received the same overall rating, the
control group had a slight edge because they performed grade VI music; whereas the
experimental group performed grade V music. From 1966-75 the control group con-
sistently received a I (Superior) rating for their performances of grade VI music at the
District X Band Festival of Virginia. The experimental group, on the other hand, par-
ticipated in the District X Band Festival for the first time in 1974. That year they re-
ceived a II (Excellent) rating for their performance of grade V literature. In 1975 they
received a I (Superior) rating for their performance of grade V music.

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:43:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Garofalo-Whaley/141

Table 1
Comparison of Means for Experimental and Control Groups:
Conceptual Knowledge Test

Control Group Experimental Group

Pretest 25.29 (a = 7.45) 28.16 (a = 6.4)

Posttest 25.76 (a = 8.13) 43.84 (a = 4.1)a
Post-Posttest ............... 42.85 (a = 4.3)b e

at < .01
br sy = .83: pr < .01
c Correlation of scores for the experimental group on the same test six wee

Table 2
Comparison of Means for Experimental and Control Groups:
Aural Identification Test

Control Group Experimental Group

Pretest 16.43 (a = 7.19) 15.98 (a = 6.27)

Posttest 17.0 (a = 7.7) 32.42 (a = 5.45)a
Post-Posttest ................ 31.18 (a = 5.29)b O

at < .01
br sy = .80: pr < .01
c Correlation of scores for the experimental group on the posttest and score
same test six weeks later.

Table 3
Comparison of Scores for Experimental and Control Groups:
Performance Evaluation of Spectrum

Adjudicators

Kanyan Boots Dash Average Scores

Control Group II II III II-

Experimental Group I I I I

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:43:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
142/JRME

Conclusion

The support of each research hypothesis at a significant level indicates

that students taught with the Unit Study Composition approach acquired
conceptual knowledge, aural skills, and performance proficiency to a greater
degree than students taught with a traditional approach. Using the Unit
Study Composition model as the primary instructional component in the
curriculum proved to be an effective method for teaching music concepts
and skills.

Discussion

In researching the effectiveness of teaching comprehensive musicianship

through band performance, it is important to compare the results of similar
studies conducted in a variety of educational environments. Although the
Unit Study Composition approach proved highly successful at the experi-
mental group school, further long-range studies using a similar method-
ology are needed.
It is conceivable that by using the Unit Study Composition approach
with greater frequency over extended periods of time, the results would
reveal new and interesting data. It is also possible that as the novelty of
such a program diminished, so too would the results. Comparative studies
designed to investigate the results of employing the Unit Study Composition
model for extended periods is the next logical step in examining the effec-
tiveness of this approach.
The results of long-range studies using this approach are of great impor-
tance. The Unit Study Composition could provide educators with a mean
to organize and evaluate an extended curriculum of comprehensive musician-
ship. The results of this study indicate that long-range use of this approach
could meet with a high degree of success.

References

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for re-
search. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1966.
Garofalo, R. Blueprint for band: A guide to teaching comprehensive musicianship through
school band performance. Portland, Me.: J. Weston Walch, 1976.

* The Catholic University of America

Washington, D.C.

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.29 on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:43:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms