The Effect of Conductor Academ

INFORM ATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand

markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1-The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “ Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you o f complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an

indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good
image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were
deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of
a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small
overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the
first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography,

photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your
xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer
Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have
filmed the best available copy.
University
Microfilms
International
300 N. Z E E B RD., A N N A R B O R , M l 4 8 1 0 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8207006
Price, Harry Edward, II
THE EFFECT OF CONDUCTOR ACADEMIC TASK PRESENTATION,

CONDUCTOR REINFORCEMENT, AND ENSEMBLE PRACTICE ON
PERFORMERS’ MUSICAL ACHIEVEMENT, ATTENTIVENESS, AND
ATTITUDE
Syracuse University Ed.D. 1981
University
Microfilms
International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Copyright 1981
by
Price, Harry Edward, II
All Rights Reserved
PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .
1. Glossy photographs or pages______
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_____
3. Photographs with dark background______
4. Illustrations are poor copy ;
5. Pages with black marks, not original copy______
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page_____
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages.
8. Print exceeds margin requirements______
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_____
11. Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.
12. Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered___________ . Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages______
15. Other_____________________________________________________________________
University
Microfilms
International
THE EFFECT OF CONDUCTOR ACADEMIC TASK PRESENTATION, CONDUCTOR
REINFORCEMENT, AND ENSEMBLE PRACTICE ON PERFORMERS'
MUSICAL ACHIEVEMENT, ATTENTIVENESS, AND ATTITUDE
by
HARRY EDUARD PRICE
B. M.E., Florida State University, 197*1

M-M.E-, Florida State University, 1975
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Education in Music in
the School of Education of Syracuse University
July 1981
Approved
Date
Copyright 1981
HARR? EDWARD PRICE
- i i -
CONTENTS
page
LIST OF TABLES ....................................... iv
LIST OF F I G U R E S ........................ v
CHAPTER I. ............................................... 1
INT E O D O C T I O N ............... 1
Statement of Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Need for Study. .......... 3
CHAPTER I I . ................................................. 7
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................... 7
Formal Versus Open Structure Classrooms . . . . . . 1 8
Reinforcement in Non-music Settings . . . . . . . . 2 1
Reinforcement in Music Settings . . . . . . . . . . 2 5
Music as Reinforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8
Active Versus Passive Activities. . . . . . . . . . 3 1
Research in Music Ensemble Settings . . . . . . . . 3 3
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8
CHAPTER III.................................................. 40
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 40
Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0
Selection of Music. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0
Experimental Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1
Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2
Treatment . . . . ................ . . . . . . . . . 4 3
Experimenters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
Measurement Procedures. . . . . . ......... . . . . 4 6
Frequency of Off-task. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6
Frequency of Teacher Eye Contact . . . . . . . . 4 7
Rehearsal Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8
Musical Performance Ratings. . . . . . . . . . . 4 8
Attitude Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8
Teaching Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9
Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3
CHAPTER I V ............. 57
RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ 57
Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8
Reinforcement Frequency. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1
Direction Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Academic Presentation Units. . . . . . . . . . . 6 3
Student Attentiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5
Musical Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1
Student Attitude. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4
Music. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5
Rehearsal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
"Turned On". . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . 8 1
Conductor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5
Teacher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1
- i ii -
CONTENTS— Continued
CHAPTER V ..................... 96
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 96
Student Attentiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8
Music Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Student Attitude. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Design. . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Implications foe Future Besearch. . . . . . . . . 110
SUMMARY..................................................... 114
A P P E N D I C E S ................................................. 117
A. List of Possible Music. . . . . . . . . . . . 118
B. Pretest Music Ranking Form. . . . . . . . . . 119
C. List of Music Used. . < ? . . . . . . . . . . . 120
D. Design Model Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
E. Eguipment List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
F. Performance Bating Form . . . . . . ........ 123
G. Attitude Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
H. Seconds Spent in Treatment Behaviors. . . . . 128
I. Frequency of Units and Reinforcements . . . . 129
J. Percentage of Student Off-task. . . . . . . . 130
K. Mean Music Achievement Scores . . . . . . . . 131
L. Attitude Survey: Average for
Music Preference. = 132
M. Attitude Survey: Average for
Rehearsal Enjoyment . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
N. Attitude Survey: Average for
"Turned On" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
0. Attitude Survey: Average for
Conductor Preference. . . . . . . . . . . . 135
P. Attitude Survey: Average for
Average Teacher Bating. . . . . . . . . . . 136
REFERENCES ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . 137
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA.......................................... 149
- v -
TABLES
Table page
1. Teaching Unit System of Observation:

Average Beliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5
2. Kendall Coefficient of Concordance Summary . . . . 56
3. Mean Time Spent in Seconds for Treatment

Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0
4. Mean Frequency of Units and Beinforcements . . . . 60
5. Mean Percentage of Students Off-task:

for Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5
6. Mean Percentage of Off-task Behavior:

for Activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7
7. Pre- Posttest Gain Scores for Musical

Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2
8. Music Bating: Multiple Begression . . . . . . . . 7 5
9. Behearsal Enjoyment Bating: Multiple

Begression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9
10. "Turned On" Bating: Multiple Begression ......... 82
11. Liking the Conductor Bating: Multiple

Begression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6
12. Teacher Bating: Multiple Begression . . . . . . . 9 2
FIGUBES
Figure page
1. Teacher Presentation of task . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0
2. Teacher Beinforcement of Student Besponse. . . . . 52
3. Off-task Behavior, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6
4. Off-task During Non-performance. . . . . . . . . . 7 0
5. Bean Music Performance Batings . . . . . . . . . . 7 3
6. Music Bating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7
7. Behearsal Bating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8. "Turned On" Bating . . . ......... . . . . . . . . 8 4
9. Liking the Conductor Bating by Treatment . . . . . 88
10. Liking the Conductor Bating by Conductor . . . . . 90
11. Conductor Bating as a Good Teacher . . . . . . . . 9 4
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Problem
The art of teaching and rehearsing involves many di
verse and complex behaviors, which may include thousands of
variables in operation when describing an effective teacher*
As a result there may be an infinite number of possible
combinations of interactions which occur in any multivariate
teaching/learning environment* Some variables involve tea
cher behaviors, including expressed values and attitudes,
verbal presentation of tasks, nonverbal cues and gestures,
and verbal and nonverbal reinforcements of student behavi
ors. Other variables involve student behaviors, including
expressed values and attitudes, quality of performance,
quantity of performance, attentiveness, and abilities to
reinforce teacher behaviors. In addition to these variables,
a specific situation may include many different values,
performance levels, student backgrounds, and others which
make the issue of identifying the gualities which enhance
teacher effectiveness more complex.
While there are many ingredients which comprise the
totality of a music ensemble rehearsal, the behavioral com
ponents of such a rehearsal may be described as follows:
A. Teacher behaviors.
1. Verbal {singing, directions, academic and social
- 1 -
task presentations, approval and disapproval
comments).
2. Non-verbal (eye contact, conducting, facial ex
pressions) .
3. Temporal (duration of behaviors, rehearsal pace).
B. Student behaviors.
1. Verbal (singing, talking).
2. Non-verbal (gestures, actions, eye contact, facial
expressions, posture, performance).
3. Attitudinal (written expression of likes and dis
likes) .
4. Temporal (duration of behaviors, speed of response
to c o n d u c t o r s instructions).
C. Teaching Units.
1. Contextual (type of teacher/student behavior).
2. Seguential (order of types of teacher/student be
haviors) .
3. Temporal (duration of units, pace of units).
The teacher and student behaviors above have been studied in
music ensemble rehearsal situations both descriptively and
experimentally, while teaching units in a music ensemble
situation have only been studied descriptively. It would
seem that the effect of all of the above could be studied in
an experimental situation, that is, the effect of teaching
units as well as individual teacher and student behaviors
could be studied by systematically varying the seguential
- 2 -
and temporal content of the teaching units because all are
defined as overt controllable behaviors.
Need for Study
In secondary and post-secondary schools, the student
musical ensemble is a basic part of the music curriculum.
Given its place in schools, it would be useful for the
teacher/conductor to develop efficient techniques with which
to achieve the maximum level of performance for a given
amount of time. Indeed, how to best use rehearsal time is a
primary problem for a teacher/conductor. Green (1969) ad
dressed the need for efficient use of rehearsal time:
Early in his career, the student will learn there

is never enough rehearsal time. It is a most pre
cious commodity and must not be wasted...No con
ductor can disassociate himself completely from the
teaching facet of his trade. Knowing how to suggest
changes, without prejudicing the members of the
ensemble, is a valuable asset, (p. 2)
Rehearsal efficiency is addressed by Budolf (1950) al
most to the exclusion of the many other skills required of a
conductor:
But all his musicianship and thorough study of

scores will help him little unless he knows how to
talk to people, work with them, and get resiits in
a guick and direct manner. Knowledge of a few sim
ple principles of group psychology is a great as
sistance in rehearsing efficiently and in stimula
ting the players to a good performance, (p. 1)
The previous statements are directed towards the ef
ficient use of rehearsal time with a focus on the skilled
use of verbalization; however, other authorities caution
- h -
against the overuse of verbalizations. Bloomquist (1973)
sees rehearsal inefficiency, in the form of excess verbiage,
as a strong contributor to discipline problems in the se
condary school ensemble;
My best advice is - don*t talk - do! Don’t attempt

to accomplish with your mouth vhat your baton can
do much better. An overly talkative director is
easy to ignore, (p. 79)
While there is no research on the subject of the effective
ness of baton technigue in influencing performance, there
are data which indicate that non-performance portions of
rehearsals result in a decrease in attentiveness (Spradling,
1980; Yarbrough and Price, in press).
A noted composer and conductor, W. Frances McBeth, ad
dressed the issue of playing time in rehearsals in an in
terview reported by Davis (1978):
I continue playing as far as possible so as not to

make the rehearsal boring. After a stop or some i-
solated work with one group, I choose a starting
place generally farther back than necessary. This
method keeps a higher percentage of kids playing
during these work periods, (p. h0)
In an article on the efficient use of rehearsal time,
Begian (1968) seems to have addressed the concerns mentioned
to this point and summarizes as follows:
An efficient conductor knows what he is after,

tries to explain it with a minimum verbiage, and
develops his technique to a point where he does not
have to stop for every little correction. But when
technigue cannot accurately convey what he is
seeking musically, he must stop to explain, (p. 36)
Thus, the efficient rehearsal is clearly a concern of the
- 5 -
conductors and conducting teachers cited. The focus of these
authorities seems to be on the guantity of performance time
and the quality of verbalizations which occur during the
non-performance time.
Becker, Engelmann, and Thomas (1971) have suggested a
teaching model which is clearly applicable to both the
guantity of performance time and quality of verbalizations
which occur during the non-performance time in a rehearsal
situation. In this model, teaching is defined as a three-
step process: (1) teacher presents preceding stimulus; (2)
student responds; (3) teacher presents following stimulus
(S-R-S). Another way of stating this is: (1) the teacher
presents a task (direct or implied); (2) the student re
sponds; and (3) the teacher gives the student feedback or
goes on to another task. When this is placed specifically in
the context of a music rehearsal situation, the three steps
might be: (1) the conductor conveys that which is souqht
musically; (2) the student attempts to perform in the manner
which the conductor has conveyed;and (3) the conductor re
inforces the performance, or goes on to another presenta
tion.
It would seem that the Becker, Engelmann, and Thomas
(1971) teaching model could be applied to a music ensemble
rehearsal setting in an effort to develop efficient rehear
sal techniques and consequently to maximize the level of
performance for a given amount of rehearsal time. That fceinq
the case, skills and techniques designed to implement this
- 6 -
model should be studied systematically in relationship to
performance outcomes. One observational study demonstrated
that this three-step process does occur in music ensemble
situations (Yarbrough 8 Price, in press) and that it is
applicable as a means of describing and analyzing the re
hearsal process. Since the teaching model could be opera
tionally defined and observed in a music ensemble rehearsal
situation, it appeared that it could be examined in an ex
perimental setting. This study was designed as an initial
effort to apply this adaptation (Yarbrough and Price, in
press) of the Becker, Engelmann and Thomas (1971) teaching
model to an experimental setting in an effort to study the
effect on student responses.
Specifically, the purpose of this study was to inves
tigate the effects of teaching units on attentiveness, per
formance, and attitude of students in a university symphonic
band. Student attentiveness, performance, and attitude were
measured in three experimental treatments: (A) teacher di
rections followed by student directions; (B) teacher aca
demic task presentations, teacher directions followed by
student performance; and (C) teacher academic task presen
tations, teacher directions, student performance, followed
by teacher reinforcement.
Student performance was measured using judges* ratings
of audiotaped performances; attentiveness was measured using
behavioral observations of videotaped rehearsals; and atti
tude was measured using verbal reports of students.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The successful isolation of some variables which link
teacher behavior to student behavior is a recent phenomenon.
The only effective teacher behavior which has been substan
tiated by research findings that date as far back as the
early 1960's, is the effect of teacher reinforcement on
student behaviors (Altman 6 Linton, 1971; Hanley, 1970;
Kennedy 6 Willcutt, 1964; Lipe 8 Jung, 1971). It was not
until the 1970's that educational research was able to link
other teacher behaviors to student behaviors (Brophy, 1979;
Dunkin 8 Biddle, 1974; Rosenshine 6 Furst, 1973). Since then
efforts have continued to identify and investigate the
teacher/student behaviors which contribute to teaching ef
fectiveness as indicated by student achievement, attentive
ness, and attitude.
It has been suggested that "more attention needs to be
paid to classroom seguences and pupil behavior" (Dunkin 8
Biddle, 1974, p. 132) rather than to a myriad of variables
ranging from highly specified behaviors to nebulous and
ill-defined terms. In this review, the focus will first be
on teaching methods and their components defined as follows:
Teaching methods are recurrent instructional

processes, applicable to various subject matters,
and usable by more than one teacher. They are re
current in that the activities are repeated over
intervals measured in minutes or weeks. They are
instructional processes, such as patterned behavior
(for example, lecturing, discussion, and recita-
- 7 -
- 8 -
tion); delivery systems for curriculum (for exam

ple, printed subject matter, film, programmed in
struction, and computer assisted instruction); and
organizational structures for promoting learning
(for example, tutoring and independent study),
. . . . The ways in which the teaching of
specific subject matter goes on we call "teaching
techniques," which are studied in courses on cur
riculum and instruction in reading, science, social
studies, mathematics, English, and the like. The
requirement that a teaching method be usable by
more than one teacher means that it should not de
pend upon the talents, traits, or resources unique
to an individual teacher. Bather, the use of a
teaching method should, in principle, be accessible
to any trained teacher. (Berliner S Gage, 1976,
P- 5)
Secondly, the focus of this review will be sequencing
of presentation. In The Study of Teaching, the authors sta
ted that "it appears to us that any meaningful analysis of
teaching must involve sequential elements. . . . effective
teaching must consist of seguences of presentations that are
planned carefully and conducted sensitively" (Dunkin 6
Biddle, 1974, p. 353). Besults of recent research support
the hypothesis that "it is pattern of practice rather than
single teaching practices or teaching skills which account
for [teacher] effectiveness" (Powell, 1978, p. 28). It was
also reported that pattern of teaching practice is more
likely to be related to learning than a single teaching
practice (McDonald, 1976a).
A teaching model has been proposed which defines the
teaching/learning environment as basically a three-step
process; (1) teacher presents a "preceding stimulus", (2)
student responds, and (3) teacher presents a "following
stimulus" by either giving the student feedback or going on
- 9 -
to the next preceding stimulus (S-B-S) (Becker, Engelmann, 6
Thomas, 1971). The effectiveness of this teaching model
seems to be substantiated by the findings to date in non-
music settings. An analysis of data assessing the effec
tiveness of the Engelmann-Becker Direct Instruction Hodel
(E-B) indicates that this model was effective. It mas im
plemented by use of a curriculum for reading, arithmetic,
and language designed by Engelmann which was published under
the trade name DISTAB. In this curriculum, students learned
discriminations and operations in a rapid-paced fashion,
their attention was focused on tasks and discriminations,
they were cued to respond, and the responses were rein
forced. It was effective in developing basic academic skills
in disadvantaged primary-grade children (Becker & Engelmann,
1976) .
Stallings (1975) "found that a variable which describes
a stimuli/response/feedback (S/B/F) sequence of interaction"
(p. 13) was significantly related to math and English
achievement scores of first and third grade students. This
was a result of a comprehensive observation study of class
room processes and instructional practices in Follow Through
Planned Variation projects (Stallings & Kaskovitz, 197U).
The Follow Through Program was established by con

gress in 1967 under the office of Economic Oppor
tunity when it became apparent that a program was
needed in the early grades of public school to re
inforce and extend the academic gains made by eco
nomically disadvantaged children enrolled in Head
Start or similar pre-school proqrams. Project Fol
low Through was and is a "planned variation" re
search design; that is, the goal is to examine the
differential effectiveness of programs based on
divergent educational and developmental theories.
- 10 -
Of 22 Follow Through educational programs,

seven were selected for observational study. Those
chosen represent a wide spectrum of innovative
educational theories. The range includes two models
based upon positive reinforcement theory (from the
University of Kansas and the University of Oregon),
a model based primarily upon the cognitive deve
lopmental theory of Jean Piaget (High/Scope Foun
dation) , an open classroom model based upon the
English Infant School theory (Educational Develop
ment Center), and three other models drawn from
Piaget, John Dewey, and the English Infant Schools
(Far West Laboratory, University of Arizona, and
Bank street College).
The first part of the study examined how well
the educational models had been implemented. The
findings suggest that most teachers were implemen
ting the models according to sponsor specifica
tions. The second part of the study . . . examined
the relationships between classroom instructional
practices and child outcomes (i.e., test scores,
days absent, observed child behaviors). (Stallings,
1975, p. 1)
The findings of the second part of the study indicated that
higher reading and math scores, in first and third grade,
were obtained in classrooms using systematic in

structional patterns where the teacher provides
information and asks a guestion about the informa
tion- The child responds and the teacher immedi
ately lets the child know whether the response is
right or wrong. If he is wrong, the child is guided
to the correct answer. If he is correct, he re
ceives praise, a token, or some form of acknowl
edgment (Stallings, 1975, p. 6).
This pattern reflected the procedures used in the University
of Kansas and University of Oregon (positive reinforcement
models) classrooms.
References to this and similar patterns of student/
teacher interaction as effective teaching models were found
with considerable freguency in the recent research litera-
tu?;e (Becker, 1978; Berliner S Eosenshine, 1976; Brophy,
- 1 1 -
1979a, 1979b; Brophy 6 Evertson, 1974; Carnine, 1979;
Engelmann, 1971; Evertson, Anderson, Brophy, S Anderson,
1978; Good, 1979; McDonald, 1976a, 1976b; Medley, 1977;
Powell, 1978; Bosenshine, 1976a, 1976b, 1978, 1979; Soar,
1973; Stallings, 1975; Stallings S Kaskowitz, 1974). Brophy
(1979a) suggested an optimal pattern of instruction which
has many similarities to the pattern stated by Stallings
(1975):
The instruction that seems most efficient in

volves the teacher working with the whole class (or
with small groups in the early grades), presenting
information in lectures/demonstrations and then
following up with recitations or practice exercises
in which the students get opportunities to make
responses and get corrective feedback. (Brophy,
1979a, p. 4)
In an earlier study, several factors which were consistent
with these patterns emerged. While some inconsistencies
existed in the results, focus, drill, convergence, struc
tured activity with the teacher and time spent on reading,
and lesser amounts of pupil freedom were associated with
pupil gain in skill (Soar, 1973).
Rosenshine (1976a) reported that in the recent inves
tigations which covered "the same context— primary grade
reading and mathematics for children from low SES back-
rounds . . . . there was convergence on an optimal pattern
for this instruction, which might be labeled as direct in
struction" (p. 62-63). He identified the characteristics
composing direct instruction as a great deal of time spent
on academic activities, predominance of seatwork using
- 12 -
structured materials, teachers or materials providing imme-
diate feedback using praise and students working in teacher
supervised groups with little free time, resulting in less
off-task student behavior and a gain in achievement. Powell
(1978) suggested that patterns could be expected to be im
portant. She described the pattern of direct instruction in
which students show a greater achievement in basic skills:
Students spend a good portion of the time allocated

to instruction actually engaged in instructional
tasks, and the teacher monitors and encourages task
engagement on the part of the students, feedback or
praise is given relatively guickly and is related
to the academic work. (Powell, 1978, p. 29)
As can be seen, direct instruction applies to consistencies
of results ’’which do not translate easily into rules or best
methods” (Powell, 1978, p. 29). Good (1979) echoed this ob
servation when he cited Powell (1978) :
Direct instruction should not be viewed as a set of

prescriptive rules. It should be seen as a concep
tual orientation that values active teaching, ex
pository learning, focused learning, focused
learning and accountability. (Good, 1979, p. 55)
A large experiment was conducted in the context of
Follow Through, comparing direct instruction and eight other
major approaches to early childhood education. The approa
ches that were compared were the Open Classroom Hodel (Edu
cational Development Center), Cognitively-Oriented Curricu
lum Model (High/Scope Educational Besearch Foundation), Bank
Street Early Childhood Educational Model (Bank Street Col
lege of Education), Besponse Education Model (Far West La
boratory for Educational Research), Tucson Early Education
- 13 -
Model (University of Arizona), Parent Education Model (Uni
versity of Plorida), Language Development (Bilingual) Model
(Southwest Educational Development laboratory), Behavior A-
nalysis Model (University of Kansas), Direct Instruction
Model (University of Oregon). The effectiveness of these
approaches was studied in terms of basic skill, cognitive,
and affective measures, with Direct Instruction scoring the
highest in each of the three measures. (The Parent Education
Model was also found to be effective, but its major goal is
the training of parents to enhance student achievement, and
not student/teacher interactions, and as such will not be
addressed in this review.) Gordon (1971) found the use of
the Direct Instruction Model to be an effective approach
with both "high risk" students and those working at or above
grade level.
In a review and summarization of the Abt Associates*
Final Report of the Follow-Through Planned Variation
Experiment, Becker (1978) reported that the data show that
direct instruction clearly outperformed other approaches on
nearly all measures. Berliner and Rosenshine (1976) sugges
ted similar findings in a report of the Beginning Teacher
Evaluation Study, conducted by the California Commission on
Teacher Preparation and Licensing. They reported that the
teachers who were viewed as effective in helping students to
acquire knowledge were engaged in direct instruction. A re
view of recent process-product studies attempted to identify
effective teaching on the basis of achievement. Three major
- 14 -
conclusions Here presented:
(a) elementary school teachers do exert differen

tial effects upon student achievement; (b) class
room management skills are exceedingly important
[necessary but not sufficient]; and (c) a pattern
of teaching behavior called direct instruction
seems to be a useful heuristic for describing ef
fective elementary classroom teacher. (Good, 1979,
P- 53)
The studies mentioned thus far focused on achievement
in the primary grades. A recent study of the teaching of
basic reading skills attempted to transfer these findings
for the primary grades to the secondary school environment.
This research identified teaching processes that mere ef
ficient in helping secondary school students learn to read
(Stallings, 1978). The results were similar to those found
for primary grades. The findings suggested that teachers
should:
Have most interaction about reading

Give instructions to the total group
Ask guestions of specific students (no volunteers)
Provide positive feedback
Control negative behavior
Encourage positive behavior
Use guides and probing questions when students do not
know the answer, (p. 18)
Brophy (1979b) reported that recent findings indicated that
direct instruction in small groups, coupled with formal
classroom organization and management are as effective in
producing satisfactory learning results at the secondary
level as they are in teaching basic skills at the primary
levels Although the research is minimal, it does appear that
the findings at the primary grade level may be generalizable
to the secondary level.
- 15 -
The literature related to direct instruction has basi
cally dealt vith English and mathematics skills. It is only
recently that one £inds research in music which relates to
this model. There are two studies, and they are both de
scriptive in nature. Moore (1981) made a relevant observa
tion in a study comparing the use of teaching time by Ame
rican and British elementary music specialists. "The segu
ential order of events in the observed £ American and En
glish ] lessons generally proceeded as follows: instruction -
preparation - musical activity - discussion - further in
struction - musical activity - etc." (p. 66). This is very
similar to the S-R-S model proposed by Becker, Engelmann,
and Thomas (1971). Although it was not Moore’s (1981) in
tention to do so, this is verification of the existence of
the pattern inherent in the Direct Instruction Model in
elementary school music settings.
In an attempt to examine whether the concepts of the
Direct Instruction Model could be found in high school en
semble rehearsals, Yarbrough and Price (in press) conducted
a two-phase research study. In the first phase, an observa
tion instrument was developed and validated. The analysis
included: (a) percentage of off-task behavior; (b) number of
seconds during which performance (entire group and section
al) and non-performance occurred; (c) freguency of stops;
(d) freguency of academic and social approvals and disap
provals; (e) freguency of seguence, approval, disapproval,
and conflicting cue errors; (f) frequency of eye contact to
- 16 -
the ensemble and individuals; and (g) freguency of complete
and incomplete teaching units. The above variables seemed to
address most, if not all, of the issues brought to light by
previous research.
All observation procedures mere based on technigues

developed in previous behavioral and descriptive
research (Madsen 8 Madsen, 1974; Madsen 8
Yarbrough, 1980; Thurman, 1976), with the exception
of the observation procedure for complete and in
complete teaching units vhich was developed for
this study and is based on the teaching/learning
model presented by Becker, Engelmann and Thomas
(1971). Observer reliability was computed by di
viding total agreements by agreements plus disa
greements. Average reliability was .91. (Yarbrough
S Price, in press)
The procedure divided the "teaching unit" into three parts:
(1) teacher presentation; (2) student response; and, (3)
teacher feedback/reinforcement. These three parts were then
delineated into categories to allow for careful analysis of
all teacher as well as student behaviors. Teacher presenta
tions were subdivided into four categories; academic, soci
al, conducting, and off-task. The teacher behavior was also
analyzed for the frequency of eye contact. Student responses
were subdivided into the four categories of performance,
sectional, verbal response, and nonverbal response. Student
attentiveness was also assessed and described as either on-
or off-task. The third part,, teacher feedback/reinforcement,
was analyzed for facial expressions and verbal content, and
then categorized as facial and/or verbal approval and/or
disapproval. These were also analyzed for feedback errors as
defined by the investigators. When this was completed, the
- 17 -
parts were analyzed for sequencing (1-2-3) and completion as
completed “teaching units". They found that this model could
be used to analyze and describe most of the behaviors which
occurred in the ensemble rehearsals observed.
Both Moore (1981) and Yarbrough and Price (in press)
used descriptive research methods to examine teaching. In an
earlier experimental research study, Moore (1976) investi
gated the effect of five differential teaching techniques on
125 college students. Contingency-managed instruction (CMI),
independent study, CMI-lecture discussion, contact control,
and delay control techniques were examined for their effects
on the achievement, attitude, and teaching skills of stu
dents enrolled in elementary music education classes. All
the groups received the same materials, but the methods of
teaching were different for each group. The CMI and CMI-
lecture discussion groups had higher overall achievement
scores, the CMI groups generally demonstrated higher atti
tude scores, and CMI-lecture demonstration resulted in sig
nificantly higher scores for teaching skills. Contingency-
managed instruction includes several concepts which are si
milar to direct instruction; information or materials are
broken down into small modules, frequent evaluations, and
immediate feedback. Moore (1976) suggested that higher
teaching skills scores for the CMI-lecture demonstration
groups may have been the function of the inclussion of tea
cher modeling by way of class lecture.
- 18 -
Formal Versus Open Structure Classrooms
Inherent In the above review is a comparison of formal
with open structured classrooms. Procedures used in the
University of Kansas and University of Oregon (positive re
inforcement models) classrooms, which are formal, contribu
ted more to achievement than five other models (Far Best
Laboratory, Bank street. University of Arizona, High Scope,
Educational Development Center) which were open structure
models (Stallings, 1976). The formal models have consis
tently been rated superior to open and flexible instruction
on the basis of achievement (Becker, 1978; Berliner &
Bosenshine, 1976; Brophy, 1979a, 1979b; Carnine, 1979;
Powell, 1978; Bosenshine, 1976a, 1977; Soar, 1973; Stal
lings, 1975, 1976; Stallings S Kaskowitz, 1974).
If one assesses these models on a basis other than
achievement in basic skills, it may be that formal structure
is not superior. Stallings (1976) reported:
Lower absence rates, higher scores on a nonverbal

problem solving test of reasoning can be attributed
in part to more open and flexible instructional
approaches in which children are provided a wide
variety of activities and selected their own groups
part of the time. (p. 16)
However, another major study found that while students in
formal classrooms were better at punctuation, they were no
worse at creative or imaginative writing than pupils in in
formal classes (Bennett, Jordan, Long, 6 Bade, 1976). In
discussing the results of Bennett et. al. (1976), Bruner
(1976) summarized them and made some critical comments:
- 19 -
The main findings can be summed up quickly.

The more formal the teaching, the more time pupils
spend working on the subject matter at hand. And in
general, though with some important exceptions, the
more time pupils spend working on a subject, the
more they improve at it - no huge surprise, but one
that grows in importance as one looks at the re
sults. For though it may come as no revelation that
students in the more formal classrooms improved
considerably more in reading and in mathematical
skills than the less formally taught, it is more
revealing that pupils in informal settings did not
do any better on their creative writing than their
formally instructed fellows, (p. ix)
In a recent music study, the effects of structured re
corder (a type of whistle flute) instruction presented with
contingent positive reinforcement was compared with a dis
covery approach (Dorow 8 Greer, 1977). The structured in
struction was found to be an effective means for the deve
lopment of basic performance skills in elementary school
students.
The results [also] shoved that the discovery

method of instruction was not effective for teach
ing the no-instruction group performance skills on
the recorder. Although students in the no-instruc
tion group had self-instructional materials avail
able to them . . . . It is clear that beginning
instrumentalists, students in elementary school
general music programs, or clients in music therapy
instrumental programs need structured instructional
programs. (Dorow 8 Greer, 1977, p. 15)
Three basic factors have been identified in research on
teacher effectiveness: (1) group instruction with the tea
cher maintaining an academic focus; (2) guantity of time
students are academically engaged; and (3) teacher feedback.
The positive relationship of these factors amounts to a re
commendation for a formal classroom (Brophy, 1979a;
- 20 -
McDonald, 1976a; Bosenshine, 1979; Stallings, 1978).
There are no lists of essential behaviors for

teachers.
. . . Besearch to date also suggests that the
following instructional variables are usually as
sociated with content covered, academically engaged
minutes, and academic achievement gain: teachers
maintaining a strong academic focus with encou
ragement and concern for the academic progress of
each student; teacher, rather than student, selec
tion of activities; grouping of students into small
and large groups for instruction; and using factual
guestions and controlled practice in teacher-led
groups. (Bosenshine, 1979, p. 52)
A consensus of support exists for the use of direct in
struction in primary grades for basic skills achievement in
mathematic and English. Some research also supports the use
of this model for teaching reading at the secondary level,
but a great deal more research is needed to support its use
above the primary grade level and in other subject areas
(Good, 1979; Heath 8 Nielson, 1974; McDonald, 1976a; Bosen
shine, 1976b).
It seems unlikely that one set of teaching behavi

ors is most effective for teaching everything. If
there is an important interaction between type of
content and teaching behavior (given cognitive
achievement as criteria), then the conclusion about
which teaching behavior is effective may be deter
mined as much by content as by teacher behavior.
(Heath S Nielson, 1974, p. 476)
It [also] seems unlikely that one set of teacher

behaviors is most effective for teaching everything
to everybody. (Heath 6 Nielson, 1974, p. 477)
Neither is there clear evidence regarding the non-cognitive
aspects of learning at any level. In short, "the extent to
which these generalizations need to be modified as one moves
- 21 -
to other grade levels and contexts remains to be determined"
(Bosenshine, 1976b, p. 364).
Reinforcecent in Non-music Settings
The theory of operant conditioning begins with the ba
sic proposition that an organism will shov an increase in
the strength of any response that is reinforced (Reynolds,
1975; Skinner, 1953). This theory, as applied to a classroom
setting, suggests that students* behaviors are a result of
how they have been reinforced in the past, and that their
future behaviors will be a result of how they are currently
reinforced.
In the Follow Through Planned Variations, the Behavio
ral Analysis Model and the Direct Instruction Model were
both found to be more effective than six other models
(Carnine, 1979). The Behavioral Analysis Model presented
objectives and focused on the extensive use of reinforcement
to attain these objectives. However, the Behavioral Analysis
Model was not as effective as the Direct Instruction Model
in teaching cognitive or basic skills.
The influence of teacher behavior on the behavior of
students in normal classroom situations has been studied
extensively, mostly by systematically varying ratios of ap
proval/disapproval classes of teacher behavior. Student be
havior has been subsequently analyzed for attentiveness and
achievement as well as attitudinal effects. Several reviews
of research in this area have been published (Altman 8
- 22 -
Linton, 1971; Hanly, 1970; Kennedy 6 Willicutt, 1964; Lipe 6
Jang, 1971; Bosenshine, 1971; Schultz S Sherman, 1976), and
they indicate a consensus regarding the effectiveness of the
use of reinforcement by the teacher. All forms of rein
forcement are effective; however, the most powerful form may
be the use of approval for appropriate behavior in con-junc-
tion with ignoring inappropriate behaviors wherever pos
sible, while using disapproval as a last resort (Altman £
Linton, 1971; Becker, Hadsen, Arnold £ Thomas, 1967; Hall,
Lund £ Jackson, 1968; Hadsen, Becker 6 Thomas, 1968; Hadsen,
Becker, Thomas, Koser K Plager, 1968; Hadsen £ Hadsen, 1974;
Nolen, Kunzelman, £ Haring, 1967; O eleary £ Becker, 1968;
Stallings £ Kaskowitz, 1974; Thomas, Becker, £ Armstrong,
1968; Tyler £ Brown, 1968). This research has primarily
dealt with the effect of reinforcement on social and aca
demic behaviors, as well as self-report of student atti
tudes.
A series of studies was carried out, which systemati
cally varied teacher approval, disapproval, and ignoring, to
examine their effect on students* social behaviors. Becker,
Hadsen, Arnold, and Thomas (1967) instructed teachers to
provide rules of good classroom conduct, point out these
rules, and to ignore inappropriate behavior. This was found
to be ineffective in reducing inappropriate behaviors. The
teachers were then told that in addition to establishing
rules and ignoring inappropriate behaviors, Vhey should
dispense reinforcement in the form of smiles and praises
- 23 -
only for behaviors which were compatible with learning and
teaching. When this contingent teacher approval was insta
ted, the rate of appropriate behavior increased signifi
cantly, while the deviant behavior decreased from an average
of 62.13% to 29.19%. Another study found that teacher ap
proval, which was contingent upon appropriate behavior, de
creased inappropriate behavior and no approval increased it
(Thomas, Becker, 6 Armstrong, 1968). In another study, when
students who were out of their seats were told to "sit
down", the incidence of students getting out of their seats
increased markedly, but when being out of seats was ignored
and students were contingently praised for sitting in their
seats, the out of seat behavior was almost extinguished
(Madsen, Becker, Thomas, Koser, & Plager, 1968). These stu
dies seem to indicate that teacher attention functions to
increase that behavior which is being attended to, regard
less of whether the behavior is appropriate or not.
It is critical to note that effective reinforcement is
reinforcement which is contingent on a specific behavior or
a set of behaviors.
Sheer incidence of praise does not appear to have

consistent relationships with pupil achievement,
whereas praise used for the positive reinforcement
of pupil response does. (Ounkin & Biddle, 1974,
p. 414)
A study which was designed to increase academic responses
using positive reinforcement changed from contingent to
noncontingent tokens (Nolen, Kunzelman, S Haring, 1967). The
result indicated that a decrease in accuracy when tokens
- 24 -
were noncontingent, and an increase in correct responses
vhen tokens were contingent. It has also been reported that
there was an improvement in correct responses when tokens
were contingent on correct answers, and a decrease in cor
rect responses when tokens were presented on a noncontingent
basis (Tyler S Brown, 1968). Feedback was also foond to be
superior to no feedback in assisting students in the at
tainment of self-set goals for performance (Erez, 1976).
Praise and criticism have also been categorized as
either academic or nonacademic in focus (e.g., praise for
reading versus praise for working well in groups) (Stallings
& Kaskowitz, 1974). The relationship of both praise and
criticism to achievement was generally positive when they
were focused on academic activities, while the relationship
of nonacademic feedback to achievement was either mixed or
negative.
It does appear that the theory of operant conditioning,
when applied to a classroom setting, can be functional in
teacher/student interactions. The reinforcement must be
contingent, and in general the optimal application is the
use of teacher approval for appropriate student behaviors,
ignoring of inappropriate behaviors, and disapproval of
inappropriate behaviors as a last resort. These conclusions
are fairly consistent in non-music settings for both social
and academic student behaviors. It remains to be seen if the
application of these operant conditioning concepts functions
- 25 -
as profoundly in music settings such as the music classroom
and the music ensemble rehearsal.
Beinforcement in Kusic Settings
One study used music as the subject matter and had re
sults which were similar to those of the non-music studies.
Hadsen and Madsen <1972) found a significantly greater
amount of intonational improvement when children were given
instruction and contingent reinforcement, versus no in
struction and noncontingent reinforcement for improved per
formance. This study was an exception, in that it did result
in a differential effect of reinforcement on music achieve
ment. However, the systematic study of teacher behavior's
influence on the behavior of students in music classrooms as
well as musical ensembles has yielded results which indicate
that the use of teacher reinforcement may not function as
dramatically as it does in other classroom situations. Tea
cher reinforcement does appear to have an effect on student
attitude and attentiveness, but the relationship of rein
forcement to musical achievement (performance) is not clear.
In one of the earliest studies examining the effects of
approval and disapproval on children's behavior in music
classrooms, Bennett and Adams (1967) found that classes re
ceiving positive reinforcement were more efficient. They
compared positive, negative, and no reinforcement classes;
and found that positive classes took the least amount of
- 26 -
time to achieve desired responses, while the negative clas
ses took the most amount of time.
Kuhn (1975) examined the effect of reinforcement and
instruction on attentiveness, musical achievement, and at
titude of fifth-grade students. He employed a four-group
design in which two groups received instruction and rein
forcement. In one of these two groups, the teacher was 80%
approving and 20% disapproving, while in the other group the
teacher was 20% approving and 80% disapproving. A third
group received instruction, but was not given feedback for
responses, and a fourth group functioned as a contact con
trol group. There was a significant difference between the
high approval group and all other groups on attentiveness,
but no differences were found between the groups on
achievement or expressed attitude of the students. Forsythe
(1975) compared social behavior in music classrooms to so
cial behavior in other academic classrooms. He found that
music teachers trained in high approval techniques had more
attentive students than teachers of other subjects. These
results have been replicated while also finding that the
children also spent longer periods listening to music taught
under approval conditions than to music taught under disap
proval conditions (Dorow, 1977). Dorow (1977) also found
that treatment effects generalized from music selection be
havior to concert attentiveness. In a classroom setting,
students who received music listening lessons under condi
- 27 -
tions of adult high approval selected more of that music
than subjects taught under adult low approval (Greer, Dorow,
Wachhaus S White, 1972).
Kuhn (1975) made two recommendations which are germane
to musical research: (1) "Other studies should investigate
the effect of teacher interaction in large-group performance
ensembles" (p. 40); and (2) "perhaps differences [in musical
achievement] would be generated over a longer instructional
period" (p. 47). His study used six 15-minute instructional
lessons for a total of 90 minutes of treatment, but the
measurement instrument may not have been sensitive enough to
detect a musical achievement gain in this study. Hadsen,
Wolfe and Hadsen (1969) paired scale direction with monetary
reinforcement (pennies). The study resulted in no differen
ces in improved scale singing regardless of reinforcement or
direction. Madsen and Madsen (1972) suggest that one reason
for the inability of standard teacher reinforcement tech
niques to have the effect on music achievement they appa
rently have on achievement in non-music settings might be a
function of the subject matter:
When the initial study (Madsen, Wolfe 6 Hadsen,

1969) which used pennies as a contingent reward did
not show significant differences between the group
that received pennies and the group that did not,
it was conjectured that perhaps music listening, as
well as participant music activities, constitute a
learning activity which is "intrinsically reward
ing". Indeed, if music provides its own reward,
then perhaps the music activity represents the
contingency which is, in and of itself, the "posi
tive" attraction for the participant. (Madsen 5
Madsen, 1972, p. 196)
- 28 -
Music as Reinforcement
In 1955, Jeffrey suggested that music itself might be a
powerful motivator and reinforcer, but it was not until the
mid-sixties that this idea was investigated systematically.
The initial research on the use of music as a motivator and
reinforcer was in the field of music therapy. Music was in
vestigated for its effect on people (Bonny, Cistrunk,
Makuch, Stevens, 8 Sally, 1965; Podvin, 1967) as well as for
its use as a reinforcer (Barrett, 196 5; Morgan S Lindsley,
1966). Many other studies followed closely (Beisman, 1967;
Bellamy & Sontag, 1973; Bough S Bough, 1965; Cook & Freethy,
1973; Dorow, 1975; Hanser, 1974; Hauck S Martin, 1970;
Jorgenson, 1974; Kramer, 1978; Madsen & Madsen, 1968; Mc
Carty, McElfresh, Rice, 6 Wilson, 1978; Reid, Hill, Rawers,
5 Montegar, 1975; Sajway 6 Risley, 1970; Steele, 1968;
Talkington 6 Hall, 1970; Underhill 6 Harris, 1974; Wilson,
1976; Wolfe, 1980; and Wolpow, 1976), all of which focused
mainly on the use of music as a reinforcer and have sub
stantiated it as a powerful reinforcer for learning disabled
and physically or mentally handicapped people.
In a study which used normal classroom students, the
use of music listening as reinforcement for correct mathe
matical responses, versus the use of music as reinforcement
for attentiveness was investigated (Madsen, Moore, Wagner, 5
Yarbrough, 1975). The students who were reinforced for at
tentiveness increased attentive behaviors, but the number of
correct math responses did not increase. The students who
- 29 -
were reinforced for correct math responses increased both
attentive behaviors and correct math responses. This is a
case which clearly supports the argument that music, speci
fically music listening in this case, is a powerful and
useful reinforcer in the classroom. Music listening rein
forced the specific behavior upon which it was contingent;
if it was contingent on attentiveness, the students were
more attentive but did not increase achievement, whereas it
was effective in increasing both achievement and attentive
ness when it was contingent on achievement. Prom the results
of this and other studies, it appears that attentiveness "is
a necessary but not a sufficient condition for learning"
(McDonald, 1976b, p. 1361).
The results of this study have been replicated by other
researchers (Madsen 6 Forsythe, 1973; Miller, Dorow, 6
Greer, 1974). Yarbrough, Charboneau, and Wapnick (1977) also
investigated the use of music listening as reinforcement for
correct math and attending in low, middle, and high math a-
bility children. Their results indicated that music listen
ing was only effective as a reinforcer for the low ability
group when compared with a contact control group. It should
be noted that the higher ability groups did improve with or
without music as a reinforcer, thus reinforcement of the
subject matter may have been internalized, and consequently
external reinforcement was unnecessary and ineffective.
- 30 -
Achievement and attentiveness in a musical situation
were also investigated for their relationship to the use of
music listening and pennies as reinforcement by Greer, Ran
dall, and Timberlake (1971). They used one pre- posttest
only group and four treatment groups, three of which re
ceived different types of reinforcement (two types of music
listening and pennies), and one which received no rein
forcement, in an attempt to improve vocal pitch acuity. The
students who were reinforced were specifically reinforced
for attending behaviors, and not for improved vocal pitch
acuity. They found that the reinforced groups were more at
tentive than the non-reinforced groups, but there were no
differences in vocal intonation gain scores between the
groups. The results here are not surprising in light of
findings by Madsen, et al (1975), and other researchers.
This is another instance in which increased attentiveness
did not result in increased achievement. However the rein
forcement used by Greer et al. (1971) was contingent on at
tentiveness and not on achievement. One might also find that
if this study were replicated with the reinforcement con
tingent on vocal pitch acuity, that it still would not af
fect achievement due to the reinforcement value of the sub
ject matter.
While studies have used music as a reinforcer to en
hance music skills with some success (Madsen & Madsen,
1972) , most recent studies have used music lessons as a re
inforcer for other academic subjects (Dorow, 1976; Gordon,
- 31 -
1980; Hadsen, 1979; Hadsen, Dorow, Moore, S Womble, 1976;
Hadsen S Geringer, 1976). With the exception of Gordon
(1980), all of these studies used contingent televised music
lessons as a reinforcer for achievement in other academic
subjects. The results are consistent across all cf these
studies. The control groups did not gain in music or other
academic areas. The groups which received televised music
lessons as reinforcement gained in music as well as in other
academic areas. In all cases, the students were also recei
ving both their normal music and other academic instruction.
It is clear from the data presented that music and music
instruction can function as reinforcement for attentiveness
and achievement.
Active Versus Passive Activities
The data indicate that students are more attentive in
music classroom and ensemble rehearsal situations, than in
non-music classrooms. Results of analyses of student atten
tiveness under high approval music teachers compared to hiqh
approval classroom teachers indicated that students were
still more attentive in music classes (Forsythe, 1977). Some
studies seem to indicate that this may be a consequence of
active versus passive student participation (Forsythe, 1977;
Madsen 5 Madsen, 1972; Madsen & Alley, 1979; Hadsen, Wolfe 6
Madsen, 1969; Spradling, 1980; Yarbrough & Price, in press).
No difference was found in scale singing regardless of di
rection (ascending or descending scales) or reinforcement;
- 32 -
however a significantly greater amount of on-task behavior
was observed when children were singing when compared to
listening to directions or music (Hadsen, Wolfe, £ Hadsen,
1969). In another instance, attentiveness was examined in
various music classroom activities. Students appeared to be
more on-task during classroom activities requiring active
musical responding such as singing and playing instruments,
and more off-task during passive activities such as in
struction and verbal student/teacher interactions (Forsythe,
1977). Hadsen and Alley (1979) found music rehearsals
unique, in that students are least off-task in choral and
instrumental music rehearsals, when compared to general
music and other academic classes, despite low approval ra
tios of conductors. This suggests that music classroom ac
tivities require more active participation resulting in an
increase in student attentiveness.
Wagner and Struhl (1979) compared pre-intern, intern,
and experienced elementary music specialists* (teachers*)
use of teaching time, reinforcement, and the student atti
tudes toward them. Rate of reinforcement and student atti
tudes did not differ between these groups. With regard to
teaching time, a significant difference was found in only
one teaching activity. Experienced teachers gave directions
in approximately half the time it took pre-interns and in
terns. Several researchers (Madsen S Hadsen, 1972; Hadsen,
Wolfe, 6 Madsen, 1969; Forsythe, 1977) have reported that
directions resulted in the highest off-task of all the ac-
- 33 -
tivities analyzed in their studies, which suggests that in
the music classroom context a passive activity results in
increased off-task. It may be that the experienced teachers
had vicariously learned this, and consequently reduced di
rection time to increase student attentiveness.
Some studies in non-music settings have found a rela
tionship of active engagement on academic tasks to achieve
ment gains. Brophy and Evertson (1974) observed experienced
second- and third-grade teachers in non-music classrooms,
and found that maintained active engagement of students in
appropriate learning tasks was positively related to
achievement gains, although there were differential effects
in high- versus low-socioeconomic status (SES) schools. The
implications of these findings are germane to any research
which involves musical ensemble situations, due to the fact
that the focus of ensemble rehearsals is on the active par
ticipation of the ensemble members though practice and per
formance.
Research in Music Ensemble Settings
Besearch in music ensemble settings is relatively
sparse. Student behaviors have been investigated in high
approval and high disapproval rehearsals (Murray, 1975). No
significant differences were found in off-task behavior or
musical achievement of mixed choruses among three experi
mental conditions: (1) regular conductor; (2) experimental
conductor, high approval; (3) experimental conductor, high
- 34 -
disapproval. He did find that students liked the mssic as
veil as the rehearsal of that music more under an 80% ap
proval condition than under an 80* disapproval condition.
The lack of differences in attentiveness nay have been due
to the lack of control of active (singing) versus passive
(instruction and directions) time.
A study by Spradling (1969), used a director rehearsing
tvo junior high school bands in vhich each time the director
stopped the music to correct a mistake, he also approved an
appropriate behavior. He reported that this resulted in more
favorable attitudes and more efficient rehearsals. Wachhaus
and Wachhaus (1976) found that a majority of ensemble mem
bers felt better and more motivated on the days the con
ductor made more positive than negative comments.
In J975, Yarbrough used a unigue approach in maintain
ing equivalent reinforcement ratios and frequencies across
two rehearsal conditions, but varied the magnitude to a-
chieve two conditions: (1) high magnitude; and (2) low mag
nitude. No significant differences were found in attentive
ness between the two conditions. No significant differences
were found in musical achievement across the regular, high
magnitude, and low magnitude directors. There was a signi
ficant difference in mean attitude ratings, indicating a
preference for the high magnitude conductor over the low
magnitude conductor. This result is striking due to the fact
that the high magnitude and low magnitude conductors were
the same person. The study involved one university and three
- 35 -
high school mixed choruses, consequently the small "n" re
duced the probability of achieving statistically significant
differences. With this point in mind, it should be noted
that the low magnitude condition resulted in the highest
off-task and lowest performance (achievement) ratings. This
was the first time that a trend in attentiveness and per
formance had been indicated as a result of any conductor
behaviors. In the review of literature, Yarbrough (1975)
suggested that;
Behavioral studies in music that have manipulated

the behavior of the conductor or music teacher in
order to modify the behavior of the student can be
classified into three general areas: social beha
vior, academic behavior, and music preference/at
titude. These studies indicate that in the case of
performing groups, the teacher is not the source of
reinforcement that maintains appropriate behavior.
Instead it is suggested that music itself functions
as the reinforcement which maintains attending be
havior. That is, regardless of the nature of tea
cher reinforcement, approval or disapproval, stu
dents appear to be on-task in music performance
groups, (p. 135)
Two descriptive studies have examined the activities
involved in musical ensemble rehearsals in tbs secondary
schools (Thurman, 1976; Yarbrough C Price, in press). Thur
man (1976) analyzed rehearsal of five choruses, and found
that the conductors devoted approximately 40% of their re
hearsal time to verbal communications, with a range of 58%
to 29%. Yarbrough and Price (in press) analyzed rehearsals
of three bands, two choruses, and one orchestra for percen
tage of performance and non-performance time. They found
that the conductors devoted approximately 43% of their re-
- 36 -
hearsal tine to non-performance, with a range of 62* to 31X,
both extremes vere band rehearsals. In the first attempt to
experimentally control and investigate some of these factors
in a musical ensemble rehearsal situation, Spradling (1980)
investigated the effect of frequency and duration of stops
(non-performance or passive) on attentiveness and attitude.
For this study, only instruction occurred during the stops,
and performance was perceived as reinforcement. Besults in
dicated a significantly higher off-task rate during timeout
(passive) periods than during performance (active) periods.
Also some relationship was indicated between timeout periods
and expressed music preference; the duration and freguency
of stops had an inverse relationship to a positive music
preference.
Yarbrough and Price (in press) examined the relation
ship of teacher/student activity to student attentiveness.
The analysis included percentage of off-task behavior; num
ber of seconds during which performance (entire group and
sectional) and non-performance occurred; freguency of stops;
frequency of academic and social approvals and disapprovals,
freguency of seguence, approval, disapproval, and conflic
ting cue errors; frequency of eye contact to the ensemble
and individuals; and frequency of complete and incomplete
teaching units. When all the variables were analyzed for a
relationship to attentiveness and the error factor of the
individual contribution of the conductors/teachers was ac
counted for, two critical relationships emerged; (1) acti
- 37 -
vity (performance versus non-performance), i.e. students
were more on-task while performing; and (2) teacher eye
contact, i.e. more teacher eye contact correlated positively
with on-task.
Results of research in music ensemble settings are even
less clear than those results for the music classroom set
tings. There are several explanations for the lack of cohe
sive findings in this research, the major one being the li
mited number of research studies in this area. Of these, few
were experimental in nature, thus making it difficult to
define cause and effect relationships. The studies which did
not use active versus passive activities as an independent
variable (Hurray, 1975; Yarbrough, 1975), also did not con
trol for it, and thus the results cannot be discriminated as
a conseguence of activity or treatment. Another difficulty
in the examination of teacher effect in an ensemble rehear
sal is the fact that music functions as a reinforcer. It
also should be noted that a sensitive, well-defined, and
consistent assessment of achievement in an ensemble is dif
ficult at best. In addition to all these problems, all pre
vious ensemble research has dealt with small sample sizes,
which markedly decreased the probability of finding statis
tically significant relationships.
- 38 -
Summary
'The foregoing literature emphasized the role of the
teacher in eliciting student responses. In both music and
non-music classrooms, teachers have been able to affect
student attentiveness, achievement, and attitude. Hhile
these studies evidence that the teacher may be the control
ling (reinforcing) factor, the results for music activities
and music ensemble rehearsals do suggest other critical
factors.
Educational research has recognized the importance of
reinforcement, direct instruction, and student activity. It
has investigated each of these factors and found them to
have some effect on student behaviors. In reviewing both the
non-music and music literature, it has become apparent that
the combination of instruction, activity, and reinforcement
need to be analyzed for their effect on attentiveness, at
titude and achievement in the music ensemble rehearsal set
tings. This has been made possible by the theoretical model
advanced by Becker, Engelmann, and Thomas (19711, and the
analysis instrument developed by Yarbrough and Price (in
press). With the use of this instrument, the act of teaching
can be analyzed as a sequential whole or parts, composed of
teacher presentation of tasks, student responses, and tea
cher reinforcement/feedback.
The research on musical ensemble rehearsals is minimal,
and the only clear conductor/teacher effect is on student
attitudes, although some other trends have been indicated.
- 39 -
It seems that tvo factors other than the teacher have
emerged as being critical; the power of music as reinforce
ment, and active versus passive student tasks. The guestion
arises as to how to use rehearsal time most efficiently;
reinforcement versus no reinforcement, and performing versus
instruction. Therefore the purpose of this study was to de-
termine the effects of three treatments; (fi) directions on
ly, followed by student performance; (B) academic task pre
sentations, followed by directions, and then student per
formance; and (C) academic task presentations, directions,
student performance, followed by contingent teacher rein
forcement of student performance. The dependent measures
used in this study were attentiveness, performance, and at
titude.
CHAPTER III
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
Subjects
Subjects were the members of the Syracuse University
Symphonic Band at Syracuse University in Syracuse, New York.
The band was a noa-auditioned group composed primarily of
non-music majors, with a total of 48 participants. The num
ber attending each rehearsal varied from as few as 30 stu
dents present to the maximum participation of all students.
Selection of Music
Prior to the experimental phase of the study, lists of
graded band compositions compiled by the New York State
School Music Association, and the Florida Bandmasters Asso
ciation, were reviewed by the Director of Bands and the ex
perimenter. From this list, music at an appropriate level of
difficulty was identified and 13 comparable compositions
were selected (see Appendix A). Only nine of the selections
were sightread by the Symphonic Band and ranked by each
member of the ensemble, due to an inadeguate amount of time
to read all thirteen compositions on the pretest session.
The ensemble members were given a form listing all thirteen
compositions listed, and were instructed to number the
(nine) compositions which they had sightread from one (most
preferred) to nine (least preferred), after they had sight-
- 40 -
- 41 -
read all of the compositions {see Appendix B). The four se
lections ranked in the middle (four through seven) Here used
in the experiment. These selections were not rated signifi
cantly different in preference as tested by the Kruskal-
Wallis one way analysis of variance (Siegel, 1956; p104-
193). Since the addition of any other selection which had
been sightread would have resulted iu using music which was
rated as significantly different, one of the four selec
tions, a multi-movement work, was divided into three sec
tions which were comparable in length and difficulty. Thus,
six musical selections were chosen for six experimental
conditions (see Appendix C).
Experimental Environment
The experiment was conducted during the regular re
hearsal time and in the normal rehearsal room. Two experi
mental teachers, one observer, two media technicians, and
audio-visual equipment surrounded the group during the
experiment. Two rehearsals, each 2 1/2 hours in length, were
used for acclimation purposes. During the second rehearsal
the students sightread and ranked the musical compositions
which were used in this study. Throughout the duration of
the experiment regular rehearsals continued within the ex
perimental environment.
- 42 -
Experimental Design
The investigation included a pretest session, five
treatment sessions, and a posttest session. Each of the five
treatment sessions included six musical compositions dis
tributed across three treatments, by two conductors, in a
pre- posttest design to test the effect of conductor beha
vior (see Appendix D). The three treatments were: (1) di
rections followed by ensemble performance; (2) academic task
presentations followed by directions and ensemble perfor
mance; and (3) academic task presentations, directions, en
semble performance, followed by conductor reinforcement.
Each of the six musical compositions was paired with one of
the three treatments throughout, such that two conditions
received the same treatment with different musical composi
tions being used for each of the two conductors. Two expe
rimental conductors administered each of the three treat
ments, and thus each rehearsed three compositions every
session. The conductors alternated the three compositions
which they rehearsed and the six compositions were presented
in a different random order each session, to control for
experimenter and order effect.
The sightreading of the compositions served as the
pretest for musical performance. Following each treatment,
the musical composition was played in its entirety to assess
any change in musical performance ratings.. After the last
treatment session, one additional session was scheduled in
order to play all the musical compositions without any
- 43 -
treatments preceding them. This was used as a posttest
assessment for musical performance ratings.
Treatment
Each treatment was 12 minutes in length. Conductors
were given the following instructions for all treatments;
a) Maintain eye contact with group and/or indivi

duals throughout treatment sessions;
b) Constantly vary volume of voice. Use a wide

range of volume as well as speaking pitch. Voice
should reflect "enthusiasm and vitality;
c) Use arms and hands to aid in musical phrasing.

Use a great variety of movements. Vary size of
conducting patterns to indicate phrases, dyna
mics, etc.
d) No verbalizations should occur during ensemble

performance.
Conductors were given the following instructions for Treat
ment _A:
a) Verbalizations are only to consist of directions

which tell the ensemble at what point to begin
in the music. These are not to consist of any
feedback, or academic task presentations;
b) Allow the ensemble to perform as much as pos

sible ;
c) The face should be aneutral mask at all times.
The instructions for Treatment Bwere:
a) In addition to directions, verbalizations are to

include academic task presentations. The verba
lizations are not to consist of any feedback or
reinforcement, and must comprise 50% of the
treatment time.
b) The ensemble must perform for 50% of the treat

ment time;
c) The face should be a neutral mask at all times.
The instructions for Treatment Cwere:
a) In addition to directions and academic task
presentations, verbalizations are to include
appropriate reinforcement to the ensemble for
the performance immediately preceding. The re
inforcement should consist of 80% academic ap
provals and 20% academic disapprovals. Rein
forcement should be directly related not only to
student performance, but also to the task pre
sented. Academic task presentations and rein
forcement should each comprise 25% percent of
the treatment time.
b) The ensemble must perform for 50% of the treat

ment time;
c) The face should should appropriately reflect the

verbal reinforcement with sharp contrasts be
tween approval and disapproval. Facial approval
is to be expressed by nodding the head verti
cally, grinning, laughing aloud, smiling, rais
ing eyebrows, and widening eyes. Facial disap
proval is expressed by shaking the head hori
zontally, frowning, knitting the eyebrows,
pursing the lips and narrowing the eyes.
The conductors* rehearsal time was monitored by a
trained observer listening to a pre-recorded signal tape.
The observer cued the conductors by pressing a switch con
nected to signal lights mounted on the conductors* music
stand, out of the view of the members of the ensemble
(Spradling, 1980). A blue light cued the conductors to give
academic task presentations and/or directions, a white light
cued the conductor to have the ensemble play, and a green
light cued the conductor to give reinforcement.
Control of the conductors* approval/disapproval ratio
of verbal responses was achieved by providing a feedback
chart indicating the frequency of each type of response
(Murray, 1975 and Yarbrough, 1975). Two flip charts were
mounted on a music stand in view of the conductors, but
outside the view of the ensemble members. One chart had
- 45 -
green numbers representing approvals; the other, red numbers
representing disapprovals. Following each approval or dis
approval given by the experimenter, an observer flipped the
corresponding green or red card.
Experimenters
The experimental conductors were people with both high
school and college-level conducting and teaching experience,
trained in behavioral classroom management technigues. Both
conductors also were experienced in research on conducting
and ensemble rehearsals.
The experimental conductors monitored each others* use
of treatment time and cued each other by means of signal
lights. Another observer monitored approvals and disappro
vals using the flip cards previously described.
One media technician operated videotape eguipment in
cluding microphone, audiocassette player, the television
camera focused on the conductor, videotape recorder, special
effects generator, and microphone mixer. Another technician
operated the camera focused on the ensemble members, and a
third technician operated all audiotape eguipment including
microphone and reel-to-reel tape deck.
Equipment
Audiotape and videotape recordings of the conductors
and students were made using an audiotape and a videotape
recorder, as well as two cameras and a special effects gen-
- 46 -
erator to provide a split-screen effect for ex post facto
analyses. Videotapes were used for assessment of attentive
ness and documentation of treatments. A prerecorded cassette
tape providing observation cues was used to synchronize ob
servations of videotapes by mixing it into the sound on the
videotape. Audiotape recordings of musical performances were
used for subsequent judgement of musical achievement (for a
complete list of eguipment see Appendix E).
Measurement Procedures
Frequency of Off-task
After the experiment two trained observers recorded
overt student off-task behavior by viewing the videotapes.
Observations were time-sampled, consisting of a 10-second
“observe” interval followed by a 5-second “record" interval.
Observe cues were dubbed onto the videotapes. The camera
focused on a maximum of six students during each "observe”
interval and was rotated on the "record” cue throughout each
rehearsal so that all ensemble members were observed several
times. Student on/off-task was defined as follows:
On-task.: Active — When student is supposed to be

singing/playing he must be sing
ing/playing and looking at the
music or teacher.
Passive - When student is not supposed to be
singing/playing he must be quiet
and looking at either music ,
teacher, or chorus/band/orchestra
members who are singing/playing.
Other --- Student must follow instructions
given by teacher.
- 47 -
Off-Task: Observably not on-task (Madsen and Yarbrough,

1980, p~56) .
Using portions of The Instrumental Rehearsal Observation
Form (Madsen 6 Yarbrough, 1980, p. 55-60), observers counted
the total number of students in view and the number obser
vably off-task for each 10-second interval. A percentage of
off-task was then computed for each condition by dividing
the number of students observed off-task by the total number
observed in that 12-minute segment. Thus, one measure of
off-task was obtained for each condition observed each day.
Frequency of Teacher Eye Contact
Using a portion of The Music Conductor Observation Form
(Madsen & Yarbrough, 1980, p. 61-63), teacher eye contact
was observed and recorded according to the definitions lis
ted below:
G - Conductor is looking at entire group or section

for at least three continuous seconds.
I - Conductor is looking at individual in group or

accompanist for at least three continuous sec
onds.
M - Conductor is looking at music for at least

three continuous seconds.
0 - Conductor is looking at something other than

group, individuals , or music, e.g., ceiling,
floor. Mark ”0" only if it occurs for the en
tire interval (Madsen and Yarbrough, 1980, p.
63).
Total eye contact was considered the sum of the frequency of
group and individual eye contact.
- 48 -
Behears al Time
Time spent in performance and non-performance vas mea
sured in seconds through observation of the videotape re
cordings of the treatments. A continuous time log was re
corded using a stop-watch accurate to 1/10 of a second.
Performance and non-performance were defined as follows:
Performance: Playing or singing by the entire en

semble or by smaller units (sections)
of the entire ensemble.
Non-performance: Teacher direction, instruction or re

inforcement. Anything not involving
students* musical performance
(Yarbrough and Price, in press).
Musical Performance Batinqs
A panel of three expert judges independently heard au
diotape recordings of all pre- and posttest performances,
and used an adaptation of the Performance Bating Form
(Madsen and Yarbrough, 1980, p. 141) to rate each perfor
mance (see Appendix F).
Attitude Assessment
Attitude was assessed by means of an attitude scale
which had been adapted from the Attitude Survey for Perfor
mance Group (Madsen and Yarbrough, 1980, p. 143). This five
question scale was administered to the members of the musi
cal ensemble following each condition of the days* session
(see Appendix G). This procedure was used on the first,
third, fourth, and fifth session, in an effort to assess
trends in attitudes, as well as daily attitudes.
- 49 -
Teaching Units
Videotape recordings were also used to analyze and
count complete teaching units. A completed teaching unit was
defined as consisting of three sequential parts: (1) teacher
presentation of a task; (2) student responses; and (3) tea
cher reinforcement for student responses (Yarbrough and
Price, in press).
Each of the three basic parts of the teaching unit was
delineated into categories, coded, and the codes were re
corded onto a summary sheet. The sheet was divided into
lines which coincided with the "observe" that was dubbed on
the videotape recordings.
The teacher presentation of a task was number coded 1
(one). This part of a teaching unit was subdivided into five
categories each of which was coded according to their defi
nition (see Figure 1).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - 50 -
Figure l. Teacher Presentation of Task: Codes, Definitions, Examples.
Codes Definitions Examples
Academic task presentation; telling 1. VP lay open G, Larry."

students how to play a passage or 2. "Space before the dotted quarter
where to begin playing. and then hold i t ."
3. "Look forward to the top note and
then breathe after it."
Social task presentation; telling 1. "Nod at m e . . Show me you're awake."

students how to behave or making 2. "There are still people who owe
announcements about future activi dinner money."
ties . 3. "Lesson sign-ups will be next week.
Be prepared to fill out the forms."
Conducting task presentation; a 1. A crouch and a warning glance with

nonverbal modeling of the music or finger placed over lips (meaning
a nonverbal conducting signal for "softer").
dynamic changes, beginning to play, 2. Right hand maintains beat pattern
stopping, style, phrasing, tempo, while left hand index finger points
and so forth. upward (meaning pitch is flat, ad
just it) .
3 . Right hand maintains beat pattern
while left hand, palm upward, fin
gers fluttering to and fro indicates
more expressive style of playing.
Off-task statements not related to 1. "If I can keep my score in place."

social or academic tasks. 2. "Once more. I'm trying to memorize
my c u e s ."
3. "Oh, she's absent. What a day she
picked to be absent."
- 51 -
The second part of the teaching unit, student response, vas
number coded 2 (two) and subdivided into four categories
each of which vas coded according to the definitions as
follow:
2p = Performance/rehearsal by the entire ensemble;
2s = Sectional performance/rehearsal;
2n = Non-performance/rehearsal by any or all

sections of the ensemble;
2v = Appropriate verbal (talking) response;
2nv= Non-verbal response; for example, marking a

part, or nodding a head;
Finally, the third part of a complete teaching unit, teach
ing feedback reinforcement, was coded 3 (three) and subdi
vided into six categories each of which was coded according
to their definition (see Figure 2)•
- 52 -
Figure 2» Teacher reinforcement of student responses: codes, definitions, examples
Codes Definitions Examples
Verbal academic or social ap 1. "That's what it's supposed to

3v a
proval; positive statement sound like." (Academic)
about student behavior. 2. "That's good, clarinets. Good
attack and release." (Academic)
3. "Thanks for lending me your music
(Social)
4. "You've worked very hard and now
you're excited about the music."
V
(Social)
Verbal academic or social 1. "Altos, you're not breathing cor

3v d
disapproval; negative state rectly." (Academic)
ment about student behavior. 2. "It's not in tune." (Academic)
3. "Don't help him, Nancy." (Social)
4. "Shhh." (Social)
Facial approval; a positive Smiling, laughing, nodding head up

3f a facial gesture. and down.
Facial disapproval; a nega Frowning, grimacing, nodding head

3f d
tive facial gesture. from side to side.
Error; approving of an in 1. "i know it's hard" (approving of

or appropriate behavior, ap complaining).
proval mistake. 2. Smiling or laughing at wrong notes..
Error; disapproving of an 1. "Too much effort." (disapproving

appropriate behavior; dis of working hard).
or approval mistake. 2. Frowning, shaking head even when
performance has improved..
(^vd/fa) Error; conflicting feedback

involving verbal expression
1. "You blew it!" (while smiling).
2. "That was wonderful!" (while
or which is different from frowning— sarcasm).
facial expression.
(^VA/FE>) Teacher tells students to play in
Type 1 Teaching unit sequence mis tune (task presention), students play
Sequence take. Reinforcement not re in tune (student response), teacher
Error lated to task presented. dissapproves of poor balance.
(Teacher reinforcement unrelated to
task presented).
Type 2 Teaching unit sequence mis Teacher asks students to play softly
Sequence take; presentation of a new (task presentation), students play
Error task followed by reinforce softly (student response) , teacher
ment of a previous task as asks students to play staccato (task
an afterthought. presentation), teacher approves of
students' playing softly. A correct
sequence would have teacher approval
of students' playing softly immedi
ately following the students' response.
- 53 -
Teaching units vere then analyzed for completion and
content. Videotapes were also observed in order to carefully
note and accurately describe facial expressions, subtle ap
provals and disapprovals, and seguence errors. All units
which followed a 1-2-3 seguence, without error, were consi
dered complete units. Also, a 1-2 seguence in which the
student response was performance or sectional was considered
complete, recognizing the possibility that music performance
may serve not only as student response but also as rein
forcement.
Finally, academic and social approvals, disapprovals,
and errors (see Figure 2) were identified and counted. A
facial or verbal reinforcement was counted as one approval
or disapproval. If a verbal
r
>
reinforcement was paired with an
appropriate (not conflicting) facial reinforcement, it was
scored as two approvals or two disapprovals in an attempt to
assess the magnitude of the reinforcement. This yielded an
approval/disapproval ratio and the reinforcement frequency
for each condition. The freguency and duration of teacher
presentations as well as student responses were also ex
tracted for further documentation and analyses.
Reliability
All observations, except musical rating and attitude,
were synchronous, ie. data were gathered every 15 seconds,
so that it was possible to compare all variables within any
15-second interval of time. Observer reliability, for all
- 54 -
synchronous observations, was computed by comparing each
observational symbol during every interval, and using the
following formula:
__________Humber of agreements________ __
Number of agreements plus disagreements
Forty percent of the videotapes were independently
viewed by both observers for the purpose of determining
inter-observer reliability. Two observers were used for the
Instrumental Rehearsal Observation Form to observe student
activity and off-task. Reliability on 40* of the cases was
computed for the two observers. The average reliability was
.96, with a range of .9 3 to 1.00. Two observers recorded
observations for the category of eye contact on the Music
Conductor Observation Form for a sample of 40* of the vide
otapes. Average reliability was computed for all observation
in the sample which resulted in an average reliability of
.91, with a range of .73 to .96.
Two observers recorded observations with the Teaching
Unit System of Observation. Reliability on 40* of the cases
was computed for the two observers. The average reliability
was .95. When the reliability was computed by treatment, the
treatment with the smallest variety of behaviors (Treatment
A) resulted in the highest and the one with the largest va
riety of behaviors (Treatment C) resulted in the lowest
average reliability, although they were all above .90 (see
Table 1).
- 55 -
Table 1
TEACHING UNITS SYSTEM OF OBSEBVATION
AVERAGE RELIABILITY BY TREATMENT SUMMARY
Treatment Reliability
A) .98
n%
ijjf .94
C) .93
Interjudge reliability (agreement) on music performance
scores was tested for each treatment using a Kendall coef
ficient of concordance (Siegel, 1956, pp. 229-238). Table 2
shows the results of the analyses of the three treatments by
collapsing the seven ratings for each composition across
each treatment, thus yielding 14 scores for each treatment
by each judge. A significant (alpha level = .05) concor
dance, among judges* ratings, was found to exist for per
formance ratings by treatments.
- 56 -
Table 2
KENDALL COEFFICIENT OF CONCOBDANCE SOMHABY
FOB HOSIC PERFORMANCE SCORES
Treatment s H df Chi Sguare
A) 1601.5 .783 13 30.56**
B) 1192.0 .585 13 22.82*
C) 1543.0 .757 13 29.54**
*p<.05 **p<.01
CHAPTER Iv
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects
of teacher academic task presentations, student performance,
and teacher reinforcement of student performances on per
formance, attentiveness, and attitude of students in a uni
versity symphonic band. At the completion of this study five
hours of videotape recordings had been made of the band un
der three treatments: (1) directions only, followed by stu
dent performance; (2) academic task presentations, followed
by directions and student performance; and (3) academic task
presentations, directions, student performance, followed by
contingent teacher reinforcement. The three treatments were
replicated by a different conductor.
Videotapes of all treatments were first analyzed to
document whether treatments were implemented as defined a
priori. Ex post facto observation of the videotapes were
completed by behavioral observers using the Instrumental
Rehearsal Observation Form (Madsen and Yarbrough, 1980,
p. 58), the Music Conductor Observation Form (Madsen and
Yarbrough, 1980, p. 61) and the Teaching Onit System of Ob
servation developed by Yarbrough and Price (in press). The
two forms used recorded frequencies of (1) student activity,
(2) students off-task, (3) conductor approval/disapproval
verbal reinforcement, (4) eye contact, and (5) approval/
- 57 -
- 58 -
disapproval facial expressions. Using the technique deve
loped by Yarbrough and Price, the treatments were further
analyzed by identifying academic task presentations, direc
tions, off-task comments, ensemble performance, student
verbal response, student non-verbal response, and verbal and
facial reinforcement. These behaviors were then analyzed for
their duration and order, so that the amount of time spent
in each category of activity, and the sequencing of these
behaviors could be assessed, a panel of expert judges inde
pendently rated the audiotaped pre- and posttest perfor
mances using a Performance Bating Form (Madsen and
Yarbrough, 1930, p. 141) (see appendix F). Ensemble attitude
was assessed by administering a modification of an attitude
Survey for Performance Groups (Madsen and Yarbrough, 1980,
p. 143) (see appendix G).
Treatment
Before analyzing the effects of treatments on atten
tiveness, attitude, and achievement, it was necessary to
determine whether the treatments were implemented as
planned. Data gathered through the use of the Teaching Unit
Observation System (Yarbrough and Price, in press) were a-
nalyzed to indicate the relationship of the experimental
conductors* actual implementation of the treatments to the a
priori operational definition of those treatments. Data
consisted of the amount of time spent on directions, aca
demic task presentations, student performance, and verbal
- 59 -
approvals/disapprovals. The treatments were further analyzed
for frequency of verbal approvals/disapprovals, facial ap
provals/disapprovals, and errors of reinforcement, as well
as completed direction and academic teaching units. Table 1
provides a summary of the mean amount of time, in seconds,
spent on directions, academic task presentations, student
performance, and reinforcement for each treatment. In the
results. Treatment A refers to the treatment in which only
directions were provided by the conductors followed by stu
dent performance; Treatment B to the one in which directions
and academic tasks were presented followed by student per
formance, but no reinforcement was provided; and Treatment C
refers to the treatment in which reinforcement was provided
after the sequence of academic task presentations, direc
tions followed by student performance.
It is clear that the three treatments were signifi
cantly different from each other based on comparisons of the
amount of time spent giving directions, academic task pre
sentations, and reinforcements, as well as comparisons of
the amount of time students spent performing (see Table 3
and Appendix H).
- 60 -
Table 3
MEAN TIME SPENT IN SECONDS FOB TBEATMENT BEHAVIOfiS
Treatment Directions Academic Performance Beinforcement

Tasks
A) 123 7 561 2
B) 61 287 336 12
C) 58 186 326 130
Table 4 provides a summary of the mean frequencies of
completed direction units, completed academic units, and
reinforcement which includes both verbal and facial rein
forcement.
Table 4
MEAN FREQUENCY OF UNITS AND REINFORCEMENT
Treatment Directions Academic Reinforcement

Presentations
A) 9.9 .8 1.3
B) .4 8.1 3.7
C) .6 7.8 26.1
- 61 -
In summary. Treatment A contained more time in direc
tions than either Treatment B or C, less time in academic
task presentations than either Treatment B or C, more time
in student performance than either Treatment B or C, and
less reinforcement time than Treatment C. Treatment B con
tained less direction time than Treatment A, more academic
task presentation time than either Treatment A or C, less
student performance time than Treatment A, and less rein
forcement time than Treatment C- Treatment C contained less
time in directions than Treatment A, less time in academic
task presentations than Treatment B, but more than Treatment
A, less time in student performance than Treatment A, and
more reinforcement time than either Treatment A or B. There
mere no differences between conductors or among days for
directions, academic task presentations, student performance
or reinforcement. Data thus demonstrate that the treatments
were implemented according to the a priori definitions ac
curately by both conductors, independent of days {see Ap
pendices H and I ) .
Beinforcement Frequency
The frequency of reinforcement during Treatments A and
B was similar (mean frequency of reinforcement for Treatment
A = 1.3 reinforcements; mean frequency of reinforcement for
Treatment B = 3.7 reinforcements). However, results indicate
that Treatment C contained considerably more reinforcements
- 62 -
than either Treatment A or B (mean frequency of reinforce
ment for Treatment C = 26.1 reinforcements).
Freguency of reinforcement was further analyzed for
differences between conductors and among days. The total
frequency of reinforcement by both conductors was similar
(mean frequency of reinforcement for Conductor 2 = 10.1
reinforcements; mean frequency of reinforcement for Con
ductor 1 = 10.6 reinforcements). Frequency of reinforcement
each day also appeared to be similar (mean frequency of re
inforcement for Day 1 = 12.7 reinforcements; Day 2 =11.0
reinforcements; Day 3 = 7.8 reinforcements; Day 4 = 9.0
reinforcements; Day 5 = 11.3 reinforcements). As might be
expected* data indicate that the only treatment which by a
priori definition was supposed to include reinforcement
(Treatment C ) , did contain a much higher frequency of rein
forcement (see Appendix I).
Direction Units
The frequency of direction units (units in which stu
dent performance is preceded by directions with no academic
presentations) was similar for Treatments B and C (mean
frequency of direction units for Treatment B = .4 units;
mean frequency of direction units for Treatment C = .6 u-
nits). Treatment A contained considerably more direction u-
nits than either Treatment B or C (mean frequency of direc
tion units for Treatment A = 9.9 units).
- 63 -
Freguency of direction units was further analyzed for
differences between conductors and among days. The freguency
of direction units administered by both conductors was very
close (mean freguency of direction units for Conductor 2 =
7.8 units; mean freguency of direction units for Conductor 1
= 7 . 4 units). Freguency of direction units for each day also
appeared to be similar (mean freguency of direction units
for Day 1 = 4.2 units; Day 2 = 5.0 units; Day 3 = 2.8 units;
Day 4 = 2.8 units; Day 5 = 3.3 units).
Treatment A had more direction units than Treatments 5
or C, while Treatments B and C had comparable amounts of
direction units. According to the a priori definition,
Treatment A was to include directions and exclude academic
task presentations, thus the student performance could only
have been preceded by directions and not academic task pre
sentations. These results indicate that Treatment A was im
plemented in accordance with the a priori definition (see
Appendix I).
Academic Presentation Dnits
The freguency of academic presentation units (units in
which student performance is preceded by academic presenta
tions and then directions) was similar for Treatments B and
C (mean freguency of academic units for Treatment B = 8.1
units; mean freguency of academic units for Treatment C =
7.8 units). Treatment A contained considerably fewer aca
demic units than either Treatment B or C (mean freguency of
- 64 -
academic units for Treatment A = ,8 units).
Freguency of academic units mas further analyzed for
differences among conductors and days. The freguency of
academic units administered by both conductors was very
close (mean freguency of academic units for Conductor 2 =
5.4 units; mean freguency of academic units for Conductor 1
= 5 . 7 units). Freguency of academic units for each day also
appeared to be similar (mean freguency of academic units for
Day 1 = 5.5 units; Day 2 = 5.2 units; Day 3 = 5.8 units; Day
4 = 5.8 units; Day 5 = 5.5 units).
Treatment A had fever academic units while Treatments B
and C had comparable amounts of academic units. According to
the a priori definitions for Treatments B and C, student
performance was to be preceded by both academic task pre
sentations and directions. The definition of a complete
academic unit was; an academic task presentation followed by
directions, and then student performance. The presence of
reinforcement was not necessary for an academic unit to be
counted as complete. These results indicate that Treatments
B and C were implemented in accordance with the a priori
definitions, since Treatment A had significantly fewer aca
demic units than either Treatment B or C, and Treatments B
and C had a comparable number (see Appendix I).
- 65 -
Student attentiveness
The measure of student attentiveness was computed by
observing the videotapes of the treatments. Observers coun
ted the number of performers in view and those observably
off-task for each 15-second interval. A percentage of off-
task behavior was then computed for each 12-minute treatment
session by dividing the number of students off-task by the
total number observed for that treatment session (see Ap
pendix J). Table 5 is a summary of the percentage of off-
task by treatment and day.
Table 5
MEAN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS OFF-TASK: TREATMENT BY DAY
i -1" - 1™ ™
satment Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
A) 6.73 7.31 5.78 9. 15 5.26
B5 15.38 18.04 16.36 14.05 11.22
C) 10.80 17.86 13.64 11.79 11.38
The following figure (see Figure 3) is a graphical
display of the data in Table 5. It demonstrates that the
students (ensemble members) were least off-task during
Treatment A. There also appears to be a trend towards less
off-task for Treatment C than for Treatment B.
- 66 -
Figure 3
OFF-TASK BEHAVIOR
o
o
C\J
o
o
m
CO
Cl)
o
o
•
PERCENTAGE STUDENT OFF-TASK
in _L (2) (2)
(2)
a>
Cl)
Cl) (2)
O
o
JB
CO
/C3>\
O ......
O C3) C3)
CO ***-#C3>
<3>
O
o
CO
o
o +
1. 0 2.0 3.0 II. 0 5.0
SESSION
- 67 -
Less off-task occurred during the performance part of
each of the treatments than during the non-performance part
(see Table 6).
Table 6
MEAN PEBCENTAGE OF OFF-TASK BEBAVIOB: ACTIVITY BY TBEATMENT
Activity Treatment A Treatment B Treatment c
Non-
Performance 20.66 25.98 22.97
Performance 2.84 2.89 2.18
Upon re-examination of data in Figure 3, it was found that
off-task bore some relationship to performance time (see
Appendix J ) • The number by each point in the figure repre
sents an ordering of the guantity of performance time, with
(1) being the least amount of performance time and (3) being
the most. Treatment A had much more performance time and
therefore consistently less off-task than either Treatment B
or C. The results for Treatments B and C are not quite as
apparent and indicate the possibility of a relationship be
tween off-task and both treatment and performance time.
However, when performance time is compared to off-task data,
it may make a stronger case for a treatment effect. For ex
ample, even when there were 32 seconds more performance time
- 68 -
in Treatment B (Session 4.0 in Figure 3), it still resulted
in a higher percentage of students off-task, and the one
instance in which Treatment C had a higher off-task, it
contained 27 seconds less performance time (Session 5.0 in
Figure 3). The most performance time (Treatment A) consis
tently resulted in the lowest student off-task. However, the
least performance time did not always result in the highest
off-task. In the latter instance, it may be that attentive
ness was not only a function of performance time, but was
also affected by the treatments.
Since the amount of performance time may have been re
lated to the quantity of off-task during a treatment, the
portion of the rehearsal which did not involve performance
was analyzed for percentage of student off-task. Hon-per-
formance off-task percentage also appears to be a function,
in part, of performance time. Figure 4 is a plot of off-task
percentage during non-performance time. The number by each
point on the plot represents the quantity of non-performance
time, with (1) being the least amount of performance time,
and (3) being the most. In three instances, the least per
formance time corresponds to the highest percentage of off-
task, and in three instances the most performance time cor
responds to the lowest off-task. Either the more the stu
dents performed, the more attentive they were when not per
forming, or it may be that they had less opportunity to be
inattentive. However, again Treatment C resulted in less
off-task than Treatment B, regardless of performance time,
- 69 -
except on the fifth day. During session 3, Treatment c con
tained less off-task than Treatment A which had signifi
cantly more performance time.
- 70 -
Figure 4
OFF-TASK BEHAVIOR DURING KON-PERFOHMANCE
o
o
•
CO
CO
CD
o
PERCENTAGE STUDENT OFF-TASK DURING NON-PERFORMANCE
o
m
o rC2)
CO
C3>
CD
CD
m
(2)
cu
o
CD /C2)
m
=t*
C\J (3> (2)
o
o
/N
CM
(3) CD
CD
O
CO
CD C2)
CD
CD
LO J- C3)
C3)
o
o
CM
1. 0 2.0 3.0 U.O 5.0
SESSION
- 71 -
u U S x C u l. n C h i. c 7 £ S t d lt
A panel of three expert judges, all of whom had expe
rience in conducting clinics, public school and university
ensembles, and adjudicating, heard seven audiotaped pre
postperformances of each composition in random order. Into
nation, blend, balance, tempo, dynamics, tone guality, rhy
thm, phrasing, ensemble, articulation, style, and over-all
artistic effect (musicality) were rated from 1 (poor) to 4
(excellent) .
Hean musical achievement scores for the treatments are
summarized in Table 7 (see Appendix K). The mean gain for
Treatment C was highest (9.53) although that for Treatment A
was close (9.08). Treatment B resulted in the smallest gain
(4.85) which is almost one-half of that for Treatment C.
While the mean treatment scores on the pretest had a narrow
range (1.67), the range on the posttest was more than three
times larger (5.53), indicating a differential effect among
treatments as was also evidenced by the gain scores.
- 72 -
Table 7
MEAN PBE- POSTTEST GAIN SCORES FOR MUSICAL ACHIEVEMENT
TREATMENT SUMMARY
Treatment Pretest Posttest Gain
- "
A) 12.50 21.58 9.08
B) 13.32 18.17 4.85
C) 14. 17 23.70 9.53
RANGE: 1.67 5.53 4.68
Figure 5 is a plot of mean achievement scores for each
treatment by day (see Appendix K). One might note that for
three of the five posttreatment performances the mean rat
ings for Treatment A mere lowest, and for the other two,
mean ratings for Treatment B were lowest. Mean achievement
scores for Treatment C were consistently higher. While these
data clearly are not conclusive, it is possible that there
may have been a treatment effect as measured by performance
ratings.
- 73 -
Figure 5
KEAN MUSIC PERFORMANCE RATINGS BY TREATMENT AND DAY
o
CD
m
CU
O
O
OJ
CU
o s.
o
m
Q
CM
MUSIC PERFORMANCE SCORE
O
O
co J-
o
o
(6 _L
o
o
o /
o
cu J.
o
o
m
o + 1—
PRE 1.0 2.0 3.0 u.O 5.0 POST
SESSION
- 74 -
Student Attitude
An attitude survey, in the form of a paper and pencil
test, was completed by each student following each treat
ment, on the first, third, fourth, and fifth days. This
survey consisted of five questions in which they rated how
much they liked the music, enjoyed the rehearsal, liked the
conductor, and were "turned on" during the rehearsal, as
well as whether they thought the conductor was a good tea
cher. These items were scaled from 1 (strongly disagree) to
10 {strongly agree) , thus the higher the score the more po
sitive the rating.
The data for each of the five guestions were analyzed
by use of a multiple regression technique (Statistical Ana
lysis System, General linear Models Procedure, release 79.3A
of SAS at Syracuse University), with student responses to
each question as the dependent measures. Carrier variables
(Hosteller and Tukey, 1977; Neter and Wasserman, 1974) for
these regression analyses were treatments, compositions
nested within treatments, conductors, interaction of treat
ments with conductors, and interaction of compositions with
conductors. These carrier variables were coded and entered
respectively using a hierarchical model in which the re
sponses to each of the five items were used as the dependent
measure. Variability due to individual subject differences
was accounted for by using a repeated measures design. The
ques tiOuS were also analyzed by the use of graphical dis
plays for treatment responses.
- 75 -
Music
The responses to the survey item in which the students
rated the statement "I like this music11. were analyzed by
the use of multiple regression and graphical analysis tech
niques. The factors tkat were found to have a significant
relationship (alpha level = .05} were subjects, composi
tions, and conductors (see Table 8). Treatments were not a
significant factor in the responses to this survey item.
Table 8
DEPENDENT VARIABLE: MUSIC RATING
MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Source df SS MS F
MODEL 58 1184.32 20.42 7.87***
ERROR 752 1950.13 2. 59 ---
CORRECTED TOTAL 810 3134.45 --- ---
SUBJECT 47 887.11 16. 88 7.28***
TREATMENT 2 11.79 5.90 2.27
COMPOSITION(TREATMENT) 3 246.16 82.05 31.64***
CONDUCTOR 1 17.62 17.62 6.79**
TREATMENT *CONDUCTOR 2 1.64 -82 .32
COMPOSITION*CONDUCTOR 3 20.00 6.66 2.57
**p<.01 ***p<. 0001
- 76 -
Figure 6 is a plot of the mean music preference ratings
of the music for each composition by day (see Appendix L).
As indicated by the regression analysis in Table 8, one can
see that a clear relationship exists between the liking of
the music and the compositions themselves. Three of the
compositions were consistently rated lower than the other
three. These ratings are comparable to the pretest rankings
from which the compositions were selected. Each of the three
treatments is represented in both the sets of lower and
higher rated compositions.
- 77 -
figure 6
PLOT OF MUSIC EATING BY MUSIC AND DAY

MUStC LIKING RATING
- 78 -
During the first and third days (data points 1 and 2 of
Figures 5 through 11; the attitude survey was not adminis
tered on the second day) of this study, the conductors con
ducted the same compositions; Conductor 1 conducted the
higher rated compositions, and Conductor 2 conducted the
lover rated compositions. On the fourth and fifth days (data
points 3 and 4 of Figures 5 through 11), the conductors
switched the compositions, thus accounting for the change in
attitudes toward the compositions displayed in Figure 6, and
the experimenter effect indicated in Table 8.
Rehearsal
rated the statement "I enjoyed rehearsing this music", were
also analyzed by the use of multiple regression and graphi
cal analysis technigues. The factors which were found to
have a significant relationship to rehearsal enjoyment rat
ings (alpha level = .05) were subjects, treatments, compo
sitions, conductors, and the interaction of compositions
with conductors (see Table 9). It appears that all the fac
tors in the model, with the exception of the interaction of
treatments with conductors, had an effect on the way the
enjoyment of the rehearsal was rated by the subjects.
- 79 -
Table 9
DEPENDENT VARIABLE: REHEARSAL ENJOYMENT RATING
Source df SS MS F
MODEL 58 1391.82 24.00 9.45***
ERROR 752 1908.60 2.54 ---
CORRECTED TOTAL 810 3300.42 ——_
SUBJECT 47 995.04 21. 17 8. 34***
TREATMENT 2 30.43 15.21 5. 99**
COMPOSITION(TREATMENT) 3 270.11 90.04 35. 48***
CONDUCTOR 1 22.76 22.76 8. 97**
TREATMENT*C0NDUCT0R 2 .02 .01 • 00
C0MP0SITI0N*C0NDUCT0R 3 73.46 24.49 9. 65***
**p<.01 ***p<. 0001
Figure 7 is a plot of the mean ratings of rehearsal
enjoyment by treatment and day (see Appendix M). Treatment B
was rated the lowest in rehearsal enjoyment on all days,
while Treatment C was rated the highest on three of the four
days, and nearly tied with Treatment A on the fourth. It may
be that treatment had an effect on the enjoyment of the re
hearsal, or that music had an effect on the enjoyment of the
rehearsal, or both.
- 80 -
Figure 7
PLOT OF REHEARSAL R A TI N G BY T R E A T M E N T AND DAY
to
o
o
to
to
o
to
REHEARSAL' ENJOYMENT RATING
to
o
= 1*
to
o
<u
to
o
o
to
o
to
in
o
to
in
2.0 3.0
SESSION
- 81 -
"Turned O n ”
rated the statement “during this rehearsal I was (turned on,
to turned off)” , were also analyzed by use of multiple re
gression and graphical analysis techniques. The factors
which were found to have a significant relationship (alpha
level = .05) were subjects, treatments, compositions, con
ductors, and the interaction of compositions with the con
ductors (see Table 10). Evidently all the factors in the
model had an effect on the students* affective state.
- 82
Table 10
DEPENDENT VARIABLE: "TURNED ON " RATING
MULTIPLE DEGRESSION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Source df SS MS F
MODEL 58 1040.96 17.95 9.39***
ERROR 752 1436.96 1.91 ---
CORRECTED TOTAL 810 2477. 93 ---
SUBJECT 47 773.08 16.45 8.61***
TREATMENT 2 34.61 17.30 9. 06***
COMPOSITION(TREATMENT) 3 147. 19 49.06 25.68***
CONDUCTOR 1 42.69 42.69 22.34***
TREATMENT*CONDUCTOR 2 . 14 .07 .04
COMPOSITION*CONDUCTOR 3 43.27 14.42 7.55***
***p<. 0001
Figure 8 is a plot of the mean rating of how "turned
on" the students were during each treatment by day (see Ap-
pendix N ) . Here a pattern similar to that found in Figure 7
can be seen. The students rated Treatment C highest in every
instance. Treatment A next highest in every instance, and
Treatment B lowest in every instance. It appears that rein
forcement (Treatment C) had a more positive function than
did p e r f o r m a n c e time (Treatment A ) . Also performance time
- 83 -
had a more positive function than academic task presenta
tions with no reinforcement (Treatment B).
- 84 -
Figure 8
PLOT OF "TOBNED ON 11 BATING FOB TBEATHENTS BY DAY
in
o
o
CO
to
CO
TURNED ON" RATING
o
CO
CO
to
o
CO
CO
o
o
CO
2.0 3.0 U.O 5.0
SESSION
- 85 -
Conductor
rated the statement MI like this conductor", were also ana
lyzed by the use of multiple regression and graphical ana
lysis techniques. The factors which were found to have a
significant relationship (alpha level = .05) were subjects,
compositions, conductors, and the interaction of composi
tions with conductors (see Table 11). It should be noted
that the treatments had no apparent effect on how much the
students "like" the conductors, but there appeared to be
some discrimination for compositions and conductors.
- 86 -
Table 11
DEPENDENT VARIABLE: LIKING THE CONDUCTOR BATING
MULTIPLE BEGBESSION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Source df SS MS F
MODEL 58 1544.02 26.62 22.28***
ERROR 744 888.96 1.20 ---
CORRECTED TOTAL 802 2432.98
SUBJECT 47 764. 17 16.26 13.61***
TREATMENT 2 .35 . 18 . 15
COMPOSITION(TREATMENT) 3 56.76 18.92 15.83***
CONDUCTOR 1 693.38 693.38 580.31***
TR EATMENT*CONDUCTOR 2 1.20 .60 .50
COMPOSITION*CONDUCTOR 3 28. 16 9.38 7.85***
***p<.0001
Figure 9 is a plot of the mean rating of how much the
students liked the conductor by treatment and day {see Ap
pendix 0). Here a pattern emerges similar to that found in
Figure 6, which is a plot of the responses to the item re
garding enjoyment of music, with a more dramatic interac
tion. Again the conductors traded the compositions which
they rehearsed on the fourth day so that the top group of
three scores was consistently with the same conductor. While
- 87 -
there may be some consistency in the ratings for the musical
compositions across days, clearly the conductors had a pro
found effect on the responses to this item as is indicated
by the regression analysis (see Table 11)-
PLOT OF "LIKING” THE CONDUCTOR BY TREATMENT AND DAY
o
CO
o
CO
LIKING OF CONDUCTOR RATING
o
to
r-
o
CM
o
o
2.0 3.0 5.0
SESSION
- 89 -
In light of this, student preference ratings for "liking”
the conductor were analyzed for comparing the experimental
conductors (see Appendix 0). It was found that the students
consistently expressed a greater "liking" for Conductor 1
than for Conductor 2 (see Figure 10).
- 90 -
Figure 10
PLOT OF " L I K I N G " T H E C O N D U C T O B BY C O N D U C T O B AND DAY
o
o
CO
o
in
co
o
LIKING OF CONDUCTOR RATING
o
co
o
10
o
o
o
10
to
o
o
to H — -I— H— H
2.0 3.0 1.0 5.0
SESSION
- 91 -
Teacher
The responses to the survey item in which the student
rated the statement "this conductor is a good teacher", were
also analyzed by the use of multiple regression and graphi
cal analysis techniques. The factors which were found to
have a significant relationship (alpha level = .05) were
subjects, treatments, compositions, conductors, and the in
teraction of compositions with conductors (see Table 12).
Once again, it appears as though all the factors in the mo
del, with the exception of the interaction of treatments
with conductors, had an effect on the manner in which the
students rated the conductor as a teacher.
- 92 -
Table 12
DEPENDENT VARIABLE: TEACHER RATING
Source df SS MS
MODEL 58 1362.83 23.50 22.86***
ERROR 737 757.44 1.03 ---
CORRECTED TOTAL 795 2120.26 --- ---
SUBJECT 47 917.94 19.53 19.00***
TREATMENT 2 14.42 7.21 7.01**
COMPOSITION(TREATMENT) 3 27. 18 9.06 8.82***
CONDUCTOR 1 382.71 382.71 372.38***
TREATMENT*CONDUCTOR 2 1.93 .96 .94
COMPOSITION*CONDUCTOfi 3 18.65 6.22 6.05**
**p<.001 ***p<. 0001
Figure 11 is a plot of the rating of the conductor as a
teacher, with the higher rating being a better rating (see
Appendix P). This is the first instance in which this unigue
pattern emerges. In Treatment C, the teacher was rated the
highest at every data point, this was the teacher that gave
them some academic task, direction, had the students per
form, and gave them reinforcement. This high rating of
Treatment C was not unusual, however in this instance,
- 93 -
Treatment B received a higher overall rating by day than did
A, for the first and only time. Apparently, while the stu
dents may have rated the music, rehearsal, and their affec
tive state higher for Treatment A than B, they still per
ceived the treatment with academic task presentations as
being more educational in nature.
- 94 -
Figure 11
PL OT OF C O N D U C T O R AS A " G O O D TEACHES*' BY T R E A T M E N T AN D DAY
o
CO
o
CO
GOCJ TEACHER RATING
o
n*
/ /
o
CM
C3
o
o
CO
CO -I------- + — I
1.0 2.0 3.0 «i.O 5.0
SESSION
- 95 -
In summary, for all survey items analyzed in Tables 8
through 12, the effects of compositions, conductors, and
their interactions were significant. Both the music which
was used and the conductor had an effect on the manner in
which students responded to all the survey items. In Tables
9, 10 and 12, a treatment effect was found. The treatments
did have an effect on the students* ratings of rehearsal
enjoyment, affective state ("turned o n " ) , and the conductor
as a good teacher; however, no treatment effect was indica
ted in rating the liking of the music or the conductor. It
is also interesting to note that even though the students
enjoyed the rehearsal more, and were more "turned on" for
Treatment A than B (see Figures 7 £ 8), they rated the con
ductor in Treatment B as a better teacher than the one in
Treatment A (see Figure 11). In the instances where a
treatment effect was found, Treatment C was consistently
rated highest overall.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Results from this study indicate that the different
rehearsal approaches or treatments had some effects on stu
dent attentiveness, achievement, and attitudes. Before one
can try to interpret the meaning of these results, differ
ences and similarities among the treatments need to be enu
merated.
There were three treatments. Treatment A consisted of
directions followed by student performance. Treatment B
consisted of academic task presentations, and directions
followed by performance. Treatment C consisted of academic
task presentations, directions, and performance followed by
reinforcement. The treatments were all approximately 12 mi
nutes {+ or - 10 seconds) in length, and were followed by a
posttest which consisted of performing the composition just
rehearsed in the treatment. The compositions used consisted
of six segments of compositions approximately 4 minutes in
duration, and were of comparable level of difficulty.
Treatments B and C consisted of eight 90-second units
with 45 seconds each spent in teacher verbalization and
student performance. Live observers monitored, cued, and
gave immediate feedback to the conductors who were control
ling the treatments. The frequency and duration of units in
Treatment A were not defined a priori in an effort to ac-
- 96 -
- 97 -
complish as much performance time as possible, and therefore
they were not monitored. However, without the advantages of
this cuing, monitoring, and feedback, the conductors tended
to stop more freguently, and consequently this resulted in
more teaching units than either Treatment B or C for the
first two days of this study. After the first treatment day,
the conductors were informed of the disparity, nevertheless
attempts at self-correction proved fruitless. Thus it was
necessary to implement a cuing, monitoring, and feedback
system comparable to that used in the other two treatments.
From the third day to the conclusion of the study, the fre
quency of stops and teaching units appeared comparable for
all treatments. Treatment A still had slightly more stops
and teaching units after the second day, since the increased
performance time resulted in reaching the end of the compo
sition being rehearsed more freguently, and starting again,
thus incurring more stops and teaching units.
The mean time spent in the teaching units and their
verbal and performance components were comparable for
Treatments B and C. Treatment A was considerably different
due in part to the a priori definition of as much perfor
mance time as possible, and in part to the initial problem
of the conductors stopping more freguently, resulting in
more teaching units.
This study attempted to maintain the duration of the
entire teaching unit constant while varying the quality and
duration of its contents. The experimental conductors were
- 98 -
able to accomplish this with the cuing, monitoring, and
feedback techniques used in this study. Varying the duration
of the teaching unit as a whole was not examined in this
study, but clearly bears examination since there are tasks
which may require more or less time to present, perform,
and/or reinforce, and these variations may have a measurable
effect on student responses. This study also did not deal
with social task presentations, verbal and nonverbal student
responses, or social reinforcement. The social content of a
teaching unit may have a strong relationship to attentive
ness and possibly, due to increased attentiveness, to
achievement, especially in the public schools. It may be
that a wider variety of student responses, both verbal and
nonverbal, may affect cognitive development, and possibly
increase music achievement. This variety may also result in
increased attentiveness and/or improved attitudes^
Student Attentiveness
If one looked at the data for student attentiveness in
a cursory manner, the assumption of treatment effect would
be quite evident. Indeed the percentage of students off-task
was a function of treatment. However, another critical fac
tor in controlling attentiveness was the quantity of per
formance time within the treatment. In every instance the
treatment with the largest quantity of performance time had
the lowest off-task; Treatment A had the most performance
time every day by definition and implementation, and this
- 99 -
resulted in the students being the least off-task during the
treatment. This replicates the results of past music re
search on the relationship of attentiveness to active (per
formance) and passive (non-performance) activities
(Forsythe, 1977; Madsen and Alley, 1979; Madsen, Wolfe and
Madsen, 1969; Spradling, 1980; Yarbrough and Price, in
press).
The results for Treatments B and C are not readily ex
plained by the quantity of performance time. On four of five
days Treatment C resulted in lower off-task, even when it
contained as much as 32 seconds less performance time than
Treatment B. In the only instance in which Treatment C re
sulted in higher off-task than Treatment E, it had 27 sec
onds less performance time. These two treatments were in
tended to have comparable amounts of performance time and
they indeed were not very different. However, Treatment B
did have a slightly higher mean for performance time, which
should have resulted in slightly lower off-task if this were
strictly a function of performance time. It did not. Conse
quently, it does appear that there were differences in off-
task due to treatments and performance time.
Although performance time was clearly a powerful fac
tor, within certain limitations, reinforcement (Treatment C)
may also have had an effect above and beyond the effect of
performance time in reducing the percentage of student off-
task. The effect of reinforcement (Treatment C) might have
been more pronounced had the reinforcement been contingent
- 100 -
on social instead of academic behaviors. However, for the
purposes of this study all the tasks and reinforcements
dealt only with academic behaviors. Furthermore, it may be
that students were more attentive when being reinforced for
their performances than when tasks were being presented.
Attention to the social aspects of a rehearsal is war
ranted in future research. It may be that increased atten
tiveness does not result in increased achievement as was
found by Madsen, Moore, Wagner, and Yarbrough (1975). At no
point in the current study did total off-task (i.e. off-task
across both performance plus non-performance portions of
rehearsal sessions) exceed 19% for any treatment. However,
off-task for the non-performance portions of the treatment
sessions consistently exceeded 20%, while the performance
portions never exceeded 3%. This study was done with a uni
versity group and these figures for off-task are not ex
ceedingly high when compared to those for the public
schools. Forsythe (1975) reported a mean of 17% off-task for
non-music classes and a mean of 8% off-task for music clas
ses. In a later study he reported a range of 1% off-task for
active activities to 32% for passive activities in the music
classroom (Forsythe, 1977). Madsen and Alley (1979) found
pupil off-task ranged from 13% to 56%, with the lowest off-
task occuring in ensembles. It is possible that the results
for the treatments might have been more disparate had the
study been extended to the public school with its younger
and less mature students. It may be worthwhile to study
- 101 -
music rehearsals at several age and ability levels with
careful attention to reducing off-task during non-perfor
mance and thus hopefully, but not necessarily, increasing
musical achievement.
Music Achievement
Although research on the teaching of music performance
in a music ensemble situation is minimal, based upon these
data it appears that musical achievement is the most elusive
of the three dependent measures used in this study. Here a
gain in musical achievement was found for all three treat
ments, and while the pretest scores were similar. Treatments
A and C were found to have received higher posttest scores
than Treatment B, and also showed a considerably larger
gain. Treatment C had a larger gain and posttest score than
Treatment B, although the difference between the two treat
ments vas small.
These results support the notion that given eguivalent
amounts of performance time and verbal time, the addition of
academic reinforcement (Treatment C) might produce higher
performance achievement. This supports results of earlier
research on the effects of feedback versus no feedback on
academic achievement (Erez, 1976; Nolen, Kunzelman, &
Haring, 1967; Tyler 6 Brown, 1968). Treatment C was the only
treatment which did not show a decrease from the last
treatment session to the posttest which was two days later.
It may be that reinforcement assisted the students in the
- 102 -
retention and transfer of that vhich they had learned to the
posttest performance. It should be remembered that this was
the only treatment in which the students were reinforced,
and that the only purpose of this reinforcement was to im
prove performance. However, since improved performance is an
understood objective for all performing ensembles, it is
understandable that there was a positive gain for all
treatments.
There was also no attempt to measure cognitive gains in
this study. Had this been attempted, the treatments with
academic content might have shown a greater gain than the
one without. To date, there has been little research vhich
has shown a relationship between improved musical and cog
nitive gains.
All treatments exhibited gains in musical achievement,
which may be attributed to the factors of maturation, prac
tice, and/or experience. These are clearly factors in
Treatment A where academic task presentations and rein
forcements were almost non-existent= This study vas done
with a university group and one might assume that they had
more experience and knowledge than many secondary and ele
mentary school ensembles. The added experience may have
helped this ensemble to improve with little benefit from the
teacher, and the treatment effects may be of a higher mag
nitude in direct relationship to the maturity and experience
of the ensemble; the younger the ensemble, the more it may
need the guidance of a teacher. It should also be noted that
- 103 -
this ensemble had met only once before the study began. The
recency of the ensemble's inception may have resulted in an
exaggeration of the maturation factor for ensemble perfor
mance, vhich might not have been as large a contributor had
the study been executed later in the term, thus allowing the
ensemble time to stabilize.
Student Attitude
Responses to the five-question attitude survey indicate
that the students discriminated according to the item and
the treatment. These responses can be classified into two
categories: those which do and those vhich do not reflect a
treatment effect. Two of the item responses, one in which
the students rated how much they liked the music, and the
other in which they rated how much the liked the conductor,
did not appear to have a strong relationship to the treat
ments, but did relate to compositions and conductors. The
responses to the other three items in which rehearsal en
joyment, affective state (’’turned on” versus ’’turned off”) ,
and the conductor as a teacher did show a significant rela
tionship to the treatments in addition to the compositions
and conductors. The responses to all five questions indicate
that a music and conductor effect on attitudes was in evi
dence for all treatments.
The music effect is fairly straightforward and clear.
The ensemble consistently rated three of the compositions
superior to the other three. This preference reflected the
- 104 -
pre- and posttest rankings which were done independently of
the treatments. On the pretest ranking? the largest group of
compositions which were not ranked significantly different
from each other contained four compositions. The fourth
composition, a lengthy multi-movement work was divided into
three sections comparable in length, difficulty, and style.
This composition was the lowest rated of the four and the
three sections of this composition were consistently rated
lover than the other three compositions throughout the
study, thus a music effect existed.
Although there are no treatment data to explain the
effects of the different conductors, there are a number of
feasible standard explanations. The data for the independent
variables demonstrated that the conductors did administer
the treatments as defined a priori, and did so with a com
parable content of these independent variables within each
category. It is clear that these variables were controlled
and manipulated as planned, so what vas responsible for the
differences in the student responses to the conductors?
There are two highly probable explanations for the
differences in responses to the conductors. First, it is
possible that the disparity of the responses was the func
tion of an authority figure bias on the part of the stu
dents. One conductor was the Director of Bands at the uni
versity, while the other conductor was a doctoral candidate
and full-time student. This may have resulted in the stu
dents feeling that the Director of Bands was a better tea
- 105 -
cher in spite o£ treatment. The second possible explanation
is that although this ensemble had never met before this
study began, many of the students had been in another en
semble under the Director of Bands the previous semester.
Very few of the students knew the doctoral candidate^ This
difference in subject/conductor interaction histories might
have resulted in an a priori bias in favor of the Director
of Bands. Another, less scientific explanation might be that
the Director of Bands was a better teacher and a more lika
ble person.
In spite of the fact that the effects of the composi
tions and conductors permeated the responses to all the
guestions in the attitude survey, treatment effects were
found in the responses to three of the five items. Two of
the three item response patterns are similar. In the re
sponses for rehearsal enjoyment and "turned on", for the
eight data points of the two items combined. Treatment B
received the lowest rating in every instance and Treatment C
received the highest rating for seven of the eight data
points. It is clear that the students enjoyed the overall
rehearsal more when they were reinforced than when they were
not, given comparable amounts of performance time. There
were more favorable responses under Treatment C than Treat
ment A which may indicate that reinforcement is more moti
vating than being able to play more.
- 106 -
The third item responses vhich indicated a treatment
effect were the ones in vhich the students rated the con
ductor as a teacher. This item revealed a unigue response
pattern relative to the other four items on the survey. For
this item the conductor for Treatment C received the highest
rating as a teacher for all four days, for Treatment B re
ceived the next highest rating for three of the four days,
and for Treatment A received the lowest rating on three of
the four days, with the conductors for A and B virtually
tied on one day. The fact that the conductor for Treatment C
received the highest rating is not unusual for any of the
survey items, but the fact that Treatment B was rated higher
than Treatment A is unigue. On every other item Treatment B
was rated the lowest on every occasion. This was the only
item in which the students were asked to rate any kind of
competence such as the teaching skills of the conductor.
They evidently felt that the conductor under the treatment
which involved academic task presentations, student perfor
mance, and reinforcement vas better than the one under the
treatment which involved only task presentations and student
performance without reinforcement. However, the treatment
without reinforcement was still rated higher than the situ
ation in which the primary content was student performance.
Evidently while the students preferred the situation in
which they played more (Treatment A) than the one in which
academic tasks were presented without reinforcement (Treat
ment B ) , they perceived the latter as better teaching. The
- 107 -
character of this ensemble may help to explain this apparent
dichotomy. It may be that this ensemble did not value
learning as highly as playing; it vas a non-audition group
mostly composed of non-music majors who were taking the
course as an elective or for no credit. It is possible that
the students just wanted to play in a group and were not
interested in developing any further. Learning and enjoyment
are not necessarily synonymous. Bith all this taken into
account, it should be remembered that Treatment C still r e
ceived the highest rating for all the items, so that it was
perceived as the most enjoyable, and the conductor was also
rated as the best teacher.
The results from this survey seem to indicate that al
though the compositions and conductors were perceived dif
ferently, there appeared to be a treatment effect. The data
point to the power of both the use of positive teacher re
inforcement and music for reinforcement as teaching tools in
a rehearsal situation. In this situation, students rated
both the treatment where there was more performance time but
no teaching, and the treatment in which instruction oc
curred, and student performance was followed by positive
reinforcement positively, although they rated the conductor
as a poorer teacher in the first instance. It does appear
that the students enjoyed the learning situation in vhich
there was positive reinforcement the most (Treatment C) .
However, when there was no teacher reinforcement (Treatments
- 108 -
A and B), they preferred to just perform and not receive any
academic instruction (Treatment A).
Design
A summary of design advantages and disadvantages is
important both in assessing the results and the implications
of its future use (see Appendix C).
Conductors were rotated to control for experimenter
effect. Compositions were paired with the same treatment
throughout, but they were presented in a different random
order each day. Thus there was a different random order for
treatments, conductors, and compositions for each day. The
purpose of the randomization was to control for an order
effect.
The pairing of compositions with treatments instead of
randomly distributing them across different treatments each
day created a confounding which prevented the isolation of
treatment effects from composition effects. In an effort to
compensate for this confounding, compositions which were not
ranked significantly different on a pretest survey of the
ensemble members were used. The top three rated were ran
domly assigned to the three treatments, as were the bottom
three, so that each treatment was paired with two different
compositions. The pairing of two different compositions with
the same treatment was done in an effort to strengthen a
case for treatment effect. Besults could be analyzed for
compositions within treatments as well as across treatments.
- 109 -
This allowed for the partialling out of the music and
treatment effects. This a priori decision was a tradeoff in
an effort to look for musical gains over more than one day.
Since musical improvement can be a slow process, it was
hoped that by continuing the treatments over a period of
time longer than one rehearsal from pre- to posttest that
some musical achievement would be in evidence.
The original design called for 10 treatment sessions
extending over six weeks, but after five rehearsals in which
students had been exposed to each 4-minute composition for a
total of 90 minutes, students appeared to be less respon
sive, and performance level appeared to have peaked, so the
study was terminated. Even with this reduction in the length
of the study, gains and an implication of some treatment
effects on those gains were found.
It is important to note that there are clear limita
tions in the interpretation of the results and the genera-
lizability of this study. It was done with only one ensemble
over a period of three weeks. This ensemble was a university
level group which was composed mostly of non-music majors.
These results may not generalize to other school level en
sembles such as high school, middle school, elementary
school, or even a high performance level university ensemble
of music majors. This ensemble may even have been atypical
when compared to others with similar characteristics.
Therefore, this can only be considered an initial step, and
the questions regarding the limitations will only be clari
- 110 -
fied by future research which may or may not replicate the
findings of this study in other ensemble situations.
Implications for Future Besearch
The results in this study imply that this may be a
fruitful course of research to continue. The teaching model
and research design used here could be applied to different
age and ability levels in various music settings to examine
their feasibility and usefulness. The effects of this model
could be studied in elementary, junior and senior high
school, as well as in other university ensemble rehearsal
situations, to examine its effect at various maturity le
vels. It may be that the lower student levels would benefit
more from this direct instruction approach, thus yielding a
greater disparity between treatments at elementary level
than at the university level. It may be that the elementary
students* gains in performance without the aid of a teacher
would not be nearly as great as those for more advanced
students. One might hypothesize that more advanced students
are able to continually improve without the guidance of a
ceacher to a point of total independence of a teacher*s
academic task presentations or reinforcement. On the other
hand, the less experienced the ensemble, the sooner the
teacher may need to intervene and assist the students in
improving their performance.
- 111 -
It also nay be profitable to apply this research design
and methodology to elementary and secondary general music
classes. This setting involves more diverse teacher presen
tations and student activities. Therefore, its applicability
and use may be more difficult and restricted in this set
ting.
It may be feasible to modify this design to extend a
study over a longer period of time than three veeks without
the concomitant occurrence of student apathy and peak in
performance levels which was observed by the conductors in
this study. One method of extension might be to rehearse the
music involved at alternate rehearsals, rather than at every
rehearsal, thus realizing the same guantity of treatment
time over a longer period. In retrospect, had the two pieces
used for each treatment of this study each been rehearsed at
alternate rehearsals, thus only taking one hour of the re
hearsals and rehearsing each composition once a week, the
problems of satiation and performance peaking might have
been avoided.
Another area which needs to be examined is the effect
of the teaching model and its components on cognitive deve
lopment in music settings. The general music setting clearly
deals with the knowledge of music, and the public school
ensemble setting is intended as a learning situation for
knowledge about music as well as the necessary performance
skills. Cognitive learning was not specifically assessed in
this study.
- 112 -
The social and academic content of the teaching units
could also be varied in order to examine the differential
effects these variations may have on attentiveness,
achievement, and attitude. It may be necessary to include
social content (social task presentations and reinforce
ments) in the teaching unit to increase attentiveness. In
addition, it may also be necessary to include academic con
tent (academic task presentations and reinforcements) to
improve achievement. It is possible that increased atten
tiveness does not necessarily lead to improved achievement,
and improved achievement may not be a result of increased
attentiveness. When these variations are examined, their
effect on attitude may also be better understood. Another
factor which could be modified in all these settings is the
duration and freguency of teaching patterns used in this
study. The Direct Instruction Model uses rapid-paced in
struction in non-music settings. In certain situations, this
may be examined by varying the duration of this cycle. A
short duration cycle may be difficult to apply in a rehear
sal setting, but even varying of the length of these cycles
within a treatment, which was not examined in this study,
may prove useful in creating some variety in this setting.
As the body of research grows in this area, it may be
that the results will support the usefulness of this teach
ing model. If this occurs, then the research could be moved
to the area of teacher training and preparation. The first
step would be to train teachers to develop these technigues
- 113 -
and skills. After a learning situation is designed vhich
accomplishes this in teacher preparation, these teachers
could be folloved into the field to see if they transfer
these skills to the classroom. Assuming this occurs, these
newly trained teachers could be compared to other teachers
who were not trained in these technigues. These comparisons
can be done on the basis of student attentiveness, achieve
ment, and attitude, as well as teacher behaviors.
SUMMARY
The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the
effect of conductor academic task presentation, direction,
reinforcement, and student performance on attentiveness,
achievement, and attitude of students in a university sym
phonic band. The band was rehearsed under three treatments:
(A) directions and performance; (B) academic tasks, direc
tions, and performance; and (C) academic tasks, directions,
performance, and contingent academic reinforcements. Two
conductors, three treatments and six musical compositions
were used and presented randomly to control for order ef
fect. Conductors were rotated to control for experimenter
effect.
Student attentiveness was defined as the percentage of
students overtly off-task. Musical achievement was indepen
dently rated by a panel of expert judges on the basis of
audiotape recordings. Student attitude was assessed by a
survey which was adapted for this study from Madsen and
Yarbrough (1980).
Results indicated that there was a treatment effect on
the percentage of students off-task. Two variables appeared
to affect off-task, performance time and treatment. Treat
ment A resulted in the lowest percentage of student off-
task, and it included considerably more performance time
than either of the other treatments. Treatment C, the
treatment which included reinforcement, resulted in less
- 114 -
- 115 -
off-task than Treatment B, although their performance time
was comparable.
All the treatments resulted in gains in musical
achievement. Treatment B, which had less performance time
than Treatment A, and did not include reinforcement, resul
ted in the lowest gain and posttest scores. Treatments A and
C both gained considerably more and scored higher on the
posttest than Treatment B. Treatment C, which included aca
demic task presentations, directions, performance, and re
inforcement, scored the largest gain and posttest scores.
There was a significant relationship for both conduct
ors and compositions to all the item responses on the atti
tude survey. However, the treatments had a significant re
lationship to the way the students rated the rehearsal and
the conductor as a teacher. Students consistently rated the
rehearsals in which positive reinforcement occurred (Treat
ment C) highest in terms of enjoyment and general affect.
The treatment which included the most performance (Treatment
A) was consistently rated higher than Treatment B, which was
comparable to Treatment C with the exclusion of reinforce
ment, on the basis of enjoyment and general affect. Thus,
Treatment B was consistently rated lowest on these bases.
When the students rated the conductors as teachers, they
consistently rated the conductors in Treatment C highest.
However, Treatment B was rated consistently higher than
Treatment A, which only included directions and performance
and no academic task presentations or feedback, on the basis
- 116 -
of the quality of teaching.
The complete teaching model, which included academic
task presentations, directions, student performance, and
feedback in Treatment C, was effective when assessed on the
basis of attentiveness, achievement, and attitude. It was
clearly superior to the comparable treatment which did not
include feedback (Treatment B ) , on the basis of attentive
ness, achievement, and attitude. Treatment A was comparable
to Treatment C on the basis of achievement and resulted in
lowest off-task. In the only instance where Treatment B was
rated superior to either of the other two treatments, it was
consistently rated superior to Treatment A on the basis of
the students* rating of good teaching.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LIST OF POSSIBLE MOSIC
Alleluia! Laudamus Te. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .fieed

Belwin Hills Publishing Corp.
American Variations. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alfred Publishing Co., Inc.
♦Colonial Song. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grainger

Carl Fischer, Inc.
♦Divergents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Southern Music Company
♦Folk Song Suite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boosey 6 Hawkes Ltd.
♦Giles Farnaby Suite^ . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boosey 6 Hawkes, Inc.
♦Jubilance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Giovannini/Robinson
Sam Fox Publishing Company, Inc.
♦Pageant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Persichetti
Carl Fischer, Inc.
Boyce Hall Suite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Associated Music Publishers, Inc.
Scenes from ,sThe Louvre”. . . . . . . . . . . . .Dello Joio

Edward B. Marks Music Corp.
♦Third Suite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Volwein Bros., Inc.
♦Toccata............. .. Frescobaldi/Slocum
Mills Music, Inc.
♦William Byrd Suite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boosey e Hawkes, Inc.
♦— the nine compositions which were sightread
- 118 -
- 119 -
APPENDIX B
ON THE LEFT SIDE, PLEASE NUMBER THE COMPOSITIONS FROM 1 TO 13, MOST
PREFERRED TO LEAST PREFERRED. PLEASE WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE READ ALL THE
COMPOSITIONS.
ON THE RIGHT SIDE, PLEASE CHECK YES IF YOU HAVE PLAYED THE
COMPOSITION BEFORE, OF NO IF YOU HAVE NOT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COOPERATION.
ORDER YES NO
Pageant.............................. . ..... ....
Folk Song Suite....... ..... .....
Jubilance........ .......................... ..... .....
Hilliam Byrd Suite............................ _____ _____
Giles Farnaby Suite. .... ................ ..........
Royce Hall Suite.............................. __ _____
_____ Third Suite................................... ________ ___ _
Colonial Song................................. _____ _____
_____ Scenes from "The Louvre"......................________ __________
_____ Toccata....................................... _____ _____
Divergents.................................... _____ _____
American Variations........................... _____ _____
I.au Daumus Te................................._____ __________
Instrument___________________ # Birthdate_________ Sex_____
- 120 -
APPENDIX C
LIST OF MUSIC USED
Selection Treatment Music
A Third Suite (1st Mov. (no re

peats) & 3rd Mov. Meas. 23)
2 B Pageant (3rd beat of Meas. 66)
3 C Divergents (No. 2 (Meas. 12)

& No. 4)
Wm. Byrd Suite (No. 1 (Meas. 25)

S No. 3)
5 B Wm. Byrd Suite (No. 4)
6 C Wm. Byrd Suite (No. 5 (no re

peats) & No. 6)
- 121 -
APPENDIX D
DESIG £ flODEL SUMMARY
Pre Post
>osition test Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 test
1) 0 X (A1) 0 X(A2)0 X (A1) 0 X(A2)0 X (A2) 0 0
2) 0 X(B1)0 X(B2)0 X ( B 1)0 X(B2)0 X (B2) 0 0
3) 0 X <C1)0 X (C2) 0 X (C1) 0 X(C2)0 X (C2) 0 0
4) 0 X(A2)0 X(A 1)0 X (A2) 0 X(A1)0 X(A1)0 0
5) 0 X(B2)0 X(B1)0 X (B2) 0 X(B1) 0 X(B1)0 0
6) 0 X(C2)0 X (C1) 0 X (C2) 0 X(C1)0 X(C1)0 0
X(*#): * - Treatment:
(A) directions and performance
(B) academic tasks, directions, and
performance
(C) academic tasks, directions, performance,
and reinforcement
# = Conductor
(1) Director of Bands
(2) Doctoral Candidate
0: Musical achievement rating and attitude inventory.
* During X the students and conductors were videotaped to assess
student attentiveness and the implementation of treatment.
- 122 -
APPENDIX E
EQUIPMENT LIST
1 Sony A? 3600 Videocorder

2 Sony AVC 3250 Cameras
2 Sony VCL-1206 Television Zoom Lenses
1 Sony CVN 115 9" Transistor Video Monitor
1 Sony SEG-1 Special Effects Generator
1 Realistic 33-1057 Two-channel Stereo Microphone Mixer
1 Realistic 33-1056 Condenser Microphone
2 Wollensak 2851AV Cassettes Systems
3 AVID LT-730 Monaural Headphones
1 Revox A77 Pull Track Monophonic Recorder

1 Altec 195A Microphone Base
1 Altec 29B Condenser Microphone Head (cardioid directivity
pattern)
1 30* Sound Recording Boom
1 Sony TC K61 Stereo Cassette Deck
1 Koss PRC 4-A Stereo Headphone
1 3-Socket Light System With Rotary Switch
Assorted Cables, Plugs, and Adapters
5 Scotch 461 Video Tape (2400 ft.)

6 Ampex 406 Audio Tape (1200 ft.)
2 Ampex 406 Audio Tape (2400 ft.)
18 Scotch AVM 90 Studio Master Cassette Tape
- 123 -
APPENDIX F
PERFORMANCE RATING FORM
NO. Selection
Circle your rating: Poor Fair Good Excellent
Intonation............ 2 3 4
Blend................. 2 3 4
Balance............... 2 3 4
Tempo..,..»............ 2 3 4
Dynamics......... ..... 2 3 4
-9
Tone Quality... 2 4
Rhythms........... 2 3 4
Phrasing................. . 2 3 4
Ensemble.................. 2 3 4
Articulation.............. 2 3 4
Style........ . 2 3 4
Overall Artistic Effect... 2 3 4
(Musicality)
Total:
Judge*s Name
Rating
Rank
- 124 -
APPENDIX G
ATTITUDE SURVEY
Instrument_____________ Birthdate Sex F M
Circle the number that best expresses your agree

ment or disagreement with each of the statements belon:
Selection 1-
A. I like this music.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly
disagree agree
B. I enjoyed rc»hearsinq this music.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
C. I like this conductor.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
D. During this rehearsal I was
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Turned Out of Partici With it Turned
off it pating on
E. This conductor is a good teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
Selection 2-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
- 125 -
B. I enioyed rehearsina this music.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
off it pating on
E. This conductor is a crood teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
Selection 3-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree aqree
B. I enioved rehearsina this music.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
off it pating on
- 126 -
E. This conductor is a qood teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
Selection 4-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
B. I enioyed rehearsinq •this music.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree aqree
C, I like this conductor.•
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Turned Out O f Partici With it Turned
off it pating on
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
Selection 5-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Stronqly
disagree agree
B. I enioyed rehearsinq this music.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
- 127 -
C. I like this conductor,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ____ 10
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
off it pating on
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Stronqly
disagree agree
Selection 6-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Uncertain Aqree Stronqly
disagree agree
B. I enioved rehearsinq this music.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
D. During this rehearsal I vas
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
off it pating on
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
disagree agree
- 128 -
APPENDIX fl
SECONDS SPENT IN TEEATHENT BEHAVIORS
Directions Academic Performances Reinforcements

Tasks
Conductor: 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
------- -----------------
DAY 1)
Treatment A: 148 120 12 0 5 47 586 1 0
Treatment B: 66 69 251 281 354 349 27 0
Treatment c: 61 59 207 176 343 334 113 151
DAY 2)
Treatment A: 159 87 0 20 571 552 0 14
Treatment B: 51 68 327 309 339 343 12 0
Treatment c: 65 54 193 176 364 343 85 152
DAY 3)
Treatment A: 149 89 4 3 566 595 0 0
Treatment B: 64 73 314 244 350 358 0 16
Treatment c: 39 47 216 184 349 376 135 114
DAY *0
Treatment A: 132 101 7 2 581 613 0 0
Treatment B: 43 79 287 279 367 343 18 0
Treatment c: 63 52 177 194 300 346 129 118
DAY 5)
Treatment A: 138 109 19 0 549 589 6 0
Treatment B: 50 49 277 300 360 362 44 5
Treatment c: 86 62 152 188 336 330 156 143
- 129 -
APPENDIX I
FREQUENCY OF UNITS AND REINFORCEMENTS
Direction Academic Reinforcements

Units Units
Conductor: 1 2 1 2 1 2
DAY 1)
Treatment A: 12 12 0 0 3 2
Treatment B: 0 0 8 8 12 1
Treatment c: 1 0 8 9 27 31
DAY 2)
Treatment A: 16 10 0 1 3 2
Treatment c: 1 2 8 6 25 28
DAY 3)
Treatment A: 8 8 2 0 0 0
Treatment C: 0 0 8 8 0 3
DAY 4)
Treatment c: 0 0 8 8 22 29
DAY 4)
Treatment c; 2 0 7 8 25 30
- 130 -
APPENDIX J
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENT OFF-TASK
Performance Non- Total

Performance
Conductor: 1 2 1 2 1
DAY 1)
Treatment A: 3.4 2.3 22.0 19.4 8.20 5.26
Treatment B: 0.1 5.6 26.0 28.7 12.87 17.90
Treatment C: 2.2 0.0 22.0 13.5 13.59 8.06
DAY 2)
Treatment A: 2.1 2.8 14.0 32.2 10.08 H.55
Treatment B: 3.9 1.9 29.9 33.0 18.20 17.83
Treatment C: 7.0 2.9 36.6 30.0 18.97 16.74
DAY 3)
Treatment A: 3.9 2. 1 13.7 16.7 5. 49 6.06
Treatment B: 3.6 3.3 30.6 25.0 18.37 14.34
Treatment C: 5.6 0.8 27.1 18.9 17. 16 10 12.
DAY 4)
Treatment A: 5.2 3.6 35.6 22.0 10.92 7.38
Treatment B: 1.0 1.6 25.0 25.6 14.66 13.44
Treatment C: 2.5 0.0 26.3 16.3 14.23 9.36
DAY 5)
Treatment A: 1.0 2.0 19.8 11.2 6.32 4.20
Treatment B: 3.9 4.0 19.5 16.5 12.59 9.86
Treatment C: 0.8 0.0 23.8 18.2 13.41 9.34
- 131 -
APPENDIX K
MEAN MOSIC A C HIE VEM ENT SCOBES
Performance Treatment A Treatment B Treatment c
Pretest 12.50 13.32 14. 17
Session 1 15.47 18.73 16.57
Session 2 18.32 18.45 20. 17
Session 3 18.17 20.83 19.83
Session 4 21.97 21.27 22-83
Session 5 24.60 19.67 23.00
Posttest 21.58 18.17 23.70
- 132 -
APPENDIX L
ATTITUDE SURVEY: AVERAGE POR MUSIC PREFERENCE
Treatment A Treatment B Treatment c
Conductor: 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean
Session 1 7.66 6.17 6.97 7.10 6.45 6.77 7.61 6.39 7.00
'Session 2
Session 3 7.34 6.03 6.69 7.65 5.46 6.55 7.67 6.29 6.98
Session 4 6.70 7.54 7.12 6.66 7.09 6.88 7.06 7.27 7.16
Session 5 6.53 7.84 7. 19 6. 52 7.38 6.96 6.56 7.56 7.06
Mean 7.06 6.90 6.99 6.98 6.60 6.79 7.22 6.88 7.05
*— no attitude survey was administered in Session 2.
- 133 -
APPENDIX H
ATTITUDE SURVEY: AVERAGE FOR REHEARSAL ENJOYMENT
Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C
Session 1 7.31 5.37 6.34 6.58 5.84 6.21 7.35 5.68 6.52
♦Session 2
Session 3 7. 03 5.53 6.27 6.95 4.89 5.92 6.95 6.00 6.47
Session 4 6.29 7.29 6.77 6.20 6.92 6.56 6.83 7.06 6.94
Session 5 6,36 7 S50 6.93 6.03 6.74 6.38 6.47 7.33 6.90
Mean 6.75 6.42 6.58 6.44 6.10 6.27 £.90 6.52 6.71
- 134
APPENDIX N
ATTITUDE SURVEY: AVERAGE FOR "TURNED ON”
Session 1 7.52 5.80 6.66 6.77 5.97 6.37 7.61 6.36 6.98
♦Session 2
Session 3 6.96 5.84 6.40 7.00 5.14 6.07 7.33 6.29 6.81
Session 4 6.67 7.09 6.38 6.53 7.09 6.81 6.91 7.09 7.00
Session 5 6.68 7.38 7.03 6.56 6.78 6.67 7.02 7.14 7.08
Mean 6.96 6.53 6.74 6.72 6.24 6.48 7.22 6.72 6.97
♦— no attitude survey was administered in Session 2.
- 135 -
APPENDIX 0
ATTITUDE SURVEY: AVERAGE FOR CONDUCTOR PREFERENCE
Treatment A Treatment B Treatment c
Conductor: 1 2 He an 1 2 Hean 1 2 Hean
Session 1 8.72 6. 13 7.43 8.74 6.60 7.67 8.71 5.81 7. 26
♦Session 2
Session 3 8.55 6.32 7.43 8.40 6.08 7.24 8.66 6.60 7.36
Session 4 8.44 7.18 7.81 8.50 7.16 7.83 8.46 7.06 7.76
Session 5 8.25 7.03 7.64 8.48 7.06 7.77 8.56 6.88 7.72
He an 8.49 6.66 7.58 8.53 6.72 7.63 8.60 6.59 7.59
- 136 -
APPENDIX P
ATTITUDE SURVEY: AVERAGE FOR TEACHER RATING
Conductor: 1 2 Bean 1 1 2 Hean 1 2 Hean
Session 1 8-25 6.38 7.32 8.20 6.83 7.51 8.53 6.73 7.63
♦Session 2
Session 3 8.08 6.13 7.10 7.95 6.29 7.10 8.28 6.58 7.43
Session 4 7.84 6.59 7.22 7.93 7.23 7.58 8.20 7.09 7.64
Session 5 8.00 7.05 7.52 8.23 7.06 7.64 8.29 7. 16 7.72
Hean 8.04 6.54 7.29 8.08 6.84 7.46 8.32 6.89 7.60
♦— no attitude survey was administered in Session 2.
DEFERENCES
BEFEBEKCES
Altman, K. I. & Linton, T. E. Operant conditioning in the

classroom setting: A review of the research. Journal
of Educational Besearch, 1971, 64, 277-86.
Barrett, B. H. Seduction in rate of multiple ties by free

operant conditioning. L. P. Altman 8 L. Krasner
(Eds.), Case Studies in Behavior Modification. Mew
York: Holt, Binehart & Winston, 1965.
Becker, W. C. Symposium on direct instruction: The Follow

Through data show that some programs work better than
others. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Educational Besearch Association, Toronto, March, 1978.
Becker, W. C., Enqelmann, S. Analysis of achievement data

on six cohorts of low-income children from 20 school
districts in the Oniversity of Oregon direct instruc
tion follow through model. Eugene, Oregon: Oniversity
of Oregon, 1976. (EBIC Document Beproduction Service
Mo. ED 145 922)
Becker, W- C., Engelmann, S., S Thomas, D. B. Teaching: A

course in applied psychology. Chicago: Science Re
search Associates, Inc., 1971.
Becker, W. C., Madsen, C. H., Jr.- Arnold, C. B . , S Thomas,

D. R. The contingent use of teacher attention and
praise in reviewing classrooa behavior problems. Jour
nal of Special Education. 1967, J, 287-307.
Begian, H. Emulate the professional. Instrumentalist.

1968, 23(4) , 35-37.
Beisman, G. B. Effect of rhythmic accompaniment upon

learning of fundamental motor skills. Besearch Quar
terly. 1967, 38, 172-176.
Bellamy, T. 6 Sontag (Eds.). Use of group contingent music

to increase assembly line production rates of retarted
students in a simulated sheltered workshop. Journal of
Music Therapy. 1973, JO, 125-136.
Bennett, L., & Adams, J. A comparative study of the effects

of positive and negative reinforcement on the effici
ency of musical learning. Council for Besearch in Mu
sic Education. 1967, _10, 39-46.
- 138 -
Bennett, N., Jordan, J., Long, G., £ Hade, B. Teaching
styles and pupil progress. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard Oniversity Press, 1976.
Berliner, D. C . , £ Gage, N. L. The psychology of teachinq

methods. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), The psychology of teach
inq methods. Chicago, Illinois: The National Society
for the Study of Education, 1976.
Berliner, D. C. £ Bosenshine, B. The acquisition of know

ledge in the classroom. Beginning Teacher Evaluation
Study. Technical report I V - 1. San Francisco, Cali
fornia: Far West Laboratory for Educational Besearch
and Development, 1976. (EBIC Document Reproduction
Service No. 2D 146 158)
Bloomguist, K. G. Discipline. Instrumentalist. 1973, 27-

(8) , 78-79.
Bonny, H. B., Cistrunk, H . , Hakuch, B., Stevens, E., £

Sally, J. Some effects of music on verbal interaction
in groups. Journal of Music Therapy. 1965, 2, 61-62.
Bough, J. C . , £ Bough, J. R. The effects of four types of

music on the learning of nonsense syllables. Journal
of Music Therapy. 1965, 2, 69-74.
Brophy, J. E. Advantages in teacher effectiveness re

search. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago,
March 1979a.
Brophy, J. E. Advances in teacher effectiveness research.

occasional paper no. 18. East Lansing, Michigan: In
stitute for Besearch on Teaching, 1979b. (EBIC Docu
ment Reproduction Service No. ED 173 340)
Brophy, J. E. £ Evertson, C. M. Process-product correla

tions in the texas teacher effectiveness studv: Final
report. Austin, Texas: Besearch and Development Center
for Teacher Education, ?974. (EBIC Document Reproduc
tion Service No. ED 091 394)
Bruner, Forevard. In N. Bennett, J. Jordan, G. Long, £ B.

Hade (Eds.), Teachinq styles and pupil progress.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1976.
Carnine, D.W. Direct Instruction: A successful system for

educationally high-risk children. Journal of Curricu
lum Studies. 1979, , 29-45.
- 139 -
- 140 -
Cook, M. & Freethy, M. The use of music as a positive re

inforcer to eliminate complaining behavior. Journal of
Music Therapy. 1973, JO, 213-216.
Darch, B. & Thorpe, H.W. An intervention strategy for

teachers of the mildly handicapped (Note 1. Engelmann,
S. Personal communication, March, 1976.). Education
and Training of the Mentally Retarded. 1978, J3, 9-15,.
Davis, D. An interview with W. Frances McBeth. Instrumen

talist. 1978, 32, 39-41.
Dorow, L.G. Conditioning music and approval as new rein

forcers for imitative behavior with the severely re
tarded. Journal of Music Therapy. 1975, J2, 30-39.
Dorow, L.G. Televised music lessons as educational rein

forcement for correct mathematical responses with the
educable mentally retarded. Journal of Music Therapy.
1976, J3, 77-86.
Dorow, L.G. The effect of teacher approval/disapproval ra

tios on student music selection and concert attentive
ness. Journal of Research in Music Education. 1977,
25, 32-40.
Dorow, L.G. & Greer, R.D. The reinforcement value of a

music instrument for beginning instrumentalists and the
influence of discovery versus teacher approval on
achievement. Journal of Music Therapy. 1977, J4, 2-16.
Dunkin, M . S Biddle, B. The study of teaching. New York:

Holt, Rinehart, 8 Winston, 1974.
Engelmann, S. The effectiveness of direct verbal instruc

tion on I.Q. performance and achievement in reading and
arithmetic. In B.C. Becker (Ed.), An Empirical Basis
for Change in Education. Chicago: Science Besearch
Associates, 1971, 461-483.
Erez, M. Feedback: A necessary condition for the goal set

ting- performance relationship. Research report No.
10. Washington, D.C.: Office of Naval Research,
1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service So. ED 127
359)
Evertson, C. M., Anderson, L. M., Brophy, J. E. , 5 Anderson,

c» Texas junior high school study: Final report of
process-outcome relationships. Volume I, Research de
velopment report no. 4061. Austin, Texas: Research and
Development Center for Teacher Education, 1978. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 173 744)
- 141 -
Forsythe, J.8. The effect of teacher approval, disapproval,

and errors on student attentiveness: music versus
classroom teachers. In C.K. Madsen, R.D. Greer, & C.H.
Madsen (Eds.), Besearch in Music Behavior. New York:
Teachers College Press, 1975, 49-55.
Forsythe, J.R. Elementary student attending behavior as a

function of classroom activities. Journal of Besearch
in Music Education. 1977, 25, 228-239.
Good, T. L. Teacher effectiveness in the elementary

school. Journal of Teacher Education. 1979, 30, 52-64.
Gordon, M.B. (Ed.) Distar instructional system: Summaries

of case studies on the effectiveness of the Distar In
structional System. Science Besearch Associates, Inc.,
1971.
Gordon, M.V.W. The use of music instruction as a contingen

cy for increased reading behavior. Paper presented at
the National Symposium for Besearch in Music Behavior,
New York, October, 1980.
Green, E.A.H. The modern conductor. New Jersey: Pren-

tice-Hall, Inc., 1969.
Greer, B. D., Dorow, L.G., Hachhaus, G., 6 White, E.B. Adult

approval and student*s music selection behavior. Un
published paper, Teachers College Columbia University,
1972.
Greer, B.D., Randall, A., S Timberlake, C. The discrimina

tive use of music listening as a contingency for im
provement in vocal pitch acuity and attending beha
vior. Council for Besearch in Music Education. 1971,
26, 10-18.
Hall, R.V., Lund, D., S Jackson, D. Effects of teacher at

tention on study behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis. 1968, J, 1-12.
Hanley, E.M. Review of research involving applied behavior

analysis in the classroom. Review of Educational Be
search. 1970, 40, 597-625.
Hanser, S.B. Group-contingent music listening with emotio

nally disturbed boys. Journal of Music Therapy. 1974,
H , 220-225.
Hauck, I.P. & Martin, P.L. Music ao a reinforcer in patient

controlled duration of time-out. Journal of Music The-
raj2Z, 1970, 7, 43-53.
- 142 -
Heath, R. W. & Nielson, M. A. The research basis for per

formance-based teacher education. Review of Educatio
nal Research. 1974, 44, 463-489.
Jeffrey, H. E. New technique for monitoring and reinforcing

children. Science. 1955, 2JI, 371.
Jorgenson, H« The use of a contingent music activity to

modify behaviors which interfere with learning. Jour
nal of Music Therapy. 1974, J_1, 41-46.
Kennedy, W.A. & Willicutt, H.C. Praise and blame as incen

tives. Psychological Bulletin. 1964, 62, 323-332.
Kramer, S.A. The effects of music as a cue in maintaining

handwashing in preschool children. Journal of Mnsic
Therapy. 1978, 15, 136-144.
Kuhn, T.I. The effect of teacher approval and disapproval

on attentiveness, musical achievement, and attitude of
fifth grade students. In C.K. Madsen, R.D. Greer, &
C.H. Madsen, Jr. (Eds.), Besearch in Music Behavior.
New York: Teachers College Press, 1975, 40-48.
Lipe, D. & Jung, S. H. Manipulating incentives to enhance

school learning. Review of Educational Besearch. 1971,
<n, 249-280.
Madsen, C. H., Jr., Becker, W. C . , G Thomas, D. P. Rules,

praise and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom
control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1968,
1, 139-150.
Madsen, C. H., Jr., Becker, W. C., Thomas, D. R . , Koser, L . ,

G Plager, E. An analysis of the reinforcing function
of "sit down" commands. In R. K. Parker (Ed.), Read
ings in educational psychology. Boston: Allyn G
Bacon, 1968.
Madsen, C. K. The effect of music subject matter as rein

forcement for correct mathematics. Council for Re
search in Music Education. 1979, 59, 54-58.
Madsen, C. K. & Allay, J« M. The effect of reinforcement on

attentivenass: A comparison of behaviorally trained
therapists and other professionals with implications
for competency-based academic preparation. Journal of
Music Therapy. 1979, 1jS, 70-82.
Madsen, C. K . , Dorow, L. G., Moore, R. S., G Worable, J. V.

Effect of music via television as reinforcement for
correct mathematics. Journal of Research in Music Edu
cation. 1975, 24, 51-59.
- 143 -
Madsen, C. K., 6 Forsythe, J. 1. Effect of contingent music

listening on increases of mathematical responses.
Journal of Besearch in Music Education. 1973, 2J., 176-
181.
Madsen, C. K. 8 Geringer, J. M. Choice of televised music

lessons versus free play in relationship to academic
improvement. Journal of Music Therapy. 1976, .13, 154-
62.
Madsen, C- K.. 8 Madsen, c. H. Music as behavior modifica

tion technique with a juvenile delinquent. Journal of
Music Therapy. 1968, 5, 72-76.
Madsen, c. K. 8 Madsen, c. H. Selection of music listeninq

or candy as a function of contingent versus noncontin
gent reinforcement and scale singing. Journal of Music
Therapy. 1972, 9, 190-198.
Madsen, C. K. 8 Madsen, C. H., Jr., Teaching discipline; A

positive approach for educational development. Second
edition. Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon, 1974.
Madsen, C. K., Moore, R. S., Hagner, M. J., 8 Yarbrough, C.

A comparison of music as reinforcement for correct ma
thematical responses versus music as reinforcement for
attentiveness. Journal of Music Therapy. 1975, 12.
84-95.
Madsen, C. K., Wolfe D. E., 8 Madsen, C. H. The effect of

reinforcement and directional scalar methodology on
intonational improvement. Council for Besearch in Mu
sic Education. 1969, J8, 22-34.
Madsen, C. K. 8 Yarbrough, C. Competency-based approach to

music education. New Jersey; Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1980.
McCarty, B. C . , McElfresh, C. T . , Bice, S. Y. 8 Wilson, S.

J. The effect of contingent backround music on inap
propriate best behavior. Journal cf Music Therapy.
1978. Ji5, 150-156.
McDonald, F. J. Report on phase II of the Beginning Teacher

Evaluation Study. Journal of Teacher Education, 1976a,
12, 39-42.
McDonald, F. J. Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study; Phase

I I . 1973-74. summary report. Sacramento, California:
California State Commission for Teacher Preparation and
Licensing, 1976b. (EBIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 127 375)
- 144 -
Medley, D. M. Teacher competence and teacher effectiveness.

A review of process-product research. Washington, D.
C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Edu
cation, 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 143 629)
Killer, D. M . , Dorow, L. G . , 5 Greer, B. D. Journal of Mu

sic Therapy. 1974, JJ, 57-64.
Moore, R. S. Effect of differential teaching techniques on

achievement, attitude and teaching skills. Journal of
Besearch in Music Education. 1976, 24, 129-141.
Moore, R. S. Comparative use of teaching time by American

and British elementary music specialists. Council for
Research in Music Education. 1981, 66-77. 62-68.
Morgan, B- J. & Lindsley, A. R. Operant preference for

stereophonic over monophonic music. Journal of Music
Therapy. 1966, 3, 135-143.
Mosteller, P. 6 Tukey, J. W. Data analysis and regression.

Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,
1977.
Murray, K. The effect of teacher approval/disapproval on

the performance level, attentiveness, and attitude of
high school choruses. In C. K. Madsen, R. D. Greer, 8
C. H. Madsen (Eds.), Besearch in Music Behavior. New
York: Teachers College Press, 1975.
Neter, J. 6 Wasserman, W« Applied linear statistical mo

dels: regression. analysis of variance, and experimen
tal designs. Homeward, Illinois: Bichard D. Irwin,
Inc., 1974.
Nolen, P., Kunzelman, H . , & Haring, M. Behavior modifica

tion in a junior high learning disabilities classroom.
Exceptional Children. 1967, 37, 163-168.
O ’Leary, K. D., 6 Becker, W. C. The effects of the inten

sity of teacher’s reprimands on children’s behavior.
Journal of School Psychology. 1968-1969, 7, 8-11.
Podvin, M. G. The influence of music on the performance of

a work task. Journal of Music Therapy. 1967, 4, 52-56.
Powell, M. Besearch on Teaching. The Educational Forum,

1978, 43, 27-37.
- 145 -
Reid, D. H. , Hill, B. K.s Ravers, R. J., & Montegar, C. A.

The use of contingent music in teaching social skills
to a nonverbal hyperactive boy. Journal of Husic The
rapy. 1975, J2, 2 - IS. ~
Reynolds, G. S. A primer of operant conditioning (revised

edition). New York: Glennviev, Illinois: Scott,
Foresman 6 Company, 1975.
Rosenskine, B. Teaching behaviours and student achieve

ment. London, England: National Foundation for Educa
tional Research in England and Hales, 1971.
Rosenshine, B. Recent research on teaching behaviors and

student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education.
1976a, 27, 61-64.
Rosenshine, B. Classroom instruction. In N. L. Gage (Ed.),

The psychology of teaching methods. Chicago, Illinois:
The National Society for the Study of Education, 1976b.
Rosenshine, B. Primary grades instruction and student

achievement gain. 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service tlo. ED 142 308)
Rosenshine, B. Instructional principles in direct instruc

tion. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Toronto, Harch, 1978.
Rosenshine, B. V. Content, time, and direct instruction.

In P. L. Peterson S H. J. Walberg, Research on teach
ing. California: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1979,
28-56.
Rosenshine, B. 6 Furst, N. The use of direct observation to

study teaching. In R. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook
of research on teaching. Chicago, Illinois: Rand
HcNally, 1973.
Rudolf, M. The grammar of conducting. Nev York: Schirmer

Books, 1950.
Sajvay, R. S Risley, T. Development and generalization of

writing skills in a retarded girl using manipulation of
task variables. Proceedings of the annual convention
of the American Psychological Association. 1970, 5(Pt.
2), 749-750.
Schultz, C. B. S Sherman, R. H. Social class development

and differences in reinforcer effectiveness. Review of
Educational Besearch. 1976, 46, 25-59.
- 146 -
Siegel, S- Nonparametric statistics foe the behavioral sci

ences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956.
Skinner, B. F. Science and hnman behavior. New York:

Macmillan, 1953.
Soar, 8. S. Follow Through classroom process measurement

and pupil growth (1970-71). Final report. Gainesville,
Florida: Institute for Development of Human Besources,
1973. (EHIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 106
297)
Spradling, R. L. The use of positive and negative rein

forcement in a rehearsal situation. Unpublished paper,
Florida State University, 1969.
Spradling, R. L. The effect of timeout from performance on

attentiveness and attitude of university band students.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State Uni
versity, 1980.
Stallings, J. Relationships between classroom instructional

practices and child development. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Educational Research Asso
ciation, Washington, D. C . , March 1975.
Stallings, J. A. How instructional processes relate to

child outcomes in a national study of Follow Through.
Journal of Teacher Education. 1976, 27, 43-47.
Stallings, J. A. Teaching basic reading skills in secondary

schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the Ameri
can Educational Research Association, Toronto, March
1978.
Stallings, J. A. S Kaskowitz, D. H. Follow Through class

room observation evaluation 1972-1973. Menlo Park,
California: Stanford Research Institute, 1974. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 104 969)
Stallings, J. A. S Kaskowitz, D. H. A study of Follow

Through implementation. Paper presented at the meetinq
of the American Educational Research Association, Menlo
Park, April 1975.
Steele, A. L. Programmed use of music to alter uncoopera

tive problem behavior. Journal of Music Therapy.
1968 (December), 5, 103-107.
Talkington, L. W. S Hall, S. M. A music application of

premack's hypothesis to low verbal retardates. Journal
of Music Therapy. 1970, 7, 85-99.
- 147 -
Thomas, D. R., Becker, 8. C., 6- Armstrong, M. Production

and elimination of disruptive classroom behavior by
systematically varying teacher's behavior. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis. 1968, 1, 35-45.
Thurman, V. L. A frequency and time description of selected

rehearsal behaviors used by five choral conductors.
Paper presented at the Music Educators National Con
ference National Convention, Atlantic City, March,
1976.
Tyler, V. S Brown, G. Token reinforcement of academic per

formance with institutionalized delinquent boys. Jour
nal of Educational Psychology* 1968, 59, 164-168.
Underhill, K. K- S Harris, L. M. The effect of contingent

music on establishing imitation in behaviorally dis
turbed retarded children. Journal of Music Therapy.
1974, 11, 156-186.
Vachhaus, G. B. & Wachhaus, G. E. The effect of a music en

semble conductor*s verbal behavior on student musicians
attitude. Paper presented at the Music Educators Na
tional Conference National Convention, Atlantic City,
March, 1976.
Wagner, M. J. & Struhl, E. P. Comparisons of beginning

versus experienced elementary music educators in the
use of teaching time. Journal of Besearch in Music
Education. 1979, 27, 113-125.
Wilson, C. V. The use of rock music as a reward in behavior

therapy with children. Journal of Music Therapy. 1976,
13, 39-48.
Wolfe, D. E. Music motor behavior and the neuroloqicallv

impaired child. Paper presented at the National Sym
posium for Besearch in Music Behavior, New York, Octo
ber, 1980.
Wolpow, R. T. The independent effects of contingent social

and academic approval upon the musical on-task perfor
mance behaviors of profoundly retarded adults. Journal
of Music Therapy . 1976, 13 29-38.
Yarbrough, C. Effect of magnitude of conductor behavior on

students in selected mixed choruses. Journal of Re
search in Music Education. 1975, 23, 134-146.
Yarbrough, C., Charboneau, M. S Wapnick, J. Music as rein

forcement for correct math and attending in ability
assigned math classes. Journal of Research in Music
Education. 1977, !_4, 77-88.
- 148 -
Yarbrough, C. 6 Price, H. E. Prediction of performer at

tentiveness based upon rehearsal activity and teacher
behavior. Journal of Research in Music Education, in
press.
- 149 -
BIOGHAPHICAL DATA
Name: Harry Edward Price
Date and Place of Birth: January 11, 1953

Havana, Cuba
Elementary School: Ojus Elementary School

Ojus, Florida
Graduated, 1964
Junior High School: John F. Kennedy Junior High School

North Miami Beach, Florida
Graduated, 1967
High School: Miami Norland Senior High School

Miami, Florida
Graduated, 1970
University: Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida
B. M. E. 1974
Graduate Work: Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida
Band Graduate Assistant
M. M- E, 1975
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York
University Fellow
Ed. D. 1981

The Effect of Conductor Academ

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 Conductor Academ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORM ATION TO USERS

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography,

Price, Harry Edward, II

THE EFFECT OF CONDUCTOR ACADEMIC TASK PRESENTATION,

Syracuse University Ed.D. 1981

1. Glossy photographs or pages______

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_____

3. Photographs with dark background______

4. Illustrations are poor copy ;

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy______

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page_____

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages.

8. Print exceeds margin requirements______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_____

12. Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered___________ . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages______

HARRY EDUARD PRICE

B. M.E., Florida State University, 197*1

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

HARR? EDWARD PRICE

REFERENCES ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . 137

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA.......................................... 149

1. Teaching Unit System of Observation:

2. Kendall Coefficient of Concordance Summary . . . . 56

3. Mean Time Spent in Seconds for Treatment

4. Mean Frequency of Units and Beinforcements . . . . 60

5. Mean Percentage of Students Off-task:

6. Mean Percentage of Off-task Behavior:

7. Pre- Posttest Gain Scores for Musical

8. Music Bating: Multiple Begression . . . . . . . . 7 5

9. Behearsal Enjoyment Bating: Multiple

10. "Turned On" Bating: Multiple Begression ......... 82

11. Liking the Conductor Bating: Multiple

12. Teacher Bating: Multiple Begression . . . . . . . 9 2

1. Teacher Presentation of task . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0

2. Teacher Beinforcement of Student Besponse. . . . . 52

4. Off-task During Non-performance. . . . . . . . . . 7 0

5. Bean Music Performance Batings . . . . . . . . . . 7 3

8. "Turned On" Bating . . . ......... . . . . . . . . 8 4

9. Liking the Conductor Bating by Treatment . . . . . 88

10. Liking the Conductor Bating by Conductor . . . . . 90

11. Conductor Bating as a Good Teacher . . . . . . . . 9 4

The art of teaching and rehearsing involves many di­

verse and complex behaviors, which may include thousands of

variables in operation when describing an effective teacher*

As a result there may be an infinite number of possible

combinations of interactions which occur in any multivariate

teaching/learning environment* Some variables involve tea­

cher behaviors, including expressed values and attitudes,

verbal presentation of tasks, nonverbal cues and gestures,

and verbal and nonverbal reinforcements of student behavi­

ors. Other variables involve student behaviors, including

expressed values and attitudes, quality of performance,

quantity of performance, attentiveness, and abilities to

reinforce teacher behaviors. In addition to these variables,

a specific situation may include many different values,

performance levels, student backgrounds, and others which

make the issue of identifying the gualities which enhance

teacher effectiveness more complex.

The art of teaching and rehearsing involves many di

teaching/learning environment* Some variables involve tea

and verbal and nonverbal reinforcements of student behavi

totality of a music ensemble rehearsal, the behavioral com

2. Non-verbal (eye contact, conducting, facial ex

3. Attitudinal (written expression of likes and dis

2. Seguential (order of types of teacher/student be

primary problem for a teacher/conductor. Green (1969) ad

Rehearsal efficiency is addressed by Budolf (1950) al

The previous statements are directed towards the ef

as a strong contributor to discipline problems in the se

While there is no research on the subject of the effective

A noted composer and conductor, W. Frances McBeth, ad

dressed the issue of playing time in rehearsals in an in

presents a task (direct or implied); (2) the student re