Factors Affecting University Music Students' Perceptions of Lesson Quality and

Teaching Effectiveness

Donald L. Hamann; Dawn S. Baker; Peter A. McAllister; William I. Bauer

Journal of Research in Music Education, Vol. 48, No. 2. (Summer, 2000), pp. 102-113.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4294%28200022%2948%3A2%3C102%3AFAUMSP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

Journal of Research in Music Education is currently published by MENC: The National Association for Music Education.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/menc.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For
more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Mon Apr 2 04:37:11 2007
102 JRME 2000, VOLUME 48, NUMBER 2, PAGES 102-113

The purpose of this study was to determine what effect, ifany, music teacher clussroom
delivery skills or lesson content had on university music studmts'perceptions of les-
son or teacher appeal by studmt academu standing. Subjects were 511 university stu-
dents studying music at three moderate-size universities located i n the Ammican
Midwest and East. Subjects viewed one of two videotapes that contained four ran-
domly placed teaching episodes of approximately 4 minutes i n duration. Each of the
two tapes contained four lessons, as follows: one lesson with good classroom delivery
skills and good lesson content, one with good skills and poor content, another with
poor skills and good content, and one with poor skills and poor content. Subjects were
directed to evaluate each teaching episode immediately after it was viewed using a
researcher-developed questionnaire. Significant differences found among subject
responses indicated that student interest and preference ratings varied not only by stu-
dent academic standing but also b music teacher classroom d e l i v q technique and
lesson content quality.

Donald L. Hamann, University of Arizona

Dawn S. Baker, Atwatq Ohio
Peter A. McAllister, Ball State University
William I. Bauer, Ball State University

Factors Affecting
University Music Students'
Perceptions of
Lesson Quality and
Teaching Effectiveness
Donald L. Hamann is the director of the Institute for Innovation in String Music
Teaching in the School of Music and Dance, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-
0004; e-mail: dhamann@u.arizona.edu. Dawn S. Baker is a freelance writer and clini-
cian; she can be contacted at 2623 State Route 183, Atwater, OH 44201; e-mail:
dearson@alliancelink.com. Peter A. McAllister is an assistant professor of music in the
School of Music, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306; e-mail pmcallis@bsu.edu.
William I. Bauer is an assistant professor of music at the same institution; his e-mail is
wbauer@bsu.edu. Copyright O 2000 by MENC-The National Association for Music
Education.
 The process of teaching is of interest for all those involved in
music teaching and learning. Researchers have examined a number
of skills and behaviors to more fully understand those factors that
contribute to the teaching process, including quality of lessons
(Hamann, 1995), teaching effectiveness (Price, 1992; Yarbrough,
Price, & Hendel, 1994), teaching evaluation (Brophy, 1993; Marsh &
Roche, 1993), and other factors (Dickey, 1992; Hamann, Lineburgh,
& Paul, 1998; Hendel, 1995).
Several competencies have been found to contribute to effective-
ness in the teaching process. In addition to having enthusiasm for
teaching, an ability to generate high energy, and an ability to relate
lesson content to students' interests and needs, effective music teach-
ers tend to be extroverted and exhibit positive groupmanagement
techniques and effective pacing. Verbal and nonverbal communica-
tion skills, including frequent eye contact, movement about the set-
ting, expressive physical gestures, and verbal fluency, are also well-
developed traits among effective teachers (Madsen, Standley, & Cas-
sidy, 1989).
Teachout (1997) found that although preservice and experienced
teachers differed in regard to which attributes they believed made
music teachers successful, both preservice and experienced teachers
placed teaching skills as significantly more important than musical
skills. This is similar to the findings of Taebel (1990), who deter-
mined that administrators and supervisors believed teaching skills to
be more important than musical skills in determining the effective-
ness of music teachers. These administrators and supervisors also
rated music teachers' overall level of teaching skills as lower than
those of nonmusic teachers.
Yarbrough (1975) found that although "magnitude of conductor
behavior had no significant effect on the performance, attentiveness,
and attitude of students in mixed choruses ... there was a signscant
difference in mean attitude ratings toward the experimental con-
ductor between the high-magnitude condition and the low-magni-
tude condition."
In a summary of teaching procedures that have been found effec-
tive through research, Single (1991) discussed the prominence of
modeling in good music teaching. The summary emphasized the
importance of well-structured content; avoiding "mazes-false starts,
pauses in speech, or repeated words" (p. 5) and "discontinuity-inter-
rupting the flow of the lesson by interjecting irrelevant content or
mentioning relevant content at an inappropriate time, resulting in
the loss of momentum" (p. 5); and providing appropriate teacher
feedback to students. Dickey (1992), in a review of literature on the
importance of modeling by teachers, stated that modeling of musical
material must be both accurately and positively presented to students.
 Teacher intensity, the "sustained control of the student-teacher
interaction evidenced by efficient, accurate presentation and correc-
tion of the subject matter with enthusiastic affect and effective pac-
ing" (Madsen & Geringer, 1989, p. go), has been determined to be a
very important attribute possessed by successful music teachers.
However, there has been some disagreement as to the individual
characteristics that make up teacher intensity (Madsen, Standley,
Byo, & Cassidy, 1992; Madsen, Standley, & Cassidy, 1989). The per-
ception of teaching effectiveness has also been found to vary accord-
ing to level of experience and major standing. Standley and Madsen
(1991) placed 150 music teachers and students in numerically equiv-
alent but experientially different groups consisting of freshmen,
juniors, novices, experienced teachers, and experts. They deter-
mined that as teaching experience increased, so did one's teaching
expertise. Duke and Blackman (1991) found that music majors rated
reinforcement and feedback levels of teaching behavior lower than
did an equivalent group of nonmusic majors.
Lesson quality, the ability to communicate verbally and nonverbal-
ly, teacher intensity, and conductor magnitude all have been found to
influence individuals' perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Through
surveys, interviews, or observational inquiry, many researchers have
found that effective teachers are identified as those who have highly
developed teacherdelivery skills, including but not limited to eye con-
tact, vocal inflection, facial expression, gesturing, proximity, or pos-
ture. It has also been found that effective teachers are identified as
those who have lessons in which appropriate objectives are deter-
mined and presented, music is suitable for the age of the student and
is exemplary of the concept being developed, activities are pertinent
and are sequenced, and materials are sequentially and accurately pre-
sented. It has been conjectured that content may be more important
than delivery in teaching. This hypothesis has not been tested.
The purpose of this study was to determine what effect, if any, music
teacher classroomdelivery skills or lesson content had on university
music students' perceptions of lesson or teacher appeal by student aca-
demic standing. The following questions were asked: Do a teacher's
classroom delivery skills, operationally defined as "good" or "poor,"
affect students' interest in or preference for a classroom lesson when
the content of that lesson is "good" or "poor"? Do students' interest
and preference for classroom lessons vary by academic standing?

Method and Procedure

Subjects were 511 university students studying music at three mod-

erate-size universities located in the midwestern and eastern United
 JRME 105

States. There were 229 male and 282 female subjects in the sample.
Subjects were operationally defined as either lowerdivision, upper-
division, or graduate students based on their university academic
standing. There were 231 lower division (94 freshmen and 137
sophomores), 194 upper division (113 juniors and 81 seniors), and
86 graduate (51 masters and 35 doctoral) subjects in the sample.
Subjects viewed one of two videotapes. Each of the two tapes con-
tained four lessons. In one lesson, the delivery was good and the con-
tent was good. In another lesson, the delivery was good but the con-
tent was poor. In a third lesson, the delivery was poor but the content
was good, and in the final lesson, the delivery was poor and the con-
tent was poor. Each of the teaching episodes was approximately 4
minutes in duration. Immediately after viewing each of the four
teaching episodes, the videotape was stopped by an administrator,
who directed the subjects to evaluate the teaching episode using a
researcher-developed questionnaire.

Videotaped Teaching Episodes

The four videotaped teaching episodes (good delivery skills/good

lesson content, good skills/poor content, poor skills/good content,
and poor skills/poor content) were produced in a television studio.
A script for each teaching episode was written, reviewed, revised, and
rewritten until the desired outcome was achieved. A member of the
research team memorized the scripts, and the scripts were then used
as the basis for the four teaching episodes.
Each teaching episode delivery was rehearsed before the television
studio taping began. Delivery skills were rehearsed to focus on pos-
ture, eye contact, gestures, facial expression, and vocal inflection.
When conveying a poor teaching model, for example, the teacher
would slouch, lean on one leg, sway, fidget, and cross arms or legs
and lock knees. Conversely, when conveying a good teaching model,
the teacher would have a lifted, relaxed, and poised body with the
weight equally distributed on both legs.
When conveying poor eye contact, gestures, and facial expres-
sions, the teacher would look about the room over the heads of the
students and would not establish eye contact with any student or
would lock onto and stare at only one or two students. Gestures were
either absent, mechanical, inappropriate, or contrived. Either a
fixed/locked teaching stance or nervous pacing about the classroom
would be used to portray poor delivery in this area. Facial expressions
were either exaggerated or contrived or did not exist at all. Con-
versely, good eye contact was established by systematically contacting
all students individually in all parts of the room. Appropriate gestures
were conveyed by combining upper body directional changes with
varying proximity to individuals, while the spoken content of the les-
son was coordinated with flowing and appropriately timed gestures.
Facial expressions would be naturally varying, with uncontrived
changes of eyes, mouth, and facial muscles.
Poor vocal inflection was achieved several ways. The teacher either
spoke softly or forced the sound, spoke at a loud uncomfortable
dynamic, or provided little dynamic change. The "teacher" spoke
rapidly or slowly and presented information in a "fixed tempo" man-
ner which was lacking in pauses and did not include variation in
pitch. Poor vocal inflection diction was achieved by not articulating
appropriately. The teacher conveyed good vocal inflection by using
naturally varying and appropriate accents and emphasis. Natural
pauses for emphasis, as well as natural variations in pitch, combined
with clear articulation, were the hallmarks of this teacher.
Lessons with good or poor content varied in the following way. In
lessons with good content, several characteristics of the lesson were
introduced. The teaching episode was enhanced with performances
and musical models of each characteristic, identified as the teacher
pointed out the characteristic as it occurred in the musical example.
A review of the characteristics discussed followed at the end of the
lesson. In lessons where poor content was portrayed, the teacher
strayed from the lesson plan, talking about such things as the cloth-
ing members of a performing group were wearing during a concert,
audience behavior during that concert, or plans the teacher was mak-
ing for a meal.
Once the teaching episodes were rehearsed, the taping session
occurred. "Takes" were made until the desired outcome for each
teaching episode was achieved. A master videotape of the four select-
ed teaching episodes was made. As a further check, graduate music
education students ( N = 8) reviewed the tape and were directed to
describe each of the teaching episodes. Each of the graduate stu-
dents described the teaching episodes as they were intended to be
perceived.
To control for possible order effect, two tapes of the teaching
episodes were made in which the teaching episodes were randomly
placed. Subjects were randomly shown one of the two tapes during
the testing period.

The Questionnaire

In addition to providing demographic information (gender and

grade), subjects were asked to respond to the following two questions
 JRME 107

after viewing each of the four lessons. A Likert scale of 1 to 5 was

established for each question.

1. How Interesting was this lesson?

(Response Descriptors: 1 = "Not interesting" to 5 = "Very interesting")

2. How much did you like the Way the teacher taught this lesson?
(Response Descriptors: 1 = "Not much" to 5 = "A lot")

The questionnaire was pilot-tested among middle school, high

school, and university music students. Modifications to the question-
naire were made based on analyses of these testing situations. A reli-
ability coefficient of r = .98 was established on the questionnaire; this
result was based on a test-retest of the instrument.

Statistical Procedures

Data were analyzed using a two-way MANOVA with repeated mea-

sures. The two independent variables were (a) students' university
academic standing (operationally defined as either lowerdivision,
upperdivision, or graduate level) and (b) teaching episode. The
dependent variables were subject responses to the two questionnaire
items pertaining to the four teaching episodes. Significant differ-
ences were found by academic level and teaching episode by item
responses (see Table 1) .
In Figure 1, a plot of the ordinal interaction of academic standing
and teaching episode by Question 1 responses is presented. In
Question 1, subjects were asked "How interesting was this lesson?" It
can be seen that mean responses of the graduate students were high-

Table 1
Two-Way MANOVA with Repeated Measures: Academic Standing and Teaching Episode
(Independent Variables) by Question 1 and Question 2 Responses (Dependent Variables)

Source df Roa's R PC
Academic
standing

Teaching
episode

Academic standing
x Teaching episode 18, 1000 4.43 .0001
 Responses: How Interesting Was This Lesson?
5

4 5
n/Good Content
4
3 5
3
25

1 5

-#.------I
1 nlPoor Content
5

FreshrnenISophornore MasterslDoctoral

JuniorlSenior

Student Grade Level

Fzgure 1. Interaction effect of academic standing and teaching episode by

Question 1 responses.

er than those of the lower- or upperdivision students (see Figure 1).

From post hoc univariate analyses using F tests and the ScheffE test,
a significant difference was found between graduate and upper-divi-
sion students' interest scores, F (2, 508) = 19.89, p = .0001.
Graduate students found the good presen&tion/poor content
(GP) teaching episode to be significantly more interesting than
either the lower- or upperdivision students. It was also discovered
that graduate students found the good presentation/good content
(GG) teaching episode to be significantly more interesting than did
upper-division students, and the upper-division students found the
same teaching episode to be significantly more interesting than did
lower-division students. Overall, in Figure 1, it can be seen that teach-
ing episodes with good teacher-delivery skills were found to be more
interesting than those lessons with poor teacherdelivery skills.
In Figure 2, a plot of the ordinal interaction of academic standing
and teaching episode by Question 2 responses is presented. In
Question 2, subjects were asked "How much did you like the way the
teacher taught this lesson?" It can be seen that mean responses of all
 Responses How Much Did You L~kethe Way the Teacher Taught This Lesson?
5
4.5
4
3 5
3 onlPoor Content
2.5
2
1.5
1 onIPoor Content
5
FreshmenlSophomore MasterslDoctoral
Jun~orlSenior
Student Grade Level

Figure 2. Interaction effect of academic standing and teaching episode by

Question 2 responses.

students were similar when viewing the poor presentation/poor con-

tent (PP) and the poor presentation/good content (GP) and that,
although higher than the PP or GP means, the GG means were simi-
lar for teaching episodes regardless of academic standing (see Figure
2). With the GP teaching episode, it was found, based on post hoc
analyses, that graduate students liked the way the teacher taught the
(GP) teaching episode significantly more than did either lower- or
upper-division students, F (3, 1524) = 1022.39, p = .0001. Overall, it
can be seen that teaching episodes with good presentation tech-
niques were preferred over those lessons with poor teacher-delivery
skills.
In Figure 3 (a graph of the two-way disordinal interaction), not
only can it once again be seen that teaching episodes with good
teacher-delivery skills were found to be of more interest and "more
liked" than were those lessons with poor teacher-delivery skills, but
additionally that both "interest" and "liking" scores were higher for
lessons with good teaching techniques, regardless of lesson content,
F (6, 1524) = 6.80, p = .0001. Students not only liked better but also
 5
4 5
4
35
3
25
2
1.5
1
5
Lessons.
a' FG a= ffi a' ffi
PP 03 PP 03 PP a3
Student Grade
~ ~ FreshmanISophomore
~ ~ l . Jun~oriSenior MasterslDoctoral

Figure 3. Two-way interaction effect of academic standing and teaching

episode by Question 1 and Question 2 responses.

found to be of more interest those lessons in which good teacher-

delivery skills were used. Interestingly, students both liked and found
lessons with good delivery/poor content to be more interesting than
lessons with poor delivery/good content. Scores on student "inter-
est" and "liking" ranged from a low of 2.0 to a high of 3.0 for good
delivery/poor content lessons, and from a low of 3.5 to a high of
approximately 4.5 on good delivery/good content lessons. The
"interest" and "liking" scores for both poor delivery/good content
and poor delivery/poor content teaching episodes ranged from a
low of 1.08 to a high of only 1.25.

Summary and Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine what effect, if any,

music teacher classroom delivery techniques, lesson content, and stu-
dent academic standing might have on the perception of music les-
son quality and effectiveness among university music students. From
data analyses, it was found that graduate students tended to rate
interest and liking for each of the four teaching episodes as high or
higher than did either upper- or lower-division university students,
whereas upperdivision students tended to have higher ratings than
did lowerdivision students on the same items, especially when evalu-
ating performance with good delivery techniques. Standley and
Madsen (1991) also found teaching experience and major standing
to affect the perception of teaching effectiveness. Based on these
finding;, there seems to be support for including experience vari-
ables in studies in which teaching effectiveness and preference are
evaluated.
Perhaps one of the most interesting findings in this study was that
students liked and found teaching episodes with good teacher-deliv-
ery skills to be more interesting than those lessons with poor teacher
delivery, regardless of lesson content quality. More specifically, the
finding that students both liked and found lessons with good delivery
and poor content to be more interesting than lessons with poor deliv-
ery but good content tends to support the findings of Teachout
(1997), Taebel (1990), Single (1991), and Yarbrough (1975), who
reported that teaching skills were as important or more important
than musical skills in determining the effectiveness of or attitude
toward music teachers.
One finding in this study was that effective teacherdelivery skills
enhanced student liking and interest levels in lessons, regardless of
the quality of their content. Thus, even lessons with good content but
poor teacher delivery may not be found to be as interesting nor liked
as well as lessons with good teacher delivery but poor content.
Whether enhanced student liking and increased interest in class-
room lessons improve student learning and retention remains to be
determined.
It has often been conjectured that content is more important than
delivery in teaching. While this may be true, the findings in this study
support the importance of developing good teacherdelivery skills in
delivering lesson content. Madsen and Geringer (1989) found that
teacher intensity-the ability to both effectively present and accu-
rately convey subject matter-is a very important attribute possessed
by successful music teachers. In this study, it was found that the high-
est levels of student interest and preference were generated when
both good delivery skills and content were evident in lessons. The
only lesson in which both interest and liking scores were above 3.0
(average) was the lesson in which both good teaching delivery skills
and good content were present.
It would seem important that good teacherdelivery skills be used
in lesson presentations. Researchers have reported that presenice
and experienced music teachers, as well as administrators and super-
visors, believe that teaching skills are more important than musical
skills in determining the effectiveness of music teachers, and yet they
also report that teaching skills of music teachers are lower than those
of nonmusic teachers. Music educators must not only be given the
tools to develop excellent lesson content, but must also be taught
how to effectively present that content.
Effective teacher delivery can enhance students' liking for and
interest in a lesson even if the content of that lesson is poor. Students
found teaching episodes with good teacher-delivery skills to be more
interesting than those lessons with poor teacher delivery, regardless
of lessoncontent quality. If individuals still harbor thoughts that
effective delivery does not affect student perceptions of classroom
lessons, the findings presented here should serve to dispel such
beliefs.
The results of this study tend to suggest that future music educa-
tors be shown how to develop teacherdelivery skills. Materials that
specifically deal with the development of teacherdelivery skills
should be included in music education methods classes. Additionally,
those music educators already in the field should reassess their
teacherdelivery effectiveness and refine their skills as needed. Is
delivery more important than content in teaching? Results of this
study would tend to support this hypothesis.
If, through additional research, lesson delivery is found to be
more important than lesson content in students' perceptions of
teaching effectiveness, the implications for teacher evaluation and
student achievement are but two issues that would seemingly be
affected by such a finding. It is recommended that further research
be conducted to determine whether the results in this study can be
duplicated in different settings with different populations, that the
effect of teacher delivery be studied in light of teacher evaluation cri-
teria in classroom situations in which good and poor content are pre-
sented, and that the effect of teacher delivery be studied in relation
to its effect on student learning.

REFERENCES

Brophy, T. (1993). Evaluation of music educators: Towards defining an

appropriate instrument. ERIC ED 375029.
Dickey, M. R. (1992). A review of research on modeling in music teaching
and learning. Bulktin of the Council for Research i n Music Education, no. 113,
2740.
Duke, R. A,, & Blackman, M. D. (1991). The relationship between observers'
recorded teacher behavior and evaluation of music instruction. Journal of
Research i n Music Education, 39, 290-297.
Hamann, D. L. (1995, May). Pre-service teachers' teaching effectiveness and
 social skill development. SoutheasternJournal of Music Education, 7, 1-12.
Hamann, D. L., Lineburgh, N., & Paul, S. J. (1998). Teaching effectiveness
and social skill development. Journal of Research i n Music Education, 46,
87-101.
Hendel, C. (1995). Behavioral characteristics and instructional patterns of
selected music teachers. Journal of Research i n Music Education, 43,
182-203.
Madsen, C. K., & Geringer, J. M. (1989). The relationship of teacher "on
task" to intensity and effective teaching. Canadian Music Educatol; 30,
87-94.
Madsen, C. K., Standley, J. M., Byo, J. L., & Cassidy,J. W. (1992). Assessment
of effective teaching by instrumental music student teachers and experts.
Update: Applications of Research i n Music Education, 10 (2), 20-24.
Madsen, C. K., Standley, J. M., & Cassidy, J. W. (1989). Demonstration and
recognition of high and low contrasts in teacher intensity. Journal of
Research i n Music Education, 37, 85-92.
Marsh, H . W., & Roche, L. (1993). The use of students' evaluations and an
individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effec-
tiveness. Amwican Educational Research Journal, 3 0 ( I ) , 217-25 1.
Price, H. E. (1992). Sequential patterns of music instruction and learning to
use them. Journal of Research i n Music Education, 40, 14-29.
Single, N. M. (1991). A summary of research-based principles of effective
teaching. Update: Applications offisearch i n Music Education, 9 (2), 3-10.
Standley, J. M., & Madsen, C. K. (1991). An observation procedure to dif-
ferentiate teaching experience and expertise in music education. Journal
offisearch i n Music Education, 39, 5-1 1.
Taebel, D. K. (1990). An assessment of the classroom performance of music
teachers. Journal ofResearch i n Music Education, 38, 5-23.
Teachout, D. J. (1997). Preservice and experienced teachers' opinions of
skills and behaviors important to successful music teaching. Journal of
Research i n Music Education, 45, 41-50.
Yarbrough, C. (1975). Effect of magnitude of conducting behavior on stu-
dents in selected mixed choruses. Journal of Research i n Music Education,
23, 134-146.
Yarbrough, C., & Madsen, K. (1998). The evaluation of teaching in choral
rehearsals. Journal of Research i n Music Education, 46, 469-481.
Yarbrough, C., Price, H. E., & Hendel, C. (1994). The effect of sequential
patterns and modes of presentation on the evaluation of music teaching.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, no. 120, 33-45.

Submitted February 19, 1999; accepted February 15, 2000.