FALL-WINTER 2004 VOLUME 23, NUMBER 1

APPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH IN MUSIC EDUCATION

C O N T E N T S
Comments from the Editor
Ruth V. Brittin
3

SPECIAL TOPICS DIVISION

What I’ve Learned About Research from Young Children
Wendy Sims
4

Improving Student Practicing through Application

of Motor-Learning Research
G. Joshua Sanders
14

ELEMENTARY DIVISION
Integration of Music in the Elementary Curriculum:
Perceptions of Preservice Elementary Education Majors
Melissa Berke and Cynthia M. Colwell
22

Classroom Instrument Preferences Among

4- to 9-Year-Olds in a Free-Play Setting
Janice N. Killian and Lynn Basinger
34

INSTRUMENTAL DIVISION
Steering from the Caboose: Setting the Pace of Group Piano
Instruction According to the Least Skilled Students in the Class
Robert A. Duke and Cynthia Benson
41

Announcements
54

Guidelines for Contributors

57
 Legal Statement

UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education is copyrighted by MENC: The National Association for Music
Education. You can read or download a single print of an MENC online journal exactly as if you had purchased a subscription
to the journal in print form. You do not have any other rights or licenses to this material. This material cannot be reproduced,
retransmitted, or reprinted without permission from MENC. This means multiple copies for handout or library reserve cannot
be made. Placing on Web sites or school broadcast systems is prohibited, and printing in full or part in other documents is not
permitted. To make use of an article or a journal in any of the aforementioned circumstances, please send a request to our
editorial department at caroline@[Link], fax a request to Caroline Arlington at 703-860-9443, or call 800-336-3768, ext.
238 for more information.

Applications of Research in Music Education

Editor
Ruth V. Brittin
University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA
Choral Division
Mary Kennedy
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
Somerset, NJ
MENC Staff
Patricia Costa Kim
Executive Director Seattle Symphony, Seattle, WA
John J. Mahlmann
Elementary Division
Assistant Executive Director for Member Dennis Siebenaler
Programs and Publications California State University-Fullerton
Ardene Shafer
Nancy S. Rasmussen
Director of Music Educators Journal and Other Walworth Elementary School, Walworth, WI
Publications
Frances S. Ponick General Music Division
Cynthia M. Colwell
Assistant Editor University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
Rachel Townsley
Carlos Abril
Director of Production Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Adriane Darvishian
Instrumental Division
Colleen Conway
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Evelyn Orman
UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Education (ISSN 8755-1233) is published twice yearly
by MENC: The National Association for Music Special Topics Division
Education, 1806 Robert Fulton Drive, Reston, VA John M. Geringer
20191-4348. Copyright © 2004 by MENC. Readers Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
may make one copy of any article in this journal for
personal use. Published by the School of Music of the Susan Tarnowski
University of South Carolina from 1982 to 1989. College of St. Scholastica, Duluth, MN
 Comments from the Editor
Ruth V. Brittin

At MENC’s National Biennial In-Service Conference, the editorial board of UPDATE:

Applications of Research in Music Education meets to discuss progress of the journal and review
nominations for new members to the board. Today I will summarize my April 2004 report to the
SRME board for UPDATE’s readers.
The 2002-2004 biennium represented the first period when UPDATE was published exclusively
online, rather than in hard copy. Having received a multitude of comments on this, pros and cons, I
paid careful attention to how submissions compared to previous time periods. For 2002-2004, 45
manuscripts were received, of which 42% were accepted for publication. In the previous biennium
(2000-2002), 46 were received (33% published); in 1990-2000, 52 were received (37% published),
and in 1996-1998, 38 were received (34% published). So at this point it seems online publication has
not dramatically altered the submission rate, and the acceptance rate is steady.
Of course, the beauty of online publication is that it is free and accessible to all MENC members,
including practitioners and students. The good news is that MENC has approved past UPDATE issues
staying online for perpetuity; while there was some concern that previous issues would be taken down,
thus affecting future access to studies, that is now a nonissue. We all should applaud MENC’s
decision to provide past issues online permanently.
Anecdotal evidence from board members indicates UPDATE may be reaching more intended
audience members than in the past. UPDATE is designed specifically to bring research to
practitioners, and we hear teachers in the field are responding to the journal now that it is accessible
online. Of course, “old habits die hard.” Some say they have a hard time getting in the habit of looking
online for UPDATE; they prefer the old prompt of receiving the journal in the mail, placing it on their
bookshelf or in the briefcase to peruse at some future point. I certainly understand this; I’m a hard-
copy girl myself. My recommendations: (1) put your MENC password into your computer so you
don’t have to look it up each time you go online, (2) put a cue into your syllabus so that you remember
to assign an UPDATE article each semester to a class to read (it always comes out in mid-October and
April and there is always a variety of topics), and (3) put yourself on the e-mail researcher list by e-
mailing [Link]@[Link], so you receive prompts about research journal announcements. And if
hard copy is what you truly love, then print it out when it appears, or copy the journal to disc if you
prefer that type of storage.
If you teach at the college level, consider UPDATE for your courses. The writing is sophisticated
but easily understood by undergraduates and graduates alike. The literature reviews are perfect for
learning what has and has not been studied systematically on a topic. Some studies are perfect for
advocacy. For budding researchers, the emphasis on narrative rather than statistics is a good
introduction to research. I know some university teachers who begin with UPDATE articles with their
masters and doctoral students and then move into journal articles that delineate statistical information
more fully. This seems to be a good way to get new readers hooked on the logic and beauty of
research without scaring them too much at the beginning, like learning to walk before you try to run.
Now would be the perfect time to flag some papers to include in your spring semester or winter
quarter courses!
—Ruth V. Brittin

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 3

 What I’ve Learned About Research from Young Children
Wendy Sims

Wendy Sims is professor of music education at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri.

Based on the Invited Researcher presentation given at the MENC National Biennial In-Service
Conference in Minneapolis, MN, April 2004.

Usually I address what I’ve learned about children from research, and many music education
conference attendees have heard those presentations. When I was asked to do this session, I thought it
would be a good opportunity to try a different approach. With all due respect to Robert Fulghum, I
tried out the idea that “all I really needed to know about research I learned from kindergartners,” but
that didn’t work for several reasons, among which is the reality that much of what I’ve learned about
research I learned from my wonderful mentors, Terry Lee Kuhn and Clifford Madsen, and from
reading and discussing the work of many other music education researchers. But, I have also learned a
lot from the children whose parents and teachers have graciously consented for me to work with them
as participants in much of my research over the past 20 years.
The young children I’ve taught for many years have been a source of inspiration for many of my
research studies. Their wide-eyed, enthusiastic response to the “In the Hall of the Mountain King” by
Edvard Grieg, (“can we listen to that again?”) sent me on a search for characteristics of successful
listening lessons for preschool children. Their puzzling movement responses to the “Kangaroo”
section of the Carnival of the Animals by Camille Saint-Saëns, and their enthusiasm for the varied
recorded music examples I played for them are among other aspects of the children’s responses that
inspired a series of several studies each.
In this paper, I will share things about research that I’ve learned, or which have been reinforced or
made more concrete, through my research activities with preschool and primary grade children. I will
illustrate the items with examples and anecdotes drawn from a variety of research projects, and
include citations as appropriate. Some of the things I will discuss here, though, won’t be found in the
articles themselves, since they will be based on the informal observations and experiences that
resulted from the research processes. Research with young children is by its nature somewhat messy,
and what there is to learn is not always just about the product, it is also about the stories that are the
results of the process itself. You may already know these things from your own experiences, but even
if so, I hope you will be interested in hearing how I’ve learned them.

Research is Play!
To young children, research is play, and play is research. Young children are the most inquisitive,
active, energetic “researchers” that any of us could possibly hope to find. Investigating their
environment is their work, their play, their research. The energy and creativity they bring to these
efforts constantly amazes and inspires me. Young children continually identify problems, try out
various solutions, and evaluate the results. Often they even include the dissemination component of
research, although it may be through a proud exclamation, a gleam in the eye, a wide grin, or a tug on
the hem of their mother’s skirt, instead of a 20-page double-spaced manuscript.
Grown-ups’ research is also fun for children. Very few of the hundreds of children I have asked to

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 4

participate in my studies ever choose not to, and most want to know when they can do the activities
again. They generally give their best efforts and respond candidly. Most have not yet learned to fear
being wrong or not knowing—they are honest self-reporters. In one study (Sims, 1986) I played pieces
of music that children had become quite familiar with during our instructional sessions, as well as
pieces that were similar but unfamiliar – critical competitors. I asked them to tell me whether or not
they knew the pieces. If they knew the pieces they were to tell me their names or do the motions we
had associated with them. The children had no problem saying “I don’t know” when that was the case,
and they saw no need to apologize, bluff, make up answers, or act uncomfortable with that response.
The children were not trying to guess what response I wanted or answer in an adult-pleasing way. My
questions were yet one more guessing game, and the data were what the data were. What a fine model
of dispassionate, enthusiastic, honest data collection and analysis young children provide!

Try to Think Like a Child

Researchers working with young children need to try their best to think like the children. This is a
bit tricky, of course. While we may be only as old as we feel, the fact of the matter is that adults think
differently from children. The better we can figure out how to anticipate and interpret children’s
responses, the better we can devise appropriate assessments and data analysis.
Children taught me this early on in my research career. I had obtained permissions for preschoolers
to serve as participants, found a quiet corner in the preschool, randomly ordered my participants, set
up my tape player, answer sheets, and markers, written my script, and was ready to start collecting
data. It was a preference study, and I was using a three-smiley-face pictographic scale (Sims, 1987). I
wanted the kids to be actively involved, so I planned to have them mark an X on the face that
described how much they liked the music. The first child stared at me blankly with marker in hand, so
I marked the form myself. When the second and third child did the same, I figured out that this must
be my problem. Then, it dawned on me children don’t put Xs on faces, especially smiley ones— that
is not a developmentally appropriate request. As soon as I asked the next child to put a nose on the
face, though, I had a system that worked for every child in several studies thereafter.
Of course, there’s another important lesson to be learned here, and that is to do pilot studies and try
out our assessment instruments first.

Use Theory to Explain Behavior

Researchers should use theory to explain behavior, and not try to force behavior to match a theory.
One of my favorite pieces to introduce to preschoolers is the “Kangaroo” segment from the Carnival
of the Animals. The piece begins with two phrases, each starting with a series of short, staccato
clusters approached by quick grace notes, followed by a long chordal-cadential figure. The only
differences between the phrases are some of the chords in the cadences. A third phrase starts with the
same musical material, but at the point where the cadential figure occurred the first two times, there is
an extension, still staccato clusters but with a dramatic rubato indicated in the score. I ask the children
to hop like kangaroos when they hear the hoppy music and stop to look around for food or hunters
when they hear the resting music.
Children’s responses to this piece were very intriguing. They stopped hopping at the extension of
the third phrase, when the rhythm of the clusters changed. Nonmusically trained college students, by
the way, stop hopping at that point too, but they generally start again quickly when they realize that
this is still the hoppy music. I thought it was impressive that the preschoolers were already developing

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 5

somewhat sophisticated expectations based on phrase length and repetition and were applying them to
the third phrase after only one hearing. So, I designed a study to see whether expectation theories
might account for their responses (Sims, 1988).
I used a tape recording to create a version of the piece that placed the third, extended phrase first,
followed by the first and second phrases. Listening to the extended phrase first removed the possibility
of expectations based on prior experience that I thought had resulted in the movement responses. So,
half of the participants responded by moving to the original version, and half to the altered version.
When I analyzed the videotapes, it became clear that the children responded to the phrases the same
way in both versions, which disproved my expectation theory.
It was the need to come up with an alternate explanation that turned into a rather long series of
studies probably more interesting than the expectation angle. This began a fruitful line of research
based on the theory of centration, the propensity of young children to focus their perceptions on
elements of a stimulus that are most meaningful to them, to the exclusion of other relevant
information. I continued to research that possibility for a number of studies, investigating children’s
responses to a variety of single and simultaneous discrimination tasks (Sims, 1990; Sims, 1991; Sims,
1995).

Use the Correct Dependent Variable

Asking the right question and using the right measurement system are important things that the
children have taught me. In this computer age, we certainly are aware that the quality of output is only
as good as the input. But sometimes we still need to be reminded to stop and examine our
assumptions. If we are to have valid studies from which to draw conclusions about children’s musical
development, abilities, and instruction, then we must be sure we are assessing what we think we are.
Of course, this also relates to our ability to think like children, as mentioned earlier. Because
appropriate dependent variables are such an important aspect of research, I will provide four examples
of this point below.
1. Make sure children focus on the appropriate stimulus. The children’s responses to the line of
research that began with the “kangaroo study” I’ve just described made it very clear that young
children are capable of learning to identify and label unfamiliar music examples with respect to tempo
or articulation, when asked about each separately. When asked to listen for or perform two
characteristics at once, though, those same children could not respond to either beyond the level of
chance (Sims, 1990; Sims, 1991; Sims, 1995). Children were also significantly more successful when
producing a song demonstrating one characteristic at a time as opposed to more than one—they sang a
short, familiar song using a fast voice and slow voice very successfully and demonstrated singing the
song with a smooth voice well and a choppy voice with moderate success. But, when asked to
combine these characteristics, a typical response showed little or no differentiation among an
individual child’s performances. When assessing discrimination responses or responses to a specific
musical characteristic or characteristics, we need to be sure the children are focusing their attention on
the particular aspect or aspects we are trying to assess by providing carefully considered examples,
selections, and activities.
2. Consider the instructions carefully. In the concept-development studies just described, I wanted
the children to demonstrate whether they could differentiate smooth and choppy, or fast and slow by
singing to me in those ways (and their combinations). I learned that asking a child to sing fast meant
to the child “as fast as I can.” For example, some children sang “Rain, Rain Go Away, Come Again

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 6

Another Day” in less than 2 seconds, about two to three times as fast as the song would generally be
taught and sung. I could tell they understood and could differentiate between fast and slow, but the
responses were far from musical.
3. Listening time is not a preference measure for young children. For many years, researchers in
the area of affective response to music assumed that time spent listening equated to music preferences.
One of the most important things young children have demonstrated, in study after study, is that this is
not true for them. This conclusion does not include children older than my 2- to 6-year-old
participants, however. Young children’s listening time appears to be based on their own listening span
or style; their individual ability or propensity to sit and listen to music for some internally regulated
duration of time, which is not related to the characteristics of the music (Sims, 2001; Sims, 2004; Sims
& Cassidy, 1997; Sims & Nolker, 2002).
4. Use precise language to describe variables. A study of children’s free-movement responses to
music taught me that keeping a beat and synchronizing to a given beat are not the same task for young
children (Sims, 1985). I videotaped children moving any way they chose to examples I played for
them. I did not mention beat, rhythm, or any other elements to which they might respond. Many
children included rhythmic movements that had an identifiable steady beat. What was quite
interesting, though, is that many of these movements were not in tempo with the music, nor
synchronized to the beat of the music except at random points where the movement and beat happened
to intersect. Thus, I could conclude that some children who can perform movements with a steady beat
do not spontaneously synchronize their movements to the beat. I could not draw conclusions regarding
their ability or inability to synchronize to the beat, however, since the children had not been asked to
do so.

Videotape is Effective for Gathering Data

Young children do not seem to be intimidated by video cameras. They weren’t 20 years ago and
are probably even less now that personal video cameras are so accessible. I can’t say the same for
college students, though. In my “kangaroo study,” instead of asking the 19- and 20-year-olds to hop
like a kangaroo in front of a video camera, I had them hop a stuffed kangaroo on a table, with the
camera aimed conspicuously on the toy (Sims, 1988).
I have learned some interesting things from viewing videotapes used to collect data that I never set
out to discover and were not part of my research design or initial observation procedures. One was the
difference between a steady beat and a synchronized steady beat that I described above. It wasn’t until
we turned the music off to do a reliability check on children’s responses to the spots where changes
occurred in the music that this became evident.
In my study of teacher affect and children’s listening responses, I used a split-screen special effects
generator to include video of the children and me at the same time (Sims, 1986). The observation
forms were designed to collect data related to on and off-task behavior during instruction and the
children’s use of appropriate hand movements that corresponded to characteristics of the musical
examples. Upon viewing the tapes, I also noticed how the children imitated my affect. One piece we
used was the “Ballet of the Unhatched Chicks” from Pictures at an Exhibition by Modeste
Mussorgsky. At the end of the A section the busy “dancing” or “pecking” music settles on a long held
pitch. I was not using any verbal cues during the music, but I did make a surprised face each time this
occurred in the music. Many of the children made the same expression! Had these been older children,
I may have been insulted that they were mimicking me, but these young children were very innocently

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 7

responding to my affect. I learned from these children how strong a model we are for them, at least
during music listening, and that maybe we can make music fascinating to them just by modeling our
own fascination with it.
Another interesting thing the children taught me through videotape that I might not have
discovered otherwise, was how early they learn to adapt to routine and use their knowledge to
outsmart the teacher. In the same study, the operational definition of low affect included no teacher or
child eye-contact when the musical examples were playing. I was seated in a little chair with the tape
player on the floor next to me. The children learned quickly that if I didn’t look at them when the
piece started, I wouldn’t look at them until it ended. My videotape caught many interesting
behaviors—or misbehaviors. Children would stretch out and lie down, whisper or poke at each other,
squirm around, make faces . . . and so on. But they knew I would look at them again as soon we
reached the conclusion of the listening examples. When I pushed “stop,” there they were, sitting
upright just like little angels. These children were 3- to 5-years-old, and they’d already learned how to
get away with what they could and then put on an innocent face.

Use the Appropriate Level of Measurement

Researchers should not feel the need to use a laserbeam when a flashlight will do! Lack of
resources is not a valid excuse not to collect data. Modern technology can make our lives easier, but it
can also make them more difficult. When I started research over 20 years ago, computers were
cumbersome to use and laptops a thing of science fiction. Portable cassette players were state-of-the-
art, and we were still using reel-to-reel video recorders, which soon became obsolete.
Sometimes we had to make do, but sometimes what we had was sufficient. For instance, in one
study my collaborators and I analyzed whether young children could echo-sing patterns in response to
adult female and male singers under certain conditions (Sims, Moore, Kuhn, 1982). With 5- and 6-
year-olds, our goal was not “deviation in cents” from the model. Counting the number of half steps
away from the target pitches gave us plenty of data with which to work.
Low-tech also described my music-listening assessment device (Sims, 1986; Sims & Cassidy,
1997; Sims & Nolker, 2002). I needed an operant measure of listening—a way for children to start
recordings, an unobtrusive way for them to remained engaged in the activity during the time they were
supposed to be listening, and a way to stop when they wanted to. I didn’t have access to the mini-chart
graph recorders connected to telegraph keys that some researchers had been using to keep track of
children’s listening choices, nor did I have a computer I could carry to multiple preschool and
kindergarten sites in1985. I was able to purchase a piece of decoupage wood, two doorbells, and some
picture wire to create my own music-listening device without electricity required. The doorbell
buttons that the subjects pushed and held to listen (green) or pressed to stop (red) did not control the
music, but merely served to keep the children on task. The picture wire went from the buttons into a
large decorated box set up as a screen, but collaborators or I controlled the tape player. Over the years,
over 200 children have participated in studies using this device, and not one has ever questioned
whether or not they were really starting and stopping the music.
One final example: in more recent studies, when the children listened within the classroom setting,
we still didn’t have access to computers that we could leave in the classrooms to play the music and
time the responses, although such technology is possible (Sims, 2001; Sims, 2004; Sims, Cecconi-
Roberts & Keast, 2004). Using ordinary portable stereo tape players was more realistic for preschool
classrooms and easy for children to operate without much, if any, adult assistance. So, we duplicated

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 8

lots of stimulus tapes with one example per tape. When the children were finished listening, the tapes
were removed from the player without rewinding and placed in a slide-lock bag with a card
identifying the child. We obtained the timings by setting the counter in a tape player to zero,
rewinding, and then using a stopwatch to time from the first sound to when the counter reached zero
again. Could we be off by fractions of seconds? Yes, but this research didn’t require that level of
precision.
Certainly, some studies need more precise measures of singing or listening than others. Research is
already a large enough investment in time, energy, and equipment, however. We don’t need to make it
more difficult by using more sophisticated equipment or techniques than those demanded by the goals
of the study.

Match the Task to the Developmental Level of the Child

To date, researchers have not been able to identify musical characteristics that form a systematic
basis for young children’s music preference responses. Do they have preferences? Yes. Probably
every parent who has been a disc jockey for a 4-year-old can attest to the child’s preference for
listening to certain tracks on a CD over and over, skipping other tracks altogether. Based on the
literature, it’s reasonable to conclude that preferences are idiosyncratic based on a child’s specific
reaction to any given piece.
I’ve assessed preference using pictographic scales as a response mode for children from age 4
though grade four (Sims, 1985; LeBlanc, Sims, Siivola & Obert, 1996). The children will listen to an
excerpt carefully, decide whether they like it, and choose the face accordingly. But, try asking this of a
child of 2 or 3. The conversation goes something like this: “Please listen to this music and then tell me
what you think about it; if you like it, if it’s ok, or if you don’t like it.” The 3-year-old will most likely
answer “I do like it.” “Ok,” I say, “but please listen to the music and then tell me what you think.” “I
like it.” “Ok, but let’s listen first and then decide.” “But I like it!” If it’s “Music,” then by definition,
young children probably like it. Sometimes we need to learn from the children when to give it up.

Set Aside Preconceptions

Adults need to work hard to set aside our preconceptions about young children and try our best not
to allow our preconceptions to limit our research. This is one of the largest challenges of research with
young children. As I noted earlier, most of us no longer think like children. I’ve been teaching young
children, both in the regular preschool classroom and preschool music classes, since I was about 14
years old, and I am the mother of an 8-year-old child. I think I get along well with children and
understand them quite well. Still, I surprise myself on occasion at how I underestimate children’s
interest and ability to listen to music.
In the first two of my studies focusing on time spent listening, I used four examples, about 3
minutes each, never imagining that a number of children would listen for the maximum 12 minutes
available, the full duration of the four songs used as examples (Sims, & Cassidy, 1997; Sims &
Nolker, 2002). For the next study in the series we placed the tape player in the regular classroom as a
choice for the children during free play (Sims, 2001). Since I knew many children could and would
listen for 12 minutes, I wanted more music to be available to avoid artificially capping the listening
times and to see how long some children might stay with the listening activity. There were only two
examples this time, the “Lion” and the “Cuckoo” segments from the Carnival of the Animals, which
were recorded repeatedly on the tapes, so I made each recording to last approximately 20 minutes. I

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 9

never imagined that there would be two children who would listen to one tape for the whole 20
minutes, 12 of 31 children who would listen to both tapes for a total of 12 to 26 minutes, and one child
3 years, 11 months old who would sit at a table with headphones on listening for a total of about 30
minutes. Children have taught me to try my best to anticipate how they will respond, but then to far
exceed even my highest expectations when I put together my research stimulus tapes.
By the way, I’m not the only one who is guilty of inaccurate preconceptions about listening times.
In one of the listening studies we asked the children’s kindergarten teachers to rate each child on his
or her attention span for listening to music during large-group or center-based activities. Not only
were there no correlations between ratings and actual listening times, but the teachers also rated
shorter listing times for the boys than the girls. Interestingly, our results did not find any differences
attributable to gender (Sims & Nolker, 2002).
Another case of underestimating children’s interest in and ability to listen to music individually
occurred when my colleagues and I set up a listening center in a preschool classroom, so multiple
children could choose to listen to music just like they might choose to do art, dramatic play, or math
manipulatives (Sims, Cecconi-Roberts & Keast, 2004). The listening center had four tape players and
headphones available for four consecutive morning free-choice periods. Since by this time we knew
some children might listen for long times, we had multiple tapes available and set no limits on their
listening. We didn’t anticipate that at many times throughout the week, all four sets of listening
equipment would be in use with several children on a waiting list.
Children’s music listening responses also have taught me that my research in this area has
something to say to early childhood educators: listening to music individually in their classrooms is an
activity many children find meaningful. It is an opportunity that is not typical of early childhood
classrooms but with which children should be provided.

Observe the Context of Responses

Young children’s responses in a group may differ greatly from their individual responses. This is
not unique to young children, but this phenomenon may be heightened among young children because
they demonstrate an extremely wide range of individual differences. Often the music teacher working
with children in preschools and kindergartens is a “drop in” who meets with the children once or twice
a week and does not have the opportunity to get to know and work with them on an individual basis.
So we perpetuate what I would now claim is a myth, that “young children have short attention spans
for listening to music.” I wouldn’t say that listening for 12 to 30 minutes is short at all. The problem
comes when several children who listen for longer periods are members of a group in which some
children are likely to be 30-second listeners and others 3-minute listeners. As children start to lose
interest, their behavior affects the whole group. So, it is indeed reasonable to suggest that some young
children’s short attention spans for listening to music can affect the success of group listening
activities. Then, it is incumbent upon the teacher to find ways to extend the group listening span while
also providing opportunities for children with longer listening needs to listen outside of group time in
a listening center or at home.
Another example of group compared with individual response occurred in a singing study in which
we were assessing individual first graders on accuracy with a melodic or harmonic accompaniment
(Kuhn &, Sims, 1983). The music teacher said, “Fine, you can test them, but you’ll see they can all
sing in tune so I don’t see what you’ll learn.” Maybe as a group they sounded in tune to her, but
apparently the whole was greater than the sum of the parts as children “filled in the gaps” and

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 10

modeled or compensated for one another. As individuals many were not even close.
One last example relates to the series of studies about centering and concept development. The
centering theory is one aspect of Piaget’s stage theory. By definition, characteristics of thinking that
define the various cognitive stages are not amenable to direct instruction; change in quality of thinking
is a result of the interaction between experience and development. I considered this, and figured that
since I had been teaching young children for many years, I could teach children to combine fast/slow
with smooth/choppy. If so, this would disprove the centering explanation and I’d need to look for yet a
third theory to explain the children’s behavior. I used singing and movement and instruments and
listening with every combination of fast, slow, smooth, and choppy for four 20-minute lessons
replicated with several different groups of children (Sims, 1991). The lessons were very successful,
and the children were engaged and appeared to responded accurately—as a group. But through
individual assessments, it became clear that the vast majority still could not use these tempo and
articulation concepts in combination, either to sing to me or respond when listening.
Group responses can be very deceiving, and this points out the need for individual assessment of
young children. Assessing and documenting the wide range of children’s responses to various music
tasks is a valuable contribution that music education researchers have to make to the profession.

All Varieties of Research are Valuable

We need, and can learn from, all varieties of research. Just as there are many ways for children to
demonstrate what they know and can do, there are many ways to collect data. In my research I have
used clinical experimental procedures, systematic observation of individuals and small groups, various
assessments of singing, recall, and movement, individual listening sessions, rating scales, listening
activities embedded in the regular classroom environment, and so forth. I have found much to learn
from and about children through all of these forms of research.
What is important is not the research paradigm; it is the questions. One way of collecting data isn’t
intrinsically better or more meaningful than the others—any kind of research can be done well or
poorly. Yet, I still hear people judging research projects not on their own merits, or what they have to
contribute to our knowledge of music teaching and learning, but solely on their methodological
paradigms.
One of the things I enjoy about research with young children is the opportunity it provides to
“lurk” in their classrooms. I know that there is not a good early childhood teacher around who would
let children get away with taunting “my pail is better than your shovel” or “my dress is prettier than
yours,” so it troubles me that some of us let ourselves or others do that about a pet research
methodology. Preschool teachers would stop that nonsense and redirect the children to discover the
benefit of building a sand castle together, or help the child practice saying something nice about the
other child’s dress. Grown-up researchers need to realize how much more fun and productive it is
when we can “play together nicely,” approach problems from different angles, value each others’
efforts, and ultimately learn more from each other that will benefit the children.

Research Makes Us Smarter

As you can see, the young participants in my studies have taught me quite a bit about research, and
I’ve learned a lot about young children as a result. All that I’ve learned informs my teaching of
children, of their current teachers, and of their future teachers and researchers. It is so intriguing to
figure out what children are thinking and how they construct meaning from the world around them.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 11

Hang around young children for a while and you will marvel at their openness to new ideas and
experiences, energetic and self-motivated investigation of their environment, sense of awe as they
discover new skills and knowledge, and incessant questioning. Their research makes them smarter.
Our research has the potential to make them smarter, too, as we increase our understanding of
children’s musical knowledge, skills, and attitudes and how to facilitate their development.
One thing I’ve learned about research from young children is that research is as much about
process as it is about product, if not more so. I’ve enjoyed sharing my process stories in this paper,
and I hope they have provided some insights into the challenging, fascinating, and rewarding world of
research with young children.

References
(Please Note: This list is in the order that the studies were completed.)

Sims, W. L., Moore, R. S., & Kuhn, T. L. (1982). Effects of female and male vocal stimuli, tonal
pattern length, and age on vocal pitch-matching abilities of young children from England and
the United States. Psychology of Music, Special Issue, 101–105.
Kuhn, T. L., & Sims, W. L. (1983). The effect of simultaneous melodic and harmonic accompaniment,
pitch level, and song tones on first-grade students’ ability to sing correct pitches. Bowling
Green Symposium, 2, 153–165.
Sims, W. L. (1985). Young children’s creative movement to music: categories of movement,
rhythmic characteristics, and reactions to changes. Contributions to Music Education, 12,
42–50.
Sims, W. L. (1986). The effect of high versus low teacher affect and passive versus active student
activity during music listening on preschool children’s attention, piece preference, time spent
listening, and piece recognition. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, 173– 191.
Sims, W. L. (1987). Effect of tempo on music preference of preschool through fourth grade children.
In C. K. Madsen & C. A. Prickett (Eds.), Applications of research in music behavior (pp.
15–25). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Sims, W. L. (1988). Movement responses of preschool children, primary grade children, and pre-
service classroom teachers to characteristics of musical phrases. Psychology of Music, 16,
110–127.
Sims, W. L. (1990). Characteristics of young children’s music concept discrimination.
Psychomusicology, 9, 79–88.
Sims, W. L. (1991). Effects of instruction and task format on preschool children’s ability to
demonstrate single and combined music concept discrimination. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 39, 298–310.
Sims, W. L. (1995). Children’s ability to demonstrate music concept discriminations in listening and
singing. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 204–221.
LeBlanc, A., Sims, W. L., Siivola, C., & Obert, M. (1996). Music style preferences of different-age
listeners. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 49—59.
Sims, W. L. & Cassidy, J. W. (1997). Verbal and operant responses of young children to vocal versus
instrumental song performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 234–244.
Sims, W. L., & Nolker, B. (2002*) Individual differences in music listening responses of kindergarten
children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 292–300.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 12

 (*Note: this study was completed prior to the one listed as 2001 below, but was published later
due to journal publication schedules).
Sims, W. L. (2001). Characteristics of preschool children’s individual music listening during free
choice time. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 149, 53–63.
Sims, W. L. (2004, April). Effects of free versus directed listening on duration of individual music
listening by preschool children. Paper presented at MENC: The National Association for
Music Education National Biennial In-Service Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
Sims, W. L., Cecconi-Roberts, L., & Keast, D. (2004). Preschooler’s use of a music listening center
during free-choice time: An observational study. In L. Custodero, (Ed.), Proceedings of the
International Society for Music Education Early Childhood Commission Conference,
Barcelona, Spain. New York: Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 13

 Improving Student Practicing through Application of
Motor-Learning Research
G. Joshua Sanders

G. Joshua Sanders, who has a [Link]. in voice performance from Houghton College and an
M.M.E. in music education from the University of North Texas, has taught private voice lessons at
public schools in Denton and Lewisville, TX.

There is an acute shortage of research in music about how the skills used in musical performance
develop (Sidnell, 1986; Zdzinski, 1991). However, there is extensive research about motor skills,
which are some of the skills involved in musical performance. Muscle movements similar to those
observed in many motor-learning studies are used in musical performances. These include coordinated
hand movements and timing tasks. Further support for the concept of motor movement as an aspect of
musical performance comes from a study relating perception of piano rhythmic groupings to motor
movement (Halsband, Binkofski, & Camp, 1994). Davidson and Correia (2002) relate motor learning
to training performers to use expressive gestures that enhance musical effect. Zdzinski (1991)
discussed motor research related to distribution of practice, mental practice, types of feedback, and
behavior modeling in instrumental music. Turner (1998) discussed how feedback, practice schedules,
student cognitive engagement, and teacher modeling relate to elementary music teaching and learning.
This article reviews motor-learning research with specific emphasis on how students learn motor skills
and how teachers can help students practice effectively.

The Process of Learning a Motor Skill

Motor skills begin to develop implicitly with a basic understanding of a movement goal (Schmidt
& Wrisberg, 2000), such as a singer’s goal of opening his or her jaw wider to make a better “ah”
sound. This movement goal is often perceived through aural feedback (such as listening to a teacher
model), kinesthetic feedback (students monitoring their own physical perceptions) or visual feedback
(as in a mirror). Students refine their understanding of movement goals as they observe distinctions
between production during teacher modeling, as they pay attention to their own movements, or as they
observe their own movement in a mirror.
A skill begins with the verbal cognitive stage, where students have a conception based on passive
observation but have not attempted the movement or have difficulty identifying errors. The skill then
advances to a mode of motor learning that involves attention to the perceptual feedback of active
behavior. This is called closed-loop control because the feedback provides information that is used to
correct future motor production (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2000).
Aural feedback is one perception that can facilitate closed-loop control. Hallam (2001) referred to
the ability to monitor aural feedback as the acquisition of appropriate aural schemata. One student in
the study by Hallam (2001) reported difficulty identifying problem areas and demonstrated a
corresponding tendency to practice without making corrections. Closed-loop control was clearly not
operating effectively. Alternatively, two students with more experience exhibited immediate error
correction, which demonstrated more advanced aural schemata and better monitoring of performance.
Their error corrections showed use of closed-loop control.
After further motor acquisition, a skill becomes automatic and changes to a mode of open-loop

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 14

control, where a predetermined action is executed without feedback. Open-loop control is
characterized by fluency and accuracy (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2000). This mode of operation is
exemplified by the ease with which experienced musicians perform scales.
Open-loop control has been observed most evidently during the execution of fast motor programs
(Wadman, Denier van der Gon, Geuze, & Mol, 1979), which are learned combinations of muscle
movements that are completed before feedback can affect any adjustment. Examples of fast motor
programs in music include a keystroke on a piano or a well-tuned onset to a sung note. By the time the
performer perceives feedback, the musical event has already happened without the possibility of
adjustment.
A musical example of this progression in motor learning is apparent in students who are learning to
sing an “ah” sound with a more open jaw. During the verbal cognitive stage, students follow
demonstrations or instructions about jaw position. The student compares auditory, kinesthetic, and
visual perceptions of jaw position to become aware of distinctions. This is followed by a phase
involving closed-loop control when the student uses perceptual feedback to adjust jaw position.
Eventually this motor program becomes automatic and students adjust to an open-loop mode of
performance. Under open-loop control, students sing with an open “ah” but do not monitor perceptual
feedback related to that performance. This frees up conscious thought for learning other motor
behaviors, such as relaxing tongue tension or adjusting posture.

Schema Theory and the General Motor Program

Before the schema theory of motor learning, it was thought that every variation in body movement
was controlled by a separate motor program that had been recorded in the brain. Schmidt (1975)
observed that because of the complexity of real-life situations, slightly different conditions are present
each time a motor skill is performed. For example, it is not likely that a trumpet player will use exactly
the same combination of embouchure, breath flow, and pressure between the lips and trumpet when
playing the same note twice. Even greater differences in conditions are present between varied
pitches, musical contexts, and performance contexts.
If every movement were slightly unique and had a specific motor program, good transfer of
learning from prior experience would not be expected. The schema theory of motor learning (Schmidt,
1975) proposed an explanation for the discrepancy between this expectation and the learning transfer
that was observed in experiments. Schmidt (1975) proposed that motor learning occurred because
learners develop a motor schema, or general motor program, for related actions. A general motor
program is a learned relationship between similar motor actions that is remembered instead of the
specific muscle movement. So a trumpet player learns relationships between embouchure and musical
contexts instead of repeating the exact muscle behavior that succeeded during a particular previous
attempt.
The specificity of general motor programs is not clear in schema theory (Schmidt, 1975). The idea
of a general motor program has been applied to instances as specific as pressing a series of buttons in
the same order with the same proportion of time between buttons (Giuffrida, Shea, & Fairbrother,
2002). Learning transfer between different badminton serves (Wrisberg, & Liu, 1991) suggests that
the idea of a general motor program can be applied to more complex combinations of muscle actions
such as a badminton serve. In corresponding musical terms, singing a scale on a single vowel could be
considered a simple general motor program. It is possible that a single musical phrase that has been
practiced extensively might also operate as a single-motor program despite the much greater

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 15

complexity of motor actions involved.

Using Variety to Improve Learning

Pigott and Shapiro (1984) observed better acquisition of motor programs in subjects tossing varied
weights of beanbags than in those using a single weight. This provides some experimental support for
Schmidt’s (1975) proposal that a general motor program is strengthened when more varied instances
of the program are practiced. In other words, the ability to perform a particular skill is best developed
by executing variations of that skill rather than recalling the specific way that the skill was previously
carried out.
Schema theory would predict that musicians could better learn running melodic passages by
employing scales of varied length, dynamic level, and tempi (such as those found in many musical
pieces) instead of repeating an unvaried pattern. In fact, there is some evidence that increased practice
of an unvaried motor program can lead to decreased capacity to adjust that motor program at a later
time (Giuffrida et al., 2002). For example, it would be more difficult to teach varied articulation to a
piano student who has extensively practiced all music with a heavy touch.
Nielson (1999) described variations in the practice of expert organists that match the ideal model
suggested by schema theory. Nielson (1999) observed strategies to (a) repeat parts in different
segments, (b) repeat segments at different tempi, ©) repeat each hand or pedal separately or in paired
combinations, (d) repeat segments with systematically altered rhythmical structure, and (e) repeat
segments in different tempi using a metronome. These methods all introduce variability to repetitions
that are predicted to improve retention and transfer of general motor programs.

Preparing Students to Practice Independently

An understanding of the progression of motor learning can help teachers make better practice
assignments. Because learning motor skills involves striving for a goal, teachers have to ensure that
students have a good understanding of the objective. Students must be able to operate with closed-
loop motor control before they are assigned individual practice. For example, students learning to sing
an open “ah” cannot practice effectively alone until they have a good understanding of how an open
“ah” sounds, feels, and appears in a mirror. After understanding the goal, students need a pattern of
closed-loop motor control so that they correct their jaw position on their own based on perceptual
feedback.
Closed-loop control cannot operate without feedback. Teachers need to prepare students to
distinguish between desirable and undesirable performances before assigning practice. Initially the
process is likely to involve teacher feedback other than the students’ auditory, visual, and kinesthetic
perceptions. This external feedback is referred to as knowledge of results, which tends to improve
performance in the short term but develops dependency on the teacher’s feedback (Swinnen, 1996).
Subjects’ internal error-detection mechanisms are encouraged when knowledge of results is not
provided constantly, so Swinnen (1996) suggests a feedback schedule that gradually withdraws
knowledge of results. This means that students should be taught to direct their performance toward a
goal based on their own perceptions. As skills progress, teachers need to provide adequate time and
encouragement for students to adjust their performance based on their own perceptions. In the
example of students learning to sing an open “ah,” a teacher could effectively reduce student
dependency by asking students to assess their own jaw position on a regular basis instead of
reminding them to open their jaw.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 16

 In order to correct errors in individual practice, students need to know a skill well enough at the
time of a practice session in order to operate with closed-loop control. When preparing students to
practice, the instructor should not expect them to retain the level of motor performance observed
during the lesson until the next student practice session. This normal forgetting process can be
addressed through overlearning, having students repeat a motor skill several times after initial
success. Overlearning has been found to moderately improve retention of both cognitive and motor
skills (Driskell, Copper, & Willis, 1992). Students can continue the process of overlearning
individually once they are able to operate at the closed-loop level of motor learning.
As a musical example, consider a student who is learning to play legato phrases. To make an
upcoming individual practice session effective, the teacher should help the student to distinguish
between legato phrases and unconnected notes. This introduces the skill at the verbal cognitive level.
The student enters independent closed-loop operation when the teacher reduces external knowledge of
results and encourages the student to monitor his or her own playing. After accurately repeating the
skill alone several more times, the student has probably overlearned the skill enough to recall it later
during independent practice.

The Eventual Goal of Practicing

It is important that students continue practicing a particular motor program until it reaches the
open-loop stage because open-loop control is associated with improved fluency (Schmidt & Wrisberg,
2000). Schenk, Walther, and Mai (2000) observed increased fluency during open-loop control of
handwriting. Winold and Thelen (1988) observed a similar shift to unmodified strokes when highly
skilled cellists played at fast speeds. The description of “letting go” found in The Inner Game of Music
(Green, 1986) closely matches the descriptions of open-loop control found in motor research. For
example, when a student shifts conscious attention from learned motor skills (such as correctly
producing articulation), those motor skills operate with the greater fluency observed in open-loop
control. Open-loop control also frees limited attention capacity for other tasks, such as musical
interpretation.
Overlearning might be one of the major processes that helps students transition to the open-loop
process. Dougherty and Johnston (1996) suggest that overlearning, fluency, and automaticity might be
different aspects of the same learning phenomenon. If overlearning develops automaticity, this might
explain, for example, how students practicing a more open “ah” can reach an open-loop mode of
operation for that skill.

Practice Variation
A large number of studies have been conducted on practice schedules since the counterintuitive
finding of Shea and Morgan (1979) that practicing several motor skills in a random sequence resulted
in better motor-skill retention than the same number of repetitions in a blocked format. Subsequent
studies involving rifle shooting (Boyce & Del Rey, 1990), timing tasks (Giuffrida et al., 2002;
Proteau, Blandin, Alain, & Dorian, 1994; Shea & Morgan, 1979), therapy for stroke patients (Hanlon,
1996), bimanual coordination (Tsutsui, Lee, & Hodges, 1998), and badminton (Wrisberg & Liu, 1991)
have further investigated various aspects of contextual interference.
Contextual Interference is a phenomenon where the learning process is made more elaborate by
increasing variation in a motor program across learning trials. Many studies have found that high
contextual interference improves skill retention (Boyce & Del Rey, 1990; Giuffrida et al., 2002;

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 17

Hanlon, 1996; Proteau et al., 1994; Shea & Morgan, 1979; Tsutsui et al., 1998; Wrisberg & Liu, 1991)
and transfer to other related skills (Giuffrida et al., 2002; Wrisberg, & Liu, 1991). A higher level of
contextual interference is present in practice schedules involving a repeated series or random sequence
than practice schedules that repeat the same behavior without variation. As a musical example,
practicing piano scales in a series of different keys would involve much higher contextual interference
than repeating a scale in the same key. It would therefore be expected to improve retention and
transfer.

Factors Influencing the Ideal Repetition Schedule

The outcomes of high contextual interference are influenced by subject skill level, prior experience
with a motor skill, and the inherent contextual interference in applied settings. It appears that too
much contextual interference can confuse subjects and make learning difficult. The parameters of
contextual interference have not been explored exhaustively, but studies in applied settings using
beanbags of different weights (Pigott & Shapiro, 1984) and shooting basketballs from different
positions (Landin & Hebert, 1997) have found that three repetitions of a motor behavior before
progressing to a different skill improved retention and skill transfer more than practice schedules with
either more or less contextual interference. This could be applied to a difficult passage of music by
performing the passage three times and then progressing to the next section.
Practicing in applied settings often involves a progression of difficulty in motor programs. Such
changes across trials within the practice of a skill are predicted to introduce contextual interference
(Shea & Morgan, 1979). A study of the effect of practice schedules on the acquisition of volleyball
skill at progressive levels on each succeeding day found no significant difference between practice in
a random schedule or with blocks of 10 or 90 repetitions (French, Rink, & Werner, 1990). The
contextual interference introduced by the progression of skill levels is one major explanation for the
unusual findings of the study.
The ideal number of repetitions is influenced by the skill level of subjects. Hebert, Landin, and
Solmon (1996) found that subjects with low levels of tennis skills benefitted more from greater
repetitions of the same skill than did more advanced subjects. Furthermore, most contextual
interference studies initiated training with a blocked series of repetitions to teach the skill at the verbal
cognitive stage. It appears that initial learning requires a blocked schedule with a greater number of
repetitions. As the skill develops, it is ideal to have fewer repetitions.
Beginning music students ideally need more repetition than more advanced students, but in
actuality beginners tend to simply play through music. Hallam (2001) identified a progression of
practice strategies that relate to increasing levels of expertise. The most basic strategy involved
playing through the material with no corrections. With increasing expertise students tended to
progress to correcting single notes, repeating small sections, then repeating larger sections. The most
advanced strategy involved playing through the piece, identifying difficult areas, then practicing
difficult areas in isolation. To optimize contextual interference, beginners need to learn immediately
to identify errors and make corrections using an appropriate number of repetitions.
Optimizing contextual interference is relevant to learning a particular piece of music. As would be
expected ideally, expert musicians tend to introduce more contextual interference during the course of
learning a new piece. Nielsen (1999) compared the practice strategies used by two advanced organ
students at the beginning and end of the process of learning a piece of music. During the first learning
period the students were more likely to use strategies that simplified the music such as reduced tempo,

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 18

playing each hand or pedal separately, or paired combinations of hands or feet. There was also a slight
trend toward shorter practice segments. Barry and Hallam (2002) similarly report that the more
complex the music, the smaller the sections. They also report that as practice progresses, the units
become larger. It may be that these approaches reduced contextual interference to a more optimal
level at the beginning until motor programs specific to the piece of music developed more.
The perfect number of repetitions of a musical motor program has not been determined for each of
the myriad of possible contexts. However, the findings of the previously discussed studies suggest that
students should generally avoid practicing a single musical behavior very many times in a row.
Similarly, very high contextual interference contexts such as practicing a series of unrepeated and
unrelated exercises or performing a piece of music all the way through, do not seem to be ideal in
many contexts for retention and transfer of motor skills. The bulk of the evidence suggests that a
moderately high level of contextual interference that is between these extremes would most benefit
musical motor learning. It also appears that contextual interference should increase during the course
of learning a piece of music and as a student gains more skill.

Slow Motion Practice and Part Practice

It is generally thought that slowing practice of a motor program is helpful as long as the
progression does not become so slow that it is perceived as a different motor program (Schmidt &
Wrisberg, 2000). This change to a different motor program could happen in music if a performance
were slowed enough that aspects such as perceived pulse changed. However, within the parameters of
the same motor program, varied tempi would theoretically improve motor learning.
For very complex motor programs it can be helpful to practice an aspect of the skill that will later
transfer to the learning of the more complex motor program. (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2000) For
example, a beginning singer might benefit from training on how to inhale effectively and control
exhalation before attempting those motor skills while singing.

Conclusion
Music teachers can gain many insights from a basic understanding of motor learning. The ability to
identify musical instances of general motor programs can help teachers isolate musical skills for
students to practice and assign practice schedules. These motor programs need to develop through the
verbal cognitive and closed-loop control phases to eventual open-loop control. An awareness of the
characteristics of each mode of operation helps teachers to identify when students are ready to practice
a skill independently.
A teacher who understands closed-loop and open-loop control can make a more informed decision
about when to provide a student with feedback about a particular skill. A brief reminder about a skill
can lead to immediate correction when a student is not performing the skill correctly but is already
able to monitor the skill with closed-loop control. However, when greater fluency and musicality are
needed, such a reminder might be counterproductive as it changes the student’s control of that skill
from open-loop to closed-loop. Also, instead of trying to briefly address skills that are still at the
verbal cognitive stage, teachers should plan the time needed to help students make distinctions,
monitor feedback independently and overlearn the skill.
Practice schedules should introduce a moderately high level of contextual interference by
employing small blocks of a repeated skill and variations in rhythm and tempo. Several studies found
that three repetitions of a motor skill before changing to another skill encouraged superior retention

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 19

and transfer than either larger blocks of repetitions or a series of skills without repeated blocks. The
number of repetitions should be modified depending on the skill level of the student and other factors
that would be expected to introduce contextual interference.
Ideally, music teachers will use knowledge about motor learning to inform student instruction and
practice assignments. An even greater impact in learning will be possible when teachers instruct
students in the broader principles of motor learning so that they themselves can make informed
decisions about practicing specific musical skills and designing practice schedules.

References
Barry, N., & Hallam, S. (2002). Practice. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds.), The science and
psychology of music performance (pp. 151–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boyce, B. A., & Del Rey, P. (1990). Designing applied research in a naturalistic setting using a
contextual interference paradigm. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 18 (4), 189–200.
Davidson, J. W. & Correia, J. S. (2002). Body movement. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds.),
The science and psychology of music performance (pp. 237–250). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Dougherty, K. M., & Johnston, J. M. (1996). Overlearning, fluency, and automaticity. Behavior
Analyst, 19 (2), 289–292.
Driskell, J. E., Copper, C., & Willis, R. P. (1992). Effect of overlearning on retention. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77 (5), 615–622.
French, K. E., Rink, J. E., & Werner, P. H. (1990). Effects of contextual interference on retention of
three volleyball skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71 (1), 179–186.
Giuffrida, C. G., Shea, J. B., & Fairbrother, J. T. (2002). Differential transfer benefits of increased
practice for constant, blocked, and serial practice schedules. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34
(4), 353–365.
Green, B. (1986). The inner game of music. New York: Doubleday.
Hallam, S. (2001). The development of expertise in young musicians: Strategy use, knowledge
acquisition and individual diversity. Music Education Research, 3 (1), 7–23. Halsband, U.,
Binkofski, F., & Camp, M. (1994). The role of the perception of rhythmic grouping in musical
performance: Evidence from motor-skill development in piano playing. Music Perception, 11
(3), 265–288.
Hanlon, R. E. (1996). Motor learning following unilateral stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 77 (8), 811–815.
Hebert, E. P., Landin, D., & Solmon, M. A. (1996). Practice schedule effects on the performance and
learning of low- and high-skilled students: An applied study. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 67 (1), 52–58.
Landin, D. & Hebert, E. P. (1997). A comparison of three practice schedules along the contextual
interference continuum. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68 (4), 357–361.
Nielson, S. G. (1999). Learning strategies in instrumental music practice. B. J. Music Ed., 16 (3),
275–291.
Pigott, R. E. & Shapiro, D. C. (1984). Motor schema: The structure of the variability session.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55 (1), 41–44.
Proteau, L., Blandin, Y., Alain, C., & Dorion, A. (1994). The effects of the amount and variability of
practice on the learning of a multi-segmented motor task. Acta Psychologica, 85 (1), 61–74.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 20

Schenk, T., Walther, E. U., & Mai, N. (2000). Closed- and open-loop handwriting performance in
patients with multiple sclerosis. European Journal of Neurology, 7 (3), 269–279.
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82
(4), 225–260.
Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2000). Motor learning and performance (2nd ed.), Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and
transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,
5 (2), 179–187.
Sidnell, R. G. (1986). Motor learning in music education. Psychomusicology, 6, 7–18.
Swinnen, S. P. (1996). Information feedback for motor skill learning: A review. In H. N. Zelaznik
(Ed.), Advances in Motor Learning and Control. (pp. 37–66). Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics.
Tsutsui, S., Lee, T. D., & Hodges, N. J. (1998). Contextual interference in learning new patterns of
bimanual coordination. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30 (2), 151–157.
Turner, M. (1998). Motor learning research: Applications and directions for elementary music
teaching and learning. UPDATE, 16 (2), 12–16.
Wadman, W. J., Denier van der Gon, J. J., Geuze, R. H., & Mol, R. C. (1979). Control of fast goal-
directed arm movements. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 5 (1), 3–17.
Winold, H., & Thelen, E. (1988). Symposium abstract: Study in perceptual, cognitive, and motor
aspects of highly skilled cellists. Psychomusicology, 7 (2), 163–164.
Wrisberg, C. A., & Liu, Z. (1991). The effect of contextual variety on the practice, retention, and
transfer of an applied motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62 (4), 406–412.
Zdzinski, S. F. (1991). Research in motor learning: Applications to instrumental music education.
Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 3, 188–205.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 21

 Integration of Music in the Elementary Curriculum:
Perceptions of Preservice Elementary Education Majors
Melissa Berke and Cynthia M. Colwell

Melissa Berke is assistant professor and coordinator of music education at the University of
Nebraska at Omaha. Cynthia Colwell is assistant professor of music education and music therapy at
The University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas.

A common undergraduate course offering is designed for students seeking degrees in elementary
education. This course is usually mandated by certification agencies. The purpose of this course is to
prepare classroom teachers with musical skills so that they can integrate musical activities into their
classes or, in certain situations, be able to provide music instruction for students. This course provides
several challenges. First, the students enrolled in this course provide a vast spectrum of musical skills.
Some students have had no musical experience; others read and perform music fluently. This
discrepancy in skill level leads to the second challenge of striking the balance between teaching music
fundamentals and providing students with practical musical activities that could be integrated into
daily teaching. In many universities, requiring students without prior musical background to complete
a musical fundamentals course as a prerequisite solves this problem; however, in most curricula
already bulging at the seams with requirements, one course has to suffice for providing both
fundamentals and methods.
Many researchers have examined preservice elementary educators to determine the best balance
and the most appropriate structure for this type of class (Austin, 2000; Duling, 1998; Hagen, 2002;
Price & Burnsed, 1989; Walker, 2000). Specifically, these researchers have examined this particular
population’s attitudes toward the music coursework, perceptions of their ability to teach music, and
the effect of instruction and prior musical experience on student attitudes toward the course(s).
Hagen (2002) examined the comfort levels of elementary education majors toward teaching music.
Students were enrolled in a required course that covered art, music, and physical education concepts.
Students with prior musical experiences, such as lessons or ensemble participation, tended to be more
comfortable with teaching music lessons; however, overall, the preservice teachers felt more
comfortable teaching general subjects than music. Duling (1998) similarly found a weak positive
correlation between prior music experience and final grades in music fundamentals and methods
classes.
In a study examining this population for self-perceptions of music ability, Austin (2000) found that
regardless of the musical activity, students tended to rate themselves as good or fair. He indicated that
students who have limited or negative prior experiences may find it difficult to gain skills that they
perceive as proficient within a single semester.
Walker (2000) examined the necessity of music fundamentals as a prerequisite to a music methods
course as well as students’ perceptions of how content would assist them in becoming effective
teachers. Sixty-seven percent of students responded that the methods course had helped them gain
confidence in both teaching and integrating music. It is important to note that the majority of subjects
(96%) had completed a semester of music fundamentals in addition to the course in music methods.
To inform the content and practices of methods courses for elementary educators, Price and
Burnsed (1989) asked teachers to rate music skills and music-teaching techniques from low to high

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 22

importance. Subjects were divided into classroom teachers who utilize or teach music and those who
do not. In both groups, singing and playing instruments were rated highest; theory was rated lowest.
When rating teaching techniques, both groups rated singing as most important; however, integration of
music into classroom activities was listed as more important by teachers who utilized or taught music
than by those who did not currently teach music. The study also indicated that primary teachers use
music more frequently than upper elementary teachers.
In keeping with the dual function of this course, providing tools for integrating music into the core
curriculum as well as creating the knowledge base for music instruction, authors have discussed this
focus of integration for preservice teachers (Bright, 1998; Holt et al., 1988; Kelly, 1996) as well as in-
service teachers (Kinder, 1987; McCarthy Marlin, 1993). Kelly (1996) reported on a project designed
to develop a model for methods courses in which students were familiarized with culturally diverse
music and materials and then provided with the techniques for integrating this material into both the
musical and nonmusical curricula. Similarly, Holt et al. (1988) described a model that was a result of a
project targeting the integration of teaching reading, movement education, and music in an effort to
enhance teacher methods courses. Bright (1998) served as the editor for a document that grew out of a
conference in North Carolina that addressed the similarities and differences in teaching and learning
math and science with other subject areas. Charlesetta M. Dawson wrote a chapter for these
proceedings that was entitled “Incorporating Music in an Integrated Curriculum for Teacher
Preparation.”
Several educators have disseminated information about integrating the arts into the core curriculum
(Berke, 2000; Bresler, 1993; Fowler, 1994; Smith, 1995; Sporsborg, 1998; Whitaker, 1996; Wilcox,
1994). Bresler (1995) discusses various styles of arts integration—subservient, co-equal, affective,
and social—and outlines the implications of these actions on the arts. She recommends the co-equal
style in which arts and academic objectives are on the same importance level with the teacher
incorporating both objectives. Veblen and Elliott (2000) offer opposing views about integration
stressing the importance of maintaining music’s integrity as well as outlining reasons for integration.
Sporsborg (1998) and The Art of Teaching (1996) discuss the benefits of arts integration and provide
integration resources as well as sources for songs and books.
Writers have also specifically focused their attention on grade level (Hart-Davis, 1994) or curricula
areas. Sporsborg’s (1998) resource guide is divided according to the four disciplines of language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies. Even more narrowed, Merrion (1981) focuses on the arts-
integration parallels between music and reading while Bracken (1997) provides a rationale for using
music in interdisciplinary units in elementary social studies (geography and history). From a different
angle, a text for preservice or in-service elementary teachers has chapters devoted to the integration of
literature, art, drama, dance, or music throughout the curriculum (Cornett, 1999).
The purpose of this current study was to examine the self-reported music ability, attitude toward
music, importance toward and feelings of capability of addressing the National Standards for Arts
Education (MENC, 1996), and the view of integrating music into the elementary curriculum of
preservice elementary education majors enrolled in a music methods course both before and after
participation in class activities.

Method
Participants (N = 34) were elementary education majors enrolled in a summer course at one of two
Midwestern universities. The course focused on developing music knowledge and targeted integrating

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 23

music into the elementary curriculum with inclusion of addressing music objectives in the elementary
classroom. The same syllabus was used for each group with similar teaching styles presented. The
textbook that was used as the resource for the class was Music Every Day: Transforming the
Elementary Classroom by Carol P. Richardson and Betty W. Atterbury (2001).
During class, students participated in activities designed to promote development of music
knowledge. Activities included echo singing, sight-reading using solfège and Curwen hand signs,
keeping the steady beat, reading and writing rhythms and melodies, as well as the introduction of
basic music terminology. In addition to music knowledge, the instructors presented strategies on how
to teach music objectives and to integrate music into subjects of the elementary curriculum, such as
reading and social studies.
The students participated in a series of assignments that addressed both music objectives as well as
the integration of music into the elementary curriculum. The first was a sound-orchestration
assignment using a provided example of children’s literature, a rhythm-composition assignment using
specific rhythmic note/rest (mathematical) values on body percussion, a melodic composition
assignment with a text focusing on an elementary concept (e.g., names of the oceans), an ostinato
assignment that incorporated the use of a variety of classroom percussion instruments, and a final
teaching presentation that focused on both music and elementary education objectives.
On the first day of class, participants completed a survey that addressed the following: music
experience, ability and attitude, teaching music objectives, and integrating music into the elementary
classroom. The music-experience portion of the survey examined whether participants had music
background in the form of lessons or ensemble playing and whether or not they had a music specialist
in their own elementary school. The music-ability and attitude portion asked participants to rate their
own ability and knowledge, express their view on the importance of music as an independent subject
matter, and describe how comfortable they feel teaching music and integrating music into their
classroom.
The third portion of the survey, music objectives, asked participants to evaluate how responsible
they feel to teach music in the elementary classroom. The survey also asked them to rate how
important they currently feel it is to address each of the nine National Standards for Music Education
in their elementary classroom (e.g., “Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of songs.”)
and how capable they feel addressing each of these Standards. The final portion of the survey was
labeled Integration of Music into the Elementary Classroom. This section inquired as to the
participants’ intention to integrate music and then asked them to evaluate their confidence level in
integrating music into reading/language arts, math, science, and social studies activities. In this last
section, the survey asked the participants their intention of using music in one of four integration
styles: subservient, affective, social integration, and co-equal/cognitive (Bresler, 1995). An open-
ended statement and question concluded the survey: (1) List specific ideas on how you might include
music in your elementary classroom, and (2) What factors might deter your inclusion of music in your
elementary classroom? On the final day of class, participants completed this music-integration survey
a second time.

Results
The participants (N = 34) were 31 females and 3 males, and due to this proportion no gender
comparisons were made. The mean age of the students was 24.5 years; 20 were juniors and 14 were
seniors. Twenty-two (65%) students hoped to teach in the primary grades (K–2) while twelve (35%)

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 24

hoped to teach in the intermediate grades (3–5).

Music Experience. Twenty-three (68%) students had sung or played an instrument, half of the students
(17) had taken actual private lessons. Twenty-one (62%) of the 34 had played in an ensemble but only
5 (15%) had taken a music course in college prior to their current enrollment. Based on the answers to
these music-experience questions, it appeared that 9 (27%) had no music experience. Twenty-six
(77%) of the students relayed that they had a music specialist in their elementary classroom.
The following three sections contained questions for which the participants were to respond by
circling a number on a Likert-type scale with the range from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

Music Ability and Attitude. There were five questions under this heading that asked participants to
rate: (1) their music ability, (2) their music knowledge, (3) their view on the importance of music as
an independent subject matter, (4) how comfortable they feel teaching music in the elementary
classroom, and (5) how integrating music enhances academic objectives. Pretest and posttest mean
scores and results of t-tests with correlated samples are found in Table 1. Figure 1 compares how
many participants circled 3, 4, or 5 (combined) on the pretest with how many circled those same
numbers on the posttest. The numbers in parentheses listed above representing each of the five
questions correspond to the numbers on the X or horizontal axis in Figure 1.

Table 1.
Music Ability and Attitude: Pretest and Posttest Means and Results of t-tests with Correlated Samples

Question Pretest Posttest p

Ability 2.88 3.50 0.0001043
Knowledge 2.68 3.41 0.0000589
Independent Subject 4.12 4.38 0.0950568*
Teaching Music 2.71 3.82 0.0000011
Integrating Music 3.47 4.18 0.0003429

*no significant difference from pretest to posttest, p > .05

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 25

Figure 1.
Ability and Attitude: Pretest and Posttest Percentages for Responses 3, 4, and 5 Combined

120

100

80
Pretest
60
Posttest
40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5
Questions

Music Objectives. This was the next major section on the survey and opened with questions related to
how responsible participants felt toward teaching music within their elementary curriculum if there is
or is not a music specialist. If a specialist is available, 65% of participants circled 3, 4, or 5 on the
pretest and 77% circled 3, 4, or 5 on the posttest. If no specialist is available, participants felt a greater
sense of responsibility for teaching music objectives within their elementary classroom with 85%
rating that responsibility as 3, 4, or 5 on the pretest and 94% as 3, 4, or 5 on the posttest. The
remaining 18 questions dealt with the nine National Standards for Music Education and asked
participants to rate the importance of addressing each Standard in the classroom (nine questions
corresponding to nine Standards) as well as to rate how capable they feel addressing these Standards
(nine questions corresponding to nine Standards). Pretest and posttest mean scores and results of t-
tests with correlated samples are found in Table 2. Figure 2 compares how many participants circled
3, 4, or 5 (combined) on the pretest with how many circled those same numbers on the posttest for the
Standards questions.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 26

Table 2.
Music Objectives: Pretest and Posttest Means and Results of t-tests with Correlated Samples

Question Pretest Posttest p

Is a Specialist 2.82 3.24 0.0369458
Is no Specialist 3.82 4.35 0.0073092
Singing-Importance (1)+ 3.24 3.85 0.0053
Singing-Capability 2.71 3.82 0.0000131
Playing-Importance (2) 3.24 3.79 0.0082716
Playing-Capability 2.24 3.53 0.0000021
Improvising-Importance (3) 3.18 3.74 0.0023926
Improvising-Capability 2.12 3.38 0.0000008
Composing-Importance (4) 2.56 3.38 0.0003953
Composing-Capability 1.76 3.32 0.0000002
Reading-Importance (5) 3.06 3.77 0.0018982
Reading-Capability 2.50 3.65 0.0000053
Listening-Importance (6) 3.71 4.24 0.0021843
Listening-Capability 3.00 4.12 0.0000001
Evaluating-Importance (7) 3.41 3.97 0.0023926
Evaluating-Capability 3.03 3.91 0.0000847
Disciplines-Importance (8) 3.91 4.41 0.0026328
Disciplines-Capability 3.29 4.24 0.0000015
History-Importance (9) 4.12 4.38 0.0478720*
History-Capability 3.29 4.24 0.0000269
*no significant difference from pretest to posttest, p > .05
+number in parentheses indicates number of standard in Figure 2

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 27

Figure 2.
Music Objectives: Pretest and Posttest Percentages for Responses 3, 4, and 5 Combined

120

100 Pretest-
Importance
80
Posttest-
Importance
60
Pretest-
40 Capability
Posttest-
20 Capability

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Standards

Integration of Music into the Elementary Classroom. This was the title of the final section on the
survey. The first question was not expected to change but was more informational in regards to how
often music was used in their own elementary schooling with 62% circling 3, 4, or 5 on both the
pretest and posttest. The next two questions addressed whether they intended on: (1) teaching music
objectives or (2) integrating music into academic objectives. In the next four questions, participants
were asked to rate their confidence level in integrating music into: (1) reading/language arts (3), math
(4), science (5), and social studies (6). The final four statements involved four integration styles,
subservient (7), affective (8), social integration (9), and coequal/cognitive (10) (Bresler, 1995) and
asked them to rate their intention on using each of these styles. Pretest and posttest mean scores and
results of t-tests with correlated samples are found in Table 3. Figure 3 compares how many
participants circled 3, 4, or 5 (combined) on the pretest and on the posttest but does not include the
first question of the section on how often (frequency) music was used in their own elementary
experience. The numbers in parentheses listed above representing ten different questions correspond
to the numbers on the X or horizontal axis in Figure 3.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 28

Table 3.
Integrating Music: Pretest and Posttest Means and Results of t-tests with Correlated Samples

Question Pretest Posttest p

Frequency of Music 2.65 2.82 0.3245872*
Intention-Music (1)+ 3.27 3.71 0.0090446
Intention-Integrating (2) 3.77 4.18 0.0084393
Reading/Language(3) 3.15 4.21 0.0000007
Math (4) 2.74 3.94 0.0000191
Science (5) 2.44 3.65 0.0001011
Social Studies (6) 2.85 4.12 0.0000004
Subservient (7) 3.33 3.88 0.0003805
Affective (8) 4.12 4.06 0.7293382*
Social Integration (9) 3.74 4.06 0.0857860*
Co-equal/Cognitive (10) 3.35 3.85 0.0012460
*no significant difference from pretest to posttest, p > .05
+number in parentheses corresponds to question number of Figure 3

Figure 3.
Integrating Music: Pretest and Posttest Percentages for Responses 3, 4, and 5 Combined

120

100

80
Pretest
60
Posttest
40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Questions

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 29

Discussion
Results of this study indicate that, overall, there was a positive change in the areas surveyed
(musical ability, musical knowledge, music objectives [recognition of the importance of standards and
confidence in capability of teaching music and implementing the National Standards for Music
Education], and integration of music into the elementary curriculum). Due to the small number of
subjects (34), results of this study are not conclusive and cannot be generalized. The majority of
participants (73%) expressed having some musical experience. Results of this study seem to support
previous research (Duling, 1998; Hagen, 2000) indicating that students with prior musical experiences
have a positive perception of their ability and attitude towards music. Furthermore, the majority of
students indicated a desire to teach at the primary level. As Price and Burnsed (1989) indicated that
primary teachers more readily use music, it is possible that the students were open and accepting of
the class objectives and activities.
When examining the pretest and posttest scores, there was a significant positive change for four of
the five questions in the music ability and attitude section. These questions addressed self-reported
ability, knowledge, and comfort level both teaching and integrating music. The largest change in
means (1.11) was for the question referring to the comfort level of teaching music. This result is
obviously encouraging to the researchers as this is a primary objective of this course. The only
question that did not indicate a significant change was when participants were asked to rate the
importance of music as an independent subject, but this may be due in part to an already high pretest
mean score (4.12) and thus an already high value for music. The researchers noted that on the pretest,
participants felt more responsibility for teaching music if no specialist was available. This remained
consistent on the posttest although responsibility, both with and without a specialist, showed a
significant positive change after participation in the course.
Participants were asked to rate the importance of addressing the Standards. It is interesting to
examine the order of importance participants gave to the Standards on the pretest: history/culture,
disciplines, listening, evaluating, singing and playing, improvisation, reading, and composition. Eight
of the nine Standards showed a positive significant change from pretest to posttest except for
history/culture (“Understanding music in relationship to history and culture.”), which reported an
already high pretest mean (4.12). The first two listed in importance, history/culture and disciplines
(“Understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts.”) may be
more familiar to students training to teach in the elementary curriculum. On the posttest, the order of
importance changed slightly with history/culture and disciplines changing places and improvising and
reading changing places and with playing instruments falling below singing to create the following
order: disciplines, history/culture, listening, evaluating, singing, playing, reading, improvising,
composition.
The third part of this section asked participants to rate how capable they feel addressing each of the
nine National Standards for Music Education. There was a significant positive change from pretest to
posttest for each of the nine Standards, and the mean changes were greater when comparing them with
the corresponding mean changes when rating importance of the Standards. The pretest order of the
Standards for capability was: disciplines and history/culture, evaluating, listening, singing, reading,
playing, improvisation, and composition. The posttest order varied only slightly with listening and
evaluating changing places: disciplines and history/culture, listening, evaluating, singing, reading,
playing, improvisation, and composition. Although listed last here and also ranked last in importance,
the greatest increase from pretest to posttest was seen in the area of composition (1.76 to 3.32). As

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 30

with importance, disciplines and history/culture remained at the top of the ranking for feeling capable
of teaching those Standards.
In the final section, researchers were interested to see how participation in the class would alter
students’ integration intentions and confidence in integrating music into certain academic areas
(reading/language arts, math, science, and social studies). There was a positive significant change in
both areas.
With regard to styles of integration, the slight decrease in intention to use the affective style (arts
used to change mood of the classroom, creative expression, building self-esteem) is interesting. It may
be that students entered with the perception that music could be used in this manner, but class
activities showed the importance of higher levels of integration and altered final perceptions. The
pretest mean was also high (4.12) which might have impacted this change. The lack of significant
increase in the style social integration (toward participation in school or community events, program,
assemblies, holidays) might also be due to a prior perception they would be using music in this
manner as elementary teachers. As musicians, the researchers were obviously hoping for a greater
shift for the co-equal/cognitive style of integration (arts and academic objectives on same importance
level, teacher incorporates objectives for both areas).
It is possible that students’ increased awareness of the levels helped them understand the difference
between using music as a teaching tool (subservient) and integrating music as part of conceptual
teaching (co-equal/cognitive). The fact the other two levels (affective and social) were not
significantly changed may be indicative of the teaching strategies employed by the instructors.
Because Bresler (1995) recommends the co-equal/cognitive style, it is possible that this emphasis
permeated class activities. It may also have been difficult for students to see the subtleties between the
subservient/ affective/social integration levels. Of these three, the word “subservient” refers to the
utilitarian use of music, so students may have grouped the aforementioned three as being similar,
which affected posttest responses.

Implications
This study was conducted during a summer session where the condensed time frame may have had
some effect on results. A replication over a traditional semester would offer results for comparison.
While instructors expect their students to leave a course with more knowledge, ability, and confidence
in the subject matter, the results of this study should not be minimized. The role of this course goes
beyond acquisition of musical skills and activities for an elementary educator. This course is a tool for
music educators as it can provide a foundation for advocacy of music in the schools. If preservice
elementary educators have a positive experience in a music course, the likelihood of them valuing
music as an in-service teacher is increased. College instructors must strike a balance between teaching
music fundamentals and demonstrating the practical application of music as a teaching tool for the
elementary classroom teacher.
In light of the fact that research by Austin (2000) concluded that students who have
limited/negative prior experiences did not perceive their musical skills as proficient within a single
semester, it may be necessary for instructors of this course to make a paradigm shift. When college
instructors emphasize skill proficiency (music literacy, theoretical concepts, playing piano/recorder)
over musical activities for the classroom teacher, the course may serve to exacerbate negative attitudes
toward music. Especially in a situation where the classroom teacher is solely responsible for teaching
music, this negative attitude will not benefit the musical skills of his or her future students. Skill

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 31

acquisition is important; however, it is imperative that music educators keep the larger goal of
advocacy in mind. With college curricula already limiting the amount of music coursework for
elementary educators, it is unrealistic for college instructors to expect the same outcomes for this
course as for a methods course for elementary music majors. To make an analogy with foreign
language, it may be better to have our goal be “conversational” music skills, rather than a
comprehensive acquisition of musical concepts. It becomes a question of: Is it more important for an
elementary educator to be able to write a major scale in the key of D major or be able to support a
music specialist and solicit the specialist for ideas on how to incorporate a singing game into various
curricular areas? From an advocacy standpoint, the latter must be emphasized. College instructors
must empower these elementary educators to utilize music as a teaching tool and at the same time
acknowledge that their musical skills need further development. Furthermore, these future classroom
teachers can be taught to recognize the difference between using music at a subservient level and
integrating music in a co-equal way.
Regardless of the choices an instructor makes in the course for elementary educators, it is
important that preservice music educators, especially those planning to teach at the elementary level,
develop tools to create music experiences that can integrate music into the general curriculum.
Teaching preservice elementary music specialists to advocate to and work with general teachers may
serve to continue to increase the skill and confidence of classroom teachers to incorporate music in
their classrooms. The course for elementary educators presents pedagogical challenges. Music
educators must continue to examine this population to improve course offerings for elementary
educators. Future research should include longitudinal studies that examine the effect of these courses
on in-service teaching.

References
The Art of Teaching. (1996). Learning, 25(2), 50-55.
Austin, J. (2000). Future classroom teachers’ ability, self-perceptions, and attributional responses to
failure in music: Do music fundamentals classes make a difference? Retrieved July 26, 2000,
from [Link]
Berke, M. K. (2000). Curriculum integration: A two-way street. General Music Today, 14(1), 9–12.
Bracken, K. R. (1997). Integrating classical music into the elementary social studies curriculum.
Social Studies Journal, 26, 36–42.
Bresler, L. (1993). Music in a double-bind: Instruction by non-specialists in elementary schools.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 115, 1–13.
Bresler, L. (1995). The subservient, co-equal, affective, and social integration styles and their
implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 96, 31–37.
Bright, G. W., (Ed.). (1998). Connecting learning across disciplines: Relationships between learning
in mathematics and science and learning in other disciplines. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED425911).
Cornett, C. E. (1999). The arts as meaning makers: Integrating literature and the arts throughout the
curriculum. Des Moines, IA: Merrill Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Duling, E. (1998, April). A description of relationships between prior music experiences and the final
scores of elementary music majors in music fundamentals and methods classes. Paper
presented at the MENC’s National Biennial In-service Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Fowler, C. (1994). Strong arts, strong schools. Educational Leadership, 52, 4–9.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 32

Hagen, S. (2002, April). An examination of comfort levels of nonmusic elementary majors and
expectations of elementary administrators regarding music education duties in the schools: A
pilot study. Paper presented at MENC’s National Biennial In-service Conference, Nashville,
TN.
Hart-Davis, C. (1994). Improving first grade academic skills through the integration of music into the
first grade curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED378098).
Holt, D. M., et al. (1988). Reading, movement education and music: An integrated approach. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED309853).
Kelly, M. M. (1996). Toward an integrated curriculum: A music education perspective. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED394924).
Kinder, G. (1987). A survey of the musical activities of classroom teachers with implications for
undergraduate music courses for elementary education majors. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48 (07A), 1691.
McCarthy Marlin, S. A. (1993). Music experiences in the elementary classroom as directed and
reported by in-service elementary classroom teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania
State University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54 (12A), 4384.
Merrion, M. D. (1981). Arts integration parallels between music and reading: Process, product and
affective response. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED212986).
MENC: The National Association for Music Education. (1996). National standards for arts
education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston,
VA: Author.
Price, H. E., & Burnsed, V. (1989). Classroom teachers’ assessments of elementary education
methods. UPDATE, 8(1), 28–31.
Richardson, C. P., & Atterbury, B. W. (2001). Music every day: Transforming the elementary
classroom. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Smith, R. A. (1995). The limits and costs of integration in arts education. Arts Education Policy
Review, 96, 21–25.
Sporsborg, J. D. (1998). Music in every classroom: A resource guide for integrating music across the
curriculum, grades K–8. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.
Veblen, K. K., & Elliott, D. J. (2000). Integration: For or against? General Music Today, 14(1), 4–8.
Walker, L. (2000, March). Music fundamentals as a necessary prerequisite for music methods. Paper
presented at MENC’s National Biennial In-service Conference, Washington, DC.
Whitaker, N. L. (1996). Elusive connections: Music integration and the elementary classroom.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 130, 89–99.
Wilcox, E. (1994). Teaching the whole child. Teaching Music, 2(2), 42–43, 62.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 33

 Classroom Instrument Preferences Among
4- to 9-Year-Olds in a Free-Play Setting
Janice N. Killian and Lynn Basinger

Janice N. Killian is professor and chair of music education at Texas Tech University in Lubbock,
Texas. Lynn Basinger is a doctoral candidate in music education at Texas Tech University.

Early studies in music education supported Zimmerman’s philosophy that “music for young
children is primarily the discovery of sound and the imaginative use of instruments aids this
discovery” (as cited in Campbell, 2001). Current music textbooks for preservice early childhood
educators continue to encourage teachers to provide the “opportunity to produce as many different
kinds of sounds as possible” (Haines & Gerber, 2000, p. 11). These authors also advocate the use of
classroom instruments as tools of musical creativity and discovery.
There appears to be continuing interest in examining young children’s musical activities during
operant or free-play situations (Geringer, 1977; Gluschankof, 2002; Sims, 2001; Young, 2003).
Further research has shown that children generally prefer musical activities that involve movement
and playing instruments (Bowles, 1998; Temmerman, 2000).
Geringer (1977) found that timpani, piano, and step bells were the most popular selections when
students were allowed 5 minutes of free-play time on instruments of their choosing. Other instruments
used in the study, in order of preference, were ukulele, metallophone, slide whistle, guiro, log drum,
soprano recorder, and hand drum (Geringer, 1977). It is interesting to note that percussion instruments
were both most and least popular with the children. The children chose the timpani most frequently,
while the hand drum was the least popular. Questions arise as to whether the timpani’s popularity was
enhanced by its unique appearance, its richness of sound compared to the hand drum, or some other
unknown factor. Temmerman (2000) also found that children showed a preference for drums.
Similarly, Byo (1991) determined that both male and female third graders indicated a preference for
drums. Neither study indicated the type of drum used.
Geringer (1977) made no mention of gender in his study, but subsequent studies have found that
this element can influence a child’s selection of or attitude toward a musical instrument. These studies
have also usually found that this effect is not particularly evident until about third grade or 8 to 9 years
of age (Abeles & Porter, 1978; Boulton & O’Neill, 1996).
Based on these previous studies indicating that students do display preferences for instrument-
related activities, the next logical questions would seem to be, what types of instruments do they
prefer and what types of readily accessible instruments will invite creativity and experimentation in
the early childhood classroom? With those questions in mind, the current investigation was designed
to examine the instrument choices and the amount of time spent playing common classroom
instruments under free-play conditions among 4- to 9-year-olds.

Method
Subjects (N = 22) consisted of children ages 4 to 9 enrolled in a summer day care. Volunteer
subjects attended an afternoon “mini music camp” in which they moved in small groups from station
to station experiencing various musical activities. Their “counselors” for the camp were
undergraduates enrolled in a music course for elementary education majors. The children met as a

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 34

group, then went by twos or threes to each prearranged station and finally returned to the large group
for a musical participatory program designed by the elementary education majors.
One station consisted of free play with an array of six instruments commonly found in elementary
music classrooms: Autoharp, xylophone, hand drum, jingle stick, puili stick (a split-bamboo rhythm
instrument of Hawaiian origin), and a tape player with headphones continuously playing selections by
Raffi (1986), including “Old MacDonald,” “Six Little Ducks,” “Wheels on the Bus,” “Rudolph the
Red-Nosed Reindeer,” and “You Sing a Song, I’ll Sing a Song.” The songs were selected as typical of
ones that might be found in kindergarten and day care settings (Sims & Cecconi-Roberts, 2003).
These were selected as typical musical activities or objects that can be independently manipulated by
children in a classroom setting. The determination of what to include was made by a panel of six
music educators with an average teaching experience of 12 years. For simplicity’s sake, we have
referred to all activities and objects as “instruments” in this study.
The children entered the room in small groups and their counselors guided each child to one of
three spaces marked on the carpet. Each space contained the same six instruments in the same order
(Autoharp, xylophone, drum, jingle stick, puili stick, and tape player with headphones). Each child
was instructed to “play with any instruments you want while in your space.” The counselors then
removed themselves from the instrument area.
Children played for 5 minutes, as timed by the examiner. They were then asked their ages, thanked
for participating so nicely, and told it was time to move on to the next musical activity. While an
individual child could hear and see the two other children playing in the other two assigned spaces
within the room, they could not hear or see any of the other musical activities taking place in other
parts of the music building.
Trained observers (N = 3), members of a graduate course in music education research, observed
each child as he or she played with the instruments. They each sat near a child’s assigned space and
spoke into a small tape recorder naming the instrument the child was playing and whether the child
was playing (defined as making a sound on the instrument), investigating (defined as looking at or
touching the instrument), or was off-task to the instruments (defined as doing anything else). This
process allowed for timing of each activity without the laborious process of stopwatches and timers
and did not necessitate obtaining videotape permission.
Prior to the experiment, all observers were trained to identify possible behaviors and activities of a
single child playing with the six instruments. Any discrepancies in interpretation were discussed until
agreements among observers were 100%.

Results
The raw data consisted of real-time audiotapes indicating the frequency of contact with each
instrument (six instruments or off-task) and the activity regarding the instrument (playing,
investigating, or off-task). Subsequently, two experimenters listened to the audiotapes and coded the
children’s instrumental activities using SCRIBE software (Duke & Farra, 2000), which allows
analysis of behaviors across time. Reliability was computed for 35% of the subjects using the
agreements/agreements + disagreements formula (Madsen & Madsen, 1998). Reliability on instrument
choices = 88.1%, activities = 94.5%, and time spent per instrument = 96.1%, for an overall reliability
of 92.9%.
Any and all children who expressed an interest were allowed to participate. However, analysis was
limited to those 5-minute sessions (Geringer, 1977) with completely intelligible audiotapes that

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 35

contained only one child (the day care facility brought more children than originally anticipated thus
necessitating that some experiences contained two children). All further analysis was thus limited to
14 subjects, 5 males ages 4, 5, 5,7, and 9 (mean age = 6.0), and 9 females ages 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6,7 and
11 (mean age = 6.2). The 11-year-old girl was originally considered too old, but analysis of her data
indicated no differences between her responses and those of the younger children, so her data were
included.

What instruments were chosen most frequently? Table 1 presents the frequency with which specific
instruments were chosen. Statistical analysis via the chi-square statistic indicated that there was a
significant difference among the instruments chosen. Individual analyses of all combinations revealed
significant differences between Autoharp and all other instruments except xylophone; between
xylophone and tape player, jingle stick, puili stick, and off-task; and between hand drum, jingle stick,
puili stick, and off-task.

Table 1. Frequency of Instrument Choices and Time Spent on Each Instrument

(In Rank Order)

Frequency of Frequency of Total Times Time

Single Choices Combined Instrument Chosen (in min. & sec.)
Choices

Autoharp 71 4 75 19:26

Xylophone 54 14 68 14:34

Hand Drum 40 18 58 7:42

Tape Player 34 6 40 14:42

Jingle Stick 24 12 36 5:23

Puili Stick 20 11 31 4:31

Note: Total time spent on each instrument (66:30) is greater than 100% total time spent (64:46)
because of inclusion of combined choices.

How much time did children spend on each instrument? We conjectured that the amount of time a
child chose to spend with a given instrument might yield a slightly different result than counting the
frequency with which a child switched instruments, and that such results might vary by age or gender
of the child. Statistical analysis (ANOVA with repeated measures) was used to examine amount of
time spent on each instrument. Results indicated a significant difference for time spent on a given
instrument, but no significant differences for age or gender. Specifically, children spent the most time
on Autoharp, tape player, and xylophone (in order of most to least time spent) and less time on off-
task, hand drum, jingle stick, and puili stick (in order from most to least time spent). Table 1 indicates

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 36

the relative amounts of time spent on each instrument. Statistically, the amount of time spent on the
Autoharp was significantly more than that spent on jingle sticks or puili sticks. Note that the Autoharp
was preferred over the passive listening, but listening was not significantly different from the other
preferred choices.

Did children play, investigate, or were they off-task? When activities (play, investigate, off-task)
were analyzed, it was revealed that children played with the instruments most of the time. Overall an
average of 70% (total of 44 minutes, 17 seconds) of the time was spent playing the instruments; 17%
(11 minutes, 07 seconds) was spent investigating the instruments; and 13% (9 minutes, 22 seconds) of
the time was spent off-task (looking around the room, watching other children, etc.) for a total of 64
minutes and 46 seconds. Statistical analysis (ANOVA with repeated measures) of the number of
seconds spent on each activity revealed that significantly more playing occurred than investigating or
off-task. There were, however, no significant differences in age or gender relative to amount of time
spent playing, investigating, or off-task.
Analysis of the audiotapes revealed that some children played two instruments at once, most
frequently using the jingle stick or puili stick as a mallet on drum or xylophone, or playing an
instrument while listening to the tape player. Thus Table 1 includes both the frequency of single
instrument choices and frequency of combined choices. When two instruments were played, the
instruments involved were both tallied (e.g., playing a drum with a jingle stick would be coded in both
the hand drum and the jingle stick category). Half of the children (7) played only single instruments.
Among those who combined instruments, four combined instruments less than 10% of the time. Of the
remainder, one 6-year-old female combined Autoharp and tape player for 37.5% of her time. Another
child (a 4-year-old male) combined the jingle stick with drum and with xylophone, and the puili stick
with xylophone and with drum and with the jingle stick for a total of 31.9% of his time. Finally,
another 6-year-old female combined jingle stick with Autoharp and with drum for a total of 27.1% of
her time. Although an appropriate mallet was provided for the xylophone, perhaps the jingle stick and
the puili stick both seemed appropriate for use as a replacement mallet. It is also possible that the
children were more familiar with a drum with drumstick than with a hand drum.

Results Summary
In a free-play situation given six specified instruments over 5 minutes of time, children most
frequently chose Autoharp, followed by xylophone, and hand drum. They rarely chose jingle sticks or
puili sticks. The amount of time spent on each instrument revealed that children played longest on
Autoharp, followed by tape player and xylophone. There was more off-task behavior than playing on
hand drum, jingle sticks, or puili sticks. Children spent nearly 70% of their time playing the
instruments. The remainder of the time was split between investigating and off-task.
There were no significant age or gender differences throughout the study.

Discussion
This study investigated the instrument choices and the amount of time spent playing with a set of
common classroom instruments under free-play conditions among children 4- to 9-years old. Though
the small sample size warrants the use of caution before making generalizations based on the results,
there are several observations that suggest possibilities for further study.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 37

 The popularity of the Autoharp over the drum differs with the results of previous studies (Geringer,
1977; Temmerman, 2000). It is interesting to note that results do agree with the Geringer study in
finding the hand drum to be a generally less-popular instrument. Since Temmerman provided no
indication as to the type of drums used, true comparisons with this are not possible. A couple of
questions arises from this observation: What is it that attracts students to particular instruments? Is it
the kinesthetic experience, the aural stimulus, or perhaps just something about the design of the
instrument that young children find appealing?
Professionals working with young children may find this information useful in helping find the
most effective instruments and activities to ensure that the learner is quickly engaged in musical
exploration. Those responsible for the creation and development of music education programs and
centers may also find this type of information beneficial.
Studies have investigated the sounds that children make during musical free-play settings
(Temmerman, 2000; Gluschankof, 2002; Young, 2003). These results seem to indicate that children
are aware of and have definite preferences for particular timbres. Children interviewed by
Temmerman indicated that the chance to experiment with sounds was a major factor in their
enjoyment of playing instruments. Perhaps it is the complexity of the Autoharp timbre as compared to
the hand drum that children found most attractive.
This study agreed with those of Geringer (1977) and Temmerman (2000) in finding the step bells
or xylophone-style bells to be high on the popularity list. This could support the kinesthetic hypothesis
proposed in several previous studies (Bowles, 1998; Temmerman, 2000), since the physical actions
involved in playing the drums and these bell-type instruments are very similar. Since the playing
actions for the drum and the Autoharp are not so nearly related, the kinesthetic element does not
appear to be a factor in the results of the current study. Further study would be necessary to
investigate possible connections in this area.
Geringer (1977) proposed a “novelty factor” in the selection of the timpani as the most popular
instrument in his study. Results of our study could support that premise. A single hand drum could
seem quite boring when compared to the trap sets or drum kits these students have most likely seen
and heard on TV or in bands (marching or other). According to the children’s day care supervisor, the
Autoharp was probably unfamiliar to these students and so it could be seen by them as something
novel and different. Support for this theory is somewhat weakened by consideration of the less-
popular puili sticks. To our knowledge, these were no more familiar to this group of students than the
Autoharp, yet they were much less popular. This brings timbre back to the forefront of possible
reasons for the popularity of the Autoharp.
Gluschankof (2002), Temmerman (2000), and Young (2003) all found children’s responses to
musical free play to be very positive. Young children have been found to “respond positively to
virtually any kind of music they encounter” and do not appear to make preference decisions based on
characteristics or categories of music in the same way that older children do (Sims & Cassidy, 1997,
p. 235). Thus, it is merely speculation whether the dependent measures of this study (time spent and
frequency of instrument choice) actually indicate preference for the individual instrument.
Gluschankof (2002) and Young (2003) further investigated the specific activities of young children
engaged in musical free play and found identifiable patterns in the sounds of their experimentation and
that these patterns become more complex and defined in older children. While patterns of sound were
not formally considered in this study, a difference was noted in the sound patterns of older children.
Children, especially the older subjects, can be heard playing definite, recognizable patterns. At one

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 38

point, subjects in different play areas could be heard echoing each other’s rhythmic patterns. A
comparison of the tapes to the age information indicated that the 9- and 11-year-old students were
most likely the students being heard at that time. This observation seems to raise even more questions
for further study into the way that children naturally think about and perform musical activities.
The present study considered the amount of time spent playing each instrument and how frequently
the children selected an instrument. These two dependent measures yielded slightly different results.
In each case, however, it is apparent that, for these children the Autoharp was the most-preferred
instrument and the puili stick was the least preferred. Geringer (1977) considered a “perseverance
versus exploration” factor in his study. He noted an individual difference related to the length of time
a child spent on a particular instrument compared to children who spent a little time at a lot of
instruments and advised that “an extended analysis of free-time with musical instruments might
indicate consistent patterns of perseverance as opposed to exploration” (p. 178). This idea could be
confirmed by subsequent studies of children’s listening styles. These studies found that children’s
listening practices are “internally consistent” but that patterns differ substantially between individual
children (Sims & Cassidy, 1997; Sims, 2001; Sims & Nolker, 2002). The significance of these
previous studies in relation to the results being reported here is somewhat unclear. Further study with
a larger sample could provide a more comprehensive data set for analysis and comparison of time
spent on individual instruments versus an individual selection of an instrument.
Young (2003) ultimately limited her study of children’s musical free-play time to the xylophone.
She found that students were not readily playing when there were multiple instrument choices. In the
current study, it would have been interesting to record the length of time it took for each child to begin
playing with the instruments. Perhaps children were hesitant given six instruments from which to
choose. Overall however, children spent much more time (70%) engaged in playing the instrument
than in off-task behaviors; thus apparently there was no extended hesitation.
Whether because of its novel appearance, its richness of sound, or some other undetermined factor,
the children in this study chose the Autoharp as their most popular instrument. Beyond that, many
questions and possibilities for further study have been posed by the comparison of these results to
previous research. These questions and the search for answers are all part of the process in the
development of the most-effective methods of instruction and creative musical experiences for our
children.

References
Abeles, H. F., & Porter, S.Y. (1978). The sex-stereotyping of musical instruments. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 26, 65–75.
Boulton, M. J., & O’Neill, S.A. (1996). Boys’ and girls’ preferences for musical instruments: A
function of gender. Psychology of Music, 24, 171–183.
Bowles, C. L. (1998). Music activity preferences of elementary students. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 46, 193–207.
Byo, J. L. (1991). An assessment of musical instrument preferences of third-grade children. Bulletin of
the Council for Research in Music Education, 110, 21–32.
Campbell, M. R. (Ed.) (2001). On musicality & milestones. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of
Illinois School of Music.
Duke, R. A., & Farra, Y. (2000). SCRIBE: Simple Computer Recording Interface for Behavioral
Evaluation. Austin, TX: Teaching & Learning Associates.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 39

Geringer, J. M. (1977). An assessment of children’s musical instrument preferences. Journal of Music
Therapy, 14, 172–179.
Gluschankof, C. (2002). The local musical style of kindergarten children: A description and analysis
of its natural variables. Music Education Research, 4, 37–49.
Haines, J. E., & Gerber, L.L. (2000). Leading Young Children to Music. 6th Edition. Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Madsen, C. K., & Madsen, C.H. (1998). Teaching/discipline: A positive approach for educational
development (4th Edition). Raleigh, NC: Contemporary Publishing Company.
Raffi. (1986). A Children’s Sampler of Singable Songs. Indianapolis, Indiana: Troubadour Records
Ltd.
Sims, W. L. (2001). Characteristics of preschool children’s individual music listening during free
choice time. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 149, 53–63.
Sims, W. L., & Cassidy, J.W. (1997). Verbal and operant responses of young children to vocal versus
instrumental song performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 234–244.
Sims, W. L., & Cecconi-Roberts, L. (2003). Availability and use of recorded music in selected
prekindergarten classrooms. Paper presented at the 15th International Symposium for Research
in Music Behavior. Chicago, Illinois.
Sims, W. L., & Nolker, B. (2002). Individual differences in music listening responses of kindergarten
children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 292–300.
Temmerman, N. (2000). An investigation of the music activity preferences of pre-school children.
British Journal of Music Education, 17, 51–60.
Young, S. (2003). Time-space structuring in spontaneous play on educational percussion instruments
among three- and four-year-olds. British Journal of Music Education, 20, 45–59.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 40

Steering from the Caboose: Setting the Pace of Group Piano Instruction
According to the Least Skilled Students in the Class
Robert A. Duke and Cynthia Benson

Robert A. Duke is the Marlene and Morton Meyerson Centennial Professor of Music and Human
Learning, and the director of the Center for Music Learning at The University of Texas at Austin.
Cynthia Benson is assistant professor of music at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green,
Ohio.

Certainly one of the most daunting challenges of group instruction in any discipline is
accommodating the many disparities among individual students in a given class. In music performance
instruction, in particular, this challenge is vividly presented, since all students overtly demonstrate
their levels of accomplishment moment to moment throughout the course of instruction.
The literature in education is rife with prescriptions for dealing with groups of students with
different levels of experience, skill, and interest. “Teach to the middle of the class” is perhaps the most
often heard and least viable prescription, since teaching to the middle increases the likelihood that the
most able students will be bored by the lack of challenge while the least able students will be
frustrated by their inability to meet the demands of the tasks presented to them by the teacher.
Teaching basic performance skills in group settings is fundamentally different from preparing
ensembles for performance. The ultimate goal of ensemble rehearsals is to create an acceptable “group
effect,” and a good public performance is often accomplished without all students improving their
skills as individual musicians. In light of this objective, many decisions teachers make in a rehearsal
are based on the overall sound of the group and not necessarily on the performance of individual
musicians in the group.
In contrast, the primary goal of class instrument instruction is not to create a pleasing overall
ensemble sound, although that certainly will be the result if all students perform well, but to develop
fundamental skills of musicianship in the individuals in the class. The difficulties inherent in
successfully accomplishing this goal stem from the acoustical and cognitive impediments to hearing
what individual students are doing at each moment in the class, a problem that is compounded when
all students are playing like instruments.
On what basis, then, should teachers of group instrument classes organize the content, sequence,
and pace of instruction? When a class comprises many students with different levels of experience,
skill, and interest, how does a teacher accommodate all of the competing needs of the individuals in
the class? These questions are at the core of effective teaching, which involves countless decisions
about the content, sequence, and timing of instructional tasks.
Although there exists a vast literature devoted to analyses of the teaching-learning process, there is
surprisingly little attention given to the empirical description and analysis of pacing in teaching,
especially in music, where, with few exceptions, pacing remains virtually unstudied (Duke, Jellison, &
Wolfe, 1998; Duke, Prickett, & Jellison, 1998; Goolsby, 1996, 1997; Yarbrough, 1988).
The topic of pacing has been the focus of educational research in disciplines outside of music
(Good, Grouws, & Beckerman, 1978), but definitions of pacing vary widely. Brophy (1979), for
example, defined pace as the “speed with which students move through the material to be learned” (p.
736), and several investigations have examined pacing in terms of the rate of presentation (Barr, 1973-

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 41

1974; Brophy, 1986; Campbell & Allen, 1988). Pacing has also been defined in terms of the speed of
the teacher’s verbalizations (Chilcoat, 1987; Grobe & Pettibone, 1975), the timing of student
assessments (Roberts, 1989), contingencies for meeting course deadlines (Ross & McBean, 1995), and
the rates at which teachers change activities (Dahlöff, 1971; Lundgren, 1972).
Preece (1990) suggested a relationship between the rate at which new material is presented, student
ability, and the amount learned per lesson, and he developed a set of algebraic models that describe
instructional pacing in relation to student understanding and acquisition of skills. Reilly (1998)
developed a similar formula for estimating expected learning by combining rate of presentation,
learner effectiveness, teacher effectiveness, and learner knowledge prior to instruction. Reilly
explained that rate of instructional delivery is the most controllable of these four variables and thus
can most easily be modified to accommodate the capacities and characteristics of learners.
Regulating the pace of instruction is of particular importance in instruction delivered electronically,
by educational software and Web-based materials. Roblyer (1999), for example, found that students
enrolled in a distance-learning course perceived control over their learning environment (pace and
timing of learning) as a significantly more important component of distance learning than the
interaction between students and instructors, students’ experience with technology, or logistical
aspects of attending classes. Learner control of pacing has in some instances been found to be superior
to teacher- or program-controlled pacing (Burns, 1987; Milheim, 1990; Scerbo, Greenwald, & Sawin,
1993). In other settings, externally imposed pace produced more accurate learner responses and
improved mastery and motivation more than learner controlled pacing (Kelly & Crosbie, 1997;
Montazemi & Wang, 1995).
Pace as a combination of teacher-presentation rate and student-response frequency has been
studied in a variety of settings, including music. Rapid pacing has been found to be associated with
greater student attentiveness and higher student achievement (Brophy & Good, 1986; Darch &
Gersten, 1985; Duke, Prickett, & Jellison, 1998; Duke, Jellison, & Wolfe, 1998; Englert, 1984). The
data from this research suggest that the perceived pace of instruction in music is proportional to the
rate of student performance opportunities, rather than to the overall percentage of class time devoted
to student performance. This conceptualization of a fast-paced rehearsal or class—frequent, generally
brief performance episodes and brief episodes of teacher activity—is consistent with most
conceptualizations about effective instruction. For example, “opportunity to respond” (Delquadri,
Greenwood, Stretton, & Hall, 1983; Greenwood, Hart, Walker, & Risley, 1994; Stanley &
Greenwood, 1983) and “engaged time” (Coatney, 1985; Johnson & Butts, 1983; Leach & Ingram,
1989; Lewellen, 1990) have been identified consistently as important components of effective
teaching across a number of disciplines, and, if students perform more frequently and for shorter
durations overall, then there are more opportunities for teachers to provide guidance and feedback in
refining students’ skills.
Important consistencies have been observed in the instructional interactions of excellent music
teachers (Duke, 2000). In detailed analyses of one-to-one piano instruction, for example, teachers
identified as the most skilled, either through expert observers’ evaluations (Siebenaler, 1997) or
through evaluations of student accomplishment (Buckner, 1997), consistently demonstrated more
rapid alternations between teacher activity and student activity than were demonstrated by less skilled
teachers. Timing measurements of excellent teachers were characterized by higher rates of teacher
verbalizations, especially directives and feedback, and correspondingly higher rates of student
performance opportunities.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 42

 Commensurate with these higher rates of behavior were briefer episodes of teacher behavior (e.g.,
talking, modeling) and student behavior (e.g., playing). Interestingly, and perhaps contrary to
conventional wisdom, the students of the more skilled teachers did not perform for a greater
proportion of the total lesson time than did the students of the less skilled teachers; in fact, in both
Buckner’s and Siebenaler’s investigations, the total proportions of time devoted to teacher and student
activity were generally unrelated to the quality of instruction. The aspect of timing that most clearly
differentiated the lessons of the more and less skilled teachers was the mean duration of each activity
episode (i.e., student performance or teacher verbalization) and the corresponding rates of alternation
between teacher and student activities (Buckner, 1997; Siebenaler, 1997).
The purpose of the present investigation was to determine whether directing teachers’ attention to
the progress of one of the least skilled students in the class would result in systematic differences in
instructional pacing. Our definition of pacing included both the rate of alternation between student-
and teacher-activity episodes (Duke et al., 1998), and the speed with which the class progressed
through new material (e.g., Brophy, 1979). We compared typical group keyboard instruction, in which
the teacher heard the keyboards of all students in the class, with an experimental situation in which the
teacher was permitted to hear only the piano of one of the least able students in the class. We assessed
teachers’ use of time in instructional activities and assessed the attitudes and performance
achievement of students in the classes observed.

Method
Participants in the study were 4 piano teachers and 42 freshman and sophomore music education
and music performance majors enrolled in four sections of first-semester group piano at a large
Midwestern university. The four sections, each of which included either 10 or 11 students, were taught
in a modern, well-equipped digital piano lab by four different teachers: two faculty instructors and two
graduate teaching assistants. Each teacher’s class was audio- and videotaped on six consecutive class
days. During a designated segment of each day’s class, teachers introduced their students to a new
piece with the intended goal of students’ performing the piece successfully at the end of the segment.
The duration of the segments varied at the
discretion of the individual teachers, and ranged in duration from approximately 6 to 19 minutes.1
Each teacher taught the same six pieces in the same order. These segments, during which the new
pieces were introduced, were used to test the experimental teaching procedure described below.
The teachers and students communicated using headsets throughout all instruction. On three of the
six class days, the piano lab’s communications system was configured so that the teacher could hear
all of the students’ pianos during instruction (control condition). During the remaining three class
days, the communications system was configured so that the teacher could hear only one student’s
piano during instruction of the entire class segment (experimental condition). The student whose piano
was monitored was identified by the teacher as one of the weaker students in the class. The same
student was monitored on each of the three days of the experimental condition. The teacher did not
indicate to the monitored student or the rest of the class that only one student could be heard. All
students could hear only their own pianos, the teacher’s piano, and the teacher’s voice through the
headsets in both the control and experimental conditions. Teachers’ pianos were set to a contrasting
keyboard timbre so they were distinguishable from the students’ pianos, all of which were set to the
same piano timbre.
Each teacher alternated between the control and experimental conditions on consecutive class days.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 43

On each class day, two teachers presented the same piece to their classes in the control condition, and
the two other teachers presented the same piece to their classes in the experimental condition. The
assignment of conditions and pieces was randomly determined prior to the beginning of the study.
At the conclusion of the control and experimental segments in each class, all students recorded a
performance of the repertoire piece learned during that day. The recordings were stored on disk for
later analysis. Immediately following, students completed a brief questionnaire that presented 13
statements to which students responded using four-point Likert-type scales (“strongly disagree,”
“disagree,” “agree,” “strongly agree”). We purposely chose four-point scales to obviate a neutral
response and create a forced choice between agreement and disagreement. The 13 statements were

• I enjoyed working on the repertoire in class today.

• I found it difficult to play the repertoire we worked on today.
• I would like to spend more time working on this repertoire in class.
• The pace of instruction during this portion of the class was too slow.
• This portion of the class today was a negative experience.
• The repertoire we worked on today is easy to play.
• I was bored working on the repertoire we worked on today.
• I now feel confident about playing the repertoire we worked on today.
• The teacher was helpful during this portion of the class.
• I was frustrated working on the repertoire we worked on today.
• Playing the repertoire we worked on today is fun.
• The pace of instruction during this portion of the class was too fast.
• The teacher was encouraging and positive during this portion of the class.

Following the sixth and final class day of the experiment, the four teachers completed a survey
about their perceptions of teaching in the experimental condition, answering questions about the pace
of the class, student and class success, repetitions of tasks, and time required for completion of goals.
The content of each day’s lesson on the new piece was analyzed in detail using computerized
observation software designed for research of this type (Duke & Farra, 2001). We recorded the rates
and durations of teacher- and student-activity episodes, the content and rates of teacher verbalizations,
and the content and rates of student performance trials.
Teacher-activity episodes were defined as intervals of class time during which the teacher talked or
demonstrated at the keyboard, apart from the students. Student-activity episodes were defined as
intervals of class time during which one or more students talked or performed at the keyboard, with or
without the teacher’s playing along. Teacher verbalizations were categorized as either directives
(statements that indicate to the students that they should do something), explanations (statements that
convey information without an explicit command to act), feedback (evaluations of student
performance in a preceding performance trial), questions, or off-task statements (statements that
pertained to topics other than the performance task at hand). Student performance trials were
categorized according to the nature of the tasks performed. In-context Trials were defined as
performance trials in which one or more students played the entire piece at tempo. Limited Trials were
defined as those in which one or more students played a section of the piece at tempo. Modified Trials
were those in which one or more students played any portion of the piece that was in some way altered
in an attempt to make the performance more manageable (e.g., slower tempo, right hand alone,

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 44

without pedal).
The recorded performances of four students from each class session were evaluated by two trained
judges who were blind to the experimental treatment. In addition to the performances of the student
whose keyboard signal was isolated, performances of three additional students from each of the four
classes were also evaluated. The three students in each class were selected to represent three different
levels of skill in keyboard. The three additional students were identified by their teachers as well
below average, average, and well above average as compared to their classmates. Recordings from the
same four students from each class were evaluated for each of the three control days and the three
experimental days.
Students’ performances were evaluated in terms of note accuracy, rhythmic accuracy, steadiness of
tempo, and expression, each rated along a four-point scale. A rating of 1 was assigned to performances
in which the student correctly performed all of the notes, rhythms, and expressive markings and
sustained a steady tempo throughout all of the piece. Ratings of 2, 3, and 4 were assigned to
performances that departed incrementally from this description. The primary observer (the second
author) evaluated all 96 performances; the reliability observer evaluated 24 performances selected
randomly from this set.

Results
The data from the observations are presented in Table 1. The categories for which we recorded
durations (e.g., teacher activity and student activity episodes) are expressed in terms of percentage of
class time (i.e., the proportion of the entire lesson segment during which the category was observed),
mean episode duration (i.e., the average duration of each instance of the category), and rate per
minute. The remaining observation categories—for which we recorded only the onset of each instance
and not the duration—are reported in rates per minute.
We found significant differences between the experimental and control conditions on two of the
observation variables: Positive-Feedback rate per minute, F(1,16) < 38.1, p < .001, and Modified
Performance Trial rate per minute, F(1,16) < 6.3, p < .03. When teachers heard only the pianos of the
weaker students in their classes, they less frequently gave positive feedback (0.4 per minute versus 0.7
per minute) and more frequently simplified the instructional tasks presented in the learning sequence
(2.0 per minute versus 1.4 per minute). Unsurprisingly, there were significant differences among the
four teachers on all of the observation variables except the mean durations of teacher activity and
student performance, the rates of negative feedback statements and off-task statements, and the rate of
in-context performance trials.
The differences between the experimental and control conditions in the rates of positive feedback
and modified performance trials are important indicators of differences in the teachers’ instruction that
were precipitated by the experimental treatment. Hearing only one student while teaching a class of 10
or 11 seemed to alert the teachers to difficulties students were experiencing that were not apparent
when teachers heard the all of the students playing together. Understandably, this also resulted in
fewer positive feedback statements, since the teachers could hear more clearly the errors that occurred
on each performance trial.
We analyzed students’ responses to the daily questionnaires and found no significant differences
between the experimental and control conditions. Table 2 shows the means for the experimental and
control conditions averaged across all six days of instruction. The means are nearly identical in every
case. There were differences among students’ responses to the four teachers, however F(1,209) < 1.5,

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 45

p > .22, and there were several significant interactions between teacher and experimental condition,
F(1,209) < 1.5, p > .22, which indicates the experimental condition did not create precisely the same
effects in every teacher’s class. But the significant interactions, which pertain to 5 of the 13
questionnaire items, reveal no meaningful information about the experimental condition, because, in
each case, two of the four teachers obtained higher scores in the experimental condition and the
remaining two teachers obtained lower scores. These data indicate that students in the classes did not
perceive consistent differences between the experimental and control conditions, although students
responded differentially to the four teachers.
In light of the results described above, the teachers’ perceptions of teaching while hearing only one
of the least skilled students were particularly interesting. All four teachers indicated that they believed
that the pace of instruction was slower and that accomplishing their instructional goals required more
time when they monitored only one of their least skilled students. The data, which contravene this
view, indicate that there was no difference in the time spent teaching the pieces between the
experimental and control conditions. The teachers also expressed initial concern that the other students
would become bored by the slower pace, but no differences in students’ perceptions of the classes
were observed between the two conditions.
All teachers indicated that their teaching was more systematic when listening to a single student
and that they had the class perform more repetitions at each step in the instructional sequence. When
asked to identify the aspects of the experimental procedure that they found positive or helpful, the
teachers stated: “It made me more aware of the struggles of that one
student during sight reading as well as some other students who may have had similar difficulties.”
“Being able to address the specific needs of that weaker student and the awareness of how many
repetitions are needed.” “I felt that no one was left behind in the class.” “I could nearly always
immediately identify the problem and know how to fix it.” All four teachers believed that the overall
success level in the class was higher when they monitored only one student.
An analysis of the students’ performance scores indicates there was an unsurprising, significant
difference among the scores of the four classifications of student, F(3,12) = 7.9, p < .02. The mean
scores were ordered by student skill classification, with the isolated students obtaining the lowest
scores of the group. The mean scores, arranged by student classification and experimental condition,
are presented in Table 3. There was no significant difference between the two instructional conditions,
p > .32.

Discussion
The most important outcome of this experiment is the change in the sequence of instruction that
came about as a result of the teachers’ hearing only the piano of one of the least skilled students in
their classes. On the basis of the information afforded through this experimental procedure, teachers
more often simplified the tasks performed by students moment to moment, so as to increase the
likelihood that the least skilled students could successfully accomplish the proximal goals that the
teacher had identified.
Also important is the fact that this strategy—modifying the sequence of instruction to
accommodate the skills of one of the least skilled students in the class—had no apparent effect on the
students’ perceptions of the pace of instruction or on their levels of interest in the class activities.
Students expressed that they enjoyed working on the repertoire, that they found the pace appropriate,
and that the teacher was helpful and positive, irrespective of the condition under which the instruction

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 46

was presented. Although the teachers altered the sequence of instruction by simplifying the proximal
performance goals to accommodate the least skilled students in the class, all students were quite
positive about the instruction and considered the pacing neither too fast nor too slow. This finding
should allay some teachers’ concerns that attending to the needs of students who experience problems
will inevitably frustrate or bore the more skilled students in a class. But it should be emphasized that
the teachers in our study did not acknowledge the students who were being monitored individually.
They simply structured the sequence of performance activities, in which the entire class participated,
in a way that facilitated the weaker students’ accomplishment of the proximal performance goals.
Of course, adopting such a strategy in group instruction does not require an electronic teaching lab
with headphones. Skillful teachers are able to monitor individual student progress using a number of
different strategies. Having students perform individually or in small groups throughout the course of
instruction is likely to create effects similar to those observed in the present investigation. In fact,
systematic observations of expert teachers indicate rather consistently that many individual
performance opportunities are woven in to the fabric of experts’ classes and rehearsals (Cavitt, 2004;
Derby, 2001; Younger, 1998).
One of the most often heard concerns expressed by teachers is that altering the sequence of
instruction by performing simplified versions of performance tasks necessarily decreases student
interest and leads to boredom and frustration among the more able students in a class. The data from
this investigation do not support this view. Although the four teachers expressed concern that students
would be bored by the slower pace of instruction, no indications of such perceptions were observed in
students’ responses.
It seems also that some teachers believe that giving more discriminating feedback and offering
fewer positive verbalizations about students’ performance skills moment to moment risks
discouraging students, perhaps especially those who are experiencing the most difficulty. Again, the
data from the current study indicate otherwise. Students were equally positive in the control and
experimental conditions, even though the rates of positive feedback were lower (in the case of two
teachers, dramatically so) in the experimental condition.
Some teachers may feel that the extent to which students perceive a class to be “positive” is
proportional to the rate of positive feedback from the teacher. But a more meaningful indicator of
students’ perceptions is students’ recognition of their ability to successfully perform the tasks assigned
by the teacher moment to moment. If this is true, then teachers will create more positive classes by
structuring sequences of performance trials in ways that accommodate the skills of even the least able
students, so that all students may participate successfully. Such an approach is entirely compatible
with maintaining high standards of performance and moving the class along at an appropriate pace.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 47

Table 1. Percentages of Class Time, Mean Episode Durations, and Rates of Occurrence for Class
Activities; Teacher Verbalizations and Modeling; and Performance Tasks
______________________________________________________________________________

Control Experimental
________________ ________________

Observation Category M SD M SD

___________________________________________________________________________

Class Activity

Teacher Activity Percenta (%) 64.9 9.26 57.1 14.0

Teacher Activity Mean Durationb (secs)
b
38.5 43.50 24.4 16.74
Teacher Activity Rate per Minute 1.5 .70 1.6 .53
Student Performance Percent 34.6 14.59 42.1 14.31
Student Performance Mean Duration 14.2 4.91 16.1 5.09
Student Performance Rate per Minute 1.5 .69 1.5 .55

Teacher Verbalizations and Modeling

Explanation Rate per Minute 0.7 .36 0.6 .22

Question Rate per Minute 1.2 .52 1.0 .91
Neg Feedback Rate per Minute 0.06 .12 0.0 .00
Directive Rate per Minute 1.3 .70 1.2 1.0
Off-task Rate per Minute 0.1 .11 0.1 .12
Pos Feedback Rate per Minute 0.7 .50 0.4 .42
Modeling Rate per Minute 0.2 .20 0.2 .19

Performance Tasks

In-context Task Rate per Minute 0.04 .08 0.0 0.0

Limited Task Rate per Minute 0.4 .36 0.3 0.27

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 48

Table 2. Mean Responses to Daily Questionnaire Items for Experimental and Control
Conditions
___________________________________________________________________________

Control Experimental
________________ ________________

Questionnaire Item M SD M SD

___________________________________________________________________________

I enjoyed working on the repertoire. 3.0 .56 3.0 .51

I found und it difficult to play the repertoire. 2.4 .70 2.3 .64

I would like to spend more time. 2.7 .71 2.7 .58

The pace was too slow. 2.1 .43 2.1 .42

This was a negative experience. 1.8 .54 1.8 .46

The repertoire is easy to play. 2.5 .59 2.6 .60

I was bored. 2.1 .60 2.1 .56

I feel confident. 2.7 .67 2.8 .65

The teacher was helpful. 3.2 .45 3.2 .51

I was frustrated. 2.2 .71 2.1 .60

Playing the repertoire is fun. 2.8 .64 2.8 .62

The pace was too fast. 2.0 .45 2.0 .55

The teacher was encouraging and positive. 3.3 .53 3.2 .52

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 49

 Table 3. Mean Performance Scores by Student Classification and Instructional Condition
_________________________________________________________________________
Condition
_______________________________
Control Experimental
____________ _____________
Student Classification M SD M SD
__________________________________________________________________________
Well Above Average Student 2.13 .35 2.10 .42
Average Student 2.27 .41 2.25 .24
Well Below Average Student 2.52 .20 2.71 .23
Isolated Student 2.66 .26 2.81 .32
Overall 2.39 .37 2.47 .43
__________________________________________________________________________

Note. Possible scores range from 1 (high) to 4 (low).

Note
1
The durations of daily teaching sessions are given below. Each cell mean represents three segments (on three class days).
As the data make clear, there were no systematic differences in the durations of teaching segments attributable to
experimental condition. The teachers and classes clearly moved at different speeds, but those variations seem not to be
attributable to the experimental conditions.

Mean durations (and standard deviations) of daily teaching segments by teacher

and condition (in seconds)

Teacher Control Experimental Overall

(three classes) (three classes) (six classes)

1 961 (106) 683 (163) 882 (196)

2 829 (278) 578 (180) 704 (250)

3 530 (105) 761 (127) 645 (164)

4 803 (156) 995 (147) 889 (171)

Overall 781 (222) 754 (208) 767 (211)

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 50

The most notable differences in durations of teaching segments were attributable to the pieces being taught. Recall that all
four teachers taught all six pieces in the same order, but that the teaching conditions were alternated on consecutive days
and counterbalanced across teachers. Two teachers taught the six pieces with the treatment conditions assigned in this order
(Exp-Con-Exp-Con-Exp-Con), and two teacher taught the same six pieces in the same order with the treatments assigned in
the opposite order (Con-Exp-Con-Exp-Con-Exp). What the table below shows clearly is the fact that different pieces
required different amounts of instructional time and that the amount of instructional time devoted to each piece varied little
between the two conditions.

Mean durations (and standard deviations) of daily teaching segments by piece and
condition (in seconds)

Piece Control Experimental Overall

(two classes) (two classes) (four classes)

1 1110 (54) 1004 (139) 1057 (106)

2 780 (116) 747 (114) 763 (96)

3 794 (218) 883 (243) 839 (195)

4 535 (156) 589 (132) 562 (122)

5 670 (196) 719 (52) 694 (120)

6 795 (228) 584 (301) 690 (250)

Overall 781 (222) 754 (208) 767 (211)

References
Barr, R. A. (1973-1974). Instructional pace differences and their effect on reading acquisition.
Reading Research Quarterly, 9, 526–554.
Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,
733–750.
Brophy, J. E. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41,
1069–1077.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan Publishing
Co.
Buckner, J. L. J. (1997). Assessment of teacher and student behavior in relation to the
accomplishment of performance goals in piano lessons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Burns, R. B. (1987). Steering groups, leveling effects, and instructional pace. American Journal of
Education, 96, 24–55.
Campbell, W. J., & Allen, G. L. (1988). Experimentally assessed learning rate as a determinant of
performance under self-paced and instructor-paced instruction. Journal of Psychology, 122,
69–78.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 51

Cavitt, M. E. (2004). Systematic observation of error correction procedures in the rehearsals of
excellent middle school and high school band directors. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 51, 218–230.
Chilcoat, G. W. (1987). Teacher talk: Keep it clear. Academic Therapy, 22, 263–271.
Coatney, R. P. (1985). The Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study: Further examination of educational
implications. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 18, 44–48.
Dahlöff, U. (1971). Ability grouping, content validity, and curriculum process analysis. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Darch, C., & Gersten, R. (1985). The effects of teacher presentation rate and praise on LD students’
oral reading performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 295–303.
Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., Stretton, K., & Hall, R. V. (1983). The peer tutoring spelling
game: A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spelling performance.
Education & Treatment of Children, 6, 225–239.
Derby, S. E. (2001). Rehearsal of repertoire in elementary, middle, and high school choirs: How
teachers effect change in student performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Duke, R. A. (2000). Measures of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin of the Council
for Research in Music Education, 143, 1–48.
Duke, R. A., & Farra, Y. (2001). SCRIBE: Simple Computer Recording Interface for Behavioral
Evaluation. Austin, TX: Learning and Behavior Associates.
Duke, R. A., Jellison, J. A., & Wolfe, D. E. (1998, November). Empirical description of the pace of
music therapy sessions. Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Music
Therapy Association, Cleveland, OH.
Duke, R. A., Prickett, C. A., & Jellison, J. A. (1998). Empirical description of the pace of music
instruction. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 265–280.
Englert, C. S. (1984). Effective direct instruction practices in special education settings. Remedial and
Special Education, 5, 38–47.
Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Beckerman, T. M. (1978). Curriculum pacing: Some empirical data in
math. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10, 75–81.
Goolsby, T. W. (1996). Time use in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of experienced, novice,
and student teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 286–303.
Goolsby, T. W. (1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of three career
levels and preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 21–40.
Greenwood, C. R., Hart, B., Walker, D., & Risley, T. (1994). The opportunity to respond and
academic performance revisited: A behavioral theory of developmental retardation and its
prevention. In R. Gardner, III, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. W.
Eshleman, & T. A. Grossi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably
superior instruction (pp. 213–223). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Grobe, R. P., & Pettibone, T. J. (1975). Effect of instructional pace on student attentiveness.
Journal of Educational Research, 69, 131–134.
Johnson, T. F., & Butts, D. P. (1983). The relationship among college science student achievement,
engaged time, and personal characteristics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20,
357–366.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 52

Kelly, G. & Crosbie, J. (1997). Immediate and delayed effects of imposed postfeedback delays in
computerized programmed instruction. Psychological Record, 47, 687–698.
Leach, D. J., & Ingram, K. L. (1989). The effects of information and feedback on teachers’ classroom
behaviour and students’ academic engaged time. Educational Psychology, 9, 167–184.
Lewellen, J. R. (1990). Systematic and effective teaching. High School Journal, 74, 57–63.
Lundgren, U. P. (1972). Frame factors and the teaching process. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Milheim, W. (1990). The effects of pacing and sequence control in an interactive video lesson.
Educational and Training Technology International, 27, 7–19.
Montazemi, A.R. and Wang, F. (1995). On the effectiveness of a neural network for adaptive external
pacing. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6, 379–404.
Preece, P. F. (1990). Learning and the pace of lessons: A theoretical model. British Journal of
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 43, 1–6
Reilly, D.H. (1998). The pace of instructional presentation, non-linear systems, effectiveness of
cognitive processing, and needed research in the use of technology for instruction. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 25, 151–165.
Roberts, M. S. (1989). Student selection of deadline conditions in a personalized psychology course.
Teaching of Psychology, 16, 128–130.
Roblyer, M.D. (1999). Is choice important in distance learning? A study of student motives for taking
internet-based courses at the high school and community college levels. Journal of Research
on Computing in Education, 32, 157–171.
Ross, L. L., & McBean, D. (1995). A comparison of pacing contingencies in class using a
personalized system of instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 87–88.
Scerbo, M. W., Greenwald, C. Q., & Sawin, D. A. (1993). The effects of subject-controlled pacing and
task type on sustained attention and subjective workload. Journal of General Psychology, 120,
293–307.
Siebenaler, D. J. (1997). Analysis of teacher-student interactions in the piano lessons of children and
adults. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 6–20.
Stanley, S. O., & Greenwood, C. R. (1983). How much “opportunity to respond” does the minority
disadvantaged student receive in school? Exceptional Children, 49, 370–373.
Yarbrough, C. (1988). Pacing and content in music teaching. Proceedings of Current Issues in Music
Education Symposium, Ohio State University, 13, 9–28.
Younger, K. G. (1998). Analysis of effective and ineffective instructional sequences in intermediate
level band and orchestra rehearsals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 53

 Announcements

Call for Abstracts

2005 MENC Northwest Division Conference

Research Poster Session

Individuals are invited to share new, unpublished research at a research poster session included as
part of the 2005 MENC Northwest Division Conference to be held in Bellevue, Washington, February
18-20, 2005. Research on any topic related to music teaching and learning will be welcome.

Submissions should be in abstract form (approximately 150 words) and include a title, description
of the research question and methodology, summary of results (or preliminary results for research in
progress) and the authors’ complete contact information. For abstracts submitted by mail, author
information should be included on a separate page. The deadline for submissions is November 15,
2004. Notification of acceptance will be made during December, 2004. It will be necessary for at least
one author to be present at the poster session.

Abstracts may be sent electronically to the session chair at sjmorris@[Link].

Proposals may also be submitted by mail to:

Dr. Steven J. Morrison

University of Washington
School of Music Box 353450
Seattle, WA 98195-3450

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 54

 Call for Papers

2005 State Conference of the

Arizona Music Educators Association

The Arizona Music Educators Association will sponsor a session to disseminate the results of
research at its Annual State Convention to be held in Phoenix in 2005. All types of research are
encouraged. Research conducted by in-service teachers, undergraduate and graduate students,
and college professors is welcome. Authors of accepted papers will be required to prepare a poster
describing their research and are to be available during the presentation session to discuss their work
with interested music educators. Participants will be required to provide report summaries (limited to
no more than two pages) to the convention participants.

Authors should submit four copies of the completed manuscript beginning with an abstract no
longer than 250 words summarizing the research. The author’s name, school affiliation, mailing
address, telephone number, and e-mail address should appear only on one separate cover sheet
not attached to the full reports with abstracts. Two-sided duplication of copies is encouraged. All
papers must comply with the Code of Ethics and Standards for Submission established by the Music
Education Research Council. This information can be found in the Journal of Research in Music
Education. Submitted papers will be subjected to blind review under the auspices of the Arizona
Collegiate Music Educators. Submitted papers must be postmarked by November 1, 2004 and be
addressed to:

Dr. Brian Ebie

College of Fine Arts
The University of Arizona
P.O. Box 210004
Tucson, AZ 85721-0004

Authors will be notified of the selection results by December 10, 2004.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 55

 Request for Articles

Arts Education Policy Review is looking for articles of between 1,500 and 5,000 words on issues
related to music education, especially assessment of learning in dance education and preparation of
future teachers.

Articles need not be research papers, but can include book reviews, memoirs, essays, etc., as long as
they have specific policy recommendations at the school, district, local, state, or federal level.

AEPR publishes well-established professionals in the field, young associate and assistant professors,
k–12 teachers, musicians, and anyone with important policy views on music education.

AEPR uses The Chicago Manual of Style (15th edition). For guidelines and indexes of recent articles,
e-mail aepr@[Link]. For more information, see [Link] click on Arts Education
Policy Review in the right-hand menu. Writers can ask the managing editor, Tom O’Brien, for
assistance on their projects; submissions need not be final drafts.

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 56

 UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education
Guidelines for Contributors
UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education brings research in music teaching and
learning close to everyday practice, enabling teachers to apply the results of research readily in music
classrooms and rehearsal halls. Authors submitting manuscripts should refer to the following
guidelines:
1. Manuscripts must be research-based.
2. Manuscripts may present a single research study or a review of the literature.
3. Manuscripts must be comprehensible to music teachers untrained in research methodology and
statistics. Thus, writing should be as free of research jargon and statistical terminology as possible. A
quantitative manuscript that eliminates specialized jargon associated with statistics must be
accompanied by a not-to-be-published addendum that provides complete statistical information.
Reviewers must have access to all relevant data and analyses in order to assess appropriateness,
accuracy, and interpretation.
4. Manuscripts must emphasize the interpretation of research and the application of research results
in the music classroom or rehearsal hall. Bringing the usefulness of research into the foreground for
the reader must be a high priority of the author. This applies also to reviews of literature, in which
authors should make every attempt to synthesize research results and avoid presenting simple study-
by-study reports.
5. Quantitative manuscripts must conform to the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th ed., 2001). Nonquantitative and historical studies may conform to
APA style, The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed., 2003), or A Manual for Writers of Term Papers,
Theses, and Dissertations (K. L. Turabian, 6th ed., 1996). Authors may not mix styles within a
manuscript.
6. Authors should submit four copies of typed, double-spaced manuscripts, which normally should
not exceed 20 pages. Type size should be no smaller than 12 points (double-spacing should include 28
points total for a line of text and the following line). Figures and drawings should be camera-ready.
7. To preserve the author’s anonymity in the review process, the manuscript should include no
clues as to his or her identity or institutional affiliation. The author’s name, address (including e-mail,
if available), and institutional affiliation should appear only on a separate cover sheet. Manuscripts not
conforming to this stipulation will be returned.
8. Manuscripts should be addressed to:
Ruth V. Brittin, Editor
UPDATE
University of the Pacific
104 Buck Hall
3601 Pacific Ave.
Stockton, California 95211-0110

UPDATE, Fall-Winter 2004, 57