Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The comparative effects of computer mediated interactive instruction and traditional instruction on music… Green, Bryan Richard 2003

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2003-860515.pdf [ 57.84MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055049.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055049-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055049-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055049-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055049-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055049-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055049-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055049-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055049.ris

Full Text

T H E C O M P A R A T I V E EFFECTS OF COMPUTER M E D I A T E D INTERACTIVE INSTRUCTION A N D T R A D I T I O N A L INSTRUCTION O N MUSIC A C H I E V E M E N T IN GUITAR PERFORMANCE  By Bryan Richard Green U.Mus., University O f Calgary, 1980 B.Ed., University of Saskatchewan, 1982 M . E d . , University of Calgary, 1990  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED T O T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF D O C T O R A T E IN P H I L O S O P H Y in T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION The Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction Curriculum and Instruction We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  T H E UNIVERSITY OF  BRITISFKCOLUMBIA  June 2003 © Bryan Richard Green, 2003 V A N C O U V E R , BRITISH C O L U M B I A  The University of British Columbia  UBC  Rare Books and Special Collections - Thesis Authorisation F o r m  Page 1 o f 1  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may b e g r a n t e d b y t h e h e a d o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r , Canada  Columbia  http://www.library.ubc.ca/spcoll/thesauth.html  28/08/2003  Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the comparative effects of computer-mediated interactive instruction and traditional instruction on music achievement in guitar performance. The researcher examined practical and pedagogical issues involved in learning to play the guitar within both Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and traditional learning environments. Specifically, the researcher examined 1) the effects of two types of instructional methodologies on guitar tonal, rhythm, harmonic, and melodic performance skills of eighth grade students who possess higher or lower audiation abilities, and 2) the effects of two types of instructional methodologies on general music achievement of eighth grade students who possess higher or lower audiation abilities. Fifty-three eighth-grade students were taught to play the guitar using either computer-assisted guitar instruction or traditional face-to-face instruction. The instructional content of the Interactive Guitar software (Gouzouasis, 1996b) was used for both treatment groups. The instructional sequence was based on the development of audiation-based singing, tonal and rhythm skills, and on the development of executive guitar techniques. A l l participants followed a set of routines organized in lesson format and participated by watching, Ustening, and echoing. Student guitar performance and music achievement were assessed after five weeks of instruction. Results of the post treatment measures identified that the type o f instruction (traditional or CAI) does not affect guitar performance or music achievement. Also, regardless of the type of instruction, students who possess higher musical aptitude achieve higher levels of guitar tonal, harmonic, and melodic performance skills than students who possess lower musical aptitude. The results demonstrated no difference in the effectiveness of C A I instruction or traditional instruction on guitar performance. Furthermore, as the capability of C A I software designers to adapt to individual learner needs increases, one might anticipate a parallel increase in the effectiveness in music learning.  Acknowledgements  i  s  A work of this magnitude could not have been completed without the help and unwavering support of several people. I would first extend my sincere and heartfelt thanks to my friend and colleague Angela Parkes for her consistent support, her unrelenting ability for tolerating my insistence that she learn about the art, joy and theory of music, for the endless epistemological discussions, and for her unfaltering encouragement. Next, I would like to acknowledge my friends and colleagues for supporting me with questions of how are things going?, with round 2 its, and with those words of encouragement offered at insightful times. Specially, I would like to thank my advisor Peter Gouzouasis for his guidance, his love of music and his willingness to 'play guitar', to Scott Goble, for his clarity of thought and for going beyond the call, to Bruno Zumbo for his clear statistical direction, and to Marv Westrom, for his honesty, creativity, and support throughout the years. Last, but by no means the least, I am thankful to my wife, Shannon, and to my sons K a i and Peedo (Tieran) who persevered, cajoled, wrestled, and encouraged whenever required. They have been essential to my survival and are the joys of my life; without them this work would not have been possible.  Table of Contents Abstract  ii  Acknowledgements  iii  Table of Contents  iv  List of Tables  vii  List of Figures  ix  Chapter One  Introduction  Chapter Two Review of the Literature  1 11  Introduction  11  Curriculum Issues  11  Theoretical Underpinnings  13  Musical Approaches and Instructional Practices  14  Dalcroze Method  15  Suzuki Method  15  The Kodaly Method  16  Orff Schulwerk Method  18  Music Learning Theory  19  Music Learning Theories, Practice, and Technology Relationships  24  Technology As A Tool  28  Methodologies  32  Technology Research On-line Music Instruction Existing On-Line Music Instruction Instructional Design in WWW Guitar Instruction  35 44 46 51.  Related Studies  53  Summary  64  Chapter Three Methodology  66  The Pilot Study  66  Samples and Settings Testing and Assessment Tools Musical Aptitude Profile  66 68 68  Iowa Tests ofMusical Literacy Pilot Study Procedures  70 72  Instructional Procedures  73  Rating Scales  78  Tonal Pattern Performance Rating Scale  78  Rhythm Pattern Performance Rating Scale  78  Harmonic Performance Rating Scale  79  Melodic Performance Rating Scale  79  Pilot Study Results  80  The Principal Study  90  Study Samples and Setting  90  Procedural Considerations  91  Testing Procedures  92  Principal Study Procedures  93  Instructional Procedures  94  Rating Scales  98  vi Chapter Four Study Results Interpretations C hapter Five Summary and Conclusions  100 108 112  Purpose and Problems  112  Design and Analysis  112  Results  114  Conclusions  114  Recommendations  ..115  References  118  Appendix A  Interactive Guitar Learning Sequence Software Description  143  Appendix B  Questionnaires  150  Appendix C  Questionnaire Instructional Procedures  154  Appendix D  Interactive Guitar Learning Sequence  156  Appendix E  Testing Materials  314  Appendix F  Test Procedures and Guidelines  318  Appendix G  Rating Scale Descriptions and Evaluation Methodology  324  Appendix H  Evaluation Instruments  332  Appendix I  Anecdotal Reports and Descriptive Statistics  337  vii  List of Tables Table 1  Discrirnination and Inference Learning Hierarchy  23  Table 2  Interjudge Reliabilities on Performance Measures  81  Table 3  A N O V A for Tonal Performance Scores  82  Table 4  A N O V A for Rhythm Performance Scores  83  Table 5  A N O V A for Harmonic Performance Scores  84  Table 6  A N O V A for Melodic Performance Scores  85  Table 7  Bonferroni Tests for Melodic Performance Scores  86  Table 8  A N O V A for Composite Preformance Scores  86  Table 9  A N O V A for ITML Tonal Pre-test and Post-test Differences  87  Table 10  Cell Means and Standard Deviations by Factors for Tonal Achievement Scores  88  Table 11  A N O V A for ITML Rhythm Pre-test and Post-test Differences  88  Table 12  Cell Means & Standard Deviations by Factors for Rhythm Achievement Scores  89  Table 13  Interjudge Reliabilities on Performance Measures  100  Table 14  A N O V A for Tonal Performance Scores  101  Table 15  A N O V A for Rhythm Performance Scores  102  Table 16  A N O V A for Harmonic Performance Scores  103  Table 17  A N O V A for Melodic Performance Scores  104  Table 18  A N O V A for Composite Performance Scores  105  Table 19 .  A N O V A for ITML Tonal Pre-test and Post-test Mean Differences  106  Table 20  Cell Means & Standard Deviations by Factors for Tonal Achievement Scores  107  viii  Table 21  A N O V A for ITML Rhythm Pretest and Posttest Mean Differences  107  Table 22  Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Rhythm Achievement Scores  108  Table 23  Descriptive Statistics for Student Attitude, Frustration, and Enjoyment of Instructional Modality  338  List of Figures Figure 1  G Chord Pattern and Audio Representation  48  Figure 2  Tablature, Chord Chart, and Audio Representation  48  Figure 3  Multiple Representation  49  Figure 4  Tuner Routine  50  Figure 5  Link Menu  51  Figure 6  Tonal MAP Score Sample Distribution and Standardization Norms  109  Figure 7  Rhythm MAP Score Sample Distribution and Standardization Norms  110  Figure 8  Interactive Guitar Menu Screen  143  Figure 9  Interactive Guitar Menu Screen Print-version  156  Figure 10  Tonal Patterns  314  Figure 11  Rhythm Patterns  315  Figure 12  Rhythm Patterns  315  Figure 13  Harmony/Chords to "Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho"  316  Figure 14  Melody to "Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho"  317  Figure 15  Major Criterion Tonal Patterns  318  Figure 16  Rhythm Pattern Example  320  Figure 17  Rhythm Pattern Test Item  321  Figure 18  Rhythm Pattern Test Item  321  Figure 19  Harmony/Chords to "Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho" Test Item  322  Figure 20  Melody to "Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho" Test Item  323  1  Chapter One Introduction Learning music is one of the most exhilarating cognitive and physical activities for children and adults alike (Bowyer, 2000; Fiske, 1993; Gouzouasis, 1995; Reimer, 1989; Walker, 1990), vital to both the individual and his or her society (Berz & Bowman, 1995; Cawelti & Goldberg, 1997; Langer, 1974; Salzman, 1974; Walker, 1990). Music allows people to explore realms of individual expression, imagination and creation, and to celebrate and preserve their cultural heritages (National Association of Music Educators, 2001). Music cannot exist outside the culture that creates it (Swanick, 1998; Grout, 1972) and, historically, musical practices and traditions have grown out of the technology of sound production resources available to the members of particular cultural groups. As the technology emerged that gave rise (for example) to early xylophone tunings in Africa, the nineteenth century Calliope, the Brazilian Quica, the Chapman stick, the digital computer workstation, or the computer-generated musical environment, those developments influenced the creation of music, the performance of music, and the teaching of music in their respective societies (Dery, 1996; Longyear, 1969; Palisca, 1968; Salzman, 1974; Seay, 1965; Walker, 1990). In particular, the effects of technology on music learning are substantial (Estrella, 2000; Williams, 1997). The development and refinement of musical instruments (Grout 1972; Longyear, 1969; Salzman, 1974), the application of electronics (Casabona & Frederick, 1987), and the influence of computers have all had a dramatic effect on the development of instructional music learning technologies (Bowyer, 2000; Kulik & Kulik, 1987, 1991). Given this focus on the application of technology within the study of music, it is important to clarify the term technology; it is used extensively in varied and broad contexts. "Technology" is derived from the Greek word tekhne, which refers to an art or craft, and logia,  2  meaning an area of study; thus, technology means, literally, the study or science of crafting (Alt, 2000; BBCi, 2001). The American Heritage Dictionary (Davies, 1970) defines technology as the application of science. The Principia Cybernetica Project (Heylighen, 2001) suggests that technology has autocatalytic properties. It favors the use of technical devices and processes in solving social problems, including for example, the use of fertilizers rather than a different form of work organization to enhance agricultural production, or the use of computers rather than decentralized decision making processes for national planning. From that perspective, technology, therefore is defined as the systematic knowledge, and the methods and procedures that can be used in a specific area in order to resolve practical problems. These definitions suggest that technology can be viewed as a body of human knowledge passed along from one place to another and from one generation to the next and that it is a pervasive force within the psychological and epistemological foundations of our technologyfacilitated societies (Crook, 1994; Preece, Rogers, Sharp, Benyon, Holland, & Carey, 1994; Reimer, 1989; Topper & Zhao, 2000; Walker, 1990). Within this framework, the following definition of technology is used in the current research: Technology is the systematic knowledge, methods, and procedures by which human beings fashion ideas, methodologies, tools and machines to increase their understanding and control of their environment. Specifically as it applies to music learning, technology is the composite of instructional strategies, methods, tools, and machines used to enhance the musical teaching and learning process. The effects of technology on musical production have been evident for centuries (Grout, 1972). Technology has significandy affected the development of instruments and their related performance techniques (AMC, 2003; Denyer, 1982; Palisca, 1968; Rosen & Mladen, 1994). Technological development has dramatically enhanced the production of music extending the range of musical performance and augmenting instrumental and milieu-specific musical activities  3 (Reese, 1994; Salzman, 1974; Seay, 1965; Walker, 1984; Webster & Williams, 1997). For example, in an account contemporaneous with a musical festival held at the Pythian Games in 586 J3CE, both the lyre and the aulos were mentioned as independent solo instruments (Grout, 1972). By the ninth century C.E., the lyre was used along with the bowed vielle for extended accompaniment for both song and recitation (Seay, 1965). From a technical perspective, the sansa, a type of thumb piano from South America, the mbira of Africa, the 15* century harpsichord, the Cristofori piano of 1722, the Beauchamp/Rickenbacker electric guitar of 1931 and Chapman Stick, all allowed performers enhanced and invigorating musical experiences. Those experiences were based upon the technological advancement of the instrument and the development of related instrumental techniques (Abersold, 1984; Denyer, 1998; Salzman, 1974). As technological advancements have continued into the twenty-first century, the effects of computers and computer-enhanced instruments have further enhanced the musical milieu (National Association of Music Educators, 2001; Wilkinson, 1980). Computers allow students, performers and teachers to access extended arrays of sounds, to create sound sources, to develop musical sequences, to enhance performance capabilities, and to extend learning possibilities (Alesis, 1996; Casabona & Fredrick, 1987; Willard, 1992). With the evolution of increasingly technology-facilitated societies and the development of interactive computer technologies, musical activities have been transformed into technological composites of evolving musical expression (Bowyer, 2000; Hesser, 1990; Moore, 1992; Rounds-Stell, 1998; Weeks, 1987; Wille, 1982). Twentieth century society experienced unprecedented development within the field of technology-enhanced instruction (Bates, 1996; Salzman, 1979). Computer technology was used extensively to assist in the understanding of musical teaching and learning activities, and CAI was shown to assist in the development of the musical learning process (Bowyer, 2000; Forest,  4  1995; Gouzouasis, 1997; Heinich, Molenda, Russel, & Smaldino, 1996; Johnson, 1998; Morgan, Morgan & Hall, 2000; Williams, 1997). Academics in various educational contexts believe computer technology has dramatically affected the field of curriculum development and delivery (Gagne & Glasser, 1987; Harasim, Hiltz, Teles & Turoff, 1995; McCord, 1996; Newman & Lamning, 1995; Reese, 1994). Researchers within numerous disciplines (e.g., language learning, information technology, manufacturing, health care, construction, education and science) have embraced CAI learning environments (e.g., personal desk-top/CD-ROM, networked server-based and Internet-based delivery) and have noted significant pedagogical benefits within their learner populations (Bilan, 2000; Nicaise & Barnes, 1996; Preece, et. al, 1994; Sanford, 2000; Taylor & Cunniff, 1988; Worthington & Szabo, 1995). Further, multi-media technologies have been developed to create effective and interactive instructional applications that address human perception and cognition (e.g., sight, sound, and thought) and have been shown to assist learners in demonstrating positive performance of musical learning outcomes (Bellamy, 1997; Gouzouasis, 1994b, 1994c; Mobley, 1996; Rosen & Mladen, 1994). In the past 25 years, numerous studies have concluded that CAI — which involves the use of a computer as an instructional tool to manage and improve instruction — is effective in providing significant positive results in student performance (Alessi & Trollip, 1992, 2001; Hesse, 1995; Kulik & Kulik, 1987,1991; Lee & Owens, 2000; Weintraub, 1991; Willed & Netusil, 1989). There is an emerging consensus within the educational community that the integration of computer-based multi-media technologies within interactive instructional environments has the potential to positively affect student learning to a significant degree (Bates, 1996; Berz & Bowman, 1995; Boyle & Boyle, 1997; Dick, & Carey, 1985; Harrison, 1999; Johannsen, 2000; Kulik & Kulik, 1987,1991; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997; Upitis, 1983).  5  That concensus suggests that the integration of issues of student expectation, motivation, human computer interfaces, and applied instructional design/instructional technologies may have a substantial impact on individual learner outcomes (Briggs, Gustafson, & Tillman, 1991; Forest, 1994; Harasim, Hiltz, Teles & Turoff, 1995; Heinich, Molenda, Russel, & Smaldino, 1996; Newman & Lamming, 1995; Preece, etal, 1994; Romiszowski, 1986; Rothwell & Kazanas, 2003). Technological applications have combined both hardware capability and instructional methodologies to assist the learner in embracing the multi-faceted (perceptual and cognitive) aspects of the music learning process (Forest, 1995; Gouzouasis & Green, 2000). Various technologies — simulations, animations, MIDI — have been successfully integrated into contemporary music learning applications and are viewed as becoming effective within the field of music instruction (Berz & Bowman, 1995; Bowyer, 2001; Rounds-Stell, 1998). Further, through the integration of technology with instructional design methodologies — tools, techniques, theory and application — instructional designers readily create instructional environments capable of allowing learners to interact within dynamic, individualized, musically rich, effective and enjoyable learning environments (Gouzouasis, 1996a; Gouzouasis & Green, 2000; Heinich et al, 1993; Magee & Rabinowitz, 1996; Parrish, 1997; Soderberg & Hudson, 1995; Williams, 1997). The use of music-based instructional technologies — hardware and software — has led to the development of musically rich and sophisticated digital learning environments (Heese, 1995; Higgins, 1992b; Kerr, 1999). The development of musically rich learning environments has been facilitated by the application of specific digital technologies (e.g., digital audio and audio/visual hardware and software, the standardization of the musical instrument digital interface protocol, multimedia encapsulation protocols — plug-ins for web browsers and on-line distribution engines — digital sound production and manipulation software, high speed  6  processors and buses). Further, interactive application development (which includes components that allow for the musical enhancement of the learning and performance environment achieved through the incorporation of interactive MIDI devices, samplers, digital effects, sound effect and manipulation devices, and digital delays/parametric equalizers) has had significant positive effects on student music learning (Heese, 1995; Higgins, 1992a). The effects of those instructional technologies have led to the development of eclectic computer-based musical learning environments (Gouzouasis & Green, 2000) that have the potential to address a variety of learner requirements and related learning issues (Bowyer 2000). Given the variety of music activities available to the contemporary music student (e.g., performance and composition through computer-based software) and the varied instructional and performance milieus accessible, computer technologies have provided educators with conceptual platforms for the creation of effective instructional interactive learning environments (Iazzetta, 1996). Historically, different characteristics of musical activity have been emphasized pedagogically given the specifics of the instructional or performance-based activities (e.g., listening, ensemble performance, solo performance, composing, improvisation), each activity elicits varying degrees of music interaction (Orman, 1998). Further, the music interaction changes with the specific instructional or performance-based milieu, and whether the interactive agents (e.g., participants and or technologies with the capacity to interact within an environment by responding to various stimuli), are live, or are composed of a combination of human/computer interaction (Nardi, 1997). Examples of musical interactions, demonstrated by human-to-human interaction (e.g., a jazz quartet, a concert band or string ensemble), human with computer interaction (e.g., human interfaced with computer-based MIDI synthesizers), and interactive human computer interaction (e.g., human interaction within a computer-based electronic environment) exemplify both universal and situation specific musical characteristics,  7  abilities, and skills (Gouzouasis & Green, 2000). Those musical characteristics, abilities and skills are clearly identifiable and are openly demonstrated within differing musical environments (Argersinger, 1993; Rounds-Stell, 1998). Berz and Bowman (1995) suggest that research is not ahead of practice and that music researchers should participate in developing new technologies rather than conducting research on the pedagogical effects of existing technologies. Research in computer technology has typically followed a logical pattern of development, adaptation, feasibility, and effectiveness studies (Bowyer, 2000). Moreover, there have been many more development and feasibility studies than effectiveness studies. Subsequendy, there is a substantially larger body of descriptive research than effectiveness research examining the impact of those technologies on learning and the learning process (Berz & Bowman, 1995; Malave, 1990). As an example, Bowyer (2000) identifies five categories of music-based technology application development, ranging from drill and practice applications, through to interactive multimedia simulations, and suggests that in all categories there is a substantial lack of research into the application and effectiveness of those technologies. Achieving new insights into computer-assisted music instruction is problematic (Berz & Bowman, 1994; Bowyer, 2000; Walls, 1997). Currendy, there is no clear understanding of the manner and nature in which students can be motivated to learn to play musical instruments within a computer-assisted instructional learning environment (Berz & Bowman, 1995; Orman, 1998; Weeks, 1988). Therefore, it is important to investigate computer-assisted music learning technologies (e.g., instructional methodologies, learner support techniques and efficient  8  hardware and software) to aid in the development of effective learner-centered music 1  instruction. The literature on music CAI does not adequately delineate the effectiveness of instructional methodologies on instrumental performance skills (Berz & Bowman, 1995; Bowyer, 2000; Webster, 2002). Specifically, there have been no effectiveness studies that have adequately addressed computer-assisted instruction on guitar performance skills (Gouzouasis & Green, 2000). Given the capabilities of enhanced instructional technologies and the lack of research regarding technology implementation within specific musical contexts (e.g., guitar performance), there is a need to explore the role of interactive instructional learning technologies within music instruction (Bowyer, 2000; Orman, 1998; Rounds-Stell, 1998). The potential to integrate computer-based media-rich environments enhanced by interactive instructional strategies into music instruction gives rise to an opportunity to explore novel music learning methodologies applicable to the school-based music-learning environment (Hesse 1995; Higgins, 1992b). Instructional designers and music educators have the opportunity to integrate content and technology to create an effective musical context with which to assist and enhance the learning environment (Deal & Taylor, 1997; Gagne & Glaser, 1987; Gouzouasis, 1996b, Romiszowski, 1986). Therefore, given effective technology integration (content, context, and methodology) within the application of computer-based instrumental music instruction, media-based instructional methodologies can be used to enhance musical  Learner centered refers to instructional environments that pay careful attention to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that learners bring to the educational setting. Learnercentered environments include teachers who are aware that learners construct their own meanings, beginning with the beliefs, understandings, and cultural practices they bring to the learning environment. 1  9  achievement within contemporary school-based music programs (Doucette, 1994; Fortney, 1995; Meyer, 1997). Although other music education researchers have developed methodologies to assess CAI applications with wind instruments, keyboard instruments, and in music reading and music theory contexts, there has been no previous work that has assessed theory-based computer-assisted guitar instructional methodologies within a school-music setting. Further, given the proliferation in recent years of on-line instructional materials, many authors (Bradshaw, 2002; Gouzouasis & Green, 2000; Griswold, 1994; Hacket, 2001; McAdams & Nelson, 1995; Schneider, 2002; Starlin, 2001) have created media-enhanced presentations of lessons and learning aides that have presented routines and exercises for developing performance skills and executive techniques. None, however, has presented theory-based computer-assisted guitar instructional methodologies, in spite of the recent proliferation of online guitar tutorials (Bowyer, 2000; Williams, 1992; Williams, 1995; Williams & Webster, 1999). Therefore, to address this void in the literature, the purpose of this study was to investigate the application of computer-assisted theory-based music instruction within a guitarfocused instructional application and to examine traditional classroom pedagogy and CAI learning environments and instructional methodologies in order to describe both the practical and conceptual issues that are unique to guitar instruction. This study investigated participants' musical aptitude, guitar performance ability, musical achievement, and the potential for addressing these criteria within a traditional and computer-assisted guitar-learning environment. The following questions were formulated to guide the researcher: 1. determine the comparative effects of two types of instruction on guitar tonal, rhythm, harmonic and melodic performance skills of eighth grade students who  10  possess higher or lower audiation abilities. 2  2.  determine the comparative effects of two types of instruction on general music achievement of eighth grade students who possess higher or lower audiation abilities.  2  Audiation is the ability to conceptualize music without the physical presence of the sound.  11  Chapter Two Review of the Literature Introduction This chapter is divided into two sections. Section onefocuseson the identification and analysis of curriculum issues and practices currently found in music instruction. It examines the underlying philosophy and theory of this study and outlines specific relationships within current music learning theory and practice. Section two presents an examination and analysis of musicrelated technology applications and accompanying instructional methods and techniques. Section two also serves as a foundation on which to situate this study within the field of music and technology-based education. To access the existing literature, an Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) search was undertaken using the current Index to Journals in Education (CIJE) and Resources in Education (RIE). The UMI Dissertation abstracts were consulted and an extensive World Wide Web (WWW) search was done of both academic and commercial web sites. Curriculum Issues For centuries, historians and philosophers have deemed music production and music education as important for both the individual and for the perpetuation of the world's cultures (Berz & Bowman, 1995; Cawelti & Goldberg, 1997; Langer, 1974; Salzman, 1974; Walker, 1990). Music allows individuals to celebrate and preserve their cultural heritages and to explore realms of expression, imagination and creation (National Association of Music Educators, 2001). Every individual, therefore, should be guaranteed the opportunity to learn to make music and to share in musical experiences (Gordon, 1989a, 1989b, 1993; International Society for Music Education, 2001; National Association of Music Educators, 2001). Aristotle declared that all children should be taught music in such a way that they become performers and consequendy more critical  12 listeners (Shehan 1986). Kodaly (cited in Choksy, 1999) viewed music as basic to human education, stressed that it is the right of every individual to be taught the basic elements of music, and recommended that music should be given a prominent place in the school curriculum alongside other disciplines such as science and mathematics. Contemporary music educators agree with these assertions (Jordon-Decarbo, 1986; Sinor, 1986; Webster, 2002). The International Society for Music Education (ISME) states that all learners, at all levels of development/skill, should have access to a balanced, comprehensive, and progressive program of music education facilitated by effective music educators (ISME, 2002). ISME stresses that all learners should have the opportunity to grow in musical knowledge, skill, and appreciation so as to challenge their minds, stimulate their imaginations, bring joy and satisfaction to their lives, and exalt their spirits. The organization fosters the vision that all learners should receive the finest possible music education and should have equal opportunity to pursue music. ISME further stresses that the quality and quantity of musical education should not depend upon geographical location, social status, racial or ethnic identity, urban/suburban/rural habitat, or wealth, and that all learners — those with disabilities and those with exceptional aptitude — should have the opportunity to develop their musical abilities to the fullest through education that is responsive to their individual needs. The Canadian Music Education Association (CMEA, 2001) outlines in its organizational goals that "it is mandatory to encourage and guide the development and delivery of quality music education programs within a balanced curriculum making it necessary to encourage the confident and competent teaching of music through the awakening and nurturing of the creative spirit." In the view of these individuals and organizations, it is the right of all persons to experience a comprehensive progressive program of music education. It is with the aforementioned considerations and with the underlying goal of adding to the wealth of thought  13  and theory within computer-based music instruction that this research was undertaken. Theoretical Underpinnings While the music research community encompasses a variety of research ideologies (Berz & Bowman, 1995; Deihl, 1972; Deihl & Zeigler, 1972; Fiske, 1993; Forman & Twomey-Fosnot, 1982; Gordon, 1986; Hofstetter, 1976; Hunnex, 1986; Rounds-Stell, 1998; Sidnell, 1973; Walker, 1984), recurring conceptual notions and themes are apparent. Research approaches vary in epistemology, ontology, and methodology, and often exemplify extremes in both philosophy and design; however, many music researchers have seen music education as a humanistic, organismic, and contextualistic discipline (Gouzouasis, 1992, 1996a; Langer, 1974). An organismic model considers both perception and conception as paramount to the acquisition of knowledge (Overton, 1973, 1984; Overton & Reese, 1981). Within the musical organismic model both aural perception and audiation are interactive partners within the music learning process (Gouzouasis, 1994 p. 22). Given that music cognition, as Gouzouasis suggests, is a function of both conception and perception, the organicist views learning as a product of thinking (audiation) and sensing (aural perception). While perception is paramount for the organicist in the field of music, perception only partially explains the music learning process and must be linked with conceptualization. The organicist's view that perception underlies our basic awareness, experience, and interpretation of the world (Hardwick, 2001), adheres to the sensory theory of perception that suggests that a perceptual property is an experience which corresponds to a particular relation between an organismic state and stimuli from an object (Werner, 1957). For organicist researchers, music learning is a complex endeavor incorporating concepts, precepts, and physical interaction into the learning process (Gouzouasis 8c Lee, 1998). Humans beings learn to coordinate listening (perception), audiation (conception), and physical interaction (e.g., vocal production — breathing, diaphragm, and vocal chords; instrumental production —  14  finger placement, embouchure, breathing; electronic music production — programming technique, technology manipulation, and performance techniques) to participate in and to produce music (Gouzouasis, 1992, Snell, 1999). Musical Approaches and Instructional Practices Music educators have a long tradition of adopting artistic ideas and incorporating them into personal practices (Peters, 1974,1975,1984,1992,1997; Williams, 1975; Williams, 1995; Williams, 1989; Williams & Beasley, 1976). In North America, music educators have adapted instructional methodologies from around the world to enhance music education practice (Walker, 1990; Woody & Fredrickson, 2000). Presuming that the key to effective instruction and consequent musicianship — at all levels — is the complete involvement of the learner in the music making process, educators throughout history have endeavored to develop methods and strategies with which to assist and increase the learner's participation in the learning process (Ashley, 1989; Jordon-DeCarbo, 1986; Shehan, 1986). Johann Pestalozzi, James Mursell, Jeromme Brunner, Jean Piaget and Robert Gagne have identified successful methods of learning that have had significant effects on the development of music-based learning theory and methods (Jordon-DeCarbo, 1986; Shehan, 1996; Sinor, 1986; Turpin, 1986). Music educators, following the lead of such theorists, have attempted to meet the objective of assisting students to becoming musically sensitive and literate by adopting eclectic and comprehensive approaches (Alexander, 1999; Arnett, 1996; Bowyer, 2001). These eclectic approaches, however, have led to the confusion of subject content with technique and an on-going struggle for balance between rote and note learning Qordon-Decarbo, 1986). Specific instructional approaches have been identified as paramount and are acknowledged within the literature as having a pronounced influence within the field of music education (Gordon, 1989b; Reimer, 1989; Sidnell, 1973; Swanwick, 1988). These approaches  15  include the Dalcroze method from Switzerland, the Orff Schulwerk method from Germany, the Kodaly concept of music education from Hungary, the Suzuki method from Japan, and Gordon's Music Learning Theory which has been used extensively within the United States and Canada. These methods, while differing from each other in style, technique, and theory, have produced impressive results with students and educators throughout the world (Hoffer, 1993). Dalcroze Method Developed by Emile Jacques-Dalcroze in 1892, the Dalcroze method comprises three areas of study: 1. Solfege, to develop an acute ear for sound; 2.  Improvisation, to develop the capacity for free invention; and  3. Eurhythmies, to give the student a feeling of musical rhythm by means of body movement (Dalcroze Society of America, 2002). The approach is based upon a synthesis of theoretical knowledge and applied skills. Within the method, musical elements are encountered in numerous successive and concurrent experiences that lead to genuine understanding and skill. The approach pays particular attention to instructional sequence, and is especially concerned that instrumental study should not precede ear training and rhythmic movement. Important to the method is its stress on the feelings of students as they respond to music and on the channeling of those feelings into expression (Dalcroze Society of America, 2002; Johnson, 1993). Suzuki Method The Suzuki talent education method was developed by Shinichi Suzuki, beginning in 1946 with the establishment of the Matsumoto Music School in Shimoyokota, Matsumoto (Talent Education Research Institute, 2001). Suzuki's intention was to develop very high levels of musical achievement in all people,  16 based on the talent that he believed was innate in every human being. Suzuki believed that the ability to express that talent was a product of one's upbringing. Characteristics of the method as identified by P.K. Shehan (1986), D. Turpin (1986), and by the Suzuki Talent Education Research Institute (2001) are: 1. The method is predominancy instrumental; 2. Instruction is begun with very young children, e.g. three years of age, with instruments specially sized to fit the student; 3. The method of learning is rote imitation; the student hears and then attempts to play (playing high quality recorded music for children is emphasized from the crib to the concert stage); 4. The method is based on language learning principles; 5. All music that the student performs is memorized; 6. All music learned by students is learned thoroughly; 7. A parent attends the lesson and learns the instrument acting as guide and coach; 8. Lessons are private and short; younger students have shorter lessons than older ones; 9. All students, regardless of ability, learn the same sequence of music; 10. Techniques are derived from the music performed; 11. Music is selected and taught sequentially in levels of difficulty; 12. Cooperation (not competition) is fostered among students. The Suzuki method has received a great deal of praise from students, parents and educators alike. However, the method, while being quite influential, is based upon a one-on-one teaching model, and may not be applicable in most school situations. The Koddly Method The major goal of Kodaly's system of education is to provide skills in reading and writing music to an entire population. The method is premised on the belief that fundamental  17  knowledge of music is accessible to everyone, not just the talented few. Kodaly advocated that the individual child should re-enact the musical development of his/her race, from primitive musical responses to a highly developed level of musicianship. A child's musical education should begin as early as possible, when people are most receptive (Kodaly Music Institute of Australia, 2002). The development of both a musical ear and ctiscrirnmating musical taste will be enhanced if children receive the best possible instruction between the ages of three and seven. Kodaly's method consists of a carefully planned and systematically developed sequence of musical concepts and experiences. Rhythmic and melodic concepts, key signatures, meter signatures, and other theoretical symbols are integrated into the study plan at carefully predetermined points. Characteristics of the Kodaly method are: 1. The use of John Curwen's hand signs and the use of solfege, movable do; 2.  Syllable names and functions are introduced in a definite order that is strictly followed starting with a descending minor third or "sol - me"; additional intervals are introduced one at atime:la — sol - me, la - sol - me - do, la — sol - me - re - do, etc.  3. Patterns and motives derived from the students' repertoire are learned and practiced, and pentatonic patterns are emphasized; 4.  Rhythm patterns are derived from the students' repertoire and are taught visually by a vertical line signifying a quarter note, a pair of vertical lines joined by a brace signifying eighth notes; verbally "td" and "ti tf' are used respectively;  5. The program is mainly vocal and is taught through singing; 6.  Emphasis is placed on the development of "pitch" and the ability to "hear" in the mind;  7. Emphasis is placed on "folk" music as well as music of high-quality; no commercial music is found within the program. The Kodaly method has been very successful within the school music setting and has received a great deal of support from both academics and practitioners alike (Bacon, 1969; Gaylor, 1979; Chosky, 1969, 1999).  18  Orff Schulwerk Method The central idea of the Orff Schulwerk approach is that music, movement, and speech are inseparable and they form a unity called "elemental education" (Landis, 1972). Orff used the term elemental to mean both primal and rudimentary, and to refer to personal expression made naturally through music. Orff suggested that children's musical development roughly corresponds with the development of western music (Hoffer, 1993). According to this view, rhythm precedes melody, melody precedes harmony, and so forth, and historical development of music should be traced within the method of a child's musical education. This approach stipulates that instruction should begin with the simplest of concepts and songs, and should progress gradually through a cumulative sequence of learning experiences. Emphasis is placed upon rhythm as the strongest element of music, and the approach focuses on the development of specific musical skills: hearing, recognizing, and singing prescribed melodic intervals, and recognizing and playing prescribed rhythms. Within the method, creativity is of utmost importance with provisions for several kinds of original work. Students choose to invent rhythmic and melodic fragments and use them to create accompaniment figures, introductions, and codas (Landis, 1972). Additional characteristics of the method are: 1. Pentatonic mode used throughout initial training; 2.  Ostinato patterns and borduns created by the students are used within the model pieces;  3. Music literature reflects strong cultural perspectives; 4. Distinctive Orff instruments are used; 5. Use of speech rhythms are important elements of the method; 6.  Meter and accent are identified as integral components of "speech patterns";  7. Singing experiences follow speech pattern work; 8. Singing begins with short phrases often in a call - response format;  19  9. Thefirstinterval learned is the descending minor third, sol - mi, with remaining syllables taught in sequence; 10. Rhythmic movement is a focus with the natural untrained actions of children as the basis; 11. Emphasis is placed on playing from memory; 12. The main emphasis of the method is placed on improvisation. Music Learning Theory Gordon's Music Learning Theory can be seen as an extension of the Pestalozzian approach to pedagogy and it is related to the pedagogical approaches of Manson, Dalcroze, Kodaly, and Orff. Gordon's work is a comprehensive model of skill development founded on the principle of'audiation' (BeaU, 1999; Byrd, 1989,1991; Gordon, 1965,1970,1971, 1977; Grunow, 1992; Stokes, 1996). Audiation is the ability to conceptualize music without the physical presence of the sound or, as Gordon himself describes it, "audiation takes place when one hears and comprehends music silentiy, that is, when the sound of the music is not physically present" (1989, p. 7). He stresses that it is neither imitation nor memorization. Gordon's theory of music learning is primarily concerned with how students learn music, and it is based upon students' innate musical potential. It sets out to "provide students with music understanding through audiation so that they can learn to perform and to respond aesthetically, and to use symbolic representations of their own and others' aesthetic feelings to the extent that their musical aptitude will allow" (Gordon, 1989b, p. 21). According to Gordon, the most important aspect of music learning is the ability to audiate; without it we are unable to organize logically and comprehend music (Gordon, 1979, 1980,1989b; Gouzouasis, 1994a). Therefore, an understanding of how people audiate is an important guide to music learning and music literacy. Because of the relationship between music aptitude, which is the innate musical ability referred to as audiation, and music achievement, which is described as learned musical  20  skills, success with music learning is influenced to a significant degree by an individual's level of audiation potential (Gouzouasis, 1994a). Gordon and his adherents believe that the younger the age at which a child's musical aptitude is measured and then subsequentiy followed by appropriate musical instruction, the more he or she will be able to achieve in music (Dalby, 1999; Froseth, 1968; Gordon, 1968, 1986; 1991a, 1992, 1993; Gouzouasis, 1991; Schleuter, 1984, Williams, 1972; Woodford, 1996). Gordon (1986, 1991b, 1991c, 1992) has noted that musicians' and educators' capabilities are influenced to a great extent by musical aptitude. As Gordon (1971) also stated "the general purpose of music education is to teach for musical understanding. That is, to help students conceptualize the elements of music so that they may intelligendy decide for themselves how music can best satisfy their needs" (p. 60). Gordon explains that, with specific knowledge of a student's music aptitudes, teachers and parents can teach with precision to the student's individual musical differences and therefore increase the student's level of musical achievement. His theory stresses the necessity of a comprehensive, objective appreciation consisting of a number of sequential objectives; these sequential objectives become the method. In Gordon's view, method refers to why we teach what we teach when we teach it. He clearly differentiates method from technique stressing that technique refers to how we teach. According to Gordon (1989b), Music Learning Theory is "the combining of past knowledge about sequential music learning and music aptitudes with current knowledge about audiation" (p. 20). It is the structuring of a logical order of sequential objectives that include the music skills and content that students need to learn to achieve the comprehensive objective of music understanding (Brink, 1992; Colwell, 1992; McDonald, 1991; Rutkowski, 1990; Saunders, 1991). These sequential objectives are formulated in terms of skill learning sequences, tonal content learning sequences which include tonal pattern learning, and rhythmic content learning  21  sequences which include rhythm pattern learning sequences. It is then that skill learning sequences are used in conjunction with either tonal content learning sequences or rhythm content learning sequence. Gordon (1993) suggests that it is paramount to situate music learning within an overall educational context, and create complete and realistic music learning experiences. Therefore, learning sequence activities must be coordinated with classroom and performance activities to achieve effective music learning outcomes. As a result, the goal of music learning theory is to teach students how to audiate music that they are hearing, music that they have heard, and music that they will hear so that they may better learn and perform music (Gouzouasis, 1990). Music Learning Theory offers a specific prescriptive structure and identifies the sequential relationship in which humans learn music (Gordon, 1993). A useful comparison to "learning sequence" in music learning may be drawn to the process by which humans acquire language facility as children (Farber, 1991; Taggart & Gouzouasis, 1995). Gordon suggests that learning to read and comprehend languages has many corollaries to learning to comprehend music (Schleuter, 1984). His approach addresses music learning readiness and designates particular levels of achievement necessary for one to proceed to the next level. Music learning in Gordon's view can be divided into two general types: discrimination  3  and inference learning. Discrimination learning is fundamental and is the readiness for inference 4  learning. The two types of learning take place concurrendy, with rote learning accentuated at the discrimination level of learning, and conceptual learning accentuated at the inference level of  In discrimination learning, students are taught skills, content, and patterns by rote. Discrimination learning is the readiness for inferential learning (Gordon, 1989b). 3  In inference learning, students are guided by the teacher to learn skills, content, and patterns by teaching themselves. Students are not taught by rote in inference learning (Gordon, 1989b).  4  22  learning. According to Gordon, it is through Music Learning Theory that students learn how to learn what they learn at the discrimination level, but only how to learn at the inference level. Therefore, students use information derived from the senses when they make dlscrirninations and then teach themselves how to make inferences (Gordon, 1989). Discrimination is more complex than sensation, and sensation is more complex than perception (Gordon, 1989). Given that audiation is the basis of music learning theory and is more complex than ckscrimination, Gordon states that "we learn to audiate and to give meaning to music in terms of tonal patterns and rhythm patterns as they relate to tonalities and meters" (p. 36). He emphasizes that if we can audiate patterns, tonalities, and meters, we can discriminate among patterns, tonalities, and meters. Inference learning carries this one step further, using both familiar and unfamiliar tonality or meter. Audiation in inference learning, therefore, is a more complex activity than audiation in discrimination learning where only familiar patterns are audiated. Audiation, therefore, is an integral component to learning at the discrimination and inference levels. To clarify, discrimination and inference learning are divided hierarchically into levels and subparts. As can be seen in Table 1 (on p. 23), the most elementary levels are identified at the top, and the most elementary sublevels are identified from left to right as complexity increases.  5  Gordon (1989b) identifies that "after each level or subpart of a level of learning is achieved in the learning sequence, it becomes combined with and interacts with the next higher level or subpart of a level of learning in the learning sequence hierarchy" (p. 37). Gordon stresses that just as inference learning subsumes cuscrimination learning, every level of learning incorporates all the lower levels and every subpart of a level of learning incorporates all lower  A comprehensive discussion of discrimination and inference learning is presented in Gordon's Learning Sequences in Music (1989b). 5  23  subparts of that level of learning. Table 1 Discrimination and Inference Learning Hierarchy DISCRIMINATION L E A R N I N G  INFERENCE LEARNING  Aural/oral  Generalization  Verbal Association  Aural/oral  Verbal  Partial Synthesis  Reading  Symbolic Association Reading  Writing  Writing  Creativity / Improvisation Aural/Oral  Symbolic  Composite Synthesis Reading  Symbolic  Reading  Writing  Theoretical Understanding  Writing Aural/oral  Verbal  Symbolic Reading  Writing  Gordon (1989b) identifies that "after each level or subpart of a level of learning is achieved in the learning sequence, it becomes combined with and interacts with the next higher level or subpart o f a level o f learning in the learning sequence hierarchy" (p. 37). Gordon stresses that just as inference learning subsumes Discrimination learning, every level o f learning incorporates all the lower levels and every subpart of a level of learning incorporates all lower subparts o f that level of learning. Gordon (1989b) also stresses that learning sequence is paramount to Music Learning Theory and that when students are exposed appropriately to inference learning after proper chscrimination learning has been solidified, "students learn to make their own choices about the music that they will audiate and to depend upon themselves when they audiate, perform, create,  24  and improvise music as well as when they read and write music" (pp. 78-79). This audiation is the basis of Music Learning Theory and is fundamental to music achievement. Gordon's approach, therefore, relies heavily on audiation and on an individual's musical aptitude. He stresses that aptitude is a measure of a student's potential to learn music and is key to music achievement. To effectively assess that potential, Gordon developed a quantitative method of testing for musical aptitude. His Musical Aptitude Profile, first published in 1965, and his Intermediate Measures ofMusic Audiation, a developmental music aptitude account, have two primary purposes: 1.  to identify musically talented students who can profit most from instruction and contribute most to school musical activities; and  2.  to diagnose an individual student's specific musical strengths and weaknesses. For Gordon, the purpose of Music Learning Theory and of music education is to  provide students with music understanding through audiation so that they can learn to perform and to respond aesthetically, and to use symbolic representation of their and others' aesthetic feelings to the extent that their musical aptitudes will allow. Music Learning Theories, Practice, and Technology Relationships The curricular approaches of Dalcroze, Suzuki, Orff, Kodaly, and Gordon have had a marked impact on the traditions and technologies of music education, from elementary and secondary levels through to university music instruction, and additionally in the extra-curricular milieu. However, in spite of some aspects of instruction that would lend themselves to computer-assisted music education delivery (i.e., drill and practice applications), there has been Utile attempt to adapt these methods to technologically-based instruction (Baker, 2000). While certain instructional practices have been adapted for computer-assisted delivery, very few software applications could be identified that encompassed the entire curricular approach and underlying theory of any of these influential schools of music education.  25  Bowyer (2000) and Webster (2002) have provided comprehensive models for the categorization of software tides and have allowed for methodological and theoretical identification by both approach and type. In using Webster's and Bowyer's categorization scheme to assist in the identification of methodological and theoretical underpinnings, it is important to emphasize that any significant influence of Suzuki, Orff, Kodaly or Gordon's work is lacking. For example, Suzuki music instruction techniques resemble those identified within Bowyer's "Drill and Practice" category. However, Bowyer was unable to find any instrumental instructional software that fully operationalized the Suzuki method (Bowyer, 2000). In addition, Webster and Bowyer both noted that the Kodaly method paralleled several approaches used within the identified instructional software packages, but while the software made use of drill and practice and guided instruction methods, it did not strictly adhere to traditional Kodaly instructional methods. It was difficult, therefore, to attribute the success of the identified software packages to their adherence to the Kodaly theoretical foundation, despite the claims of the software publishers. Several examples of Orff methodology were represented in the categories of drill and practice, guided instruction, and exploratory techniques. However, as was the case with the "Kodaly related" CAI, the "Orff related" software did not strictly adhere to Orff theory, methodology, or to the Orff instrumental concept. It was difficult, therefore, to ascertain if any software packages identified adhered to Orff's theoretical base. The Dalcroze approach did not appear to be used as a theoretical basis or as an instructional methodology within any music learning software titles (Bowyer 2000). Gordon's approach has been somewhat more successful in making a transition to computer-assisted instruction (Gouzouasis & Green, 2000). Based on Gordon's Music Learning Theory and Gouzouasis's doctoral dissertation (1990), Peter Gouzouasis created The Interactive  26  Guitar (Gouzouasis, 1996b), a guided instruction software application for learning to play the guitar. The methodology is grounded in Music Learning technique and theory, and it adheres to the sequential learning objectives methodology identified by both Gordon and Gouzouasis (Gordon, 1989b; Gouzouasis, 1996b; Gouzouasis & Green, 2000). Contemporary music educators (Bowyer, 2000; Gouzouasis, 1997; Gouzouasis & Green 2000; Swanwick, 1994; Walker, 1990; Walls, 1997; Webster, 2002; Williams, 1997) have embraced the idea that the development of music education practices is dependent on the adoption of available technical resources. These educators suggest that a thorough understanding of resources and their related processes and attributes is paramount to the continued development of music education within a school-based music learning environment. The materials (conceptual and syntactical) of music undergo substantial changes in function and presentation according to the technology associated with music instruction and production (Brown, 1994, 1999). The adoption of "Orff' instruments, school band instruments, the electric guitar, and the synthesizer has created unique classroom musical cultures. The influences of technology are exemplified in the following four areas. 1.  The extension of existing instrumental resources. The development of electric instruments (keyboards and electric basses) and digital micro-computer technologies (digital instruments, arranging, sequencing, digital effects, and processors etc.) has brought into the classroom the range of musical possibilities once found only in the recording studio and the concert hall. Electronic music equipment has extended the array of musical resources giving the music student access to instant accompaniments, new tonal and timbral effects, and a myriad of sound combinations controllable in and out of real time.  2. Musical composition hardware and software tools. These tools have assisted students in creating and performing music never before imagined. The technology has allowed both trained  27  and untrained performers access to sophisticated musical sound and performance possibilities. 3.  Computer-based instruction. A musical learning approach which has been described as an extension of "programmed instruction" and has been viewed as a potentially effective tool for independent guided-learning instruction.  4.  The Internet and the World Wide Web. Access to both information and distributed applications has had significant influence on learner awareness of music learning methods and techniques, on the availability of music itself, and upon access to digital audio and graphic representation of written music. Further, these technologies have been extremely successful in the presentation and delivery of the previously identified technologies. The development of digital delivery technologies (audio and audio/visual), the  standardization of the musical instrument digital interface (MIDI) protocol, the development of the audio plug-ins for the World Wide Web, and the vast improvements in computer audio co6  processor capabilities (digital sound production/manipulation and recording capabilities) have merged to create a music instructional milieu capable of assisting the learner in developing an individualized instructional environment (Bowyer, 2000; Heinich, et, al. 1993; Magee & Rabinowitz, 1996; Worthington & Szabo, 1995; Woodrow, 2000). These technologies allow the individual student to embrace the multi-conceptual experiences of the music learning process  A plug-in is an additional software application that enhances the capabilities of and existing "larger order" software application. The plug-in will expand audio, visual, presentation, and interoperability as an additional feature of the application. There are graphic rendering plug-ins available for Adobe PhotoShop, audio plug-ins for MacroMedia Director, Authorware and Flash, and World Wide Web (WWW) browser Plug-ins for presentation of multimedia and simulation executablefiles(i.e., Shockwave, Flash, Coldfusion, etc.). 6  28  (Forest, 1995; Gouzouasis & Green, 2000; Strommen, 19.99). Given the attributes o f these technologies and the wealth of knowledge and experience gained by their proponents, it is now possible to design instructional modalities that take advantage of the operational and instructional characteristics o f these various distributive technologies (Pearlman, 1993; Webster, 2002). These instructional modalities, while taking into consideration content-specific requirements, must address not only the constraints and the multi-dimensional instructional attributes of these technologies, but must incorporate sound musical learning theory within the design of the instructional materials (Fiske, 1996; Gouzouasis, 1991; Reese, 1994; Reese & Davis, 1998; Walls, 1997). Technology as a Tool Researchers have applied various instructional methodologies to an array o f educational environments — traditional and electronic — with the intent of enhancing musical instruction (Beckstead, 1996; Bodley, 2000; Clark, 1985; Dalby, 1992; Dunnigan, 1993; Ester, 1995,1997; Hawisher & Selfe, 1996; Hlynka & Belland, 1991; Lee, 1999; Lipscomb, 1999; W o o d & Clements, 1985). The development of multimedia based, multi-dimensional instructional methodologies has lead to the consideration o f both the needs of music students and the requirements of effective instructional learning environments (Bowyer, 2000; Fortney, 1995; Gilstrap, 1997; Goddard, 1999; Gouzouasis & Green, 1997; Houle, 1996; Rounds-Stell, 1998;). The design and application of interactive, multi-representational computer environments have provided rich educational resources to support music education (Benson & Michael, 1987; Ely, 1992; Ortner, 1990; Peters, 1974; Stevens, 2001). Studies pertaining to the design, development, and implementation of computer-assisted music instruction contribute to the ever-growing enthusiasm toward music teaching and learning in the classroom (Hullfish, 1972; Malave, 1990; Parrish, 1997; Peters, 1974, 1984,1992; Peters &  29  Eddins, 1981; Reitenour, 1985; Stevens, 1992; Stitt, 1993; Weeks, 1987; Willman, 1992). Bowyer's Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) category (2001) identifies the development of C A I practices from 1967 to 2001. Bowyer suggests that the development of computer-assisted instruction has been driven largely by advances in computer hardware development and identifies the historic generational progression o f computer-assisted instruction. H e categorizes C A I music software into the following five generations: 1. The earliest examples of C A I (1967 and 1975) were created for university mainframe computers and were primarily drill-and-practice type programs for teaching music theory and ear training. These applications were developed and housed at large researchoriented institutions including the University of Illinois, Stanford University, Pennsylvania State University, the University o f Delaware, and Florida State University. 2. The introduction of microcomputers in 1978 gave rise to the second generation of music C A I . These early machines often utilized proprietary music keyboards and played through add-on sound cards that provided four or more voices o f digital sound. Bowyer identifies more than 500 second-generation software music programs/titles that have been developed since 1978. 3. The third generation o f C A I music software began in 1981 with the introduction of 16bit computers and the definition o f the Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) standard. This standard has had a significant impact on music learning — both creation and performance — and has allowed computers and music synthesizers to communicate with each other using a standardized communication language, which has been integral to many C A I applications. Bowyer reports that more than 50 MIDI-enabled music C A I programs were developed between 1984 and 1992.  30  4. The development of interactive multimedia software delivery systems was the major factor influencing the development of fourth generation C A I music software. These systems — including compact disk drives ( C D - R O M ) , larger hard disks, high sound quality, enhanced graphics capabilities, and faster processors — enabled the emergence of four new types of music C A I i n addition to the original Drill-and-Practice type. These are: guided instruction, games, exploratory instruction, and creative instruction. 5. The development of the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW) has lead Bowyer to suggest that the future o f music C A I is on-line. Bowyer reports that while the Internet has often been exploratory in nature there are now numerous musical examples of Drilland-Practice, guided instruction, and game-based C A I programs on-line. Bowyer concluded that there are distinct advantages to music learning effectiveness with the application o f C A I . He identifies the following nine advantages to using C A I music applications within music learning contexts (2001): 1. Reinforcement o f the relationship between seeing and hearing music (simultaneous presentation o f visual and aural representation of intervals, melody, rhythm, or chords); 2.  Individualization of instruction;  3.  Instant feedback and immediate positive reinforcement;  4. Objectivity; 5. Randomized drill sequences and test questions; 6.  Customized levels o f difficulty;  7. Accurate record keeping; 8.  Increased student motivation; and  9. Minimized student anxiety due to less peer-to-peer competition. In spite o f the advantages of C A I , it is important to note that C A I is a tool and is not  31  unlike contemporary instrument technology. Instrumental instructional technology is both a tool and method and is not an end in itself (Bilan, 1997; Herrington & Oliver, 1999; Swanwick, 1994). For example, many individuals have experienced Hstening to a stereo and focusing on the sound production o f the technology rather than on the music being presented. Similarly, performers have focused on the responsiveness o f an instrument, or in the case of a contemporary electronic musician, the "feel" or attitude o f a specific set o f technological 'effects'. Such performers have focused on the technology itself, limiting their use of technology only to enhance the performance by way o f audio modifications such as delays, flanges, distortion and other computer-based sound manipulation effect options. However, technology can extend the range of musical possibilities at the level o f the vernacular — using drum patterns, sequence loops, and harmonic rhythmic support — and at the improvisational/compositional/performance level allowing for the stimulation of creative and compositional processes, and the translation o f aesthetic metaphors of music into digital sound. Current notational software eases the chore of musical notation (using both frequency followers and M I D I applications) allowing for graphic manipulation o f musical representations (Bowyer, 2000). Swanwick suggests that " i f technology can be used to increase the possibility o f reaching the required 10% o f inspiration, leaving most o f the 90% of perspiration to machinery, then that is certainly an advance" (1994, p. 6). The use of technologies can easily extend and amplify the possibilities for music making (Jones, 1997; Orman, 1998; Ortner, 1990; Williams & Beasley, 1976; Williams, 1995; Williams &Webster, 1999; Woodruff & Brown, 1998; Woodruff & Heeler, 1993; Wrigley, 2000). Music technologies can assist in the creation of environmental ambiance, responsive bass lines, effective and affective harmonic progressions, intriguing spectrums of tonal colour, all of which add to the possibilities for shaping and enhancing creative ideas (Bowyer, 2000; Webster, 2002).  32  Further, contemporary technology application can enhance instrumental practice application through technology-enhanced simulation, accompaniment, and pitch assessment software, freeing time for both students and teachers to experience new possibilities for creating new music learning situations (Blakeslee, 1994). Students and teachers can share in musical discourse, and enhanced individualized instruction or small group work by accessing on-line instruction and practice applications, and by communicating on-line with other musicians or teachers through M I D I and digital audio technologies. The opportunities for individuals to study, compose, prepare, and practice within a technologically enhanced instructional environment are exhilarating (Bowyer, 2000; Ohler, 1998; Reese, 1994; Webster, 2002; Williams 6 Webster, 1999). Methodologies Researchers continually strive to understand the relationship between learning and the instructional methodologies used to enhance learner achievement (Abdullah & Ang, 2000; Abies, 1973; Arenson, 1995; Bloom, 1956; Gagne & Glaser, 1987; Gordon, 1978; Gouzouasis, 1996a; Reimer, 1989; Smith & Ragan, 1998; Walker, 1990). The effectiveness o f music instruction methodology in a distributive and/or distance learning environment depends on an 7  instructional design specific to this milieu and a foundation within sound instructional and music theory (Alexander, 1999; Epperson, 1975; Fiske, 1996; Gordon, 1989b; Gouzouasis, 1991; Magnusson, 1996; Walls, 1997). It must also use technology to make learning and teaching both more effective and more efficient (Bates, 1996; Reese, 1994; Schacter & Fagnono, 1999; Tillman, 1998). Accomplishing this within a digital environment requires radically changing the application of existing structures and organization o f educational processes to address the  7  The term "distributive" is used in the context of this research to mean a computer-mediated  33  relevant teaching and learning issues. These changes can be facilitated i f the strengths inherent in computer technologies (both on-line and workstation-based) are exploited and made integral to the instructional methodology (Webster; 2002; Williams, 1999). Bowyer (2000) conducted a study of current computer assisted music instruction to identify and categorize its development and to suggest a new approach to computer-assisted instruction in music theory for elementary and middle school children. Bowyer suggested that the development of music-based C A I directly reflects advances in computer hardware. H e collected the data using anecdotal descriptive methodologies, reviewed the operational aspects of 66 software packages, and then categorized each package into one o f the five groupings below. 1.  Drill-and-Practice. Drill-and-Practice software design ranges from rigid, with course sequence and pedagogical considerations determined by the software, to quite flexible, with the student or the teacher controlling these aspects of the program. According to Bowyer, the majority of programs in this category teach music theory or ear training skills.  2.  Guided Instruction. Guided Instruction software packages function as tutorials, often presenting information in a lecture format. The most prevalent subject o f this type of music software is piano instruction, although guitar instruction programs are now becoming common. Programs in this category frequently do not include a great deal of interactivity.  3.  Games. Game software ranges from competitive drill-and-practice type programs to elaborate adventures with extensive graphics and animation requiring musical discovery to excel. These games are competitive in nature and often allow for multiple players.  process that delivers curricula and learning materials to learners outside a congregated setting.  34 4.  Exploratory. Exploratory software packages, which almost always deal with music history and appreciation, are analogous to multimedia coffee table books. They frequendy delve into a particular work o f music from multiple directions, giving a background on the composer, contemporary world history, and other music of the time.  5.  Creative. These programs either give the student an opportunity to create music or assist the student in practicing music. Software in this category should not be confused with professional production software, such as sequencers, notation programs or digital sound recorders. Bowyer's (2000) research identified the scarcity o f effective music theory C A I and he  presented his own software, "Dolphin Don's Music School," as an effective addition to the C A I software catalogue. His analysis allowed him to include many of the identified presentation methodologies into his own instructional approach, which uses an "identify, see, hear and test" methodology to address the learning materials within the software. His approach allows the student to customize the instruction to a specific wind instrument and to access a musical "help" component presented through drill and practice routines. Bowyer also included a game component (ten games; each based on drill and practice methodology) with grades, levels, and ranks as additional learning support. Bowyer was explicit in his presentation, identifying and demonstrating each example and accompanying it with description and screen shots. Bowyer (2000) concluded that a new type o f software program was required for C A I music instruction. He asserted that such programs should present beginning through advanced music theory, incorporate methodologies from each of the five categories identified within his software review, and address the capabilities of the Internet. While Bowyer's work provided an extensive review and categorization o f available C A I software, he did not identify the necessity of a theoretical foundation for the instructional methodology within an application, nor did he  35  provide an assessment o f the applicability or effectiveness o f any of the reviewed applications. It would have been very beneficial to both the reader and to Bowyer's own software development if he had conducted a thorough effectiveness evaluation and a theory-based assessment for each software application within his review. Technology Research This section presents a summary of empirical work in music teaching and learning that addresses music technology direcdy. It is organized by type of music experience studied and further divided by appropriate subcategories. The work o f Higgins (1992a) as well as Berz and Bowman (1994) chronicle the early work on music technology research. Higgins summarized the problems inherent in much o f this research, including poor design, Hawthorne effect , inadequate treatment, and problems 8  associated with constandy changing technology. H e argued for research designs that are complex and consider context and individual student differences. Berz and Bowman (1994) provide a detailed review of selected studies completed before 1994 and identify music technology experimental findings reporting relatively neutral to slightiy positive effectiveness results. The authors identified generally positive student attitudes toward music technology and argued for improving performance skills, error-detection, and rhythmic accuracy through technology integration. Additionally, Berz and Bowman identified significant changes in research perspectives and methodologies that appeared as a result o f studies conducted within the technology-based research environment. They identified several developments o f interest:  The Hawthorne Effect is an experimental confound similar to a self-f\dfilling prophesy. It refers to a performance effect that is not the result o f an experimental treatment, but is the result of the subjects' awareness o f the fact that they are being studied or observed. 8  36  1. The formulation of new instructional models and applications resulting from the development of new tools and technologies; 2. The identification of a definite research cycle (development, adaptation, feasibility, and effectiveness studies); 3. A significant interest in developing new technologies rather than in conducting research on pedagogical effects of existing technologies; and 4. A lack of research that examines the impact of music technologies on learning and the learning process. Berz and Bowman concluded that greater consideration should be given to the broad musical, educational, and technological contexts in which technology-based instruction is to be implemented, and that more attention should be directed toward developing appropriate structural models and practical teaching strategies. The meta-analysis conducted by Christmann, Badgett, and Lucking (1997) addressed the effectiveness of instruction and compared the academic achievement of students in grades 6 to 12 who received traditional instructional or traditional instruction supplemented with CAI across eight curriculum areas. Twenty-seven publications met the criteria for inclusion and 57 percent of these showed significantly higher student achievement with CAI supplementation, 10% of the studies showed significantly lower student achievement, and 33 % showed no significant differences in achievement regardless of the method of instruction. Christmann et al. stressed that the effectiveness of CAI would vary with the instructional settings, different types of students, and subject areas. They emphasized that interaction and flexibility were key elements in meeting the diverse learning needs of individual students. They concluded that the computer allowed students to set their own pace in learning, that CAI appealed to various learning modalities by offering text, graphics, and sound, and that CAI appeared to be more conducive to academic achievement. Eddins' (1981) "Brief history of computer-assisted music instruction" traced the  37  development of music-based C A I from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. It presented various attempts at C A I approaches, and addressed areas such as pitch recognition, ear training, the G U I D O , Plato and A M U S systems, as well as others. The paper identified the development o f important music related organizations and described the formation of the National Consortium for Computer-based Music Instruction ( N C C - B M I ) and the Centre for Music Research. The work is an important chronicle o f the technology available and the instructional approaches used during this era. Hofstetter's 1976 treatise "The Foundation, organization, and purpose of the national consortium for computer-based music instruction" reported the state (circa 1976) o f computer applications in music education and subsequently became an important historic paper. H e described instructional systems for instrumental music, music fundamentals, ear training, set theory, composition, analysis, information retrieval, automated music printing, and computer managed instruction. He stated that the computer-based application "Title" would greatly benefit programs in musicianship teaming, competency-based teacher education, general research, and music. Further, he argued for the establishment o f a national library of music programs and a formal invitation to join the N C C - B M I . G . D . Peters has been a significant voice in the field of computer-assisted music instruction. Peters (1974) addressed articles, research studies, and dissertations on the subject from 1964 to 1978. His later research spoke to the rapid development o f computer technology and identified how C A I had invaded the music education workplace with amazing speed (Peters, 1984). Peters (1992) outlined the history o f music software and hardware and explored the developments and benefits of emerging software use for the classroom. Peters reassured music teachers that technology had advanced far beyond the early days o f computer beeps and fuzzy graphics, and that the quality of computer-based music instruction programs had continued to  38  improve throughout their short history, regardless of their limitations. Peter Webster's work (2002) is the most recent compilation of C A I related data. His chapter Computer-based technology and music teaching and learning in the New Handbook of Research for Music Teaching andTearning, addressed the scope o f computer-based technology and music teaching and learning over the past ten years. H e suggested that most researchers would agree that music technology is not a passing fad and is an established part of the educational scene. Webster (2002) began his review by providing a definition of technology as "inventions that help humans produce, enhance, and better understand the art of sound organized to express feeling" (p. 165). His definition focused on inventiveness in service to music, emphasizing that art helps to place music technology historically and purposefully. H e argued that music technology is more than designing a hardware solution to a music performance problem, more than learning how to use a music notation program, and more than designing a multimedia presentation for a music history class or using an intelligent accompaniment program to help learn a new work. H e stressed that technology was all of these things, plus a way of engaging with music in an effort to improve the musical experience while always respecting the integrity of the art. Webster stated that, "It is often said that technology is not the point of what musicians do as much as the means to make the musical experience better" (p. 185). Webster (2002) identified three major forces that have shaped the development o f technology in schools and have dramatically affected the variables for research over the last ten years: 1. Rapid technical development of hardware and software, aided by commercial research and a strong economy world-wide; 2. Ubiquity of computer-based technology and changes in expertise among students and teachers; and  39  3. Changes in instructional methodologies to best address student learning. In summarizing the development and costs o f technology, Webster revealed several aspects of change i n computer-based technology and identified authors such as Williams and Webster (1999) and Mark (1994) as resources. H e also described issues o f computing power, processor speed, memory, and connectivity. H e identified that additional information was available regarding stand-alone and Internet-based software, multimedia, and M I D I . H e commented on the ease of the development o f content-rich, interactive software, local or remote instructional delivery from the Internet and intranets, as well as advances in digital representation, compression, and analog sound delivery. In addition, Webster (2002) noted the dramatic growth in technology availabiMty and integration. In terms o f Internet access, he observed that in 1999, over 63% of public classrooms in the United States were connected to the Internet. This resulted in school averages of one computer for every 5.7 students, compared to 1997 average ratios closer to one computer for 27 students. H e reported that 97% of teachers used computers at home and/or at school for professional activities, 53% used software for classroom instruction, 61% used the Internet in their teaching, 77% used software for supplementary work, while 17% used it as a primary focus. He also noted that 6% o f teachers used computer-based activity as "quiet" or "bonus" time activity. Furthermore, Webster reported that similar usage results were noted for Internet and World Wide Web use. H e stressed continued difficulties regarding the availability of appropriate software, Internet resources, and resource availability (time and financial) as important outstanding issues. Webster (2002) also identified the emergence o f credible data on the availabiMty of technology in music instruction in K-12 settings, citing Reese and Rimington (2000), Hess (1999), and Taylor and Deal (1997) and suggested that "clearly the availability and integration o f  40  music technology is moving forward and is influential in the design and interpretation of research" (p. 231). Webster's review of the literature published between 1990 and 2000 addresses four areas of research. They are: 1. Perspectives for empirical work, summarizing research reviews both inside and outside of music; 2.  Samplings of advocacy positions for music technology with emphasis on curriculum development and technology standards, including profiles of writings both cautious and critical of technology;  3. Core studies, including summarized research organized by sections devoted to music listening, performing, and composition; and 4.  Special topics including summaries of the role of the researcher as programmer, the use of technology in assessment, gender and music technology issues, and perspectives on teaching philosophy. To provide an historic perspective, Webster (2002) cited meta-reviews of the  development of music technology by Higgins (1992a), Peters (1992), Berz and Bowman (1994; 1995), Walls (1997), and Williams and Webster (1999). These studies formed the basis for his subsequent examination of the literature in which he identified ten areas of interest, including studies that addressed a variety of issues and positions in music technology and those that investigated students' thinking as they used an interactive multimedia program based on the situated learning approaches. Citing Herrington and Oliver's (1999) qualitative work, Clements and Wood (1995) technology-enhanced constructionist, creative thinking work, and Liu's (1996) hypermedia authoring approach to enhance creative thinking skills, Webster presented a framework for addressing the study of thinking within current conceptual positions in technology-based music education. He stressed creative thinking and thinking skills in music research as areas in need of investigation. Webster (2002) identified over 150 citations in music research alone, but only reviewed  41  98, emphasizing quality, research design, and new directions of research as the criteria for inclusion. These 98 studies were organized into one of seven categories relevant to music teaching and learning specific to music technology: 1. Music Ustening/Skills Development: K-12 — Eight studies were identified and four were reviewed. 2. Music Listening/Skills Development: College — 18 studies were identified and eight were noted. 3. Performance: K-College music performance — 29 studies were identified, thirteen were noted. These were divided into subcategories by performance medium, instrumental performance and vocal performance. 4.  Composition: K-12 — Nine works were cited pertaining to compositional strategy and creative thinking.  5. Researcher as Programmer — Six examples were identified. 6.  Computers and Music Assessment — Five studies were identified.  7. Music Technology and Gender — Six studies were identified. Regarding music performance, Webster (2002) noted that while there has been some research on the effectiveness of technology for performance education, there has been only limited interest in research among the applied faculties in higher music education. Citing Chamberlin, Clark, and Svengalis (1993), Forest (1995), Jaeschke (1996), and Tomita and Barber (1996), Webster suggested that, in general, such technology application has been used more often in cognition research and has been considered more of an oddity in applied work. Webster cited Busen-Smith (1999), Kassner (2000), Nelson (1991), Reese (1994), and Rogers (1997) as examples of research emphasizing curricular issues. Webster (2002) also reviewed relevant non-music literature that he believed music education researchers could not afford to ignore and cited recent studies to place the music literature in perspective of the larger educational research literature. Further, he provided current arguments based within the literature for "no real effect" of technology based instruction and  42  suggested that moratorium be placed on this form of research. A s well, he presented several meta-analytic studies from the non-music literature supporting the efficacy o f traditional C A I (Christmann, Badgett, & Lucking, 1991; Dillon, 1998; Fletcher-Finn, 1995; Meyer, 1997; Schacter & Fagnano, 1999). H e concluded that the quality of empirical evidence for supporting hypermedia technology for improving learning is poor, and that further theoretical and empirical research is vital. In exarriining the limitations o f the reviewed research, Webster (2002) pointed out that we have not yet learned how to evaluate exploratory experiences nor do we really know how to integrate these approaches conceptually into our music teaching. H e provided cautions regarding the majority o f the research literature, which he suggested supports strong advocacy positions. He stressed the importance o f a careful reading o f non-supportive literature (music and nonmusic) which identifies a variety o f concerns and criticisms, citing both music researchers (Argersinger, 1993; Austin, 1993; Caputo, 1993-94; Folkstead, 1996; Hermanson & Kerfoot, 1994; Reece, 1998; Reese & Rimington, 2000; Taylor & Deal, 2000) and non-music researchers (Healy, 1990; Postman, 1995; Stoll, 1999). H e pointed to the problems created by those who fall on either end of a technology/tradition continuum as they either ignore technology completely or imagine technology as a panacea for the ills of education, disregarding curricular, social, and cultural issues. Webster asserted that the most important concern is that both research and practice must integrate technology with a strong theory o f instruction. H e stressed that, "a plan for thoughtful reflection on the results and how they will be assessed for individual students will take us a long way" (p. 221). Webster (2002) stated that constructivism has underscored much of contemporary research on music technology, and identified it as an alternative philosophical paradigm (Hoffmann, 1991; Lord, 1993). H e stressed the effects of Piaget, Dewey, Gardner, Papert, and  43  other authors (i.e., Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Magnusson, 1996) on constructivistic thinking and emphasized creativity-motivated learning through situated activity. As illustrations, Webster described experiments in intelligent tutoring and expert systems in music theory, music practice and artificial intelligence (Smith & Smith, 1993, cited in Webster, 2002), compositional perspective (Schaffer, 1990, cited in Webster, 2002), and music theory (Schaffer, 1991, cited in Webster, 2002). He included the specific use of cooperative learning environments that encourages music context, musical questioning, focus on sound, and creative thinking, as ways to teach aural skills and to enhance music thinking (McGregor, 1992; Moore, 1989; Nelson, 1998; Upitis, 1992; cited in Webster, 2002). Webster (2002) further stressed the need for a specific philosophy of music education that would embrace and celebrate music technology, emphasized the importance of this kind of tiiinking for music researchers and practitioners, and identified the beginnings of shifts in ways researchers conceptualize teaching and learning as they pertain to the development of simulated music experiences and technological performance mediums. Presenting Brown's (1999) notion of digital media as an instrument for music expression and as a medium of musical thought, he suggested that a view of technology and humanity as non-dualistic would emphasize that digital media can be viewed not only as tools. Further, he posited that the notion of the computer as a tool is changing and he cited Brown's statement that the computer as tool, "is replaced by one of partnership where computers are conceived as instruments; controlling and utilizing are replaced by a notion of engaging" (p. 12). Webster stressed that the idea of engagement for students has a fundamental effect on the way to think about teaching with music technology and, in turn, affects our research agenda. Webster's (2002) work presents a clear and concise summary of the work from 1990 to 2000 in music technology research and stresses that even though educators have seen a  44  continuing growth in the availability of powerful resources there is a substantive need to be cognizant of important issues. Those issues are briefly summarized below. 1. Teachers need to learn about these resources and require effective models of technology integration. 2. Teacher education programs require re-design to include ample experiences with music technology. 3. Research designs need to blend technologies — C A I with exploratory hypermedia, traditional instruction with lower-level assessment techniques — to facilitate small and positive gains in learning. A n understanding of these issues is paramount to the research into the effective application of computer-assisted instruction. A s suggested by both Bowyer and Webster, on-line Internet-based instruction may be the future of computer-assisted instruction. Therefore, it is important to investigate the current status o f on-line music instruction. On-line Music Instruction On-line music instruction allows learners flexible access to a wide range of multimedia content, instructional applications, alternative curricular approaches, and interactive web-based instructional applications (Waters, 1999). A n on-line learning environment allows for the use o f stand-alone multi-media applications that can play an instrumental role within the instructional setting (Ross, 2000). Effective on-line multi-media applications provide a resource for the development and delivery of interactive instructional content (Webster, 2002). However, learners often need to work carefully through a disciplined set o f principles and ideas, and they require practice and experimentation with learning materials to fully understand instructional content (Green, 2002a). Although on-line musical instruction typically occurs without direct intervention from a formal instructor, guided instruction can be exhilarating and productive . The capability 9  9  Current Learning Management Systems (LMS) allow for the distribution of content through a  45  currently exists for interactive instruction with instructors and peers, for dialogue among learners, curriculum designers, and subject matter experts, and for the development of interactive learning systems that support students, instructors, and the delivery of interactive instructional content (Green, 2002b) . Given the capabilities provided by current learning 10  management systems (LMS), there are exciting opportunities for discussion, questioning, and exploration, as well as for sharing and joint development o f multi-dimensional curricula. Existing learning technologies are quite flexible and can be used in a variety o f approaches and applications (Ross, 2000; Rounds-Stell, 1998). These technologies can be used to replicate traditional forms of instruction, present alternate approaches to interacting with instructional content, and can be customized and personalized based on the imagination, skills, and resources available to the teacher. Bates (1996) has suggested that certain technologies lend themselves better to certain teaching and learning approaches, while others lend themselves to on-line interactive music instruction that is dependent upon audio/visual synchronization capabilities. The World Wide Web can combine various learning approaches (including graphics, text, sound, video, and embedded content and skill-specific applications) into effective interactive learning environments. The Web allows researchers and teachers to easily adapt materials for distributive delivery. Designers and instructors can easily modify existing materials created for lecture or the classroom and adapt them for distributive delivery using various  frame-based presentation scheme with content presented in a large window and an accompanying resources — instructor notes, library resources, e-mail etc., — available through a icon-based linking system. For current popular L M S capabilities see WebCT, Blackboard, and The Learning Manager. Learning system computer applications typically include an entry portal, an L M S and some form of a curriculum objects repository.  10  46  technologies. Applications such as Flash, Shockwave, Real Audio, Director, QuickTime, or H T M L enable effective curriculum delivery across the Web. Specific examples of this type of inclusive on-line instructional approach are seen within T L M , Virtual-U, WebCT, Blackboard, and other H T M L and XML-based authoring systems. These systems combine active and collaborative learning tools with student and institute management systems. The systems are easy to use and allow subject experts and instructors (without any specialized computer teaming) to construct courses, add and modify instructional materials, and to manage the interactive nature of an on-line instructional environment. This innovation in distributive teaching, which has been traditionally associated with specific areas such as distance education and research and development technology, can now emanate from the core o f instruction with original and exciting technology-based learning materials initiated and developed by faculty (Bates, 1996; Webster & Williams, 1997). Existing On-Line Music Instruction Current distributive music applications combine images, graphics, archival sound resources, and limited interactive feedback options (i.e., email, threaded conversations, and interactive chat). The vast numbers of content presentation sites currendy address content in a "remote" classroom model and are often restrictive in their interactivity. This degree or level of interactivity is beginning to be referred to as Level One interactivity (Green, 2003). This model of instructional delivery is often seen as a straight transfer o f traditional teaching methodologies to the distance delivery context; therefore, it is extremely instructor-centered. Within this model, the instructional strategy is similar to that of a traditional classroom context, with the delivery modality modified to incorporate a degree o f digital media enhancement and communication capability. This model has had the advantage o f being easily adapted from the traditional style o f music instruction and it can easily reach remotely located students without concerns o f  47  bandwidth or download times. Examples of this modality o f presentation are: 1. Active Gviitar.com, U R L : (http://www.activeguitar.com/lessons); 2. Jazz Guitar Lessons On-line, U R L : (http://www.jazzguitar.com). These sites demonstrate traditional drill and practice approaches to guitar instruction where the student sees the example and attempts to perform it; there is no attempt at an interactive presentation and the materials are seldom based within any identifiable theoretical base. There are also several types o f sites that are best described as compilations. These sites consist of lists of various guitar and music resources and address a wide range o f guitar interests (commercial, instructional, and fan support). Examples of these types o f sites are: 1.  Guitar Notes, U R L : (http://www.guitarnotes.com);  2.  Musician Resources: Guitars on the Artist, U R L : (http://ubl.artistdirect.com);  3.  Harmony Central, U R L : (http://www.harmony-central.com /Guitar/instruction.htrnl). Additional examples of on-line guitar instructional sites demonstrate a more  technologically demanding presentation and utilize a higher degree of digital resources to present richer instructional delivery. These sites present musical notation, often with QuickTime sound bites performing phrases, and graphic examples (at times in both standard notation and tablature), which allow the student to both hear and see the musical example. This approach is currently a standard practice within most instructional sites and varies only with style and design of the presentation. A typical example as can be seen in Figure 1 below, which presents a graphic of a chord chart with an attached audio clip (identified by the speaker in the graphic) that provides a digital audio representation o f the sound of the chord.  48  •ST chord  Figure /.: G chord pattern & audio representation The following sites incorporate multiple forms of graphic or musical representation, providing synchronized graphics and sound: 1. Michael Furstner's Jazclass, U R L : (http://www.jazclass.aust.com); 2. Wholenote - The Online Guitar Community, U R L : (http://www.wholenote.com); 3. AccessRock. C o m , U R L : (http://www.accessrock.com). A n example o f a multiple representation can be seen in Figure 2 (on p. 50). The guitar fret board is presented in tablature, the chord fingerings are identified in a chord chart, and a digital audio representation is provided to allow the student to hear the represented sounds.  F Major  Eb Major  H  8 85^10—8-  Bb Major  -§~I0~8 t)'W**«**»  10  12  -1012  '  ^  ^  ^  10 """""'I"  v  V  \  10"""" 4  3 F Major  Eb Major  -13^15  13-  -1^7  Figure 2.: Tablature, chord chart & audio representation Other approaches present the guitar instructional site as a learning environment and have created a set of tools to assist the learner in experiencing the musical learning performance  49 environment. Examples o f these types of sites are: 1. Riff Interactive Guitar Lesson Archives, U R L : (http: //bigjimsullivan.com/Lessons/archives.htm); 2.  United Guitar Tabbers, U R L : (http://www.unitedtabbers.com). As can be seen in Gacsi's (2002) lesson on fret hand coordination (see Figure 3 multiple  representation, on p. 51), the presentation provides multiple examples through a collection of graphics, imbedded applications, and sequencing options (i.e., page scrolling, tempo regulation, individual and combined chord presentations, and an advanced level o f difficulty option); a method presenting an extensive range o f techniques to address the possible needs on-line guitar learning performance environments: Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  Suggested Tempo: 120  PAIRED STRINGS USED AGAIN. Continuation of Lesson #1767. This lesson uses the combination of 2nd and 3rd fingers working together. 2nd  3rd  2nd to 3rd  2nd to 3rd  2nd to 3rd  2nd to 3rd  2nd to 3rd  2nd to 3rd  of fingers twice, combined  ;  ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY IS NOW ADDED FOR THE SERIOUS GUITARIST. The lesson is not easy. It is NOT for the beginner Perhaps for some intermediate level guitarists.  Figure 3.: Multiple representation A n example o f current performance-based learning sites, "The Whole Note: The on-line guitar community" includes a tuning function, a metronome based- tempo function, as well as sound-on/sound-off capabilities. As can be seen in Figure 4 (below) the site provides a guitar  50 tuner component to allow the student to tune his or her instrument and to be in tune with the presentation routines on the site. Donl move the 1 st finger. IC  Netscape:Turn  ED H |ers dc dthef PAIRE  Jic.AIF  Please read our Privacy statement a  Figure 4.: Tuner Routine The majority of current W W W guitar instructional sites, however, appear to be created by individuals with an interest in teaching, learning to play the guitar, or performing specific styles or techniques on the guitar. These individuals are often professional musicians with the passion and interest in the guitar as a performance instrument; their sites typically emphasize technique and repertoire and rarely adhere to any theoretical framework. These sites often contain lists o f links to various other sites o f the same type (see Figure 5 on p.53, for an example of this type o f site). There are several sites created by individuals and guitar organizations dedicated to various styles and types o f music and instruments; very few o f the instructional methods incorporate or demonstrate grounding in any specific musical learning theory. The remaining plethora of sites appears to have been created by and about individual performers. These types of sites identify personal style and technique and often address fan support. While these are important to particular genres of guitar performance and music, they are irrelevant to the enhancement o f instructional theory.  51  NEW OR UPDATED LESSONS 1. "A Classic Swindle" by Tom Limbach http: //ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=16d=4582 2. "A Guide To Song Structure" by Bryce Yaworsky http: //ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=l&l=4587 3 . "A Jump Start To Learning Maj/Min Scales" by Bryce Yaworsky http: //ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=l&l=4250 4. "An Intro To Soleares Falsetas" by Jim Graham http: //ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=16cl=3258 5 . "Ballad Of Wholenote" by Anthony Holden http: //ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=lSd=3215 6. "Basic Finger ffarmup Exercises" by Darryl Roberts http: //ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=l&l=4296 7. "Beyond Open String Scales - Form Four" by Charles Gacsi http: / /ww. wholenote. com /default. asp?src=l&l=1538 8. "Beyond Open String Scales - Form One" by Charles Gacsi http: //ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=l&l=1433 9. "Beyond Open String Scales - Form Three" by Charles Gacsi http: //ww. wholenote. com /default. asp?src=l&l=1526 10. "Beyond Open String Scales - Form Two" by Charles Gacsi http: / /ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=l&l=1493 11. "BLUES IMPR07ISING-A BASIC APPROACH" by Robert Denman http: //ww. wholenote . com/default. asp?src=l&l=4437 12. "Box Car Motion - Chord Substitutions #1" by Charles Gacsi http: / /ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=l&l=1382 1 3 . "Brick By Ben F o l d s . . . " by Arshad An http: //ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=l&l=4551 14. "CAGED Charts - A Beginner's Reference" by Darryl Roberts http: / /ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=16tl=4260 15. "CAPTITATION" by Charles Gacsi http: / /ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=l&l=4542 16. "Caught Speeding" by John Spry http: / /ww. wholenote. com/default. asp?src=l&l=4539  Figure 5.: Link Menu Instructional Design in WWW Guitar Instruction In most cases music researchers, instructional designers, and teachers create learning materials based upon instructional content creation methods utilizing traditional top-down or systems theory-based models which direct the flow o f curriculum development and instruction (Aronson & Briggs, 1983; Reigeluth & Stein, 1983). Theoretical approaches to design and implementation are frequendy lacking (Gouzouasis & Green, 2000; Keller, 1983; Walls, 1997). This is typically the case when specific instructional milieu attributes, learner considerations, and  52  content specific learning theory are not considered within the design process (Bowyer, 2001; Webster, 2002). Instruction is only effective when it is based on sound content-specific theory that has been well designed, well developed, and well implemented (Green, 2002a). From a content presentation perspective, Bates (1996) has observed that learners interact with their desk-top or portable workstations in a variety o f ways which are determined by the nature of the learning task and their preferred style of learning. These preferred styles vary considerably; a single person may adopt several varying strategies depending on the nature o f the task and typically different individuals approach the same task differendy. Therefore, learning materials must be developed to address the needs o f different learners, the requirements o f the content, and the demands o f the learning environment (Green, 2002b). Web designers and educational researchers are just beginning to address these considerations and to design content delivery sites focusing on content and theory requirements, technological constraints, and human interaction considerations (Kristof & Satran, 1995; Preece et. al, 1994; Tittel & Stewart, 1996). These sites are designed and developed specifically for distributive instruction and not only incorporate curricular and philosophical considerations within their designs, but also consider learner attitudes and preferences, and the capabilities o f the technology. Most instructional learning sites developed using a systems-theory approach to course design and adherence to human-computer interaction theory have been largely successful (Roberts, 2001). The effectiveness of these sites has been enhanced through the substantial consideration for theoretical, technological, and individual learner issues within the analysis, design, development stages o f their creation (Ericsson, 2001; Green, 2002a). On-line instructional methodologies and technologies offer great promise for the development and dissemination o f guitar-based instructional materials. The ongoing development of distributive digital platforms makes the W W W an innovative space for teaching  53  and learning (Rees, 2002). Through the work o f organizations dedicated to the development of distributive technologies (e.g., the Canadian Association for Distance Education [ C A D E ] , 11  Canarie , Netera ) and the continued development o f broadband access, the W W W has the 12  13  potential to become both an effective and exciting learning environment (Bates, 1996; Green, 2002b; Harasim et. al, 1995; Ross, 2000; Webster, 2002). However, research into the theoretical considerations of digital musical instruction is all but non-existent. A n exploratory on-line project study, "The Internet Guitar Project", was conducted as a means o f assessing the instructional milieu, learner considerations, and the state o f on-line technologies at the time. The results were limited and non-conclusive (Gouzouasis & Green, 2002). Related Studies N o studies designed to determine the effects of computer-assisted instructional methodologies on guitar instruction were found in the literature. Therefore, only studies concerned with related aspects of methodology are described. Orman (1998) study was designed to determine the viability of an interactive multimedia computer program as a means of education within the existing instrumental education environment. While not related to guitar instruction, both positive and negative components o f this study affected the design of the current research. Orman's (1998) sample consisted of 44 sixth grade students at four middle schools in a large metropolitan city. Each student indicated on a survey his or her previous saxophone instruction level. Eight students with previous saxophone instruction were assigned to a control group. The experimental group worked individually on the computer for 8-15 minutes per day  11  12  13  U R L : (http://www.cade-aced.ca) U R L : (http://www.netera.ca) U R L : (http://www.canarie.ca)  54  during band class. The control group participated in daily band activities and had no access to the computer program. Students completed activities in rooms next to the rehearsal hall in 15 to 17 school days and doubled their computer assignment each day following an absence. Following treatment, all students completed Likert-type attitude surveys containing specific response choices modeled after Madsen and Yarbrough's (1985) suggestions for surveying the middle school-age child. A control group survey included questions about perceptions of specific knowledge regarding saxophone performance. The experimental group answered the same questions in addition to questions concerning computer usage. After viewing a portion of the computer program, band directors completed a Likerttype survey designed to determine i f the information to be assessed had been adequately covered in band class. Additional questions asked about the directors' opinions of the program, possible problems with program implementation, and any changes observed in the experimental group. A l l students completed a researcher-designed written post-test, mcluding multiplechoice, matching, and short-answer questions designed to assess each student's knowledge about beginning saxophone. Short answer responses allowed the students additional latitude to account for the instructional variations among different band directors and the computer program. Assessments contained only material the band directors believed had been covered; therefore, the assessments differed in presentation for the material contained in the computer program. A n additional video-taped performance test was conducted to determine applied knowledge. The post-test requested students to assemble their instrument, perform long tones of their choice, and disassemble and put away their instrument. Students were video-taped in a random order and assigned a number displayed on the tape. T w o professional music educators with degrees in both performance and music education independently evaluated the written and  55  video assessments. Only one of these evaluators was familiar with the computer program. Evaluators graded the written tests based upon their own independent criteria. Video evaluation involved a researcher-developed checklist in which the evaluators indicated the observed procedure completed by the student and evaluated the acceptability of subjective areas such as proper playing position, tone quality, and embouchure. Orman's (1998) findings suggest the multimedia technology was an effective means of instrumental music education. However, there are a number of concerns that must be addressed with regard to future research. The researcher did not provide data regarding students' ability and achievement levels prior to treatment This omission does not allow the reader to verify the change in student achievement at the conclusion o f the study. Furthermore, the scoring o f students' written and video assessments is o f concern, as the scoring methodology gave the student a scoring advantage. For example, for a response to be counted wrong, both evaluators had to mark a specific response as incorrect. If either evaluator marked a response as correct, the response was counted as correct. In addition, evaluators graded the written tests based upon their own criteria; only the video evaluation utilized a researcher-developed checklist. N o standardized evaluation instruments were used. Even though this procedure allowed latitude for teaching styles, presentation, terminology, and interpretations that may have differed from those using the computer program, there was no clear delineation of the criteria to be used for assessment. This suggests that this component o f the assessment could not produce results with valid statistical significance. O f further concern was the methodology used to address the outcomes of the student attitudinal surveys. The first survey, which addressed the issue of student interest in playing the saxophone, was not used to identify a correlation with interest in instructional methodology or any other data. The reason for its inclusion is therefore, questionable. Also o f some concern is a  56  possible "halo" effect arising from one group of students receiving a different type of attention than their peers. While Orman's (1998) methodology is questionable, the components of his research methodology were influential in clkecting the design and data collection of the present study. Although Orman did not conduct or provide the data relating to student pre-testing, this researcher deemed it important to assess the students formally in advance of the treatment. Therefore, standardized pre-tests have the potential to identify a base-line o f music achievement. A s noted above, Orman's (1998) evaluators graded the written tests based upon their own criteria; only the video evaluation utilized a researcher-developed checklist. N o standardized evaluation instruments were identified. In contrast, the inclusion of standardized tests of musical aptitude — the Musical Aptitude Profile, and musical achievement — the Iowa Tests of Music Literacy could be appropriate. Orman (1998) included a video-taped post-test to determine applied knowledge; this is an effective means for assessing performance data. The independent judges' evaluations of video and written assessments were analyzed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to identify validity. Malave's (1990) study focused on the development of an aural-visual computer-assisted instructional systems approach to improving young students' clarinet tone quality. Malave attempted to determine whether the students receiving the 10-week aural-visual instruction would improve more than those who did not receive the treatment. A secondary focus of the study was the evaluation of the acoustical properties o f the tones o f six selected students who used the same software and hardware. 30 junior high students participated in the study. Malave (1990) used a pre-test/post-test design administering the pre-test two weeks before the study and the post-test two weeks after treatment. Using a 9 point scale, recorded  57  tonal quality was evaluated by three judges; all woodwind specialists with bachelor's degrees. The data were analyzed using a /-test to compare the pre-and post-test difference scores. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in pre- and post-test scores for tone quality of individual tones and intact musical exercises between the experimental and control groups. Acoustical analysis found that the students in the experimental group produced sounds closer to the model than students in the control group. The researcher concluded that the aural-visual approach used in the study for the instructional treatment appeared to be a feasible method of instruction for the improvement o f clarinet tone quality performance. The study demonstrated the effectiveness o f the aural-visual microcomputer-assisted instructional systems approach. However, there were concerns identified within the study's methodology. The evaluation o f tone quality is a difficult task in any instructional setting and at the best of times instrumental timbre evaluation is highly subjective. Therefore, the evaluation methodology appeared to be questionable. A n inter-observer reliability o f .55 suggested that the criteria within the 9-point scale were either not clear or were disputable. Further, the interobserver reliability o f .875 between judges #2 and #3, although high, did not warrant the exclusion of the third judge's ratings. It would be interesting to see the results including the third judge's assessment, as the inclusion would affect the outcome o f the /-test. Additionally, while students may have begun to develop a clear conceptual model of tone, the performance o f the students could not be conclusively evaluated because there was no description or control for the quality o f instrument, mouthpiece, reed, or ligature. Another concern was that Malave (1990), does little to explain the utilization practices o f technologybased instructional outcomes or the effectiveness of the computer technology. Regardless of methodological concerns, Orman's (1998) and Malave's (1990) works are helpful additions to the knowledge base of the field and can be o f assistance in the design and  58  implementation of further research studies. The use of the randomized junior high student sample, the results o f the pre-test/post-test design, and the incorporation o f the inter-observer reHability o f judges are effective methodologies with which to assess performance effectiveness. The effective use o f these methods and the results obtained will allow future researchers insight into designing studies that will address issues related to effective application of C A I . The G . E . Hesse (1995) study sought to determine whether computer assisted-instruction could be used to replace both the in-class instruction and drill in interval and harmony learning. Additionally, Hesse sought to identify additional instructional design strategies and methods o f incorporating C A I into the music curriculum. The study was conducted during 1993 in the School of Music at the University o f Northern Colorado using two sections o f the freshman music theory class. Both classes received similar instruction regarding written skills, melodic dictation, and sight singing. One section, functioning as a control group, received instruction and in-class drills in interval and harmonic dictation and was encouraged to supplement instruction by using commercial ear training software on a voluntary basis. The experimental section received no in-class instruction in these areas. A l l instruction and drill related to intervals and harmony was provided by a computer program developed specifically for the course. The treatment group was required to use the software for a minimum o f two hours per week, with a weekly time-based grade to be averaged with the homework grade for the course. The courseware used by the experimental group was developed by Hesse (1995) to complement the freshman music theory program. The instructional design was a combination tutorial and drill and was based on a cognitive apprenticeship model. Students were presented with concepts and strategies, were guided through problem solving non-graded practice sessions, and then given graded drills, related feedback, and suggestions for further study and practice.  59  The instructional progression and control remained with the student, with occasional intervention by the instructor. The program maintained extensive data regarding student effort, progress, and use patterns. A quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test control group design using intact groups was chosen by the researcher. Additional Likert-type attitude instruments were administered both pre- and post-study with formal and informal observations conducted based on data stored by the courseware and collected through interview conversations with students. Mean scores for both groups were calculated for the pre-test, post-test, and final grades to determine whether one method produced better results. The experimental group demonstrated slightly higher mean scores for both the post-test and final grades. The attitude instrument required students to rate their attitudes toward the computer, ear teaming, C A I , and the amount of time and effort they spent on ear teaining. N o significant differences were found in the attitudes of the students. Members of the experimental group felt they had spent considerably more overall effort on ear teaining than the members of the control group did. Furthermore, both groups indicated in the pre-teeatment survey that they expected to spend a similar amount of time practicing ear teaining outside of class, but the difference in the perceived amount spent was found to be significant. A n additional final question, " H o w much o f your improvement do you attribute to using the computer?" was asked of both groups on the post-treatment survey: A /-test comparing the two groups found that the experimental group attributed significandy more o f their improvement to the use of the computer than did the control group. Students rated the software program above average, with drills being the preferred mode of instruction. A n audit trail showed that the students' use patterns generally conformed to their perceptions o f the program. O n average, students spent 85% of their time in the program using  60  the drills section. However, the most popular subject was chord quality identification (35%), followed by intervals (30%), and interval rows (19%). A correlation analysis performed between the number o f levels attempted in the program and the final ear training examination score found a significant positive relationship. Similarly, a comparison o f the students' pre-test scores in the program drills and the final post-test scores determined a strong link between the computer-assisted instruction program and the music theory curriculum. Furthermore, the comparison determined that a student's level o f progress in the computer program could be used to predict success in the music theory learning. The study posited that C A I could be used to replace in-class dictation instruction and drill, and that students using the custom software would do slightly, but not significantly, better than students using traditional instruction. A decrease in the standard deviation from pre-test to post-test for the experimental group indicated that the computer program provided more consistent instruction. It was also noted that both groups achieved considerably higher ear training scores than expected. Hesse (1995) made the following recommendations. •  Effective computer-assisted music instruction must be based on instructional design principles.  •  The overall interface must be consistent, attractive and easy to understand. The quality of sound is critical and all programs should include a M I D I option.  •  The program should maintain accurate records of student use and progress with immediate and positive feedback.  •  The sequence and content o f instruction must conform to that o f the curriculum it supports.  •  The sequence and manner in which the material is presented must adhere to an instructional model — preferably constructivist. The study presented an extensive methodology with notable outcomes. However, the  study treatment design identified the use o f two forms o f C A I : 1) the experimental group using  61  researcher developed software and, 2) the control group using commercial software on a voluntary basis. The author did not clearly delineate the amount o f time the control group spent in class or the type or the time the treatment group spent with the commercial C A I software. Further, given that there was no assessment (qualitative or quantitative) of the instructional methodologies or the curriculum content for the control group, it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of the instructional methodologies or to determine whether there was a clear relationship between the control and experimental group performances. However, the approaches used and the results obtained can serve as a model for future researchers seeking to design effect studies that address issues related to effective application of C A I . Meyer's (1997) work described the development of a versatile computer intonation improvement system to be used as an instructional tool for both violinists and instructors. Her computer system encompassed both hardware and software and included a pitch analyzer and three software packages. The work is important due to its clear delineation of the history of musical technologies relating to the author's work with intonation, and for the description o f her computer-based system design. The system Meyer (1997) used provided five options for assisting the student (i.e., a tuning system, error tolerance, metronome settings, practice sessions, and test sessions) and described various methodologies for utilizing the system's options. The author described the components o f the computer system, provided summaries of the software packages, abbreviated versions of the on-screen instructions, and examples of instructional routines and outcomes. Meyer described both the interactive procedures existent within the software and the program's multiple forms of representational feedback, giving examples of both visual and audio performance displays. The design of Meyer's (1990) system appears to have been effective and to have been  62  suitable for meeting the needs of diverse student populations. The design provided the user with a large number o f instructional options, allowed for choice o f level, sequence, and length o f time spent with each option. Its provision of practice and testing sessions allowed for multiple methods o f refining intonation and gave the user the opportanity to experiment with a variety of learning sequences that would best address individual learning requirements. Meyer (1990) did not provide demographic data for the test population, which does not allow the reader to address the application o f her methods to a diverse population; the use o f her intonation improvement system with younger students may be inappropriate. However, she did state that testing of an advanced violinist was successful. Meyer further suggested that fieldbased experimental research should be conducted to determine the system's effect upon student violinists' intonation. Although Meyer's study was not experimental, its quasi-descriptive nature stressed the necessity o f the music research community to carefully identify and design computer-assisted instructional systems and for researchers to investigate more thoroughly the processes involved in teaching and learning within C A I music instruction. A study by Gouzouasis (1990) directly relates to the current research, as the design and methodologies of the present study are derived from Gouzouasis's work. The Gouzouasis study incorporated the fundamental principles of Music Learning Theory (Gordon, 1971) and adhered to the processes inherent i n Gordon's Music Learning Theory (1989) methodology. Therefore, prior to the beginning of experimental music instruction, the Tonal Imagery (Melody and Harmony) and Rhythm Imagery subtests (Tempo and Meter) o f the Musical aptitude profile (Gordon, 1965) were administered to all subjects. The tests were administered to objectively evaluate the music aptitude levels of the subjects and to delineate a music aptitude baseline. Fifty-eight Grade 6 students from a socio-economically and ethnically diverse population in Ambler, Pennsylvania were randomly divided into two treatment groups. Each group of  63  students met twice a week over ten weeks for a 30-minute lesson that consisted of both Music Learning Theory sequential objectives and guitar performance instruction. One group underwent hierarchically sequenced guitar instruction and learned tonal and rhythm patterns arranged in three levels o f audiation difficulty: easy, moderately difficult, and difficult. The second group learned tonal and rhythm patterns not arranged in hierarchical order and not taught according to audiation levels. The treatment lasted for 10 weeks with each group meeting twice a week for 30 minutes. A l l music activities were taught using rote procedures based upon Gordon's Music Learning Theory sequential sequences. Composite ratings o f two independent judges were organized into two 2 x 2 designs (treatment by levels of aptitude). T w o 2-way analyses of variance, one each for the familiar major tonal and unfamiliar triple meter rhythm patterns, were performed to determine the comparative effects of the pattern instruction on the guitar achievement of students. Neither a significant interaction nor a main effect for treatment was found for the familiar major criterion tonal patterns. While no significant interaction effect was found, a significant treatment effect was found for the unfamiliar triple meter criterion rhythm patterns. The mean achievement o f students who possessed high rhythm aptitude was significantiy higher than the mean achievement for students who possessed lower rhythm aptitude, for both the criterion tonal patterns and the criterion rhythm patterns. Gouzouasis (1990) concluded that, although hierarchically ordered tonal pattern instruction does not enhance tonal aspects of guitar performance skills, hierarchically ordered rhythm pattern instruction does enhance rhythm aspects of guitar performance skills. H e further concluded that regardless of type o f instruction, students who possessed higher musical aptitude achieved higher levels of guitar performance skills than students who possessed lower levels o f musical aptitude. Gouzouasis suggested that students would become more successful at playing  64  the guitar i f they practiced audiating and singing the tonal patterns as well as audiating and chanting the rhythm patterns using both neutral syllables and the appropriate tonal and rhythm symbols at home. H e further suggested that teachers might consider teaching students to sing unfamiliar tonal patterns in additional modes and to chant unfamiliar rhythm patterns in triple and unusual meters before teaching students to play the guitar. Gouzouasis (1990) asserted that additional research was needed to develop extensive tonal and rhythm pattern taxonomies for general music and guitar instruction. H e also recommended that additional research be conducted to facilitate the development of intermediate and advanced level guitar teaching materials. Summary A detailed overview of relevant curriculum issues and practices currently found in the field of music curriculum and related technology-based instruction was presented in this review of the literature. The underlying philosophy and theoretical base o f this study and identified relationships within current music learning theory and practice was also examined. The researcher presented an overview of music-related technology, its application and accompanying instructional methods and techniques, and established their influence within the field. The writer attempted to highlight the development of multimedia and multi-dimensional instructional designs and applications for the creation o f effective instructional learning environments and identified interactive, multi-representational computer environments as rich educational resources for the support of technology-based music education. Also, a review o f instructional design methodologies within music technology-based instruction and C A I guitar instruction distinguishing traditional top-down or systems theory-based models with those that implement organismic/constructivist models of curriculum development was undertaken. Empirical work in music teaching and learning was discussed with studies pertaining to  65  the design, development, and implementation of computer-assisted music instruction presented identifying developments in C A I and online learning practices from 1967 to 2003. Theoretical approaches to design and implementation were found lacking and problems created by developers on either end of a technology/tradition instruction continuum repeatedly failed to demonstrate that both research and practice must integrate a strong theory of instruction. The primary focus o f the review was to assess the literature on the application of C A I for in-class instruction and on the identification of effective instructional design strategies and methodologies for incorporating C A I within the school-based guitar curriculum. N o studies were identified that determined the effects o f computer-assisted instructional methodologies on guitar instruction; therefore, related studies that directed methodological decisions were presented and discussed. Finally, the music learning theory-based guitar instruction dissertation by Gouzouasis (1990) and the subsequent development o f his Interactive Guitar software provided extensive direction throughout this research.  66  Chapter Three Methodology Chapter three presents the methods and procedures used to conduct the Pilot and Principal studies. Each study is presented in a separate section which addresses samples and settings, procedures, instructional pedagogy, data collection, data organization, and categorization. The Pilot Study Samples and Settings Subjects in the Pilot Study consisted o f grade eight students from two schools, Hatzic Senior Secondary High School in Mission, B C , and Garibaldi Senior Secondary High School in Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows, B C , both located in the lower mainland area of Greater Vancouver, Canada. Demographic data was gathered by surveying school administrators and school counselors, and by interviewing local real estate authorities and randomly selected students. Interview data suggested that the socio-economic character of households within these school districts was homogeneous and within the middle income bracket. The students in the Pilot Study were divided into two groups. The first group, the Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) Pilot group, was comprised of 12 volunteers from Hatzic Senior Secondary School. The C A I Pilot sample was obtained by requesting participation from the general grade eight student body at the school; students were asked i f they would be interested in learning to play the guitar with the assistance of a computer program. The request for student participation was made on behalf o f the researcher with the assistance of the school administration and an associated fine arts teacher. School announcements and teacher "word o f mouth" resulted in the 12 students who volunteered to become subjects in the project. The instruction was delivered after school hours for one hour each day for a six week time period in  67  the school's Macintosh computer laboratory. The sample size was reduced to 10 students after the first two initial classes due to difficulties with two students' "outside of timetable'' busing constraints. The second group, the Traditional Pilot sample, was gathered from grade eight students within the Garibaldi Senior Secondary (GSS) school-scheduled fine arts rotations. This population consisted of 87 students who had not previously selected band or choir, drama, or art as an option within their course of instruction. Those students were assigned to one o f three Fine Arts discipline rotations: music, art, or drama. Students rotated through each o f the three disciplines, studying each one for a six-week period before moving on to the next discipline. The assignment o f subjects to the Traditional Pilot group was directed by the researcher with the assistance of the school counseling department, which addressed class-scheduling issues. The entire second semester grade eight population was surveyed and asked i f they were interested in volunteering to learn to play the guitar. It was explained that guitar instruction was to be the content for their Fine Arts music rotation, and they were being asked to participate in a research project. Students who expressed an interest in playing the guitar were requested to volunteer for guitar instruction and were subsequendy assigned to the Pilot Study. The Traditional Pilot sample was comprised of 30 students, 15 of whom had volunteered for the instruction and 15 students who were randomly assigned to the group from the remaining second semester Grade Eight Fine Arts population. This random assignment was conducted by the school guidance office through a computer-assisted selection process. The remaining Grade Eight Fine Arts population subjects were also randomly assigned, using the same process, to the remaining two fine arts rotations (art and drama) and were later involved in the Principal Study. Prior to the experimental treatment, the researcher made personal contact with the participants and provided an explanation o f the conditions and requirements of the study, and  68  obtained formal consent for their participation. A s a component of pre-instruction the researcher administered a pre-treatment questionnaire that identified experiential, attimdinal, and preferential participant information (see Appendix B . l ) . The researcher read all participants the 14  same information to insure consistency of content and direction (See Appendix C, Questionnaire Instructional Procedures). In addition to the survey questionnaire, the researcher administered a standardized musical aptitude test, the Music Aptitude Profile (Gordon, 1965), and the Iowa Tests o f Music Literacy pre-treatment standardized music achievement tests to all participants (Gordon, 1991a). The Music Aptitude Profile (MAP) and the Iowa Tests ofMusic Literacy  (TTML) tests were administered on separate days to coincide with the student time table and to eliminate student test fatigue. Testing and Assessment Tools Musical Aptitude Profile  The MAP (Gordon, 1965) was designed to act as an objective aid in the evaluation of a student's basic musical aptitude so that the teacher can better provide for individual needs and abilities. The MAP was also designed to minimize assessment o f musical achievement so that the basic factors of musical aptitude may be adequately evaluated. The value o f a test, as stated by Gordon (1965), "is determined by the extent to which it results i n the improved instruction and more effective utilization o f human talent" (p. 2). Employed appropriately, test scores on the Musical Aptitude Profile can be used:  •  to adapt music instruction to meet the individual needs and abilities of students,  •  to encourage musically talented students to participate in music performance organizations,  These data were used to identify student prior experience, attitudes, and interests and were used to situate the quantitative experimental treatment.  69  •  to formulate education plans in music,  •  to evaluate the musical aptitude of groups o f students, and  •  to provide parents with objective information. The basic musical factors measured by the MAP are classified into three divisions:  /.  Tonal Imagery  2.  Rhythm Imagery, and  3.  Musical Sensitivity.  Each test contains the following: /.  2.  3.  Tonal Imagery (T) •  Melody (T1)  •  Harmony (T2)  Rhythm Imagery (R) •  Tempo (R1)  •  Meter (R2)  Musical Sensitivity (S) •  Phrasing (S1)  •  Balance (S2)  •  Style (S3)  Over 300 studies have used the MAP as a criterion measure in music learning research. Results of those studies substantiate the use of the MAP subtest scores as diagnostic tools in the efficient and objective evaluation o f the nature and scope of an individual's music aptitude (Cohen & Sherbon, 1995; Cutietta, 1991; Froseth, 1968,1971; Gordon, 1989b; Jung & Walters, 1993; Levendusky, 1979).  70  T o obtain a statistical baseline and to identify participant musical ability, all participants were pre-tested with both the Tonal Imagery and the Rhythm Imagery subtests o f the MAP (Gordon, 1965, 1991c). Due to specific measures of interest related to the treatments within the Pilot and the Principal studies (melody and rhythm) only subtests Melody T1 (hereafter referred to as Tonal) and Meter R2 (hereafter referred to as Rhythm) were used. Further, as Gouzouasis (1990) points out, "tonal and rhythm patterns are the fundamental components of music," and have a strong correlation among tonal, rhythm and composite scores, therefore provide an effective baseline for music aptitude assessment. Published reliability coefficients for the Grade Eight standardization sample for the Melodic and Meter tests were both .79 (Gordon, 1965, 1991c). Students were asked to complete the Tonal and Rhythm subtests according to the "Specific Directions for Administering the Musical Aptitude Profile" section o f the MAP Test manual (pp. 26i-26v). Standard and percentile scores were calculated from the students' raw scores. Students were assessed and placed in "higher" and "lower" audiation ability categories. Based upon the mean scores provided in the MAP manual (p. 53), students who scored above 50.0 on T I Melody or scored above the 50.5 standard score in R2 Meter as a standard score were designated as possessing higher aptitude. Those students who scored below the published mean were designated as possessing lower aptitude (Gordon, 1965, 1991c). The Iowa Tests ofMusical Literacy The Iowa Tests o f Musical Literacy [ITMl], (Gordon, 1991b) were designed to assess music achievement sequentially and to complement Gordon's Music Learning Theory components (tone, rhythm, and syntax) and Music Learning Theory-based research practices (Gouzouasis, 1990). According to Gordon (1989a), basic music achievement includes tonal,  71  rhythm, and notation audiation. The ITML battery includes six tests, which are classified into two divisions, Tonal Concepts and Rhythm Concepts. The tests consist of: /.  2.  Tonal Concepts •  Tonal Audiation/ listening  •  Tonal Audiation/ reading  •  Tonal Audiation/writing  Rhythm Concepts •  Rhythm Audiation/ listening  »  Rhythm Audiation/reading  •  Rhythm Audiation/writing  The ITML was researched from 1965 to 1973, particularly as validity criteria within Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP) longitudinal studies (Gordon, 1991c). Moreover, several studies have been undertaken to investigate the various types of experimental validity of the ITML}  5  (Mohatt, 1971; Swindell, 1970; Schleuter, 1971; Thayer, 1971; Volger, 1973 cited in Gordon). The reliability coefficient for the Tonal/listening test is .88 and for the Rhythm Audiation/listening tests is .79. The ITML Tonal and Rhythm subtests were administered to the Pilot subjects both preand post-treatment to assess student achievement in general music knowledge. Only the Level 1 Tonal Audiation/listening and Rhythm Audiation/listening subtests were used for testing for general music knowledge assessment.  The I T L M has received extensive scrutiny through the Buros Institute of Mental Measures and has been deemed to be an effective test as reported in the Mental Measures Yearbook (Radocy, 1998).  72  Students were asked to complete these subtests following the "Directions to the Teacher for Administering the Iowa Tests of Music Literacy" section o f the Iowa Tests of Music Literacy manual (pp. 22-27). Students' standard scores and percentile scores were then calculated from students' raw scores. Pilot Study Procedures A series of technical assessments were conducted prior to the commencement of instruction. Each participant was to be provided with a full-size nylon string (classical) guitar, appropriate to the student's handedness, hand size, and finger dexterity. After assessment, each student was provided with an appropriate instrument, guitar picks, a capo, and the required instructional materials. Additionally, the Hatzic C A I treatment group participants were each assigned a computer terminal and instructed in the operation o f the Macintosh computer to ensure that there were no difficulties in operating the equipment. The two treatment groups, C A I (Treatment A) and Traditional Instruction (Treatment B), followed the same curriculum derived from the Interactive Guitar (IG) program — an instructional content and sequence methodology (Gouzouasis, 1996b). T o ensure content and methodological consistency, the instructional content and sequence from the IG computer program were transferred into a print-based format for Treatment B (see Appendix D ) . Treatment Group A received the IG learning materials resident on a network server and delivered by the computer within a computer laboratory setting. The Hatzic computer laboratory consisted of 28 Power P C Performa Macintosh computers with an additional Macintosh Performa acting as the server. Students followed the instructional sequence directed by the IG software resident on the computer network. The researcher acted only as a mediator . 16  The researcher's mediation role entailed providing direction with using the computers and/or the software, assisting »with guitar and capo operation, and to providing 'staying on task' 16  73  Treatment B group received the print-based instructional materials presented by the researcher using traditional classroom instructional techniques (see Appendix D ) . Both Treatment A and B groups received instruction five days a week for 60 minutes per day, with the entire course delivered over a six week period. Eight sessions were used for set-up and testing (pre- and post-treatment); the students received a total o f 20 instructional sessions. The Pilot Study groups met from February 2,1998 to March 13,1998. Instructional Procedures The instructional procedures were directed by the IG sequence o f learning (Gouzouasis, 1996b) and the instructional methodology posited by Gouzouasis (1990) in his study ' A n investigation o f the comparative effects o f two tonal pattern systems and two rhythmic pattern systems for learning to play the guitar." The IG computer software (Gouzouasis 1996b) adapted the developmental instructional learning sequences identified within Gordon's Music Learning Theory to guitar-specific electronic presentation on a C D - R O M . The instructional sequence emphasized the development of audiation-based abilities, singing and rhythm skills, and the development o f executive guitar techniques. A l l participants followed a set of routines organized in lesson format and participated by watching, listening, and echoing, as set out within the IG learning sequence (see Appendix A ) . The Treatment A group followed the instructional sequence specified within the software (see Appendix A). The researcher presented the materials, without variation, according to the linear design of the software. The IG software consisted of six components, each based upon a sequential arrangement o f content premised upon Gordon's Music Learning Theory  reinforcement. The mediation was designed to assist the students in forming a connecting link between the technology and the instructional materials.  74  principles and procedures. The components included: Lessons, Techniques, Meters, Songs, Tonal Patterns, and Tunings. Participants completed Components 2 (Techniques) and 6 (Tunings) o f the software, then proceeded sequentially through the remaining components (Lessons, Meters, Songs, and Tonal Patterns) that delineated the instructional approach and learning sequence. Treatment A was entirely self-paced; the researcher provided direction only in finding the routines and instructional materials, functional assistance (hand position, fingerings, and pick strokes), and clarification of the IG software. The Treatment B group received the identical content as the Treatment A group. A s directed by IG instructional sequence, the researcher sang a song or tonal pattern or chanted a rhythm pattern, and the students responded by singing or chanting that song, tonal pattern, or rhythm pattern. The songs were in major or minor tonalities, in either duple or triple meter, and were unitonal (including only one tonality) and unimetric (including only one meter). A s per Gordon (1989b), the tonal patterns were in major and minor tonalities, and the rhythm patterns were in duple and triple meters. The researcher frequently demonstrated how to play and sing the patterns o f the songs, and how to chant and play the rhythm patterns. After the songs, tonal patterns, and rhythm patterns were learned, the students performed without the researcher singing, chanting, or playing guitar. The tonal patterns, rhythm patterns, chord progressions, and songs were offered to the student as they were presented in the IG software. A l l students learned to sing the tonal patterns on a neutral syllable Tja' to establish famiHarity, and then they learned to sing those familiar tonal patterns with solfege syllables, using a movable 'do' system ('do' based major, 'la' based minor). T o avoid the confusion o f octave transposition, the researcher always sang the tonal patterns in the actual pitch range in which they were performed on the guitar. The same familiar tonal patterns were transferred to the guitar with the aid of solfege syllables using the following sequence of techniques:  75  1. The researcher sang the tonal pattern with the appropriate syllables and the students echoed the pattern with the same syllables. 2. The researcher used a singing voice to describe the location o f the tonal pattern on the guitar, waited for the students to finger the pattern on the fingerboard, and then repeated the same tonal pattern with the appropriate pitches and syllables 3. The students sang the same tonal pattern and prepared to play the first pitch o f the pattern; upon direction they then performed the tonal pattern on the guitar. As directed by the IG software, the pitches in the tonal patterns were always performed using a non-metric down-pick motion. A l l students learned to chant the rhythm patterns with a steady macro beat on a neutral syllable (i.e., *ba' for rhythm patterns) to establish familiarity with the patterns. A macro beat is the fundamental beat in a rhythm pattern (Gordon, 1989a; 1993). For example, in usual duple meter with the measure signature 2/4, quarter notes are the performed, or underlying, macro beats. In usual triple meter with the measure signature 6/8, dotted quarter notes are the performed, or underlying, macro beats. Students then learned to chant those familiar rhythm patterns with rhythm syllables using the beat function system (i.e., the same syllable, du', was e  used to label the macro beat in duple and triple meters). The same familiar rhythm patterns were transferred to the guitar with the rhythm syllables, using the following sequence o f techniques: 1. The researcher chanted the rhythm pattern with a steady macro beat and with the appropriate rhythm syllables, and the students echoed the pattern with the same rhythm syllables. 2. The researcher chanted the picking motion o f the rhythm pattern, for example, "down, down, down-up, down" for a pattern that was rhythmically notated J J fl J as he performed that motion on the guitar. 3. The students chanted the picking motion o f the rhythm pattern and performed that motion in the air over the strings of the guitar without sounding the rhythm pattern on the guitar.  76  4. The researcher chanted the rhythm pattern with a steady macro beat and with the appropriate rhythm syllables, and the students echoed the pattern with the same rhythm syllables. 5. The students performed the rhythm pattern on a single chord on the guitar. For rhythm patterns in duple meter, the macro beat was performed using a down-pick motion, and the micro beat (division o f a macro beat into temporarily equal parts as per Gordon, 1977,1993) was performed using an up-pick motion. A l l students learned to play the guitar with proper body posture in the same manner. A plectrum (guitar pick) was used to sound collective and individual pitches. Students learned to hold the pick in a consistent manner, and to pick and strum using a consistent hand and arm motion. Tonal patterns were sounded using a consistent picking motion of the arm and hand as well. The participants in both treatment groups A and B progressed sequentially through the IG materials at the same rate. However, the materials/content contained in lessons 12 to 14 were not included or assessed in the Pilot Study. The end o f the music section of the Fine Arts rotation forced the early conclusion o f the study. The participants in both treatment groups A and B were required to complete a bi-daily comment sheet (See Appendix B.2) identifying basic procedures and content they completed during the treatment. A weekly observation checklist (See Appendix B.3) was completed by the researcher, identifying basic student procedure reactions, delivery modality responses, learning materials comments, social reactions, and technical concerns . 17  A s with the Pilot Study pre-treatment questionnaires, these instruments were used to collect data with which to identify student attitudes, interests, motivation, and to situate the quantitative experimental treatment. 17  77  After the 5 weeks o f instruction, a video-taped test was conducted to determine guitar achievement (applied knowledge and performance ability). Each student performed a representative set of 15 tonal patterns, ten rhythm patterns, one moderately difficult harmonic progression, and one difficult melody. A l l selections were chosen from the IG instructional materials by the researcher and two other music teachers familiar with the IG instructional sequence and materials (see Appendix E ) . The criteria for inclusion in the assessment materials were: •  the content must have been covered within the instructional time period;  •  the tonal patterns must be representative o f the tonal patterns presented within the instructional period;  •  the rhythm patterns must be representative of the rhythm patterns presented within the instructional period;  •  the harmonic patterns must be representative o f the harmonic patterns presented within the instructional period; and  •  the melodic patterns must be representative o f the melodic patterns presented within the instructional period. The choice of testing material was based on a researcher-corroborated independent  assessment of the learning materials presented within the instructional sequence. The researcher identified the level of mastery as a reasonable demonstration of competency based on the difficulty level o f the materials, the duration of instruction, and the novelty of the performance and testing (video-taping) environment. Therefore, the testing materials were selected to represent instructional content at the competency or mastery level. T o assess student performance, the video camera lens was focused on the guitar neck and body and the hand positions of the student performing the patterns. A high quality audio recording o f all tonal, rhythm, harmonic, and melodic pattern performances was made using a sensitive video microphone to assist the judges in obtaining an accurate measure of performance  78  achievement for each student and to eliminate testing anomalies. A performance test audio-tape was prepared by the researcher. The tape presented the rationale, directions, and performance examples for the test procedures, and identified the expectations for mastery performance for all four sections (tonal, rhythm, harmonic and melodic patterns; see Appendix F). Rating Scales Student achievement in guitar performance was assessed by two judges independentiy, using identical, guitar-specific, five-point continuous rating scales based on Gordon's theory of music learning (see Appendix Gl). The design of the Pilot Study rating scales was based upon those previously developed by Gouzouasis (1990). Each performance rating scale, as identified in the research (Gordon, 1989a; Gouzouasis 1990; Orman, 1998) incorporated a predetermined set of criteria or competency levels, categorized in terms of raw scores with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. The criteria for the rating scales are presented below: Tonal Pattern performance rating scale 5  The learner can perform the tonal pattern on the guitar  4  The learner can perform most (75%) of the tonal pattern on the guitar  3  The learner can finger the tonal pattern and can perform some of the tonal pattern on the guitar  2  The learner can finger some of the tonal pattern but cannot perform the tonal pattern on the guitar  1  The learner cannot perform any of the tonal pattern on the guitar  Rhythm Pattern performance rating scale 5  The learner can perform the complete rhythm pattern on the guitar  4  The learner can perform at least two macro beats and no more than three macro beats of the rhythm pattern on the guitar  3  The learner can locate the pattern on the guitar, but cannot accurately perform the pattern on the guitar  79  2  The learner can perform very little of the pattern on the guitar  1  The learner cannot perform any of the pattern on the guitar  Harmonic performance rating scale 5  The learner can perform all of the chords to the entire song on the guitar  4  The learner can perform most (75%) of the chords to the song on the guitar  3  The learner can finger the chords to the song on the guitar, but cannot perform all of the chords of the song on the guitar  2  The learner can perform very few of the chords of the song on the guitar  1  The learner cannot perform the chords of the song on the guitar  Melodic Performance rating scale 5  The learner can perform all of the notes of the melody to the song correctly and in rhythm on the guitar  4  The learner can perform most (75%) of the melody on the guitar  3  The learner can finger the melody on the guitar, and can perform some of the melody on the guitar  2  The learner can perform only a few of the notes of the melody to the song on the guitar  1  The learner cannot perform any of the melody on the guitar  T o achieve a high degree of interjudge assessment reliability, the researcher prepared an evaluation kit comprised of a training component and project evaluation materials. The training component included a video cassette recording containing a representative set of learner performances that provided the judge with examples of each level of learner performance, a set of instructions that explained why and how the rating scales were constructed, a guide for using the rating scales, and learner evaluation sheets for the training component (see Appendix G2). Samples from the two judges' ratings of the training component video assessments were  80  compared and discussed in an attempt to ensure a mutual understanding o f the criteria for rating. The evaluation component of the kit contained a video cassette for each treatment group within the Pilot Study, a guide for using the rating scales, and labeled student evaluation sheets for each evaluation component of the Pilot Study. Pilot Study Results The Pilot study examined the following two research hypotheses: 1. Mean scores on guitar tonal, rhythm, harmonic, melodic, and composite performance skill tests of eighth grade students who have received traditional guitar instruction will not significantly differ from the mean scores on the same tests of eighth grade students who have received computer-assisted guitar instruction, regardless of higher or lower audiation abilities. 2.  Mean differences between the pre- and post-test scores on the Rhythm and Tonal ITML. of eighth grade students who have received traditional guitar instruction will not significandy differ from the mean differences between the pre-test and post-test scores on the same tests of eighth grade students who have received computer-assisted guitar instruction, regardless of higher or lower audiation abilities. Again, all subjects were assigned to one o f two groups based on their audiation abilities  as established using the Music Aptitude Profile (MAP). Based upon the mean scores provided in the MAP manual (p. 53), students who scored in the 50th percentile or higher on either T I Melody or R I Meter were considered to possess higher aptitude. Students who scored in the 49th percentile or lower were considered to possess lower aptitude. T o address the first research problem, two independent judges rated student guitar performance using identical five-point continuous rating scales. Interjudge reliability quotients were then calculated using Kendall's tau for each performance measure and found to be  81  exceptionally high (see Table 2 below). Kendall's tau was chosen because it calculates correlation considering all pairs o f data, and therefore matches the actual scoring technique. Table 2 Interjudge Reliabilities on Performance Measures Performance Measure  Interjudge Reliabilities  Performance Tonal  0.99  Performance Rhythm  0.97  Performance Harmonic  0.99  Performance Melodic  0.99  Given the high interjudge reliabilities, all further calculations and analyses were performed using the average of the two judges' scores. The data for the first research question were analyzed using a two factor design. Factor A was the Treatment (i.e., instructional method: C A I and Traditional Instruction) and factor B was Aptitude. There were five dependent variables: the judges' mean scores for 1) tonal, 2) rhythm, 3) harmonic, and 4) melodic performance, in addition to 5) a composite score consisting of the average o f the four performance measures. Based upon the methodology identified by Huberty and Morris  18  (1989)  the data were analyzed using one A N O V A for each o f the five performance measures, for a total of five A N O V A s (see Tables 3 through 8, pp. 83-86). The confidence level of each individual test was established at a= .01 so that the cumulative test for significance would be^> < 0.05 (i.e., 5 A N O V A s at^> = .01 totals p - .05). Where significant interactions were identified, a  The Huberty and Morris multiple A N O V A technique was used to control for Type I error probability. This technique addressed the use o f multiple A N O V A at a significant level ofp—.QX to ensure that there was 99% confidence that the results occurred as a result o f the experimental intervention. Given that the data was analyzed using one A N O V A for each of the five performance measures, with the confidence level set at .01 the cumulative tests for significance would not exceed^>>0.05. 18  82  Bonferroni post hoc test was conducted to determine at what levels the interaction effects were taking place. As can be seen in Table 3 (below), students taught by CAI scored significandy higher (4.76) on Tonal Performance than students taught by traditional instruction (3.88). Students who possess higher music aptitude scored significandy higher (4.26) than students who possessing lower aptitude (3.79).  Table 3 A N O V A for Tonal Performance Score Source  MS  F  4f  SS  Treatment  l  13.11  13.11  Aptitude  l  4.14  4.14  9.4*  Treatment x Aptitude  I  0.51  0.51  1.16  Error  68  29.73  0.44  Total  71  47.88  M  SD  CAI (n=8)  4.76  0.45  Trad (n=28)  3.88  0.80  M  SD  High (n=22)  4.26  0.76  Low (n=14)  3.79  0.84  M  SD  CAI-High (n=3)  5  0  CAI-Low (n=5)  4.61  0.52  Trad-High (n=19)  4.14  0.76  Trad-Low (n =9)  3.33  0.60  Treatment  Aptitude  Treatment x Aptitude  */K.01  29.98*  83 As can be seen in Table 4 (below), students who possess higher musical aptitude scored higher (4.77) than students who possess lower Aptitude (4.03).  Table 4 A N O V A for Rhythm Performance Scores Source  f  SS  MS  F  Treatment  1  0.30  0.30  0.73  Aptitude  1  5.10  5.10  12.44*  Treatment x Aptitude  1  0.55  0.55  1.35  Error  68  27.86  0.41  Total  71  38.23  M  SD  CAI (n=8)  4.44  0.96  Trad (n=28)  4.49  0.67  M  SD  Treatment  Aptitude High (n=22)  4.77  0.41  Low (n=14)  4.03  0.90  Treatment x Aptitude  M  SD  CAI-High (n=3)  4.72  0.09  CAI-Low (n=5)  4.27  1.20  Trad-High (n=19)  4.78  0.44  Trad-Low (n =9)  3.39  0.68  *p<.01  As can be seen in Table 5 (on p. 84), students taught using traditional instruction methods scored significantly higher (4.49) on Harmonic Performance than students taught by CAI (3.63). Students who possess higher musical aptitude scored higher (4.60) than students who possess lower musical aptitude (3.82). However, the differences were not significant.  84  Table 5 A N O V A for Harmonic Performance Scores  Df  SS  MS  F  Treatment  1  5.55  5.55  11.54*  Aptitude  1  3.21  3.21  6.67*  Treatment x Aptitude  1  0.44  0.44  0.91  Error  68  32.68  0.48  Total  71  48.83  M  SD  C A I (n=8)  3.63  0.56  Trad (n=28)  4.49  0.79  M  SD  High (n=22)  4.60  0.62  L o w (n=14)  3.82  0.89  M  SD  C A I - H i g h (n=3)  3.83  0.26  C A I - L o w (n=5)  3.5  0.67  Trad-High (n=19)  4.72  0.58  Trad-Low (n =9)  4.0  0.97  Source  Treatment  Aptitude  Treatment x Aptitude  *p<M  A s can be seen in Table 6 (on p. 85), there was a significant main effect i n Aptitude (4.38 vs. 2.77) and also a significant interaction between Treatment and Aptitude (4.59 vs. 3.0).  85  Table 6 A N O V A for Melodic Performance Scores Source  df  SS  MS  F 6.01  Treatment  1  5.52  5.52  Aptitude  1  11.45  11.45  12.48*  Treatment x Aptitude  1  9.27  9.27  10.10*  Error  68  62.40  0.92  Total  71  Treatment  M  120 SD  C A I (n=8)  2.94  1.09  Trad (n=28)  3.98  1.27  Aptitude  M  SD  High (n=22)  4.38  0.99  L o w (n=14)  2.77  1.11  Treatment x Aptitude  M  SD  C A I - H i g h (n=3)  3.0  0.89  C A I - L o w (n=5)  2.9  1.24  Trad-High (n=19)  4.59  0.83  Trad-Low (n =9)  2.69  1.06  *p<M  The Bonferroni test results for Treatment*Aptitude are presented i n Table 7 (on p. 86). A s can been seen, the differences i n melodic performance scores between the two treatments for students who possess higher musical aptitude (1.59) and for students who possess lower musical aptitude (-0.21) ate significant. Students who possess higher aptitude and were taught by traditional methods scored higher (4.59) than students who possess higher aptitude and were taught by C A I (3.0; see Table 6 on p. 86). Students who were taught by traditional methods who possess higher aptitude scored higher (4.59) than those students who possess lower aptitude (2.69; see Table 6 above).  86  Table 7 Bonferroni Tests for Melodic Performance Scores Source  std. err.  Prob  1.59  0.42  < 0.001  Low,Trad - L o w , C A  -0.21  0.38  1.0  Low,CAI - Hi,CAI  -0.1  0.49  1.0  Low,Trad - Hi,Trad  -1.90  0.27  < 0.001*  Hi,Trad - H i , C A I  Difference  */><0.01 A s can be seen in Table 8 (below), no significant main effects or interactions were found for composite performance scores. Table 8 A N O V A for Composite Performance Scores df  SS  MS  F  Treatment  1  0.04  0.04  0.09  Aptitude  1  2.73  2.73  6.82  Treatment x Aptitude  1  1.04  1.04  2.61  0.40  Source  Error  32  12.83  Total  35  19.23  M  SD  C A I (n=8)  3.95  0.59  Trad (n=28)  4.23  0.79  M  SD  High (n=22)  AM  0.63  L o w (n=14)  3.64  0.67  M  SD  C A I - H i g h (n=3)  4.14  0.34  C A I - L o w (n=5)  3.87  0.68  Trad-High (n=19)  4.48  0.65  Trad-Low (n =9)  3.37  0.58  Treatment  Aptitude  Treatment x Aptitude  87  The second research question examined the effects of C A I and Traditional instruction on general music achievement of eighth grade students who possess higher or lower audiation abilities. These data were analyzed using two 2 x 2 A N O V A s where factor A was the Treatment (instructional method: C A I and Traditional Instruction) and factor B was Aptitude (higher and lower). One A N O V A was conducted for 7 T M L Tonal Achievement scores (see Table 9 below), and a second was conducted for ITML Rhythm Achievement scores (see Table 11, p. 88). The dependent variable for each analysis was the difference between the pre- and post-test ITML scores. Table 9 A N O V A for ITML Tonal Pretest and Posttest mean differences Source  4f  SS  MS  F  Treatment  l  151.35  151.35  0.72  Aptitude  l  11.57  11.57  0.05  Treatment*Aptitude  l  0.19  8.80  0.191  Error  32  6769.53  Total  35  6922  211.55  For the ITML scores, the confidence level of each individual test was established at a^.025 (unlike the guitar performance measures) so that the overall test for significance for both the Tonal and Rhythm Achievement scores would not exceedp < 0.05. Cell means and standard deviations are presented by factor for both Tonal and Rhythm ITML test scores. As can be seen in Table 9 (above), no significant main effects or interactions were found. As can be seen in Table 10 (on p. 88), no significant differences between pre- and post-test means were found regardless of instructional method or aptitude. A s can be seen in Table 11 (on p. 88), no significant main effects or significant interactions were found. A s can be seen in Table  88  12 (on p. 89), no significant differences between pre- and post-test means were found regardless of instructional method or aptitude.  Table 10 Cell Means and Standard Deviations by Factors for Tonal Achievement Scores  Treatment  Pre-test  Pre-test  Post-test  Post-test  Post-test  Post-test  M  SD  M  SD  MD  SD  C A I (n=8)  44.75  0.90  '42.75  10.87  -2  14.69  Trad (n=28)  51.46  12.71  54.18  10.93  2.71  13.98  High (n=22)  53.14  12.60  54.73  12.57  1.59  14.74  L o w (n=14)  45.0  11.01  C A I * H i g h (n==3)  45.67  5.77  42.67  9.07  C A I * L o w (n==5)  44.2  13.79  42.8  12.87  Trad*High (n= 19)  54.32  13.07  56.63  12.13  2.32  15.00  Trad*Low (n = 9)  45.44  10.06  49  5.27  3.56  12.32  Aptitude  46.85  8.81  1.79  13.47  Treatment*Aptitude -3  14.80  -1.4  16.33  Table 11 A N O V A for J T M L Rhythm Pre-test and Post-test mean differences Source  df  SS  MS  F  Treatment  1  26.33  26.33  0.07  Aptitude  1  46.87  46.87  0.12  Treatment*Aptitude  1  13.65  13.65  0.034  Error  32  12833.3  Total  35  12891.6  401.04  89  Table 12 Cell Means and Standard Deviations by Factors for Rhythm Achievement Scores Pre-test  Pre-test  Post-test  Post-test  Mean  M  SD  M  SD  Differences  CAI (n=8)  43.75  8.61  41.5  14.53  -2.25  16.02  Trad (n=28)  44.93  13.08  44.04  17.36  -0.89  20.26  High (n=22)  46.36  11.55  44.55  17.94  -1.89  18.04  Low (n=14)  42  12.97  41.79  14.77  -0.21  21.55  CAI-High (n=3)  48.67  8.08  43.67  16.44  -5  8.66  CAI-Low (n=5)  40.8  8.26  40.2  15.12  -0.6  20.06  Trad-High (n=19)  46  12.14  44.68  18.58  -1.32  19.22  Trad-Low (n = 9)  42.67  15.42  42.67  15.41  0  23.52  Treatment  SD  Aptitude  Treatment*Aptitude  Pilot Study Results Based on the results of the Pilot Study, it was decided to proceed with the Principal Study. The following adaptations were made as a result of the findings within the Pilot Study: •  a review of the testing materials, procedures, and assessment instructions was conducted. Procedural guidelines were created to align with the MAP, ITML, and the IG administration and assessment criteria;  •  a performance evaluation simulation was conducted. A researcher pattern and song demonstration was evaluated by the Pilot Study judges using the identified rating scales with independent judge assessments to ensure consistency;  •  audio-taped performance/assessment directions were re-recorded;  90  •  high quality headphones were provided to each student, to address high noise levels within the computer-assisted instructional setting, and to allow for clarity in hearing computer audio representations.  The Principal Study Study Samples and Setting The Principal Study participants were 53 grade eight students from Garibaldi Senior Secondary High School. They were selected from a cohort whose members had previously been assigned, during the Pilot Study selection process, to the two remaining Grade Eight Fine Arts rotations: art or drama. Demographic data was collected in the same fashion as in the Pilot Study. The students in the Principal Study were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: 1) CAI group (Garibaldi group three), and 2) Traditional Instruction group (Garibaldi group two). The Principal Study treatment group subjects were selected based upon the sample selection method used in the Pilot Study selection process. To review, the entire second semester grade 8 population was surveyed, prior to the Pilot Study and asked if they were interested in learning to play the guitar. Interested students, plus an additional 15 students (identified by a computer process for randomized selection), were assigned to the Pilot Study (traditional Treatment Group B). The remaining Grade Eight Fine Arts (second semester) population was then randomly assigned, through the toss of a coin, to one of the two Principal Study experimental treatments groups. The second Fine Arts rotation students were assigned to Treatment B (traditional instruction), and the third Fine Arts rotation students were assigned to Treatment A (computer-assisted instruction).  91  As in the Pilot Study, personal contact was made with each participant to provide an explanation of the conditions and requirements o f the Principal Study and to obtain formal consent prior to commencement of the experimental treatment. A s a component o f preinstruction, the researcher administered a pre-treatment questionnaire that identified experiential, attimdinal, and preferential participant information (see Appendix B l ) . The researcher read the same information to all participants to ensure consistency of content and direction (See Appendix C). After they completed the survey questionnaire, the MAP (Gordon, 1965, 1991c), and the pre-treatment ITML (Gordon, 1991b) were administered to all participants. Procedural Considerations The testing methods used in the Pilot Study were assessed using procedural analysis methods which identified possible procedural, assessment, and testing errors. A s a result of that analysis, the researcher prepared the Principal Study testing materials, procedures, and instructions in accordance with the instructions provided in the MAP procedure manual, ITML procedure manual, and the IG instructional sequence (Appendix A ) . A s a further quality assurance procedure, the audio-taped performance directions were assessed to evaluate procedural directions and to ensure clarity through high quality audio presentation. A s a result o f this analysis, the audio-taped guitar performance instructions were re-recorded to meet professional audio fidelity standards. The performance testing component was fiirther evaluated by the researcher through performance evaluation simulation. Using this method, the researcher demonstrated the performance patterns and songs following the instructions presented on the audiotape. The researcher's demonstration was video-taped and evaluated using the identified rating scales. A quantitative/qualitative assessment was conducted, independently by the Pilot Study judges, to ascertain the clarity of direction and performance outcomes.  92  A problem in the computer-assisted instructional setting was identified by Pilot Study participants and researchers. The high noise levels in the instructional milieu resulting from the subjects' vocalizations (speaking, chanting, and singing), guitar performance, and computer sound presentation made it very difficult for subjects to concentrate on their own performance and to participate effectively. T o address this problem in the Principal Study, the researcher provided each student with a set of high quality headphones to allow him or her to hear the computer audio representation of the musical patterns and songs effectively. Testing Procedures A s in the Pilot Study, the MAP (Gordon, 1965, 1991c,) were administered, stricdy adhering to the methods, procedures, and wording identified in the "Specific Directions for Administering the Musical Aptitude Profile" section (pp. 26i-26v) of the Music Aptitude Profile Test manual. These procedures were employed to maintain consistency with the procedures used to obtain baseline data identified within the MAP Test manual. Data were collected and percentile scores were calculated from the raw and standardized scores. As in the Pilot Study, instruction within the Principal Study focused on the students' ability to audiate and perform tonal patterns, rhythm patterns, melodic patterns, and songs. The researcher concluded that the instructional pedagogy in the IG sequence of instruction was appropriate and appeared to be aligned with the suspected level o f achievement o f this sample. Therefore, as in the Pilot Study, it was necessary to administer the I T M L Tonal and Rhythm subtests to the study groups both before and after the study to assess student achievement in general music knowledge. Only the Tonal Audiation/Listening and Rhythm Audiation/Listening subtests Level 1 were used for testing for general music knowledge assessment. Strictly adhering to the written instructions included in the "Directions to the Teacher for Adrninistering the Iowa Tests ofMusic Literacy" section (pp. 22-27) of the Iowa Tests ofMusic  93  Literacy manual (see Iowa Tests o f Music Literacy, Gordon, 1991c,), students were asked to complete Level 1 of the Tonal Concepts and Rhythm Concepts subtests. Following the test scoring assessment procedures, student raw scores, standard scores, and percentile scores were calculated.  Principal Study Procedures As in the Pilot Study, participants were provided with a full-size nylon string (classical) guitar appropriate to the student's handedness, hand size, and finger dexterity. Further, each student was provided with guitar picks, a capo, and the required instructional materials. Additionally, the C A I treatment group participants were assigned in pairs to a single computer terminal and instructed in the use o f the Macintosh computer to ensure that there were no difficulties in operating the equipment. Further, computer assistance was provided by the computer applications students to ensure the effective operation o f the computers used i n the Principal Study. Unlike the Pilot Study, participants within the Principal Study C A I treatment group were provided with a high quality set of audio headphones. These headphones allowed the participants to clearly hear the audio component of the IG computer software and to focus on the computer presentation. The C A I group subjects did not each have a computer. Unfortunately, the limited number of computers required the students, in all but a few cases, to share computers. T w o students were situated in front o f each computer screen and used a headphone splitter to allow students to simultaneously hear the audio component of the IG software. As in the Pilot Study, both treatment groups followed the same curriculum from the Interactive Guitar (Gouzouasis, 1996b) instructional content and sequence. T o ensure content and methodological consistency, the instructional content and sequence from the Interactive Guitar computer program was transferred to a print-based format for Treatment B (see Appendix D ) .  94  Treatment B students received instruction by the researcher using traditional classroom instructional techniques. Treatment A students received the C A I Interactive Guitar (IG) learning materials delivered by computer within a computer lab setting. Students followed the instructional sequence directed by the IG software. The researcher acted only as a mediator . The Principal Study's 19  computer-assisted instructional computer lab configuration consisted o f 18 Power P C Performa Macintosh computers with an additional Macintosh Performa acting as the server. Special cabinets were supplied to house guitars and headphones. Both Treatment groups (A & B) received instruction five days a week for 60 minutes per day; the materials were delivered over a six week period. Given the time allotment for testing and instruction, the students received a total o f 20 instructional sessions. The Treatment A , C A I group met from May 3 to June 14, 1998 while the Treatment B group, traditional instruction met from March 26, to May 1,1998. Instructional Procedures As in the Pilot Study, the instructional procedures were directed by the IG sequence o f learning (Gouzouasis, 1996b) and the instructional methodology posited by Gouzouasis (1990) in his study "An investigation o f the comparative effects o f two tonal pattern systems and two rhythmic pattern systems for learning to play the guitar". The IG computer software (Gouzouasis 1996b) adapted the developmental instructional learning sequences identified within Gordon's Music Learning Theory to guitar-specific electronic presentation on a C D R O M . The instructional sequence emphasized the development o f audiation-based abilities,  A s in the Pilot study, the researcher's mediation role entailed providing direction with using the computers and/or the software, assisting with guitar and capo operation, and to providing 'staying on task' reinforcement. The mediation was designed to assist the students in forming a connecting link between the technology and the instructional materials. 19  95  singing and rhythm skills, and the development of executive guitar techniques. A l l participants followed a set of routines organized in lesson format and participated by watching, listening, and echoing, as set out within the IG learning sequence (see Appendix A). As in the Pilot Study, all participants in the study followed the same curriculum. However, the presentation format was altered. The C A I group (Treatment A) followed the instructional sequence as outlined in the IG software without any additional. The Traditional instructional methodology (Treatment B) was teacher-based and used instructional materials and learning sequence identical to those presented in the paper-based format by the researcher (see Appendix D ) . The C A I Treatment A group followed the instructional sequence specified within the software (see Appendix A). The researcher presented the materials, without variation, according to the linear design of the software. The IG software consisted of six components, each based upon a sequential arrangement o f content premised upon Gordon's Music Learning Theory principles and procedures. The components included: 1) Lessons, 2) Techniques, 3) Meters, 4) Songs, 5) Tonal Patterns, and 6) Tunings. Participants completed components 2 (Techniques) and 6 (Tunings) of the software, then proceeded sequentially through the remaining components (Lessons, Meters, Songs, and Tonal Patterns) that delineated the instructional approach and learning sequence. The C A I Treatment A instruction was entirely self-paced; the researcher provided only direction in finding the routines and instructional materials, functional assistance (hand position, fingerings and pick strokes), and clarification o f the IG software. The Traditional Treatment B group received the identical content as the Treatment A group. A s directed by IG instructional sequence, the researcher sang a song or tonal pattern, or chanted a rhythm pattern, and the students responded by singing or chanting that song, total pattern, or rhythm pattern. The songs were i n major or minor tonalities, in either duple or triple  96  meter, and were unitonal (including only one tonality) and unimetric (including only one meter). As described by Gordon (1989b), the tonal patterns were in major and minor tonalities, and the rhythm patterns were in duple and triple meters. The researcher frequentiy demonstrated how to play and sing the patterns of the songs, and how to chant and play the rhythm patterns. After the songs, tonal patterns, and rhythm patterns were learned, the students performed without the researcher singing, chanting, or playing guitar. The tonal patterns, rhythm patterns, chord progressions, and songs were offered to the student as they were presented in the IG software. A l l students learned to sing the tonal patterns on a neutral syllable 'ba' to establish familiarity, and then they learned to sing those familiar tonal patterns with solfege syllables, using a movable "do" system ("do" based major, "la" based minor). T o avoid the confusion of octave transposition, the researcher always sang the tonal patterns in the actual pitch range in which they were performed on the guitar. The same familiar tonal patterns were transferred to the guitar with the aid of solfege syllables, using the following sequence of techniques: 1. The researcher sang the tonal pattern with the appropriate syllables and the students echoed the pattern with the same syllables. 2. The researcher used a singing voice to describe the location o f the tonal pattern on the guitar, waited for the students to finger the pattern on the fingerboard, and then repeated the same tonal pattern with the appropriate pitches and syllables. 3. The students sang the same tonal pattern and prepared to play the first pitch of the pattern; upon direction they then performed the tonal pattern on the guitar. As directed by the IG software, the pitches in the tonal patterns were always performed using a non-metric down-pick motion. As in the Pilot Study, all students learned to chant the rhythm patterns with a steady macro beat on a neutral syllable (i.e., "ba" for rhythm patterns) to establish familiarity with the patterns. They then learned to chant those familiar rhythm patterns with rhythm syllables using  97  the beat function system (i.e., the same syllable, "du", was used to label the macro beat in duple and triple meters). The same familiar rhythm patterns were transferred to the guitar with the rhythm syllables, using the following sequence of techniques: 1. The researcher chanted the rhythm pattern with a steady macro beat and with the appropriate rhythm syllables, and the students echoed the pattern with the same rhythm syllables. 2. The researcher chanted the picking motion of the rhythm pattern, for example, "down, down, down-up, down" for a pattern that was rhythmically notated • • • • • • • • • as he performed that motion on the guitar. 3. The students chanted the picking motion of the rhythm pattern and performed that motion in the air over the strings of the guitar without sounding the rhythm pattern on the guitar. 4. The researcher chanted the rhythm pattern with a steady macro beat and with the appropriate rhythm syllables, and the students echoed the pattern with the same rhythm syllables. 5. The students performed the rhythm pattern on a single chord on the guitar. For rhythm patterns in duple meter, the macro beat was performed using a down-pick motion, and the micro beat was performed using an up-pick motion. All students learned to play the guitar with proper body posture in the same manner. A plectrum (guitar pick) was used to sound collective and individual pitches. Students learned to hold the pick in a consistent manner, and to pick and strum using a consistent hand and arm motion. Tonal patterns were sounded using a consistent picking motion of the arm and hand. The participants in both Treatment groups A and B progressed sequentially through the IG materials at the same rate. To maintain consistency, the materials/content contained in lessons 12 to 14 that were not included or assessed in the Pilot Study were excluded from the Principal Study.  98  After the 5 weeks of instruction, a video-taped test was conducted to determine guitar achievement (applied knowledge and performance ability). Each student performed a representative set o f 15 tonal patterns, ten rhythm patterns, one moderately difficult harmonic progression, and one difficult melody. A l l selections were chosen from the IG instructional materials by the researcher and two other music teachers familiar with the IG instructional sequence and materials (see Appendix E ) . The criteria for inclusion in the assessment materials were the same as those in the Pilot Study. The method of choosing the testing material was also identical to that used in the Pilot Study. T o assess student performance, the video camera lens was focused on the guitar neck and body and the hand positions of the student performing the patterns. A high quality audio recording of all tonal, rhythm, harmonic, and melodic pattern performances was made using a sensitive video microphone to assist the judges in obtaining an accurate measure of performance achievement for each student and to eliminate testing anomalies. A performance test audio tape was prepared by the researcher. The tape presented the rationale, directions, and performance examples for the test procedures, and identified the expectations for mastery performance for all four sections (Tonal, Rhythm, Harmonic, and Melodic patterns; see Appendix F). Rating Scales Student achievement in guitar performance was assessed by two judges independently, using the scales from the Pilot Study. T o ensure consistency is assessment, the same individuals acted as judges in both the Pilot and Principal Studies. A s in the Pilot Study, the researcher prepared an evaluation kit, designed to achieve a high degree of interjudge assessment reliability. The kit included a video cassette recording containing a representative set of learner performances, a set of instructions that explained why and how the rating scales were  constructed, a guide for using the rating scales, and learner evaluation sheets for the training component; The evaluation kit was reviewed for consistency and clarity prior to use in the Principal Study. The Principal Study examined the following two research hypotheses: 1. Mean scores on guitar tonal, rhythm, harmonic, melodic and composite performance skill tests of eighth grade students who have received traditional guitar instruction will not significandy differ from the mean scores on the same tests of eighth grade students who have received computer-assisted guitar instruction, regardless of higher or lower audiation abilities.  2.  Mean differences between the pre and post-test scores on the Rhythm and Tonal ITML of eighth grade students who have received traditional guitar instruction will not significandy differ from the mean differences between the pre-test and post-test scores on the same tests of eighth grade students who have received computer-assisted guitar ijinstruction, regardless of higher or lower audiation abilities.  100  Chapter Four Study Results T o address the first research problem, investigating the effects of computer assisted instruction (CAI) and traditional instruction on guitar tonal, rhythm, harmonic, and melodic performance skills o f eighth grade students who possess higher or lower audiation abilities, two independent judges rated student guitar performance using identical five-point continuous rating . scales. Interjudge reliability quotients were then calculated using Kendall's tau for each performance measure (see Table 13 below). Table 13 Interjudge Reliabilities on Performance Measures Performance Measure  Interjudge Reliabilities  Performance Tonal  0.90  Performance Rhythm  0.87  Performance Harmonic  0.94  Performance Melodic  0.96  Given the high interjudge reliabilities, all further calculations and analyses were performed using the average of the two judges' scores. The data were analyzed using a two-factor design, where factor A was the treatment (i.e., instructional method: C A I and traditional instruction) and factor B was aptitude (Higher and Lower levels). There were five dependent variables: the judges' mean scores for 1) tonal, 2) rhythm, 3) harmonic and 4) melodic performance, in addition to 5) a composite score consisting of the average of the four performance measures. Based upon the methodology identified by Huberty and Morris (1989) the data were analyzed using one A N O V A for each of the five perfocrnance measures, for a total of five A N O V A s (see Tables 14 through 18 on pp. 101-105). The confidence level of each individual test was established at'ct= .01 so that the cumulative test  101  for significance would be  < 0.05 (i.e., 5 A N O V A s at^> = .01; totals p = .05).  As can be seen in Table 14 (below), there were no significant differences in tonal performance scores between students taught by traditional instruction and students taught by C A I . Students who possess higher music aptitude scored significandy higher (4.75) than students who possess lower aptitude (3.84).  Table 14 A N O V A for Tonal Performance Scores if  SS  MS  F  Treatment  l  0.44  0.44  0.48  Aptitude  l  11.06  11.06  12.26*  Treatment x Aptitude  l  0.70  0.70  0.78  Error  49  46.20  0.90  Total  52  55.44  M  SD  Source  Treatment C A I (n=28)  4.39  1.03  Trad (n=25)  4.39  1.05  Aptitude  M  SD  High (n=32)  4.75  0.57  L o w (n=21)  3.84  1.32  Treatment x Aptitude  M  C A I - H i g h (n=15)  4.72  0.61  C A I - L o w (n=13)  4.01  1.30  Trad-High (n=17)  4.77  0.56  Trad-Low (n =8)  3.58  1.41  */K.01  SD  102  As can be seen in Table 15 (below), no significant main effects or interactions were found for rhythm performance scores.  Table 15 A N O V A for Rhythm Performance Scores Source  df  SS  MS  Treatment  1  0.45  0.45  0.73  Aptitude  1  0.66  0.66  1.07  Treatment x Aptitude  1  0.01  0.01  0.01  Error  49  30.46  0.60  Total  52  31.81  M  SD  Treatment C A I (n=28)  4.41  0.86  Trad (n=25)  4.63  0.67  Aptitude  M  SD  High (n=32)  4.61  0.75  L o w (n=21)  4.34  0.82  Treatment x Aptitude  M  F  SD  C A I - H i g h (n=15)  4.52  0.95  C A I - L o w (n=13)  4.26  0.78  Trad-High (n=17)  4.69  0.52  Trad-Low (n =8)  4.48  0.93  As can be seen in Table 16 (on p. 103) there were no significant differences in harmonic performance scores between students taught by traditional instruction and students taught by C A I . However, students who possess higher music aptitude scored significantly higher (3.90) than students who possess low aptitude (3.25).  103  Table 16 A N O V A for Harmonic Performance Scores Source  df  SS  MS  F  Treatment  1  1.43  1.43  1.14  Aptitude  1  8.24  8.24  6.57*  Treatment x Aptitude  1  2.73  2.73  2.18  Error  49  61.49  1.25  Total  52  71.60  Treatment  M  SD  CAI(n=28)  3.76  1.12  Trad (n=25)  3.64  1.25  Aptitude  M  SD  High (n=32)  3.90  1.12  L o w (n=21)  3.25  1.25  Treatment x Aptitude  M  SD  C A I - H i g h (n=15)  3.91  1.01  C A I - L o w (n=13)  3.57  1.24  Trad-High (n=17)  4.04  1.09  Trad-Low (n =8)  2.75  1.17  *p<m  A s can be seen in Table 17 (on p. 104), there were no significant differences in melodic performance scores between students taught by traditional instruction and students taught by C A I . Students who possess higher music aptitude scored significandy higher (3.07) than students who possess lower aptitude (2.77).  104 Table 17 A N O V A for Melodic Performance Scores Source  MS  F  Df  SS  Treatment  1  1.87  1.87  1.15  Aptitude  1  17.71  17.71  10.85*  Treatment x Aptitude  1  3.77  3.77  2.31  Error  49  80.01  1.63  Total  52  99.92  Level of Treatment  M  C A I (n=28)  3.49  1.36  Trad (n=25)  3.38  1.44  Aptitude  M  SD  SD  High (n=32)  3.07  1.26  L o w (n=21)  2.77  1.33  Treatment x Aptitude  M  SD  C A I - H i g h (n=15)  3.70  1.36  C A I - L o w (n=13)  3.13  1.34  Trad-High (n=17)  3.95  1.21  Trad-Low (n =8)  2.19  1.16  */K.01  A s can be seen in Table 18 (on p. 105), there were no significant differences in composite performance scores between students taught by traditional instruction and students taught by C A I . Students who possess higher music aptitude scored significantly higher (4.30) than students who possess lower aptitude (3.55).  105 Table 18 A N O V A for Composite Performance Scores Source  df  SS  MS  F  Treatment  1  0.41  0.41  0.59  Aptitude  1  7.86  7.86  11.38*  Treatment x Aptitude  1  1.18  1.18  1.71  Error  49  33.87  0.69  Total  52  42.30  M  SD  Treatment C A I (n=28)  4.01  0.95  Trad (n=25)  4.01  0.88  Aptitude  M  SD  High (n=32)  4.30  0.75  L o w (n=21)  3.55  0.95  Treatment x Aptitude  M  SD  C A I - H i g h (n=15)  4.23  0.85  C A I - L o w (n=13)  3.74  1.00  Trad-High (n=17)  4.36  0.66  Trad-Low (n =8)  3.25  0.82  *p<M  The second research question examined the effects o f C A I and traditional instruction on general music achievement o f eighth grade students who possess higher or lower audiation abilities. Those data were analyzed using two 2 x 2 A N O V A s where factor A was the treatment (i.e., instructional method: C A I and traditional instruction) and factor B was aptitude (higher and lower levels). One A N O V A was conducted for the FTML Tonal Achievement scores (see Table 19 on p. 110) and a separate A N O V A was conducted for ITML Rhythm Achievement scores (see Table 21 on p. 112). The dependent variable for each analysis was the difference between the pre- and post-test ITML scores.  106  The confidence level o f each individual test was established at a^.025 so that the overall test for significance for both the tonal and rhythm achievement scores would totalp < 0.05. Cell means and standard deviations are presented by factor for both tonal and rhythm ITML test scores (see Table 20 on p. 107 and Table 22 on p. 108). A s can be seen in Table 19 (below) no significant main effects or interactions were found between ITML Tonal Pretest and Posttest mean scores.  Table 19 A N O V A for ITML Tonal Pre-test and Post-test mean differences Source  SS  MS  F  Treatment  1  0.78  0.78  0.01  Aptitude  1  4.18  4.18  0.07  Treatment x Aptitude  1  13.62  13.62  0.23  Error  49  2938.34  59.97  Total  52  2958.45  While a subjective examination of the mean differences between pre- and post-test Tonal ITML scores (see Table 20 p. 107) seems to indicate that all students demonstrated slighdy lower music achievement as measured by the ITML, the differences were not significant. As can be seen in Table 21 (on p. 107), no significant main effects or interactions were found in ITML rhythm pre-test and post-test mean differences. While.it seems that mean differences between pre- and post-test ITML rhythm scores (see Table 22 on p. 108), indicate that all students demonstrated slighdy higher music achievement as measured by the ITML, the differences were not significant.  107  Table 20 Cell Means and Standard Deviations by Factors for Tonal Achievement Scores Treatment  Pre-test  Pre-test  Post-test  Post-test  Diff  M  SD  M  SD  M  SD  C A I (n=28)  52.43  8.88  49.86  8.75  -2.57  8.33  Trad (n=25)  57.88  6.91  55.2  6.61  -2.68  6.73  High (n=32)  56.56  9.35  53.66  9.44  -2.91  7.83  L o w (n=21)  52.62  6.16  50.43  5.46  -2.19  7.26  C A I - H i g h (n=15)  54.13  11.50  50.80  10.64  -3.33  9.02  C A I - L o w (n=13)  50.46  3.93  48.77  6.13  -1.69  7.72  Trad-High (n=17)  58.71  6.58  56.18  7.69  -2.53  6.87  Trad-Low (n =8)  56.13  7.70  53.13  2.75  -3.00  6.87  Aptitude  Treatment x Aptitude  Table 21 A N O V A for 7 I M L Rhythm Pretest and Posttest mean differences. Source  MS  F  df  SS  Treatment  1  191.45  191.45  Aptitude  1  143.29  143.29  1.17  Treatment x Aptitude  1  13.74  13.74  0.11  Error  49  6016.60  122.79  Total  52  6303.25  1.56  108  Table 22 Cell Means and Standard Deviations by Factors for Rhythm Achievement Scores Pre-test  Pre-test  Post-test  Post-test  Diff  M  SD  M  SD  M  SD  C A I (n=32)  49.68  9.56  51.64  7.45  1.96  11.43  Trad (n=21)  49.36  10.84  54.56  7.02  5.2  10.49  High (n=32)  51.38  10.97  53.78  8.21  2.41  11.36  L o w (n=21)  46.71  8.03  51.86  5.76  5.14  10.51  C A I - H i g h (n=15)  51.13  10.44  52.00  8.72  0.87  11.75  C A I - L o w (n=13)  48.00  8.53  51.23  6.00  3.23  11.38  Trad-High (n=17)  51.59  11.73  55.35  7.64  3.76  11.18  Trad-Low (n =8)  44.63  7.15  52.88  5.57  8.25  8.71  Treatment  Aptitude  Treatment x Aptitude  Interpretations  The guitar performance tasks required the student to perform tonal patterns, rhythm patterns, harmony, and melody on the guitar. Because those tasks were dependent upon the students' audiation abilities, it was expected that students who possess higher audiation abilities would perform significantly better than students who possess lower audiation abilities. Therefore, it is not surprising that there was a significant aptimdinal effect for tonal, harmonic, melodic, and composite guitar performance scores. The absence o f an aptitudinal effect for rhythm performance scores, however, was unexpected. A comparison o f the distribution of  109 MAP scores in the study to population norms as established by Gordon (1965, 1991c) may provide an explanation for that single discrepancy. A s can be seen below in Figure 6 (below), the distribution of tonal MAP scores in the study sample closely approximates standardization norms (Gordon, 1965,1991c).  T 1 MAP Population Norms and T1 MAP Sample Distribution 0.050 0.045 g 0.040 8 0.035 1 0.030  •a  S 0.025  S  •S 0.020 c f 0.015 u 0.010 N 0.005 o  0.000  —f0  10  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  T1 MAP Scores Tonal MAP Population Norms  Tonal MAP Sample Distribution  Figure 6: Tonal MAP Score Sample Distribution and Standardization Norms However, as can be seen in Figure 7 (on p. 115), the distribution o f rhythm MAP scores in the study sample differs substantially from standardization norms. It cannot be expected that the MAP test would have the same predictive ability in a sample that does not approximate standardization norms. Thus, one may reasonably suggest that this may provide an explanation for the rhythm related finding. Gordon (1991b) believes that a unique and important aspect o f the ITML is that not only is it consistent with current music learning theory and research, it is specifically designed as a multi-level battery o f tests to measure simple to complex dimensions o f basic music achievement. Gordon suggests that measurement and evaluation o f a student's tonal and rhythm  1  audiation and notational audiation may be systematically undertaken from semester to semester or from year to year. Anastasi and Urbina (1997) suggest that achievement test batteries are best used to evaluate student progress on a grade to grade basis. The ITML test manual presents norms for grades based on a norm by multi-year basis (i.e., Grades 4-6; Grades, 7-9; Grades 1012), which inflates the reliabilities o f the subtests and overall test. Thus, ITML may not possess the sensitivity to effectively measure music achievement for a single grade level over a short 5 week period of time. However, in spite of this possible limitation, the ITML remains the most reliable, standardized music achievement assessment tool available. Moreover, it aligns closely with the MAP.  R2 MAP Population Norms and R2 MAP Sample Distribution 0.050 , 0.045 2 0.040  O «•-  S 0.035 3  > 0.030 •o .§ 0.025 IS  •S c 0.020  a  0.015  I  0.010  -  0.005  s  0.000 \ 0  (-  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  R2 MAP Scores Rhythm MAP Population Norms  Rhythm MAP Sample Distribution  Figure 7: Rhythm MAP Score Sample Distribution and Standardation Norms Music achievement, like all cognitive achievement, is cumulative and depends upon prior learning experience. The participants in this study had minimal elementary music instruction and limited instrumental instruction prior to entering the study. One may consider that their prior music instruction did not provide a sufficient foundation in music experience and music  Ill  mctiments. That deficit in music learning experience may have become an obstacle to further music learning within the 5 week instructional period. In other words, given their limited music experiences, the ITML, was unable to measure significant changes in music achievement Gordon (1971,1991a) stressed that one of the most important factors in determining the value of a testing program is the attitude of teachers and students toward the tests. If students regard the program merely as an extra burden, the tests' results will have limited value. A s a result of sample selection, motivational issues may have been a significant influence on ITML scores in this study. The study participants were assigned from a group of students that had not chosen to enroll in a specific fine arts rotation (i.e., including band, choir, drama, and art). In contrast to students in the larger sample who had already chosen their fine arts rotation and were currently enrolled in band, choir, drama or art, none of the study's participants volunteered to learn to play guitar, and it may be assumed that they had less interest and less motivation in learning to play the guitar than volunteers for guitar instruction would have had. The Pilot Study students, who were mostly volunteers, were inclined to chant patterns and routines, sing songs, interact with classmates, and perform routines. They were interested i n additional performance techniques and peer performances; the majority of them enjoyed a public performance at the school concert. By contrast, in spite of the researcher's attempts to motivate the study participants, they were not as responsive to instruction, they did not interact vocally, they did not solicit or volunteer guitar performances, and they declined a public performance (see Appendix I). Therefore, motivational issues may have been a confounding factor within the study that affected specific guitar and general music achievement scores.  112  Chapter Five Summary and Conclusions Purpose and Problems The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of computer mediated interactive instruction and traditional instruction on music achievement in guitar performance. The researcher examined practical and conceptual issues involved in learning to play the guitar within both traditional and CAI-based learning environments. Specifically, the researcher examined: 1) the comparative effects of two types of instructional methods on guitar tonal, rhythm, harmonic, and melodic performance skills of eighth grade students who possess higher or lower audiation abilities; and 2) the comparative effects o f two types of instruction methods on general music achievement of eighth grade students who possess higher or lower audiation abilities. Design and Analysis A total of 53 eighth-grade students were instructed in playing the guitar. The sample o f students who participated in the study represented a socio-economically homogenous population and attended Garibaldi Senior Secondary High School, located in the lower mainland area of Greater Vancouver, Canada. The students were randomly assigned to receive either computer-assisted guitar instruction (CAI treatment group) or traditional face-to-face instruction (Traditional treatment group). The instructional content of the Interactive Guitar software (Gouzouasis, 1996b) was used for both treatment groups. Prior to music instruction, both the Tonal Imagery subtest and the Rhythm Imagery subtest of the Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP), and the Tonal Audiation/Listening and Rhythm Audiation/Listening subtests Level 1 of the Iowa Tests ofMusic Literacy (ITML) were administered to all participants. Students who attained a standardized score of 50 or higher on either the MAP Tonal or Rhythm imagery subtest were  113  considered to possess higher aptitude. A l l other students in the study were considered to possess lower aptitude. The instructional sequence was based on the development o f audiation-based singing, tonal and rhythm skills, and on the development o f executive guitar techniques. A l l participants followed a set of routines organized in lesson format and participated by watching, Ustening, and echoing, as set out in the Interactive Guitar (IG) learning sequence. The instructional sequence followed a Lesson/Routine progression (e.g., Lesson 1: Routine 1, Routine 2, Routine 3, Routine 4, Routine 5; Lesson 2: Routine 6, Routine 7, etc.). The IG software consisted o f six components, each based upon a sequential arrangement of content premised upon Music Learning Theory principles and procedures. The components were: Lessons, Techniques, Meters, Songs, Tonal Patterns, and Tunings. The same tonal patterns, rhythm patterns, melodies, chords, harmonic progressions, songs, and executive guitar performance techniques were presented to each treatment group. The students responded to directions by singing or chanting tonal patterns and rhythm patterns and by performing patterns and songs. The songs were in major or minor tonalities, in either duple or triple meter, unitonal, and unimetric. Student performance and music achievement was assessed after five weeks of instruction. T o assess guitar performance, student performances of fifteen tonal patterns, ten rhythm patterns, one harmonic progression, and one melody were video recorded and rated by two independent judges using identical five-point continuous rating scales for each of the tonal and rhythm patterns, the harmonic progression, and the melody. Student performances were analyzed using two factors. Factor A was the treatment (i.e., the instructional method, C A I or traditional) and factor B was aptitude (higher or lower). The five dependent variables were the judges' mean scores for tonal, rhythm, harmonic, and melodic performance, in addition to a  114 composite score consisting of the average of the four performance measures. The data were analyzed using one A N O V A for each of the five performance measures, for a total of five ANOVAs. T o assess music achievement, the difference in ITML, pre- and post-test mean scores was analyzed using two 2 x 2 A N O V A designs where factor A was the treatment and factor B was aptitude. One A N O V A was conducted for ITML tonal achievement scores and a second was conducted for ITML rhythm achievement scores.  Results There was no treatment effect on any of the guitar performance scores. Aptimdinal main effects were observed for tonal, harmonic, melodic, and composite performance scores, where students who possess higher aptitude scored higher on these performance measures than students who possess lower aptitude. There was no aptimdinal effect on rhythmic performance scores. Neither were there treatment or aptimdinal main effects on any of the ITML measures. The absence of an aptimdinal effect for rhythmic performance was interpreted to be the result of the discrepancy between the distribution of the MAP rhythm scores of the study sample and the distribution among the normal population. It was suggested that the five week period of guitar instruction was too short to produce achievement gains that could be measured by the ITML.  Moreover, it was interpreted that the participants' motivational levels may have  had an effect on both guitar achievement ITML scores.  Conclusions It can be concluded that the type of instruction (traditional or IG, CAI) does not affect guitar performance. Also, regardless of the type of instruction, students who possess higher musical aptitude achieve higher levels of guitar tonal, harmonic, and melodic performance skills than students who possess lower musical aptitude.  115 Recommendations Based on the data acquired from this study and on the observations made of the students who participated, the researcher believes that the following suggestions could be incorporated into future studies. •  Whenever possible, all participants in a computer-assisted instruction treatment group should work at individual workstations that include a computer, headphones, and a mixer to allow participants to hear clearly the directions, instructional materials, and their own performance in reference to the musical components presented by the computer.  •  A broader variety of styles and types of music could be incorporated into the instruction to enhance participants' interest and motivation. A wider range o f appealing songs, in the style o f popular music, may be made available in an array of tonalities and difficulty levels. Incorporating tonal/rhythm patterns and songs with an appeal to a specific audience has the potential to increase student interest and subsequendy to increase student motivation.  •  A more normal distribution of student aptitude levels would increase the probability of a consistent aptimdinal effect in all areas of guitar performance.  •  Increasing the instructional time to at least one semester would allow students greater opportunities to master the complex sequential objectives and functions necessary to demonstrate gains in skill performance and in overall musical achievement. These results demonstrate the relative effectiveness of C A I in instruction in guitar  performance using technology available during the instructional and data collection periods of this study. A s the capability of C A I software designers to adapt to individual learner needs increases, so too will effectiveness in music learning be enhanced (Boyer, 2000; Webster, 2002).  1 As evidenced in current CAI-based guitar learning and Internet sites (e.g., www.emediamusic.com, www.visionmusic.com, www.truefire.com, www.learnguitar.net) recent technological developments incorporate a wide variety o f guitar instruction techniques, methodologies, and learning technologies. However, from a research perspective, much of the existing software does not meet the requirements for customizable, interactive, computerassisted guitar instruction. C A I applications incorporating adaptive content could significandy benefit the development of truly individualized instruction. The benefits to students at all levels of musical development could be explored through multi-level, adaptive, interactive instruction. Research is needed to develop prescriptive technology-based instruction that effectively allows for the teaching of knowledge and skills in such a way as to free the teacher to concentrate on additional and advanced components of music learning theory-based instructional methodologies. Similarly, research will be needed to further integrate Gordon's theory of music learning into future interactive instructional simulations, digital movies, and animations. Given the applicability of these robust technologies, the integration o f Music Learning Theory, paired with instructional design theory and development methodologies, may identify and enhance the development of effective and exhikrating audiation-based C A I learning environments. Therefore, it is suggested that the following be incorporated into C A I guitar learning software: •  Computer-assisted adaptive content routines capable of automated customization of instructional content based upon learner characteristics, learning style, and performance criteria;  117  •  Multimedia interactivity levels that include simulations, animations, and code-based interactive routines with the potential to provide alternative forms of content representation and interactivity;  •  Motivational models and techniques within the computer-assisted instructional teaching and learning environment. Music technology has the potential to enhance music learning, performance, and  teaching; the challenge for music researchers is in finding the balance between what can be effectively done with technology and what can be reinforced and explored by the teacher. New learning and teaching technologies may be able to provide interactive, multi-dimensional, creative learning environments for all music learners and musicians. Interactive learning and performance environments may enable the student and performer alike to obtain levels of music performance and achievement never before available. Furthermore, technology can support the individual, regardless of his or her level of musical achievement, to reach his or her audiational potential. New learning and teaching technologies provide instructional options—that might be otherwise unavailable — for people to learn to play music. Given that learning music is one of the most exhilarating cognitive and physical activities, increased access to computer-assisted interactive music instruction could allow unprecedented opportunities for people to explore realms of individual expression, imagination, and creativity.  118 References Abdullah, M . H . , & Ang, M . (2000). Computer aided music instruction: A n implementation of the use o f notation software i n a local teachers training college. Retrieved January 12, 2001 from httn://www.music.upm.edu.my/MusTech/Hassan-Ang.htm. Abersold, J. (1984). Rhythm section work-out. New Albany, I N : Jamey Abersold Jazz Inc. Abies, H . F. (1973). Development and validation of a clarinet performance scale. Journal of Research in Music Education, 21'(3), 246-255. Alesis. (1996). J2->*# reference manual. Santa Monica: Alecorp. Alessi, S. M . , & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development. (3 . rd  ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Alessi, S. M . , & Trollip, S. R. (1992). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice Hall. Alexander, J. O . (1999). Collaborative design, constructivist learning, information technology immersion, & electronic communities: A case study. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journalfor the 21st Century, 7(1-2), 1-30. Alt, G . (2001). Encarta encyclopedia deluxe 2001, [Computer software]. Microsoft Corporation. A M C . (2003). American Music Conference. Retrieved March 22, 2002 from http: / /www.amcmusic.com. Anastasi, A . , & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N J : Prentice Hall. Arenson, M . A . (1995). Computer lessonsfor written harmony. (Report N o . P I 16B11226-93). Newark, D E : University o f Delaware. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service 416824). Argersinger, C. (1993). Side-effects of technology on music and musicians. Ja^ Educators Journal, 26(1), 26.  119  Arnett, P. L . (1996). Managing the music classroom with technology. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23,14-17 Aronson, D . T., & Briggs, L . J. (1983). Contributions of Gagne and Briggs to a prescriptive model of instruction. In C. M . Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, N e w Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ashley, R. D . (1989). Redesigning the content and sequence of instruction in music theory. Final report to fund the improvement ofpost secondary education (G008642203-88). Washington D C : Northwestern University. Austin, J. (1993). Technocentrism and technophobia: Finding a middle ground for music educators in the next millennium. In D . Sebald (Ed.), Technological directions in music education. San Antonio: I M R Press. Bacon, D . (1969). Kodaly and Orff: Report from Europe. Music Educators journal, 55(8), 53-56. Baker, B. (2000). A comparison of a traditional music teaching method with Music Ace (Report number SO031894) Tennessee: Johnson Bible College (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o . E D 442 729). Bates, A . W . (1996). The impact of technological change on open and distance learning. Retrieved April 12, 1998 from http:/ /bates.csmdies.ubc/brisbane.html. B B C i , (2001). Technology, a definition. Retrieved August 9, 2002 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ education/archive/wheel/dothtm. Beckstead, D . (1996) Telecommunications and M I D I , Teaching Music, 4(2), 43-45. Beall, G . (1999). Learning sequences and music learning. The Quarterly Journal ofMusic Teaching and Learning, 2(1 &2), 87-96. Bellamy, R. K . E . (1997). Designing educational technology: Computer mediated change. Cambridge: M I T Press.  120 Benson, J., & Michael, W . B . (1987). Designing evaluation studies: A twenty-year perspective. InternationalJournal ofEducational Research, 11(f), 43-56. Berz, W . L . , & Bowman, J. (1994). Applications of research in music technology. Reston, V A : Music Educators National Conference. Berz, W . L . , & Bowman, J. (1995). A n historical perspective on research cycles in music computer-based technology. The Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, 126, 15-28. Bilan, B. (2001). An examination of the role of screen design and learning condition on computer-assisted language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f Calgary, Calgary. Blakeslee, M . (1994). Computer-assisted instruction i n music. Teaching Music/'Music Educators Journal, 1(6), 34-36. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy o f educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook 1, The cognitive domain, Handbook 2, The affective domain. N e w York: David M c K a y Co., Inc. Bodley, D . (2000). The development and testing of interactive listing guide system for instructors o f music appreciation. Proquest Digital Dissertations, 1(2. 9972036). Bowyer, D . W . (2001). History of music in CAI, The University of Northern Colorado. Retrieved December 16, 2001 from http://www.uah.edu/Departments /Music/technology/cai/historytext.html. Bowyer, D . W . (2000). A new approach to computer-assisted instruction in music theory for elementary and middle school children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 5i(01), 100-110. Bradshaw, S. (2001). Cyberfret.com. Retrieved August 9, 2002 from http://www.cyberfret.com/index.php.  121  Briggs, L . J., Gustafson, K . L . , & Tillman, M . H . (1991). Instructional design: Principles and applications. (2 . Ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. nd  Brink, E . (1992). A look at Edwin E . Gordon's theories. In R. Colwell (Ed.). Handbook of research on music teaching and learning. N e w York: Schirmer. Brown, A . (1999). Music, media and making: humanizing digital media in music education. InternationalJournal ofMusic Education, 33, 10-17. Brown, A . R. (1994). Teaching synthesizer performance. Research Studies in Music Education, 3, 2535. Busen-Smith, M . (1999). Developing strategies for delivering music technology and secondary P G C E courses. British Journal ofMusic Education, 16(2), 197-213. Byrd, M . E . (1991). Gordon's sequential music learning and its applicability to general music, The Quarterly Journal ofMusic Teaching and Learning, 2(1 &2), 59-62. Byrd, M . E . (1989). A comparative analysis of Edwin Gordon's approach to sequential musical learning and learning sequencesfound in three elementary general music series. Unpublished E d . D . Dissertation, University o f Illinois, Urbana. Boyle, T., & Boyle, T. (1997). Designingfor multimedia learning. Boston: Pearson Education. C M E A , (2001). The Canadian music education association. Retrieved on August 1, 2001 from http:// www.musiceducationonline.org/ cmea/index.html. Clark, R. E . (1985). Evidence for confounding in computer-based instructional studies: Analyzing the meta-analysis. Educational Computing in Teaching, 33(4), 249-262. Casabona, H . , & Frederick, D . (1987). Using MIDI. V a n Nuys: Alfred Publishing Co., Inc. Cawelti, G . , & Goldberg, M . (1997). Research task force report: Prioritiesfor arts education research. Retrieved August 9, 2002 from http://aep-arts.org/tfadvoc/taskforce/paeres.htm.  122  Caylor, F. (1979). Of what value to Kodaly is research? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o . E D 179 280). Choksy, L . (1969). Kodaly: In and out of context. Music Educators Journal, 55(8), 57-60. Choksy, L . (1999). The Kodaly method, (3rd ed.). N e w Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Christmann, E . , Badgett, J., & Lucking, R. (1997). Microcomputer-based computer-assisted instruction with differing subject areas: A statistical deduction, Journalfor Educational Computing Research 16(3), 281-296. Clements, P. J., & Wood, R. W . (1995). Design considerations for computer-assisted music education. Canadian Music Educator, 25(2), 25-38. Coffey, A . , Holbrook, B., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: Technologies and Representations. Sociological Research Online, 1(1). Retrieved August 17, 2000 from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/1/1 /4.html. Cohen, A . J., & Sherbon, J. W . (1995). Musical aptitude profile. Buros institute ofmental measurement: Mental measurement yearbooks (V ol. 13). N e w Brunswick, N J : Rutgers University Press. Colwell, R. (1992). Whither go we? The Quarterly Journal ofMusic Teaching and Learning 2(A), 73-75. Conrad, D . L . (1997). Inter-Rater reliability: Assessing musicalperformance. Retrieved August 10, 2002 from htto://www.members.accessus.net/~dcomad/mteM Conrad, D . L . (1999). Judging thejudges: Improving rater reliability at music contests. Retrieved August 10, 2002 from htxp://www.manteno.kl2.u.us/finearts/advocacy /judging_the_judges.htm. Crook, C. (1994). Computer and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Rudedge. Cutietta, R. A . (1991). Edwin Gordon's impact on the field of musical aptitude. The Quarterly Journal ofMusic Teaching and Learning 2(1&2), 73-77.  123  Dalby, B . F. (1999). Teaching audiation in instrumental class. Music Educators Journal, 85(6), 2225. Dalby, B . F . (1992). A computer-based training program for developing harmonic intonation cuscrimination skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40(2), 139-152. Dalcroze, J. (2002). Dalcroze Society of America. Dalcroze Society o f America. Retrieved August 13, 2002 from http:www.dalcrozeusa.org. Davies, P. (1970). The American heritage dictionary of the English language. N e w York, U S A : Dell Pubkshing C o . Deal, J. J., & Taylor, J. (1997). Technology standards for college music degrees. Music Educators Journal, 84(4), 17-23. Deihl, N . C. (1972). Computer-assisted instruction and instrumental music: Implication for teaching and research. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19(3), 299-306. Deihl, N . C , & Zeigler, R. H . (1972). Evaluation of a C A I program and articulation, phrasing, and rhythm for intermediate instrumentalists. Bulletin of the Councilfor Research in Music Education, 31, 1-11. Denyer, R. (1982). The guitar handbook. N e w York: Alfred A . Knopf. Denzin, N . K . , & Lincoln, Y . S. (1994). Entering the field of qualitative research. In N . K . Denzin & Y . S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage. Dick, W . & Carey, L . (1985). The systematic design of instruction. (2 . ed.). London: Scott, Foresman nd  and Company. Dick. W., Carey, L . , & Carey, J.O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction. Cambridge: AddisonWesley Pubkshing. Dillon, R. W . (1998). In the key o f "see and hear": H o w students can learn to play the recorder by playing musical computers. Learning and Leading with Technology, 68(3), 15-17.  124  Doucette, D . (1994). Transforming Teaching and Learning Using Information Technology: A Report from the Field. Community College Journal, 65(2), 18-24. Dunnigan, P. (1993). The computer in instrumental music. Music Educators Journal, 8(1), 32-61. Eddins, J. (1981). A brief history of computer-assisted music instruction. Journal of the College Music Symposium, 21(2), 7-14. Ely, M . C. (1992). Software for classroom music making. Music Educators Journal, 78(8) 41-43. Epperson, G . P. (1975). Aesthetics: What differences does it make? Music Educators Journal, 61(8), 50-53. Ericsson, M . (2001). Human-computer interaction resources on the net. Retrieved January 16, 2002 from http:// www.ida.liu.se/labs/aslab/groups/um/hci/. Ester, D . P. (1995). C A I , lecture, and student learning style: The differential effects o f instructional method. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(2), 129-140. Ester, D . P. (1997). Teaching vocal anatomy and function via HyperCard technology. Contributions to Music Education, 24(1), 91-99. Estrella, S. G . (2000). A web toolkit for music educators. Retrieved January 15, 2002 from http:// music.utsa.edu/tdml/conf-VII/VII-EstieUa/VII-EstreUa.html. Farber, A . (1991). Speaking the musical language. Music Educators Journal, 78(4), 30-34. Fiske, H . E . (1993). Music cognition and aesthetic attitudes. N e w York: Edwin Mellen Press. Fiske, H . E . (1996). Selected theories ofmusic perception. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press. Fletcher-Flinn, C. (1995). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction (CAI): A meta analysis, Journal ofEducational Computing Research, 12(3), 219-242. Forest, J. (1995). Music technology helps students succeed. Music Educators Journal, 82(2), 35-38.  125  Forman, G . , & Twomey-Fosnot, C. (1982). The uses of Piaget's constructivism in early childhood education programs. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood. New York: MacMLllan. Fortney, P. M . (1995). Learning style and music instruction via an interactive audio C D - R O M : A exploratory study. Contributions to Music Education, 22,11-91. Froseth, J. O . (1968). An investigation of the use of music aptitude profile scores in the instruction of beginning students in instrumental music. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Froseth, J. O . (1971). Using music aptitude scores in the instruction o f beginning students in instrumental music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19(f), 95-105. Gacsi, C. (2002). Fret hand coordination, Whole Note: The on-line guitar community. Retrieved May, 10, 2002 from http://www.wholenote.com/default. Gagne, R. M . , & Glaser, R (1987). Foundations in learning research. In R. M . Gagne (Ed.), Foundations: Instructional technology. Hillsdale, N e w Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Gilstrap, R. L . (1997). The electrified classroom: Using technology in the middle grades. Childhood Education, 73(5), 291- 300. Goddard, R. (1999). Technology in music teacher education: An evolving philosophy. Paper presented at the Technological Directions in Music Learning: San Antonio, T X . Gordon, E . (1965). Musical aptitude profile. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gordon, E . (1968). The contribution of each musical aptitude profile subtest to the overall validity of the battery: A note from the author. The Bulletin of the Councilfor Research in Music Education, 12, 32-36.  126  Gordon, E . (1970). Taking into account musical aptitude differences among beginning instrumental students. Experimental Research in the Psychology ofMusic: Studies in the Psychology ofMusic, 6, 45-64. Gordon, E . (1971). Psychology of music teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Gordon, E . (1977). Learning sequence andpatterns in music. Chicago: C I A Publications Inc. Gordon, E . (1979). Developmental music aptitude as measured by the primary measures of music audiation. Unpublished Manuscript. Gordon, E . (1980). The assessment of music aptitudes of very young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(3), 107-111. Gordon, E . E . (1986). Designing objective research in music education. Chicago: G.I.A. Publications. Gordon, E . E . (1989a). Audiation, music learning theory, music aptitude, and creativity. Suncoast Music Education Forum on Creativity, The Proceedings of the Suncoast Music Education Forum on Creativity, ed. by John W . Richmond. University of South Florida. Gordon, E . E . (1989b). Learning sequences in music: Skill, content, andpatterns. Chicago: G.I.A. Publications. Gordon, E . E (1991a). Gordon on Gordon. The Quarterly Journal ofMusic Teaching andLearning  2(1 &2), 6-9. Gordon, E . E . (1991b). Iowa tests ofmusic literacy. Chicago: G.I.A. Publications. Gordon, E . E . (1991c). The musical aptitude profile. Chicago: G.I.A. Publications Inc. Gordon, E . E . (1992). A response to Volume II, Numbers 1&2 of the Quarterly. The Quarterly Journal ofMusic Teaching andLearning 2(4), 62 -72. Gordon, E . E . (1993). Learning sequences in music: Skills, content, andpatterns. Unpublished manuscript.  127  Gouzouasis, P., & Green, B . (1997). The Internet Music Instruction Project: Gender, music ability, and music achievement issues in distributive computer-mediated interactive instruction. Demonstration summary, from proceedings o f E D - M E D I A 97-World Conference on educational multimedia and hypermedia. Association for the Advancement of Computers i n Education. C D - R O M . Gouzouasis, P., & Green, B . (2000). The interactive guitarproject: Music learning and technology issues in distributive computer-mediated interactive instructional environments. Retrieved on August 15, 2002 from http://learnat.sait.ab.ca/professional/bgreen. Gouzouasis, P., & Lee, K . (1998). The commensurability of organicism, constructivism and constructionism. Unpublished article. Gouzouasis, P. (1990). An investigation of the comparative effects of two tonalpatterns and two rhythm pattern systemsfor learning to play the guitar. Proquest Digital Dissertations, 1(1. 9100281). Gouzouasis, P. (1991). A progressive developmental approach to the music education of preschool children. Canadian Music Educator, 32(3), 45-52. Gouzouasis, P. (1992). A n organismic model o f music learning for young children. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 11(2), 13-18. Gouzouasis, P. (1994c). Music assessment practices in British Columbia, British Columbia Music Educator, 37(1), 50-53. Gouzouasis, P. (1994a). A developmental model o f music literacy. Research Forum, 12, 21-24. Gouzouasis, P. (1994b). Multimedia constructions of children: A n exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5(3/4), 273-284. Gouzouasis, P. (1995). Music the medium: What's the message. Canadian Music Educator, 32(3), 45-53. Gouzouasis, P. (1996a). Organicism and music media. Canadian Music Educator, 37(3), 17-22.  128  Gouzouasis, P. (1996b). The interactive guitar method. (Version 1.0) [Computer software] Vancouver: Unpublished CD-ROM. Gouzouasis, P. (1997). The arts and new media: N e w frontiers in integration. British Columbia Music Educators Journal, 40(2), 34-36. Green, B . (2002a). C D @ S A I T (Version 1.2) [Computer software]. Calgary: Southern Alberta institute of Technology. Retrieved A p r i l 11, 2003 from http://learnat.sait.ab.ca/ professional/bgreen. Green, B . (2002b). Virtual space: A modelfor content delivery. Retrieved A p r i l 11, 2003 from http://learnat.sait.ab.ca/professional/bgreen.  Green, B . (2003). E-learning curriculum development cost assessment methodology: Curriculum learn materials interactivity and delivery methodologiesI options. Retrieved A p r i l 11, 2003 from http://learnatsaitab.ca/professional/bgreen. Griswold, H . E . (1994). Multiculturalism, music, and information highways. Music Educators Journal, 81(5), 41-47. Grout, D . J . (1973). A history of western music. N e w York: W . W . Norton & Company. Grunow, R. F. (1992). The evolution o f rhythm syllables in Gordon's music learning theory. The Quarterly Journal ofMusic Teaching and Learning, 3(4), 56-66. Hacket, P. (2001). Guitar noise. Retrieved A p r i l 11, 2003 from http://www.guitarnoise.com / about/index.html. Harasim, L . , Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M . (1995). Learning networks: Afieldguide to teaching and learning on-line. Cambridge: The M I T Press. Hardwick, D . A- (2001). World views in developmentalpsychology. Retrieved on December 10, 2002 from http://mt.usm.edu/dahardw/Psy331New/Handouts/WORLD_Rx.DOC.  129  Harrison, N . (1999). How to design self-directed and distance learning programs. N e w York: McGrawHill. Hawisher, G . E . , & Selfe, C. L . (1996). Literacy, technology and society: Confronting the issues. Boston: Pearson Education. Heinich, R., Molenda, M . , Russel, J., & Smaldino, S. (1996). Instructional media and technologiesfor learning. N e w Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hermanson, C. K . , & Kerfoot, J. (1994). Technology assisted teaching. American Music Teacher, 43(6), 20-23. Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (1999). Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate higherorder thinking. Journal ofInteractive Learning Research, 10(1), 3-24. Hesse, G . E . (1995). A model for the effective use o f computer-assisted instruction for ear training. Retrieved June 6, 2001 from http://music.utsa.edu/tdml/conf-II/LL-hess.htm. Hesser, L . A . (1990). Effectiveness o f computer-assisted instruction in developing music reading skills at the elementary level. Bulletin of Research in Music Education, 104, 59-61. Heylighen, F. (2001). Theprincipia cyberneticaproject. Retrieved June 8, 2001 from http://pespmcl .vub.ac.be/ASC/INdexASC.html. Higgins, W . (1992a). Technology. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning. N e w York: Schirmer Books. Higgins, W . R. (1992b). The development and validation out o f a microcomputer flute simulation for the purpose o f computer-assisted instruction in flute fingerings. Bulletin of Research in Music Education, 18, 36-43. Hlynka, D . , & Belland, J. (1991). Paradigms regained: The uses of illuminate, semiotic andpostmodern criticism as mode of inquiry in educational technology. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.  130  Hoffer, C. R. (1983). Introduction to Music Education^ Belmont, C A : Wadsworth Pub. Co. Hofstetter, F. T. (1976). Foundation, organization, and purpose o f the national consortium for computer-based music instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 5(1), 21-33. Houle, P. A . (1996). Toward understanding student differences in a computer skills course. Journal of educational computing research, 14(1), 25-48. Huberty, C , & Morris, J. D . (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analysis. American Psychological Association, 105(2), 302-308. Hullfish, W . R. (1972). A comparison of two computer-assisted instructional programs i n music theory. Journal of research in music education, 20(5), 354-361. Hunnex. (1986). Chronological and thematic charts ofphilosohies andphilosophers. Grand Rapids: Chandler Pubhshing Company. Iassetta, F. (1996). Formalization of Computer Music Interaction Through a Semiotic Approach. Retrieved June 9, 2002 from htTp://www.eca.usp.br/prof/kzzetta/papers/inter.hrrn. I S M E , (2002). International societyfor music education. Retreived on August 10, 2002 from http: / / www.isme.org/article/archive/25/. Johnson, C. M . (1998). The effects of instruction i n appropriate rubato usage on the onset of timings and perceived musicianship o f musical performance. Journalfor Research in Music Education, 46(3), 436-445. Johnson, M . D . (1993). Dalcroze skills for all teachers. Music Educators Journal, 79(8), 42A5. Jonassen, D . H . (2000). Computers as Mindtoolsfor Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking. (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, N J : Merrill, Prentice Hall. Jones, M . G . (1997). Learning to Play; Playing to learn: Lessons learnedfrom computer games. Paper presented at the Annual Conference o f the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Albuquerque, N M .  131  Jordon-Decarbo, J. (1986). A sound symbol approach to learning music. Music Educators Journal, 72(6), 38-41. Jung, K . H . , & Walters, D . (1993). A two-year predictive validity study o f the musical aptitude profile for use in Korea. Bulletin of Research in Music Education, 19,1-14. Kassner, K . (2000). One computer can deliver whole-class instruction. Music Educators Journal, 86(6), 34-40. Keller, J. M . (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M . Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructionaldesign theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hilldale, New Jersey. Kerr, B . (1999). Effective use of audio media in multimedia presentations. Washington: U.S Department of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o . E d 436 121). Kodaly Music Institute of Australia. (2001). The Kodaly music institute of Australia. Retrieved A p r i l 10, 2002 from http://www.kodaly.org.au. Kristof, R. & Satran, A . (1995). Interactivity by design: Creating & communicating with new media. Mountain View: Adobe Press. Kulik, J. A . , & Kulik, C. (1987). Computer-based instruction: What 200 evaluations say. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o ED285 521). Kulik, J. A . , & Kulik, C. (1991). Effectiveness o f computer-based instruction: A n updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(1&2), 75-94. Landis, B . (1972). The eclectic curriculum in American music education: Contributions o f Dalcroze, Kodaly, and Orff. Washington: Music Educators National Conference. Langer, S. K . (1974). Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism o f reason, rite, and art. (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  132  Lee, S. H . (1999). Usability testingfor developing effective interactive multimedia software: concepts, dimensions andprocedures. Retrieved September 19, 2001 from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical / vol_2_99 / sung_heum_lee.html. Lee, W . W., & Owens, D . L . (2000). Multimedia-based instructional design: Computer-based training, web-based training, and distance learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer Publishers. Levendusky, N . A . (1979). The theoretical relationship between item difficulty and the 'in doubt' response in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 27(3), 163-172. Lipscomb, S. D . (1999). Technological directions in music learning. Paper presented at the Technological Directions in Music Learning, San Antonio, T X . L i u , M . (1996). A n Exploratory study o f how Pre-kindergarten children use the interactive multimedia technology: Implication for multimedia software. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7(1 / 2), 71 -92. Longyear, R. M . (1969). Nineteenth-century romanticism in music. Eaglewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Madsen, C. K . , & Yarbrough, C. (1985). Competency-based music education. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice Hall. Magee, S., & Rabinowitz, N . (1996). Shockwavefor director User's guide. Indianapolis: N e w Riders. Magnusson, S.J. (1996). Complexities o f learning with computer-based tools: a case of inquiry about sound and music in elementary school. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(A), 297-309. Malave, J. E . (1990). A computer-assisted aural-visual approach to improved beginning student's clarinet tone. Council for Research in Music Education, 116, 81-84.  133  McCord, K . A . (1996). Teaching musicfundamentals through technology in middle school music classes. Retrieved September 21, 2001 from http://music.utsa.edu/tdml/conf-III/IIIMcCord.html. McDonald, J. C. (1991). The application of Gordon's empirical model o f learning sequence to teaching the recorder. The Quarterly fournal ofMusic Teaching and Teaming, 2(\&c2), 110-117. Meyer, H . (1997). A computer system to improve violin intonation. Bulletin of the Councilfor Research in Music Education, 134, 66-70. Mobley, E . D . (1996). Interactive multimedia in the music classroom. Music Educators Journal, 82(4), 22-25. Moore, B. (1992). Future technology working for education. Music Educators Journal, 79(3), 30-32. Morgan, K . , Morgan, M . , & Hall, J. (2000). Psychological developments in high technology teaching and learning environments. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 31(1), 71-79. Nardi, B . A . (1997). Epilogue. In B . A . Nardi (Ed.), Context and Consciousness (pp. 375379).Cambridge: The M I T Press. Newman, W . M . , & Lamming, M . G . (1995). Interactive System Design. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Pubkshing. Nicaise, M . , & Barnes, D . (1996). The union of technology, constructivism and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 202-212. National Association of Music Educators. (2001). Retrieved October 31, 2001 from http:/ / www.menc.org. Ohler, J. (1998). The promise of midi technology: A reflection on musical intelkgence. Learning & Leading with Technology, 25(6), 6-15.  134  Orman, E . K . (1998). Effect o f interactive multimedia computing on young saxophonists' achievement and attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(f), 62-74. Ortner, J. M . (1990). The effectiveness o f a computer-assisted instruction program in rhythm for secondary school instrumental music students. Bulletin of the Councilfor Research in Music Education, 124, 67-70. Overton, W . F. (1984). World views and their influence of psychological theory and research: K u h n - Lakatos & Laudan: Academic Press. Overton, W . F. (1973). O n the assumptive base o f the nature-nurture controversy: Additive versus interactive conceptions, Human Development, 16, 74-89. Overton, W . F., & Reese, H . W . (1981). Conceptual prerequisites for an understanding of stability - change and continuity - discontinuity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 4, 99-123. Palisca, C . V . (1968). Baroque Music. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Parrish, R. T. (1997). Development and testing o f a computer-assisted instructional program to teach music to adult non-musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(1), 90-102. Pearlman, M . (1993). An application of multimedia software to standardised testing in music. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o . ED385601). Peters, G . D . (1974). Feasibility o f computer-assisted instruction for instrumental music education. Bulletin ofthe councilfor research in music education, 46, 47-51. Peters, G . D . (1975). Computer-assisted instruction of instrumental music. Instumentalist, 30(2) 46. Peters, G . D . (1984). Teacher training and high technology: What involvement should teachers have in computer learning? Music Educators Journal, 70(5), 35-39.  135  Peters, G . D . (1992). Music software and emerging technology. Music Educators journal, 79(3) 2226. Peters, G . D . (1997) Courseware development for micro-computer based education in music. In Mission o f the Future: Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Association for the Development o f Computer-Based Instructional Systems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o . E D 1 7 5 449). Peters, G . D . , & Eddins, J. M . (1978). Applications of computers to music pedagogy, analysis and research: A selected bibliography. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 5(1), 41-44. Preece, J., Rogers, Y . , Sharp, H . , Benyon, D . , Holland, S., & Carey, T. (1994). Human computer interaction. N e w York: Addison-Wesley Pub. Radocy, R. (1998). Iowa tests of musical literacy. In Buros institute of mental, measurement; Mental measurements yearbook. (Vol.13). N e w Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Rees, F. J. (2002). Distance learning and collaboration in music education. In R. R. Colwell, C . (Ed.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reese, S. (1994). Music technology: Tools for extending and sharing minds. American Music Teacher, 43(6), 12-15. Reese, S., & Rimington, J. (2000). Music technology in Illinois public schools. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 18(2), 27-32. Reese, S., & Davis, A . (1998). The systems approach to music technology. Music Educators Journal, 85(1), 24-28. Reigeluth, C. M . , & Stein, F. S. (1983). Elaboration theory o f instruction. In C. M . Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, N e w Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  136  Reimer, B. (1989). A philosophy of music education. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc \Reimer, B . (1997). Music education in the twenty-first century. Music Educators journal, 84(2), 33-38. Reitenour, S. (1985). Music, higher education and technology; Annotated bibliography. (Report N o . HE018901) Virginia: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o . E D 263 850). Richards, T. J., & Richards, L . (1994). Using computers in qualitative research. In N . K . Denzin & Y . S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Using computers in qualitative research. London: Sage. Roberts, J. (2001). Planning virtual space at SAIT. Retreived August 16, 2002 from http:// www.robertsassoc.on.ca/clients.htm. Romiszowski, A . J. (1986). Developing auto-instructional materials. N e w York: Kogan Page. Rothwell, H . C , & Kazanas, H . C. (2003). Mastering the Instructional Design Process, (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Rosen D . , & Mladen, C. (1994). Making money with multimedia. D o n Mills: Addison-Wesley Pub. Ross, J. (2000). The web vs. conventional instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f Calgary, Calgary. Rounds-Stell, B . K . (1998). Technology: Its use and impact upon secondary music instruction in a midwestern urban public school district. Proquest Digital Dissertations, /(136. 9921738). Rutkowski, J. (1990). Review o f Maurice Elton Byrd's comparative analysis o f Edwin Gordon's approach to sequential musical learning and learning sequences found i n three elementary general music series. Bulletin of Research in Music Education, 121, 58-60. Salzman, E . (1974). Twentieth-century music: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc. Sanford, S. (2000). The E-volution of think pad education at U M C . Converge, 14(7), 67-70.  137  Sandholtz. J. H . , Ringstaff. C , & Dwyer. D . C. (1997). Teaching with Technology: Creating StudentCentered Classrooms, N e w York: Teachers College Press. Saunders, T. C. (1991). The stages o f music audiation: A survey o f the research. The Quarterly Journal ofMusic Teaching and Learning, 2(1&2), 131-137. Schacter, J., & Fagnono, C. (1999). Does computer technology improve student learning and achievement? H o w , when, and under what circumstances. Journal ofEducational Computing Research, 20(4), 329-343. Scheider, A . (2002). Online guitar archive. Retrieved August 16, 2002 from http://www.harmonycentral.com/Guitar/OLGA/aU/adam_schneider.html. Schleuter, S. (1984). A sound approach to teaching instrumentalist: A n application o f content and learning sequences. Kent. O H : Kent State University. Seay, A . (1965). Music in the medieval world. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Shehan, P. K . (1986). Major approaches to music education: A n account o f method. Music Educators Journal, 72(6), 26-31. Sidnell, R. (1973). Building instructionalprograms in music education. N e w Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Sinor, J. (1986). The ideas of Kodaly in America. Music Educators Journal, 72(6), 32-37. Smith, M . L . , & Glass, G . V . (1987). Research and evaluation in education and the social sciences. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1998). Instructional design. Upper Saddle River, N J : Prentice Hall Inc. Snell, K . (1999). O n music cognition and music education. Canadian Music Educator, 40(2), 29-33. Soderberg, A . , & Hudson, T. (1995). Desktop video studio. N e w York: Random House. Starlin, M . (2001) Better guitar. August 16, 2002 from http://www.betterguitar.com /Players/bgStats/bgstats.html.  138  Stevens, M . H . (1992). The comparative effectiveness of a traditional approach verses an approach based on Gordon's skill learning sequence on beginning wind instrumentalists' ability to play a song by ear. Bulletin of Research in Music Education, 18, 50-64. Stevens, R. (2001). Using technology as a music teaching medium. Retrieved August 16, 2002 from http://www2.deakin.edu.au/e%26c/artemusl / weekl 8.html. Stitt, R. E . (1993). A study to determine effects of computer-assisted instruction on the middle school general music curriculum. Bulletin of Research in Music Education, 19, 47-57. Stokes, W . A . (1996). Is Edwin Gordon's learning theory a cognitive one? Philosophy ofMusic Education Review, 4(2), 96-106. Strommen, E . F. (1999). Constructivism, technology, and thefuture classroom learning. Retrieved October 14,1999 from ht±p://www.id.columbia.edu/id/papers/constiuct.httril. Swanwick, K . (1988). Music, mind, and education. N e w York: Roudedge. Taggart, C., & Gouzouasis, P. (1995). Music learning and language learning: a metaphor from an organismic perspective. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 13(2), 9-13. Talent Education Research Institute (2001). History of Suzuki, Talent Education Research Institute. Retrieved January 21, 2003 from http://www.suzukimethod.or.jp /E_mthd20.html. Taylor, J., & Deal, J. (2000). Integrating technology into the K-12 music curriculum: A national survey of music teachers. Retrieved August 11, 2002 from http://otto.cmr.fsu.edu/~deal_j /TIME2001.htm. Taylor, R.., & Cunniff, N . (1988). Moving computing and education beyond rhetoric. Teachers College Record, 89(3), 360-372. Tillman, M . (1998). The internet, internet curriculum materials and constructivist theory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o . E D 425 706).  139  Tittel, E . , & Stewart, J. M . (1996). The world wide web encyclopedia.. Charles River Media, Boston, MA. Tomita, Y . , & Barber, G . (1996). N e w Technology and piano study i n higher education: Getting the most out o f computer-controlled player pianos. British Journal ofMusic Education, 13(2), 135-141. Topper, A . , & Zhao, Y . (2000). Towards a " N e w " definition o f technology literacy Retrieved August 12, 2002 from http://www.educ.msu.edu/homepages/topper/ TechnologyLiteracy.html. Turpin, D . (1986). Kodaly, Dalcroze, Orff, and Suzuki: Application i n the secondary school. Music Educators Journal, 72(6), 56-59. Upitis, R. (1983). Milestones i n computer music instruction. Music Educators Journal, 69(5), 40-42. Walker, R. (1990). Musical beliefs: Psycho acoustic, mythical, and educationalperspectives. N e w York: Teachers College Press. Walker, R. (1984). Music education: Tradition and innovation. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Walls, K . (1997). Music performance and learning: The impact o f digital technology. Psychomusicology, 16(1-2), 68-76. Waters, B. (1999). Ideas for effective web-base instruction. Music Educators Journal, 83(4), 13-17. Webster, P. (2002). Computer-based technology and music teaching and learning. In R. R. Colwell, C. (Ed.), The new handbook of research for music teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Webster, P. R., & Williams, D . B . (1997). Overaching issues in technology and basic concepts of the web and internetfor music and the arts. Retrieved January 21, 2001 from http://www.arts.Msm.edu/~dwillkms/doc/mtemtFAQ/.  140  Weeks, D . G . (1987). The effectiveness o f using computer-assisted instruction with begmning trumpet students. Doctoral dissertation, Boston University. Reviewed by J. D . Secrest, Bulletin of the Councilfor Research in Music Education, 102, 89-94. Weintraub, D . (1991). Improving retention in musicfundamentals through the use of computer-based instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service 336072). Werner, H . (1957). The concept of development from a comparative and organismic point o f view. In D . B . Harris (Ed.) The concept of development. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wilkinson, G . L . (1980). Media in instruction: 60years of research. Washington: Association for Education Communications and Technology. Willard, J. B . (1992) Exploring music through technology, Tech Trend 37(3), 23-23. Wille, L . (1982). Computer-assisted music instruction. The Instrumentalist, 36(7), 30-33. Willett, B. E . , & Netusil, A . J . (1989). Music computer drill and learning styles at the fourthgrade level. Journalfor Research in Music Education, 37(3), 219-230. Williams, B. (1975). Research-Classroom Gap: S W R L found an answer. Music Educators Journal, 61(1), 41-44. Williams, D . B . (1992). Viewpoints to technology and teacher training. Music Educators Journal, 79(2), 26-30. Williams, D . B . (1995). Pioneering new trails through the wilderness of music, computer and communications technologies. Association for Technology in Music Instruction (ATMI) Newsletter. Retrieved October 10, 2002 from http://www.music.org / sqk_blat/October.  141  Williams, D . B . (1997). Internet delivery of instruction: Issues o f best teaching practice, administrative hurdles, and old-fashioned politics. Retrieved July 8, 2001 from http://www. orat.ilstu.edu/CAUSE/webteach.html. Williams, D . B., & Beasley. (1976). Computer information search and retrieval: A guidefor the music educator (Report N o . IR004960). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o . 263 850). Williams, D . B., & Webster, P. R. (1999). Experiencing Music Technology: Software, Data, and Hardware, (2 .ed.). NewYork: Wadsworth Publishing. nd  Williams, J. K . (1989). Talking music theory with a computer and a human being, journalfor Computing-based Instruction, 16(2), 71-79. Williams, R. O . (1972). Effects o f musical aptitude, instruction, and social status on attitudes toward music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20(3), 362-369. Willman, F. (1992). N e w solutions to curricular problems. Music Educators Journal, 79(3), 33-35. Wood, R. W . , & Clements, P. J . (1985). Instructor input routines for a computer-based ear teaining program. Canadian Music Educator, 27(4), 37-47. Woodford, P. G . (1996). Evaluating Edwin Gordon's music learning theory from a critical thinking perspective. Philosophy ofMusic Education Review, 4(2), 83-95. Woodrow, J. E . J., Mayer-Smith, J. A . , & Pedretti, E . G . (2000). Assessing technology enhanced instruction: A case study in secondary science. Journalfor Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 15-39. Woodruff, E . , & Brown, S. F. (1998). Use of self-paced computer assisted learning modules in music appreciation. Proceedingsfor the 1998 mid-south instructional technology conference. Mufreesboro: Middle Tennessee State University. Woodruff, E . , & Heeler, P. J . (1993). Music appreciation and technology: An evaluation of creativity-based approach using a MIDI environment (ERIC Reproduction Service N o . E D 366 310).  Woody, R. H . , & Fredrickson, J. M . (2000). A partnership project: Integrating computer technology and Orff-Schulwerk. General Music Today, 13(2) 8-11. Worthington, G . T., & Szabo, M . (1995). Interactivity in computer-based aural skills instruction: A research study. (ERIC Reproduction Service N o . E D 380 121). Wrigley, B. (2000). A peak performance training program. Retrieved August 2, 2001 from http://www.theear.com.au/.  143  Appendix A Interactive Guitar Learning Sequence Software Description A computer interface was used to direct and to assist learners with accessing the learning activities (see Figure 8 below).  *  The Interactive Guitar LESSON 1 LESSON 8 LESSON 2 LESSON 9 LESSON 3 LESSON 10 LESSON 4 LESSON 11 LESSON 5 LESSON 12 LESSON 6 LESSON 13 LESSON 7 LESSON 14 Techniques Meters Songs Tonal Patterns Tuning 4 mm  7•  Figure 8: Interactive Guitar Menu Screen Gouzouasis (1994a) has outlined that the materials comprising the Interactive Guitar (IG) Techniques were based on a variety o f classroom music teaching techniques. The Interactive Guitar was designed to be used as either a classroom teaching resource or a stand-alone instructional tutorial. A detailed explanation of executive techniques for playing the guitar as well as a guide for playing the tonal patterns is illustrated in the Tonal Patterns menu. Additional information on tuning the guitar is provided in the Tunings menu. The techniques in this C D - R O M version are organized to relate both guitar and music  144 achievement on the most basic levels o f music fundamentals. It was designed to improve guitar instruction for novice guitarists and to provide a model for the construction o f sequential, developmentally-based, instructional materials for the guitar. Music learning Activitiesfor the Guitar  There are a number of terms referred to in abbreviated form. They are the following: •  e = experiential;  •  sc/cc = singing connections/chanting connections;  •  kcc = kinesthetic connection (kinesthetic connection with the guitar);  •  pc = pattern connections;  •  vc = visual connection;  •  kvc = (kinesthetic and visual connection with the guitar and music notation);  •  mc - melodic connection;  •  macrobeat (the steady beat); and  •  microbeat (the temporal division of the macrobeat).  Note: Terms are defined and explained within lesson segments. Experiential  A t the experiential level of learning, the student learns to sing tonal (Hear it-audiate itsing it) patterns and chant rhythm patterns on a neutral syllable. The student (Hear it-audiate itchant it) hears the pattern, audiates the pattern, then sings, chants, or moves to (Hear it-audiate it-move to it) the pattern. A s can be heard on the C D , the neutral syllable for tonal patterns is •bum' and the neutral syllable for rhythm patterns is 'bah'. Singing and Chanting Connections  A t the singing/chanting connection level of learning, the student learns to sing and chant  145  with tonal and rhythm syllables the same patterns that were learned with neutral syllables at the aural/oral level. Kinesthetic Connection A t the kinesthetic connection level of learning, the student learns to play on guitar the patterns that they've sung and chanted with syllables by translating those same familiar patterns into finger patterns and picking patterns. Pattern Connections A t the pattern connection level o f learning, students learn, via rote comparisons o f groups of either tonal or rhythm patterns, to tell the similarities and differences between various aspects of tonality and meter. Visual Connection A t the visual connection level o f learning, students learn to read either tonal patterns or rhythm patterns by rote. The patterns are the previously introduced familiar patterns and are presented in the same familiar order. Kinesthetic-Visual Connections A t the kinesthetic-visual connection level of learning, the student learns to read and play on guitar the same familiar patterns that they've read by singing and chanting. They have also translated those same familiar patterns into ringer patterns and picking patterns. Melodic Connections A t the composite synthesis level o f learning, students learn to read melody by rote. The melodic motives comprise the same familiar tonal and rhythm patterns that were learned at the previous levels o f learning. Note: Singing and chanting are basic to this approach o f teaching the guitar.  146 Organisation of the Routines The routines are organized in lesson format. The lessons were comprised of the number of routines that the typical student, who possesses high average to high music aptitude and who is motivated to learn to play the guitar, could achieve on a weekly lesson basis. The routines were organized in a music learning sequence. A s few as three and as many as eight routines may comprise a student lesson assignment. The routines were designed to as lessons in a numerical sequential manner, therefore, Routines 1 through 4 always precede Routines 5-8. Routines were designed to be repeated from one lesson to the next, in which case the teacher/student used their best judgment in assessing the number o f routines for a lesson. Lesson Content Lesson 1 1) Rhythm/Patterns  Duple 1-10 e  2) Melodic/Song  "Circle Round the Zero" by rote  3) Tonal patterns  Listen, audiate, sing  4) Chord Set #1  Learn the chords by rote  5) D o w n strum  Individual C chord to a steady macrobeat Lesson 2  6) Downstrum  individual C , G , G 7 , and E m chords  7) Perform chord progressions  1-5, by rote, in Chord Set #1  8) Tonal/Patterns  Major 1 e  9a) Melodic/Song  "Ain't Gonna Rain" by rote  9b) Chord diagrams & chord  notation Lesson 3  10) Rhythm/Patterns  Duple 1-10 cc  • 147  11) Rhythm/Patterns  Macrobeat, Microbeat, Macro/micro beats  12) Chord Set #1  Read and perform chord diagrams and chord progressions, review  13a) Chord Set #1  Perform chord diagrams and progressions Macrobeat  13b) Chord Performance  Audiation/Picking and Strumming techniques  14) Tonal/Patterns  Major 1 sc Lesson 4  15a) Melodic/Song  "Sandy Land" by rote  15b) Melodic/Song  "Sandy Land" with notation  16) Rhythm/Patterns  Duple 1-10 kcc, Rhythm syllables  17) Melodic/Song  "Circle Round the Zero" with downstrum  18) Melodic/Song  "Circle Round the Zero" with notation  19) Rhythm/Patterns  Improvisation, Duple 1-10 cc Lesson 5  20) Tonal/Patterns  Major 1 ksc  21a) Melodic/Song  "Ain't Gonna Rain" with downstrum  21b) Melodic/Song  "Ain't Gonna Rain" with notation  22) Tonal/Patterns  Improvisation, Major 1-10 cc  23a) Melodic/Song  "Sandy Land" with downstrum  23b) Melodic/Song  "Sandy Land" with notation  24) Rhythm/Patterns  Improvisation, Duple 1-10 kcc Lesson 6  25) Tonal/Patterns  Major 1 ksc  26) Rhythm/Patterns  Triple 1-10 e  27) Chord Set #1  Triple meter chord progressions  28) Melodic/Song  "Circle Round the Zero" with pick-strum  24) Chord Set #1  With notation and pick-strum  25) Melodic/Song  "Ain't Gonna Rain" with pick-strum  26) Tonal/Patterns  Major 2 e  27) Melodic/Song  "Skip T o M y L o u " by rote  28) Melodic/Song  "Sandy Land" with pick-strum  29) Tonal/Pattern  Major 1 sc-improvisation Lesson 7  30) Chord Set #1  Pick-strum technique  31) Melodic/song  "Ain't Gonna Rain" Singing and pick-strum  32) Tonal/Patterns  Major 2 sc  33) Melodic/Song  "Skip T o M y L o u " audiation & downstrum "Sandy Land " pick-strum  34) Melodic/Song  Lesson 8 Triple meter progressions with notation and pick-  35) Chord Set #1  strum Major 2 sc-improvisation  36) Tonal/Patterns  Triple 1-10 kcc  37) Rhythm/Patterns  "Skip to M y L o u " downstrum with notation  38) Melodic/Song  Major 2 sc  39) Tonal/Patterns  Lesson 9  40) Tonal/Patterns  Major 1 vc  41) Melodic/Song  "Joshua Fought The Battle of Jericho" by rote  149  42) Chord Set #2  Learn the chords by rote Review/Down-strum individual A m chord to a steady  43) Executive Techniques  macrobeat individual A m , E and E 7 chords  44) Downstrum  Lesson 10 #1-4, by rote in Chord Set #2  45) Perform chord progressions 46) Rhythm/Patterns  Comparing by rote Duple and Triple meter rhythm patterns, pc  47) Tonal/Patterns  Major 2 ksc Performed with notation, including new chord  48) Chord Set #2  progressions Triple 1-10 kvc  49) Rhythm/Patterns  Lesson 11 Major 2 kvc  50) Tonal/Patterns 51) Melodic/Song 52) Rhythm/Patterns  "Joshua Fought The Battle of Jericho" with downstrum Duple 1-10 vc Skip T o M y L o u " audiation & pick-strum  53) Melodic/Song The preceding materials were administered from the content o f the Interactive Guitar (IG). The time constraints o f the pilot and principal studies necessitated the abridging o f the IG instructional materials. The preceding description is a concise outline o f the instructional materials administered within the pilot and principal studies. For the complete set o f instructional materials, please see the C D - R O M The Interactive Guitar by Peter Gouzouasis (1996b).  150 Appendix B l Intro Questionnaire Your name  Student Code_  1. Have you played the guitar before (if yes, for how long)? 2.  D o you own a guitar? (if yes, what kind o f guitar do you have at home?_  3. D o you play other instruments? 4. If yes, which instruments do you or have you played? 5. (If yes) for how long did you play each instrument (specify age when started and for how long) duration). Age H o w long? 6. H o w many minutes a day do you plan to spend playing the guitar? at home  at school  7. What kinds of music do you listen to? (check as many as apply). Rock  Rock and Roll  Metal  Hip H o p Rap Folk Classical Pop other stuff (name it) 8. If you had a choice, what would you rather listen to (arrange your being first choice to 10 as last choice). Rock Rock and Roll Hip H o p Rap Folk Classical Pop other staff (name it)  Country Jazz choices numerically, froml Metal Country Jazz  9. Name three of your favorite guitarist players (Not Band names, but guitar player's names). a)  b)  c)  10. D o you like to sing? 11. Name three of your favorite singers (Not Band names, but singer's names). a)  ,  b)  c)  151  12. By the end of the six week project what would you like to have learned?  13. How old are you?  years and months old.  152 Appendix B2 Bi-daily Questionnaire Sheet Student name  Student Code  1. What lesson did you work on today?. 2. What things did you work on today? Picking 3. Tonal patterns  Rhythm patterns  Stxurrirning Songs  Chords_  .  4. What new thing did you learn today?  5. What is it about playing the guitar that you like?_  6. What is it about playing the guitar that you do not like?  7.  D i d you work: by yourself?  With a partner?_  8. D i d you experience any frustration with using the book, tape or C D - R O M ? _  9. Would you like to become a good guitar player?_ 10. D o you like the way you are learning the guitar?  11. Comments on any thing in the class:_  (do not write past this point)  Why?  Appendix B3 Observation hag Sheet Interactive G u i t a r Project Observation A) H O W does ttte emcacy ot technology affect learning to play the suitar? Did the student experience problems accessing the information? Did the student use the technology efficiently? Did the student use the 'help"function or ask for help? Did the student get sidetracked by the technology? B) How does the representational instructional modality affect learning how to play the guitar? Did the student appear involved with the instructional modality? Did the student use the modality of as a visual reference or guide? Did the student use the modality of as a audio reference or guide? Did the studentrevisit the instroc tional presentation routine s? Did the student attempt to reiterate the instructional examples C) How does the social milieu effect learning to play the guitar? Did the student enjoy the instructional milieu? Did the student experience problems with working in a group? Did the student experience problems with working individually? Did the student get sidetracked by others in the group? Student* l  2 3 4 5 6  7 3 9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  154  Appendix C Questionnaire Instructional Procedures  Re:  Questionnaire Instructional Procedures  Project:  The comparative effects o f computer mediated interactive instruction and traditional instruction on music achievement in guitar performance  Directions:  THE FOLLOWING WILL BE READ T O T H E STUDENTS BEFORE T H E Y FILL OUT T H E INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE.  We are concerned with how children acquire the ability to play the guitar. The study will be useful in learning more about appropriate teaching techniques and conceptual learning approaches within traditional and interactive multimedia contexts. Before and at the end o f the study, we will ask you to fill out this basic questionnaire that focuses on your activities and preferences in playing the guitar.  M y name is Bryan Green. I am a doctoral student in the Faculty o f Education at U B C . During the study, you will work with myself here at the school. I will teach you to learn to play the guitar and to sing various patterns and songs. Myself and the instructional assistant will also take notes to document our group and individual discussions. These notes will be used to gather data about our teaching effectiveness and your learning and creative processes. We'll be working together for the next semester, and we look forward to having a lot of fun and learning how to play a lot o f cool stuff on the guitar.  155  Participation in this study is voluntary, and one o f your parents has filled out a consent form agreeing to your participation. A l l o f the information gathered in the study during the next semester will be kept stricdy confidential. A l l data will be coded by number and your name will not be recorded. The fmdings of this study will be shared with the school board, parents and students; publication is intended.  I greatly appreciate your participation in this study and we're very happy and excited to have you joined us here in the school. If you have any questions about any o f the items on this questionnaire, please raise your hand and I'll come over and explain the question to you. Relax and have fun!  156  Appendix D Interactive Guitar Learning Sequence Print-based instructional materials  Print materials were collated and presented in print format for each student in the study. A copy of the interface was used to direct learners to the learning activities (see Figure 9 below).  us  The Interactive Guitar LESSON 8 LESSON 1 LESSON 9 LESSON 2 LESSON 10 LESSON 3 LESSON 11 LESSON 4 LESSON 5 LESSON 12 LESSON 6 LESSON 13 LESSON 7 LESSON 14 Techniques Meters Songs Tonal Patterns Tuning 4 mm  7•  Figure 9: Interactive Guitar Menu Screen Print-version Materials are presented as an artifact; actual materials are included:  157  i  CY)  *-*  -T|  ^ ©g C«  •D  ^ 0-0 5" cr  5 0  w 3 cr.  *< CD 3 ^ 0 5 CO S " T 3 CJ.  »ffi3  x  2. o  cr. o o TJ o o> » {D CD ?J>  3 < * > 3 z r o £ CD 3 < 7*  CD  §1. 3  0  ri  ^  CD CD J=t CO CD  3" CO 3  O  zr CD  8  5-0 CD  3  1  •.  1  in 1  1 1 1  <D CD ZJ  O fl) O CL c •  a  CD  c  CD  fl>  r  w  0  CD  ^ 3 C3O o  g o  cr  —*  CD  O  CD ?  3* 31  ^CD CD CD  8>5 scr 9-. to  ZJ CL O zr  CD {LO £.CD  O §  3  W  Z3 r—r-  C L CD  CO  O <fl  CD  0  3  O CD  CD  O  If  CD Q.  zr  a. <D 3  CD  3  o ZU O  3  CD O  3  *< O  rz  8 3 C  CD  o c  3* (D  158  159  160  161  162  1  • WW  ©©  164  166  (  167  170  CD  J  JJ C  B| zz >* a?^>" 5  to  co 5  g %* o  %5  »  3  »  S  co"  5 CD  S  1—r  0) 1-+  o  ZJ  o 81  CD —• CD -2 CD ^ CO S CD O CD CD CO CD Z J CO  CD  co 9 . 5 o »"n> CO <*>  CD O ^  o ™ CD "< T3 CT =V CD O O UT o CD 3 •  13  5  3  =  zr  CD 3  c  Q.  5L CD  ^ -JCO ZTCD CD ( D  » 5  3  s&gZ f CD CO  3  Q. W  CQ  CD 03 O  f§s _  o  CD a.  5? Ef oo £ 3  CO CD CO CD CL I  CD  3  CD  3  o o cz  t—t-  3  CD CO O  3  "S C 8  3  T5  C  i-i-  CD  O C  3  3  c  3.  3-^5*  CO C CD Q . CO CO CD CD CD =ft CD CO CO  5  a.  jj§-  Q  CD  JO  N>5  13 ( Q CD CL CD 3 CD  a —  5 ? 3*  O tQ X J CD  g- o  £•  3r^CD  0)  3" CD  "Saga 8  _f Q-  3  -« 3  Q.  CO CD  O  C  Q,  oP-m  g-»  o  CD  .. o co  CD C  tu % J  3"  r+  3  3  O  CD CO  £  -->• O  X X X o  X X X o O  co =f co CD  r-  ^  CD  3  O  Co  o  §g.S O  CD  CD  c c <J> 3> f°  CD  o  5  X X X o o  X X ro o o o  0  m  co O  co Z zr o  CD ZJ TD CD Q . CD rf  X  zr cr zr  X  CT  o  a  CD CD  CL  zr  o  O  zr CD  C L CD ZJ  X  0  CD ZJ X CL CD — • *  X X  x  ft  o o  ZJ ( Q •vl CD O CO  •o  o  a  CO  8' CD —t  CD CD O . CO  O  ZS  3"  zr CD CD  co CD  X X X O O  mrnmt •  X  T  X  ZJ:  N)  o  o  a  o o  m 3  co co  o 3 co _ *< 3* 3" o• O ' CO » CO  CO CQ O  O  - i •—;  a  3  m——  3  •  CD —  CD  <  mo 3  o o"  £2  O c o co  CQ CQ CD  3  3" 3" O O 3. CO  x  ft  o  3- CO ft  Co _ J - c o £  o  o Er 3  CD  x o  ft  o  II i f Er  X X  COQ C  P, Co«Q o 3 3 O ~* CO Q . ~t £  "*  X X o  m £ CO co«< 3 co*< ©  o  X o  co ft 3 3 -"J c  •Ml MMCO r f  X X  X X ro co  o o  m 3  174  I  13 co  CD  I  o  O o CO CD  i—t-  176  i  55'g H ZT <t>  —r>  CO X*  CD < Q-CD  3'  to  r-r  CD O ^ J» CD  CO  / co  X X  -fx  X  CO  o  8-a «-* 3 . 3" 3  CD CQ =ft CA  3 °  ro v <  CQ CD  3. 3  3  r-*  ZT CD «=> O  3? 3 >• £ =a 2. <b  — •  <-r 3  ° 55 o 10  O  tt>  to to•  § ? .  o cr <> ! zr <D <D  O  3.  r-r  g*  zr  If  Q. CD CD Q.CQ  CD  3 3  o < 0) 3" CD  3  CD  g 3  w' 6 ~ d s  ZT  co x'  • =L 3  —r>  3o  rr  CO  S' zs' <o CO  X X X  IW --i §r CD CD b= CD  3  3 < CO CQ CD  5- W' =r  ro  0 • -*» 3-L zr  ja <> i ^  <t>  -T,  —•  o- flo  >  CL T  a.  § o co E. S  ja O. zr.:  zr <t> <t> O  3.  H zr  9  o  g- ^ Sr. ^  a  rr  %  0 > CQ Q 3. CT .  o _ ==• <  2. 53' Ef Z T T 5 CD <0 JD O  c o H CQ  <[>  X *  r-r  CO  3  s  CO =?  co *"* c =sg 3  —n  CO  S. c  Q .  =3 _>  3  co 0  o 5"o  to  X X _ j " ff>  -l-  X  _ *  CJJ  o  O o ®  ro  =^CQ  O  3- 3" CD  3  O 3* O  > a  T5  <t> =3='  *8 o CO  o 5' a I— T  o" CO  3 *  < t> "3  O  3.  a»  3  <—r  § a=f •  CO  ®  3-_L O. CD  CO  c o 53" 3  —1 3 "  O  3  s§  r-r  So  <D  c  <D  3 "  3 |  =  i  J c  3-  ? CD cf CD — O Q) CO  i—r  j_£ Q .  2  CO  — I to x* to  _r 3  -1  5'9,  ry CO CO  to •  CO  *T  O  CO  S§-3  X X  -J-  X  to  o  CO  o  0  Co CO 3- - s CO CO § 2 3 - Er  PsJ  CD ' ^  7Z.  CD  5- =r CD  __-—g  9-  CD  -« i - *  _f >  ff> <D O.  Q  —ft  ^-<H  O 3  _ 3- § \ 5 O to ja Q. 3 -  °- £ *  CD  3' •  3  CO  3 ^ °  m  8  S.3  CD  c cr  3" <D <t>  O  3.  r-r  $  »'» •  w  Q , CO  5  1  —I  <1>  ft  to x' to  3"  3 CD CQ CO CD CD  ZJ Q.  O'  aCD  CO O  CD  CT S ® CO  00 ZJ  o  "O CD 3 CO r-f T  3 CD CD  <-+•  3"  CQ  o  —ti  CD'  CL CD  CO  X X  o O  X OJ  CD CO  3  cr O  co  0  ro  cr O  <  c  3  CD  zr o  CD  (—#•  CO CD  co  ••MS  CD  /  T3  <—r  fj>  to  o 3  3  Z3  CL  CD < CD'  ZT  rr  3 CQ CO  -o 5 > CD  <l>  3'  0-_\ 0 w  e  1 a  Q.  3  ,«  p»  o  to  3"  E.  <D  3  Q. zr o~ rry <!> zr <I> <> I  ?  I  § 3 Q.  O'  a  CD CD  O •MPS  3  CQ  TJ O Q > 3 3  3  o m m o o •  O  9  3 3- i i  E? $  g.if»  i  T Q Q  —  <D  co  =H^ =  g-l a CD  5" 3  C0.Z o  aft 2  8  3 a. CO CO  182  3  H  cr  a ^  CD  o •MBS  CD CO  ^  ^  «3  ^  -g_  -o  CO b  5'o 5' CQ JD_ O 3  =£CQ CD CD O 3 CD  TJ CD O  o  MB»*  CD  *  co  3  CD  i—»•  CD  CD'  CZ  S  CD CD " C 3 T J Q  2 . ° -CQ 3 O - -  9  CD O O  CD  CD  £ CD CD J =Jr-f  O fZ  —K  ——  CD 0  5  CD  §1 CD "CJ ZZ E L CD CD O  *< o' cr ro  CD ST CO  a8 zr  CD CO CO ——mm  a 3  zr o c CD  o >== zr o o  CD  3  CD CO  "§ c  P  H  3  M B *  JQ C CD CO  »-+• Z7  •B *< o c  £>CD  r^cQ CD co co co. CD O  C  8-5 5> CD  ft§  E 3 3 E 3 S  o £ 3  JJ  zr CL  3  O C  CD c|  o  CQ CD CO CO 3 CQ  S-5 CO CD CQ acD  o«<  3" O O fZ  ^ § CO =' £  CD  o  =V  • zr o o —i CL CO  o  CD 3, O  zr CD  5' CD  183  1  co  TJ  CQ E? 5 ? _> CD  >  c g  O  CD 03 o  > m  CD CD o  03 t—  CD  -a CD  3  03  15  ® CO  6*  g o  ZT  3  ;co"  CD  CO H  m  o CD O "D 03 CD  So _>. ZD CD  co 13 < O  81'  CD  o ® Qg f° c7^i«Q  » 5' 2. CD ro 3 - ° to ® g cr  o c  0  r-  JD  o c  • • M l  3  tD  184  185  186  I  3 S'g o» o c g ^ 3 3  3 n B  cr  3  O  0  0 3 0  cr g " CD o*CD  CD  c  CO CO  w ^ Qg. 55"  _) rt» —— «—! ** - O O  TJ  CL  c  Q. <D 20  - O CO  c  o cr  a. co ^—cr  CD CO c o5 CO  c  CO  c  c  D.  CD  ^  IS  CO = •  <D CL  5.  O O  M  0>  cr  <D  3  g  i? cr  a si  j_8 CD  5  2_CD (—t»  CD  CO  •g  3"  CD  3  CL  C  53'  <D _7 S O ) (D  co c s. 0-3  a. a> to c  r* m  if)  3 o o cr  CD  JJ Q  188  i  &  1  Soi»s?  »s  S rO  ^  Q.  3  0 O 0 O  2 CL O SL ? 2  S a » §•  2 = 33  CL  £  3 5*9?  0)  B  3  §* =v D  CO  3  ©  WO  £ 3 ^ -  ~ o 3 o-.  co  3  OJ Q.  I  I  ^o »3 > 5 CQ o £ 33a <n cr CD CO CD  o* a- 5  5  Q X  CD O  ^ C  c  3  r-+  CO  CD CD  Ef H O £  O CQ  - j CD 7? cn  o o o o  aa  03  3 3 3 CQ CQ £» XJ XJ  CQ -t CD 03 03  CQ - r 3- t CD 03 CD 03 ^  CO  .3 3 O  3 03  =: r c03  CO J - N _ CT. i i CD  XJ CO O CQ 3 CD 03  3  <—t-  CD Q.  o o c3 C <  o s.  as CD X J  3 O O  C 3" 03 CD  a  3* CQ  &•  ap  3: O  o" o 3  O 3-  o o  O  03  co 5  •gig; i=* B- C* CD CD zr  ^jk  JD  o  Q --j  —  o  o  Q -j  ®  o TI =2 zro tz oJ, 3 zr^ CD c» P- z* z* £ 92L to g - o ?  "3 33 8  CO CD ( Q O' 3 3 CO  < =2 5"CD O"  CD 3 CD" 3 *< O  o  cr o  si  CD 3  3  3  CL  191  194  ' o ™S? 39 ZJ < o < as.c •  O zr  5  CD r-r-  zr CD  cfc  2* =  o 5  3  CQ  •Q 9?  CD  1 3  CCD rt-  r~  ~* JD  ° O f f 3  c 3 "o zr  $ 3° 5" Z> i<D  -  —h  O -« TT CD C  Q. ®  JD  O w 3  =? 3 = CZ  3  CQ CO JD  Q.  zr  Co'  3 c  r—»•  ZJ  CD  z*  3 ^ 3  C c+  3  C  =**D  3  3" crcQ O  ZJ  £  = 3.5'  Q.3 3 O CQ CO 3 CQ 0>  s sJD. s —t  co"  3"  3  8 £.  -j  CD  I  3  CO  <  Efl  CO JD — «< CD = v < OJ JD O  cr c  3  3 « • CQ c+ 3'  CD — — CO CD O JD T 3  * 5" 9,  8,3  82.  — C Q  CD  C  m^.  co  C  o  "5  3-  Q."S.£ &  CQ  CD CT CD  3  O  12 <  fti.  CO 3.J-  3 'CD CQ -3  JD  o 3 o o  3" 3 3 zr  JD r - f CD ZJ'CQ  cz M m  I-f  JD  •  198  1  =*0 giT3 J} CO P - T 3 3"«< O  co o ~£ = C =f  CD CD CO  3  M  3 cr  CO CD  I 2 aa C CD I  S ScrO  CO  co  3. 3  3  c  O  e g ?  CO  <D  q  O. -3  cr. zr o  =r  33=*  III! P P 3 co 3 " zr O r+ - j ' CD =fco C O X J ' — o =r X 3.  O  O g_CQ  5  ^  5* c* L <  <  5*  >  CD CO  m  3 "13  o 5T g CD  3r 03  a CD  o  CQ  c  03 3 Q.CQ ^3 Q_ 0 3  03 O  ^  CD CO  So  Is  I"  o =• o.a o < > • CD  -fl  3  C  I-  O . CD  Q  D  CD ^ 03 C  03N CD CD " 3. RT  —k. •  c  CO CD CO  t—t-  3* CD  O  o O  a  ID O 3  fl)  I  Ef JJ CD CD  O  CD  3  CQ  O  s-  z. o  L.. Q.CO £ CD 3  6-as Q  I-*-  So zr CD CO CD  8 3 Q.  —«*  o 0  3 CQ  =r  <0  o c  CD  3 CD  - I  00  H | CD  CD CD  3g O  C  3  -  o  N 3 fD CD  3 £ CD CQ CD  3 ZJ A3 C Q  CD  O  c  3  5  2 g  3 Q. Q . r-f .  3*  CD CD O CO 3 O 3  ZTCQ  Q  V  w S-  JJ  3  CO  o  3 O i—*  a  o 3  O  200  9:<$. 3-5" CD  Co O  ST 4 ZT  =J  Q- co  co  "u rj=J  c  z* Si co o CO g .  . ^ CQ =r  !=t o  3 co 5 o co It' ?'  g co  3$ 13 o  -  CO  ™* E r — l — • 05  c  o-Q. • -  3 "3 =?  » I $s £  =  3-CD cV << co =• 3 3  S i f co<<  3  "S  a  c  I N  3 3  CO CO  3" S=^?Ef» 3 ^ . '  CD 5 O CO" 3" 2 go =f o 5 =* 3 "o 3  owg 3 rr>  S f; S  O  O CO O CD O  ^ S 3 CCDO  CD  =  =:  o -«  -*» C -«» PO CO C 2. P 3 §  CO. CO fl) CQ  p 3-g  3  3f  R' S i . 5 Q.  3  CQ  ^  CQ  =T  202  v  I  a ^g O ® =: a "5.9: O ==•  CO  3  g-CQ  9-3 § -  3 ^ —.CQ 3 CO 7t O  =3  C L C  O  a  3  ^  CD  3  =J CD ju  CO CD  O  3 CQ O O CD  -?3 O  3 CD  x> 3  o  CD =f  OS  O CQ  Ocl  s4 3  CD  CD CO  ~  CO  0 5  W CD co Q  - P^_ CO 3  VJ  CD  CD  =  JD  O  -f  CD  O  a.  ET  3  CD -  CO  L  O  CD  Qj  co  8  CO CD  3 3°; O 3 —•  C  ED  3  o CO  CD  CO  C f m C T  5  Q.O " Q  -g.5^H CD  L  r-f Z !  CD  3 CD  3oS CD 7* <  O 3  3  T.  Q  C L  CD - « CO  91 fD CD  O 0) O  =t CD C L  O o 3  3  3  =f.  3 C  L  » °« Ow CD  CO  1  cz co zr  -J  — .  CD  °s»< o o ZJ.  =^CQ O  CD CD  3*52.  CD  Q - g .  3,3  Q . C D  CD 3.  CD--  3 2  5  •g.S  i3  Q.O.  qT  2. CO  m  CO CD 3 CD CQ X §.T3 CD CD 3^(Q  CD  r -  C  CD  £4"  Q <  -3  CO  co 3  it  CO  CD  3 f» CQ CO  § 3 | . 3  CQ CD CD  3f zH3r  O  £-£ to o  3  Q  85 CD  JJ  oc zr co 5?CD !ft  ft%  -x CD  Q.  _  O  JJ O  c  5' CD  205  206  1  9=  3 3  SD 13 c i Q r f f =fc < -3  CD CO  S  3P -  O  O  - 2?  £3 5"S  o  3 3  f—  CD  2  S=  CD CO  3  CO  ~  XJ  3-  g"  - t  CO  CD fD  co ~* = • CO  g c Q c7 CD 21 3  i  3 CD o o> co -h  CO  2 CD  ^  3  3 O  <  f* to' CO sr.-  o  3 to"  po_ CO  cr  O  c  O  CD "  S.  <  =  I:  Q=  CD ^Q  3  o -* g X J Co CO  3  co o s.  o 5 «  ~ O  CD  CD  <g-  « < 3T 3 O s c - CO  =- S  co  CO  3  CO CD co r* '  <  9-3  XJ  3  CD O  c  =  CD*  " O CD CD  <-f  DD O  c  rt  CO.  CD  *0  —t  CO  co 3  =5  CD  O  O ' X ? CD CD  3 °*  CQ  o C ? ^ =r CD  3 < Q •<  CD CD  3  S O CO  ^ CD  3 Q  i  CD  3  5?  03  CQ  co"  Q  0)  <2.  TJ  CL CO  CO CQ  CD  03 IT  Q_ CD ED  * i  c? CD  CO  3 9  03 O CQ O 00  5"  to CD jJ zr CD  3  S<*B3 3 =f CD  CD  ^ J D  CD -«  O  =3  O  CO ED  O. g - CO CD CO °2 5 £ CD  CO  ^  =*• Q . ED  2«rs 3  O zr  Q3 .  C L  CD co Q 3.  O CO C p- aj cr  CD CQ  to CO  03  r +  a)  g:  S  CD  CO  CD  *  3-CQ  < CO CD ZJ  pi CD Q.Q.  O CO <D co ~  3"  CO CD CO  2_  3-  O  O ^  <-+  CD  CD"CD"  oPo  S 3 §•  ED CQ CD  2  -£ 3 • CL  Q 3  «  o  o  —• r-*  JJ  Q , CO CO O  3S-  3  3  O H  (A)  208  209  1  CD  ^ q: zr  3 3 |w  ^  ET^  Erzr =  3 CD  ^  a, p Er zr w c3o q - n m —i  zr <:  S t o  gCD 0*3CD < c - f3 —  -3|  O  ^  =Tg.CD S ZJ  3  zr CD o. to  CD  CD g §==• JD  C  c ? 3  S  ZJ TSJ ~*  «5 " JD  JD CD JD  I: s  ^  CD  g § >< —H —  r-h  zr  ?" CO m  CD  3 CD zJ 3 to W  28.-^  5  3  5  cro =•  tofO CD  ^go 5  J D ^ W  »  5  c  co  TJ  3 J  W  ZJ  Zj.  £ zr  §  2  ZJ  0  7  £  210  21  ZJ!Z -go  Ef 3 H CD CO CD  I—H  fl)  t—H  C L  CD  o  O  A3  CD  0) O  i i ' ' » CO ZTCO = CD 3 CD r f  3  3  CD 3 F  3  —4  CO  ^=5  3 CD  rn 3  CD  l~ m  3 3  3  CD ^ CD  1* 2_ CD  CO CO "1  o o  O  3 3" 3 CD  CO  H  CO  CD CO  ^  i-+  "•^ CD  ••••• •  3  CD  a  CD CD o  c?§  o c  ro  m fl) c 3 Q. CD  XI O S "  O o  Is 5 3 1  3-  O  o CO  3  33 3"  o r- §•  CD X  £ 3 §.« ^ o.<o 2f g- < B o3  ^.  3 £  g-5-35  5  •—CD TJ  fj£ "CJ  5 3 3  o m o o 3 A A  |-  Q  3  CO 3 m  CD  <-+ CD 3  o.  £  CD  g- CD  O 3 Q, -g^i.o CD  O J O  ZJ  CD  w  m  co z r  Q  sat 3 co O  co —. 7* "  3  2  g3 c\  O  c  CD  O <D <  g.  Q. S = < / > £ CD SO?  C  CD CD CL  —  ZJ  3  ^3-3  2 o ~L  i  3  o  £Z  ZJ  7 = f ° co ^ g  CO o »  ^  -.CD  p 3  X  §  co  =TOg  n  c  =  c  3  3 a.  eg CD  o a> 5"  CD ^  $  CD fl> CD ' CO Q-  ^ rt  § 3  CD CD gy XJ 3 CO  £ 3" CD 3  g  §  o  = p  CD CO  I" 3  3  i l  O J=*  3 c » 3* < CD < 3-g  2c5 <E CD  CO  § =£• Er^S  ^  CO  2. «| 2  c 3  t»  :  7" CO  o  3  X  i l S|  —  c? 3  3  T  OT  3-2 CO  O O  2**~  3  cb o P  | a i O  r t  CD X J  '  9  o eg 3 O CQ ~ § C  a  3  3  J S  CQ  3.  55'  3  m  CD  214  co" ==. O 3- o o 3^§=r3CD  i 5 f ? l f c ^ CD CD -o CD = =j • << S 3  § p CD 5 ' ET. ^ o -o 3 q-cD^o oTo  ^a>c,^i Erg-CL^cD^p  m  3  2  ZTCD  "< ^ Ef  M  3 "5  O S CD S ° CD °  3" §  §  p  § 3 ? -o 2 o 1  H  CD § - ~  to  m  to S-to z*_2  rise w:g O ^ -  o.  Br  0) CD  3-CDto^-q-^  §  3 2.0. a qiTJ _ 3 5  ~  O  g 3  5(Q  O  toC,.ff Hi.g3. ^ a - CD 4 ;  <* 2-g  W  CD C/3  CD  <D-  O C  215  216  217  H c -t  3  cT i—*  CD O 3 CQ  XJ  CO CQ CD  o <  CD*  r-t 3T CD  XJ  3  CQ CD CO CO O" 3 CO — ^  S?=l  =1  CD  O » 3 cr. O 3 d . CD O CD CQ ~  3  C  CO CO CO CD Oo c£ — j J CO CD " XJ  c/> r"  CD CD i—f  c  p  CO «< 3  c$  3-Q g c ?  °-3.  o  CO CD  CO  O CL  i  c  3 S  o  3 -Q C CD  ct XJ CD  a 3.Q XJ a ° X J o  CQ D CO C§ CD £CO Q M M ! CO  CO o  3. o 3 3 O CO  o"o 3 O o a  —t*  o 3 CD  CA> O  ZJ CD =T  o« o =*  CD"* CD CD ZJ CO O Q . ZT  8  220  222  224  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  i  0)  DD  CD <  5" a CD of  s~ CD  3" a>  CD CD ZJ ZJ Q . =5  Q.  CO O  Q . to ZJ CQ  C D , P CD  =5,  O  3  CQ zr co CD o  C L  GO  to ,3  g CQ ^  CO  CO o £  CQ  co o  << H o o  = £ C Q  ol C D  <  ex  O c  5' CD  u> CA)  234  235  rHJH O  Q  O  - J  <I>  3  3 < i  I  I  VC  I  :i  5"  O  CO  CO  CO  3  15  a. vc CL  a.  VC  237  co w 3  r  C3" r r CD -5 t= CO - i 3" H 3" CD CD Z. CD CO Z. 8 § o O 3 . r^" 3" CD CD 3 T3 ^ cr. w  o  o  O  •5" 3 3 §  — o  m  3  C CO CD 3 CD CD XJ CT • 3 ^ - CD #-* o CD 3 co S E T  —  Q  P O CD  O Q.CO SS. r + CD 0 3" CO 3 CD 3" O CO O - * CD -*• O CD CO ^ O CD CD O TJ Q . 3 O'CD 3 3 TT 3.3 3 2 1 < -> CD CD CO 3  239  1  O  0)  5  co  3  gcD3  CO  ^ 9 =r55"< o s CD  C  9: CD  3  3  CD'g'o 3  o ^ 3  § 3  CD cr O CD CO  << 3 CD CO  CD  O  a CO <  • • i t  ?  Co*  CD  C  s-h co 3  co  3  CO  CO  CQ  i3 3  ^ CO  CD  55  rt rn O co—.  3  ? , C?  3  CO CO O* CD V-t-  CD 0 3  gCD CD  a o  03  O  3  o ^CO 3  =  CO  =r.  3  CQ 3 7 = <-+ CD 3" "  CL CD O  co ~; 3^  PI C  CD = :  3-go  rt. J> — 3"  C_  CO  O-D  3  c ro <  co"  5 5* < * > CD  O  C  CD ^  XI  3^  ^ o l i CD  m i  3  <D CA)  240  1  CL CD CO ***  TJ  co S. to £ CD ZL  o cr f-*  3 zr 3  3  rvT  CO  c  CD 3 CD  f Z ^ CD  i—+•  I T CD CD p  Ojj) •  Q  CD 03 CL  zr  03 ZJ  CD JD  m  Z 52- to  CD T3  S CD —t  3  3  CD  §8  CO T3 3  CD  _  s  CD CD —i. to O O O O-D  « c® s o ^  <0  1—4-  7T-D rr O CD CD O CD & ~*X5 CD =f CD 3 ^ - Q CO CO o &CD O C CD —j  3  CO C Q ~*  o _  O  zr  r—I-  CD 03 O TJ  05 3 CD 3  •o o  '  d3  cr  m^ <  CD < CD ^t- CD r - r zr CD —t CD zj. 3 co zr  38-  CD CO X5  g fZCD -t CD  ZJ- co zr  CD CD CO = 3 CD 3  zr cz cp  33 O  c  J-HN  3' CD CAJ  1  o O  if-S w  cr  rt CD  C D CD  o  5  CD P* ^  3  CO  o 3 o cr CD CO  CO 3  a, o  3  O  y O CD c  —  CD 5" CD Co CO CD * CD * R MS  co = f 3 3  CO o q  3 Co  O O ~ - -3 3" C D 3 C 7 P r ? <!>  co  H  T3 •<  Q.S 3  3  —  cr  T3  CD co g - 3  TJ  CL C CL  03  C L  CO  03  zr  3 § © CL 3 CD  o O  cr  CD  a  CO  CO  3  CL CD CD  cr  CD  r~ m  03  03 o o cr CD 03  CD CD  242  244  1  co  <  O  $ o L7  <  1  CQ CD ZJ = O Q. C O *—« CD CO  rt"0  —  co* CD  CO 3  5"  Z J  o  C L  Z J  to  *  c?J. co c^S _ q  OCD  133 Ci  CO  o  O  CD 03 O  m CD i—H  3  > c g^ >  rn  CD  3  co FT co CD =r O  —  H  rn  — «  _  .  " C J 3 CO 00 CO -t  CO fjrCD  =r rv> co rt  C  1  CD 03 O  o  CD 03  » ^£  a  o  ^ =r.co  CD  "a  0)  3  i—r  3  3  CL  03 C D  O  , Q.  — CO CD  = 33  co J  co  O  c 3'  CD  qJ.  CQ-cQ Co rt  i.cD  JJ  3  O C  ——  C  Q  rt-  CJ2.CD 3  CQ  3  CD  CD CO CD  CA>  CO  246  1  rt-  r-C  O ZT - * CD  Q  3  gQ o co"  coP  I" S3O  Q  3 f»  CO*  BP o zr  3  a»  zr o > CD 3 zr  S0 Jr.. =j  m  3  rt.  o<? §oo ^  Q. co  oo  3 "=»  5  1  CO  •o"g. CD CD  B  CD CO #-*  o  a  zr o  a  CO CD  3  _f  CO CO  zr  3"  CD CD  OS  CO  5-5CQ  co"  =  -  CD  Q . O  3  3  ^  O  O.Q.W  §. o"  —ti  0>  3  = Sff ^  3  3.  CD g ; CD  3 o g*  CD CD  CD  o  j=?3 Q-  3 3 3  CD  1-8 & 9.3  CD  £ =1  CD —  CQ  3  co  CD -  <  M B *  |  =-8&3 8 3  3  CD CD  Q. CD  CD  O CD 3" O O T3 3 3 ar  ri  CD  ^ «  | 3 CD CO  co Q  =  CO  o  HO  3  ZT 3 JD CD O g  3  =¥ CD  O CD CO ^ CO  p!B  P  CD =  3  247  248  249  1  co  3  3 O 3,  I E  >  CD  09  CO > 3 CL  CO  o  3  CD  Er  3 CD  CO CO rt% CD CO Q.S-CJ V  J  W 3, CO 3 " 3 " CO O 3 3, Q -  o 8 rt 3 CL  3"  -h CD  O  O  CO CD Q . *•+  co =3" S o O a mg. 3 CO  CD C Q  °  m •*  in CO CD < CD 3  O  a , ;  CD Q.Z. co  3 CD CO  3  JJ  rts  CD C Q D >  zr o rn _. o  CD  3 ro  o Q co CD g  •8  3 CQ  * O  O 3 9>CQ O 0 CD  3 CD  O  =?  to"  co  T O  CL  3.3  rS  3.  | m  3  O CD  0)  - r  O  cL^ co a _ CO co co" c rz  CD I—#•  g  CD CD Q CO CZ CO C i C Q r> CD CO — =*  CO  O rt,  ma  C0T3  CO »• g 13 J D P" CD rt S Q . cr Q3 CD 3  o o  Ictg  O O  rn ro  ort =•3 3  CL  rt CD 3 CD >  X - J H  3  ° m  —s o o  CO 3 * 3 CO - * O C Q Q . 3 CO C CD C D C 1 3 3 ~* 0  xm -  250  3  |  15  3 C D > C O  ErO  » 3 3 |  w  O O 3"< 9" O _ _ O  g  fj>  CD  P- Z  CD  c.  CD £  O *<  =1  3  3 ?f£g- s s 0  ^  top 5  -Z  Z J Q . CD  r 3  3 to  Q-  J  ri  2. CD 5  CQ ZJ CD CD co  81  to o  fD  CD •  =2: ZJ  O  => § a  -r  33 £  ^ 3  8 | —t 03  3 CD  >  3"  3 c CD  > 3  C  too  3  CO  C  5 -r-hCO s 35  CZ  CD  CL  3" CD CD  3  O  3  3  £  o  5" (D  6  CD  <  33 O  45  C  5"  pr CD  f2 CO C rtCO rt  4^  —t —'  O CD —• 3 ZJ  O  CD O  ^ 55 O CD  8  CL CD CO CO  o 3 CL —. ZJ  CD O ZT ZJ  O-fi' O CD  C/) w  CD <g rt  * 5  Q. —  CD  >c to  _  _ m o o  x  ° rn - •  o o  --J  253  254  1 a m  H CD 03 O T3  a i—+•  CD  3  =T H O - < :D c 2 o r - r- 5 ^mm =  >  c g  3" nj Q> ZT CD 3 — CD 0 0 - 0 . CD 1  CO H m  m CD 03 O T3 03 CD  3  03  o  CD 03 O TJ 03  t—fi—+•  CD —t  CD  CD  |  d 03 CO O  3  §§! CD f P  5" =>' 3TJ "0 3  m m CD 3 3 §"  CD CD - i  r-f r-r  3  CD CD  W  zr  CD  zr CD 03 zr - i = • CD  CD  3  CD  n*  JD CD  s9-0  CD  S B_  03  r= zrCD 3 O  CD  to  0.0.0  CL  —  to 3  CD CD  O  CD  ZJ  3  o q:  £^  cfo  ?p 3  O  Q.S  "I  CD CD CD  3 3 CD  jr*  CD - r CD CD  JJ O  c 3  CD  255  i  1  O O —*  3  CQ  rn  ZT  m CD CO O TJ CO  =t  CO D 3  Q.  CD CO  c Q. m o o o ZJ CD co" co 3 o c TJ  rt  •  CD  o® 33 =  rt  . co  CO 37  rt  3"  CD 3  co  •S2.3 o — g—COc -* TJ XJ QQ.CO m =j CD CD CP 3  3 ".3 3<< ~  CL  g ^ g CO TJ <_ CO CO < S . CO CD CD CO CD CO CD  c c co Q.  O C  3'  3 CQ CD  —H ^  33 CD  c  CD  ~2 O  q co 3  CO  I—*  O  3 3^ m  c  TJ CO =P CD  CD  o'F£0  >  CD  CO m g CD  £J  Co g c Q  3 CQ 3 =T<D  3  CD CO 3  CL  M S  Q. CD 3  CD  cT 3  CO  s  TJ  CD 3. CO  256  257  i 4&  ^ m  m  m  m  258  1  2 IV) <D  =7  =3  3 co CoD § =r 3  3  c  =  - A  o  3 3-§ 5" 3 §  3 ^ CD O CD  X (Q CO CO ^  ET. x 5"  3 O QCQT3 <  3  £ 3 3 CD CD r+  Q.-5"  CO CD O CD C CD 3 =f. 3 CD 3 3 ST CD CD CD >•  3- o 3" 3" % CD 3 == 3 — (-t-TCJ CD =t CD —' —t r-f-t 3 O ^"CO-o O CD 3  ZT  § • 3  S  CQ V .  co  3  05 CD CO D  ZL  He?  g CD  CT  ct>  r~ m  ZJ  r*  5"  03 r-r CD  ' si. •gff  13 O  3 CD 4v CD  259  1  "Fl H o 3 °i "5* <» " 5 c— o oc^  a S3  CO  3"  CD  CD  -T  8 3  ^ q <  0 0  3 . rt r r =r CD  CO e g  Q-  |§ga CD 3  Z T "T * -  o  E.  £  g  co  3  CD Q  3  o S  =  co s» 5" =?-X " CD c  CD  CD CD =r. O  co"  v  C  c>  —o _  CD 3 3 CO - . g _ _  — |  O O 3" < 3 Q. <  W O  7  -So  coT^S cr > <  Sol  ' 33 zz D M CD  CO  — 3 O -rj co rf  O O  CO CD = f  cr -< O  rt  o 3  CD • CO CO . CD > X J CO " «  3  rt -  (D O  d 3  I3 s£= O  CO  w  -«  O CD § 3 m ^ O 3" =T C CD O -« ~« 3  9 g.rt 3-CD co CD X XJ CD_ "CJ  O O TJ T T c CD CD -j 3 , CO CD O  cog •rcD  •CJ  3  2. o  =TCD• C Q O CO ~ CO CD CD CD  3"  TJ  CO  O  =" 3 CDCQ CO  s. co EfS o 3 CO  CO  XI  o  c 5" CD cn o  260  1  Q.  O  CD  i  GO  ? DOH ff>=r  CD  3. f5  5. to CD  CD  GO  -T  CD CL  « O  CD  9 —rW O CD  O (o s.  CD 03  CD  CD  .  mil" o » Tf  O O  O =* —t -J  O  GO CD - 3  3"  i "  CQ W  3 Cn  °-ErcQ  0) ^  C  CD  =f O  3 ^ o g o CL  JJ  O  • H | H S-  3"  CD  ^  261  262  >  263  v  264  265  266  3 3  CL CD T5 —t  O CO T CD CO CO  •Mia*  o  ZJ CO CD —t  CD ZJ  o  CD Q. O 3  r-r  CD 3  CD  &  "O  CD CO CD  5  o °  o.cJ) O  <Q  00  a  3 CD  3  a <D = t  o 3 o  o  1—H  ^  =£ CD CD 03  9.3  OCD  r-r  «< GO -+ CD CD CD  I-  CL  3 3. q  O  a C  CD  3$  00  <&%  CL  D  O  =? CD C 03  o cr 03  z  CD -x CD  o  CL OT  o c  ID  "5 3 § CO ^  3  3  C CD  CD  CD  a  S  >  O S> ZJ CO —*  c 3  o" — 3 CD CO CD  Oo zr  -t  0 CD -1 00  CD  nj  CD  3  _ . CD 3 « <  H 5  T3  o  3CD  TJ O  m°  r-r  CD  o 3  .Q CZ CD  r-r  00 co 00  c  CD  £D 3  p o. o o a  Q So E . s > 3 O i (D O o 3 <D fl) ^ O "=v "< ^ CO JD 3 < «-*• A3 CD 13 J 3  CD ~7 =*  H O CD CO  oo == oo oo 3 3  O  ^* CO TJ  CD << =3 C A3 CO 0  3  CD  0 0  a  rt CD CO Q. CO  TJ  S CD  s  rt  o c CD  si 3  =  Sj.cQ r j ,  CD = f TJ  3 3  -t  3  3 CD  CD  CD CD  S.  C O CO  3  TJ CO C O CO CD  o_ co (rt  3"  CD  cT 3 co. TJ  CO  3  CL  CD rt  *< O <=  CO  3  O  CD  CO  c  Q.  a  CD  a 3  3  -h 3  CD CO CO 3  3  o rCD  «s  3 co  CD  3, cn p  3 S §  3  co  TJTJ  CD  a  8.  3  Q . CD < > CL 3 C =£• f ± CD  3  CD  3  rt 3  3 CO  £ o  33  cn  269  271  3 3  £D  TD  CO  tf  = 5fH co  tf  C D ®  <0 tf  CD  CD  3 O  3  3 8 ZJ  o CD  TD  CO CD  5  C JD C L CO CD  0.5" | .  «—r O . C 0 CZ  CD. N CD  §  CD  ZJ Z? — tf CD ZJ co <  CD  g:  t r - __ CD -j  P = K  CD  r-r  CO  r - r r-r  CD CD  zr CD  zr x 9-CD rf. —j C«—r CD f*"  co o O  zr zr  ZJ CD • Q <n CD CO CD  3  zr =r  ^3  3  O  _>  CD  o  CD  3  8  Erf CD  3  o c o  CO CD CO CD CO ™. ^  I  c?  TT  ZJ CO  H  3  0  5  CD  CD i-f CD CD —»  §LJ cO  m  °  ^g  CO 3  eg J :  CO  CD  o =. cr  ^ C l O ( D ^  m_  CD CD  3  8 - 2 . 3 aj  tf . CD 3 I I 3^< CD zr C O 3 C ? CD '  CD  O CD =f  tf «2. CD S  C D ^  CQ  CD  ZJ  -s  JD g  2>  O CD p CO TD CD CD O CD CD  3  CD  co zr zj  CD  CD CD CD CZ CD C CD CO ZJ 3-  CD  ZJ O CO  CD  8  r-r r -  CD £ X  r-r  CD O  w  >  CD 3 CO C Q  ~* o c  stg  tf  CD CO  r-r  tf  X CD  CD  3  — 1  3 3  —t ^  3^  JZ PT" CD CO CD - £ $ • tf _~  CD  CD 7 = 3 —  tf.  &?CD  CD  3  Q. X P  Ho  CD 3" C £ D CD Q . CO CT CD* CD CO  CO  273  *2. 3  ^  m O  sa 3  §  >  £ <fl -  §  CL C  o :c SLP ao>  3d  P I O w  8-3  O ft*  rt rt  3  o *S  7  a.  »S  3 to 5. r* c8 ^  3  3  ct o  * &C  -  3* or=f 8 o ^ --rt»i<.H O  M  o £r — «D  =• ^  CL  « 3  (&. CL  CQ  O  SB w  o  ;  rt  *  5|  3 5' 3* < & <o  3 VC O C CL  a c  273  11*  3D O • G?"  mi  l i t •2»:R  Or CL XQ m Si  :  CD  CP  ^ ST  -3- -Q-  IPS P i  • • ; - t S ! - ~ •-  CD  «3:  •  511  CO **'  3  .r»  ;  3  — c 3  rr. w <& O <& n§ r~:  C :  rr  £a  c rr 5 1 CL SC.rr. o rr  o  •:r?\  CL o  U3 CD —<s i  :s=r;:::^ii•::'S2»x'CV'*. :  :  :  <Ct ~+  rr rr  :  276  O  c  O  oT3 3  JJ  O  O  CD CD  •n a> o  S  CQ 3  = r-¥-  rt  r-f  3 * =r =r =f © CD <D <D  S  3  %  %  2, cr o < 3 O r-» ri,  tQ  3"  5 * (Ct CQ 5«g.rt ~* 3 ~ <-»•  © rt » 0}  <ET  P» 3" ~ rt CL Q)  01  § 3 CL CL  Q. m M  O  CD  co  0>  3  3 <•>  ?° co  a»  co 3 ^ o  cT3 o> p»  © 5:  CO. 3  » =r OJ CD  ~* 3  3  SI  CQ JD  3 3* JO 01 3  af  279  3 - rt ©3  285  287  1  3 HH  U  O CD <D  =* o oT ZJ © 3 8 "g. 3 QJ a  a> g>  A,  crT c l or c  <D  g  (D .-r  3"  • if<§. o CO  a  JJ,  f  o 5* 02. o g  ia  • i s 3 CQ  p <  0  a.  c  ZJ CD .  288  3 3  JJ  O ZJ CD  • a o  <£. \ a. y  CD  CZ CO  / CL CQ CD  It  CO CD  289  »  J  3  CD CD  3CD  O  3  C  f s  3 CD QU CD C ^ C3Q  o  0> 0>  CD  3  =rcQ 3*  CD  £  CD = <D  CD 3 :  3  3  C  gs  i f f  _  - i  -  r  2 3 3 8- ^ ^5 tZ ^< tS 3  • Q t Q CO  en  rr  -Q 3  CD  a a  CD a  i  T J CD  3S  3 <D CQ Q  s  CO &  =  0  0}  o.  cr  CO zl ?" 3 » CD 2  7  01 CQ g  l  2s: ^  H o 2 o >3 3 c oT3  3  =r  3 ^ cr«=i  292  . fl} w • co -xj**< m  3  c  7X  ^ a» o . fl> oo CD ^  ^  a5  H  3 1  * B-a p -Q CO CD o <  CD  15. a>  rt  o o  \  *C O  CD O  3.  3  CQ  „  "2.  •a  CD  o  3  lis c  3  » 3 =*  as fl>  CD  294  o c  C '3:-><-  5  5' to  <I> a*  A» O  3,  5 c  3  <b to" rr a> 5 o> ~* 3  ®  a 5»  9 3 ^3  3  I S  o cr to  3  a c  to 3 3 Q CL: m ' . 3-  3  3.  CL  rj "o 3 o o1 SK? 3 5  to  to 3  O  ,'toio: 3 O 'O-  T J ' fl> •  So c  I 35f  CL  3 3:  cT  CO  m CO  .,3  r r S ^3  to ca  3 § to  rr o  arts  is!  So* <&: fl>:  r*3 3  O to 3 =; c 3 ^ »••••  33  296  o  <•  -3  DO O  o  - * O B» to c rt V C ~V f / V jj£ O CO CO  3  CQ  c  © ^  § a. o < &  5>  3's  erf Q"  $D S3"  m -n 3 »  o 131  ft*  oto3 <  to 43 3* (ft to ?L O to 3"  l  Z " C L = r J< to eft  ,3 to  = COrt_ _ CO O <ft j_ CD. CO  •"  » £  R  5  5= toy O CL ^s:-";:*S:-:3PS::r:M:.:. •  a.  m  » 33top -  = § » 8 ? 5 Q ^  3 to:  | :  5 5!toh © .-sr. 0 rt'yC 2•  3»  cr o to  ; rt:*«C:.0 CD  5;  lil'CO  MMMmmmmmmm.  . _ ^ ^ ^ ^ p j i  iifli iiifrifrrnn-fiirmr—*~"  DO  c 3 £<Q o O -« o J» <t> C c :  =T  O 0» 0> ,  3  co S <t>  2 a o c  7  M3  0  a  *<: (&-•=•;• 3  92 P  t  f  0 3  > B C "Z © g. f O  rr w ^ ^ 3 m  3\©  g cQ  CL =* X'  co <t» 00  5 <&  ~* o {&  298  299  S8?  S 3S ?3 f£>  Q . to to c 5" co 5* =r  O  - s  to ft} © & ^2*  to  c  ~* - J  rt  ~-\  C  "TT?  to  ^  cF :*  c.  -31 3- & $3 : 3 cr . 3 to 5. to o to CL £ ar 5^ & " £ torn _v a w 3 _ 3 o o a. ~ !=t  §  3 to to «<* to g  §. rtfi>"< Q»^»  to  £  «P1: 3*1 '»£ ::  MlPO'S:  Pl»- O :  O  to;' ': :  :S : - .G:''.i-?rt- :S  "  ° 5-to to a  to =8 ~ x>  uo § 3 ° to to f 5* © to 8*0 to  o  to ^ CL  p i f i  :  :  ::: 3  to c  5?'  to  :o-  :  i l  3  3. m 3 CO: to  .*?=?.y -—::.;. • » *  :; :  to'-  3 =3  H ~* rt  2;  HI:  O U  5"3 S B n  to  «>rt;i:.:  3 j : CO^g  to O » " g  T J to o o IS 5-5...  O  S»  m  11131  ll:iti<-^ : ;  rt 3*  to  300  •2 5*6  XI  o  o  3  c § - 3  m  CD  o S IS  1'8 §p,... <D  . zr  d> 3  3  m CD 2  o  CO  3  15* CD  IS  C  ll 3  O  *o a> o <o c  «?: *"** c:  ~ rr  Wmm  H Q (T>  «J  r*  X  CD  ZJ  =* CQ  C":  ft> 3  Pst: »  .  SSSSS?SS zr • :  i i i ; - OJ iils»3' - : :  CD  CL  sIirCLS  zr  3 »•*• l i t ? CD 3 PlftD • CQ a  a> (&  >c <D • *** ZJ 0» =£C» CD  3".  E  3  •o ^ <D  - P C L Q O^; CD "~ Zj  S:S<  < <  ago r r zr <J>- rr  3  a-  CL  ¥ mta  5  CL  o  CL i«t  >  O  :::  *•* O  5 3 CL CD a•*» <D C L j £ • sp w  :  CD  I! §: CL  —v • Ill-ZJ t CD  isfsl&'O-s.  111-13t CD  • ^a ^SfSSSSS* >*• s  mmk  CD  303  302  O 0  3  3  3* 3 -3J CO - j  CL $  2  CD  1  C  CD  >!  rt"S  o  3 ~  eg" ;*  3*  m m. « i  to  3  3-  1 °^TJ  &  CD C L to flj <& «* 3 «*«  CQ  3  *< o  7s g  M  CL 3  s CD CQ  E~ T> § o — C D CL-':  » 3?2i  rr  mm:..a:%  C2 =* CO CD  •  C  5T ^lf :3: :: ;  :  mm'o.:  CD 3 CD CD  • COTJ  <o  CD < < ^  a.  3*  3. Q. °-  m ^  to C 3 CD 3 Q . "V-  cr  H  d e  3 1  C  CD  3 C§ D  CD c ;  J  c  CD *<*  D O O toCD K rr ~T  3  S  rt»' CJ  c l ^ n±.2. •3  37  iCO l l  TJ 0> © ~t CD  a  -€ 3  O TJ_  = 8 ^ 1  m  3  CD fl> .  3  lillrCL,  I rt  3* CD  303  rr CD:  3  Q  C  mQ  CDs;  to.  g  3**<  <l>  o  3?;< O to <t>  -T  ft ZJ  zr  CD  5  o  ::/£Z:'e ::  3  CO  co  • .w  3  y;  zr  -  to C  Zf  . a.' :  ';-.''.:"t*'T':; :  .',::... ::tJ-¥' :  :  tj ,.o . • g  CD  CD  CO  CtJ —*  o v.  v  CD'':  co O 3  "a  v-.: .J:.':x3 :  CL  3 •  to  :: f > • • : : . <  ..3  s cr  ' cD  I  zT w oo  *CJ  CL:  PIO'':''  CD  CO  3,  CL  :3  H p  CD  CD  »  3T  3*  t o ZJ v> c o A l cr> CQ  5"  |  c ~t  —«  C!> CD  a gr  c  cT 9 •< 3  ...' a .  l l Q*  zr mm  i  zr  CL  Pi  O  <  cr> =*.  cr {2 :  CL >«, o  .3*  CL"<  :  c  CA <-•- o 3  So ;§ §  Vv': iJSft  3*. 3*  :'''.;'::-;x:.:: ::S f-*. ;  :\x«i3*;ix?*l|| !CO::: :  sax?xHHi.r\ *: 3  .  am  S1M  =r to cr  CD CD o < < CD CD  S9 S ©  3 tQirt t 3" i l l E2T <-> c  to  CD  Sc  a  CD CL cn  to  c¥  3"  "  3" 0} 3  CD  § 1 CQ :3 to SB to aO 3  CD  o,  D  ^ CD  3  cr CD Sect o m 5?  to  clcQ o c CD to: -::~v; O m to :Q.3 :;,<5 CD 3* CO © • ~* ^ 3 i O "-»» CL CQ 33  3 <  c CD  -  to  <j>  tF CQ m  © £  c5 s> '  ©  =r  CD --.  5>  v: V  :  5x  3 3- CL ^  to ©  <o to o to co 3  SB  ::  3  to o  CD — : CT Q> © to . CD:  o . , r v 3?  to  ^ to 3 "  CO t o  . CT:*:' —•  :  3  to crc 3 ©  CL  CO  °  Z3.  3  CD  305  s  DO  o & STcT O CD  CD  C L CO  •8 CD a  Si's 3 CD  2 C Q  3o c < CD o <  1  91  CB  7?  to? . d>  C  CD  3  in m  CL  CD  o 5'  tr  T  O  5 ?  |Gi  :=  CD  3* o  3  J  o a CD  DJ  CD  3 • CL o CD  s3: CO  3 1  to a CL  CD X __-*•»*-:  CD -% co CD <D C O  «§  CD  CD.COS Q CD O CO CD  CO CD  Q>  3 Z CL 3  «i  •nO  CD .3*  85:  CD : .Cr p O 22 to 3 CD c v o »  % 3*  CD 3 ? • 3 = ;  CO  33 5? CD  CD C  co ^< CO  r*-  f Ef 3  3  © TT  a* 8  C O  0»  3  o> ESI 3  *  CD O  as Q.  g  CD - t C  la Q. CD Q. —  i  CO T3 O CO i—»•  o C  3  s  a*  CO  (D 3  a.  3  CD  a. a* CD 3 3  c  Q.  § =1  c  cr 3 <D  c El 3  CO O  ci Q. CD 3  CO CD  O C  308  1  3  to  I If  T3 T5  CO  8  sat - c v< CO  3  oTo3  CD ^  £ = C Q  2> CD CD  AJ  •<  O  CD  co  S  - T  l - f  ~"\  r - * -  CD  CO  "* 3  Q  <  C  3  co ET3 3  — CQ  O  C  3  =  CD  j  —  <Q CD  5  gco"  =5  CD ^ CD CO = *  =^3 co «Cc 3 f D |  £  ="? --t  3  ^  =S  * 3  CD C Q r* CD  H  CO  3 CD (j, 3 R  3  CL CD  CO  r~ to 3,  CD  3  TJ  f  r i CD  J  3 CQ CD  CD  CL 3  S  3 5 3 = ± CO  3  C  3  3  E  •? = CD a  Z J "  X  3  co  CD CD CD . sCQ  CD  O c /—+  Co ^< 3 CQ  TJ O CO  o 3  309  o  e  0  33  I  °  iH 3  CD  CL  »<  ° <5 - i  3»  n  if- a  mmm , 3 rr  3 o c to  l a  ar"D <*  n <> t o> "P  3  O <&. « O cr ' :  =f  £  3.  rr •  5> c O* ""  a  rr'  •:-*«3;:  m  3<E  O 3 Q.CD CL  M P  310  1  - rt H  =3 3 CO CQ <D CD c r 0) O 0) 01 •  <D TC C O TC CD  Q to 3 Q  cT =  2T to" 3^  o> to  Q . CL CO  to" 5 to CD to 3 ; to © to CD  O  =• 3  -r£ CD 3 CO CQ — to 3 to  C  3-  5-  Co 3* O  cr  CL  rt  rt 3 CL CQ ~"£ CD CO to CO  to to TJ 3 TJ_ CL X -<  to £  I * il  to 3 to to to  to © to  rt to  O  g< * >rtto 3-  -S CQ " (D  o =r cr 3"toto 3 co Z to* F CQ ~ 3  - y CD CD 3?  J3  3 CQ CD  -* CD  TJ  -3, —  to T J 8. to  ,_ °* ^  o  3Q,  P to~° CLTJ  o to CO CD Q. CD O  o •o  01  »1 to  0) CD  ^  3 CD O  3J  3* Q» 3 CL  co 3* o c  01  .s 3  o  8 . 3  57  a  3-  to  CD  N  to  Is  Ti > cT = to  |i  to <  § 3  &S  <» r* =r to o 3 c to. CO  11 o cr ^ to o to to to 3  3  3  3"  to  3-g.  3  3  —  CO  P-ci <  CL C  to  313  to  CD 7 O CD — 3  8  § 3 CL  co  3  O CD -3 3 CO CD  a& c  >  o  3  m  21  -*- 5T 3-  0)  CQ CU  •£  «p 3.  to 3  "S  ® s r? -  a  CL  -  Q  o  is-! 0  3*  to ^ S  &> Q - n tf) •< S to0 1 3*  (£2  «—* rt(Q =3- TJ'  3  ^  to  ^  KCQ  ^ o to to c c 3, O 3-  to  =  si CL  5  rt§ CL  8 cl  C O c  3 3 &>  C  c  fD  (D  3-  cr to to  CD 3  B %  C L §  3  8  to  CD  3" * 0CD  07  Appendix E Testing Materials  The following materials were used in the study and are represented in the format used the participants o f the study: Testing Component One  The learner will perform the following tonal patterns (see Figure 10):  MAJOR CRITERION TONAL PATTERNS  -P m  m  f - —  »  , m  ' *  »  me do so ti  »  —•  1 •  .if  do me do  so' do so' do so r$ ti  9  |i —  m  —*—i  me so' fa  m so  do do ti  fe  I  •  — *  1  *  me so re ti  so ti  ti  so do  t  i  Figure 10: Tonal Patterns Testing Component Two  The learner will perform the following rhythm patterns (see Figures 11 and F12 on p. 313):  315  Du de Du de  Du de Du  U U ' U l Du  Du de  Du de d u  r r U LJ" ^ 1  Du de Du  Du  Du de Du  Du de  Du  Du  f r c_r r r r r i[_r p i  Du  i  Du  Du de Du  Figure 11: Rhythm Patterns  Du de Du de  Du de Du de  f LJ U U U ]  I  Du de Du de  Du  Du  Du de Du  Du  Du  m  p  F P  p  Du  Du  \  Du de Du de  f rr Du  f  I  Du de  Du de Du de  U 'U  Figure 12: Rhythm Patterns  u  1  316  Test Component Three The learner will perform the chords to the following song (see Figure 13 below):  capo if  Joshua Fought The Battle of Jericho  Am  ^  Josh-ua fought the bat- tie  Am  Je-  •  {  cho,  i  walls came a  4U I  u  |  turn- bl- in'  1  , Am  11  f*  Je- ri-  Am  down  down  U  I  You may  I[J  At  the  and the  -JlLj Vou may  LJ  taft: a- bout your man of  E  A  M  Li  talk a- bout your man of  u IT H U m  Josh- u- a  cho  Am  i-l  bat- tie of  Je-  Saul-  "There's  none like good old  Am  P  i  of  Am  <3i- de- on.  i  Je- ri- cho  cho  Josh-ua fought the bat- tie  E •=  I U  Je- ri-  Am  ~ E  ri-  of  E  ri-  cho.  Oh,  Figure 13: Harmony/chords to "Joshua Fought the Batde of Jericho" Test Component Four The learner will perform the melody to the following song (see Figure 14 on p. 317):  317  Joshua Fought The Battle of Jericho  capo Y Am  _  Joih-u* fought th* b « - l l *  Am  J*-  ,,—^E  n-  of  J * - rt-  E  oho  V  J«  cho  n-  Am  cho,  Join- u* fought th* b « - ll*  I  1  Am  of  J*-  ri-  111  w»Hs cwn« *  *um- bl- in'  down  down  You may  Am  i  Gi- d*- on,  •  i Am  i  Youn»y  _  *- bout your r,wi of  E  S*ui  At  th*  b f - tl« of  Th*t*'»  non* lik* good old  Am •i  Josh- u- *  »nd th*  >«* *- bout your tn*n o»  c  u Li u  '  oho  Am  Am  2  Jfrfl  {u  F T  J«-  ri-  cho  j r  II  Oh,  Figure 14: Melody to "Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho  :  Appendix F Test Procedures and Guidelines: This document describes the content on the cassette Test tape. The final test for the Project consists of playing a few things on the guitar. Y o u will be asked to play a number o f things on the guitar. •  number of melodic patterns  •  number o f rhythm patterns, and  •  the song Joshua using chords and then notes  First you will be asked to play a number of melodic patterns on your guitar. These patterns are the notes you have learned. For example: " D o " is played on the first fret the 2nd string etc. Let's begin with tonal patterns. Please play the following tonal patterns. Practice Examples: •  Practice pattern #1 D o — D o  Play  •  Practice pattern #2 M e — Fa  Play  Remember there are two So(s) FLigh So' (3rd fret on the lrst string) and low So (3rd string open). Please review the following:  MAJOR CRITERION TONAL PATTERNS  rm dto so ti  4"•"''  do rm# do  •'  •  so' do so' do so re ti re  i  m$ so' fe fe roe so r# ti  •i  • ' • ' • "ii d  re so do do ti so ti B  Figure 15: Major Criterion Tonal Patterns  so do  319  Part#1 Let's begin: Start cassette and or video tape! Play the following in this manner "Speak the syllables and then play them". 1) M e - D o 2) L o w So — ti 3) D o — me — D o 4) me — High So' 5) fa - fa 6) me — L o w So 7) re - ti  8) High So' - D o - high So' 9) D o — low so 10) r e - t i - r e 11) re — low So 12) D o - D o 13)  ti —  low So  14) ti — ti 15) L o w so —Do  Stop Recording  Part #2 Let's move on to the rhythm patterns: Next you will be asked to play a number of Rhythm patterns on your guitar. These patterns are the rhythms you have learned to play chords with. For example: D u is the down strum and de is the up strum. •  Look at the Rhythm patterns,  chant and play the pattern. Please use a C chord.  Dy de Du de  g  •  m m  ft  Dy --HI,--  -  ,  Du die Du  IW  Du die -  jf  V  Dude Du t  _  - -_  -  '  Figure 16: Rhythm Pattern Example Practice Pattern # 1 — count in 1234, D u de D u de D u de D u •  D o w n up D o w n up D o w n up D o w n  Practice Pattern #2 — count in 1234, D u D u de D u de D u •  D o w n D o w n up D o w n up D o w n  Let's begin: Start cassette and or video tape! Play the following in this manner "Chant the syllables and then play them  •  Du de Du de  Du de Du  Du  Du de du  Du de  Du de Du  Du de Du  Du  Du  Du de  r r rj ir Du  Du  Du  m  Du de Du  Figure 17: Rhythm Pattern Test Item Du de Du de  Du de Du de  Du de Du de  Du  Du  Du de Du  Du  Du  Du  Du  Du de Du de  Du  Du de  Du de Du de  Figure 18: Rhythm Pattern Test Item Stop Recording  322  Part #3 Let's move on to "Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho": •  Next you will be asked to play "Joshua Fought the Batde of Jericho" on your guitar.  •  lrst sing the song and play the chords. Don't forget the lrst and second endings.  •  Review the song  Let's begin: Start cassette and or video tape!  Joshua Fought The Battle of Jericho  capoY  _  Am  •Josh-ua (ought the bat-tie  _ E  Am  of  Je-  rt-  Je-  cho  n-  cho  Am  J«- H- cho,  Josh- ua fought the bat-  E  tie  Am  turn- bi- m'  of  down  down  Je-  ri-  cho  w»d the  Am  Am  m i *  walls came a  E  You may  Am  a- bout your man of  Am  g  •p Gi- 4e- on,  a-  Vou may  Saul  bout your man of  E  There's  none like good old  Am  M L_r r F r Josh- u-  a  At  «he  bat- tie  o«  Je- r>-  cho.  Oh.  Figure 19: Harmony/chords to "Joshua Fought the Batde of Jericho" Test Item  Stop Recording Part#4 Let's move on to the Melody (notes) for "Joshua Fought the Batde of Jericho":  323  •  Please play the melody for Joshua Fought the Batde of Jericho on your guitar.  •  Review the song  •  Let's begin: Start  •  Don't forget to play the repeats  capo Y  Joshua Fought The Battle of Jericho Am  Josh-ua fought the bat-tie  E  Am  Je-  ri-  E  _  of  Je-  rt-  cho  _  Je- ri- cho  Am  Josh-ua fought the bat- tie  cho,  [t-T Z Am  E  of  Je-  ri-  cho  and the  Am  f T - TA Z m  -p  9 walls came a  turn- bl- in'  down  down  iui u i D mm  You may  talk a- bout your man of  Am  Qi- de- on.  You may  Am  talk a- bout your man of  £  Josh- u- a  At  the  Saul  There's  none like good old  Am  bat- tie of  Je-  ri-  cho.  Oh,  Figure 20: Melody to "Joshua Fought the Batde of Jericho" Test Item Stop Recording  324 Appendix G l Rating Scale Descriptions A Description of the Tonal Rating Scale  5. T H E L E A R N E R C A N P E R F O R M T H E T O N A L P A T T E R N O N T H E G U I T A R . The Learner is able to audiate and play the entire pattern on the guitar. 4. T H E L E A R N E R C A N P E R F O R M M O S T (75%) O F T H E T O N A L P A T T E R N O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner may, for example, substitute high "so" on the first string for low "so" on the open third string and play the other pitch o f the pattern correctly. The Learner may play only one pitch o f a two pitch tonal pattern or two pitches o f a three pitch tonal pattern. 3. T H E L E A R N E R C A N F I N G E R T H E T O N A L P A T T E R N O N T H E G U I T A R , A N D C A N P E R F O R M SOME OF T H E P A T T E R N O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner may place his/her fingers on the fret where a pitch or pitches of the pattern would sound but does not strike the correct string to produce the correct pitch. 2.  T H E L E A R N E R C A NFINGER SOME OF T H E T O N A L BUT CANNOT P E R F O R M T H E P A T T E R N O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner may place his/her fingers on the fret where a pitch or pitches o f the pattern would sound but does not strike the correct string to produce the correct pitch.  1.  T H E L E A R N E R C A N N O T P E R F O R M A N Y OF T H E T O N A L P A T T E R N O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner is not be able to finger the pattern on the fingerboard. The Learner may not even attempt to perform the tonal pattern.  325  A Description of the Rhythm Rating Scale  5. T H E L E A R N E R C A N P E R F O R M T H E C O M P L E T E R H Y T H M P A T T E R N O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner is able to audiate and play the entire rhythm pattern on the guitar. The Learner uses the appropriate down and up picking motion to perform the pattern with a steady macrobeat pulse. 4. T H E L E A R N E R C A N P E R F O R M A T L E A S T T W O M A C R O B E A T S A N D N O M O R E T H A N T H R E E MACRO BEATS OF T H E R H Y T H M P A T T E R N O N T H E GUITAR The Learner is able to audiate and play most of the pattern on the guitar. The Learner may, for example, perform the pattern with a steady macrobeat pulse, but he or she will either not consistendy use the appropriate down and up picking motion to perform the pattern or he or she may perform the rhythm pattern to his or her own faster or slower macrobeat pulse. 3. T H E L E A R N E R C A N L O C A T E T H E P A T T E R N O N T H E G U I T A R , B U T C A N N O T A C C U R A T E L Y P E R F O R M T H E P A T T E R N O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner is not able to perform the entire rhythm pattern with a steady macrobeat pulse or perform the entire rhythm pattern on the guitar with a steady macrobeat pulse. The Learner will also not consistendy use the appropriate down and up picking motion to perform the pattern on guitar. 2. T H E L E A R N E R C A N P E R F O R M V E R Y L I T T L E O F T H E P A T T E R N O N T H E GUITAR The Learner is not able to audiate and perform the entire pattern to a steady macro beat pulse. The Learner will not perform the pattern with a steady macro beat pulse, and will  326  not use the appropriate down and up picking motion to perform the pattern, but the pattern the Learner performs may have some characteristics that represent the pattern that should be performed (e.g. the entire pattern may be performed, but at an erratic tempo). In some performances, a Learner may perform the pattern, which is not the criterion pattern, with a steady macrobeat pulse, but he or she may not consistency use the appropriate down and up picking motion to perform the pattern. The Learner may be able to audiate and perform up to two macrobeats o f the entire pattern to a steady macrobeat pulse, but he or she will not perform the entire pattern with a steady macrobeat pulse, and will not use the appropriate down and up picking motion to perform the pattern.  1. T H E L E A R N E R C A N N O T P E R F O R M A N Y O F T H E P A T T E R N O N T H E GUITAR The Learner is not able to audiate or per the entire pattern to a steady macrobeat. The Learner will not perform the entire pattern with a steady macrobeat pulse, and he or she will not use the appropriate down and up picking motion to perform the pattern. The Learner may not respond to the pattern may not even attempt to perform the rhythm pattern. A Description of the Harmonic Rating Scale  5. T H E L E A R N E R C A N P E R F O R M T H E C H O R D S T O T H E E N T I R E S O N G . The Learner is able to audiate and play the chords to the entire song on the guitar.  . 327  4. T H E L E A R N E R C A N P E R F O R M M O S T (75%) O F T H E C H O R D S T O T H E SONG O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner is able to audiate and can play most of the chords to the song on the guitar. The Learner can places his fingers on the frets where the pitches o f the chord would sound and plays most o f the correct strings to produce the correct pitches. 3. T H E L E A R N E R C A N F I N G E R T H E C H O R D S T O T H E S O N G O N T H E GUITAR, B U T C A N N O T P E R F O R M A L L OF T H E C H O R D S OF T H E S O N G O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner may place his fingers on the frets where the pitches o f the chord would sound but does not strike the correct strings to produce the correct pitches. 2. T H E L E A R N E R C A N P E R F O R M V E R Y F E W O F T H E C H O R D S O F T H E SONG O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner able to finger some o f the chords of the song on the fingerboard. The Learner may place his fingers on the frets where some o f the pitches o f the chords would sound but only strikes some o f the correct strings to produce the correct pitches. 1.  T H E L E A R N E R C A N N O T P E R F O R M T H E CHORDS OF T H E SONG O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner is not be able to finger the chords o f the song on the fingerboard. The Learner may not respond to the song and he may not even attempt to perform the song.  A Description of the Melodic Rating Scale 5. T H E L E A R N E R C A N P E R F O R M A L L O F T H E N O T E S O F T H E M E L O D Y T O T H E SONG CORRECTLY A N D I N R H Y T H M O N T H E GUITAR The Learner is able to audiate and perform the melody to the entire song on the guitar.  328  4. T H E L E A R N E R C A N P E R F O R M M O S T (75%) O F T H E M E L O D Y O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner may place his/her fingers on the correct fret audiating the correct pitch or pitches of the melody and sounding the correct string to produce most of the correct pitches. The Learner is able to audiate and can play most of the melody to the song on the guitar. 3. T H E L E A R N E R C A N F I N G E R T H E M E L O D Y O N T H E G U I T A R , A N D C A N P E R F O R M SOME OF T H E M E L O D Y O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner may place his/her fingers on the fret where a pitch or pitches o f the melody would sound audiating the correct pitch or pitches o f the melody but does not strike the correct string to produce the correct pitch. The learner may also place his or her fingers on the incorrect fret but strike the correct string. 2. T H E L E A R N E R C A N P E R F O R M O N L Y A F E W O F T H E N O T E S O F T H E M E L O D Y O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner may place his/her fingers on the fret where a pitch or pitches o f the melody would sound but does not strike the correct string to produce the correct pitch. The Learner may also place his/her fingers on very few o f the correct frets audiating the correct pitch or pitches o f the melody but not sounding the correct pitch or fret or string to produce the correct pitch. 1.  T H E L E A R N E R C A N N O T P E R F O R M A N Y OF T H E M E L O D Y O N T H E GUITAR. The Learner is not be able to finger the melody on the fingerboard. The Learner may not even attempt to perform the melody.  329 Appendix G 2 Evaluating the Criterion Tonal, Rhythm, Harmonic and Melodic Performances A rating scale will be used to evaluate the guitar performances o f the learners that participated in the study. The same tonal rating scale will be used for each o f the fifteen criterion tonal patterns, and the same rhythm rating scale will be used for each of the ten criterion rhythm patterns. The tonal rating scale and a copy of each criterion pattern in music notation will be used to evaluate the video tape recorded performance of each child. A copy of the tonal criterion patterns in music notation and the rating scale are printed on the tonal performance evaluation sheet. The rhythm rating scale and a copy of each criterion pattern in music notation will be used to evaluate the video tape recorded performance o f each child. A copy o f the rhythm criterion patterns in music notation and the rating scale are printed on the rhythm performance evaluation sheets. For the rater's convenience, five rhythm patterns are printed on the first rhythm performance sheet and five criterion patterns are printed on the second rhythm performance sheet (see Appendix H). There are five criteria in the tonal rating scale and five criteria in the rhythm rating scale. The structure and content of the tonal and rhythm rating scales are similar, but each scale is specifically concerned with the relationship between audiation and tonal skills or the relationship between audiation and rhythm skills. T o understand how to use the rating scales, the researcher has provided an explanation for each criterion of each rating scale (see Appendix G l ) . The researcher believes that the criteria o f each rating scale are a representation of the developmental tonal and rhythm guitar performance skills o f children. The highest level o f achievement on the rating scale is criterion 5, while the lowest level of achievement is criterion 1. A l l of the rating scale criteria are concerned with the relationship between audiation ability (tonal and rhythm aptitude), and performance o f those patterns on the guitar (guitar  330  performance). A t Criterion 1, the learner may not be able to audiate a particular pattern and he will not be able to perform that pattern on the guitar. A t Criterion 2, the learner may not be able to audiate a particular pattern but he may be able to play a small part o f the pattern because he or she has memorized, and not audiated, a tonal syllable from that particular pattern. A t Criterion 3, the learner can audiate a particular pattern and can finger the tonal pattern on the guitar, and can perform some of the pattern on the guitar. Although the child cannot perform the complete pattern at Criterion 3, the researcher believes that the audiation is of greater achievement than Criterion 2. The learner has a greater understanding o f the tonal pattern because they can audiate the pattern and because they have the potential to learn or relearn how to play that pattern on the guitar. In other words, there is greater possibility o f the learner eventually learning how to perform the pattern on the guitar, while the ability to audiate a difficult pattern may not necessarily be taught. A t Criterion 4, the learner can audiate a particular pattern and can perform most (75%) o f the tonal pattern on the guitar. The highest level of the rating scale, Criterion 5, is a synthesis of audiation ability and guitar performance skill. A t that level of music ability, the child can produce on the guitar the music sounds that he audiates. The student has developed a basic music skill and has developed the ability to translate patterns that he or she can audiate into patterns that can be performed on the guitar. Rating the Criterion Songs Each learner's performance will be evaluated individually on a pattern performance evaluation sheet. A l l o f the tonal and rhythm criterion patterns were prerecorded on cassette and played back for each student individually without pause. The announcement of the identification of each child will introduce each guitar performance. Write the learner identification in the identification box provided on the rating instrument. Before each learner performs a set o f  331  fifteen criterion tonal patterns, you will hear a tape recording of the researcher presenting an example o f the required performance. After you hear the learner perform each one of the criterion tonal patterns, enter the number of the criterion level that best characterizes the pattern performance on the blank line that is drawn direcdy beside the identified pattern. The learner will perform the criterion rhythm patterns immediately following the tonal pattern performance. After you hear the learner perform each one of the criterion rhythm patterns, enter the number o f the criterion level that best characterizes the pattern performance on the blank line direcdy beside the identified pattern. Only pattern performance, and not executive technique, should be considered when rating the performances. The learner will then perform the criterion harmonic patterns (chords to the song) immediately following the rhythm pattern performance. After you hear the learner perform the criterion harmonic pattern, enter the number of the criterion level that best characterizes the harmonic performance on the blank line direcdy beside the harmonic pattern performance indicator. Only harmonic pattern performance, and not executive technique, should be considered when rating the performances. Immediately following the harmonic performance you will hear the melodic example provided to illustrated style and tempo. Y o u will then hear the learner perform the criterion melodic pattern (melody to the song). After you hear the learner perform the criterion melodic pattern, enter the number o f the criterion level that best characterizes the melodic performance on the blank line direcdy beside the melodic pattern performance indicator. Only melodic pattern performance, and not executive technique, should be considered when rating the performances.  332  Appendix H I Interactive Guitar Project Tonal Pattern Rating Scale Session #1  #2  #3  Date  Student  School  Section  Evaluator  A s the evaluator you are asked to rate the performance o f the learner as he/she performs the specified task. Rating will consist o f your assessment o f the student performance given the following criteria: 5  The learner can perform the tonal pattern on the guitar  4  The learner can perform most (75%) o f the tonal pattern on the guitar.  3  The learner can finger the tonal pattern and can perform some o f the tonal pattern on the guitar.  2  The learner can finger some o f the tonal pattern but cannot perform the tonal pattern on the guitar.  1  The learner cannot perform any o f the tonal pattern on the guitar.  T h e student will perform on the guitar: • Please circle number.  Description:  Tonal pattern #1 1  -  2  -  3  -  4.  -  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  Tonal pattern #2 1  -  2  -  5  Rating  Tonal pattern #3 1  -  2  -  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  -  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  Tonal pattern #4 1  -  2  Tonal pattern #5 1  -  2  -  3  4  -  5  Rating  3  4  -  5  Rating  4  -  5  Rating  3  4  -  5  Rating  3  4  -  5  Rating  3  4  -  5  Rating  3  4  3  4  -  5  Rating  3  4  -  5  Rating  3  4  -  5  Rating  4  -  5  Rating  Tonal pattern #6 1  -  2  -  Tonal pattern #7 1  -  2  -  3  Tonal pattern #8 1  -  2  -  Tonal pattern #9 1  -  2  -  Tonal pattern #10 1  -  2  -  Tonal pattern #11 1  -  2  -  -  5  Rating  Tonal pattern #12 1  -  2  -  Tonal pattern #13 1  -  2  -  Tonal pattern #14 1  -  2  -  Tonal pattern #15 1  -  2  -  3  334  Appendix H 2 Interactive Guitar Project Rhythm Pattern Rating Scale Session #1  #2  #3  Date  Student  School  Section  .01  Evaluator  As the e v a l u a t o r you are a s k e d to r a t e the p e r f o r m a n c e of the l e a r n e r as h e / s h ep e r f o r m s the specified task. R a t i n g will consist of y o u ra s s e s s m e n t of the s t u d e n tp e r f o r m a n c eg i v e n the folowing criteria: 5  The l e a r n e r can p e r f o r m the c o m p l e t er h y t h m pattern.  4  The l e a r n e r can p e r f o r m at least two m a c r o b e a t s and no m o r et h a nt h r e em a c r o b e a t s of the r h y t h m p a t t e r nc o m p l e t er h y t h m pattern  3  The learner can locate the r h y t h mp a t t e r n on the guitar, but c a n n o ta c c u r a t e l yp e r f o r m the pattern on the guitar.  2  The l e a r n e r can p e r f o r mv e r y little of the pattern on the guitar.  1  The learner c a n n o tp e r f o r m any p a r t the p a t t e r n on the guitar.  Description: The student will perform on the guitar: • Please circle number. Rhythm pattern #1 1  -  2  3  -  4  3  -  4  5  Rating  5  Rating  Rhythm pattern #2 1  -  2  -  -  Rhythm pattern #3 1  -  2  -  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  Rhythm pattern #4 •  1  -  2  -  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  Rhythm pattern #5 1  -  2  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  Rhythm pattern #6 1  -  2  Rhythm pattern #7 1  -  2  Rhythm pattern #8 1  -  2  Rhythm pattern #9 1  -  2  Rhythm pattern #10 1  -  2  336  Appendix H 3  Interactive Guitar Project Harmonic & Melodic Rating Scale Session #1  #2  #3  Date  Student  School  Section  .01  Evaluator  A s the evaluator you are asked to rate the performance o f the learner as he/she performs the specified task. Rating will consist o f your assessment o f the student performance given the following criteria: 5  The learner can perform the chords to the entire song on the guitar.  4  The learner can perform most (75%) of the chords of the song on the guitar.  3  The learner can finger the chords to the song, but cannot perform all of the chords to the song on the guitar.  2  The learner can perform very few of the chords to the song on the guitar.  1  The learner cannot perform any of the chords to the song on the guitar.  Harmonic Progression Description: The student will perform the chords to the song on the guitar: Please circle number. Chord performance 1  -  2  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  Melodic Performance 5  The learner can perform all of the notes of the melody to the song correctly and in rhythm on the guitar.  4  The learner can perform most (75%) of the melody on the guitar.  3  The learner can finger the melody on the guitar, and can perform some of the melody on the guitar.  2  The learner can perform only a few of the notes of the melody on the guitar.  1  The learner cannot perform any of the melody on the guitar.  Description: The student will perform the melody to the song on the guitar: Melodic Performance 1  -  2  -  3  -  4  -  5  Rating  337 Appendix I Anecdotal Reports and Descriptive Statistics  Given an intensive assessment of the researcher's daily observations during the study, the researcher concluded that student performance outcomes may have been limited to the degree of student motivation. The researcher identified students' difficulties with remaining on task, vocal interaction (chanting and singing tonal patterns and songs), peer performances, and to limited degree student concerns with instructional modalities (Coffey, Holbrook, & Atkinson, 1996; Richards & Richards 1994). The researcher also endeavored to describe the degrees of learner interaction within the instructional milieu (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). For the purposes o f this study, the researcher and an experienced statistician identified three components o f student affect that determined motivation: attitude towards learning to play the guitar, level of frustration with the materials presentation (both C A I and print-based), and level of student enjoyment o f the instructional modality (Keller, 1983). Rating scales were developed (Conrad, 1999, 1997; Gouzouasis, 1990) for each of these three components based on an assessment o f students' responses to the questionnaires administered bi-daily throughout the study (see Appendix B2). Attitude towards learning to play the guitar  5  The learner identified a very positive attitude  4  The learner identified a positive attitude  3  The learner identified a neutral attitude  2  The learner identified a negative attitude  1  The learner identified a very negative attitude  338  Level of frustration with the materials presentation (both CAI andprint-based) 4  The learner not at all frustrated  3  The learner was neutral  2  The learner was somewhat frustrated  1  The learner was very frustrated  Level of student enjoyment of the instructional modality. 5  The learner enjoyed the instructional modality very much  4  The learner enjoyed the instructional modality somewhat  3  The learner was neutral  2  The learner did not enjoy  1  The learner did not enjoy at all  The researcher determined a score for each student oil each o f these rating scales (Smith & Glass, 1987). Means and standard deviations were calculated for each rating scale (see Table 23 below). Table 23 Descriptive Statistics for Student Attitude, Frustration, and Enjoyment o f Instructional Modality M  SD  Attitude towards learning to play the guitar (n =53)  3.28  1.13  Frustration with the materials presentation (n==53)  3.00  1.25  Enjoyment of instructional modality (n=53)  3.70  1.39  ;  A s can be seen from the above results, students' attitude towards learning to play the guitar was neutral to slightly above neutral. Student frustration levels were also neutral; however student enjoyment o f instructional modality was slighdy higher than neutral.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055049/manifest

Comment

Related Items