2 Abstract This study investigated how music teachers in Western New York State prepare beginning instrumental music students to select a musical instrument. Participants comprised music teachers in Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, and Niagara Counties. Eighty-one participants completed an online questionnaire or adaption of the online questionnaire relating to their instrument selection process. The purpose of the study was to explore the factors that determine the instrument selection process for beginning band students. Additional explored areas included educational setting, professional background, specific instrument selection procedures, the effects of gender on instrument choice, the role of testing in the instrument selection process, and influences of the instrument selection process. Most participants in the study earned their master’s degrees and had an average of 16 years of teaching experience. Participants reported that the instrument selection process was briefly mentioned in their preservice education and that personal experience had the most influence in their selection procedure. Participants also reported that students preferred instruments that coincided with traditional gender roles. The findings of this study indicate that more emphasis on the instrument selection process is needed by music teachers and preservice programs to address important issues such as gender bias. 3 Acknowledgements Thank you to my advisor, Dr. Katherine Levy who, through her patience, continued guidance and creativity, offered valuable insight and expertise in this research study. Thank you to committee members Dr. Christian Bernhard, Dr. Vernon Huff, and Dr. Jill Reese for their edits, suggestions, and judgments into this research study. Thank you to all the participants in the study who took the time out of their very busy schedules to complete the questionnaire and make this important study possible. Lastly, thank you to Janet Dangler who, through her careful edits and suggestions, helped shaped the readability of this project. 4 Contents ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………...….2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.………………………………………………………………..…...5 METHOD ……………………………………………………………………………………….15 RESULTS …………………………………………………...…………………………………..18 DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………………………………...30 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………...…...36 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………...39 Appendix A – Tables Appendix B – Application for the Use of Human Subjects Appendix C – Email to Teachers Appendix D – Consent Letter Appendix E – Consent Letter Reminder Appendix F – Instrument Selection Questionnaire (Print Version) Appendix G – Open-ended Answers From Question 31 Appendix H – Open-ended Answers From Question 32 5 Review of Literature Although most beginning band teachers use methods to pair a student with an instrument (Bayley, 2004), those methods vary among teachers, and research is incomplete on the validity of such methods. Pairing a student with an instrument with which he/she is most likely to be successful is a substantial responsibility for band teachers, and takes time and careful planning. Ben-Tovim and Boyd (2005) state “…after a few months, the problems of learning a badly chosen instrument result in a loss of interest; this has nothing to do with intelligence or ‘musicality’” (p. 3). A poor match can be the fault of the teacher using a flawed method for choosing instruments. In addition, the instruction may be imperfect (Kemp & Mills, 2002). Taking the time to create an organized system is essential (Cooper, 2004; Pizer, 1987). Certain methods have been shown to decrease gender stereotyping, increased instrumentation balance, and lead to an increase in student-instrument selection satisfaction (Cannava, 1994). Kemp and Mills (2002) justify the need of an organized selection process by stating, “Few pupils could make a success of absolutely any instrument, and so it makes sense to give serious consideration to the question of what instrument a child might learn” (p. 10). Cooper (2004) suggests that a recruiting program should consist of two parts: recruiting activities and the analysis of data gathered from tests. Recruiting processes include letters to parents and students, instrument demonstrations, and communication with other teachers. Ben-Tovim and Boyd (2005) promote the use of a three-stage systematic guide. The first stage involves assessment using aptitude tests and physical evaluation of a student. The second stage involves a study of the instruments. The third stage involves collecting the data from the previous two stages and narrowing the choices until the final decision can be made. Although band directors gain empirical data from tests to inform decisions to match 6 students with instruments, the exclusive use of tests will not result in a better match. Because no test or combination of tests will be completely successful, they should never result in an exclusion of a student from the program (Cooper, 2004; Pizer, 1987). As Kemp and Mills (2002) explain, “…the basis on which children are steered toward a particular instrument is frequently far less scientific and not informed by research” (p. 10). Standardized Tests Many music educators teaching beginning band use standardized tests such as the Leblanc Music Talent Quiz (Moore, 1954), The Intermediate Measures of Audiation (IMMA) (Gordon, 1986), Measures of Musical Talent (Seashore, 1939), The Music Aptitude Profile (MAP) (Gordon, 1995), and the Instrument Timbre Preference Test (ITPT) (Gordon, 1986) to gather quantifiable data to better direct students toward specific instruments (Bayley, 2004). Such tests measure students’ preference for a particular timbre as well as the assessment of their music aptitude and audiation. Gordon and Fonder (1999) describes music aptitude to be “… a product of both innate potential and early environmental experiences” (p. 42). They consider audiation to be the basis of music aptitude. The MAP evaluates children's ability to perceive music aurally. According to Gordon and Fonder (1999), the ability to audiate gives syntactical meaning to music before the music is performed. In this way, musical audiation is comparable to language audiation. The ability to musically audiate can be improved through practice. After the primary grades, it becomes increasingly difficult for children to improve in audiation (Gordon & Fonder, 1999). During the IMMA test, students listen to a CD and identify similar or dissimilar tonal and rhythmic patterns. Students listen to pairs of patterns and identify if the two patterns sound same or different. The entire test lasts less than 20 minutes. Each of three scores resulting from the test 7 (rhythm, tonal, and composite) represents how well a student is able to audiate (Gordon, 1986). Gordon’s (1986) Instrument Timbre Preference Test (ITPT) involves seven computer generated timbres to represent woodwind and brass instruments. Students hear a melody played twice using different timbres and select the timbre they prefer. The test is heard forty-two times, resulting in a permutation of all seven timbres. Gordon (1991) asserts that students will continue on their instrument 75% of the time that they choose the instrument that correlates with their preferred timbre. The ITPT is not without controversy. The test, which has internal validity for use in elementary grades, takes approximately 30 minutes to administer. Not all children have the same patience level, and the test can become monotonous with changes occurring only in tessitura and timbre (Gordon, 1984). Williams (1996) found that the timbres representing band instruments sound so different from the actual instruments that only 50% of musicians who listened to the synthetic timbres were able to identify their own instrument. He promotes modifying the timbres on the ITPT to better represent their respective instruments and further validate the test (Williams, 1996). However, Gordon (1991) argues the basis for using timbres that are not authentic, “Perhaps most compelling is that a student may choose a timbre that is heard performed on an actual instrument for reasons other than its timbre” (p. 33). Physical Characteristics Considerations of physical characteristics and tests are prevalent for helping educators match a student and instrument (Bayley, 2004). Leenman (1998) states further that there “are some children who, because of various physical characteristics, would have a harder time succeeding on certain instruments than on others…” (p. 30). However, there is debate on the extent to which physical characteristics influence the likelihood of a student’s success (Lamp and 8 Key, 1935). Lamp and Key’s (1935) study of physical factors relating to performance ability (using physical characteristics of finger length, teeth evenness, and lip thickness) found only lip thickness was a significant factor in success with playing an instrument. Tooth configuration and length of fingers did not appear to be a significant contributor to success (Lamp & Key, 1935). Although little scientific basis exists for the use of physical characteristics as a criterion (Kemp & Mills, 2002), band teachers commonly use physical characteristics as a form of evaluation and sometimes use physical coordination tests (Bayley, 2004). The consideration of physical attributes is usually emphasized in an attempt to raise retention rates. Pizer (1987) states, “Many children drop out of beginning programs simply because of physical obstacles” (p. 14). Techniques to evaluate a student’s physiology vary. Cannava (1990) and Shaw (2006) developed a screening method in which students buzzed on a mouthpiece and blew into a headjoint to determine the instrument best suited to students’ physiology. In addition, Cannava (1990) asked promising oboe and bassoon students to form an embouchure to simulate playing a double reed. Shaw (2006) also gave potential percussionists a coordination test. The unique physiology of students may give teachers insight on suitable instrument matching, but it should not be the only consideration. Ben-Tovim and Boyd (2005) stress the importance of matching physical capabilities of a student with the physical demand of the instrument. For example, because the trumpet requires a large quantity of air to play, a student must already have the lung capacity to produce the amount of air needed. The argument can be made that a student’s physiology will adapt to the physical demand of the instrument. The association of the size of the instrument and size of the student may perpetuate gender stereotyping as well (Hallam, Rogers, & Creech, 2008). 9 Gender Association Music instrument preference and gender has been investigated through various studies (Bayley, 2004; Conway, 2000; Hallam, Rogers, & Creech, 2008; Johnson & Stewart, 2004; Tarnowski, 1993). Band teachers commonly address these issues (Bayley, 2004). Hallam, Rogers, and Creech, (2008) and Tarnowski, (1993) explored these stereotypes further. To investigate the possible relationship between gender association and instrument matching success, Hallam, Rogers, and Creech (2008) analyzed data of a previous large-scale survey conducted by the Department for Education and Skills in the United Kingdom concerning the musical training of students aged 5-19. The department gathered 391,172 responses consisting of 234,065 females and 157,107 males. The survey contained listings of band instruments (e.g. trumpet and flute) and non-band instruments (e.g. strings and voice). However, since the scope of this literature review is limited to band instruments, the other findings are not covered. Tarnowski (1993) described several instruments as “gendered instruments” (p. 10), meaning they were played most often by one gender of musicians. Findings showed that 89% of flutists were females, 78% of oboists were females, 77% of tuba players were males, 75% of drummers were males, 73% of clarinetists were females, and 71% of trombonists were males. Cornet, French horn, saxophone, and Eb alto horn appeared to be the most gender-neutral instruments. In her descriptive study of “gender-instrument” (p. 16) associations, Tarnowski (1993) sought to answer three research questions: When do gender-instrument associations develop? What are the gender-instrument associations of teachers? What are the effects of gender-neutral presentations of instruments on children's preferences? To obtain an answer for the first question, Tarnowski designed a worksheet in which 111 children in grades K-2 matched a picture of a specific instrument with a choice of a male or female. To answer the second research question, 10 Tarnowski asked the teacher participants to indicate hypothetically which instrument they would encourage their son and daughter to play. Tarnowski found significant differences between the responses of the children and the preservice teachers (p.17). Of all the band instruments, teachers indicated saxophone (60.7%) as the most gender-neutral. These findings are in contrast to the children who indicated trumpet (59.46%) was least gender neutral. Both groups of participants agreed the tuba is the least “gender-neutral” instrument. To ascertain whether gender-neutral presentations had an effect on the association of gender to a specific instrument, Tarnowski administered the worksheet as a pretest to another group of K-2 participants. After the worksheet was completed, eight musicians consisting of four females and four males demonstrated all the instruments listed on the worksheet by performing them. After 15 weeks, the worksheet was administered again as a post-test. The findings between the two tests were significantly different. “On the pre-test, only the piano and French horn were rated as gender-neutral by more than half the group of children, while on the post-test, all 15 instruments were rated as gender-neutral by more than 70% of the group” (Tarnowski, 1993, p. 19). The findings indicate a strong bias develops early in childhood but that, with a strong emphasis on gender-neutral presentations, those biases can be reduced. The researchers also found gender-instrument associations are strong with teachers. Gender-based instrument associations are socially influenced, and the development of such associations changes as a child matures. Tarnowski (1993) discovered that students in grade two had gender biases towards a specific instrument that was greater than that of Kindergarten aged children. Harrison and O’Neil (2003) also investigated gender bias of young children. They asked children (boys and girls) aged 8 and 9 to rank six instruments (trumpet, guitar, drums, piano, violin, flute) in the order of how much they would prefer to play each one. Harrison and