Pedagogical Practices Related to the Ability to Discern and Correct Intonation Errors

194 Pages·2015·15.05 MB·English

by  Ryan Vincent Scherber

Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2014
Pedagogical Practices Related to the
Ability to Discern and Correct Intonation
Errors: An Evaluation of Current Practices,
Expectations, and a Model for Instruction
Ryan Vincent Scherber
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF MUSIC

PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES RELATED TO THE ABILITY TO DISCERN AND CORRECT
INTONATION ERRORS: AN EVALUATION OF CURRENT PRACTICES,
EXPECTATIONS, AND A MODEL FOR INSTRUCTION

By
RYAN VINCENT SCHERBER

A Dissertation submitted to the
College of Music
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2014
Ryan V. Scherber defended this dissertation on June 18, 2014.
The members of the supervisory committee were:

William Fredrickson
Professor Directing Dissertation

Alexander Jimenez
University Representative

John Geringer
Committee Member

Patrick Dunnigan
Committee Member

Clifford Madsen
Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.
ii
For Mary Scherber, a selfless individual to whom I owe much.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this journey would not have been possible without the care and
support of my family, mentors, colleagues, and friends. Your support and encouragement have
proven invaluable throughout this process and I feel privileged to have earned your kindness and
assistance.
To Dr. William Fredrickson, I extend my deepest and most sincere gratitude. You have
been a remarkable inspiration during my time at FSU and I will be eternally thankful for the
opportunity to have worked closely with you. Throughout this process, you have provided the
guidance and insight of both a master teacher and accomplished researcher as you assisted me in
achieving my goals. My gratitude runs deep and I look forward to our future relationship.
Thank you to Drs. John Geringer, Patrick Dunnigan, and Alexander Jimenez for your
willingness to serve on my committee. Your guidance, support, and insight through this process
and during my time in this degree are both highly valued and sincerely appreciated. To Dr.
Madsen, your kind support and opportunities over these past years for both personal and
professional growth have helped me become who I am today.
Special thanks are owed to Dr. Steven Kelly. Your guidance and support over the past
years have been special to me and I feel privileged to have had numerous opportunities to learn
from you. I would not be where I am today without you.
This study would not have been possible without the support of students from the Leon
County School District, their teachers, and building principals. I am particularly indebted to Mrs.
Kendra Wendeln and Mr. Daniel Farr for their support and welcoming me into their classroom.
This process was not a solitary venture and I owe a great deal of thanks to many others:
Dr. Julia Heath and Mr. Michael Champion – my best friends, colleagues, and support network;
Dr. Keith Matthews – my good friend, office mate, and sounding board; Dr. Ann Porter – who
started me on this journey; Drs. Jason Silveira, Mark Belfast, and Lesley Mann – for their
assistance and editing prowess; and Dr. David Plack, Mr. Chandler Bridges, Ms. Christi Burkett,
Mr. Matthew Tavera, Mr. Asher Kelly, Mr. Brian Jennings, Mr. Michael Causey, and Mr.
Michael Shapiro for their assistance with my audio recordings.
Finally, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to Pat for your unwavering support,
patience, and moments of levity to maintain my spirits. I could not have accomplished this
without you and I will never forget that.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................................................6
Factors Affecting Pitch Discrimination ...................................................................................6
Personal Factors ....................................................................................................................6
Acoustic Factors ...................................................................................................................8
Musical Factors ..................................................................................................................15
Measurement of Aural Skills .................................................................................................22
Developing Pitch Discrimination ..........................................................................................25
Structured Learning Activities to Develop Pitch Discrimination .......................................31
Instructional Sequences to Develop Pitch Discrimination .................................................32
Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................................34
3. METHOD ..................................................................................................................................36
Phase One ..............................................................................................................................36
Participants .........................................................................................................................36
Questionnaire ......................................................................................................................37
Survey Administration ........................................................................................................37
Phase Two .............................................................................................................................37
Participants .........................................................................................................................37
Consent ...............................................................................................................................38
Stimulus Creation ...............................................................................................................38
Pre- and Post-Test ...............................................................................................................40
Intonation Training Program ..............................................................................................43
4. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................46
Phase One ..............................................................................................................................46
Phase Two .............................................................................................................................52
Paired-Comparison Task ....................................................................................................53
Tuning Task ........................................................................................................................59
Melodic Task ......................................................................................................................61
5. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................66
Research Questions ...............................................................................................................66
Results in the Context of Existing Research .........................................................................70
Implications ...........................................................................................................................71
Limitations .............................................................................................................................72
Directions for Future Research ..............................................................................................73
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................75
A. IRB APPROVAL FORMS ....................................................................................................75
B. SURVEY INVITATION EMAIL .........................................................................................77
C. QUESTIONNAIRES .............................................................................................................78
D. REMINDER EMAIL .............................................................................................................86
E. CONSENT FORMS ..............................................................................................................87
F. SOFTWARE SCRIPT ...........................................................................................................94
v
G. PERCEPTION TASK INSTRUCTIONS ..............................................................................98
H. VERBATIM ANSWERS TO FREE-RESPONSE QUESTIONS ........................................99
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................169
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................182

vi
LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Intonation Training Program Outline .................................................................................44

4.1 Responses by Region and Sample Type ............................................................................46

4.2 Tuning Process Responses .................................................................................................48

4.3 In-class Techniques to Improve Sense of Pitch .................................................................49

4.4 Personal Exercises to Improve Pitch Discrimination .........................................................50

4.5 Means and Standard Deviations of Stimulus Latency Responses (M/SD) ........................53

4.6 Chi-square Analyses of Participant Accuracy in Categories of Magnitude Deviation ......59

4.7 Means and Standard Deviations of Tuning Task Deviation Responses (M/SD) ...............59

4.8 Interval Relationships in Equal Temperament and Just Intonation ...................................61

4.9 Mean Deviations of Melodic Task Intervals from Equal Temperament and Just Intonation
(M/SD) ...............................................................................................................................62

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
3.1 Perception Task Instruction Screen ...................................................................................41

3.2 Melodic Task .....................................................................................................................42

4.1 Overall Latency Responses by Deviation Magnitude ........................................................55

4.2 Overall Latency Responses by Magnitude and Deviation .................................................56

4.3 Overall Latency Responses by Level and Condition .........................................................56

4.4 Pre-Test, Post-Test Overall Latency Responses by Condition ..........................................57

4.5 Overall Latency Responses by School Level .....................................................................57

4.6 Mean Accuracy Responses by Condition and Test ............................................................58

4.7 Pre- and Post-Test Tuning Task Cent Deviation by Condition .........................................60

4.8 Pre- and Post-Test Cent Deviation by Stimulus Instrument ..............................................60

4.9 Melodic Task Interval Assessment ....................................................................................61

4.10 Mean Cent Deviation by Test Administration and Interval ...............................................63

4.11 Mean Cent Deviation by Temperament and Test Administration .....................................64

4.12 Mean Cent Deviation by Temperament and Interval .........................................................64

4.13 Mean Cent Deviation by Condition and Test Administration ...........................................65

4.14 Mean Cent Deviation by Level and Test Administration ..................................................65

viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify current practices and expectations associated
with pitch discrimination ability as well as assess the effectiveness of a model intonation training
program. Specifically, this study was implemented in two phases. Phase one sought to discern
current tuning procedures and intonation training techniques utilized by K-12 school directors
(n=273) and collegiate band directors (n=55), as well as identify expectations of incoming
collegiate music students. Two questionnaires were developed and distributed to a national
sample to gather information related to tuning processes. In phase two, available teaching texts
and empirical literature were reviewed to develop an intonation training program. The program
was implemented over six weeks with students enrolled in a middle and high school band
program. Two equivalent additional sites were utilized as a control group. All participants
(N=47) were assessed using an identical pre- and post-test. The test was comprised of three
tasks. The paired-comparison task asked participants to identify if the second note of each pair
was in-tune or out-of-tune, the tuning task asked participants to tune their instrument to three
stimulus timbres, and the final task was performing a brief melodic example.
Reviewing results from phase one, it appeared school directors believed it was somewhat
important to tune everyday while collegiate directors felt it was very important to tune everyday.
When tuning, most directors appeared to favor a “bottom-up” approach beginning with the tuba.
While school directors identified F and Bb as their initial tuning note(s), collegiate directors
identified A and Bb as their preferred initial tuning note(s). Often cited in-class teaching
techniques included working with a tuner, vocalization, and practicing with drones. Outside of
the classroom, directors asked their students to work with a tuner and complete intonation-
tendency charts. While a majority of collegiate directors (65%) indicated they taught their
ensembles differences between systems of temperament, a majority of school directors (54%)
elected not to teach this concept due to time concerns or less-experienced ensemble members.
Additional sample-specific questions were utilized. A significant majority of school directors
believed intonation instruction should begin in beginning band or earlier as part of an elementary
music course. Collegiate directors appeared to expect incoming music students to posses a high-
level of pitch discrimination ability and successfully operate the mechanical and physical tuning
aspects of their instrument.
ix