Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Student and director perception of non-musical outcomes in suburban school band programs
(USC Thesis Other)
Student and director perception of non-musical outcomes in suburban school band programs
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
STUDENT AND DIRECTOR PERCEPTION OF NON-MUSICAL
OUTCOMES IN SUBURBAN SCHOOL BAND PROGRAMS
by
David Betancourt
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE THORNTON SCHOOL OF MUSIC
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS
(MUSIC EDUCATION)
May 2009
Copyright 2009 David Betancourt
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my thanks to the many people who supported and
guided me in this endeavor. I am grateful to the many band directors who
allowed me into their classrooms to obtain information about their students, their
programs, and themselves. I appreciate the time that was given by the directors
and students so that I could complete this study and the honesty that was exhibited
in the questionnaires. The information gathered will be invaluable to my future
research.
I am indebted to the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Sheila C.
Woodward, Dr. Robert Cutietta, and Dr. Susan Helfter for their personal support
and for guiding me through this dissertation. It has been a privilege to have been
mentored by such an experienced, knowledgeable, and esteemed committee.
Special thanks to my advisor and committee chairperson, Dr. Sheila Woodward,
whose encouragement, availability, and steadfast commitment to excellence was
instrumental in the completion of this work.
Finally, I cannot express enough the gratitude I feel for my loving wife,
Rachel Betancourt, who spent the past six years raising our four young children
and running the house, all the while supporting me in my studies at the University
of Southern California. I could not have accomplished this endeavor without her
patience, encouragement, and never ending love.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER I ............................................................................................................. 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ....................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
Historical Background ................................................................................. 4
General Parameters ...................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study ............................................................................. 7
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 8
Inclusion Criteria ......................................................................................... 8
Exclusion Criteria ........................................................................................ 8
Research Questions ...................................................................................... 9
Null-Hypotheses .......................................................................................... 9
Definitions ................................................................................................. 10
Delimitations .............................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER II ......................................................................................................... 11
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................. 11
Introduction ................................................................................................ 11
Overview .................................................................................................... 12
Ground Breaking Studies ........................................................................... 13
Recent Studies ........................................................................................... 16
Qualitative Studies ..................................................................................... 18
Related Studies .......................................................................................... 20
Summary .................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER III ........................................................................................................ 25
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES ............................................................ 25
Introduction ................................................................................................ 25
Sample ....................................................................................................... 26
Study Sites ................................................................................................. 27
Recruitment ................................................................................................ 29
Resources ................................................................................................... 30
iv
Design ........................................................................................................ 31
Reliability and Validity .............................................................................. 32
Procedure ................................................................................................... 33
Instrument .................................................................................................. 36
Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 44
CHAPTER IV ........................................................................................................ 47
RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 47
Introduction ................................................................................................ 47
Preliminary Analyses ................................................................................. 49
Research Question 1 .................................................................................. 62
Research Question 2 .................................................................................. 63
Research Question 3 .................................................................................. 65
Music Scale Analysis ................................................................................. 66
Narrative Responses on Questionnaire ...................................................... 67
CHAPTER V ......................................................................................................... 69
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 69
Summary .................................................................................................... 69
Conclusions................................................................................................ 74
Discussion .................................................................................................. 76
Music outcomes receiving the highest scores ................................................ 76
Perception of non-musical outcomes ............................................................. 77
Directors scoring higher than students .......................................................... 78
Absence of links between director and student scores .................................. 78
Focus on respect construct ............................................................................. 79
Ideas for qualitative research ......................................................................... 80
Philosophical ideas needing practical frameworks ........................................ 81
Implications for research and practice ........................................................... 82
Recommendations ...................................................................................... 83
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 85
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................ 92
APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................ 94
APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................ 96
APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................ 97
APPENDIX E ...................................................................................................... 100
APPENDIX F ...................................................................................................... 101
APPENDIX G ...................................................................................................... 103
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 School Sites of Directors Invited to Participate in the Study . . . . 27
Table 2 Statements on Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 3 Statements in Non-Musical Outcomes Categories . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Table 4 Statements in Musical Outcomes and Negative Expectations
Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 5 Cronbach’s Alpha Score for Responsibility Scale . . . . .. . . . . . . 50
Table 6 Cronbach’s Alpha Score for Critical Thinking Scale . . . . . . . . .50
Table 7 Cronbach’s Alpha Score for Respect Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Table 8 Cronbach’s Alpha Score for Combination of Non-Musical
Outcomes Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Table 9 Cronbach’s Alpha Score for Non-Musical Outcomes Scale . . . . .53
Table 10 Cronbach’s Alpha Scores: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
Table 11 Median Values for Directors by Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 12 T-test Results Comparing Director Scores for
Responsibility Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 13 T-test Results Comparing Director Scores for
Critical Thinking Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 14 T-test Results Comparing Director Scores for
Respect Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 15 T-test Results Comparing Director Scores for
Combined Non-Musical Outcomes Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 16 T-test Results Comparing Director Scores for Music
Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
vi
Table 17 Director’s Means Scores for Each Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Table 18 Number of Responses in High and Low Categories
for Each Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 19 Student Mean and Standard Deviations Scores Split Into High
and Low Scores for Each Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 20 T-test Results Comparing Student Scores for
Responsibility Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ….... . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table 21 T-test Results Comparing Student Scores for Critical Thinking
Scale……….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 22 T-test Results Comparing Student Scores for Respect Scale . . . . 66
Table 23 T-test Results Comparing Student Scores for Music Scale . . . . . 67
Table 24 Frequency Counts for Narrative Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare student and director
perception of non-musical outcomes in school band programs in a suburban
setting. The study sample was recruited from high schools within the
geographical recruitment area of the Cerritos College District in the County of
Los Angeles. The design was a purposeful sampling descriptive study. The data
collecting instrument was a Likert-type questionnaire that was tested with a
Cronbach’s alpha for internal reliability. Band director scores were analyzed to
determine placement in a high or low category of perception of non-musical
outcomes. Regardless of their scores, students were placed in the same categories
as their respective directors. The scores of the students within each category
(high or low) were then compared to the scores of students from the other
category for significant difference utilizing a t-test. The fact that no statistical
difference was observed between the student groups regarding the learning of
responsibility and critical thinking through band experience indicates that student
perceptions are not linked to the perceptions of their directors. However, the
scores of student perception between the two groups related to the area of respect
were significantly different. Results revealed that higher student scores linked to
higher director scores and lower student scores linked to lower director scores.
This indicates that student and director perceptions of learning respect through the
viii
band experience are linked. The theoretical significance of the findings is
discussed. Results may provide a basis for further research on the inclusion and
implementation of non-musical goals as valuable components of school band
curricula.
1
CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Arguments have been made in the literature that some arts students and
teachers have become more content-centered in learning and less centered on
developing life skills that would foster success related to a broad variety of human
needs (Robinson, 2003; Haack, 1997). The concept of developing the character
and value systems of individuals may have fallen to the wayside in favor of
developing highly skilled musicians (Woodford, 2005). This shift away from
utilitarian goals is perceived by some to have become increasingly evident as
society undergoes rapid changes (Kaplan, 1997; Rideout, 1997). The shift could
be due to strong advocacy for nationalizing music content standards, which has
taken place intensively since the early nineties (CNAEA, 1994; MENC, 1996;
Reimer, 2000), and, widespread promotion of the philosophy of “music for
music’s sake” since the sixties (Reimer, 2003). This aesthetic trend in music
education has, for almost a decade, been criticized as an isolationist stance that
does not take into account the social and historical significance of music in
culture (Rideout, 1997; Haack, 1997), with the term ‘culture’ being applied in the
broadest sense.
2
The research in this study is not meant to diminish the importance of a
content-centered philosophy that has been long established and widely accepted.
Rather, credence is given to a philosophy of music education that is context-based,
recognizing that life impacts music and that music impacts life (Elliott, 1995;
Jorgensen, 2003). The social agenda of music is portrayed through a stance that
music is integral in the development of autonomous individuals who are
simultaneously contributing members of society (Woodford, 2005; Woodford,
1997; Elliott, 1997). A synergistic approach towards merging the divergent
philosophies has been strongly promoted (Haack, 1994; Reimer, 2003).
The concept of valuing both the academic and nonacademic outcomes
necessary for life success is the philosophical foundation for this study (Wanlass,
2000). Typically, utilitarian values for music education programs are recognized
in civic, religious, political, and privately-funded events that incorporate some
level of musical performance that facilitates the moving forward of a social
agenda (Elliott, 1995; Jorgenson, 2003; Woodford, 2005). The belief that music
can be utilized as a cross-disciplinary subject has also been discussed within the
utilitarian framework for many years (Mark, 2002; Goldberg and Scott-Kassner,
2002). Philosophy in music education is ever-evolving and, in recent literature,
we see a broader emphasis on the scope of meaning attributed to the concept of
‘utilitarian functions’ (McCarthy, 1997; Elliott, 1997; Mark, 2002; Woodford,
2005). These authors advocate that music education professionals should be
3
addressing non-traditional concepts of utilitarian values in music programs, such
as mutual respect, humility, compassion, citizenship, critical thinking, and social
values.
“The development of intellectual maturity and identity based on personal
integrity and moral character should be a primary goal of all education, including
music education, in democratic society” (Woodford, 2005, p.94). Here,
Woodford emphasizes the non-traditional concepts of utilitarian values previously
mentioned. This study aimed to examine perceptions of non-musical outcomes
within the areas identified by Woodford as “intellectual maturity”, “personal
integrity”, and “moral character.” The attributes selected by the author to
represent each of Woodford’s three identified areas included critical thinking as
an action of intellectual maturity; respect as an action of personal integrity; and
responsibility as an action of moral character. The researcher considered each of
the selected attributes to be critical elements of Woodford’s three identified areas.
For example, a student with intellectual maturity will likely practice and believe
in the value of critical thinking, whether he is critically analyzing information
given to him by his teacher, or trying to figure out how to solve a musical
problem.
In order to provide a brief entry into this field and inform further research
within the three identified areas as they relate to music education, this research
aimed to investigate whether there are links between current student and director
4
perceptions of non-musical outcomes of the band experience in the areas of
critical thinking, respect, and responsibility. The results of this study might
provide our profession with valuable information that might be the basis for
further research on whether there is a causal effect between the two. In addition,
there may be value in researching a variety of influences on student and director
perception of non-musical effects, with particular emphasis on the specific
teaching strategies that might directly impact these outcomes and student
perception thereof. Ideas for student and director exploration of non-musical
outcomes through forums such as discussions or interactive workshops might also
be investigated.
Furthermore, future research might investigate integrating non-musical
goals into curriculum design and the implementation of those goals through
particular teaching strategies. The curricular goals could be introduced to pre-
service band directors at the collegiate level as well as band directors in the field.
Combined with further research in the field, this study might contribute towards
impacting awareness of current functions of music education by recognizing
“. . . a broader more holistic and timely rationale for music education in
contemporary society” (Haack, 1997, p.86).
Historical Background
Music education has been viewed from the utilitarian standpoint since the
time of Plato and Aristotle, who both believed “the purposes of music in
5
education were to help children develop a perception of idealized community life
and to prepare them to participate actively in it as responsible citizens” (Mark and
Gary, 1999, p.12). This broad, holistic approach was redirected to a more specific
focus in the Middle Ages, as music became an integral part of the church and was
utilized to gain followers and teach the liturgy (Mark and Gary, 1999). This
practice continues to this day. The broader implications of a utilitarian
philosophy of music education continued to be narrowed even as formal music
education took hold in America (Mark and Gary, 1999). The singing schools
were a prime example of the complete acceptance of music education as
utilitarian (Birge, 1928; Keene, 1987). However, there were still philosophers,
such as Johann Friedrich Herbart, who believed that “the primary aim of
education was moral development, the production of good men of moral stature”
(Keene, 1987, p.131). Including music education within this educational
philosophy proved elusive for music educators, who helped bring the rise of
community music to America in the early part of the 20
th
Century, but was unable
to identify with the social value of music with any lasting success (McCarthy,
1997). The rise of instrumental and choral programs, music competitions,
corporate sponsorship, town bands, and community ensembles was preceded, and
attempted, to incorporate the utilitarian philosophy (Mark and Gary, 1999; Keene,
1987; Birge, 1928). Though there has been a rise and dominance of the aesthetic
movement in music education in the later part of the 20
th
Century, utilitarian
6
functions persist in music education, regardless of whether they are recognized
officially in curricula or identified as objectives in casual conversation. For
example, instrumental and choral ensembles continue to perform at civic,
religious, political, and privately funded events in numerous communities
throughout the United States. Sociologists in the field of music education
continue to explore the meaning and value of music and how music education can
best meet the needs of an ever changing society (Woodford, 2005; Clayton,
Herbert, and Middleton, 2003; Rideout, 1997; Haack, 1997; Kaplan, 1997).
History has shown that those individuals controlling music instruction, who do
not ensure its relevance to society, are often finding that advocacy is a constant
struggle (Mark and Gary, 1999).
General Parameters
The literature review for this study includes a very brief historical
overview of music education in America, with particular attention to the
development of utilitarian trends in the field. Furthermore, it offers a short review
of research pertaining to building life skills through education and a review of
studies investigating non-musical outcomes in school band experience. The
study sample included participants from high schools in the geographical
recruitment area of the Cerritos College District, as published by the admissions
department. In this study, non-musical outcomes refer to life skills and concepts,
with delimitations being set in order to confine the range of outcomes to the three
7
aspects of respect, critical thinking, and responsibility. Investigation was
conducted of student and director perception of these outcomes in their band
experience. Statistical significance for the results was set at p = .05. Initially, a
pilot study was administered to ten directors and one group of band students at a
school outside the study region, in order to check for reliability of the data
collecting tools and procedural discrepancies.
Significance of the Study
There are relatively few recent research publications that address the
perceptions of students and directors regarding non-musical outcomes of band
participation and the implications of such perceptions. Documenting the current
perception trends of a large population of band students and their directors may
provide an indication of additional research needed towards the implementation of
non-musical outcomes as goals of school band curricula. There is an ongoing
need to examine the perceived non-musical outcomes of students in order to better
understand the social implications and relevance of music education programs and
how these programs contribute to the overall educational experience of each
individual. It may be important to determine possible relationships between
director perceptions of non-musical outcomes and those of students, and whether
the one influences the other. This study may provide valuable information that
could inform further research into curriculum development, teaching strategies
and techniques for facilitating holistic learning in the band setting, as well as
8
student awareness thereof. It is anticipated that a body of such research would
indicate suggestions for practical application in the field and possibly influence
current trends by promoting a holistic approach to music education that focuses
not only on developing musicianship, but on developing the whole child.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare student and
director perception of non-musical outcomes in school band programs in a
suburban setting.
Inclusion Criteria
Several factors were considered in the selection of participants for the
study. Firstly, all students were attending band classes in high schools within the
geographical recruitment area of the Cerritos College District. Inclusion criteria
included proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing English. All participating
band directors were required to be holding a position as a band director at one of
the schools in this same area.
Exclusion Criteria
Students who were not attending band classes in high schools within the
geographical recruitment area of the Cerritos College District during the study
were not accepted. Students who were not proficient in speaking, reading, and
writing English were not accepted. Band directors not holding a position as a
9
band director in the same district were not accepted. Band directors who did not
have students in the study were not accepted for the final study, but were utilized
in the pilot study.
Research Questions
1. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of responsibility
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
2. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of critical thinking
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
3. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of respect
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
Null-Hypotheses
H
0
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of responsibility is
not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
H
1
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of critical thinking is
not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
H
2
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of respect is not
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
10
Definitions
In this study, non-musical outcomes refer to life skills, attributes, and
behavioral characteristics, with specific attention paid to those of responsibility,
critical thinking, and respect.
Delimitations
This study was confined to information gained from student and band
director questionnaires. The study did not seek to determine external factors on
these perceptions, such as, band director influence, parent influence, peer
influence, and social-economic influence. The study did not seek to determine
internal reasons behind influences nor examine the nature of the perceptions. The
study was limited to detecting the perception of only three non-musical outcomes:
responsibility, critical thinking, and respect. The development of these three
characteristics has been repeatedly cited as crucial to the success of individuals in
all aspects of life (Allen, 2004; Chiodo, 1997; Petten, 2005; Robinson, 2003;
Siverson, 1990; Vos-Groenendal, 1991; Wanlass, 2000, White, 1998).
Motivation, as a strand, was not addressed, as there is already ample research on
this topic. This study did not attempt to explain why certain non-musical
outcomes are cited by the students or band directors. Causal inference between
student and director perceptions was not investigated. It was assumed that the
participants answered the questions honestly.
11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare student and
director perception of non-musical outcomes in school band programs in a
suburban setting. There are relatively few recent research publications that
address the perceptions of students and directors regarding non-musical outcomes
of band participation and the implications of such perceptions. The literature
review in this chapter examines five categories. First, an overview of the trend
towards including life skills and values in curriculum design will be presented.
Special focus is given to the attributes of critical thinking, respect, and
responsibility which have been categorized as valuable life skills that are fostered
within music education (McCarthy, 1997; Wanlass, 2000; Woodford, 2005).
Secondly, a brief examination of ground breaking studies provides philosophical
and methodological precedence for the current study. Thirdly, a concise
examination of recent studies that are closely aligned to the purpose or intent of
the current study will offer currency to the research. Fourthly, an examination of
a few qualitative studies will reveal the trend towards this type of approach in
acquiring information about perceptions, meanings, and outcomes of the music
experience. Lastly, a brief exploration of related studies, not restricted to the field
12
of music, is included. These have the common component of examining
perceptions of developing life skills or values, including those of responsibility,
critical thinking, and respect.
Overview
A broad view of teaching and learning indicates strong documentation by
educators who value both the academic and nonacademic outcomes necessary for
life success (Wanlass, 2000; Petten, 2005; Lapka, 2005). Wanlass (2000)
challenges educators to reconsider desired educational outcomes with a view to
incorporating both. An evaluation of an accelerated/integrative learning model
program in Arizona resulted in recommendations that personal growth and life
skills curriculum precede and/or accompany academic curriculum (Vos-
Groenendal, 1991). The Vos-Groenendal study went on to recommend that
values be taught as part of life skills.
This trend towards focusing on the development of life skills in education
is not new, nor is the concept of incorporating life skills into the curriculum
(Birge, 1928, Jorgensen, 1995). There are articles in various journals that imply
the non-musical benefits of participating in music education activities (Colwell,
1998, 2000; Hinckley, 2000; Petress, 2005). Lautzenheiser (2005) casts a wide
blanket of ideas towards the attainment of non-musical outcomes, but cites no
research or makes no attempt at specificity. A variety of research and
pedagogical publications that broach the subject in a more general realm do not
13
provide specific information on student and band director perceptions of non-
musical outcomes (Ellis, 2001; Goldberg and Scott-Kassner, 2002; Mark, 2002;
Roberts, 1997). Still, non-musical outcomes in education as a topic, whether
being promoted or not, is evident in the current music education philosophical
trends (Elliott, 1995; Reimer, 2003; Jorgenson, 2003), and is implied in a variety
of sources (Zdzinski, 1993; Adderley, Kennedy & Berz, 2003; Devall, 2004;
Elliott, 2005).
Ground Breaking Studies
In as much as there initially appears to be insufficient research on non-
musical outcomes, there are some ground breaking studies that lend validity to
further inquiry on this topic. Most notable is that of John Baker Hilton (1980).
The purpose of his study was “to examine the meaning of high school choral
experience for student participants” (Hilton, 1980, p.17). He gathered data from
choral students (n-673) and directors from 14 southern Pennsylvania high school
choral ensembles. The data was gathered using two instruments, Gaston’s Test of
Musicality and Hilton’s own constructed Choral Meaning Survey. The study
examined a number of questions encompassing perceptions of students and
directors, relationships of perceptions to musicality, relationships of perceptions
to ensemble performance and relationship of perceptions between the directors
and their students. This study implemented Likert-type surveys as the data
collecting instruments and included factoral analysis in the methodology. The six
14
life skill factors included in the study were 1) achievement, 2) spiritualistic, 3)
musical/artistic, 4) communicative, 5) psychological, and 6) integrative (Hilton,
1980). The results in correlation between the student perceptions, and those of
the directors, varied greatly, with the only substantial positive correlation being
found between student and director perceptions within the psychological factor.
Regardless of the less than significant positive results, this study established
methodology and precedence for the current study. Hilton’s Choral Meaning
Survey, with 70 statements set up in a five-point Likert scale, also established an
instrument template. Hilton conducted a follow up study in 1984 that produced
similar results.
A similar study by David Leland Mills (1988) used the Hilton studies as a
model. “The purpose of the study was to describe the meanings of the high
school band experience as perceived by individual band members and to examine
several relationships between those meanings and the bands’ activities” (Mills,
1988, p.15). A survey was constructed as a result of a factoral analysis with open-
ended statements from 243 high school band members. The resulting Band
Meaning Survey included seventy statements in a five-point Likert scale which
was administered to 1140 band members in South Florida. Statements of
meaning included five factors in the final factor solution: personal development,
social enrichment, musical growth, group identity, and recreative activity.
Ratings of overall meaning were determined by the level of activity in one of two
15
types of ensembles: marching activities and non-marching activities. This
study’s intent was to determine the level of meaning for band students in various
ability level groups with regard to participating in marching and non-marching
ensembles. The results indicated no significant difference in ratings between low
level groups and high level groups in the marching activities category. The non-
marching category results indicated direct relationship with the rating of meaning
and the level of the group. The higher level groups in the non-marching category
related the five factors higher in meaning than did the lower level groups. There
was no attempt to find relationships between student and director perceptions.
The methodology, instrument, and purpose of the Mills (1988) study were similar
to the current study, but not in line with the intent of the current study to find
relationships between student and director perceptions.
Both the Hylton (1980, 1984) and Mills (1988) studies have been sighted
in numerous studies that contain the topics of perception of ensemble experience,
perception of musical or non-musical outcomes, and the perceptions of the
meaning of the band or choral experience (LaRue, 1986; Bell, 1986; Battersby,
1994; Chiodo, 1997; Poulter, 1997; Kempton, 2002; Kennedy, 2002; Adderley,
2003; Abril, 2006, Thiam, 2006). Each of these studies contributes to the body of
knowledge by addressing perceptions, meanings, or outcomes of the band or
choral experience as a component of the respective study. However, each study
has a different focal point, with none being the correlation of the student and
16
director perception of non musical outcomes. For example, the Abril (2006)
study examines school principals\ perception of the elementary school music
curriculum as it relates to music learning outcomes and broad educational goals.
The Adderley (2003) study investigates the sub culture of the high school music
classroom. In this study, the meaning and value of a music ensemble is explored
as a component of the broader topic. Chiodo (1997) describes and analyzes the
music participation of adult musicians who exemplify lifelong commitment to
instrumental music performance. Shared values and meanings of music
participation and the benefits of music participation were two of the topics
covered in this study. None of these studies address, with the desired specificity,
the perceptions on non musical outcomes that this study investigates.
Recent Studies
A more current study in Texas surveyed high school principals, band
directors, and band students. The survey was on the perceived impact of band on
the development of life skills (Rothlisberger, 1995). The primary focus of the
study was the perceived impact of band on the development of life skills
(Rothlisberger, 1995). The life skills included self-discipline, problem solving,
creative thinking, teamwork, motivation, responsibility, communication, and
leadership. There were additional areas of interest, including the musical
development of students. The instrument utilized was a five-point Likert survey
with 24 statements. A total of 173 surveys were analyzed. The results indicated
17
that the band experience had an impact on developing life skills, with band
directors giving the highest rating (Rothlisberger, 1995). While the study
included the desired sample of students and band directors, the inclusion of the
principals in the surveys may have weakened the study by including a group that
did not have direct contact with the daily band activities. In addition, the 24 item
survey may have been too concise in its presentation and format to have provided
accurate information on the 15 different attributes that were presented as points of
inclusion. Analysis of the data in this study did not include a comparison of the
findings between the students, directors, and principals. The comparative
component that is missing from the Rothlisberger study is a key focal point of the
current study.
Additional recent research includes experimental studies in which
descriptive and correlational analyses for approaches to teaching are utilized.
Non-musical outcomes such as motivation and self-esteem were part of survey
tools used in a study comparing the Yamaha Music In Education Keyboard
Instructional Approach to more traditional approaches (Englehardt, 2005). The
purpose of the Englehardt study was to determine the effect of a Yamaha
keyboard instructional approach on selected musical and non-musical outcomes
of middle school students. One hundred and thirty four middle school students in
Florida were divided into an experimental and control group. The control group
received the MIE (Yamaha Music in Education) keyboard instructional approach
18
while the control group did not receive instruction. Data was collected using
previously tested instruments. Descriptive and correlational analyses were
implemented. The focus of this study was clearly on the musical outcomes of the
students, with specific non-musical outcomes not being sighted in detail. Results
indicated significant difference in the two groups with regard to musical outcomes
and in motivation. While there was no significant difference in any other non-
musical outcomes, inclusion of this component validates the interest on the topic
and the need for further study. The experimental nature of the Englehardt study,
coupled with the focus on musical outcomes, may have invalided the results
concerning the non-musical outcomes. There may have been too many variables
to execute an in depth analysis of the data concerning non-musical outcomes.
Qualitative Studies
Many of the studies that provided foundational research for the current
study used qualitative methods to collect and analyze data (Chiodo, 1997; Poulter,
1997; Kempton, 2002; Kennedy, 2002; Adderley, 2003; DeSilva, 2003; Abril,
2006; Arasi, 2006). Of these studies, two lend particular relevance to the current
study.
Arasi (2006) conducted a study of eight adults who all participated in the
same high school choral program for a minimum of three years and had
subsequently pursued careers in fields other than music. The purpose of the study
was to investigate the lifelong meaning and influence of participation in a high
19
school choral music program. Each of the participants was interviewed twice and
given a survey on effective teaching strategies based on their memories of their
choral director. Archival information and field notes were also collected. Results
revealed that some self-perceived outcomes of the program, such as critical
thinking and self-confidence, were influential in the development of lifelong
learning skills (Arasi, 2006). The inclusion of critical thinking as an outcome is
of special interest in that critical thinking is one of the three non-musical
outcomes being addressed in the current study. In addition, findings revealed that
extra musical benefits of the choral program prevailed over the musical benefits.
The implications of these findings are closely aligned with the implications of the
current study. The qualitative methodology of the Arasi (2006) prohibited a large
sample population. This methodology did not allow for the possibility of
inferential data analysis. The quantitative methodology of the current study may
help to validate Arasi’s (2006) findings while at the same time further the
research on extra musical benefits that Arasi revealed.
An exploratory study aimed to determine the significance of music and
music education in the lives of middle and high school students (Campbell,
Connell, and Beegle, 2007). Of special interest in this study was the identification
of five principal themes, including character building and life skills as benefits of
music education. In this study, the most heavily reported life preparation skill
was self-discipline (Campbell, Connell, and Beegle, 2007). Respect and
20
responsibility were also character traits that were given consideration as a result
of the essays and interviews conducted in this study. The Campbell study
functions as a precursor to quantifying the data on the topics of respect and
responsibility in the current study. In addition, the authors’ recommendation
regarding the need for music educators to heed the expressed values of students
(Campbell, et al., p. 235) could be reiterated and reinforced as a result of the
current findings.
Related Studies
A recent study in Fresno, California examined perceptions of youth
leadership life skills development Future Farmers of America (FFA) members and
non-FFA members (DeSilva, 2003). The purpose of the study was to examine
the perceptions of youth leadership life skills development of high school FFA
completers and non-FFA members who were first year community college
agricultural program students (DeSilva, 2003). This study is relevant for a
number of reasons. First, the inclusion of life skills as a foundational component
of leadership could imply the attributes of responsibility and respect as an
extension of life skills. One of the current studies attributes under investigation,
critical thinking, is recognized by many scholars to be a life skill (McCarthy,
1997; Wanlass, 2000, Woodford, 2005). The perceptions of the students as a
means to gather data is also relevant though less reliable as a construct. DeSilva
gathers information from students about experiences they had in high school. It is
21
possible that maturation could have taken place in the form of students developing
new perceptions about their youth leadership life skills development in high
school if they experienced emotional, social, and cognitive growth as a result of
the community college experience. DeSilva (2003) discusses the possibility that
the results of his study could provide a conceptual framework towards leadership
development curriculum in secondary and higher education institutions. This
utilitarian approach aligns with the paradigm of the current study.
A second study, that lends relevancy and trends currency, initiated a
formal evaluation of Camp for Kids, a performing and visual arts camp for youths
based in West Las Vegas (Robinson, 2003). The purpose of the study was to
conduct and report a formal evaluation of Camp for Kids and study the
development impact it had on youth living in West Las Vegas (Robinson, 2003).
Camp for Kids was a pilot program that was initiated to be responsive to the
needs of low and moderate income families during non school hours (Robinson,
2003). The program was implemented for eight weeks, daily, and specified
developing traits such as respect, getting along, initiative, problem solving, goal
setting, and perseverance through an integration of multidisciplinary cultural and
performing arts program (Robinson, 2003). The significance of the study lies in
the focus of the study to examine a program that is attempting to teach life skills
and character development with the arts as tools. This approach to education
aligns with the paradigm of the current study which promotes a more utilitarian
22
curriculum. While Robinson (2003) utilizes a mixed methods approach to her
research, her study is missing the comparative and relational components that are
crucial to the current study.
A third study gives additional support to a curriculum that promotes the
development of life skills. Vos-Groenendal (1991) evaluated an
accelerated/integrative learning model program. The accelerated learning
program (ALMP) features learning how to learn and developing personal growth
and life skills (Vos-Groenendal, 1991). The study included 6,042 participants and
utilized qualitative and quantitative data collected from existing demographic date,
parent and student surveys, and interviews with experts (Vos-Groenendal, 1991).
The results indicated an overwhelming perception of positive results from the
parents and students in the study. Students who entered the educational setting
with a 1.9 GPA or lower attained a median one-point GPA growth after ten days
of instruction (Vos-Groenendal, 1991). The implications cited in the study lend
support to the concept of a more holistic approach to education. It was implied
that a curriculum encompassing personal growth and life skills precedes and
accompanies an academic growth curriculum. Furthermore, it was suggested that
values need to be taught as part of the life skills and academic curriculum and
modeled by the staff (Vos-Groenendal, 1991). The attribute of critical thinking,
one of the three areas being investigated in the current study, could be categorized
in the first implication cited in the Vos-Groenendal (1991) study. As cited earlier,
23
this facet of critical thinking is recognized by many scholars to be an important
life skill (McCarthy, 1997; Wanlass, 2000; Woodford, 2005). The attributes of
respect and responsibility that are also being investigated in the current study
could be categorized in the second implication of the same Vos-Groendendal
(1991) study where teaching and modeling respect and responsibility are regarded
as strong components of teaching and modeling values within the curriculum.
Summary
There are relatively few recent research publications that address the
perceptions of students and directors regarding non-musical outcomes of band
participation and the implications of such perceptions. The literature review in
this chapter examined five categories. First, an overview of the trend towards
including life skills and values in curriculum design was presented. Special focus
was given to the attributes of critical thinking, respect, and responsibility which
have been categorized as valuable life skills that are fostered within music
education (McCarthy, 1997; Wanlass, 2000; Woodford, 2005). Secondly, a brief
examination of ground breaking studies by Hilton (1980, 1984) and Mills (1988)
provided philosophical and methodological precedence for the current study.
Both researchers addressed perceptions of music performance students and have
been cited in numerous studies that contain the topics of perception of ensemble
experience, perception of musical or non-musical outcomes, and the perceptions
of the meaning of the band or choral experience (LaRue, 1986; Bell, 1986;
24
Chiodo, 1997; Poulter, 1997; Kempton, 2002; Kennedy, 2002; Adderley, 2003;
Abril, 2006, Thiam, 2006). Thirdly, a concise examination of recent studies by
Rothlisberger (1995) and Englehardt (2005) offered currency to the research.
Both studies were closely aligned to the purpose or intent of this study. Fourthly,
an examination of qualitative studies by Arasi (2006) and Campbell, Connell, and
Beegle (2007) revealed the trend towards the qualitative approach in acquiring
information about perceptions, meanings, and outcomes of the music experience.
Lastly, a brief exploration of related studies, not restricted to the field of music,
was included. These studies by DeSilva (2203), Robinson (2003) and Vos-
Groenendal (1991) had the common component of examining perceptions of
developing life skills or values, including those of responsibility, critical thinking,
and respect.
25
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare student and
director perception of non-musical outcomes in school band programs in a
suburban setting. Twenty band directors and 1,111 students from high schools
within the geographical recruitment area of the Cerritos College District in the
County of Los Angeles completed questionnaires. Band directors’ scores were
analyzed to determine placement in a high or low category of perception of non-
musical outcomes. Regardless of their scores, students were placed in the same
categories as their respective directors. The scores of the students within each
category were then compared to the scores of students from the other category for
significant difference utilizing a t-test. The research questions were as follows:
1. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of responsibility
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
2. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of critical thinking
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
3. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of respect
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
26
The null hypotheses were as follows:
H
0
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of responsibility is
not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
H
1
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of critical thinking is
not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
H
2
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of respect is not
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
This chapter describes the methodology that was employed in this
purposeful sampling descriptive study. The following sections will include a
description of the sample population, list of study sites where an invitation to
participate was extended, recruitment strategies employed, resources utilized,
study design, reliability and validity considerations, procedure, instrument utilized
to collect data, and data analysis.
Sample
The study sample included band students and band directors from high
schools in the geographical recruitment area of the Cerritos College District, as
published by the admissions department. These districts include the ABC Unified
School District, Bellflower Unified School District, Downy Unified School
District, Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District, Whittier Unified School
District, and Paramount Unified School District. The high schools of Anaheim
Unified School District and Long Beach Unified School District that are located
27
within the geographical recruitment area of the Cerritos College District were also
included.
Study Sites
Sites were chosen based on the geographical recruitment area of the
Cerritos College District, as published by the admissions department. As
Cerritos College was the designated home base of the principal investigator, this
region provided a sample of convenience. Consent to administer the study at each
site was approved by school administrators and the band directors prior to any
contact with the students. Table 1 lists the school sites whose band directors were
initially invited to participate in the study.
Table 1
School Sites of Directors Invited to Participate in the Study
1. Artesia High School: Band Director; Mark Petrowsky
ABC District, 12108 E. Del Amo, Artesia, CA 90715
2. Bellflower High School: Band Director; Tim McElearney
Bellflower District, 15301 S. McNab, Bellflower, CA 90201
3. California High School: Band Director; Doug Nordquist
Whittier District: 9800 S. Mills, Whittier, CA 90603
4. Calvary Chapel High School: Band Director; Cliff Brand
Downey District, 12808 Woodruff, Downey, CA 90242
5. Cerritos High School: Band Director; Tim Trost
ABC District, 12500 183
rd
, Cerritos, CA 90701
6. Cypress High School: Band Director; James Kuirion
Anaheim District, 9801 Valleyview, Cypress, CA 90630
7. Downey High School: Band Director; Cory O’Lariu
Downey District, 11040 Brookshire, Downey, CA 90241
28
Table 1 – Continued – School Sites of Directors Invited to Participate in the Study
8. Gahr High School: Band Director; Robert Grishkoff
ABC District, 1111 Artesia, Cerritos, CA 90701
9. John Glenn High School: Band Director; Frank Hinojoz
Norwalk-La Mirada District, 13520 Shoemaker, Norwalk, CA 90650
10. Jordan High School: Band Director; Damien Graham
Long Beach District, 6500 Atlantic, Long Beach, CA 90805
11. Kennedy High School: Band Director; Robert Anthony
Anaheim District, 8281 Walker, La Palma, CA 90623
12. Lakewood High School: Band Director; Stacy Burcham
Long Beach District, 4400 Briercrest, Lakewood, CA 90713
13. La Mirada High School: Band Director; Geena Biondi
Norwalk-La Mirada District, 13250 Adelfa, La Mirada, CA 90638
14. La Serna High School: Band Director; Daniel Stout
Whittier District, 15301 Youngwood, Whittier, CA 90605
15. Magnolia High School: Band Director; Aaron Yim
Anaheim District, 2450 West Ball, Anaheim, CA 92804
16. Mayfair High School: Band Director; Tom Philips
Bellflower District, 6000 N. Woodruff, Bellflower, CA 90713
17. Millikan High School: Band Director; Bonnie Annes
Long Beach District, 2800 Snowden, Long Beach, CA 90815
18. Norwalk High School: Band Director; Christine Pinta
Norwalk-La Mirada District, 11356 E. Leffingwell, Norwalk, CA
90650
19. Paramount High School: Band Director; Angel Carmona
Paramount District, 14429 Downey, Paramount, CA 90723
20. Pioneer High School: Band Director; Craig McKenzie
Whittier District, 10800 Benavon, Whittier, CA 90606
21. Santa Fe Springs High School: Band Director; Anthony Hues
Whittier district, 10400 Orr & Day, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
22. St. John Bosco High School: Band Director; Ruben Rivas
Bellflower District, 13620 South Bellflower, Bellflower, CA 90706
23. St. Paul High School: Band Director; Luis Telonis
Whittier District, 9635 Greenleaf, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
24. Valley Christian High School: Band Director; Nathan Board
ABC District, 10818 Artesia, Artesia, CA 90703
25. Warren High School: Band Director; David Neemeyer
Downey District, 8141 De Palma, Downey, CA 90241
26. Whitney High School: Band Director; Brennan England
ABC District, 16800 Shoemaker, Cerritos, CA 90701
29
Table 1 – Continued – School Sites of Directors Invited to Participate in the Study
27. Whittier High School: Band Director; Jesse Meza
Whittier District, 12417 E. Philadelphia, Whittier, CA 90602
Recruitment
Through normal Cerritos College recruitment procedures, professional
relationships had already been established between the researcher and the high
school band directors in the surrounding districts. Subsequently, it was
recognized that these relationships could facilitate the agreement of directors to
participate. In addition, it was recognized that most band programs experience a
decrease in performance and rehearsal activities in the final month of a traditional
calendar year. This one month period was therefore targeted as the most
opportune time frame to recruit and make site visitations in order to distribute the
questionnaires and collect the data. Initial recruitment strategies involved phone
and e-mail contact between the researcher and the band directors, where the
researcher provided information on the study. It was explained that there was no
obligation to participate; that, because questionnaires were anonymous, there
would be minimal risk; and that there would be no direct benefits as a result of
participation. Those band directors that agreed to participate were then forwarded
site permission forms to be signed by their school principals (Appendix E). Once
the forms were signed, the principal investigator visited the school band during a
30
regularly scheduled rehearsal. The principal investigator addressed both the
director and the students, providing verbal information on the study as well as an
information sheet for the participants to keep. It was made clear that this was a
minimal risk study and that there was no obligation to participate, with no specific
reward or direct benefit. Time was provided for the students and director to ask
questions and have questions answered by the researcher. The students and
director were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time
before the study ended. Instructions were given that an alternative to participating
in the study was to sit quietly at their assigned places and review their sheet music
in preparation for their rehearsal. Potential coercion was avoided by having the
researcher provide this information and administer the study, rather than the
director.
Resources
The principal investigator was the only staff person needed to research,
design, implement, collect the data, analyze and report the findings. The
questionnaire format and the minimal risk factor to the sample populations
negated the need for additional staff. The qualifications of the principal
investigator are presented as a curriculum vita in Appendix G. A Compaq
Presario Computer SR1420NX with 512 MB of memory and 80GB of hard drive
running at 7200 RPMs was utilized to run the appropriate software programs.
The software utilized for this study included the Statistical Package for the Social
31
Sciences (SPSS), Microsoft Office 2007. The SPSS software was used to input,
catalogue, and analyze data and create tables and figures. Microsoft Office was
used to complete the dissertation and all forms relevant and included in the study.
A Canon Pixma Printer, model iP6000D was used in printing all original
documents. Funding for materials was minimal and was supplied by the principal
investigator. The computer, software, printer, and paper were in the possession of
the principal investigator prior to the start of the study. The close proximity of
the site locations to Cerritos College allowed for transportation costs to remain
low, with an estimated one hundred and fifty dollars in car gasoline being spent.
The time anticipated to conduct the study was one month, including introductory
visits, administering of the study, and collection of the data. This time frame was
adhered to within the final month of the traditional academic calendar of all high
school sites listed.
Design
The design was a purposeful sampling descriptive study. There was a
comparison between various categorized student groups, based on the level of
director perceptions of non-musical outcomes linked to band participation. A
pilot study was administered at one school outside of the geographical location of
the intended study to refine the administrative procedures and the terminology of
the student questionnaire. In addition, ten band directors from outside the area
were recruited to test the design and administration of the band director
32
questionnaire. The results of the band director questionnaire in the pilot study
were analyzed to determine whether the director’s responses allowed for the
categorizing of perceptions of non-musical outcomes. It was discovered that the
director’s perceptions could be categorized into a high or medium category based
on their perception of non-musical outcomes. The categories were labeled as
“high” and “low” for ease of terminology recognition. The directors in the “high”
category indicated tendency scores in the “agree” and “strongly agree” columns
of the questionnaire while the directors in the “low” category indicated tendency
scores in the “unsure” column. The study was conducted in a commonly accepted
educational setting involving normal educational practices. The questionnaires
were administered at the beginning of a scheduled band rehearsal. Subjects were
anonymous and there was a one-time encounter with the students by the principal
investigator. The study was categorized as having no greater than minimal risk by
USC IRB standards.
Reliability and Validity
Precautions were taken to ensure reliability and validity in the student and
band director questionnaires. These included: the implementation of a pilot study
to validate the intent of the questions, terminology, and strands being studied
(responsibility, critical thinking, and respect), the inclusion of music and negative
expectations in the categories of questions, the use of a script for each site
visitation, and a short duration of time for the study to avoid maturation.
33
Additional precautions were implemented to ensure anonymity. Band directors
were instructed not to participate in any part of distributing, proctoring, or
collecting student questionnaires. Furthermore, the students were made aware
that the band director, or any other student, would not have access to the
questionnaires at any time before, during, or after the study. Similarly, no student
or band director would have access to the band director questionnaires. The terms
musical and non-musical were omitted from the principal investigators
explanation of purpose on the information sheet that was handed to the students
and director. The principal investigator believed that the intent of the study would
be compromised if the participants were made aware of the non-musical outcomes
that were being studied. The procedure was established prior to the distribution
of questionnaires. After the questionnaires were collected, a Cronbach’s alpha
(Cronbach, 1951) test was utilized to assess internal reliability of the instrument.
Procedure
The principal investigator administered the questionnaires. The
administrative responsibilities included: explanation of study and procedure,
passing out questionnaires, monitoring the students during the questionnaire for
noise level, privacy, completion of task, and monitoring the face-down placement
of completed questionnaires in a designated envelope. The principal investigator
visited the school band during a regularly scheduled rehearsal. The principal
investigator addressed both the director and the students, thanking them in
34
advanced for their involvement and cooperation with this study. The principal
investigator then outlined the content of the USC-IRB approved information sheet
(Appendix D), providing verbal information on the purpose of the study,
potential benefits to subjects and/or society, confidentiality, payment for
participation, potential risks and discomforts, participation and withdrawal, and
alternatives to participation.
The purpose of the study was explained as an effort to learn more about
the perceptions of band students and directors on the outcomes of participating in
the band. It was explained that, while there was most likely no direct benefit from
participating in the study, the results might provide a basis for further research on
effective teaching in band. It was made clear that the questionnaires were
anonymous and no names or any other identifying information were to be written
on them. In addition, the students were informed that their band directors would
not have access to the questionnaires at any time before, during, or after the study.
It was explained that this was a minimal risk study and that there was no
obligation to participate. The subjects were also informed that they would not be
paid for their participation and that they could chose not to participate, or, chose
to withdraw at anytime without consequence. Information was given to the
students that an alternative to participating in the study was to sit quietly at their
assigned places and review their sheet music in preparation for their rehearsal.
The information sheets were then distributed and, an approximate time of, five
35
minutes were given to read the information. Time was then provided for the
students and director to ask questions and have questions answered by the
principal investigators.
After the question and answer period, pencils were distributed. At this
point, it was emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers to the
questions and that the student’s honest and sincere answer was the most valid and
important information that the principal investigator could obtain from the
responses. The participants were informed that they would have as much time as
needed to complete the questionnaire (the pilot study had revealed that the
maximum time to complete the study had previously been approximately 6
minutes). The participants were also informed that once they completed the
questionnaire they should turn them face down and then quietly study their band
sheet music until all questionnaires were completed. The directors were informed
that they would receive their questionnaire once all the student questionnaires
were distributed, and they were asked to adjourn to their office. The
questionnaires were distributed to the students, then to the director. Once all
questionnaires were completed, the principal investigator asked the students to
pass the forms down the row (students typically sat in band arrangements of semi
circles). The documents were collected and placed in the designated envelope.
The director’s questionnaire was then collected. A final thank you to all
36
participants was announced before department the site. This procedure was
replicated at each school.
Instrument
The instrument utilized in this investigation was an anonymous, Likert-
type questionnaire developed by the principal investigator (Appendices A and B).
The questionnaire included 40 statements that the participants rated from
‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’ The 40 statements are listed in Table 2.
The director questionnaire opened with the statement “My perception is that
participating in band has helped my students…” and the student questionnaire
began with the statement “Participating in band has helped me…”
Table 2
Statements in Questionnaire
Q1 to play scales better
Q2 to think about what makes music sound good or bad
Q3 to realize that they can sometimes play wrong notes without the band
director noticing
Q4 to get along with other people outside of band
Q5 to be on time for rehearsals
Q6 to figure out how to solve musical problems
Q7 to value the opinion of other people
Q8 to read music
Q9 to work hard towards goals
Q10 to realize that I do not need to play my instrument well in order to play
with the band
Q11 to realize that playing wrong notes can sometimes be funny
Q12 to realize that the band can achieve more by working together
Q13 to play music with other people
Q14 value the efforts of other bands at performances
37
Q15 to figure out how to set clear goals for myself
Q16 to realize that there are some more efficient and some less efficient ways
to practice
Q17 to be a more responsible person
Q18 to appreciate and value music from different cultures
Table 2 – Continued – Statements in Questionnaire
Q19 realize that musical mistakes can be covered up by playing softer
Q20 to think about what the band director can do to help the band sound better
Q21 to consider how the band could improve
Q22 to listen to what other teachers and adults say
Q23 to practice on my own
Q24 to manage my time in order to be well prepared for rehearsals
Q25 to realize there are ways to get out of learning all the music
Q26 to be more expressive by playing dynamics
Q27 to think about how to influence attitudes of band members
Q28 to organize my sheet music so that I have it in order for class
Table 2 – Continued – Statements in Questionnaire
Q29 to be respectful towards others
Q30 to realize that playing in tune is not important
Q31 to realize that I can play most of the band music without practicing on my
own
Q32 to play with better tone
Q33 to think critically about what my band director says
Q34 to help other people in band and outside of band when they are in need
Q35 to take the time to listen to other students
Q36 to be patient and honest with others
Q37 to think about how to motivate myself and others
Q38 to realize that band is mostly about playing correct notes
Q39 to realize that watching the conductor is important
Q40 to work with others towards improving the musical standard of the band
In order to minimize student perception of the intent of the study, the
statements included musical and non-musical considerations. The statements
relating to non-musical aspects encompassed three categories: responsibility,
38
critical thinking, and respect. The music category was utilized as a comparative
category in the analysis of the data. A fifth category of negative expectations was
included in order to allow students the possibility of completing some statements
with the options of ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’. The negative expectations
category was not utilized in the analysis of data. The questionnaire was
considered a time-efficient means for obtaining data on student and director
perceptions. The content and sequence was determined by 1) using the Hilton
(1980, 1984) and Mills (1988) surveys as reference constructs, 2) creating a
questionnaire draft referencing appropriate publication (Bradburn, Sudman, and
Wansink, 2004) that was meant to address the intent of the study, and 3), revising
the draft based on input from dissertation committee members and graduate music
education students from the University of California Thornton School of Music
until a final version was agreed upon by the principal investigator and the
dissertation committee chair (Dr. Sheila Woodward). The content and sequence
of the questions for both the director and students was the same. The terminology
used on the questionnaires was at a relevant level for high school students. There
was an additional open-ended narrative question at the end of the Likert
statements that asked 1) the students; In a few words, what is one of the most
important things you have learned by participating in band?, and 2) the directors;
In a few words, what is one of the most important things you have taught your
band students?
39
The five categories of responsibility, critical thinking, respect, music, and
negative expectations were dispersed throughout the questionnaire. While
overlap of some categories may be evident, each question was intended to focus
on one of the five categories (Appendix F). Table 3 lists the questions for the
non-musical outcomes in their designated categories. Table 4 lists the questions
for the musical outcomes and negative expectations categories.
40
Table 3
Statements in Non-Musical Outcomes Categories
Responsibility
Q5 to be on time for rehearsals
Q9 to work hard towards goals
Q12 to realize that the band can achieve more by working together
Q17 to be a more responsible person
Q24 to manage my time in order to be well prepared for rehearsals
Q28 to organize my sheet music so that I have it in order for class
Q34 to help other people in band and outside of band when they are in need
Q40 to work with others towards improving the musical standard of the band
Critical Thinking
Q2 to think about what makes music sound good or bad
Q6 to figure out how to solve musical problems
Q15 to figure out how to set clear goals for myself
Q20 to think about what the band director can do to help the band sound better
Q21 to consider how the band could improve
Q27 to think about how to influence attitudes of band members
Q33 to think critically about what my band director says
Q37 to think about how to motivate myself and others
Respect
Q4 to get along with other people outside of band
Q7 to value the opinion of other people
Q14 to value the efforts of other bands at performances
Q18 to appreciate and value music from different cultures
Q22 to listen to what other teachers and adults say
Q29 to be respectful towards others
Q35 to take the time to listen to other students
Q36 to be patient and honest with others
Q40 to work with others towards improving the musical standard of the band
41
Table 4
Statements in Musical Outcomes and Negative Expectations Categories
Musical
Q1 to play scales better
Q8 to read music
Q13 to play music with other people
Q16 to realize that there are some more efficient and some less efficient ways
to practice
Q23 to practice on my own
Q26 to be more expressive by playing dynamics
Q32 to play with better tone
Q39 to realize that watching the conductor is important
Negative Expectations
Q3 to realize that they can sometimes play wrong notes without the band
director noticing
Q10 to realize that I do not need to play my instrument well in order to play
with the band
Q11 to realize that playing wrong notes can sometimes be funny
Q19 to realize that musical mistakes can be covered up by playing softer
Q25 to realize there are ways to get out of learning all the music
Q30 to realize that playing in tune is not important
Q31 to realize that I can play most of the band music without practicing on my
Own
Q38 to realize that band is mostly about playing correct notes
42
Question one was placed under the music category. This category focused
on topics dealing with musical skill and musicianship. Question two was placed
under the critical thinking category. While it appears to be a question about
music, it is the phrase “to think about . . .” that places the question in the critical
thinking category. Question three was placed under the negative expectations
category even though the phrase “to realize . . .” has implications of critical
thinking. Question four was placed under the respect category. Getting along
with other people was considered an action that demonstrates respect. Question
five was placed under the responsibility. Being on time to rehearsals was
considered an action that demonstrates responsibility. Questions six was placed
under the critical thinking category. Figuring out problems, whether they or
musical or not, was considered to be a component of critical thinking. Question
seven was placed under the respect category. Valuing opinions of others was
considered to be a component of respect. Question eight was placed under the
music category. Question nine was placed under the responsibility category.
Working hard towards goals was considered to be an action that demonstrated
responsibility. Questions 10 and 11 were placed under the negative expectations
category. Question 12 was placed under the responsibility category. Working
together was considered an action that demonstrated responsibility. Question 13
was placed under the music category. Question 14 was placed under the respect
category. Valuing the efforts of other bands was considered a component of
43
respect. Question 15 was placed under the critical thinking category. Figuring
out how to set goals was considered a component of critical thinking. Question
16 was placed under the music category. Question 17 was placed under the
responsibility category. This was the only question were the term ‘responsible’
was presented. Question 18 was placed under the respect category. Appreciating
and valuing music from different cultures were considered components of respect.
Question 19 was placed under the negative expectations category. Questions 20
and 21 were placed under the critical thinking category. Thinking about what the
band director can do to help the band sound better and considering how the band
could improve were both considered components of critical thinking. Question 22
was placed under the respect category. Listening to other teachers and adults was
considered an action that demonstrated respect. Question 23 was placed under the
music category. Question 24 was placed under the responsibility category.
Managing time in order to be prepared was considered an action that
demonstrated responsibility. Question 25 was placed under the negative
expectations category. Question 26 was placed under the music category.
Question 27 was placed under the critical thinking category. Thinking about how
to influence attitudes of band members was considered a component of critical
thinking. Question 28 was placed under the responsibility category. Organizing
sheet music to have it in order for class was considered and action that
demonstrated responsibility. Question 29 was placed in the respect category.
44
This was the only question were the term ‘respect’ was presented. Questions 30
and 31 were placed under the negative expectations category. Question 32 was
placed under the music category. Question 33 was placed under the critical
thinking category. This was the only question were the terms ‘critical’ and ‘think’
were presented together. Question 34 was placed under the responsibility
category. Helping other people was considered an action that demonstrated
responsibility. Questions 35 and 36 were placed under the respect category.
Taking time to listen, being patient, and being honest were all considered actions
that demonstrated respect. Question 37 was placed under the critical thinking
category. Thinking about how to motivate others was considered a component of
critical thinking. Question 38 was placed under the negative expectations
category. Question 39 was placed under the music category. Question 40 was
placed under the responsibility category. Working with others towards
improvement was considered an action that demonstrated responsibility.
Data Analysis
Preliminary analyses of the data included assessments of internal reliability using
a Cronbach’s alpha test (Cronbach, 1951) and descriptive statistics. The
descriptive statistics utilized each of the three non-musical categories, the music
category and the combination of all three non-musical categories as scales. The
negative expectations category was not analyzed. The mean scores of each
director were analyzed to determine placement in a high or low category of
45
awareness of the non-musical and musical scales. The pilot study demonstrated a
sufficient range in responses to place directors in a high or low category.
Subsequently, the high and low categories were defined in the final study using a
median split. T-tests were utilized to confirm that the two director groups were
significantly different in each of the five scales. All t-test were conducted on
summed mean scores. The mean scores were then divided by the number of items
in each construct to make the scores more meaningful to the reader: eight items
for the constructs of responsibility, critical thinking, respect, and music, and 24
items for the combined non-musical outcomes. The significance factor was set at
p = .05 in all tests. Following this, the sets of scores of the students from each
school were placed into the same categories as those of their director. Then the
scores of the students within each category were compared to the scores of the
other students for significant difference utilizing a standard t-test. A t-test was
repeated for each of the three non-musical scales, the combination of all three
non-musical scales, and the music scale. Additionally, the comments resulting
from the open ended question were categorized as focusing on musical, non-
musical, a combination of both musical and non-musical, other, or no comment
and a frequency count was implemented for the students and the directors.
Finally, a narrative description followed that described whether director
perceptions were reflected in student perceptions. It may be that director
perceptions are mostly very similar across categories, while student perceptions
46
differ strongly. Or the opposite may be indicated. On the other hand, director and
student perceptions may be parallel – either both mostly similar or both displaying
strong differences. This final narrative will aim to address the research questions
through conclusions, discussion, and recommendations.
47
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare student and
director perception of non-musical outcomes in school band programs in a
suburban setting. Twenty band directors and 1,111 students from high schools
within the geographical recruitment area of the Cerritos College District in the
County of Los Angeles completed questionnaires. Band directors’ scores were
analyzed to determine placement in a high or low category of perception of non-
musical outcomes. The student scores were placed in the same categories. The
scores of the students within each category were compared to the scores of
students from the other categories for significant difference utilizing a t-test. The
mean scores were then divided by the number of items in each construct to make
the scores more meaningful to the reader: eight items for the constructs of
responsibility, critical thinking, respect, and music, and 24 items for the combined
non-musical outcomes. The significance factor was set at p = .05 in all tests. The
research questions were as follows:
48
1. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of responsibility
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
2. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of critical thinking
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
3. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of respect
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
The null hypotheses for this study were as follows:
H
0
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of responsibility is
not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
H
1
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of critical thinking is
not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
H
2
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of respect is not
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
This chapter describes the results of the analyses for this purposeful
sampling descriptive study. The following sections will include a description of
the preliminary analyses that will explain process for assessing internal reliability,
process for splitting the data, confirming a difference between the two director
groups, and the descriptive statistics. The results that address each of the three
research questions will be presented, each in turn, based on the inferential
statistics. The hypothesis that accompanies each research question will be either
rejected or not rejected. Results will also be presented pertaining to perception of
49
music outcomes, referred to here as the music scale. This is included for
comparative purposes only. Additional results will be presented with regard to
the narrative responses on the questionnaires. The final open-ended question was
included to inform ideas for possible future qualitative research.
Preliminary Analyses
An assessment of the internal reliability of the instrument was deemed
appropriate by the principal investigator because the instrument was a new design
that had not previously been tested. Scales for responsibility, critical thinking,
respect, the combination measure of non-musical outcomes, and music were
created from the questionnaire items. Internal reliability was assessed for each of
these scales using Cronbach’s alpha. The Cronbach’s alpha test measured the
average of the inter-item correlations. Each question was correlated with every
other question in the scale as a measure of the cohesiveness of the scale (n=1131).
The responsibility scale utilized 1102 valid questionnaires. There were 29
invalid questionnaires for the responsibility scale, because of questions being left
blank. The questions computed in the responsibility scale included; Q5, Q9, Q12,
Q17, Q24, Q28, Q34, Q40 (Appendix F). The Cronbach’s alpha score for respect
was .83 (Table 5).
50
Table 5
Cronbach’s Alpha Score for Responsibility Scale
Inter-item correlation of
Q5, Q9, Q12, Q17, Q24, Q28, Q34, Q40 n
Cronbach's
Alpah
Based
on 8 Items
Cases Valid
Excluded
Total
1102
29
1131
.83
The critical thinking scale utilized 1110 valid questionnaires. There were
21 invalid questionnaires for the critical thinking scale because of questions being
left blank. The questions computed in the critical thinking scale included; Q2, Q6,
Q15, Q20, Q21, Q27, Q33, Q37 (Appendix F). The Cronbach’s alpha score for
critical thinking was .81 (Table 6).
Table 6
Cronbach’s Alpha Score for Critical Thinking Scale
Inter-item correlation of
Q2, Q6, Q15, Q20, Q21, Q27, Q33, Q37 n
Cronbach's
Alpah
Based
on 8 Items
Cases Valid
Excluded
Total
1110
21
1131
.81
51
The respect scale utilized 1116 valid questionnaires. There were 15
invalid questionnaires for the respect scale because of questions being left blank.
The questions computed in the respect scale included; Q4, Q7, Q14, Q18, Q22,
Q29, Q35, Q36 (Appendix F). The Cronbach’s alpha score for respect was .84
(Table 7).
Table 7
Cronbach’s Alpha Score for Respect Scale
Inter-item correlation of
Q4, Q7, Q14, Q18, Q22, Q29, Q35, Q36 n
Cronbach's
Alpah
Based
on 8 Items
Cases Valid
Excluded
Total
1116
15
1131
.84
The combination of the responsibility, critical thinking, and respect scales
was classified as a non-musical outcomes scale. The non-musical outcomes scale
utilized 1067 valid questionnaires. There were 64 invalid questionnaires for the
music scale because of questions being left blank. The questions that were
included in the non-musical outcomes scale included; Q2, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q9,
Q12, Q14, Q15, Q17, Q18, Q20, Q21, Q22, Q24, Q27, Q28, Q29, Q33, Q34, Q35,
52
Q36, Q37, Q40 (Appendix F). The Cronbach’s alpha score for non-musical
outcomes was .93 (Table 8).
Table 8
Cronbach’s Alpha Score for Non-Musical Outcomes Scale
Inter-item correlation of
Q2, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q9, Q12, Q14, Q15,
Q17, Q18, Q20, Q21, Q22, Q24, Q27, Q28,
Q29, Q33, Q34, Q35, Q36, Q37, Q40 n
Cronbach's
Alpah
Based
on 24 Items
Cases Valid
Excluded
Total
1067
64
1131
.93
The music scale utilized 1109 valid questionnaires. There were 22 invalid
questionnaires for the music scale because of questions being left blank. The
questions computed in the music scale included; Q1, Q8, Q13, Q16, Q23, Q26,
Q32, Q39 (Appendix F). The Cronbach’s alpha score for music was .76 (Table 9).
53
Table 9
Cronbach’s Alpha Score for Music Scale
Inter-item correlation of
Q1, Q8, Q13, Q16, Q23, Q26, Q32, Q39 n
Cronbach's
Alpah
Based
on 8 Items
Cases Valid
Excluded
Total
1109
22
1131
.76
The summary of the Cronbach’s alpha scores are listed in Table 10.
Table 10
Cronbach’s Alpha Scores: Summary
Scale Score
Music
Respect
Critical Thinking
Responsibility
Non-Musical Outcomes
.76
.84
.81
.83
.93
The results of the band director questionnaire in the pilot study were
analyzed to determine whether the directors’ responses allowed for the
categorizing of perceptions of non-musical outcomes. It was discovered that the
54
directors’ perceptions could be categorized into a high or medium category based
on their perception of non-musical outcomes. The categories were labeled as
“high” and “low” for ease of terminology recognition. To determine whether a
statistical difference existed between the two director groups in the final study, a
median split was used to separate the directors into two groups and then a t-test
was used to compare the mean scores in the “high” and “low” categories for each
scale.
A median split separated the directors’ scores into two equal categories
(high and low) for each of the scales in the final study. In cases where three or
more directors scored exactly at the median, these data were split based on the
combined non-musical outcomes score. The purpose of this procedure was to
respect the integrity of the data, the intent of the study, and to facilitate
approximately equal groups of directors in the two categories for each scale. The
median for the responsibility scale was 4.25. The median for the critical thinking
scale was 4.18. The median for the respect scale was 4.18. The median for the
three combined scores, labeled the “non-musical outcomes” scale was 4.18. The
median for the music scale was 4.37. The summary of the median values in each
scale for directors is listed in Table 11.
55
Table 11
Median Values for Directors by Scale
Responsibility 4.25
Critical Thinking 4.18
Respect 4.18
Non-Musical Outcomes 4.18
Music 4.37
Once the median values were established for each of the scales, the means
scores from the high category were compared to the means scores from the low
category in each of the five scales using t-tests. Each scale was compared
separately because the “high” and “low” designation changed for individual
directors on the respect, responsibility, and critical thinking scales, based on the
scale being analyzed. For example, a director could be placed in the high
category for the respect scale and be placed in the low category for the critical
thinking scale, based on the median value for the relevant scale. It should be
noted that while the numbers project a generally positive trend towards the
directors’ means scores being high, there were, nevertheless, two distinct director
groups in each of the categories: in the high director group, the mean score
always fell in each category from 4 and above. These mean scores can therefore
all be labeled as agreeing or strongly agreeing. The mean scores of directors
placed in the low group in each of the categories were always between 3 and 4,
56
except for music which was 4.15 (even higher). There were no mean scores for
any category below a 3, indicating that, on average, the directors in the low
category were unsure but certainly could not, on average, be said to be
disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. In addition the tendency towards high scores
of both the “low” and “high” director groups in the five scales resulted in a
negatively skewed distribution. Statistically, this meant that median scores could
be higher than the means scores.
The result of the t-test for means scores of the high and low categories for
directors in the responsibility scale was t = 5.42 with 20 data points (fully
completed questions within the scale). The results of the t-test test for the
responsibility scale indicated that p = .01, thus p < .05 (Table 12). The director
high and low categories for the responsibility scale were significantly different.
Table 12
T-test Results Comparing Director Scores for Responsibility Scale
Group n Mean S.D. t sig.(p)
__________________________________________________________________
High 11 4.59 .22
5.42 .01
Low 9 3.93 .31
The result of the t-test for means scores of the high and low categories for
directors in the critical thinking scale was t = 5.98 with 20 data points (fully
57
completed questions within the scale). The results of the t-test test for the critical
thinking scale indicated that p = .01, thus p < .05 (Table 13). The director high
and low categories for the critical thinking scale were significantly different.
Table 13
T-test Results Comparing Director Scores for Critical Thinking Scale
Group n Mean S.D. t sig.(p)
__________________________________________________________________
High 10 4.56 .23
5.98 .01
Low 10 3.88 .26
The result of the t-test for means scores of the high and low categories for
directors in the respect scale was t = 5.65 with 20 data points (fully completed
questions within the scale). The results of the t-test for the respect scale indicated
that p = .01, thus p < .05 (Table 14). The director high and low categories for the
respect scale were significantly different.
Table 14
T-test Results Comparing Director Scores for Respect Scale
Group n Mean S.D. t sig.(p)
__________________________________________________________________
High 9 4.48 .22
5.65 .01
Low 11 3.76 .32
58
The result of the t-test for means scores of the high and low categories for
directors in the combined scale for all three non-musical outcomes was t = 7.40
with 20 data points (fully completed questions within the scale). The results of
the t-test test for the non-musical outcomes scale indicated that p = .01, thus p
< .05 (Table 15). The director high and low categories for the non-musical
outcomes scale were significantly different.
Table 15
T-test Results Comparing Director Scores for Combined Non-Musical Outcomes
Scale
Group n Mean S.D. t sig.(p)
__________________________________________________________________
High 10 4.54 .18
7.40 .01
Low 10 3.86 .22
The result of the t-test for means scores of the high and low categories for
directors in the musical scale was t = 4.21 with 20 data points (fully completed
questions within the scale). The results of the t-test test for the music scale
indicated that p = .01, thus p < .05 (Table 16). The director high and low
categories for the music scale were significantly different.
59
Table 16
T-test Results Comparing Director Scores for Music Scale
Group n Mean S.D. t sig.(p)
__________________________________________________________________
High 10 4.55 .22
4.21 .01
Low 10 4.15 .19
A summary of the mean scores and the standard deviations for high and
low scoring directors, for each of the scales, is listed in Table 17.
Table 17
Director Means Scores for Each Scale
Scale:
High
Directors
Low
Directors
Mean Std. D n Mean Std. D n
Responsibility 4.59 .22 11 4.13 .31 9
Critical Thinking 4.56 .23 10 3.88 .26 10
Respect 4.48 .22 9 3.76 .32 11
Non-Musical
Outcomes 4.54 .18 10 3.86 .22 10
Music 4.55 .22 10 4.15 .19 10
60
Students were then coded to match their director’s score of “high” or
“low” for each of the scales. The result was a varying number of student
responses in each of the scales based on 1) placement with respective director in
the “high” or “low” group, and 2) the number of responses within each scale. The
number of student responses within each scale is summarized in Table 18.
Table 18
Number of Student Responses in High and Low Categories for Each Scale
High n Low n
Responsibility 681 401
Critical Thinking 649 441
Respect 533 578
Non-Musical 622 425
Music 514 575
Descriptive statistics were analyzed to examine the mean scores for
student scores for each of the five scales. The data was split for each scale so that
the mean of the students whose director scored in the high category on any given
scale could be compared to students whose director scored in the low category on
the same scale. In the responsibility scale, the student mean score for the high
category was 3.89 (n=681) with a standard deviation of .73 and the student mean
score for the low category was 3.91 (n=401) with a standard deviation of .66. In
the critical thinking scale, the student mean score for the high category was 3.84
(n=649) with a standard deviation of .66 and the student mean score for the low
61
category was 3.84 (n=441) with a standard deviation of .60. In the respect scale,
the student mean score for the high category was 4.14 (n=533) with a standard
deviation of 1.9 and the student mean score for the low category was 3.66 (n=578)
with a standard deviation of 1.1. In the non-musical outcomes category, the
student mean score for the high category was 3.83 (n=622) with a standard
deviation of .67 and the student mean score for the low category was 3.81 (n=425)
with a standard deviation of .60. In the music scale, the student mean score for
the high category was 4.14 (n=514) with a standard deviation of .55 and the
student mean score for the low category was 4.13 (n=575) with a standard
deviation of .57. A summary of the mean scores and the standard deviations for
students with both high and low scoring directors, for each of the scales, is listed
in Table 19. The lower means score in the high category for the non-musical
outcomes scale is a result of the responsibility, critical thinking, and respect scales
being combined from both the high and low categories. As an example, if
students were coded to match their director in the low category for the respect
scale, and high category for the critical thinking and responsibility scales, they
would receive a means score for the combined non-musical scale that is less than
the average of the combined respect, critical thinking, and responsibility means
scores when calculated in the high category alone.
62
Table 19
Student Mean Scores Split for Each Scale
Scale:
High
Directors
Groups
Low
Directors
Groups
Mean Std. D n Mean Std. D n
Responsibility 3.89 .73 681 3.91 .66 401
Critical Thinking 3.84 .66 649 3.84 .6 441
Respect 4.14 1.9 514 3.66 1.1 578
Non-Musical
Outcomes 3.83 .67 622 3.81 .6 425
Music 4.14 .55 514 4.13 .57 575
Research Question 1
Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of responsibility reflected
in the student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
Data gathered from the responses to the student questionnaire, as
expressed by high school students participating in the school band, indicate that
there is no significant difference between the perceptions of students of higher
scoring directors and students with lower scoring directors, within the scale of
responsibility. H
0,
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of
responsibility is not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical
outcome, was supported. The hypothesis was not rejected.
63
To answer Question 1, a t-test was utilized in comparing the difference
between the mean of the students whose director scored high on the responsibility
scale with the students of the directors that scored low on the same scale. The
result of the t-test for the responsibility scale was t = .39 with 1081 data points
(fully completed questions within the scale). The results of the t-test for the
responsibility scale indicated that p = .69, thus p > .05 (Table 20). Therefore,
band director perception of the non-musical outcome of responsibility is not
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
Table 20
T-test Results Comparing Student Scores for Responsibility Scale
Group n Mean S.D. t sig.(p)
__________________________________________________________________
High 681 3.89 .73
.39 N.S.
Low 401 3.91 .66
Research Question 2
Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of critical thinking
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
Data gathered from the responses to the student questionnaire, as
expressed by high school students participating in the school band, indicate that
there is no significant difference between the perceptions of students of higher
64
scoring directors and students with lower scoring directors, within the scale of
critical thinking. H
1,
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of
critical thinking is not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical
outcome, was supported. The hypothesis was not rejected.
To answer Question 2, a t-test was utilized in comparing the difference
between the mean of the students whose director scored high on the critical
thinking scale with the students of the directors that scored low on the same scale.
The result of the t-test for the critical thinking scale was t = .14 with 1089 data
points (fully completed questions within the scale). The results of the t-test test
for the critical thinking scale indicated that p = .88, thus p > .05 (Table 21).
Therefore, band director perception of the non-musical outcome of critical
thinking is not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
Table 21
T-test Results Comparing Student Scores for Critical Thinking Scale
Group n Mean S.D. t sig.(p)
__________________________________________________________________
High 649 3.84 .66
.14 N.S.
Low 441 3.84 .60
65
Research Question 3
Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of respect reflected in
student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
Data gathered from the responses to the student questionnaire, as
expressed by high school students participating in the school band, indicate that
there is a significant difference between the perceptions of students of higher
scoring directors and students with lower scoring directors, within the scale of
respect. H
2,
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of respect is
not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome, was not
supported. The hypothesis was rejected.
To answer Question 3, a t-test was utilized in examining the difference
between the mean of the students whose director scored high on the respect scale
with the students of the directors that scored low on the same scale. The result of
the t-test for the respect scale was t = 5.20 with 1110 data points (fully completed
questions within the scale). The results of the t-test for the respect scale indicated
that p = .01, thus p < .05 (Table 22). Therefore, band director perception of the
non-musical outcome of respect is reflected in student perception of the same
non-musical outcome.
66
Table 22
T-test Results Comparing Student Scores for Respect Scale
Group n Mean S.D. t sig.(p)
__________________________________________________________________
High 514 4.14 1.9
5.20 .01
Low 578 3.66 1.1
Music Scale Analysis
In order to disguise the focus of the study, so that participants would be
less aware of the intent of the researcher, some questions were posed which were
unrelated to the three categories and were restricted to musical learning. An
additional set of questions was also used to distract the participants from the focus,
which would have negative expectations. The latter set was not analyzed, but it
was considered of interest to analyze the results pertaining to the former (the
music learning). Data gathered from the responses to the student questionnaire, as
expressed by high school students participating in the school band, indicate that
there is no significant difference between the perceptions of students of higher
scoring directors and students with lower scoring directors, within the scale of
music. The music category was utilized as a comparative category in the analysis
of the data. A t-test was utilized in examining the difference between the mean of
the students whose director scored high on the music scale with the students of the
67
directors that scored low on the same scale. The result of the t-test for the music
scale was t = .51 with 1088 data points (fully completed questions within the
scale). The results of the t-test for the music scale indicated that p = .61, thus p
> .05 (Table 23).
Table 23
T-test Results Comparing Student Scores for Music Scale
Group n Mean S.D. t sig.(p)
__________________________________________________________________
High 514 4.14 .55
.51 N.S.
Low 575 4.13 .57
Narrative Responses on Questionnaire
Though not included in the data utilized to answer the research questions
or to address the hypotheses, for comparative reasons, descriptive statistics
regarding the narrative responses were computed. The wording on question 41
was: In a few words, what is one of the most important things you have learned
by participating in band? (The directors’ question was: In a few words, what is
one of the most important things you have taught your band students?) There was
no median split for this analysis because the data was not continuous. Responses
were categorized into five areas, based on the nature of the response. The five
categories for the responses include: 1 musical, 2 non-musical, 3 both musical and
68
non-musical, 4 other, and 5 no response. A frequency count for the directors
resulted in 5 responses for musical (25%), 6 responses for non-musical (30%), 5
responses for both musical and non-musical (25%), 3 responses for other (15%),
and 1 with no response (5%). A frequency count for the students resulted in 238
responses for musical (21.4%), 402 responses for non-musical (36.2), 58
responses for both musical and non-musical (5.2%), 235 responses for other
(21.2), and 178 with no response (16%). A summary of the frequency counts for
Q41 is listed in Table 24.
Table 24
Frequency Counts for Narrative Responses
Director
Frequency
Director
Percent
Student
Frequency
Student
Percent
musical
non-musical
both
other
no response
Total
5
6
5
3
1
20
25.0
30.0
25.0
15.0
5.0
100.0
238
402
58
235
178
1111
21.4
36.2
5.2
21.2
16.0
100.0
69
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Arguments have been made in the literature that some arts students and
teachers have become more content centered in learning and less centered on
developing some of the valuable life skills that would foster success in areas
related to a broad variety of human needs (Robinson, 2003; Haack, 1997). A
utilitarian philosophy of music education recognizes the value of non-musical
benefits that are achieved through musical activity (Elliott, 1995). Some
researchers specifically identify music education’s role in forwarding a social
agenda (Jorgenson, 2003; Woodford, 2005). McCarthy (1997), Elliott (1997),
Mark (2002), and Woodford (2005) advocate that music education professionals
should be addressing non-traditional concepts of utilitarian values in music
programs, such as mutual respect, humility, compassion, citizenship, critical
thinking, and social values. “The development of intellectual maturity and
identity based on personal integrity and moral character should be a primary goal
of all education, including music education, in democratic society” (Woodford,
2005, p.94). The attributes selected by the author to represent each of
Woodford’s three identified areas included: critical thinking as a component of
70
intellectual maturity; respect as a component of personal integrity; and
responsibility as a component of moral character.
In order to provide a brief entry into this field and inform further research
within the three identified areas as they relate to music education, this research
aimed to investigate links between current student and director perceptions of
non-musical outcomes of the band experience in the areas of responsibility,
critical thinking, and respect. Some current literature on this topic suggests that
the trend towards emphasizing life skills and values in curriculum is relevant
because the attributes of responsibility, critical thinking, and respect have been
categorized as essential life skills or values (McCarthy, 1997; Wanlass, 2000,
Woodford, 2005). A broad view of teaching and learning indicates that there is
documentation of educators who value both the academic and nonacademic
outcomes necessary for life success (Wanlass, 2000). An evaluation of an
accelerated/integrative learning model program in Arizona resulted in
recommendations that personal growth and life skills curriculum precede and/or
accompany academic curriculum (Vos-Groenendal, 1991). There have also been
studies that more specifically address the non-musical outcomes of the current
study (Hylton, 1980, 1984; Mills, 1988). Both the Hylton (1980, 1984) and Mills
(1988) studies have been cited in numerous studies that pertain to the fields of
perception of ensemble experience; perception of musical or non-musical
outcomes; and the perceptions of the meaning of the band or choral experience
71
(LaRue, 1986; Bell, 1986; Chiodo & Rothlisberger, 1995; 1997; Poulter, 1997;
Kempton, 2002; Kennedy, 2002). Each of these studies contributes to the body of
knowledge by addressing perceptions, meanings, or outcomes of the band or
choral experience as a component of the respective study. Recent investigations
continue to explore the benefits of non-musical outcomes (life skills) and lend
relevancy to the current study (Adderley, 2003; DeSilva, 2003; Abril, 2006; Arasi,
2006; Englehardt, 2005; Thiam, 2006; Campbell, Connell, and Beegle, 2007).
The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare student and
director perception of non-musical outcomes in school band programs in a
suburban setting. The design was a purposeful sampling descriptive study. There
was a comparison between various categorized student groups, based on the level
of director perceptions of non-musical outcomes linked to band participation. A
pilot study was administered at one school outside of the geographical location of
the intended study to refine the administrative procedures and the terminology of
the student questionnaire. In addition, 10 band directors from outside the area
were recruited to test the design and administration of the band director
questionnaire. Twenty band directors and 1,111 students from high schools
within the geographical recruitment area of the Cerritos College District in the
County of Los Angeles completed questionnaires in the final study. The data
collecting instrument was a Likert-type questionnaire. The software utilized for
this study included the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and
72
Microsoft Office 2007. Cronbach’s alpha analyses were utilized to assess internal
reliability of the instrument. Band directors’ scores were analyzed to determine
placement in a high or low category of perception of non-musical outcomes.
Regardless of their scores, students were placed in the same categories as their
respective directors. The scores of the students within each category (high or
low) were then compared to the scores of students from the other category for
significant difference utilizing a t-test. The scores of the t-test were used to
address the research questions. The research questions were as follows:
1. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of responsibility
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
2. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of critical thinking
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
3. Is band director perception of the non-musical outcome of respect
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome?
The null hypotheses for the study were as follows:
H
0
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of responsibility is
not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
H
1
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of critical thinking is
not reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
H
2
Band director perception of the non-musical outcome of respect is not
reflected in student perception of the same non-musical outcome.
73
The results of a t-test indicated that band director perception of the non-
musical outcome of responsibility was not reflected in student perception of the
same scale. H
0
was not rejected. Secondly, the results of a t-test indicated that
band director perception of the non-musical outcome of critical thinking was not
reflected in student perception of the same scale. H
1
was not rejected. Thirdly,
the results of a t-test indicated that band director perception of the non-musical
outcome of respect was reflected in student perception of the same scale. H
2
was
rejected. This indicated that student and director perceptions of learning respect
through band experience were linked. In the comparative music scale, the results
of a t-test indicated that band director perception of the music variable was not
reflected in student perception of the same scale. However, the combined mean
scores of the “high” and “low” student groups for the music scale were higher
than the respect, responsibility, critical thinking, and non-musical outcomes scales.
The remainder of the chapter presents a short review of the major
conclusions, a discussion of the findings, and recommendations. The conclusions
will be organized by the research questions; results of a comparative question on
perception of music outcomes; results of the narrative responses to one open-
ended question; and results of the internal reliability of the test using a
Cronbach’s alpha. A discussion on the findings of the study will explore various
aspects of the study and the possibility of this study providing a basis for further
research on the inclusion and implementation of non-musical outcomes as
74
valuable components of school band curricula. Finally, recommendations for
further research will be presented.
Conclusions
Research Question 1 addressed band director perception of the non-
musical outcome of responsibility possibly being reflected in student perception
of the same non-musical outcome. Research Question 2 addressed band director
perception of the non-musical outcome of critical thinking possibly being
reflected in student perceptions of the same non-musical outcome. It was
observed that, regardless of their placement alongside their respective band
directors in the high or low category of perception for the given scale, the mean
difference of the student perception within each of these groups was not
statistically significant. This result suggests that the student perceptions for the
responsibility and critical thinking scales are not linked to the perceptions of the
directors.
Research Question 3 addressed band director perception of the non-
musical outcome of respect possibly being reflected in student perception of the
same non-musical outcome. The results reveal that students placed in the high
director group tended to have higher scores than students placed in the low
director group. This indicates that student and director perceptions of learning
respect through band experience are linked.
75
Although not answering one of the essential research questions, a scale
related to the perception of musical outcomes was also included in the study in
order to provide a means for comparison related to the descriptive statistics.
Despite finding no significant link between director and student perception, it
should be noted that mean scores for directors and students in this area were
amongst some of the highest for all participants. The analysis of the music scale
was also used as a comparative measure in the Cronbach’s alpha test for internal
reliability.
Finally, a narrative question was included not for analysis purposes, but to
provide ideas and indications for a possible future qualitative study in the area.
The results of the frequency counts indicate that, out of five areas into which
answers were categorized, non-musical outcomes were identified by both students
and directors as an important facet of band experience (30%-35%). However,
there were a high percentage of non-responses as well as answers that were not
specific enough to fall into either music or non-musical categories and needed to
be called ‘other’ responses.
The overall results of the internal reliability of the test using a Cronbach’s
alpha was very encouraging. The Cronbach’s alpha score for the music scale
was .76, with a score of .70 or higher being considered acceptable (Cronbach,
1951). The scales of responsibility, critical thinking, and respect received even
more robust scores, indicating that the averages of the inter-item correlations were
76
high. This meant that the questions within each scale appeared to be addressing
the same constructs. Also heartening was the score of .93 for the non-musical
outcomes scale. While it seems likely that combining three scales (constructs)
would lower the internal reliability scores, the result was the opposite. The score
indicates that the combination of the three scales did address the fourth overall,
and overriding, construct, of non-musical outcomes. The results of the internal
reliability scores support the intent of the questionnaire to investigate student and
director perception of non-musical outcomes in school band programs in a
suburban setting.
Discussion
Music outcomes receiving the highest scores
The most obvious discussion point relates to the mean scores of perception
regarding musical outcomes by both the directors and students, these being
amongst the highest. On further examination, it was evident that the mean scores
for students were clearly higher for perception of music outcomes than any non-
musical outcomes in both the high and low groups, apart from one mean score
which shared the top rating with perception of respect. With regard to the
directors, the perception of music outcomes had the highest mean score in the low
group. In the high group, the mean for the perception of music outcomes was
almost the same as the means for perception of responsibility and critical thinking.
77
It should be highlighted that the mean scores of the high and low director groups
regarding perception of music outcomes were both in the range between 4 and 5
(meaning that, on average, the scores reflect that the directors agree on perceiving
musical outcomes). In addition, the mean scores of the students grouped into the
two different categories were between 4 and 5 for the high and low group, also
indicating that, on average, the students agree that they perceive musical
outcomes from their band experience. This result is to be expected, as students
and directors clearly understand that their primary goal in music education is the
learning of music.
Perception of non-musical outcomes
The research in this study is not meant to diminish the importance of a
content-centered philosophy that has been long established and widely accepted.
Rather, credence is given to a philosophy of music education that is context-based,
recognizing that life impacts music and that music impacts life (Elliott, 1995;
Jorgensen, 2003). It is suggested by the researcher that a pedagogical framework
that has a synergistic adaptation of both a context and content based philosophy
might contribute towards a more holistic education for music students. It was
encouraging to observe that the mean scores for directors and students on the
perception of non-musical outcomes were between 3 and 5, meaning that none of
these reflected a perception of disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with a
78
perception of nonmusical outcomes. Certainly, some participants were unsure,
while others were in agreement and still others were in strong agreement
regarding their perception of non musical outcomes to the band experience. This
awareness is heartening and might be something to investigate further in research,
with reference to the integration of both musical and nonmusical goals into
curricular design, and the development of appropriate teaching strategies for
achieving those goals.
Directors scoring higher than students
Furthermore, it should be noted that the means scores for the directors
were higher than the student scores in all five areas, including the music, respect,
critical thinking, responsibility, and non-musical outcomes scales. This indicates
that the directors in this study perceive outcomes at a higher level than their
students. Is it possible that the directors’ perceptions are linked to experience and
training? Are the directors possibly more optimistic about their intentions for
their programs? This then leads to questions about whether directors are
effectively communicating their goals with students and effectively assessing the
attainment of those goals.
Absence of links between director and student scores
Since two of the three scales resulted in findings that supported the
possibility that band director perception is not reflected in student perception
79
regarding certain non-musical outcomes, it is suggested that there may be varying
reasons for these differences in perception. Further research might investigate
external factors that influence student perceptions, such as, directors, parents,
peers, or socio-economic status. Internal factors such as self-esteem, self-
motivation, and self-respect might also be investigated. We might also question
whether director perception may have any causal effect on student perception.
This leads to additional questions. Should perceptions of students and teachers be
aligned? Would alignment facilitate a more successful educational environment
in a band teaching experience?
Focus on respect construct
The statistically significant results for the construct of respect indicate that
student perception of acquiring respect as an outcome of band experience is
linked to director perception. This area of respect may be an important facet for
further specialized research. While the questions on the research instrument
pertained to respect shown towards others, these results possibly illuminate
respect as a key issue for adolescents. Certainly, the area of respect, as it relates
to self-identity and validation, is promoted in the literature as an important issue
for high school students (Bleiberg, 1994; Bonovitz, 2001; Powell, 2004; Ungar,
2004; Brown, 2005). In this aspect, band students may be no different from the
typical adolescent. The student means score for the respect scale in the high
80
category was identical to the student means score for the musical scale in the high
category. This could be further indication of the importance of respect as a
construct in the life of adolescents. The indication that band director perception
is linked to student perception in the area of respect also suggests that research
would be valuable regarding the influences that cause those perceptions, including
any causality of director perception on student perception. Should directors be
focusing especially on this issue of respect?
Ideas for qualitative research
The narrative responses provided an opportunity for the participants to
document, in their own words, outcomes that may or may not have been presented
in the questionnaire. While the intention was not to include this in the results, it
was hoped to obtain information for developing a possible future qualitative study
in the field. Analysis of the responses did, indeed, provide the researcher with an
interesting glimpse into a range of possible participant perceptions on important
facets learned in band. In addition, the data provided material for identifying
possible directions that might be followed in future investigations pertaining to
this topic. Non-musical outcomes were identified in the responses with a higher
frequency count than musical outcomes, thus contrasting with the other results
achieved in this investigation. However, it should be noted that the very high
incidence of non-responses as well as responses that could not be categorized as
81
identifying either musical or non-musical outcomes might have skewed the results.
This phenomenon also suggests that narrative questions in a qualitative study
would need careful consideration in order to elicit rigorous results. The range of
responses led the researcher to consider an extensive list of possible external and
internal factors that might have played a key role in the student and director
responses, such as community ethics, religious beliefs, school culture, peer
dynamics, family background, personality, and mood. Qualitative studies would
produce a more comprehensive view of influences and perceptions in this field.
Philosophical ideas needing practical frameworks
The concept of valuing both the academic and nonacademic outcomes
necessary for life success was the philosophical foundation for this study
(Wanlass, 2000). Typically, utilitarian values for music education programs are
recognized in civic, religious, political, and privately funded events that
incorporate some level of musical performance that facilitate the moving forward
of a social agenda (Elliott, 1995; Jorgenson, 2003; Woodford, 2005). The notion
that music can be utilized as a cross-disciplinary subject has also been discussed
as a utilitarian value for many years (Mark, 2002; Goldberg and Scott-Kassner,
2002). Philosophy in music education is ever-evolving and, in more recent
literature, we see a broader emphasis on the scope of meaning attributed to the
concept of ‘utilitarian functions’ (McCarthy, 1997; Elliott, 1997; Mark, 2002;
82
Woodford, 2005). These authors advocate that music education professionals
should be addressing non-traditional concepts of utilitarian values in music
programs, such as mutual respect, humility, compassion, citizenship, critical
thinking, and social values. There appears to be ample philosophical grounding
for the inclusion of non-musical outcomes as part of the band experience and
curriculum, but fewer formal articulations of practical frameworks for their
achievement.
Implications for research and practice
This study indicates the need for research that might possibly lead to
implications for band directors such as the addressing of non-musical goals in
curricular design and modifying teaching strategies. In addition, implications
might be explored in developing strategies for promoting student perception of
non-musical outcomes so that they might better understand the social implications
and relevance of their music education programs and how these contribute to their
overall educational experience. Colleges might consider greater inclusion of
issues related to holistic education in their teacher education programs. It is
anticipated that a body of research would indicate a wide range of suggestions for
practical application in the field and possibly influence current trends by
promoting a holistic approach to music education that focuses not only on
83
developing musicianship, but on developing whole individuals with the essential
life skills to function effectively within society.
Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare student and
director perception of non-musical outcomes in school band programs in a
suburban setting. While the research questions indicated conclusive results, more
questions arose and further research is suggested.
Based on the results, it is suggested that further research investigate
influences on student and director perceptions of non-musical outcomes in band
experience, and possible causality between the two. Furthermore, it appears that
respect, as a construct, could be an area of special focus, seeing as there appears
to be a link between student and director perceptions of this. Further research
could aim at not only supporting the findings in this study, but examining a wide
variety of non musical outcomes through both qualitative and quantitative
methods.
Recommendations are also made based on the open-ended question which
allowed participants to identify what they considered to be the most important
thing learned in the band experience. While the results of the narrative responses
were not included in addressing the research questions, the responses led the
researcher to believe that there was strong potential for qualitative studies using a
range of carefully-designed, open-ended questions. It is suggested that a factoral
84
analysis could be utilized on the narrative responses in this study to create an
instrument for further research on the topic in this study.
Future research might investigate integrating non-musical goals into
curricular design; the implementation of those goals through particular teaching
strategies and means to assess their attainment. Furthermore, the researcher
advocates investigation of the impact of teacher training in these areas. These
recommendations are supported by theories on applying a synergistic approach
towards developing musical and non-musical outcomes in the music education
experience (Haack, 1997; Reimer, 2003). It is hoped that this study and the
recommendations set forth will encourage a broader-based platform that is
endorsed in numerous studies, concerning non-academic outcomes in music
education curricula (LaRue, 1986; Bell, 1986; Chiodo, 1997; Poulter, 1997;
Kempton, 2002; Kennedy, 2002; Adderley, 2003; Abril, 2006, Thiam, 2006).
Combined with further research in the field, this study might contribute towards
building awareness of the multi-facetted functions of music education by
recognizing “. . . a broader more holistic and timely rationale for music education
in contemporary society” (Haack, 1997, p.86).
85
References
Abril, C. R., & Gault, B. M. (2006). The state of music in the elementary school:
The principal's perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(1), 6.
Adderley, C., Kennedy, M., & Berz, W. (2003). "A home away from home:" The
world of the high school music classroom. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 51(3), 190.
Allen, T. (2004). Recipe for success: Enthusiasm is the key ingredient for the life
skills students at Jacob Hespeler Secondary. The end product? Self-respect
and a little independence. Canadian Living, 29(10), 167.
Arasi, M.T. (2006). Adult reflections on a high school choral music program:
Perceptions of meaning and lifelong influence. (Ph. D., Georgia State
University).
Battersby, S. (1994). The perceived benefits of competitions/contests for choral
directors and students in the tri-state area. (Ed. D., Columbia University
Teachers College).
Bell, J.R. (1986). The high school band: Instructional tasks, administrative tasks,
and terminal outcomes. (Ed. D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
Best, J. (2006). Research in education, 10
th
ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Birge, E. (originally 1928, reissued 2007) History of public school music in the
United States. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.
Bleiberg, E. (1994). Normal and pathological narcissism in adolescence.
American Journal of Psychotherapy, 48(1), 30.
Bonovitz, C. (2001). Treating abused adolescents. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 61(2), 205.
Bradburn, N., Sudman, S., and Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The
definitive guide to questionnaire design – for market research, political polls,
and social and health questionnaires. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
86
Brown, D.F. (2005). The Significance of Congruent Communication in Effective
Classroom Management. The Clearing House, 79(1), 12.
Campbell, P. S., Connell C., and Beele, A. (2007). Adolescents’ expressed
meanings of music in and out of school. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 55(3), 220.
Chiodo, P. A. (1997). The development of lifelong commitment: A qualitative
study of adult instrumental music participation. (Ph. D., State University of
New York at Buffalo).
Clayton, M., Herbert, T., and Middleton R. (2003). The cultural study of music, a
critical introduction. New York, NY: Routledge
Colwell, R. (1998). A long trail awinding: Issues, interests, and priorities in arts
education research. Arts Education Policy Review, 99(5), 21.
Colwell, R. (2000). Music education in 2050. Arts Education Policy Review,
99(2), 29.
Consortium of National Arts Education Associations (1994). National Standards
for Arts Education: what every young American should know and be able to
do in the arts. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Creswell, J. (2004). Educational research, 2
nd
ed. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches, 2
nd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
DeSilva, D. A. (2003). Perceptions of youth leadership life skills development: A
comparison of high school FFA completers and non-FFA members in first
year community college agricultural programs. (Ed. D., California State
University, Fresno and University of California, Davis).
Devall, E. L. (2004). Positive parenting for high-risk families. Journal of Family
and Consumer Sciences, 96(4), 22.
87
Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music Matters; A New Philosophy of Music Education. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, D. J (Ed.). (2005). Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, D. J. (1997). The moving mosaic: Music education and the post modern
world. In R. R. Rideout and S. J. Paul (Eds.), Innovations in music teacher
education.
Ellis, A. K., & Fouts, J. T. (2001). Interdisciplinary curriculum: The research base.
Music Educators Journal, 87(5), 22.
Englehardt, P. O. (2005). The effect of the Yamaha music in education keyboard
instructional approach on the musical and nonmusical outcomes of middle
school students. (Ph. D., University of Miami).
Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to
paper. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gall, M. D. and Gall, J. P. (2006). Educational research: An introduction, 8
th
ed.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Goldberg, M. and Scott-Kassner, C. (2002). Teaching Other Subjects Through
Music. In: Colwell and Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on
music teaching and learning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Haack, P. (1997). Toward a Socio/Functional Music Eduation. In R. R. Rideout
(Ed.), On the Sociology of Music Education. Norman, OK: University of
Oklahoma.
Hinckley, J. (2000). Music Matters. Music Educators Journal, 86(5), 6-7.
Hylton, J. B. (1980). The meaning of the high school choral experience and its
relationship to selected variables. (Ed. D., Pennsylvania State University).
Hylton. J. B. (1984). Dimensionality in the meaning of high school choral
singing experience; A reexamination. Missouri Music Educators Association,
Osage Beach, MO.
88
Jorgensen, E. R. (1995). Justifying music instruction in American public schools:
A historical perspective. Arts Education Policy Review, 96(6), 31.
Jorgensen, E. (2003). Transforming music education. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Kaplan, M. (1997). Sociology and music education: Issues and connections. In R.
R. Rideout (Ed.), On the sociology of music education. Norman, OK:
University of Oklahoma.
Keene, J. (1987). A history of music education in the United States. Hanover and
London: University Press of New England.
Kempton, R. S. (2002). Music, family, mission and meaning: A qualitative study
of the Ricks College choral experience. (D.M.A., Arizona State University).
Kennedy, M. A. (2002). “It’s cool because we like to sing:” Junior high school
boys’ experience of choral music as an elective. Research Studies in Music
Education, 18, 24-34.
Lapka, C. M. (2005). A case study of the integration of students with disabilities
in a secondary music ensemble. (Ed. D., University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign).
Larue, P. J. (1986). A study to determine the degree of consensus regarding
outcomes of band participation and the competitive elements in band
programs among band directors, band members and members of parent
booster groups. (Ed. D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
Laautzenheiser, T. (2005). Music advocacy and student leadership. Chicago, IL:
GIA Publications.
Madsen, C. K. and Madsen, C. H. (1970). Experimental research in music.
Englewoods Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Madsen, C. K. and Moore, R. S. (1978). Experimental research in music:
Workbook in design and statistical tests. Raleigh, NC: Contemporary
Publishing Company of Raleigh, Inc.
Mark, M. L. and Gary, C. L. (1999). A history of American music education. 2
nd
Ed. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing.
89
Mark, M. L. (2002). Non-musical outcomes of music education: Historical
considerations. In Colwell and Richardson (eds.), The new handbook of
research on music teaching and learning. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
McCarthy, M. (1997). The foundations of sociology in American music
education (1900-1935). In R. R. Rideout (Ed.), On The Sociology of Music
Education. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.
Mills, D. L. (1988). The meaning of the high school band experience and its
relationship to band activities. (Ph. D., University of Miami).
Music Educators National Conference (1996). Performing with understanding:
the challenge of the national standards for music education. Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Ogden, E. H. (2007). Complete your dissertation or thesis in two semesters or
less. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield publishers.
Petress, K. (2005). The importance of music education. Education, 126(1), 112.
Petten, C. (2005, May). Holistic approach taken to life skills training.
Windspeaker, . 21.
Phelps, R. (2005). A guide to research in music education, 5
th
ed. Langham,
Maryland: Scarecrow Press.
Poulter, P. S. (1997). A study of the factors which influence collegiate choral
ensemble participation by non-music majors at six state supported universities
in Illinois. (Ed. D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
Powell, K. C. (2004). Developmental psychology of adolescent girls: conflicts
and identity issues. Education, 125(1), 77.
Reimer, B., Ed. (2000). Performing with understanding: the challenge of the
national standards for music education. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education, advancing the vision, 3
rd
ed.
New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
90
Rideout, R. R. (1997). Antecedents to a sociology of music education. In: R. R.
Rideout (Ed.), On the sociology of music education. Norman, OK:
University of Oklahoma.
Rideout, R R. (Ed.). (1997). On the sociology of music education. Norman, OK:
University of Oklahoma.
Rideout, R. R. and Stephen J. P., (Eds.). (1997). Innovations in music teacher
education. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.
Roberts, B. A. (1997). The sociological grid to curriculum inquiry in music
education. In R. R Rideout (Ed.), On the sociology of music education.
Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.
Robinson, M. R. (2003). The effects of socialization through the arts: Teaching
life skills strategies to youth in West Las Vegas. (Ed. D., University of
Nevada, Las Vegas).
Rothlisberger, D. J. (1995). The impact of high school band on student education
as perceived by band students, band directors, and building level
administrators. (Ed. D., East Texas State University).
Siverson, G. W. (1990). An examination of the extent to which senior high school
band programs reflect aesthetic and utilitarian goals. (Ph.D., University of
Miami).
Thiam, P. B. (2006). Effects of school band experience on the motivation of high
school students. (Ed. D., University of San Francisco).
Ungar, M. (2004). The importance of parents and other caregivers to the
resilience of high risk adolescents. Family Process, 43(1), 23.
Vos-Groenendal, J. J. (1991). An accelerated/integrative learning model program
evaluation based on participant perceptions of student attitudinal and
achievement changes. (Ed. D., Northern Arizona University).
Wanlass, Y. (2000). Broadening the concept of learning and school competence.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 513.
White, D. H. (1998). The impact of co-curricular experience on leadership
development. (Ed. D., East Tennessee State University).
91
Woodford, P. G. (2005). Democracy and music education: Liberalism, ethics,
and the politics of practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press
Woodford, P. G. (2005). Reclaiming a democratic purpose for music education.
In R. R. Rideout (Ed), Sociology of Music Education Symposium IV:
Proceedings from The Music Education Symposium at the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Zdzinski, S. F. (1993). Relationships among parental involvement, selected
student attributes, and learning outcomes in instrumental music. (Ph. D.,
Indiana University).
92
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Note: The questionnaire that was distributed during the study utilized 12 point
Times New Roman font for the entire document and was printed on one page of
legal sized paper. Appendix A has been reformatted to fit the letter size paper
requirement. Content has been unchanged.
Band Student Questionnaire
Please do not write your name anywhere on this questionnaire. There are no right
or wrong answers. Your HONEST opinion is most important. Your band
director will not see your responses.
Please circle the number that best answers how you feel about the following
statement
Participating in band has helped me . . . Strongly Dis Not Strongly
Disagree Agree Sure Agree Agree
1. to play scales better 1 2 3 4 5
2. to think about what makes music sound good or bad 1 2 3 4 5
3. to realize that they can sometimes play wrong notes
without the band director noticing 1 2 3 4 5
4. to get along with other people outside of band 1 2 3 4 5
5. to be on time for rehearsals 1 2 3 4 5
6. to figure out how to solve musical problems 1 2 3 4 5
7. to value the opinion of other people 1 2 3 4 5
8. to read music 1 2 3 4 5
9. to work hard towards goals 1 2 3 4 5
10. to realize that I do not need to play my instrument well
in order to play with the band 1 2 3 4 5
11. to realize that playing wrong notes can sometimes be funny 1 2 3 4 5
12. to realize that the band can achieve more by working 1 2 3 4 5
together 1 2 3 4 5
13. to play music with other people 1 2 3 4 5
14. to value the efforts of other bands at performances 1 2 3 4 5
93
15. to figure out how to set clear goals for myself 1 2 3 4 5
16. to realize that there are some more efficient and some less
efficient ways to practice 1 2 3 4 5
17. to be a more responsible person 1 2 3 4 5
18. to appreciate and value music from different cultures 1 2 3 4 5
19. to realize that musical mistakes can be covered up by
playing softer 1 2 3 4 5
20. to think about what the band director can do to
help the band sound better 1 2 3 4 5
21. to consider how the band could improve 1 2 3 4 5
22. to listen to what other teachers and adults say 1 2 3 4 5
23. to practice on my own 1 2 3 4 5
24. to manage my time in order to be well
prepared for rehearsals 1 2 3 4 5
25. to realize there are ways to get out of learning all the music 1 2 3 4 5
26. to be more expressive by playing dynamics 1 2 3 4 5
27. to think about how to influence attitudes of band
members 1 2 3 4 5
28. to organize my sheet music so that I have it in order
for class 1 2 3 4 5
29. to be respectful towards others 1 2 3 4 5
30. to realize that playing in tune is not important 1 2 3 4 5
31. to realize that I can play most of the band music without
practicing on my own 1 2 3 4 5
32. to play with better tone 1 2 3 4 5
33. to think critically about what my band director says 1 2 3 4 5
34. to help other people in band and outside of
band when they are in need 1 2 3 4 5
35. to take the time to listen to other students 1 2 3 4 5
36. to be patient and honest with others 1 2 3 4 5
37. to think about how to motivate myself and others 1 2 3 4 5
38. to realize that band is mostly about playing correct notes 1 2 3 4 5
39. to realize that watching the conductor is important 1 2 3 4 5
40. to work with others towards improving the musical
standard of the band 1 2 3 4 5
In a few words, what is one of the most important things you have learned by
participating in band?
__________________________________________________________________
THANK YOU!!
94
APPENDIX B
Note: The questionnaire that was distributed during the study utilized 12 point
Times New Roman font for the entire document and was printed on one page of
legal sized paper. Appendix B has been reformatted to fit the letter size paper
requirement. Content has been unchanged.
Band Director Questionnaire
Please do not write your name anywhere on this questionnaire. There are no right
or wrong answers. Your HONEST opinion is most important.
Please circle the number that best answers how you feel about the following
statement
My perception is that participating in band Strongly Dis- Not Strongly
has helped my students . . . Disagree Agree Sure Agree Agree
1. to play scales better 1 2 3 4 5
2. to think about what makes music sound good or bad 1 2 3 4 5
3. to realize that they can sometimes play wrong notes
without the band director noticing 1 2 3 4 5
4. to get along with other people outside of band 1 2 3 4 5
5. to be on time for rehearsals 1 2 3 4 5
6. to figure out how to solve musical problems 1 2 3 4 5
7. to value the opinion of other people 1 2 3 4 5
8. to read music 1 2 3 4 5
9. to work hard towards goals 1 2 3 4 5
10. to realize that they do not need to play their instruments
well in order to play with the band 1 2 3 4 5
11. to realize that playing wrong notes can sometimes be funny 1 2 3 4 5
12. to realize that the band can achieve more by working
together 1 2 3 4 5
13. to play music with other people 1 2 3 4 5
14. to value the efforts of other bands at performances 1 2 3 4 5
15. to figure out how to set clear goals for themselves 1 2 3 4 5
16. to realize that there are some more efficient and some less
efficient ways to practice 1 2 3 4 5
17. to be a more responsible person 1 2 3 4 5
18. to appreciate and value music from different cultures 1 2 3 4 5
19. to realize that musical mistakes can be covered up by
playing softer 1 2 3 4 5
20. to think about what the band director can do to
95
help the band sound better 1 2 3 4 5
21. to consider how the band could improve 1 2 3 4 5
22. to listen to what other teachers and adults say 1 2 3 4 5
23. to practice on their own 1 2 3 4 5
24. to manage their time in order to be well
prepared for rehearsals 1 2 3 4 5
25. to realize there are ways to get out of learning all the music 1 2 3 4 5
26. to be more expressive by playing dynamics 1 2 3 4 5
27. to think about how they can influence attitudes of band
members 1 2 3 4 5
28. to organize their sheet music so that they have it in order
for class 1 2 3 4 5
29. to be respectful towards others 1 2 3 4 5
30. to realize that playing in tune is not important 1 2 3 4 5
31. to realize that they can play most of the band music
without practicing on their own 1 2 3 4 5
32. to play with better tone 1 2 3 4 5
33. to think critically about what their band director says 1 2 3 4 5
34. to help other people in band and outside of
band and when they are in need 1 2 3 4 5
35. to take the time to listen to other students 1 2 3 4 5
36. to be patient and honest with others 1 2 3 4 5
37. to think about how to motivate themselves and others 1 2 3 4 5
38. to realize that band is mostly about playing correct notes 1 2 3 4 5
39. to realize that watching the conductor is important 1 2 3 4 5
40. to work with others towards improving the musical
standard of the band 1 2 3 4 5
In a few words, what is one of the most important things you have taught your
band students?
__________________________________________________________________
________________
THANK YOU!!
96
APPENDIX C
Script for Administering of Questionnaire
_____Introduce myself and thank the participants in advance for their
participation
_____Explain to the participants the purpose of my visit: Generalize and
emphasize the importance of their input and honesty.
_____Explain to the participants the surveys are strictly confidential. No names
are to be written on the survey. The band director will not be in the room and will
not collect or see the surveys. I will not review the surveys until after I leave
campus.
_____Explain additional protocol, including; participation and withdrawal, non-
payment, risks and benefits, and procedure.
_____Participants should think about each question before answering.
_____No talking or sharing answers, the room must remain silent until the last
person is finished
_____Explain researcher responsibilities: 1) make sure that students are not
sharing answers, talking, looking around, etc. 2) make sure that surveys are placed
face down at designated area 3) when all surveys are completed, place surveys
(face down) in the unmarked envelop
_____Answer questions the participants may have about the survey
_____Ask band director to retire to their office
_____ Pass out pencils
_____ Pass out the surveys
_____ Collect surveys
_____ Thank participants again for their participation
97
APPENDIX D
University of Southern California
Thornton School of Music, Music Department
STUDENT AND DIRECTOR PERCEPTION OF
OUTCOMES IN SUBURBAN SCHOOL BAND PROGRAMS
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by David
Betancourt and Sheila Woodward, Ph.D., from the Music Department in the
Thornton School of Music at the University of Southern California. The results
will be analyzed in contribution towards a dissertation. You were selected as a
possible participant in this study because you currently participate in a high
school band program. Your participation is voluntary. Please take as much time
as you need to read the information sheet.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn
more about the perceptions of band students and directors on the outcomes of
participating in the band.
Completion and return of the questionnaire will constitute consent to
participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to fill out the questionnaire while
sitting at your seat, pencils will be provided. The questionnaire will take
approximately 10 minutes to complete. You will be asked questions regarding
how the band has helped in various situations. You will be asked whether you
agree or disagree with the statements. Your honest answer is appreciated. There
are no right or wrong answers.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks or discomforts in completing the questionnaire.
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
98
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study.
Results may provide a basis for further research on effective teaching in band.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The questionnaires will be anonymous. No information that is obtained in
connection with this study will be identified with you. You should not write your
name or any other identifying information on the questionnaire.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity, as your name will
not be collected during the research.
Only the researchers will have access to your responses. The band director,
administrators, other teachers, parents, etc., will not have access to your responses.
You will not be graded on your participation.
The data will be secured in a locked drawer in the researcher’s office.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You
may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain
in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to quietly study your band sheet music.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights
as a study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the
research team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event
99
the research staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact:
David Betancourt Sheila Woodward, Ph.D.
Director of Bands and Orchestra Interim Chair, Music Education
Department
Cerritos College Thornton School of Music
11110 Alondra Blvd. University of Southern California
Norwalk, CA 90650 3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 302c
dbetancourt@cerritos.edu Los Angeles, CA 90089
(562) 860-2451 ext. 2631 swoodwar@usc.edu
(213) 740-3011
Date of Preparation: May 8, 2008
UPIRB#: UP-08-00128
100
APPENDIX E
Site Permission Letter
June 3
rd
, 2008
UPIRB Chair
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB)
3601 Watt Way – GFS 306
Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695
RE: David Betancourt
STUDENT AND DIRECTOR PERCEPTION OF OUTCOMES
IN SUBURBAN SCHOOL BAND PROGRAMS
Dear UPIRB Chair:
This letter is to convey that I have reviewed the proposed research study entitled
“Student and Director Perception of Outcomes in Suburban School Band
Programs” being conducted by David Betancourt from the University of Southern
California. I understand that research activities as described in the proposed
research study will occur at [HIGH SCHOOL LISTED HERE]. I give permission
for the above investigator to conduct his study at this site. If you have any
questions regarding this permission letter, please contact me at [HIGH SCHOOL
PHONE NUMBER].
Sincerely,
[AUTHORIZED AGENT’S NAME
(E.G., SCHOOL PRINCIPAL, DIRECTOR, ETC.]
[INSERT TITLE]
101
APPENDIX F
Five Category Check List for Questionnaire
The five categories include: Responsibility, Critical Thinking, Respect, Music,
and Negative Expectations. Each question is categorized into one of the five
categories. There are eight questions of each category for a total of forty
questions.
My perception is that participating in band
has helped my students . . .
1. play scales better Music
2. what makes music sound good/bad Critical Thinking
3. can play wrong notes without band director noticing Negative Expectations
4. get along with other people outside of band Respect
5. be on time to rehearsals Responsibility
6. how to solve musical problems Critical Thinking
7. value the opinion of other people Respect
8. read music Music
9. work hard towards goals Responsibility
10.do not need to play instruments well to play in band Negative Expectations
11. playing wrong notes can sometimes funny Negative Expectations
12. the band can achieve more working together Responsibility
13. play music with other people Music
14. value the efforts of other bands at performances Respect
15. figure out how to set clear goals Critical Thinking
16. there are more/less efficient ways to practice Music
17. be a more responsible person Responsible
18. appreciate and value music from different cultures Respect
19. cover up musical mistakes by playing softer Negative Expectations
20. what band director can do to help bands sound Critical Thinking
21. think about how the band can improve Critical Thinking
22. listen to what other teachers and adults say Respect
23. practice on my own Music
24. manage time to be prepared for rehearsals Responsibility
25. ways to get out of learning all the music Negative Expectations
26. be more expressive by playing dynamics Music
27. how to influence attitudes of band members Critical Thinking
28. organize sheet music for class Responsibility
102
29. be respect towards others Respect
30. playing in tune is not important Negative Expectations
31. can play most band music without practicing Negative Expectations
32. play with better tone Music
33. think critically about what band director says Critical Thinking
34. help other people in/out of band when needed Responsibility
35. take time to listen to other students Respect
36. be patient and honest with others Respect
37. think about how to motivate myself and others Critical Thinking
38. band is mostly about playing the correct notes Negative Expectations
39. watching the conductor is important Music
40. work with others to improve band standard Responsibility
103
APPENDIX G
Curriculum Vita
David Betancourt
41 Sunset Ridge Drive
Pomona, CA 91766
(562) 860-2451 ext. 2631 (Office)
dbetancourt@cerritos.edu
Education Doctor of Musical Arts in Music Education, ABD, May 2007
University of Southern California, GPA: 3.83
Academic Field: Choral Music
Minor Fields: Orchestration/Jazz Studies
Master of Music, with honors (Summa Cum Laude), 1998,
Northern Arizona University, GPA: 4.0
Major: Instrumental Conducting
Bachelor of Music with honors (Magna Cum Laude), 1991,
Berklee College of Music, GPA: 3.7
Dual Major: Music Education/Performance (Trumpet)
Professional Director of Wind Ensemble, California State University, Los
Experience Angeles
2008-Present The CSULA Wind ensemble has been featured at regional and
local conferences and festivals. Comprised primarily of
undergraduate and graduate music majors, this ensemble is
dedicated to the performance of the highest caliber wind band
literature. Membership is by audition only.
Professional Director of Bands and Orchestra, Cerritos College
Experience Department Chair
1999-present Oversee faculty of twenty. Administrative duties include class and
faculty scheduling, events and promotions liaison, budget and
planning, recruitment, curriculum development, unit planning
development, community outreach, and general facilitator for
faculty and student projects.
Director, Symphonic Winds
I began this ensemble in the spring 2002 when the membership and
artistic level allowed for the addition of a high level concert group.
104
Comprised of music majors and non-majors as well as community
members and high school students, this advanced ensemble is
dedicated to the performance of the highest caliber wind band
literature. Membership is by audition only.
Director, Concert Band
Comprised of music majors and non-majors as well as community
members and high school students, these ensembles are dedicated
to the performance of standard band literature. Membership is by
audition only.
Director, Community Band
I began this summer ensemble in 2000 and have subsequently
garnered contracts with neighboring cities. Comprised of members
ranging in age from seven to seventy, the ensemble has tripled its
membership since its inception and continues to develop positive
relations with the surrounding communities.
Director, Jazz Ensemble
This group has become the showcase band for the regional high
school jazz festivals and has been asked to perform at local jazz
clubs and professional festivals. Comprised of music majors and
non-majors as well as community members and high school
students, this ensemble is dedicated to the performance of standard
and contemporary jazz ensemble literature. Membership is by
audition only.
Director, Orchestra
I began this group in the spring of 2001 with ten string players and
within two years was able to sustain a full orchestra. Comprised of
music majors and non-majors as 1999-present well as community
members and high school students, this group is dedicated to the
performance of standard orchestral literature. Membership is by
audition only.
Director, Community Orchestra
I began this summer ensemble in 2006. Comprised of members
ranging in age from seven to seventy, the ensemble was initiated as
a response to community and student interest. Performances
include community events and fairs during the summer months.
105
Director, Pep Band
Comprised of music majors and non-majors as well as community
members and high school students, this group functions as the
college athletic band, performing at all home football games. The
group also performs at various community functions on and off
campus.
Directed Study: Conducting
I initiated this course when I saw there was growing interest by the
students to pursue coursework beyond the college course offerings.
Students are afforded the opportunity to take conducting lessons
and conduct one of the large ensembles in rehearsal and concert
each semester.
Additional Responsibilities
· Professor for Music Fundamentals class
· Direct chamber ensembles
· Revise and create instrumental curriculum course offerings
· Maintain service on campus committees
· Formal evaluations of adjunct faculty
· Maintain visibility in surrounding communities
· Recruitment and advising
· Assist with administrative departmental duties as needed
· Attend departmental, division, campus-wide, and assigned
committee meetings
Professional Teaching Assistant, University of Southern California
Experience Student Teacher Supervisor
2003-2007 I have served as a supervisor of instrumental pre-service teachers
and as liaison between surrounding primary/secondary institutions
and the university. Though my assistantship has ended, I continue
to supervise instrumental pre-service teachers on a contracted
basis.
Coordinating Instructor of Rossier School of Education (USC)
Music Course
The Rossier School of Education requires all education majors to
take a music course entitled, Music in the Classroom, prepares
students in music fundamentals, history, an overview of resources
in music education, pedagogy, and methodology with an emphasis
106
on the approaches of Orff, Kodaly, and Dalcroze. I was appointed
as coordinator in an effort to unify the content, sequencing, and
methodology of the course.
Additional Responsibilities
· Search committee member for music education department
tenure track position
· Assistant in music education technology course
Professional Assistant Director of Bands, Northern Arizona University
Experience Assistant Director, Wind Symphony
1998-1999 NAU's top performing ensemble was comprised of music majors
and minors, with admittance by audition only. At the time, the
Wind Symphony was under the associate directorship of Dr.
Patricia Hoy and was recognized for its outstanding performances
of the highest caliber literature.
Director, Symphonic Band
Comprised of music majors and minors, admittance into this
ensemble was by audition only. Transcriptions and original works
for the wind band were studied and performed with emphasis on
music of historical and educational significance.
Professor of Conducting
Undergraduate instrumental conducting course for music majors.
Emphasized, technique, score analysis, historical perspectives,
transposition, performance practices, rehearsal techniques, etc.
This was a two-semester course that prepared music majors for
advanced study in conducting.
Director, Jazz II Big Band
This ensemble was by audition only with repertoire of the highest
collegiate level. Under my directions, the group added depth to the
jazz program by creating a second "power-house" band, thereby
allowing younger talented players to experience a high level of
performance and rehearsal techniques in the jazz idiom.
Assistant Director, Marching Band
Responsibilities centered around musical considerations such as
running sectionals, revoicing/rewriting parts as needed, training
107
group in correct articulations and style, blend and balance, as well
as teaching drill and running rehearsal.
Administrator, Student-Teacher Placement
Administered student-teacher placement for all vocal and
instrumental music education undergraduates. Frequent contact
with music educators throughout the 1998-1999 state of Arizona
both as facilitator and public relations liaison for the university. In
addition, I administered the placement of practicum observation
undergraduates into local primary and secondary school systems. I
supervised student teachers at the primary and secondary levels.
Additional Responsibilities
· Advised undergraduate music majors and minors
· Created a proposal and syllabus for practicum observation for
inclusion into the School of Performing Arts curriculum
· Directed chamber ensembles
· Directed jazz combo
· Recruit graduating high school students at formally sponsored
events
Professional Graduate Assistant, Northern Arizona University
Experience Director, All-Campus Band
1996-1998 I was responsible for all administrative aspects of organizing this
85-piece concert band as well as coordinating all rehearsals,
performances, and teaching assistant’s conducting assignments.
"The Lumberjack Band" more than doubled in size during my
tenure.
Director, Athletic Band
I was responsible for all administrative aspects as well as
coordinating over forty performances a year during the volleyball,
football, and basketball seasons. The unique repertoire and caliber
of this band attracted the most advanced players to participate.
Membership was by audition only.
Director, Jazz II Big Band
This faculty position was assigned to me outside my initial
responsibilities in an effort to develop a successful program
beyond the top performing jazz ensemble and because of my past
achievements in this field. Enrollment and interest increased as a
108
direct result of my involvement.
Additional Responsibilities
· Taught undergraduate conducting course
· Advised undergraduate music majors and minors
· Liaison between the Assistant Director of the School of
Performing Arts and the University community as well as the
city community in providing student musicians for various
functions
· Librarian/Instrument & Locker Coordinator for NAU Summer
Music Camp. The camp accommodated approximately 1,500
junior and senior high students each summer with over 40
ensembles and choirs
· Directed jazz combo and honor brass at NAU Summer Music
Camp
Professional Director of Instrumental Music, Hopedale High School,
Experience Hopedale, MA.
1991-1996 Director, Junior High and Senior High Concert Bands
Hopedale Jr./Sr. High School had a junior population of 150 and a
senior population of 300. At the start of my tenure, there was one
combined band of 35 members. In my final year, there were two
bands; junior high enrollment- 75, senior high enrollment- 65.
Director, Jr./Sr. High Jazz Ensemble
This ensemble was extra-curricular and met only once-a-week for
two hours. The 16-piece big band had an average of 8 junior high
members and was still able to compete with high schools four
times the student enrollment, capturing a silver medal at the 1996
state finals and the Sweepstakes Award at the Performing Arts
Music Festival in Williamsburg, VA.
Director, Elementary Concert Band
After one year in the Hopedale Public Schools System, I took on
all administrative and directorial responsibilities for this group in
an effort to rejuvenate the elementary program and provide a solid
foundation for the entire instrumental program. 90% of the entire
fifth and sixth grades were enrolled and maintained in this band
program during my tenure.
109
Additional Responsibilities
· Coordinated senior high trips to music festivals in Williamsburg,
VA. and Toronto
· Oversaw all aspects for the purchase of new uniforms
· Initiated and directed summer community jazz ensemble
· Coordinated trips to Boston Symphony Hall Performances
· Budget management, fundraising, recruiting, leadership for an
active parent organization, promotion and development, concert
publicity
Service Cerritos College
1999-Present · Teacher TRAK standards assessment, committee member (2007)
· Academic Excellence Recognition Program, Committee
Member (2005-present)
· VAPA “Arts for All” Initiative Committee, Paramount District,
College Representative (2006-present)
· Scholars Honors Program, Committee Member (2002-2006)
· Accreditation Committee Member, Cerritos College Mission
Statement (2005)
· Community Facilities Advisory Committee, Fine Arts
Representative (2005)
· General Bond Proposal, Committee Member (2004)
· Campus Transformation Committee, Fine Arts Faculty
Representative (2005-present)
· Tenured Choral Position Search, Committee Chair (2003)
· Teacher TRAC Program, Fine Arts Representative (2000-
present)
· Excellence in Teaching Conference, Presenter (2005)
· Leadership Conference, Guest Speaker (2004,2007)
· Coordinator for ArtsBridge program (2002)
· Program Review/Physics and Astronomy Department,
Committee Member (2001)
· Music Club, Advisor (2000-2005)
· 50
th
Anniversary Planning Committee, Member (2006)
· Initiate and maintain collaboration with Impulse Drum and Bugle
Corps (2000-2005)
· Initiate collaborations with area corporations and businesses to
garner funding for student scholarships; Yamaha, Northgate
Markets, Norwalk Rotary (2003-2005)
110
Service Northern Arizona University
1996-1999 · National Music & Education Conference, Committee Chair and
Coordinator
· School of Performing Arts Recruitment Committee, Member
· School of Performing Arts Previews Advisor
· Assistant Director of Bands Search Committee, Member
· Bands and Orchestra Administrative Assistant Search
Committee, Member
· Arizona Band and Orchestra Director's Regional Festival,
Coordinator
· Southwest Orchestra Association Festival, Coordinator
· Advisor to the Dean concerning lockers and instrument storage
facilities in a $90,000 renovation proposal
Service Hopedale Jr./Sr. High School
1994-1996 · Jr./Sr. High Principal Search Committee, Member
· Choral Director Search Committee, Member
· National Honor Society, Selection Committee Member
· Students Against Drunk Driving, Advisor
· Class of 2000, Advisor
· Hopedale Friends of Music Scholarship Committee, Advisor
Professional · 2006-Present International Association of Jazz Educators
Affiliations · 2006-Present Journal of Research in Music Education
· 1998-Present California Music Educators Association
· 1998-Present Music Association of California Community
Colleges
· 1998-Present Southern California School Band and
Orchestra Association
· 1998-Present Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society
· 1996-Present College Band Directors National
Association
· 1996-Present International Trumpet Guild
· 1991-Present Music Educators National Conference
Guest Conducting, Adjudication, and Clinician Lists Available Upon
Request
111
References Sheila C. Woodward Ph. D.
Chair, Music Education Department
Thornton School of Music
University of Southern California
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 302b
Los Angeles, California 90089-0851
Tel 213-740-3011
Fax 213-821-1865
sheila.woodward@usc.edu
Dr. Erlinda Martinez
President
Santa Ana College
Santa Ana, California
(714) 564-6975
martinez_erlinda@sac.edu
Dr. Barry Russell
Vice President of Instruction
College of the Siskiyous
Weed, California
Telephone: (530) 938-5201
Russell@siskiyous.edu
Dr. Patricia J. Hoy
Director, Rudi E. Scheidt School of Music
The University of Memphis
Memphis, TN 38152
Telephone: (901)678-3527
phoy@memphis.edu
Alan J. Hallback
Director of Bands
ABC Unified School District
Cerritos, California
(562) 926-5566 x24451
alanhallback@hotmail.com
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare student and director perception of non-musical outcomes in school band programs in a suburban setting. The study sample was recruited from high schools within the geographical recruitment area of the Cerritos College District in the County of Los Angeles. The design was a purposeful sampling descriptive study. The data collecting instrument was a Likert-type questionnaire that was tested with a Cronbach's alpha for internal reliability. Band director scores were analyzed to determine placement in a high or low category of perception of non-musical outcomes. Regardless of their scores, students were placed in the same categories as their respective directors. The scores of the students within each category (high or low) were then compared to the scores of students from the other category for significant difference utilizing a t-test. The fact that no statistical difference was observed between the student groups regarding the learning of responsibility and critical thinking through band experience indicates that student perceptions are not linked to the perceptions of their directors. However, the scores of student perception between the two groups related to the area of respect were significantly different. Results revealed that higher student scores linked to higher director scores and lower student scores linked to lower director scores. This indicates that student and director perceptions of learning respect through the band experience are linked. The theoretical significance of the findings is discussed. Results may provide a basis for further research on the inclusion and implementation of non-musical goals as valuable components of school band curricula.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Recent high school graduates' perceptions on their school experiences, musical lives and curriculum relevancy
PDF
The perception of high school instrumental music students regarding their musical leisure activities
PDF
Band instrument selection by middle and high school students in international schools: personality predictors and various influences
PDF
The effect of practicing music classroom procedures on the behavior of beginning band students
PDF
High school string orchestra students’ perceptions of wellness and its implications on musical performance
PDF
A case study of teacher’s perception of experiences in a teacher-training program at LA Opera
PDF
A crafted intergenerational district band: A bounded case study of participant experiences
PDF
Exploring the contributions of teacher authenticity in two high school band programs in Greater Los Angeles
PDF
A comparison of improvements in sight reading pitch accuracy in beginning instrumentalists after treatment
PDF
Musical self-efficacy of graduate students in South Korea and the United States
PDF
Transformation of habitus and social trajectories: a retrospective study of a popular music program
PDF
Forming relationships: investigating social capital in a low socio-economic school music program
PDF
Incorporating music composition in middle school band rehearsals
PDF
Perceptions of community choral children on singing and influences
PDF
The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students
PDF
The effect of a solfège-related tactile indicator on pitch accuracy in the retention of a vocal song in visually impaired elementary and secondary students
PDF
Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students
PDF
The perceptions of cross cultural student violence in an urban school setting
PDF
Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy
PDF
Globalization, curricular elements, organizational practices and perceived student outcomes in California schools
Asset Metadata
Creator
Betancourt, David
(author)
Core Title
Student and director perception of non-musical outcomes in suburban school band programs
School
Thornton School of Music
Degree
Doctor of Musical Arts
Degree Program
Music Education
Publication Date
03/31/2009
Defense Date
01/27/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
band students,critical thinking,Music,Music Education,non-musical outcomes,OAI-PMH Harvest,respect,responsibility
Place Name
Los Angeles County
(counties)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Woodward, Sheila C. (
committee chair
), Cutietta, Robert (
committee member
), Helfter, Susan (
committee member
)
Creator Email
dbetanco@usc.edu,dbetancourt@cerritos.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2042
Unique identifier
UC1127732
Identifier
etd-Betancourt-2641 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-214018 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2042 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Betancourt-2641.pdf
Dmrecord
214018
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Betancourt, David
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
band students
critical thinking
non-musical outcomes
respect
responsibility