![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify pedagogical approaches to melodic dictation used by college music theory instructors at National Association of Schools of Music accredited institutions. Instructors (N = 270) from 45 states responded to an online survey targeting melodic dictation instruction in their freshman theory courses. Results indicated that instructors: Chose pitch systems that emphasized scale degree function and rhythm systems that emphasized the meter, acknowledged the difficulty of compound meter for students, and advocated listening to a dictation completely before beginning to write. Respondents also listed the textbooks, software programs, and Web sites they used to supplement instruction and the types of music they chose for dictation assessments. Their replies to free-response questions highlighted several challenges of teaching dictation and aural skills in general. Knowledge of these instructional trends could be helpful when evaluating K–12 music curricula, especially for students who plan to major in music in college. The results of this study may benefit both college instructors and K–12 music educators in that their students face similar challenges and seek corresponding solutions.
Music theory classes are an important component of both high school and college music curricula, as evidenced by Advanced Placement (AP) Music Theory courses offered in 2,546 schools in 2014–2015 (College Board, 2015a) and by National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) requirements for undergraduate curricula (NASM, 2016). Students who are planning to major in music can benefit from music theory preparation in high school (Livingston & Ackman, 2003), but some of them may not be able to take theory classes due to scheduling issues and many high schools do not offer music theory. Talented performers may excel in collegiate auditions only to find that theory classes, especially aural skills tasks, present a challenge to their success as undergraduates (Buonviri, 2014b). Therefore, high school students and their teachers could benefit from knowledge of college music theory instructional practice.
Music theory classes in high schools and colleges include both written theory and aural skills, but there is a clear lack of a solid foundation in research and pedagogical practice in the aural skills component (Paney & Buonviri, 2014; Pembrook & Riggins, 1990). A review of the contents of Volumes 23 to 27 of Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy (2009–2013) revealed that only 33% of the articles focused on aural skills, while 60% focused exclusively on written music theory; the remaining 7% focused on other topics. Aural skills research has suggested that teachers use a variety of dictation strategies in the classroom, such as subvocalization, meter identification, and extractive listening (Klonoski, 2006), but they may not have learned those strategies from formal training in research-based pedagogy (Buonviri & Paney, 2015). Specific applications of music perception and cognition research to aural skills pedagogy are lacking (Davis, 2010), and research specific to aural skills pedagogy has been described as “woefully neglected” in the literature (Rifkin & Stoecker, 2011, p. 156).
Research on Melodic Dictation Pedagogy
Melodic dictation is one of the main components of aural skills instruction. It is a standard requirement in college theory courses (NASM, 2016) and on the AP Music Theory exam in high schools across the nation (College Board, 2015b). Instructors at both levels need practical information about teaching this complex skill to offer their students the best options for strategies and materials.
Researchers have published few articles specifically related to dictation instruction. Pembrook and Riggins (1990) investigated aural skills pedagogy of undergraduate music theory coordinators across the United States. Participants (N = 306) indicated approximately 30% of instructors used no published text for melodic dictation instruction, but instead created their own materials; 26% of instructors used no computers in their dictation instruction; and dictation, error detection, and aural identification skills were emphasized much less than sight-singing for freshmen. The authors’ discussion highlighted the need for additional information about how music theory courses are structured, how instructors make curricular and scheduling decisions, and how knowledge and materials related to aural skills pedagogy can best be disseminated.
Based on Pembrook and Riggins’s (1990) study, Paney and Buonviri (2014) conducted interviews of 12 AP Music Theory teachers about their melodic dictation pedagogy. Among their findings were that teachers focused on helping students build an internal repertoire of music patterns useful during dictation exercises; encouraged specific strategies for taking dictation, including attention to scale degree function and to the “bookends” of a melody; described rhythm as a particular challenge for students, but neglected to prescribe any rhythm counting system in class; and sequenced instruction carefully, with a consistent focus on the AP exam as the culmination of instruction.
Based on the results of their qualitative study, Buonviri and Paney (2015) developed a survey targeting melodic dictation pedagogy. AP Music Theory teachers (N = 398) from across the United States responded, and some of the results corroborated their previous qualitative findings. For example, the survey revealed that 79% of participants chose a pitch system that emphasized scale degree function, and that participants placed a strong emphasis on exam preparation during the course. The researchers also found that some participants felt they lacked sufficient class time and training to teach aural skills effectively. Buonviri and Paney (2015) recommended future research focused on college instructors’ approaches to aural skills instruction, employing similar questions and methodology, to provide additional information for college instructors, high school music teachers, and prospective college music majors.
Purpose and Research Questions
We based the current research on Buonviri and Paney’s (2015) findings from their study of AP Music Theory teachers, and adapted their purpose, research questions, and methodology to target college music theory instructors. Our purpose was to identify pedagogical approaches employed by college music theory instructors at NASM accredited institutions. Our research questions were the following:
What pedagogical approaches to rhythm and pitch do college music theory instructors use to build dictation skills?
Which resources (texts, music, software, and Web sites) do college music theory instructors employ in melodic dictation teaching?
What strategies do college music theory instructors recommend students use during dictation?
Do college music theory instructors address test-taking skills as part of their dictation instruction?
Methodology
Survey Instrument
Based directly on Buonviri and Paney’s (2015) study, we asked college music instructors 29 questions using Qualtrics (2015) online survey software. Participants responded concerning their curricular choices, pedagogical tools, and the specific strategies they taught students for taking melodic dictation. Participants also answered free-response questions that described stronger and weaker dictation students and offered additional information not mentioned in the survey. An additional question (not in Buonviri and Paney’s study) asked what recommendations participants would give to high school teachers of melodic dictation.
We piloted the survey with eight instructors of college aural skills to test for clarity of the questions and for functionality of the survey instrument. Pilot participants found it functional and clear and completed their responses in 10 to 15 minutes, on average. They suggested minor revisions in wording, which we incorporated into the final survey. We did not retest the survey with our pilot participants, so there is a possibility of embedded error in some of the questions due to lack of a reliability estimate.
Population
Our population consisted of freshman aural skills instructors at degree-granting institutions accredited by NASM. We accessed the list of 653 accredited schools at the NASM Web site (2014). We eliminated 20 that were not degree-granting institutions (community music schools and organizations), leaving a total of 633 potential participants.
We created a list of instructors of theory by visiting each school’s Web site. We wanted only one participant from each institution to avoid redundant responses. When the designation was clear, we chose the theory area coordinator. Otherwise, we chose the faculty member who listed freshman music theory or aural skills most prominently in his or her biography. If no mention of theory or aural skills was found, we chose the department head or chair.
When our list was completed, after receiving IRB approval from both of our institutions, we sent e-mails to our entire population of 633 faculty members. We sent an initial e-mail introducing our study and asking our recipients to reply with the correct person to contact if they were not the freshman aural skills instructor. Five e-mails failed in our first distribution and 32 people replied with other names. We corrected failed e-mails by visiting the Web sites again and choosing a different faculty member.
From our initial e-mail contact, we eliminated four additional institutions from the population. We discovered one more non-degree-granting institution and deleted two more because students completed theory work at partner institutions. We also eliminated one participant who did not use e-mail, yielding a final N = 629.
We sent an invitation e-mail with a unique link to the survey to each potential participant in our updated contact list 1 week after our initial contact. Distribution through Qualtrics with unique links for each participant allowed us to avoid duplicate responses, maintain anonymity, and send automated reminder e-mails only to those who had not yet completed the survey. Two reminder e-mails were sent 1 and 2 weeks after the invitation e-mail. All e-mails and responses were completed in September and October 2014.
Of the 629 invited to participate, 270 completed the survey, for a response rate of 43%. At this return rate and a 95% confidence level, our calculated confidence interval was ±4.51 (for a complete list of survey questions and response frequencies and percentages for each item, see Supplemental Materials: Survey Questions and Responses to Survey Questions [available in the online version of the article]).
Participants
Participants (N = 270), 79% with doctorates, were from 45 states and had taught freshman music theory as little as 1 year to more than 30 years, with a median of 12 years. Most participants had taught 5 years or fewer (54%), but three participants had taught for more than 30 years. Some participants also held state teacher certification (n = 56) and national teacher certification (n = 5). Few participants had training in Kodály (n = 7), Gordon (n = 6), Orff (n = 6), and Dalcroze (n = 5) methodologies.
Participants represented degree-granting institutions that offered associate’s degrees (n = 21), bachelor’s degrees (n = 242), master’s degrees (n = 121), and doctorates (n = 35). The median enrollment in their freshman theory course was 35 students (with a range of 5 to more than 100 students).
Results and Discussion
Sight-Singing and Dictation
Research has shown that sight-singing and dictation are related skills (Norris, 2003), and that some teachers strive to connect the two in their instruction (Paney & Buonviri, 2014). Seventy-three percent of participants in the current study reported that sight-singing and dictation followed generally parallel paths, 24% said they shared some things in common, and 3% said they followed separate, unique paths. We asked if they used the same pitch system for melodic dictation and sight-singing; 76% responded “frequently,” 21% “sometimes,” and 3% “never.” Seventy percent reported that they “frequently” used the same rhythmic system for melodic dictation and sight-singing, 23% “sometimes,” and 7% “never.”
Eighty-one percent of participants preferred a melodic system based on movable-do solfège (67% with do-minor and 14% with la-minor), 6% used scale degree numbers, and 6% used fixed-do for sight-singing (see Table 1). Sixteen participants (6%) reported using more than one system with their students and only one participant used letter names. Buonviri and Paney (2015) found a similar order of results for high school AP Music Theory teachers with 63% using solfège (41% do-minor and 22% la-minor), 15% using numbers, 8% using fixed-do, and 1% using letter names. They noted that most of their teachers, 78%, used a system that emphasized scale degree function (movable-do solfège or numbers), a result found in the present study at an even higher level, 87%. Fluency with scale degree function may be helpful to dictation students as they contextualize aural information during dictation.
|
Table 1. Participants’ Preferred Melodic System.
Fifty-nine percent of participants used the 1-e-&-a system for rhythm reading, 11% the Takadimi system (ta-ka-di-mi), 9% the Eastman Counting System (one-ta-tay-ta), 6% a neutral syllable, 5% the Gordon system (du-ta-de-ta), and 1% used the Galin-Paris-Chevé system (ti-ri-ti-ri; see Table 2). Buonviri and Paney (2015) found 85% of the high school teachers in their study used the 1-e-&-a system and 5% used the Eastman system. These results indicated that 90% of their teachers used a system that emphasized the meter, compared with only 68% in the current study. It seems there was more variance in systems at the college level than the high school level, though both used the 1-e-&-a system most frequently. Some researchers recommend choosing and using a consistent system (Demorest, 2004; Hoffman, Pelto, & White, 1996; Palkki, 2010), and using a particular method for executing rhythms vocally (Pierce, 1992), but we found no studies that empirically compared the efficacy of rhythm systems. Since we did not ask participants why they chose this system, this finding warrants future research.
|
Table 2. Participants’ Preferred Rhythmic System.
Dictation Strategies
Common rhythm and pitch patterns were important in the dictation instruction of 95% of participants, compared with 80% of high school teachers (Buonviri & Paney, 2015). Foulkes-Levy (1997, 1998) described the usefulness of students’ pattern fluency for understanding metric context and pitch contour within aural skills activities in general. Researchers have found that undergraduate students benefit from pattern practice when developing their error detection skills for conducting (Sheldon, 1998) and can use pattern recognition to help them take dictation successfully (Buonviri, 2014a). Pitch patterns may be particularly important to teach because 56% of participants in our study reported students making more pitch errors than rhythm errors during dictation; only 11% reported the reverse.
Participants indicated that for the first listening of a dictation they directed students’ attention toward broad aspects of the melody (44%), rhythm (28%), and pitches (28%). Seventeen percent gave other options including memorizing the example and varying the approach for each student. These results reinforced the idea of the “big picture” approach to music dictation, in which students focus on general information before specific (Paney & Buonviri, 2014). College theory instructor Rogers (2004) supported the idea of focusing on the big picture in the first listening:
Students will usually try to write too much down during a first hearing. They should instead be urged to listen first, noting such general features of the tune as mode; meter; length; phrases; melodic cadences (terminal vs. progressive); parallel or contrasting periods; repetitions; sequences; motives (rhythmic or pitch); contour; disjunct vs. conjunct motion; high points; low points; important pitches because of duration, frequency, metric stress, register, etc.; how the key is established at the beginning; how the final note compares with the first; outlining of patterns (triadic; scalar); decorative pitches; etc. Attention should also be directed to memorizing its sound. (p. 113)
A large majority, 82%, recommended students listen before writing, while 18% recommended students write while they were listening. Buonviri and Paney (2015) found a more balanced result among AP Music Theory teachers with 58% and 42%, respectively. Pembrook (1987) isolated the problems with both of these approaches:
One pedagogical problem associated with the various strategies for melodic dictation is that each seems to have its limitations. Immediate writing creates a dual processing problem (listening to new stimuli while trying to interpret and encode those just heard). . . . On the other hand, “passive listening” (nonsimultaneous writing) to a melody of many tones leaves the listener with the problem of [memory] storage capacity. (p. 156)
In a more recent study, Buonviri (in press) found that both strategies worked equally well for undergraduate music majors taking short tonal melodic dictations; his results corroborate Pembrook’s (1987) recommendation that both may be viable options.
About where to start writing, 78% of participants recommended targeting a combination of the end and the beginning, 20% the beginning, and 2% the end. Buonviri and Paney (2015) found similar results: 70%, 27%, and 3%, respectively. These results confirm the qualitative findings of Paney and Buonviri (2014) in which high school AP Music Theory teachers consistently emphasized the importance of “bookends,” recognizing anchors at the beginning and the end of a melody. Margulis (2005) described listeners’ ability to analyze melodies from memory in both chronological directions when generating and confirming music expectations; dictation students could employ this skill during comprehension and notation.
Participants incorporated the following extramusical aspects into their instruction: 92% test-taking skills for dictation, 80% opportunities for students to share strategies, 56% test anxiety and potential solutions, and 34% opportunities for students to observe each other during dictation tasks. These results are strikingly similar to Buonviri and Paney’s (2015) findings. Like the high school teachers in their study, college instructors seemed to recognize the important role that extramusical factors can play in dictation success, and the value of helping students master those factors to increase their focus on the music (Lucia, 1993).
Written Theory and Notation
We asked how participants taught their students to integrate written theory knowledge into their dictation approach. Seventy-seven percent of participants reported they helped students make predictions about pitch material, 75% worked on hearing implied harmonies, 48% helped students make predictions about rhythmic material, 48% asked students to use a process of elimination about pitch, and 30% a process of elimination about rhythm. Buonviri and Paney (2015) found the same order of frequency, and similar percentages: 78%, 56%, 47%, 44%, and 30%, respectively. These responses suggest that instructors at both levels value integrating written and aural theory. As Rogers (2004) discussed in his text, the goal is that “ . . . both the thinking and listening aspects of ear training (and analysis) can nourish one another: the more the music is studied, the more there is to hear; the more that is heard, the more there is to learn” (p. 17). In high school programs, instructors typically teach both written and aural theory, but in college programs, two instructors may need to collaborate to determine how best to equip students to make these transfers.
Participants indicated the prenotation shorthand strategies they taught students to use: 81% sketching rhythms, 73% writing solfège syllables or scale degree numbers, 47% sketching note heads on the staff, 41% sketching contour, and 4% writing letter names. Participants could check more than one response and add other responses to this question. Eleven participants mentioned “protonotation” in their typed response, a term developed by Karpinski (2000) that refers to a shorthand graphic representation of rhythm or pitch sketched prior to standard notation. Protonotation may help students and teachers see where problems are occurring, since a mistake may be the result of either not understanding the music or not knowing how to notate it correctly.
Notating compound meter appears to be a challenge for beginning students. Eighty-one percent of participants replied that their students encountered more difficulty with compound meter than simple meter, 17% said the two were equally difficult, and 3% said simple meter was more difficult. Buonviri and Paney (2015) found similar results with 86%, 13%, and 1%, respectively. Further investigation of the relative roles of aural comprehension and notation skills during dictation of compound meters would benefit dictation teachers and students.
Instructional Materials
Eighty-six percent of participants used classical music for freshman dictation; 84% used music composed for dictation, 75% used music composed for sight-singing, 71% used traditional folk music, 64% used past popular music (older than 5 years), 47% used current popular music (from the past 5 years), and 9% used “other” music. An interesting comparison with Buonviri and Paney’s (2015) study emerges from these data: College instructors placed more emphasis on classical music, and less on popular music, than did high school teachers. This contrast may reflect the disconnect, described by Buonviri (2014b), between incoming college freshmen’s lack of familiarity with classical music and college theory instructors’ focus on it. To help students continuing to college programs, an increase in the use of classical music in high school studies may be helpful. However, familiar music may be useful for targeting dictation skill more quickly; one participant stated: “I like using melodies they are familiar with so memorization is not part of the equation.” Further research on the use of familiar music in dictation is warranted.
Respondents chose from a list or indicated other textbooks they used specifically for melodic dictation: 37% chose Ottman, Music for Sight Singing; 16% Benward and Kolosick, Ear Training: A Technique for Listening; 15% Berkowitz, Fontrier, and Kraft, A New Approach to Sight Singing; and 10% Karpinski, Manual for Ear Training and Sight-Singing. Only 12% of participants indicated that they used materials they created themselves, in comparison with Pembrook and Riggins’s (1990) finding that 30% of college instructors at that time created their own dictation materials. This might suggest that instructors have found additional dictation texts created since Pembrook and Riggins’s (1990) study to be helpful in their instruction. Thirty-four percent of participants chose their text because it was already in use at their institutions, 21% had received a sample copy in the mail, 19% had used it as a student, and 12% had read a book review.
Forty-four percent of respondents indicated that in freshman music theory they encouraged computer use for self-directed learning; 43% said it was required for self-directed learning, 35% required it for classwork, and 12% did not use computers in their curriculum. Not surprisingly, the percentage of those who responded that computer use was not a part of the curriculum was smaller than the 26% reported by Pembrook and Riggins (1990) 25 years ago.
Participants also indicated when and where students used the computers. Eighty-nine percent indicated students used computers outside of class on their own computers, 76% outside of class on school computers, and 13% during class time. The responses on computer use outside of class were substantially higher than those of high school teachers in Buonviri and Paney’s (2015) study, while computer use during class time was markedly lower. This may reflect college students’ greater access to their own and school computers outside of class.
Computer programs used in teaching melodic dictation included: MacGAMUT (29%), no programs (25%), Finale (23%), Auralia (16%), Practica Musica (14%), Sibelius (8%), and Musition (2%). Participants also reported Web sites they used in teaching melodic dictation: musictheory.net (41%), no Web sites (41%), teoria.com (32%), emusictheory.com (6%), and gmajormusictheory.org (2%).
Free-Response Questions
In two open-ended questions, participants listed three words to describe stronger dictation students and three to describe weaker students. We coded all of their responses and analyzed frequencies to determine the most common entries. The 226 participants who responded to the first question most frequently described stronger students as “focused” (40%), “experienced” (23%), and “instrumentalists” (21%). The 224 participants who responded to the second question most frequently described weaker dictation students as “lacking attention” (33%), “lacking music background” (29%), and “anxious” (15%). These words are similar to those of Buonviri and Paney’s (2015) participants who wrote that stronger students were “focused” and “confident” and that weaker students were “unfocused,” “overwhelmed,” and “anxious.” Buonviri (2014a) found that successful dictation students used a variety of strategies, but that all of them had a definite plan during the task. If students develop and maintain focus during dictation, through instructor guidance, they may feel less overwhelmed and more confident.
We asked participants what recommendations they would give high school music teachers to prepare students for melodic dictation in college. Respondents (n = 210) recommended that high school students give more attention to: basic theory skills (33%), solfège (17%), keyboard skills (16%), singing (16%), sight-singing (12%), and both treble and bass clefs (11%). Their descriptions of “basic skills” are summarized in this response: “Basics! Key signature, interval and scale proficiency and speed.” Participants clearly favored students’ thorough preparation with rudimentary tools, rather than cursory exploration of abstract concepts:
I see dozens of students every year who have had “theory survey,” have heard of +6 chords, have constructed a 12-tone matrix, and still don’t know key signatures and can’t spell chords. I understand the value of the survey [approach], the attraction of “show-and-tell,” but they need basic skills.
Participants noted that basic theory skills can be taught in the context of various high school courses, including performance ensembles. One respondent suggested, for example, “Do not ‘force feed’ melodies to the students when teaching a piece, but make them sight-read or sight-sing it on their own.”
Implications
Melodic dictation is a central skill in both high school and college music theory curricula. Results of the current study add to knowledge from previous research and offer implications for teachers on the critical transition from high school music student to college music major. Findings from this study included the following characteristics of participants’ teaching: a parallel path between dictation and sight-singing, emphasis on a pitch system that highlighted scale degree function, importance of practicing pitch and rhythm patterns, encouragement to students to listen first and to work toward the middle from both ends of the target, and acknowledgement of the difficulty of compound meter. These findings do not imply what teachers should be doing, but simply demonstrate what large percentages of college instructors currently are doing. The usefulness of these findings lies in teachers’ reflection on their own practice and how it is functioning. For example, a teacher who is not maintaining parallel progress between dictation and sight-singing might want to explore reciprocal benefits of practicing these two skills concurrently and with identical or very similar music examples. A teacher who typically does not guide students through pattern practice might discover that using patterns can help address specific problems students face during dictation. A teacher who agrees that compound meter is more difficult for students might incorporate more examples of it into daily practice.
Results of this study, as expected, indicated that computer use in dictation instruction is increasing in colleges, and students are using them more outside of class. As previously mentioned, the availability of computers outside of class may contribute to the difference in their use in college and high school classes. If so, high school teachers might explore ways to help students gain access to school or public library computers and encourage the use of phone apps for additional practice. This could help students improve not only their dictation skills but also their independent learning skills.
Finally, participants in this study, in free-response format, generated descriptions of stronger and weaker dictation students strikingly similar to those reported by Buonviri and Paney (2015) in their survey of high school AP Music Theory teachers. Many of these stronger and weaker students may have developed these characteristics during high school, or earlier, and carried them into college instruction. Weaker dictation students in college may appear to be “lacking attention” and “anxious” because they are “lacking music background.” Especially for high school students considering majoring in music in college, helping them develop fluency with basic aural skills and written theory appears to be a priority. This work is the responsibility not just of high school music theory teachers, but of all music teachers. If high school performance ensemble directors, for example, wish for their students to be successful musicians in college, they cannot afford to cultivate only performance skills. Teachers can help students see the bigger picture of comprehensive musicianship and practice it daily.
Success in dictation could also lead to developing self-efficacy. Research on self-efficacy has suggested that some students who have similar background and ability may experience different levels of growth based on their feelings about their ability (Nielsen, 2004). Unlike many music tasks, there is a right and wrong answer in dictation and scoring is generally objective. Students can see their skills improving perhaps more easily than with other music tasks. This may help build motivation as the possibility of success may be more apparent. Developing self-efficacy through dictation success could make a difference at multiple levels of instruction, including elementary schools that use melodic dictation as described in Brumfield (2014) and Choksy (1998).
Pedagogical practice at the university level does not imply best practice, nor does it mean that teachers at other levels should follow suit. Knowledge of these instructional trends, however, could be valuable when evaluating and reevaluating school music programs, in light of preparing prospective music majors. Future research might explore possibilities for increasing information flow among levels (elementary, middle, high school, and college) to improve educational outcomes. Further alignment of goals, activities, and resources could increase students’ music growth. The goal of highlighting current practice in college theory programs is to lead to greater student success in K–12 instruction as well as on the collegiate level.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
The supplemental materials are available in the online version of the article.
References
|
Brumfield, S. (2014).First, we sing! Kodály-inspired teaching for the music classroom. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard.Buonviri, N. O. Google Scholar | |
|
Buonviri, N. O. (2014a). An exploration of undergraduate music majors’ melodic dictation strategies. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 33(1), 21–30. doi:10.1177/8755123314521036 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Buonviri, N. O. (2014b). Three music education majors’ journeys through Aural Skills 101. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(1), 95–106. doi:10.1177/1057083714552328 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Buonviri, N. O. (in press). Effects of two listening strategies for melodic dictation. Journal of Research in Music Education, in press. Google Scholar | |
|
Buonviri, N. O., Paney, A. S. (2015). Melodic dictation instruction: A survey of Advanced Placement Music Theory teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63, 224–237. doi:10.1177/0022429415584141 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Choksy, L. (1998). The Kodály method I: Comprehensive music education. New York, NY: Pearson. Google Scholar | |
|
College Board . (2015a, November 16). AP course ledger. Retrieved from https://apcourseaudit.epiconline.org/ledger/ Google Scholar | |
|
College Board . (2015b, November 16). AP Music Theory exam details and description. Retrieved from https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse/ap-music-theory/about-the-exam Google Scholar | |
|
Davis, S. (2010). Error detection in the aural skills class: Research and pedagogy. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 24, 37–67. Retrieved from https://music.appstate.edu/about/jmtp/articles?page=1 Google Scholar | |
|
Demorest, S. M. (2004). Choral sight-singing practices: Revisiting a web-based survey. International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, 2(1), 3–10. Retrieved from http://www.choralresearch.org/volumetwo/ Google Scholar | |
|
Foulkes-Levy, L. (1997). Tonal markers, melodic patterns, and musicianship training: Part I: Rhythm reduction. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 11, 1–24. Retrieved from https://music.appstate.edu/about/jmtp/articles?page=1 Google Scholar | |
|
Foulkes-Levy, L. (1998). Tonal markers, melodic patterns, and musicianship training, Part II: Contour reduction. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 12, 1–24. Retrieved from https://music.appstate.edu/about/jmtp/articles?page=1 Google Scholar | |
|
Hoffman, R., Pelto, W., White, J. W. (1996). Takadimi: A beat-oriented system of rhythm pedagogy. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 10, 7–30. Retrieved from https://music.appstate.edu/about/jmtp/articles?page=1 Google Scholar | |
|
Karpinski, G. S. (2000). Aural skills acquisition: The development of listening, reading, and performing skills in college-level musicians. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Klonoski, E. (2006). Improving dictation as an aural-skills instructional tool. Music Educators Journal, 93(1), 54–59. doi:10.1177/002743210609300124 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Livingston, C., Ackman, J. (2003). Changing trends in preparing students for college level theory. American Music Teacher, 53(1), 26–29. Retrieved from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Changing+trends+in+preparing+students+for+college+level+theory.-a0106390059 Google Scholar | |
|
Lucia, R. (1993). AP music theory in your school. Music Educators Journal, 80(1), 38–41. doi:10.2307/3398653 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Margulis, E. H. (2005). A model of melodic expectation. Music Perception, 22, 663–714. doi:10.1525/mp.2005.22.4.663 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
National Association of Schools of Music . (2014). Retrieved from http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/ Google Scholar | |
|
National Association of Schools of Music . (2016). National Association of Schools of Music: Handbook 2015–16. Retrieved from https://nasm.arts-accredit.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11/NASM_HANDBOOK_2015-16.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Nielsen, S. G. (2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal individual practice: A study of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32, 418–431. doi:10.1177/0305735604046099 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Norris, C. E. (2003). The relationship between sight singing achievement and melodic dictation achievement. Contributions to Music Education, 30(1), 39–53. Google Scholar | |
|
Palkki, J. (2010). Rhythm syllable pedagogy: A historical journey to Takadimi via the Kodály method. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 24, 101–129. Retrieved from https://music.appstate.edu/about/jmtp/articles?page=1 Google Scholar | |
|
Paney, A. S., Buonviri, N. O. (2014). Teaching melodic dictation in Advanced Placement Music Theory. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 396–414. doi:10.1177/0022429413508411 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Pembrook, R. G. (1987). The effect of vocalization on melodic memory conservation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35, 155–169. doi:10.2307/3344958 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Pembrook, R. G., Riggins, H. L. (1990). “Send help!”: Aural skills instruction in U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 4, 231–242. Retrieved from https://music.appstate.edu/about/jmtp/articles?page=1 Google Scholar | |
|
Pierce, M. A. (1992). The effects of learning procedure, tempo, and performance condition on transfer of rhythm skills in instrumental music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 295–305. doi:10.2307/3345837 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Qualtrics . (2015). Qualtrics [Computer software]. Available from http://www.qualtrics.com Google Scholar | |
|
Rifkin, D., Stoecker, P. (2011). A revised taxonomy for music learning. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 25, 155–189. Retrieved from https://music.appstate.edu/about/jmtp/articles?page=1 Google Scholar | |
|
Rogers, M. R. (2004). Teaching approaches in music theory: An overview of pedagogical philosophies (2nd ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Sheldon, D. A. (1998). Effects of contextual sight-singing and aural skills training on error detection abilities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 384–395. doi:10.2307/3345550 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
