The Effect of Grade, Experience, and Listening Condition on the Melodic Error Detection of Fifth- and SixthGrade Woodwind

Students.
By Linda C. Thornton The purpose of this research was to examine the effects of grade level and playing experience as well as listening condition on melodic error detection by young instrumental students. Participants (N = 31) were fifth- and sixth-grade students with either 1 or 2 years of experience playing their instrument. The participants were tested in two listening conditions, listening to recordings and listening to themselves while playing. Analysis of the data revealed no differences attributable to listening condition, grade level, or experience. Overall high scores indicate strong abilities in melodic error detection with familiar melodies by students with 1 or more years of experience, including listening to themselves during performance. Further research is called for with a larger sample size and with more musical elements. Keywords: error detection; instrumental students; listening; melody; experience; woodwind Dawn was an above-average flute player with a spirited, although not always careful, approach to playing her instrument. I clearly remember the day she was playing "My Country 'Tis of Thee" and consistently missed the key signature. When asked if she could hear the mistake, she said, "No, it's right." Furthermore, she insisted I was hearing a mistake only because I was a music teacher. There happened to be a band parent in my office, so I had Dawn perform for her, and the parent immediately identified that something sounded "funny," much to Dawn's chagrin. Because this scenario is likely familiar to many instrumental teachers, formal investigation into the phenomenon of students' listening to themselves while playing seemed appropriate. Listening during performance is an important skill for instrumentalists to acquire. Because of the large number of issues to which students must attend when learning an instrument (proper finger placement, posture, breath support, etc.), it is uncertain when a student might be ready to also listen to their musical production. According to Cowan (1995), "Only a limited amount [of information] can be included in the focus of the subjects' attentive processing" (p. 138). For young students, listening to their performance for errors in addition to the above tasks could be beyond their capabilities (Sidnell, 1981), dependent on instruction (Gordon, 1997; Whitener, 1982), or relative to musical context (Gordon, 1997; Lamont, 1998). Error detection researchers have examined whether participants can detect the presence and location of errors during performance while singing, conducting, and instrumental playing. Many studies have addressed error detection during singing, but uncertainty regarding whether error detection problems result from vocal production and/or error detection remains (Byo & Sheldon, 2000; Pedersen & Pedersen, 1970; Petzold, 1969; Price, 2000). Similarly, results in the literature have not clearly determined if the physical act of conducting interferes with listening skills such as error detection (Byo, 1993). Previous research has indicated that instrumentalists detect errors better when they are only listening, compared to listening to their performance while playing (Bundy, 1987; Delzell, 1989; Ellis, 1989). However, even though error detection is stronger in a listening-only task, listening to recordings of their own playing does not always seem to improve students' self-evaluation skills (Hewitt, 2001). Miles (1972) and Yarbrough, Karrick, and Morrison (1995), in studies specific to beginning instrumentalists, asked participants to listen for intonation during performance and determined that participants' scores could be improved with training. Investigations of listening development have been experienced based and age based (Lamont, 1998). Experience has been cited as an important factor in the development of error detection for some concurrent musical activities. Research in simultaneous score reading and error detection has identified experience to be the most important factor contributing to success (Crowe, 1996; Delzell, 1989; Ramsey, 1979; Sheldon,

2004). Studies of concurrent conducting and error detection indicate experience is the single factor that may best predict error detection scores (Byo & Sheldon, 2000; DeCarbo, 1982; Rentz, 1992). Related skills in listening during instrumental performance, such as self-evaluation (Hewitt, 2005) and intonation (Morrison, 2000; Yarbrough, Morrison, & Karrick, 1997), also seem to increase with experience, although playing by ear has been found to not be affected by playing experience (Delzell, Rohwer, & Ballard, 1999). Melodic error detection skill related to age has been investigated in pitch and melodic perception research with young children. Research has indicated that infants are able to recognize scale patterns of their own culture (Trehub, 1987; Trehub, Cohen, Thorpe, & Morrongiello, 1986). According to Kageff (1984), when Western children have reached the age of 8, they have developed a sensitivity to the general tonal structure of their culture. Other studies have also indicated an increase in sensitivity to melody structure and pitch relative to age in preschool and fourth-grade students (Geringer, 1983; Jordan-DeCarbo, 1989). Gordon (1997) addresses age and experience in his music learning theory, in that age is less important than achievement in determining the pace of instruction. Experience is tied to a sequence of learning that is necessarily followed to develop audiation ("inner hearing"), which he presents as the foundation of musicianship. In the beginning instrumental music setting, the application of his theory involves having students sing and play melodic patterns, chant and play rhythm patterns, and improvise prior to note reading to familiarize students with the language of music on their instrument (Grunow, Gordon, Azzara, & Martin, 2000). Furthermore, Gordon believes that a child's musical potential is reached at the age of 9. Lamont (1998) reinforces a perspective of musical development that indicates that differing levels of musical experience affect the kind of musical processing that occurs. She states, The older and more musically experienced children were more likely to respond differently according to certain properties of the context sequences, whilst younger and less experienced children were more likely to respond in a somewhat global manner. Children already possess a relatively stable representation of the goodness of fit of the tonic in a diatonic context and are able to make further distinctions according to the range of stimuli presented. This provides support for a global-to-analytic shift in pitch perception, and further indicates that musical sensitivity does not stabilise at age 11 as implied by other studies but continues to be refined and enhanced by training throughout the teenage years. (p. 23) It would seem that musical development shifts that may occur around the ages of 8 to 11 could be important changes. It is during these ages that students typically begin instrumental study, yet it is unclear how or if instrumental study affects the development and understanding students have of what they are hearing. Furthermore, pitch perception and melodic error detection studies with participants 8 to 11 years of age have not investigated if involving a student in visual and kinesthetic activities (such as reading music and performing an instrument) may affect his or her ability to listen. The current investigation is an extension of a previous study of novice instrumentalists (Thornton, 2004). In the first inquiry, participants were all woodwind students who had begun instruction on their instrument 6 months prior to testing. Although the participants were beginners, they represented two grades, fifth grade and sixth grade. No differences were found in the abilities of the students when comparing the two grades. However, previous research has indicated that error detection ability in young children may increase with age (Geringer, 1983; Jordan-DeCarbo, 1989). The lack of difference in scores between fifth and sixth graders could be attributed to the small difference in age of those students or could be because experience is a greater determinant of error detection during performance than age. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to explore the effects of age and experience as well as listening condition on the development of error detection skills in young instrumentalists. Two research questions were developed to guide the investigation: (a) What effect does a combination of grade level and public school instrumental instruction have on the error detection scores of instrumental students in a performance setting? (b) What effect does listening condition have on the error detection scores of instrumental students? Method

The participants for this study were 31 students in fifth and sixth grades with either 1 or 2 years of playing experience. To attempt to ensure students had equal amounts of musical instruction, those who had any musical lessons or training outside of their public school instruction were excluded from the study. In addition, because each instrument family (woodwind, brass, percussion, strings) has unique technique related to pitch production, only one family, woodwind, was used in the study, and only students playing the most popular instruments of flute, clarinet, and saxophone were invited to participate. To compare students in the same grade but with different levels of experience, more than one school district was included in the study. The participants representing sixth graders with 2 years of experience (n = 9) were from School 1 and began instrumental study in the fourth grade. The participants representing sixth graders with 1 year of experience (n = 11) were from School 2 and began their instrumental study in fifth grade. The third group of students, fifth graders with 1 year of experience (n = 11), also started in fourth grade and were from School 3. Clearly, differences in their prior general music instruction and present instrumental instruction could influence the abilities and skill of the students. The students' prior general music experiences could be defined as "traditional," but with great variety in the curricula among the schools. Therefore any differences found among the students in the three school districts would need to be viewed with caution, as differences among the groups could be because of the difference in the schools rather than only experience or age. The procedures were based closely on the original experiment (Thornton, 2004). All participants participated in two types of listening conditions with two melody types. The two listening conditions consisted of participants' listening to a recording (the listening-only condition) and listening to their own playing during performance (listening-playing condition). The two melody types represented four familiar melodies, with two melodies presented correctly (correct melodies) and two that contained planted, predetermined errors (incorrect melodies). The four melodies were chosen as "familiar" through examination of the list generated by Killian (1996) that depicted melodies familiar to most elementary students. Criteria for range and rhythmic complexity appropriate for beginning students were applied. "Happy Birthday to You" and "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" were chosen for incorrect melody type, and "Old MacDonald Had a Farm" and "This Old Man" were selected as melodies for the correct melody type. Only the first four measures of each melody, written primarily using quarter notes, were presented to the students, to keep the task short for the participants and the notes and rhythms as simple as possible (for example, "Twinkle, Twinkle" was presented through "How I wonder what you are" and "Old MacDonald" was presented through the first "E-I-E-I-O"). Errors planted in the incorrect melodies were to emulate a common mistake by beginning instrumentalists. Students in traditional band programs often miss a flat or sharp from the key signature as the key varies from the familiar Concert B-flat. Therefore, the incorrect melodies were presented in tonalities that would result in these common errors (see Table 1), and the likelihood of those errors was confirmed by three music educators with instrumental teaching experience. For the students to play with the appropriate mistakes, the melodies were presented with no key signatures, and accidentals appeared by every note. This notation style was tested informally with students of various ages and was not found to be a concern for any student. To develop the recordings for the listening-only condition, the same errors were inserted into incorrect melodies, and correct melodies were not altered. The melodies were entered into a computer using notation software, then recorded onto a CD using flute, clarinet, and saxophone timbres for three versions of the four melodies. In the previous study (Thornton, 2004), the recordings played for the students were at a slow tempo, and it was possible the slow tempo may have compromised the students' error detection accuracy in the listening-only condition. Therefore, the recordings of the student performances from the previous study were used to find an average tempo for each melody. An average tempo of 112 beats per minute was consistent for all melodies and applied to the recordings for the current study.

Students were given forms on which to record their responses. The forms contained the melodic notation and a question with three possible responses: "How do the notes of this melody sound to you: All right; Wrong, circle wrong note(s); Not sure, circle note(s) you think might be wrong." The participants met individually with the researcher to perform the task. A predetermined rotation of task orders and melodies was used, designed to help control for effects caused by the order of the melodies or tasks. Two task orders of listening-playing ("P") and listening only ("L") were used, PLLP and LPPL (Sprinthall, Schmulte, & Sirois, 1991). By assigning the melodies to the different task orders in all possible melody orders, eight task and melody orders were established and rotated among the participants. Participants were asked to play one correct and one incorrect melody and to listen to one correct and one incorrect melody. Participants completed their response for a melody before the next melody was presented. Participants were scored on identification of the melody as correct or incorrect and also for identification of the location of an error in incorrect melodies. In the case of "Twinkle, Twinkle," where two consecutive pitches were altered, a response was considered accurate if either or both notes were indicated as incorrect. Accurate responses for "right" or "wrong" melodies received 3 points, and a "not sure" response received 1 point. For the incorrect melodies, appropriate error indication received 2 points, but if additional correct notes also were marked, the response received only 1 point. Therefore, in each condition, listening-playing and listening only, the highest possible score was 8: 3 points for identifying the correct melody as correct, 3 points for identifying the incorrect melody as incorrect, and 2 points for correctly identifying only the altered pitch or pitches in the incorrect melody. A student could receive a low score of zero if neither melody was accurately identified (correct or incorrect); no points would be awarded for pitch identification because the student would have labeled the incorrect melody as correct and therefore not indicated incorrect notes. Results The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of listening condition (listening only or listening while playing), grade, and playing experience on the melodic error detection of fifth- and sixth-grade instrumentalists. The participants were found to be highly successful, overall, in performance of the task, in both performance of the notation (all participants performed the notation as written) and in their responses. The participants were scored on their ability to identify a melody as correct or incorrect (3 points for a correct response, 1 point for "not sure") and if they could identify the incorrect note in incorrect melodies (2 points for correct identification, only 1 point if additional notes were also indicated). An ANOVA was used to analyze the scores for differences among the listening conditions (listening-playing or listening only) and the grade-experience variable (grade and years of public school instruction). No significant differences were found for the listening condition or grade-experience. Last, it was important to consider if there were any differences related to the instruments or melodies. This was deemed necessary because the melodic errors planted were based on typical mistakes made by students, not with concern for consistency for function or location in the melody. However, extreme imbalance between the instrument groups made statistical analysis inappropriate. Therefore, the means for the melodies and the instruments are reported in Table 2. Discussion The present study is an extension of a previous study (Thornton, 2004) that indicated that students with 6 months of instrumental playing experience can identify correct and incorrect melodies in their own performance with moderate success. Because previous research indicates that both age and experience can affect melodic perception and error detection (Lamont, 1998; Morrison, 2000), the present study began to examine if a combination of age and experience might reveal a consistent ability in melodic error detection during performance. The data indicate that students with as little as 1 year of experience playing their instrument have a great deal of success with melodic error detection in familiar melodies. The accuracy with which participants

identified correct melodies as correct and incorrect melodies as incorrect was more consistent than for the participants in the original study (Thornton, 2004). The lack of difference between listening conditions is consistent with previous research (Thornton, 2004) in which fifth- and sixth-grade students with only 6 months of playing experience could detect errors with similar accuracy when listening to a recording compared to listening to themselves play during performance. This finding is contrary to other previous research (Bundy, 1987; Delzell, 1989; Ellis, 1989) in which student responses were stronger for a listening-only condition. However, those studies involved either different populations or tasks. The students' age (as determined by grade level) did not seem to affect the scores of the students and was also consistent with prior investigation (Thornton, 2004). However, in that study, the students had a similar amount of playing experience. The lack of difference in the current study indicates that fifth- and sixthgrade students seem to be capable of listening for melodic errors in familiar melodies while playing their instruments with no other musical experiences outside of school-based instruction. This finding could also be seen as consistent with Gordon's (1997) belief in tonal patterns being important for developing musicianship, as the errors in the melodies created patterns likely unfamiliar to the students. The lack of differences depending on experience is somewhat inconsistent with previous research regarding general musical development and perception. Years of musical experience has been shown to be a significant factor in different abilities of students, especially in the late elementary years (see Lamont, 1998). However, because all students scored well on the tasks in general, it would be difficult for differences to emerge. Inspection of the mean scores reported by instrument and melody (Table 2) seem mostly consistent for all melodies and instruments and reflect mostly accurate responses. A few scores were noticeably low and perhaps warrant attention. The mean scores for the saxophones should be treated with extreme caution, as only 3 participants make up the sample. The clarinets, with the largest sample (n = 21), reflect somewhat low mean scores for "Old MacDonald" in both the listening-only (M = 2.45, SD = 1.21) and listening-playing conditions (M = 2.20, SD = 1.32). Four clarinetists incorrectly identified "Old MacDonald" as having an error, and one selected "not sure." The range and key for this melody were similar to the other clarinet melodies, and this melody was not altered. Because every flute and saxophone player gave accurate responses for "Old MacDonald," there does not seem to be a clear reason for a comparatively large group to have trouble on this task. Also noticeable is the low mean score for the flute players for "Happy Birthday" in the listening-only condition (M = 1.50, SD = 1.00). The error for the flutes in "Happy Birthday" was a planted E-flat on the seventh scale degree instead of the E-natural called for by the key of F. Previous research has indicated errors affecting the first, third, and fifth notes of the tonic scale are the most easily identified by inexperienced musicians (Cuddy, 1993), and because this melody altered the seventh note of the tonic scale, the error may have been more difficult for the participants to detect. However, in the listening-playing condition, the mean score for the flutes playing "Happy Birthday" seems more typical (M = 2.60, SD = 0.80). Also, the saxophonists who encountered the same type of error in the same melody all scored perfectly on the task in both conditions. Further research is warranted to continue to examine the abilities of young instrumentalists. In general, the entire population for this study was very successful at the task, which suggests that many students may be able to listen for melodic errors at a high level after just 1 year playing their instrument, whether the students began study in fourth or fifth grade. As mentioned earlier, however, these results should be viewed with caution, as each group of students being compared were from a different school with different general music preparation and instrumental instruction. Hewitt's (2001) research indicates that students may listen for pitch errors first when self-assessing, and therefore expectations for correct notes could perhaps be higher than for other musical elements. Furthermore, research addressing the possible influence of students' being taught with Gordon's music learning theory (Gordon, 1997; Grunow et al., 2000), which infuses

singing and audiation training from the beginning of the instrumental experience, could greatly inform teachers' understanding of attention and musical abilities of young instrumentalists. However, the present study does not explain why Dawn did not hear her mistake in "My Country 'Tis of Thee." She was a sixth grader who began playing in fifth grade and therefore should be able to hear the error. Further examination of the interaction of singing, audiation, and error detection while playing would be valuable. Clearly, more research would be helpful in examining why some students and not others are successful at melodic error detection tasks as well as the circumstances under which melodic error detection can be most successful. In general, teachers could greatly benefit from further understanding of how or when students can listen to their own playing and what they may expect them to identify. At-home practice and in-class time could be used more effectively and efficiently if students are rightly expected to make corrections to their playing at early stages of their instrumental learning. The results of the present study indicate that most students with as little as 1 year of experience on their instrument (and maybe less) can probably correct their own pitch errors in familiar melodies. Perhaps expectation of pitch error identification, rather than telling students to correct certain notes, could create more independent pitch listeners; perhaps giving practicing strategies and in-class practice of pitch error identification could be useful as well. Although not examined in the present study, identifying the singing and/or audition abilities of students, and working to strengthen these abilities in relation to their instrumental playing, could also be useful in creating independent musicians from an early age.

Instrument Key Error Scale Degree "Twinkle, Twinkle"(a) Flute C E-flat Third Clarinet G B-flat Third Saxophone F B-natural Fourth "Happy Birthday"(b) Flute F E-flat Seventh Clarinet C B-flat Seventh Saxophone D C-natural Seventh (a.) Errors occurred on two consecutive pitches. (b.) Errors occurred on one pitch. Melody Flute Clarinet Saxophone (n=7) (n=21) (n=3) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) "Twinkle, Twinkle" (incorrect melody) Listening only 3.00 (0.00) 2.44 (1.13) 3.00 (0.00) Error identification 1.80 (0.40) 1.33 (0.87) 1.50 (0.71) Listening--playing 3.00 (0.00) 2.82 (0.60) 3.00 (0.00) Error identification 2.00 (0.00) 1.27 (0.90) 2.00 (0.00) "Happy Birthday" (incorrect melody) Listening only 1.50 (1.50) 2.83 (0.58) 3.00 (0.00) Error identification 1.00 (1.00) 2.00 (0.00) 2.00 (0.00) Listening--playing 2.60 (0.80) 3.00 (0.00) 3.00 (0.00) Error identification 1.60

(0.49) 2.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) "This Old Man" (correct melody) Listening only 2.50 (0.87) 3.00 (0.00) 1.50 (2.12) Listening--playing 3.00 (0.00) 3.00 (0.00) 3.00 (0.00) "Old MacDonald" (correct melody) Listening only 3.00 (0.00) 2.45 (1.21) 3.00 (0.00) Listening-playing 3.00 (0.00) 2.20 (1.32) 3.00 (0.00) Note: The highest possible score for melody identification (listening only or listening--playing) was 3.0 and for error identification was 2.0.
Bundy, O. R., Jr. (1987). Junior high wind instrumentalists' perception of their performance as measured by detection of pitch and rhythm errors under live and recorded conditions (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 2567A-2568A. Byo, J. L. (1993). The influence of textural and timbral factors on the ability of music majors to detect performance errors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 156-167. Byo, J. L., & Sheldon, D. A. (2000). The effect of singing while listening on undergraduate music majors' ability to detect pitch and rhythm errors. Journal of Band Research, 36(1), 26-46. Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press. Crowe, D. D. (1996). Effect of score study style on beginning conductors' error detection abilities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 160-171. Cuddy, L. (1993). Melody comprehension and tonal structure. In T. J. Tighe & W. J. Dowling (Eds.), Psychology and music (pp. 19-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DeCarbo, N. J. (1982). The effects of conducting experience and programmed materials on error-detection scores of college conducting students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 187-200. Delzell, J. K. (1989). The effects of musical discrimination training in beginning instrumental music classes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 21-31. Delzell, J. K., Rohwer, D. A., & Ballard, D. E. (1999). Effects of melodic pattern difficulty and performance experience on ability to play by ear. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(1), 53-63. Ellis, M. C. (1989). The effect of concurrent music reading and performance on the ability to detect tempo change. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 288-297. Geringer, J. M. (1983). The relationship of pitch-matching and pitch-discrimination abilities of preschool and fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 93-99. Gordon, E. E. (1997). Learning sequences in music: Skill, content, and patterns: A music learning theory. Chicago: GIA. Grunow, R. Gordon, E., Azzara, C., & Martin, M. (2000). Jump right in: The instrumental series. Chicago: GIA. Hewitt, M. P. (2001). The effects of modeling, self-evaluation, and self-listening on junior high instrumentalists' music performance and practice attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(4), 307-322. Hewitt, M. P. (2005). Self-evaluation accuracy among high school and middle school instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(2), 148-161. Jordan-DeCarbo, J. (1989). The effect of pretraining conditions and age on pitch discrimination ability of preschool children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 132-145. Kageff, L. L. (1984). Melody recognition at abstract levels and the relationships to contour generation and tonal memory (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2793A.

Killian, J. N. (1996). Definitions of "knowing": Comparison of verbal report versus performance of children's songs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 215-228. Lamont, A. (1998). Music, education, and the development of pitch perception: The role of context, age and musical experience. Psychology of Music, 26, 7-25. Miles, E. M. (1972). Beat elimination as a means of teaching intonation to beginning wind instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20, 496-500. Morrison, S. (2000). Effect of melodic context, tuning behaviors, and experience on the intonation accuracy of wind players. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48(1), 39-51. Pedersen, D. M., & Pedersen, N. O. (1970). The relationship between pitch recognition and vocal pitch production in sixth-grade students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18, 265-272. Petzold, R. G. (1969). Auditory perception by children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 17, 82-87. Price, H. E. (2000). Interval matching by undergraduate music majors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 360-372. Ramsey, D. S. (1979). Programmed instruction using band literature to teach pitch and rhythm error detection to music education students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 27, 149-162. Rentz, E. (1992). Choral directors' perception of choral errors. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 9-15. Sheldon, D. (2004). Effects of multiple listenings on error-detection acuity in multivoice, multitimbral musical examples. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(2), 102-115. Sidnell, R. G. (1981). Individual differences in the perception of musical pitch. In National symposium on the applications of psychology to the teaching and learning of music: Documentary report of the Ann Arbor symposium (pp. 152-174). Reston, VA: MENC. Sprinthall, R. C., Schmulte, G. T., & Sirois, L. (1991). Understanding educational research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Thornton, L. C. (2004). The effects of listening condition on the melodic error detection of novice instrumentalists. Contributions to Music Education, 31(1), 11-22. Trehub, S. (1987). Infants' perception of musical patterns. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 635-641. Trehub, S. E., Cohen, A. J., Thorpe, L. A., & Morrongiello, B. (1986). Development of the perception of musical relations: Semitone and diatonic structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 295-301. Whitener, W. T. (1982). Comparison of two approaches to teaching beginning band. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 229-235. Yarbrough, C., Karrick, B., & Morrison, S. J. (1995). Effect of knowledge of directional mistuning on the tuning accuracy of beginning and intermediate wind players. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 232-241. Yarbrough, C., Morrison, S. J., & Karrick, B. (1997). The effect of experience, private instruction, and knowledge of discretional mistuning on the tuning performance and perception of high school wind players. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 134, 31-42.
~~~~~~~~ By Linda C. Thornton Linda C. Thornton is an assistant professor of music education at The Pennsylvania State University. She can be reached at lct12@psu.edu. Copyright of UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.