Goolsby1996 PDF
Goolsby1996 PDF
Goolsby1996 PDF
Thomas W. Goolsby
GeorgiaState University
Time Use in
Instrumental Rehearsals:
A Comparison of
Experienced, Novice, and
Student Teachers
METHOD
Subjects
Procedures
Three rehearsals of the same ensemble were recorded for each par-
ticipating teacher, resulting in a total of 90 rehearsals videotaped over
a 4-month period. Attempts were made for the actual videotaping to
remain unobtrusive in order for the rehearsals to represent typical
band classes conducted by each participating teacher. Teachers
rehearsed their own ensembles, with each teacher preparing music that
he or she would conduct on an approaching performance. Repertoire
comprised music from Grades III, IV, and V for the middle school
bands, and Grades IV,V, and VI for the high school bands. The middle
school bands ranged in size from 47 to 68 members. The high school
bands ranged in membership from 42 to 61 students.
Arrangements were made with the novice teachers and student
teachers to determine the specific rehearsals to be videotaped.
Arrangements with the experienced teachers allowed for a 1-week win-
dow during which the researcher videotaped three rehearsals. To
reduce the effects of having a visitor present, only the second and third
tapes were used in the data analysis. This resulted in a total of 60
rehearsals (two for each of the 30 teachers). All teachers were video-
taped between 3 and 9 school days prior to a concert or festival perfor-
mance. Selected variables were measured in real time using a series of
stop watches and repeated viewings of videotapes. Variables included:
1. Totalduration of the classperiod.
2. Preparation(time between the beginning of the class and the
beginning of the rehearsal; as Wagner & Strul (1979) observed,
this is a teacher-directed activity).
3. Initial teachertalk (teacher-directed conversation or announce-
ments that were irrelevant or off-task to the day's rehearsal; ref-
erence to the music or rehearsal signaled the beginning of the
next variable).
4. Totaltimein ensemblewarm-up,which was subdivided into:
Teacher Activities
a. verbal instruction [clarifying subject matter, teacher ques-
tioning, lecturing, conversation in which students and
teachers interact, and giving directions (Wagner & Strul,
1979)],
b. nonverbal instruction (i.e., demonstration and modeling),
c. verbal discipline [i.e., disapproval for social behavior by
the teacher following any disruption of the learning envi-
ronment that interferes with learning (Yarbrough & Price,
1981)],
d. number of times the teacher stopped.
Performance Activities
e. full ensemble performance,
f. group/sectional performance,
g. individual performance,
h. breathing/humming/clapping/singing/counting
exercises,
i. number of rehearsal segments.
5. Time devotedto a breakfollowing the warm-upselection.
6. Total time in rehearsingthefirst selection (subdivided as above).
7. Time devotedto a second break.
8. Total time in rehearsinga second selection(subdivided as above).
9. Time in a third break.
10. Total time in rehearsinga third selection,if included (subdivided
as above).
11. Time in a fourth break.
12. Total time rehearsingafourth selection,if included (subdivided as
above).
13. Final teachertalk (verbal comments at the conclusion of the
rehearsal).
14. Dismissal (the time between the end of the rehearsal and the end
of the class period).
All timings were rounded to the nearest 0.25 second. Class periods
ranged from 45 to 60 minutes (2,700 to 3,600 seconds). All timings
were converted to seconds and then to percentages of the class period.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if the three
groups of teachers differed on length of class period. Results indicated
that there was no difference, F (2, 27) = 1.7, p > .10 (a Levene test for
homogeneity of variance indicated that rehearsal length between
groups did not violate assumptions for the ANOVA).
Reliability of the measurement of these variables was estimated by
requesting two advanced graduate students who had been successful
band directors to measure and record the timings for three separate
rehearsals. Correlations were determined for each student's results
with those obtained by the researcher. The correlation between mea-
surements by one graduate student and those of the researcher was r=
.93 and between those of the second graduate student and those of the
researcher was r = .90. The reliability of the measure was clearly accept-
able.
RESULTS
ClassTimeSpentin:
- Musicalinstruction& performance
100
Nonteachingactivities
xvQ,^~~~~~~ ~80.6%
80 -
i 76.9%67.3% 67.3%
60 -
40 -
32.7%
*23.1%
23.1% 19.4%
20--'
Teaching Experience
tion, initial and final teacher talk, breaks between musical selections,
and the dismissal period. Nonteaching activities also included the class
time when a teacher attempted to stop the ensemble but was required
to wait before providing instruction. Results described here and shown
in the figure and tables in this study report summated means, calculat-
ed for each teacher's two observations.
Interestingly, the results shown in Figure 1 indicate little difference
between student teachers and experienced teachers in quantity of time
devoted to the actual task of rehearsing, that is, musical instruction and
performance. Since the student teachers had closely observed and
worked with the experienced teachers, one might expect that the
results would be similar. The way this time is used, however, differs as
described below. Novice teachers devoted only 67.3% of the class peri-
od to teaching activities, which differed from the student teacher (M=
76.9%) and the experienced teacher (M= 80.6%).
The "ClassTime in Teaching Activities" category of Table 1 contains
each teacher group's mean percentage of class time (and SD) devoted
to performance (subdivided into percentages of time spent in full
ensemble, group, and individual playing, plus the rehearsal time spent
in humming/breathing/clapping exercises), verbal instruction, non-
verbal instruction (i.e., demonstration and modeling), and verbal dis-
cipline (verbal disapproval or reprimands of social behaviors).
Experienced teachers devoted more than twice as much time to per-
formance than to verbal instruction; they also spent more time in non-
verbal demonstration and modeling behaviors than the other teachers.
Student teachers spent an equal amount of time in verbal behaviors as
Table 1
Mean Percentages(and StandardDeviations)of Class TimeDevotedto TeacherBehaviorsby
Groups
highest
ClassTimein TeachingActivities:
Performance 35.5 (6.3) 35.1 (6.4) 51.2 (7.2) ST NT ET
Full ensemble 26.2 (4.8) 28.0 (5.8) 41.2 (9.5)
Sections/groups 7.1 (3.2) 5.4 (2.6) 6.6 (3.6)
Individuals 1.1 (1.0) 1.0 (0.7) 1.4 (0.8)
Exercises 0.6 (0.6) 0.3 (0.6) 1.0 (1.2)
Verbalinstruction 35.4 (5.1) 26.6 (2.9) 24.1 (1.7) ET NT ST
Nonverbal 3.0 (0.6) 2.4 (0.7) 5.4 (3.4) NT ST ET
Discipline 3.6 (1.8) 3.5 (1.8) 0.9 (1.3) ET NT ST
Perctage of TotalClassTimeDevotedto:
Warm-up 19.2 (8.9) 17.0 (5.1) 20.6 (6.6) N.S.
Firstselection 46.3 (13.0) 33.0 (8.2) 28.9 (10.7) ET NT ST
Second selection 20.6 (7.2) 24.3 (5.9) 32.5 (12.5)
n=9 n=10 n=10
Third selection 11..9 (1.8) 13.0 (4.5) 14.1 (10.6)
n=3 n=5 n=7
Fourthselection 0.0 10.9 (2.0) 0.0
n=0 n=2 n=0
selections. These breaks occurred more frequently and were longer for
the experienced teachers (who provided breaks after each musical
selection). This period of time was usually indicated by the conductor
stepping off a podium or away from the "center stage." The group was
brought back to task by conductors using the same signal used to start
the rehearsal. ANCOVA and the Tukey-HSD again indicated that the
experienced teachers differed from the other two groups. Relatively
few student teachers or novice teachers allowed for breaks (as indicat-
ed by the larger variance). Means for the percentage of class time
devoted to ensemble breaks also are reported in Table 1. This result is
somewhat surprising, since one might expect the student teachers to
emulate the experienced teachers in the use of this technique.
"Final teacher talk"was short for all groups of teachers. It accounted
for less than 1% of the total class time for all three groups. These com-
ments were usually a brief expression of gratitude for the band's coop-
eration and a verbal dismissal. "Dismissal" included the percentage of
total class time that the teachers allowed between their dismissal of the
band to the time when the class period was over. Although no signifi-
cant difference was found for dismissal and all means were close to 2%
of the total class period (experienced teachers were highest by a slight
degree, M = 2.4%), discussion with several experienced teachers
revealed that they consider this an essential component of the
rehearsal. They found it unreasonable to expect their own students to
arrive punctually if they failed to allow students to arrive at their next
class on time. On this particular variable, it seems that the student
teachers used the experienced teachers' guidelines.
The lower category in Table 1, "Percentage of Total Class Time
Devoted to," contains the mean percentages (and SD) of the class peri-
ods devoted to the warm-up and rehearsal of each musical selection for
the three groups of teachers. These means reflect the total time devot-
ed to rehearsal of each selection (i.e., total verbal and nonverbal
instruction, performance, and nonteaching activities) calculated from
two observations for each teacher. The experienced teachers spent
more time in warm-up than did the student teachers or the novice
teachers, and they balanced the remaining rehearsal time between the
first and second selections. The third selection was frequently a previ-
ously prepared piece or a "fun piece" that was often played without
stopping. The student teachers demonstrated a tendency to spend the
most time on the first selection. The novice teachers were the only con-
ductors that attempted to rehearse a fourth selection.
Nineteen of the 20 rehearsals led by the student teachers and 19 led
by the novice teachers began with an ensemble warm-up; all 20
rehearsals by the experienced teachers involved a warm-up. Mean per-
centages (and SD) of the class period spent in warm-up for the student
teachers, novice teachers, and experienced teacher are reported in
Table 1. Analysis of covariance indicated no difference between groups
on time spent in warm-up. A "firstmusical selection" was rehearsed dur-
ing all 60 rehearsals recorded. Analysis of covariance indicated a dif-
ference in time spent in rehearsing the first selection [F (2, 26) = 7.0,
Table 2
MeanLengths(and StandardDeviations)of Performance
Segmentsand TeachingSegments(in
Seconds)
highest
Performancesegments 17.2 (2.1) 23.1 (8.4) 25.1 (6.2) ST NT ET
Teachingsegments 28.9 (6.9) 26.7 (7.8) 17.4 (4.1) ET NT ST
p < .01], with the post hoc test indicating that the student teachers used
a larger percentage of class time for this portion of the rehearsal than
did the other two groups. The mean percentage of class time spent on
the first selection was 46.3% for the student teachers, with means of
33.0% and 28.9% for the novice teachers and experienced teachers,
respectively. In four cases for the student teachers, these times may
have resulted from a desire to prepare "their" musical selection for a
noteworthy performance at a festival. For the other six student teach-
ers, however, performances at which each would conduct at least three
selections were approaching.
No significant difference was found for the percentage of class time
spent in rehearsing the second musical selection. The data for the time
devoted to rehearsing a third and fourth selection failed to pass the
Levene test for homogeneity of variance. Means for the percentage of
class time spent rehearsing a third musical selection by the student
teachers, novice teachers, and experienced teachers were 11.9% (n =
3), 13.0% (n = 5), and 14.1% (n = 7), respectively (n = directors who
rehearsed a third selection during both recorded rehearsals). Three
novice teachers rehearsed a fourth selection during both recorded
rehearsals; two additional novice teachers rehearsed a fourth selection
during one of the rehearsals.
Table 2 contains the mean lengths of performance segments and
teaching segments. These variables were calculated and are reported in
real-time. The mean length of performance segments was calculated by
dividing the total performance time by the number of times each
teacher asked an individual or group to perform. The variable "teach-
ing segments" includes the time that the conductor indicated for the
group (or individual) to cease playing until they were restarted. These
periods of teaching time were usually for verbal instruction, nonverbal
modeling, or occasionally for no comment at all. As indicated in Table
2, the student teachers averaged the shortest performance segments
and the longest average teaching segments. The length of teaching seg-
ments reported by Witt (1986), 31 seconds by orchestra directors and
23 seconds by band directors, are more similar to those found for the
student teachers and the novice teachers than for the experienced
teachers.
Analysis of variance indicated significant differences between groups
for both performance and teaching segments (p < .05). The experi-
enced teachers and novice teachers had the longest performance seg-
ments and included three teachers in the experienced teachers group
and four novice teachers that allowed the band to play a straight run-
through of at least one musical selection (resulting in the larger vari-
ance for the novice teachers). The inflated means for teaching seg-
ments by the student teachers and the novice teachers may reflect their
occasional difficulty in getting the students to stop playing. The
researcher observed that some conductors had trouble getting the
group to respond to their gestures to cease playing.
The most discriminating variables appearing in the results for these
30 instrumental music teachers were (1) total time spent in perfor-
mance (more for experienced teachers, less for student teachers and
novice teachers), (2) nonverbal modeling (more for the experienced
teachers, less for novice teachers), (3) time spent in verbal instruction
(more for student teachers, less for experienced teachers and novice
teachers), and (4) time provided for breaks (more by the experienced
teachers, less by student teachers and novice teachers). This last com-
ponent, the number and length of breaks given by the experienced
teachers, has not been discussed in previous literature on the use of
time by ensemble directors. Discussion with these teachers revealed
that many experienced teachers felt strongly about the importance of
allowing students to have a moment to "relax"several times throughout
the period. During discussion with the researcher, several of the expe-
rienced teachers indicated they felt it unreasonable to expect students
to stay on task for 50 minutes; these teachers used several short periods
for "unison off-task behavior" rather than risk individuals interrupting
the rehearsal. Some experienced teachers used this time to complete
attendance sheets, talk to individuals about performance or technical
problems, deal with individual student problems, or handle a combi-
nation of these activities.
DISCUSSION
Table3
EstimatedProfilesofEach Group'sRehearsalOutline,Basedon a 50-MinuteClassPeriod
REFERENCES
Brand, M. (1990). Master music teachers; what makes them great? Music
EducatorsJournal, 76 (2), 22-25.
Buell, D. S. (1990). Effectiverehearsalwith the instrumentalmusic ensemble:A case
study.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Caldwell, W. M. (1980). A time analysis of selectedmusical elementsand leadership
behaviorsof successfulhigh school choral conductors.Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Florida State University.
Carpenter, R. A. (1988). A descriptive analysis of relationships between verbal
behaviors of teacher-conductors and ratings of selected junior and senior
high school rehearsals. Update:TheApplicationsof Researchin Music Education,
7 (1), 37-40.
Colwell, R. J., & Goolsby, T. W. (1992). The teaching of instrumentalmusic (2nd
edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dodson, T. (1989). Are students learning music in band? Music Educators
Journal, 76 (3), 25-29.
Ellsworth, E. V. (1985). A descriptiveanalysis of the characteristicsof effectivehigh
school orchestradirectorsincluding a study of elected rehearsal characteristics.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Forsythe, J. L. (1977). Elementary student attending behavior as a function of
classroom activities. Journal of Researchin Music Education, 25, 228-239.
Grechesky, R. N. (1985). An analysis of non-verbaland verbalconductingbehaviors
and their relationshipsto expressivemusical performance.Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Howell, D. C. (1982). Statistical methodsfor psychology.Boston: Duxbury Press.
Hunt, A. (1989). Advice for new instrumental music teachers. Music Educators
Journal, 75 (8), 39-41.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioralresearch(3rd ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kohut, D. (1973). Instrumental music pedagogy.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Kostka, M. J. (1984). An investigation of reinforcements, time use and student
attentiveness in piano lessons. Journal of Researchin Music Education, 32,
113-122.
Madsen, C. K. (1971). How reinforcement techniques work. Music Educators
Journal, 57 (8), 37-41.
Madsen,C. K.,& Duke, R. A. (1993). Selection and development of prospective
music teachers. Journal of Music TeacherEducation, 3 (1), 5-11.
Madsen, C. K., & Geringer,J. M. (1983). Attending behavior as a function of in-
class activity in university music classes. Journal of Music Therapy,20, 30-38.
Madsen, C. K., & Yarbrough, C. (1980). Competency-based music education.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [Reprinted 1985, Raleigh, NC:
Contemporary Music Press.]
Moore, R. (1976). The effects of videotaped feedback and self-evaluation forms
on teaching skills, musicianship, and creativity of prospective elementary
teachers. Bulletin of the Councilfor Researchin Music Education, no. 47, 1-7.
Moore, R. (1981). Comparative use of teaching time by American and British
elementary school specialists. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music