Author: Arthur Clarence VaughnPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Computer-assisted instruction
Languages : en
Pages : 141
Book Description
The purpose of this study was to contrast the effectiveness of computer-assisted ear-training instruction with the traditional style of ear-training instruction to determine if computer-assisted instruction increased the students' ability to identify auditory stimuli utilized in Basic Musicianship at a rate different from that of the traditional methodology. Procedures The setting of this experiment was at Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, using classes in Basic Musicianship, during the fall and winter quarters, 1976-77. Eighty students were randomly selected and randomly assigned to either the computer-assisted method (experimental group) or the traditional method (control group). Both groups used the same textbook and received the same lectures. The experimental group received the traditional classroom instruction including the theoretical underpinning necessary for understanding the concepts of ear-training, and used computer-assisted programs to reinforce the classroom learning. The control group received the same theoretical background as did the experimental group, but was free to reinforce this learning in any manner found satisfactory to each student. The Solomon Four-Group design was used to investigate pretest effect on the posttest scores and on the treatment. The Aliferis Music Achievement Test was selected as the criterion measure and was used as both pretest and posttest. Those not required to take the pretest were given a placebo developed by the researcher. Eight hours of computer-assisted instruction was administered to members of the experimental group between pretesting and posttesting. Selected Findings Using the repeated measures analysis of variance to contrast the experimental and control groups on the basis of the criterion measure posttest, the following findings were noted: 1. The computed F for the total criterion test was 12.030 for the treatment variable, 142.300 for the test variable, and 32.292 for the interaction, a significant difference favoring the experimental group at the 0.05 level of confidence. 2. Contrasting the mean scores, based on test question categories of melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic, showed a significant -a significant difference again favoring the experimental group. In the melodic category the computed F was 6.527 for the treatment variable, 125.787 for the test variable, and 32.814 for the interaction. In the harmonic category the computed F was 4.597 for the treatment variable, 40.599 for the test variable, and 8.270 for the interaction. In the rhythmic category the computed F was 10.382 for the treatment variable, 47.134 for the test variable, and 9.640 for the interaction. All of the F-ratios were significant at the 0.05 level of confidence. 3. Selected t-tests revealed that both groups began the experiment at the same level of music achievement, and that the pretest had no learning effect upon the posttest scores. 4. Investigation of the sample using the Bartlett-Box F test for homogeneity of variance found that both groups were representative of the population. 5. In addition to the criterion measure, a study of student attitude toward computer-assisted instruction was made. The results of this questionnaire revealed that the students in the experimental group held a positive attitude regarding the use of the computer to study ear-training. Conclusions The following conclusions were made based on and supported by the data in this study: 1. That significantly more academic growth in ear-training occurred when students utilized the computer for this study than when they did not. 2. That it made no difference if the type of computer-assisted instruction was melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic, achievement growth occurred in all areas. 3. That students using the computer were able to save a considerable amount of time in developing ear-training skills. 4. That because students could conceivably complete the eartraining portion of Basic Musicianship in less time, the expense of offering such courses might be reduced. 5. That the students showed a willingness to experiment with alternative methods of instruction. 6. That the concerns of music educators toward computer assisted instruction need to be addressed before large-scale utilization is possible.
Author: Molly Ann Weaver
Author: Maria Sue Bradshaw
Author: Richard Colwell
Author: Susanna Király
Author: M. D. Roblyer
Author: 
Author: Rose Marie Cooper
Author: Council for Research in Music Education
Author: