This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Alan Gumm (Central Michigan University), Measuring Mu- sic Conducting from Multiple Perspectives: Mixed Method Validity Analyses of a Six-Function Theory and Survey


The purpose of this study was to test the validity of a six- function theory of conducting as measured by the Conduct- ing Priorities Survey (CPS). Survey data were collected of conductors and consenting choir (N = 15), orchestra (N = 32), and band (N = 15) members in a north central U.S. uni- versity. Reliabilities of a concisely worded CPS were mini- mally adequate, though clarified wording and updated con- tent produced a robust version recommendable for general use. Discriminant analysis of ensemble ratings identified mechanical precision, motivation, and physical technique as significantly distinguishing functions. Conductor CPS and ensemble CPS means concurred (a) in identifying expres- sion, physical technique, and motivation as the choir con- ductor’s top priorities, (b) with researcher systematic obser- vations in identifying mechanical precision as the orchestra conductor’s top priority, and (c) with observation and inter- view analyses in identifying expression as the band conduc- tor’s highest priority. Significant correlations support the ensemble CPS as relatively comparable to researcher obser- vations and band musician interview content, and the band conductor CPS as relatively comparable to band conductor interview content. Band conductor and random ensemble member interview descriptions matched the constructs and contents of all six conducting functions, adding harmonic tension as an expressive musical reason to alternate physical technique and unrestrained tone functions. Initial descrip- tions were of obvious musical and motivational gestures and intentions, while revelations of intuitive or reflexive intentions and functions surfaced when prompted to com- pare musical and musician intents and then previously unad- dressed musician-specific functions. Significant correlations between time-coded function observations and Psysound3 computer-analyzed ensemble sound rationally explained how the band conductor shifted and combined functions to heighten expressive sound, motivate musicians to rebalance tone and volume, energize musicians’ sound production, and ease musician tension to refine noisiness, soften timbre, and release volume. Evidence convincingly yet tentatively sup- ports the content, construct, concurrent, and predictive va- lidity of the CPS.


Roundtable Discussions of Works in Progress


Sarah Bowman (University of Miami), The Emotional Impact of Negative Singing Experiences


The purpose of this study is to qualitatively examine the emotional impact of previous negative singing experiences in school among adults participating in a community choir. This study is guided by two central questions: (a) How do


participants describe their negative singing experiences in school? And (b) Why have participants returned to singing after having these negative experiences?


After considering a variety of approaches to studying the phenomenon of negative singing experiences within this population and context, it was decided that a multiple in- strumental case study would best fit. Similarly, Gabrielsson provides a conceptual framework for understanding Strong Experiences with Music (SEM) in terms of emotional reac- tions, elicitors, and consequences. The following extended research questions stem from this framework: (a) How do participants describe their emotional reactions to negative singing experiences in school? (b) Which musical and/or sit- uational factors can elicit those reactions? And (c) What are the consequences of negative singing experiences in school? Data sources will consist of individual interviews, partici- pant observations, and personal artifacts. Thematic within- case and cross-case analysis will be employed to yield emer- gent findings.


Phillip Hash (Calvin College), Development of a Music Self -Concept Inventory


The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measure of music self-concept for use by music educa- tors and researchers. Although authors have used the terms self-efficacy, self-concept and self-esteem interchangeably, recent literature refers to self-efficacy as beliefs regarding one’s ability to perform a specific task (e.g., “I can sight- read complex notation) and self-concept as a general beliefs about feeling and being (e.g., “How do I feel about my mu- sical self?”). Although researchers have developed a hand- ful of scales to measure these general constructs, none have been created in the past 35 years. Several recent authors have adapted Schmitt’s (1979) Self-Esteem of Music Ability (SEMA) scale originally intended for use among elementary children. This instrument contains 43 items and has demon- strated high reliability at α = >.90. Austin (1990) discovered that along with the composite SEMA score, the original scale items could be reliably divided into three subscales for (a) self-perception of music ability, (b) support or recognition from others, and (c) personal interest or desire. Although ef- fective, the length of Schmitt’s scale and subsequent adap- tions might take longer to administer than necessary. The purpose of this study is to create a modern inventory of mu- sic self-concept that (a) includes between 12-15 total items, (b) is divided into the subscales determined by Austin, and (c) demonstrates acceptable reliability (α = >.80) for the to- tal scale and subsections. This instrument will be useful to researchers studying music self-concept as well as teachers who wish to measure this construct among their students.


38


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56