Teacher Pacing in the Ensemble Setting
by Bradley J. Regier, University of Missouri-Columbia Reprinted with permission from Missouri School Music
Good teachers continually seek ways to become more pedagogically effective in the
classroom. How do we keep our students engaged when there are so many issues to address in so many sections of the ensemble? Multiple aspects contribute to perceived teacher effectiveness, among them planning, motivation, content knowledge, and the feedback we give our students (Tschannen- Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Researchers have examined the success of teacher feedback by focusing on teacher intensity, which has been defined as sustained control of the student/teacher interaction with efficient, accurate presentation of subject matter combined with enthusiastic affect and effective pacing (Standley & Madsen, 1987). Further investigation by scholars has revealed close correlations between teacher intensity, teacher effectiveness, and teacher pacing (Silveira, 2014). Music education researchers have given particular interest to the relationship between pacing and effective teaching.
As many teachers know, pacing can substantially influence the success of a lesson. If a teacher moves through information too quickly, some students will not fully understand the concepts, possibly resulting in more review time than the teacher anticipated. Alternately, if a teacher moves too slowly through the material, students could potentially lose interest and become off-task. Great teacher pacing is almost always present in our best classrooms, and researchers have investigated the commonalities among successful teachers and the effects of their pacing.
32
In a musical context, pacing has been defined as changes in focus of activity between teacher and students (Yarbrough, 1975; Yarbrough, Dunn, & Baird, 1996). Instruction and pacing in music performance settings have been identified as different from other academic areas because students often have more frequent performance opportunities to demonstrate identified skills. Scholars have recognized that the frequency of teacher and student activity, rather than the duration of such behaviors, corresponds with positive evaluations of preservice teachers (Duke, Prickett, & Jellison, 1998). Research participants also rated the pace more positively when the average lengths of teacher and student activity were shorter rather than longer. Among piano teachers in a one-on-one instructional setting, individuals that were identified as the most skilled by both expert observer evaluations (Siebenaler, 1997) and student accomplishment (Buckner, 1997) consistently exhibited more rapid alterations between student activity and teacher activity than were demonstrated by less-skilled teachers (Buckner, 1997; Siebenaler, 1997).
Teacher pace can vary according to the error being corrected (Cavitt, 2003). The longest sequence of teacher talk time often happens when ensemble tempo is being corrected and multiple directions are being given, resulting in the pace of rehearsal slowing down. Results of a study of choral rehearsals indicated that those with a slower pace had less-desirable effects, such as lower performance-rating, off- task student behavior, similar teacher facial expressions, incomplete sequences of instruction, less steady teacher speech speed, and similar voice pitch and volume
characteristics (Yarbrough, Dunn, & Baird, 1996). The authors of this study suggested that slower teacher pacing could affect both the behavior of students and teacher disposition in front of the classroom.
There are ways in which teachers can improve their pacing. One of the most effective is to cut down on the amount of time spent talking to the ensemble. A strategy to accomplish this goal is to make a conscience decision to give more concise feedback to the ensemble— even cutting down the feedback to seven words or less (Brinson & Demorest, 2013). Conductors can sometimes give elaborate explanations of the sound they need to hear from the ensemble. Often the best feedback is the simplest feedback, however. Instead of saying “Sopranos, take a look at measure 15. Can I get more volume from you please in that measure? Now what you sang was nice but I think we could possibly be a little louder. Let’s try that again,” simply say “Sopranos, measure 15 needs to be louder.” This is a simple, measurable goal for the section that provides an opportunity for quick feedback from the director in order to hear the necessary change from the musicians. Researchers have noted that choral ensemble members have expressed preference for teachers who talk less when giving feedback (Napoles, 2016). Furthermore, teacher delivery of instruction was identified by Napoles and MacLeod (2013) as being the best predictor of overall perceptions of teacher effectiveness.
Another strategy to reduce teacher talk is to use a clear conducting gesture (Kohut & Grant, 1990). This sounds like a simple
Continued on page 35 May/June 2017
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
