Teachers’ Practices and Beliefs Regarding Teaching Tuning in Elementary and Middle School Group String Classes

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine teachers’ practices and beliefs related to the teaching of stringed instrument tuning in elementary and middle school group classes. The aspects examined included the following: (a) teachers’ beliefs about teaching tuning in their string classes, (b) activities teachers used when teaching tuning in string classes, (c) methods for assessing students’ tuning skills, (d) the grade level that tuning instruction begins, (e) the amount of instructional time used for teaching tuning, (f) teachers’ goals for students’ tuning independence, and (g) teacher, program, or school characteristics that affect how and when tuning is taught. Participants (N = 139) reported that the average time required to develop tuning independence is 4.5 years. The amount of instructional time available and the level of students’ aural skills were the greatest perceived obstacles to developing tuning independence. Significant differences were found in tuning activities, beliefs about students’ tuning abilities, and assessment procedures and were based on participants’ age, teaching experience, and grade levels taught. The findings indicate a need for further development of tuning pedagogy and greater use of formal assessment to determine if students have developed the prerequisite skills for tuning.

Keywords

tuning stringed instruments teaching tuning elementary and middle school string pedagogy assessment orchestra

Within the field of string education, considerable research has been conducted in the area of string technique and pedagogy (Mishra, 2000), including the aptitude, attitude, and achievement of individuals in string teaching and learning situations (K. Hamann, 2000). A body of research findings also has been developed in the area of basic kinesthetic skills, development of accurate intonation, the teaching of music reading, and the development of basic musicianship (Smith, 1989). Much less attention, however, has been devoted to studying the acquisition of rudimentary musical skills, such as musicians’ ability to tune their instruments to a pitch standard (Platt & Racine, 1985). The importance of developing independent tuning skills has been well established. Fischbach (2003) noted that tuning “is one of the most fundamental, most important, most serious skills string players must master” (p. 33). D. Hamann, Lauver, and Asher (2006) observed that “teaching students independent tuning skills is critical to the success of any music ensemble, as well as to individual students within that ensemble” (p. 44).

In school settings, string players must learn how to tune their own instruments to a pitch standard within a group class. Complicating this process is the fact that each student then must tune the remaining strings to perfect fifth intervals (violins, violas, cellos) or, in the case of double bassists, unison intervals using harmonics. Cellists often tune using a combination of open strings and harmonics. Many factors affect students’ ability to tune their instruments accurately and confidently, including instructional setting, classroom procedures, and student ability levels (D. Hamann, Frost, & Wieters, 2002). Due to the complex nature of tuning in a group class, teaching string students to tune their instruments can be an “arduous and slow task” (Alexander, 2008, p. 20). Many directors have tried incorporating visual electronic tuners into rehearsal to increase the efficiency of the tuning process (Alexander, 2008; Graulty, 2010). Critics of visual tuners observe that the use of electronic tuners diverts students away from developing their aural skills. Graulty (2010) wrote, “Electronic tuners often encourage players to bypass the listening process entirely because they turn the process of tuning from an aural exercise into a visual one” (p. 55).

Aural-based tuning pedagogy remains an important issue in string education, as evidenced by the large number of pedagogical articles that has been published on teaching aural-based tuning in a classroom setting (Alexander, 2008; Becker, 2001; Cole, 2005; Fischbach, 2003; Gendron, 2002; Hopkins, 2002; Kjelland, 1993; Shrader, 2009; Simmons, 2007). Researchers have examined the effects of verbal and visual feedback on tuning accuracy (Codding, 1987) and on students’ perceptions of their tuning ability and independence (Hamann, Frost, & Wieters, 2002). They also have compared students’ perceived tuning ability to actual tuning ability (D. Hamann et al., 2006) and compared tuning accuracy using a variety of reference pitch stimuli (Alexander, 2000; Geringer & Witt, 1985; D. Hamann et al., 2006; Platt & Racine, 1985). The findings from prior research provide insight into some of the issues and challenges surrounding the teaching of stringed instrument tuning in a classroom setting. While researchers have investigated the tuning performance and tuning perception of high school, college student, and professional string instrumentalists, there has been little research into the teaching of stringed instrument tuning at the elementary and middle school levels.

Method

Instrument

A questionnaire was developed by the researcher after reviewing the related pedagogical and research literature. The survey instrument was then revised over a 4-month process of consultation with a panel of three elementary and middle school orchestra teachers, university experts in social research and questionnaire design, and university music education faculty. The questionnaire items were organized into three sections on the basis of recommendations from survey design literature (Dillman, 2007).

The questionnaire used in the main study contained 84 items and required approximately 20 min to complete. Section 1 contained 10 researcher-developed items about the school program (size of district, school, and program; demographic profile; grade level in which instruction begins; single or mixed instrument classes; number of students taking lessons; number of students on free or reduced-price lunch program; instrument quality). Section 2 contained 59 researcher-developed items that examined factors related to the teaching of stringed instrument tuning in elementary and middle school group classes. Section 3 contained 15 teacher background items (grade levels currently taught, years of professional teaching experience, teaching situation, principal instrument, educational attainment, professional activity, gender, age, ethnicity, race). The demographic questions on age, race, ethnicity, and educational attainment were adapted from the 2000 U.S. Census. The other items in Section 3 were researcher developed.

The 59 questionnaire items in Section 2 included 12 items that examined teachers’ beliefs about teaching tuning in their youngest string class (Tuning Beliefs Scale [TBS]). Nine items examined tuning activities used when teaching tuning in string classes (Tuning Activities Scale [TAS]). Thirteen items examined methods for assessing students’ tuning skills (Methods of Assessment Scale [MAS]). Other items examined the grade level that tuning instruction begins, amount of instructional time used for teaching tuning, and teachers’ goals for students’ tuning independence.

Content and construct validity of questionnaire items was determined through external review of the questionnaire by three experts in string education. The questionnaire was pilot tested with a convenience sample of 16 elementary and middle school orchestra teachers familiar to the researcher. As a result of feedback from participants in the pilot study, the language of some items was modified. The length of the questionnaire was shortened by removal of items that were found to lower the reliability of the TBS, TAS, and MAS scales as determined by Cronbach’s alpha analyses.

In order to improve response rate, a version of the questionnaire was developed for participants who preferred to take the survey online. The online questionnaire was identical to the mailed questionnaire in item and page layout. Research has shown that a mixed-mode survey approach can improve survey response rate, which has been in decline over the past decade (Dillman et al., 2009).

Procedures

Study approval was obtained from the university institutional review board. A sample of 600 elementary and middle school orchestra teachers’ school addresses was drawn from a list of U.S. public schools with elementary or middle school orchestra directors (N = 11,519) through a simple random sampling procedure. MTD Data Warehouse, an organization specializing in collecting and maintaining school performing arts databases, provided the list (http://www.mtdmarketing.com/). A sample size of 600 was chosen to provide adequate coverage and to minimize sampling error (Lohr, 2008) on the basis of projected response rates provided to the researcher by social research experts.

The survey administration procedure was adapted from Dillman (2007) and contained the following steps: (a) Prenotice invitation letter mailed to participants 10 days prior to the survey mailing describing the importance of the study, with an online option available upon request by e-mailing the researcher; (b) questionnaire mailed to the school addresses of participants, with online participants e-mailed a link to take the survey; (c) thank-you/reminder postcards or e-mails sent 10 days after the mailing of the questionnaire; (d) follow-up phone calls made 14 days after the postcard mailing; (e) replacement questionnaire mailed to nonrespondents a week after the follow-up phone calls; and (f) reminder e-mails sent to online nonrespondents.

Responses were obtained from 168 teachers, yielding a response rate of 28%. Of the 168 surveys returned, 29 respondents reported that they did not currently teach elementary or middle school orchestra, yielding 139 surveys for analysis. Given the modest response rate, returned surveys were analyzed to determine if the survey participants were representative of the target population. The distribution of completed returned surveys (N = 139) by National Association for Music Education (NAfME) division was as follows: 35.3% from Eastern Division, 12.2% from North Central Division, 7.2% from Northwest Division, 12.2% from Southern Division, 10.8% from Southwestern Division, and 22.3% from the Western Division. A chi-square test of goodness of fit revealed no significant difference in proportion of orchestra programs by NAfME division between survey participants and the survey population, χ²(5, N = 139) = 10.033, p = .074.

Descriptive data about the participants also were compared to the findings of prior research on string teachers in the United States. Several participant characteristics confirmed the similarity of the sample with prior findings. In the current study, 69% of the participants reported teaching in more than one school, with 57% reporting they teach at multiple levels. D. Hamann, Gillespie, and Bergonzi (2002) also found that orchestra teachers tended to teach at more than one level, with 66% of elementary and middle school teachers in their sample reporting they taught in more than two schools. In the current study, 29% of participants reported that their principal instrument in college was not one of the four orchestral stringed instruments. Gillespie and Hamann (1998) found the same characteristic in 33% of their sample. In the current study, 43% of the participants surveyed reported starting students in the fourth grade, with 34% starting instruction in the fifth grade or higher. Gillespie and Hamann reported that most beginning string classes occurred in grades 4, 5, or 6. Hamann, Gillespie, & Bergonzi (2002) found the most popular grade to begin strings was the fourth (31%), followed by the fifth (30%).

A total of 93 participants completed the survey by mail, and 43 completed the survey online. No significant differences were found in participant responses to the survey items on the basis of survey mode, with the exception that the mean age of participants who preferred to take the survey online was lower than those who responded to the survey by mail, t(128) = −2.08, p = .039 (6 participants did not provide an age). Because the geographical demographics of nonrespondents were found to be similar to respondents, and the characteristics of respondents resembled those found by prior research, the risk of nonrespondent bias appears to be minimized for this sample. The data collected have a sampling error of ±7.5% at a 95% level of confidence, which should be considered when interpreting the results.

Results

Grade-Level Tuning Instruction Begins

A majority of participants (63.5%) started aural skills development (e.g., singing, matching pitch with voice or instrument, identifying intervals, etc.) during the 1st year of instruction regardless of the grade instruction began, but far fewer (28.4%) began teaching physical tuning procedures (e.g., manipulating fine tuners and/or pegs) in the 1st year of instruction. Many waited to teach physical tuning procedures until the 2nd (29.9%) or 3rd year (22.6%) of instruction. The most common grade at which participants began teaching physical tuning skills was fifth grade. Thirty-nine percent of third-grade beginners, 34% of fourth-grade beginners, and 46% of fifth-grade beginners started learning the physical skills to tune their instruments in fifth grade. Regardless of when students began learning to play, by the time students reached seventh grade, 92% of participants had commenced training in both the aural and physical skills necessary for their students to tune independently.

Beliefs About Teaching Tuning

Descriptive data on participants’ beliefs about teaching tuning in their youngest string class are presented in Table 1. The majority of participants believed that their youngest students’ aural skills were not developed enough to begin teaching them how to tune their own instruments. The majority of participants believed their students were physically ready to turn fine tuners, but a large majority reported their priority was on teaching other skills besides tuning in their youngest string class. A large majority of participants reported that their string class played more in tune and had more time to play music if they tuned their students’ instruments. There also was widespread belief that the teaching of tuning takes too much instructional time.

Table 1.

Participants’ Beliefs Regarding the Teaching of Tuning in Their Youngest String Class.

Tuning Belief Scale (TBS) Item	SD (5)	D (4)	NA or D (3)	A (2)	SA (1)	N
1. The aural skills of the students in my youngest string class are not developed enough to begin teaching them how to tune their own instruments.	7.3%	24.1%	16.1%	40.1%	12.4%	137
2. The students in my youngest string class are not physically ready to turn fine tuners.	16.1	43.1	11.7	19.0	10.2	137
3. My priority is on teaching other skills in my youngest string class.	0.7	10.9	13.1	33.6	41.6	137
4. Teaching tuning in my youngest string class takes up too much instructional time.	6.6	16.2	14.7	37.5	25.0	136
5. The quality of students’ instruments in my youngest string class makes it difficult to teach tuning.	2.9	19.0	19.7	40.1	18.2	137
6. We have more time to play music in my youngest string class if I tune the students’ instruments.	0.7	7.3	9.5	40.9	41.6	137
7. The students in my youngest string class will become disruptive if we spend a lot of class time learning to tune.	7.3	32.8	28.5	22.6	8.8	137
8. If we spend a lot of class time learning to tune in my youngest string class it may negatively impact my students' motivation to continue playing an instrument.	9.5	22.6	36.5	22.6	8.8	137
9. The students in my youngest string class cannot learn to play in tune unless I tune all their instruments.	7.3	21.2	24.1	36.5	10.9	137
10. I am concerned that my students may injure themselves or others in the class if they break a string while trying to tune with their pegs.	10.2	32.8	21.9	27.7	7.3	137
11. My youngest string class plays more in tune if I tune the instruments.	2.2	5.9	17.8	43.0	31.1	135
12. I am unsure how I would teach tuning in my youngest string class.	24.1	42.3	13.9	16.8	2.9	137

Note: SD = strongly disagree; D = disagree, NA or D = neither agree nor disagree; A = agree, SA = strongly agree. Two participants who completed the mailed survey did not complete page 2 of the survey booklet; thus, N = 137 rather than 139 for these items.

Instrument Quality, Instructional Time, Tuning Obstacles, and Teaching Strategies

Seventy-eight percent of participants reported that the majority of their students’ instruments were of good quality, and 93% reported that most or all of their students’ instruments were equipped with fine tuners (string adjusters).

When participants began teaching their students how to tune independently, 57% reported that the tuning procedure took less than 5 min, and 92% reported that the tuning procedure took 10 min or less. Once tuning instruction was initiated, participants varied considerably in the frequency that they revisited tuning instruction in their classes. Seventeen percent reported teaching tuning in every class, 11% taught tuning once a week, 20% biweekly, 21% monthly, and 11% less than once per month.

When participants taught tuning, 76% reported spending less than 25% of their class period on tuning instruction, with 49% spending less than 10%. Sixty-eight percent reported teaching only with the fine tuners, while 32% reported teaching students to tune with both pegs and fine tuners.

Participants were asked, “What do you believe is the greatest obstacle your students are currently facing in learning to tune in this group class?” Responses ranged from amount of instructional time (25%) to students’ aural skills development (21%), students’ confidence in their tuning ability (13%), the quality of students’ instruments (16%), and students’ physical readiness to turn pegs (10%). Some participants (7.1%) reported that their own lack of training in teaching tuning in a group class was the greatest obstacle.

Survey participants were provided with a list of strategies for teaching tuning taken from the literature (Alexander, 2008; Fischbach, 2003; Gendron, 2002; Hopkins, 2002; Kjelland, 1993; Simmons, 2007) and were asked to indicate the frequency of use with their youngest classes. Descriptive data regarding the frequency of tuning activities are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Participants’ Frequency of Tuning Activities Used in Youngest Class in Which Tuning Was Taught (in percentages).

Tuning Activity Scale (TAS) Item	Never (1)	Less Than Once a Month (2)	Once a Month (3)	2–3 Times a Month (4)	Once a Week (5)	Every Class (6)	N ^a
1. Teacher asks students to match pitches with singing voice	26.0	17.3	11.0	15.7	13.4	16.5	127
2. Teacher asks students to sing or hum perfect fifth intervals of open strings (e.g., sing or hum A, then sing or hum D)	55.6	20.6	6.3	7.1	4.8	5.6	126
3. Teacher asks students to sing or hum A, then sing down a scale to D	63.1	22.1	6.6	2.5	4.9	0.8	122
4. Teacher provides students with verbal feedback while they are tuning (e.g., saying “sharp,” “flat,” etc.)	10.2	6.3	5.5	11.0	16.5	50.4	127
5. Teacher provides students with visual feedback while they are tuning (e.g., thumbs up, thumbs down; smiling when in tune; raised eyebrows, etc.)	16.5	7.9	5.5	11.0	16.5	42.5	127
6. Students tune using a pitch produced by an electronic tuner	34.9	9.5	6.3	7.1	8.7	33.3	126
7. Students tune using visual feedback from an electronic tuner	49.2	13.5	1.6	6.3	6.3	23.0	126
8. Students receive peer feedback (verbal or visual)	31.0	12.7	8.7	13.5	15.1	19.0	126
9. Teacher uses questioning techniques (e.g., asking students if they are sharp or flat)	11.0	5.5	10.2	16.5	22.0	34.6	127

Twelve of the 139 participants indicated that they do not teach tuning in any of their string classes, so they could not provide responses to the TAS items presented in Table 3. Some participants left a few TAS items blank, thus the lower N for some of the items.

Verbal feedback, questioning techniques, and visual feedback from the teacher were common strategies reported by participants. The use of electronic tuners varied among participants. Twenty-three percent reported having students use visual feedback from an electronic tuner in every class, with 49% never using this practice. Thirty-three percent used a reference pitch produced by an electronic tuner in every class, while 35% never used this practice. The most common use of the voice was to ask students to match reference pitches with the singing voice, with other singing strategies less commonly used. A majority never asked their students to sing or hum perfect fifth intervals of open strings (e.g., sing or hum A; then sing or hum D).

Methods of Assessing Prerequisite Tuning Skills

Survey participants were asked to indicate their method for assessing prerequisite tuning skills in the youngest class where they taught tuning. Participants were given four assessment options: (a) formal assessment (e.g., individual testing or skills check for a grade), (b) informal assessment (e.g., checking individuals in class, no grade), (c) group observation only, and (d) no assessment method used. The methods of assessment data are presented in Table 3. Findings indicated frequent use of formal assessment to determine student ability to produce a good tone with the bow, with some formal assessment of student ability to match pitch. Many participants reported using informal assessment procedures to determine an individual student’s ability to adjust fine tuners while plucking or bowing, but far fewer participants informally assessed a student’s ability to adjust pegs while plucking or bowing.

Table 3.

Assessment Procedures Used to Determine Tuning Prerequisite Skills in Youngest Class in Which Tuning Was Taught (in percentages).

Methods of Assessment (MAS) Item	Formal (4)	Informal (3)	Group Observation (2)	None (1)	N ^a
1. Ability to adjust fine tuners while plucking	4.1	48.4	18.0	29.5	122
2. Ability to produce a good tone with the bow	46.3	42.3	11.4	0.0	123
3. Ability to adjust fine tuners while bowing	4.1	45.5	22.3	28.1	121
4. Ability to match fingered pitch (e.g., teacher plays E with first finger on D string, students match pitch by adjusting their first finger)	21.1	54.5	19.5	4.9	123
5. Ability to match open string pitch with teacher’s instrument or electronic tuner by adjusting fine tuner	12.2	55.3	13.0	19.5	123
6. Ability to aurally determine if a perfect fifth played slightly out of tune is slightly flat vs. slightly sharp	4.1	29.5	18.0	48.4	122
7. Ability to match a given pitch with the singing voice (e.g., teacher plays D on violin, student sings or hums the D)	3.3	35.0	22.0	39.8	123
8. Ability to sing a perfect fifth below a given starting pitch (e.g., teacher plays an A, student sings a D)	1.6	10.6	11.4	76.4	123
9. Ability to sing a melodic perfect fifth (e.g., student sings or hums a pitch, then sings or hums a pitch a perfect fifth lower or higher)	1.6	10.6	9.8	78.0	123
10. Ability to aurally recognize the difference between an in-tune harmonic perfect 5th, and an out-of-tune harmonic perfect 5th	1.6	27.6	16.3	54.5	123
11. Ability to adjust pegs while plucking	4.1	24.4	13.0	58.5	123
12. Ability to adjust pegs while bowing	0.8	21.1	14.6	63.4	123
13. Ability to match open string pitch with teacher’s instrument or electronic tuner by adjusting peg	4.1	32.0	22.1	41.8	122

Twelve of the 139 participants indicated that they do not teach tuning in any of their string classes, so they could not provide responses to the MAS items presented in Table 4. Some other participants left MAS items blank, thus the lower N for the items.

Use of the singing voice is discussed in the literature as way to assess student ability to match pitch or accurately hear intervals (Alexander, 2008; Becker, 2001; Fischbach, 2003). Most participants used either informal assessment or group observation to assess student ability to match pitch with the singing voice, and 39.8% reported using no assessment method.

The ability to accurately perceive an in-tune harmonic perfect fifth is an important prerequisite for tuning a stringed instrument to a single reference pitch. The majority of participants reported either using group observation only or using no assessment method to determine if their students have an accurate perception of an in-tune perfect fifth interval.

Goals for Tuning Independence

Participants were asked the question, “Based on your observations, experiences and/or assessments, when do you believe most students in your school district (90% or more) typically achieve tuning independence?” Eleven percent of participants believed most of their students achieved tuning independence by the end of the 2nd year of instruction, 50% by the end of the 4th year of instruction, and 70% by the end of the 5th year. However, when asked when they believe their students should achieve complete tuning independence, 26% of participants believed their students should achieve this goal by the end of the 2nd year of instruction, 48% by the end of the 3rd year, and 73% by the end of the 4th year. This finding suggests that in many programs, students are not meeting their teacher’s goals for developing tuning independence.

To examine the years required to develop tuning independence, a continuous variable was created by subtracting the grade level when students began playing instruments (e.g., fourth grade) from the grade level at which participants believed 90% or more could tune independently (e.g., eighth grade). Responses ranged from 1 year to 10 years, with a mean of 4.5 years (SD = 1.8). When a similar variable was computed on the basis of the grade level at which teachers believed their students should achieve tuning independence, the result was a mean of 3.6 years (SD = 1.6). A strong positive correlation was found between these two variables (r = .84, n = 127, p < .001).

Teacher, Program, and School Characteristics That Affect How and When Tuning is Taught

No significant differences were found between school program characteristics (program size, class size, type of class, number of students taking private lessons) and participants’ tuning beliefs, activities, and methods of assessment in analysis of variance and Pearson chi-square tests. Similarly, no differences were found based on respondent’s gender, race, or ethnicity.

Amount of instructional time

The amount of instructional time per week varied considerably among the participants, ranging from 30 to 275 min per week (M = 103.9, SD = 65.6). A large difference in minutes of instruction per week was found between elementary (fifth grade and lower; M = 60.0, SD = 28.5) and middle school (sixth to eighth grade; M = 127.1, SD = 67.9). This difference was statistically significant, t(125) = −6.265, p < .001, based on 127 responses to this item.

Tuning activities by grade level

Participants’ responses to the nine items presented in Table 2 were summed to form the TAS (M = 29.6, SD = 9.8, α = .78). The higher a participant’s score on the TAS, the greater the number of different tuning activities used and the greater the frequently of their use.

A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference on TAS scores based on the youngest grade in which tuning was taught, F(3, 116) = 10.072, p < .001, η² = .21. A means comparison is presented in Table 4. Participants’ TAS scores were found to be associated with grade, with significantly higher scores for middle school as compared with elementary grade levels. In order to determine if this result was due to the large differences in instructional time found between grade levels, a one-way ANCOVA was conducted with TAS scores as the dependent variable, youngest grade tuning taught as the independent variable, and amount of instructional time as the covariate. After adjustment for amount of instructional time, a significant difference was still found among TAS scores based on the youngest grade tuning is taught, F(3, 112) = 8.767, p < .001, partial η² = .19.

Table 4.

Tuning Activities Scale (TAS) Scores Based on the Youngest Grade in Which Tuning Was Taught (n = 120).

Youngest Grade Tuning Is Taught	N	M (SD)	95% CI
4th grade and younger	17	24.5_a (9.9)	[19.5, 29.6]
5th grade	23	23.3_a (11.4)	[18.3, 28.2]
6th grade	47	31.0_b (8.4)	[28.6, 33.5]
7th grade and older	33	34.7_b (6.3)	[32.5, 37.0]

Note: Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p < .05 in the Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) comparison. CI = confidence interval.

Age and experience by teaching approach

A difference was found between participants’ age (M = 44, SD = 12) and the approach used to teach tuning in the youngest grade that tuning is taught. A one-way ANOVA revealed that this difference was statistically significant, F(2, 119) = 5.575, p = .005, η² = .09. A post hoc comparison using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test revealed a significant difference between those who taught only with fine tuners and those who taught using both pegs and fine tuners (p = .01). Participants who taught using only fine tuners were 7 years younger, on average, than were participants who reported teaching tuning using both pegs and fine tuners.

A one-way ANOVA revealed there to be a significant difference based on participant age on teachers’ assessment of students’ ability to adjust pegs while plucking, F(3, 115) = 2.793, p = .04, η² = .07. Participants who were older used informal assessment, while younger participants did not assess this skill (p < .03). In addition, a one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the method for assessing student ability to match pitch with a reference pitch by adjusting the peg, F(3, 114) = 2.688, p = .05, η² = .07. A post hoc comparison using Tukey’s HSD revealed that older participants used informal assessment, while younger participants did not assess this skill (p = .05).

A significant difference also was found in the approach used to teach tuning in the youngest grade that tuning was taught based on years of teaching experience, F(2, 122) = 3.240, p = .04, η² = .05. A post hoc comparison using Tukey’s HSD revealed the difference to be between the group teaching tuning with fine tuners only and the group teaching tuning with both pegs and fine tuners (p = .03), with the more experienced teachers reporting teaching with both pegs and fine tuners.

Teacher beliefs by grade levels taught

Participants’ responses to the 12 items presented in Table 1 were summed to form the TBS (M = 31.9, SD = 7.6, α = .84). Higher participant scores on the TBS indicated a greater likelihood that the teachers believed the students in their youngest string class were ready to learn to tune, and a greater priority on teaching tuning in the youngest string class.

A one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between participants’ scores on the TBS based on the youngest grade level at which they taught strings, F(4, 128) = 11.398, p < .001, η² = .26. Scores on the TBS were higher for successively higher grade levels at which the youngest string class was taught.

A one-way ANOVA also revealed significant differences between teachers’ scores on the TBS based on all grade levels taught, F(4, 128) = 10.982, p < .001, η² = .26. Post hoc comparisons revealed that teachers who teach at the elementary level had significantly lower TBS scores than did those who taught only at the secondary level (middle school only, middle and high school only). This finding was consistent regardless of whether the elementary teacher also taught at the middle and/or high school levels. Means comparisons are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Tuning Beliefs Scale (TBS) Scores Based on the Youngest Grade Taught and All Grade Levels Taught (n = 133).

Grade	N	M (SD)	95% CI
Youngest grade taught
3rd grade and younger	26	29.2_a (6.0)	[26.8, 31.7]
4th grade	39	29.4_a (5.8)	[27.6, 31.3]
5th grade	24	28.4_a (5.2)	[26.2, 30.6]
6th grade	34	36.2_b (8.2)	[33.3, 39.0]
7th grade	10	40.3_b (8.7)	[34.1, 46.5]
All grade levels taught
Elementary only (K–5)	27	28.2_a (5.4)	[26.1, 30.3]
Elementary and middle school	39	29.6_a (6.3)	[27.6, 31.7]
Elementary, middle, and high school (K–12)	23	29.3_a (5.0)	[27.1, 31.4]
Middle school only (6–8)	31	36.4_b (8.7)	[33.2, 39.5]
Middle and high school only (6–12)	13	38.9_b (7.7)	[34.3, 43.6]

Note: Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p < .05 in the Tukey HSD comparison. CI = confidence interval.

Assessment methods by grade levels taught

The 13 assessment items presented in Table 3 were combined into a summative MAS (M = 37.7, SD = 6.7, α = .85). A higher participant score on the MAS indicated the use of a greater variety of assessments of the skills necessary for tuning independence and that these were assessed more formally.

A one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between participants’ scores on the MAS based on the grade levels at which they taught strings, F(4, 111) = 4.050, p < .004, η² = .13. Participants who taught only at the elementary level had significantly lower MAS scores than did participants who taught at the middle school level, at the middle and high school level, and at all three levels (elementary, middle, and high school). Means comparisons are presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Methods of Assessment Scale (MAS) Scores Based on All Grade Levels Taught (n = 115).

All grade levels taught	N	M (SD)	95% CI
Elementary only (K–5)	19	22.4_a (4.9)	[20.0, 24.8]
Elementary and middle school	28	29.4 (7.5)	[26.5, 32.3]
Elementary, middle, and high school (K–12)	35	26.3_b (6.4)	[24.1, 28.4]
Middle school only (6–8)	21	28.3_b (6.2)	[25.4, 31.1]
Middle and high school only (6–12)	13	29.0_b (5.8)	[25.4, 32.4]

Note: Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p < .05 in the Tukey HSD comparison. CI = confidence interval.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine teacher’s practices and beliefs related to the teaching of stringed instrument tuning in elementary and middle school group classes. The data suggest that in many school orchestra programs, teaching students how to tune their own instruments is a complex process that unfolds over many years. Tuning a stringed instrument requires both aural and physical skills, and teachers vary considerably in the activities and amount of instructional time they use to teach their students the skills that lead to tuning independence.

Many elementary string class teachers surveyed did not teach the physical skills necessary for tuning in the 1st year of instruction, preferring to wait until the 2nd or 3rd year of instruction. The focus in the 1st year of instruction is on the development of aural skills. The finding that the majority believed their youngest students lacked the aural skills necessary to tune their own instruments may explain the focus on developing aural skills in the 1st year of instruction while delaying the teaching of the physical skills. It is possible that many teachers wait 1 or 2 years to address tuning because they know it will be a time-intensive process, and they also know that considerably more instructional time will be available once students reach middle school.

Many participants believed that their youngest students lacked the aural skills to be able to tune a stringed instrument, particularly those who taught strings at the elementary level. This belief, however, was not grounded in formal assessment. The data suggest that at the middle school level, there was more formal assessment of the skills needed for tuning independence than at the elementary level. This could have been due in part to the finding that teachers at the middle school level had considerably more instructional time available than teachers at the elementary level. Researchers have examined assessment practices in secondary instrumental music (Russell & Austin, 2010), yet no studies could be found comparing formal assessment of string performance skills at the elementary and secondary levels. Further research is recommended to examine teachers’ assessment practices at the elementary and middle school levels, particularly in relation to the availability of instructional time.

Participants varied widely in the strategies they used to teach tuning. The data suggest a preference for verbal instruction. Prior research in music education has revealed that aural models and demonstrations were more effective than verbal instruction for improving many aspects of music performance (Dickey, 1992; Hewitt, 2001; Rosenthal, 1984; Sang, 1987). Experts in music education often promote singing as a way to develop pitch awareness and intonation (Alexander, 2008; Dalby, 1999; Fischbach, 2003). The data from this study suggest that the use of tuning strategies involving the singing voice is not widespread. The most commonly used singing strategy was matching reference pitches with the singing voice, but it was used regularly by fewer than half of the participants.

The frequency of the use of electronic tuners to assist with tuning was quite variable among participants. Most of the participants provided their students with visual cues, like thumbs up or down, smiling, and so on. A majority of participants, however, rarely or never used the aid of a visual tuner, a device frequently employed by guitarists and players of other plucked stringed instruments. Electronic tuners were used in every rehearsal by 33% of participants to generate tuning reference pitches, but 35% of participants never used an electronic tuner to generate a reference pitch. The use of electronic tuners has been discussed in the literature as a means to enhance tuning pedagogy (Alexander, 2008; Griswold, 1988) and can be used as a means to confirm aurally based tuning assessments.

The findings from this study suggest that some disparities remain between common practice and the literature on effective pedagogy for the development of students’ tuning independence. Further research in the area of tuning pedagogy is recommended to compare the effectiveness of verbal, visual, and aural approaches to develop tuning skills. In addition, one unexamined variable that likely influenced the tuning beliefs, strategies, and assessment methods of participants in this study was the level of the participants’ aural skills. Further research is recommended to examine relationships between teachers’ levels of aural skills and their tuning beliefs, strategies, and assessment methods.

A number of teacher and program characteristics were related to how and when tuning was taught. The grade level in which tuning instruction began was significantly related to the types of tuning activities and the frequency of use, as measured by TAS scores. Teacher age and experience also played a role in how tuning was taught. Older teachers with more experience were more likely to teach their students how to tune using both fine tuners and pegs. One explanation for this finding is that experienced teachers are more confident in teaching peg tuning or have developed a greater number of effective teaching strategies. Another possibility is that older teachers may not have had fine tuners available early in their careers and therefore are more comfortable teaching peg tuning. Some of the variance that was found could be due to the fact that not all student instruments were equipped with fine tuners on all four strings. Further research is needed to explore this finding in more detail.

The varied grade levels taught were related to teachers’ priorities and beliefs about their students’ tuning abilities. TBS scores suggested that elementary string teachers were less likely to believe their beginning students were ready to learn tuning than teachers who did not teach at the elementary level. Elementary teachers also were less likely to make teaching tuning a priority in their beginning string classes.

The data suggest that among those who believed that their students lacked the aural skills necessary for tuning, there was a strong tendency for them to be responsible for tuning all the instruments in their classrooms. There was a clear pattern in the data that teachers at the middle school level (sixth grade and higher) had much stronger beliefs in their students’ level of aural skills. Further research is recommended to develop a clearer understanding of elementary beginning string students’ aural skills development. Studies that focus on the specific aural skills needed for tuning a stringed instrument—unison pitch matching and the fine-tuning of the harmonic perfect fifth interval—could be beneficial for string education.

Teaching string students to tune is a time-consuming and challenging process. The data collected suggest that approximately 10% of elementary and middle school string teachers do not even teach tuning in their string classes. The average time required for a student in a group string class to develop tuning independence as reported by the participants in this study was 4.5 years, yet the data suggest that many of the participants surveyed believed this process should take considerably less time. It may be possible to reduce the amount of time required to learn to tune through greater utilization of available technology. The implementation of mechanical pegs also may aid in tuning pedagogy, as the data suggest that peg tuning remains challenging to teach and assess for many classroom string teachers. Further research is needed on curricular development in the area of tuning pedagogy, with the goal of developing promising practices that may help string teachers better address the complex process of teaching their students to tune independently.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Michael T. Hopkins is associate professor of music education at the University of Michigan. His research interests include instrumental music pedagogy, music composition, music technology, and preservice teacher training.

References

Alexander

M. L.

(2000). Comparing the use of pure tone versus complex tones as a reference pitch for tuning the public school string orchestra (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Houston, Houston, TX.

Alexander

M. L.

(2008). Teaching tuning to the string orchestra. American String Teacher, 58(4), 20–26.

Becker

(2001). Elementary string class tuning procedures. American String Teacher, 51(1), 44–46.

Codding

(1987). The effects of visual versus verbal instruction on beginning guitar students’ tuning accuracy. In Prickett

M. A.

(Ed.), Applications of research in music behavior (pp. 272–284). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Cole

(2005). On tuning. American Suzuki Journal, 34(1), 22–23.

Dalby

(1999). Teaching audiation in instrumental classes. Music Educators Journal, 85(6), 22–46. doi:10.2307/3399517

Dickey

M. R.

(1992). A review of research on modeling in music teaching and learning. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 113, 27–40.

Dillman

D. A.

(2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Dillman

Phelps

Tortora

Swift

Kohrell

Berck

Messer

B. L.

(2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38, 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0049089X/38/1

10.

Fischbach

(2003). Masterclass: Tuning. American String Teacher, 53(3), 33–34.

11.

Gendron

D. A.

(2002). Theme and variation: Teaching tuning to elementary students. American String Teacher, 52(3), 68.

12.

Geringer

J. M.

Witt

A. C.

(1985). An investigation of tuning performance and perception of string instrumentalists. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 85, 90–101.

13.

Gillespie

Hamann

D. L.

(1998). The status of orchestra programs in the public schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 75–86. doi:10.2307/3345761

14.

Graulty

J. P.

(2010). Don’t watch me! Avoiding podium-centered rehearsals. Music Educators Journal, 96(4), 53–56. doi:10.1177/0027432110370565

15.

Griswold

H. E.

(1988). How to teach aural skills with electronic tuners. Music Educators Journal, 74(5), 49–51. doi:10.2307/3397983

16.

Hamann

D. L.

Frost

Wieters

(2002). Factors contributing to perceived tuning independence among middle school and high school string players. Journal of String Research, 2. Retrieved from http://web.cfa.arizona.edu/sites/jsr/index.php/requirements/volume-2-2002/

17.

Hamann

D. L.

Gillespie

Bergonzi

(2002). Status of orchestra programs in the public schools. Journal of String Research, 2. Retrieved from http://web.cfa.arizona.edu/sites/jsr/index.php/requirements/volume-2-2002/

18.

Hamann

D. L.

Lauver

Asher

(2006). Perceived and actual tuning ability of middle school string students. Journal of String Research, 3, 43–54.

19.

Hamann

K. L.

(2000). Teachers, learners, and programs in string education: A review of research. Journal of String Research, 1. Retrieved from http://web.cfa.arizona.edu/sites/jsr/index.php/requirements/volume-1-2000/

20.

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, 307–322. doi:10.2307/3345614

21.

Hopkins

(2002). Six stages of tuning stringed instruments in orchestra. American String Teacher, 52(3), 64–69.

22.

Kjelland

(1993). Schoolteachers forum: On tuning procedures for the young string class. American String Teacher, 43(2), 63–64.

23.

Lohr

S. L.

(2008). Coverage and sampling. In Leeuw

E. D.

Hox

J. J.

Dillman

D. A.

(Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 97–112). New York, NY: Erlbaum.

24.

Mishra

(2000). Questions and answers: Research related to the teaching of string technique. Journal of String Research, 1. Retrieved from http://web.cfa.arizona.edu/sites/jsr/index.php/requirements/volume-1-2000/

25.

Platt

J. R.

Racine

R. J.

(1985). Effect of frequency, timbre, experience, and feedback on musical tuning skills. Perception and Psychophysics, 38, 543–553.

26.

Rosenthal

R. K.

(1984). The relative effects of guided model, model only, guide only, and practice only treatments on the accuracy of advanced instrumentalists’ musical performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 265–273. doi:10.2307/3344924

27.

Russell

Austin

(2010). Assessment practices of secondary music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58, 37–54. doi:10.1177/0022429409360062

28.

Sang

R. C.

(1987). A study of the relationship between instrumental music teachers’ modeling skills and pupil performance behaviors. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 155–159.

29.

Shrader

(2009). Getting in tune. Strings, 23(166), 76–77.

30.

Simmons

S. E.

(2007). In the beginning: In tune. American String Teacher, 57(3), 24.

31.

Smith

C. M.

(1989). Research-based string class instruction. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 8(1), 47–50. doi:10.1177/875512338900800111