Effects of Internal and External Focus of Attention on Novices’ Rehearsal Evaluations

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of internal and external focus of attention on novices’ rehearsal evaluations. Thirty-two undergraduate instrumental music education students led bands in a series of three 6-minute rehearsals on their assigned excerpt. Prior to these rehearsals, participants were led in score study and rehearsal preparation activities. Internal group (n = 16) participants’ preparation related to knowledge of the score, whereas external group (n = 16) participants focused their preparations on observable rehearsal behaviors with a minimal amount of time devoted to score study. No significant differences were found between conditions for any of several dependent measures, including participants’ self-evaluation of their teaching, participants’ evaluation of ensemble performance, ensemble members’ evaluations of conductor rehearsal effectiveness and of conductor score knowledge, and independent audio evaluation of the final ensemble performance run-through. Results of repeated-measures analyses did indicate significant improvements in participants’ and ensemble members’ evaluations, for both experimental groups, between the first rehearsal and the second and third rehearsals. Both methods may have helped novice conductors prepare to rehearse, but their direct experience in working with ensembles may have been comparatively more informative in preparing them for future rehearsals.

Keywords

internal focus external focus conducting rehearsals novice music teachers music score study

Undergraduate music education students are expected to develop a number of basic conducting and rehearsal skills during their conducting courses. Before graduating from their respective institutions, novice conductors need to demonstrate nonverbal behaviors, such as the execution of beat patterns, expressive gesture, facial expression, and eye contact. Rehearsal techniques, including efficient pacing, the delivery of specific and meaningful feedback, and accurate error detection and correction, also are required for leading effective rehearsals. Experts’ opinions differ regarding when these skills should be introduced and how students should practice them when preparing to rehearse an ensemble (Buell, 1990; Ellis, 1994; Feldman, Contzius, & Lutch, 2011; Manfredo, 2008; Romines, 2003; Williamson, 1998).

Expert conductors often attribute their rehearsal preparedness and success to the creation of an internal sound image that is achieved through intensive score study (Battisti & Garafolo, 1990; Schuller, 1997). Through silent study, listening to model recordings, singing individual music lines, playing parts at the piano, and marking the printed score, conductors develop an acute sense of what they want to hear and accomplish during their rehearsals (Ellis, 1994; Hunsberger & Ernst, 1992). Although expert conductors have indicated the importance of score study in their own rehearsal preparation, research has shown that novice conductors’ score preparation lacks the same depth of understanding and music decision making of experts (Lane, 2006). Whether or not the type of score study novices undertake prior to leading their own rehearsals could impact their conducting or rehearsal behaviors positively remains a largely unexamined topic of empirical inquiry.

Recent investigations involving aspects of score study and their effects on novices’ conducting and rehearsal behaviors have produced mixed results. Montemayor and Moss (2009) found that listening to an aural model during preparatory score study had no meaningful effect on novices’ subsequent conducting expressivity or rehearsal verbalizations. In another study, senior-level undergraduate music education majors who had studied their scores using strategies such as singing melodic lines, playing individual lines on their primary instrument, marking their score, and listening to model recordings were rated significantly higher by ensemble members in the areas of eye contact and score familiarity as compared with students who did not study the score (Silvey, 2011a). However, the additional score study did not result in higher gesture, facial expression, or pacing scores. Treviño (2008) found that undergraduates who practiced conducting with a recording exhibited greater conducting expressivity than those who just studied the score. Although these results are inconsistent with one another, the overall importance of these findings appears to be that novices’ conducting and rehearsal skills might be improved on the basis of greater knowledge of the music and a priori music decision making.

Although there are few research results indicating a connection between score study, conducting gesture, and improved rehearsal skills, investigators have demonstrated that novice conductors’ skills can be enhanced through systematic observation and feedback. Yarbrough (1987) found that self-analysis of their videotaped conducting episodes improved novices’ future nonverbal conducting skills, such as entrances, releases, beat patterns, and eye contact. Other authors have reported benefits of self-analysis with regard to improvements in novices’ rehearsal skills, including quicker pacing and limited teacher talk (Lethco, 1999; Worthy, 2005). Johnston (1993) indicated that videotaped self-analysis, in combination with peer and instructor feedback, contributed positively to the refinement of novices’ nonverbal conducting skills. Regardless of the manner in which videotaped conducting reviews are managed (i.e., self, peer, or instructor), the benefits to novices’ conducting seem evident.

The process of preparing novices to emulate expert conductors’ behaviors is made difficult by many variables, including the limited number of conducting courses offered at many higher education institutions, the lack of individual student time spent conducting and rehearsing in these courses, and the large number of physical and theoretical skills (i.e., music theory, aural training) that must be synthesized to lead a successful rehearsal. Furthermore, illustrating to novices how experts’ covert decision-making processes help guide their overt conducting behaviors seems problematic (Boardman, 2000; Manfredo, 2008; Runnels, 1992). Researchers have explored how specific score study methodologies and postconducting analysis influenced conducting skills, such as eye contact, gesture, facial expression, pacing, delivery of feedback, and error detection and correction, with most of these findings revealing the benefits of both before- and after-rehearsal preparation strategies (Hopkins, 1991; Lethco, 1999; Montemayor & Moss, 2009; Silvey, 2011a; Worthy, 2005). However, these strategies have never been compared to determine if novices’ conducting and rehearsal skills might be influenced more by a preparation methodology centered around typical score study strategies (internal focus of attention) or one focused more on observing and improving recognizable conductor behaviors (external focus of attention).

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of internal and external focus of attention on novices’ rehearsal evaluations. We explored whether novices’ rehearsals would be judged differently based upon two different methods of preparation. A secondary purpose of this study was to determine if a panel of adjudicators would rate these novice conductors’ final “run-through” performances differently as a result of how their preparation varied. How would novices who focused their rehearsal preparations using typical score study methodologies (internal focus of attention) differ from those whose focus was on their own observable rehearsal behaviors (external focus)?

Method

Thirty-two undergraduate instrumental music education students (16 from each author’s institution) participated in this study. We solicited participants through e-mail requests, posters in music buildings, and in-person announcements in university band and orchestra rehearsals. We specifically sought volunteers who had not taken score study or rehearsal techniques courses because we wished to avoid any potential training effects thereof. Still, in order to ensure that participants felt capable to lead an ensemble, volunteers had to report confidence in their ability to execute basic conducting patterns as a prerequisite for participation. We confirmed these matters with each participant as part of the informed consent procedures per institutional review board guidelines and approval. Participating students were freshmen (n = 21), sophomores (n = 5), and juniors (n = 6).

The participants’ task was to lead an ensemble in a series of three 6-minute rehearsals on their assigned excerpt. Prior to these rehearsals, we led participants in score study and rehearsal preparation procedures, distinct for either of two experimental groups (n = 16 per group; two groups of 8 at each institution) to which participants had been randomly assigned. Eight different selections of band music were used as material for this study. We selected these pieces from Volumes 1 and 2 of Teaching Music Through Performance in Band (Miles, 1997-1998) as representative of high-quality, standard band repertoire. All selections were evaluated in the Teaching Music books at the grade 2 (of 6) difficulty level, appropriate for a typical middle school ensemble or as easy material for a high school group. Within each piece, we identified an excerpt encompassing approximately 1.5 minutes of music for participants’ use. Excerpts began and ended at logical points in the music and consisted mostly of full-ensemble playing throughout the duration of the excerpt. At each institution, each of the eight selections of music was assigned at random to one participant in each treatment group.

Each experimental group received 1 hour of intensive rehearsal preparation instruction within 3 days prior to each rehearsal. We deemed this sufficient given the brief duration of each excerpt and the limited amount of rehearsal time afforded each participant. To ensure that the experimental groups at each institution received similar treatments, both investigators used identical lesson plans for the instructional time (see the Appendix in the online supplemental material at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental).These plans were designed by the first author and indicated a chronology of particular preparation activities to be completed during the hour. We called the first experimental group the “internal group” (this name was not disclosed to participants), because the rehearsal preparation procedures we led were focused almost exclusively on “internal” matters related to knowledge of the score and development of an aural image of the music. Over the course of three 1-hour sessions, the internal group participants did the following: (a) identified important music lines, such as melody, countermelody, accompaniment, and bass line; (b) marked specific music materials in their scores with pencil, pens, or highlighters; (c) listened five times to a professional recording of their excerpt while following the score and/or practicing conducting gestures; (d) repeatedly sang individual music lines as previously identified; (e) notated potential difficulties for individual sections or the ensemble; and (f) engaged in silent score study. These methods were adopted from reports of expert conductors’ score study strategies (Ellis, 1994). At the end of each session, participants were reminded to continue preparing for their next rehearsal by using the same strategies they had been shown previously. Internal group participants were allowed to keep their music scores and were given a recording of their assigned excerpt.

The participants in the “external group” focused their preparations on observable rehearsal behaviors with a minimal amount of time devoted to score study. To achieve this, we adapted a worksheet based on items from the Rehearsal Effectiveness Scale (RES; Bergee, 1992). The RES comprises 30 items arranged in three broad categories: Conducting Technique, Teacher-Student Rapport, and Instructional Skills. The following activities took place in the three sessions with external group participants: (a) brief identification (although no score marking) of important music lines, such as melody, countermelody, accompaniment, and bass line (in order to achieve at least a minimal familiarity of the score); (b) a general discussion of successful conductor rehearsal behaviors (e.g., feedback, directives, pacing); (c) observation of three expert conductors’ successful rehearsal videos (with discussion of how these conductors’ rehearsal behaviors would be considered successful, using the RES); (d) self-observation of the previous rehearsal video prior to their upcoming rehearsal for both Sessions 2and 3; (e) also for Sessions 2 and 3, identification of three goals for improvement after watching their video of the previous rehearsal; and (f) peer evaluation and discussion of another participant’s rehearsal video, using the RES. External group participants were reminded to prepare individually for their upcoming rehearsals by focusing on the identification of specific and observable rehearsal objectives. Unlike the internal preparation group, external group participants were not allowed to keep the score. Rather, participants in the external group were sent their rehearsal video electronically the day following their rehearsal.

Participants were asked to continue preparation on their own using techniques similar to the ones we taught them in our instructional sessions. We verified their compliance with this request via checklists provided to each participant (and collected immediately prior to each rehearsal), which included all of the strategies that we had shown them during group instruction (each checklist was tailored specifically for internal or external group participants).

We also solicited instrumentalists to perform in bands that study participants would conduct. The bands were composed of undergraduate students (mostly music education majors in their sophomore year or later) who played either primary or secondary instruments. The ensembles were relatively small (approximately 19 members at each of our institutions) but featured near-complete instrumentation. Participants in our study did not perform as ensemble members.

The three rehearsals were completed within a span of 3 weeks. We instructed participants to begin the first 6-minute rehearsal with a sight-reading run-through performance of their assigned excerpt and to end the second and third rehearsals with a similar performance. Participants were allowed to use the remaining rehearsal time in any manner they wished, with the instruction to elicit as much positive change in the ensemble as possible so that the final run-through performance at the end of the third rehearsal matched their music intentions for the piece. All rehearsals were video recorded, with the camera trained on the conductor; these recordings were downloaded to a computer for editing purposes.

We scheduled participants’ rehearsals at 8-minute intervals. (Participants were not in the room during other participants’ rehearsals.) For each participant’s rehearsal, we used measurements that yielded three different sets of data points, which served as dependent variables for our study. First, during the interim time between participants’ 6-minute rehearsals, ensemble members completed a brief evaluation of the conductor, whereby they were asked to rate the conductor’s knowledge of the score and the conductor’s effectiveness in leading the rehearsal, both on Likert-type scales anchored by low (1) and high (10). Ensemble members were unaware of the participants’ experimental group assignments.

Second, participants completed self-evaluations of their own rehearsal immediately following each session, identical to the “progress reports” used in a related study (Montemayor & Moss, 2009). The first three questions elicited free-response answers regarding (a) overall positive and negative aspects of the ensemble’s performance and/or their own performance as teachers, (b) what they believed were the strongest aspects of the ensemble’s performance, and (c) what aspects they believed were most in need of improvement. The fourth and fifth questions asked participants to rate on a Likert-type scale anchored by low (1) and high (10) their performance as a “teacher” and the ensemble’s performance during rehearsal.

Finally, we extracted audio recordings from the participants’ final run-through performance (at the end of their third and final rehearsal) and arranged them on compact discs in four different orders, with no identical music excerpt presented successively. Each of the eight music excerpts was featured four times—two ensemble performances from two internal participants (one at each institution) and two performances from two external participants. We provided these recordings to a panel of four graduate students enrolled in music education or wind-conducting programs at our institutions, all of whom had previous experience as band conductors, teachers, performers, and adjudicators. Panelists were unaware of any experimental assignments. They were asked to consider three primary factors for concert band adjudication for each of the 32 excerpts, namely, tone quality/intonation, musicianship/expression, and rhythm/articulation (Bergee, 1995), and to provide a single evaluation rating (again on a Likert-type scale anchored by low [1] and high [10]) indicative of the overall quality of the performance.

Results

We calculated means and standard deviations of the conductors’ two numerical evaluations (i.e., those regarding their own performance as teachers, and those regarding the ensemble’s performance) and the ensemble members’ two numerical evaluations of the conductors (score knowledge and rehearsal effectiveness for each of the three rehearsals). Results are presented in Table 1. All evaluations were at or above the midpoint of their respective scales, and all evaluations revealed a pattern of generally improving scores over the course of the three rehearsals. Averaged over the three rehearsals, all evaluation scores were slightly higher for the internal group than for the external group except for the conductors’ judgments of ensemble performance, for which the external group’s scores were slightly higher. The lowest evaluation score was for external group conductors’ self-evaluation of teaching for their first rehearsal, M = 5.06 (SD = 1.76), and the highest score was their own evaluation of ensemble performance for the last rehearsal, M = 8.38 (SD = 0.62).

Table 1.

Means (and Standard Deviations) of Numerical Rehearsal Evaluations and Audio Evaluation of Final Performance.

	Rehearsals
Evaluation	First	Second	Third	Average
Conductor self-evaluation of teaching
Internal	5.8 (1.1)	7.2 (1.2)	7.4 (1.0)	6.8 (1.3)
External	5.1 (1.8)	6.7 (0.9)	7.2 (0.8)	6.3 (1.5)
Conductor evaluation of ensemble
Internal	7.2 (1.4)	7.8 (0.9)	8.1 (1.3)	7.7 (1.3)
External	7.5 (1.3)	7.9 (1.0)	8.4 (0.6)	7.9 (1.0)
Ensemble evaluation of conductor effectiveness
Internal	6.1 (1.8)	6.8 (1.6)	6.7 (1.4)	6.5 (1.6)
External	5.9 (2.0)	6.5 (2.0)	7.0 (1.4)	6.5 (1.8)
Ensemble evaluation of conductor score knowledge
Internal	6.8 (1.7)	7.3 (1.4)	7.5 (1.4)	7.2 (1.5)
External	6.4 (2.0)	7.3 (1.8)	7.7 (1.1)	7.1 (1.7)
Panel audio evaluation of final ensemble performance
Internal			6.9 (0.9)
External			6.7 (1.1)

Note. All ratings are on a 10-point scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high).

In order to make statistical comparisons of multiple outcomes on multiple occasions, we conducted two doubly multivariate repeated-measures analyses of variance. In the first, we examined the conductors’ evaluations of themselves and of the ensemble measured after the first, second, and third rehearsals (i.e., time). In the second, we examined the ensemble members’ evaluations of conductor score knowledge and rehearsal effectiveness after the same three rehearsals. Experimental condition (i.e., internal or external) and institution served as between-subjects factors for both analyses (see Table 2 in the online supplemental material at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental). No significant differences between experimental conditions were found for the conductors’ evaluations of themselves or of the ensemble or for the ensemble members’ evaluations of conductor score knowledge or rehearsal effectiveness, and there were no significant differences between institutions on any of these measurements. There were no significant interactions for treatment nor institution with time. Among all measurements, the largest difference between conditions (averaged over all three rehearsals) was for conductors’ self-evaluations of their teaching, with participants in the internal group scoring themselves slightly higher (M = 6.82, SD = 1.29) than those in the external group (M = 6.32, SD = 1.53); again, though, this difference was not statistically significant, F(1, 28) = 3.22, p = .083.

We did find significant effects of time for conductors’ self and ensemble evaluations and for the ensemble’s ratings of conductor score familiarity and effectiveness. Subsequent ANOVA tests revealed significant differences for conductors’ self-evaluations of teaching, F(1.64, 45.90) = 31.40, p < .001, partial η² = .53; for conductors’ evaluations of ensemble performance, F(2, 56) = 6.16, p < .01, partial η² = .18; for ensemble members’ evaluations of conductor score familiarity, F(2, 56) = 14.47, p < .001, partial η² = .34; and for ensemble members’ evaluations of conductor rehearsal effectiveness, F(2, 56) = 10.12, p < .001, partial η² = .27. For follow-up analyses on each evaluation over the last three rehearsals, we used the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons, keeping an omnibus alpha level of .05 and thus a per-comparison alpha level of .0167. As may be seen in Table 3 in the online supplemental material (at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental), scores were significantly higher for the third as compared with the first rehearsals; significantly higher ratings also were given to the second as compared with the first rehearsals for all measurements except for conductor evaluation of ensemble performance. No significant differences were found between the second and third rehearsals for any of these measurements.

We replicated procedures from Montemayor and Moss (2009) in our examination of participants’ written responses on the three free-response questions. The second author examined all 72 responses; the first author independently examined 24 responses on each question (25% of all responses) in order to determine reliability. For the first question (r = .94), we coded each written comment as the participant referring either to themselves or to the ensemble (i.e., their “locus of attention”; cf. Morrison, Montemayor, & Wiltshire, 2004) and further coded each comment as being either a positive comment or a negative comment. The total numbers of comments was comparable between conditions (internal = 169, external = 149). The proportion of comments as self/positive, ensemble/positive, self/negative, and ensemble/negative were 24%, 27%, 31%, and 18%, respectively, for the internal group and 26%, 36%, 26%, and 11% for the external group; these distributions were not statistically different from one another, χ²(3, N = 318) = 5.14, p = .16.

We considered participants’ responses to the second (what they believed were the strongest aspects of the ensemble’s performance) and third questions (what aspects they believed were most in need of improvement) together as a means of considering their focus of attention among various music matters. We coded each comment according to primary factors of accuracy, expression, or tone quality (cf. Bergee, 1995); our interobserver reliability for these items was .88. We found proportions of 44%, 30%, and 26%, respectively, for the internal group, and 44%, 35%, and 21%, respectively, for the external group. Again, these distributions were not statistically different, χ²(2, N = 189) = 0.79, p = .67.

To determine whether the final run-through performances would be evaluated differently based upon the participants’ preparation method, we asked four graduate students to evaluate the overall music quality of the 32 final recordings on a 10-point Likert-type rating scale anchored by low (1) and high (10). Reliability, as calculated by the average measure intraclass correlation coefficient, was acceptable at .74 (Cohen, 1988). A two-way factorial ANOVA (Institution × Experimental Condition) revealed a significant difference in evaluation scores for the participating ensembles of our respective institutions, F(1, 28) = 21.94, p < .001, partial η² = .44, but no significant difference according to experimental condition, F(1, 28) = 0.67, p = .42, nor any significant Institution × Condition interaction. An inspection of means shows scores to be nearly identical between conditions (see Table 1, bottom row).

Discussion

In our study, 32 music education majors prepared for a series of three brief band rehearsals in one of two distinct fashions—via either an “internal” preparation method of intensive score study or an “external” preparation method, focusing on rehearsal behaviors. No significant differences were found between conditions for any of several dependent measures, including participants’ self-evaluation of their teaching, participants’ evaluation of ensemble performance, ensemble members’ evaluations of conductor rehearsal effectiveness and of conductor score knowledge, and audio evaluation of ensemble performance on the final rehearsal. Significant differences were found on the rehearsal evaluation measures, however, according to time, with the second and third rehearsals being evaluated more positively than the first. Analysis of participants’ written comments about their rehearsal work and about perceived areas of strength and weakness in the ensembles’ performance revealed no discernible difference between conditions regarding the “locus and focus” of their attention.

Our directed rehearsal preparation activities were, we believe, quite distinct from one another, and inasmuch as we could confirm, participants independently continued their preparation in similar fashions prior to each rehearsal. (We think that for a college music major, the prospect of conducting a group of one’s peers would seem to provide a strong incentive to prepare for rehearsals as best as possible.) We also believe that the experimental treatments had been as rigorous as we could have made them before reaching a “point of no return” in the participants’ preparation, at least relative to the difficulty level of the music and the brevity of the planned rehearsals. Participants were blind as to their group assignment, as were the ensemble members and audio panelists who evaluated their work. Nevertheless, scores on evaluation items that were aimed to assess the particular aspects of rehearsal work which these distinct preparation activities would ostensibly affect showed no difference between conditions.

Anecdotally, we did notice a difference in how participants within each group seemed to feel about their respective preparation activities. External group participants were somewhat dismayed at having only minimal opportunity to learn the music that they were given to rehearse. This might be reflected in this group’s lower self-evaluation scores compared to the internal group (although this finding was not statistically significant). The fact that these preservice teachers recognized the importance of score study seems encouraging. It is possible, though, that more experienced ensemble leaders would approach their rehearsal work from a generalized “template” of how an ensemble should sound and would not be as dependent on studying the score of a relatively simple work (Montemayor, 2011). By contrast, participants in the internal group did not seem anxious about not being given explicit instruction on matters of rehearsing and conducting. Perhaps by virtue of their career choice and their previous experience as ensemble members, these participants felt a presumed readiness for handling the “externals” of rehearsal work. In any case, these apparent differences between groups were not evinced in participants’ evaluations of themselves or of the ensemble, which, it should be noted, were offered immediately after each rehearsal. It seems possible that their direct experience with the ensemble precluded any possible differential effects of the manner of rehearsal preparation.

Our different experimental treatments also yielded no significant differences in evaluation scores from the ensemble members. The importance of the component rehearsal preparation activities we pursued for both experimental groups is well established in both the pedagogical and the research literature (DeCarbo, 1982; Frederickson, 1991; Goolsby, 1997; Harris, 2001; Lethco, 1999; Price, 1985; Schuller, 1997; Wagar, 1991; Williamson, 1998; Worthy, 2005; Yarbrough, 1987). We do not see our current results as standing in contrast to the various reports of positive effects of these activities found in more controlled settings. Our findings, however, do offer some perspective as to how these procedures possibly are mitigated when applied by novice teachers conducting a live ensemble (in this case, one composed of primary- and secondary-instrument-playing peers). The fact that ensemble members did not distinguish (by virtue of the evaluation scores they provided) which conductors had studied their scores and which had not, or which conductors had studied good rehearsal practice and which had not, suggests that other variables may override the beneficial effects of a particular preparation program.

Although we defined several important parameters for these rehearsals, any rehearsal scenario is fraught with variables that confound and interact with any attempt at experimental intervention—including the musicianship and leadership style of the conductor, the vagaries of players’ performance (individually and collectively), and the numerous choices inherent when rehearsing any given piece of music, to name just a few. This might explain the similarities between participants’ written comments for both conditions as well as similarities in the audio evaluation of the ensembles’ final performances. Fundamental strengths or deficits of the ensembles’ performances may have taken precedence over features highlighted through a particular preparation program.

For all rehearsal evaluation measurements, scores for the second rehearsals were significantly higher than for the first. This may indicate the importance of direct experience for novice teachers when learning to rehearse an ensemble. It should be noted that these scores reflected perceptions of teacher and ensemble performance by the participants and ensemble members themselves. External evaluations by people who are blind to rehearsal order could substantiate these findings. Future researchers also might examine these same phenomena by examining specific rehearsal behaviors and their changes over time.

Our participants were novices who conducted only three brief rehearsals over a limited time span. In an effort to avoid researcher bias, we deliberately did not provide feedback to them regarding their rehearsal work, choosing instead to allow the preparation activities within the experimental treatments themselves to suffice as instruction. Preservice teachers may need both more experience and more individualized guidance before components of a given preparation method can function effectively. Also, such benefits might be evident in a teacher’s rehearsals only over a longer period. All of these aspects are worthy of further study.

Perhaps most important, we recognize that separating these preparation methods was an experimental luxury. Although we are still curious how these elements might ideally be ordered in a collegiate music teacher education program, we know that in practice, approaching a rehearsal having attended exclusively to either internal or external aspects would be highly inadvisable. We speculate that simultaneously engaging undergraduates in both score study procedures and in systematic consideration of best rehearsal practices might help them to deal most effectively with the complex nature of rehearsing. We elected to examine these preparation methodologies separately, rather than in combination, in order to explore differential effects thereof. Also, limiting our design to two experimental groups enabled us to maximize our statistical power given the limited number of potential participants (i.e., instrumental music education students who had not yet taken score study or rehearsal techniques courses) at our respective institutions. Given our participants’ lack of previous conducting or rehearsal experience, it would have been interesting to see if any differences existed between those who were prepared externally, internally, or with a combination of both methods. Results from studies with experimental designs that include treatments involving a combination of score study strategies and rehearsal approaches might prove beneficial for university faculty who prepare undergraduate conducting students.

We believe that our results raise many important implications for conducting pedagogues and their students. As evidenced by their ratings, ensemble members in this study perceived participants’ conducting effectiveness and score familiarity more positively as the rehearsals progressed. Not surprisingly, this probably indicates that having repeated opportunities to apply the skills taught in undergraduate conducting and rehearsal techniques courses (e.g., score study, self-reflection, gesture, verbalization) is an important aspect of rehearsal success for novice conductors. Although faculty and students often blame lack of podium time for many of the problems that affect undergraduate conductors’ skill learning (Romines, 2003; Silvey, 2011b), conducting teachers should be innovative when designing their courses so that their students can receive frequent opportunities to conduct both in and out of class. Possible solutions may include partnering with and inviting public school groups to campus for additional rehearsal opportunities and creating conducting symposia where invited guest clinicians work with undergraduate conductors.

Participants’ written comments regarding their teaching performance, the ensemble’s performance, and their music focus during rehearsal (i.e., accuracy, expression, and tone quality) were similar in nature regardless of their method of preparation. We believe these findings may indicate that undergraduate students are capable of attending to several conducting and rehearsal matters without having each component skill systematically deconstructed and practiced alone. Perhaps introducing concepts such as score study, error detection and correction, and the delivery of feedback alongside the nonverbal skills taught in the typical first semester basic conducting course would help develop novices’ overall conducting and rehearsal skills in a more holistic manner.

Despite research indicating the importance of score study, nonverbal communication skill training, and rehearsal technique development in expanding novices’ conducting skills (see literature reviews by Acklin, 2009; Price & Byo, 2002), there remains a great deal of difficulty in illustrating—from an empirical standpoint—how the practice of these strategies, in isolation or combination, can improve novice conductors’ abilities most effectively. Authors of numerous pedagogical texts extol the necessity of score study, and our own experience as teachers (and certainly the experiences of many others) would affirm, for example, the admonishment that “all conductors must know a work in order to rehearse it efficiently” (Colwell & Goolsby, 2002, p. 402). The results of the current study, however, would suggest that for novice teachers, the usefulness of this advice might be predicated on their possessing certain other music, pedagogical, and interpersonal skills. Is it possible that young conductors simply lack the requisite music and pedagogical knowledge necessary to show marked improvement in a short amount of time when leading a group of musicians? Viewed more optimistically, perhaps novices do possess these skills yet lack the leadership ability or teacher intensity necessary to convey their ideas. Although the variables that affect conductor and rehearsal effectiveness are numerous, the continued exploration of these complex interactions will be helpful to teacher educators, novice conductors, and ensemble members.

Footnotes

Supplemental Material

The online Appendix and Tables 2-3 are available at .

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Author Biographies

Brian A. Silvey is assistant professor of music education and associate director of bands at the University of Missouri. His research interests include conductor effectiveness and expressivity, instrumental music teacher preparation, and conducting pedagogy.

Mark Montemayor is associate professor and area head of music education at the University of Northern Colorado. His research interests include teacher evaluation and the development of music teaching expertise.

References

Acklin

(2009). The effect of conducting on ensemble performance: A “best-evidence” synthesis. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/110

Battisti

F. L.

Garafolo

(1990). Guide to score study for the wind band conductor. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Meredith Music.

Bergee

M. J.

(1992). A scale assessing music student teachers’ rehearsal effectiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 5–13. doi:10.2307/3345770

Bergee

M. J.

(1995). Primary and higher-order factors in a scale assessing concert band performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 126, 1–14.

Boardman

S. M.

(2000). A survey of the undergraduate instrumental conducting course in region seven of the national association of schools of music (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens.

Buell

D. S.

(1990). Effective rehearsing with the instrumental music ensemble: A case study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51-04A, 1150.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Colwell

R. J.

Goolsby

T. W.

(2002). The teaching of instrumental music (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Crowe

D. R.

(1996). Effects of score study style on beginning conductors’ error-detection abilities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 160–171. doi:10.2307/3345668

10.

DeCarbo

N. J.

(1982). The effects of conducting experience and programmed materials on error-detection score of college conducting students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 187–200. doi:10.2307/3345085

11.

Ellis

B. L.

(1994). Selected band conductors’ preparation to conduct selected band compositions. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55-09A, 2626.

12.

Feldman

Contzius

Lutch

(2011). Instrumental music education: Teaching with the musical and practical in harmony. New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Frederickson

W. E.

(1991). The effect of focus of attention on conducting behaviors including eye-contact of preservice conductors. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 3, 54–60.

14.

Goolsby

T. W.

(1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of three career levels and preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 21–40. doi:10.2307/3345463

15.

Harris

Jr. (2001). Conducting with feeling. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music.

16.

Hopkins

J. E.

(1991). The effect of four approaches to score study on student conductors’ ability to detect errors in the performance of choral music. Illinois Digital Environment of Access to Learning and Scholarship. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/20868

17.

Hunsberger

Ernst

R. E.

(1992). The art of conducting (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

18.

Johnston

(1993). The use of video self-assessment, peer-assessment, and instructor feedback in evaluating conducting skills in music student teachers. British Journal of Music Education, 10, 57–63. doi:10.1017/S0265051700001431

19.

Lane

(2006). Undergraduate instrumental music education majors’ approach to score study in various musical contexts. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 215–230. doi:10.1177/002242940605400305

20.

Lethco

L. M.

(1999). Preparing undergraduate music majors to teach beginning instrumentalists: The effects of self-evaluation, teacher observation, and performance-oriented instructional approaches on teacher behaviors and pupil responses (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1058.

21.

Manfredo

(2008). Factors influencing curricular content for undergraduate instrumental conducting courses. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 175, 45–62.

22.

Miles

(Ed.). (1997–1998). Teaching music through performance in band (Vols. 1–2). Chicago, IL: GIA.

23.

Montemayor

(2011, February). Evaluation of intrarehearsal achievement by listeners of varying levels of expertise. Paper presented at the 19th International Symposium for Research in Music Behavior, Barcelona, Spain.

24.

Montemayor

Moss

E.A.

(2009). Effects of recorded models on novice teachers’ rehearsal verbalizations, evaluations, and conducting. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 236–251. doi:10.1177/0022429409343183

25.

Morrison

S. J.

Montemayor

Wiltshire

E. S.

(2004). The effect of a recorded model on band students’ performance self-evaluations, achievement, and attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52, 116–129. doi:10.2307/3345434

26.

Price

H. E.

(1985). A competency-based course in basic conducting techniques: A replication. Journal of Band Research, 21(1), 61–69.

27.

Price

H. E.

Byo

J. L.

(2002). Rehearsing and conducting. In Parncutt

McPherson

G. E.

(Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: creative strategies for teaching and learning. (pp. 335–351). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

28.

Romines

F. D.

(2003). A survey of undergraduate instrumental conducting curricula. Journal of Band Research, 38(2), 80–90.

29.

Runnels

B. D.

(1992). Practices in the teaching of instrumental conducting at the undergraduate level among colleges and universities in the upper Midwest (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri–Kansas City.

30.

Schuller

(1997). The compleat conductor. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

31.

Silvey

B. A.

(2011a). Effects of score study on novices’ conducting and rehearsing: A preliminary investigation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 187, 33–48.

32.

Silvey

B. A.

(2011b). Undergraduate music majors’ perceptions of instrumental conducting curricula. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 21, 27–38. doi:10.177/1057083710387521

33.

Treviño

A. R.

(2008). The effect of the use of an aural model during score study on undergraduate music majors’ conducting gesture (Doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle.

34.

Wagar

(1991). Conductors in conversation. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall & Co.

35.

Williamson

J. E.

(1998). Rehearsing the band. Cloudcroft, NM: Neidig Services.

36.

Worthy

M. D.

(2005). The effects of self-evaluation on the timing of teacher and student behaviors in lab rehearsals. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 15(1), 8–14. doi:10.1177/10570837050150010103

37.

Yarbrough

(1987). The relationship of behavioral self-assessment to the achievement of basic conducting skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35, 183–189. doi:10.2307/3344960

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB