Effects of movement,tempo,and gender on steady beat performance of kindergarten children

Abstract

The purposes of this research were to discover the effects of manual (hand) and pedal (foot) movements, tempo, and gender on steady beat accuracy. Participants (N = 119) consisted of male (n = 63) and female (n = 56) kindergarten students randomly divided into two groups, counterbalanced with regard to school, homeroom, and gender. Participants performed steady beat by either tapping or stepping on MIDI controllers. Given a visual model, students were asked to synchronize to the steady beat of musical examples at slow (80 bpm), medium (100 bpm), and fast (120 bpm) tempi. Participants had lowest overall accuracy scores at the fast tempo and highest accuracy scores at the medium tempo. Lowest scores for both males and females were found with pedal movement at a fast tempo. Females performed best with manual movement at a slow tempo, while males performed best with manual movement at a medium tempo. Overall, participants in the manual group scored higher than participants in the pedal group at all tempi. Results of the two-way mixed analysis of variance revealed no main effect for tempi or gender and no statistically significant interactions. There was a main effect for manual/pedal grouping, with manual participants scoring higher than pedal participants.

Keywords

Gender movement steady beat tempo

The roots of modern music education include the use of movement to teach music, and teachers advocated the use of physical activity in their writings and teachings (Dewey, 1916; Farnsworth, 1909; Froebel, 1878; Hall, 1911; Jaques-Dalcroze, 1930). Campbell (1991) stated that movements, such as clapping, walking, marching, and dancing were often used to teach music concepts, particularly in the primary grades. Orff, Jaques-Dalcroze, Kodály, and Gordon were notable music pedagogues who believed that children should experience music through interactive and physical means before theoretical learning (Frazee, 1987).

In more recent times, researchers and educators have also recommended movement as a way for teachers to enhance learning and for students to demonstrate music skills (Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 2006; Flohr & Trevarthen, 2008; Gilbert, 1980; Pica, 2004; Rohwer, 1998; Weikart, 1989; Weikart, Schweinhart, & Larner, 1987). Steady beat is a skill often taught through the use of various movement activities. It is also a skill that students must use as they demonstrate rhythm, singing, chanting, and other skills (Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 2006; Radocy & Boyle, 1979; Warner, 1991).

Motor skills and steady beat

Many studies have used manual movements of clapping and tapping to assess steady beat (Aschersleben & Prinz, 1995; Drake, Jones, & Baruch, 2000; Frega, 1979; Jordan, 1994; Malbrán, 2000, 2002; Rainbow, 1981; Schleuter & Schleuter, 1985). Other research has utilized pedal movements of stepping or marching (Aschersleben & Prinz, 1995; Frega, 1979; Grieshaber, 1987; Rainbow, 1981; Schleuter & Schleuter, 1985; Trump, 1987; Weikart et al., 1987), while some have used vocal response (Frega, 1979; Rainbow, 1981; Schleuter & Schleuter, 1985). Both Frega (1979) and Rainbow (1981) examined the ability of three- and four-year-old children to keep a steady beat. Overall, vocal responses were easiest, followed by various clapping activities, and tapping using rhythm sticks. Marching and marching while clapping were least accurate. In regard to four-year-old children, clapping, walking, tapping an instrument, and chanting were deemed at the same level of task difficulty.

Schleuter and Schleuter (1985) examined the steady beat of students who were enrolled in kindergarten through third grade (approximately ages between five and eight) in the United States. Students were asked to demonstrate steady beat by chanting, clapping, and stepping. Results showed that kindergarten students were more accurate rhythmically when they responded with chant and least accurate when they responded with stepping movements; however, they noted that large muscle skills, such as stepping, were easier than small muscle group movements, such as clapping.

In examining children who were aged between three and seven, Jordan (1994) found that steady beat was significantly more difficult when children used lower body stomping as opposed to upper body clapping. Grieshaber (1987) stated that primary age children did not exhibit the coordination skills for tasks beyond manual tapping. Studies by Weikart et al. (1987) and Weikart (1989) also revealed that young students often lack the ability to perform the motor skill movements of walking to the beat; however, she showed that tactile experience and instructional preparation could enable students to move to more complex skills. Loong (1999), however, stated that preschool children performed comparably on stepping and instrumental playing tasks that were manual in nature.

Trump (1987) was one of few researchers to examine several performance conditions, including bilateral tapping, alternating tapping, alternating steps while seated, alternating steps while standing, and alternating walking in both forward and backward directions. These tasks were grouped into bilateral nonlocomotor movements, alternating nonlocomotor movements, and alternating locomotor movements. Results showed that the bilateral nonlocomotor tapping was the easiest task, followed by alternating nonlocomotor movements, and finally alternating locomotor movements. These findings revealed that the difficulty might be determined by locomotor versus nonlocomotor movements. Overall, studies involving manual and pedal tasks in music show contrasting findings and encompass many variables that are worthy of further investigation.

Steady beat and age

Studies have found that children can synchronize with steady beat better with maturation (Buchanon, 1988; Drake et al., 2000; Loong, 1999; Malbrán, 2002; Sims, 1985; Walters, 1983, Zimmerman, 2002). In studying children aged from three to five, Malbrán (2002) found that steady beat accuracy in arm movements increased with age. Moog (1976) noted that children aged four to six years decline in their free spontaneous movements, but increase in their clapping motions. These motions, he stated, are not always accurate or on the beat, but are, nonetheless, used more frequently.

Gallahue and Ozmun (2002) discussed the maturation of children’s gross motor skills for various foot and leg movements. Skills involving feet and legs, they stated, often take longer to develop because of challenges that must be overcome in the areas of balancing and walking. These include issues of individual foot placement, improper posture, and poor rhythmical gait. Eventually, an increase in muscle strength combined with maturation provides greater accuracy in gross movements over time.

Steady beat and tempo

Researchers have examined steady beat accuracy with varying tempo conditions (Babcock, 1941; Cox, 1977; Drake et al., 2000; Duke, 1989a, 1989b, 1994; Duke, Geringer, & Madsen, 1991; Ellis, 1992; Kuhn, 1987; Loong, 1999; Malbrán, 2000; Phillips-Silver & Trainor, 2007; Rohwer, 1998; Rose, Fisher, & Shewmaker, 2012; Vaughan, 1981; Walters, 1983). Babcock (1941) believed that everyone has an internal tempo. When asked to demonstrate tasks, such as steady beat, participants will generally start or gravitate toward that individual tempo. Walters (1983) examined kindergarten through third grade students (children approximately five to nine years old) on their ability to synchronize to various tempi, discovering that it was a challenge for children to perform steady beat accurately if that tempo was too far from that of their preferred internal speed. Walters found no significant differences between subjects’ preferred tempi, though, and found that a mean of 106.8 beats per minute was the preferred tempo on tapping tasks.

There is some belief that steady beat is most accurate when students synchronize with a tempo that is close to their own heart rate (Buchanon, 1988; Loong, 1999; Sims, 1985, Walters, 1983) or walking rate (Frego, 1996; Vaughan, 1981). Buchanon (1988) found that synchronization scores for three to five year olds were higher when the tempo was 15 percent faster than an individual’s heart rate. Vaughan (1981) found that the natural walking tempo for kindergarten students (ages five and six) was at 118.6 beats per minute. This is lower than Frego’s (1996) findings of 139 beats per minute for children the same age.

Research has also found that children are more accurate in performing faster tempi relative to the predetermined ranges that were deemed appropriate for children (Cox, 1977; Drake et al., 2000; Ellis, 1992; Frega, 1979; Rose et al., 2012). Rose et al. (2012) had kindergarten students aged five and six years old (N = 40) perform manual and pedal movements at slow (80 beats per minute), medium (100 beats per minute), and fast (120 beats per minute) tempi. Descriptively, participants had lower means for steady beat accuracy at the medium tempo, with the higher overall means at the fast tempo. Drake et al. (2000) tested steady beat tapping for children ages four, six, eight, and ten, as well as adults. Participants’ preferred tapping rates decreased with age; however, it was determined that participants were capable of faster tapping with increased age. While studies have shown that steady beat accuracy may be most successful with different tempi or conditions, Rohwer (1998) recommended incorporating activities with various tempi, which may benefit steady beat accuracy at all tempi.

Steady beat and gender

Gender has been another variable of interest in music motor skills (Gilbert, 1980; Rose et al., 2012; Schleuter & Schleuter, 1985) and in kinesiology (Junaid & Fellows, 2006; Thomas & French, 1995). In studies with children aged between three and six, Gilbert (1980) found that girls performed better than boys on tests of motor pattern coordination, hand–eye coordination, and compound factors in response to music. Rose et al. (2012) found no effect for gender across tempo for steady beat accuracy with students aged five and six; however, males did perform more accurately using slow manual movements at 80 bpm, while females performed more accurately using faster manual movements at 120 bpm. For pedal movements at each tempo, females scored higher. While few music studies have shown significant differences in tasks according to gender, research into possible differences is still needed, as kinesiology studies such as Junaid and Fellows (2006) reveal statistically significant differences in a variety of manual tasks. A meta-analysis of motor skill research by Thomas and French (1995) yielded no overall gender differences in balance, though, which is a main component in pedal tasks.

Steady beat and presentation modes

Frega (1979) identified more difficult motor skill tasks for five-year-old children, which included walking with the beat and clapping while singing; however, successful motor skill tasks included clapping patterns, which were accomplished with the help of a visual aid. Kirschner and Tomasello (2009) have also presented aural and visual models in steady beat tasks. In their study, 36 children (ages 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 years old) were given three drumming conditions: a human drumming partner labeled a “social condition;” a drumming machine providing a “visual and aural condition,” and a speaker hidden in a box to produce an “acoustic condition.” All age groups synchronized their steady beat to the human model with a higher percentage of accuracy. Not only did this provide aural and visual cues for the children, but researchers also believed the social condition may have motivated children or facilitated the natural inclination to share in a joint attention activity. Similarly, Flohr and Trevarthen (2008) have stated that children’s movement responses and natural music exploration may be motivated by effective communication, collaboration, and connections with others.

Most steady beat research has examined variables that affect students’ synchronization to the steady beat, but these studies also require students to discern the pulse themselves based on an aural stimulus. While this is an authentic part of music making, it is often difficult to determine whether inaccuracies are the result of students not perceiving the steady beat or not having the requisite motor skills for the specific task. In music education there is scant research that isolates students’ motor skills while minimizing the challenge of identifying and maintaining the steady beat. Some that provide visual and aural cues for steady beat have helped to isolate music motor skills and define their role in student success; however, these studies are rare. In attempting to completely isolate these motor skills, Rose et al. (2012) examined the accuracy of 40 kindergarten students, aged five and six, who performed steady beat either by patting on laps or stepping in place to musical examples. To eliminate perception inaccuracies due to discernment of steady beat, researchers used a video of the music teacher modeling the steady beat in an eight-beat introduction and throughout the duration of each 16-count task.

Need for study

Although research has found that students are most successful when chanting musical tasks, the nature of teaching, playing, and assessing music often requires ostensible motor skill movement, such as tapping with hands or stepping. Collectively, research on steady beat accuracy and synchronization shows a variety of findings, often dependent on type of task and tempo. Studies that isolate motor skills are needed to reveal the role that physical development plays in music tasks.

Greater knowledge of motor skill tasks, tempi, and gender variables can assist educators in determining which activities and assessments are most appropriate for their students. Therefore the purposes of this study were: (1) to discover the effects of hand tapping and foot stepping movements on the accuracy of steady beat; and (2) to investigate the effects of gender and tempi on the accuracy of steady beat.

Method

All participants had experience with steady beat in their first few months of formal schooling. Their music teachers reported practicing steady beat for a few moments each week, and they stated that the steady beat was practiced most often through hand clapping/tapping, followed by stepping and marching movements.

Dunlap (1997) listed many milestones for the development of motor skills among children. By the age of four, most children can stand on one foot, skip and hop, and climb stairs using one foot per step. They can also throw and bounce balls, as well as catch objects. Because of the milestones put forth by Dunlap (1997) and the relationship between movement and music instruction, it was decided to investigate steady beat as performed with manual and pedal movements. To examine the accuracy of steady beat with manual and pedal movements, the researcher randomly divided the students into two equal groups: those asked to demonstrate steady beat by patting their hands (manual movement), and those asked to demonstrate steady beat by stepping in place with feet (pedal movement). Nonlocomotor movement was used in this study since the pedal group had to remain on a small platform for measurement; however, this limitation did allow examination of a motor skill that has been included in very few music studies (Rose et al., 2012; Trump, 1987). These manual and pedal groups were counterbalanced according to school, homeroom, and gender (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Summary of participant grouping.

Gender	School 1		School 2
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Total
Manual	15	11	17	17	60
Pedal	14	12	17	16	59
Total	29	23	34	33	119

All students demonstrated steady beat using a segment of music played at three different tempi: slow (S) = quarter note at 80 bpm; medium (M) = quarter note at 100 bpm; fast (F) = quarter note at 120 bpm. Duke (1989b) suggested that even trained musicians tend to interpret all music as having a tempo between 60 and 120 bpm. In his study, college music majors perceived music that was faster than 120 bpm as merely a subdivision of a slower tempo. For music that was slower than 60 bpm, musicians tended to subdivide the actual beat to derive a tempo that was faster and in the aforementioned range. Therefore, in this study, 120 bpm was chosen as the fast tempo. Because research (Gallahue & Ozmun, 2002) shows that children struggle with balance and motor development issues, the researcher chose a tempo of 80 bpm for the “slow tempo.” A tempo of 100 bpm was chosen for the medium tempo, which is exactly in between the slow and fast tempi. The music was developed so that kindergarteners could have the authentic experience of synchronizing steady beat with a music source. Based on research where children have synchronized with isochronous (one note value) patterns, mixed rhythmic patterns, and authentic music, Drake et al. (2000) have indicated that children may naturally synchronize to real music as opposed to patterns or combinations of rhythms that are out of context.

GarageBand 5.1 (Apple, Inc.) was used to create the music, with two separate loops combined to generate one musical segment. Loops consisted of an acoustic guitar and drum set, both playing patterns of running eighth notes with an ostensible steady beat. No syncopation or rhythmic complexity was present. The layered eight-count segment was then “looped” to play a total of three times with a total of 24 counts. Participants could hear eight counts of music prior to demonstrating steady beat for the next 16 beats. The length of 16 performance beats was chosen because it outlined a natural musical phrase, and it contained an adequate number of beats for participant assessment. This 24-count segment was then replicated three times to create slow, medium, and fast tempi. GarageBand files were then created in an effort to counterbalance for effect of tempi order. The music segments were arranged in all possible tempi orderings of slow (S), medium (M), and fast (F), with each student hearing one of the resulting orders: (1) SMF; (2) SFM; (3) MSF; (4) MFS; (5) FSM; and (6) FMS.

To obtain precise measurements of manual and pedal steady beat, the researcher used two MIDI controllers. Students performed manual movements on a malletKAT controller and pedal movements on a DrumKat 3.8. Because researchers (Malbrán, 2000; Rose et al., 2012) noted past instances of delayed performance and discontinuity while students were seated, it was decided to have manual students stand while tapping. The malletKAT was placed on a cart at an appropriate height level for students to tap with both hands. A laminated handprint was used to show students where to tap the device. The DrumKat was placed on the floor with an area of dense foam butted up against it. This foam was taken from “Dance Dance Revolution” foam padding, designed for stepping and dance moves. The foam was level with the DrumKat, and was used so that students’ heels and the brunt of their weight would hit just the foam. It also gave students a larger platform. Laminated footprints were affixed to the combination of DrumKat and foam, showing students an approximate area to step.

Both controllers were connected to GarageBand through a MOTU FastLane 2×2 USB MIDI interface. Data from their performances were channeled directly into GarageBand yielding automatic music notation that was quantized to display as the nearest 32nd note. Together these devices presented a visual and objective comparison of the students’ performances with music.

Students were individually tested in various rooms (music room, home room, cafetorium) depending on school schedules. In all cases students were introduced to the researcher and shown the space ahead of time by their music teacher. To ensure that all students got the same introductory information when they arrived, the researcher read two sets of instructions that were recorded on GarageBand and placed at the beginning of each file. The first set of instructions was to greet students and introduce them to playing on the MIDI controller. The manual version of this first set stated, “Hi! Thanks for playing the steady beat game with us today. Let’s have you go ahead and tap the instrument with your hands where the hand prints are.” The pedal version was similar, stating, “Hi! Thanks for playing the steady beat game with us today. Let’s have you go ahead and step up on the box and try stepping where the footprints are.” When the students’ demonstration of the manual tapping or pedal stepping produced a registered response on GarageBand, the students received the following message:

Great! You’re ready to play! Now, we’re going to listen to a piece of music and hear it at three different speeds. Each time it’s played, we’re going to keep the steady beat with it. You’ll hear the music first, and then you’ll hear 1, 2, ready, go, and that’s when you can join in.

It was decided to have participants demonstrate the steady beat while watching the researcher perform the same tasks. This was due to the fact that students had been exposed to steady beat in school, but with the interpretation of steady beat in the music. All participants had experience with steady beat in their first few months of formal schooling; however, like many authentic classroom situations, students were used to having a teacher’s model of the steady beat or task at hand. Using a model in this research ensured that the assessment was measuring capacity of the student to perform the motor skill in tempo, rather than capability of the student to discern the steady beat in music. It also created a feeling of comfort and authenticity, since students were assessed individually and were accustomed to following modeling and cues from their teacher. Manual tapping was modeled with both hands moving simultaneously. The researcher also performed the steady beat with the fingertips of a cupped hand, rebounding so that no part of the hand was ever anchored to the controller. Pedal movement was modeled in alternating steps that lifted the entire foot off of the ground. When the music was played, each 24-count segment started with four beats of the music. This was followed by four more beats in which the researcher demonstrated the task and the GarageBand recording stated, “One, two, ready, go.” The researcher continued modeling for the remaining 16 counts, with the students’ demonstration counting toward the student assessment. All files were created, edited, and housed on a MacBook Pro laptop (version 10.6.8, Apple, Inc.).

After all participants had completed the study, the researchers analyzed participants’ files, assessing the accuracy of the 16 beats for each tempo (slow, medium, and fast). Each beat was graded individually in comparison to the visual display of hand tapping or foot stepping, as displayed by musical notation on GarageBand. A score of one was assigned if the participant patted or stepped on the beat. If the student did not perform on the beat, it was scored as a zero. A perfect score of 16 was possible for each tempo. The same process was applied for all three tempi, with an overall possible score of 48. Data were entered and calculated using IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0 (released 2011), and a two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA), as discussed by Field (2013), was used to examine the between-subjects variables of manual/pedal grouping on the dependent variable of steady beat accuracy. Assumptions for normality were assessed, and homogeneity of variance was assessed using Levene’s test for equality of error variances. Since all participants were assessed at three tempo markings, the two-way mixed ANOVA was used, with tempo serving as the within-subjects independent variable.

Results

Means and standard deviations were calculated for steady beat accuracy by gender and manual grouping across slow, medium, and fast tempi. Data were first calculated for 119 participants, but initial review of the data indicated the presence of outliers. Four participant cases were then removed from the data set, and records confirmed that these were students who could not understand or follow instructions. Two students continued to hit the controller throughout the entire process with no regard for the presence of music or researcher modeling. One became disinterested and rested hands on the controller, while another wandered around the room and would not stay on the platform for the duration of the stepping task.

Data yielded descriptive statistics of a mean score (M) and standard deviation (SD) for overall categories and subcategories of males and females for manual/pedal grouping at each tempo marking. As seen in Table 2, participants (N = 115) had the lowest overall mean for steady beat accuracy at the fast tempo (M = 13.10, SD = 3.38), followed by the slow tempo (M = 13.20, SD = 3.24). Students were most accurate when performing at the medium tempo (M = 13.77, SD = 2.84). Overall, participants in the manual group performed better than participants in the pedal group at all three tempi.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for tempo by gender and manual/pedal grouping.

	Slow tempo (80 bpm)		Medium tempo (100 bpm)		Fast tempo (120 bmp)
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Male (n = 60)	12.83	3.40	13.60	2.80	12.80	3.60
Manual (n = 30)	13.37	3.66	14.67	2.17	13.70	3.72
Pedal (n = 30)	12.30	3.09	12.53	2.30	11.90	3.30
Female (n = 55)	13.60	3.03	13.96	2.91	13.43	3.12
Manual (n = 27)	14.56	2.58	14.04	3.46	14.52	2.47
Pedal (n = 28)	12.68	3.19	13.89	2.33	12.39	3.36
Overall (n = 115)	13.20	3.24	13.77	2.85	13.10	3.38
Manual (n = 57)	13.93	3.22	14.37	2.84	14.09	3.19
Pedal (n = 58)	12.48	3.12	13.19	2.75	12.14	3.31

The lowest mean for both males (M = 11.90, SD = 3.30) and females (M = 12.39, SD = 3.36) was found with pedal movement at a fast tempo. Descriptively, in the pedal group, females scored higher than males at all three tempi. Females performed best with manual movements at a slow tempo (M = 14.56, SD = 2.58), while males performed their best with manual movements at a medium tempo (M = 14.67, SD = 2.17).

A two-way mixed ANOVA was calculated with tempi (slow, medium, fast) serving as the within-subjects independent variable and steady beat accuracy as the dependent variable. Manual/pedal grouping and gender served as the between-subjects variables. Assumptions for normality were met for male gender (skewness = –.44, confidence interval CI ± 37.23; kurtosis = –.93, confidence interval CI ± 41.24) and female gender (skewness = –.62, confidence interval CI ± 39.00; kurtosis = –.98, confidence interval CI ± 42.99), as well as manual grouping (skewness = −1.03, confidence interval CI ± 40.40; kurtosis = –.44, confidence interval CI ± 44.37) and pedal grouping (skewness = –.25, confidence interval CI ± 35.96; kurtosis = –.68, confidence interval CI ± 39.66). Homogeneity of variance was calculated using Levene’s statistic, with assumptions met for gender (L = .13, p = .72) and manual/pedal grouping (L = .46, p = .50). The assumption of sphericity was also met (M = .948, p = .055) using Maulchly’s Test of Sphericity.

Results of the two-way mixed ANOVA revealed no significant main effect for tempi [slow (M = 13.20, SD = 3.24), medium (M = 13.77, SD = 2.85), fast (M = 13.10, SD = 3.38)], [F(2, 222) = 2.67, p = .07]. No statistically significant interactions were found for manual/pedal grouping by tempi [F(2, 222) = .921, p = .400], gender by tempi [F(2, 222) = .25, p = .78], or gender by manual/pedal grouping by tempi [F(2, 222) = 3.00, p = .052].

Results did reveal a statistically significant main effect of manual/pedal grouping on steady beat, with manual participants (M = 42.39, SD = 7.48) scoring higher than pedal participants (M = 37.81, SD = 7.05)], [F(1, 111) = 11.35, p = .001]. There was no main effect of gender on steady beat [F(1, 111) = 1.77, p = .19], and there was no statistically significant interaction for gender by manual/pedal grouping [F(1, 111) = .10, p = .75].

Discussion

Effects of manual/pedal movements on accuracy of steady beat

The purposes of this study were (1) to discover the effects of manual and pedal movements on the accuracy of steady beat, and (2) to investigate the effects of gender and tempi on the accuracy of steady beat. Statistically, there was a significant difference between the manual/pedal groups on steady beat accuracy, suggesting that kindergarten children may have more success when a manual motor skill is used as opposed to the pedal motor skill of stepping in place. This counters results from Loong (1999) and Rose et al. (2012), which showed children performing manual and pedal tasks comparably. The findings support other research that has shown children to have more difficulty with pedal movements (Aschersleben & Prinz, 1995; Grieshaber, 1987; Jordan, 1994; Rainbow, 1981; Schleuter & Schleuter, 1985; Trump, 1987; Weikart, 1989; Weikart et al., 1987).

Descriptively, participants in the manual group were more accurate than participants in the pedal group at all three tempi. In observation of participants it was noted that students in the pedal movement group sometimes struggled with balance at all tempi. As Gallahue and Ozmun (2002) noted, children often have a harder time balancing on their non-dominant leg. This could explain students’ occasional delays in their reaction to the beat. Music teachers may consider this when using stationary pedal movement at slower tempi and offer manual alternatives for students who may be struggling because of delayed motor skill development, as outlined by Dunlap (1997). Of course, it can also be argued that it is beneficial for teachers to utilize both manual and pedal movements to develop both musical and motor skills of students.

Effects of tempi on accuracy of steady beat

Although there was no significant difference between tempi on steady beat accuracy, descriptive statistics revealed that, overall, participants were more accurate at medium tempi. This aligns with research by Walters (1983), who found a mean preferred tempo of 106.8 bpm on tapping tasks; however, it does not align with other manual tapping research that discovered students were more accurate at faster tempi (Cox, 1977; Drake et al., 2000; Ellis, 1992; Frega, 1979; Rose et al., 2012). In fact, participants in this study had the lowest overall mean for steady beat accuracy at the fast tempo. Researchers have claimed that varied tempi may present greater challenges to younger students (Babcock, 1941; Cox, 1977; Ellis, 1992; Walters, 1983); however, researchers (Rohwer, 1998; Weikart, 1989; Weikart et al., 1987) have suggested that teachers incorporate movement activities and prepare students with varied tempi to aid in the development of motor skills, as well as steady beat accuracy.

Effects of gender on steady beat

In terms of gender, the lowest mean for both males and females was found with pedal movement at a fast tempo. Overall, in the pedal group, females were more accurate than males in the pedal group at all three tempi. Although this result was not significant, it is reminiscent of previous findings involving gender (Gilbert, 1980; Rose et al., 2012; Schleuter & Schleuter, 1985). In the present study, observation revealed that many of the girls tended to facilitate slow tempi by picking feet all the way up to knee level and placing feet back down gently, while boys sometimes rocked from side to side with more forceful steps causing them to lose control of balance. It could be that cultural differences and background experiences prepare females for more graceful pedal movement. Females performed steady beat most accurately with manual tasks at a slow tempo, while males performed their best with manual movements at a medium tempo. These findings could be related to the significant differences that Junaid and Fellows (2006) found between males and females on manual motor skill tasks.

Conclusions and further study

Rose et al. (2012) found that some participants from manual task groups did not participate or only participated for part of the study. The discontinuity of steady beat performance in young children is consistent with previous research by Malbrán (2000). Rose et al. (2012) suggested that pedal group participants were more engaged by standing. In the current study, all participants stood, regardless of their assignment group of manual or pedal tasks. In all 115 cases, there was no discontinuity of tapping or stepping, which substantiates the idea that standing may engage students in activities and hold their attention longer. Another explanation is that the researcher’s visual model provided the social aspect that Kirschner and Tomasello (2009) describe in their study. It could be that social music making engages children in a joint attention activity and motivates children in communicative and collaborative ways discussed by Flohr and Trevarthen (2008).

Continued research on motor skill development in young children and the effective use of movement in the elementary music classroom is needed. Researchers may choose to address factors that influence participation and eliminate discontinuity, including engaging students with social aspects or having students simply stand more often during performance tasks. Replication studies may reveal more about how motor skill tasks, tempo, and gender affect steady beat accuracy and why certain contexts and combinations of variables may be successful or challenging. This sample included rural students encompassing a high majority of Caucasian students; hence, the findings are not generalizable across diverse settings where a broader range of student population may exist. Future studies might include a more diverse student population and may examine factors such as students’ enculturation and background experiences. It could be that these variables play a role in students’ steady beat accuracy.

Future studies may also consider pedal movements that incorporate locomotor movement, which was a limitation of this study. Although stepping in place is a movement that is performed in music classrooms, the locomotor movements of walking, marching, etc., are also used in general music classrooms and involve different physical skills. Future research could compare locomotor and nonlocomotor pedal movements, as well as manual movements. Manual movements can also be examined further in terms of alternating patterns and bilateral movement, with hands moving simultaneously. Studies comparing locomotor and nonlocomotor pedal movement reminiscent of Trump (1987) could also be undertaken.

In this study, statistically significant differences between tasks suggest that five- and six-year-old students may have greater steady beat accuracy when using manual tapping movements as opposed to pedal movements of stepping in place. Descriptive data reveal that females may be more successful than males at pedal movements. Teachers can certainly keep these findings in mind as they interact with their own classes. Thus, knowledge of movement, tempo, and gender may bring a greater awareness of the variables that affect student success. When teachers have insight into these variables, they are able to plan instructional activities, varied activities and valid assessments that involve motor skills. Knowledge of these issues can also influence the evaluation of students and provide informed decisions about accommodating children’s diverse needs in physical development.

Despite the results of this study and the observations within one’s own classroom, it should be noted that by using both manual and pedal movements at variable tempi, teachers may positively contribute to children’s musical and motor skill development. Varied performance conditions may also allow students to perform steady beat in ways that both engage and challenge them in the music learning process.

Footnotes

Funding

This research was funded through a University Research Council Grant from the University of Central Arkansas.

References

Aschersleben

Prinz

(1995). Synchronizing actions with events: The role of sensory information. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 305–317.

Babcock

(1941). Time and the mind; personal tempo - The key to normal and pathological mental conditions. Cambridge, MA: Sci-Art.

Buchanon

(1988). An exploratory study of preschool children’s synchronization of a selected rhythmic activity with music set at their heart rate (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 8819354).

Campbell

P. S.

(1991). Rhythmic movement and public school music education: Conservative and progressive views of the formative years. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 12–22.

Campbell

P. S.

Scott-Kassner

(2006). Music in childhood: From preschool through the elementary grades (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Schirmer.

Cox

M. O.

(1977). A descriptive analysis of the response to beat, meter, and rhythm patterns by children in grades one to six. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 3353/6A.

Dewey

(1916). Democracy in education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Drake

Jones

M. R.

Baruch

(2000). The development of rhythmic attending in auditory sequences: Attunement, referent period, focal attending. Cognition, 77, 251–288.

Duke

R. A.

(1989a). Effect of melodic rhythm on elementary students’ and college undergraduates’ perceptions of relative tempo. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 246–257.

10.

Duke

R. A.

(1989b). Musicians’ perception of beat in monotonic stimuli. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 61–71.

11.

Duke

R. A.

(1994). When tempo changes rhythm: The effect of tempo on nonmusicians’ perception of rhythm. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 27–35.

12.

Duke

R. A.

Geringer

J. M.

Madsen

C. K.

(1991). Performance of perceived beat in relation to age and music training. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 35–45.

13.

Dunlap

(1997). An introduction to early childhood special education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

14.

Ellis

M. C.

(1992). Tempo perception and performance of elementary students, grades 3–6. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 329–341.

15.

Farnsworth

(1909). Education through music. New York, NY: American Book.

16.

Field

A. P.

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (4th ed.). London, UK: Sage.

17.

Flohr

J. W.

Trevarthen

(2008). Music learning in childhood – Early developments of a musical brain and body. In Gruhn

Rauscher

(Eds.), Neurosciences in music pedagogy (pp. 53–99). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

18.

Frazee

(1987). Discovering Orff: A curriculum for music teachers. New York, NY: Schott Music Corporation.

19.

Frega

(1979). Rhythmic tasks with 3, 4, and 5-year old children: A study made in Argentine Republic. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 59, 32–34.

20.

Frego

R. J. D.

(1996). Determining personal tempo in elementary-aged children through gross motor movements. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 8, 138–145.

21.

Froebel

(1878). Mother play and nursery songs ( Dwight

Jarvis

, Trans.). Boston, MA: Less and Shepard.

22.

Gallahue

D. L.

Ozmun

J. C.

(2002). Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

23.

Gilbert

(1980). An assessment of motor music skill development in young children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 28, 167–175.

24.

Grieshaber

(1987). Children’s rhythmic tapping: A critical review of research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 90, 73–81.

25.

Hall

G. S.

(1911). The pedagogy of music. In Educational problems (Vol. 1) (pp. 91–135). New York, NY: D. Appleton.

26.

IBM Corporation. (Released 2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.

27.

Jaques-Dalcroze

(1930). Eurhythmics, art and education ( Rothwell

, Trans.). New York, NY: A. S. Barnes.

28.

Jordan

F. L.

(1994). A validation of the Weikart sequence of levels of beat coordination for children aged 3–7. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

29.

Junaid

K. A.

Fellowes

(2006). Gender differences in the attainment of motor skills on the movement assessment battery for children. Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 26, 5–11.

30.

Kirschner

Tomasello

(2009). Joint drumming: Social context facilitates synchronization in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 299–314.

31.

Kuhn

T. L.

(1987). The effect of tempo, meter, and melodic complexity on the perception of tempo. In Madsen

C. K.

Prickett

C. A.

(Eds.), Applications of research in music behavior (pp. 165–174). Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.

32.

Loong

C. Y.

(1999). The effects of tempo in rhythm of young children under five years old (Doctoral dissertation), Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 9945491).

33.

Malbrán

(2000). The development of pulse synchrony: An exploratory study of three-year-old children. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 147, 109–115.

34.

Malbrán

(2002). Tapping in time: A longitudinal study at the ages of three to five years. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 153/4, 71–77.

35.

Moog

(1976). The musical experience of the pre-school child. (Trans. Clarke

) London, UK: Schott.

36.

Phillips-Silver

Trainor

L. J.

(2007). Hearing what the body feels: Auditory encoding of rhythmic movement. Cognition, 105, 533–546.

37.

Pica

(2004). Experiences in movement: Birth to age eight (3rd ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Thomason Delmar Learning.

38.

Radocy

R. E.

Boyle

J. D.

(1979). Psychology foundations of musical behavior. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

39.

Rainbow

E. L.

(1981). A final report on a three-year investigation of the rhythmic abilities of preschool-aged children. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 66/67, 69–73.

40.

Rohwer

(1998). Effect of movement instruction on steady beat perception, synchronization, and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 414–425.

41.

Rose

Fisher

Shewmaker

(2012). Effects of manual/pedal movement, tempo, and gender on accuracy of steady beat in kindergarten students. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 192, 29–38.

42.

Schleuter

S. L.

Schleuter

L. J.

(1985). The relationship of grade level and sex differences to certain rhythmic responses of primary grade children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 33, 23–29.

43.

Sims

(1985). Young children’s creative movement to music: Categories of movement, rhythmic characteristics, and reactions to changes. Contributions to Music Education, 12, 42–50.

44.

Thomas

J. R.

French

(1995). Gender differences across age in motor performance. A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 260–282.

45.

Trump

P. B.

(1987). Effects of Weikart’s sequential approach to rhythmic movement on development of rhythmic competency in primary age children. Unpublished manuscript, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa.

46.

Vaughn

(1981). Intercultural studies in children’s natural singing pitch and walking tempo. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 66–67, 96–101.

47.

Walters

(1983). The relationship between personal tempo in primary-aged children and their ability to synchronize movement with music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 88, 85–89.

48.

Warner

(1991). Orff-Schulwerk: Applications for the classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

49.

Weikart

P. S.

(1989). Teaching movement & dance: A sequential approach to rhythmic movement. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope.

50.

Weikart

P. S.

Schweinhart

L. J.

Larner

(1987). Movement curriculum improves children’s rhythmic competence. High Scope ReSource, 6, 8–10.

51.

Zimmerman

M. P.

(2002). Musical characteristics of children. In Campbell

M. R.

(Ed.), On musicality and milestones (pp. 127–150). Urbana, IL: School of Music, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.