Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate undergraduate choral conducting students’ conducting practice approaches, time allocation, and beliefs. A secondary purpose was to examine conducting instructors’ pedagogy and beliefs about their students’ practice approaches. Undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory choral conducting class (N = 126) and their instructors (N = 12) responded to separate questionnaires. Students and instructors agreed that technical skills came more naturally than expressive skills, and students reported practicing technical skills more often than expressive skills. Although instructors and students agreed to the frequent use of “singing or humming musical lines” as a practice strategy, they did not align regarding the importance of using video recordings within practice sessions. Based on our results, we recommend that instructors explicitly share their practice expectations with students and introduce an incremental approach to developing expressive conducting skills earlier in the curriculum.
Undergraduate music education students are required to enroll in conducting courses that prepare them for their future teaching responsibilities (National Association of Schools of Music [NASM], 2020). In addition to learning conducting fundamentals and rehearsal techniques (Hart, 2019), preservice music teachers (PSMT) are taught important nonverbal behaviors so they can lead an expressive performance (Manfredo, 2008). In discussing the importance of conducting with expressive gestures, Bailey and Payne (2014) wrote, “Without this ability, the communication between the conductor and the ensemble is limited to timekeeping and verbal instructions” (p. 112). Conductors who demonstrate expressive nonverbal behaviors are often considered more effective than conductors with underdeveloped nonverbal skills (Napoles, 2013; Silvey & Koerner, 2016). In addition, the perceived quality of conductors’ expressivity affected listeners’ perceptions of ensemble expressivity (Silvey, 2011b) and viewers’ evaluations of rehearsal instruction (Montemayor & Silvey, 2019). Given the positive perceptions and pedagogical outcomes related to expressive conducting, the development of nonverbal conducting skills through university coursework seems essential for PSMTs.
Considering the breadth of topics covered in conducting courses, students who are enrolled in undergraduate basic conducting courses often receive different educational experiences from one institution to another. Hart (2019) found that although university conducting instructors had taught in that setting for many years, they often had little experience in K–12 settings. Beyond K–12 teaching experience, differences in instructional approach may reflect an instructor’s area of advanced study or teaching emphasis. Manfredo (2008), for example, found that faculty who specialized in conducting spent more time discussing gesture, whereas those who identified as music education specialists placed a greater emphasis on instrumental pedagogy. In another survey of undergraduate conducting instructors, Romines (2003) found several differences regarding instructors’ pedagogical goals, which included varying emphases on gestural development and pedagogical content knowledge. Given that basic conducting instructors—regardless of teaching emphasis—appear to base curricular decisions upon their own experiences and pedagogical beliefs, the skills that PSMTs practice during and outside of class may vary.
Undergraduates enrolled in conducting courses spend time learning and developing a set of basic competencies. Those skills—which are mostly related to timekeeping—include conducting patterns, preparatory gestures, cues, and fermatas (Juslin & Persson, 2002). When technical skills become more automatized, conducting instructors encourage students to use more sophisticated means of communication such as expressive gesture (Johnson & Fredrickson, 1995), eye contact (Price & Winter, 1991), and facial expression (Orzolek, 2002)—all of which have been found to distinguish expert conductors from novices (Byo & Austin, 1994). In addition to the aforementioned behaviors, instructors also address topics found in undergraduate conducting textbooks such as error detection and correction, score study, and repertoire selection (Green & Gibson, 2004; Hunsberger & Ernst, 1992). Given that most PSMTs only receive 50 min of conducting instruction two to three times per week for one or two semesters (Hart, 2019), instructors must identify, prioritize, and teach many discrete skills in a relatively short amount of time.
Score study and rehearsal pedagogy are common undergraduate conducting course topics (Feldman et al., 2021). Undergraduate instrumental conductors have reported using a score almost three-fourths of the time during practice sessions (Regier et al., 2020); score study is associated with more meaningful eye contact, effective gestures, and conductor confidence (Silvey, 2011a). Score study can help conductors internalize mental and aural models from which to guide rehearsal (Battisti & Garofalo, 1990). Because score study is rarely monitored, it may be difficult for conducting instructors to know if their students actually use suggested score study techniques (Lane, 2006) or understand which processes work best for their students (Silvey et al., 2017). Further investigation into conducting students’ application of nonverbal and score study skills that are learned during instrumental or choral-specific conducting courses and applied during practice sessions seems warranted.
Regier et al. (2020) found that undergraduate students enrolled in an instrumental conducting course reported practicing two to three times per week for an average of 48 min. While practicing, undergraduate conductors most frequently indicated working on rudimentary skills such as conducting patterns, dynamics, and cues, whereas expressive skills such as Laban movements and facial expression were practiced less often. To develop conducting skills, students indicated their frequent use of practice strategies such as singing and humming musical lines, silent conducting, and conducting in front of a mirror. In a study examining undergraduate instrumental students’ perceptions of conducting curricula, Silvey (2011c) found that participants reported more confidence in their ability to execute conducting skills (e.g., posture, baton grip, eye contact) than rehearsal skills (e.g., error detection and correction, feedback, pacing). In both of these studies, undergraduate conductors indicated that they were most confident in their ability to execute basic conducting patterns; however, the greatest challenges—hand independence (Regier et al., 2020) and error detection and correction (Silvey, 2011c)—varied between the two studies. Such mixed findings highlight the value of additional examinations into PSMTs’ conducting approaches and practice strategies.
Choral Conducting Research
Choral conductors’ gesture and expressivity has been studied by researchers. College musicians indicated that gesture and facial expression were important characteristics of expressive choral conducting (Napoles et al., 2021), and high-affect use of these nonverbal behaviors was preferred by college choral musicians (Napoles, 2013). Expressive conducting was a common attribute among choral conductors known for producing particularly expressive performances (Broomhead, 2006), and gestures may be more impactful when knowledge of students’ abilities and the score are secure (Durrant, 2009). Score study can be a factor for choral conductors who teach appropriately sequenced and challenging rehearsals that create conditions for singers to experience flow (Walters, 2016). Daley (2018) suggested score study may be enhanced by the use of Dalcroze Eurhythmics, leading to a personalized gestural representation of the music.
The pedagogical approaches and rehearsal philosophies of choral conductors vary. When surveyed regarding their rehearsal priorities, secondary school choral conductors indicated that intonation and tone quality were primary concerns (Ganschow, 2014). Pedagogues have advocated for a focus on breath support and posture to address these concepts (Batey, 2007; Jones, 2008). To the extent that choral conductors are able to develop musicians’ sight-singing skills (Demorest, 1998) and reduce or remove accompaniments (Sparks, 2014), they are more likely to exhibit skill in perceiving and diagnosing vocal performance issues (Bell, 2002). Choral conductors also should consider including movement (Briggs, 2011) and addressing vocal technique and health (Webb, 2007) within rehearsals. These pedagogical approaches aid choristers in achieving desired performance goals and are considerations for instructors who prepare future choral conductors.
We only found studies involving instrumental conductors’ perceptions about their undergraduate conducting coursework (Hart, 2019; Silvey, 2011c; Silvey et al., 2020) and practice behaviors (Regier et al., 2020). Expanding to a new population of undergraduate students in an introductory choral conducting course will allow us to compare and prior findings and make additional recommendations for students’ practice strategies and instructors’ curricular choices. Furthermore, the extent that choral conducting instructors’ pedagogy affects students’ conducting practice approaches has yet to be explored. The primary purpose of this modified replication study of Regier et al. (2020) was to investigate undergraduate introductory choral conducting students’ (a) approaches to conducting practice, (b) conducting practice time allocation, and (c) beliefs about their conducting abilities. Modified replication studies “incorporate alternative procedures and additional conditions into the features of the original study; such replications usually contain the original study design along with some additional study features” (American Psychological Association, 2020, p. 7). A secondary purpose was to examine choral conducting instructors’ pedagogy and beliefs about their students’ practice approaches.
Method
To identify a number of participants similar to that of our previous study (Regier et al., 2020), and in an effort to have broad representation, we adopted a multistage cluster strategy (Nardi, 2018) to sample from undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory choral conducting course. We began by randomly selecting three NASM member schools from each state, resulting in an initial list of 141 institutions. The total was not 150 because some states did not have three NASM-member schools at the time of data collection. Next, we compiled a list of choir directors and their contact information from each school’s website. If a choir director was not found, we listed the contact information for the choral music education or music education faculty member.
We sent an initial email to music school representatives that contained Institutional Review Board (IRB) information, details about our study and paper method of data collection, and a request to confirm that they would distribute our questionnaire to undergraduate students enrolled in their introductory choral conducting class. We also requested that our email be forwarded to the appropriate faculty member if the email recipient was not the instructor of the introductory choral conducting course. Instructors received a follow-up email 1 week after receiving the initial email invitation. All emails were sent successfully. Among the responses to our emails, 2 instructors declined to participate, 13 instructors indicated that their choral conducting course was not being offered at the time of data collection, and 10 instructors indicated that they could not distribute our paper questionnaire in person because their course was meeting virtually as a result of safety concerns due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Choral conducting instructors at 18 institutions agreed to distribute our questionnaire to their introductory choral conducting students (N = 240).
We began with the same student questionnaire from our previous study for data collection in this investigation. In creating the new questionnaire, we adopted and modified items from previous examinations of high school wind players’ practice behaviors (Miksza, 2007), undergraduates’ perceptions of conducting curricula (Silvey, 2011c), and score study behaviors as recommended by university conducting faculty (Silvey et al., 2016). The 15-item student questionnaire had three sections: (a) approaches to practicing conducting skills and textbook usage (4 items), (b) practice time allocation (3 items), and (c) beliefs about conducting abilities (3 items). Section 1 included two frequency scale items that ranged from 1 = never to 5 = always, one yes/no item, and a multiple-choice item. Section 2 consisted of three multiple-choice items and Section 3 included three free-response items. Students responded to five demographic items at the end of the questionnaire, one of which asked students whether or not they were enrolled in an introductory choral conducting class. All student respondents were enrolled students.
We adapted the student questionnaire into a 13-item instructor questionnaire that addressed pedagogy and practice sessions. Section 1 included the stem “According to your instructions,” for two frequency scale items with options ranging from 1 = has not been discussed to 5 = always. An example item from Section 1 included “According to your instructions, how often should your students practice the following conducting behaviors?” In Section 2, we included three multiple-choice items that had the same stem as Section 1. An example item from Section 2 included “According to your instructions, on average, how many minutes per week should your students practice conducting?” Section 3 included two free-response items, and the final demographic section included 6 items.
Our student questionnaire was pilot tested in our previous study by conducting instructors (N = 5) and undergraduate conducting students (N = 5) to help determine content and face validity. For the current study, two conducting instructors—one choral emphasis and one instrumental—who were familiar with our previous investigation provided feedback regarding the instructor questionnaire. As a result of their feedback, we changed the wording of the items in each section to improve clarity, and we added an item to capture whether instructors’ institutions were public or private. Similar to decisions made by authors of recent descriptive surveys and because we did not use inferential statistics in our analysis (Regier et al., 2020; Springer, 2020), we did not include any statistical indicators of reliability for either questionnaire. We also did not compare student and instructor responses within institutions.
Consistent with our previous survey delivery method and timeline (Regier et al., 2020), we mailed questionnaires to the course instructor on week 12 of a 16-week semester. Each package included the student questionnaires, one instructor questionnaire, and a slip of paper with the following instructions: Thank you for agreeing to distribute our questionnaire to your students. Please inform students that the survey is double-sided. The total survey completion time is approximately 5 minutes. We request that you allow students to complete the questionnaire without you in the room to ensure their candid response. Furthermore, we ask that you select a student to place the completed questionnaires into the stamped package.
Instructors then mailed the provided stamped package to the primary author. We gave instructors approximately 2 weeks to return the questionnaires after receiving them. Of those that were mailed out, we received completed questionnaires from 52.50% (N = 126) of the students and 66.67% (N = 12) of the instructors.
At the time of data collection (fall 2020), many instructors taught their students through hybrid and virtual modes because of COVID-19 pandemic safety concerns. As a result, we asked instructors to respond to two items regarding the extent that their course content and practice expectations had changed using rating scales with options of 1 = none at all, 2 = a little, 3 = a fair amount, and 4 = a great deal. We intended to analyze responses from schools in which the instructor responded “none at all” or “a little” to the two course change items. No instructor responded with a “3” or a “4”; therefore, no questionnaires were discarded.
Student respondents (N = 126) were undergraduates who had nearly completed an introductory choral conducting course at one of 12 universities. Respondents identified their gender as male (n = 81), female (n = 40), and nonbinary (n = 1). Four respondents did not report their gender. Their mean age was 21.10 years (SD = 3.46). Respondents were sophomores (n = 15), juniors (n = 72), or seniors (n = 14). They were majoring in music education (n = 74), music performance (n = 27), music therapy (n = 5), music composition (n = 4), a combination of music education, music performance, or music theory/composition (n = 6), or were non-music majors (n = 4).
Instructor respondents (N = 12) who taught the introductory choral conducting course at a public (n = 8) or private (n = 4) university reported their age (M = 43.67, SD = 11.10, ranging from 31 to 68 years old), gender identity (male, n = 7; female, n = 5), and length of time having taught at the university level (M = 15.0 years, SD = 12.22; ranging from 4 to 40 years). They taught at institutions whose undergraduate population ranged from 1,300 to 33,000 students. Respondents taught in the following National Association for Music Education (NAfME) regions in the United States: Eastern (n = 1), North Central (n = 3), Northwestern (n = 1), Southern (n = 4), and Southwestern (n = 3).
There are limitations to our study. We did not look for differences in students’ practice behaviors according to their major, nor why students from a wide variety of majors were enrolled in an introductory choral conducting class. Approaches and time spent practicing could be different if groups of students perceive the importance of conducting differently than others, such as music education versus music performance majors. Furthermore, the nature of our study may have generated responses from instructors that had certain beliefs that were different from instructors who did not respond to our invitations, perhaps due to their confidence for teaching conducting. We also did not receive responses from schools in the Western NAfME region and responses from the Eastern and Northwestern regions were limited; therefore, certain geographic regions may be not represented or underrepresented in our findings. Consistent with a previous investigation by Springer (2020), we summarized demographic data to allow readers to determine the degree to which this sample is representative of the population of undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory choral conducting course. In addition, we acknowledge that our results reflected participants’ beliefs at approximately the 12th week of class, as opposed to a whole semester of instruction when students may have received instruction on further topics. Finally, although we attempted to minimize any potential impacts due to the Covid-19 pandemic by removing responses from institutions where the instructor indicated that content and practice expectations had changed a fair or great amount because of the pandemic, it is possible that a shift in instructional delivery could have impacted responses.
Results
Approaches to Practicing Choral Conducting Skills and Conducting Textbook Usage
We designed Section 1 to collect information about students’ choral conducting practice behaviors and instructors’ conducting practice pedagogy. Students responded to the first prompt, “How often do you practice the following conducting behaviors?” by using a frequency scale anchored by Never = 1 and Always = 5. Respondents indicated that they most frequently practiced “patterns,” (M = 4.11, SD = 0.81), followed by “preparatory beats” (M = 3.94, SD = 1.04) and “cues” (M = 3.90, SD = 0.87). Students’ least practiced conducting behaviors included “facial expression” and “Laban movements (e.g., float, glide, punch, flick)” (M = 2.92, SD = 1.32 and M = 2.07, SD = 1.17, respectively). See Table 1 in the online supplemental material for the means and standard deviations of all practice behavior items.
For the second questionnaire item, students responded to the question, “How often do you use the following strategies when practicing your conducting alone?” using a scale anchored by Never = 1 and Always = 5. The most frequently used strategies among students were “sing or hum musical lines” (M = 3.83, SD = 1.09), “silent conducting practice” (M = 3.66, SD = 0.99), and “conduct in front of a mirror” (M = 3.42, SD = 1.14). Students also indicated whether or not their instructor had discussed the practice strategy in class, with “conduct in front of a mirror (n = 121, 96.03%) and “video record your conducting” (n = 117, 92.86%) being the most frequently recommended strategies. See Table 2 in the online supplemental material for descriptive statistics regarding all student and instructor conducting practice strategies.
Students also responded to an item about which conducting textbook they used in class. The most widely used textbook was Basic Techniques of Conducting by Phillips (n = 42, 30.65%). Many students also chose “Other” (n = 42, 30.65%) where they identified Foundations of Choral Conducting by Kevin Fenton as their class textbook (n = 12) or “handouts” (n = 5) provided by their instructor. Other student responses included The Art of Conducting by Hunsberger and Ernst (n = 36, 26.27%), Methods and Materials for Conducting by Stotter (n = 7, 5.11%), Basic Conducting Techniques by Labuta (n = 5, 3.65%), The Grammar of Conducting by Rudolf (n = 2, 1.46%), The Modern Conductor by Green and Gibson (n = 1, 0.73%), Conducting Technique for Beginners and Professionals by McElheran (n = 1, 0.73%), and Conducting: A Hands On Approach by Maiello and Bullock (n = 1, 0.73%).
In completing their questionnaire, instructors first responded to the prompt, “According to your instructions, how often should your students practice the following conducting behaviors?” using a scale anchored by Has not been discussed = 1 and Always = 6. This list of behaviors was identical to the list given to student participants. Instructors cited “preparatory beats” (M = 5.67, SD = 0.65), “eye contact” (M = 5.58, SD = 0.67), and “preparatory breath” (M = 5.42, SD = 0.90) as the behaviors that their students should most frequently practice. The two behaviors that instructors rated the lowest were “Laban movements (e.g., float, glide, punch, flick)” (M = 3.67, SD = 1.56) and “fermatas” (M = 4.58, SD = 1.00).
Instructors used a scale anchored by Has not been discussed = 1 and Always = 6 to answer the question, “According to your instructions, how often should your students use the following practice strategies?” Instructors responded to the same list of conducting practice strategies as their students. The practice strategies that their students should use the most included “sing or hum musical lines” (M = 5.17, SD = 0.94), “conduct in front of a mirror” (M = 5.00, SD = 0.85), and “video record your conducting” (M = 5.00, SD = 0.95).
Practice Time Allocation
We designed Section 2 of the questionnaire to gather information regarding student practice behaviors and instructor practice recommendations. Students were asked how many days per week they practiced conducting. All participants indicated that they practiced at least once per week (M = 2.98 days per week, SD = 1.46). While students were presented average weekly practice time options ranging from 15 to 120 min, the most common responses were 60 min (n = 31, 24.80%), 30 min (n = 30, 24.00%), and either 15 or 45 min (n = 17, 13.60%). Practice times of 105 and 120 min were the least frequently selected options (n = 2, 1.60% and n = 6, 4.80%, respectively). Finally, participants responded to the question, “What percentage of time do you spend practicing conducting with a score and without a score outside of class time?” Students practiced conducting with a score 77.46% of the time (n = 125, SD = 20.67).
We asked instructors how many days they recommended students practice in an average week. Two participants indicated that they did not address expectations for the number of days students should practice per week. The mean response among the remaining instructor participants was 4.40 days (n = 10, SD = 1.35). Next, we asked instructors to indicate how many minutes they recommended students practice per week using 15 min increments (0–120+ min). The most frequently indicated amount of practice time was 60 min (n = 6, 75.00%). Other responses included 30 min (n = 1, 12.50%) and 75 min (n =1, 12.50%). Four participants indicated that they did not discuss specific minutes per week practice expectations. Finally, instructors indicated how much practice time they recommend their students spend practicing with a score. Four instructors responded, and the average of their recommended percentages was 77.50%. Eight participants (66.67%) indicated that they did not address expectations regarding practicing with or without a score.
Beliefs About Choral Conducting Abilities
In Section 3 of our questionnaire, students and instructors answered open-ended prompts regarding their beliefs about the students’ choral conducting abilities. Responses were analyzed using a qualitative approach of assigning codes, combining codes into themes, and displaying the data (Creswell, 2007). We allowed for codes to emerge, but also relied upon preexisting conducting behavior codes as a guide (Regier et al., 2020; Silvey, 2011c). To determine reliability, the second author coded all responses (N = 504) and the fourth author examined 20% of those responses. Interrater reliability, measured as the number of agreements divided by total observations, was 86.13%, which exceeded the acceptability threshold of 80% suggested by Madsen and Madsen (2016).
In response to the question, “What aspect of conducting is most challenging for you?,” 41 student respondents (23.30%) indicated “hand independence” as their main challenge. Other commonly reported challenges were “expressivity” (n = 26, 14.77%), “conducting patterns” (n = 18, 10.23%), and “other” (n = 18, 10.23%). Seven students reported aspects that were related to performance-based or generalized anxiety, a new code that emerged from the present data set. See Table 3 in the online supplemental material for a summary of the conducting challenges identified by students and instructors.
Students reported that “conducting patterns” (n = 45, 27.78%), “expressivity” (n = 44, 27.16%), and “keeping time” (n = 20, 12.35%) were the aspects of conducting they acquired most naturally. (For a complete list of student and instructor responses, refer to Table 4 in the online supplemental material.) When asked, “What aspect of conducting do you wish was covered more frequently in your basic conducting class?,” respondents indicated “expressivity” (n = 32, 25.20%), “hand independence” (n = 17, 13.39%), and “conducting patterns” (n = 17, 13.39%). Other topics mentioned (n = 17, 13.39%) included listening to the choir, hand/finger shape, motion between ictus, and connecting with the ensemble. See Table 5 in the online supplemental material for a complete list of open-response codes.
Instructors responded to “What aspect of conducting is most challenging for your students?” Participants denoted “hand independence” (n = 5, 21.74%) and “expressivity” (n = 5, 21.74%) as the most challenging aspects followed by “score study/preparation” (n = 3, 13.04%), “conducting patterns” (n = 2, 8.70%), and “leadership/presence” (n = 2, 8.70%). More than half of the instructors (n = 9, 56.25%) reported that “conducting patterns” was the aspect of conducting that came most naturally for their students.
Discussion
Undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory choral conducting class indicated they practice technical conducting skills the most (e.g., patterns, preparatory beats, cues), while conducting patterns and expressivity came most naturally. While expressive behaviors were challenging for some students, they often were practiced the least. Students’ emphasis of technical skills over expressive skills during their practice sessions generally aligned with their instructors’ practice recommendations. Based on these results, it seems likely that student respondents organized their practice time according to the skills most frequently discussed and prioritized by their instructor. Technical competencies were found to be the primary focus of early skill development in instrumental conducting classes (Juslin & Persson, 2002; Silvey, 2011c). According to our results, the same appears true for choral conducting classes. Overall, choral conducting students’ attitudes and practice approaches mirrored those of instrumental conducting students in our previous study (Regier et al., 2020).
Expressivity was a common topic for both students and instructors in their responses. Some students perceived expressivity to be one of the most naturally acquired conducting skills, yet many found expressive skills to be challenging and indicated that they wished expressivity was covered more frequently in their conducting courses. Similarly, instructors listed expressivity along with hand independence as the top challenges for their students. Given that instructors identified expressivity as a challenge for their students, and that many students indicated a desire for more frequent instruction related to expressive conducting, instructors may want to consider ways to increase the amount of time spent on expressive elements. Expressive conducting was a preferred trait among choral musicians (Napoles, 2013) and a common element among choral conductors who led expressive ensembles (Broomhead, 2006). Considering instructors have expressed difficulty in teaching expressive conducting skills to novices (Juslin & Persson, 2002), we suggest conducting instructors engage students in various exercises to build expressivity from the beginning stages of conducting instruction through the entire conducting curriculum. By doing so, instructors would have more opportunities to reinforce the development of expressive skills and could provide specific feedback for individual students that need additional help.
Although only a few students reported performance-based or generalized anxiety as a main challenge of conducting, it seemed noteworthy enough to discuss. We wonder if students feel anxiety as a result of needing to learn so many skills in a short amount of time, or whether anxiety manifests when students must conduct in front of their peers. In future studies, researchers should ask students whether anxiety impacted their conducting performance or learning of conducting fundamentals. Some students may have not considered including anxiety when writing their responses or they may not have reported it. It would be valuable to know if anxiety is a common challenge for students in conducting courses so that instructors can address ways to manage anxiety and create a classroom environment in which students can better reach their potential and feel more comfortable in a leadership role.
Undergraduate choral conducting students reported practicing 3 days per week, with an average of almost 18 min per practice session. These findings are consistent with practice session reports previously obtained from instrumental conducting students (Regier et al., 2020). We are encouraged that, irrespective of their performance medium, respondents in both studies reported practicing multiple times each week for similar durations. These short yet regular sessions coincide with practice strategies found in literature on music performance practice (Duke et al., 2009; Simmons, 2012). Although practice does not signify that conducting skills are being acquired or refined satisfactorily, it does provide previously unknown evidence that undergraduate conductors practice outside of class.
Students reported practicing conducting with a score just more than three fourths of the time; however, two thirds of our instructor participants indicated that they did not explicitly state whether students should practice with or without a score. It is possible that some students studied their scores independently from practicing their conducting; therefore, those students may have practiced conducting with an aural image of the music but without a score. If instructors were to explicitly encourage and share the reasons for student conductors to practice with the score in front of them, perhaps an even greater percentage of students would adopt this practice habit. For example, instructors might discuss how students who engaged in score study were more likely to demonstrate meaningful eye contact, confidence, and effective gestures than those who did not (Silvey, 2011a). Score study can help students develop an aural model of the music that supports performance error detection during rehearsal (Battisti & Garofalo, 1990).
Small discrepancies existed between students’ conducting practice strategies and instructors’ practice recommendations. During their practice sessions, students reported that they most frequently practiced by “singing or humming musical lines,” which was also the practice strategy most frequently discussed by their instructors. There was also similar alignment between instructors and students in the frequent use of a mirror during practice sessions. However, one disparity between the two groups was for the strategy “video record your conducting.” Student respondents indicated this was the fifth most used practice strategy (out of seven), whereas conducting instructors reported video recording of conducting being the second most frequently discussed practice strategy. Given the ubiquity of and access to video recording capabilities on many electronic devices, it may be that students find it difficult or awkward to watch themselves conduct. To encourage students to watch themselves more regularly, instructors should give undergraduate conductors more opportunities to conduct during class (Silvey, 2011c) and create assignments that necessitate videotaping so that students are required to record themselves and analyze their conducting behaviors more frequently. Watching a video of themselves while writing down reflections, as guided by instructors, could result in students identifying undesirable habits or awkward physical traits that they wish to improve while on the podium (Powell, 2016). Instructors can use virtual environments to provide conducting feedback and solicit student reflections, which some choral conducting students preferred to in-class feedback (Yoo, 2016).
Implications for Conducting Instructors
Based on the results of this study, we suggest undergraduate conducting instructors consider several recommendations while designing their courses. Because undergraduate students and choral conducting instructors agree that expressive elements of conducting present a challenge, instructors might consider ways to provide incremental instruction and feedback on expressive elements earlier within the curriculum. Video analysis assignments that help students to consider both technical and expressive elements from early stages in the semester may aid in developing a more wholistic awareness of their conducting abilities. Instructors can also have students present videos of practice sessions to the class or in individual meetings with the instructor to discuss practice strategies and behaviors. Videos of students’ practice sessions could inform the design of instructors’ pedagogy, particularly as it pertains to the introduction and sequencing of expressive conducting elements.
We recommend that instructors explicitly share their expectations regarding practice approaches, strategies, and time spent in practice with their students. The results of the present study indicate that students likely structure their practice based on the priorities of their instructor. By outlining their practice expectations, instructors might improve their students’ ability to self-regulate their practice in a manner similar to approaches found in music performance settings (Miksza, 2012). We also suggest that instructors explicitly present or provide models of conducting techniques and strategies for their students to use as they refine gestures in their individual practice sessions. Perhaps instructors could create video playlists of skills and behaviors that their students can stream or download as needed. Students could also view, practice, and discuss authentic applications of these skills as they apply to the repertoire they conduct. Furthermore, incorporating these ideas into a flipped classroom concept, whereby technical elements such as beat patterns or fermatas are presented to students before class, would allow them to spend even more time practicing these skills during class with the assistance of their conducting instructors.
Introductory choral conducting students had similar feelings and approaches to conducting practice as introductory instrumental conducting students (Regier et al., 2020). Knowing that the results from our two studies were similar, conducting instructors may be less hesitant to combine introductory choral and instrumental conducting students into one class. Considering the similar results between our studies, researchers might investigate whether these similarities persist or if differences emerge as students take advanced conducting and rehearsal courses in their instrumental or choral track. Results could illuminate the extent that different pedagogical approaches affect students’ conducting practice and beliefs. By continuing to examine undergraduate conducting students’ practice and instructors’ pedagogy, instructors can improve their conducting courses so that future ensemble directors are better prepared in the skills of nonverbal communication.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-jmt-10.1177_10570837221076382 – Supplemental material for Undergraduate Choral Conducting Courses: Examining Students’ Practice Behaviors and Instructors’ Pedagogy
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jmt-10.1177_10570837221076382 for Undergraduate Choral Conducting Courses: Examining Students’ Practice Behaviors and Instructors’ Pedagogy by Bradley J. Regier, Alec D. Scherer, Brian A. Silvey and Melissa Baughman in Journal of Music Teacher Education
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
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.
