Rote Instruction in Secondary Instrumental Music Classrooms: A Review of the Literature

Origins of the Pedagogical Divide

As early as 1721, there was disagreement in New England between two main music education approaches: teaching by rote or note. Two texts were written that year, one that advocated for teaching aurally and another that proposed reading from the beginning. Minister Tufts wrote An Introduction to the Singing of Psalm Tunes, which replaced note heads with solfège symbols and used rote instruction. Reverend Walter penned The Grounds and Rules of Music Explained, in which students were immediately encouraged to read music (Mark & Gary, 2007). When high-speed printing was made possible in the 19th century, music texts became more readily available to the public, resulting in an abundance of publications and increased discussion about sound-before-sight approaches (Volk, 1993).

In 1838, Lowell Mason began working in Boston schools using an experimental music curriculum inspired by the philosophy of Johann Pestalozzi. He recommended an approach to education that advocated concepts be taught through direct experience (McPherson & Gabrielsson, 2002; Schleuter, 1997; Shuler, 1991/2010; Volk, 1993). Abeles et al. (1995) wrote that it was Joseph Naef, a member of Pestalozzi’s staff in Europe who transferred Pestalozzi’s concepts to the field of music when he opened an elementary school in the United States in 1809. However, other researchers have suggested that it was Swiss educators Nägeli and Pfeiffer who adapted Pestalozzian principles for music education, William Woodbridge who brought them to the United States, and Lowell Mason who implemented the ideas in public music education (Mark & Gary, 2007; Volk, 1993).

Before transitioning to public education, Lowell Mason was a singing school master. His view of music education radically differed from the reading-centered method of singing schools; he believed that individuals should hear and sing a song by rote before learning to read the notation. As the first music teacher appointed by Boston public schools, Mason determined the initial methods for teaching music to children in public education and was known by many as the Father of Public School Music in the United States. As word of his methods and success spread, more school districts included music and his ideas into their curricula (Volk, 1993).

Pursuant to the introduction of music in public school courses, an extensive number of method books and music series texts were published between the years 1865 and 1900. In 1870, Luther Mason, unrelated to Lowell Mason, published the National Music Course, which favored the rote approach. Hosea Holt and John Wheeler Tufts responded in 1883 by creating the Normal Music Course, which advocated the study of notation, tonality, and intervals before singing a song to facilitate students’ abilities to read and sing music at sight. In 1895, public school headmaster Ripley and trained musician Tapper published the Natural Music Course, a predominantly note method that combined aspects of the rote approach. The 1898 Modern Music Series by Foresman and Smith was the first complete set of texts that employed a compromise approach. The compromise approach became a forerunner of some methods used throughout the 20th century (Volk, 1993).

There have been numerous philosophies of music education in the United States over a nearly 300-year period, including the singing schools approach (Volk, 1993) and the sound-before-sight method (Sheridan, 2019; Shuler, 1991/2010). During the 20th century, new advances emerged in music education that employed singing, creative movement, expressiveness, and improvisation as pathways to musicianship. Developing both within and outside the United States, five individuals transformed music teaching pedagogy: Dalcroze, Orff, Suzuki, Kodály, and Gordon. Though the individuals’ philosophies varied, they each agreed on the importance of developing aural skills, creative expression through sound and movement, and teaching by rote. Since 1965, their ideas have been “among the most influential in classroom and instrumental programs” (Volk, 1993, p. 42).

Five Major Pedagogical Approaches

The first of the new approaches introduced into a curriculum in the United States was the 1913 addition of Dalcroze Eurhythmics (Jacobi, 2012). The Dalcroze philosophy purveyed the idea that ear training, rhythmic body movement, improvisation, singing, and dancing be the basis of children’s education and that students should perceive music aesthetically before consciously (Jacobi, 2012; Dalcroze, 1913; Juntunen & Westerlund, 2011). According to Dalcroze, children who were technically advanced were weak aurally and in music expression. He noticed rhythmic performance deficiencies, including tempo fluctuation, lack of accurate accents, and unbalanced phrasing. In his observations, Dalcroze perceived that children who were incapable of performing music with rhythmic accuracy could in fact move themselves rhythmically (Dalcroze, 1913; Juntunen & Westerlund, 2011). A firm believer that children should experience music with their whole bodies, Dalcroze advocated that teachers should first encourage children’s spontaneous and intuitive movement to music (Dalcroze, 1913).

During the 1920s, Carl Orff studied the methods of Dalcroze and choreographer Rudolf Laban and became interested in developing a new approach to music education (Keene, 2009; Velasquez, 1990). He and another pupil of Dalcroze named Dorothy Guenther together opened the Guentherschule, a school founded on a curriculum that combined music and movement. Orff later collaborated with instrument maker Karl Maendler and created a collection of xylophones, metallophones, and glockenspiels—high-quality instruments to be used by children studying within his approach (Velasquez, 1990). Orff encouraged teachers to include rhymes, games, songs, movement, and playing instruments as ways to engage children in creative music making (Keene, 2009; Velasquez, 1990; Wang & Sogin, 2004). Activities could also integrate singing, movement, and notational exercises; learning through imitation; regular use of ostinato; body percussion; and rhythmic speech (Keene, 2009; Wang & Sogin, 2004). Across five books, Orff and pupil Gunild Keetman’s Musik für Kinder introduced students to concepts including the pentatonic scale and improvisation (Book 1), major tonalities and limited polyphony (Book 2), dominant and subdominant chords (Book 3), Aeolian, Dorian, and Phrygian modes (Book 4), and in Book 5, advanced difficulty of music and use of minor tonalities (Velasquez, 1990).

The next innovation in music education appeared at the 1957 Ohio American String Teachers Association meeting. An incredulous audience of educators watched as 685 Japanese children aged 4 years and older played Bach’s Double Concerto in a mass concert, demonstrating evidence of a teaching philosophy currently referred to as the Suzuki Method. John Kendall attended the meeting, visited Japan, and later collaborated with Suzuki to create an adapted series called Listen and Play for use in the United States (Thibeault, 2018). Suzuki believed that talent was not inborn but could be trained through practice and repetition. In his mother tongue approach, children were to be immersed in music from the beginning of their lives and first taught by purposeful exposure to high-quality recordings. Reading notation was withheld until a teacher felt the child was ready, as learning by rote was thought to enable a beginner to focus on tone, intonation, music phrasing, and correct posture. Other tenets included a strong emphasis on listening to professional recordings, parent involvement, and the extensive use of imitation and repetition. Advanced students were encouraged to continue using recordings when learning to read notation (Keene, 2009; Thibeault, 2018).

Zoltán Kodály also advocated that students develop aural awareness before introducing traditional music notation. Kodály’s ideas were unique among his contemporaries in that they placed singing as the central component of students’ learning (Keene, 2009). The Kodály concept was brought to the United States in 1962 by Mary Helen Richards and altered to emphasize experiential learning, including singing, chanting, moving, listening, and the use of solfège and rhythm syllables (Sheridan, 2019). Notable Kodály educator Denise Bacon viewed the movement as an innovative way to teach music literacy as well as a new educational philosophy (Keene, 2009). Though singing was a major component of the approach, Bacon stated that it was important for students to transfer their vocal knowledge to instruments. In 1969, Bacon created the Kodály Musical Training Institute, and in 1977, she established the Kodály Center of America (Sheridan, 2019). In the mid-2000s, Kodály educators such as John Feirabend, Susan Brumfield, Micheál Houlahan, and Philip Tacka pursued new research-centered variations to the approach (Sheridan, 2019). Their ideas included teaching simple and compound meter simultaneously, using American folk music, and first presenting the name of a new element aurally to students and without notation.

Edwin Gordon was another strong proponent of research-based education and spent several decades investigating and developing what he called music learning theory based on the concept of audiation, or the ability to mentally hear and comprehend music whether or not it is present. Unlike Dalcroze, Orff, and Kodály, who did not intend for their approaches to be adopted as complete methods, Gordon strove to create a systematic, sequential, and comprehensive theory from which students could effectively accomplish long-term goals, such as music literacy (Shuler, 1991/2010). Gordon proposed that a student’s developed audiation skills were a prerequisite to understanding a sense of tonality and meter, and for demonstrating intelligent listening to music, theoretical understanding, and music literacy. He suggested that audiation ability could be improved through a comprehensive framework of learning sequence activities. Gordon felt that students should first sing and move to songs and learn tonal and rhythm patterns by rote before attempting reading and writing, allowing for aural development and a synthesis of skills that would transfer to visual understanding of conventional literature (Liperote, 2006; Shuler, 1991/2010).

Music Reading Research

There may be gaps in music reading research examining topics such as teaching method, reading acquisition, and effectiveness of instruction. One researcher examined music reading research of Western staff notation and found that methods of instruction were mostly based on conventions. Gudmundsdottir (2010) stated, “Surprisingly little conscious effort has been made to improve music-reading instruction through comprehensive study of the tenets of music reading” and “research on music-reading skill in adult experts is more advanced than research on music-reading acquisition in childhood” (p. 331). Asmus (2004) also remarked that there was “virtually no research” (p. 7) on how long it took to proficiently sight-read music and stated that the profession of music education had lost sight of the goal of music literacy. Gudmundsdottir further wrote that teachers of students struggling to develop reading fluency did not have much more than intuition on which to base their strategies.

There may be less research pertaining to young populations and rote teaching methods. Draves et al. (2008) stated that although published music research has significantly increased, “little gain has been made in the percentage of studies involving subjects from birth through twelfth grade” (p. 29). The researchers reviewed music education research subjects in three major journals between 1991 and 2005 and observed that the most frequently studied population was college undergraduates. They found that the percentage of middle school subjects studied—the years instrumental ensembles typically began—had remained between 5% and 11% since 1961. The researchers noted that Schmidt and Zdzinski’s (1993) study encompassing the years 1975 and 1990 found elementary students to be examined most, followed by college-level students. In a different study, Sheridan (2019) noted a scarcity of empirical research on the Kodály approach outside of Kodály Envoy and advocated the pursuit of research-based studies in other publications. Wang and Sogin (2004) stated that no research had attempted to “show how instruction based on the Orff-Schulwerk method is distinguished from other music instruction” (p. 6) and that the context of Orff-related research the preceding 30 years had varied so widely that comparisons could not be made across studies to attribute to effectiveness of the approach. Thibeault (2018) examined a history of Suzuki’s mediated pedagogy and concluded that research was needed that explored a focus on recorded songs over sheet music as a medium of instruction for beginning string students.

There may also be gaps in doctoral dissertation research examining string and band classroom instruction. Kantorski (1995) analyzed string dissertations between 1936 and1992 and found that techniques and performance practice had accounted for almost half of paper topics, while less than 28% focused on technique and skills. String class research accounted for approximately 5% of dissertation topics. However, the reduced quantity of method and curriculum research may have been related to a portion of the time period examined predating the introduction of Suzuki in the United States. In Cavitt’s (2006) analysis of dissertations focused on band, the most frequently researched areas were instructional strategies (36%) and instructional materials (22%). Most of the dissertations attempted to test the effect of a particular procedure or methodology on music achievement. Cavitt noted that beginning band instruction had constituted a significant part of instrumental music the last half of the 20th century, yet little doctoral research had been done in the area. Yarbrough (2002) suggested that a decrease in published doctoral dissertations in the Journal of Research in Music Education was related to a growing community of experienced researchers.

Considerations for Developing Music Skills

Various researchers have recommended that students begin music instruction with singing, aural development, and movement before transferring ideas to a new activity such as reading notation (Bernhard, 2003; Grutzmacher, 1987; Jacobi, 2012; Sheridan, 2019; Shuler, 1991/2010; Thibeault, 2018). Others have advocated that diverse preparatory experiences that precede formal written instruction may help students to develop comprehension (Gordon, 2012; Healy, 1990; McPherson & Gabrielsson, 2002; Myhill & Brackley, 2004). Bernhard (2003) synthesized research on singing in instrumental music education and suggested that educators use vocalization methods, such as movable do solfège, to cultivate performance achievement, aural skills, error detection, and aural-visual discrimination. Singing had been used as a precursor to performing selections on instruments in band method books from the 1984 Listen, Move, Sing, Play (Byo, 1988) to the recent Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series (Grunow et al., 2001). Hash (2011) and Liperote (2006) suggested that singing may help improve instrumental intonation. Though students have experienced difficulties reading music, Gudmundsdottir (2010) recommended against associating deficits of notation reading fluency with a lack of music giftedness.

A variety of prior aural activities, such as singing and listening, may aid music comprehension and skills. In one study, Gudmundsdottir (2010) found that students who were able to sight-sing a selection demonstrated an improved internal representation of music not necessarily obtained through exclusively reading music on an instrument. In one experimental study, the researchers proposed that some students’ amazement when observing peer aural ability was likely due to lack of requisite music experiences to develop the independent skills (Woody & Lehmann, 2010). Suzuki asserted that students learned beautiful tone through listening to and imitating recordings of professional musicians (Keene, 2009; Thibeault, 2018). Singing and chanting using rhythmic syllables and moveable do solmization have been key components of the Kodály approach, as singing is natural for children and a direct means of instruction. Sheridan (2019) discussed the Kodály concept and stressed the importance of developing children’s singing and aural awareness before introducing traditional music notation. The Orff approach and Gordon’s music learning theory have also been described as emphasizing the importance of singing and chanting as developmental experiences (Shuler, 1991/2010; Wang & Sogin, 2004). The oral transmission model has been cited as a leading technique for teaching music of other cultures (Campbell, 1993; North & Hargreaves, 2001).

Beginning instrumental students who sing solfège and tonal patterns may demonstrate improved skills when playing by ear and sight-reading. Bernhard (2004) used two beginning band method books to test singing and using solfège with one group versus traditional instruction with the other to measure the ability to play by ear and sight-reading achievement. In the initial test, tonal training significantly affected ear playing achievement but not sight-reading. In a follow-up study 5 months later (Bernhard, 2006), both groups had returned to traditional instruction. The experimental group maintained a higher playing by ear achievement test score than the control group, though experimental group scores decreased from a mean of 78.38 to 71.14, while control group scores rose from a mean of 58.10 to 65.24. In a different first-year instrumental music study, students in three schools’ experimental groups performed long tones, scales, and arpeggios using harmonization and syllables, as well as major and minor tonal patterns. The control group used the same text as the experimental group, Alfred’s Basic Band Method, but omitted the tonal patterns and learned exclusively from notation. Contrary to Bernhard’s findings, the experimental group demonstrated a significant difference in posttest melodic sight-reading achievement as well as a significant difference on the Iowa Tests of Musical Literacy when aurally identifying major and minor tonalities (Grutzmacher, 1987).

A variety of components may influence a student’s ability to learn to read music notation. Gudmundsdottir (2010) reviewed music reading research and concluded that there was a significant discrepancy between music reading skills and performance abilities. Others have suggested students may have difficulty learning notation without sufficient development of their prior music knowledge (Gordon, 2012; McPherson & Gabrielsson, 2002). Asmus (2004) noted disparities between performance and sight-reading abilities in undergraduate music program applicants and suggested that festival requirements may influence secondary ensemble instructional content, leading to a reliance on drill rather than reading. He described some teachers’ approaches as “a method of instruction that hammers out the notes until the students get it” (p. 6). Brittin (2001) and Volk (1993) have suggested that instrumental teachers may be more comfortable using a traditional approach, as found in a majority of method books.

Preparatory activities may be important for students to experience before learning notation. Schleuter (1997) advocated that educators consider providing students diverse music opportunities before analyzing, reading, and conceptualizing notation. The authors of Jump Right In: The Instrumental Series recommended that students be engaged in singing and movement activities before beginning instrumental instruction (Grunow et al., 2001). Dalcroze also strongly believed that children should fundamentally experience music with their whole bodies, learning to sing, move, and hear. He cautioned against introducing instruments to children too early and suggested that they wait to begin instruction until they are capable of experiencing music sensations and demonstrate significant aural development (Dalcroze, 1913; Juntunen, 2011). Suzuki encouraged parents to play music recordings for children within their first year of life (Thibeault, 2018). Orff recommended that teachers combine movement, singing, games, drama, and playing instruments to form a larger creative arts experience (Velasquez, 1990). Researchers in one study observed teachers who had completed the master’s level of Schulwerk training. Participants incorporated playing, singing, movement, and notational activities into the lesson (Wang & Sogin, 2004). Others have suggested that students may benefit from focusing on one new activity at a time, rather than simultaneously learning letter names, fingerings, and notation (Grunow, 2015; Shuler, 1991/2010). The challenges associated with teaching music reading skills have prompted many music educators to “abandon music-reading instruction or at least minimize the emphasis on music literacy” (Gudmundsdottir, 2010, p. 333).

There appear to be common instructional concepts that teachers tend to address with beginning instrumentalists. Singletary (2018) surveyed 187 directors who had taught beginning band for at least 1 year and asked them to rank and identify concepts and skills deemed fundamental to the beginning instrumental experience. The teachers felt that the most foundational concepts were posture/instrument carriage (98%), tone quality (97%), air/breathing (96%), and note literacy (90%). Composition (6%) and improvisation (5%) were taught less frequently. Items the teachers consistently listed lowest in two rankings included singing, style, expression, ear training, tonality, analytical listening, music discrimination, conducting, form, composition, and improvisation. In a different study, Worthy and Thompson (2009) also found that beginning band teachers frequently addressed posture/instrument carriage. However, the emphasis on correct instrument posture in foundational classes may have been related to the nature of beginning band instruction. Teachers’ focus on music reading was consistent with conclusions from other educators (Adderley, 1996; Shuler, 1991/2010).

Method Books

Method books are common instructional tools in beginning instrumental settings. Bernhard (2006) recommended that educators consider music and pedagogical issues when selecting a method or text. As several researchers have found, method books have often been used as the basis for a curriculum in beginning instrumental instruction (Brittin & Sheldon, 2004; Byo, 1988; Singletary, 2018). After analyzing 20 beginning band method books, Sampson (1968) identified a variety of instructional, rhythmic, tonal, and graphic deficiencies. Brittin (2001) found that a majority of methods have emphasized traditional instruction and used number counting systems. In one study, Singletary (2018) wrote that beginning band method books have often been used as a primary or supplementary source of instructional material designed to facilitate learning in heterogeneous settings. Volk (1993) stated that teachers’ selections of books that used a notation method, music facts, and sight-reading were in response to increasingly rigorous curricula in reading, math, and science. Grutzmacher (1987) disagreed with traditional instruction and suggested that a beginning method book be developed that included tonal patterns as a core approach in addition to rhythmic and technical instruction. Grunow et al. (2001) held similar views and made rhythm and tonal pattern instruction a central tenet of their book series. Though the Orff Musik für Kinder collection included various patterns and ostinati (Velasquez, 1990), it was not until the 12 years preceding a study of master Orff teachers that textbooks explaining the teaching approach and a curriculum sequence appeared (Wang & Sogin, 2004).

A majority of method books have emphasized drill and techniques such as scales, rhythm, articulations, and finger exercises with little melodic interest (Schleuter, 1997). Brittin and Sheldon (2004) analyzed authentic and contrived source material from six band method books. They defined authentic music as sourced elsewhere, such as a symphony excerpt, and contrived as written to present a technical issue such as a rhythm. Authentic music selections constituted 40% in Essential Elements, 48% in Standard of Excellence, 56% in Belwin 21st Century Band Method, 57% in The Yamaha Advantage, and 63% in Accent on Achievement of exercises compared with 100% in the Universal Teacher historical method.

Textbook exercises have primarily related fingerings to notation rather than to sound. Sloboda (1993) suggested students primarily want to learn to perform familiar music and that method books with unfamiliar content can decrease student motivation. Some scholars have proposed the use of American folk music as literature for instruction (Sheridan, 2019) or supplemental material (Thibeault, 2018). On average, method books have contained one third of material from the United States (Brittin & Sheldon, 2004). Authors have suggested that students may learn faster when formal notation is taught using music, patterns, and styles students are familiar with (Grunow, 2005; Sheridan, 2019; Wang & Sogin, 2004). Gudmundsdottir (2010) examined music reading research and concluded that recognizable structures such as patterns, chords, phrasing, and tonality assisted the development of literacy skills. The researcher recommended that focus should be on structures of pitches rather than on individual notes. One inherent challenge of notation-based method books that Sampson (1968) noted has been a too-rapid progression of exercises intended to develop instrumental technique and reading ability. Brittin (2001) stated that quickly advancing texts can be especially difficult given that some schools do not have a dedicated music specialist and some students miss substantive educational experiences during their elementary years.

Method book content may originate from a variety of sources. Brittin and Sheldon (2004) conducted a cultural content analysis of five modern and one historical band method books. The number of tonal melodies ranged from 27 to 173, with a significant number of pieces labeled as contrived, or designed for instrument-specific techniques. The historical book contained 100% authentic pieces and several eight-bar songs with lyrics. It also contained 2% folk music, while there was as high as 57% in other books. Folk music from the United States, England, France, and Germany constituted a majority of selections. Composers most often included were Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven, Offenbach, and Stephen F. Foster, though “even Mozart and Beethoven appeared no more than three or four times in the current methods, each thus representing approximately 2% of the book” (p. 52). The researchers noted an increase over 80 years of publications using smaller, ordered sequences highlighting particular concepts for mastery purposes.

A variety of teaching techniques have been used in instrumental textbooks. Byo (1988) did a comparative analysis of nine selected beginning band books from “the abundant supply of method books currently in publication” (p. 19). The methods used different procedures for counting rhythm, including the Eastman System (i.e., 1 ti te ta 2 ti te ta), Gordon (i.e., du ta de ta), syllables mimicking articulation (e.g., tah, too), and the breath impulse method. Two books introduced cut time, one only used 2/4 meter, and two included 5/4, 6/4, and 7/4. One of the books used imitative singing as a preparation for performance. After examining tonal content, Byo proposed a need for additional opportunities for students to experience and perform minor tonality. The article concluded with the recommendation that directors weigh the strengths and weaknesses of texts with their personal teaching philosophies. In a previous analysis of beginning methods, Sampson (1968) concluded that publishers and teachers had not sufficiently communicated about philosophical approach and structure of method books. Hash (2011) proposed that descriptive research investigating how students and teachers used method books be used when designing future texts.

Authors have suggested that method books that emphasize technical practice and teach rhythm reading through intellectually deconstructing beat relationships may hinder students from learning to play music literature (Grunow 2005; McPherson & Gabrielsson, 2002; Sampson, 1968; Schleuter, 1997). In one study, Brittin (2001) observed that students who initially learned to read rhythm in elementary school using a mnemonic approach were more successful than students who used a traditional number counting system. Shehan (1987) found that whether performing a rhythm aurally or with notation, students required fewer trials using syllables, though not significantly so. In a method book review, Byo (1988) asserted that research results had demonstrated nonmathematical syllabic approaches “may be at least as effective as the traditional method which relies on recitation of numbers” (p. 20). In one literature review, Gudmundsdottir (2010) identified several research studies in which speech cues were found effective when teaching rhythmic patterns.

Authors have recommended the inclusion of supplemental activities (Grunow, 2015) and additional content (Grutzmacher, 1987; Sampson, 1968) in beginning instrumental instruction and method books. Previous revisions of content and design have been “mainly cosmetic rather than based on advances in understanding how music is learned” (Schleuter, 1997, p. 8) and “most modern method books begin with the assumption that students have had no prior music instruction” (Hash, 2011, p. 398). Schleuter (1997) also stated that though thousands of students have been taught through method books, instructional materials could be improved by including current research. Grunow (2015) suggested that beginning instrumental teachers can include activities such as singing and chanting songs, tonal patterns, and rhythm patterns to account for any potential deficient areas and improve students’ instrumental achievement. After analyzing method books, Sampson (1968) stated that texts frequently lacked sufficiently challenging rhythms, did not include enough solo material or use of chromatics, and had too few rounds and canons. Grutzmacher (1987) recommended that a tonal pattern approach be the core of beginning instrumental method books.

Though method book instruction has often constituted a significant portion of beginning band curricula, students may be more interested in learning familiar songs, exploring, and improvising than practicing technical exercises. Byo (1988) suggested that using familiar music within method books can provide a means to sustain student interest and develop familiarity with a variety of phrasing and styles. Playing by ear has been found to provide groundwork for students to be able to sight-read, play from memory, improvise, and perform rehearsed music (McPherson & Gabrielsson, 2002). Authors have advocated that students may develop greater music skill and comprehension from initially experiencing music by rote than from forming basic proficiencies through technical exercises in method books (Gordon, 2012; Grunow, 2005; Grutzmacher, 1987; Juntunen & Westerlund, 2011; Liperote, 2006; Sheridan, 2019; Shuler, 1991/2010; Thibeault, 2018; Wang & Sogin, 2004).

Aural and Rote Instruction Effectiveness

Several researchers have explored relationships between aural and/or rote instruction and student success. McPherson and Gabrielsson (2002) suggested from McPherson’s (1997) 3-year longitudinal study that examined relationships between music performance and environmental variables that playing by ear may enhance overall music growth and provide meaningful and enjoyable learning. In a separate study, students who received aural training scored highest of all groups on both Watkins-Farnum sight-reading and prepared piece posttests (Haston, 2010). Grutzmacher (1987) investigated relationships between tonal pattern instruction, performance achievement, and aural development in first-year instrumentalists. The experimental group scored significantly higher on aurally identifying major and minor tonalities and in melodic sight-reading achievement, but there was no significant difference between each group’s reading recognition. Conversely, Bernhard (2004, 2006) reported that students who had received aural instruction did not score higher on a sight-reading test, though they showed significant gains in playing by ear achievement. In a study by McDonald (1991/2010), students in the treatment group received rote instruction while the control group used a recorder method book. At the conclusion of the study, the experimental group scored higher in all posttest areas, including rhythm, melody, and recorder technique.

Students who receive rote and aural instruction may demonstrate improved tone quality and characteristic sound. Sperti (1970) compared a group of traditionally taught beginner clarinet students with an experimental group that used an adapted Suzuki rote instruction method. After the experimental period, students performed the same music exercise and were evaluated by an expert panel of judges who used an adapted Whybrew Performance Scale. Sperti analyzed the results and found that 89% of students who trained with traditional notation were rated as having poor/unacceptable tone, whereas 71% of the experimental group were rated as having fair, good, or excellent tone. Blaine (1976) adapted the Suzuki model to instruct fourth-grade trombone and trumpet students and found significant differences between the traditionally taught control group and the modified Suzuki model experimental group on the Whybrew Performance Scale measuring tone and technique. However, the traditionally taught control group performed highest on a Watkins-Farnum sight-reading test.

In addition to enhanced performing skills, aural instruction has been found to improve student auditory and discrimination abilities (Grutzmacher, 1987; McPherson & Gabrielsson, 2002). Frewen (2010) examined students’ past acquaintance with melodies and determined that they were better able to perform familiar music and to recognize errors. In another study, Woody and Lehmann (2010) observed collegiate musicians’ playing by ear ability in relation to formal or informal training. Students in the informal group required fewer trials to both sing back (3.00 trials vs. 6.42 in the formal group) and play back the melody (3.83 vs. 10.58) for accurate performance. Brittin (2001) examined rhythm counting systems among 131 students participating in a seventh- through ninth-grade honor band. Though traditional number counting was most frequently employed (i.e., 69% of the time), students who had used a mnemonic syllable system in their elementary music classrooms scored significantly higher than students who used traditional counting. In his book, Schleuter (1997) stated that receiving prior aural instruction can facilitate more student performance time in ensemble rehearsals as students may be better prepared for and able to predict melodic and harmonic content.