Changing trends in preparing students for college level theory.

An article published in American Music Teacher approximately twenty years ago addressed the issue of students' preparation to study college level music theory. Fifty-eight music majors at the University of Florida were surveyed in an attempt to answer the question, "If a promising high school music student decides to major in music at college, where will the necessary background in theory be acquired?" This questionnaire, distributed in March 1981, sought music majors' opinions regarding the most helpful pre-college experiences they had. A follow-up study was conducted in the spring of 2001 to learn whether answers to survey questions had changed over the intervening twenty-year period.

The 1981 Study

The article reporting the 1981 study revealed that the private instrumental teacher plays a role that is as important as the theory instructor. The article went on to support this statement with the writings of Frederic W. Homan, Elvina T. Pearce and Diane Hardy, and to offer suggestions for ways in which this responsibility might be carried out with the help of MTNA theory guidelines and group lessons. (1)

An analysis of the 1981 survey forms revealed that students indicated they felt most prepared in the areas of rhythm (77.5 percent), ability to hear major and minor triads (70.6 percent) and knowledge of scales (68.9 percent) (Table 1).

Additionally, 34.4 percent of the music majors believed they had received the most theory preparation from their private teacher of their major instrument. Other experiences were rated for their value in theory preparation: high school . theory class, 13.7 percent; high school band program, 10.3 percent; private teacher of the student's secondary instrument, 6.8 percent; and private theory teacher, 3.4 percent (Table 2). Although 17.2 percent of the students had participated in a high school orchestra program, only one student who completed the questionnaire indicated that this experience had been the most helpful. The study did not categorize students by year or number of years they had been in their four-year degree program.

Review of Related Literature

With the exception of the 1981 study, none of the extant literature on theory education deal with students' opinions of their high school preparation for college-level theory. Livingston notes that a student's private instrumental teacher (primary performing instrument)has a significant role in preparing high school students for freshman music theory. As previously mentioned, her study examines the responses to a questionnaire of fifty-eight music majors at the University of Florida. Students were asked to indicate which areas of theory study they felt well prepared for upon entering college. Results of the study show that 39.2 percent of wind instrument majors, 53.3 percent of keyboard majors and 38.4 percent of voice majors considered their private lesson instruction to be the most helpful in preparing for freshman music theory. (2) Livingston cites Pearce (3) in suggesting private lesson instructors give students three individual and one group lesson per month, with the group lesson including aural and written theory exercises. (4)

Carole S. Harrison notes that many music majors are not able to perform adequately in the major components of freshman theory: written work, sight reading, ear training and keyboard harmony. Musical aptitude, pre-college musical experience, private study and ensemble experience, and study of principal performing instrument all contribute to predicting success in undergraduate music theory. (5) Her study focused on a population of 178 freshman music majors at California State University at Fullerton. The results indicate that three of the predictive factors--general musical ability, musical experience and musical aptitude--were significant gauges of success in freshman theory classes. (6)

Charles W. Walton states traditional theory courses often are rather narrow in scope, with the various skills taught in a discrete manner without regard to practical application, and indicates six target areas in the teaching of collegiate level music theory:

1. Listening. The student organizes and clarifies what the ear hears.

2. Analysis. The method with which the student discovers the function of chords and symbols within a piece of music.

3. Music reading. The process of having both the ear and eye respond to music meaning.

4. Creativity. Making music in a variety of original works.

5. Part writing. Putting on paper what has been heard or created.

6. Keyboard harmony. Enhancing the understanding of music through the analysis of melodies, score reading and playing by ear. (7)

Robert C. Ehle states that many books purporting to be music theory texts are de facto harmony books, and there is significantly more to a music theory curriculum than the study of harmony. He says collegiate music theory should be linked to the practice of music and used for furthering basic musical concepts and skills. A college freshman theory course also should include sight singing, keyboard harmony, written harmony and dictation, Ehle says. (8)

Earl Henry suggests high school music theory classes cover written fundamentals, basic musicianship and aural training to prepare students for freshman music theory. He proposes that a high school curriculum be approached from a melodic standpoint, because harmonic concepts are too difficult for high school students to fully understand. He also states that triads and cadences, including the role of the tonic and dominant, should be included. Henry concludes by saying ear training and sight singing are the most crucial elements in the training of college bound music students and that a high school theory course should give students opportunities to improve their aural skills. (9)

Judith Bowman notes that a high school music theory course should accommodate the average student, as well as those who plan to study music in college. According to Bowman, high school music theory needs to emphasize the fundamentals of music, such as part writing, analysis and ear training. She cites the Yale Seminar on Music Education. (10) and states that melodic and harmonic examples from a variety of periods and styles should be included to give students a comprehensive music theory experience. (11)

Quincy C. Hilliard cites three objectives for high school music theory classes: development of basic musical fundamentals, development of each student's creative abilities and increasing students' awareness of various aspects of music as a profession. He lists keyboard skills, ear training and sight singing as essential areas of music theory that students need to develop to prepare for music theory at the collegiate level. He states that high school music theory students should be given myriad opportunities to compose melodies, chorales and ensemble warm-ups to develop basic compositional skills. Hilliard also suggests the use of guest lecturers to provide students insight into the skills and training required to pursue a career in music. (12)

Bowman examines the use of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) with,regard to preparing students for college music theory curricula. The results indicate a majority of the students answering a survey had less than one year of pre-college music theory, and among these, there was a preponderance of voice majors. Bowman notes that experimental CAI is as effective as traditional instruction in preparing students for collegiate level music theory. (13)

James P. Colman states that most universities do not have prerequisites for beginning music theory, and in colleges with no placement procedures, the dropout rate for first-year theory students is upwards of 30 percent. Familiarity with the rudiments of music notation and a certain degree of aural skills are important to the success of first-year music theory students, he says. His study examined the use and development of a computerized diagnostic test for predicting success of fifty-nine students in the first year of a four-semester music theory sequence. (14)

Patricia M. Muller notes a significant relationship between musical fluency (sic) and music theory achievement of first- and second-year music majors. Her study examines the responses of first- and second-year music majors to test items. Muller defines fluency as "the number of correct responses to test items within a given time" and pitches as "pitches, scale degrees, key signatures, intervals, triads, scale degrees and diatonic triads." The testing instrument Fundamentals of Pitch Fluency Assessment was used for the study. (15)

Most Helpful Source of Theory Preparation--2001

The same 1981 location, the School of Music at the University of Florida, was revisited to conduct the 2001 study. A total of fifty students were surveyed, twenty-one freshmen and twenty-nine sophomores. Again, the private teacher of the students' major instrument was shown to have a strong influence on their preparation, with 36 percent of students surveyed rating lessons with the private teacher as the experience giving them the highest degree of theory preparedness.

The students surveyed in 2001, however, reported that high school band gave them the most helpful experience in preparation for college level theory, with a total of 40 percent rating it highest. Other changes were that high school theory class, with 32 percent, increased in value, while the high school choral program, with 8 percent, decreased. The private teacher of the students' secondary instrument, with 16 percent, also had an increased influence. The only experience that remained the same as in the earlier study was the private theory teacher, at 4 percent (Table 3).

Changes

A main point of interest of the replication study was whether or not there were significant differences in the responses to the questionnaire from the original study. An example of this is found in the replication study, where 40 percent of the students stated that high school band gave them the best preparation for collegiate music theory. This contrasts sharply with the original study, in which only 10.3 percent rated high school band as most helpful. Another significant shift from 1981 to 2001 was high school theory class, with 13.7 percent of students in the original study and 32 percent in the replication study indicating this experience as most helpful. Private instruction on the major performing instrument remained relatively unchanged, with 34.4 percent of students in 1981 and 36 percent of students in 2001 indicating this as a key area in preparation for college music theory. The results total more than 100 percent because several students indicated more than one area they felt best prepared them for college level theory.

There may be various reasons for such marked changes in the area of music theory. One possibility is that in the twenty years between the studies, the National Standards for the Arts have been developed and implemented in public school music curricula throughout the country. Course offerings in all areas of music have increased, and their scope and content have improved dramatically as a result. Another possibility may be an increased emphasis with regard to comprehensive musicianship, including theory, in the content of contemporary band method books used in secondary instrumental music programs. This is illustrated in the content standards for music in the National Standards for Arts Education: "listening to, analyzing and describing music" (content standard 6) and "reading and notating music" (content standard 5), (16) and is consistent with the results of the 2001 questionnaire, in which students indicated knowledge of key signatures (92 percent), knowledge of scales (76 percent) and the ability to write intervals (68 percent) as among those areas they felt well prepared to enter college music theory (Table 4).

Another factor may be the emphasis on academic achievement in all areas of learning in contemporary public schools. The current trend of scrutiny and measuring of "academic success" places a premium on test scores and may play a role in the standardization of music curricula, as well as a more stringent expectation of learning in all aspects of music education. These factors may have contributed to the differing views of students from the two studies on what they felt best prepared them for college music theory.

Further Study Needed

One primary goal of the replication study was to determine if shifts of emphasis in preparation for college music theory had occurred over time, and to examine indications of those portions of the high school curriculum students felt were of the most practical value in attaining the necessary music theory skills to have success in college.

The literature review suggests a number of areas for further study, among which are the role of the private instrumental music teacher, CAI and the development of a consistent preparatory curriculum of music theory at the high school level. Other areas for research include an examination of college prerequisites for entering freshman music majors and the attrition rates of first- and second-year music students. Another area of study might investigate what kinds of opportunities exist for students who cannot afford private lessons and if, by extension, schools discriminate against these students by not offering theory.

There are as many differences as similarities between the original study of readiness for college music theory and its replication twenty years later. The changing patterns of responses to the latter study--in comparison with the original--strongly indicate a need for further research in the area of preparation for college level music theory.

Table 1

Best Prepared Subjects
1981 Study

Rhythm and counting                             77.5%
Ability to hear major and
  minor triads                                  70.6%
Knowledge of scales                             68.9%
Knowledge of key signatures                     65.5%
Keyboard skills                                 55.1%
Ability to write triads                         51.7%
Ability to hear intervals                       44.8%
Notation                                        39.6%
Sight singing                                   37.9%
Ability to compose melodies                     35.8%
Melodic dictation                               24.1%
Part writing                                    15.5%
Harmonic dictation                              10.3%

Table 2

Best Preparations for College Theory
1981 Study

Private teacher of student's major instrument   34.4%
High school theory class                        13.7%
High school band program                        10.3%
High school choral program                      10.3%
Private teacher of student's
  secondary instrument                           6.8%
Private theory teacher                           3.4%

Table 3

Best Preparations for College Theory
2001 Study

high school band program                40%
Teacher of student's major instrument   36%
High school theory class                32%
Private teacher of student's
  secondary instrument                  16%
High school choral program               8%
Private theory teacher                   4%

Table 4

Best Prepared Subjects
2001 Study

Knowledge of key signatures          92%
Knowledge of scales                  76%
Rhythm/Counting                      74%
Ability to write intervals           68%
Ability to hear major/minor triads   68%
Ability to write triads              68%
Notation                             58%
Ability to hear intervals            52%
Keyboard skills                      46%
Melodic dictation                    40%
Ability to compose melodies          38%
Part writing                         34%
Harmonic dictation                   18%
Sight singing                        16%

NOTES

(1.) Livingston, Carolyn, "The Role of the Private Instrumental Teacher in Preparing Music Students for College Theory," The American Music Teacher, 31 (6), (June/July 1982): 14-16.

(2.) Ibid., 13.

(3.) Pearce, Elvina Truman, "Group Lessons: A Plus for the Private Student," The American Music Teacher, 27 (6), (June/July 1978): 22-23.

(4.) Livingston, 13.

(5.) Harrison, Carole S., "Predicting Music Theory Grades: The Relative Efficiency of Academic Ability, Music Experience, and Musical Aptitude," Journal of Research in Music Education, 38 (2), (1988): 124-137.

(6.) Harrison, Carole S., "Relationships Between Grades in the Components of Freshman Music Theory and Selected Background Variables," Journal of Research in Music Education, 38 (2), (1989): 124-137.

(7.) Walton, Charles W., "Targeting the Teaching of Theory," Music Educators Journal, 67 (6), (1981): 40-41.

(8.) Ehle, Robert C., "What Should Be Taught in Freshman Music Theory Class?" The American Music Teacher, 32 (2), (September/October 1982): 44-45.

(9.) Henry, Earl, "Please Stop Teaching College Theory in High School," The American Music Teacher, 31 (1), (September/October 1981): 2-3.

(10.) Palisca, Claude V., Ed., Music in our Schools: A Search for Improvement. Report of the Yale Seminar on Music Education, Washington: United States Government Printing Office, (1964): Chapter 5.

(11.) Bowman, Judith, "Please Teach Music Theory in High School: A Rebuttal of Earl Henry's 'Please Stop Teaching College Theory in High School,'" The American Music Teacher, 32 (1), (September/October 1982): 34-35.

(12.) Hilliard, Quincy C., "High School Theory Checklist," The School Musician, 58 (2), (1986): 16-17.

(13.) Shatzkin, Merton, A Review of Judith Ann Bowman, An Investigation of Two Methods of Preparation for College Level Music Theory (Precollegiate Remediation, CAI), Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music, University Microfilm Order No. 8413064, 1984, Council for Research in Music Education, 62, (Summer 1987): 62-65.

(14.) Smith, Timothy Alan, A Review of James Peter Colman, The Development and Validation of a Computerized Diagnostic Test for the Prediction of Success in the First-Year Music Theory Sequence, Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, University Microfilms Order No. 9028636, 1990. Council for Research in Music Education, 113, (Summer 1992): 64-67.

(15.) Muller, Patricia M., The Relationship of Fluency in Fundamental Skills of Pitch Notation and Music Theory Achievement, Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University, Order Number DA9410 164, 1993.

(16.) National Standards for Arts Education: What Every Young American Should Know and Be Able to Do in the Arts, Music Educators National Conference: Reston, VA, (2001): 60-61.

Carolyn Livingston is professor and director of graduate studies in music at the University of Rhode Island. Her book, Charles Faulkner Bryan: His Life and Music, is published by the University of Tennessee Press.

James Ackman holds a Ph.D. in music education. from the University of Florida. He has taught at Boston University, the University of Rhode Island and Texas A&M University-Kingsville. He is assistant director of bands and director of percussion studies at Pittsburg State University.