[Home]
[Contact Me]   [Download DART Software]  [Table of Contents]

A Study of Varied Uses of Interactive and Presentation Software Programs in a Music Fundamentals Course for Non-Majors

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS-ANALYSIS AND EVALUATIONS


The present chapter will discuss the findings, analysis and evaluations of the three areas of study: (1) music software attitudes survey, (2) concepts pretest/posttest results, and, (3) DART music preference and attitudes data.  Each section will have a brief discussion and the chapter will conclude with a brief summary.
 

Findings Part One

Classroom Presentation Software Survey- Treatment A Students

The classroom presentation software used in the Music Fundamentals course was evaluated using a student questionnaire (Appendix G).  Treatment A students (students not using outside-of-class software) survey was completed by 84 students.

There was a wide variety of musical experiences with regard to the student’s background.  The largest number of students (37%) indicated they had a medium amount of experience in music, while 8% reported they had no experience and 13% said they had a great amount of experience (Figure 4.1).  This same group self evaluated themselves with regard to music experience in high school (generally one to two years prior) as having the following: 18% with no experience, 8% with little experience, 29% with medium experience, 25% with much experience, and 20% with great amount of experience (Figure 4.2).

The following are the results of the five survey questions regarding the use of the multimedia software used in the lecture/demonstrations.  For question one (I found the use of multimedia in this course overall to be:) 0% stated that it was not helpful, 13% stated no difference, 18% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 43% stated that it was helpful, and 26% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.3).

For question two (I found the use of projected terms and definition to be:) 1% stated that it was not helpful, 14% stated no difference, 18% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 51% stated that it was helpful, and 16% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.4).

For question three (I found the use of multimedia audio to be:) 2% stated that it was not helpful, 6% stated no difference, 12% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 43% stated that it was helpful, and 37% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.5).

For question four (I found the use of multimedia video or movies to be:) 5% stated that it was not helpful, 23% stated no difference, 13% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 40% stated that it was helpful, and 19% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.6).

For question five (I found the use of multimedia video or movies to be:) 5% stated that it was not helpful, 23% stated no difference, 13% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 40% stated that it was helpful, and 19% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.7).
In all cases, the largest number of students responded that the use of multimedia software was useful.  Figure 4.8 is a composite of questions one through five for students from the Treatment A Music Fundamentals course.
 
 

Classroom Presentation Software Survey-Treatment B Students

Treatment B students (students using outside-of-class software) questionnaire was completed by 82 students.  Of the 82 students, 11% of the students evaluated themselves as having no experience, 23% evaluated themselves as having little experience, 27% evaluated themselves as having a medium amount of experience, 28% evaluated themselves as having much experience, and 11% of the students evaluated themselves as having a great amount of experience (Figure 4.9).   This same group self evaluated themselves with regard to music experience in high school (generally one to two years prior) as having the following: 25%with no experience, 24% with little experience, 13% with medium experience, 22% with much experience, and 16% with great amount of experience (Figure 4.10).

The same five survey questions were used to evaluate the multimedia software used in the lecture/demonstrations.  There were two additional survey questions with regard to the use of out-of-class software.  For question one (I found the use of multimedia in this course overall to be:) 0% stated that it was not helpful, 5% stated no difference, 24% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 47% stated that it was helpful, and 24% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.11).

For question two (I found the use of projected terms and definition to be:) 1% stated that it was not helpful, 4% stated no difference, 37% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 42% stated that it was helpful, and 16% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.12).

For question three (I found the use of multimedia audio to be:) 1% stated that it was not helpful, 4% stated no difference, 18% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 43% stated that it was helpful, and 34% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.13).

For question four (I found the use of multimedia video or movies to be:) 0% stated that it was not helpful, 10% stated no difference, 27% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 45% stated that it was helpful, and 18% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.14).

For question five (I found the use of multimedia video or movies to be:) 0% stated that it was not helpful, 2% stated no difference, 27% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 59% stated that it was helpful, and 12% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.15).

Figure 4.16 is a composite of questions one through five for students from the Treatment B Music Fundamentals course.  The results indicate that the vast majority responded that the various aspects of in-class multimedia to be helpful to very helpful.
 
 
 

Classroom Presentation Software Survey- Treatment A & B

Combining the questionnaire responses from both the Treatment A and Treatment B students gave the following.  For question one (I found the use of multimedia in this course overall to be:) 0% stated that it was not helpful, 9% stated no difference, 21% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 45% stated that it was helpful, and 25% stated that it was very helpful.

For question two (I found the use of projected terms and definition to be:) 1% stated that it was not helpful, 9% stated no difference, 27% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 47% stated that it was helpful, and 16% stated that it was very helpful.

For question three (I found the use of multimedia audio to be:) stated that it was not helpful, 5% stated no difference, 15% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 43% stated that it was helpful, and 36% stated that it was very helpful.

For question four (I found the use of multimedia video or movies to be:) 2% stated that it was not helpful, 16% stated no difference, 20% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 43% stated that it was helpful, and 19% stated that it was very helpful.

For question five (I found the use of multimedia video or movies to be:) 1% stated that it was not helpful, 7% stated no difference, 22% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 55% stated that it was helpful, and 15% stated that it was very helpful.

The responses were also analyzed by three other factors:  (1) by gender,  (2) by level of music experience in high school as perceived by the student,  (3) by level of general music experience as perceived by the student.

In general, there was no significant difference in results of the survey by compared total percentages with that of responses by gender, by perceived level of music experience.  The multiple results are indicated in Table 4.1.
 
 

Software Survey- Treatment B Additional Questions

The survey implemented in the Treatment B included three additional questions with regard to attitude of the use of software outside-of-class.  One question was specifically related to the Practica Musica software program (commercially produced), one question was specifically related to the Key Signatures program (content-specific program, created by this author), and  the third question was a general question about the use of outside-of-class software.

For question eight (I found the use of Practica Musica software to be:) 7% stated that it was not helpful, 5% stated no difference, 21% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 38% stated that it was helpful, and 29% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.17).

For question nine (I found the use of Key Signatures  software to be:) 7% stated that it was not helpful, 12% stated no difference, 31% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 33% stated that it was helpful, and 17% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.18).

For question ten (In general, I found the use of software as a practice tool to be:) 5% stated that it was not helpful, 6% stated no difference, 21% stated that it was somewhat helpful, 45% stated that it was helpful, and 23% stated that it was very helpful (Figure 4.19).
 
 

Part One Discussion

The attitudes survey results were very pronounced: approximately ninety percent of the 166 students completing the questionnaire (both Treatment A and B) indicated that the effectiveness of multimedia presentation tools in the classroom ranged from somewhat helpful to very helpful (table 4.1).  The Treatment B group responded to the same survey with 94. 7.% stating that the use of multimedia in class was somewhat to very helpful, while 84.8% of the Treatment A group indicated somewhat to very helpful.  The reason for that difference is not clear but perhaps the difference is related to the treatment of no outside-of-class software use and outside-of-class software use.

With regard to each of the five questions, the rank order for each question by treatment group was very similar.  In every question, the number-one rank was helpful, the number five rank was not helpful.

The additional questions given to the Treatment B group results were very pronounced: 88% of the students indicated that the outside-of-class use of the Practica Musica software to be somewhat to very helpful,  81% of the students indicated that the outside-of-class use of the Key Signatures software to be somewhat to very helpful,  and 89% of the students indicated that the outside-of-class use in general was  somewhat to very helpful.

There was also no significant difference in results of the survey via a compared difference by treatment, gender, and perceived level of music experience.
 

Findings Part Two
 

Pretest/Posttest Results

The pretest/posttest instrument (appendix F) was administered to both Treatment A and Treatment B (n=92, n=81).  The testing instrument consisted of seven subsections: (1) note identification, (2) written meter recognition, (3) written interval recognition, (4) written key signature recognition, (5) written triad recognition, (6) aural rhythm recognition, and  (7) aural triad recognition.

This section will begin with descriptive statistics of  Treatment A (control) followed by Treatment B (experimental).  The seconds portion will then be an analysis of control group to the experimental group.  The analysis will then be followed by a discussion section.
 

Descriptive Statistics-Treatment A

The overall Treatment A pretest score was 45.45%.  The overall Treatment A posttest score was 79.72% (Table 4.2).

The results from section one (note identification) were: 67.61 for pretest, and 94.67 for the posttest.  The results from section two (written meter recognition) were: 53.53 for pretest, and 79.89 for the posttest.  The results from section three (written interval recognition) were: 35.87  for pretest, and 76.81 for the posttest.  The results from section four (written key signature recognition) were: 31.06  for pretest, and 75.93 for the posttest.   The results from section five (written triad recognition) were: 18.48  for pretest, and 69.13 for the posttest.  The results from section six (aural rhythm recognition) were: 65.76  for pretest, and 77.72 for the posttest.  The results from section seven (aural triad recognition) were: 45.11  for pretest, and 67.39 for the posttest (Table 4.2 for each of the results).

The following figures are the descriptive statistics for each of the test’s subsections for Treatment A (Tables 4.3 - 4.10).
 

Descriptive Statistics-Treatment B

The overall Treatment B pretest score was 47.37%.  The overall Treatment B posttest score was 82.13% (Table 4.11).

The results from section one (note identification) were: 66.67 for pretest, and 97.28 for the posttest.  The results from section two (written meter recognition) were: 49.07 for pretest, and 79.63 for the posttest.  The results from section three (written interval recognition) were: 39.92  for pretest, and 79.63 for the posttest.  The results from section four (written key signature recognition) were: 35.27  for pretest, and 85.19 for the posttest.   The results from section five (written triad recognition) were: 28.40  for pretest, and 66.91 for the posttest.  The results from section six (aural rhythm recognition) were: 67.28  for pretest, and 82.72 for the posttest.  The results from section seven (aural triad recognition) were: 43.52  for pretest, and 63.89 for the posttest (Table 4.11 for each of the results).

The following figures are the descriptive statistics for each of the sections for the Treatment B (Tables 4.12 - 4.19).
 
 

Analysis
 

This portion will test eight hypotheses with regard to the cognitive gains through the use of outside-of-class software.  Each of the eight hypotheses were tested using a two-way factorial ANOVA to compare pretests/posttest and gender results of Treatment A to that of  Treatment B.

If any section showed any level of significance, a Scheffé post test was then applied to test for significance with regard to gender and compared pretest/posttest results.
 

Hypothesis One-Total Scores

Hypothesis Two-Written Note Identification
  Hypothesis Three-Written Meter Recognition
  Hypothesis Four-Written Interval Recognition
  Hypothesis Five-Written Key Signature Recognition Hypothesis Six-Written Triad Recognition Hypothesis Seven-Aural Rhythm Recognition Hypothesis Eight-Aural Triad Recognition Part Two Discussion

As expected, significant gains were indicated in all subsections of the test from pretest to posttest.  With regard to compared posttests by treatment,  two subsections of the test showed significant gains due to treatment: written note identification and written key signature recognition.   The remaining five sections showed no significance due to treatment with regard to compared posttests.  There was also no significant difference due to treatment with regard to compared posttests of the total scores.  There was also no statistical significant difference in all areas of compared pretests except for written triad recognition, however, there was no indicated significance in compared posttests.  There was also no statistical significance in all areas of the test due to compared gender and treatment/gender intersections.   It is interesting to note that one of the two test subsections which were shown to be significantly different due to the use of outside-of-class software was the written key signature area.  This was the area where both a commercially produced software package and a content-specific faculty-produced package were incorporated.

With regard to specific subsections of the testing instrument, it is interesting to point out that within the written note identification subsection, questions 1, 4, 5, 7, 10 (treble clef note identification) mean scores were significantly higher than the remaining questions in that subsection (bass clef note identification).  This seems to indicate that students of this population come to the class considerably better prepared in reading the treble clef than the bass clef.  After either Treatment A or B, there was no significant difference in note identification ability by clef placement.  The standard deviation and standard error in this section of the test were significantly smaller in comparison to all other subsections.

It is also interesting to point out that within the written meter recognition subsection, questions 11 and 13 (simple meter) mean scores were significantly higher than the remaining questions in that subsection (compound meter).  This seems to indicate that students of this population come to the class considerably better prepared in written simple meter recognition  than compound meter.  After either Treatment A or B, there was no significant difference in written simple meter recognition compared to compound meter, although there were consistently higher scores in both treatments with regard to written simple meter recognition.

The aural triad recognition area was a peripheral-learning subsection and was the only area in the test that was not specifically covered via homework or computer software assignments.  As expected, this area did not show the same degree of gains as the other subsections of the test; this area did not however show any statistical significance due to treatment.
 
 

Findings Part Three

Digital Affective Response Technology (DART)

The data collected from the Treatment B students incorporating the DART program is divided into five main categories: (1) prior listening survey, (2) music and jazz listening experience survey, (3) music selection average ratings, (4) response time average for music selection ratings, and (5) entry rating music selection average.  Data from each of these five areas will be presented, followed by a second-by-second analysis of each of the seven music selections.
 

DART- Prior Listening Survey

Of the 83 students completing the listening survey, 64.7% stated that they have never heard any of the music selections (on average), 23.2% stated that the music selections have been heard by them seldom, and that 12% stated that they have heard the music selection often (Table 4.39).  The individual results of each composition are also on Table 4.39.
 
 

DART- Music Experience Survey

Of the 83 students surveyed, 19.3% evaluated themselves as having little music experience, 56.6% evaluated themselves as having a medium amount of music experience, 24.1% evaluated themselves as having much musical experience (Table 4.40).  Of the 83 students surveyed, 19.3% responded that they listen to jazz a little amount of time, 51.8% stated that they listen to jazz a medium amount of time, and 18.1% stated listen to jazz much of the time (Table 4.40).
 

DART- Music Selections Average Ratings

Initially, seven jazz selections were listened to and rated by the Treatment B students.  For reasons discussed in the prior chapter, two more selections were rated by the same students at a later time (four weeks later, all of the jazz selections showed a similar positive curve.  Further testing of contrasting music was tested to see if the similarity was potentially a cause of the testing instrument).  Therefore, the first seven compositions will be discussed first, and then will be followed by the two additional music compositions.

Using the Likert-scale rating of 1 to 10 (one being least enjoyed, and 10 being most enjoyed) the seven jazz compositions were rated.  On average, the students rated Brubeck’s Take Five  with a 7.46,  Brubeck’s Blue Rondo a la Turk with a 6.8, followed by Ellis’ Bulgarian Buldge with a 6.7, Monk’s Straight, No Chaser  was rated at a 6.4, Ellington’s Cotton Tail  was rated at a 6.1, followed by Gillespie’s Bebop with a 5.7, and finally Parker’s Bird Feathers  with a average rated score of 5.6 (Figure 4.20).
 

DART Response Time- Average Ratings

With regard to the average number of seconds which it took the students to begin rating the compositions the following occurred:  Brubeck’s Take Five averaged 7.70 seconds, Brubeck’s Blue Rondo a la Turk averaged 7.53 seconds, Ellis’ Bulgarian Buldge averaged 6.62 seconds, Monk’s Straight, No Chaser averaged 11.61 seconds, Ellington’s Cotton Tail averaged 10.92 seconds, Gillespie’s Bebop averaged 8.33 seconds, and Parker’s Bird Feathers  averaged 7.80 seconds.  The total average of seconds to respond to all music selections was 8.64 seconds (Table 4.41).
 
 

DART Individual Selection- Entry Ratings

The average entry rating of each composition given by the students were as follows: Brubeck’s Take Five  averaged 6.06, Brubeck’s Blue Rondo a la Turk averaged 6.02, Ellis’ Bulgarian Buldge averaged 5.92, Monk’s Straight, No Chaser averaged 5.96, Ellington’s Cotton Tail  averaged 5.78, Gillespie’s Bebop averaged 5.75, and Parker’s Bird Feathers  averaged 5.16.  The total average entry rating respond to all music selections was 5.81 (Table 4.41).

The number of students who had “no change” or, did not rate the composition beyond the default 5-rating was as follows:  Brubeck’s Take Five  had 0, Brubeck’s Blue Rondo a la Turk  had two, Ellis’ Bulgarian Buldge had 0, Monk’s Straight, No Chaser  had two, Ellington’s Cotton Tail  had 0, Gillespie’s Bebop  had two, and Parker’s Bird Feathers  had three.  The total average number of student giving a “no change” rating for all music selections was 1.29 (Table 4.41).
 

Individual Music Selection Ratings (Second by Second)

The following results are that of each of the seven music selections shown in three graphs: (1) second by second rating, (2) amount of time taken by the students to begin rating, and (3) the initial rating given by the student at the first rating moment.

The selections will be arranged in order rated by the students: (1) Brubeck’s Take Five, (2) Brubeck’s Blue Rondo a la Turk, (3) Ellis’ Bulgarian Buldge, (4) Monk’s Straight, No Chaser,  (5) Ellington’s Cotton Tail,  (6) Gillespie’s Bebop, and  (7) Parker’s Bird Feathers.

The second-by-second rating graph of Brubeck’s Take Five  is indicated in Figure 4.21 again, it had an average rating of 7.46.  The duration of the composition was 64 seconds in length.  The Figure 4.22 shows the individual ratings of the seventy students rating this composition.  The average amount of time taken before an initial rating was given was 7.7 seconds.  There were no “no change” students (students who did not make any change in ratings- left rating at the initial level of five) (Figure 4.23).  The average entry rating was 6.06 (average rating given by the student at the initial rating moment) (Figure 4.24).
 

The second-by-second rating graph of Brubeck’s Blue Rondo a la Turk is indicated in Figure 4.25, it had an average rating of 6.84.  The duration of the composition was 98 seconds in length.  The Figure 4.26 shows the individual ratings of the eighty-five students rating this composition.  The average amount of time taken before an initial rating was given was 7.53 seconds.  There were two “no change” students (students who did not make any change in ratings- left rating at the initial level of five) (Figure 4.27).  The average entry rating was 6.02 (average rating given by the student at the initial rating moment) (Figure 4.28).
 

The second-by-second rating graph of Ellis’ Bulgarian Buldge is indicated in Figure 4.29, it had an average rating of 6.76.  The duration of the composition was 71 seconds in length.  The Figure 4.30 shows the individual ratings of the seventy-nine students rating this composition.  The average amount of time taken before an initial rating was given was 6.62 seconds.  There were no “no change” students (students who did not make any change in ratings- left rating at the initial level of five) (Figure 4.31).  The average entry rating was 5.92 (average rating given by the student at the initial rating moment) (Figure 4.32).
 

The second-by-second rating graph of Monks’ Straight, No Chaser is indicated in Figure 4.33, it had an average rating of 6.5.  The duration of the composition was 62 seconds in length.  The Figure 4.34 shows the individual ratings of the sixty-eight students rating this composition.  The average amount of time taken before an initial rating was given was 11.61 seconds.  There were two “no change” students (students who did not make any change in ratings- left rating at the initial level of five) (Figure 4.35).  The average entry rating was 5.96 (average rating given by the student at the initial rating moment) (Figure 4.36).

The second-by-second rating graph of Ellington’s Cotton Tail  is indicated in Figure 4.37, it had an average rating of 6.11.  The duration of the composition was 52 seconds in length.  The Figure 4.38 shows the individual ratings of the eighty-five students rating this composition.  The average amount of time taken before an initial rating was given was 10.92 seconds.  There was one “no change” student (student who did not make any change in ratings- left rating at the initial level of five) (Figure 4.39).  The average entry rating was 5.78 (average rating given by the student at the initial rating moment) (Figure 4.40).

The second-by-second rating graph of Gillespie’s Bebop is indicated in Figure 4.41, it had an average rating of 5.71.  The duration of the composition was 35 seconds in length.  The Figure 4.42 shows the individual ratings of the sixty-five students rating this composition.  The average amount of time taken before an initial rating was given was 8.33 seconds.  There were two “no change” students (students who did not make any change in ratings? left rating at the initial level of five) (Figure 4.43).  The average entry rating was 5.75 (average rating given by the student at the initial rating moment) (Figure 4.44).

The second-by-second rating graph of Parker’s Bird Feathers  is indicated in Figure 4.45, it had an average rating of 5.60.  The duration of the composition was 52 seconds in length.  The Figure 4.46 shows the individual ratings of the seventy-seven students rating this composition.  The average amount of time taken before an initial rating was given was 7.8 seconds.  There were three “no change” students (students who did not make any change in ratings- left rating at the initial level of five) (Figure 4.47).  The average entry rating was 5.16 (average rating given by the student at the initial rating moment) (Figure 4.48).
 

Part Three Discussion

The compositions for this study were selected to minimize differences in style, instrumentation, dynamics and tempo.  The variables that were intended for study were:  (1) repetition and contrast,  (2) melodic contour (conjunct and disjunct), and  (3) levels of syncopation.  The DART program data was organized intro three categories: (A) overall rating,  (B) number of seconds to rate, and  (C) entry rating level.
 The following conclusions were drawn by this author with regard to the three considered variables in relation to the three sets of data:

In summary, students ratings of these selected compositions indicated a clear preference for conjunct melodic contours, compositions with a greater amount of repetition, compositions with lesser amounts of syncopation.  Students rate compositions that they “like” and “dislike” at approximately the same amount of time, compositions of which they are unsure takes a significantly longer of amount of time to rate.