A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TEACHER BEHAVIOR IN SELECTED SECONDARY

BAND DIRECTORS IN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN

MUSIC

DECEMBER 2014

By

Scott D. Courtney

Dissertation Committee:

Barbara McLain, Chairperson

Jeffrey Boeckman
Maya Hoover
Laurence Paxton
Seongah Im
UMI Publication Page

2
 Copyright 2014

by

Scott D. Courtney

3
 DEDICATION

To my three children, the little E’s of Erik, Elliot, and Ella.

Singin’ sweet songs of melodies pure and true, this is my message to you!

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have provided support in this journey, degree, and dissertation process. First,

thank you Dr. Alan Gumm for his leadership and research in music education and for

allowing me to use the Music Teaching Style Inventory. Second thank you to the University

of Hawai‘i and my committee of Drs. Hoover, Boeckman, and Im. Thank you Dr. Womack

for being an original committee member and thank you music chair Laurence Paxton for

stepping in while Dr. Womack was on sabbatical. Thank you to the UH Japanese language

program, notably Justin Ota and Stephen Curry. Thank you Pak Susilo for encouraging an

interest in comparative education, terima kasih. Third, to my friends, family, and fellow

band directors including Alan Kinoshita, Christin McClain, and Sensei Sukita.

Finally, to my dissertation advisor, mentor, and friend Dr. Barbara McLain. You have

demonstrated faith and commitment in your student. You have led by example and

pushed/pulled me in ways I did not know possible. May I always retain your lessons and

follow in your path. Eternal thanks to Dr. M.

5
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to compare the teaching styles of secondary concert

band directors from the United States and Japan. Previous studies on music rehearsal

effectiveness have discussed the important role of teaching style, but no research was found

comparing concert band directors from different countries.

This research utilized an online survey of concert band directors (n = 265) in six

regions of the United States and the Kansai region of Japan. The survey obtained

background information and asked subjects to complete the Music Teaching Style Inventory

(MTSI) (Gumm, 2004) which divided teaching styles into eight potential dimensions of

teaching emphasis: 1) assertive teaching; 2) nonverbal motivation; 3) group dynamics;

4) positive learning environment; 5) music concept learning; 6) artistic music performance;

7) student independence; and 8) time efficiency.

Results showed a significant difference (p < .01) between concert band directors in

the two countries for all MTSI dimensions except time efficiency. Japanese band directors

exhibited more emphasis on assertive teaching, nonverbal motivation and group dynamics

than U.S. band directors. U.S. band directors exhibited more emphasis on positive learning

environment, music concept learning, artistic music performance, and student independence

than Japanese band directors. Directors from both countries appeared to emphasize time

efficiency fairly equally in their teaching styles. Most Japanese concert band directors

rehearse primarily outside of the school day for more than ten hours per week, and have

slightly smaller concert bands in comparison to U.S. directors who rehearse larger bands in

fewer hours during the school day.

6
 Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................v

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................vi

LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
Teacher Behaviors..........................................................................................................2
Time Usage in Music Classrooms.....................................................................4
Non-Verbal Factors............................................................................................4
Positive and Negative Reinforcement................................................................5
Discipline Styles................................................................................................6
Personality..........................................................................................................7
Comparative Education..................................................................................................8
Music Education in the United States..............................................................10
Music Education in Japan................................................................................12
The Concert Band in the United States............................................................14
The Concert Band in Japan..............................................................................16
Band Competitions in the United States..........................................................20
Band Competitions in Japan............................................................................20
Teacher Training for Band Directors in the United States...............................21
Teacher Training for Band Directors in Japan.................................................26
Summary..........................................................................................................29
Need for the Study.......................................................................................................30
Purpose of the Study....................................................................................................31
Research Questions......................................................................................................31
Delimitations................................................................................................................32
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................33

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................35

Introduction..................................................................................................................35
Part One: Music Teaching Style...................................................................................35
The Music Teaching Style Inventory (MTSI)..................................................36
Design of the Music Teaching Style Inventory....................................37
Brakel (1994).......................................................................................41
Brakel (1998).......................................................................................43

7
 Tsai (2000)...........................................................................................44
Gumm (2003).......................................................................................46
Gumm (2004).......................................................................................49
Bazan (2007)........................................................................................51
Basilicato (2010)..................................................................................53
Groulx (2010).......................................................................................54
Summary of Part One.......................................................................................57

Part Two: Time Efficiency in Music Education...........................................................57

Introduction......................................................................................................57
Forsythe (1977)....................................................................................58
Wagner & Strul (1979).........................................................................61
Yarbrough & Price (1981)....................................................................62
Pontious (1982)....................................................................................64
Ellsworth (1985)..................................................................................65
Grechesky (1985).................................................................................67
Sherrill (1986)......................................................................................69
Witt (1986)...........................................................................................70
Carpenter (1988)..................................................................................71
Goolsby (1996)....................................................................................73
Siebenaler (1997).................................................................................75
Summary..........................................................................................................77

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY................................................................................80

Study Phase One: Pilot Study......................................................................................80

Sample Selection..............................................................................................80
Survey of Secondary Band Directors...........................................................................81
Implementation................................................................................................83
Measurement....................................................................................................83

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS.................................................................................................84

Response Rate and Director Background....................................................................84

Band Program Information..........................................................................................89
Teacher Preparation.....................................................................................................94
Music Teaching Style Inventory..................................................................................99
Internal Reliability of the MTSI......................................................................99

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION..........................................................................................114

Introduction................................................................................................................114
Similarities and Differences in Band Programs.........................................................115

8
 Similarities and Differences in Band Directors.........................................................119
Teacher Preparation...................................................................................................120
Music Teaching Style.................................................................................................123
MTSI Reliability and Measurement...........................................................................124
Comparisons of Teaching Style by Country..............................................................125
Impact of Band Director Demographics on Teaching Style......................................130
Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................131
Suggestions for Further Research..............................................................................132

APPENDICES.......................................................................................................................134

A. Music Teaching Style Inventory...........................................................................134

B. Permission to Use Music Teaching Style Inventory.............................................138
C. Study Survey English Version...............................................................................139
D. Study Survey Japanese Version.............................................................................151
E. Use of Human Subjects Approval from the University of Hawaii Office of
Research Compliance.................................................................................................162

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................164

9
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Music Teaching Style Inventory Dimensions and Definitions..........................................40

2. Comparison of Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability for the Music Teaching Style Inventory.....56
3. Average Percent of Class Time Per Each Activity (Forsythe, 1977).................................60
4. Off-task Ranking Per Each Activity (Forsythe, 1977).......................................................60
5. Talking and Playing Percentages (Sherrill 1986)...............................................................70
6. Distribution of Participant Residence by Country and Region..........................................85
7. Distribution of Participant Age Range by Country............................................................86
8. Distribution of Participant Years of Teaching Experience by Country..............................86
9. Distribution of Band Director Educational Attainment Level by Country........................87
10. Distribution of Band Director Previous Educational Emphasis by Country.....................88
11. Distribution of Participant School District Type by Country............................................89
12. Distribution of Participant Band Sizes by Country............................................................90
13. Distribution of Band Rehearsal Times by Country............................................................91
14. Distribution of Participant Band Rehearsal Frequency, Length of Rehearsal Session Per

Week, and Length of After School Rehearsal Sessions by Country..................................92

15. Distribution of Participant Number of Band Performances Per Year................................93
16. Distribution of Participant Band Student’s Engaged in Private Lessons...........................94
17. Distribution of Participant Perceptions of Preparation in Conducting, Score Analysis,

Orchestration, and Error Detection by Country.................................................................95

18. Distribution of Participant Perceptions of Teacher Preparation in Woodwind, Brass,

Percussion, and Management of Student Behavior by Country........................................97

19. Distribution of Participant Length of Previous Practice Teaching Experience by Country

............................................................................................................................................98
20. Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability for the Eight MTSI

Subscales by Subject Country..........................................................................................101

21. MANOVA for Four MTSI Subscale Scores by Country.................................................104
22. MANOVA for Remaining Four MTSI Subscale Scores by Country...............................104
23. MANOVA for Eights MTSI Subscale Scores by Subject Undergraduate School Emphasis

..........................................................................................................................................105
24. Means and Standard Deviations for Scores by Subject Undergraduate Emphasis and

Country............................................................................................................................107

10
25. Spearman Rank Correlations between MTSI Subscale Scores and Ordinal Band Program

Demographics by Country...............................................................................................109
26. One-Sample t Tests for MTSI Subscale Scores with Expected Mean by Subject Country

..........................................................................................................................................113
27. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability for previous MTSI usage ..............................................124
28. Means, Standard Deviations for previous MTSI usage....................................................129

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

11 11
1. Internal Reliability Guidelines for Alpha Coefficients 100

11
 CHAPTER 1 1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Introduction

Comparing school music instruction, especially between schools in different countries, is a

complex task for researchers due to the lack of global standardization within the profession. School

music programs in the U.S. do not share a common textbook. Other countries organize music

classes in different ways. Teachers around the world are not trained using a uniform college

curriculum. Music student assessment, especially in U.S. secondary schools, is frequently based

upon attendance, rather than upon musical achievement (McCreary, 2001). No national or

international assessment is administered to music students, making quantitative comparisons of

school music programs a challenging task for researchers.

The educational process requires that a teacher facilitate student learning. Teaching

effectiveness studies have attempted to examine this process by comparing certain teacher

behaviors to specific student outcomes. Common classroom teacher behaviors examined by

researchers have included:

 Time on task/pacing

 Non-verbal factors

 Positive versus negative reinforcement

 Discipline styles

 Personality (Polk, 2006)

As indicated by the variety of variables used as definitions, teaching effectiveness is a complex

construct wherein any one trait or variable might interact with another variable.

1
 The most common student outcome variables used today to examine general teaching

effectiveness are standardized test scores and grades. Without standardized music tests and a

clear grading system based upon achievement, establishing a unified definition for “effective

teaching” challenges the profession today. In the absence of music achievement tests, secondary

school music programs may rely on the subjective results of competitive music festival results as

a measure of effective teaching. Furthermore, the lack of uniformity in music teacher training

further complicates studying this important issue.

Teacher Behaviors

Research exploring any aspect of behavior must take into consideration that behavior is

impacted by psychological, intellectual, sociological, and kinesthetic factors. Charles Darwin,

the progenitor of evolutionary psychology, believed that behavior is unique, and that individual

specimens develop independently, regardless of similar background. Human behavior is difficult

to study. Such research requires observation and interpretation. Any research of educational

effectiveness in which one observes a classroom process, is therefore potentially open to the

“observer effect” (Duke, 1999), which occurs when the presence of an observer changes the

behavior of the subject being observed, thus introducing bias into the data collection process.

Utilizing remote videotaping may reduce this effect, but subjects may continue to be impacted by

the knowledge that an observation is taking place. All research in this area may be affected by

this bias, depending on the study’s design. Researchers have investigated specific aspects of

music teaching by studying various factors including: 1) how time is organized within each class;

2) the impacts of non-verbal physical behaviors; 3) the types of reinforcement music teachers

utilize to motivate student behaviors; and 4) various aspects of teacher personality.

2
 Medley and Mitzel (1957) were among the first to investigate the role of classroom

teacher behaviors and teacher effectiveness. Their study cultivated an interest in the area of

teacher effectiveness and inspired Furst’s (1972) findings that future music teachers were

prepared as performers, historians, and theorists, but lacked the needed skills of presentation and

delivery. When researching the role of teacher effectiveness, Madsen (1971) defined a long-

range approach to research that called for the isolation of specific variables. Rosenshine and

Furst (1973) recommended that research in a comprehensive area such as teacher effectiveness

must first begin with descriptive studies, with subsequent correlation techniques and

experimental design. One difference between experimental research and ethnographic or

descriptive research, is that experimental research can establish causality between variables,

rather than just association of variables. The Rosenshine and Furst model of research allows

statistical data analysis that can explain and predict the scientific findings.

Gumm (1992; 1993) found that understanding the comprehensive topic of teacher

behaviors would lead to success in the classroom. Gumm’s Music Teaching Style Inventory

(MTSI) (Gumm, 2004b) has been used to show a positive correlation between personality

behaviors and instructional methodologies. Gumm found that the MTSI, and other similar

personality indices, could indicate how educators might prioritize specific learning outcomes and

help provide guidance for the development of strategies and skills needed for effective music

instruction. Researchers have determined that overall, “effective teaching” is a complex

construct, which is difficult to examine using only isolated sub-constructs. A more productive

approach to research in this area involves examining multiple sub-constructs simultaneously for

a more complete picture of an effective music educator.

3
Time Usage in Music Classrooms

Madsen (1971) was the first researcher to study and establish the significance of the use

of class time in musical learning. Madsen and Yarbrough (1985) found that the use of class time

in rehearsal was not a significant variable in music learning. A later study by Siebenaler (1997),

found that time usage was a significant factor in private piano teaching effectiveness. When

examining how time is used during music ensemble instruction, many researchers have

established that teaching effectiveness is significantly correlated with active music making, as

opposed to verbal instruction (Caldwell, 1980; Carpenter, 1988; Forsythe, 1977; Goolsby, 1996;

Moore, 1976, 1981; Thurman, 1977; Wagner & Strul, 1979; Witt, 1986). The research above

presents a convincing argument that time usage is an important factor in describing successful

music teaching. Successful music teachers in the United States allocate more classroom time to

active learning and musical performance.

Non-Verbal Factors

The term non-verbal communication is an encompassing set of actions that have included

facial expression, eye contact, posture, and conducting gestures (Bazan, 2007; Caldwell, 1980;

Conway, 2001; Grechesky, 1985; Goolsby, 1997). In the teacher-directed classroom, Gumm

(1993) found that non-verbal communication is a key component of successful classroom

management and effective instruction. Gumm also found that in a student-directed classroom

there would likely be increased discussion and student communication, thereby decreasing the

significance of non-verbal communication from the teacher.

In a study of instrumental music teachers, Blocher, Greenwood, and Shellahamer (1997)

found that only a small number (N =18; 27%) of teacher directions could be categorized as non-

4
verbal. Similar results were found by Goolsby (1997) in his research on teaching strategies

employed by music teachers. These studies supported the earlier findings of Grechesky (1985),

who found that effective conducting and non-verbal communication led to a higher percentage of

active participation by students.

Positive and Negative Reinforcement

One component of teacher behavior is the type of feedback, or reinforcement, given by

the teacher to students. As a result, “verbal feedback is the most widely studied component of

teacher behavior” (Duke, 1999, p.4). Duke and Henninger (2002) found that expert teachers

provided more frequent and specific feedback as compared to non-expert teachers. Rapid

feedback, in short durations, was found to create an environment for frequent student response

(Duke, Prickett, & Jellison, 1998).

The identification of types of reinforcement has proven difficult for researchers.

Carpenter (1988) found that secondary-level band directors provided less positive reinforcement,

yet student attention remained high. One problem that Carpenter found was that when measuring

teacher feedback, factors such as philosophy, culture, or age of the students may have created

different perceptions of the comments made by the instructor. Additionally, the terms and titles

associated with teacher feedback can become confusing or contradictory. For example,

Carpenter found labels such as “positive feedback” could be construed differently depending

upon a researcher’s background or experiences. In a study of thirteen piano teachers, Siebenaler

(1997) determined that experienced teachers provided more feedback, but no significance could

be assigned to the use of positive versus negative feedback in relation to effective instruction.

5
 Duke and Henninger (2002) supported the earlier results of Siebenaler (1997) and

Carpenter (1988) and illustrated the difficulty in forming consistent definitions for types of

reinforcement. For example, Duke and Henninger stated,

“Negative feedback, corrective feedback, disapproval, and negative reinforcement all

appear in the music education lexicon, and although these terms have different meanings,
they are generally applied to the same type of verbalization” (2002, p. 77).

Duke and Henninger (2002) pointed out that without a definition of what constitutes less positive

reinforcement, Carpenter’s (1988) findings were limited in generalization toward the population

of band directors and band students.

Discipline Styles

Vygotsky (1978) found that cooperative learning may yield higher levels of self-esteem

and enjoyment, but the learning style did not support increased achievement in student learning.

Claire (1993/1994) continued Vygotsky’s work in the social psychology of music and studied the

effects of socialization with peers on academic and creative development. Claire labeled the

teaching styles displayed by subjects as both hierarchical and mutual, and found that students in

mutual learning environments “have a collaborative structure for sharing decision making among

teachers and students” (p. 23). Claire felt this contrasted with the “linear delineation of power”

(p. 23) found in hierarchical learning communities. Hierarchical students were more focused on

matching teacher expectations, status, and control. When studying the musical understanding

and independent musical thinking of adolescents, Wiggins (1999) wrote that “students in

classrooms that tended to have a more hierarchical structure, with the teacher asserting a

6
significant amount of power, seemed to have greater difficulty engaging in creative process” (p.

69).

Hancock (2003) found that teaching or discipline style was a significant reflection of a

teacher’s overall behavior. Two contrasting styles include cooperative, student-based learning,

and teacher-based instruction. One goal of United States education has been the development of

life-long learning. Researchers have found that a cooperative, student-directed learning style

may be used to accomplish this goal, making it an important component in U.S. teaching

methodologies (Allsup, 2003; Green, 2001; Slavin, 1990). Allsup labeled cooperative learning

as a democratic learning method and stated,

“Democratic learning seems to benefit both cognitive and skills-based development while
encompassing broad humanist values of fairness and equity. After all, cooperative
learning, a basic component of organizational democracy, is a primary vehicle for the
construction of knowledge” (Allsup, 2003, p. 28).
Allsup found that potential outcomes of cooperative learning included improvements in self-

esteem, interpersonal relations, self-control, and attitude toward learning in school.

Personality

Research in education has addressed the role of teacher personality in relation to effective

instruction (Forsythe, 1977; Madsen & Alley, 1979; Price, 1983; Yarbrough, 1975). Specific

studies have examined the use of reinforcement (Kostka, 1984) and personality differences

(Schmidt & Hicken, 1986; Schmidt, 1989). These studies have utilized standardized tools such

as the Minnesota Mutliphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator (MBTI). Carskadon (1979) found that teachers reporting themselves as more social

were quicker to remember student names, were more enthusiastic, optimistic, and talkative in

7
class. Likewise, teachers reporting themselves as quiet, reserved, and shy displayed behaviors

that were often more conventional and simple. Myers and McCaulley (1985) found that these

inventory tools have shown vast differences in individual style preferences between teachers’

personalities.

Comparative Education

Comparative music education research is a relatively new field of study. Educational

systems around the world do not follow a single model and cultural differences among countries may

hamper comparative education research. Phillips (1992) found that while the demographics of

different countries may appear similar, the cultural dynamic may differ greatly, and must be

considered in any comparison between schools. For example, a country with a long history of highly

valued and well-organized schools such as Great Britain or the United States, is not easily compared

to a nation such as Ghana, whose culture encourages school-age children to work, instead of

attending school. (United States Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 2004).

Phillips (1992) warned that culture may be the most important factor when comparing two

educational systems, and that although educators may borrow from teachers in another country, the

process undergoes significant change during transmission from one culture to another. Transmission

has implied that one education idea may work better in certain schools than in others. When

discussing teaching methodologies from different countries, Cowen (2006) attributed differences in

cultural ideology or philosophy as a deciding factor of teaching method.

In spite of these challenges, comparative educational research is a popular topic in today’s

climate of educational reform. Journalists have often chosen Japan as a model for how U.S. students

can be compared to other international students. The National Center for Education Statistics has

8
released documents showing Japanese dominance over the United States in both science and math

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). Additional reports comparing Japanese and U.S.

educational systems have included the cost-effectiveness of Japan’s education system (Cavanagh:

McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 1/12/08), discipline and achievement in Japanese schools

(Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/30/97), and the Japanese search for academic triumph over other countries

(Education Week, 4/23/08).

Recent data compiled by the U.S. Department of Education indicated that Japanese students

outscore U.S. students in the areas of reading, mathematics, and science literacy (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2010). Although quantitative comparative research exists between schools and

in specific areas such as reading and math, very little empirical research has been conducted

comparing music programs or teachers in the United States and Japan. Music programs in Japan

have been touted as superior to U.S. music programs. As an example, bands in Japan have received

frequent praise in periodicals such as The Instrumentalist or Teaching Music. After a brief tour of

Japan, Willson (1986) stated,

“Many high school bands and an amazing number of junior high school bands in Japan
are performing on a level equal to America’s college bands…Performances are of such a
high quality that it is doubtful whether any high school or junior high school bands in the
world could surpass them” (p. 41).

The frequent appearance of Japanese bands at prestigious U.S. events supports Willson’s

assertions. On average for the past decade, at least one scholastic, collegiate, or professional

music ensemble from Japan has performed at the annual Midwest Band & Orchestra Clinic held

in Chicago (Midwest Clinic, 2011). No other foreign country has enjoyed similar representation

at this prestigious event.

9
 Madsen’s (1971) long-range approach to research is based on repeated observations

producing quantifiable data. Willson’s (1986) comments were based on his one-time observation

of Japanese bands, which may have reflected only a small percentage of Japan’s total band

population. Willson did not conduct detailed research on perceptions of Japanese bands. The

profession should view subjective writings such as Willson’s (1986) article with caution and

work towards research that provide quantifiable data. There is a need for better comparative

studies of music teachers from the United States and Japan, to explain the similarities and

differences found between these countries.

Music Education in the United States

French author Alexis de Tocqueville (1831) used the phrase “flexibility of cultural

influence” when describing the United States. As a result of this “flexibility,” each music

education program is diverse. In a survey of 1,000 secondary school principals, Abril and Gault

(2008) found that most (98%) of schools surveyed offered some form of music instruction.

United States music programs include courses in music appreciation, history, theory, and

performance ensembles. A variety of performance genres permeates American schools including

concert and marching bands, jazz bands, choirs, orchestras, pop or rock music and ethnic

ensembles. This curricular diversity supports the concept that our educational system is quite

flexible and attempts to provide schools that reflect the varied ethnic backgrounds within each

student population.

When examining the role of music in students’ lives, Madsen (2000) advocated that life-

long learning is the primary goal of music education. Madsen observed that the enjoyment of

music beyond the school experience indicates success in achieving this goal. Life-long learning

10
is the cornerstone of Bennet Reimer’s philosophy on the aesthetics of music (Reimer, 2003). The

writings of Reimer and Madsen have been a pivotal influence on teacher training and music

education philosophy in the United States for the past 50 years (Abeles, Hoffer & Klotman,

1994). “Life-long learning through music” is a consistent theme in the American educational

community, and, while Reimer’s aesthetic education philosophy and method have been

challenged, few authors have rejected the premise that music education’s goal is to establish

sustained interest in music and the arts.

This introduction is designed to illustrate that in the United States, music education exists

in many forms with its primary objective being to create and sustain a life-long musical interest.

In Abril and Gault’s 2008 study of secondary principals, open-ended questions yielded a

consistent stream of comments that support Madsen’s position on music as an important part of

the educational process in the United States. Results of this study indicated that concert band

was the most commonly offered music course in U.S. secondary schools, with nearly all (N

=93%) schools offering band as an academic course.

The diversity of school and music programs does not facilitate a clear-cut description of

how music education is implemented in the United States. In general, the U.S. high school will

include students aged fourteen through eighteen (grades 9-12), and attend an average of six and

one-half hours of school for 180 days of instruction over the course of the academic year. Class

length may vary among different schools. Some schools utilize a roughly fifty minute class

length where other schools have students attend fewer classes, but for a longer period of time

such as a “block” of ninety minutes.

In the United States, concert band students receive a grade that is part of their grade point

average (GPA), and while band is an elective course, the earned credit for successful completion

11
of the band course fulfills the required components for high school graduation (Harris, 2002).

Many schools sponsor various after-school instrumental music ensembles including marching

band, jazz band, chamber ensembles, or percussion ensembles, but the concert band program is

viewed as the primary instructional ensemble (Markworth, 2008). While participation in some

advanced ensembles may be based on individual auditions, all students traditionally are able to

participate in the band class. Students enroll for this course as they do for science, math,

reading, and other credited courses. No national curriculum exists for the scholastic concert

band and there is considerable flexibility in pedagogical approach, literature performed, and

methodologies utilized by the teacher. For most situations, the band director has obtained at least

a Bachelors Degree in education, or music education, and met license requirements such as

Praxis Testing. This process is discussed later in this document in the review of literature.

Music Education in Japan

A considerable part of the Japanese educational system has been borrowed from Europe

and the United States, with many foreign scholars being invited to teach in Japan beginning in

the early 1900’s. When comparing this process of borrowed educational practices, White (1987)

cautioned,

“We need to understand the Japanese schools and the experience of the Japanese child as
rooted in deep psychological and cultural realities; in borrowing European and American
models of schooling, Japan did not borrow Western conceptions of learning and
childhood” (p. 4).

Japan is a country deeply rooted in tradition where arts education has emphasized the

moral and spiritual development of students (Hargreaves, Marshall, & North, 2003). Hargreaves,

12
et. al. found that the result of these traditions is an educational system based upon the acceptance

rather than the questioning of the role of authority.

“From the earliest days of the Meiji on, one function of middle schools or upper-
elementary schools was to cultivate and complete the character development of students.
Clubs continue to play a vital role in character development within the modern school
system” (LeTendre, 1999 p. 278).

While the term band and instrumental music are frequently interchanged in the United

States, instrumental music education in Japan refers only to string, orchestra, piano, and recorder

(Fukuzawa, 1990). As referenced by LeTendre (1999), band in Japan is an after-school band

club, where students do not receive academic credit for participation in the school band. This

group meets outside the school day and may best be compared in the U.S. with participation in

after-school sport. In general, the Japanese band club includes students aged fourteen through

eighteen and meets after school or on weekends, often rehearsing for over twenty hours per week

(Hebert, 2005). The band club may frequently rehearse over school break periods as well.

In Japan, music is mandatory at the elementary grade level, but students in upper grades

are not required to enroll in a music class. The music curriculum includes piano, recorder, music

appreciation, and most recently, the school choir has become a part of the traditional secondary

music curriculum (Ogawa, 2004). Band is not a part of the defined curriculum. Unlike the U.S.,

specific data is unavailable for the amount of students participating in school bands throughout

Japan. The only data found by this researcher comes from the All-Japan Band Association

(AJBA), which cited over 13,000 bands participating yearly in their sanctioned musical contests.

Hebert (2005) found that these bands included roughly 500,000 musicians, but this total included

a variety of age groups from elementary to junior college ensembles.

13
 Similar to the United States, no standardized curriculum exists for the scholastic concert

band. In most situations, the Japanese band director has received “on-the-job training” as a band

member or in a leadership position and directors are not required to have a Bachelors Degree in

music or education (Hebert, 2001). This process is discussed later in this document

The Concert Band in the United States

The concert band is a popular musical ensemble in both the United States and Japan. The

popularity of instrumental music in U.S. schools can be traced back to the late 1800’s. The

emergence of touring bands led by Patrick Gilmore and John Philip Sousa exposed countless

Americans to the concert band. At that time, the European influence of vocal and string music was

still prevalent, and the first U.S. school instrumental ensemble was a school orchestra organized in

1898 by Will Earhart in Richmond, Indiana.

The development of instrumental music in the United States began to diverge in the early

1900’s. Instruments left over from Civil War Union Army bands were common in the southern

part of the United States. Without qualified instructors, many young musicians quickly taught

themselves the trumpet, clarinet, or trombone. In the south, there was significantly less influence

of traditional European methods and a new form of instrumental music, jazz, began to emerge.

In the north, Joseph Maddy, under the influence of Will Earhart, formed the National High

School Orchestra in 1926. He created a permanent training ground in Michigan for these young

musicians in 1928, naming it the Interlochen Center for the Arts. Interlochen remains today as a

premiere training school for young musicians and has featured residencies by many famous

American composers and college band directors. As orchestral and jazz ensembles developed,

14
the touring concert band remained a mainstay of American entertainment (Abeles, Hoffer, &

Klotman, 1994; Mark & Gary, 2007).

These touring groups stimulated interest for communities to develop their own bands.

Schleuter (1997) cited the growing influence of professional musicians, symphony orchestras,

concert bands, and the establishment of college music schools as significant factors that

encouraged young students to begin their study of a concert band instrument. Frequent public

performance was encouraged by communities and schools, and the quality of the school band

was viewed as a reflection on the quality of the local environment. To avoid exploitation of the

school music ensemble, the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) and the Music Educators

National Conference (MENC) adopted a code of performance ethics in 1947. This code

distinguished between performances for education versus performance for entertainment, and

mandated that school ensembles perform only at educational functions or presentations that

would lead to the enrichment of the school (Mark & Gary, 2007; Whitehill, 1969).

In the United States, each local school district, or state education department, is able to

define the parameters and curriculum for its respective music courses. These parameters vary

among schools in respect to length of instructional period (Colwell, 1992; Rohner, 2002; Wasley,

2007), class offerings, or scheduling (Latten, 1998; Rohner, 2002; Thomson, 2006). Academic

grades are recorded for most U.S. band students; high school graduation credit is earned; and a

state or local curriculum is suggested for each music teacher.

The U.S. school band primarily has been viewed as a performance-based ensemble

(Shapiro, 2003). In 1997, the American School Band Directors Association (ASBDA) released a

curriculum guide that supported performance-based instruction, with concerts or contests serving

as the end goal for the instructional process. In the United States, multiple researchers have

15
found a consistent method of band instruction. This approach has involved students playing their

instrument, followed by teacher feedback that is intended to improve consistency in student

performance (Price & Byo, 2002: Rosenshine, Froehlich, & Frakhouri, 2002). This teacher-

directed, performance-based approach has been criticized by a number of researchers, yet

remains a popular method of instruction for the scholastic concert band in the U.S. (Erbes, 1978;

Lisk, 1991; Mackworth-Young, 1990; Shapiro, 2003; Costa & Kallick, 2004; Glaserfield, 2005).

Basic funding for these programs is provided by each U.S. school district. In a survey of

115 bands from Arizona, Rickels (2008) found an average yearly budget of $14,516 for the

instrumental music program. In addition to school board funding, music programs are

augmented by parent booster groups that provide fundraising support for the various musical

ensembles. Both the United States and Japan have benefited from a shared culture of influential

composers and conductors such as Frederick Fennell and Francis McBeth. These individuals

have helped standardize the instruments and repertoire utilized by the scholastic band ensemble.

The Concert Band in Japan

The ascent of the Japanese band into prominence has taken place in a relatively short

time over the course of a few generations (Tsukahara, 2001). Wilson (1975) proclaimed that “the

overall school band program, despite its remarkable growth in recent years, is still only

comparable to band activity in the U.S. two or three decades ago” (p. 35). Willson (1986)

expressed his amazement when comparing junior high Japanese bands to American collegiate

bands. Willson observed a consistently high level of performance by Japanese bands in regards

to tone, technique, and control displayed by band students. He attributed the dynamic growth of

Japanese bands to both pedagogical and cultural factors. Willson believed that the strict

16
examination process in Japanese schools established an attitude and culture of hard work and

commitment to student endeavors, which included the school band.

The history of bands in Japan can be traced to the Meiji era (1868–1912), after

Commodore Perry of the United States arrived on the shores of Japan in 1853. Japan rushed to

embrace Western technology, and especially enjoyed the sounds of Perry’s military bands

(Kobayashi, 1976). Perry had previously studied music and had several different musical groups

on his ships, and this influence led to the first Japanese band being formed in 1869 (Obata,

1974). By 1900, the band movement had developed into community-sponsored brass bands that

played throughout the community and helped expose Western-style music to the commoners for

the first time. Local businesses began to sponsor ensembles and concert series. The first school-

sanctioned band, the Kyoto public middle school band, was established in 1909 (Tsukahara,

2001, p. 115). It is important to note that this band was an extra-curricular club, a model that

remains in place today.

The band clubs of Japan have followed a similar performance-based instructional model

(Hebert, 2001; Lau, 2005; Neirmeier, 2007; Tan, 1999). Since these clubs pursue extra-

curricular objectives, the concepts of curriculum or academic progress become secondary factors

to the ultimate goal of musical proficiency. Without curricular goals or other academic

expectations, the results of competition become the primary motivating factor for the Japanese

band club (Dairianathan, 2006; Hebert, 2001; Neirmeier, 2007). Competitions are also an

important performance venue for bands in the U.S., but are intended to be supplemental to

curriculum. Kohn (1986) believed that the clear structure of curriculum among U.S. bands

allowed competition to serve as a means to elevate the standards of performance and provide

opportunities to help the group prepare for future performance.

17
 Many performances by Japanese bands have received praise from many musicians and

scholars (Hebert, 2001, 2005; Wilson, 1975; Willson, 1986), but the final product does not

explain the role of teaching methodologies and teacher/conductor effectiveness. When

measuring effectiveness for music educators, it is sometimes best to move away from the final

product and focus on the process of daily rehearsal (Gumm, 1992; 1993). Applying Gumm’s

thought to Japanese bands, three case studies have found a consistent approach to the structure

and instruction of Japanese bands (Hebert, 2005; Fukuzawa, 1990; Kiester, 1993). These three

researchers found that the Japanese instrumental music teacher is both the academic teacher and

extracurricular club leader. During the school day, the teacher will teach four to six music

classes with chorus, recorder, and music appreciation being the most popular courses.

Instrumental music begins after school and exists in the form of extra-curricular band “clubs.”

After-school activities are very popular in Japan and eighty percent of students participate

in different activities. LeTendre (1999) found that teachers view the club experience as a

significant part of a student’s education, and participation is strongly encouraged in any club of

their choice. Fukuzawa (1990) found that band is the most popular after-school club activity

despite the fact that once a student enrolls in an after-school club, attendance is mandatory.

In his ethnographic study of three Japanese middle schools, Fukuzawa (1990) found an

instructional style that was primarily teacher-centered with minimal levels of student autonomy.

Hebert (2005) found that band students were expected to arrive early, set up the room, play

warm-up material, and tune their instruments before the director’s arrival. During this time,

students are expected to model and assist younger students with their musical proficiency in a

mentor and guidance role. Hatakeyama (2000) described this mentorship process as a common

aspect of Japanese society, where the senpai, or older student, has a sense of duty to train the

18
kōhai, younger student. When discussing the learning styles of Japanese students, Hatakeyama

explained that the mentorship process of senpai and kōhai forms relationships built on formality,

obedience, and trust. For band, this training system would include the definition of musical and

behavioral expectations in the ensemble (Hebert, 2005). Fukuzawa (1990) believed that defined

student expectations allow the teacher to provide instruction that is immediately modeled and

reinforced by older students.

When reviewing the practice patterns of Japanese bands, Hebert (2005) reported that the

typical band will rehearse an average of two hours after-school. The band will then rehearse on

Saturdays for eight hours from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., and then again on select Sundays when a

competition of important performance was imminent. Rehearsals are also held over school

breaks and holidays. The school calendar year begins in April and concludes in March, but the

Japanese band schedule of performance and practice operates year-round (Hebert, 2005).

When comparing the Japanese educational system with that of other countries, LeTendre

(1999) used the phrase “preoccupation with endurance” to describe Japanese band clubs. The

practice schedule described above appears rigorous, but it matches the ideals of Japanese

education as described by LeTendre. Band students log many hours in their quest for perfection

and the same may be true for their instructors. The Japanese music teacher is expected to teach

the band club, often without salary, since it is not part of the teaching load or job description,

creating a workload that exceeds seventy hours per week (Wilds, 1993, p. 65). This belief

supports the Japanese theory of development in that “if young adolescents could not persevere at

difficult tasks, they would not become successful adults” (LeTendre, 1999, p. 181).

19
Band Competitions in the United States

In the United States, band competition has been a popular tool to measure musical

achievement (Adderly, 2001; Wapnick, Mazza, & Darrow, 1998). This tradition was established

in 1923, when the first national school band contest was held in Chicago (Burdett, 1985; Holz,

1960; Moore, 1968). Since that first contest, many bands have established a tradition of

participation in competitive events each year, although this practice is sometimes controversial.

Participation may often come at tremendous financial expense or require extensive travel by the

participants (Pearen, 2006).

Over time, the format for the music contest has remained fairly consistent, with bands

being classified based upon size of school, size of band, or difficulty level of music performed by

the ensemble (Pearen, 2006). Bands are adjudicated by a panel of music professionals and are

awarded performance ratings of Superior, Excellent, Good, Weak, or Poor (Burdett, 1985). A

similar structure and evolution has transpired in Japan.

Band Competitions in Japan

The Japanese contest sponsored by the AJBA is similar to music contests in the United

States. There are different tiers of competition, which are based on the age of the student and

difficulty of the musical selections. A panel of adjudicators determines the achievement rating

for each participating group, and each band is awarded a gold, silver, or bronze medal, with the

gold medal representing the highest honor given to a band. There appears to be tremendous

emphasis placed on these awards, and students are expected to achieve perfection. Hebert (2005)

found that groups not receiving the highest honor faced criticism or lack of support from parents,

community members, and other non-band members of the school. When discussing teacher

20
behavior in Japanese bands, Koide (2000) found two areas of tremendous pressure: (A) the

extreme time commitments for band students and directors, and (B) that directors were evaluated

based on contest results. Koide felt this created three large problems for Japanese band

instruction: “(1) strange disciplinary policies; (2) infestation of bullying and sadistic teaching;

and (3) the tragic results of overly-competitive emphasis” (Koide, 2000, p. 21).

The Asian and Pacific Band Directors Association (APBDA) was founded in 1967 as an

extension of the Japan Band Director’s Association. Band competitions hosted by the AJBA and

the APBDA have influenced the structure and implementation of competitive events throughout

Japan and elsewhere in Asia (Cheung, 2004; Neirmier, 2005). In Japan and surrounding areas,

the band competition has become the primary objective for the school band club (Nakazawa,

1989; Oku, 1992). During a year of residency with a Japanese band, Hebert (2005) found that

competition was the defining aspect for achievement and the primary reason for student

participation in the band club. Through interviews with AJBA officials and observation of

numerous competitive events, Hebert found tremendous similarities in the structure of

adjudicated events in Japan and the United States. These similarities included classifications of

bands, adjudicator training and background, and performance ratings of Gold, Silver, and

Bronze, which equate to the United States ratings of Superior, Excellent, and Good.

Teacher Training for Band Directors in the United States

School band directors in the U.S. are employed by school districts, which require that

they have completed a Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited institution of higher education. In

addition, band directors must also possess a valid teaching license issued by each state. In spite

of national accreditation available by the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM),

21
curricula for music bachelor’s degree vary across institutions. NASM provides for great

flexibility among its member schools and requires only that broad program objectives be met by

an institution’s graduates. This results in a moderate level of national standardization and

varying degrees of music teaching expertise across the U.S. (Colwell, 2006a).

Band teachers in the U.S. typically have passed coursework in an institutional “core” of

academic university subjects such as science, math, foreign language, or social studies. These

core subjects also vary among U.S. universities and colleges (Conway, et. al, 2005). Music

education degrees also require that students gain fluency in musicianship through courses in

music theory, music history, and instrumental performance (Colwell, 2006b). Future band

teachers must demonstrate a mastery of a “major instrument” through private lessons, recital

performances, and ensembles. In addition, U.S. music teachers also complete coursework in

educational foundations and methods of teaching (Conway, 1999).

When discussing music education, the 2009-2010 NASM Handbook stated,

“Curricular structure, content, and time requirements shall enable students to develop the
range of knowledge, skills, and competencies expected of those holding a professional
baccalaureate degree in music education” (p. 97).

For a baccalaureate degree in music education, NASM recommended that fifty percent of the

total college curriculum consist of music coursework. Recommendations also included that

thirty to thirty-five percent of coursework be in general studies, such as core requirements, and

fifteen to twenty percent of total curriculum be in professional education, including method

coursework and one full semester of student teaching internship.

Colwell (2006a) cautioned that while NASM accreditation signifies that a university

music department has met the accreditation guidelines, variation could exist among different

22
university curriculum requirements. When reviewing the status of music teacher education

programs in the United States, Colwell found it difficult to make comparisons between the

curriculum and course offerings found at different universities because the guidelines were

merely suggestions, not standards. For example, when comparing beginning music theory

courses at different universities, Colwell found considerable difference in textbook selection,

approaches to aural music theory, and overall curricular requirements. In addition, Colwell

found that some schools utilized veteran faculty versus graduate students to instruct entry-level

theory courses. While each of these schools could comply with NASM guidelines, they could be

unique in curricular approach. Colwell found that these differences compromised the ability to

compare music curricula in teachers’ training.

Having completed a teacher-training program, students may apply for a teacher’s license

that is issued by their individual state, under the direction of the United States Department of

Education. To obtain a teaching license, many states require future teachers to complete multiple

levels of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) Praxis test series. The Praxis I test assesses

general teacher content and the Praxis II is a discipline-specific exam. For music, Praxis II tests

the future teacher’s overall competency in all aspects of music education. Some states also

require the Praxis III exam, which is an assessment of lessons and classroom observation during

the first year of teaching (Education Testing Service- The Praxis Series, 2011). According to

Colwell (2006b), one significant problem with the licensure process is that not all state education

departments employ a music specialist to oversee licensure requirements. This forces

universities to rely upon NASM accreditation and forces certification officials to rely on ETS

Praxis test scores as an indicator of teacher training and preparation for the field of music

education (Colwell, 2006b).

23
 After university training, many music educators continue their professional development

through professional organizations such as the National Association for Music Education

(NAfME). NAfME and other professional teacher organizations have been a continued source of

professional development in the United States for over 100 years. NAfME was first established

in 1907 and their primary goal has been to advance and preserve music education in the United

States. The organization was originally named the Music Supervisor’s National Conference, but

changed its name in 1934 to the Music Educators National Conference (MENC). In 1998, the

group amended the MENC name to MENC: The National Association for Music Education

(Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1994). In 2011, the organization changed its name to the National

Association for Music Education (NAfME). Over its several name changes, the group’s

objectives in furthering music education have remained consistent.

As of December, 2013, NAfME reported that their membership exceeded 60,000 active,

retired, and pre-service music educators along with an additional 60,000 public school student

members and community supporters (NAfME, 2014). The national organization is divided into

six different regional districts, with each state having its own state association. This structure has

allowed for a direct line of communication between local NAfME members and their national

leaders, including discussion and collaboration among societies of research, jazz education,

teacher education, and among numerous affiliated organizations. To foster collaboration between

the different areas of music education, NAfME and the local state music associations sponsor

numerous professional development conferences for U.S. music teachers. These conferences

feature a wide assortment of performance, hands-on clinics, and research-based sessions, which

highlight the collaboration and connection among the diverse areas of music education (NAfME,

2011).

24
 In addition to hosting professional conferences, NAfME sponsors the publication of six

different music periodicals. These include the Journal of Music Teacher Education, Music

Educators Journal, General Music Today, Update: Applications of Research in Music Education,

Journal of Music Teacher Education, and Teaching Music. These periodicals cover a wide range

of detailed research in specific fields, and are either free to members, or available for a small

subscription fee (NAfME, 2011). Numerous states also produce periodicals, including the Ohio

Music Educators Association research journal Contributions to Music Education and the less

research-based Triad. Each of these journals provides articles and resources for teachers to

further develop their teaching knowledge and skills.

NAfME and local state chapters support all aspects of music education, but there are

several organizations that specifically focus on the development of concert bands and their

directors. These include the College Band Directors National Association (CBDNA), the

American Band Director’s Association (ABDA), and the periodicals The Instrumentalist and The

Journal of Band Research. These publications have featured articles from recognized experts in

the band field. Initiatives by these two associations have cultivated international, national, and

local interest in the development of the concert band. Articles featured in the academic journal

of the World Association for Symphonic Bands and Ensembles (WASBE) have frequently cited

the projects, conferences, and research findings released by CBDNA and ABDA. The Texas

Band Master’s Association (TBA, 2011) is representative of the numerous local band

associations, which are directed towards band directors. The local band association has served as

a resource for sharing knowledge among band directors regarding pedagogy, methodology, and

repertoire selection (Rickels, 2008).

25
Teacher Training for Band Directors in Japan

Teacher training for music educators in Japan has been discussed by Hebert (2005),

Kawanari (2000), Nakanowatari (1992), Ogawa (2004), and Wilds (1993). These five authors

describe a model of teacher training in Japan that has existed for approximately 150 years. In

1882, the Ministry of Education brought a U.S. music teacher, Luther Whiting Mason to Japan to

assist Isawa Shuji in establishing a music education program. Their program was based on vocal

music, which remains a predominant part of the teacher-training curriculum. This curriculum

also prepares students to teach recorder and music appreciation, but not instrumental music.

Japanese universities offer band ensembles and private study, but do not include training for

future band directors. Willson wrote that the Japanese university system “has little or no interest

in training instrumental music teachers” (1986, p. 43). Universities in Japan prepare students for

formal instruction within academic classes, and while there is an emphasis on classical orchestral

music, many in higher education view band as a lower-level genre (Hebert, 2005; Kawanari,

2000; Ogawa, 2004; Willson, 1986).

Due to this philosophy, upon graduation from college, many Japanese band directors are

not prepared to conduct or lead an ensemble. At Nihon University in Tokyo, future directors

graduate with an emphasis in voice or piano, without any method course related to instrumental

music (Ogawa, 2004). Nihon has offered one conducting course, but students felt this only

discussed orchestral and choral music (Hebert, 2005, p. 376). In his 2000 book, Collapse of

Universities, Kawanari shared his beliefs about Japanese educators who do not possess the

pedagogical skills that lead to effective instruction. He felt that educators are not prepared for

band instruction, and lack significant skills in all areas of teacher development. Wilds (1993)

26
cited Kawanari as saying first-year teachers “learn how to actually teach from their peers in the

school system itself when they become teachers” (p. 213).

Ogawa (2004) stated that multiple problems exist in the Japanese teacher-training

program. The classroom teacher provides music instruction in elementary school, but teachers

are not required to take any music courses during teacher training. In order to obtain a license to

teach music, approximately one-fourth of required credits focused on performance, eleven

percent of credits focused on theory and music history, but only four percent of required credits

focused on student teaching (Ogawa, 2004, p. 145). Student teaching in Japan begins in the third

year of instruction and lasts for a period of only two to three weeks, as opposed to U.S. teachers

who may spend as much as sixteen weeks in an internship setting. Ogawa shared that students

are simultaneously enrolled in classes while student teaching. While performance credits may

involve a band instrument, the student teaching assignments are focused upon vocal or general

music.

Student teaching experience is assigned without consideration for the student’s

background, experience, or prior knowledge of the school and area. Each Japanese national

university has a lab school where student teaching takes place. In a review of student teaching

practices, Michiro (1991) found that student teaching assignments are often determined shortly

before the student teaching experience begins. Due to the short duration of assignments, two to

three weeks, and the last-minute placement decision, the student teacher is able to neither make

significant improvement, nor fully address areas that lead to effective teaching (Ogawa, 2004

Michiro, 1991).

In the classroom, music teachers are required to follow the national standardized

curriculum. There is no room for adaptation of lessons, meaning a teacher could not include

27
additional lessons on a particular method unless stipulated in the course of study. For example, a

teacher with extensive Dalcroze training could not include or substitute a particular lesson unless

it was included in the national curriculum. The standardized music curriculum shows that all

Japanese students will learn the same skills, but Ogawa (2000) feared that teachers lack adequate

training and preparation for the rigors encountered in teaching this required course of study.

After university training, many music educators continue to develop through reading

publications or attending professional development workshops. In Japan, there are two primary

publications for music education. The Japan Academic Society publishes the Japanese Journal of

Music Education Research, Ongaku Kyoigaku. In over thirty years of publication, only one

article has ever related to scholastic bands (Hebert, 2005 p. 308). The Kyo-on Journal is not

research-based and articles are primarily directed toward general music and choral educators.

The Kyo-On does occasionally list particular band competition information or results, but overall

it does not provide resources that could assist the band teacher (Nakanowatari, 1992).

There are few ongoing professional development initiatives for band directors in Japan

(Nakanowatari, 1992). The All-Japan Band Association was founded in 1939. This association

has established musical expectations through sponsored competition, but it has offered little

support in teacher or student development (Hebert, 2005). The Japan Bandmaster’s Association

is a prestigious group, but has operated primarily as an exclusive group of senior directors; it has

offered few publications or professional development clinics and is not active in continued

teacher development. The Ministry of Education does not monitor or issue guidelines for extra-

curricular clubs, and the Academic Society for Music Education is not involved with topics

regarding band or western-style instrumental music, which includes jazz.

28
 Without guidance from a national organization or university academic setting, Japanese

band directors have turned to the corporate world and local community for guidance, leadership,

and professional development (Hebert, 2005; Kiester, 1993; Nakanowatari, 1992). The leading

influences for ongoing teacher development have been the Yamaha Corporation and local band

associations, which exist throughout the country at both the middle and secondary levels. One of

these associations, the Tokyo Middle School Band Association, developed a process for pairing

younger teachers with mentors or local clinicians for “on-the-job training.” The mentor may

address areas for improvement or suggest clinicians who will come to work with both the teacher

and students. Hebert (2005) noted that it is common for a band director to pay for the clinicians

themselves; some schools may have club fees or a parent booster group to cover these costs. In

addition, the Yamaha Corporation has brought numerous international guests to Japan for school

clinics at a reduced cost to the school.

Through these clinics and mentorships, teachers are able to learn pedagogy and

methodology through informal occupational training. While the AJBA competition has defined

the standards for musical expectations and repertoire selection, the mentor or clinic process has

established a method of instruction for Japanese bands. The result has been a circulation of

shared knowledge among band directors that is then perpetuated by current and future educators

(Nakanowatari, 1992).

Summary

As previously stated, there are few English language publications regarding the Japanese

band. There are no studies that specifically discuss teacher effectiveness or that compare

educational training methods among countries. The findings of Hebert (2005), Kawanari (2000),

29
Nakanowatari (1992), Ogawa (2004), and Wilds (1993) offer a consistent description and

summary of teacher training for band directors in Japan, which included:

1) band topics receive little attention within university teacher training programs;

2) professional development comes from the community;

3) the Japanese approach to learning is reflected in the school band;

4) competition is the primary objective, creating long hours for the teacher and long

rehearsals for the students; and

5) band remains a popular activity for students.

This is in contrast to band directors in the U.S. where: 1) band receives significant

attention during university teacher training; 2) professional development is provided by each

state, district, and national associations; and 3) curriculum is the primary objective.

Need for the Study

In the past thirty years, no studies were found which compared the music teaching styles

of Japanese and American band directors. Casual observations or case studies of Japanese bands

have shown the mutual interest expressed by directors from both the United States and Japan, but

a need exists for research that can specifically compare and scientifically measure possible

differences. Quantitative research allows for specific isolation of traits, characteristics, or factors

that may relate to teacher behavior. This study will serve as a starting point for comparative

research of teaching styles of band directors within the scholastic bands of Japan and the United

States.

30
 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study will be to compare the difference in teaching style

demonstrated by secondary concert band directors from the United States and Japan. Previous

studies on rehearsal effectiveness and teacher effectiveness have discussed the important role of

teaching style, but not in a comparative format among band directors in different countries. This

study will contribute to the current body of literature regarding comparative education and

teacher behaviors.

Research Questions

1. What are the similarities and differences between United States and Japanese band

programs, in regards to size, number of performances, duration of practices, and other

general demographic information?

2. Were there differences in previous teacher training between band directors in the

United States and Japan, in regards to collegiate emphasis, student teaching

experience, and perception of preparation from the collegiate curriculum?

3. What differences exist in the teaching styles of band directors in the United States and

Japan?

4. What background variables influence teaching style for band directors in the United

States and Japan?

31
 Delimitations

There are few publications available on the teaching methodologies of concert bands in

Japan. Much research on Japanese bands has been in the form of case studies, which may not

accurately reflect the population. The lack of ongoing descriptive studies, or comparative

research, has propagated myths or stereotypes on the pedagogical or teaching style of band

directors in Japan.

The role of competition and the values assigned to musical achievement have been

removed as variables for this study. While correlation has been found between competition and

teacher effectiveness, multiple studies in the United States have found that adjudicator bias and

subjectivity have made competition an unreliable variable when measuring the effectiveness of

the teacher (Austin, 1988; Baker, 1966; Spradling, 1990). Band directors from both the United

States and Japan have placed tremendous value on competition (Albert, 2006; Hebert, 2001), but

it is difficult to scientifically measure such values in quantitative research.

The role of culture has also been removed as a variable for this study. When comparing

educational systems in different countries, Cowen (2006) and Phillips (1992) both found that

culture and philosophy were important considerations, but that these terms can be easily

convoluted. A discussion of philosophy, religion, and cultural beliefs in each country is beyond

the scope of this dissertation. Noted anthropologist MacCannell (1999) has found that culture

can be a socially negotiated term, while Jervis (2008) believed that culture is identified by both

the things produced, and the methods used to produce them. Using these two definitions, the

32
observed behaviors of a Japanese band director could be attributed to religion, societal

expectations, or a culture of how Japanese band directors teach their students.

Cultural differences do exist between the United States and Japan. While culture has

been removed as a variable of measurement in this study, it is still an issue to consider. It is

probable that elements of this study will be perceived differently by subjects from varying

backgrounds. Potential error or confusion over culturally relevant knowledge and interpretation

is a risk with comparative education and will be discussed further in Chapter 5.

A measurement of teacher skills and abilities may establish correlation or causality

among groups of different cultures, but Taebel (1990) cautioned that comparative studies are

difficult to verify because of difference in culture. Rather than discuss and interpret the topics of

competition or values assigned to musical achievement and culture; this study will remain

focused on the quantitative analysis of specific teaching behaviors resulting in an overall picture

of teaching style.

Definitions of Terms

Culture. Jervis (2008) defined culture as the thoughts, behaviors, languages, and customs

of an individual. Culture is displayed by the things that groups of people from the same ethnic

background produce, and the methods used to produce them. This definition would include

ethnic cultures, but also the culture demonstrated in style and approach to directing a scholastic

band.

Cultural translation. Transmission implies sharing, whereas translation implies the

interpretation of meaning. An example could include both explaining the meaning of an action

or interpreting the reason behind the displayed action. Jeynes (2008) raised caution that not all

33
educational or musical concepts can be translated between cultures. This transfer can result in a

distorted cultural context.

Cultural transmission. The process of passing on culturally relevant knowledge, skills,

attitudes, and values from person to person or from culture to culture. An example could include

displaying an action that was learned from another culture.

Rehearsal action. A term used by the researcher to describe specific actions displayed in

submitted videos of secondary concert bands. This includes playing, talking, and waiting for

instruction.

Secondary Concert Band. Subjects for this study were school groups, usually grades nine

through twelve. These groups may not rehearse during the school day, or be part of the standard

curriculum, but they still represent students in a similar grade sequence (ages fourteen through

eighteen). The terms secondary and high school indicate the same grading sequence. The

Scholastic Concert Band is a performing ensemble that consists of woodwind, brass, and

percussion instruments. Various other names have been used to describe the concert band,

including the wind band, symphonic band, symphonic winds, wind orchestra, or wind ensemble.

Differences between these groups are attributed to size of the group, number of players per

musical part, difficulty of music performed, or preferences of the director.

34
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Music teaching is a complex construct involving teacher behaviors that include: time

usage, non-verbal factors, reinforcement, discipline styles, and personality. Music teachers

provide instruction by utilizing a variety of these behaviors and each of these actions has become

a part of the broad process of communication sometimes referred to as “teaching style.” This

review of literature will be limited to those studies specifically examining music teaching style.

Part One: Music Teaching Style

Teaching style has been defined by Gumm (1992) as a “consistent pattern of teaching

behavior that embodies a teacher’s philosophical beliefs, personality, learning style, and

knowledge of the teaching-learning process” (p.12). Two types of teaching style that have

received considerable research include teacher-centered and student-centered classroom

behaviors (Bazan, 2007; Glaserfield, 2005). Teacher-centered activities could include lecture,

rote-learning approach to instruction, or group discussion. In contrast, a student-directed

classroom would have less emphasis on verbal and non-verbal directions from the teacher, with

increased amount of discussion and student communication (Gumm, 2003). Traditionally, band

has been a performance oriented teacher-directed activity (Basilicato, 2010).

Researchers have attempted to study the construct of teaching style utilizing a variety of

tools and psychological inventories of teacher behaviors. The lack of models specific to music

teaching led Alan Gumm to create the Music Teaching Style Inventory (MTSI) in 1992. The

35
MTSI has been refined several times and future references will frequently refer to the 1993

version or 2004 version, which included a student perception form. Several recent studies have

found the MTSI to be an effective and reliable measurement of music teaching style. These

studies have included: Gumm (1993, 2003, 2004), Brakel (1994, 1998), Tsai (2000), Bazan

(2007), Basilicato (2010) and Groulx (2010).

The Music Teaching Style Inventory (MTSI)

The MTSI was initially designed for use in choral music classrooms to identify specific

music teaching behaviors. The theory of the MTSI was designed on the principle of triadicity,

which is the relationships formed between the teacher, student, and subject matter. For example,

in a student-directed teaching style, students would interact with the subject matter directly,

creating subject matter that would be assessed by students themselves and their peers, with the

teacher serving as facilitator for deep interactions between student and content (Gumm, 1992).

Gumm believed that teaching style was not determined by individual behaviors in the classroom,

but rather is the result of underlying philosophy and motivation for the displayed behavior. By

identifying specific behaviors and attributing them to a philosophical theory, one can obtain an

overall image of the varied constructs contained in teaching styles.

Design of the Music Teaching Style Inventory

Alan Gumm first developed the MTSI in 1992 as a comprehensive model that could

measure and identify teaching styles displayed by secondary choral music directors. Gumm

stressed that the MTSI is not an evaluation of teaching styles, but instead serves as a tool to

develop an understanding of teaching strengths and weaknesses.

36
 When reviewing research on teaching style, Gumm cited four approaches to research in

this area. These included: A) the study of combinations of effective teaching behaviors; B) the

study of effectiveness of intact teaching styles; C) the process of matching teaching approaches

to student learning styles; and D) the pattern of teaching found common to specific groups of

teachers. Gumm found that by focusing on teaching behavior, defined data elements could be

used to describe the teaching style displayed by his subjects.

Gumm found that no previous research had studied “patterns of music teaching

behaviors”. As a result, Gumm developed four objectives that led to the creation and future

development of the MTSI. These objectives were to:

“A) determine measurable dimensions of choral teaching style;

B) identify the teaching style of groups of choral music directors;

C) determine the validity of the dimensions and groups; and

D) develop a reliable and valid self-report instrument for assessing teaching style”

(Gumm, 1993, p. 182).

Gumm (1993) determined that dimensions of teaching style could be identified through

related groups of teaching behaviors, and that teaching styles could be identified through groups

of teachers that displayed common patterns of these dimensions. Gumm established a set of ten

initial dimensions for study which included: 1) Student Independence; 2) Teacher Authority;

3) Flexible Classroom Structure; 4) Positive Learning Environment; 5) Group Efficiency;

6) Nonverbal Motivation; 7) Aesthetic Music Performance; 8) Sequential Instruction; 9) Group

Dynamics; and 10) Music Concept Learning (Gumm, 1993, p.187-188). These dimensions were

tested through two nationwide random samples. The population for this study (Gumm, 1993)

was chosen from schools listed in Patterson’s American Education and included 2,000 potential

37
subjects for standardization of his theory and 700 potential subjects for validation of this study.

This large sample consisted of choral directors from public and private high schools from all fifty

states and the District of Columbia. For the standardization sample, 475 subjects returned the

mailed survey instrument, (N =26.25%). For the validation sample, 210 subjects returned the

mailed survey instrument (N =31.86%).

Subjects for the standardization portion of this study were mailed the survey instrument,

entitled the Music Teaching Styles Test, which consisted of 134 random order items, each based

on a 5-level Likert-type scale for each of the 134 behaviors (1= Never, 2= Rarely, 3= Sometimes,

4= Often, and 5= Always). These items were calculated through factor analysis of the ten

teaching dimensions and yielded a low result on the Goodness of Fix Index (.649). For

validation of this study, Gumm developed a set of the fifty most salient items related to each

dimension, as identified through the factor analysis. Validation was examined through

measurement of construct validity, internal validity that included Wilk’s method of discriminate

analysis and a measurement of external validity. These measurements were able to determine the

percentage of subjects correctly classified into clusters and to test for significant difference

between clusters. Cross-validation was able to verify that although subjects in the groups may

change among samples, the same set of teaching styles was found to be present. Gumm cited

that internal validity group means were correctly classified and accurate (97.36%). For external

validity, the sample was successfully classified (88%). Gumm deemed the reliability estimates

to be sufficient for the purpose of his study (1993).

Of the ten dimensions measured, Gumm was able to validate eight areas that could serve

as reliable inventory tools for a measurement of teaching styles. These eight dimensions became

the basis for the current version of the MTSI (Gumm, 1993). Of these eight dimensions, four are

38
classified as teacher-directed and four are classified as student-directed. The four teacher-

directed activities are listed first in Table 2.1, and include: Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal

Motivation, Time Efficiency, and Positive Learning Environment. The four student-directed

activities listed in Table 2.1 include: Group Dynamics, Music Concept Learning, Artistic Music

Performance, and Student Independence.

39
Table 1. Music Teaching Style Inventory Dimensions and Definitions.

Domain Name Description

Assertive Teaching Ability to capture and maintain students’ attention to
teacher-directed goals and activities through verbally
controlling student behaviors.

Nonverbal Motivation Ability to motivate student attention to teacher-

directed activities without any verbalizations through
methods such as monitoring, training, eye contact,
cues, or proximity.

Time Efficiency Use of clock time to motivate student attention to

teacher-directed activities by prioritizing number of
activities, goals, or tasks as well as pacing of
instructional activities.

Positive Learning Environment Focus on careful learning by teacher use of empathy,

humor, patience, sensitivity, accommodation, support,
and care. Learning is promoted by students’ desire
for approval and praise from their teacher and by
teachers’
monitoring, feedback, accommodation,
encouragement, and elaboration of learning.

Group Dynamics Represents focus on building interdependence

between peers through collaborative learning and
student self-responsibility within groups, sectional
rehearsals, student presentations, student-led
activities, discussions, and peer performances.

Music Concept Learning Maintaining a focus on developing students’ musical

knowledge and ability to analyze while providing
students opportunities to demonstrate understanding
back to the teacher such as through questioning and
critical thinking activities.

Artistic Music Performance Maintaining a focus on musical performance at an

artistic level involving personal, human response by
students.

Student Independence Represents a teacher’s focus on students’ abilities to

think and create new knowledge on their own by
emphasizing creativity.
Bazan, 2007, p. 64 based on Gumm’s (1993) descriptions.

Brakel (1994)

40
 Timothy Brakel was the first investigator to utilize and modify the MTSI developed by

Alan Gumm. Gumm had originally titled this teaching inventory as the Music Teaching Styles

Test (MTST); Brakel (1994) used the title MTST instead of MTSI in both his 1994 and 1998

research studies. Originally designed for use with choral directors, Brakel was granted

permission by Gumm to modify the MTSI for use in measuring the teaching styles of

instrumental music teachers. In addition to measuring the teaching dimensions identified by

Gumm, Brakel added the background variables of school size, band size, teacher experience,

director’s degree held, and gender.

In the study, Brakel used a stratified random sample of fifty-four high school instrumental

music directors, selected from the sampling population frame of the Indiana Directory of Music

Teachers. This sample included eleven band directors from each of the four different

classifications of marching band used by the Indiana State School Music Association (ISSMA).

The sample also included ten orchestra directors from three of the four different size

classifications used by the ISSMA . Subjects completed a modified version of Gumm’s (1993)

MTSI. These modifications included changes in wording of the Likert items to terms more

relative to instrumental instructors; e.g., “Demonstrate basic singing techniques” was revised to

“Demonstrate basic instrumental techniques” (Brakel, 1994, p.76). Subjects were additionally

asked to complete the one-page questionnaire that collected background information.

Of the fifty-four potential subjects, thirty-two band directors and three orchestra directors

responded (N =35; 65%). The band subjects represented a balance among the four different size

divisions and Brakel divided the subjects into two categories, forming a large-school sample

(n =17) and a small-school sample (n =15). This sample consisted of sixteen female and sixteen

male directors, with years of experience ranging from four to thirty-nine years and a mean of

41
(M =14.4 years). Brakel used this information to form two sub samples of directors with ten or

fewer years of experience (n =19) and directors with more than eleven years of experience

(n =13). Brakel reported that all subjects were Caucasian.

Brakel’s MTSI research was administered in a similar fashion to Gumm’s 1993 study.

Subjects were mailed a survey containing 134 Likert item questions, along with a one-page

questionnaire regarding background information. The Pearson Product-Moment correlation was

used to determine correlation between variables and teaching style dimensions. Significant

correlation was found for two measurements involving student independence: student

independence/nonverbal motivation (r (30) =.50), and student independence/aesthetic music

performance (r (30) =.55). There was significant correlation found for three measurements

involving sequential music instruction (SEQ): SEQ/ Positive Learning Environment

(r (30) =. 52), SEQ/Group Efficiency (r (30) =. 61), and SEQ/Nonverbal Motivation

(r (30) =. 44).

For the independent variables of school size, band size, and teacher experience, a one-

way analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared the reported mean scores. Brakel reported that the

dimensions of Positive Learning Environment and Sequential Music Instruction were

significantly greater for subjects in smaller schools versus subjects in larger schools. Subjects in

larger schools had a significantly higher mean score for Aesthetic Music Performance versus

subjects in smaller schools. In the area of Group Efficiency, mean scores differed slightly

between small schools (M =21.19) and large schools (M =19.31), but were non-significant.

Band size was not found to be a significant predictor for most of the teaching dimension

clusters. For the variable of teacher experience, the only significant result was that less

experienced teachers had a higher mean score for Student Independence (M =17.69) compared to

42
more experienced teachers (M =15.53). For the variable of director’s degree held, directors with

a Master’s degree indicated favoring a more flexible classroom structure (M =14.74) compared

to directors with a Bachelor’s degree (M =11.20) and directors who had had coursework beyond

the Master’s degree (M =12.88). Brakel reported no significant difference in music teaching

style based on gender.

Brakel’s research study was one of the first studies to concentrate on the teaching style of

instrumental music teachers. Previous studies by Cox (1989) and Gumm (1992; 1993)

concentrated on the teaching style of choral directors. Brakel recommended continued research

in this area, citing a need for repeated research that utilized a larger, more diverse sample.

Brakel (1998)

In his doctoral dissertation, Brakel (1998) examined the relationship between teaching

style and attrition of instrumental music students. The subjects for this study were 184 high

school band directors selected from Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan (N =184). Subjects had been

in their present position for a minimum of three years. This study utilized a stratified sample of

subjects representing four different classes of school size as defined by the total number of

students in grades ten through twelve.

Brakel used the Instrumental Music Teaching Styles Test from his previous research. This

style inventory was based on Gumm’s (1993) MTSI, and used fifty of Gumm’s behavior

questions to measure teaching style. Brakel utilized descriptive statistics and the Pearson

Product-Moment correlations to determine both inter-item and teaching style composite analysis.

A one-way analysis of variance compared the independent variables to the total dropout rate.

43
Chi-square tests were employed to examine the interaction between teaching style and total

dropout rate.

Similar to the MTSI, subjects self-reported their behaviors on a Likert-type scale, with

the highest possible mean score of (M =25.00). Brakel reported that positive learning

environment was the highest reported mean score (M =20.22), followed by group efficiency (M

=19.86), and teacher authority (M =19.25). Subjects reported the lowest mean score for the

ability to maintain a flexible classroom (M =14.12).

Brakel’s research is significant in that it showed how teacher behaviors could have a

positive or negative impact on student participation in the school band. Brakel found a positive

relationship between high dropout rate and Student Independence (c2 (1, N =184) = .27, p =.42),

Teacher Authority and Positive Learning Environment (c2 (1, N =184) = .01, p =.11). Brakel

found significant positive correlations between low dropout rates and Student-led rehearsal (c2

(1, N =184) = .32, p =.36), and Critical Evaluation, (c2 (1, N =184) = .01, p =.00).

Tsai (2000)

In his doctoral dissertation, Tsai (2000) examined the teaching styles of piano faculty in

Taiwanese universities and colleges. The total population for this study included every piano

teacher, as of March 1998, in a Taiwanese university or college. This population (N =232)

included both part-time and full-time positions. Of the total population of 232 teachers, 218

responses were returned (N =218; 93%).

Tsai used Gumm’s (1993) MTSI to help identify the distinguishable characteristics in

teaching style and behavior. After revisions and additions to the MTSI, Tsai created a Likert

scale format to address 133 questions. Survey questionnaires were prepared in English,

44
translated into Chinese and mailed to each potential subject. A test of reliability between the

English and Chinese transcription yielded a Cronbach alpha coefficient of ( =. 95). Similar to

Brakel (1998), factor analysis was applied to questionnaire responses to identify the major

dimensions of the MTSI in relation to piano teaching in Taiwanese colleges and universities.

The results of the factor analysis identified eight different teaching style dimensions: (a)

Enlightened Instruction; (b) Potent Teaching; (c) Aesthetics; (d) Performance Effect; (e)

Responsive Learning Environment; (f) Discriminatory Teaching and Learning; (g) Flexible

Classroom Structure; and (h) Sequential Instruction. The highest reported percentage of teaching

style dimensions were enlightened and student-centered teachers (23%). Enlightened teachers,

per Tsai’s definition, encourage comprehension of problems through discussion, as a tool toward

proactive problem solving. Tsai described the teacher as displaying an appreciative, supportive

approach toward the student’s moral and musical development. The student-centered teacher,

per Tsai’s definition, places emphasis on a balance of teaching, student learning, and subject

matter.

Tsai reported that these findings differed greatly from Gumm (1992), presumably due to

the difference in subject matter (piano instructors versus choral instructors) and target audience

(Taiwan versus mainland United States). Tsai emphasized the importance of environmental

factors as consideration for the teaching-learning process. The intent of this research was to

identify areas for improvement in piano teaching in Taiwanese music programs. After examining

the perceived positive and negative factors of the reported teaching styles, Tsai found that areas

of concern included teacher training and the lack of consistent instructional methods.

Gumm (2003)

45
 Gumm’s (2003) national study was sent to 2,000 secondary choral music teachers (N

=2000). After research materials and follow up mailings were sent, 473 elected to participate

and served as the sample for this study (N =473; 23.5%). The target population for this study

included choral music teachers from 2,000 private and public schools. Information was not

provided as to how this sample frame was constructed, nor how the random sample was drawn

from this frame, except to note that one of every seven secondary schools in each state and

territory was chosen for inclusion in the study.

Similar to his previous studies, subjects self-rated their behaviors using the Music

Teaching Style Test on 134 teaching behaviors on a five-point Likert scale. This method had

proven to be both reliable and valid for measurement and categorization into the eight teaching

style dimensions identified in Gumm (1993).

Based upon their response to background questions, subjects were grouped by: category,

which included gender, ethnicity, religion, area of teaching (choral, general, and/or instrumental

music), and professional affiliation (American Choral Directors Association, Music Educators

National Conference, National Education Association). New to this study was a forced entry

item on reasons the subject had experienced success as a teacher, with subjects choosing among

items such as performance skills, empathy, enthusiasm, or conducting. Gumm also collected

quantitative information such as age, years of experience, level of education degree, and school

size. Based upon this information, geographic regions were designated based on subjects’ zip

code and regions according to MENC and ACDA divisions. This expanded palette of

background questions allowed Gumm to provide more specific categorizations than in previous

studies using the MTSI.

46
 Of the eight teaching style dimensions (Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal Motivation, Time

Efficiency, and Positive Learning Environment, Group Dynamics, Music Concept Learning,

Artistic Music Performance, and Student Independence), significant differences were found

through Chi-square analysis for the dimensions of: 1) Time Efficiency for subjects with two and

three years of experience (c2 (6, N =473) = 14.518, p =.043); 2) Group Dynamics for subjects

with seven to eight years of experience (c2 (7, N =473) = 15.448, p =.031); and 3) Music Concept

Learning in subjects with twenty to thirty years of experience (c2 (135, N =473) = 165.424, p

=.039). For subjects with more than ten years of experience, significance was found in the

dimensions of Time Efficiency (c2 (348, N =473) = 419.775, p =.005), Positive Learning

Environment (c2 (609, N =473) = 692.254, p =.011), Group Dynamics (c2 (551, N =473) =

799.713, p =.000), Music Concept Learning (c2 (754, N =473) = 833.711, p =.023), and Artistic

Music Performance (c2 (638, N =473) = 812.663, p =.000). Regression analysis revealed a

variance of thirty-one percent (31%) in music festival participation and thirty-four percent (34%)

for music festival ratings could be attributed to teacher background and teaching style. Gumm

found that the most important predictors of participation in music festivals included: geographic

region, frequency of workshop training, experience, Artistic Music Performance, and Group

Dynamics. The most important predictor of music festival ratings included: educational degree,

area of teaching, Artistic Music Performance, and Nonverbal Motivation (Gumm, 2003, p. 13).

This study was important because it supported previous findings, while also becoming

more specific in categorized results. A regression model showed that teacher background and

teaching style accounted for significant variance in music festival participation (31%) and for

music festival ratings (34%). Gumm found that teachers whose ensembles received higher

ratings tended to display the dimensions of Artistic Music Performance and Nonverbal

47
Motivation. The results supported Goolsby (1996) who found that novice teachers, when

compared to teachers with three or more years of experience, reported lowered scores for Time

Efficiency, and that teachers in their first two years were the least assertive, efficient, and

conceptually oriented. Gumm found that teachers with three to seven years of experience

become more efficient, assertive, and conceptual in their ability to complete tasks. The results of

this study reinforced previous findings by Cox (1989), Goolsby (1999), and Gumm (1993), who

found a positive relationship between effective music instruction and 1) increased nonverbal

communication, 2) consistent rehearsal pacing, and 3) a focus on artistic music performance.

While Gumm’s method and design were detailed in approach, it is important to note that

of the 473 subjects (n =473), the ethnic composite was primarily Caucasian (n =449), and the

religion composite indicated the subjects included 347 Protestants (N =347; 73.3%) and Catholic

(N =74; 15.6%). Additionally, a high percentage of subjects reported participating in music

festivals (N =352; 74.4%). Gumm noted that continued research in the field of teaching styles

should include diverse subjects.

Based on this final study, Gumm published his research on teaching style in his book

Music Teaching Style in late 2003. This text explains the final version of the MTSI, which

contains fifty-seven items, using one explanation question followed by seven questions for each

of the eight dimensions. These dimensions were:

A) Assertive Teaching (test items 2, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42, 50)

B) Nonverbal Motivation (test items 3, 11, 19, 27, 35, 43, 51)

C) Time Efficiency (test items 4, 12, 20, 28, 36, 44, 52)

D) Positive Learning Environment (test items 5, 13, 21, 29, 37, 45, 53)

E) Group Dynamics (test items 6, 14, 22, 30, 38, 46, 54)

48
 F) Music Concept Learning (test items 7, 15, 23, 31, 39, 47, 55)

G) Artistic Music Performance (test items 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56)

H) Student Independence (test items 9, 17, 25, 33, 41, 49, 57)

Subjects self-reported their responses based upon a five point Likert-type scale of how

often they engaged in the described behavior (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, and Always).

Scores were calculated for the MTSI by totaling the numerical value for each of the eight

dimensions and then dividing the total by seven, resulting in a mean value between one and five.

Gumm (2004)

Alan Gumm (2004a) expanded his research to analyze music-teaching style as perceived

by students. Classroom interaction between teacher and student has traditionally fallen into the

areas of objective observation, teacher self-perception, and student perception. The observer

perception of classroom interaction has been an area of considerable research (Duke, et. al 1998;

Duke & Henninger, 2002). Research in this area has traditionally been dependent on the

accuracy and reliability of the expert observer. The concept of teacher and student perception is

more subjective. Gumm’s approach to this study was that “students are daily participants in the

music class, and therefore would have a better grasp of the tone of the classroom” (Gumm,

2004a, p. 11).

In his previous research involving the MTSI, Gumm determined that music educators

displayed eight different dimensions of teaching style. He believed that these dimensions could

also be used to learn more about the relationships of perception to teaching style. For this study,

Gumm used 273 subjects (N =273) from intact middle and high school choirs in four,

predominantly Caucasian, Michigan public schools. Two schools were in rural communities;

49
two in moderately sized cities. One male and three female teachers with various levels of

teaching experience taught the schools. Categories included 130 members of middle school

choir (n =130), seventy-three members of beginning high school choir (n =73) and seventy

members of advanced high school choir (n =70).

Gumm used the Measures of Motivation for Music (Asmus, 1989) to collect student

perception data during a regularly scheduled class meeting. This inventory includes eight areas

of questions that contain seven statements each. Subjects rate each statement on a four-point or

five-point scale. Asmus reported alpha reliabilities on his motivation subscale for high school

students ranged from ( =. 61 to .92). Gumm created a student version of the MTSI based on

Asmus’ measurement tool. Gumm found alpha reliabilities for his student version ranged from (

=. 69 to .89). Factor analysis was employed to verify the student responses. This measurement

tool is referred to as the MTSI student perception form.

In general, results supported previous findings on motivation and perceptions in music. A

large percentage of subjects identified themselves as Accommodators (47%), who were

motivated by effort and ability. Gumm summarized his findings in that subjects were mostly

active, concrete-type learners, who were motivated by effort and ability, and perceived their

teachers as positive, efficient, nonverbally motivating, and assertive. These findings correspond

with Asmus (1989) who found effort and ability as the primary reason students perceive success

versus failure in music. No significant difference was found in subjects’ response to learning

style and motivational types. These schools were in close proximity to each other and Gumm

explained that a similar geographic location might generate similar teaching style.

50
 The study of teacher and student perceptions regarding teaching style moves beyond the

immediate focus of this literature review. Gumm (2004a) is included in this literature review

because elements of this study have been present in later research that utilized the MTSI.

Bazan (2007)

In his doctoral dissertation, Bazan (2007) utilized Gumm’s MTSI (2004a) to research

teaching and learning strategies used by middle school band directors (N =122). The population

of this study was public school instrumental music teachers in Northeast Ohio. Through a survey

of teaching styles and rehearsal observation, Bazan studied teaching behaviors that followed a

student-directed teaching style. Bazan investigated the relationship between band directors and

teaching methods where student-driven learning is encouraged versus the traditional teacher-

directed lecture or rote-learning method.

Bazan used a mixed method research design that employed by both quantitative data and

qualitative analysis. The quantitative data was collected through a survey of subjects that

collected demographic information and used Gumm’s MTSI. The qualitative analysis involved

the observation of three teachers whose results indicated a strong student-directed teaching style.

The sampling frame was determined through listings of schools from the Ohio Educational

Director, which were then verified by the individual school web sites, phone, or e-mail contact

with the school. The subjects were invited to complete an online questionnaire of background

information and to complete the MTSI. From this sample frame, forty-nine responded to the

survey (N =49; 40.2%).

51
 Demographic information that was collected allowed for categorization of:

a) gender

b) years of teaching experience

c) highest level of education completed

d) Nature of education and teacher licensure

e) Band student population per grade

f) School setting (i.e., rural, suburban, or urban)

g) Frequency of rehearsal per week

h) Amount of time per rehearsal, and

i) Number of performances per year” (Bazan, 2007, p.74).

The demographic information and MTSI scores were analyzed using Pearson Product-Moment

correlations and demographic categorizations were calculated using MANOVA’s, ANOVA’s, and

t-tests.

The second stage of Bazan’s study was the observation of teachers with the three highest

student-directed learning results (N =3). This process included the observation and video

recording of classroom rehearsal followed by participant interviews. This portion of the study

examined the student-directed instructional practices of these teachers, and became more specific

toward Bazan’s pursuit to further understand this element of teaching style. For the purpose of

this literature review, stage one of Bazan’s research is more relevant. The demographic

information gathered showed that thirty-two participants were male (65.3%) and seventeen were

female (34.7%). For years of experience, five participants were novices (10.2%); eleven had

intermediate levels of experience (22.4%), and thirty-three were experienced teachers with more

52
than ten years of experience (67.3%). For school setting, thirty-one participants taught in

suburban schools (63.3%), thirteen taught in urban schools (26.5%), and five taught in rural

schools (10.2%). Unlike previous research (Brakel, 1994; Gumm, 2004a), ethnic and religious

data was not collected.

For analyses of the MTSI scores, Bazan found a significant, positive relationship

(r (47) = .52, p =.00) between teacher-directed and student-directed MTSI scores. T-tests for

independent samples revealed significant (p < .05) differences between genders of subjects. The

most significant finding was that male respondents prioritized the dimension of Time Efficiency

(M =29.44, SD =3.28, p < .05) as compared to female respondents (M =27.47, SD =2.43, p = <.

05). Bazan explained that findings indicated male teachers were more likely to give specific

feedback, be more verbally demanding, and would keep students more active through a quicker

pace of activities. Female teachers were more likely to have students practice in small groups.

In this study of middle school band directors, Bazan found that teacher-directed

instruction was more prevalent than student-directed instruction. Directors reported that it was

difficult to incorporate student-directed strategies into the rehearsal. Reasons cited for this

difficulty included: student maturity, administrative pressure, technological resources, financial

resources, and need to prepare for performance.

Basilicato (2010)

In her Master’s thesis, Basilicato (2010) examined the learning styles and perceptions of

teaching style by both student and teacher in the instrumental classroom. This study utilized the

Kolb (1985) Learning Style Inventory and the MTSI student perception form (Gumm, 2004a).

This perception form can help identify the student-perception of director music teaching style.

53
Basilicato believed that understanding student-perception could help identify teaching strategies

that could better serve students.

In the study, Basilicato used a sample of band students in grades six through eight (N

=192) and their directors (N =3) from two middle schools in northern New Jersey. The middle

school band directors completed Gumm’s Music Teaching Style Inventory teacher self-perception

form and the student subjects completed the similar student perception form. Basilicato noted as

a limitation to this study that her middle school band students were participants in this study.

MTSI results indicated that Time Efficiency was the most commonly perceived music

teaching style dimension. ANOVA results suggest a significant relationship between student

learning style and Time Efficiency (F (3.297) = 0.022, p =. 022) and Positive Learning

Environment (F (3.335) = .021, p =.021). While learning style preference is not the intent of this

literature review, the results of this study continue to reinforce the importance of time efficiency

as an important element of teaching behavior.

Groulx (2010)

In his doctoral dissertation, Groulx (2010) examined the influence of band director

teaching style and personality on ratings at concert and marching band events. The target

population for this study was all high school band directors in the State of Florida who directed

both marching and concert bands (N =384). The sampling frame was drawn from e-mail

addresses listed in the Florida Bandmaster’s Association Member Directory. From this

population, Groulx obtained a sample of 176 subjects (N =176; 46%). Subject response was

measured in thirty-eight predictor variables, which included areas of personality type, teaching

style, festival ratings, festival attendance, and balance. The predictor variable labeled balance

54
included questions regarding marching and concert band ratings related to participation and how

these different music ensembles influenced the overall music program.

Subjects completed an online survey consisting of three major parts: the MTSI, the

International Personality Item Pool Representation (IPIP-NEO) (McCrae & Costa, 1999), and

school information. During this survey, subjects completed the MTSI questionnaire to determine

how they employed the eight different teaching styles identified by Gumm (2003). For this

study, Groulx utilized Survey Monkey, an online survey tool, which was distributed via email to

subjects. Subjects had seven weeks to complete the survey and no personally identifiable

information was gathered in the survey process. For analysis of data, Cronbach’s alpha was

calculated to determine the reliability of personality domain, teaching style, and band rating. In

total, forty-nine variables were measured for each subject.

Background information of 176 subjects (N =176), included information regarding

gender, degree, years of teaching experience, and teacher’s primary instrument. For gender,

subjects reported as male were (n =148; 84.1%) and female (n =28; 15.9%). For degree, subjects

reported an earned Bachelor’s degree (n =96; 55.5%), Master’s degree (n =73; 42.2%), and

subjects reported either Specialist or an incomplete Doctoral degree (n =4; 2.3%).

The highest reported means of the MTSI teaching dimensions were Time Efficiency and

Positive Learning Environment (both M =4.22). The Cronbach’s alpha comparison of Groulx

and Gumm (2003) show consistency in the dimension of Assertive Teaching and Positive

Learning Environment.

55
Table 2. Reliability Data (Cronbach’s Alpha) for the Music Teaching Style Inventory.

MTSI dimension Groulx (2010) Gumm (2003)

Assertive Teaching .75 .75

Nonverbal Motivation .66 .82
Time Efficiency .75 .79
Positive Learning Environment .79 .79
Group Dynamics .78 .73
Music Concept Learning .74 .83
Artistic Music Performance .74 .77
Student Independence .85 .86
Groulx, 2010, p. 71

Based on these results, Groulx found significant positive correlation between concert

band ratings and Time Efficiency (r (174) = .39, p< .001); Music Concept Learning (r (174) = .

30, p< .001); Artistic Musical Performance (r (174) = .24, p< .001); and Student Independence (r

(174) = .21, p< .001). Significant positive correlation was found between marching band ratings

and Assertive Teaching (r (174) = .16, p< .05); Time Efficiency (r (174) = .37, p< .001); and

Music Concept Learning (r (174) = .27, p< .001). Groulx reported a significant relationship with

all of the criterion variables and Time Efficiency. This showed that regardless of gender, degree,

years of experience, instrument played, or personality type, the efficient use of time is a

significant factor in successful teaching. Additionally, a regression model showed that a

significant portion (23%) of variation in concert band rating could be attributed to Time

Efficiency, Music Concept Learning, and Nonverbal Motivation.

Summary of Part One

56
 Music teaching is a complex construct involving many aspects of teacher behaviors.

Traditionally, band has been a performance-oriented, teacher-directed activity. In order to

understand and identify specific music teaching behaviors, Alan Gumm (1993) created the Music

Teaching Style Inventory (MTSI). The MTSI was originally designed for choral directors, but

has been modified for studies involving band directors and has been utilized by several

researchers to identify how teachers perceive their teaching behaviors.

The MTSI is a self-reported inventory of eight teaching dimensions: Assertive Teaching,

Nonverbal Motivation, Time Efficiency, Positive Learning Environment, Group Dynamics,

Music Concept Learning, Artistic Music Performance, and Student Independence. The

dimension of Time Efficiency has been a consistent significant finding for each study employing

the MTSI.

Brakel (1994) reported that Time Efficiency was the most significant factor of sequential

music instruction regardless of gender, educational level, or school size. Brakel (1998) later

reported that Time Efficiency was a significant factor in school dropout rate. These findings

have been supported by Gumm (2003, 2004) who found that less experienced teachers valued

Time Efficiency as the most significant behavioral dimension. Bazan (2007) also reported that

Time Efficiency was the most reported teacher behavior. One conflicting finding was Gumm

(2003), who reported that experienced teachers placed more emphasis on Group Dynamics than

Time Efficiency.

The consistency of these studies indicates that teachers emphasize the role of time usage

in the music classroom. Subjects for these studies have been predominately from the

Midwestern United States, teaching band and choir at the junior and senior high school level. No

57
quantitative research exists that compares how Japanese subjects may view their classroom

behaviors.

Time Efficiency in Music Education

As part one of this literature review indicated, the use of time is an important

consideration in the music classroom. Duke (1999) conducted a review of literature published

between 1972 and 1997 that evaluated music instruction behaviors. Duke found eighty-six

different articles that discussed variables related to teacher effectiveness. Fifteen of those articles

discussed the role of time management as a variable of effective instruction. When summarizing

these fifteen articles, two consistent findings emerged. First, the researchers indicated that

students were more attentive when involved in active participation, and that the students were

least attentive during periods of transitions, inactivity, or teacher verbalization. The second

consistent finding was that teachers’ training and experience was significant in how instructional

time was utilized by the teachers. Teachers with advanced training, or more experience,

produced shorter periods of non-instruction for the students in rehearsal. The following studies

have included the use of time as a specifically measured variable in their research.

Forsythe (1977)

Forsythe (1977) studied the relationship between student behavior and engaged activities

in the elementary music classroom. These behaviors included how students responded to verbal

interaction, singing, and listening. While this study did not specifically track the amount of time

spent in different behaviors, it did track the amount of time spent in off-task behavior. As a

result, this study has provided a baseline of findings that have been cited by several research

studies covered in this literature review.

58
 The subjects for this study were eleven elementary music teachers, grades K-6 (N =11).

Each subject was observed twenty times in their normal classroom setting. Each observation

lasted between ten and twenty minutes. The process for each observation involved twenty-five

scans of the classroom, each lasting a total of fifteen seconds. During each scan, observers

recorded the number of students who were off-task.

The observers for this study were three trained music professionals. Visits were

conducted at three different times in the school year: the beginning, middle, and end of the year.

All three observers were present for each observation and interobserver agreement checks

compiled (.72). Forsythe felt this research method allowed for a consistent and reliable

collection of data.

Forsythe reported that activities such as playing instruments and singing yielded the

lowest levels of off-task behavior. Higher off-task behavior levels were evident during periods

of transitions between activities or during verbal exchanges between teacher and student. The

two tables below show the average percent of class time spent in each activity and the average

percent of off-task behavior recorded for each activity. These tables reported that subjects spent

a majority of time in instruction or other forms of teacher verbalization (41.6%) versus a lowered

total of combined performance (30.6%).

59
Table 3. Average Percent of Class Time Per Each Activity (Forsythe, 1977).

Activity Average Percent of Class Time

Other (interruptions) .6
Verbal Rhythms .6
Singing and Moving .9
Singing and Playing 1.6
Moving to Music 2.9
Creating 4.1
Getting Ready (transitions) 8.5
Playing Instruments 8.9
Listening to Music 11.1
Singing 19.2
Teacher Verbalization 41.6

Forsythe, 1977, p. 234.

Table 4. Off-Task Ranking Per Each Activity (Forsythe, 1977).

Activity Average Percent Off-Task

Singing and Playing 3.8

Playing Instruments 4.1
Creating 5.3
Singing 5.7
Verbal Rhythms 6.2
Moving to Music 6.3
Other (interruptions) 6.5
Listening to Music 6.7
Singing and Moving 6.8
Teacher Verbalization 8.5
Getting Ready (transitions) 12.2

Forsythe, 1977, p. 234.

Forsythe was able to conclude that elementary music teachers emphasized verbal

interaction, singing, and listening. He also discovered that off-task behavior was highest during

periods of “getting ready”, which included transitions between activities.

60
 Wagner and Strul (1979)

Wagner and Strul (1979) quantified and compared time spent in various actions by

elementary music teachers. Subjects for this study were nine, three-member groups of

elementary music teachers. Teachers taught grades four through six and represented nine

different elementary schools. Each group contained three members: one pre-intern music

education student, one intern music education student, and one experienced teacher (Total N =

27). The term pre-intern could be considered comparable to undergraduate field experience

before student teaching, and intern teachers could be considered comparable to the undergraduate

student teaching experience.

Subjects were observed over a twenty-week period and data was collected for all three

members of each group. The collected data included: 1) Number and kinds of activities

occurring in the music class; 2) Number of seconds spent in each activity; 3) Frequency of

approval and disapproval by the teacher; and 4) Demographic information on each class and

subject. Each subject was observed three times, but data was not collected on the first visit.

Each observation lasted for fifteen minutes.

Activities were categorized into three areas: teaching, music, and non-teaching activities.

Teaching Activities included: academic instruction, discussion, written assignments, and

directions. Music activities included: singing, playing, rhythm activities, movement, and

listening. Non-teaching Activities included: preparation, talk, interruption, and loss of control. A

frequency distribution was calculated for the total number of seconds spent in each of these

activities, based on a total of 900 seconds (15 minutes). A One-Way ANOVA compared time

spent among the nine different groupings of teachers.

61
 No significant difference was reported for time spent in Teacher Activities, with pre-

interns spending the most time (46.52%), followed by experienced teachers (42.62%), and

interns (39.87%). For Teacher Activities, significant difference was reported for all subjects

between Academic Instruction, (F (25.31, 32.84) = 1.01, p= .00), and Directions, (F (15.00, 7.50)

= 3.98, p< .05). A significant difference was reported for Musical Activities with experienced

teachers spending the most time (30.49%), compared to pre-interns (23.16%) and interns

(22.56%). For Non-teaching activities, interns recorded the most time spent (35.90%), compared

to pre-interns (29.33%) and experienced teachers (25.24%). Collectively, subjects spent the most

time in Teaching Activities (43%).

Major findings from this study indicated that experienced teachers spent more time in

Musical activities and less time in Non-teaching Activities than pre-intern and intern teachers.

Wagner and Strul did point out that pre-intern subjects were often under closer supervision by

mentor teachers than intern subjects, which could account for increased time in Musical

Activities. While this study resembled Forsythe’s (1977) research on the elementary music

teacher, it differs in two distinct ways. It included pre-service teachers as subjects and the

categorization teacher verbalization could be coded as either a teaching or non-teaching activity.

Yarbrough and Price (1981)

The purpose of this study was to examine video recorded teacher and performer behavior

during the music ensemble rehearsal, and to determine the frequency of off-task behavior.

Subjects for this study were six high school ensemble teachers (N =6), which represented two

mixed choruses, three bands, and one orchestra. This study sought to replicate aspects of

Forsythe (1977) in the secondary music ensemble setting.

62
 Each subject was video recorded one time, approximately two weeks before a

performance. A split screen approach of two camera angles was employed, one focused on the

ensemble, and the second camera directed toward the teacher. The videos were edited to exclude

any warm-ups or beginning of class announcements. Two trained observers reviewed the

videotapes and analyzed them for the frequency of off-task behavior and teacher eye contact.

In this study, student behavior was defined as:

“1) On-task active- when students are supposed to be performing, they must look at either
the music or teacher; 2) On-task passive- when students are not supposed to be
performing, they must be quiet and look at the music, teacher, or ensemble members who
are performing: 3) On-task other- students must follow instructions given by the teacher;
4) Off-task- students are observably not on-task” (Yarbrough & Price, 1981, p. 211).

Teacher eye contact was counted and recorded by instances of contact with: the group,

individual, music, and other. Each instance of recorded contact was counted when the teacher

maintained eye contact with the stimulus for a minimum of three seconds. Total teacher eye

contact was composed of the sum of frequency of group and individual eye contact. A multiple

regression analysis was used to predict off-task behavior by frequency and percentage of each

variable. These variables were the percentage of time spent in non-performance, frequency of

errors, stops, teacher eye contact, and complete and incomplete teaching units. Incomplete

teaching units were defined as a teaching sequence that did not include an opportunity for

student response.

Regression results indicated that a large percent of off-task behavior (81%) was attributed

to teacher behavior (R2= .21.86, F (12, 4.01)= .8138, p= .01). Relationships of off-task behavior

to teacher behavior included no siginificant relationships in disapprovals, (p< .95), errors (p< .

84), stops (p< .47), complete teaching units (p<. 72), and incomplete teaching units (p< .34). A

63
strong relationship was found between off-task behavior and individual teachers,

nonperformance activity, and teacher eye contact. Yarbrough and Price cautioned that

generalizing these results is difficult due to the few rehearsals observed, and the great variability

calculated among the small amount of subjects.

Pontious (1982)

In his doctoral dissertation, Pontious (1982) analyzed and classified the rehearsal

behaviors of band directors. This analysis was conducted by recording the frequency and

amount of time spent in verbal communication by the music director on elements of

performance. Pontious categorized verbal communication in three areas: A) Demonstration;

B) Verbal Explanation; and C) Verbal Imagery.

Subjects for this study included five high school band directors that were perceived as

successful from the northern Illinois region. The determination of subjects’ success was based

on their reputation as an outstanding band director. Each subject had at least five years of

teaching experience and their ensembles had received at least three consecutive Division I

ratings at Illinois music events. Pontious invited each of these five subjects directly. Two

rehearsals of the subject’s choice were videotaped. Videos were edited to ensure that each

subject had a total of 300 minutes of recording for analysis.

Subjects displayed an average of 489 verbal interactions over the entire observation

period. On average, subjects displayed a verbal interaction of approximately fifteen seconds.

Pontious reported that verbal communication was nearly equally divided between performance

comments (48% of all verbal communication) and administration or disciplinary statements

(52% of all verbal communication). The most emphasized performance comments were

64
phrasing and dynamics (26%) and the least emphasized performance comments were style,

articulation, and tone. For the three categories of verbal communication, verbal explanation

(82.7%) was more frequent than communication that utilized verbal imagery or demonstration.

Subjects reported that their most effective way to correct a performance problem was to

verbalize, as noted in the higher explanation percentage. While this study did not track specific

percentages of time spent in communication activities, it does indicate that ensemble directors

spend a considerable time communicating administrative or discipline related statements (52%).

Ellsworth (1985)

In his doctoral dissertation, Ellsworth (1985) studied the rehearsal behaviors of high

school orchestra directors. Ellsworth believed that observable and quantifiable differences could

be identified in directors that termed musical as compared to directors termed less musical.

Ellsworth also used the terms effective and less effective to describe these two groups. Ellsworth

hoped this study could identify particular behaviors that are part of effective musical instruction.

Subjects for this study were thirteen high school orchestra directors (N =13). Potential

subjects were drawn from a list of eighty-five orchestras, as reflected in the concert programs

from the 1983 Ohio-All Region Orchestra concerts. Twenty-seven directors responded to

Ellsworth’s invitation for participation, but ten were dismissed because they either taught junior

high or elected to not participate. To obtain a sample of twenty subjects for a pilot and main

study, Ellsworth invited two orchestra directors from Wisconsin and one from Michigan to

participate. These three subjects were directly invited and not randomly sampled.

Five subjects participated in a pilot study and fifteen participated in the main study.

Subjects submitted a rehearsal recording of their ensemble, and two orchestras were rejected

65
because of poor audiotape quality. This yielded a total sample of thirteen (N =13) for the main

study.

In the pilot study (N =5), Ellsworth observed two rehearsals for each subject. His

categorization of behaviors included a division of non-rehearsal and rehearsal behaviors. Non-

rehearsal behavior examples included announcements or the repair of broken strings. Rehearsal

behavior examples included talking while not playing, talking while playing, singing while not

playing, singing while playing, drilling, teacher demonstration, and musical element discussion.

Based on his observations, Ellsworth determined that videotaped recordings were sufficient for

the main study.

For the main study (N =13), subjects submitted two full videotaped rehearsals, of which a

ten-minute random sample was extracted. An expert panel of music conductors evaluated these

videos for the frequency of six criteria: 1) Talking while the orchestra was not playing; 2)

Talking while the orchestra was playing; 3) Singing while the orchestra was not playing; 4)

Singing while the orchestra was playing; 5) Drilling for individuals and sections; and 6) Amount

of total time spent playing. Based upon the evaluations, seven directors were designated as

musical and six subjects were designated as less musical. For each recording, a statistical

analysis of significance of means for frequency of occurrence was determined. In addition to

submitting the videotaped rehearsal, subjects also completed a questionnaire regarding

background information, which included: A) Personal information about the director; B)

Educational background; C) Teaching experience; D) District teaching responsibilities; E)

Musical background; and F) Student member demographic information.

There was no significant difference reported in the amount of time spent playing between

musical and less musical subjects (F (1) = .44, p = .6257). Musical subjects received

66
significantly more university level string training (7.85 credits of string coursework) versus less

musical (4.83 credits of string coursework). Ellsworth reported that musical subjects talked

more frequently (an average of 8 compared to 2.83 instances for less musical subjects), but that

comments from effective directors were more frequently about musical aspects of rehearsal, as

opposed to discipline related comments.

Grechesky (1985)

In his doctoral dissertation, Grechesky (1985) observed, categorized, and analyzed the

verbal and nonverbal behaviors of secondary school band directors. The purpose was to

establish relationships between behavior and the effect on band performance.

Subjects for this study were drawn from a population of over 200 public high school

bands in central Indiana. Subjects were contacted by telephone and invited to submit an audio

recording of their band, which contained a five to eight minute excerpt. After screening potential

subjects, a random sample of twenty band directors (N =20), which represented a variety of

different school sizes, was included in this study. Similar to Ellsworth (1985), a four-judge panel

of college band directors evaluated the tapes and assigned subjects into musical or less musical

groupings.

This study involved a videotaped band rehearsal where subjects’ bands completed a sight-

reading activity. All bands sight-read the same musical selection, movements I and II of

Brevities by Robert Keyes Clark. This was a recently published composition that neither

students nor band directors had performed or heard. Each movement was roughly two minutes

long. Directors were sent the score one week before the videotaped rehearsal and instructed to

not spend more than one hour in score preparation. Each conductor was allowed sixteen minutes

67
to rehearse each of the two movements, with a performance of both movements immediately

following the rehearsal. The entire observation period took approximately forty minutes.

Subjects also completed a demographic background questionnaire.

Conductor behaviors were categorized into twenty-four different variables, which

centered on elements of verbal and non-verbal communication. Variables included conducting,

which recorded the highest total amount of body movement (32.2% of rehearsal), but also

included both instruction and talking. The same four-member panel viewed the video recordings

for each band and ranked the bands in order of achievement.

Grechesky compared the frequency distribution for behavioral variables with the ranked

order of each band. He concluded that verbal explanation was necessary, but that verbal imagery

was more effective in overall band achievement. The variable of verbal instruction had a strong

negative effect on how bands were ranked. Four of the five lowest ranked bands recorded the

highest percentage of verbal instruction. A correlation coefficient indicated that the amount of

verbal instruction (r (18)- .40, p =.006) was a significant predictor in effective, or musical,

instruction. This finding led Grechesky to suggest that minimal time should be spent on talk or

instruction about non-musical matters.

The summarized results for verbal communication were that while explanation was

important, providing too many or too lengthy of instructions for students had a negative effect on

band ranking. Nonverbal results indicated that musical conductors tend to display significantly

more body movement, and that approving facial expressions had a positive effect on

performance. Grechesky also found that stationary body movement had a negative effect on

rank. These results portray the effective, or musical, director as a concise, animated leader, as

compared to the stationary leader who talks in excess.

68
 Sherrill (1986)

In his doctoral dissertation, Sherrill (1986) analyzed the rehearsal and conducting

techniques of junior and senior high school band directors. These techniques included the

subject’s approach to warm-up and teaching musical features such as balance and intonation.

Sherrill hoped to discover specific recurring behaviors of successful band directors.

Subjects for this study were eight conductors (N =8) from the Rochester, New York

vicinity. Sherrill selected these individuals based on subjects’ history of excellent festival

records and their reputation of a successful scholastic music program. This sample did not

include any women or any minority subjects and included four junior high (n =4) and four senior

high directors (n =4).

Subjects were video recorded at their own school during one regularly scheduled band

rehearsal, averaging between forty-five and ninety minutes. An average of twenty minutes of

rehearsal was taken as a sample for analysis. Recordings were evaluated by the researcher to

identify the following conducting and rehearsal techniques: 1) Warm-up/tune-up procedure; 2)

Teaching of balance; 3) Teaching of intonation; 4) Teaching of rhythm; 5) Other rehearsal

techniques; and 6) Other conducting techniques. A frequency distribution and mean display of

behaviors was compiled for these different conducting and rehearsal techniques.

The category of “other rehearsal techniques” included a discussion of how time was spent

by each subject. Sherrill’s dissertation also provided an analysis of how each subject taught the

described musical techniques, which is beyond the scope of this literature review. Relevant to

this review, Sherrill reported that subjects spent an average of almost half the rehearsal in teacher

69
verbalization (44%), but that a majority of this verbalization was related to music performance

problems occurring during the rehearsal.

Table 5. Talking and Playing Percentages, Sherrill (1986).

Subject Total sample time TalkingPlaying Percentage Time Talking

A 17 minutes 7 minutes 10 minutes 41%
B 19 minutes 9 minutes 10 minutes 47%
C 16 minutes 9 minutes 7 minutes 56%
D 20 minutes 6 minutes 14 minutes 38%
E 20 minutes 9 minutes 11 minutes 45%
F 20 minutes 8 minutes 12 minutes 40%
G 16 minutes 7 minutes 9 minutes 44%
H 20 minutes 9 minutes 11 minutes 45%

Sherrill, 1986, p. 54.

Witt (1986)

The purpose of this study was to compare the use of class time related to student

attentiveness in the secondary instrumental music rehearsal. Witt (1986) was curious how time

was spent in preparation activities versus time spent in actual performance. Witt was also

curious if a correlation existed between time spent in different activities and student off-task

behavior.

Subjects for this study were forty-two instrumental music teachers in central Texas

(N =42). This included both orchestra and band teachers, with an equal division between both

junior and senior high teachers. Witt directly invited subjects whose teaching experience ranged

from one to thirty-one years (M =11.02). All classes met daily for fifty-five minutes as a full

ensemble, which ranged in size from ten to seventy-two members.

Witt observed a total of forty-eight different orchestra and band classes, with only the

first fifty minutes of class being recorded. Witt followed an observation procedure similar to

70
Forsythe (1977), in that the observer scanned the ensemble and recorded the frequency of off-

task behavior. These activities were coded for the type of performance or nonperformance

activity and descriptive statistics were used to indicate the total number of seconds spent in

different activities.

The three largest activities included time spent in preparation activities (17.8%), rehearsal

with teacher comments (38.9%), and time spent in performance (43.3%). A two-way analysis of

variance was used to compare differences of classifications. A significant difference was

reported for the frequency and length of teaching episodes between orchestra and band subjects

(F (40) = 41.58, p <. 001). Orchestra directors had less frequent teaching episodes (M =38.21

occurrences) than band subjects ( M =54.83 occurrences), but the episodes were longer for

orchestra directors (M =30.97 seconds) than subjects teaching band (M =22.94 seconds). With

regards to class level, junior high classes spent more time in preparation activities (M =602.23

seconds) and in organization of music (M =85.25 seconds) as compared to high school classes

(M =443.54 seconds and M =39.33 seconds). Witt reported that student off-task behavior was

significantly higher during non-performance intervals (17.8%) versus performance intervals

(3.4%).

Carpenter (1988)

Carpenter (1988) explored the qualitative and quantitative aspects of secondary

instrumental conductor patterns. This study explored the relationship between specific verbal

factors or behaviors as a predictor of overall rehearsal success. Carpenter felt that while previous

studies had studied verbal and nonverbal behaviors in comparison to achievement (Ellsworth,

71
1985; Grechesky, 1985), no one had examined the behaviors in relation to quality of the

rehearsal.

Subjects for this study were fourteen invited conductors (N =14). Of this total, nine were

high school directors (n =9) and five were junior high school directors (n =5). Each subject was

observed between one and five times over a period of nine weeks. All observations were audio

recorded for a total of fifty-six rehearsals.

Carpenter used two research instruments to collect his data. Quantitative data was

obtained through a self-reported form where subjects described their verbal behavior in the

ensemble setting. Qualitative data was obtained through an analysis of the audio recordings of

subjects’ rehearsals. These were examined by three experts who rated the recordings on a five-

point Likert scale for the areas of: A) Personal qualities; B) Procedure/Organization; C)

Pedagogy; and D) Error detection. For this study, teacher experience and background were not

variables.

Of all teacher comments made during this study, Carpenter reported that a majority

applied to technical directions (80%), followed by modeling (15%), questioning (3.3%), and

imagery (1.5%). Carpenter explained that questioning included both direct and reflective

questions posed to students as a group or an individual. He also explained that imagery included

metaphoric and symbolic references intended to generate imaginative reflection on the music.

Quantitative results reported that most comments were directed toward musical behavior and

classified as disapproving. Comments deemed as disapproving were found to be specific,

compared to approval comments that were more general. An example would be a disapproving

comment with specific feedback for improvement compared to a general positive message, such

as “Good job!”.

72
 Goolsby (1996)

Goolsby (1996) investigated how experienced, novice, and student teachers spend time in

various rehearsal actions. This study has helped educators understand how time has been allotted

to specific actions, but also helped define how different levels of experienced educators make use

of their classroom time.

Subjects for this study were thirty band directors at the secondary level (N =30). This

total included experienced teachers (n =10), novice teachers (n =10), and student teachers (n

=10). Each group of ten subjects included middle school (n =5) and high school (n =5) teachers.

Goolsby defined experienced teachers as having a minimum of eight years experience with

consistent superior concert festival ratings. Novice teachers were in either their first or second

year of teaching, and student teachers came from four local universities. The subjects

represented fourteen different school districts from the regions of inner city, rural, and suburban

schools.

Over the course of four months, Goolsby recorded three rehearsals for each teacher.

Subjects rehearsed their own ensemble using music for an upcoming performance. To reduce

observer error, only the second and third records were used in data analysis, for sixty units of

analysis (two recordings for thirty subjects). Goolsby measured the time spent in the following

rehearsal actions:

“1. Total duration of the class period.

2. Preparation (time between the beginning of class and beginning of rehearsal).

3. Initial teacher talk (teacher-directed conversation or announcements).

4. Total time in ensemble warm-up,

Subdivided into:

73
 Teacher Activities
a. verbal instruction,
b. nonverbal instruction,
c. verbal discipline,
d. number of time teacher stopped.

Performance Activities
e. full ensemble performance,
f. group/sectional performance,
g. individual performance,
h. breathing/humming/clapping/singing/counting exercises,
i. number of rehearsal segments.

5. Time devoted to a break following warm-up.

6. Total time in rehearsing the first selection (subdivided as above).

7. Time devoted to a second break.

8. Total time in rehearsing a second selection (subdivided as above).

9. Time in a third break.

10. Total time in rehearsing a third selection, if included (subdivided as above).

11. Time in a fourth break.

12. Total time rehearsing a fourth selection, if included (subdivided as above).

13. Final teacher talk (verbal comments at the conclusion of the rehearsal).

14. Dismissal (time between the end of rehearsal and the end of the class period).”

(Goolsby, 1996, p.289-290).

To account for differences in rehearsal length, all timings were converted to seconds and then to

percentages of the total observation period. A frequency distribution was calculated for these

categorized variables and a one-way ANOVA was used to determine relationships between

classifications of subjects.

74
 A significant difference was found between groups for time devoted to teaching activities

(F (8, 48) = 10.9, p < .01). Experienced teachers devoted the most time to teaching activities

(80.6%), followed by student teachers (76.9%) and novice teachers (67.3%). These results

support the theory of Wagner and Strul (1979) that student teachers were supervised and guided

to generate lessons with higher teaching activity percentages. A significant difference for

Goolsby (1996) was that experienced teachers devoted more than twice as much time to

performance than to verbal instruction. Experienced teachers spent the highest percentage of

time in performance (M =51.2, SD =7.2), as compared to the insignificant differences between

student teachers (M =35.5, SD =6.3) and novice teachers (M =35.1, SD =6.4). Novice and

student teachers spent more class time in verbal discipline (M =3.55, SD =1.8)) compared to

lower levels of time spent in verbal discipline by experienced teachers (M =0.9, SD =1.3).

Finally, experienced teachers spent more time in nonverbal demonstration (M =5.4, SD =3.4)

compared to significantly lower levels for student teachers (M =3.0, SD =0.6) and novice

teachers (M =2.4, SD =0.7).

Siebenaler (1997)

This study identified and described the characteristics of effective teaching in the piano

studio. Subjects for this study were thirteen piano teachers (N =13) from Austin, Texas.

Subjects’ age ranged from twenty-eight to fifty-two years of age and teaching experience ranged

from seven to twenty-eight years. Each subject selected two private piano students for a

videotaped analysis. One of these subjects was an adult (above age 24) and the other was a child

(age 7-13). Students had to have at least one year of private study, and had studied with their

current teacher for a minimum of two months before this study.

75
 The teachers videotaped three consecutive weekly lessons for each student, for a total of

seventy-eight lessons (N =13, each with 2 students for 3 lessons=78 total lessons). Videotapes

were made in their usual setting, which included home studios, university facilities, and

elementary school music rooms. An eight to twelve minute segment from each video was

selected for analysis. The only requirement for the video was that it centered upon a “piece in

progress”, which implied that all lessons would involve teaching a relatively new piece of music.

Each video segment was viewed three times. The first viewing focused on teacher

behavior, the second viewing focused on student behavior, and the third video assessed musical

progress. Teacher behaviors included the following fifteen categories:

1) Clap/sing;

2) Play;

3) Play/talk;

4) General directive;

5) Specific Directive;

6) Questioning;

7) Music talk;

8) Specific Approval;

9) General approval;

10) Specific disapproval;

11) General disapproval;

12) Approval mistake;

13) Disapproval mistake;

14) Off-task; and

76
 15) Inactive.

Siebenaler recorded the frequency of these behaviors and conducted frequency distribution and a

regression analysis. Due to differing lengths of recorded excerpts (8-12 minutes each), the

number of recorded behaviors was divided by the total duration of the observed excerpt.

Students spent a majority of time playing and the mean percentage amount of teacher

feedback for all lessons was low (less than 5% of all total lessons). Regression analysis

indicated that lower performance score means for adults (r =.32), indicated that playing for

extended episodes did not reflect success. Teacher play/talk (r =.36) was positively correlated

with overall student performance scores. Two behaviors, Teacher Questions for Children (r

=.35) and Specific Approval for Adults (r =. 55) increased as performance ratings improved.

Teacher talk was generally higher in the lessons for adults (M =1 per minute) versus children (M

=.8 per minute).

Siebenaler reported that lessons of students with the highest performance scores included

shorter student performance episodes, increased teacher modeling, and feedback. This led the

researcher to believe that faster paced, more effective instruction would include short periods of

student performance followed by rapid feedback and modeling.

Summary

The research studies discussed in this chapter have reported that students are more

attentive when involved in active participation, and that teacher training is a significant factor in

how instructional time was utilized by the teachers.

In a comparison of time spent by experienced, novice, and student teacher, Goolsby

(1996) found that student teachers were more likely to talk and had the lowest percentage of

77
student playing time. Experienced teachers talked the least and were noted for increased

nonverbal modeling. Goolsby found that the experienced teacher spent more than half of the

period in performance. This percentage supported Witt (1986) who found that nearly half of the

rehearsal was spent in performance (43.3%). These percentages support the previous findings of

Forsythe (1977) and Yarbrough and Price (1981), in that less-experienced teachers talked more

and spent less time on performance activities when compared to experienced teachers.

Grechesky (1985) and Ellsworth (1985) both divided subjects into groups judged

“musical” or “less musical”. Both researchers found a significant correlation between less

musical directors and the increased percentage of time spent in teacher verbalization. These

findings were supported by Goolsby (1996) in establishing correlation between “less musical” or

less experienced teachers and the percentage of teacher verbalization.

Each of these studies employed its own research method for inclusion of background

demographics or classification of subjects. For instance, Pontious (1982) and Sherrill (1986)

included only experienced directors from successful schools. While this differed from Goolsby’s

(1996) comparison of student teachers to experienced teachers, the results were still somewhat

consistent. Sherrill (1986) reported that verbal instruction comprised nearly half of rehearsal

(44% of rehearsal), which supported similar findings of Pontious (1982) (42% of rehearsal).

Each of these researchers employed the term verbalization for different teacher actions, but used

the term consistently to describe any area of teacher talk, discussion, or comment designed for

instruction.

The research studies above show that most subjects split their time between performance

(43%) and verbalization (43%), leaving a portion of time (14%) designated as preparation or

transition. These subjects were predominately from the Midwestern United States, teaching both

78
orchestra and concert band at the junior and senior high school level. No quantitative research

exists that compares how Japanese subjects have utilized their rehearsal time.

Based on the literature reviewed in this chapter, the need exists for research that can

compare: 1) similarities and differences between United States and Japanese band programs;

2) the music teaching styles of Japanese and American band directors; and examine the possible

influences of 3) teacher training between band directors in the United States and Japan.

79
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in teaching style demonstrated

by secondary concert band directors from the United States and Japan. This study will contribute

to the current body of literature regarding comparative education and teacher behaviors. The

study utilized an electronic survey of secondary band directors.

Study Phase One: Pilot Study

The electronic survey, all procedures, and analysis of data were tested in a pilot study in

May of 2013. Participants in this pilot study were two experienced secondary band directors

from the United States and two experienced secondary band directors from Japan. These

directors completed and evaluated the procedures, survey, letters to subjects, and provided

suggestions for needed changes to the methodology. Suggestions for changes included

modification of wording for two MTSI questions regarding students’ feelings. Pilot subjects

feared Japanese subjects might be confused by the terminology. Those questions were modified

based on these suggestions before implementing the full study.

Sample Selection

The study population was secondary band directors in Japan and the United States. The

sample from the United States was chosen from 351 band directors whose ensembles

participated in a 2012 Music for All event. The Music for All organization sponsors fifteen

different regional and national music events, thus providing a good representation of different

80
locations from within the United States. Subjects from Japan were selected from a list of all

current members of the Kansai Band Association. This regional association includes a wide

variety of urban, suburban, or rural schools and consists of approximately 1,700 school bands.

Of these 1,700 school bands, 500 Japanese band directors were included in the sample. While

the original sampling list included 1,700 bands, three potential sampling errors brought the total

sample population of Japanese band directors down to 500 subjects. These sampling errors were:

1) some subjects had changed positions or stopped teaching, 2) some subjects had changed their

email address or the email was returned, and 3) some subjects taught in multiple schools with

multiple email addresses, resulting in subjects being invited to participate more than one time.

Survey of Secondary Band Directors

An online survey was administered to all subjects (N =851), containing three sections.

Section one was a “consent to participate” form. Subjects who completed this section then

completed Section two, which requested background information. Section three asked subjects

to complete the Music Teaching Style Inventory (MTSI) (Gumm, 2004). For directors in Japan,

all sections of the survey were translated into Japanese. The translation of the survey was

verified by a native speaker, fluent in English, and by a university Japanese faculty member,

whose first language was English.

Background information included in section one of the survey included the following

open-ended or “select from list” questions (See Appendix C):

1) Band director background (school location by region; gender and age of teacher;

number of years for teacher employment; highest degree earned; major area of

educational coursework emphasis)

81
 2) Band program information (size of community served; size of band; rehearsal hours

per week; time of day rehearsals are held; estimate of how many students study privately)

3) Subject access to professional development (college training; student teaching

requirements)

The United States and Japanese survey are identical except for question 1, location. Copies of

both surveys can be seen in Appendix B.

Part Three of the survey administered the MTSI (Gumm, 2004). As detailed in Chapter 2,

the MTSI is a self-reported inventory tool that identifies eight teaching style dimensions through

a series of questions on teaching practices (See Appendix D):

1) Assertive Teaching,
2) Nonverbal Motivation,
3) Time Efficiency,
4) Positive Learning Environment,
5) Group Dynamics,
6) Music Concept Learning,
7) Artistic Music Performance, and
8) Student Independence. (Gumm, 2004)
Via electronic mail, Dr. Alan Gumm, author of the tool, approved the use and translation of the

MTSI into Japanese for this study. (See Appendix E)

An online tool, SurveyMonkey.com, was used to obtain responses to the survey and

MTSI. This software has proven successful in previous research, with investigators citing its

ease of use and low cost as appealing qualities (Miksza, Roeer, & Biggs, 2010). This software

also allowed the questions to be translated into Japanese.

Implementation

82
 A list of potential subjects and email addresses was generated for Japanese and United

States samples. An email containing a cover letter and link to the e-survey was sent to subjects

in July of 2013. The survey remained open for twenty-one business days after the initial email,

with reminder emails sent on the seventh and fourteenth day of the study period. A thank-you

email was sent at the conclusion of the study.

Measurement

Means and standard deviations will be calculated for demographic background and

teacher training information. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) will be used to

examine differences in the eight MTSI subscales. The reliability of the MANOVA will be

assessed for normality (Kolmogorov Smirnov test), equality of variances (Levene’s test) and that

multicollinearity is absent between depedent variables (Pillai’ trace test). Means and standard

deviations, along with a MANOVA will be used to assess relationships of undergraduate school

emphasis between subjects of U.S. and Japan. A Spearman rank correlation and one-sample t

test will explore MTSI subscale scores and ordinal band demographics. Finally, Cronbach’s

Alpha reliability scores will be calculated for this study and compared against previous MTSI

findings.

83
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

In order to compare the teaching styles and background variables among Japanese and

U.S. band directors, an electronic survey was sent via Surveymonkey.com to band directors in

both countries. Responses were received from 265 subjects. This section will provide the results

of the survey including: 1) response rate; 2) distribution of responses by background variables;

3) descriptive information about band programs; 4) data on the educational preparation of band

directors; and 5) comparisons of MTSI by all demographic variables.

Response Rate and Director Background

From the initial sample of 851 directors a total of 265 subjects responded to the survey

(n =31%). Final analyses were conducted on 265 respondents residing either in Japan (n =79;

29.8%) or the United States (n =186; 70%).

A majority of participants were male (n =253; 96%), with only a small number (n =12;

5%) of female respondents. Participant ages ranged from twenty to sixty-nine, and most

participants fell into the age ranges of thirty to thirty-nine (35%) or 40 - 49 (36%). Most

participants held a bachelor’s degree (n = 135; 51%), while a slightly smaller number held a

master’s degree (n =125; 47%). Most participants reported an undergraduate emphasis on music

education (n =195; 74%), rather than an emphasis on conducting (n =11; 4%) or music

performance (n =48; 18%).

Table 6 contains the distribution of respondents from their regions of each participating

country. A majority of Japanese participants came from the highly urban areas of Kyoto and

84
Osaka regions, with no subjects reporting residence in the more rural areas of Hyogo, Shiga, or

Wakayama regions.

Table 6. Distribution of Participant Residence by Country and Region.

Country/Region n %

Japanese Participants 79 30

Kyoto 39 15
Nara 13 5
Osaka 27 10

U.S. Participants 186 70

Eastern 10 4
North 77 30
Southwest 52 20
West 28 11
South 19 7

A wide gender gap was found among the respondents in this study. Of total subjects,

females represented less than five percent of the entire sample. Only one female director in Japan

and eleven female directors in the U.S. responded to the study.

The mean age for band directors was 36 years old for United States subjects and forty-

four years old for Japanese subjects. There were no United States subjects within sixty to sixty-

five years of age, and no subjects from either country reported being over sixty-five years of age.

(See Table 7)

85
Table 7. Distribution of Participant Age Range by Country.

Participant Age n %

Japanese Directors
20-29 5 2
30-39 7 3
40-49 59 22
50-59 6 7
60-69 2 1

U.S. Directors
20-29 10 4
30-39 87 33
40-49 36 14
50-59 53 20
Total 265 99
Note. Due to rounding error, percentages may not sum to 100%.

The respondents reported a variety of experience levels. The mean age for years of

experience was twelve years for United States subjects and eighteen years for Japanese subjects.

(See Table 8)

Table 8. Distribution of Participant Years of Teaching Experience by Country.

Years of Teaching n %
Japanese Directors
1 - 5 years 5 6
6 - 10 Years 7 9
11 - 15 Years 59 75
16 - 20 Years 6 7
21 - 25 Years 2 2

U.S. Directors
1 - 5 years 11 5
6 - 10 Years 19 10
11 - 15 Years 53 29
16 - 20 Years 29 15
21 - 25 Years 26 14
26 - 30 Years 34 18
36 or more years 14 7
Note. Due to rounding error, percentages may not sum to 100%.
86
 For academic degree, subjects indicated completion from the choices of No degree,

Certificate, Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, and Doctoral Degree. For the United States,

many subjects indicated bachelor’s degrees (n =67; 25%), a majority of U.S. subjects (n =114;

43%), held master’s degrees, and a small number of subjects indicated a doctoral degree (n =5;

1%). For Japan, most subjects (n =71; 27%) indicated bachelor’s degrees, and a smaller number

indicated that they held master’s degrees (n =8; 3%). No subjects from either country indicated

“No degree” or “Certificate.” No subjects from Japan indicated they held a doctoral degree.

Table 9. Distribution of Band Director Educational Attainment Level by Country.

Educational Attainment n %

Japanese Directors
Bachelor’s degree 71 27
Master’s degree 8 3

U.S. Directors
Bachelor’s degree 67 25
Master’s degree 114 43
Doctorate degree 5 1

Tota 265 10
l 0

Regarding educational emphasis during their degrees, a large percentage of subjects (n =195;

74%) indicated an emphasis in music education. A smaller number of subjects indicated

“other,” emphasis or a specialization in conducting (n =11; 4%) or music performance (n =48;

18%). For United States subjects, a higher percentage reported studying music education as

compared to Japanese subjects. Subjects indicating “other” educational backgrounds for the

United States, reported a mixture of educational leadership and administration degrees.

87
Table 10. Distribution of Band Director Previous Educational Emphasis by Country.

Previous Educational Emphasis n %

Japanese Directors
Conducting 2 1
Music education 48 18
Music performance 29 11

U.S. Directors
Conducting 9 3
Music education 147 55
Music performance 19 7
Other 11 4
Total 265 99
Note. Due to rounding error, percentages may not sum to 100%

Table 11 shows the type of school district in which participants taught by country. For

district type, nearly half of subjects indicated teaching in a suburban environment, defined as “a

residential community near a more urban area.” In the United States, a majority of subjects

taught in suburban schools (n =121; 64%), with a smaller number (n =15; 8%) teaching in urban

schools. A number of respondents (n =31; 16%) taught in “large rural schools” defined as “areas

outside a major city with over 1,000 in population”, and several respondents

(n =19; 10%) reported teaching in small rural schools. A majority of Japanese subjects indicated

they taught in urban schools (n =73; 91%), with only a few (n =5; 7%) teaching in suburban

schools, and a single subject reported teaching in a large rural school. No Japanese subjects

reported teaching in a small rural environment (See Table 11.)

88
Table 11. Distribution of Participant School District Type by Country.

School District Type n %

Japanese
Large rural 1 2
Small rural 0 0
Suburban 5 7
Urban 73 9
1

U.S.
Large rural 31 1
6
Small rural 19 1
0
Suburban 121 6
4
Urban 15 8
Note. Due to rounding error, percentages may not sum to 100%.

Band Program Information

To compare Japanese and U.S. band programs, several questions asked the directors to report

their band sizes, how often they rehearsed their bands, and when rehearsals were held. The

combined data for both countries (n =122; 46%) shows that band size was most often forty-five

to fifty-four students. In the United States, band sizes were slightly larger, as most subjects (n

=64; 34%), reported band size of fifty-five to sixty-four members, with only thirty directors

(16%) reporting smaller bands of thirty-five to forty-four members; forty-five directors (24%)

reporting a band size of forty-five to fifthy-four members, and forty-nine directors (26%)

reporting large ensembles of more than sixty-five members. Japanese subjects reported that the

average band size for their school’s top ensemble was usually between forty-five to fifty-four

student members, with two subjects (3%) reporting band size was between thirty-five to forty-

four members. (See Table 12)

89
Table 12. Distribution Of Participants Band Sizes by Country.

Band size n %
Japanese
35 – 44 Students 2 2
45 – 54 Students 77 9
8
55 – 64 Students 0 0
65 or more students 0 0

U.S.
35 – 44 Students 30 1
6
45 – 54 Students 45 2
3
55 – 64 Students 64 3
4
65 or more students 47 2
5

Note. Due to rounding error, percentages may not sum to 100%.

Subjects were asked to indicate if their band rehearsed during the day or after school, and

whether they rehearsed during evenings or weekends. United States directors were found to

generally rehearse their concert bands during the school day, as opposed to Japanese bands

which primarily rehearse after school. For the United States, most (n =123) rehearse during the

school day, with nearly half of those (n =58) reporting they rehearse both during the school day

and outside the school day. Only five United States subjects reported rehearsing exclusively

outside the school day. In Japan, nearly all (n =78) reported rehearsing outside the school day or

weekends. Only one Japanese subject reported rehearsing during the school day. (See Table 13)

90
Table 13. Distribution Of Band Rehearsal Times by Country.

Rehearsal Times n %
Japanese Bands
During the school day 1 1
Outside the school day 78 9
9

U.S. Bands
Both during and outside the school day 58 3
1
During the school day 123 6
6
Outside the school day 5 3

Subjects were asked to report the average amount of time allotted for band rehearsals per

week. This allotted time was specified as time spent in full band, versus time spent in sectional

or small group rehearsal. Japanese directors rehearse more hours per week than U.S. directors.

Table 9 shows that for the United States, roughly half (n =98) reported spending between four to

six hours in rehearsal per week, while all Japanese directors reported spending over ten hours per

week in rehearsal.

The average length of these rehearsals was requested for both school day rehearsals and

after school rehearsals. For in-school rehearsals, the largest response for United States directors

(n =75) was a typical class period of forty-five to fifty-five minutes. For after school rehearsals,

the largest response for United States directors (n =29) was a fifty-six to sixty-five minute

rehearsal session. Roughly two-thirds of United States subjects (n =123), reported that their

group did not rehearse after school. For Japan, the responses were far less diverse, with a

91
majority (n =72) reporting that their group rehearsed more than one hundred fifteen minutes per

class session. (See Table 14)

Table 14. Distribution Of Participant Band Rehearsal Frequency, Length of Rehearsal Sessions

Per Week, and Length of After School Rehearsal Sessions by Country.

Band Rehearsal Frequency and Length n %

Japanese Rehearsal Time Per Week

Over 10 hours 79 10
0
U.S. Rehearsal Time Per Week
2 – 4 Hours 25 13
4 – 6 Hours 98 53
6 – 8 Hours 43 23
8 – 10 Hours 15 8
Over 10 hours 5 2

Japanese Rehearsal Length

86 – 95 Minutes 1 1
Does not rehearse during school day 78 99

U.S. Rehearsal Length

Less than 45 minutes 26 14
45 – 55 Minutes 75 40
56 – 65 Minutes 23 12
66 – 75 Minutes 9 5
76 – 85 Minutes 17 9
86 – 95 Minutes 31 17
Does not rehearse during school day 5 3

Japanese Length of After School Rehearsals

96 – 115 Minutes 6 8
More than 115 Minutes 72 91
Group does not rehearse after school 1 1

U.S. Length of After School Rehearsals

45 – 55 Minutes 2 1
56 – 65 Minutes 25 13
66 – 75 Minutes 29 16

92
 76 – 85 Minutes 1 1
86 – 95 Minutes 1 1
96 – 115 Minutes 5 3
Group does not rehearse after school 123 66
Note. Due to rounding error, percentages may not sum to 100%.

There was a somewhat equal distribution among all subjects regarding the number of

performances per year, ranging from four to nine performances. (See Table 15)

Table 15. Distribution Of Participant Number of Band Performances Per Year

Band Performances Per Year n %

Japanese Directors
8–9 10 12
10 – 11 59 75
12 – 13 4 5
14 – 15 4 5
More than 15 2 2

U.S. Directors
Less than 4 25 13
4–5 58 31
6–7 58 31
8–9 30 16
10 – 11 12 6
More than 15 3 2
Note. Due to rounding error, percentages may not sum to 100%.

The final band demographic collected was the approximate percentage of students

enrolled in private lessons with an expert teacher. Table 11 shows that a majority of participants

indicated less than ten percent of their students engaged in private lessons (n =139; 53%). As

discussed in Chapter 2, the concept of “senpai/kohai” (young and older student) is a common

student directed learning practice. The term “expert” was intentionally used to eliminate subjects

93
reporting student leaders as private lesson teachers. The result is that nearly all (n =78; 99%)

reported less than ten percent of their students enrolled in private lessons. (See Table 16)

Table 16. Distribution Of Participant Band Student’s Engaged in Private Lessons

Band Students Engaged in Private Lessons n %

Japanese students
Less than 10% 78 99
Over 70% 1 1

U.S. students
Less than 10% 61 32
11% – 20% 16 8
21% – 30% 26 14
31% - 40% 19 10
41% - 50% 11 16
51% - 60% 16 8
61% - 70% 10 5
Over 70% 27 14
Note. Due to rounding error, percentages may not sum to 100%.

Teacher Preparation

Subjects were also requested to describe their perceptions concerning how well certain

collegiate experience prepared them to direct their bands. The highest reported area of

preparation was conducting (41% of United States and 92% of Japan reporting “very prepared”).

Collegiate experiences in score analysis, orchestration and error detection generally found that

Japanese band directors felt better prepared than U.S. band directors. Only categories of

preparation that received at least one response have been included in the results. (See Table 17)

94
Table 17. Distribution Of Participants Perceptions of Preparation in Conducting, Score
Analysis, Orchestration, and Error Detection by Country.
Preparation Area Response n %
Japanese preparation for conducting
Very prepared 78 99
Somewhat prepared 1 1

Japanese preparation for score analysis

Very prepared 62 78
Somewhat prepared 7 9
N/A (Did not have this course) 10 13

Japanese preparation for orchestration

Very prepared 62 78
Somewhat prepared 7 9
N/A (Did not have this course) 10 13

Japanese college training preparation for error detection

Very prepared 55 70
Somewhat prepared 7 9
N/A (Did not have this course) 17 21

U.S. preparation for conducting

Very prepared 76 41
Somewhat prepared 101 54
Not prepared 9 5

U.S. preparation for score analysis

Very prepared 30 16
Somewhat prepared 140 75
Not prepared 16 9

U.S. preparation for orchestration

Very prepared 38 20

95
 Somewhat prepared 95 51
Not prepared 52 28
N/A (Did not have this course) 1 1

U.S. preparation for error detection

Very prepared 40 22
Somewhat prepared 120 65
Not prepared 26 14
Note. Due to rounding error, percentages may not sum to 100%.

96
 Additional questions asked the participants to reflect on how well their college training

prepared them to manage student behavior and teach a variety of instruments. The area United

States subjects felt least prepared in was managing student behavior (83% responded

“somewhat” or “not prepared”), and in Japan the least prepared area was “woodwind, brass, and

percussion pedagogy.” All Japanese subjects indicated they did not have a specific class in this

area during the college experience. Only preparation areas that received at least one response are

included in the results below (See Table 18.)Table 18. Distribution Of Participant Perceptions

of Teacher Preparation in Woodwind, Brass, Percussion, and Management of Student Behavior

by Country.

Preparation Area n %
Japanese Band Director Preparation
Woodwind Pedagogy
N/A (Did not have this course during teacher training) 79 100
Brass Pedagogy
N/A (Did not have this course during teacher training) 79 100
Percussion Pedagogy
N/A (Did not have this course during teacher training) 79 100
Managing Student Behavior
I was very prepared 79 100

U.S. Band Director Preparation

Woodwind Pedagogy
I was very prepared 42 23
I was somewhat prepared 129 69
I was not prepared 15 8
Brass Pedagogy
I was very prepared 96 52
I was somewhat prepared 80 43
I was not prepared 10 5
Percussion Pedagogy
I was very prepared 61 33
I was somewhat prepared 105 56
I was not prepared 20 11
Managing Student Behavior
I was very prepared 31 17
I was somewhat prepared 101 54

97
 I was not prepared 54 29
Note. Due to rounding error, percentages may not sum to 100%.

Most of the participants (n =255; 96%) responded that they had completed a practice

teaching semester. In the United States, nearly all subjects (n =187; 99%) were required to

complete a teaching practicum during college training. For U.S. subjects, the student teaching

experience ranged from seven to thirty-six weeks, with a mean of fifteen weeks. Most subjects

(80%) indicated their student teaching experience had involved thirteen to eighteen weeks. In

Japan, many subjects (n =70; 89%) completed a teaching practicum and a few (n =9; 11%)

reported not completing a teaching practicum. Japanese subjects reported a teaching practicum

term of five to twelve weeks, with a mean of ten weeks. The most common teaching practicum

term for Japanese directors (n =31; 43.1%) ranged from eleven to twelve weeks. (See Table 19)

Table 19. Distribution of Participants Length of Previous Practice Teaching Experience By

Country.

Previous Practice Teaching Experience n %

Japanese Directors
Completed Practice Teaching
No 9 11
Yes 70 89
Length of Practice Teaching
5 – 6 Weeks 10 14
7 – 8 Weeks 13 19
9 – 10 Weeks 18 26
11 – 12 Weeks 29 41
U.S. Directors
Completed Practice Teaching
No 1 1
Yes 18 99
5
Length of Practice Teaching
7 – 8 Weeks 5 3

98
 9 – 10 Weeks 30 16
11 – 12 Weeks 31 17
13 – 14 Weeks 28 15
15 – 16 Weeks 48 26
17 – 18 Weeks 43 23
Note. Due to rounding error, percentages may not sum to 100%.

Music Teaching Style Inventory (MTSI)

The MTSI portion of the survey examined participant teaching style using eight

subscales: 1) assertive teaching; 2) nonverbal motivation; 3) time efficiency; 4) positive learning

environment; 5) group dynamics; 6) music concept learning; 7) artistic music performance; and

8) student independence. Gumm (2004) defined these as “teaching dimensions,” and seven

different Likert-type questions were included in the MTSI for each of these eight dimensions.

Composite scores were calculated by adding the totals for the seven questions associated with

each subscale. These results were then compared between countries.

Internal Reliability of the MTSI

To assure that these scales contain a certain degree of cohesion between the constituent

survey questions, Cronbach’s reliability alphas were calculated for each of the eight composite

scores. When discussing internal reliability, George and Mallery (2010) have suggested the

following guidelines when categorizing alpha coefficients from unacceptable to excellent. (See

Figure 1):

99
Figure 1. Internal Reliability Guidelines for Alpha Coefficients.

> .9 - Excellent
> .8 - Good
> .7 - Acceptable
> .6 - Questionable
> .5 - Poor
< .4 - Unacceptable
George, D. & Mallery, P. (2010).

Reliability scores varied between Japan and the United States for each subscale, and thus

each were assessed individually. The composite score for group dynamics had good reliability

for United States teachers (α =.85), but a negative alpha for Japanese teachers (α =-.49). This

result indicates opposing relationships between the survey questions on this composite score for

Japanese teachers. Nonverbal motivation also had a negative alpha score (α =-.17) for Japanese

teachers, while United States teachers reported acceptable reliability for this composite score (α

=.75). Other composite scores held reasonable validity for both groups, such as the composite

score for student independence, which had acceptable reliability for Japanese teachers (α =.72),

and good reliability for United States teachers (α =.84). Cronbach’s alphas for both groups’

composite scores, as well as means and standard deviations are presented in Table 20.

100
Table 20. Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach's Alpha Reliability for the Eight MTSI

Subscales by Subject Country.

Score M SD No. of Items α

Assertive teaching
Japan 30.00 0.75 7 .39
U.S. 27.70 4.05 7 .79
Nonverbal motivation
Japan 31.06 1.25 7 -.17
U.S. 27.39 3.46 7 .75
Time efficiency
Japan 29.41 1.24 7 .19
U.S. 29.49 3.54 7 .80
Positive learning environment
Japan 21.91 2.05 7 .36
U.S. 29.89 3.28 7 .78
Group dynamics
Japan 26.89 1.15 7 -.49
U.S. 22.20 4.41 7 .85
Music concept learning
Japan 16.76 3.61 7 .67
U.S. 26.11 3.46 7 .76
Artistic music performance
Japan 23.62 1.73 7 .10
U.S. 26.05 3.45 7 .62
Student independence
Japan 9.78 2.22 7 .73
U.S. 25.15 4.38 7 .84

101
 The first data analysis assessed differences in all eight MTSI subscales: 1) assertive

teaching; 2) nonverbal motivation; 3) time efficiency; 4) positive learning environment; 5) group

dynamics; 6) music concept learning; 7) artistic music performance; and 8) student independence

scores by group (Japan vs. United States). To examine these differences, a MANOVA was

conducted.

Prior to analysis, three assumptions of the MANOVA were assessed. The first

assumption is that the MANOVA assumes that data is normally distributed (normality). To

measure normality, the one sample Kolmogorov Smirnov (KS) test was utilized. This test

compared the sample with a probability distribution. The KS test was used over more popular

models of the Shapiro-Wilk test, for fear identical values may appear in select sample variables,

thus leading to error. The assumption for normality using the KS test was not met

(p < .050 for all scores).

The second assumption of the MANOVA is that the variances and covariance matrices

are equal between groups. The assumption of equal variances was assessed using Levene’s test

and the assumption was met for music learning concept only (p =.061). This assumption implies

that the quality of variances is skewed and while quality of variance was found between other

scores, this variance was determined to be not significant for the dimension of music learning

concept. Regardless of these violations, the F test is a very robust test and violations of

normality, and equality of variance do not significantly alter results (Stevens 2009). The equality

of covariance matrices was examined using Box’s M test, and this assumption was also violated

(p < .001).

The third assumption of the MANOVA is that multicollinearity is absent between

dependent variables. Pillai’ trace was used to interpret results where he assumption of absence of

102
multicollinearity was assessed with a correlation matrix between independent variables, and this

assumption was met. Multicollinearity is important because it explores how two or more

variables might be correlated in a regression. While these additional tests may appear unneeded,

they help challenge the basic assumptions of MANOVA normality and helps eliminate any false

positives.

Results of the MANOVA were significant (F (8, 256) = 436.46, p < .001) indicating that

the test found significant differences among the groups for most of the MTSI subscale variables.

All of the MTSI subscales differed significantly between Japanese and American band directors

(p < .001) with the exception of time efficiency (p =.837). For the variables that differed

significantly, post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted to describe these differences.

For assertive teaching, Japanese teachers had a significantly higher mean (M =29.91) than

United States teachers (M =27.69). For nonverbal motivation, Japanese teachers had a

significantly higher mean (M =31.06) than United States teachers (M =27.39). For positive

learning environment, Japanese teachers had a significantly lower mean (M =21.91) than United

States teachers (M =29.89). For group dynamics, Japanese teachers had a significantly higher

mean (M =26.89) than United States teachers (M =22.20). For music concept learning, Japanese

teachers had a significantly lower mean (M =16.76) than United States teachers (M =26.11). For

artistic music performance, Japanese teachers had a significantly lower mean (M =23.62) than

United States teachers (M =26.05). For student independence, Japanese teachers had a

significantly lower mean (M =9.78) than United States teachers (M =25.15). Results of the

MANOVA are presented in Tables 21 and 22.

103
Table 21. MANOVA for Four MTSI Subscale Scores by Country.
MANOVA DF ANOVA DF (1, 263)

Variable DF(8, 256) 1 2 3 4

Group 436.46** 23.26** 83.94** 0.04** 400.02**

Note. * indicates significance at p < .05, ** indicates significance at p < .01.

Subscales: 1) Assertive teaching 2) Nonverbal motivation 3) Time efficiency 4) Positive learning
environment

Table 22. MANOVA for Remaining Four MTSI Subscale Scores by Country.
MANOVA DF ANOVA DF (1, 263)

Variable DF(8, 256) 5 6 7 8

Group 436.46** 86.43** 394.99** 35.45** 875.41**

Note. * indicates significance at p < .05, ** indicates significance at p < .01.

Subscales: 5) Group dynamics 6) Music concept learning 7) Artistic music performance 8)
Student independence

104
 A second analysis assessed relationships between the eight MTSI subscales, and subject

independent scores for demographic questions. Because college emphasis was dichotomous

(music education vs. other), a MANOVA was conducted to assess differences in the subscale

scores by country. The term “other” included any degree that was not music education such as

conducting, performance, or non-music related degree (See Table 23). To further examine the

relationships between ordinal demographics, twenty-four Spearman correlations were conducted.

Table 23. MANOVA for Eight MTSI Subscale Scores by Subject Undergraduate School
Emphasis.
ANOVA F(1, 252)
Variable MANOVA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

DF(8,

245)

Emphasi 5.26** 8.11* 0.00* 6.87* 13.60* 5.31 14.24* 3.51 13.61*

s * * * * * * *
Note. * indicates significance at p < .05, ** indicates significance at p < .01.
1) Assertive teaching 2) Nonverbal motivation 3) Time efficiency 4) Positive learning
environment 5) Group dynamics 6) Music concept learning 7) Artistic music performance 8)
Student independence

When returning to the three basic assumption of MANOVA analysis, normality for the

eight subscales was assessed using a one-sample Kolmogorov Smirnov (KS) test and the

assumption was not met due to the variances not following a normal distribution for all groups.

Because the assumption of equal variances was not met, the Levene’s test was utilized the

105
assumption was met for all but assertive teaching (p =.041), time efficiency (p =.008), and

artistic music performance (p =.038).

Results of the MANOVA were significant, F(8, 245) = 4.39, p < .001, indicating that the

test found significant differences among the subscale groups for the given variables. Results

were interpreted further to assess these differences. All of the variables were significantly

different by subscale groups (p < .05) except for nonverbal motivation (p =.964) and artistic

music performance (p =.062). For those variables that did differ significantly, post-hoc pairwise

comparisons were conducted to describe these differences (See Table 18). A post-hoc pairwise

comparison showed that while scores were somewhat equally spread, the standard deviations

were different. The Levene test confirmed the quality of variances and only music learning

concept showed non-significance.

The mean scores for prior music education emphasis versus “other” emphasis, were

compared between countries. For the assertive teaching variable, Japanese directors with a prior

music education emphasis had a significantly lower mean (M =26.51) than the other subscale

groupings (M =28.41). This was reversed for U.S. subjects where subjects with a prior music

education emphasis recorded a higher mean (M =28.73) compared to the other grouping (M

=27.25). For nonverbal motivation, the Japanese other group had a significantly higher mean (M

=29.32), while the U.S. was somewhat equal (M =28.55 and M =28.53). For positive learning

environment, the U.S. music education emphasis group had a significantly higher mean (M =

27.99) than the other subscale groupings (M =25.46). For group dynamics, the music education

emphasis group had a significantly lower mean (M =23.37) than the other subscale groupings (M

=24.83). For music concept learning, the U.S. music education emphasis group had a

significantly higher mean (M =23.96) than the other subscale groupings (M =20.90). For student

106
independence, the U.S. music education emphasis group had a significantly higher mean (M

=21.41) than the other subscale groupings (M =17.07).

For Japanese subjects, the other emphasis group recorded significantly higher means in all107
teaching dimensions except for music concept learning, artistic music performance. Non-
significant differences were evident for time efficiency and group dynamics.

107
Table 24. Means and Standard Deviations for MTSI Scores by Subject Undergraduate Emphasis

and Country

Undergraduate Emphasis

Music Education Other

Subscale M SD M SD

Assertive teaching
Japan 26.51 3.20 28.41 3.53
U.S. 28.73 3.42 27.25 3.75
Nonverbal motivation
Japan 25.33 3.61 29.32 3.29
U.S. 28.55 3.40 28.53 3.56
Time efficiency
Japan 28.65 4.11 29.42 2.13
U.S. 29.76 3.23 28.61 1.78
Positive learning environment
Japan 24.82 3.98 26.73 4.02
U.S. 27.99 4.71 25.46 4.36
Group dynamics
Japan 24.57 4.38 24.49 3.62
U.S. 23.37 4.43 24.83 3.59
Music concept learning
Japan 24.22 4.89 22.65 4.30
U.S. 23.96 5.44 20.90 5.52
Artistic music performance
Japan 24.73 3.67 23.99 2.67
U.S. 25.52 3.41 24.63 2.49
Student independence
Japan 22.32 6.54 28.54 3.28
U.S. 21.41 7.85 17.07 8.17

Further analyses were conducted of composite MTSI scores using forty-eight Spearman

rank correlations between country and the demographics of age, years of experience, and private

lesson percentage. Results of the Spearman correlations determined significant relationships

between all composite scores and the percentage of private lessons.

108
 For U.S. subjects, assertive teaching (r = -.14), nonverbal motivation (r = -.25), and

group dynamics (r = -.23) were all significantly negatively correlated with the percentage of

private lessons, indicating that as the percentage of students in a teacher’s class who take private

lessons increases, the indicated subscale scores for those teachers decrease. Time efficiency

(r = .21), positive learning environment (r = .46), music concept learning (r = .45), artistic music

performance (r = .27), and student independence (r = .50) were all significantly positively

correlated with private lesson percentages, indicating that as the percentage of students in a

teacher’s class who take private lessons increases, the indicated subscale scores for those

teachers also increases.

For Japanese subjects, assertive teaching (r = -.23) and nonverbal motivation (r = -.19)

were significantly negatively correlated with the percentage of private lessons. Time efficiency

(r = .41), positive learning environment (r = .27), group dynamics (r = .38), artistic music

performance (r = .41), and student independence (r = .34) were all significantly positively

correlated with private lesson percentages.

The strongest correlation for any comparison was found in the relationship between

United States student independence and private lesson percentage (r = .50), indicating a strong

association. For the United States, the correlation between music concept learning and private

lesson percentage (r = .45) and positive learning environment and private lesson percentage (r = .

46), represented a medium association. For Japan, the correlation between Japanese time

efficiency and private lesson percentage (r = .41) and artistic music performance and private

lesson percentage (r = .41) represented a medium association. Other correlations represented

smaller associations (Cohen, 1988). The results of the Spearman rank correlations are presented

in Table 25.

109
Table 25. Spearman Rank Correlations between MTSI Subscale Scores and Band Program

Demographics by Country.

Age Years of Private lesson percent

Group experience

Assertive teaching
Japan -.08 .04 -.23**
U.S. -.10 .01 -.14*
Nonverbal motivation
Japan -.1 .03 -.19**
U.S. -.07 .05 -.25**
Time efficiency
Japan -.16* .02 .41**
U.S. -.12 .09 .21**
Positive learning environment
Japan -.12* .08 .27**
U.S. -.15* .07 .46**
Group dynamics
Japan -.07 .04 .38**
U.S. .06 .24** -.23**
Music concept learning
Japan .18* .05 .03
U.S. -.13* .01 .45**
Artistic music performance
Japan .04 .08 .41**
U.S. -.12 .14* .27**
Student independence
Japan -.09 .02 .34**
U.S. -.15* -.01 .50**
Note. * indicates significance at the p < .05 level, ** indicates significance at the p < .01 level.

A third analysis assessed differences in composite scores from an expected mean. These

expected means are the results of previous MTSI studies by Bazan (2007). To examine these

differences, sixteen one-sample t tests were conducted, with one for each subscale score per

group. A deviation of subscale scores means that ordinal data of mean scores produced higher or

lower results than found in previous research.

110
 The first set of one-sample t tests was conducted on the assertive teaching subscale score.

This score was assessed for differences from an expected mean of 28.14 for both groups. The

Japan group was significantly different from this expected mean (t(78) = 20.87, p < .001), and

indicated a difference from the expected mean of (ΔM =1.77); significantly higher than expected.

The United States group was not significantly different from the expected mean (t(185) = -1.50,

p =.135).

The second set of one-sample t tests was conducted on the nonverbal motivation

composite score. This score was assessed for differences from an expected mean of 25.90 for

both groups. The Japan group was significantly different from this expected mean

(t(78) = 36.59, p < .001), and indicated a difference from the expected mean of (ΔM =5.16);

significantly higher than expected. The United States group was also significantly different from

the expected mean (t(185) =5.88, p < .001), and indicated a difference from the expected mean of

(ΔM =1.49); significantly higher than expected.

The third set of one-sample t tests was conducted on the time efficiency composite score.

This score was assessed for differences from an expected mean of 28.76 for both groups. The

Japan group was significantly different from this expected mean (t(78) = 4.64, p < .001), and

indicated a difference from the expected mean of (ΔM =0.65); significantly higher than expected.

The United States group was also significantly different from the expected mean

(t(185) =2.80, p =.006), and indicated a difference from the expected mean of (ΔM =0.73);

significantly higher than expected.

The fourth set of one-sample t tests was conducted on the positive learning environment

composite score. This score was assessed for differences from an expected mean of 29.08 for

both groups. The Japan group was significantly different from this expected mean

111
(t(78) = -31.05, p < .001), and indicated a difference from the expected mean of (ΔM = -7.17);

significantly lower than expected. The United States group was also significantly different from

the expected mean (t(185) = 3.36, p =.001), and indicated a difference from the expected mean of

(ΔM =0.81); significantly higher than expected.

The fifth set of one-sample t tests was conducted on the group dynamics composite score.

This score was assessed for differences from an expected mean of 19.98 for both groups. The

Japan group was significantly different from this expected mean (t(78) = 53.17, p < .001), and

indicated a difference from the expected mean of (ΔM =6.91); significantly higher than expected.

The United States group was also significantly different from the expected mean

(t(185) =6.88, p < .001), and indicated a difference from the expected mean of (ΔM =2.22);

significantly higher than expected.

The sixth set of one-sample t tests was conducted on the music concept learning

composite score. This score was assessed for differences from an expected mean of 23.57 for

both groups. The Japan group was significantly different from this expected mean

(t(78) = -16.79, p < .001), and indicated a difference from the expected mean of (ΔM = -6.81);

significantly lower than expected. The United States group was also significantly different from

the expected mean (t(185) =10.00, p < .001), and indicated a difference from the expected mean

of (ΔM =2.54); significantly higher than expected.

The seventh set of one-sample t tests was conducted on the artistic music performance

composite score. This score was assessed for differences from an expected mean (21.84) for

both groups. The Japan group was significantly different from this expected mean

(t (78) =9.16, p < .001), and indicated a difference from the expected mean of (ΔM =1.78),

significantly higher than expected. The United States group was also significantly different from

112
the expected mean (t(185) =16.65, p < .001), and indicated a difference from the expected mean

of (ΔM =4.21); significantly higher than expected.

The eighth sets of one-sample t tests were conducted on the student independence

composite score. This score was assessed for differences from an expected mean of 20.98 for

both groups. The Japan group was significantly different from this expected mean

(t (78) = -44.89, p < .001), and indicated a difference from the expected mean of (ΔM = -11.20);

significantly lower than expected. The United States group was also significantly different from

the expected mean (t (185) =12.97, p < .001), and indicated a difference from the expected mean

of (ΔM =4.17); significantly higher than expected. Table 8 presents the results of the one-sample

t tests.

113
Table 26. One-Sample t Tests for MTSI Subscale Scores with Expected Mean by Subject Country.

Composite Group M SD Expected t df p

Assertive Teaching Japan 29.91 0.75 28.14 20.87 78 .001
U.S. 27.69 4.05 28.14 -1.50 185 .135
Nonverbal Motivation Japan 31.06 1.25 25.90 36.59 78 .001
U.S. 27.39 3.46 25.90 5.88 185 .001
Time Efficiency Japan 29.41 1.24 28.76 4.64 78 .001
U.S. 29.49 3.55 28.76 2.80 185 .006
Positive Learning Environment Japan 21.91 2.05 29.08 - 78 .001

31.05
U.S. 29.89 3.28 29.08 3.36 185 .001
Group Dynamics Japan 26.89 1.15 19.98 53.17 78 .001
U.S. 22.20 4.41 19.98 6.88 185 .001
Music Concept Learning Japan 16.76 3.60 23.57 - 78 .001

16.79
U.S. 26.11 3.46 23.57 10.01 185 .001
Artistic Music Performance Japan 23.62 1.73 21.84 9.16 78 .001
U.S. 26.05 3.45 21.84 16.65 185 .001
Student Independence Japan 9.78 2.22 20.98 - 78 .001

44.89
U.S. 25.15 4.38 20.98 12.97 185 .001

114
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in teaching style demonstrated

by secondary concert band directors from the United States and Japan. An online survey was

utilized to collect background information on subjects and their respective band programs and

the MTSI (Gumm, 2004) was then administered to identify eight teaching style dimensions.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the results for the primary research questions of:

1. What are the similarities and differences between United States and Japanese

band programs, in regards to size, number of performances, duration of practices,

and other general demographic information?

2. Were there differences in previous teacher training between band directors in the

United States and Japan, in regards to collegiate emphasis, student teaching

experience, and perception of preparation from the collegiate curriculum?

3. What differences exist in the teaching styles of band directors in the United States

and Japan?
4. What background variables influence teaching style for band directors in the

United States and Japan?

This discussion will conclude by examining the limitations to the present student and provide

suggestions for further research in this area.

Similarities and Differences in Band Programs

115
 The first section of the online survey sought to determine the general similarities and

differences between band directors and band programs in the United States and Japan. For all

subjects, a majority of participants were male (n =253, 96%), with only a few female respondents

(n =12, 5%). The percentage of female respondents was even lower for Japan, with only one

female respondent (n =1, 1%).

Gender in instrumental music has consistently shown primarily males serving as band

directors. Groulx (2010) had a sample of 176 Florida secondary band directors and found a

relatively small percentage (n = 28, 16%) were female. Bazan (2006) used a sample of forty-

nine middle school band directors and seventeen (35%) were female. Brakel (1994) used a

smaller sample of thirty-two secondary band and orchestra directors and sixteen (50%) were

females. Among U.S. directors, the number of female respondents was low in comparison to

other studies. The sample was drawn from bands participating in Music for All events, which

normally attracts bands from larger programs or schools. Continued gender research may

explain causality between band program size and director gender.

Japanese subjects in this study were generally older and had more experience than their

U.S. counterparts. The mean average age for band directors was thirty-six years old for United

States subjects and forty-four years old for Japanese subjects. The mean average age for years of

experience was twelve years for United States subjects and eighteen years for Japanese subjects.

This data was comparable to Groulx (2010), Bazan (2006), and Brakel (1994). These studies

used the MTSI as a measuring device and are suitable for comparison with the present study.

A significant difference emerged between sizes of bands (number of students) between

countries. Some schools may have multiple ensembles, and size was requested for only the top

ensemble of the school. United States data from several studies shows a bell curve, with a

116
majority (n =64, 34%) reporting band size to be between fifty-five to sixty-four members. In

Japan, nearly all bands were smaller, with directors reporting between forty-five to fifty-four

members.

Discussions with subjects from both countries provided multiple reasons for this

difference, but one factor may be found in the definition of “ensemble.” As discussed in Chapter

1, Frederick Fennell and the Tokyo Kosei Wind Orchestra helped define the Japanese band

movement. This group had a somewhat consistent number in membership and instrumentation,

and propelled a model for all Japanese bands. As a club, the Japanese concert band is able to

select specific individuals rather than the U.S. model of taking all students who wish to register

for a band class. Subjects from the United States cited scheduling problems, lack of time for

recruiting, and director preference as reasons for varied band size.

A significant difference existed in when, and for how long, bands rehearse in the two

countries. In the United States, bands are primarily curricular and rehearse during the school

day. Only five (3%) United States subjects reported rehearsing exclusively outside the school

day. In Japan, the opposite was true. Only one (1%) Japanese subject reported rehearsing during

the school day. As discussed earlier, Japanese bands tend to operate as an after-school club and

are not deemed part of the school curriculum. As a result, the Japanese after-school rehearsal is

typically more than 115 minutes (n =72, 91%). In the United States, school schedules vary, and

the longest reported class period was 45-55 minutes (n =75, 40%). While some United States

schools utilize after school rehearsal, roughly two-thirds of United States bands (n =123, 66%)

reported that their top group did not rehearse after school. This may reflect cultural differences

in how students utilize after school hours. U.S. band students have many competing activities,

such as sports, that would conflict with after school band rehearsals. It may also reflect

117
differences in transportation concerns for students staying after school in the U.S. that are not an

issue in larger Japanese urban areas.

For total rehearsal time (see Table 9), roughly half of United States bands (n =98, 53%)

reported spending between four to six hours per week in rehearsal. These results support Sherrill

(1986) whose U.S. subjects’ rehearsals averaged between forty-five and ninety minutes. Witt

(1986) also found that U.S. bands met on average for fifty-five minutes. This number is

significantly different from Japan, where all subjects (n =79, 100%) reported spending over 10

hours per week in rehearsal. These results support Hebert’s (2005) findings that Japanese bands

often rehearse for over twenty hours per week. This difference can be explained by the

constraints of U.S. school schedules, which control the amount of class time available for band

rehearsals.

Japanese bands reported more performances with the most frequently reported number

being ten to eleven concert band performances per year (n =59, 75%). No Japanese subjects

reported less than eight performances per year. This differs from the United States, where there

was a somewhat equal distribution of four to nine performances per year. Approximately one

quarter (24%) of United States subjects reported having eight or more concert performances per

year.

The Japanese band system is geared toward competition, eventually leading to ABJA

competition. With more extensive competition, it is logical that Japanese band directors would

report more concerts than U.S. band directors. Bazan (2006) found his middle school band

director subjects presented an average of three concerts yearly. This demographic question was

included because a lack of research exists on the average number of band performances per year

118
for high school directors. The results followed somewhat equal distribution and appeared typical

to the researchers’ experiences as a high school director.

The final band demographic collected was the percentage of students enrolled in private

lessons with an expert teacher. Nearly all Japanese subjects (n =78, 99%) reported that less than

10% of their students participated in private lessons. A third of United States subjects (n =61,

32%) reported the same (less than 10%), but the distribution of students taking private lessons

was more distributed in the United States. The largest group of directors with students engaged

in private lessons, was indicated by twenty-seven subjects (over 70%) from the United States. In

the United States, schools with multiple ensembles may require private lessons for admission

into the top ensemble. Also, some United States schools have the convenience and support of

many private teachers through major orchestras or nearby universities. The differences in

sample sizes from the two countries may explain these results, as there were more U.S. subjects

than Japanese subjects.

In Japan, a different paradigm is in place regarding individual attention, such as private

lessons. As reported earlier, Japanese bands spend considerably more time in rehearsal, but

Japanese students may only spend a portion of that rehearsing with the director. The mentorship

program of senpai/kohai (young and older student) helps provide individual attention from

section leaders or recent graduates. Davies (2002) described traditional Japanese arts as a pattern

of constant repetition to master a form. While the United States director may exhibit a more

creative teaching approach, the Japanese method appears to this researcher to be based on strict

adherence to technical demands. This is a concurrent theme found in the literature regarding

Japanese bands, music education, education, and Japanese culture in general.

119
 As a result, directors may find it uncomfortable to trust an outside private music

instructor to help students master the band director’s musical vision. In common terms, the

Japanese band director tends to keep everything “in house” where a controlled environment will

be viewed as more desirable towards the desired outcome.

Similarities and Differences Between Band Directors

A mostly even distribution of educational level was recorded overall between bachelor’s

degree (n =135, 51%) and master’s degree (n =125, 47%). For Japan, seventy-three subjects

indicated bachelor’s degrees, representing the bulk (90%) of the sample, and eight subjects

indicated master’s degrees, representing only ten percent of the sample. Again, these U.S. results

are comparable to previous studies and no research could be located that reported data on

Japanese band director educational levels. The range of age, years of experience, and

educational level appears typical bell-shaped distribution, with means serving as peak. Aside

from gender, no data appeared atypical.

The question regarding education emphasis produced very skewed results. In Japan,

many bands operate as after school clubs and directors may not have completed a formal

university music education training program. As a result, a higher percentage of United States

subjects who studied music education in college was expected. This is most likely due to the fact

that public school teacher licenses in the U.S. require a college bachelor’s degree. Graduate

degrees for subjects in both countries included conducting, music education, and music

performance. Additionally, eleven United States subjects reported “other” for their educational

emphasis. This included a range of educational leadership and administrative-related degrees.

While a large percentage of subjects (n =195, 74%) indicated their emphasis was music

120
education, the structure and limited depth of this study does not fully reveal an accurate picture

of educational training similarities or differences between the two countries.

The results regarding teaching environment should also be viewed with caution. In the

United States, a majority of subjects taught in suburban schools (n =121, 64%). This percentage

appears to reflect the United States as a whole, where over half (62%) of schools are labeled as

“suburban” (NEA, 2012). Japanese subjects reported being from mostly urban environments (n

=73, 91%). This survey utilized a list of members of the Kansai Band Association. By avoiding

the Tokyo region, it was hoped that more diversity would emerge but as reported, all Japanese

subjects came from the Kyoto, Nara, and Osaka regions. These are primarily large urban cities,

thus sampling error skewed the results of the question concerning teaching environment. In the

future, it might be advisable to use quota sampling to better manage equality in teaching

environments between subjects from both countries.

Teacher Preparation

To examine possible differences in band programs, a section of the survey asked subjects

to provide information about their previous college preparation for teaching. When looking at

the results, the most evident difference was in how subjects felt about their preparation in

conducting. Nearly all (99%) of Japanese subjects reported being very prepared, compared to

only 41% of U.S. subjects. For the remaining areas of score analysis, orchestration, and error

detection, Japanese band directors generally felt more prepared than U.S. directors.

For preparation of teaching various instruments or managing behavior, Japanese directors

differed significantly from U.S. directors. All Japanese subjects reported no previous training in

teaching woodwind, brass, and percussion instruments, but that they were “very prepared” for

121
managing student behavior. The U.S. subjects indicated being only “somewhat prepared” to

teach woodwind, brass, and percussion. These percentages were a direct contrast from the

averaged reported scores for collegiate training in conducting, orchestration, score study, and

error detection. This data is confusing. In previous conversations with Japanese directors, they

indicated that most Japanese teacher training curriculums do include some form of instrumental

methods or pedagogy courses. It is possible that Japanese subjects did not understand the

translation of this question, or view the concept of “prepared” differently from U.S. subjects.

Cultural implications are discussed more thoroughly in the limitations portion of this chapter.

When examining general educational pedagogies, Abodoo (2002) found that Japanese

education is a strict approach to tasks based on intellectual and technical capabilities, where the

United States is more based on creativity. The Japanese ideal of technical precision was the

defining undercurrent of Hebert’s (2001) yearlong case study with Japanese school bands. It is

therefore logical that Japanese directors desire maximum preparation as a learning outcome for

areas such as conducting or score study, as compared with U.S. directors who may be more

concerned with meeting mandated local or national educational standards.

The second explanation for discrepancy in collegiate preparation may be attributed to

cultural bias. Japanese culture and the arts are rooted in perfection of form, therefore Japanese

subjects might be more likely to report the highest level of preparation. As discussed earlier,

culture can be easily convoluted and the concept of bias in research due to cultural influences

creates a need for caution when interpreting comparative data. It appears that culture is

identified by both the things produced and the methods used to produce them. As Hebert

repeatedly discussed, the goal of receiving a “Gold Status” at band competition is the primary

122
driving force for many Japanese bands. Perfection in collegiate study to build skills in error

detection or score analysis would be the expected cultural norm in Japan.

The final question of this section examined the length of practice teaching. This question

was translated carefully to utilize potentially different terminology regarding this internship

experience. A small percentage of Japanese subjects (11%) reported not completing a teaching

practicum, compared with only one U.S. subject that did not complete a practice teaching

experience. The Japanese average was ten weeks and the United States average was slightly

longer at fifteen weeks. Ogawa (2004) found that most Japanese student teaching experiences

last up to four weeks, but sometimes students may have multiple experiences. This may be

comparable to the United States system of field observations or lab work done prior to the

official student teaching experience. Ogawa has presented his concerns on the Japanese student

teaching process and further research exploring these differences is needed. The largest concern

being that students are placed with random teachers at the last minute, implying that a short

student teacher experience with unfamiliar surroundings produces little actual practice teaching.

Ogawa (2004), one of Japan’s leading music education researchers, has argued that the

amount of credit hours to achieve licensure in Japan is very small compared to requirements in

the United States. He felt that music teachers in Japan are not required to have professional

music skills, as long as they meet the objectives of the national curriculum (p.142).

In summary, the questions posed for teacher preparation produced conflicting results

between countries. Japanese subjects felt very prepared with skills of conducting, score analysis,

orchestration, and error detection, but indicated no training in instrumental methods. Subjects

from the U.S. had a wider distribution in all areas of teacher preparation. The translation or

wording of the question may have produced confusion for the term “method” course. When

123
comparing the student teaching experience between countries, it appears the U.S. model might be

considered more effective for teacher preparation. The Japanese model is a shorter duration,

with schools assigned randomly and evaluation taking place by the mentor teacher. Ogawa felt

that for Japanese teachers, writing lesson plans become more emphasized than actually

implementing them. The U.S. model is a longer time frame, with University faculty evaluation,

and with mentor teachers selected in advance.

Music Teaching Style

The final section of the survey focused on examining the teaching styles of the band

directors using the MTSI. The MTSI allowed respondents to report their use of specific

strategies on a five-item Likert-type scale (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, and Always).

Subject response indicated the teacher’s priority toward these specific areas of instruction. The

MTSI was originally developed by Alan Gumm (1992) and has been utilized in several research

studies and also reviewed and altered by Gumm (2004, 2006). Subjects respond to questions that

compose eight different teaching dimensions, which represent the two clusters of Teacher-

Directed and Student-Directed learning. Gumm felt that students music focus on the teacher

most (teacher-directed) for Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal Motivation, Time Efficiency, and

Positive Learning Environment. Student-directed learning dimensions include: Group

Dynamics, Student Independence, Artistic Music Performance, and Music Concept Learning.

Gumm felt these tasks put emphasis on student-led learning and show leadership, musical

imagery, creativity, and critical thinking. The MTSI survey includes seven items per teaching

dimension. Therefore, the range for any dimension would be on a scale (7 to 35.)

124
MTSI Reliability and Measurement

Table 27 compares the reliability for this study versus two previous uses of the MTSI (Groulx,

2010; Gumm 2003). In this study, reasonable validity was evident for six of the eight teaching

dimensions, with the exceptions being group dynamics and nonverbal motivation. For group

dynamics, U.S. recorded good reliability where Japanese teachers had a negative alpha factor.

The same was evident with nonverbal motivation in that U.S. teachers reported acceptable

reliability but Japanese subjects recorded a negative alpha score. The Alpha coefficient utilized

in this table is Gumm’s test-retest reliability from his 2003 study.

Table 27. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability for Current Study and Two Previous Studies.
Score Current study Groulx (2010) Gumm (2003)
α α α

Assertive teaching
Japan .39 - -
U.S. .79 .75 .75
Nonverbal motivation
Japan -.17 - -
U.S. .75 .66 .82
Time efficiency
Japan .19 - -
U.S. .80 .75 .79
Positive learning environment
Japan .36 - -
U.S. .78 .79 .79
Group dynamics
Japan -.49 - -
U.S. .85 .78 .73
Music concept learning
Japan .67 - -
U.S. .76 .74 .83
Artistic music performance
Japan .10 - -
U.S. .62 .74 .77
Student independence
Japan .73 - -
U.S. .84 .85 .86

125
 Using the MTSI with subjects from such varied backgrounds could be expected to

produce interesting results. It was anticipated that the data would have many outliers and various

tests were used to confirm the assumptions of MANOVA measurement. Normality is important

for accurate MANOVA scores, either scores in bell shape or scores that have equal distribution.

The Equality of Covariance bypasses looking at individual data and looks at scores in general for

an equal distribution. Because some scores were violated for normality, the Pilli Trace statistic

makes MANOVA harder to find significance, thus avoiding false positives.

The Levene test was used to seek significant variances between scores. Ideally, the test

should not be significant, and the only non-significant score was for music learning concept. The

standard of deviations was very different, thus implying the spread of data for these concepts was

very different between countries. With over 200 subjects it is deemed acceptable to violate this

assumption. It is mentioned here because while total subjects were over 200, there were only

seventy-nine subjects from Japan.

The final statistical measurement was the KS Test for Normality. Similar to the Levene

test, the goal is that no data comparisons would be significantly different. Although the KS Test

revealed that the scores were not normally distributed, the results fell into an acceptable area.

Comparisons of Teaching Style By Country

Significant differences were found between Japanese and U.S. band directors for all of

the MTSI subscales with the exception of time efficiency. Director styles from both countries

appear equally focused on time efficiency. Based on mean scores, Japanese teachers were found

to utilize teaching styles that emphasized assertive teaching, group dynamics, and nonverbal

motivation. U.S. teachers, on the other hand, were significantly more likely to emphasize

126
teaching styles focused on positive learning environment, music concept learning, student

independence, and artistic music performance. The largest differences were found in student

independence, the U.S. almost tripled the mean Japanese scores, and music concept learning had

a nearly ten-point difference.

For student independence, it is important to note the large gap of mean scores. Japanese

directors as a group had a very low mean score (9.78) compared to the U.S. directors (25.15).

Gumm described student independence as students’ abilities to emphasize creativity. These

questions include how students feel, create, and respond to music. Results indicate that Japanese

directors avoid fostering independent thought or soliciting student opinions. It appears that

Japanese directors spend considerable time in student-led sectionals, but everything follows the

director’s strict, defined approach to music making. So while Japanese students may be

somewhat independent, scores from this study indicate a distinct difference in the concept of

student independence. This may be attributed to culture, experience, and expectation which can

vary tremendously between subjects of different countries. This statement does not imply

Japanese students are not encouraged to think freely, but instead reflects the earlier review of

literature portraying Japan as a land of conformity.

Additionally, as noted later in the limitations of this study, Japanese directors during the

pilot study expressed confusion on the translation, and asked why they would consider students

feelings toward music, literature choice, or satisfaction in the band program. This suggests a

cultural difference regarding interactions between Japanese and U.S. directors and their students.

Chapter Two detailed how previous researchers have found similar cultural context and

expectation in Japanese culture (Hebert, 1996; Ogawa, 2004). It was not surprising that the

Japanese directors would indicate more emphasis in assertive teaching, group dynamics, and

127
nonverbal motivation. Gumm described assertive teaching as maintain student attention and that

student behavior supports the teacher-directed goals. The group dynamic of senpai/kohai helps

build the interdependence between peers and establishes a collaborative learning environment.

Nonverbal motivation is also a teacher-directed activity where eye contact, cues, and training

allow the activity to continue with less verbal instruction from the teacher. It was also not

surprising that Japanese directors reported an emphasis on use of time and the ability to prioritize

goals and tasks. U.S. directors may also be required to focus on additional curricular standards,

not utilized in Japanese band rehearsals, thus altering the need for different styles of teaching

beyond traditional rehearsal skills.

It was equally not surprising to see the United States directors indicate more emphasis on

positive learning environment, music concept learning, and student independence. Research on

comparative education and wind bands both support the United States model of nurturing

students in a pragmatic approach to learning concepts. Gumm (1993) described positive learning

environments as the teacher using humor, patience, sensitivity, and care. Students in the United

States desire approval and praise, but these elements are not part of Japanese culture at large.

Instead of giving approval or making jokes for learning a musical concept, Japanese students are

culturally geared for repetition without reward. When discussing culture and music instruction,

Ramsey (2004) described the shikata approach to learning. The kata is a prepared presentation.

In the United States we may be familiar with kata being performed or judged for perfection in

martial arts events. Ramsey found that the shikata approach is that Japanese youth are

conditioned to work toward that defined ideal goal of perfection.

128
 An interesting result of this MANOVA is that U.S. subjects were more likely to

emphasize artistic music performance. Gumm (1993) described this dimension as musical

performance involving personal and human response by students.

The review of literature for this study, and discussion of results, paints a potentially

flawed stereotype of U.S. directors as being creative and less formalized in rehearsals, compared

to Japanese directors who are focused on a strict formulaic approach to preparing bands. Hebert

(2001) discussed how the All Japan competition test recordings set a defined standard of

excellence that all bands should achieve. Japanese bands are consistently rewarded for their

musicality at national events (Midwest Clinic, WASBE) but the difference in MTSI scores might

relate more to how subjects perceive “creativity” and artistic products.

Gumm (2003, 2004) refined the MTSI and divided the eight teaching style dimensions

into two clusters. The first group was comprised of Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal Motivation,

Time Efficiency, and Positive Learning Environment. He felt these tasks were more teacher-

directed where the students must focus on the teacher. The other four dimensions are termed

student directed independent learning factors that show leadership, musical imagery, creativity,

and critical thinking. When combining the four areas, final scores could range from 28 to a

maximum of 140.

For teacher directed learning, the score for Japanese subjects was 112.38 compared to the

U.S. score of 114.47. The outlier in this equation was the significantly different positive learning

environment. For student directed learning, the score for Japanese subjects (77.05) was

compared to the U.S. score (99.15). These U.S. scores are similar to Bazan’s (2006) study of

Ohio middle school band teachers, except for in Artistic music performance and student

independence. It is logical that student directed activities would produce higher reported scores

129
at the high school level than at the middle school level. The current studies results are compared

to Bazanʻs research in Table 28 below.

When interpreting MTSI results Gumm (2004) stated “music teaching style is interpreted

subjectively by comparing the dimensions that coalesced to the top, middle, and bottom to detect

priorities within the pattern toward the teacher, student, subject matter, or a particular type of

depth of music subject matter” (See Appendix A).

Table 28. Means, Standard Deviations for previous MTSI usage.

Score Courtney Courtney Bazan (2006) Bazan (2006)
M SD M SD

Assertive teaching
Japan 30.00 0.75
U.S. 27.70 4.05 28.14 3.67
Nonverbal motivation
Japan 31.06 1.25
U.S. 27.39 3.46 25.90 3.81
Time efficiency
Japan 29.41 1.24
U.S. 29.49 3.54 28.76 3.13
Positive learning
environment
Japan 21.91 2.05
U.S. 29.89 3.28 29.08 3.17
Group dynamics
Japan 26.89 1.15
U.S. 22.20 4.41 19.98 4.37
Music concept learning
Japan 16.76 3.61
U.S. 26.11 3.46 23.57 4.11
Artistic music performance
Japan 23.62 1.73
U.S. 26.05 3.45 21.84 4.86
Student independence
Japan 9.78 2.22
U.S. 25.15 4.38 20.98 4.95

130
Impact of Band Director Demographics on Teaching Style

Research question four compared MTSI results with the variables of age group, years of

experience, and private lessons. There was a positive and negative relationship between private

lesson percentages and all different composite scores. As the percentage of students studying

privately increased, assertive teaching scores tended to decrease. It was also interesting to note

that as positive learning environment scores increased, this correlated with an increase in private

lesson percentages. These results seem logical in that more students studying privately could

allow directors to be less assertive on the podium when leading rehearsal. It is also logical that

students studying privately would allow them to better enjoy a music rehearsal, thus leading to a

positive learning environment.

Limitations of the Study

Unfortunately there were many limitations in this study. These include number of

participating subjects, diversity in age and region of subjects, and concerns over the translation

of the MTSI into Japanese.

The return rate for this sample was only 31%. This is lower than other doctoral studies

utilizing the MTSI; Bazan (40%) localized in the state of Ohio and Groulx (45%) which was

based only in Florida. Alan Gumm’s initial MTSI study yielded a 30% return (1993) and a

replicated study in 2003 also yielded a lowered return rate (23%). Gumm determined these

lowered return rates were acceptable error because of his nationwide sample provided a more

complete representation of the population. For this study, the U.S. sample was drawn from a list

of participating schools in Music for All Events. It was time consuming to look up each

individual subject’s email address but the precess was efficient. For Japan, less control existed

131
due to using a potentially inaccurate mass membership mailing. A higher overall return rate

would have been preferred, but this study population represents a broader, more complete

representation of the population of secondary band directors in the U.S. and Japan.

The demographic limitation for Japanese subjects was immediately evident. There were

no subjects from three of the Japanese regions (Hyogo, Shiga, and Wakayama), no subjects over

age sixty-five years of age, no subjects with thirty-six or more years of experience, no subjects

indicating “No degree, Certificate, Doctorate, or Other” in their educational preparation. There

were no Japanese subjects from small rural areas, and no Japanese subjects indicating they taught

both during the school day and outside the school day. All Japanese subjects reported working

over ten hours and no subject reported less than seven performances per year. In summary, the

Japanese subjects were much less diverse than US subjects.

The translation of documents and MTSI went through three stages of editing. First, the

researcher translated the document, followed by a review by a University of Hawai‘i Japanese

faculty. Finally, documents were proof read again by a native Japanese professor that teaches

English. During the translation and pilot testing stage of the survey, questions still arose

concerning how certain MTSI questions were translated. This notably concerned questions on

assigning value to student feelings or opinions. Two Japanese pilot test subjects questioned

directly “Why would I ask for a student’s opinion?” This statement seemed such a stark contrast

to the American approach to education and lingered as perhaps the most defining and interesting

statement collected during the entire project.

One other limitation discussed earlier was the concept of cultural bias or cultural

transmission. These concepts imply that subjects may answer questions based on what they feel

the answer should be, or answer based on misinterpretation of the question. Subjects may also

132
have different values and beliefs based on their culture. While the translation might appear to be

an error, perhaps Japanese subjects viewed the MTSI questions differently because of their

culture and background. There is no clear way to measure or identify how these limitations

impacted this study, or if they even exist. It is important to note their potential presence.

There were internal reliability concerns which could be attributed to chance or potential

cultural limitations. Subjects from the U.S. answered somewhat consistently, where Japanese

subjects were less consistent. Reliability was quite low for several subscales, including student

independence. The MTSI is a copyrighted survey tool and altering or eliminating questions

would impact the overall integrity of design. Therefore it was not possible to just eliminate a

series of questions and these differences between country caused the alpha scores to be

somewhat lower. This should be considered when interpreting or comparing these results.

A final limitation is the lack of research culture in Japan (Ogawa, 2006). Comparable

research on Japanese bands, their teachers, and music education was difficult to obtain or did not

exist. Recent research by David Hebert (2001, 2005, 2011) provides tremendous insight into

Japanese band methodologies, but his case studies do not explore a large study sample.

Additionally, because of the lack of attention to research, Japanese subjects may dismiss the

importance of surveys or research, and explain the low response rate.

Suggestions for Further Research

There is tremendous value and understanding gained through comparative research.

Since comparative studies between the Japanese and U.S. bands are minimal, it is important to

increase research efforts in this area. This follows Madsen’s (1971) advice for a long-range

approach to research that produces quantifiable data. Suggestions for further research include:

133
 1. A repeated study of the MTSI could reinforce or refute findings of this study.
2. Research that explores time usage in the music rehearsal. Time Efficiency shared

high MTSI mean scores for subjects from both countries. Chapter Two discussed

specific research studies that explored how band directors have made use of their

rehearsal time.
3. Continued research in teacher training. A large percentage of subjects (n =195, 74%)

indicated their emphasis was music education, but the structure and depth of this

study does not fully reveal the comparison in educational training between countries.

In spite of the limitations listed above, this study provides comparative baseline

information regarding differences in teaching style between Japanese and U.S. band directors. It

is hoped that this information will assist future researchers who are interested in answering

questions concerning secondary school concert bands within these countries.

134
 APPENDIX A

Music Teaching Style Inventory

135
136
137
138
 APPENDIX B

Permission to Use Music Teaching Style Inventory

139
 APPENDIX C

Study Survey English Version

140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
 APPENDIX D

Study Survey Japanese Version

153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
 APPENDIX E

Use of Human Subjects Approval from University of Hawaiʻi Office of Research Compliance

167
References

168
Abeles, H., Hoffer, C., & Klotman, R. (1994). Foundations of Music Education, 2nd Ed. New
York, NY: Schirmer.

Abril, C. R., & Gault, B. M. (2008). The state of music in secondary schools: The principal’s
perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(1), 68–81.

Adderly, C. L. (2001). Does the hour of the day affect student selection for instrumental honors
ensembles? Contributions to Music Education, 28, 103–113.

Albert, D. J. (2006). Strategies for the recruitment and retention of band students in low
socioeconomic school districts. Contributions to Music Education, 33(2), 53–72.

Allsup, R. E. (2003). Mutual learning and democratic action in instrumental music education.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(1), 24–38.

Asmus, E. P. (1989). Factor analysis: A look at the technique through the data of Rainbow.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 101, 1-29.

Austin, J. R. (1988). The effect of music contest format on self-concept, motivation, and attitude
of elementary band students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36, 95–107.

Baker, W. (1966). Contest symposium. Music Educators Journal, 67(2), 29.

Basilicaato, J. (2010). Learning styles in the instrumental music classroom: Student learning
style preference and perceptions of music director teaching style. Dissertation Abstract
International, 49(2). (UMI No. AAT 1482337). Retrieved February 8, 2012, from
Dissertations and Theses database.

Bazan, D. E. (2007). Teaching and learning strategies used by student-directed teachers of

middle school band. Dissertation Abstract International, 68(5). (UMI No. AAT
3264513). Retrieved February 17, 2011, from Dissertations and Theses database.

Blocher, L., Greenwood, R., & Shellahamer, B. (1997). Teaching behaviors of middle school
and high school band directors in the rehearsal setting. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 45(3), 457-469.

Brakel, T. D. (1994). An investigation of instrumental teaching styles. Southeastern Journal of

Music Education, 6, 73-87.

Brakel, T. D. (1998). Attrition of instrumental music students as a function of teaching style and
selected demographic variables. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (12), 4592A.
(UMI No. AAT 9816946). Retrieved February 12, 2012, from Dissertations and Theses
database.

169
Burdett, N. (1985). The high school music contest movement in the United States. Dissertation
Abstract International, 47(2), 458A. (UMI No. AAT 8609289). Retrieved April 28,
2011, from Dissertations and Theses database.

Caldwell, W. M. (1980). A time analysis of selected musical elements and leadership behaviors
of successful high school choral conductors. Dissertation Abstract International, 41(3),
976A. (UMI No. AAT 8020349). Retrieved April 28, 2011, from Dissertations and
Theses database.

Carpenter, R. A. (1988). A descriptive analysis of relationships between verbal behaviors of

teacher-conductors and ratings of selected junior and senior high school rehearsals.
Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 7(1), 37–40.

Carskadon, T. G. (1979). Behavioral differences between extraverts and introverts as measured

by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: An experimental demonstration. Research in
Psychological Type, 2, 78-82.

Cavanagh, S. (2008, January 12). U.S. Education Pressured by International Comparisons.

McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, p. 12.

Cheung, J. (2004). Mapping Music Education Research in Hong Kong. Psychology of Music,
32, 343–356.

Claire, L. (1993/1994). The social psychology of creativity: The importance of peer social
processes for students’ academic and artistic creative activity in classroom contexts.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 119, 21–28.

Colwell, R. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on music teaching and learning. New York,
NY: Schirmer.

Colwell, R. (2006a). Music teacher education in this century: Part I. Arts Education Policy
Review, 108(1), 15–27.

Colwell, R. (2006b). Music teacher education in this century: Part II. Arts Education Policy
Review, 108(2), 17–29.

Conway, C. (1999). The case method and music teacher education. Update: Applications of
Research in Music Education, 17(2), 20–26.

Conway, C. M. (2001). Beginning music teacher perceptions of district-sponsored induction

programs. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 151, 1–11.

Conway, C. M., Albert, D., Hibbard, S., & Hourigan, R. (2005). Arts education and professional
development. Arts Education Policy Review, 107(1), 3–9.

170
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2004). Assessment strategies for self-directed learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cowen, R. (2006). Acting comparatively upon the educational world: Puzzles and possibilities.
Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 561–573.

Cox, J. (1989). Rehearsal organizational structures used by successful high school choral
directors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37:3, 201-218.

Dairianathan, E. (2006). The wind band ensemble in Singapore: presence and practice. Journal
of the World Association for Symphonic Bands and Ensembles, 13, 31–50.

Duke, R. A. (1999/2000). Measure of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin for

the Council of Research in Music Education, 143, 1–48.

Duke, R. A. & Henninger, J. C. (2002). Teachers’ verbal corrections and observers’ perceptions
of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(1), 75–87.

Duke, R. A., Prickett, C. A., & Jellison, J. A. (1998). Empirical description of the pace of music
instruction. Journal of research in music education, 46(2), 265–280.

Education Testing Service (ETS) (2011). The Praxis Exam. Retrieved August 2, 2011 from
www.ets.org/praxis/

Ellsworth, E. V. (1985). A descriptive analysis of the characteristics of effective high school

orchestra directors including a study of selected rehearsal characteristics. Dissertation
Abstract International, 47(6), 2070A. (UMI No. AAT 8601826). Retrieved April 28,
2011, from Dissertations and Theses database.

Erbes, R. (1978). I used to direct my rehearsals like a drill sergeant . . . until I learned about
interaction analysis. Music Educators Journal, 65(2), 50–53.

Forsythe, J. L. (1977). Elementary student attending behavior as a function of classroom

activities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25, 228–239.

Fukuzawa, R. E. (1990). Stratification, social control, and student culture: An ethnography of

three Japanese junior high schools. Dissertation Abstract International, 51(6), 2069A.
(UMI No. AAT 9031903). Retrieved April 28, 2011, from Dissertations and Theses
database.

George, D. & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference,
11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Glaserfield, E. V. (2005). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.),

Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–7). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.

171
Goolsby, T. (1996). Time use in instrumental music rehearsals: A comparison of experienced,
novice, and student teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 286–303.

Goolsby, T. (1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of three career

levels and pre-service teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 21–40.

Grechesky, R. N. (1985). An analysis of non-verbal and verbal conducting behaviors and their
relationship to expressive musical performance. Dissertation Abstract International,
46(10), 2956A. (UMI No. AAT 8513459). Retrieved April 28, 2011, from Dissertations
and Theses database.

Green, L. (2001). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate.

Groulx, T. J. (2010). An examination of the influence of band director teaching style and
personality on ratings at concert and marching band events. Dissertation Abstract
International, 71(11). (UMI No. AAT3425686). Retrieved February 8, 2012, from
Dissertations and Theses database.

Gumm, A. J. (1992). Music teaching styles: A review and conceptualization of literature.

Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 4, 12–34.

Gumm, A. J. (1993). The development of a model and assessment instrument of choral music
teaching styles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 189–199.

Gumm, A. J. (2003). The effects of choral music teacher experience and background on music
teaching style. Visions of Research in Music Education, 3, 6-22.

Gumm, A. J. (2004a). The effect of choral student learning style and motivation for music on
perception of music teaching style. Bulletin for the Council for Research in Music
Education, 159, 11-17.

Gumm, A. J. (2004b). Music Teaching Style Inventory. Mount Pleasant, MI: Alan Gumm.

Gumm, A. J. (2009). Music Teaching Style Inventory: teacher self-perception form.

Unpublished data collection instrument, used by permission.

Hancock, C. B. (2003). An examination of preservice teaching intensity in relation to in-service

teacher retention and attrition. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 166–178.

Hargreaves, D. J., Marshall, N. A., & North, A. C. (2003). Music education in the twenty-first
century: A psychological perspective. British Journal of Music Education, 20(2), 147–
163.

172
Harris, J. (2002). A brief history of American academic credit system: A recipe for incoherence
in student learning. Lecture from Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama.

Hatakeyama, N. (2000). “Senpai”: Another protector in Japan. Kaleidoscope, LEO: Literacy

Education Online, 1. http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/kaleidoscope/volume1/contents.html

Hebert, D. G. (2001). The Tokyo Kosei Wind Orchestra: A case study of intercultural music
transmission. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 212–226.

Hebert, D. G. (2005). Music competition, cooperation, and community: An ethnography of a

Japanese school band. Dissertation Abstract International, 66(2), 404A. (UMI No. AAT
3163382). Retrieved March 9, 2011, from Dissertations and Theses database.

Holz, E. (1960). The national school band tournament of 1923 and its bands. Dissertation
Abstract International, 21(8), 2319A. (UMI No. AAT 6006882). Retrieved April 28,
2011, from Dissertations and Theses database.

Jervis, N. (2008). What is a culture? The University of the State of New York. The State
Education Department. Retrieved from
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/socst/grade3/whatisa.html

Jeynes, W. (2008). What we should and should not learn from the Japanese and other East Asian
education systems. Educational Policy, 22(6), 900-927.

Kawanari, Y. (2000). Daigaku houkai [The collapse of universities]. Tokyo, Japan:

Takarajimasha.

Kiester, G. J. (1993). A look at Japanese music education. Music Educators Journal, 79(6), 42–
48.

Kobayashi, T. (1976). Society, schools, and progress in Japan. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Koide, M. (2000). Suisogaku shidoniokeru kyoujukoui kenkyuno hitsuyosei [The importance of

studying teaching conduct in school brass band instruction]. Ongaku Kyoikugaku
Kenkyu [Music Education Research Studies], II, 21–30. Tokyo, Japan: Ongakuno
Tomosha (for the Japan Academic Society for Music Education).

Kostka, M. J. (1984). An investigation of reinforcements, time use and student attentiveness in

piano lessons. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 113–122.

Latten, J. E. (1998). A scheduling-conflict resolution model. Music Educators Journal, 84(6),

22–25; 38.

Lau, Y. Y. (2005). Wind Band Development and Direction in the 70s. Unpublished essay, Hong

173
 Kong Academy for Performing Arts, Hong Kong, China.

LeTendre, G. K. (1999). The problem of Japan: Qualitative studies and international educational
comparisons. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 38–45.

Lisk, E. S. (1991). The creative director: Alternative rehearsal techniques (3rd ed.). Fort
Lauderdale, FL: Meredith Music Publications.

MacCannel, D. (1999). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Mackworth-Young, L. (1990). Pupil-centered learning in piano lessons: An evaluated action-

research programme focusing on the psychology of the individual. Psychology of Music
18(1): 73–86.

Madsen, C. K. (1971). Symposium on Research in Musical Behavior. Music Educators Journal

57(8), 39–43.

Madsen, C. (2000). Preface to Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the Future of
Music Education. Reston, VA: MENC—The National Association for Music Education.

Madsen, C. K., & Alley, J. (1979). The effect of reinforcement on attentiveness: A comparison
of behaviorally trained music therapists and other professionals with implications for
competency-based academic preparation. Journal of Music Therapy, 16, 70–82.

Madsen, K. & Yarbrough, C. (1985). Competency-based music education. Raleigh, NC:

Contemporary Publishing.

Mark, M., & Gary, C. (2007). A history of American music education, (3rd ed.). Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Markworth, W. (2008). The dynamic marching band. Sarasota, FL: Marching Show Concepts,
Inc.

Manzo, K. K. (2008, April 23). Trends in Japan: Japan continues search for academic triumph.
Education Week. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/04/23/34japan_ep.h27.html?
qs=Japanese+academic

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L.A. Pervin & O.P.
John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139-153). New
York: Guilford Press.

McCreary, T. (2001). Methods and perceptions of assessment in secondary instrumental music.

Dissertation Abstract International, 62(10), 3328A. (UMI No. AAT 3030187).
Retrieved December 11, 2011, from Dissertations and Theses database.

174
Michiro, K. (1991). Ongaku kyooiku no riron to rekishi {A theory and history of music
education}, (Tokyo: Ongaku no Tomosha, 1991), 203.

Midwest Clinic. (2011). Concert programs. Retrieved November 22, 2011, from
http://www.midwestclinic.org/performers/concert_programs.asp

Miksza, P., Roeder, M., & Biggs, D. (2010). Surveying Colorado band directors’ opinions of
skills and characteristics important to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 57(4), 364–381.

Moore, J. E. (1968). The national school band contests from 1926 to 1931. Dissertation
Abstract International, 29(8), 2743A. (UMI No. AAT 6902360). Retrieved May 3, 2011,
from Dissertations and Theses database.

Moore, R. (1976). The effects of videotaped feedback and self-evaluation forms on teaching
skills, musicianship, and creativity of prospective elementary teachers. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 47, 1–7.

Moore, R. (1981). Comparative use of teaching time by American and British elementary school
specialists. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 66-67, 62-68.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

NAfME. (2011). About MENC. Retrieved August 1, 2011, from http://www.meng.org/about/

Nakanowatari, K. (1992). Kigaku kyoiku toshiteno gakko suisogaku saiko [Rethinking the
teaching of instruments in school band] (I). Japan Band Directors Association Journal,
2, 9–13.

Nakazawa, N. (1989). School music, environment, and music preferences: A comparison of

Japanese students living in Japan and Japanese students living in the United States.
Dissertation Abstract International, 49(9), 2575A. (UMI No. AAT 8824406). Retrieved
February 1, 2011, from Dissertations and Theses database.

National Center for Education Statistics, 2001. Retrieved August 21, 2001, from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/pirls2001.asp

National NASM Handbook National Association of Schools of Music, Reston, VA.

Neirmeier, A. (2007). The history of wind bands in the Hong Kong special administrative
region. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Victoria, BC, Canada.

Obata, Y. (1974). The band in Japan from 1945-1970: A study of its history and the factors
influencing its growth during this period. Dissertation Abstract International, 36(1),

175
 18A. (UMI No. AAT 7514801). Retrieved April 28, 2011, from Dissertations and Theses
database.

Ogawa, M. (2004). Music teacher education in Japan: Structure, problems, and perspectives.
Philosophy of Music Education Review, 12(2), 139–153.

Oku, S. (1992). Japanese traditional music in departments of teacher training universities. In T.

Takizawa (Ed.), Perspectives of music education in Japan and ASEAN countries (pp. 81–
103). Tokyo, Japan: Academia Music Ltd.

Pearen, L. (2006). Travel: Trip planning: An educational approach. Canadian Winds: The
Journal of the Canadian Band Association. 4(2), 90–92.

Phillips, D. (1992). Introduction. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Lessons of cross-national comparison of

education (pp. 7–9). Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: Triangle Books.

Polk, J. A. (2006). Traits of effective teachers. Arts Education Policy Review. 107(4).

Pontious, M. F. (1982). A profile of rehearsal techniques and interaction of selected band

conductors. Dissertation Abstract International, 43(9), 2920A. (UMI No. AAT
8302966). Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Dissertations and Theses database.

Price, H. E. (1983). The effect of conductor academic task presentation, conductor

reinforcement, and ensemble practice on performers’ musical achievement, attentiveness,
and attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 245–257.

Price, H. E. & Byo, J. L. (2002). Rehearsing and conducting. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson
(Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for
teaching and learning (pp. 335–351). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.

Rickels, D. A. (2008). A comparison of variables in Arizona marching band festival results.

Journal of Band Research, 44(1), 25–42.

Rohner, J. T. (2002). When block schedules begin instrumental music declines. Instrumentalist,
56(9), 19–24.

Rosenshine, B., Froehlich, H., & Fakhouri, I. (2002). Systematic instruction. In R. Colwell & C.
Richardson (Eds.), The New Handbook of Music Teaching and Learning, (pp. 299–326).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Schleuter, S. (1997). A sound approach to teaching instrumentalists. New York, NY: Schirmer
Books.

176
Schmidt, C. P. (1989). Applied music teaching behavior as a function of selected personality
variables. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 258–271.

Schmidt, C. P., & Hicken, L. (1986). An investigation of selected variables as predictors of

achievement in music student teaching. Contributions to Music Education, 13, 39-47.

Shapiro, A. (2003). Case studies in constructivist leadership and teaching. Lanham, MD: The
Scarecrow Press.

Sherrill, M. H. (1986). An analytical study of videotaped rehearsal and conducting techniques of

selected junior and senior high school band conductors. Dissertation Abstract
International, 47(4), 1231A. (UMI No. AAT 8614150). Retrieved April 28, 2011, from
Dissertations and Theses database.

Siebenaler, D. (1997). Analysis of teacher-student interactions in the piano lessons of children

and adults. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 6–20.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Spradling, R. (1990). Playing to win. Instrumentalist (44), 88.

Taebel, D. K. (1990). An assessment of the classroom performance of music teachers. Journal

of Research in Music Education, 38(1), 5–23.

Tan, P. L. (1999). The historical study of symphonic bands and related ensembles in Singapore.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Texas Band Masters Association. (2011). Retrieved August 1, 2011, from

http://www.texasbandmasters.org/

Thomson, J. (2006). Adapt and survive with any schedule: An interview with Brian Anderson.
The Instrumentalist, 60(6), 18–21, 58.

Thurman, V. L. (1977). A frequency and time distribution of selected rehearsal behaviors used
by five choral directors. Dissertation Abstract International, 38(6), 3135A. (UMI No.
AAT 7726765). Retrieved March 1, 2011, from Dissertations and Theses database.

Tocqueville, A. de. (1831). De la démocratie en Amérique [Democracy in America]. New

York, NY: Penguin Putnam.

Tsai, C. (2000). Teaching styles of piano faculty in Taiwanese universities and colleges.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (04), 1336A. (UMI No. AAT 9967166)
Retrieved February 8, 2012.

177
Tsukahara, Y. (2001). Gungakutaito senzenno taishu ongaku [Military bands and popular music
before the war]. In K. Abe, S. Hoskawa, Y. Tsukahara, M. Touya, & T. Takazawa (Eds.),
Burasubando no shakaishi [Social history of brass bands] (pp. 83-124). Tokyo, Japan:
Seikyusha.

United States Bureau of International Labor Affairs (2004). Retrieved from

http://www.dol.gov/ilab/media/reports/iclp/tda2004/ghana.htm

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher order psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wagner, M., & Strul, E. (1979). Comparisons of beginning versus experienced elementary
music educators in the use of teaching time. Journal of Research in Music Education,
27, 113–125.

Wapnick, J., Mazza, J., & Darrow, A. A. (1998). Effects of performer attractiveness, stage
behavior, and dress on violin performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 46, 510–521.

Wasley, P. (2007). College Board reports more takers, and higher scores, for Advanced
Placement tests. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(25), 32.

White, M. (1987). The Japanese educational challenge. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Whitehill, C. (1969). Sociological conditions which contributed to the growth of the school band
movement in the United States. Journal of Research in Music Education, 17, 179–192.

Wiggins, J. (1999). The nature of shared musical understanding and its role in empowering
independent musical thinking. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,
143, 66–90.

Wilds, A. (1993). Japan’s art teachers: An ethnographic study of their instructional practices and
educational beliefs. Dissertation Abstract International, 54(6), 2030A. (UMI No. AAT
9331955). Retrieved April 28, 2011, from Dissertations and Theses database.

Willson, T. (1986). Japanese bands: What makes them so good? Music Educators Journal,
72(5), 41.

Wilson, G. C. (1975). Perspective on music in Japan. Instrumentalist, 30(3), 35.

Witt, A. C. (1986). Use of class time and student attentiveness in secondary instrumental music
rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, 34–42.

Yarbrough, C. (1975). Effect of magnitude of conducting behavior on students in selected mixed

choruses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23, 134–146.

178
Yarbrough, C., & Price, H. E. (1981). Prediction of performer attentiveness based on rehearsal
activity and teacher behavior. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 209–217.

179