• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Review of the literature
 Methodology
 Results
 Summary, conclusions, discussion,...
 Appendix A: Course objectives
 Appendix B: Final written exam
 Appendix C: Final performance...
 Appendix D: Unit lesson plans
 Appendix E: Feedback and corrective...
 Appendix F: Alternate procedur...
 Appendix G: Course handouts
 Appendix H: Lead sheet sources...
 Appendix I: Training a process...
 Appendix J: Process evaluator...
 Appendix K: Student evaluation...
 Appendix L: Information questi...
 Appendix M: Written entry exam
 Appendix N: Performance entry...
 References
 Biographical sketch
 Back Cover














Title: Teaching basic jazz piano skills to classically-trained adult pianists
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099472/00001
 Material Information
Title: Teaching basic jazz piano skills to classically-trained adult pianists a mastery learning approach
Physical Description: viii, 249 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Larsen, Janeen Jess, 1949-
Publication Date: 1986
Copyright Date: 1986
 Subjects
Subject: Jazz -- Instruction and study   ( lcsh )
Piano music (Jazz) -- Instruction and study   ( lcsh )
Educational Leadership thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1986.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 243-248.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Janeen Jess Larsen.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099472
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000889058
notis - AEJ7427
oclc - 015191601

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 9 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iii
    Table of Contents
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
    Abstract
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Review of the literature
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
    Methodology
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
    Results
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
    Summary, conclusions, discussion, and recommendations
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
    Appendix A: Course objectives
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
    Appendix B: Final written exam
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
    Appendix C: Final performance exam
        Page 119
        Page 120
    Appendix D: Unit lesson plans
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
    Appendix E: Feedback and corrective procedures
        Page 203
        Page 204
    Appendix F: Alternate procedures
        Page 205
        Page 206
    Appendix G: Course handouts
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
    Appendix H: Lead sheet sources and discography
        Page 224
        Page 225
    Appendix I: Training a process evaluator
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
    Appendix J: Process evaluator summary
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
    Appendix K: Student evaluation questionnaire
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
    Appendix L: Information questionnaire
        Page 237
        Page 238
    Appendix M: Written entry exam
        Page 239
        Page 240
    Appendix N: Performance entry exam
        Page 241
        Page 242
    References
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
    Biographical sketch
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
    Back Cover
        Page 252
Full Text















TEACHING BASIC JAZZ PIANO SKILLS
TO CLASSICALLY-TRAINED ADULT PIANISTS:
A MASTERY LEARNING APPROACH





By



JANEEN JESS LARSEN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1986































Copyright 1986

by

Janeen J. Larsen












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would not have been possible without the

help of many people. The writer wishes to express her

sincere gratitude to the members of the doctoral committee:

Dr. Forrest Parkay, Chairperson; Dr. Phyllis Dorman,

Cochairperson; Dr. Gordon Lawrence; Dr. David Kushner; and

Dr. Camille Smith.

Special thanks are given to Dr. Phyllis Dorman for her

careful guidance and support throughout the study, and to

Dr. Al Smith for his invaluable assistance.

Recognition and thanks are given to William Hyman, the

writer's first jazz teacher, for a job well done; and to

Kriss Hammond, for his patience and understanding.

The writer is indebted to the many fine musicians who

participated in this study, each of whom taught me so much;

not only about the process of acquiring jazz piano skills,

but about the indefatigable enthusiasm and joy evidenced by

adult learners. Special mention must be made of the process

evaluators for this study: Lisa Lee Sawyer, Diane Ketel,

Lori Miller, and Janette MacNeill.

Finally, the writer would like to express her heartfelt

thanks and love to her mother, Dr. Janet Larsen.














TABLE OF CONTENTS







Page


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . ... . . .. iii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . vii

CHAPTER

ONE INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . 1
Nature of the Study . . . . . . 2
Statement of the Problem. .. . . . . 4
Assumptions . . . . . . . . 5
Delimitations . . . . . . .. 6
Limitations . . . . . . . . 6
Need for the Study. . . . . . . 7
Significance of the Study . . . . . 11
Definition of Terms . . . . . . 11
Organization of the Study . . . . .. 16

TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . ... 17

Jazz Curriculum and Evaluation. . . .. 17
Keyboard Improvisation. . . . . ... 24
Program Development . . . . . .. 27
Mastery Learning. . . . . . ... .. 28
Program Evaluation. . . . . . .. 32
Jazz Improvisation Methods. . . . .. 36
Group Piano . . . . . . . . 40
Instructional Strategies. . . . . . 43
Creativity Motivation . . . ... . . 44
Teaching Improvisation. . . . . .. 46
Attitude Change and Measurement . . .. 47
Summary . . . . . ... . . 49













THREE METHODOLOGY . . .

Preparation . . . .
Course Development .
Course Design . . .
Course Evaluation . .
Instrumentation . . .
Sample Population . .
Collection of Data .
Analysis of Data . .

FOUR RESULTS . . . .

Stage 1 . . . . .
Stage 2 . . . . .
Stage 3 . . . . .
Research Question #1. .
Research Question #2. .
Research Question #3. .
Research Question #4. .
Interpretation of Results


FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . .

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: COURSE OBJECTIVES . . . . .

APPENDIX B: FINAL WRITTEN EXAM. . . . . .

APPENDIX C: FINAL PERFORMANCE EXAM. . . . .

APPENDIX D: UNIT LESSON PLANS . . . . .

APPENDIX E: FEEDBACK AND CORRECTIVE PROCEDURES. .

APPENDIX F: ALTERNATE PROCEDURES . . . .

APPENDIX G: COURSE HANDOUTS . . . . . .


Page

53


. . . . . 74

. . . . . 74
. . . . . 76
. . . . . 80
. . . . . 82
. . . . . 83
. . . . . 85
. . . . . 87
... . 91














APPENDIX H:

APPENDIX I:

APPENDIX J:

APPENDIX K:

APPENDIX L:

APPENDIX M:

APPENDIX N:


LEAD SHEET SOURCES AND DISCOGRAPHY

TRAINING A PROCESS EVALUATOR . .

PROCESS EVALUATOR SUMMARY . .

STUDENT EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE .

INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE . . .

WRI-TTEN ENTRY EXAM . . . . .

PERFORMANCE ENTRY EXAM . . . .


REFERENCES . . . . . . . . .


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . .


Page

224

226

229

232

237

239

241










Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


TEACHING BASIC JAZZ PIANO SKILLS
TO CLASSICALLY-TRAINED ADULT PIANISTS:
A MASTERY LEARNING APPROACH

By

Janeen Jess Larsen

August, 1986

Chairperson: Dr. Forrest Parkay
Cochairperson: Dr. Phyllis Dorman
Major Department: Educational Leadership


This was a descriptive study of the sequential process

used by this investigator for the development of a short

course in basic jazz piano skills. The problem of this

study was whether systematic, linear procedures could be

used in the development, design, and evaluation of a course

involving creative subject matter. The development of the

course was based upon a three-stage model suggested by

Markle, the design of the course was based upon the mastery

learning theory of Carroll and Bloom, and the evaluation of

the course was based upon the formative-summative evaluation

theory of Scriven.

The course was intended for group instruction of

classically-trained adult pianists. The process of course

development was undertaken over a two-year time span, and

consisted of a sequence of prototypical workshops in jazz

vii










piano. Each workshop was evaluated and revised in order to

produce the final methodology for teaching the course.

Summative evaluation data were collected during the

final stage of course development (a five-week, 15-hour

workshop in basic jazz piano skills). The data indicated

that most students achieved success at improvisation in a

jazz context and were able to acquire skills in using

seventh chords. All students attained a mastery score on an

exam which tested cognitive knowledge of the jazz idiom.

Participation in a carefully structured, developmental

sequence of activities provided in a group situation had a

positive effect on all students' attitudes toward their

improvisational ability.

This study provides detailed lesson plans and

evaluation materials for a sequence of activities that will

enable classically-trained adult pianists to acquire a

selected set of basic jazz piano skills in a short amount of

time. The viability of linear systems of course development

and design was also demonstrated, and new information about

the applicability of mastery learning theory to the field of

music education was provided. This study will serve as a

useful model for music educators interested in developing

their own curriculum materials, and it will provide valuable

information for teachers and students of jazz piano.

viii
















CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

Introduction

One of the most interesting developments in the

twentieth century has been the emergence of a new musical

art form: jazz. In the early 1900s, elements from Western

European and Afro-American music were combined to create a

unique, distinctly American mode of musical expression

(Kynaston & Ricci, 1978). In the course of 50 years, jazz

slowly moved from street corners and brothels into concert

halls and music conservatories. In 1967 the National

Association of Jazz Educators was founded, and today jazz

has become an established part of many university and public

school curricula.

Although hundreds of jazz methods and materials have

been published in the last decade, very little attention has

been given to the special needs of the adult classical

pianist interested in learning the rudiments of jazz piano

improvisation. Many classical pianists would like to

acquire jazz piano skills, for a variety of reasons which

may include (a) an awareness of the growing importance and

status of jazz as a serious art form, (b) an attraction to









the sophistication and complexity of jazz music, (c) an

interest in updating musical knowledge in order to help

piano students explore contemporary musical styles, and

(d) a desire to become involved with a type of music which

is viewed as enjoyable or fun. It would seem that there is

a need for a course in basic jazz piano skills which is

oriented toward the special interests of adult classical

pianists.



Nature of the Study

This was a descriptive, theory-based curriculum study

of the sequential process used for the development of a

short course in basic jazz piano skills. At the time this

study was undertaken, no such course existed. Systematic

approaches to course development, design, and evaluation

were selected for the creation of this course.

The development of the course was based upon a model

suggested by Markle (1967). This model consists of three

stages. Stage 1, "developmental testing," is concerned with

identifying major problems in course materials. This is

accomplished by testing materials with individual students.

Stage 2, "validation testing," is concerned with the

refinement of materials and strategies by testing them with

small groups. Stage 3, "field testing," is the application








3

of all the materials and strategies in a normal classroom

situation. This procedure can be time consuming and costly;

however, Markle (1967) has suggested that it is an effective

way to provide quality control for a course in the

dimensions of teaching effectiveness and instructional

materials.

The course design was based on the mastery learning

theory of Carroll (1963) and Bloom (1968). This theory

contends that any student can learn any subject, if the

student is provided with appropriate prior and current

conditions of learning. A course designed on this principle

must have specific, carefully delineated objectives, which

should be attainable by every student who takes the course.

The subject matter is organized into small, sequential

units, and student mastery of each unit objective is

carefully monitored. This approach has been used

successfully in a wide variety of subject areas, and has

been shown to have positive affective consequences (Bloom,

Madaus, & Hastings, 1981). Mastery learning procedures

suggested by Block (1980), in the form of seven steps, were

employed to accomplish the task of course design.

The evaluation of the course was based upon the

formative-summative evaluation theory of Scriven (1966).

This theory states that evaluation can be used for decision









making summativee) and for course development and

improvement (formative). Both types of evaluation data are

useful in the process of course development. Instruments

for collecting both formative and summative evaluation data

were devised by the investigator.



Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study was whether the theoretical

models of Markle (1967), Carroll (1963) and Bloom (1968),

and Scriven (1966) could be applied to an unusual area of

instruction: specifically, the development, design, and

evaluation of a short course in basic jazz piano skills for

classically-trained adult pianists.

The course was designed for group instruction of

adult students. The process of course development was

conducted over a two-year time span. Workshops in basic

jazz piano were conducted, and each workshop was evaluated

and revised in order to produce the final methodology. The

course in its final form was field tested and evaluated, and

detailed lesson plans and evaluation materials were compiled

and presented to facilitate future implementation.

The goals of the course, in its final form, were to

provide students with knowledge of the jazz idiom, develop

students' skills in realizing seventh chords from letter








5

chord symbols, develop students' skills in jazz

improvisation, and affect students' attitudes toward their

own improvisational ability. The following questions were

addressed in the field test of the course:

1. Will the course enable students to achieve a mastery

score on an exam which covers items related to knowledge of

the jazz idiom?

2. Will the course enable students to achieve a mastery

score on an exam which tests skills in realizing seventh

chords from letter symbols?

3. Will the course enable students to achieve a mastery

score on an exam which tests skills in jazz improvisation?

A. Will the course enable students to respond to a

questionnaire in a manner which indicates that they have

acquired more positive attitudes toward their own

improvisational ability?



Assumptions

The following assumptions were used in this study:

1. There is an identifiable set of basic jazz piano skills.

2. Basic jazz piano skills can be taught by one teacher to

a group of students.

3. Adult classical pianists who meet certain predetermined

entry requirements can be grouped together for the purpose

of learning basic jazz piano skills.








6

4. Classically-trained adult pianists in the vicinity of

Rapid City, South Dakota, are similar to classically-trained

adult pianists in other parts of the United States.



Delimitations

This study was narrowed in scope in the following ways:

1. The course offered instruction on a select group of

basic jazz piano skills.

2. The course was developed and evaluated using subjects

from the vicinity of Spearfish and Rapid City, South Dakota.

3. The course was developed and evaluated using subjects

who were adult classically-trained pianists interested in

acquiring jazz piano skills.



Limitations

Listed below are the limitations of this study:

1. The findings of this study can only be generalized to

classically-trained adult pianists who evidence an interest

in acquiring basic jazz piano skills.

2. A before-and-after evaluation design (Morris & Fitz-

Gibbon, 1978) was used because of a lack of an established

alternative short jazz piano course curriculum oriented

toward adult classical pianists which could be used for

comparison.








7

3. The findings may have been affected by the nature and

previous experience of the subjects.

4. The findings may have been affected by the teaching of

the course by this investigator.

5. The findings may have been affected by the nature and

expertise of the process evaluators.



Need for the Study

There are many obstacles in the path of adult classical

pianists interested in acquiring jazz piano skills. Jazz

piano methods generally do not begin at a level rudimentary

enough for pianists who have had little experience with the

jazz idiom. In addition, methods cannot provide feedback,

corrections, or encouragement. College courses in jazz

improvisation are often unavailable, inaccessible, or

impractical because of their length. Encapsulated, short

courses or workshops are often more suitable for the busy

schedules of working adults. This study addressed the need

for a short, encapsulated course in basic jazz piano skills

which begins at a very rudimentary level.

Not every pianist who undertakes the study of jazz

piano plans to become a performer. Many are concerned

primarily with enhancing their understanding of jazz as an

art form, exploring their own personal creative musicality,









or acquiring practical information and techniques they can

pass on to their students. This study addressed the need

for a course which provides an introductory overview of the

rudiments of jazz piano for adults who are not necessarily

interested in becoming professional jazz pianists, but who

would like to acquire some basic knowledge and practical

skills.

Improvisation is a very important aspect of jazz.

Unfortunately, many adult classical pianists are greatly

dependent upon notation, and have difficulty shifting into

improvisational modes of expression. Improvisation plays

little or no part in the training of the average piano

student (Lindstrom, 1974). Traditional approaches to the

teaching of piano have emphasized note reading and

interpreting European literature of the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries at the expense of other creative

behaviors. As a result, many pianists believe that

improvisation is an innate behavior which is mysteriously

acquired at birth. Notation-dependent adult pianists often

perceive themselves as lacking in improvisational talent.

Negative attitudes toward personal improvisational

abilities may inhibit the learning of improvisation skills.

Although children generally find it easy to improvise,

by the time the child has grown into a young adult
. he has not the faintest memory of his first
attempts at improvisation. Worse, many students,








9

especially those with no experience in the one-
sided jazz idiom, are actually afraid to try it.
Never having been exposed to it they are full of
inhibitions and are afraid to appear inadequate;
they do not know how to begin, the task seems
insurmountable. (Wunsch, 1972, p. 22)

An important aspect of teaching basic jazz piano skills is

helping classically-trained adult pianists to overcome

inhibitions and develop more confidence in their

improvisational ability.

In all its styles, jazz involves some degree of

collective ensemble improvisation and group cooperation

(Hodier, 1956). Individual study with a teacher of jazz

generally does not allow opportunities for peer interaction

and group improvisation experiences. This study addressed

the need for a course in basic jazz piano which (a) provides

an environment which can foster group improvisation

activities, and (b) allows interaction among adult students

who share an interest in developing their jazz piano skills.

A course in the area of jazz was needed which could

serve as a model in the area of systematic course

development. Because jazz education is a relatively new

field, it is important that the procedures followed in the

development of each new jazz course are carefully

documented. Linear schemata for course development, such as

the one suggested by Markle (1967), needed to be evaluated

for their utility as a planning framework in the area of

jazz.








10

A course was needed in the area of jazz which was

systematically designed in such a way that virtually every

student who takes the course can expect to acquire certain

knowledge, skills, and attitudes. There are few courses in

the area of jazz which guarantee that each or any student

who undertakes the study of jazz within the course framework

will be able to reach the objectives, or a specific level of

performance. The use of mastery learning procedures in

designing a course can make the course outcomes reasonably

predictable. A jazz course designed using these procedures

can serve as a model for future developers of jazz

curricula.

A course was needed in the area of jazz which could

serve as a model in the area of systematic course

evaluation. One of the weaknesses of many current jazz

curricula is that there appears to be no provision for

accountability. Evaluation is often primarily concerned

with a product, such as performance, rather than course

improvement or attitude change. Little information may be

provided on the actual implementation of a jazz curriculum,

and the processes which led to the final outcomes. The

quality of teaching may not be evaluated at all. The

application of formative and summative evaluation procedures

may provide valuable information about a course in reference

to its effectiveness and value, and may also indicate ways

to improve the course for future implementation.








11

Significance of the Study

There are several reasons why this study was

significant. First, it provided detailed lesson plans and

evaluation materials for a developmental sequence of

activities that will enable adult classical pianists to

acquire a selected set of basic jazz piano skills in a

relatively short amount of time (Appendix A-N). Second, it

demonstrated the viability of linear systems of course

development and design in an area which is concerned with

the teaching of creative subject matter. Third, it provided

new information about the applicability of mastery learning

theory in the field of jazz, and demonstrated a novel use of

mastery learning procedures. Fourth, it showed the

viability of formative and summative evaluation in a jazz

piano context. Fifth, it demonstrated the effectiveness of

teaching jazz piano skills in a group situation. Sixth, it

will serve as a useful model for educators who are seeking

effective ways to develop, design, and evaluate a course

related to the development of jazz improvisation skills.



Definition of Terms

Attitude is operationally defined as a construct which

includes the beliefs, feelings, and affective behaviors

associated with a particular idea or activity.








12

Classically-trained adult pianist is defined as a

person 18 years of age or older who (a) has knowledge of all

major scales and all major and minor triads; (b) can play,

on the keyboard, a one octave major scale with both hands

simultaneously, with eighth notes in the right hand and

quarter notes in the left; (c) can play a Clementi Sonatina,

Bach Minuet, or piece of similar difficulty after

practicing; (c) can sight read the first line of "Terry's

Tune" by Tom Ferguson (1979) accurately, the third try or

before; and (d) has never performed in public as a jazz

pianist.

Course is defined as a set of learning experiences

which are planned, organized, and implemented for the

purpose of attaining certain aims, goals, or objectives

related to a particular subject area.

Course design is defined as a written plan which

delineates the process by which a selected set of skills,

knowledge, and attitudes are developed in learners by a

teacher.

Curriculum is defined as a plan for learning,

consisting of goals for learning and ways for evaluating

these goals (Taba, 1962).

Feedback and corrective procedures are defined as

verbal, visual, or tactile indications by a teacher to a

student in reference to the correctness or appropriateness

of a student action or response.








13

Evaluation is defined as the process of selecting,

collecting, and interpreting information for the purpose of

keeping various audiences informed about a program (Morris &

Fitz-Gibbons, 1978). Evaluation may be formative, for the

purpose of course development and improvement, or summative,

for the purpose of decision making (Scriven, 1966).

Improvisation is defined as the process of spontaneous

invention of a melodic line, without reference to notation

other than a lead sheet.

Improvisational ability is defined as the degree to

which pianists are skillful and adept at the spontaneous

invention of melodic lines.

Jazz is defined as a type of music indigenous to the

United States which is distinguished by its characteristic

rhythms and harmonies and which frequently involves

improvisation (Burnett, 1983).

Jazz and popular tunes are defined as songs that have

been recorded by jazz artists, are included in jazz oriented

fake books, or are recognizable as popular tunes by many

adult pianists.

Jazz chord symbology is defined as a notational system

utilized to indicate the root, type, and quality of chords.

See letter chord symbol.

Lead sheet is defined as a shorthand method for

notating a song. The melody is written out with simplified








14

rhythms, and the harmonic changes are indicated by letter

chord symbols above the melody.

Letter chord symbol is defined as a method of notating

the root, type, and quality of a four-note chord. A capital

letter (A-G) is used to indicate the root or bottom note of

the chord. This is followed by other symbols which indicate

the nature or size of the other intervals above the root.

For example, Cm7 = C-Eb-G-Bb, C7 = C-E-G-Bb, CM7 = C-E-G-B,

C6 = C-E-G-A, C7+5 = C-E-G#-Bb. The pitches which form the

chord can be sounded in any order and in any position on the

keyboard.

Mastery learning is defined as a theory about teaching

and learning which asserts that any teacher can help

virtually all students learn excellently, provided (a) the

instruction is approached systematically, (b) there is some

clear criterion of what constitutes mastery, (c) students

are given sufficient time to achieve mastery, and

(d) students are helped when and if they have learning

difficulties (Bloom, 1974).

Normal classroom is defined, in this case, as a room

which contains an electronic piano laboratory, a blackboard,

and a cassette player. Each student is seated at a separate

piano, with individual earphones for private practice or

ensemble activities.








15

Positive attitude toward improvisational ability is

defined as an adult classical pianist's tendency toward the

following behaviors, feelings, and beliefs: (a) a great

likelihood of improvising something on the piano when alone;

(b) comfort in improvising in a group situation, or for a

friend or student; (c) confidence in improvisational

ability; (d) a high self-rating of personal improvisational

talent or potential, and present improvisational ability or

skill.

Process evaluator is defined as a person who observes

the implementation of a course, provides daily feedback to

the instructor, verifies that course goals and lesson plan

objectives have been attained, and submits a summative

evaluation report.

Program is defined as a plan for carrying out certain

activities or attaining certain goals or objectives.

Realization is defined as the appropriate audible

performance, on the keyboard, of music which is notated in a

shorthand manner. See Lead sheet.

Short course is defined as a course which is less than

a semester in length; in this case, a course which consists

of five three-hour sessions within a five or six week time

period.

Twelve-bar blues is defined as a 12-measure chord

progression, usually with the following harmonic pattern:








16

/I/I/I/I/IV/IV/I/I/V/IV/I/I/. The background rhythm, or

bass pattern, must be steady and metronomic. The improvised

melodic line is usually in 12/8 meter and utilizes a blues

scale, which is a major scale with a flatted 3,5,7,9 (2).



Organization of the Study

This study is organized into five chapters and 14

appendices. The chapters describe and explain the process

of course development. Chapter One is the introduction and

problem statement. Chapter Two is a review of the

literature. Chapter Three describes the methodology.

Chapter Four presents the results. Chapter Five includes a

summary, conclusions, and recommendations. The course

materials are presented in the appendices. Appendix D

consists of the lesson plans for the course. Course

objectives, sequence, handouts, information questionnaire,

testing instruments, evaluation instruments, discography,

and lead sheet sources are included in the other appendices.














CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This review of the literature includes research related

to jazz curriculum and evaluation, and keyboard

improvisation; a discussion of program development, program

evaluation, and mastery learning; and a brief overview of

each of the following topics: (a) jazz improvisation

methods, (b) group piano, (c) instructional strategies, (d)

creativity motivation, (e) teaching improvisation, and (f)

attitude change and measurement.



Jazz Curriculum and Evaluation

There have been several dissertations which have

developed and evaluated a jazz curriculum. However, none of

these studies were oriented specifically toward adult

classical pianists, and none of the studies were based on

theories of Markle (1967), Carroll (1963), Bloom (1968), or

Scriven (1966).

Segress (1979) developed and evaluated a first semester

college jazz improvisation curriculum. A semester-long

improvisation class and a volunteer control group of 15

students enrolled in a jazz ensemble and were pretested and

posttested with a listening, theory, and performance test.

Three visiting evaluators graded the performance test in








18

Segress' study, using an evaluation form developed for the

investigation. Posttest scores of the improvisation class

on all measures were shown to be significantly higher than

those of the control group. An attitude questionnaire given

to both groups at the end of the semester revealed a

generally more positive response from the members of the

improvisation class on their ability to understand jazz

theory, improvise more proficiently, and listen to jazz

solos. Three students (19%) in the improvisation class

indicated that too much material was covered in class, and

four students (25%) replied "maybe" or "no" to the question,

"Understand jazz style better?" (p.99). Because there was

no attitude pretest, it is unknown whether the course

affected the attitude of the students. The questions of the

attitude questionnaire appeared to be picked at random, and

were not correlated with course objectives. The course

focused on small combo rehearsal and performance with no

coverage of solo piano techniques. Although the curriculum

was well organized and demonstrated the viability of

instructional design techniques in the development of a jazz

curriculum, the evaluation procedures did not appear to be

carefully planned.

Briscuso (1972) was interested in determining whether

the Gordon Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP) could predict

success in spontaneous and prepared jazz improvisation. A








19

jazz improvisation course was developed which met two hours

a week for 30 weeks. Forty-eight students from selected

Iowa high school jazz bands were pretested with the MAP and

posttested with a performance test consisting of a 12

measure blues in F and a 32-measure pop song in Bb. Tape

recordings were made of a spontaneous performance during the

third-to-last class meeting as well as a performance during

the last class which was carefully prepared. Briscuso found

significant interactions between the scores on the MAP and

prepared improvisation. However, because there was no

control group, it is unknown whether the instruction had any

effect on the final performance scores. Briscuso concluded

that students who score high on the MAP musical sensitivity

test can benefit from (Briscuso's) instruction in jazz

improvisation. Unfortunately, this may foster the attitude

that jazz improvisation instruction is appropriate only for

the chosen few or talented, which is in direct opposition to

the views espoused by the Music Educators National

Conference. It is also contrary to the philosophy of Bloom

(1976), who states that the purpose of education should be

the development of talent, not the selection of talent.

Damron (1973) developed a self-instructional sequence

in jazz improvisation for high school students with moderate

technical proficiency. The program utilized cassette tape

recordings and a workbook. Twenty concert band students and










20 stage (jazz) band students were randomly divided into two

treatment groups; half of the concert band students and half

of the stage band students went through the instructional

program, which lasted five weeks. Performance posttests for

each student were rated independently by three judges for

the overall quality of the improvised jazz solo, on a 100-

point scale. The judges' scores for each student were

totaled, and significant differences were found (p<.05)

between the mean scores of the experimental and the control

group. The mean score of the experimental group was 131.45;

the control group, 90.35. Damron concluded that jazz

improvisation can be taught using programmed self-

instructional materials, and that the previous stage band

experiences had no significant effect on the subjects'

learning of jazz improvisation. Damron's study has shown

that jazz improvisation skills can be learned by high school

band students in a five-week time period. The study has

also implied that previous experience may not be necessary

to learn jazz.

Aitken (1975) developed a self-instructional jazz

method for Bb trumpet, using an audio-imitation approach.

The curriculum was examined and evaluated by four randomly

chosen jazz experts. Comments were made concerning the

value and effectiveness of the curriculum. Although three

judges wrote very complimentary and positive responses, one









evaluator criticized Aitken's over-emphasis of the "un-jazz-

like major mode" (p. 310). It appears that jazz experts may

differ in their opinions concerning the appropriateness of

certain approaches to teaching jazz improvisation. The

curriculum appears to have never been implemented, and there

is no reference to the length of time required to finish the

method. However, Aitken's study may have demonstrated the

viability of audio-imitation as a strategy for teaching jazz

improvisation.

Bash (1983) investigated the effectiveness of three

instructional methods on the acquisition of jazz

improvisational skills. Sixty high school students were

randomly placed in three experimental groups and one control

group. The experimental groups met one hour per week for

seven weeks. The first method was technically oriented,

focusing on scales and chord drills, and using the Aebersold

text, A New Approach to Jazz Improvisation. The second

method focused on call-response patterns, rote learning, and

vocal expression. The third method used the Aebersold text,

but also included listening and analysis of expressive

performance strategies in various jazz recordings. Methods

II and III emphasized the expressive, emotional aspects of

jazz, while method I was concerned with the use of correct

and accurate rhythms, pitches, and harmonic changes. The

results of the performance posttests suggested the viability









of the non-technical dimension in teaching jazz; the mean

scores of the subjects taught with methods II and III were

higher than that of Method I. Bash's study has suggested

that an emphasis on the expressive, emotional aspects of

jazz may be more effective than an emphasis on technical

accuracy in the initial stages of jazz study.

Buckner (1982) investigated the effects of jazz piano

lessons on a group of five undergraduate music education

majors. Each student had 10 one-hour lessons with a jazz

instructor; four instructors were chosen who were noted for

their jazz improvisational skills. Each student submitted a

written evaluation of the lessons. The students' reaction

to the experience was very positive, and several students

indicated that the studies aided their teacher preparation

and improved their confidence in their musical abilities.

Although the study was of the nature and scope of a pilot

case study rather than a research or evaluation study, the

results have indicated that music education majors may find

the study of jazz piano to be a very positive and beneficial

experience.

Konowitz (1969) wrote a descriptive study which

included a developmental sequence of jazz improvisation

materials. Improvisation was approached by non-piano

oriented activities such as clapping, body movement, and

singing. The harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic elements of








23

jazz were presented in a logical sequence. Konowitz wrote

original piano compositions in a jazz style for the purpose

of reinforcing jazz concepts. Unfortunately, the course of

study was never evaluated, and there was no time frame

indicated for the activities. No entry requirements were

established for the course of study. The sequence

progressed very quickly, from activities which required no

musical preparation to activities which required an

extensive background in music theory and a high level of

technical facility and note reading ability. There was

little use made of jazz or popular standard tunes, which

adults might find more interesting and motivating than

simple folk songs or unfamiliar original piano compositions.

Traditional notation was used extensively, which might not

be beneficial for notation-dependent pianists who may need

more improvisatory, aural experiences. However, Konowitz's

study has identified an appropriate content and a possible

sequence for a course in jazz piano improvisation.

Sudnow, trained as an ethnologist, has written a

detailed, autobiographical account of his study of jazz

piano improvisation. Ways of the Hand (1978) is a highly

subjective descriptive study of the mental and physical

processes involved in the acquisition of advanced jazz

improvisation skills. Sudnow chronicled his observations

and feelings during several years of jazz piano study.








24

Close attention was paid to the nature of hand movements in

various stages of development: of the initial "chord place

grabbing" (p.8), movements through successions of chords,

improvisatory routes and pathways, wayful reaching, and the

"language of paths and path switching" (p.141), concluding

with the "doing singing with my fingers" (p.152). This

study has provided valuable and unusual insights into the

process of acquiring jazz improvisational skills and

behaviors. It has also indicated that the process of

developing advanced skills in jazz piano improvisation is

highly complex and involves a considerable investment of

time.



Keyboard Improvisation

There are several studies concerned with keyboard

improvisation which are related to the study of jazz piano

improvisation. Kolar (1975) has written a guide to

elementary keyboard improvisation which focused on the study

on twentieth century compositional techniques, including

quartal harmony, serialism, bitonality, and pentatonic,

wholetone, and modal scales. Although the curriculum was

not implemented or evaluated, it was logically organized and

based on sound pedagogical principles. Kolar has provided a

carefully sequenced, highly structured spiral of

improvisatory activities for students of approximately 6








25

to 10 years of age and their piano teachers. The course of

study, which does not have any time frame, was designed for

group piano instruction. Rhythmic, melodic, and harmonic

concepts were introduced by a call and response approach.

It is highly probable that this technique, as well as

Kolar's premise that "starting with short, familiar

activities encourages minute explorations and eliminates

early inhibitions" (p. 186), may be utilized in the teaching

of basic jazz piano improvisation.

Montano (1983) investigated the effect of improvisation

on given rhythms on rhythmic accuracy in sight reading for

college group piano students at an elementary level.

Thirty-two undergraduate students at the University of

Denver were divided into two groups and pretested. The

experimental group was given a program of improvisational

exercises once a week over a span of six weeks. A sight

reading posttest was given to both groups at the end of the

six weeks. Montano concluded that the experimental group

showed significantly greater achievement of rhythmic

accuracy in sight reading than the non-improvising control

group. This study has suggested that improvisation can be a

valuable tool in the teaching of elementary piano skills.

Adult pianists who undertake a study of jazz may find that

serious study of improvisation in any musical context can

enhance and often improve other musical skills.








26

Duke (1972) has written a descriptive study which has

provided information on methods of teaching improvisation in

the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. An examination of

several jazz improvisation texts and jazz syllabi was

included; however, none appeared to be oriented specifically

to piano. Duke stated that "unlike the musical training of

the eighteenth century, twentieth century instruction has

managed to separate the creative part of musicality from the

performance part" (p. 227). Today, Duke observed, music

education is concerned with putting creativity and

performance back together again. His study has gathered and

presented some valuable historical and contemporary

information about how to promote creative, improvisatory

behaviors. Duke has suggested that creativity involves

making choices, and "a logical procedure designed to teach a

person to make choices should begin with a small number of

possibilities. As a person acquires confidence in his

ability to make choices, the number of alternates may be

increased" (p. 132). Duke also warned against verbalizing

about what is happening during the improvisation process and

stated that "anything which hampers relaxation will

inevitably interfere with the process of creativity" (p.

223). Many of Duke's ideas concerning the process of

creative musical development can be incorporated into

teaching strategies which may effectively foster

improvisatory behaviors in the context of jazz piano.








27

Program Development

Markle (1967) has defined an instructional program as

"a reproducible sequence of instructional events designed to

produce a measurable and consistent effect on the behavior

of each and every acceptable student" (p. 104). She has

stated that an important task of a program developer is to

provide quality control for teaching materials in the

dimensions of content, presentation technique, and teaching

effectiveness. Quality control is concerned with precise

measurement or description of the performance

characteristics, or outcomes, of a program. Markle (1967)

has identified three phases, or stages, of program

development, which can be utilized to apply quality control

to the design of instructional materials.

The first stage, developmental testing, takes place

during the initial processes of designing a program. The

purpose of this stage is to develop a workable instructional

program. Close observation of the individual learner and

careful attention to student feedback can provide valuable

information. The process of revision and trial and revision

and trial is characteristic of this stage.

The purpose of the second stage, validation testing, is

to determine who learns under what conditions in how much

time. Specifying the nature of students for whom the








28

program is written, selecting objectives and instruments for

verifying the attainment of objectives, deciding upon the

most appropriate physical setting, and determining the best

time frame for the program are important tasks for the

program developer during this stage.

During the third stage, the field test, the program is

tested in normal classroom conditions. Information

collected from this stage contributes to knowledge of the

limits of application of the validated materials. Dick

(1977a) has suggested that attitude questionnaires or

debriefing questionnaires can be very useful. Comments made

by experts or teachers who assist in the formative

evaluation are also very important during this stage.



Mastery Learning

Mastery learning is an optimistic theory about teaching

and learning which contends that what any person in the

world can learn, virtually all persons in the world can

learn, if provided with appropriate prior and current

conditions of learning (Bloom, 1976). Any teacher can help

almost every student master any subject, provided the

instruction is approached systematically, if there is some

clear criterion of what constitutes mastery, if students are

given sufficient time to achieve mastery, and if students

are helped when and if they have learning difficulties

(Bloom, 1974).








29

Carroll (1963) built the foundation for mastery

learning theory by proposing that the degree of learning was

a function of time actually spent learning in relation to

the time needed to learn. The time spent was determined

both by how much time a student was allowed and how much

time a student was willing to spend (perseverance). The

learning time needed was determined by three factors:

(a) the quality of instruction, (b) the ability of the

student to understand instruction, and (c) the student's

aptitude. The quality of instruction was defined by Carroll

as the degree to which the nature and organization of

learning experiences approached the optimum for a given

learner. The ability to understand instruction was defined

as the ability of the learner to understand the nature of

the task to be learned and the procedure to be followed in

learning it. Aptitude was defined as the amount of time

required for a learner to attain mastery of a subject.

Thus, according to Carroll's theory, mastery of any subject

is possible for all students.

Bloom transformed Carroll's conceptual theory into a

working model for mastery learning (Block, 1971), which

could be utilized within a fixed time framework. Mastery

was defined in terms of specific objectives (Bloom, 1968),

which were to be clearly articulated in behavioral terms,

and established prior to instruction. Bloom (1968) believed








30

that each student must be appraised individually with

respect to his/her performance relative to a predetermined,

fixed standard. Instructional procedures and strategies

should be designed to ensure that each student masters the

objectives according to a predetermined criterion. Bloom

stressed the importance of breaking a course down into

smaller units, each of which have objectives whose mastery

is crucial for the mastery of the larger course objectives.

Group instruction could be supplemented by a variety of

feedback and corrective procedures. Students should be

frequently evaluated in terms of their progress.

In the early 1970s, teaching procedures based upon

mastery learning theory were utilized primarily with courses

which were relatively stable, had a closed content, and

emphasized convergent rather than divergent thinking.

Typical experiments involving mastery learning approaches

centered around public elementary schools, and teachers who

were behaviorally or cognitively oriented (Block, 1980).

However, there appears to be a trend toward using mastery

learning in a greater variety of settings and subjects.

Bloom (1978) has proposed that ideas and practices based

upon mastery learning theory might be used to teach the

humanistic arts such as music, art, and dance. Block (1979,

1980) has indicated that mastery learning can be adapted to

humanistic education, and to subjects which are intermediate

or advanced, and involve divergent thinking.










Bloom, Madaus, and Hastings (1981) have stated that

mastery learning has positive affective consequences:

perhaps the clearest evidence of affective change is
the interest the student develops for the subject he or
she has mastered. The student begins to 'like' it and
to want more of it . Interest in a subject is both
a cause of mastery and a result of mastery. Motivation
for further learning is one of the more important
consequences for mastery. (p. 66)

In a conversation reported by Glatthorn (1980), Bloom

indicated that

classroom teachers should be encouraged to develop
their own mastery learning processes and materials
. Bloom's recent research . suggests that
teachers developing their own mastery learning
approaches should keep these guidelines in mind:
1. Check on cognitive entry characteristics and ensure
that students reach adequate levels of competence on
these essential entry behaviors.
2. Teach in a way that reflects the basic principles
of teaching and learning . cues, reinforcement,
participation .
3. Use formative tests to give students frequent
feedback about learning and to identify the students
who need corrective work.
4. Provide the needed correctives to those students
who do not achieve mastery levels in the formative
tests. Bloom currently places most emphasis on peer
tutoring as a corrective device. (pp. 98-99)

Block (1980) has identified two distinct sets of steps

which are necessary for the planning and implementation of a

course which utilizes a mastery learning strategy. The

first set is the preconditions, which occur prior to

implementation. The preconditions, which are curricularly

oriented, include the following steps: (a) formulate

objectives, (b) prepare a final exam, (c) determine the








32

final exam score which would indicate mastery performance,

(d) break the course down into a sequence of smaller

learning units, (e) sequence the units so that the material

in each unit transfers either to the next unit (linear) or

to a subsequent unit (hierarchical), (f) develop

feedback/corrective procedures, and (g) develop alternate

instructional procedures and materials.

The second set is the operating procedures utilized in

teaching. The operating procedures, which are

instructionally oriented, include the following steps:

(a) orient the students to mastery learning, (b) teach a

learning unit, (c) determine if each student has achieved

the unit mastery standard, and (d) employ corrective

measures such as reteaching, tutoring, or alternative

approaches with students who have not achieved the unit

mastery. The students who initially reach the standard may

serve as peer tutors, or may engage in enrichment

activities.



Program Evaluation

Worthen and Sanders (1973) have defined evaluation as

the process of making choices based on systematic efforts to

define criteria and obtain accurate information about the

alternatives. Morris and Fitz-Gibbons (1978) have defined

program evaluation as "the process of selecting, collecting,








33

and interpreting information for the purpose of keeping

various audiences informed about a program" (p. 8). The

concept of formal evaluation of programs was evident in

ancient China and Greece. In the United States, program

evaluation was utilized as early as 1897. Thorndike, Tyler

and Smith, Bloom, Krathwohl, Simpson, Coleman, and the

Educational Testing Service were perhaps the most important

contributors to American educational evaluation procedures

in the first half of the twentieth century (Worthen &

Sanders, 1973).

A wide variety of organizational frameworks, or

theories, to guide the process of program or curriculum

evaluation have been proposed. Cronbach, Scriven, Stake,

Stufflebeam, Alkin, Tyler, Metfessel and Michael, Hammond,

and Provous are, according to Worthen and Sanders (1973),

the most notable of the evaluation theorists. Each has made

valuable contributions to the evaluation field in regard to

procedures, strategies, definitions, designs, constructs,

relationships, and purpose.

Scriven (1966) has suggested that within an educational

context, evaluation can function in a formative role or a

summative role. Formative evaluation is concerned with

program development and improvement. The purpose of this

type of evaluation is to answer questions about the

curriculum in process. Summative evaluation, on the other








34

hand, provides information for decision making. This type

of evaluation can enable administrators or other decision

makers to determine the worth or value of a curriculum.

Formative evaluation can be very useful in the process

of developing a new course. Dick (1977a) has suggested that

attitude questionnaires, debriefing questionnaires, and

comments made by experts or teachers who assist in the

process course development are can provide valuable

formative information data for the purpose of course

improvement.

Summative evaluation can provide important information

concerning the value or effectiveness of a new course.

However, because objectivity is crucial to the credibility

of summative evaluation, it is important for summative

evaluation information to be supported by an outside

observer, or a person not involved in the process of course

development. The function of a summative evaluator,

according to Dick (1977b), is to collect data and write an

objective report of what the program looks like and what has

been achieved. The implementation of planned strategies,

activities, and materials should oe verified, and it should

be indicated whether objectives have been attained.

The use of experimental designs can also enhance the

credibility of summative evaluation data. Although powerful

designs are preferable, Fitz-Gibbon and Morris (1978) have









indicated that "the critical characteristic of any one

evaluation study is that it provide the best possible

information that could be collected under the circumstances,

and that this information meet the credibility requirements

of its evaluation" (pp. 13-14).

Talmadge (1982) has stated that

evaluation research studies usually lack replicability
because the system, program, or phenomenon being
studied is dynamic; that is, it is operative,
changeable, and taking place in a naturalistic or field
setting. Whereas the canons of scientific rigor are
applied to evaluation research as far as possible, it
is necessary to utilize the methodologies and
perspectives of various disciplines in order better to
understand the processes and functioning of the system,
program, or phenomenon under study. (p. 594)

Because evaluation designs are not concerned with

cause-effect relationships to the same degree as rigorous

scientific experiments, the use of quasi-experimental

designs may often be acceptable. One such design is the

before-and-after design. Fitz-Gibbon and Morris (1978) have

stated that the weaknesses of this design can be minimized

by a thorough description of program implementation,

presentation of pretest and posttest data, testing for

statistical significance, and a focus on the attainment of

objectives. Although the use of this design provides

limited data for the purpose of judging the quality of

program outcomes, it may be appropriate for evaluating a new

course covering unusual subject matter, where alternate

course curricula are not available.







36

Jazz Improvisation Methods

Before methods to teach jazz improvisation were

developed, young jazz musicians acquired their skills by

immersing themselves in jazz situations and learning through

trial and error. Jam sessions and road tours were the

schools for these early jazz players (Foster, 1975). In the

1920s and 1930s, the only source of formal jazz education

was the private teacher. The first text which explained the

techniques of jazz improvisation was published in 1935

(Baker, 1981). Gradually, as jazz education gained

respectability and became a part of many high school and

college curricula, many more method books were published

(Baker, 1981). Today, over 500 jazz methods and

supplemental materials are available; hundreds more are

published every year (Kuzmich, 1978).

The best known jazz pedagogists today, sometimes

referred to as "the ABC's of jazz improvisation" (Kuzmich,

1984), are Jamey Aebersold, David Baker, and Jerry Coker.

Each has written many books related to jazz improvisation,

and each has exerted an influence on the field of jazz

education.

The most popular method among jazz educators,

particularly band directors, appears to be Aebersold's

play-along series (Boggs, 1972). There were more than 20

volumes in the series. Representative volumes included







37
A New Approach to Jazz Improvisation (1970), The

II/V7/I Progression (1970), and Nothin' But the Blues

(1970). Each volume consisted of a book with original tunes

and written-out scales and modes for improvisation, and a

record with a rhythm track for accompaniment (drums, bass,

keyboard). The keyboard track could be turned down for

piano practice with bass and drum accompaniment. However,

Aebersold's methods appeared to be very linearly oriented,

and perhaps would be more useful for intermediate or

advanced jazz pianists.

Baker has written two texts, Develooing Improvisational

Facility (1968) and Jazz Pedagogy (1981). He has also

written several method books, including Advanced

Improvisation (1974) with accompanying records, and

Jazz Improvisation (1969), a comprehensive method for all

players. All of Baker's publications appeared to be

excellent resources for the teacher of jazz, or for

intermediate and advanced jazz pianists.

Coker has published several books related to jazz

improvisation. Improvising Jazz (1964) was a highly

readable, concise summary of the major aspects of jazz

improvisation. A later book, The Jazz Idiom (1975), was a

more comprehensive, updated version of his earlier book.

Coker's Complete Method for Imorovisation (1980) covered

many aspects of jazz improvisation in an organized,







38

sequential manner. It had many good ideas for effective

practice strategies, and it was closely coordinated with the

Aebersold play-along records. However, this method appeared

to be appropriate for intermediate or advanced jazz pianists

who were totally committed to becoming serious jazz

musicians; doing all the suggested activities could take

years. Coker's Jazz Keyboard (1984) began with

open-position voicings of seventh chords, and was oriented

toward the rhythm section keyboardist. Although the chord

voicings could be learned by rote, the average student would

probably not be able to conceptualize the open position

voicings without previous experience with root position and

inverted seventh chords. Patterns for Jazz (1970), written

by Coker, Campbell, and Greene, was a compilation of

hundreds of characteristic jazz melodic patterns and

cliches, for drill and practice.

Other jazz methods and materials reviewed included

publications by Evans (1984), Haerle (1978), Harris (1980),

LaPorta (1976), Levey (1971), Konowitz (1976), Kynaston and

Ricci (1978), Mehegan (1959), Schenkel (1983), and Thomas

(1984). These were selected on the basis of their specific

relevance to the adult study of jazz piano and/or their

availability in music stores.

Most of the jazz methods and material reviewed covered

all of the following content areas, in varying degrees:










scales (blues scales and modes); seventh chords (in various

closed and open position voicings); ii7-V7 progressions;

blues progressions; comping; turnarounds; tritone

substitutes; and melodic/rhythmic patterns. Most were

accompanied by a tape or record, either for accompaniment or

for imitation (call-response).

All of the methods assumed an ability to read music

notation. In general, the methods were technically

oriented, with an emphasis on modal scales and various

drills. Students were required, in many instances, to

memorize various modes, chord voicings, and/or

melodic-rhythmic patterns and transpose them into 12 keys.

All of the methods appeared to progress in a logical

sequence, but moved very quickly from one concept to the

next. Original tunes were used to illustrate and reinforce

concepts in most methods, instead of jazz standards or

popular tunes.

Although ideas from many of the jazz piano methods

reviewed could be useful in determining a content and

sequence for a long, comprehensive course or series of

courses in jazz piano improvisation, none of them appeared

to be appropriate for a short course in basic jazz piano

skills for adult classical pianists. Few of the methods

stated the level of technical and note reading proficiency

required to begin the method. None of the methods were








40

organized within a specific time frame. None of the methods

stated what the objectives of the the method were, or what

the student should be able to do after the completion of the

method. The notational orientation of most of the methods

might reinforce rather than modify the notation dependent

behaviors of most adult classical pianists. None of the

methods provided exercises or suggestions related to the

teaching of group piano. Most methods seemed to assume some

previous experience with the jazz idiom. Most importantly,

none of the methods were able to provide the support,

encouragement, and feedback which are so important to

beginners in any endeavor.



Grouo Piano

The term "group piano" refers to the teaching of piano

to a small group (usually not more than 10), by using the

method of group participation. All members learn together,

but may or may not be engaged in the same activity at the

same time (Robinson & Jarvis, 1967). The term "group piano"

is often used interchangeably with "class piano."

Piano classes originated in Europe as early as 1815,

and soon began in the United States (Richards, 1960). The

idea of teaching piano in a group situation is still

considered by many to be revolutionary, as the one-to-one

situation is the most common approach to the teaching of








41

piano. However, many college piano teachers teach all

beginning piano students in class situations; a few continue

on to teach intermediate and even advanced students in

groups.

According to Rogers (1974), there are several

advantages of group teaching over individualized teaching of

piano. First, the cost is less per student. Second,

students are able to benefit musically from peer interaction

as well as teacher feedback. Third, students develop a

social sense of belonging that lessens feelings of isolation

and helps to alleviate inhibitions about playing for others.

Fourth, students develop a good sense of rhythm by playing

in ensemble situations. Fifth, students are able to develop

critical listening habits by evaluating peer performance.

Mehr (1960) has postulated that a force known as "group

dynamics" is responsible for the success of group piano. An

atmosphere which encourages group interaction can greatly

facilitate learning. Duckworth (1968), a firm believer in

the effectiveness of group piano teaching, has indicated

that

studies in group dynamics show that problem solving and
clarification are aided by a group setting . the
best human structure for learning is one in which there
is a balance between individuation, which satisfies
psychological needs of success, status, acceptance,
self esteem, and independence; and de-individuation,
which lessens inner restraints and fear of failure.
(pp. 144-145)








42

Duckworth (1968) has stated that a group of people

interested in the same tasks can "enliven individual

participation, provide security and approval so that the

individual performs at his maximum effectiveness, encourages

more diverse discoveries through many pursuits into the

unknown, and as a result, find more far-reaching

applications for new information" (p. 146).

Rabinoff (1981) has indicated that piano improvisation

may be taught more effectively in a group situation, "since

it encourages ensemble playing, which fosters alertness,

strong rhythmic feeling, the virtue of listening, and

playing accurately together with other members of a group"

(p. 228). The camaraderie characteristic of most piano

classes can be a powerful force in alleviating inhibitions

toward improvisation.

Group interaction is a very important aspect of jazz

improvisation. According to Hodier (1979), jazz "depends on

group cooperation. In all its styles, jazz involves some

degree of collective ensemble improvisation" (p. 17).

Konowitz (1969) has stated that jazz improvisational

activity "combines the characteristics of individual and

collective spontaneity and premeditation" (p. 24).

Although jazz improvisation appears to have been most

frequently taught within the context of the traditional jazz

ensemble (bass, drums, keyboard, horns), group piano can








43

also be an effective and appropriate situation in which

students can develop individual as well as ensemble jazz

improvisational skills. Acoustic piano labs may be suitable

for the study of jazz; however, electronic piano labs which

have individual earphones attached to each keyboard may

allow students a greater variety of improvisational

activities as well as opportunities for supervised solo

practice.



Instructional Strategies

Instruction, which is often used interchangably with

teaching, can be defined as the fostering of learning

behaviors. Good and Brophy (1978) have suggested several

instructional tactics which, research has shown, enhance

learning:

1. Match the difficulty level and interest value of

materials and assignments to the present skills and

interests of the students (p. 341).

2. Move in small steps and make sure each step is

mastered (p. 347).

3. Monitor students' work and correct errors (p. 346).

4. Provide for student self-evaluation (p. 350).

5. Cover a small amount of material thoroughly rather

than a greater amount of material superficially, making sure

that each student has opportunities to deal actively and at

length with the material (p. 348).








44

6. Communicate the objectives of the lesson clearly

(p. 352).

7. Model enthusiasm for the subject matter (p. 353).

8. Use a variety of instructional strategies to

maintain student interest and attention (p. 353).

9. Feedback, or giving students information about the

correctness or incorrectness of their responses, is

important both for motivating interest and promoting

learning (p. 369).

Hunter (1969) has drawn from many sources to recommend

several instructional strategies for teaching material

faster. These included the following: make the material

meaningful to the student; use material that is vivid and

attracts attention; use pleasant feeling tones for

reinforcement; have students actively participate; give

students an immediate knowledge of test results; promote

realistic levels of aspiration; provide maximum guidance in

the initial stages of learning a skill; practice in short,

spaced or distributed periods of time. Eson (1972) has

stated that periodic rest intervals of 10 minutes out of

each hour have been shown to result in greater learning

(p.213).



Creativity Motivation

Jazz improvisation is a creative musical activity;

therefore, it is important to seek ways of motivating








45

creativity in jazz piano students. In general, education

literature suggests that a humanistic approach to

instruction may be effective in fostering creative

behaviors. Rogers (1969) has advocated giving students

respect and trust, behaving in an empathetic non-judgmental

manner, and encouraging student self-evaluation in order to

nurture individual creative growth. Vaughn (1973) has

recommended the avoidance of stereotypes, the use of

open-ended questions, and an open, non-judgmental classroom

atmosphere.

Another means of fostering creative behaviors may be to

provide a carefully planned sequence of highly structured

activities. Treffinger (1983) has stated that creative

learning should be systematic and carefully planned.

"Structure may produce, rather than restrict, the freedom to

create" (p. 57). Vaughn (1973) has proposed imposing new

limits and constraints at various stages of development.

McKeachie (1983), in his summary of ideas from the MENC

Ann Arbor Symposium on Motivation and Creativity, has

suggested some other strategies that may enhance creative

development in musicians. First, teachers should choose

music close to students' interests, but somewhat more

complex. Second, students should be given some choices

concerning musical selections and performance activities.

Third, the teacher should always be conscious of his/her








46

position as a role model. Fourth, teachers should use

encouragement rather than praise or reproof, in order to

help students realize that aoility is learnable. Fifth,

teachers should encourage support from peers and significant

others in the students' environment.



Teaching Improvisation

The only source found which dealt exclusively with the

teaching of improvisation in a jazz context was Baker's Jazz

Pedagogy (1981). Baker, an experienced teacher of jazz

improvisation to heterogeneous groups as well as

individuals, has stressed the importance of keeping each

student actively involved. Baker has advocated teaching

jazz tunes by rote rather than relying on notation. He has

listed 42 suggestions for teaching jazz improvisation, which

include the following: "play much, talk little . .

maintain a sense of humor . encourage the student to

memorize everything . avoid stressing the obvious . .

make realistic assignments . be honest but constructive

in your criticism (pp. 171-173).

Kolar (1975) has suggested the following strategies to

nurture students' improvisational skills: (a) present

musical concepts clearly, (b) use a variety of materials and

experiences, (c) employ a sequence of creative activities in

an open atmosphere, and (d) encourage self-evaluation

(p. 178).








47

Duke (1972) has indicated that relaxation is an

important prerequisite for creative improvisational

activity. Duke also has pointed out that total

self-involvement, or ego-loss, is characteristic of

improvisational activity. Too much verbalization, or an

unrelaxed environment, may hamper spontaneous, unconscious,

artistic processes.

Rabinoff (1981) has stated that the preconditions for

the study of keyboard improvisation include the ability to

play a one octave major scale with both hands and a piece

the level of Clementi's Sonatina in C major. Kynaston and

Ricci (1978) have indicated that the ability to read music

and a knowledge of major and minor scales are necessary

before beginning a study of improvisation.



Attitude Change and Measurement

Attitude is a psychological construct describing the

internal state which affects an individual's choice of

action. Allport has defined attitude as "a mental and

neural state of readiness, organized through experience,

exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the

individual's response to all objects and situations with

which it is related" (1967, p. 8). Gagne (1977) has stated

that "although attitudes have never been shown to determine








48

specific actions, they make certain classes of individual

action more or less probable" (p. 231).

Zimbardo and Ebbeson (1970) have suggested that

attitudes appear to consist of three different components or

aspects. The affective component refers to a person's

emotional response, liking, or evaluation of an object,

person, idea, or situation. The cognitive aspect consists

of beliefs and/or factual knowledge. The behavioral

dimension involves an individual's overt actions relevant to

the attitude object.

Gagne (1977) has described three approaches to attitude

change which can be applied to learning situations. First,

the creation of a classroom environment which is pleasing

visually, physically, and emotionally can be an important

factor in the development of positive attitudes toward what

is learned. Second, providing positive reinforcement or

feedback will foster a more positive attitude toward an

action choice. Positive reinforcement can also be achieved

by the experience of success. Third, using a human model

(teacher) who, by appearance and/or behavior engenders

respect or admiration, or has a high degree of credibility

in the eyes of students, can help to change attitudes.

The most common measure of attitudes has been the

pencil-and-paper, self-report instrument. It is generally








49

believed that adults are able and Milling to report their

true feelings toward an attitude object. However, attitude

measures must always rely on inference, since it is

impossible to measure attitudes directly. Attitude rating

scales and questionnaires have been used more commonly than

interview or observation techniques because they permit

anonymity, can be given to many people simultaneously, and

provide data which can be easily analyzed and interpreted

(Henerson, Morris, & Fitz-Gibbon, 1978).

The semantic differential is an attitude scale

described by Osgood, Succi, and Tannenbaum (1957). It

consists of a series of adjectives and their antonyms, such

as good-bad, positive-negative, hot-cold. Subjects are

presented with an attitude object in terms of a word or

phrase, and asked to indicate how they feel about it on a

seven-point scale between the two bipolar adjectives.

Henerson et al. (1978) have indicated that the semantic

differential is generally regarded as a good tool for

measuring affect, or people's positive and negative feelings

toward an attitude object (p. 89).



Summary

The review of research literature has suggested that it

is possible to develop, design, and evaluate a systematic,

short course in basic jazz piano skills for adult classical








50

pianists. However, there appears to have been a serious

lack of methodology in the development and evaluation of

jazz curricula. Perhaps the reason for this is that jazz

education is a relatively new field. Jazz educators may

have been more concerned with these questions: Can jazz

skills be taught? How can these skills be taught

effectively? They have not addressed these questions: What

procedures should be followed in the development of this

course? How can this course be improved (formative

evaluation)? Does this course achieve what it is supposed

to summativee evaluation)? The utilization of the

three-phase model suggested by Markle (1967) may help to

explicate the processes necessary for the development of a

new course. The utilization of evaluation procedures based

on the theory of Scriven may help to improve jazz curricula

and demonstrate their effectiveness and value.

Although designs for the jazz-related curricula

reviewed appear to have been adequate, none of them were

based on the mastery learning theory of Carroll (1963) and

Bloom (1968). Both Bloom (1978) and Block (1980) have

indicated that mastery learning can be used for teaching

artistic subjects, such as music, within a humanistic

context. Block (1980) has suggested a specific set of

procedures that can be used in the design and implementation

of a course which is based on mastery learning theory.








51

A review of descriptive studies related to jazz

curriculum and keyboard improvisation, as well as a review

of educational literature, has suggested a variety of

strategies that could be utilized for the teaching of a

course in basic jazz piano. These strategies can be

utilized effectively within a mastery learning paradigm.

The most important are listed below:

1. Maintain an open, relaxed, non-judgmental atmosphere

(Duke, 1972; Gagne, 1977; Kolar, 1975; Rogers, 1969; Vaughn,

1973).

2. Provide learning experiences which are short and

carefully sequenced so that students feel successful at

every stage (Bloom, 1968; Duke, 1972; Gagne, 1977; Good &

Brophy, 1978; Kolar, 1975; Vaughn, 1973).

3. Teach in a group and encourage peer support, but make

sure each student is actively involved, on task, and

interested at all times (Baker, 1981; Duckworth, 1968;

Hunter, 1969; Kolar, 1975; McKeachie, 1983; Mehr, 1960;

Rabinoff, 1981).

4. Model the musical and psychological behaviors you expect

of your students (Gagne, 1977; Good & Brophy, 1978;

McKeachie, 1983).

5. Establish clear objectives which are attainable and

related to real-life experiences, and teach directly to the

objectives (Block, 1980; Bloom, 1968).








52

6. Provide constant and immediate feedback and correction

(Block, 1980; Bloom, 1968; Good & Brophy, 1978; Hunter,

1969).

7. Use a variety of materials which are interesting and

challenging to the students (Good & Brophy, 1978; Hunter,

1969; Kolar, 1975; McKeachie, 1983).

8. Make sure each student has achieved mastery of unit

objectives before going on; provide enrichment or peer

tutoring activities for students who move more quickly

(Block, 1980; Bloom, 1980).















CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

This was a descriptive curriculum study of the

development, design, and evaluation of a short course in

basic jazz piano skills. The final product consisted of

lesson plans and evaluation materials for a five-week,

15-hour course entitled "Workshop in Basic Jazz Piano."

The course materials are shown in Appendix A-N. The course

was intended for a group of classically-trained adult

pianists who were interested in acquiring basic jazz piano

skills and who were able to meet the entry requirements.

The development, design, and evaluation procedures, as

well as the preparation activities which preceded course

development are discussed in this chapter. The course

itself was developed based upon a three-stage model

suggested by Markle (1967). The design of the course was

based upon the mastery learning theory of Carroll (1963) and

Bloom (1968). The course was evaluated based upon the

formative-summative evaluation theory of Scriven (1966).

Preparation activities consisted of the investigator's

education, experience, and expertise; a literature review; a

needs assessment; and the determination of general course

goals and the selection of content. A model of the process

used in this study is shown in figure 1.

53














Preparation:


education/experience of course developer
needs assessment
literature review
selection of course goals and content


Stage 1:












Stage 2:












Stage 3:


FIGURE 1
A MODEL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COURSE
IN BASIC JAZZ PIANO SKILLS











Preparation

In preparation for the development of this course, the

course developer was trained as a classical pianist and

piano teacher. After three years of teaching piano and

performing professionally as a classical pianist, the

developer studied jazz piano with private teachers for three

years, performed with college and university jazz ensembles,

accompanied jazz singers and jazz choirs, and taught jazz

piano to adults privately and in class situations. The

present study was undertaken 10 years after the developer

(this investigator) made the initial decision to study jazz,

and was based upon the developer's experience, education,

and expertise as a performer and teacher of jazz.

The needs assessment undertaken for this study is

presented in Chapter One. This assessment evolved from this

investigator's dissatisfaction with approaches to the

teaching of basic jazz piano skills available at the time of

this study. The review of literature undertaken in

preparation for course development is presented in Chapter

Two.

The selection of course goals and course content was

based upon a review of jazz methods (Chapter Two) and the

investigator's personal experiences as a teacher and

performer of jazz. It seemed important to choose goals that

would be attainable in a short amount of time, yet would be










relevant to real-life, practical concerns of adult pianists.

The course content also had to be appropriate for students

who were interested in acquiring jazz piano skills for the

purpose of teaching these skills to students, for personal

musical growth, or as a springboard to a serious

professional involvement with jazz piano.

It was decided that the first goal of the course would

be to provide students with knowledge of the jazz idiom.

Jazz terminology (jazz, blues, riff, turnaround, etc.), jazz

chord symbology (M7, m7, +5, sus, etc.), and the names of

jazz pianists and pedagogists were considered to be

related to cognitive knowledge of the jazz idiom.

The second goal of the course was to develop students'

ability to realize seventh chords from letter symbols.

Realizing seventh chords in each of the following ways was

considered to be important, and related to practical

concerns of jazz pianists: (a) root position, (b) second

inversion, (c) open position (1-7, 3-5), (d) swing bass, and

(e) walking bass.

The third goal of the course was to develop students'

skills in jazz improvisation. The ability to improvise

within a 12-bar blues framework, in several keys, and the

ability to improvise on a jazz or popular tune were

considered to be basic jazz piano skills.











The fourth goal of the course was to improve students'

attitudes toward their own improvisation ability. Because

improvisation is an important aspect of jazz, and because

many adult classical pianists are inhibited about

improvising, this was considered to be an appropriate

affective goal.



Course Develooment

The development of this course was undertaken in three

stages, based on a model suggested by Markle (1967). The

purpose of Stage 1, "developmental testing," was to identify

major problems in the materials and teaching strategies.

The purpose of Stage 2, "validation testing," was to

determine the entry characteristics necessary for the

learners, the conditions necessary for efficient and

effective learning, and the time frame appropriate for the

course. The purpose of Stage 3, "field testing," was to

provide information on the effectiveness of materials and

teaching strategies in a carefully monitored, normal

classroom environment.



Stage 1

The initial developmental testing of the materials and

strategies was undertaken in three phases. During the first

phase, some of the materials to be used in the course were










tested by 10 or more adult piano students of all levels,

taught individually by the investigator in the spring and

fall of 1984. The students were carefully observed, and

provided verbal feedback to the investigator.

The second phase was during the spring semester at

Black Hills State College, 1985. Three students volunteered

to take a jazz piano class twice a week for 12 weeks. Some

of the curriculum materials and teaching strategies used in

the present study were tested with this group. Class

sessions were 50 minutes in length. Students were requested

not to practice between class sessions, so that all practice

could be supervised. The class met in an electronic piano

lab, and students practiced with earphones, when

appropriate. The subjects had different levels of music

reading skills and facility. Subject #1 was a classical

pianist with a high level of facility and reading ability.

Subject #2 was a piano teacher with an intermediate level of

keyboard skills. Subject #3 was a music school graduate who

was an uninhibited improvisor, but was somewhat limited in

terms of keyboard facility and coordination. The subjects

provided frequent verbal and written feedback to the

investigator.

The third phase was undertaken during May of 1985, at

Black Hills State College, in an electronic piano lab.

Three piano teachers with intermediate piano skills took a

jazz piano class which met four consecutive Saturdays, three











hours per session. Students were expected to practice a

minimum of two hours per week. Curriculum materials and

teaching strategies were tested. At the end of the course,

students provided written feedback and suggestions for

course improvement.



Stage 2

The validation testing of the materials was in two

phases. The first phase was a one-week jazz piano workshop

taught by the investigator during June 3-8, 1985, in an

electronic piano lab at Black Hills State College. Six

adult classical pianists met five consecutive days, in

sessions which were four to five hours in length, with

breaks. The students practiced during these sessions. The

subjects were given performance protests and posttests, and

a written posttest.

The subjects responded to an information questionnaire,

similar to the one used in the subsequent field test, at the

beginning and end of the course. Written lesson plans were

carefully followed by the investigator. A member of the

class served as a process evaluator, making written

observations and comments, and providing daily verbal

feedback to the investigator. On the sixth day, after a

weekend of optional individual practice, students











were given a written posttest, and a performance posttest

was taped by the teacher for each student, individually.

Students also responded to an evaluation questionnaire. The

students paid $60 for the course, and college credit was

optional.

The second phase was a five-week jazz piano workshop

taught by the investigator in Rapid City, South Dakota, at a

music store. All of the materials used in the subsequent

field test were tested. Three subjects were involved; all

were piano teachers who professed a high level of

improvisation anxiety. A fourth pianist did not pass the

reading test successfully, but continued as a member of the

class. The class was held for five sessions, but the last

session had to be postponed a week due to inclement weather.

Students were expected to practice a minimum of two hours

per week. Results were collected from the various formative

and summative evaluation instruments, and from the written,

performance, and attitude protests and posttests. The fee

for the course was $50, with college credit optional.



Stage 3

The field test of the course was a five-week workshop

in basic jazz piano taught by the investigator in the

electronic piano laboratory at Black Hills State College,










Spearfish, South Dakota. Four students were music

education majors, tnree were piano teachers, one was a

church organist. The students ranged in age from 20 to 55.

Seven were female, one was male. The students were allowed

to choose to participate in either of two sessions. Session

#1 met Saturday mornings, and session #2 met Wednesday

evenings. The fee for the course was $40 for

non-students, free to full-time students enrolled in a

private college keyboard class.

Two process evaluators, one for each section, were

selected and trained prior to the first class meeting.

Students who took the course were given a jazz knowledge

written exam, a facility/coordination/reading entry exam,

and an attitude pretest at the beginning of the first class

session. Evaluation data were collected by the process

evaluators and the instructor during each class session.

Process evaluators provided verbal feedback to the

instructor after each class session. The written posttest,

attitude posttest, student course evaluation questionnaire,

and process evaluator summary were administered at the end

of the last class meeting. The performance posttest was

taped privately by the students prior to the last class

meeting and submitted to the investigator at the last class

meeting.










Course Design

The course was designed based upon the mastery learning

theories of Carroll (1963) and Bloom (1968). Prior to Stage

2, written curriculum materials were devised using the steps

proposed by Block (1980) for a mastery learning program.

Information from formative evaluation during Stage 2

resulted in minor revisions in the course lesson plans.

Step 1 was the formulation of objectives (Appendix A),

which were based upon the course goals and determined

through a review of the literature, an examination of jazz

piano methods and materials, and the investigator's 10 years

of experience as a teacher and performer of jazz piano.

Step 2 was the preparation of a final written exam

Appendix B) and a final performance exam (Appendix C). The

content of these exams was matched with the course

objectives. The written exam covered jazz terminology, jazz

chord symbology, and the names of jazz pianists and jazz

pedagogists. The performance exam covered specific tasks

related to seventh chord realization and jazz improvisation.

Step 3 was the determination of a final exam score

which indicated mastery (Appendix B and C). This score was

determined by the investigator, using a criterion level of










70% correct to indicate mastery. This level was chosen

because 70% is frequently used in college courses to

indicate a passing grade.

The three sections of the written test (Appendix 8)

were weighted by the investigator as follows, based on a

possible score of 70 points: jazz terminology, 30 points;

jazz chord symbology, 25 points; names of jazz pianists and

pedagogists, 15 points. Mastery level was set at 50.

The performance exam (Appendix C) was divided into two

sections, one testing seventh chord realization and the

other testing jazz improvisation. Each section consisted of

four specific tasks; each task was assigned a possible point

value of 4. The purpose of the small point values was to

enable judges to grade the tasks on a scale similar to that

used in colleges (A=4, 8=3, C=2, D=l, F=0). The possible

total score of each section of the performance exam was 16;

mastery level was set at 11.

Step 4 was the breakdown of the course into small units

(Appendix 0). Detailed lesson plans were provided for each

unit, which indicated the unit objectives as well as the

concepts covered and procedures utilized. The lesson plans

were created by the investigator, tested in several stages

of course development, and refined through the use of

formative evaluation procedures.










Step 5 was the sequencing of the units so that

subsequent units built upon previous knowledge (Appendix D).

This was also accomplished by means of formative evaluation

procedures in the stages of course development.

Step 6 was the development of feedback and corrective

procedures. General procedures are shown in Appendix E;

specific procedures are shown in Appendix D. The procedures

were based upon a review of the literature and the

investigator's teaching experiences.

Step 7 was the development of alternate procedures

(Appendix F). Alternate procedures were also incorporated

into the lesson plans, as enrichment or remediation

procedures (Appendix D). Materials for the course, such as

information handouts, are shown in in Appendix G. Lead

sheet sources and discography are shown in Appendix H.



Course Evaluation

Evaluation materials were developed by the investigator

for this study, based upon the formative-summative

evaluation theory of Scriven (1966). Formative evaluation

was particularly important in this study, because no course

had previously been developed which addressed the special

needs of the adult classical pianist interested in acquiring

basic jazz piano skills in a short amount of time.

Formative evaluation information was collected in Stage 1











and Stage 2 for the purpose of course development.

Formative instruments were employed during the field test

(Stage 3) of the course in order to describe and monitor

class activities, and identify areas where the course might

need changes or improvement in the future.

Summative evaluation data provided information

concerning the outcomes of the course. Because there was no

other course that could be used as a comparison, a

before-and-after summative evaluation design was used.

(Fitz-Gibbon and Morris, 1978). Written and performance

tests were administered at the beginning and end of the

course, and students responded to attitude questions before

and after the course in order to determine whether the

course accomplished its stated objectives. A final course

summation by the process evaluators and a final student

course evaluation questionnaire provided additional

testimony in reference to the attainment of course

objectives and other course outcomes.



Instrumentation

Written knowledge tests

A written jazz knowledge posttest (Appendix B) was

devised by the investigator prior to Stage 2. The test was

divided into three sections: jazz terms (30 points), names

of jazz pianists and pedagogists (15 points), and jazz chord











symbology (25 points). The possible total score was 70

points; mastery level was set at 50 (70%). The test was

administered at the end of each course during Stage 2 and

Stage 3. The written tests were graded by the investigator

immediately after they were completed, and students received

individual feedback in reference to their responses.

A written jazz knowledge pretest (Appendix M) was

administered to students at the beginning of the courses

during Stage 2 and Stage 3. Although the format was

different from the posttest, the content was similar and it

was divided into three sections which were assigned the same

point values as the posttest.



Performance tests

A performance posttest (Appendix C) was taped by each

subject prior to or during the last class and submitted to

the investigator during Stage 2 and Stage 3. The posttest

was divided into two sections. Each section consisted of

four tasks, each of which was assigned a possible four

points. The first section tested the ability of students to

realize seventh chords from letter symbols; the second

section tested students' ability to improvise. The possible

total score of each section was 16; mastery level was set at

11 (70%). The posttests from Stage 2 classes were scored by

the investigator. The posttests from Stage 3 were scored











independently by three judges who were familiar with the

jazz idiom and selected and trained by the investigator.

Each judge had participated in a jazz workshop taught by the

investigator prior to Stage 3, and each judge had evidenced

a high level of performance achievement during the

workshops. The judges were trained by listening to several

taped models (made by the investigator or drawn from

previous workshops) which demonstrated a wide range of

performance achievement. When each judge felt comfortable

with the rating scale used in Appendix C, the performance

tapes from the field test were played. Interjudge

reliability was calculated for each section of the posttest.

A brief facility/coordination/reading test (Appendix

N) was administered to the class members by the investigator

at the first class session, during Stage 2 and Stage 3, in

order to verify the entry level keyboard skills required by

the course. The entry skills were determined by a review of

the literature and the investigator's observations during

Stage 1.



Information questionnaire

An information questionnaire (Appendix L) was devised

which included six questions related to affective outcomes.

As a result of the first stage of course development, six

questions were chosen by the investigator which appeared to











reflect important aspects of classical pianists' attitudes

toward improvisation. Two bipolar adjectives were selected

as alternate responses to each question, and placed at the

opposite ends of a seven-point scale. Negative responses to

the questions were assigned a point value on the lowest end

of the scale. These questions were then tested with 15

piano teachers who attended a two-hour jazz piano workshop

led by the investigator, and three pianists who were known

in the community as facile and accomplished improvisers.

The responses by the piano teachers tended to be on the

negative end of the scale; the responses by the improvisers

were on the positive end of the scale.

The information questionnaire was administered at the

beginning and end of the courses during Stage 2 and Stage 3

as an attitude pretest and posttest. Random polarity was

provided, so all the negative responses did not appear on

the same side. The students responded to the questions

anonymously, using a social security number for

identification. The information questionnaire is shown in

Appendix L.



Formative evaluation instruments

A student course evaluation questionnaire (Appendix K),

was responded to by students anonymously at the end of the

last class session during Stage 2 and Stage 3.











Each unit lesson plan included evaluation questions

(Appendix 0), to be answered by the teacher and the process

evaluator. Space was provided to include any verbal student

feedback. Process evaluator summary sheets (Appendix J)

were written by the process evaluators. The purpose of

these instruments was to identify areas in which the course

needed improvement.



Summative evaluation instruments

The summative evaluation instruments for Stage 2 and

Stage 3 included the performance and written posttests

described above (Appendix B and C), the process evaluator

summary (Appendix J), the student evaluation questionnaire

(Appendix K), and the attitude questionnaire posttest

(Appendix L). These instruments were administered at the

end of the course, in order to determine whether course

objectives were attained. A teacher evaluation form adapted

from the standard form used by Black Hills State College was

included as part of the student evaluation questionnaire

(Appendix K), in order to provide testimony as to the

quality of teaching.



Sample Population

Subjects were classical-trained adult pianists who were

interested in acquiring basic jazz piano skills. Individual











students (Stage 1, Phase 1) were college students who were

enrolled in private piano classes at Black Hills State

College. Students who participated in the classes were

college students at Black Hills State College, piano

teachers who lived in the vicinity of Rapid City and

Spearfish, South Dakota, or adults who were active amateur

or professional musicians. The classes were publicized

through articles in newspapers, signs on the music

department bulletin board at Black Hills State College,

announcements at the Black Hills Area Music Teachers

Association meetings, and word of mouth. Prospective

students were briefly interviewed by the investigator, in

person or on the telephone, concerning their piano skills.

All students who met the entry requirements, and were able

to attend all of the scheduled class meetings, were used as

subjects. Optional college credit was available for each

class. All except one of the subjects were female, and

ranged in age from 19 to 72.



Collection of Data

Data for this study were collected in 1985 and 1986 in

Spearfish and Rapid City, South Dakota. Summative data was

collected by the investigator at the beginning and end of

the courses in Stage 2 and Stage 3.

Formative information was collected during Stage 1 by

the investigator, and in Stage 2 and Stage 3 by the











investigator and trained process evaluators. Because of the

small class size, and because of the sensitive nature of the

subject matter, it was believed that an outside observer

might inhibit the performance of the subjects. It was

believed that an internal process evaluator who was actively

involved in the class might provide more useful feedback

than an outside observer. One process evaluator was

selected from each class, prior to the first class session,

and trained by the investigator. The procedures used for

training the process evaluator are shown in Appendix I.

Each process evaluator was provided with the course

objectives (Appendix A), the unit lesson plans, which

included formative evaluation checklists and comment sheets

after each unit (Appendix D), and the process evaluator

summary sheet (Appendix J). Process evaluators were paid,

and/or were allowed to take the course for free.



Analysis of Data

Evaluation data collected during each stage in the

process of course development were summarized and presented

by the investigator. The purpose of these summaries was to

explicate the decision-making process used in the

development and refinement of the materials and teaching

strategies used in the course.










Summative evaluation data from Stage 3, the field test,

were pooled and subjected to a detailed analysis. This

analysis was based upon the initial research questions:

1. Will the course enable students to achieve a mastery

score on an exam which covers items related to knowledge of

the jazz idiom?

This question was answered by the written posttest

scores; the tests were graded by the investigator. Point

values for each question are shown in Appendix B. There

were a possible 70 points on the exam; 50 points (70%)

indicate mastery. The scores for each student are reported

in a table (Chapter Four).

2. Will the course enable students to achieve a mastery

score on an exam which tests skills in realizing seventh

chords from letter symbols?

This question was answered by the performance posttest

scores. The performance score of each student, which was

the average of the scores given each student by three

judges, are reported in a table (Chapter Four). A

correlation coefficient for interjudge reliability (R) was

calculated. There were 16 possible points; scores of 11 or

above indicate mastery.

3. Will the course enable students to achieve a mastery

score on an exam which tests skills in jazz improvisation?










This question was answered by the performance posttest

scores. The performance score of each student, which was

the average of the scores given each student by three

judges, are reported in a table. A correlation coefficient

for interjudge reliability (R) was calculated. There were

16 possible points; scores of 11 or above indicate mastery.

4. Will the course enable students to respond to a

questionnaire in a manner which indicates that they have

developed more positive attitudes toward their own

improvisational ability?

This question was answered by comparing students

responses to six attitude questions on the information

questionnaire administered before and at the end of the

course. Each item was compared using the Wilcoxon

matched-pairs signed-ranks test (Popham & Sirotnik, 1973).

Significance level was set at .01, because of the small

sample size, and the direction was predicted to be positive.

The data and results of the Wilcoxon test for each of the

six items are reported in table format (Chapter Four).















CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

Included in this chapter are the results, analysis, and

interpretation of the data collected for this study.

Evaluation data collected at each of the three stages of

course development are summarized and discussed. Summative

data collected during the final stage (field test) which is

relevant to the initial research questions is discussed in

detail. Each research question is discussed separately.

The interpretation of the results focuses on the

effectiveness of the utilization of systematic procedures

utilized, and the course outcomes. Detailed lesson plans

and course materials are presented in Appendix A-N.



Stage 1

Phase 1

During this phase, 10 or more college piano students

were taught individually to improvise in a 12-bar blues

pattern, and were assigned to learn several different jazz

tunes. Effective strategies for teaching 12-bar blues

improvisation were developed during this time. It was also

observed that certain jazz tunes appeared to be consistently

appealing and motivating, and a logical progressive order








75

for these tunes emerged. However, teaching jazz piano on a

one-to-one basis did not appear to alleviate students'

inhibitions toward improvisation, and did not provide

students with enough opportunities for activities which were

interactive and enjoyable. It was decided to experiment

with teaching jazz piano skills in a group situation.



Phase 2

Three college students participated in a jazz piano

class which met twice a week for 12 weeks. Group teaching

appeared to be highly appropriate for the subject matter.

The group members developed a good rapport, which seemed to

help reduce inhibitions toward improvisation. The teacher

avoided negative criticism. Observing the students practice

helped the investigator develop a realistic time frame for

the acquisition of certain jazz skills. Certain aspects of

jazz piano, such as bebop styles and formula voicing, were

found to be too difficult for a rudimentary course, and were

not included in subsequent classes.

The three students in the class were at very different

levels of keyboard skill development. It was determined

from this phase that students with poor keyboard facility

and coordination should not be placed in a class with

students who have intermediate or advanced skills, in order








76

to provide homogeneity and keep all students functioning at

their optimal complexity level. It was also decided that a

shorter, more intense course might maintain greater student

interest.



Phase 3

Three piano teachers with intermediate piano skills

participated in a jazz piano class which met four

consecutive Saturdays, three hours per session. Course

materials and teaching strategies were tested, and a course

outline was followed by the instructor. At the end of the

course, the subjects provided feedback and suggestions for

course improvement. All of the subjects responded very

positively to the course, and reported using many of the

skills and concepts learned in class in their own teaching.

However, the subjects indicated that one more class session

would have been desirable. Course objectives, content,

sequence, and detailed lesson plans were developed as a

result of this study. Mastery levels for the written and

performance posttest were also set.



Staoe 2

Phase 1

A course entitled "The Two Sides of Jazz Piano: How to

Do It, How to Teach It" was taught to six adult students in








77

five days. Sessions were four to five hours in length, with

breaks. Lesson plans were followed closely by the

instructor. The posttests were administered the sixth day.

Although all students reached a mastery level score on the

written posttest, three did not reach a mastery level score

on the performance posttest. The investigator observed that

students were very nervous during the performance posttest,

which was taped by the investigator during the last class

session. In addition, the students had learned at least 10

jazz or popular tunes during the course. It was determined

that focusing on fewer lead sheets during class sessions,

and requiring students to submit a taped assignment each

session, might produce better performance results.

The subjects responded to the attitude questions on the

information questionnaire (Appendix L) at the beginning and

end of the course. Their responses were compared, using a

t-test for related samples. There appeared to be a

significant change on student responses to each question

(p<.l). The results suggested that the affective course

objectives related to attitudes toward improvisation could

be reached in a short period of time.

The responses by the students on the evaluation

questionnaire were generally very positive, and indicated

that the course was successful in reaching its goals.








78

However, some students indicated that a week was too short a

time to integrate all the information provided in the course

and apply it to performance. Instead of significantly

altering the course content, or changing the mastery

criterion levels, the investigator decided to reorganize the

lesson plans to fit into a five-week, 15-hour format.

The process evaluator (a college theory/voice

instructor) for the course provided extremely valuable

feedback to the instructor on a daily basis. For example,

the evaluator observed that some students needed more time

to listen to recordings of 12-bar blues, in order to

understand the structure, and differences between jazz and

blues needed to be clarified. Very specific negative

feedback included observations that the instructor tended to

overuse certain words or phrases, and sometimes seemed

reluctant to present material that might be difficult for

some students to understand. In general, the process

evaluator was highly supportive, and was very enthusiastic

about the positive aspects of the course. The evaluator

verified the attainment of unit and course objectives, the

appropriateness of the sequence of materials, and the

effectiveness of the teaching strategies. It was apparent

that the use of a process evaluator who was member of the

class was very helpful in identifying strengths and

weaknesses of the course as well as improving the quality of

instruction.










Phase 2

Three piano teachers participated in a five-week course

in basic jazz piano skills at a music store in Rapid City,

South Dakota. All of the materials used in the subsequent

field test were tested, and lesson plans were carefully

followed by the instructor. Each student reached a mastery

level on the written and performance posttests. A t-test

for related samples was calculated for the responses on each

attitude question of the information questionnaire (Appendix

L), administered at the beginning and end of the course.

There appeared to be a significant change (p<.l) in the

responses to each question. Responses to the student

evaluation questionnaire were very positive, and five weeks

appeared to be an appropriate time frame.

The process evaluator (a piano teacher) verified the

attainment of unit and course objectives. The major

strengths of the course were identified as teacher

preparation, organization of content, assignment gathering

technique (weekly taping of assignments), and final

performance evaluation. All of the weaknesses of the course

were related to the environment. Distractions, poor

lighting, cool temperatures, lack of blackboard space, and

the use of acoustic pianos instead of an 'electronic piano

lab caused many difficulties for the instructor in








80

implementing the curriculum. It was determined from this

experience that using an electronic piano lab with

individual earphones would be the best way to teach the

course, and adequate facilities and space were essential for

effective implementation.



Stage 3

The field test of the course was a five-week, 15-hour

course entitled "Workshop in Basic Jazz Piano." The course

was taught by the investigator using an electronic piano

lab. The course was divided into two sections, with four

students participating in each. Lesson plans were carefully

followed by the instructor for each session. Data from the

two sessions were pooled. All students reached a mastery

level on the written posttest, and most students reached a

mastery level on the performance posttest. (See below for

more detailed information.) A Wilcoxin matched-pairs

signed-ranks test was used to compare student responses to

the attitude questions on the information questionnaire

(Appendix L). There appeared to be a significant change

(p<.01) in the responses to each question.

Students' responses on the student evaluation

questionnaire (Appendix K) were very positive. All students

responded with a "yes" to each question related to whether

course goals were attained. All students gave the teacher a








81

ranking of 9 or 10 on each item of the teacher evaluation

section. Representative comments related to the course

included the following: taught me how to read charts and

understand them, provided a greater knowledge of seventh

chords, sharpened my chord reading skills, provided me with

a good understanding of the basics in jazz piano, gave

structure to previously acquired scattered jazz knowledge,

gave me self-confidence in working with jazz on my own. Two

students indicated that they would have liked more time to

practice between sections.

The two process evaluators (a piano teacher and a

college music major) verified the attainment of unit and

course objectives. Some of the major strengths of the

course listed were as follows: the course progressed in a

logical manner, the course familiarized students with the

language and symbols of jazz, clear objectives were

established, positive feedback was provided, clear examples

were used by the teacher, familiar melodies were used,

enrichment activities were provided for faster students,

weekly taping was helpful, and skills were gradually

expanded in a comfortable manner. Weaknesses of the course

listed were as follows: not enough daily review, and not

enough jazz playing done by the teacher. The responses of

the process evaluators to the summative evaluation form is

shown in Appendix J. More detailed information about

summative data collected from Stage 3 is reported below.








82

Research Question #1

The first research question was as follows: Will the

course enable students to achieve a mastery score on an exam

which covers items related to knowledge of the jazz idiom?

This question was answered by data collected in Stage 3

(field test) of this study. A written knowledge pretest and

posttest were administered which asked students to define

several jazz terms, name five jazz pianists and pedagogists,

and identify or interpret several chord symbols. Out of a

total score of 70, 30 points were assigned to questions

concerning jazz terms, 15 points to naming five jazz

pianists and pedagogists, and 25 points were assigned to

questions related to chord symbol interpretation. The

written posttest is shown in Appendix 8; the written pretest

is shown in Appendix M. The tests were scored by the

investigator, and the data are shown in Table 1.



TABLE 1
WRITTEN KNOWLEDGE PRETEST AND POSTTEST SCORES WITH
POSSIBLE SCORE 70, MASTERY SCORE 50

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Pretest 13 0 *53 18 18 9.5 36 6.5

Posttest *59 *63 *68 *68.5 *63.5 *67 *68 *62.5


* indicates mastery








83

As indicated in Table 1, all students reached a mastery

level score on the final written exam. This indicates that

it is possible, in a five-session, 15-hour short course, to

provide students with knowledge of the jazz idiom, insofar

as certain terminology, names of jazz experts, and chord

symbology are concerned. With one exception, it is apparent

that all students had a very poor knowledge of jazz terms,

jazz pianists and pedagogists, and seventh chords before.

taking the course.



Research Question #2

The second research question was as follows: Will the

course enable students to achieve a mastery score on an exam

which tests students' skills in realizing seventh chords

from letter symbols? Data collected from Stage 3 of this

study were used to answer this question. Students took a

reading/facility/coordination pretest (Appendix N) to

establish that they had the entry skills required for the

course. Students took a written knowledge pretest (Appendix

M) to determine their familiarity with jazz chord symbology.

It was evident from the pretest scores (see Research

Question #1) that students were not adept at interpreting

the symbols correctly. Students also indicated verbally

that they had little experience using seventh chords. Lead

sheet realization for this course demanded a knowledge of








84

jazz seventh chord symbology; thus, a performance pretest

which involved the reading of lead sheets was not

administered.

At the end of the course, students submitted cassette

tapes of their performance on various tasks. Students taped

"Lover Man" using closed position root position and second

inversion chords in the left hand during the first section

(head 1), swing bass in the second section (head 2), and

open position seventh chords in the third section (bridge).

Another tune of each student's choice was taped, with a

walking bass in the left hand and closed position seventh

chords in the right hand. (Most students taped "Satin

Doll.") Students were expected to maintain a steady beat

and use correct chords. The tapes were judged independently

by three judges who were familiar with the jazz idiom and

trained by the investigator. The performance posttest score

sheet is shown in Appendix C. Each of the four sections of

the tape was graded on a 4 point basis, with a possible

total score of 16. Mastery level was set at 11 (70%). The

judges' scores were averaged, and the data are shown in

Table 2. Interjudge reliability was .90.

TABLE 2
FINAL PERFORMANCE EXAM SCORES: SEVENTH CHORDS WITH
POSSIBLE SCORE 16, MASTERY SCORE 11


Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Score *11.7 *16 *12.3 *13 7.7 *14.3 *13.7 5.3


* indicates mastery








85

As indicated in Table 2, six students reached a mastery

level of performance in the task of realizing seventh chords

from letter symbols. Not every student was able to attain a

mastery level of performance within the course time

framework. Thus, some students needed more time to develop

their skills in realizing seventh chords from letter

symbols.



Research Question #3

The third research question was as follows: Will the

course enable students to achieve a mastery score on an exam

which tests skills in jazz improvisation? This question was

answered with data collected from Stage 3 of this study. At

the beginning of the course, students verbally indicated

great anxiety about improvising. Student responses to the

questions on the information questionnaire (Appendix L)

supported the investigator's belief that an improvisation

pretest would not be desirable, as it might be damaging to

students' self-esteem and teacher-student rapport.

At tne end of the course, students submitted a cassette

tape of their performance on various improvisation tasks.

Students taped a 12-bar blues in two different keys, using a

blues scale in the right hand and a repeated bass pattern in

the left. Students also submitted a jazz or popular tune of

their own choice (many chose "Heart and Soul"), and a








86

portion (head) of "Lover Man", with melodic improvisation in

the right hand and any style of seventh chords in the left.

Students were expected to maintain a steady beat and use

correct chords. The tapes were judged independently by

three judges who were familiar with the jazz idiom and

trained by the investigator. Each of the four sections was

graded on a four point basis, with a possible total score of

16. Mastery level was set at 11 (70%). The judges' scores

were averaged, and the data are shown in Table 3.

Interjudge reliability was .87.





TABLE 3
FINAL PERFORMANCE EXAM SCORES: IMPROVISATION WITH
POSSIBLE SCORE 16, MASTERY SCORE 11



Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3

Score *12.3 *16 *12.3 *13.3 *12 *13.3 *14.7 5.3


*indicates mastery


As indicated in Table 3, seven students reached a

mastery level of performance in improvisation. Although

most students were able to attain a mastery level of

performance within the time framework of the course, one

student needed more time.








87

Research Question #4

The fourth research question was as follows: Will the

course enable students to respond to a questionnaire in a

manner which indicates that they have acquired more positive

attitudes toward their own improvisational ability? This

question was answered by data collected in Stage 3 of this

study. Students responded anonymously to an information

questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of the course

which contained six questions related to attitudes toward

improvisation (Appendix L). The students were given a

choice of seven scale degrees between two bipolar adjectives

as a response to each question. Each adjective represented

a negative or positive response to the question. The

student responses to the questions at the beginning and end

of the course were compared, using a Wilcoxon matched-pairs

signed-ranks test. The questions, data, and results are

shown in Tables 4-9.

The data reported in Tables 4-9 indicate that the

five-session, 15-hour short course in basic jazz skills

enabled students to develop more positive attitudes toward

their own improvisational ability. At the end of the

course, students indicated that they (a) were more likely to

improvise something on the piano when they are alone (Table

4), (b) felt more comfortable improvising in a group

situation (Table 5), (c) would feel more comfortable










TABLE 4
ATTITUDE QUESTION #1 ON A QUESTIONNAIRE
CONCERNED WITH ATTITUDES TOWARD IMPROVISATIONAL ABILITY


1. You are alone at a piano. The likelihood of you
improvising something on the piano is:
very great 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 very small

Rank
Rank of with Less
Pair Before After Difference Difference Frequent Sign
1 5 6 +1 2.5
2 3 6 +3 6
3 5 6 +1 2.5
4 1 7 +6 8
5 1 2 +1 2.5
6 1 6 +5 7
7 5 6 +1 2.5
8 4 6 +2 5 _
T=O*


*significance <.01


TABLE 5
ATTITUDE QUESTION #2 ON A QUESTIONNAIRE
CONCERNED WITH ATTITUDES TOWARD IMPROVISATIONAL ABILITY


2. You are in a group situation, improvising on the piano.
You feel:
very comfortable 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 very uncomfortable

Rank
Rank of with Less
Pair Before After Difference Difference Frequent Sign
1 2 5 +3 3
2 1 3 +2 1
3 3 3 0
4 1 4 +3 3
5 1 6 +5 6
6 1 4 +3 3
7 4 4 0
8 2 6 +4 5
T=O*


* significance <.01










TABLE 6
ATTITUDE QUESTION #3 ON A QUESTIONNAIRE
CONCERNED WITH ATTITUDES TOWARD IMPROVISATIONAL ABILITY


3. A close friend or
on the piano. As you
very insecure 1 2


student asks you to improvise something
are improvising, you feel:
3 4 5 6 7 very comfortable


Rank
Rank of with Less
Pair Before After Difference Difference Frequent Sign
1 3 3 0
2 2 4 +2 1
3 4 4 O
4 1 4 +3 2.5
5 1 5 +4 4
6 1 4 +3 2.5
7 3 3 0
8 4 4 0 5 _
T=O*


* significance <.01


TABLE 7
ATTITUDE QUESTION #4 ON A QUESTIONNAIRE
CONCERNED WITH ATTITUDES TOWARD IMPROVISATIONAL ABILITY


4. Another musician asks you how confident you feel about
your ability to improvise. Your honest answer would be that
you feel:
very confident 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 very insecure

Rank
Rank of with Less
Pair Before After Difference Difference Frequent Sign
1 2 4 +2 2.5
2 1 2 +1 1
3 2 2 0
4 1 4 +3 4
5 1 1 0
6 1 4 +3 4
7 2 4 +2 2.5
8 2 5 +3 4
T=O*


* significance <.01










TABLE 8
ATTITUDE QUESTION #5 ON A QUESTIONNAIRE
CONCERNED WITH ATTITUDES TOWARD IMPROVISATIONAL ABILITY


5. Rate your improvisational talent or potential on the
following scale:
poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 excellent

Rank
Rank of with Less
Pair Before After Difference Difference Frequent Sign
1 4 5 +1 2
2 1 6 +5 7
3 6 7 +1 2
4 1 5 +4 6
5 1 1 0
6 1 4 +3 4.5
7 2 5 +3 4.5
8 5 4 -1 2 _
T=2*


* significance <.01


TABLE 9
ATTITUDE QUESTION #6 ON A QUESTIONNAIRE
CONCERNED WITH ATTITUDES TOWARD IMPROVISATIONAL ABILITY


6. Rate your present
following scale:
poor 1 2 3


improvisational ability or skill on the


4 5 6


excellent


Rank
Rank of with Less
Pair Before After Difference Difference Frequent Sign
1 3 5 +2 4
2 1 1 +2
3 1.5 3 +4.5 2
4 1 2 +1 1
5 1 1 0
6 1 3 +2 4
7 1 4 +3 6
8 2 4 -2 4 _
T=O*

* significance <.01







91

improvising for a friend or student (Table 6), and (d) felt

more confident in their ability to improvise than they did

at the beginning of the course (Table 7). Students also

indicated a higher rating of their improvisational talent or

potential (Table 8), as well as a higher rating of their

present improvisational ability or skill (Table 9), at the

end of the course.



Interpretation of Results

The use of the model suggested by Markle (1967) was

very helpful in developing appropriate and effective

materials and strategies for this course. During Stage 1,

the course materials were developed. These were organized

into a design based upon the mastery learning theory of

Carroll (1963) and Bloom (1968), and using procedures

(Block, 1981). The design included lesson plans, evaluation

instruments, and teaching strategies. The course was

refined and validated in Stage 2. Stage 3 was the field

test of the course under normal classroom conditions. The

use of two types of evaluation, formative and summative

(Scriven, 1966), was appropriate for all stages of course

development. Formative evaluation data provided information

for the purpose of course development and improvement, and

summative evaluation provided information related to the








92
effectiveness of the course, in terms of the course

objectives.

Summative evaluation data collected during Stage 3

indicate that the course obtained very positive results.

All students attained mastery scores on the written

knowledge test, and the course appeared to enable students

to develop more positive attitudes toward their

improvisational ability. The majority of students achieved

a mastery score on the performance exam. The fact that not

every student was able to attain a mastery score within the

time frame of the course did not seem to affect the

cognitive or affective outcomes adversely. In a

heterogeneous grouping of adult classical pianists, with

entry criteria set at an intermediate instead of advanced

level of piano performance ability, it is possible that not

every student will be able to reach the mastery level of

performance set by this investigator within a five-week time

span.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs