Middle School Instrumentalists' Perceptions of Counting Systems

Abstract

Students participating in a middle school/junior high honor band in the western United States were surveyed on the counting systems used in their elementary and secondary music classes. The seventh-through ninth-graders nominated for the band (n=131) also completed a set of three paper-and-pencil rhythmic tasks, including filling in incomplete measures, circling incorrect measures, and selecting metric/rhythmic notation representing well-known folk song melodies. Rhythms on the tasks included half , quarter, eighth, and sixteenth notes, with dotted patterns and rests, in common time, 2/4, 3/4, and 6/8 meters. The traditional, number-based counting system ( 1, 2-&, 3, 4 ) was the clear favorite at both elementary and secondary levels, with the Kodalybased ti-ti, ta, ta used in roughly 10-20% of programs. Other counting systems were reported by only a few students. The counting systems reportedly used by middle school and elementary band directors had no significant effect on rhythmic scores; however, students remembering use of mnemonic counting systems in elementary classroom music scored significantly better than those remembering use of number-based systems. Private lessons also appeared to have a significant, positive effect. Unexpectedly, a significant effect was seen in the rhythm pattern students used for selected questions; this effect may yield clues regarding students' cognitive strategies. Overall, these results indicate an effect associated with particular counting systems in elementary general music, but it is unclear whether that effect stems from the pedagogy itself or other factors associated with the teacher's choice of counting system. Other findings include: 1) most students did not report counting activities as a daily occurrence in their band rehearsals, 2) almost half of students did not report having an elementary classroom music teacher.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.