286 JRME1996,VOLUME44, NUMBER4, PAGES286-303

Sixtyinstrumentalmusic rehearsalswerevideotapedto measurethe use of rehearsaltime

by threegroups of teachers.Rehearsalswereequally divided among those conductedby
experiencedteachers,novice teachers,and studentteachersat the middleand high school
levels.Dependentvariablesincludedpreparationtime,initial teachertalk, timein warm-
up, time during each musical selection, breaks,final teacher talk, and dismissal.
Variablesweremeasuredin real time and convertedto percentagesof class period. The
primary variablesfor teaching activitiesweretime spent in verbalinstruction, nonver-
bal modeling, verbal discipline (disapproval-social), and performance. Findings
include: student teacherstalked most and allowed students to play least; experienced
teachersprovided the most break time, divided rehearsaltime more equally betweena
warm-upand two musical selections,spent morethan half the period on performance,
used the mostnonverbalmodeling,got the ensembleson-taskthe quickest,and talkedthe
least during rehearsals.

Thomas W. Goolsby
GeorgiaState University

Time Use in
Instrumental Rehearsals:
A Comparison of
Experienced, Novice, and
Student Teachers

Educational researchers are frequently encouraged to begin the

study of comprehensive issues such as "music teacher effectiveness"
with descriptive studies, followed by research involving correlational
techniques, and, finally, investigations involving experimental methods
(Rosenshine & Furst, 1973). An example of this long-range approach is
the initial and continued work addressing time on task introduced by
Madsen (1971), which has withstood the test of repeated scrutiny
(Madsen & Duke, 1993) to establish time on task among the significant
components of music learning and teaching.
Another area in which the long-range approach suggested by

Thomas W. Goolsby is an associate professor of music in the School of Music,

Georgia State University, University Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303. Copyright ? 1996 by Music
Educators National Conference.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

 JRME 287

Rosenshine and Furst has resulted in significant contributions to our

understanding of teaching music is a group of investigations complet-
ed during the past 20 years. In descriptive studies, researchers have
examined choral teacher behaviors (Caldwell, 1980; Thurman, 1977;
Yarbrough, 1975) and specific behaviors of elementary general music
teachers (Forsythe, 1977; Moore, 1976, 1981; Wagner & Strul, 1979).
Investigators have also focused on the effects of teacher behaviors on
student attitude and attentiveness in a variety of ensemble settings for
nearly two decades (Kostka, 1984; Price, 1983, 1992; Yarbrough, 1975;
Yarbrough & Price, 1981, 1989). This body of literature has led to
increasing insight into music learning and teaching at various grade
levels, labeled "sequential patterns of instruction" (Price, 1992;
Yarbrough & Hendel, 1993; Yarbrough & Price, 1989; Yarbrough, Price,
& Hendel, 1994).
In the continuing search for more effective instructional models in
instrumental music, however, few descriptive studies of effective music
teaching have focused on secondary band or orchestra teachers. The
first step in the investigative pattern suggested by Rosenshine and Furst
remains incomplete. Since 1980, when Madsen and Yarbrough recog-
nized that "the specific use of rehearsal and class time has not been
clearly isolated as a variable" (1985, p. 40), only two studies have been
published, those of Witt (1986) and Carpenter (1988). Both compare
junior high and high school band directors on selected aspects of
teaching instrumental music.
Witt (1986) compared 48 instrumental music teachers equally divid-
ed between junior and senior high school orchestra and band direc-
tors. Across groups, she reported that 17.8% of the class time was spent
"getting ready," 38.9% in teacher talk, and 43.3% in performance (p.
38). Carpenter (1988) randomly selected 14 junior high and high
school band directors to examine verbal communication and overall
effectiveness of 56 rehearsals. He used one to five audiotapes, submit-
ted by each director, to rate the directors' effectiveness based on their
verbal comments. Carpenter reported that verbal instruction consisted
of 80% technical directions, 15% modeling, 1.5% imagery, and 3.3%
questioning (p. 39).
Sherrill (1986) also compared exemplary junior high and high
school band directors. Sherrill videotaped four junior high and four
high school band directors and analyzed 20-minute portions of the
eight tapes for verbal behaviors. He reports that conductors spent
between 30% and 56% of the rehearsal segments in verbal instruction,
with a mean of 44% (p. 54). Pontious (1982) and Buell (1990) also
studied outstanding band directors. Pontious (1982) videotaped five
teachers who received three consecutive superior ratings at festivals.
After analyzing the verbal behaviors during the first 30 minutes of two
rehearsals for each (excluding the warm-up and announcements), he
reported that 58% of the directors' teaching included band perfor-
mance and 42% included talking. Buell (1990) completed the only
case study. He described ensemble preparation by an outstanding col-
lege band director from initial sight-reading to the fial performance.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

288 GOOLSBY

The only studies that compare instructional behaviors of "effective"

and "less effective" instrumental music teachers were by Ellsworth
(1985), who studied 13 orchestra directors, and Grechesky (1985), who
studied 11 band directors. Both researchers used 5-minute, solicited
audiotapes from volunteer directors to rank and divide the teachers
into "musical" and "less musical" directors. Both analyzed 19 to 22 min-
utes of videotaped rehearsals. Ellsworth found no difference in teacher
behavior. Grechesky found a strong relationship between a high quan-
tity of talking and "less effective" directors.
The instrumental ensemble remains a fundamental and basic com-
ponent of the music education curriculum in American secondary
schools (Price, 1981). Although each of these descriptive studies con-
tributes to an understanding of the dynamics of instrumental music
rehearsals, each is also limited, either by a small sample or by analysis
of short portions of rehearsals. A more complete examination of the
teaching behaviors of experienced and successful band directors could
broaden the baseline of descriptive data for instrumental ensemble
rehearsals, which in turn might lead to future studies identifying addi-
tional characteristics of outstanding directors. Such an examination
might also prove beneficial to those involved in music teacher educa-
tion programs who are constantly striving to help future teachers attain
the maximum performance level within limited rehearsal periods.
Effective use of the limited time in instrumental music rehearsals
requires constant decision-making on the part of the conductor, effec-
tive instrumental music teachers need to be able to make competent
decisions guiding the rehearsal (Price, 1981). Analysis and comparison
of complete rehearsals of band directors who have demonstrated
repeated success as master teachers with those directors new to the pro-
fession might in part serve this need.
The intent of this study was to contribute to the current body of lit-
erature describing teaching events in instrumental music education,
specifically the use of time during entire rehearsals, and how this use of
time contributes to the notion of rehearsal pacing. Ideas regarding pac-
ing emerge largely from conventional wisdom (e.g., that a good warm-
up is prerequisite to an effective rehearsal), and personal experience or
observations supported by various instrumental method books (e.g.,
Colwell & Goolsby, 1992; Kohut, 1973) and periodicals that deal with
methods (e.g., Brand, 1990; Hunt, 1989; Tellejohn, 1989). A systematic
study of selected aspects of pacing, through analysis of time usage in
rehearsals, might provide empirical evidence to support or challenge
conventional wisdom.
The purpose of this study was to compare in real time the use of
rehearsal time during classroom periods by (a) experienced, (b)
novice, and (c) student music teachers during instrumental music
rehearsals. The experienced band directors, selected according to cri-
teria described below, were representative of outstanding and success-
ful instrumental music teachers. The novice teachers were first-year or
second-year teachers. The student teachers had each completed at least
5 weeks of a full-time internship.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

 JRME 289

METHOD

Subjects

Thirty band directors at the secondary level participated in the study.

The band directors were equally divided into three groups: experi-
enced teachers, novice teachers, and student teachers. Within each
group were five middle school teachers and five high school teachers.
The 10 directors selected as novice teachers were in their first or sec-
ond year of teaching. The 10 student teachers were from four universi-
ties within a 75-mile radius. Although the total sample of teachers
taught in 14 separate school districts, an attempt was made to select
representatives equally across the diversity of school districts within the
geographic area sampled. Band directors in each of the three groups
included teachers from a large inner-city school district, a rural district,
and suburban districts serving middle-class to wealthy families.
To identify potential subjects for each group of teachers, assistance
was solicited from band directors and music education faculty at five
neighboring colleges and universities, officers of the state music edu-
cators association, and music administrators of the 21 school districts
represented in the state music administrators association. Selection cri-
teria for experienced teachers included a minimum of 8 years' teach-
ing experience, a comprehensive band program (i.e., at least two con-
cert bands, ajazz band, a marching/pep band), consistent superior rat-
ings in concert festivals, and frequent service as a cooperating teacher
for student teachers. Also included in the criteria for the experienced
teachers was their serving as a cooperating teacher during at least one
of the two quarters during data collection. Selection criteria for novice
teachers included a rating of outstanding on the State Initial
Certification Teaching Form by the teacher's music administrator.
Seven high school and six middle school directors were nominated
as experienced teacher subjects. Ten of the first 11 teachers contacted
by the researcher volunteered to participate. The student interns, as
well as their supervising teachers, were contacted for permission to par-
ticipate. Five high school and eight middle school teachers were nomi-
nated for novice teacher subjects; the first 10 contacted by the
researcher volunteered to participate. To attain some control over
band performance level, the student teacher rehearsed the same en-
sembles as did the experienced teacher. Consequently, much of the
basis for decision making in rehearsal situations would have been
affected by the cooperating teacher. The student teachers, however,
were given a large degree of peer status by the cooperating teacher;
that is, they were allowed considerable freedom in selecting and
rehearsing music for the groups. Each student teacher had been pro-
vided the opportunity to choose three selections for concert/festival
performance and prepare those selections using their own rehearsal
techniques. Their lesson plans were not reviewed prior to the rehear-
sals, but each was critiqued following the rehearsal. Each student
teacher was given total responsibility for preparing the selections for

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

290 GOOLSBY

performance, and the guiding experienced teacher attempted to allow

the student teacher as much freedom as possible.

Procedures

Three rehearsals of the same ensemble were recorded for each par-
ticipating teacher, resulting in a total of 90 rehearsals videotaped over
a 4-month period. Attempts were made for the actual videotaping to
remain unobtrusive in order for the rehearsals to represent typical
band classes conducted by each participating teacher. Teachers
rehearsed their own ensembles, with each teacher preparing music that
he or she would conduct on an approaching performance. Repertoire
comprised music from Grades III, IV, and V for the middle school
bands, and Grades IV,V, and VI for the high school bands. The middle
school bands ranged in size from 47 to 68 members. The high school
bands ranged in membership from 42 to 61 students.
Arrangements were made with the novice teachers and student
teachers to determine the specific rehearsals to be videotaped.
Arrangements with the experienced teachers allowed for a 1-week win-
dow during which the researcher videotaped three rehearsals. To
reduce the effects of having a visitor present, only the second and third
tapes were used in the data analysis. This resulted in a total of 60
rehearsals (two for each of the 30 teachers). All teachers were video-
taped between 3 and 9 school days prior to a concert or festival perfor-
mance. Selected variables were measured in real time using a series of
stop watches and repeated viewings of videotapes. Variables included:
1. Totalduration of the classperiod.
2. Preparation(time between the beginning of the class and the
beginning of the rehearsal; as Wagner & Strul (1979) observed,
this is a teacher-directed activity).
3. Initial teachertalk (teacher-directed conversation or announce-
ments that were irrelevant or off-task to the day's rehearsal; ref-
erence to the music or rehearsal signaled the beginning of the
next variable).
4. Totaltimein ensemblewarm-up,which was subdivided into:
Teacher Activities
a. verbal instruction [clarifying subject matter, teacher ques-
tioning, lecturing, conversation in which students and
teachers interact, and giving directions (Wagner & Strul,
1979)],
b. nonverbal instruction (i.e., demonstration and modeling),
c. verbal discipline [i.e., disapproval for social behavior by
the teacher following any disruption of the learning envi-
ronment that interferes with learning (Yarbrough & Price,
1981)],
d. number of times the teacher stopped.
Performance Activities
e. full ensemble performance,
f. group/sectional performance,

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

 JRME 291

g. individual performance,
h. breathing/humming/clapping/singing/counting
exercises,
i. number of rehearsal segments.
5. Time devotedto a breakfollowing the warm-upselection.
6. Total time in rehearsingthefirst selection (subdivided as above).
7. Time devotedto a second break.
8. Total time in rehearsinga second selection(subdivided as above).
9. Time in a third break.
10. Total time in rehearsinga third selection,if included (subdivided
as above).
11. Time in a fourth break.
12. Total time rehearsingafourth selection,if included (subdivided as
above).
13. Final teachertalk (verbal comments at the conclusion of the
rehearsal).
14. Dismissal (the time between the end of the rehearsal and the end
of the class period).

All timings were rounded to the nearest 0.25 second. Class periods
ranged from 45 to 60 minutes (2,700 to 3,600 seconds). All timings
were converted to seconds and then to percentages of the class period.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if the three
groups of teachers differed on length of class period. Results indicated
that there was no difference, F (2, 27) = 1.7, p > .10 (a Levene test for
homogeneity of variance indicated that rehearsal length between
groups did not violate assumptions for the ANOVA).
Reliability of the measurement of these variables was estimated by
requesting two advanced graduate students who had been successful
band directors to measure and record the timings for three separate
rehearsals. Correlations were determined for each student's results
with those obtained by the researcher. The correlation between mea-
surements by one graduate student and those of the researcher was r=
.93 and between those of the second graduate student and those of the
researcher was r = .90. The reliability of the measure was clearly accept-
able.

RESULTS

Figure 1 illustrates the mean percentage of the total class period

devoted to teaching activities and nonteaching activities that made up
the total class time for each rehearsal by the student teachers, the
novice teachers, and the experienced teachers. Musical instruction and
performance included the time spent in performance (full ensemble,
group/sectional, individual, and humming/breathing/clapping exer-
cises), verbal instruction, nonverbal modeling, and the time spent in
verbal discipline (verbal disapproval of social behavior). In contrast,
nonteaching activities included the portion of the class periods that
were devoted to tasks other than music instruction: time in prepara-

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

292 GOOLSBY

ClassTimeSpentin:
- Musicalinstruction& performance
100
Nonteachingactivities
xvQ,^~~~~~~ ~80.6%
80 -
i 76.9%67.3% 67.3%

60 -

40 -
32.7%
*23.1%
23.1% 19.4%
20--'

StudentTeachers Novice Teachers ExperiencedTeachers

Teaching Experience

Figure1. Mean percentages of rehearsaltime spent in teaching activitiesand

nonteaching activities.

tion, initial and final teacher talk, breaks between musical selections,
and the dismissal period. Nonteaching activities also included the class
time when a teacher attempted to stop the ensemble but was required
to wait before providing instruction. Results described here and shown
in the figure and tables in this study report summated means, calculat-
ed for each teacher's two observations.
Interestingly, the results shown in Figure 1 indicate little difference
between student teachers and experienced teachers in quantity of time
devoted to the actual task of rehearsing, that is, musical instruction and
performance. Since the student teachers had closely observed and
worked with the experienced teachers, one might expect that the
results would be similar. The way this time is used, however, differs as
described below. Novice teachers devoted only 67.3% of the class peri-
od to teaching activities, which differed from the student teacher (M=
76.9%) and the experienced teacher (M= 80.6%).
The "ClassTime in Teaching Activities" category of Table 1 contains
each teacher group's mean percentage of class time (and SD) devoted
to performance (subdivided into percentages of time spent in full
ensemble, group, and individual playing, plus the rehearsal time spent
in humming/breathing/clapping exercises), verbal instruction, non-
verbal instruction (i.e., demonstration and modeling), and verbal dis-
cipline (verbal disapproval or reprimands of social behaviors).
Experienced teachers devoted more than twice as much time to per-
formance than to verbal instruction; they also spent more time in non-
verbal demonstration and modeling behaviors than the other teachers.
Student teachers spent an equal amount of time in verbal behaviors as

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

 JRME 293

Table 1
Mean Percentages(and StandardDeviations)of Class TimeDevotedto TeacherBehaviorsby
Groups

Student Novice Experienced

teachers (ST) teachers (NT) teachers (ET) Tukey

highest
ClassTimein TeachingActivities:
Performance 35.5 (6.3) 35.1 (6.4) 51.2 (7.2) ST NT ET
Full ensemble 26.2 (4.8) 28.0 (5.8) 41.2 (9.5)
Sections/groups 7.1 (3.2) 5.4 (2.6) 6.6 (3.6)
Individuals 1.1 (1.0) 1.0 (0.7) 1.4 (0.8)
Exercises 0.6 (0.6) 0.3 (0.6) 1.0 (1.2)
Verbalinstruction 35.4 (5.1) 26.6 (2.9) 24.1 (1.7) ET NT ST
Nonverbal 3.0 (0.6) 2.4 (0.7) 5.4 (3.4) NT ST ET
Discipline 3.6 (1.8) 3.5 (1.8) 0.9 (1.3) ET NT ST

Clas Time in Noneahing Activities:

Preparation 7.7 (2.8) 9.3 (2.8) 2.9 (1.0) ET ST NT
Initialteacher talk 4.1 (3.9) 9.0 (8.6) 1.9 (1.1) ET NT ST
Totalbreaks 1.7 (0.9) 2.8 (1.7) 4.8 (1.5) ST NT ET
Final teacher talk 0.7 (0.7) 0.3 (0.7) 0.2 (0.2) N.S.
Dismissal 2.4 (1.5) 1.7 (1.9) 2.4 (1.0) N.S.

Perctage of TotalClassTimeDevotedto:
Warm-up 19.2 (8.9) 17.0 (5.1) 20.6 (6.6) N.S.
Firstselection 46.3 (13.0) 33.0 (8.2) 28.9 (10.7) ET NT ST
Second selection 20.6 (7.2) 24.3 (5.9) 32.5 (12.5)
n=9 n=10 n=10
Third selection 11..9 (1.8) 13.0 (4.5) 14.1 (10.6)
n=3 n=5 n=7
Fourthselection 0.0 10.9 (2.0) 0.0
n=0 n=2 n=0

Note.Tukey-HSD (highlysignificantdifference)testsindicateno differencefor underlinedvari-

ables(n = 10 teachers/group;two observations/case).

in performance. Both novice teachers and student teachers spent near-

ly 4% of the class period in verbal discipline.
Although the design of this investigation was a causal-comparative
descriptive study with a relatively small sample, two multivariate analy-
ses of covariance (MANCOVAs) were used to explore the data. Caution
is warranted in attempting to generalize to other populations. Al-
though a degree of control was added by having the student teachers
conduct the same ensembles as the experienced teachers, the experi-
enced teachers undoubtedly had varying degrees of control and influ-
ence over the rehearsal procedures used by the student teachers. Each
student teacher had been given the opportunity to select his or her own
music for the performance and were allowed a great deal of freedom

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

294 GOOLSBY

in its preparation, but they certainly would be expected to have fol-

lowed many of the rehearsal procedures used by the experienced
teachers--especially those perceived as successful with the specific
ensembles. There was no comparable control for the novice teachers.
The first MANCOVA for repeated measures (two observations for
each teacher) was used to test for differences for four dependent vari-
ables: total time spent in performance, verbal instruction, nonverbal
instruction, and verbal discipline. Pillai's test, the most robust MAN-
COVA, was used with the length of class periods as a covariate. A sig-
nificant difference was found [F (8, 48) = 10.9, p< .01, between groups;
not significant within groups]. The right column in Table 1 contains
the summary of the separate ANCOVA for those variables indicated as
different between groups. The conservative Tukey-HSD (highly signifi-
cant difference) test was selected as the post hoc test for differences
between groups; this specific test establishes the experimental error
rate at the same alpha level as the original MANCOVAand the separate
ANCOVA (a = .01) (Howell, 1982, p. 303). Unlike the data reported in
Figure 1, these data are not ipsative; each measure was independent,
whereas the data reported in Figure 1 could not be subjected to normal
statistical analyses (Kerlinger, 1986, p. 463).
A difference was found for the percentage of total time spent in per-
formance [F(2, 26) = 24.1, p < .01]; the Tukey-HSD test indicated a dif-
ference between the experienced teachers and the other two groups.
The means for the student teachers, novice teachers, and experienced
teachers were 35.5%, 35.1%, and 51.2%, respectively. The total per-
centage of class time devoted to verbal instruction also differed [F (2,
26) = 29.7, p < .01]. For the means and standard deviations reported in
Table 1, the Tukey-HSD indicated that the student teachers spent a sig-
nificantly greater amount of rehearsal time in verbal instruction than
the experienced teachers or the novice teachers (no difference).
Analysis of covariance indicated a difference for the total percentage of
class time spent in nonverbal instruction (i.e., demonstration and mod-
eling) [F (2, 26) = 4.7, p < .01]. As indicated by the means (and SD)
reported in Table 1, the Tukey-HSD test indicated that the experienced
teachers used more nonverbal instruction than did either the student
teachers or novice teachers (no difference). Finally, a difference was
found for the total percentage of class time devoted to verbal discipline
or verbally disapproving of inappropriate social behavior [F (2, 26) =
7.2, p < .01]. Illustrated by the means for the student teachers, novice
teachers, and experienced teachers-3.6%, 3.5%, and 0.9%, respec-
tively-the post hoc test indicated a difference between the experi-
enced teachers and the other two groups. The experienced teachers
spent the least time in verbal discipline.
Results of the present study agree with the widely held belief that stu-
dent teachers talk excessively and may not provide sufficient time for
the band to perform. These data also support research-based conclu-
sions of investigators (e.g., Forsythe, 1977; Price, 1983; Yarbrough &
Price, 1981) who found a strong relationship between the amount of
time students were off-task (often requiring verbal discipline) and the

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

 JRME 295

time students were involved in musical activities such as performance:

35.5% for student teachers, 35.1% for novice teachers, and 51.2% for
experienced teachers. These results seem to correlate with the 3.6%
(student teachers), 3.5% (novices), and 0.9% (experienced teachers)
of the rehearsals that these groups, respectively, spent in verbal disci-
pline. These differences might have been even larger had the student
teachers not been under the tutelage of experienced teachers.
The bands rehearsed by the experienced teachers performed for
more than half the class period. Experienced teachers also modeled
more (primarily vocalizing rhythms and expressive phrasings) and
spent less time verbally disapproving of student' social behavior. The
novice teachers and the student teachers were very similar in the
amount of class time spent in performance, nonverbal instruction, and
verbal discipline. As illustrated in Table 1, the percentage of class time
devoted to actual performance seems to be a defining characteristic of
the experienced teacher.
The rehearsal time used by each group of teachers in nonteaching
activities is reported in Table 1. These percentages include the non-
teaching time within control of each teacher's rehearsal structure. The
second Pillai's MANCOVA for repeated measures was used to deter-
mine differences between groups on the dependent variables: prepara-
tion time, initial teacher talk, total breaks, final teacher talk, and the
dismissal (length of rehearsals was used as the covariate). Results indi-
cated a difference [F (10, 46) = 5.9, p < .01; not significant within
groups]. Descriptive statistics and the results of the univariate and post
hoc tests are reported in Table 1.
Preparation included the time between the beginning of the class
period until the beginning of the actual class (normally when the con-
ductor assumed a position in front of the class and signaled for si-
lence). The experienced teachers allowed considerably less time to pass
before beginning the rehearsal than did either the student teachers or
the novice teachers. The ANCOVA indicated a difference in prepara-
tion time [F (2, 26) = 18.5, p < .01]; the post hoc test indicated the ex-
perienced teachers differed from the other groups by using 2.9% of the
class period compared to 7.8% and 9.3% used by the student teachers
and novice teachers, respectively (Table 1). Initial teacher talk includ-
ed the percentage of the class spent in announcements unrelated to
the rehearsal. Any reference to the day's rehearsal or a musical selec-
tion was used as a signal that the next variable (warm-up) had started.
For "initial teacher talk," ANCOVA and the Tukey-HSD test indicated
that the novice teachers differed from the student teachers and expe-
rienced teachers (p < .01). Means for student teachers and experienced
teachers were 4.1% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 9.0% for the
novice teachers. One would not expect the student teachers to resem-
ble the experienced teachers on this variable, since the student teach-
ers would have relatively few administrative tasks; they did, however, use
more than twice as much class time in initial teacher talk.
Total time in breaks included the time that the conductors allowed
students to converse, socialize, and relax between rehearsing musical

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

296 GOOLSBY

selections. These breaks occurred more frequently and were longer for
the experienced teachers (who provided breaks after each musical
selection). This period of time was usually indicated by the conductor
stepping off a podium or away from the "center stage." The group was
brought back to task by conductors using the same signal used to start
the rehearsal. ANCOVA and the Tukey-HSD again indicated that the
experienced teachers differed from the other two groups. Relatively
few student teachers or novice teachers allowed for breaks (as indicat-
ed by the larger variance). Means for the percentage of class time
devoted to ensemble breaks also are reported in Table 1. This result is
somewhat surprising, since one might expect the student teachers to
emulate the experienced teachers in the use of this technique.
"Final teacher talk"was short for all groups of teachers. It accounted
for less than 1% of the total class time for all three groups. These com-
ments were usually a brief expression of gratitude for the band's coop-
eration and a verbal dismissal. "Dismissal" included the percentage of
total class time that the teachers allowed between their dismissal of the
band to the time when the class period was over. Although no signifi-
cant difference was found for dismissal and all means were close to 2%
of the total class period (experienced teachers were highest by a slight
degree, M = 2.4%), discussion with several experienced teachers
revealed that they consider this an essential component of the
rehearsal. They found it unreasonable to expect their own students to
arrive punctually if they failed to allow students to arrive at their next
class on time. On this particular variable, it seems that the student
teachers used the experienced teachers' guidelines.
The lower category in Table 1, "Percentage of Total Class Time
Devoted to," contains the mean percentages (and SD) of the class peri-
ods devoted to the warm-up and rehearsal of each musical selection for
the three groups of teachers. These means reflect the total time devot-
ed to rehearsal of each selection (i.e., total verbal and nonverbal
instruction, performance, and nonteaching activities) calculated from
two observations for each teacher. The experienced teachers spent
more time in warm-up than did the student teachers or the novice
teachers, and they balanced the remaining rehearsal time between the
first and second selections. The third selection was frequently a previ-
ously prepared piece or a "fun piece" that was often played without
stopping. The student teachers demonstrated a tendency to spend the
most time on the first selection. The novice teachers were the only con-
ductors that attempted to rehearse a fourth selection.
Nineteen of the 20 rehearsals led by the student teachers and 19 led
by the novice teachers began with an ensemble warm-up; all 20
rehearsals by the experienced teachers involved a warm-up. Mean per-
centages (and SD) of the class period spent in warm-up for the student
teachers, novice teachers, and experienced teacher are reported in
Table 1. Analysis of covariance indicated no difference between groups
on time spent in warm-up. A "firstmusical selection" was rehearsed dur-
ing all 60 rehearsals recorded. Analysis of covariance indicated a dif-
ference in time spent in rehearsing the first selection [F (2, 26) = 7.0,

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

 JRME 297

Table 2
MeanLengths(and StandardDeviations)of Performance
Segmentsand TeachingSegments(in
Seconds)

Student Novice Experienced

teachers teachers teachers Tukey

highest
Performancesegments 17.2 (2.1) 23.1 (8.4) 25.1 (6.2) ST NT ET
Teachingsegments 28.9 (6.9) 26.7 (7.8) 17.4 (4.1) ET NT ST

(highlysignificantdifference)testsindicateno differencefor underlinedvari-

Note.Tukey-HSD
ables.

p < .01], with the post hoc test indicating that the student teachers used
a larger percentage of class time for this portion of the rehearsal than
did the other two groups. The mean percentage of class time spent on
the first selection was 46.3% for the student teachers, with means of
33.0% and 28.9% for the novice teachers and experienced teachers,
respectively. In four cases for the student teachers, these times may
have resulted from a desire to prepare "their" musical selection for a
noteworthy performance at a festival. For the other six student teach-
ers, however, performances at which each would conduct at least three
selections were approaching.
No significant difference was found for the percentage of class time
spent in rehearsing the second musical selection. The data for the time
devoted to rehearsing a third and fourth selection failed to pass the
Levene test for homogeneity of variance. Means for the percentage of
class time spent rehearsing a third musical selection by the student
teachers, novice teachers, and experienced teachers were 11.9% (n =
3), 13.0% (n = 5), and 14.1% (n = 7), respectively (n = directors who
rehearsed a third selection during both recorded rehearsals). Three
novice teachers rehearsed a fourth selection during both recorded
rehearsals; two additional novice teachers rehearsed a fourth selection
during one of the rehearsals.
Table 2 contains the mean lengths of performance segments and
teaching segments. These variables were calculated and are reported in
real-time. The mean length of performance segments was calculated by
dividing the total performance time by the number of times each
teacher asked an individual or group to perform. The variable "teach-
ing segments" includes the time that the conductor indicated for the
group (or individual) to cease playing until they were restarted. These
periods of teaching time were usually for verbal instruction, nonverbal
modeling, or occasionally for no comment at all. As indicated in Table
2, the student teachers averaged the shortest performance segments
and the longest average teaching segments. The length of teaching seg-
ments reported by Witt (1986), 31 seconds by orchestra directors and
23 seconds by band directors, are more similar to those found for the
student teachers and the novice teachers than for the experienced

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

298 GOOLSBY

teachers.
Analysis of variance indicated significant differences between groups
for both performance and teaching segments (p < .05). The experi-
enced teachers and novice teachers had the longest performance seg-
ments and included three teachers in the experienced teachers group
and four novice teachers that allowed the band to play a straight run-
through of at least one musical selection (resulting in the larger vari-
ance for the novice teachers). The inflated means for teaching seg-
ments by the student teachers and the novice teachers may reflect their
occasional difficulty in getting the students to stop playing. The
researcher observed that some conductors had trouble getting the
group to respond to their gestures to cease playing.
The most discriminating variables appearing in the results for these
30 instrumental music teachers were (1) total time spent in perfor-
mance (more for experienced teachers, less for student teachers and
novice teachers), (2) nonverbal modeling (more for the experienced
teachers, less for novice teachers), (3) time spent in verbal instruction
(more for student teachers, less for experienced teachers and novice
teachers), and (4) time provided for breaks (more by the experienced
teachers, less by student teachers and novice teachers). This last com-
ponent, the number and length of breaks given by the experienced
teachers, has not been discussed in previous literature on the use of
time by ensemble directors. Discussion with these teachers revealed
that many experienced teachers felt strongly about the importance of
allowing students to have a moment to "relax"several times throughout
the period. During discussion with the researcher, several of the expe-
rienced teachers indicated they felt it unreasonable to expect students
to stay on task for 50 minutes; these teachers used several short periods
for "unison off-task behavior" rather than risk individuals interrupting
the rehearsal. Some experienced teachers used this time to complete
attendance sheets, talk to individuals about performance or technical
problems, deal with individual student problems, or handle a combi-
nation of these activities.

DISCUSSION

Because the sample of 30 band directors was drawn from a specific

geographic region and the selection was based on specific characteris-
tics for each group, caution is warranted in generalizing to broader
populations. A number of findings, however, do support previous
research investigating samples with similar characteristics.
The first findings (illustrated in Figure 1) indicate that the student
teachers and the experienced teachers who participated in this study
spent similar amounts of time in teaching activities (including verbal
and nonverbal instruction and musical performance). When these
totals were analyzed by rehearsal component (illustrated in Table 1), it
became evident that the experienced teachers spent significantly more
time in performance and in use of nonverbal modeling than did the
other teachers (supporting the findings of Pontious, 1982, and

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

 JRME 299

Grechesky, 1985). The student teachers spent as much time in verbal

instruction as in total performance time across the 20 rehearsals (sup-
porting the findings of Wagner & Strul, 1979). When all components
of the class period were combined, results indicated that the experi-
enced teachers spent more than half the total class period in perfor-
mance, whereas the student teachers spent approximately 44% and the
novice teachers spent almost 40% of the class period in verbal behav-
iors [supporting the findings in other studies of outstanding ensemble
directors (Caldwell, 1980; Madsen & Geringer, 1983)].
Not only is the total time devoted to performance during the re-
hearsal significantly greater for the experienced teachers, but how this
time is spread across the limited class period seems to be important.
The amount of class time devoted to warm-ups and rehearsal of each
musical selection is a key element to the concept of pacing, which
appears frequently in method textbooks (e.g., Colwell & Goolsby, 1992;
Kohut, 1973) and in recent periodical articles (e.g., Brand, 1990; Hunt,
1989; Tellejohn, 1989).
Results for the 30 teachers who participated in this study reveal that
the experienced teachers spent more rehearsal time in warm-up than
did the student teachers or the novice teachers. The experienced
teachers also spent more time rehearsing the second musical selection
than the first Both the novice teachers and the student teachers spent
more time rehearsing the first musical selection, with the student teach-
ers seeming to become bogged down during this portion of the
rehearsal. Only directors in the novice teacher group attempted to
rehearse a fourth musical selection during the class period.
The experienced teachers included in this sample allowed the
ensembles to perform for longer periods of time between teaching seg-
ments, and when they did stop the ensemble, it was for a significantly
shorter time than the student teachers or novice teachers did (see
Table 2). These results may indicate the ability to verbalize more effi-
ciently, or they may be a reflection on the experienced teachers'
greater use of nonverbal instruction. The experienced teachers also
made greater use of nonverbal modeling to convey musical concepts
than the teachers in the other two groups (Table 1). The novice teach-
ers spent the most time in nonteaching activities (Table 1), yet this
group included the only teachers to rehearse a fourth selection.
From the results of the 60 rehearsals videotaped of the 30 instru-
mental music teachers in this sample, the experienced teachers con-
trasted with the novice and student teachers as getting on task quickly
after the period began with little time devoted to initial teacher talk.
They spent approximately one-fifth of the period in warm-up (which
included humming and breathing exercises in 12 of the 20 rehearsals
for this sample) and allowed more ensemble performance time than
did the other teachers included in the sample. The majority of the
rehearsal time is balanced between rehearsing two selections and play-
ing through a third. Little rehearsal time was spent in stopping the
band for verbal instruction, and vocal modeling was used more fre-
quently than for the other 20 teachers. The experienced teachers pro-

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

300 GOOLSBY

vided breaks of nearly 1-minute duration for students to relax, talk, or

socialize between rehearsing selections. The experienced teachers also
dismissed students in a timely manner.
Many of the findings support the belief of many instrumental music
teachers and instrumental methods instructors that student teachers
talk too much and do not let the students play enough. Other findings
occur less frequently in the research literature and non-research-based
literature: experienced teachers get on task quickly (Forsythe, 1977),
spend more time in warm-up, balance the rehearsal time between two
musical selections followed by a third "fun" piece or sight-reading, use
more nonverbal modeling, and experienced teachers provided more
break time between musical selections than the student teachers or the
novice teachers. These aspects of instrumental music education may
prove useful to practicing ensemble directors and instructors of meth-
ods courses.
Table 3 contains a comparison of the rehearsal outline, or time use,
for the average rehearsal by the teacher in each of the three groups.
These timings are based on the means reported in the results and are
calculated to fit in a 50-minute rehearsal. As illustrated in this table,
experienced teachers balance rehearsal time between warm-up and two
musical selections with time available for a run-through of a third selec-
tion.
The student teachers included in this sample spent a large portion
of the rehearsal on the first selection. In discussion that included the
researcher and the 10 student teachers, most of the student teachers
recognized this as a weakness and an area that needed improvement.
Several indicated that they felt bogged down and that they essentially

Table3
EstimatedProfilesofEach Group'sRehearsalOutline,Basedon a 50-MinuteClassPeriod

Student Novice Experienced

teachers teachers teachers

Preparation 3:54 4:33 1:27

Initialteachertalk 2:03 4:18 1:06
Warm-up 8:04 7:27 9:20
Break 1 0:22 0:37 0:58
Firstselection 22:52 16:35 14:15
Break2 0:09 0:18 0:59
Second selection 9:40 12:05 16:13
Break 3 0:09 0:25 0:54
Third selection 1:01 1:40 3:30
Break4 0:08
Fourth selection 1:21
Final teacher talk 0:25 0:12 0:08
Dismissal 1:06 0:41 1:10
Total 50:00 50:00 50:00

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

 JRME 301

abandoned their lesson plans as unexpected performance problems

were identified. The student teachers used more "final teacher talk" at
the end of the rehearsals than the other groups. In a few instances this
included a brief summative evaluation; several of the student teachers
attempted to review what had been accomplished and what would be
addressed in the next rehearsal. Several of the measured variables were
similar between the student teachers and the experienced teachers-
presumably resulting from the influence and guidance of the experi-
enced teacher. On other variables, however, the autonomy given to the
student teachers becomes apparent, such as length of verbal instruc-
tion and teaching segments (on which these groups differed). The dif-
ferences between these two groups might have been much greater with-
out the influence of the experienced teachers. Although some control
was added by having the student teachers rehearse the same ensembles
as the experienced teachers, other confounding variables became a
concern, primarily the degree to which the student teachers planned
and taught according to their own abilities. Clearly, the novice teachers
were not subject to the same control factors.
The novice teachers included in this sample did not start the actual
rehearsal as quickly after the class period begins as did the student
teachers or the experienced teachers. As reflected in Table 1, the
novice teachers spent much of the rehearsal time in verbal instruction
and less time in nonverbal modeling and demonstration than the stu-
dent teachers or experienced teachers. Not indicated in Table 1 was the
fact that 8 of the 20 rehearsals by the novice teachers lacked any break
time whatsoever. This lack of break time could possibly have had some
influence on the time required for verbal discipline and reprimanding
students.
The results of this study add to the baseline of data from which
numerous other questions arise. For example, while the time devoted
to verbal instruction was measured, clearly, what is said is just as impor-
tant. Furthermore, variables such as repertoire rehearsed would clearly
have an effect, and results of an empirical study could provide greater
insight. Experimental studies could also be designed to control for
other potentially confounding variables, such as size of ensemble,
instrumentation, achievement level of the ensembles, and time spent in
preparation of a concert selection. The differences between the stu-
dent teachers and experienced teachers might have been different if
they had taught different bands.
Instructors of university level instrumental methods courses may
benefit from evidence that the experienced band directors, acknowl-
edged as outstanding by their colleagues, spent relatively little time in
verbal instruction and more than half the available rehearsal time in
performance (of which a considerable portion is in warm-up). The
experienced teachers included in this study also provided significantly
more break time interspersed throughout the rehearsal. Finally, con-
trary to the findings for the student and novice teachers included in
this sample, the experienced teachers attempted to pace the rehearsal
to allow sufficient time to rehearse two selections. They did not allow

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

302 GOOLSBY

themselves to become so involved in the first selection that insufficient

time remained for rehearsal of a second selection and a brief run-
through of a third piece.

REFERENCES

Brand, M. (1990). Master music teachers; what makes them great? Music
EducatorsJournal, 76 (2), 22-25.
Buell, D. S. (1990). Effectiverehearsalwith the instrumentalmusic ensemble:A case
study.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Caldwell, W. M. (1980). A time analysis of selectedmusical elementsand leadership
behaviorsof successfulhigh school choral conductors.Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Florida State University.
Carpenter, R. A. (1988). A descriptive analysis of relationships between verbal
behaviors of teacher-conductors and ratings of selected junior and senior
high school rehearsals. Update:TheApplicationsof Researchin Music Education,
7 (1), 37-40.
Colwell, R. J., & Goolsby, T. W. (1992). The teaching of instrumentalmusic (2nd
edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dodson, T. (1989). Are students learning music in band? Music Educators
Journal, 76 (3), 25-29.
Ellsworth, E. V. (1985). A descriptiveanalysis of the characteristicsof effectivehigh
school orchestradirectorsincluding a study of elected rehearsal characteristics.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Forsythe, J. L. (1977). Elementary student attending behavior as a function of
classroom activities. Journal of Researchin Music Education, 25, 228-239.
Grechesky, R. N. (1985). An analysis of non-verbaland verbalconductingbehaviors
and their relationshipsto expressivemusical performance.Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Howell, D. C. (1982). Statistical methodsfor psychology.Boston: Duxbury Press.
Hunt, A. (1989). Advice for new instrumental music teachers. Music Educators
Journal, 75 (8), 39-41.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioralresearch(3rd ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kohut, D. (1973). Instrumental music pedagogy.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Kostka, M. J. (1984). An investigation of reinforcements, time use and student
attentiveness in piano lessons. Journal of Researchin Music Education, 32,
113-122.
Madsen, C. K. (1971). How reinforcement techniques work. Music Educators
Journal, 57 (8), 37-41.
Madsen,C. K.,& Duke, R. A. (1993). Selection and development of prospective
music teachers. Journal of Music TeacherEducation, 3 (1), 5-11.
Madsen, C. K., & Geringer,J. M. (1983). Attending behavior as a function of in-
class activity in university music classes. Journal of Music Therapy,20, 30-38.
Madsen, C. K., & Yarbrough, C. (1980). Competency-based music education.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [Reprinted 1985, Raleigh, NC:
Contemporary Music Press.]
Moore, R. (1976). The effects of videotaped feedback and self-evaluation forms
on teaching skills, musicianship, and creativity of prospective elementary
teachers. Bulletin of the Councilfor Researchin Music Education, no. 47, 1-7.
Moore, R. (1981). Comparative use of teaching time by American and British
elementary school specialists. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015

 JRME 303

Education, no. 66-67, 62-68.

Pontious, M. F. (1982). A profile of rehearsal techniquesand interaction of selected
band conductors.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.
Price, H. E. (1981). The effectof conductoracademictaskpresentation,conductorrein-
forcement, and ensemblepractice on performers'musical achievement,attentiveness,
and attitude. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
Price, H. E. (1983). The effect of conductor academic task presentation, con-
ductor reinforcement, and ensemble practice on performers' musical
achievement, attentiveness, and attitude. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 31, 245-257.
Price, H. E. (1992). Sequential patterns of music instruction and learning to
use them. Journal of Researchin Music Education, 40, 14-29.
Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teach-
ing. In R. M. Tracers (Ed.), Second handbookof researchon teaching. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Sherrill, M. H. (1986). An analytical study of videotapedrehearsaland conducting
techniquesof selectedjunior and senior high school band conductors.Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.
Tellejohn, P. (1989). Ensure your string program's success. Music Educators
Journal, 76 (3), 30-32.
Thurman, V. L. (1977). A frequencyand time distributionof selectedrehearsalbehav-
iors used byfive choral directors.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Illinois.
Wagner, M., & Strul, E. (1979). Comparisons of beginning versus experienced
elementary music educators in the use of teaching time. Journal of Research
in Music Education, 27, 113-125.
Witt, A. C. (1986). Use of class time and student attentiveness in secondary
instrumental music rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34,
34-42.
Yarbrough, C. (1975). Effect of magnitude of conductor behavior on students
in selected mixed choruses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23,
134-146.
Yarbrough, C., & Hendel, C. (1993). The effect of sequential patterns on
rehearsal evaluations of high school and elementary students. Journal of
Researchin Music Education, 41, 246-257.
Yarbrough, C., & Price, H. E. (1981). Prediction of performer attentiveness
based on rehearsal activity and teacher behavior. Journal of Researchin Music
Education, 29, 209-217.
Yarbrough, C., & Price, H. E. (1989). Sequential patterns of instruction in
music. Journal of Researchin Music Education, 37, 179-187.
Yarbrough, C., Price, H. E., & Hendel, C. (1994). The effect of sequential pat-
terns and modes of presentation on the evaluation of music teaching.
Bulletin of the Councilfor Researchin Music Education, no. 120, 33-45.

SubmittedJuly 25, 1994; accepted April 11, 1995.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 13, 2015