MAY 10

THE IDENTIFICATIONAND ANALYSIS OF FACTOR'S RELATED TO llARTlClllATIONIN EXTRA-CURRtCULAR INSTRUMENTAL

MUSICPROGltAMS

CENTRE FOR NEWFOUNDLAND STUDIES

TOTAL OF 10 PAGES ONLY MAY BE XEROXED

IWithout Authors Permissionl

EWALD HAJEK

36:<:305

C.t

,J.

:",'.,0

" 'I'HE: IO~~TIFICATtd~ A~ AN~LYS:i:S:

^{OF FACTORS}

RELATED,TO'PART I CI PATION,INEXTRA-CU~R.ICULAR

" " : . ,

INSTRUMENTAL MUSICPROGRAMS

'J

Presented to~

t~e' ~p~;-tment or ,E~ucati.cma~ ¥~±~,isiratio~

MemorialuniV~rsitY:!Jf_Ne~found~and'

(

"In"Parti a l Fulf i llment',

~f.1;-he"Requirement~.'f o r "the.Deg;e~

MasterofEducation'

):

by

iJ "

Ewald

'H~jek'

March-, 19-73

ABSTRACT"

Educators'hav ebecomea~~re^{of the inf'luimceof' 1} .various outs ide

fa~tots .~~

ⁱns t ruroen"tJ

·pro~r.ams

^ir:

~~l~O

sc h ools. In,thi s study fou r factors: sccto-econorrdcle v el:". of parerrt.s , family~a:ckgroundin music, inte'resiof close\.

fr.~ends..·i n-instr~mentalsc::hoolmusic .!..ndqene ra.I music programin ea rly~ra'desweres~'lectedand their.reiationShips

~ost.udent par ticipationin~xtra-cu~~icular..ins t r umen t alpr~~

gr ams,examined . The-general purposeof thisrese"i'~chwa s to iden t ify andmeasuredistingui~h1.ngcHar~cteri sticso~three groups of students: Non,.-.particip ants " Sho~t-term , and.l0 n.g·

term~articipa~in exis ti.nginstr umen t al pxoq z-ams...'. Eleve n

.

schoo~sunde'r \^.. he Roman Catholic "!ichool Board for St. Jo hn's, Newfound landwere chosenfo r this study. The aemp Ie usedcd'ns~stedof162bo~s and girlsran doml y se l e cted fr om'a grpup.of624students.

s~xse;.J;:iesof ~tructuredq uast.Lonsw~reuae dta x.

ga t heri ng datafromst ude nts and parents" ,Stude.nt s wer e

o~parents and student participationin ext r a- c ut ri cu'1 C1.r

,i ns t rume ntal pro9: aInS.

)

",','

\

.\

In testingth e secondhypothesis",it was foundthat

.:(l>..:....!-ffs tr~ental :trai~i~~ ^{at '} nfothe~S,.~

⁽²⁾

~ins~'~wnen~al

' traif1~~~'~O~'~~hers{'

^{(3) motJ:ers'}

conti~ued,u~ag'e

of ipstrtl-' 'ment al skill s', '( 4,) fathe!s.',~d~tinucd^uS,age~f i~st.rurne~tal·^: skills; (5) evidence,pia~tiv~instrwnenta"lmus'Lc.i ana hdp: .

. ".

.

"'o~ertwo9.enera,t ions,·and (.6) liste~~ngpreference of,f~ilY were positivelyassociatedwith studentparticipation in

. ' .

\ ^. ,

instrUment a l schoo j·p r o grams.

The testing

of

^tlie-~hirahypothesis revealeda culnu- lativeef~.~ct?f th.e 'f a;: t o r s socia-economiclevel of parents, famdLy.b ackgroun~.inmu;; i c,_i n t e r e st of close irien,ds in, . instru~ntalsc~q~l,mus i c, and"ge neralmusicpr9gra:n

f n

ea~lY grades on.par t i,cip a t1 onin extra-curricularinstrumen tal

programs. .'. . .

. ' In

~.r·~er· t~,

^identify

d~ n:9

charectexd s t.Lce...

of~~~h part~cipatinggroup,profil~swere constr ucted by 'iistimj highscor e percerrtaqes. obtainedon seven varLabLe s , ,followingth_e

inc~usion Of\}ol~ addition~l V'ari<lbie~ :

^{'Encou r '-}

aqement;re'ce'i~ed

br

^{studentsto joinsuchprocrems,and'}

'e xpo su;e"t o

i .

musical tra'ini-ng

.

through private,lessons .

.

This res ul ted-in the identificationof several characteristicsof eaCh.ot't~ethreegroups.

MU~tiple re g r e s s i o n anatyaes i'Jere carriedout to deteTminet~elative'effect ofea ch independent variable

~ , 0 '

,on st.uden t particI"pationin ex tra-curricularins tr ure n t al

(

\.

proq r-ems ,

.: It

wa~'f(:::;undthat

the

^variable.;' Ge,n'eralMUs,l"'c ".,

~rogramJ,'inEarlyGia~es';was r~lati'\leiy_unimpOrt;ab't;a;-'a .det?rminant,of:s t ude nt pactlcipation,.'l'he.fil1di ngs:iri.di~ated

'th~t"them~st'impo r t an t Jla r,i,ab i es,wer~"~.~·terS:\~f"Clo.se Friendsin"tnstruinen ~alSchooL,Music," al)d"Enco'ur,ag~ment Recei ved by'Studen~s,"

T~e1ev,idence:gatheredi~tJ:lisstudy;strong,iY'suggests that,th?home'e.n,vi~onmen t"and thepa~t-group are facto'rs ,which gr e a tly influence

.

stlidentbehavl pr^{, "} 'with re ga r d^" to '

~x..tra-;curr~cutarinstrumental~prograIl'!s'...Educatori should

.th~ r~ fore·,givethe due' amoun't of attention>otlteso~ial

, . . ., I,'_ . • t ·,

•. environ mentt~which prospectjv..e·?r..~<;tiv~instrume ntal , . ..,st ude pt :; areexp o s e d; sev~r.alrecp~n~tionswere'made,by.."

the author.

\.

1..",

.1

,"

^.,<

, .ACKNOWLEDGE~NT~ ^>

L I

. Th ewr~t:erwishestd express his sinceregr~ti tude . .t .o,the school authoritie's,teachers , students, and parents

\ Aspecial.thankyo u toDr. David Kirby,f o r advice

" " "

whos ecooperationmadeth ist~search'possib ie. ·

' .

~d ' p.ssistanc~ r~~e.ive~-

dUring:'

th~ de:V~~'~t::ll~;,ent.

and the i::omplet~on'of th~S study.

""(" ""

TABLE OFCONTENTS

CHAPTE,R

I', 'XHEP.ROBtEM •• t.

, "

I. .Backgrou~d~theProblem II. Sta"tem e n toftheProble m ItI. Si g nifI c an c eof the St udr

IV. .Te r ms"an dOpe ra tion a l De fin:ition s V. Delimi,tation s ' '. , . • • . VI. Organizationofthe Report

"

II. RELATED.LITERATUREANDI!YPOTIlES ES The:.s oci a l,In.f.luen~eonp:-e feJ: r e d

Musical zxparience"

Learningby Imitat~ng.Nc deLa 13 14 15 17 19 19, 24

2.

27 29

""

29 35

")'

.

Ea~lyExposurean dMusical Gr owth Statemen t ofHypotheses ..

Influence ofPeers

,.I..~-:..,1h eTesting'ofHypothesiS Numbero~e• II. .

The,Te;"t"i'ri-q

of

HyPothesis

Number Two•

, . • I . '

METHODOLOGY, SAMPLE AND DATACOL~ECTION, ,I, The.S ample

II."Th e Instrument

...II:r . Collectionof.n e e a IV. Treatment.o~D,a,1:.a

;;~

I I I .

)

IV, "STATI STI CAL'ANALYS'I S

":\

.., '

..

:" ,.

'CHAP TER

r. I II .

I ' . ' .

. .

. ^-r.. .

^.

The .TestiJlg of Hypothesis Nurnbe:r:::.Three

·I V.~Profibs.o f participating groups • • •" f. 57"

67 72

75 . 75

"

91

,77

'0

85

"

",' ,-

. ' ;

:~. Mul.ti ple Regres~ionof~elected V~ri ab~ es onparticipat i.nggroups

VI; S\imrnary of ,'Chap t e,r'v. V. SU~¥Y, FI~DINGS,CO~~LUSIONS,AN?

RECOMMENDATIONS ,I•.S'wmnary II.IFi ndings

"

APPENDICES;

III .:Conclusions I

ry.

Rec ommendationst

. B IBLIOGRAPH0 . J

-<'."o'-,

"'.

\

"

·"L.IS~^OF

TABLES

I I I.

T~LE ,~

I.

N~e:S

^_of S'tudents

~~OPula~ion

^and

Sampl~~yGroup. • • •'• • •'. II. ~he distri.pu~~on:-l,;pJ~~ys,'a~dgirl s';10

.,P.articip a t i ngljd1-oup s.,:. •..•. • •.

Sam'P' le

^{groupsbyage .}

I .. . . . . . .

IV ••perc eri'tage distributj,(:>nof"Blis h et;lSea'Ie..',~' Socio-EconomicIndexScor~sof no n-

22

23 25

,31·

.

^,

'~articipants^-and,'p a r t i c"ip'a nt s'

·V ~ Me a n s and-Sta~dardDev i a tio n s- ofBli sh e n scale'_socio-E'con~micLndex i?cores'.6fnon-I' .participants'andpart'icip~nts' ^{•" • • 34} ,VI'. serc enca q e,of mother,s with_~ndwi thout

~nstrWtle n!al,Tr ai n.ing by:,participati n.9 I':

Groups

. .

^{'." "}

.

^37,

'VIr. percen.~~ge.~ffa t)l e r s,withend withou.t In~ ~iume ntal.Trai.n i ngby,P a r tic ip ati n g

Groups

. .. . ... .. ..

^'.'

... .

^' 38;"'::'"

,·VIII . Per cent .. of In?thers-f o r.each category of

stud'ent participa~ion w~owere classified

. • ' I

as activeand.inactive ins t r wnent ali sts • 39 rx. Per ce~tof~athersforeachcategory-,o f

student part i ci~ation-who'were clas si f i ed

"

\as acti':'e and

ina~tive il'l~·t.rumenta:l~'~t~

,x~ Number:of records and:t a pe s.Ln familyby participati~g^groups

•PAGE 41

family.by:-participa.tinggroups' • • •" 44"'~ XII: Li s ;.e n i ng'preferenceof familyby'partfci-

patinggroups . •.• . . . • • • • . • 45 XII I. ~ercEmtage di~trib~ti.onof-ewcgeneration

musicalbackgroundscoresby pa:rt).Cipating

groups'

. '

", ^"

. .

XIV.

,

. xv.

Percentage qJ.stributionof Blisben.s ceje

·S,?cio-Ec o n o mic.Inde x Scores byPartici- patingGroups ..". . -'. . ... . • . • Percentage.

diStributi~n _.

^<?f'

ip.ter~st

^of'

{lose~'

,".

.

".'\ : .

friends in instrumental sc hoolmueLc

ratings bypart.icipat.ing.grQups • • . 52•

.

.

^{' . '}

xvy..

Percentage of Studentsin each partic::ipat;i.nq gr01,lp'scoJ;in"gh"ighon"se,lectedva'riabies: 56.:

.

^.

^.

XVI. Percentagedi s t r i b uti o n"o f K-4gener al'mu s ic,- programra ti ng s

by

participating groups .' ",53

.59· XIX. percen~age dist-cibutioriof's tuderit~ ^{with and}

w~thout t ra inj,'n gthro u gh private mus i c

r• '''':

TABLE PAGE

lessons byparti cip~ting'g'rOUp5. xx'."percen~ o~hi:h.,s e o,r es for non"-PA.fticipants '.'.' XXI. Per cent-0 £ highsc o res forshort-term

XXI~. 'Pe r centof high scores for long-term

60 62

._._-64

.p~rticipant~

. . . . . . .

^{'. ~}

. .

^{', ' 65}

-:XXIII.

changes, and Beta co-efficientB fo r the. I . regression of fourva r i. ab l e s.onpa r t i ci - pati ng group s • • ._. . • • '. ~ ~ . • •

~ ,~:

XXIV;'

F~!1al

^squared

'~ultiPle co~~el~tion

CO-effiCientS~R~"chan ges, and'Bet.a " .

co~eff:Ci~nt~

^for.

th~ re~,~e.SSion.o~ '

^{six', ·}

variables -on ar t i c i pa ting groups .• . : •

, . . '

':;' ,

71

, .

• '

..

Z

,, '" .

.. • 1]

, ..

CHAPTER-I

..

/

.. To ens,Un:!the

f~ll'

utilizaH: n ofexIs ting

educati~nal

·~pi~.fr~

^•.

ed~~~to'rs m~st' ~nt:in\t~usl~ 'd~te~~,' ~~ze; ~n~·

^-.

~

eV";lu a t efact~rswhich appearto~nfluen~esuc hpr?~rams

' :~ithe~

pol;?itlvelYor n'e g"'ativelY:The'knowl ed"gegainedin I.

thiswaY'w?-'l1

b~"'"hel~i';;'l,

^{'t p}

a:~ini.stra·tors

^and

·t~ac.~ers

^{no'

thei~'~fforts^{to make} e~~stingprogramsinore~enef~ci.aY·to the student,population•.,Thi s researchwa&~designe~to . "

inves H;~te ^{thesocialor sit uational}'dcterminant~^ofst~d-ent

·beha;iourwith'regard to'i~st:rumentar~usic>':^{.Th e}qt:;':;era l

·

pur~se

of"thisstudywa s to ide nt:lf'y and

:mea'sur~

distin-'

·

. ,

~ ' .

. . '

^{- .'.'-}

guish i ngch~acteristicsof thr ee group sof stpd en ts:.?~n-

pa~~i~~P~tS.. 's~oz:t-termir ~..nd

^l,ong':tenn

~~~ticipants.:~~

.extra-~rr~cularinstrurn€mtal prog rams.

.--=.,--....

r..

B/j.CKGROUN~ ~.

^THE

PR!J~LEM

^-r.

....

:.~~,

- .

The'l a s t two decades have witn e ss ed.

a.

rapid9;-owth• _q~:.i~s:-rumen~al~~09~ams

in

eleme~ta.ry^and.sec o nd a ry P~I~C.

SChOO.ISinma~y.:par:s'of,Nort~America,and." "educ~t.~~a~. valu~.?L~nstrumentalt:a::.ain+ n9.~snow w,idely~recognized'.,·

.:.Rec~ntl¥".·'~.any..I:'ChOOl~ⁱⁿlarge~urban eeeae"o~

Newfoundl,andhave.madegreateffC?rtS'~·'int7od~cesU,s:h prog-.ramso, Havlhg'tau9~t'-.instruIllEmtal;-,~C.hOOl m~sici~

7

s·· ··

2.

~.~., . ''. ,- ..

.

^{. '}

.

Ne wf o und,la nd for aIlwnb~rof years,:the.ce s e a r che chas'become

.0 •••. -.' r .•

awar~oftwo facts. Firs t ly, ex~stinginstr umental programs rea Ch.

a

,gre a t er nuinber of s;:udents fromliighe r inc01!'e.than fro!'\lo.wer'.i,n,c~m~..fami.lies" Secondly, .t;h~..ou~e

.' . l . ' ."- . -, . : .

dur;i;ngthe~irsttwoyears,o f instrumenta l.training~s.ra,the r

"high• .The end of.t~esecondye a r"ha s provedto'b~a·c.rucia~.

paiM. Experienceha s shown that veryfew studentsdis -

cont~nue.:7{n· 't~~ 't~ird y.~ar

^or

th~reafter':

¹_,- ^'..

,Educa t or si'nNewfoundland..have become awareof the

in flu e;n<;e•.q~c.ertainout s Lde.factors on Lns trrumertt.aL 'programs

in

ptibl~CSc~OOl.s.. The in£lu~nceof the social"setting.a nd

. ' .

.the.h o mee~v~r~.nni~ntit~e~,f.h.a'-:e_oft~?een~i~~ussed,"

"Fu rthe rmore,'rnust c special is tsare no}'o' in gene ral agreement

·~~rth~ ·.r,' rnusi~a-l developm~~~' 'o~ .~~ :~~ild"

" Thereare a great~_~r,of factor, ,hat-mua t;h~

s~~~tinfzed

in

orde,r>0g~i~'b e t t e r:unders t a nding.

ot"

beha~i~ra~df~fe:rences.exhibi te d

Py

acudence'with re g ard:to

~ ~

^':.-...

i?i;t-~~~~·t~l mU73.i~.

^sene

o~" .~~;

^..

~facto~s

wh ich recetve c an : ...:i~creasfng^{amount of}attenti~~;l)~.~~cen~^{years have}~~en

~elec ted in~his studyfo r.,fur ther'"investigation:

/

, 1

... . lThe',in:formatio'n :obtai ned fr o min s trume ntal,.teac~ers

as sisting in theprelimin ary's ur ve y of,thi~ studyful ly sl;lpported.~~~ co.nte~tio~"4~ ^{, •: : ;: .} I> •

.i '

II.. STA'~EMENTgF THE PROBLE.t1 ....

- .

The'majoraim o'f thisstudy was to:i dent i f y the'

relat.ionshipsbetween~electedfactors a~dseua e ne non-

.' - .

participation, short -term, and lo ng-t e rm participation in

e~t~a-6~rt.icul~r i.~s~r~eJtal _ pro~rams '

^{in eLe ve n}

s el~cted.

oscho?lsunder <.be jurisdiction,of.t h,e Roman CatholicSchool Board for St .. JOhn's,.Newf?und land.· The followingfactors, we~e'select:ed: ac c Lc-ceconomdc le vel of parent.s, family' backgroundin music, in 1;e J::.est of closefriends in instru- mental music,-a nd the general. music program in early grades.

Specifically, the.study aimed:

1. To determine't h e relationship.between the socLo- _ economic level of parents"e nd student·.noI?--

participation,short-term,.and lcinq:-term p~'rticipation'ini.ns t r unie n t a l p'rogramsl 2•.To determine' there l 'at i a ns hi p between'f amily·

.baokgro\:l~din music .and.s~udentnon-part!sipa£ion,

short-term , and iong-t!rfnparticipationin instrumental:progr<pns1

• ." .J - ..'

.3-.,..To· determinetherela tio ns hi p between theint er es t .,o f c Ioee.friends'ininstrument~lsohool·musIc and

studentn!'n-partiolpation,short-term, and long- •

.

.

~erm 'p~rticip~tionininstrum~~tal',programs:

·4. To de'terminethe relationship be t we e n the .ge nera':!.

,e

\

.

mue Lc programin earlygrades.'andstudeJ;lt non- participation,'

.

,short-term,

.

and long~,te'rm^{~ .} ,"

particig'ationin ins:trumental programs:;

III. SIGNIFICANCE' OF.THE STUDY.

.Newf~undiand i~currently making'g r e a t, str.ides,in upgrading.e d ucetronaj, programs. It was.f elt.e ne e,at this stag~,^a reali~ticappraisal of boththepos s l b ili ties.a nd . the limit:ationsof teaching instrumen t.almuaLo ~~,Publ~C sc ho olsis',ofim~ortance. ^.

The'cbeervactcnt~,:'ltc:~rtainseccfcne of the- sch90l

"

populatio~

a!e

}~~S inv~lved

in

extra,;.cur~~cular in~trl;lIl\ent.al ,·

programs thasbecomea matterof conc~rntoschoolauthorities.

Fur.thermore,''th~droppi n.g out of seude ne s from :xi s t i ng progr~s crea~es.a )N'a ste of energy andmateria'!means . Student,s'cease to,de ve l o pth~irpoten.ti.:llS bef o r e

tit"e

y reach a ~tag~where'.theirmu s i cal backgrounds,~ecome benefiCial for thei~future lives.

The fact t:.hat no rela ted research had previously bee n ca~ried

all .t

in Newfoundland'a nd the possibility of pro~idi.n9.in~ormationuseful'for-diminishingapparent,

·.·pr~b.l~ms ~a~t'antea^the'e xe c u tio n o'fthis study.

\.. \ " ' 5 :IV.' TERMS'ANDO~ERATIONAL.DEFIN~TIONS

.

~tra-~'ur·t \.cJl~r

^Ins tr ume n t al

p~~qrarn

^{. ' .. .}

T~istermrefersto a s choo L band orsc~oolorchast ra pro9:-am wi t h vcLun ee.ry

pat'ticlpation~

^{.;.' ' .}

.School Band . .

- -.-. Thist,erm

refe.~s

^to

^the typ~cal ~ni2a ,tion:'

^of

win~

andpercussio~instrumentswhi~h^{is. 's t ruc t u r,ally}si~ilar^to th'a.standard concertba nd..:

SchoolOrchestra.'

This termre fe t s to the typicalorganizati<:m~f

string .wind,and percuss ioninst~umentswh ich,isl:l;tr~c tur­

~ily·s i mila r tQthe'symphonicorches tra.

Non-Participant .

Thiste rm re f ers

~o

a studentwho badbe e n asked to

st~te

^{hi s i}n t ere s tin a

b~g innerS ' ~~ogram

^{for i}ns trumen t al rou,sicandha d responded nE; g a t i vely.

Short-Termpart ic i pant

Thi s term re f ers to a stude ntwho had been.a c cept.e d. forparti~ipat'ion ~.:.an in s t .cume n tal'prog{~ ~uttr!~­

conti nuedwithi nthe first"twoyearsof tr"aint"ng."

.Lo ng- Term Partic"ipa nt

This term :ref e r s.to~studen t'wh o remained in an

I'

,•<.":('~,:.•

\

instr~ent,cif^{programror.a period}1~~ger^{thantwo years.} Socio-Econoinlc~£fp~rents

The occupationof the student's filtherwas usedte a

' .

.

the indicato.rof the socio-econom}c level of thepar e nts .. Inforrnatic:mwassecuredbymeans

~f

^{per s onal}

intervie~s.2'

...The,occupation~indicate?was assigned a nume r i cal rating sugge ste d:-by Ti}e.Plishe n socto-zconomrcrndex Sc ale.3 FamilyB~ckground.!:E.Mu~ic

T~is factorwas designedas a multi-facetvariable, and coq"tains.several components:

(1) It refersto whethar or.no t a paren~.had.beenexposed toin s trumen t a l training. Thisinformationc<Ut:e-fromSection 1of QuestionSeries.E.

• (2) I trefe~sto the frequene:!, of' USU3'3eof.ecq ud.z ed musicalfrom Sec:tion

.

sk i l l s in adult

^.

2 of the above mentionedl if.e . 'Th i s information~eF.ies. was secured

(3) It refers to.t hein t e r e s t of par.ents in musi cas lis t e n e r s.' Th is"i'nformationcame fromSections1, 2,-e n d 3 of SeriesF.

2c o p i e s of the six Series

.of

Questions used in"this st u dy for gather inginformation fromstudentsand parents

are contained in Append ixD. \

3See Appendix'E.

'.

,

I

J

0/

\

• 7⁰

o 0

(4 ) It refers to the'family.backgroundin"musi9over t ....o . genera t ionsby incl ud ing,.tl1egrandparents. -,Inf o rm a tion secut;d ~r~m'Sectl?ns ~_\lnd4.0£<SeriesEwa s tr an s!ormed' trit.osco r es~^th"e.u~.~;~f.'The^TwoGe,ne~atiQn .MUSiC~:^{,Ba c k :'}

9r,ctlnd·Sc ale.It• . . •

../

. _.:~.~,._.J~.._~~se.fr ien ds refe r s'to'peers with whom a st ud:ent

spe~~f" ~';)-;t

^{ofhis t}i me outside the schoo l. A measure of the _in t e r e s t' of cl os e friends in"instrument~lprograms was

ob.ta inedfrom Sec t ion 1of.Ser iesA.

o 0 0

Gene r al. Music'Pr Ogr am!E."~Gra de s

.

.

^{\ .}

~ . Ge?e r a l.music'pr ogram refe.rs.toclassroommus.ic · teachi ng whi c h is.pa r t,of thecurriculum'andinvolves th~

. musicspecia list.an d thecla s sro om teacher . Ear lygrades refer~ ^{to GradesK- 4.} The informationfor'this variab le was se c u red from·Se cti o n2of Series A.

V. DEL1MIT~TION S

It.sho u ld beno t edthat this i!!ves ti9ati~nwa s

o •

confinc'dto's t uden ts in Grades 5- 11 inelevenselected

o •

schoolswithinthe bo undariesof the ci~Y'of St.; John's ,

. "s~eAppendixF.

• 0

OJ;)

. c .

Newfound land·and~nde~

1e

:iuri~di.c.tion

of

^{the-Roman~athOl~c'}

rCh~OlBoard• ..Seco~.d lY,long-te r rqrec~rdswere~~t,available..

'I.dentif i~ationofre s e a rch sucjeces ha d to be made fr om .records which covered only twoschoo lyears .(1 970- 7 2 ). '

~hird ly;personalva~iabl~ swhich give an indicati0':lof i.ndiv~dualmusical talent were excluded'fromthis study. It must beassumed tha t-b i o l o g i c a l. andnon-biological fact07's are interrelatedto'some degree,\>7hich,sugg~s tsa cautious interpretation.offindings.

VI. O~GAN! ZATIONOF THE REPORT

Chapt e r I has.ident ifi e d the problemand'indi~)ted

~ts ~mport~l1~e~~- .~haPte7

^IIpr e s e nc ea

re~~¥

^oflite r a ture relatedto thisstudy and.intr~uce~three! y.potheses.

Chapter III containsanoutlineof the.p r oce d u r e e followed Lnconductirigthis investigation andindi'c~teshowthe data

~e're

^{t.rea t.ed, Chapter'}IV prese,nts tfe --Sta t i s ti c a l'

analYSi~

.~ . , '. , - I

of.the data colle c t e d. ~he ~estJ.ngofth; ~tatedhfpothE;ses

"is £pllowe d by p1"0fi, lesof participating'~;-oupsand the

measuringof.t herel ~tive impo~tance'ofselected ,-,ar"iables as ae terminan;sof studentbenev.tour, The.final chapter gives the summary,,f i n d i ng s, concl us!o ns:',andrecommendations of thfsstudy.

RELATED-LITERAt URE ANDHYP~THESES

The ,first four sectionsof thischapt~r,contain a shortreview of theli te r a t ur e whic hpertains to~emain

. .

^{' "}

:variabl~s.of.the state dproblem. The finat section conceLns- three hypotheses,that wereproposed for tes:ing,and which in part were derived'from the af$lrementioned li t e r atur e .

The Social Influence~Preferr'ed Mus i cal Experi'ence Dejager studiedthe process'of music social izationin

"

.

Europe and Amer i caand c,oncl uded,t~a t.school~~eem

:0

^{bele s s}

ef f e"c ti ve andLmpo r -tant;in thispxoceeatha n'educators~ould

, ,

like to believe. Stude ntsattendingschools bri ng with them: att i tude s , aspi~atio~s,~xpectations, andskills"which_are .la r gely·s o cially detenn'ined."It.is his opin ion."tha t influ-

ences,e xe r t e dfr om fac torsO~$idethe'school are often quite imp ort a nt deten.ninantsofs~udentparticipationinmus ic programs.1

, In.re'eere nc e to-the so<ti~l..aspect ofmusic, Glenn , McBride,andWilson statethat"mus i c as aJs u bje c t a'nda.f~ne ar t is a noo.iaLinvention , "and contend that each cUI;ur~

• 18. De j a ger, "Mus i c al .social izationand t!1e Schoo l s,."

_~l~duc atorsJou r n a l, LU I (Feb r ua ry,'1967) ,.pp.'3 ~-41, ,

10

<;:oA~eives" 'and-

^{developsmusic.ec be} us e d f i t s o..m

pur~se·.

^2.

This i"mplie s that",as far

as l~usic '

^is

cocerned..~h~re

^{are no}

.' 'ab s olu't e

'st~ndards ,

^and'

speC~fiC

^{norms a e}

cu~tu

^{ally.or, .",}

'~ocia1 1y.de ee rmd ned,

seve red in ve s \:i g at i on s have shownthat dif.f eren t

_valuesand's pe c i f i c preferencesarerelatedto,so.cio::-econ~mic

•- '0)

-Le veLs in ourso c i e t y.3 Mus ic is"not.

an

iS9 1a t c d cu l tu ra l

ph~~omenon.

^{I tis part-;f}

.

^{,the total. lif e}

~tYi.e of

a socfal

.

class. Th~.findings of such peopleas Hol lingshead;4...:

. . "

:offler,' andWhit~hill'h7 r e ve e 1ed two facts. Firstly , .• 2Neal E. Glenn, Wi lliamB. McBride"and GeorgeH"

:~;~~~~eSJ~~f:;E:o~C~~~~f=~S~~~ 'J:~;;~~OP~~;n~~~~:A~l~n~nc.·,

1970),p.,..43: . .

3Se e for exernp.Lee W.L.Warne r andPaill S. Lunt,"The

~~~~:: iffi) ¥-H~r~~~~r~y;~:u~i6~ J~~~eH;;~~~I:1 ~~l~i~,~~:~rY

Classes: ^ASocial Psycho lqgical Co n t r i bu tion totheAnalys is of Stratif ication,"inRe i nh a r d Bendix...and·Se ymourHartin Lipset (eds.),Class,Status andPowe r; ARe a d erinSocial Stratif icati o nJ'GIencoe , IllinoI"s:The Fr ee pres s:-l~

pp, 426-421 Rl.ch a rdF•.r.esonand Sara Smith~utker , "Value\ Differ6!ncesand ValueCl?nsensusby's~conornicLevels,II

.Social Forc e s , XLIV (Ju ne ,1966),1PP. 56 -69 .

". )'AUgU~t'E! . HOllingShead: Elmtown's~^(NewYork:

johnWi l e y scscns, Inc. , 1966). . "

Artand

'~~~~~~n~~ff~e~e~aC(~;~~~o;k~s~~~s~r~i~r~~',

m,,-;- - - - - - - -

I'

6CharlesD.Whit eh ill , "SociologicalCond i t i o ns Whi ch Contributedto the Growth ofthe School BandMove ment inthe UnitedStates,"Journal of Researc h'i n Music Edu ca tio n,XVI I

(2, 1969 ), pp. l~ ~- - .- - - - .- - -

. . .

11 diof:f;erent soclal ct.essee attach,more or less,importance~o. .music ingener~1^{and,second'ly"},different s?cial'_classes set

up their own s.~ecifiCnOJ;Ills astowhat. is "good"

or .

'.' b a d "

music.

It is notdifficul,tto link such evLdence with,t h e pod

tiQ~

each social classtfolds

~ithi~

^{soc'iety.: The}

problems of the lower classes- of ten'tend

to

be.B,ho r t-r a nge .a nd basic, like provi<ling for t'hem~terial.,thingsnecessary Ifor day-to,":da.ylivin~. Only when a "ce rtad n'l e v e l ofin c ome •1"_1

i~^reached'c a n people shift their at'tentfonfrom,quantity-e c ,"qua l i t y .. Participation inmusic, aC?tively and,passively,

depends oho~eor both of two-things:. mon~y.and ieisure time. Both are more, likely tob~^found'.:un~ng^t.he~pper .classi's. This pointot.. view is 'held by Kaplan who refe,rs to

a national etudy-tandstates that"p z'o pc z t.Lona Ll.y more musica). participa':i.

cm,

i s found among~xecutive.profess{onal, and whitc-col la.:r:'accupational gr?ups than aIn?ng wa9,e earner~."'

Thereis generai agreement that indivi?uals~ill engage.i n'mu s i c a l act.ivities·on a'vo l up.t a rybasis~:mlyif . such activities are suited to their own musicalta~te.

Schue s s Ler, who supports.th~S ~iew, !?hows

in

one of,his

, I

12 studies that persons of dJ.fferent occU'pational levels exh:t.bit differe~cesⁱⁿmusi~al^taste.8':Tofflerl-i nk s aesthetic taste in-ge ne r a l 'with level of_{. .}education._'⁹ Farnsworth looks at the_{, - . l} que s trfon ofmus~caltaste differentlyand s<:.essesthe impor- tance of musical tr~iningfor,the'.Lmpr-cvement; of taste.10,' I f

'thiS viewis linke,d with findingsC!fa s t.udycon~uctedby

Grough and Reeves, indicating that children from high income families"r e c ei ve moremu~ical^training,o u t s i d e schbel than theirle s s fort~natecQunte.rparts,11the cumulativeeffect of the above mentioned ;factorsbecomes.obvious.

It is generally accepted that,c hi ld r e n in_t~eirearly years arcgreatlyinfluenced~ythe~iewsheldby theft parents. 'Th e r e f o re,as Kaplan.poin t s out, the first and strongest mode L for the developmentof musicalatti~udes,is providedby the home;12

8KarlF.'s c hue s s l e rJ "Social Background and Musical

~=~t;3~_~~ri;an,Soc i o l ogi c al'~",XIII (June,19 4 8 ) , 9Toffler ,£E. cit., p , 46•.

10Paul Farnsworth, Musical Taste: I1:.s Me a s ure me nt and Cultu ralNature (Stanford, CalifOriiI"a:sta~

jfriIver s1typre.Ej,6",1950).,p, 63. . . 11JamesR.Brough and Martha L. aeeves,"Activities of Suburbanand Inner-City Youth, "The Personne land Guidance Journa l,XLVII (November, 196 8 ) , p.2 lI-.- -- - - - -.

12~axKapliIn , Foundations and Frontie rs-of Music

~~u14i~on

(N;

^{.~~rk: HoIt ,} Rc1n!lart;"andW1nStlOn::l"9Tb[;

I,

r>

-.Learning~ImitatingModels

..

',,?,~.

^EdwardHall'

~eve lo~d

^{a theOry': f}

cult~re-

^communi-

~ ~ion W'h.ic~.

^has

~eEm

^{givena greatdeal} of attention. He claimed'that in theproc~~s.of~eaririqch11dr.en,parent~l communicate.~ith.their childrenon three ~l tural levels: theformal,'i nf o rm al, and technical..The formal.level

of

cultu,reisle a rn e dby thechildthrol;!9hprecept.and a~onition. ~arents'st~e.ss,the ri9ht~.andwr0!l9s, what'is

,pr o per'and

wh~t,

^is'taboo.".This part of

-cul~ure'

^is

usual~Y

'accep~ed ~ithout

«m.ll eng e. and

~hanges

^{whi6haffec t}

aspe~ t6

on this le vel cClme extremelySl~ly. Surroundingthe core of

, "

·the formal'l~vel is the informal; .H~r~.the··Ch p dlear~s

·through itnitatiort

and

observat ion . Informal le vc l s of

~lture

^{areus ually}

'Out-of-,awar~ness" ~tili,

^when

cui.~ural

valu:s abS?~bed^on

r:

^{level areChalle~ged'fromo~er .}

influential qrou ps,1Io_built- indefenBe mech~nismwill,c ause a

·'per-sontore s i s t

~Ugge~te~'

^{changes". '}The I:!'ird

le~el

^of

cultureis thetechnical.'.I t~ tr;<1nS~it~edb~

way

of formal, orins t i t utionali zed educa tion. Hereinnovations are ac~ePtedwith.greater ease. Hall claim~that cultural,change us ua lly t,ake'spla c e in'f6~ofaco mpl e x circularprocess • .The direction,is fromformal to info rmal to tech? i c a l

to.

a

new formal leve i. Th isac co un ta for thefact·that.c han ges in

"'1 4 behaviouralpatternsare'usua Lfy rather slow',13

,-Hal l~ theory 'was'used in this'S~UdY'^{as a}.rat_i?~;le·' '. for comparing family backgroundin instrumental music with

~

. . . . .

stude,ntparticipationornon-participationinin s tr~e n ta l

-bp~ograms. The~eis reasonto-believ~that'teachingmusicpO;, . ehetechnicallevel~canb~more effective, if'mus i chad '.

. --- .~ . "

previOUS~y_~~-ranc;;-~:mthe' -i.n~~rmal.•level. ~lij,id:r';'!1

...z...

with parents actively involved in instrumental music may' acceptthis,behaviouraL.·pattern more'readilyth:r:oug~informal '~ lturerransmission.

Iniluence~ ~

,Students take great'pride'in ac h i e ve me'nt in activities highlY'valued b¥.their'

fri~nds.

^{iIf Musiceducatorsare,}

fUllY~

. awareofthe

imp~rt.~nceot

^peer

g~OUp

^{influence. Glenn;}

McBride, and Wi'lsonstate:

.

^,',

seuaencsin ourb~ndsand orchestras-hevea'number of-zcasona foz: participating inthe instrumental prcqram, -Theydesire to Lear-n toplaywell," but,the};

alsowantto developski l l in brder

eo

gainacceptance from theirpeers and recognition from't;ea!=hers and parents. Socialrecognition and,acceptance are important.mot.Lve tdonaj forces.inraus'Lc •' Music par";

ticipation Qf any kind i$ never static, but--is always a dynami.cformof social behaviour.1 5 .

: .

1 3Edw~rd

^T.

' HaJ.i,·~e:.:sH<ent

Language (New YO;k:

Do~~edayandCompany ,·hJc~~

1.lfJames Samuei coteman,The ~Society (New

Freepr"ss, 1968). . _ . ' \ '.

15 Gl~rfu,.

^{McBride , and}

Wil~on , ^se-

^{cit.: p. 40.}

-:'. ~

~- '

"

Kand~~-and-L~~~erconducte!!a.studyofpe~r' grou~

in fl u e nce oneducati ona l'pla n s and concludedthat. "the d nfLuenc eo~pee r s Incre a s e sW.iththeint i ma,c Y,o f the

~riendship''',i6 It canbeassumedtha t thisalsoa-p~iies'to

. . / . .:. t

peerinfl ue nc e onas pir atio ns in .musLc,

.' . Ed~cators areawar~th"at',a certain

amoUl'lt

of.m~Stca~

-'a ptit udeLs necessaryfor a,J,t ude nt'wi ththe ambitionto .

.'

~c:'come#~~ inst~~nt,a·ii~t. W~t~o~t

^{it, .,}

w~ ll ~ii _

^to

reac\,."

.a

performanc~ leve~ -

^{hi eh p.r:b.,ves}

s'!tisfac~ory

^to.

-hY~sE1f,~-li.is

^.

parents,.a n dhis ach er, A.study by Berg a n ha s shown th a t·

...

.;.

students-re a chi ng on lya comparative lylowstandard are po t e n t i al drop-outs.. In,tihe,s~ary,of hisinve s tig~tionhe sta te~.that ".~ixty-twop~rcentof the drop-outswere C1aS~j,..fie·qamongtheweake~pla.;?e rsin.~,~group. "^l?

'Ca s eyconduc teda similarstudyaridhis fi.ndings

\ ' "

.

^'

reV~a1e?~a tone of,the four .main factors (elated to student drop:"out,i n insttumenta~programs was the~nability to

I

. '

.

16pe niseB.Kan del 'and Gera idS. Lesser, "Parept<il

'~:r!~:~ ·S;i~~~~ic~~ ~:~~:;:O,~~~I~l(~~~~i:Af~~;~~e~~~. ;13~23.

~l

Arthu r Bergan , "A Study

of D~OP....,outs

ⁱⁿ

Instrum e ntalMusicinFiv e SelectedSchools in,Mich igan "

,(unp ub lis hed 09ctoral dissertation,Mi c hi g an State Unive rs ity,

-1957),-cited in Disser t a tionAbstrac tsInternational (Ann'

Arbo r:.Unive rsity.Microf1.ims~. 1,:;~.115.

' I

16

, . Whllst

the

evfdencein,~.~pport-of·a ^{theoryof the( .}

.untrainability~of musica~abi lityisinc o n c l u si v e , . ' .thereis a great volume of re s e a r c h -deltawh i c h

•indicates tha't considerablechangescan be brought . aboutby environmental factors such as.s o c ac - e c o nce u e

~tatusand formaltraining procedures.-}s .

.

^.." . \

..

^{- '} '.~

.

T?',s uppo.r t his s tetemene , Ho~nerpoints to a~tudyby

~ilp~tri!=kwhich.s h ows a st.ron; ;.~ lations t4~.between the"

!"inglngabilityofpre-kind~rgar~~n^{,ch ild r e n}and:h~ir'eccdc- .economic -background.20", Horner alsoqu~,tesa st~dyby

'<","

R,e~no1dswhich'9~ves ~tid ication.~fthe importanceo~the a~hi~V'e'a"s'atis~actor.y le;'.el of per fozmance..,18

-,' Thez.:e is

.gr~~i'~9

^{SUP;?:r;t,for'}

~e

^{'vi e w}

~a:t rnu~i.f-a:i··

ap~~~ude^{is a}tp r-o d u ct;ofi~nate':potent.ialand~~ar1Y^e?vir?n- _.:;.:ment~l'inquenc~ . ^'AsHor~erp~ts^{i t: - ..}~ -'I

. ;

.

^'.

. . 1 BGeorge'J a me s casey; Jr:,"A Study ofIn~trumenta1 MusicDrop-Outsof the Moline (Illinois) Schools" (unpublished Doctoral diss'ertation;ColoradoState College,1964), cd teddn Dissertation'Abs t r a c t s International.(Ann Arbdr: University

M1.crOhlms}., ~ :p, 5317. '.

. ".s;

^{Horner,'Music}

E~~cation:

^{The Bac'k}

iOU~d ,of

Research

~

0linion JHawthorn,.Victoria=-

.Aust~ai1.an

^cq:uncil

. for Educat1.ona Rea eaxch, 1965 ) , p,31. '.' . : .

• '2 0W. C.~Kilpatrick,,"The.RelationshipBetween tne SingingAbility- of Pre -KindergartenChilqren andTheir Home Mtisica1 Environment" (unpublishedtoctoref.dissertation, univers ityof Southern,California,'19 6 2 ) ,'cited in Disser- ,ta t i on'Abstracts International (Ann'Arbor; Utdvers,1.tyMicro~

IIIii\ST.~3 ,-p, 886. " ,

;",.'

,:.'

..

^{. ·17}

\

pre-schoo l children:2.1 , .

, Ta rtal

~e;'cepti:veness

^{is animpor tantfactor}

in -l

~~~Ii~,al 'aptitu~e. 'D~jagdr mairi~ains

^{·'th a t.'the}

'Critt~;;

^{age ' \}

for the eevercpmeneof t~nal~~rcc:ptiveness'fa llsbetw~~:n the fourthandsix~^{jceex , In hisopinion,}'~f^this.~e~lOd"iS' not properly'utiliz.ed, furthe r·deve lopmentwill be h&upered'.2f:

/

" . .

., ' .

' . . .

: .," :

^{' . ..}

. ~or~on~coTMlentson recentlongit~dinal"s t~dles ,whi ch. in d i c a t e that musical growt h slows·considerab l y.·afte r the age'

\:,.,.t . ' .

of nine. He s'ee eess

-,'.'••these,d i ve r gent r~su).tsmay beattributed.telthe

::,~iy~:~;~;~f;~~~ ~~a~u~p=~~~~ef~~r~~f~~:~~~~rb~o,

'ul ti ma t e '.musical ,a pt i tude is.well definedand Lmpezv i.cuat~-,,~.ractice aqdtraining.2.3 } ..'Th i simpii~sth~twhere boothfamily a'nd'scnoot

,

"

ne g l ep t.to provfdeS~itableexpez-Lences for Rlusical growth "a st.ud en t; wU'l be'handfoapped })y thetimehe-re a che s'elemen tar!

f.,school , un l e s s p.is inna'tepotential

offse~s .

^{his·dis a Bva nt}

^.

^a.ge.

"St a t e me nt

.2!

Hy~othe s e s'

'.'I'h~relatedli t e r a t ure stated so far inthis chapter

"" .

sugg;sts a re l a t ji-o n:5hi p between the factorsselectedfor"this

2^1GeorgeE.neync nds, "zrrvironmerrtaf: Sources of. .Mus'iea l Awak,eningin Pre-SchoolChildren ~.(unpublis hed

Docto raldissertation, Universityof Illinois, 1960),cited in DissertatienAbstracts Internat 1 0na l (Ann Arbor; Uni ve rsi t y Microfilms!.21, NO;5, .pp. 1214-15.

22Deja ge:r,

9£;_ £!!., .? .

41.\ . ' . 23EdwinGordon , -'I'heSource of Musi ca l Apt i tude,~ M'!sic~ JOUrnal~,LVI I(Ap r il,197~ ),p, 36.' •

. . "'-

.'

· ,.

18

-'.Th e.fol10win~ nu~;J._hypotheses were therefore proposed

for;t e s t i n g::

1, Thereds the~same^,d e g r e e of prob~bility f~r^students with a high'sopio-eco~omicbaCkground,'and students"

witha lowsocio-eco~omicbackgroundec join an

extra-~~r~iCUlar instr~ental 'pr~gram.

? There

is

the'seme-deqree of probability for students wi thanex.tens.~.ve"family,background Ln musicand students w1.thout such background to become long- term part1.C1.pant; .. (

3. Th e r e

is

he cumuj.acLve effect of ehe:

facto~s ~ocio­

~c~riomic.l~vefof parents. lamily'back~roiJnain musi~c. intere~t^{of ciose}fri!,!nd~'^i'ni~strumen'tai sello01music,an g~neralmusic program.."i n"e a r l y gra~e~;-op._non-~artiipa~iqn. Shprt-te:m:and lo~g~

.te rmparticip~Ho~~ⁱⁿⁱ str~ental^SChoOl;!?ro9r~s^..

CHAPTER III

.

!'1ETHO~O~GY'

^{SAMPLE, AND DATA-cJLLECTION}

This chcWterdescribes the pxoceduz-eafollowed Ln conducting the investigation. Separate sectionsdeal ...:ith the~arnple, the.instrument,and thec~l1ect:ionand treatment ofdata.

I. THE SAMPLE

As sta ted in Chapter I, the'general'purpo s eof this st.':,1dY was

' to. ident~fY s~me

distinguishing

Characteristi"~f

three groups of atrudents, nemeLy ,~on-part1ciPant'~"short·

term, an~tone-termp~rti.cipantsin.e x t r a-'cur ric ula r ins t~umentalprpgrams ,,a nd to establ ishr'eLa tifon shd.pa'b etwe e n the i r social and situationalfactors and'their musical ,,) behaviour,

The fi rsttask was to identify students.falling into one of the three categoriesand to select a'r a ndo m and a spitablenumb$!r of sam~~e,s ub j ect s, Such a samp,ll~.is'not' representativeof t!lestudent population inNew.foundland.

/?tudentswho.had neverbeen asked to participate, ,as'wellas stude nts,who wanted to par ticipate.Lnsuch prO?rams and,were notaccepted, we r e no tinclude d inthe sample. Students who were s,ti llac t ivebutwho had nee-'yetcomp.Letred two yearsin thepro~ramwere aiso exclwle d. The definingch,aracte ristics

v

·"-"'

',20

of,

the

^f,inalsample permit usto9.cncralize,.our finding'!Ito. the populationof each of the three kinds6£partfcipants under investigation. This is,we will not-make statements either"abo~t"the generalstudentpopuLabdon in'Newf o u n d l a n d , or about themusical background of a selected subgroup'of that popu tae do n, Rather, this studyw~llpermit us to make

~tatementsabout the 'robal:llemus i c a l behavio'u,r of students witha '3'iven_setofcharacteristics.~For example, we wil l be able to concludewitha certaindegree6£confidence, the. probability that a stu,dentwi th littleor"no parenta l encouragementwill stay~nrolledin'an instrumental program for more thantwo · ye ars . 'We cannot estimate how many' students inSt. John"' s or Newfoundland thereare with thisto• characteristic.

. . ' . . -

Th e elevenschools underthe Roman Catholic School Board for St. John's were chosenas the focusfor this re s ear c h because combined, they had the largest,concentration of instrumentalpr ogr ¥1 s in Newfoundland. Furthermore, the' ,combined e.hr~llments ~f^thesescho~lsxepreeeneed,a

p,oI:mlationwi~awfde range of aoc.lo-eccnomi.c sta eue . A list cif participatinif schools,i s presented'in Appendix H.

A pre ~ imi n a rysurveyconducted in Feb::uary, 1,972 reve ated.t ha t, at that time, 391studen~s.were,participating actively in extra-curricula r instrumenta l programs established i.htheabove·ment i one d s c ho o l s . Mus i c teacherswere then

. _'.

²¹

Ap pro v a l' WASgr~nted ,a~d,alphab eti{'=edlis t sof ',askedto-gathe rn'~ersof identifi able long-te~andshort-

.."t erm par'ticipants ·f.r omre co rds or the~ncurrentandprevi ous

~schoolyear. Th is resultedint!lcliden tification of 116 long-.t e rm~nd76 shor t-t e nn.,p a r tici pants•.Simil~rlY , 432

q . ' . ,

·students in Gr ad e s 5and 6'hadbe en asked to ind i c a t e their int eres t ininst rume nta l pro grams an dha ~ res po nd ed ne g a t i v ely . I twa.s'fcl t that then~r anth~1nd1vi d ual groupssuf( icedto conduc t amea~ing fulinv e s tig ation and,the Boar d wa's approaChed to grant.

per~ission

^for

th~

^{stud y.}

,

stud~'nts.f or eachofthe threeqroupaunde~investigation werecomp ile d. The samplesubjec ts'were the n selected

,

.rando mly. ori ginally,'55" students f:';om each g:r:oupwere

'sele c t e dfo z:partic:ipatio~. 'Thi~numberwa~large enoughto permit reliable,sta tisticalmanipuI~tionof the data, andwa's ',sma ll enough so.that the resea rcnerwa s able tocondu c -t;

pers~na'l inte~i~ws' wi~in ~e '

^time

~on~~traint~

under which he'was working , In'.tnre e ceses ,pe~iss iontoint e rvi e w the

·student i~school was refused by the parents ..'As a result, ,th~ fi na~number of xeaponderrts.in eachgroup was as follows;~,:.'_I •

non-p az tic {pant s 53, sho rt-t e rmparti~ipants~4 , 1~n9-te~

pa rtic;:ipantS'55. (See Table I).

Si n,.:e eightof'1:h~eleven'targetschoo ls wer e all-

·boy ecnoore ;the'tnajOr'i': y'Of ~he^sampl,eS1ubiects were boys.

. ^.

•

TABLE I.

.

. ,

NUMBEROFSTUDEN TSIN POPULATION . AN~SAMPLE BY GROUP

...

./

i

:'; ^sam~leGroup

Ava!lable- .~St~dents"

Cases ~andomly

Sele c t e d

J .

Parent al Ref usals

Final sample Siz e

Non-Participan t's Sho r t-Te rm Paz::ticipants LC;>ng-Term . Parti cipants

Tot al

40

"

H

"

~

^·55,

^{. .}

⁰

'"

^U5

^{' i~}

'3

'"54

55

1' 2

f ,. ,

> /----

' /

^~~

^..

I"

r '

23 Thblerr gives'the.n~rof boyst)and gir¥>in eacJ::""ofthe threesample. groups.

TABLEII

-, I

THE.DI~TRIBUTIONOF~OYSAND G!RLS INP" RTI CI PATI!ffi GROUPS

SampleGro u p' •}3Qys Gi rl s ",T(ltal,

.

~''''

...

"

.'

NOn"fP art ici pa~ts 42 11 53

Sho r t-Te rm

Partic i p a n t s 4' 10· 54

~

.'

Long-Term

,vA't·ticipants 47

,.

55

Total' '13 3 2' .162

In the study byCa s e y , mentioned in Chapte r II.

I . .. .

significantdifference was-f oundbetween the behavi'our of boy'4'andgirlsregarding sh?r t-termandlo n g-te rm'participation .'I ninstx'~entalschool'tIr09rams .1

A l

~OU9hthenumbe r of

gi rls in-the sanple was toosmall to tes t formeani ng fu l sex dif f erence s,we f~ltwecouldsafe ly easuee"tha t these x .distri~uti~nofpar~icipants^{in this}stU:dyh,a d'no:~earin9on

thleHndin~s ., It; •

since.th'e oppo r-t uni t yto join{ns t r ume ntaipr a qr.ams

. '

.

inSChoo l~usua llyco ncu r swiththe e,n t ryinto Grade 5or.

.

'

t

2.

.• Grade,6, and because programsare carriedthroughto.Grade II,

the

ages,of thesampl e subjectrangedfromten,t o sev enteen

", . - l

years. Tabl eII Igi v e s~percen tagebre a~ d ow nof,-age,

.. . .

^.

.

categoriesby samplegr oup s. The vir tualabsence'ofnon- participant!, and short-termparticipants~n the higher age

.categori'esresultedfroll'l the fact that 1~n9-termdepartmenta l

records were not avad.Lah Le, Howe v er, this didnot affec t this particularresearch project.

Ir. THE INST RUMENT

.' six

~eri~S

of sfructuredquestions

w eL

^{used to .}

solici ·t

informatio~ '

^{frtmstudentsand-p are nes\} The student

~

ques~ionnaires^{were'a d mi ni}s t e r e d peri'cmallyby theauthor". ,_wh~leinformation w.as gathered fromparentsby means of'

telephoneinterv~ews . While_ the_que s t i o nnaire protocolwas' strictly adhered'to, consideration was given-t.othe age range of ttie.p a r ti cip? n t s . As a resul t,sligh tw~rding .- changes may have occur red, but; innodiscernibi~way didthe y

. -

seem to affect tihequalityof informationgathered• . Que.stion'Series 'Awa sdirec~edto al l thr e e,t ypes of sample subjects·: non-participants ;short-t.erm,and lo ng:-te rm participants._,The s e questions we r ede sig ne d t9 qad.n

;~formation

conc"er ningthe interest of

cl~se' frie~ds

ⁱⁿ

2S ee AppendixD.

\., .

l'

~

S~~leG~OUp

Non-Par t i cipants Short -T e rm Participants

Long.-Term

part~cip an ts

, . ^{. .}

TABLEIII

SAMPd

GROUP S BY' AGE (Per Cent)

--

Age-

·1 0 11. 12 13 14 15. 16 •.' 17

52\ 2. . 57\ 22\

."

^CO·

" "

48 62 20 ..13 6 11 0 0

23 65 94 8. Ul O 100'

Total '100\ l~O'.

(~..21).(N-53 )

100 \ ·100 \ (r~.30)'" (~-~3)

100 \, 100 \ eN-I6)..(N.,~l

" " . ;00\'.

.( N-7) . (N-3)·

:Tota l Sample (N-1 62).

:"

..•.

in~trumental's cho o l musicand the type of general music .program the student was exposed to in early grades., Series B

was specifically directed to the non-participants',Series-C to the short-term,

a~

^seiies,0to the l?ng-termparticipants.

SeriesEandFaddressed'the parents and were designed to gaininforrnati~n^aboutfamily backgrouifdi~instrumental music and the interest ofpa r e n t s in music as listeners:

The decision to use personal interviews was madefor the followingreasons,' Firstly, experience has shown that both the response rate and the quality

of

usableinforma.tion obtained by th i s method iscomparativelyhig~. This, .sub- sequently.,proved to be :t;heca s ein this study. Almost all

p~~s~ns

^who

agre~d ~

participate were later'co n t ac t e d a,nd provLd e d the requestedLnformanrcn, .The refusal rate for participation,as indi c ate d earlier',was.Less tha n"tw oper' cent. Secondlyt,this method lowers- the probabi litythat questionswill be misin terpretedb~respondenes, Ape,rsonal interview p1:'Ovides the investigator withtheopportunityto make clarifying,comments. Thiswas feltto be especia.lly , impor t a n t in this studywhere the -majority of thest ud e nt s

in.the sample were age twelve or younger, and wherethe study

dealt.withmusic and its special'te~inology. -, III. COLLECTION OFDATA

In May,'19 7 2', the s.uperinte ndentof theRomanCa tho l i c

("

i

.'7

Schoo lBoard',; o rs~.'J ohn's vas contacted and"'pe rm i s s i on'

. . ' '

. .

^'

.

^,~

sought fromhim to·conduct;.the e cudy, 'A copy'of this Le trt.e r .~sshowndn APP'ilndix A. Pemission wa sg.r a n t e d,a f t e r the request had be e n tableda t aBoard Il).ceting," Tho le t t e r of rel?ly is containedin~ppendixB. Al~'t:ter was then sent to all parents concerned, aski'ng permission to int erv i ewthe seleoted studentsin school. A copy. of this request is shewn inAppendixC~ The signed.lettersindicatingparental .apprccaL .were return,cd t,o the scbooI office. Th eprincipals of

partici pating'schoolswere asked'to .az-r-anqe schedules 'for st udent'i nt e r v i ews . These were individually heldin full p~ivacy. "At the completionof th~ in·terv·~ew , the student was askedto indicate _su itablehours for contactingparents by ph one. Telephone in t e rv i e ws with parentswere usually held the fol lowing;day.

IV. TREATMENT OF,DATA

The informationgathered duringthe int e r v i ews was

'.: e co rde do~speciallypxeparedanswer sheets. Answers were,

the n coded, transferred',to intermed iarysh~ets, and punched on I.B.M. ctrds. For'co d i ng the occupation,. of. the head of the family, the Blishen Scal~was used.¹ Thisindex,assign~

\

\ / '

lBe rnard R. BH she n ,"A Socia-Economic'Ind~xfor

occupee.tcne in Canada ," The Canadian Review of Sociology and "",. An~rOpoloqy, IVpanuarY-;-1967T~ .4'!='!'3_ - -

.'

....

'.>

\.

/ (

a nume rical va l ue_to 320occupations; using the 19 61 Census of C~nadainforma~ionto rank cccupatdcns,. 'nie scores are based on the perc~ntageof malesin eachooc up a t.Lonwhose'

- ' "

.

CO~i;)U.ter ~erviceswere.engage~to conduct the_~ta tis tical' anakys La", TheSta...tiS;:'ici3;lp'acka9~~ 'tor the Social scdences

• "Program

JSPSS) was used

f~~stat:stical dat~

^..

.p~?cessin9'"

. For the testing"of statedhypotheses, frequency

di.strib~tiOnS~nd~'mu"~J:variate' tec~~i~ues, iricl~dlng cro~s­

tabu laranalysis andinultipl~ regre.s:~ion. were used.

,"NormanH.'Nie, DaleH.Bent ,andC. RadIalHull,'

;~~;;:~~~~t .:~~~ae~m~~~y~h~9~of:al·

s¢iences (NewYork :

2'

";'\0:

aGHAPTER',IV

STATISTICALANALYSIS

The (irs~ three~'s e ctio ns'of,.~i s..chapt~rdealw'ith the testin'qof'the--'hyp6theses stat~din Cha'pter'II. The

. , ---- .--- . ,

^{" . '}

_".y,;r;;~iori~O~ta:i~s.:profi:leso ftheth;ree'pa~t1CiPati,ng ,

, ... .. qrou . the final-sactd on describesth~resultsof two

.~re.sSion ~'IYSeS

^designedto

~indthe

^{rel.Hve :.}

effecty feach independent vaciabl!! on.st u de nt participation

- .: :,~~u ^..

^r

i~str=e~t.1

program s'. . I. THE TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS NUMBER ON:E.

A review ofseIe c e e d liter.:ituredealing with social influen'cel on preferredm:Sic,al 'e xp,e r i enc e sugge.stedthere was a_'

relationSh~etwa~,

_{. "} ^thesoc f o -e co no nd c

~ackground

_{.. a}

~f

,

s t ude n tsan d.the i r,par ti c i p a t i onin,e x tra - c u rri c u!-a r '~ n strumenta:lpro.grams . In view at."this, ~e'follOwi~g nUl1~' hypothesisw~sproposeds.

.

^~-

J. HO•1. There is thesa me degree of prob:mi.lity'f~.. students with a'

.

^.hi ghsoci o-e c ono mi c.ba c kg r o un d^. andst ude n ts with a low socio-economic back- ground to join an extra-curricula~~ental

~_ _---c---'~' pr~ogram.

severerst r a t e.gi e s "fere'employedi~ane.~ fortt'o,t e s t this and other hypothes.es. Includedamong these were:

,".~

. . .

percen.t~ge.,distribl.l;tlQD of categorizedsocio-ec6nomi~index scores, Goodman' 'a ndK~u·~kal's^{Gamma,I'a nd}'?omp~rison^of s-ampkegr'oup mean'scores, inclUding'a.t-Test'f o r the deter-

~~ ~n'ati~m ~f' S~~'tisti:~ai si~·nif·~can~'e. ~

"

. .

'.since·t h'e first hypothesis dealswiththe,probability

~f. j9i~ing' ·i~str~e.tltal . ~rogr~~s:

^{,t·he.eccres}

ob,;'ine~ f~om

.:both groups.cf par'tiCip'ants,,s h o r t - t e:r mandlong-tertft "were combined,and"comparedwithtihoeeof.,n~n-par:ti cipants . The

, . ' . I

.,..--Sanip l e'sccres ,, rangi':lg from'2 6 .09 to)75 . 5 '-index point.s., were groupe&:into

~~x cat~;ories' and~ross-·t~bul.~ted.,

^.

Table IV.shows tJle percentage dist:h'bution.of.B l~'shen Sc.ale

" s'o~io-~'cono~c' i~dex

^scores

,~f no~-part.iciPan·ts ,~nd ·

participants.

An

examination'ofthe figures'from'"low:to high.

SOCi'o-e~nomi'C i~dex.

categorie,s

~eveal~ a :

perc·en1;..:ige

dr~i,for,'

" . " ' . " .• , '. = . ' .-..

~~ ..:.~

non-epaz-t.Lc.iparrts , with percentage figures forparticipari",:-s:"~"',.

increas~ngaccord:l!1g1y.'"~H~l.f

o'f

the S.t·Ud~nts· ·falling'~^into each of the two,rcvese aocf.o-economfc cat~gorieswere,n~on­

.~articiPant~ . ~nd .

' ^"half were parti'cipants·.

' .

'I n^-

i'lh~rp

^,

' ~dntrast,

^{' . -.}

.only12per'ce n t of.t.h e st1!dents,fall~ng.int~the two'hig~est

socio-economiccategories.,werenon-participants, while'ssp~r centwer~part"icipants:'.The,percenta.9~'figures sh~wa

.-

lLe~

^A.

G~odman' a~d

^WilliamH.'Kr us ka l ',

;'Mea;U:l:'~s

^.•

~~

^..

aeecct.atacn for CrossC~ass1ficat10n." Journal of the

American Statistical Assoc1ation, XLIX~er,..:::I;54).- - - ' --'-

, ~64.· . , .~, :,l'I •

I '

^"

^..

~'

' ~ ,

v

"

If ':

Ind~x_C~te.gory, Below

3P-39 ^Abov~

30 -.40-49 50-59 '~P-69' 69

001 .50%- 371

271 '

12% 12%

50 'jO '63 7J.

" ..

'10 0% 100% iooi 100% 100%

/100%

(N=16)· INC") .(N:3 8) ~N~44)' (N=l}) (N=1 7) TABLEIV,

PERCENTAGE OIfiTJUBUTION OF<BLI SHEN SCALESoCIa-ECONOMIC.

INOtx .

SCORES OF NON";'PARTICIPANTSAND PARTICIPANTS

\ 'Samp l e'Grt;lUp

.Total Non-Participants:

, j

\:::::--'---~--'---~

,Par ti oipants

~. 15 8 -.NA • 4*

Total i l l

.Gamrna.+.4'3

*Fourst~dE!nts'in the.s amplewim~institutlonalized·~rphans^•.seeie-'.

economic index scorescoutd tnere rcreonlybe obtainedfrom158,stud!,!ots.

\

^w~

.\,

i

let

.

'

posit iveassociationbetwe en the two variablesunder co n- st dera ti c:n. .Forthe·pur pos e.of comparison, it was of jX)nsider~leinterestto determine the ac tual st.rengthof thi s a~;ociatlon. Goodman'sa~dKruskal 'sGa~ais a useful

. I .

statist ic~ltechniq ue,fot deterIl\iningthe strengthof

~:lati~nshiPSbetweenoJ:din.a~vari~les'.² with this't~ch:":

·n1.~i.ie', the~xis tence'o,r non-e x tseence'ior a relationship' .~etweengiven variables can beexpressedby a'singlefigure',

the

~arnma coefficien~ , .

^"The:h £ghe r the gamma"

. coeffici~nt

^the

stro nger the relationship. A gamma coefficie nt'was computed fromth~frequency d~ributionsindicated,in Tablerv

and

found to be·+.,43,showing that there is a distinct positive associationQetwean the twovariab lesunderco ns i de r a t i o n.

A_gamma c~iHficientcan furtherbein t e rp r e te d as a per cen~measureoferro~,reduction'in themutual'predi~t­ abil i tyof two·variabl,e s." In.otherwords, acalculated

~amma CO~ffi~ientindi c ate s to what,degreea prediction based en. 'a_r e.ve ale dl rel.ationshipcan be expectedto be correc t b~YOndthe ,ev el, of chence ;" Tq 9i:e an example .

"neenJ. Champi n,'Basic Statistics for·Soc i al· Research (Scranton, Pennsy l vanIa: 'Chandler PubHsh1.ng Company.1970), p,220.

3I b id. , p,224•. ,

'~And}:ewM.Gre ei e y and PeterH. Rossi,The Edu c a t i on of Catholi cAmeri c a ns (Chi c a go: ·Alsine publishIn'9company;-

ffi~O-.--.-· · · •

33 ass'umewe have to predictthe,s oci o-e c o nomi c backqxound.o f each in di vi dual in a~~ndomlYselected sampleof par t icipants inins t r ume n t a l pr o grams, and we alwayspxedfct;th e so cio- '"

eccncmdc indexscoreto be 50 or"above. We wi l l be correct

43per'c~nt'!loreof the'.timethani f'weh~d r~liedon th~law

of chan c eby f.lipp inga coin .

Tab leV presen ts,

the

means and standard,deviationsof'.

BlishenScale.soci,o-econo~icindex scoresof nC?1?:..,:"participants and~articipants~ As previous lymentioned, the tot:a1 sample scored ranged from 25.09 to 75,.5.7 .index points. As.TableV indicates,

.

the meen scoreof non-participantswas found

.

-to be 43.1

as'

compared.to,51.7 for participants. A cne-et.adLe d t-Testfo r independent samplesresulted,in a t-Scoreo~3.87,

.

.

in di clit.ing,t ha t the mean score ~if ferencebetween these sample group.~is statisticallysignificant"a t the .000 5 level of

~nfidence.

Allme a s ure ment s used for testingthefi~sthypothesis suggesteda

r~ection

^of

-th~

's t a t e d nUl; hypothesis. .Finding demclnstr.ate4 a dist inctrelat ionshipbetw?en the stated var iables ,thus supporti ng the contentionthat students with

a high·""'socio-eco nomi cbackgroundaremorelike l y to join

extra-cu;riCUla.r inst rume ntal p~ogramsthan studentswit h a lowsocia-economicb~ckground','.

. ,

"

\

TABLE V

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF BLISHENSCALE SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDEX SCORES OFNON-PARTICIPANTs.~DPARTIC IPANTS~

SampleGroup

Non-Participants

particip~ts

M~a,n

StaiM~rd

^{Sample t-Soore Level of}

Score Deviation size Sigr:li f icance

43.1- 11'. 7 51

3.8.7 .0005*

51.7 13.7 107

N NA Total

15 8 4"

162

,;. {.

'"

.o;:

*Ae-accreof,3:37'i s needed for the.o oos. level.of.significance•

.*"'Scorescould not.be ob-aaLned fromorphans.

:.::