(35) = 263, p < .001, so Huynh-Feldt adjustments were applied (ε = .846). The adjusted values showed a significant main effect (F (6.77, 503) = 35.4, p < .001). Descriptive statistics for
question 4 are shown in Table 3, and are ordered from “strongly agree” (6) to “strongly disagree” (1).
A Bonferroni post hoc test was conducted on the analysis of variance for question 4. Significant difference in rating was found between many of the statements. Each statement was discussed individually in the following paragraphs, in descending order as they appeared in Table 3.
The statement that yielded the highest mean rating was “the most important part of chorus class is high quality performances.” While a similar prompt was posed in question 2, this question was asked in question 4 so that it could be directly compared with the statements here. This statement was rated significantly higher than all other statements, including “creative activities take place in my class” (p = .021), and “performing music directed by my teacher is creative” (p = .003). All additional statements resulted in even stronger significance (p < .001).
The statement with the next highest rating was “creative activities take place in my class.” This statement showed no significant difference in rating to “performing music directed by my teacher is creative,” or “I have input into activities that we do in chorus class.” The
“creative activities” statement yielded significant differences (p < .001) to all lower-rated
statements, including those dealing with “printed music,” “teacher-centered activities,” “musical decisions,” “composing/arranging,” and “improvising.” These results were very informative, since students rated nearly all of the ways that creativity might be evident significantly lower than their perception that creativity was indeed occurring. The exception to this was the
statement regarding “performing music directed by my teacher.” Overall, this showed that either students were perceiving creativity as occurring in a way that was not included in question 4, or that they were confused about the meaning of creativity where it pertains to chorus.
Table 3. Question 4 Descriptive Statistics.
Prompt Mean Standard
Deviation
The most important part of chorus class is high quality performances of choral music
4.72 1.23
Creative activities take place in my class 4.39 1.44 Performing music directed by my teacher is creative 4.37 1.39 I have input into the activities that we do in chorus
class
4.21 1.54
Singing chorus songs from printed music is creative 3.90 1.55 The activities in my class are centered on my teacher 3.83 1.58 My teacher lets students make musical decisions about
chorus songs that we are singing 3.72 1.72
We do activities with composing and arranging 3.47 1.63 My teacher uses lessons in improvising 3.39 1.65
Students rated “performing music directed by my teacher is creative” as the third highest rated statement. This statement was rated significantly higher (p < .001) than the “printed music,” “teacher-centered activities,” “musical decisions,” “composing/arranging,” and “improvising” statements. In summary, student participants rated singing printed music to be much less creative than music directed by the teacher. Since these activities have been frequently performed at the same time, deciphering how students view these statements differently is
worthy of further investigation.
The overall rating of the statement “I have input into the activities that we do in chorus class” was not statistically different from the “printed music is creative,” (p = .106) or “teacher- centered classroom,” (p = .080) statements. However, it was rated significantly higher than “musical decisions,” “composing/arranging,” and “improvising,” (p < .001). These results showed that students perceive to have input into activities in chorus, but those activities were mostly viewed as teacher centered.
The statement that “singing chorus songs from printed music is creative” showed statistically different ratings from “composing/arranging” (p = .003), and all other prompts (p < .001). Again, students perceived “printed music” to be less creative than “teacher-directed music.” This possible discrepancy should be addressed in further research.
The “teacher-centered” statement showed results with significant rating differences when compared to “high quality performances,” “creative activities,” and “teacher-directed music,” (all at p < .001). The pairwise comparison yielded significant results with “improvising,” (p = .007), but not when compared to “composing/arranging,” (p = .096). Student participants showed mixed results with the environment of their classroom, as the average of ratings showed
was necessary to fully understand the levels of student-centered and teacher-centered instruction in these chorus classes.
The statement regarding “musical decisions” was rated significantly lower than all of the statements above it in Table 3, as previously discussed in the results above. There was no significant difference in the ratings between this statement and “composing/arranging” and “improvising.” As discussed above, “musical decisions” was rated much lower than the similar “student input” statement. In other words, students perceived to have input into what activities took place, but thought that they had less decision making responsibilities with the specific music studied.
The final two statements, “composing/arranging” and “improvising,” received the lowest overall ratings. This resulted in overall scores that were significantly lower (p < .001) than all other statements, excluding the previously mentioned “musical decisions.” The results of this final group showed that the traditional creative activities of composing and improvising are not common activities in the chorus classroom. However, student participants agreed at much higher levels that creativity took place in their classrooms.
The overall results of the analysis of variance for question 4 were quite complicated. However, some incongruities were made very clear by the student responses. While students highly agreed that creative activities were occurring in their choral classrooms, the source of the creativity was harder to explain. While the results showed that students had some input into the kinds of activities that took place, the students as a whole concurrently reported that they did not feel that they were allowed to make musical decisions. While singing music directed by their teacher was agreed to be somewhat creative, there was less agreement on the creativity of singing printed music. Students gave a mixed response on questions regarding teacher-centered
learning. While a student-centered environment has been shown to be more conducive to
creativity, students rated creativity very highly as occurring in their classrooms yet did not agree upon the environment that might have fostered that creativity.
Univariate analyses of variance were performed on each statement from question 4 to measure for differences between the middle school and high school levels. Only the statement regarding “musical decisions” was significant (F (1, 313) = 17.1, p < .001). This showed that high school students perceived more shared musical decision making with their teachers, while middle school students reported fewer opportunities to make musical decisions. The same analyses were repeated with regard to individual schools data. The only statistically significant findings again stemmed from the prompt regarding “musical decisions,” with several
participating middle schools showing lower levels of decision making than their high school counterparts.
Question 4 multiple regression by extracurriculars. An additional multiple regression