The organisational aspects addressed in the questionnaire were curriculum planning with regard to "isolated" or comprehensive (integrated) Aural Training, weekly instruction time available per student, sufficiency of instruction time, form of instruction (individual/group classes), sizes of the groups, preferences regarding the form of instruction and group size, and the availability of assistants for practice and/or remedial purposes.
Regarding the position of Aural Training, it is clear that it was treated as a separate subject in all three countries. The results indicated that 85.7% of the lecturers in the RSA, 76.8% in the FRG and 71.7% in the USA (overall response rate 75.1 %) taught Aural Training as separate classes within the music curriculum.34 The practical hypothesis Aural Training is treated as a separate subject in the curricula of ternary institutions was thus proved to be true.
Compared to the RSA and USA results (14.3 % and 1.9% respectively), it was conspicuous that 20.3 % of the German respondents indicated both "isolation" and "integration". This could imply .that subjects other than instrumental performance may fall under the domain of Music Theory, as was often the case in the USA, but received
33
34
Anna C. Naude, In Ondersoek na die geskiktheid van sillabi vir gehoortoetse in gegradeerde musiekek- sameos. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Stellenbosch 1987 pp. 245-257.
Pembrook and Riggins found in their survey that 60% of the responding schools in the USA scheduled separate classes for Aural Training while 37% incorporated aural skills into other classes, for example written theory. Randall G. Pembrook and H. Lee Riggins, "'Send Help!': Aural Skills Instruction in U.S. Colleges and Universities" in Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 4/2 (Fall 1990) p. 233.
separate treatment.3S On the other hand, it could also reflect a more comprehensive approach where Music Theory is taught from an aural point of view, and where Aural Training is taught as applied Music Theory. One German respondent, for example, explained that it sometimes happened that he constructed his music theory teaching merely through listening. Other examples of comprehensive approaches in Germany could also be seen in the occasional presentation of subjects such as Aural Analysis (Horanalyse).36
Although a comprehensive approach was pursued at certain universities in the USA, only two USA respondents mentioned this, and only one respondent indicated both separate subject/course and pan of the Music Theory Classes. One RSA respondent indicated both, and one German respondent pointed out that Aural Training also formed part of a rhythmic education course (Jaques-Dalcroze Eurhythmics) taught atMusikhochschulen. According to the Pembrook-Riggins survey, a number of respondents who taught in integrated programmes preferred separate classes and vice versa. Their general conclusion was that the pendulum had swung away from the integrated approach favoured at the beginning of the 1980s.37
In all three countries a comprehensive approach to Aural Training was seemingly relinquished in favour of an "isolated" approach. No further questions appeared in the questionnaire as to the nature of this isolation. It is possible that, although curricularly scheduled as a separate. subject, a comprehensive teaching approach was followed. Observations in both the RSA and FRG, as well as the results of the applied Aural Training methods discussed in the next section, however, revealed that cross-references to other subjects were made only occasionally ~d that the subject was treated in isolation, concentrating merely on drill and practice.
The fact that Aural Training was acknowledged as a subject in its own right, however, does not reflect its degree of recognition and status. In a survey conducted during the Institute for Music Theory Pedagogy II in the USA, a question was asked on the percentages apportioned to Aural Training in examinations when written and aural skills were under one course number. The majority of respondents (28 %) indicated a percentage of approx. 25 %. Only 23% of the respondents indicated approx. 50%.38 Damshroder complained that at the university where he taught only one credit was given to Aural Training compared to the four credits given to theory .39 Also, for examination
3S
36
37
38
39
According to the Lecture Directory of the Hochschule jUr Musik Wurzburg1991, the subjects Instrumentation, Aural Training, Figured bass and Harmony and Counterpoint fall under the domain of Music Theory.
Mary H. Wennerstrom, "The Undergraduate Core Music Curriculum at Indiana University" in Journal of Mu- sic Theory Pedagogy, 3/2 (Fall 1989) pp. 153-176.
Michael R. Rogers, Teaching Approaches in Music Theory - An Overview of Pedagogical Philosophies. Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984 pp. 3-5.
The presentation of these subjects was discussed thoroughly in Chapter Two under the heading of Isolation vs
Integration and Comprehension.
Randall G. Pembrook and H. Lee Riggins, "'Send Help!': Aural Skills Instruction in U.S. Colleges and Universities" in Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 4/2 (Fall 1990) p. 239.
Roger E. Foltz and Alice M. Lanning, "Report on the Institute for Music Theory Pedagogy Studies II" in Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 3/2 (Fall 1989) p. 248.
David A. Damschroder, "Flexibility in the Theory Classroom: Strategies for the Management of Diversity" in Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 3/2 (Fall 1989) p. 185.
purposes at some South African universities, Aural Training formed a sub-minimum of 10% - 40% of another
"linked" subject.40
It is therefore not totally surprising that students seemed to look down on this subject and did not invest much time in mastering essential skills necessary to be a literate musician. A few respondents indicated in the Pembrook-Riggins survey that Aural Training was not fully appreciated by many students, teachers and administrators. This fact was
also supported by Collins.41 One German respondent spontaneously mentioned that the same trend could be noticed
at his Musikhochschule:
"Aural Training is for - I dare say - all students the most "subordinate" subject of all. Because of this, most
lecturers only try to help students to pass the final aural examination .... We as lecturers will have to accept
the fact that this instruction possibility - now as then - will not be used optimally. Responsible for this are the human weaknesses of the students, as well as for example the fact that some Aural Training classes do not take place due to the many holidays during the summer Semester, and because of many extra orchestral
rehearsals."42
As to the fonn in which instruction takes place, the results undoubtedly showed that group tuition was practised by a large majority of lecturers in all three countries (RSA 100%, FRG 79.7%, USA 96.2%, ALL 86%). Only 10.1 % (ALL) made use of both individual and group tuition. Reasons for the application of group tuition were that individual training was not cost effective and did not motivate enough (RSA). Furthermore, polyphonic music could be sung in group classes (FRG).
In comparison to the fact that group tuition was indicated as by a large majority of lecturers, the ideal teaching situation as perceived by 53.3 % of all the respondents included both individual and group tuition. This discrepancy between reality and preferences could be clearly seen in the responses of all three countries. One hundred percent of
the RSA respondents indicated group tuition, whereas only 57.1 % preferred this type of teaching, with 42.9%
preferring both individual and group classes. The same situation existed in the FRG (reality - 79.7%; preference _ 50.7%) and USA, with the biggest difference in the responses between reality and preference visible in the USA results. Although 96.2% of the USA respondents taught classes made up of groups, 75.5% preferred a mixture of individual and group tuition. It can be stated with certainty that the majority of lecturers were not satisfied with their organisational planning regarding teaching settings.
40
41
42
Anna C. Naude, 'n Ondersoek na die geskiktheid van sillabi vir gehoortoetse in gegradeerde
musiekeksamens. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Stellenbosch 1987, pp. 245-257.
Randall G. Pembrook and H. Lee Riggins, "'Send Help!': Aural Skills Instruction in U.S. Colleges and Universities" in Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 4/2 (Fall 1990) p. 239.
Researcher's translation of "Die Gehorbildung ist flir - ich wage zu sagen: alle Studenten - das nebensiichlichste Nebenfach uberhaupt. Da es existiert, versucht jeder Lehrer, die Studenten soweit zu bringen, daB sie die PrU- fung schaffen. ... Wir Lehrer werden uns damit abfinden mussen, daB diese Moglichkeit - wie eh und je - nicht optimal genutzt wird. Verantwortlich sind die menschlichen Schwiichen der Studenten und z.B. der Umstand, daB im Sommersemester wegen der vielen Feiertage und der Verpflichtung zu Orchesterproben manche Gb- Stunde ausfaIlt. "
With regard to the weekly instruction time available per student, both the majority of the respondents in the RSA (28.5%) and FRG (59.4%) indicated sixty minutes per week.43 Thirty and forty-five minute classes were indicated by 15.9% of the FRG respondents in each of the two time categories. In the USA the majority of respondents
(50.9 %) indicated that two hours were available for aural instruction. Another 30.2 % indicated three hour classes.44
Apart from commenting in brief words, two respondents reported in more detail on their curricula. One USA respondent described his first-year aural curriculum as consisting of four hours per week which were divided into two hours for Dictation (including composition exercises where the students were required to write musical materials according to given parameters and gave vocal performances of these away from the piano or sound source), and two hours Sight Singing material from the music literature using the solfege system. A German respondent at the
Staatliche Hochschule fUr Musik Freiburg im Breisgau explained that Aural Training was taught in several classes
such as: Written solfige exercises (tonal and atonal one part dictation): 120 minutes per week, two semesters long;
Verbal solfige exercises (e.g. declamation of rhythms and sight singing): 60 minutes per week for a class of four
students, or 15 minutes for individual classes once a week, two semesters long; Harmonic hearing as part of Music Theory classes: 60 minutes; Two and three part dictation: 120 minutes, two semesters long; Non-mandat0'Y..subjects such as "Live-dictation" - examples from the music literature in their original settings.
Observations made on the curriculum planning of Aural Training at the Staatliche Hochschule fUr Musik und
Darstellende Kunst Stuttgart from 1988-1991 were as follows:
Individual Aural Training: 30 minutes per week
Practical group classes in the form of seminars I-III, 60 minutes weekly per class
Preparatory classes for students majoring in ML (instrumental music teachers), SM and KM (teachers for Music Education in general schools as well as students studying to become cantors): 60 minutes weekly per class; the preparatory classes should be taken in the last semester before the examination.
Tutorial: approx. 30 minutes per week
After a period of four semesters the examination for ML (six semesters for SM/KM) should be taken. The SM and KM examinations are more difficult than the ML examination.
Extra non-mandatory seminars on different aspects of Aural Training can also be attended.
At most Musikhochschulen in the FRG students took their final examination at the end of the four semester period, and had to sit additional entrance tests to major in Aural Training with Music Theory as a second major subject.
43
44
It should, however, be kept in mind that 42.9% of the South African respondents did not answer this question. The reason for this is not clear. It could be that this aspect of the questionnaire was not considered to be important, or was overlooked.
This information complies with the survey by Pembrook and Riggins who found that 61 % of separate freshmen Aural Training classes included 100 minutes of instruction, while 16% met for 150 minutes per week, ranging from 50 to 250 minutes per week. Overall responses averaged 177 minutes of instruction per week. The results for sophomore classes were similar with 57% indicating 100 minutes of instruction per week and 16% 150 minutes. (Mean average: 111 minutes per week.) Typical institutional degree requirements included 4 semesters. Only 4% of the separate classes were subdivided into specific classes for one aural skill (e.g. sight singing.) Randall G. Pembrook and H. Lee Riggins, '''Send Help!': Aural Skills Instruction in U.S. Colleges and Universities" in Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 4/2 (Fall 1990) p. 233.
Results from the Institute for Music Theory PedagogyIIalso indicated a majority of 66 % respondents having a
four semester theory sequence. Six semester or more were only indicated by 15%.
Roger E. Foltz and Alice M. Lanning, "Report on the Institute for Music Theory Pedagogy Studies II" III
According to observations made during study periods (1979-1983) and (1985-1986) at the Universities of the Orange Free State and Stellenbosch in the RSA, Aural Training courses had to be completed within three years (six semesters). Students had to pass tests and examinations administered on one level (within the duration of a year) to be able to move to the next level.
Based on respondents' spontaneous comments which appear in Appendix G, the above information and information taken from the USA Pembrook-Riggins survey, general trends could be recognised. First of all, the individual music departments followed diverse time schedules. Although trends of 60 minutes' instruction time per week were observable in the RSA and FRG results, and one 120 to 180 minutes in the USA results, this was only indicated by a narrow majority margin. Secondly, Aural Training was integrated into Music Theory classes of X minutes. Thirdly, the time available depended on the seniority of the students (USA), the level of development (FRG), and the subject in which the student majored (FRG). Fourthly, extra, non-mandatory classes such as, for example, Aural Analysis, additional Dictation classes and concentrated preparation for the final aural examination were available at some
Musikhochschulen. Students could also attend more than one extra class during a semester. When a student made full use of this opportunity, he/she could have up to five hours of aural instruction at, for example, the Musikhochschule
in Stuttgart. Fifthly, at several music departments in all three countries students had the opportunity of making additional use of programmed instruction facilities. Sixthly, at some music departments Aural Training was divided into smaller segments (e.g. Sight Singing and Dictation classes) taken separately. Seventhly, aural courses should have been be completed within a period of four to six semesters. Finally, students in the FRG could major in Aural Training and Music Theory as a second major subject at some Musikhochschulen, and students in the USA could move on to an advanced Aural Training class at some music departments. To the researcher's knowledge no such courses were available in the RSA.
The majority of respondents from the USA (73.6%), however, indicated that the available two to three hours of
instruction time was not sufficient. In both the other two countries the majority of respondents found the instruction
time sufficient (RSA: 57.1 %, FRG: 49.3%). Seven respondents from all countries mentioned that the sufficiency depended on the developmental level of the student. For good students the time was sufficient and for weaker students insufficient.
It is conspicuous that there was only a marginal 8.7% difference between the "sufficient" (49.3%) and "not suffi- cient" (40.6%) answers of the FRG respondents. The instruction time could be sufficient when other, non-mandatory subjects were included in the syllabus, giving the student the opportunity of receiving up to five hours of instruction at some institutions. Yet, this aspect of non-mandatory subjects was not present at allMusikhochschulen and it can be assumed that these lecturers found the available instruction time insufficient. Comments by a few FRG respondents indicated that the time was insufficient:
Not sufficient for students with inadequate entrance preparation (FRG); Not sufficient in sophomore year (USA); It's never sufficient unless on a daily basis (RSA); This is a complicated issue. The time is insufficient to give most, but not all, students a true mastery of the skills we are trying to promote in the courses themselves, term by term. But some students are actually able to achieve mastery in a much shorter time. For them, however, there is insufficient time to carry them to a true mastery of aural skills, hearing large-scale forms and key relationships, four-part polyphony, etc. (USA); Never enough (USA); Not ideally sufficient
(USA); Never sufficient but practical (USA); We are planning flexible instruction time - Brass and percussion students need more Aural Training - (They most often have the weakest ears!) (FRG).
The reason for the dissatisfaction with the time available on the part of the large majority of USA respondents could be partly related to the indicated group sizes, and the discrepancy between actual group sizes and preferred group sizes. More instruction time, on the other hand, was available which balances the differences between the countries. The fact that USA respondents were dissatisfied with the time available could therefore also be an indication that they put a higher value on the development of musical understanding through Aural Training than in the other two countries. This speculation can be supported by the increasing number of articles published in American Journals and other subject-related periodicals, as well as by the two conferences held on Aural Training by the Institute for Music
Theory Pedagogy in 1989 and 1992.
Questions on the actual and preferred sizes, cross-tabulation calculations between the time-available question and the
group sizes question, as well as respondentsIcomments revealed that:
(a) The group sizes in the USA were significantly larger than the sizes indicated in the RSA and FRG. The
majority of the USA respondents indicated groups sizes of 11-12 (18.9%), 13-15 (32.1 %) and 16-20 (26.4%), thus ranging from 11-20. It is also interesting to note that, although not the norm, only in the USA groups larger than 30 students per group were indicated by four respondents. One respondent indicated that groups of 100-160 met for two hours per week! Group sizes in the other two countries were significantly smaller. The majority of the RSA respondents indicated group sizes of 5-6 (42.9%) and 9-10 (42.9%), thus ranging from 5- 10. In the FRG the major group sizes were 2, 3-4 (in both cases 15.2%),5-6 (31,8%), 7-8 (15.2%) and 9-10 (22.7%), thus ranging from 2-10.
Small groups were preferred in all three countries: RSA 5-6 (42.9%) and 7-8 (28.6%); FRG 2-3 (17.4%), 4 (20.3%) and 5-6 (33.3%); USA 9-10 (30.2%) and 11-12 (26.4%). The differences between reality and preference were very small the RSA and FRG. It can be concluded that lecturers in the RSA and FRG were satisfied with their group sizes. The majority of respondents in the USA, however, preferred smaller groups than the actual 9-20 students per group indicated earlier.
(b) In the RSA the majority of 28.6% of the respondents had groups of 8-10 students in 60 minute classes. In the
FRG the majority of 43.5% respondents indicated groups of 2-6 students in a 45-60 minute class. Another 34.8% indicated that they had 7-12 students during a weekly 45-60 minute class.
In comparison to the RSA and FRG results, cross-tabulation calculations revealed that groups of 13-20 students received 120 minutes per week aural instruction in the USA (32.1 %).
(c) The degree of achievement influenced the size of the group and different tasks required different group sizes.
Smaller groups were involved in classes which included performance skills such as Sight Singing and other oral assignments (ALL). Written assignments such as Dictation and Aural Analysis seminars were taught in larger groups (ALL). One RSA respondent indicated that he divided the two-hour instruction time per class into three portions: a larger group for seminars (30 students), a smaller group for practical work (15 students doing, for example, Sight Singing, rhythm declamation, keyboard harmony) and a very small group for extra drill with a teaching assistant (5 students).
A final curricular aspect addressed was the presence of teaching assistants to help weaker students or to act as
practice partners. From the overall response percentages it was clear that 53.5 % of the lecturers in the three countries did not have teaching assistants. Only 42.9% of the RSA and 33.3% of the FRG respondents answered positively to this question. The majority of 58.5 % of the USA respondents, however, indicated that they do have teaching
assistants.4s Reasons for not having assistants, based on the comments by respondents, were that courses could be repeated (FRG), and individual extra instruction for weak students was taken over by the -lecturers themselves (FRG). The costs involved (FRG) and the additional offering of computer-based reinforcement were also mentioned (ALL). Regarding the organisational aspects of Aural Training, it can be concluded that although Aural Training has reached