Depending on whether respondents included CAT in their Aural Training programmes or not, a branching of questions took place in order to fmd reasons for the omission of CAT. Further aspects such as CAT users amongst students, the hardware and software used, self-developed software, the efficiency of CAT, and all respondents' interests and ultimate software wishes were examined.
Concerning the inclusion of CAT in Aural Training programmes, diverse results were obtained from the three countries. In the RSA (57.1 %) and USA (73.6%) the majority of respondents included this form of programmed instruction, whereas 89.8 % of the FRG respondents did not make use of CAT.
The majority of all respondents (RSA 75%, FRG 71.4%, USA 66.6%) indicated that the computer was used for homework purposes only.74 In the FRG (14.3%) and USA (33.3%) respondents indicated that CAT formed part of both teaching and practice. All students in the RSA (75%) and USA (92.3%), and only under performing students in
74
Only 4 % of the lecturers in the USA used computers as a substitute for classroom-based instruction.
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. 238.
the FRG (42.9%) made use of CAT. One USA respondent mentioned that a small incentive (60 of 1000 total grade
points in a term) were given to students for using the computers or the pre-recorded tapes for practice.75
The hypothesis Computer-assisted instruction is not included in the majority of Aural Training curricula was thus proved to be true for the FRG, but had to be rejected for the RSA and USA.
Reasons for excluding CAT from Aural Training curricula were:
(a) I do not know enough about existing Aural Training software. (RSA 33.3%, FRG 33.9%, USA 35.7%)
(b) I fmd the synthesized sounds unnatural and not aesthetic. (RSA 0%, FRG 40.3 %, USA 14.3%)
(c) Single elements such as intervals and chords are practised outside of a musical context. (FRG 19.4%, RSA
and USAO%)
(d) Computer programs are too limited. (RSA 33.3%, FRG 21 %, USA 14.3%)
(e) The technical environment, e.g. the right cable connections, combinations of switches, etc. causes
inconvenience. (RSA 0%, FRG 29%, USA 14.3%)
(t) Programs are not user-friendly. (RSA 0%, FRG 1.6%, USA 7.1 %)
(g) The fmancial commitment is too big. (RSA 100%, FRG 19.4%, USA 35.7%)
(h) There is no computer available at our music department for Aural Training purposes. (RSA 0 %, FRG 19.4 %,
USA 7.1 %)
(i) We are in a transitional phase: it is planned for the future. (RSA 0%, FRG 6.5%, USA 28.6%)
(j) CAT is unnecessary. (RSA 33.3%, FRG 6.5%, USA 7.1 %)
(k) Computers are inhuman. (RSA 0%, FRG 6.5% USA 7.1 %)
(1) CAT is a possibility for homework purposes. (RSA 0 %, FRG 6.5 %, USA 7.1 %)
(m) Other (RSA 66.7%, FRG 35.5%, USA 57.1 %)
Lack of adequate rooms (space) (FRG and USA); Lack of time to thoroughly examine the possibilities of CAT; (FRG); I prefer "live" music (FRG); CAT can be helpful in preparatory instruction but it is not creative enough on a tertiary level (FRG); Weak students benefit more from classroom-based instruction with the use of the piano; (FRG); The use of the piano in classroom-based instruction enables a more flexible methodological approach in comparison to CAT (FRG); I love the sound of the piano and the feel of the keys under my fingers (FRG); The instruments at hand in classroom-based instruction are more comprehensive and lively if they can be used according to the actual teaching situation (FRG); I believe that Aural Training takes places in that the student has to react by means of producing sound. If the computer cannot interpret this sound and evaluate it, it does not have the possibility to meet the student's basic needs (RSA); The imitation of
timbre is insufficient. Sine waves are not equal to "natural tone imitation". "Natural"
=
the sum of sinewaves. The ear was not designed for sine wave "sound happenings" (Schallereignisse) (FRG); Pitch is misleading - prefer acoustic sounds (USA); I don't think a program of sufficient sophistication and authentic sound exists (USA); Group education with CAT seems to be problematic (FRG and USA); Related to the contractual obligations and contractual arrangement of my job (USA); A computer program is limited by the knowledge/philosophy of the programmer. Therefore it is important to examine the didactics of Music Theory in order to prevent the misleading of students to listen falsely according to so-called historical rules that are not valid. (FRG); The few advantages of CAT do not weigh up against the fmancial burden and organisation attached to it (RSA).
The question on the features of a computer program that would meet the respondent's expectations provided a very wide spectrum of answers, ranging from five German respondents (7.9 %) indicating that they were not at all. interested in CAT, to respondents expressing their openness to any possibility of gaining aural skills.
75
According to the Institute for Music Theory Pedagogy Studies II survey, 57 % of their respondents required computer assignments along with their music theory curriculum. These assignments were monitored by: an instructor checking individuals (28%), occasionally in class (26%), through a teaching assistant (18%), through a tutor (4%), other (24%0).
Roger E. Foltz and Alice M. Lanning, "Report on the Institute for Music Theory Pedagogy Studies II" in
Programs where the teacher can include his/her own examples from the music literature were favoured by 60.5% of all respondents. Another 57.4 % of all respondents chose (a) programs to check sight singing with regard to interval, intonation and rhythmic mistakes; (b) the possibility to project a score on the monitor with the help of a computer reading apparatus in order to select and sound one voice, instrumental group, e.g. the first violins, etc.; (c) programs with examples from the music literature (score appears on the monitor) in which any chosen sounding or written voice(s) can be left out. This provides the possibility to do sight singing and improvisation within a musical context. Programs which include questions on the character, style, form, harmonic content, etc. of short excerpts of works were indicated by 50.4% of all respondents. The same percentage of respondents indicated that they would also be interested in the possibility of manipulating music on records/CDs for Aural Training purposes (Hyper-Media). The use of perfect sound imitations of acoustical instruments in synthesizers was indicated by 41.9% of all respondents.
Other wishes were: Programs in which problem areas are diagnosed and the next step of practice/learning is
recommended (RSA and FRG); Error detection programs which prepare students for their careers: While following the score and listening to the piece being performed, the student should indicate which orchestra player made rhythmic mistakes, played wrong notes, or had intonation problems. (FRG); Treatment of intonation problems in both natural and equal-tempered tuning systems (FRG); Improved computer programs. Some devoted to correct chord progressions in tonal music; Drill! (USA); Programs which test the "building blocks" such as triads, chords and resolutions, scales, modes etc. so that more time can be spent on more musical aspects (USA); Software for NeXT computers (USA); Beyond my expectations but sounds great! (USA); Programs enabling students to explore musical contexts by modifying given examples, rescoring for different timbres, renovating, etc. Multi-media computer environments (USA); Discovery learning (creating musical objects and assembling them to reproduce an excerpt) (USA); Generally, the more tutorial (instead of merely a countability) the better (USA); All of these things seem technically possible either now or soon. Whether they are pedagogically desirable is another question. I don't see much value in, for example, your (f) possibility, when I can give a student a score, play the requisite line on the piano, and then play the whole recorded example. Putting a computer into the process doesn't change the pedagogical situation there (USA); Most of these capabilities are now available to me (USA); None are utopian - we do them all (USA); The possibility for singers to do Sight singing with orchestra accompaniment (FRG); My (not at all utopian goal) is to have programs which allows for flexible input of answers combined with simple usage instructions (user- friendliness) (FRG); The existence of exercise libraries that can be expanded by the teacher (FRG); Programs in which the timbre, rhythm, melody, harmony and form can be influenced (FRG); The translation of sound into music notation (FRG); The manipulation of the sound spectrum (sound analysis and synthesis) and the spatial disposition of sounds and parts of the musical score (FRG); The computer. indicates errors in dictation (RSA); Possibilities for Graphic Audiovisuals - Animated screens - music is motion, therefore the visuals should move - including light-intensities and various forms of graphic scores - to be used to highlight one or other parameter/facet of the music (RSA); I would be open to any possibility of gaining aural skills (RSA and FRG).
Cross-tabulation calculations between program features and respondents who did include CAT and those who did not include CAT revealed that there was, with the exception of the RSA respondents, a general tendency amongst CAT respondents to indicate higher percentages of program wishes (differences of 6.8% - 27.2% between CAT and No CAT respondentsr It was very obvious that 19.4% of the No CAT FRG respondents did not answer this question. This most probably was due to a total lack of interest in CAT, a fact that was also seen in the 89.8% of FRG respondents who did not make use of computer-assisted instruction. There was also a tendency for the FRG response frequencies of ultimate computer program features to be slightly lower than those in the other two countries. Reasons for this could be that only five Aural Training computer programs have been available in the German language since the late 1980s. Furthermore, respondents were not very well-informed about the existence, the advantages and the disadvantages of CAT. Respondents from all three countries (RSA 85.7%, FRG 62.3%, USA 64.2%) nevertheless indicated that they would be interested in a workshop concerning the use of CAT.
Regarding the hardware used, the majority of the RSA respondents indicated the use of IBM/IBM compatible computers (75%). In the FRG 100% indicated the use of the Atari computer, while 64.1 % of the USA respondents used Macintosh computers and 51.3 % different Apple models. Only 28.2 % of the USA respondents indicated that they used no additional hardware for sound generation. The use of sound cards was indicated by the majority of RSA respondents (74%), whereas synthesizers and sample players were indicated by the majority of respondents in the FRG (71.4%) and USA (61.5%). Twelve percent of all respondents indicated the use of samplers and 14% the use of Yamaha Clavinovas (electronic pianos).
A question on the choice of CAT software indicated that Guidowas used by all the RSA respondents. Only one RSA respondent included Practica Musica. German-developed programs (Audimax 71.4%, Computerkolleg, Aura, and sequencer programs (57.1 %» were indicated by the FRG respondents. In the USA self-programmed software (46.2%) and software published by Temporal Acuity Products (35.9%), Practica Musica (28.2%) and McGamut
(25.6%) were indicated by the majority of the respondents (35.9%). Other software used in the USA was: Software to accompany the Bruce Benward text Ear-Training: A Technique for Listening, McGamut, Guido, Perceive, Micro 'Notes Music Theory and CAMUS. The use of sequencer programs was mentioned by several respondents76, and a few USA respondents additionally indicated that they used more than one program in their computer labo- ratory. Only one USA respondent indicated the use of CD-ROM programs. No self-developed computer software was indicated in the RSA.
Such a wide variety of reasons for the the specific choices of software were given that a statistical interpretation of the results was meaningless. A few respondents indicated characteristics such as completeness and flexibility, satis- fying contents, student interaction and scoring features, efficiency, graduated order of difficulty, broad spectrum of training and the fact that it provided for the local needs, usability, both versatile and user-friendly. The majority of other comments revealed that the specific program was known, the only one available at the time/for the Apple/ Atari/Macintosh, the best amongst those available, was available/developed at their school, and "least worst".
Although it may be a practical solution, the availability of a program should never be the ultimate reason for choosing it. The last comment "least worst" summarised the state of CAT as being in need of a re-examination of the existing Aural Training software which concentrates on practice and drill only. This demand for revision was also evident in the fact that the majority of all the respondents who developed self-programmed software (55%) were dissatisfied with the commercially available software, and 45 % indicated that their programs had other features such as, for example, the ability to use any CD, the use of real music examples, direct microphone input to a pitch extractor which enables the conversion of input into notation, real-time harmonization, improvisation, playing-by- ear, harmonic dictation exercises in which different voices (SATB) can be emphasised with each playing. There was a
76
"Sequencers are to the digital music world what tape decks are to the analog music world. Like tape decks, sequencers record and store music data, allowing the musician to edit that music, record multiple tracks, listen to and play that same music, and modify it to his or her particular liking." Harvey P. Newquist, Music &
strong correlation between these newer program trends and most of the earlier discussed 'wish" programs that
emphasised more creative, holistic and practice-orientated approaches to Aural Training.77
Whereas 75 % of the RSA respondents indicated that the achievements of their students improved noticeably since they started to use CAT, only 43.6% of the USA respondents indicated this, with 20.5% indicating a definite "no". The hypothesis In cases where Computer-assisted Aural Training has been applied, the achievements of students have
improved noticeably was proved to be true for the majority of the RSA and USA respondents. It is, however,
important to note that 35.9% of the USA respondents indicated that they had not been using the computer for a long enough period to answer this question. This was also indicated by 85.7 % of the FRG respondents.
From the graph presented in Fig. 3.4 it can be clearly seen that mostly drill exercises benefited the most by computer treatment. The improvement of interval awareness and dictation was indicated by 85.7 %, and harmonic-functional hearing by 71.4% of all respondents. It was also very obvious that the more creative and comprehensive exercises, such as Aural Analysis and the comprehension of musical structures, were indicated by low percentages of respondents. The development of timbre perception was not indicated by any respondent. It can be concluded that software in its current state has a limited scope for improving skills. Most emphasis is placed on a fragmented approach of drill in isolated parameters.
Fig. 3.4 Efficiency of CAT in all three countries: Improved skills
100 80 '"
=
~ '" !:! 0•..
E Oil 0 'Il) c .J:: ""=
Il) 0 2 ,g ::E ;;.s
SKILLSo
13
';;; =c...
oa
.;;;I
'c8
Only one of the nine respondents who were willing to make their software available for research purposes actually responded by mailing software to the researcher. The contents of the programs described above could thus not be surveyed.
20