Volume 11, No. 1

PERCEPTION SRIG NEWSLETTER

Vol. 11, No. 1

Winter 1995

Steven M. Demorest, Editor

Kim Walls, Associate Editor

**********************************************

Perceptions:

A Continuing Dialogue on Issues of Importance to Perception Researchers

================================================================== =====

For this issue, our E-Mail members were asked to respond to the

following question, "If you had to chose a single paradigm to guide

future music education research in the field of music perception, what

would it be?." Thank you to all who responded. Here are selected

responses from some of the leading researchers in our field:

I favor paradigms that use increasingly more complex and "real" music

stimuli that do not suffer from the problem of decontextualized

laboratory settings. I favor mixed approaches to data collection that

feature data from quantitative and qualitative means.

I do not believe a single paradigm approach is productive nor conducive

to research. The more perspectives that are brought to bear on a topic,

the more likely you will end up with a complete picture. Paradigms are

not mutually exclusive; indeed, when viewed with a broad view, the can

only enhance each other. There is not enough ongoing research as it is.

Efforts should be directed to productivity, regardless of mode of inquiry.

A single paradigm? I could not choose--not for research, nor for

pedagogical practice. The richness of our field, and the many dimensions

of our questions cannot be pursued through travels down a single

pathway. My sense is that we must continue our experimental work, and

that we consider as well the potential for other empirical means of

study--with our directions informed by our friends in the social

sciences, from A (anthropology) to Z (zoology).

I feel strongly that the future paradigm for perception research lies

with qualitative studies that offer the possibility for "meaningful"

understanding of how music is perceived. We have had nearly 3/4 of a

century of quantitative studies which have provided much information

about factual perception modes but we know little about what meaning

people take from these modes. This is a qualitative problem and one that

offers much hope and exciting future.

Campbell & Heller (Handbook of Music Psychology, 1980) propose a paradigm

shift from a Cartesian view to a Humean view. In the Cartesian view,

"truth" is that which is measured objectively (e.g., intonation as

measured by a Strobotuner). In the Humean view, "truth" is reality as

perceived by a human observer. If three subjects identify a test tone as

sharp, flat, and in-tune, respectively, each has a perception which is

valid, according to a Humean perspective. From the Cartesian standpoint,

only one of the responses could be valid; the others would be considered

"incorrect." There is much in Campbell & Heller's discussion that is

still important for music perception researchers to consider.

First, we have to assume that the term, "music education research" does

not limit the scope of research in music perception (since music

education, as a field of interest, encompasses almost all aspects of

music perception). Second, we should take the broad definition of

perception; that is, we should not attempt to draw a line

where perception ends and cognition begins (actually, perception and

cognition are interactive, so we can't draw lines, anyway. Frankly, I

would be very much in favor of renaming our PSRIG to something that

includes music sensation [or neurology] and cognition). The paradigm, or

model I would choose is one that is based in relevancy to "real"

activities in music. For example, sight reading is a "real" activity.

If we want to teach our students to become better sight readers, we have

to thoroughly examine musicians who are good sight readers--comparing

them to those of equal musical skill who aren't good sight readers. The

outcome of this kind of research may or may not have practical

implications for music education (chances are good that it will); but if

it does not--then at least it provides data for additional research.

Eventually, and given enough research, we will understand how to train

students to be good sight readers. The point here is that we should

always have a practical objective for our research--that we should start

with a goal and design an organized set of studies that seeks to satisfy

that goal.

*******************************

FROM THE CHAIR

Hey, Buddy Can You "Paradigm"?

==============================

Steven M. Demorest

The word 'paradigm' has become a frequently used term in

education and other fields to describe a particular philosophy,

framework, or approach to a problem. In scientific inquiry the term has

been defined more specifically as a theory that a) attracts a group of

adherents away from previous or competing theories, and b) is open-ended

enough to leave problems that must be tested and resolved (Kuhn, 1970).

In Kuhn's view these paradigms "implicitly define the legitimate problems

and methods of a research field for succeeding generations of

practitioners" (p. 10). The question posed to our members in the

previous column was perhaps unfair in terms of choosing ONE paradigm, but

I was curious as to what theories or approaches may have captured

peopleUs imaginations. One of the questions raised by many of the

respondents was whether or not it was desirable to seek RaS paradigm for

perceptual research in music education. I would like to speak to that

issue here.

I believe that perceptual research in music education would

benefit greatly from one or two shared paradigms to guide our work. We

seem to fear the limiting aspects of working within a theory, perhaps

afraid that we might "miss" something by adopting a particular world

view. That is certainly a legitimate concern, but, as Francis Bacon

said, "Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion."

Without clear paradigms to guide our research, we run the risk of

'drowning in a sea of data', in which each new result can only be

understood and evaluated within the individual researcherUs own implicit

or explicit world view. I would not presume in this forum to propose

which research approaches or theories are the most promising, but I

believe we as music perception researchers in music education must make

such a decision if we are to advance our knowledge in any significant

way.

By way of example, I point to music theory's relatively recent

foray into music perception and cognition research over the last 10+

years, which has already produced a large body of information. One

explanation for this productivity is that music theoristUs historically

have worked within a particular shared theoretical framework or

paradigm. They speak of a "Schenkarian" approach to analysis, much as

one might take a "Newtonian" view of physics. By working within shared

paradigms theorists intersted in music perception have produced a

significant body of research on Krumhansl's Tonal Heirarchy Theory,

Lerdahl and Jackendoff's Generative Theory, and more recently, Butler's

Intervallic Rivalry Theory. While any one of these theories may be found

false at some point in the future (indeed Popper suggested that that is

the ultimate fate of all scientific hypotheses), that does not diminish a

theoryUs usefulness in providing a common reference point for researchers

to compare what they know about a phenomenon.

I am not suggesting that we adopt music theoryUs paradigms, since

I think our goals are often quite different. What I do suggest is that

we seek out or develop some compelling theories or at least common

approaches to guide our study of music perception and its relationship to

education. I would like to stress that I am not suggesting a decision

between qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Those terms

refer to the type of data being collected and corresponding methods, not

to a theoretical framework. Both qualitative and quantitative

information are necessary to examine the validity of a particular theory

of music perception and music learning. I think we need to take a stand,

pick a side, and dare to be wrong if we are going to progress as a

discipline.

I invite discussion on this issue in the form of either letters to the

editor or articles. If you have questions that we might distribute for

the next "Perceptions" column, please send it to me, or contact the SRIG

Chair for your region.

Reference

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. (Second

ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

***********************

Convention Focus:

Interdisciplinary Research in Music Perception

==============================================

Steve Demorest

I had the pleasure of attending two very interesting conferences

this past year related to music perception research. The first was the

"International Conference for Music Perception and Cognition" held last

July in Liege, Belgium. It was an incredibly broad-ranging program with

papers presented in the areas of neuropsychology, development of

perception and cognition, prenatal audition, tonal relations in cognition

and music performance to name a few. Some of the featured presenters

were Dowling, Sloboda, Trehub, Bharucha, Lerdahl, and Narmour. The

Perception SRIG was represented by myself, Eugenia Costa-Giomi, and Carol

Richardson. We discussed how wonderful it would be to have more

interaction between music education researchers and the other disciplines

represented. Next year the national conference of this organization will

be held at Berkley in June. I will distribute more specific information

when I receive it.

The second conference I attended was the Society for Music Theory

Conference, held this November in Tallahassee, Florida. I was very

impressed with both the amount and quality of cognition research going on

in SMT's Cognition Research Group. I was part of a poster session in

which almost all the "posters" were actually interactive computer setups

where participants could try out software, or perform the task from

somebody's study. Kim Walls and I are exploring the possibility of a

similar session for our conference in Kansas City.

For our SRIG session in Kansas City, the chairs and I are

proposing an interdisciplinary panel featuring a psychologist, a music

theorist, a neurologist and a music educator to discuss issues of common

interest in music perception research. The success of such a session

would depend on a) finding outstanding representatives from these

disciplines (that would come for FREE), and b) having a very focused set

of questions for them to address. This is where you come in. I would

like to ask all the members of the SRIG to submit nominations for

participants and potential discussion topics to me at:

Steven M. Demorest

School of Music, DN-10

University of Washington

Seattle, WA 98195

All nominations and topics will be considered. If the panel proposal

becomes too unwieldy, the backup plan would be to feature a single

researcher from one of the disciplines listed above. Thank you in

advance for your input and participation.

*************************************

SRIG E-Mail Directory

=====================

We have added quite a few names to our directory, so I thought

I'd include an updated list. We are trying to move away from a paper

newsletter, since E-Mail is so much more interactive and cheaper to

distribute. If you have access to E-mail at your institution, we would

appreciate the opportunity to move you off the paper list and on to the

electronic one. Just send your name and institutional affiliation to

the SRIG Chair.

[Note from Editor/Webmaster in 2006: Due to rampant abuse of email addresses, only the names have been retained in the list below to assist in minimizing the amount of spam and other unwanted email received by our members. Member email addresses were included in the original Newsletter.]

The Directory-------------

Asmus, Edward (U of Utah)

Barrett, Janet R. (U of W-Whitewater)

Barry, Nancy (Auburn University)

Bartel, Lee (U of Toronto)

Bauer, Bill (Kent State University)

Blackman, Mary Dave (Weber St)

Brown, Rebekah (Indiana U)

Carlsen, James (U of Washington)

Coffman, Don (U of Iowa)

Coffman, Phillip (U of Minn-Duluth)

Colwell, Richard (New England Consv.)

Cooper, Nancy (Rutgers U)

Costa-Giomi, Eugenia (McGill U)

Cutietta, Robert (Kent State U)

Delzell, Judith (Ohio State U)

Demorest, Steven (U of Washington)

Duke, Robert A. (U of Texas-Austin)

Dura, Marian (Northwestern U)

Flohr, John (Texas Womans U)

Fung , Victor (U of Minnesota)

Gates, Terry (SUNY-Buffalo)

Goolsby, Thomas (U of Washington)

Gumm, Alan (Ithaca College)

Hair, Harriet (U of Georgia)

Hamann, Don (Kent State U)

Heuser, Frank (U of Oregon)

Hickey, Maud (Ithaca College)

Hodges, Don (UT-SanAntonio)

Hughes, Tom (Sydney Conservatory)

Humphreys, Jere (Arizona State U)

Imhoff, Jim (SUNY-Potsdam)

Jorgensen, Estelle (U of Indiana)

Kuhn, Terry (Kent State U)

Lee, Karen (Connecticut College)

Manthei, Mike (U of Minnesota)

May, William (U of North Texas)

McAllister, Peter (Kent State U)

Ogawa, Masafumi (Oita U)

Oliva, Jack (U of Florida)

Palmer, Anthony

Price, Harry (U of Alabama)

Rasmussen, Nancy (U of Wisconsin)

Roberts, Brian (Memorial U, Newf)

Schleuter, Stan (Indiana U)

Smith, William (Radford U.)

Taylor, Jack (Florida State U)

Thompson, Keith (Penn State U)

Tunks, Tom (Southern Methodist U)

Walls, Kim (UT-San Antonio)

Weaver, Molly (West Virginia U)

Webster, Peter (Northwestern U)

Wells, Barrie (Arizona State U)

York, Frank (James Cook U)

********************************

Abstracts of Ongoing Research

=============================

An Investigation of the Effect of Training with a Tuning Fork

on the Development of Pseudo-Absolute Pitch: A Study in Progress

Rosemary C. Watkins and Kimberly C. Walls

This study is designed to determine if subjects trained to use

A=440 as a reference pitch will be able to sing notated random pitches,

without aid of an external referent, more accurately than those who have

not been trained. Subjects are 37 undergraduate instrumental and vocal

music majors in two intact classes, enrolled in the third semester of a

four-semester aural skills sequence at a medium-sized state university.

One section of 19 students was randomly chosen as the experimental group;

the other section of 18 students will serve as the control group. Three

subjects were eliminated from the study (N=37) because they declined to

participate or failed to complete the pretest. The test instrument for

both tests consists of ten pitches randomly chosen from a twelve-note

chromatic scale. Enharmonic notes will be determined as sharps or flats

by tossing a coin. Subjects will randomly select one of three item

orders for each test and sing the pitches. The treatment phase of the

study will consist of one ten-minute training session per week for a

total of ten weeks. A collection of eight folk song excerpts, each with

the same starting pitch, will be used in each training session. For the

first training session, the collection will be transposed so that the

starting pitch for each excerpt is A; for each subsequent session, the

collection will be transposed to have a different starting pitch,

according to the order of intervals presented in the course textbook. At

every session, subjects will be instructed to sound an A=440 tuning

fork, match the pitch in their most comfortable register, and sing the

pitch aloud in response to a conducting cue before singing each excerpt.

The control group will be taught as usual with no additional training in

the use of A=440 as a reference pitch. Audio recordings of the subjectsU

pre- and posttest vocal responses will be analyzed for pitch accuracy.

Responses within a quarter-step (50 cents) of the pitch will be judged as

correct and assigned a value of 1 point. Responses which are from a

quarter- to a half-step from the pitch will be assigned a value of .5

point. Other responses will be assigned no points. An analysis of

covariance (ANCOVA) will be calculated using the subjectsU total pretest

scores as covariate.

For more information please contact Kim Walls.

=================

The Effect of Diverse Timbres on Singing Response of Education Majors:

A Study in Progress

Lynn M. Brinckmeyer

The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of

varying the stimulus timbre on collegiate education majors pitch-matching

response. The task requires each subject to sing back nine individual

pitches played by each of three different instruments: trumpet,

clarinet, and piano. 86 education majors from varying backgrounds have

participated to date.

The dependent variable of singing in tune is measured by the Kay

Elemetrics DSP Sona-Graph model 5500. Accuracy scores compare each of

the 27 stimulus pitches with its consecutive response. There are three

within-subject levels of the independent variable represented by the

trumpet, clarinet and piano stimuli. A multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) will be used to test for significant differences in each of the

three timbre conditions.

This is a replication and extension of a previous study conducted

by the researcher. The earlier experiment utilized the same

instrumental stimulus timbres, but focused on vocal responses of

non-singing collegiate music majors and high school instrumental

students. This study should provide information about the most effective

pitch sources to use for teaching singing to individuals who are

unaccustomed to participating in singing activities.

For more information please contact Lynn M. Brinckmeyer.

***********************

UPCOMING CONFERENCES AND CONVENTIONS

====================================

Sixteenth International Seminar on

Research in Music Education

Frascati, Italy

July 13-19, 1995

and

XXII ISME International Conference

Amsterdam, Holland

July 21-27, 1996

Call for Papers---------------

The Research Commission of the International Society for Music Education

invites (a) reports of recent research in music education for the

Sixteenth International Seminar to be held from July 13-19, 1996 in

Frascati, Italy, and (b) research posters for the XXII International

Conference of ISME to be held from July 21-27, 1996 in Amsterdam, Holland.

The purpose of these meetings is to provide discussion of results

and implications of recently completed research as well as its

methodology. Papers selected will normally reflect an experimental,

observational, descriptive, ethnographic, philosophical, or historical

research design. Papers selected will focus upon a clearly articulated

research question or hypothesis.

Twenty-five (25) papers will be selected from those submitted,

and the authors will be invited to participate in the seminar as guests

of the Commission (room and board for the week will be provided). Papers

will also be selected for the poster session as part of the Research

CommissionUs presentation at the XXII ISME International Conference in

Amsterdam. (Participants in the poster session will be expected to pay

for their own accomodation and board.)

Procedures for submitting papers are as follows:

1. Submit three copies of a paper reporting recently completed research

with contributes to the theory or practice of music education. The

implications of the research for music education should be stated clearly.

2. The papers must be submitted in English, since the formal sessions of

the seminar will be in English.

3. The paper must be complete, but must not exceed 2000 words excluding

references. No more than one table and one figure shall be included.

4. Three copies of an abstract (of no more than 200 words) must

accompany the paper.

5. If a multiple-author paper is selected, only one author will be invited.

6. Papers and abstracts must be typed and double spaced.

7. At the top of the first page of the paper and of the abstract, the

following information should be included:

a. Name

b. Complete mailing address, with FAX number and email address

if available.

c. ONE of the following statements:

(i) This paper is submitted for consideration for the

Sixteenth International Research Seminar, Frascati, July 1996.

(ii) This paper is submitted for consideration for the

poster session as part of the Research Commission's presentation at the

XXII ISME International Conferenc in Amsterdam, July, 1996.

(iii) This paper is submitted for consideration for BOTH

the Sixteenth International Research Seminar, Frascati,

and the poster session at the XXII ISME International Conference,

Amsterdam, July, 1996.

8. Submit a one-page curriculum vitae, including the highest academic

degree held, current teaching (or other) position, a bibliography of

research articles published since January 1992 and principal area(s) of

research interest.

9. Submit a statement specifying particulars of any earlier presentation

of the paper at a seminar or conference at national or international

levels. Submission of a paper signifies that the author agrees to comply

with the code of ethics governing duplicate publications of papers as

specified, for example, by the Journal of Research in Music Education..

10. Decisions concerning the acceptance of papers rests solely with the

Research Commission. Manuscripts submitted will not be returned. The

Commission reserves the right to publish invited papers and abstract.

11. Submitted materials not meeting these criteria will not be

considered by the Research Commission. Manuscripts submitted will not be

returned. The Commission reserves the right to publish invited papers

and abstracts.

12. Three copies of the 2000 word paper, the 200-word abstract and the

one-page curriculum vitae must be postmarked AIRMAIL no later than

November 1, 1995. All materials should be sent directly to the Research

Commission member in your geographic region: United States

Dr. John Geringer,

School of Music,

University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, Texas 78712-1208,

U.S.A.

======================================

Association for Technology in Music Instruction (ATMI)

The Conference Committee of ATMI invites the submission of proposals for

papers, presentations, workshops, panels, and software demonstrations to

be presented at the 1995 ATMI Conference. This meeting will be held

jointly with the College Music Society and will take place November 9-12

in Portland, Oregon.

PAPERS,PRESENTATIONS, and WORKSHOPS: Topics dealing with all

aspects of technology in music instruction are welcome. Especially

encouraged are papers, presentations, and workshops that focus on the

central theme: MUSIC TECHNOLOGY FOR TOMORROW. To this end, the

Conference Committee invites individual and joint proposals concerning:

1) The Internet and Its Use in Teaching; 2) Multimedia and

Digital Movies; 3) Research on the Effectiveness of Music

Technology; 4) Innovative Interdisciplinary Uses of Technology in the

Arts; 5) K-12 Applications, Tools, and Techniques; 6) Telecourses

and Long Distance Learning

SOFTWARE DEMONSTRATIONS: Also encouraged are presentations that

focus on newly authored software from all aspects of the music

curriculum. Especially welcomed are programs that take an innovative

approach to music teaching and learning. Proposals should include a

complete description of the software's design and its use in the teaching

environment.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES: All proposals will be submitted for

blind review and authors are encouraged to exclude references to

individuals or institutions that might compromise this process. Proposals

for papers, presentations, and workshops should include clear statements

of theoretical background, methodology, and conclusions. Panel proposals

should include a complete description of the content to be covered,

panelists and their affiliation, and confirmation of panelists

participation. Proposals should be no more than 2,000 words and contain a

detailed listing of required equipment and operating system(s).

Deadline for submission is FEBRUARY 28, 1995. Both e-mail and

regular mail submissions will be acknowledged upon receipt. Send four

copies of each proposal to: Frank Clark

ATMI Program Chair

Department of Music, FCE 5

University of South Alabama

Mobile, Alabama 36688

E-mail submissions are encouraged and can be sent to Frank Clark.

INDIANA SYMPOSIUM ON INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES ON MUSIC EDUCATION

April 7-10, 1995

This symposium is the fourth in a series of international

symposia on music education research, sponsored by the School of Music,

Indiana University, and held on the Bloomington campus. It is devoted to

the in-depth discussionof recent unpublished research in music

education. Papers representing a variety of disciplines including

sociology, anthropology, ethnomusicology, psychology, history,

philosophy, religion, and education, and other fields related to music

education will be presented.

SOCIETY FOR MUSIC PERCEPTION AND COGNITION

Conference, 22-25 June 1995

University of California at Berkeley

Sponsors:

Center for New Music and Audio Technologies (CNMAT)

Department of Psychology

Department of Music

Proposals for papers, panels, and other sessions are invited in the form of

300-500 word abstracts. Abstracts can be posted to:

SMPC Conference Secretary

CNMAT

1750 Arch Street

Berkeley, California 94720

Electronic submission is encouraged

Deadline is 15 March 1995

THE END

A whopper huh??

=================================================================

Steven M. Demorest Phone: (206)-543-7587

Music Education FAX: (206)-685-9499

School of Music, DN-10

University of Washington

Seattle, WA 98195