MENC: The National Association for Music Education

A Descriptive Analysis of Error Correction in Instrumental Music Rehearsals

Author(s): Mary Ellen Cavitt
Source: Journal of Research in Music Education, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Autumn, 2003), pp. 218-230
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of MENC: The National Association for Music
Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345375 .
Accessed: 19/04/2014 02:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and MENC: The National Association for Music Education are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Research in Music Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
218 JRME 2003, VOLUME 51, NUMBER 3, PAGES218-230
This study is a descriptionof the errorcorrectionprocess in 40 instrumental music
rehearsalstaught by 10 teachers,each of whom was observedconducting 4 consecu-
tive rehearsals.A total of 332 rehearsalframes wereanalyzed. Rather than summing
the observation data across completerehearsals,I analyzed the data using rehearsal
frames as a unit of analysis. Perhaps the most importantfinding was that the error
correctionprocess, rate of teacher-studentinteraction, and pace varied systematically
with the type of erroraddressed.

Mary Ellen Cavitt, The University of Texas at San Antonio

A DescriptiveAnalysis of
Error Correction in
Instrumental
Music Rehearsals

A major goal of teaching instrumental music is to effect positive

change and refine the quality of student performance in music
rehearsals. Even though the minimization of errors is probably a goal
of most teachers, errors persist. Errors occur naturally in the learning
process, and how teachers deal with inevitable errors in student per-
formance is one of the fundamental components of teaching exper-
tise. The task for teachers of music performance skills is to quickly
correct errors that occur, before inaccurate or incorrect aspects of
performance develop habit strength that makes them resistant to
change.
Nearly all the extant research in the field of music education that
has addressed the subject of errors in performance has been limited
to the study of error detection. A number of investigators have
assessed the abilities of music students to detect a variety of error fac-
tors in music performances (Blocher, 1986; Brand & Burnsed, 1981;
Byo, 1993, 1997; Deal, 1985; DeCarbo, 1982; Doane, 1989; Sheldon,
1998). This attention to error detection is certainly well-placed, since

This article is based on the author's doctoral dissertation, "A Descriptive Analysis
of Error Correction in Expert Teachers' Instrumental Music Rehearsals," accepted in
May 1998 by the University of Texas at Austin. Mary Ellen Cavitt is an assistant profes-
sor of music education in the Department of Music, The University of Texas at San
Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249-0645; e-mail: mcavitt@utsa.edu. Copyright ? 2003 by
MENC: The National Association for Music Education.

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JRME 219

error detection is a requisite component of the error correction

process. But the correction of errors involves additional skills beyond
error detection. Error correction involves knowing what, when, and
how to bring about positive changes in student performance.
Although there have been several textbooks written that provide
solutions to common errors, there has been very little systematic
research in this area. Researchers in a number of studies have inves-
tigated diagnostic, prescriptive, communication, and problem-solv-
ing skills related to error correction in instrumental music rehearsals
(Doerksen, 1994; Francisco, 1994; Menchaca, 1988; Williams, 1984).
Each of these studies focused on teacher behaviors across entire
rehearsals. Results indicated that (a) teachers used verbal instruction
most often when attempting to solve problems in music performance
(Menchaca, 1988); (b) teachers addressed the following fundamen-
tal elements most often: pitch, rhythm, tempo, articulation, and
dynamics (Menchaca, 1988); (c) the problem of technique was the
easiest error to correct and that rhythm errors were easier to correct
than intonation errors (Francisco, 1994); (d) the majority of student
conductors identified intonation as the highest priority for correc-
tion, whereas professional band directors identified tone as the high-
est priority (Williams, 1984); and (e) performance problems associ-
ated with tone and intonation require long-term solutions
(Doerksen, 1994).
Goolsby (1996, 1997, 1999) examined the use of instructional time
in instrumental music classes to describe effective music instruction
and rehearsal pacing. In all three of these studies, he compared
teacher verbalizations, modeling, and performance variables within
videotaped band rehearsals. These studies are important because the
data collected is measured across the complete rehearsal and
because results indicated the time devoted to targeted performance
variables and teacher and student behaviors.
A great deal of research has described what takes place in the
music classroom, but very few investigators have attempted to link
what teachers do with the accomplishment of goals. Duke (1994) out-
lined a procedure for dividing instrumental music rehearsals into
segments, or rehearsal frames, devoted to the accomplishment of
identifiable goals. Each rehearsal frame begins at the teacher's
implicit or explicit identification of a performance goal or error and
continues until a subsequent goal is identified or until the goal is
abandoned for another activity. Once the targeted goal is identified,
the teacher may decide to decontextualize or reduce the size of the
ensemble or scope of the music to effect a positive change in the tar-
get. All instructional activities and student performances that pertain
to the rehearsal of the target passage are included in the rehearsal
frame. Duke (1999/2000) points out that the "organizing principle
for each rehearsal frame is the target-the proximal goal toward
which the instruction efforts are directed, and not the teacher behav-
iors and instructional strategies employed to effect changes in stu-
dent behavior."

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
220 CAVITT

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the process of

error correction as practiced by instrumental music teachers using
rehearsal frames as a unit of analysis. This research was an attempt to
describe the teacher behavior and student performance activities
that follow the detection and identification of errors in the context
of instrumental music rehearsals. Answers were sought to the follow-
ing questions:
1. What are the rates, durations, and proportions of time devoted
to teacher behaviors and student performance activities in rehearsal
frames that address the correction of performance errors and
include two or more performance trails?
2. Do teacher behaviors and student performance activities that
include two or more performance trials differ according to the type
of error that is addressed?

METHOD

Ten band directors, five middle school teachers and five high
school teachers, participated in the study. Three of the directors were
women; seven were men. Total years of teaching experience within
the sample of teachers ranged from 9 years to 33 years, with a mean
of 20.6 years. All teachers had received consistent superior ratings at
band contests, and participants' ensembles had won first place in a
large statewide concert band competition. This competition is rigor-
ous. One band in each school-size classification is selected by blind
audiotape audition from ensembles that receive superior ratings at
the regional level and whose directors have submitted recordings. In
addition to winning this competition, nine of the participants' bands
had also been named runner-up or placed in the top five in previous
years. Bands whose rehearsals were recorded for this investigation
represented the select ensemble in large-classification schools (mid-
dle schools of more than 250 seventh and eighth graders and high
schools of more than 700 students in grades 9 through 12) and
ranged in size from 41 to 80 band members in each ensemble.
All participants were videotaped during four consecutive
rehearsals (a total of 40 rehearsals), which were held in their usual
settings in school rehearsal rooms. The videocamera was positioned
at the back of the rehearsal room so that the videotaping was as
unobtrusive as possible. Band rehearsals were taped about 1-2 weeks
prior to the spring festival. Only the actual rehearsal of festival music
was analyzed for this investigation; warm-up activities, sight-reading,
and rehearsal of other repertoire were not examined.
In many instances, the correction of performance errors required
only a single verbal or nonverbal directive from the teacher, and the
error was corrected in the subsequent performance trial. At other
times, error correction required more than one performance trial,
and it is in these instances that the interactive process of error cor-
rection can be examined more easily. In the present study, only

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JRME 221

rehearsal frames that included two or more performance trials

directed toward the same target(s) were included in the analysis.
After I had noted the beginning and ending times using a video-
cassette recorder and identified the targets for each rehearsal frame,
I returned to each frame to record the timings of the teacher and stu-
dent behaviors selected for study using a computerized observation
program, SCRIBE: Simple Computer Recording Interface for
Behavioral Evaluation (Duke & Farra, 2002). Operational definitions
of behavior categories were developed from related research dealing
with rehearsal procedures and teacher-student interaction in music
performance instruction (Buckner, 1997; Siebenaler, 1992).
While watching the videotape in real time, I entered data by click-
ing with a mouse on buttons which I had labeled "teacher talk,"
"teacher modeling," "full ensemble plays," "section plays," "individual
plays," "performance approximation" (e.g., playing the rhythm of a
passage on a single pitch), "student talk," and "marking music."
Using the SCRIBE input window, I recorded teacher behavior and
student behavior on separate viewings of each rehearsal frame.
The SCRIBE program calculated event frequencies, rates, total
durations, mean episode durations, proportions of time, and stan-
dard deviations for each behavior category listed above. After record-
ing the data using SCRIBE and after printing a graphic timeline of
the observed behaviors within each rehearsal frame, I reviewed each
rehearsal frame again, and during this observation I recorded the
content of teacher verbalizations and modeling by writing notes by
hand on the SCRIBE timeline. Observation categories for teacher
verbalizations and modeling were defined and included the follow-
ing categories: Directive, Information, Questions, Positive Feedback,
Negative Feedback, Positive Modeling, Negative Modeling, and Off-
task Talking. I calculated the rates per minute for each of these activ-
ities by dividing the total number of occurrences of each behavior by
the duration of the rehearsal frame in which it appeared, expressed
in minutes.
The timing of the teacher's identification of performance errors
also was noted on the timeline. When a director came to rehearsal
with an error identified or a passage to be refined before students'
performance of the passage, this error identification was labeled
"prior to performance." Often, a director identified a performance
error only after the passage in which the error occurred was played
by the students. These instances of error identification were labeled
"subsequent to performance."
I labeled each rehearsal frame according to the type of target
error(s) addressed during that frame. Target types were operational-
ly defined and included the following: Articulation, Dynamics,
Intonation/Tone, Multiple Targets (several aspects of performance
in a passage may be addressed simultaneously), Pitch Accuracy,
Rhythm Accuracy, Technical Facility, Tempo, and Unidentified
Target (the teacher directs the ensemble to repeat a single passage of
music without verbalizing any specific directives or feedback). A sec-

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222 CAVITT

Table 1
of TotalFrameDuration,MeanRatesperMinute,MeanEpisodeDurations,and
Proportions
StandardDeviationsfor ObservedTeacherand Student BehaviorsacrossAll Rehearsal
Frames (N = 332)

Proportion of Mean Episode

Total Frame Rate per Duration
Duration Minute (in seconds)
Observation Categories M SD M SD M SD

Teacher Talk 52.57 14.49 5.35 3.10 7.98 5.58

Teacher Modeling 6.12 7.64 1.30 1.49 2.22 2.33

Student Performance 38.98 15.56 4.01 3.67 10.31 9.66

Full Ens. Perform. 18.73 20.66 0.77 1.16 14.87 19.65

Section Perform. 15.78 14.75 1.91 2.26 5.73 10.12

Individual Perform. 4.77 9.39 1.26 3.34 1.02 1.90

Performance Approx. 0.92 4.46 0.08 0.48 1.23 8.58

Student Talk - - 0.19 0.47

Marking Music - - 0.06 0.19

Note.Totalpercentagesof observedteacherand studentbehaviorsmayexceed 100%because

some observationcategoriesoccurredsimultaneously.

ond trained observer independently classified the target types of 20%

of the total rehearsal frames using the same target types and opera-
tional definitions. These 66 rehearsal frames (20%) were selected
randomly from among the 332 rehearsal frames analyzed for this
investigation. Reliability between the two independent observations,
which was calculated by dividing agreements by the total number of
observations, was .86.

RESULTSAND DISCUSSION

From the rehearsal time devoted to concert repertoire within the

40 rehearsals, 332 error correction rehearsal frames were selected for
analysis-a total of 955 minutes (15.9 hours) or 49% of the total
duration of repertoire rehearsal time (1,949.54 minutes). Rehearsal
frames ranged in duration from 9 seconds to 21 minutes 6 seconds.
The mean duration of rehearsal frames was 2 minutes 53 seconds,
and the mean number of rehearsal frames for each of the observed
teachers was approximately 33.

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JRME 223

Table 1 includes the proportions of total frame duration, mean

rates per minute, mean episode durations, and standard deviations
for observed teacher and student behaviors across all 332 rehearsal
frames. Note that combined teacher behaviors encompass approxi-
mately 59% of the rehearsal frame whereas combined student activi-
ties represent approximately 40% of the rehearsal frame.
In error correction rehearsal frames as defined in this study, teach-
ers talked for approximately half (53%) of each rehearsal frame.
When the mean episode duration is examined, one can see that
teachers talked for a mean episode duration of approximately 8 sec-
onds and at a mean rate of approximately 5 per minute. This may
indicate that what is important is not the overall duration of the
teacher talk, but instead, the rate of interaction as defined by the
mean episode duration and the rate of teacher talk episodes. The
mean episode duration for observed teacher behaviors is relatively
brief and the rate of occurrence is relatively high. The mean episode
duration for teacher modeling was 2 seconds, and teacher modeling
occurred at a mean rate just over 1 per minute (see Table 1).
Recent decades of teacher education have been dedicated to
encouraging teachers to be more positive and less negative in the
classroom. The results of this study showed that, across all rehearsal
frames observed, teachers used twice as much negative feedback
(1.22 comments per minute) as positive feedback (.59 per minute)
when attempting to correct errors. It is important to emphasize, how-
ever, that the teachers discussed the targeted error in a dispassionate,
businesslike manner. Negative feedback was neither sarcastic nor
demeaning to students, and there were no obvious indications that
the students responded to the negative feedback as if it were person-
ally punishing. The feedback most often focused on very specific
information regarding the performance rather than focusing on
social behavior or the student personally. Given the frequency with
which students received feedback, both positive and negative, it
seemed to be an established part of the daily routine.
Table 2 shows that rehearsal frames that addressed Intonation/
Tone Targets were most frequently observed, followed by rehearsal
frames that addressed Articulation, Rhythm, Multiple Targets,
Dynamics, Tempo, Pitch Accuracy, Unidentified Targets, and
Technical Facility. Rehearsal frames that addressed Intonation/Tone
targets, while more frequent than other target types, were shorter in
duration (M = 1.97 minutes) than all other rehearsal frame cate-
gories. The mean duration of rehearsal frames across all target types
ranged from approximately 2 to 3 minutes, with the exception of
rehearsal frames that addressed Multiple Targets, whose mean dura-
tion was 5.3 minutes.
Table 3 shows the mean percentages of total duration, mean rates per
minute, and mean episode durations for teacher modeling, teacher talk,
and student performance activities in each rehearsal frame category.
Viewed together, these data indicate important differences in the ways
in which targets were rehearsed within the rehearsal frames observed.

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
224 CAVITT

Table2
Numberand Percentageof RehearsalFramesContainingEach TargetTypeand Mean
Durationsof RehearsalFramesDevotedto Each TargetType

RehearsalFrameDuration
in Minutes
Percentageof all
TargetType N RehearsalFrames Total M SD

Intonation/Tone 71 21.4 139.75 1.97 1.68

Articulation 67 20.2 176.67 2.64 1.93

Rhythm 49 14.8 144.90 2.96 2.67

MultipleTargets 47 14.2 249.13 5.30 4.18

Dynamics 46 13.9 110.65 2.41 1.62

Tempo 19 5.7 60.70 3.19 1.79

PitchAccuracy 13 3.9 30.41 2.34 1.41
UnidentifiedTargets 11 3.3 23.13 2.10 1.22
TechnicalFacility 9 2.7 20.33 2.26 1.41

Overall 332 100.0% 955.67 2.88 2.57

The most important finding in this study was that the pace of
instruction or level of interaction between teacher and student per-
formance varied with the error correction task. This expands upon
many conventional ideas about pacing that focus on the ideal overall
rates of interaction between students and teachers. The nature of the
targeted error and the error correction process associated with it
apparently influenced the rate of interaction.
To illustrate this, I created an overall measure of the rate of inter-
action within each rehearsal frame category by summing the mean
rates per minute for all of the behaviors whose timings were record-
ed. The resultant combined rates per minute of these behaviors for
each rehearsal frame category are, in descending order: Technical
Facility (17.05), Pitch Accuracy (14.27), Intonation/Tone (13.44),
Unidentified Targets (11.84), Rhythm (11.28), Articulation (10.47),
Multiple Targets (8.07), Dynamics (7.64), and Tempo (7.12).
Rehearsal frames devoted to Pitch Accuracy targets and
Intonation/Tone targets were highly interactive and had the highest
mean rates of Individual Performance. The mean episode duration
for Individual Performance was 1 second in rehearsal frames that
addressed Pitch Accuracy and 2 seconds in rehearsal frames that

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JRME 225

addressed Intonation/Tone. The longer individual performance

episodes related to Intonation/Tone may indicate that less time was
necessary to determine whether a pitch was correct than was
required to determine whether a pitch was in tune.
Rehearsal frames that addressed Rhythm Targets comprised the
greatest variety of teacher and student behaviors (see Table 3). In
rehearsal frames in this category, teachers asked students to play indi-
vidually, as a section, and as a full ensemble when correcting rhythm
errors. Performance Approximations occurred at a higher rate
(approximately .28 per minute) in this rehearsal frame category than
in any other category. Most often, students were asked to clap and
count rhythms aloud.
Rehearsal frames that addressed Articulation, Multiple Targets,
Dynamics, and Tempo Targets (see Table 3) most frequently com-
prised section and full ensemble performance episodes. Individual
performance trials occurred at rates below .50 per minute within
each of these rehearsal frame categories. Rehearsal frames that
addressed Dynamics, Multiple Targets, and Tempo Targets, which
had the lowest combined rates per minute of teacher talk, teacher
modeling, and student performance, also had the highest mean
episode durations of Teacher Talk, indicating that rehearsal frames
with the slowest pace (i.e., the lowest combined rates per minute)
were found to include the longest mean Teacher Talk episodes. The
longest mean episode duration for Full Ensemble Performance
occurred in the rehearsal frames that addressed Tempo Targets, and
the longest mean episode duration for Section Performance
occurred in rehearsal frames that addressed Multiple Targets. As
would have been expected, rehearsal frames with less teacher-stu-
dent interaction and lower overall rates per minute included longer
episodes of Teacher Talk and student performance.
These results demonstrate that the pace of instruction (i.e., the
rate of teacher-student interaction) differed among rehearsal frame
categories. The pace was related to the nature of the error being cor-
rected or the information being presented. The feedback necessary
to respond to an intonation error, for example, often required only
a very brief teacher verbalization. Addressing errors related to tempo
often required relatively long full-ensemble performance to remedi-
ate the error in the context in which it existed.
The rate of teacher verbalizations within different types of
rehearsal frames was also examined. Directives were verbalized at a
rate of approximately 1 to 2 per minute for each rehearsal frame cat-
egory. Rehearsal frames devoted to Articulation targets had the high-
est rate of directives, approximately 2.5 per minute. Negative feed-
back occurred at a rate twice that of positive feedback in all rehearsal
frame categories except Dynamics and Rhythm. The highest rates of
both positive and negative feedback from teachers were found in
rehearsal frames that addressed Intonation/Tone errors.
While writing notes on the activities that took place during each
rehearsal frame, I noted whether the teacher identified each target

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
226 CAVITT

Table 3
Mean Percentages of Total Frame Duration, Mean Rates per Minute, Mean Episode
Durations (in seconds) for TeacherTalk, TeacherModeling, and Student Performance
Activities in Each Rehearsal Frame Category

Teacher Behaviors Student Performance Activities

Target Type M Talk Model Full Ens. Section Individual Approx.

Intonation/tone % 52.19 2.25 12.42 15.46 14.42 0.0

RPM 6.61 0.67 0.32 1.80 4.04 0.0

ED 5.52 1.21 11.47 4.35 2.07 0.0

Articulation % 55.06 8.43 16.37 16.40 1.93 1.03

RPM 5.49 1.86 0.94 1.85 0.27 0.06

ED 7.36 2.67 12.67 6.78 0.54 1.57

Rhythm % 48.14 11.78 18.31 16.94 2.59 1.94

RPM 5.41 2.22 0.72 2.09 0.56 0.28

ED 7.81 3.08 18.51 5.52 0.56 1.97

Multiple targets % 54.29 5.31 20.70 16.04 2.88 0.71

RPM 4.14 1.01 0.71 1.69 0.47 0.05

ED 10.70 2.61 17.65 9.31 1.60 2.96

Dynamics % 56.75 3.11 24.08 11.63 1.13 1.29

RPM 4.14 0.63 1.37 1.18 0.21 0.11

ED 10.15 1.56 14.58 5.42 0.54 0.61

Tempo % 49.71 5.88 33.73 9.19 0.31 2.54

RPM 3.76 1.22 0.95 0.90 0.14 0.15

ED 11.51 2.27 21.62 4.22 0.07 2.05

Pitch accuracy % 52.29 4.52 16.02 18.05 6.63 0.0

RPM 6.19 0.91 0.55 2.84 3.78 0.0

ED 5.82 2.78 16.38 3.41 1.42 0.0

(Table3 continueson nextpage.)

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JRME 227

Table 3 (Continued)
Mean Percentagesof TotalFrameDuration, Mean Ratesper Minute, Mean Episode
Durations (in seconds)for TeacherTalk, TeacherModeling,and StudentPerformance
Activitiesin Each RehearsalFrameCategory

Teacher Behaviors Student Performance Activities

Target Type M Talk Model Full Ens. Section Individual Approx.

Unidentified % 49.16 6.81 21.95 22.72 0.0 0.0

Targets
RPM 5.61 1.43 1.04 3.76 0.0 0.0

ED 7.72 2.22 10.66 4.10 0.0 0.0

Technical % 41.36 10.17 19.10 23.90 2.61 0.0

Facility
RPM 8.39 2.72 0.34 5.34 0.26 0.0

ED 3.39 2.48 13.83 3.38 0.69 0.0

Note. % = mean percentages of total frame duration; RPM = mean rates per minute; ED =
mean episode duration.

before or after the students' performance of the passage in which the

target appeared. Approximately 30% of all of the targeted errors
were identified prior to the performance (apparently remembering
the error from a preceding rehearsal); approximately 70% of the
errors were identified after the performance.
As stated previously, all observed subjects were videotaped approx-
imately 1 or 2 weeks prior to the performance of a concert contest.
There may be a relationship between error type and proximity of per-
formance. For example, the high frequency of Tuning Targets and
the relatively longer duration of rehearsal frames that addressed
Multiple Targets may reflect the level of refinement that was possible
at this point in the concert preparation. The low proportion of Pitch
Accuracy and Technical Facility rehearsal frames may be indicative of
less salient errors present at this time. This may suggest that a hier-
archy of error types may exist in relation to performance proximity.
In contrast to previous studies that measured teacher and student
behaviors across entire rehearsals (for example, Goolsby, 1996,
1997), the present study measured these behaviors within the con-
text of rehearsal frames that focused the observer's attention on the
accomplishment of goals. Even though findings cannot be compared
between studies using different units of analyses, some of the results
were similar to previous research. Results of the present study
revealed that intonation, articulation, and rhythm were most fre-

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
228 CAVITI

quently targeted for correction. The high frequency of intonation

targets may reflect the level of refinement that was possible at this
point in the concert preparation. Goolsby (1997, 1999) found that
experts most frequently targeted rhythm, articulation, and expres-
sion/phrasing while Menchaca (1988) found that pitch (intonation),
rhythm, tempo, and articulation were most frequently targeted.
CONCLUSION

The present study served as an initial examination into the process

of error correction in instrumental music rehearsals. Teacher behav-
iors and student performance activities in rehearsal frames devoted
to different target types were examined. Teacher-student interaction,
or pace of instruction, was examined in a manner that was unique
and revealed that different levels of interaction were related to the
type of error undergoing correction.
Although the successful accomplishment of error correction was
not a dependent measure in the present investigation, it was clear
from observations that some rehearsal frames were more effective
than others in accomplishing what the teacher had set out to do.
Many of the ensembles observed were capable of performing essen-
tially all of the correct notes and rhythms at the time of the observa-
tions. The level of refinement was very high and meticulous. The fol-
lowing characteristics were observed in some of the most effective
examples of error correction: (a) the error or section of music to be
corrected was identified prior to rehearsal; (b) the teacher was tena-
cious in the error correction process and showed a willingness to per-
sist with the problem until the desired correction or improvement
was made; (c) multiple correct repetitions of the target passage were
performed; (d) mean episode durations of teacher talk and model-
ing were brief; (e) teacher or student modeling occurred frequently;
(f) the error was practiced in a variety of contexts; and (g) high rates
of specific positive and negative feedback were given.
The process of correcting errors in the context of instrumental
music rehearsals is a large part of what takes place when teachers and
students work together to refine students' music performance skills.
In fact, the results of the current study indicate that error correction
may consume almost half (49%) of all rehearsal time in band
rehearsals. I hope that this study will provide useful information for
novice teachers and will lead to further research into error correc-
tion and teacher-student interaction.

REFERENCES

Blocher,L. R. (1986). An analysisof college band instrumentalists'detection of

common performanceerrors (Doctoraldissertation,The FloridaState Uni-
versity,Tallahassee,1986). Dissertation
Abstracts 47 (12), 4225A.
International,
Brand,M., & Burnsed,V. (1981). Musicabilitiesand experiences as predictors
of error-detectionskill.JournalofResearch in MusicEducation,29, 91-96.

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JRME 229

Buckner, J. L. J. (1997). Assessment of teacher and student behavior in rela-

tion to the accomplishment of performance goals in piano lessons
(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1997). Disser-
ation AbstractsInternational, 58 (07), 2578A.
Byo, J. L. (1993). The influence of textural and timbral factors on the abili-
ty of music majors to detect performance errors. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 41, 156-167.
Byo,J. L. (1997). The effects of texture and number of parts on the ability of
music majors to detect performance errors. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 45, 51-66.
Deal, J. J. (1985). Computer-assisted instruction in pitch and rhythm error
detection. Journal of Researchin Music Education, 33, 159-166.
DeCarbo, N. J. (1982). The effects of conducting experience and pro-
grammed materials on error-detection scores of college conducting stu-
dents. Journal of Researchin Music Education, 30, 187-200.
Doane, C. (1989). The development and testing of a program for the devel-
opment of conductor aural error detection skills. CBDNA Journal, 6,
11-14.
Doerksen, P. F. (1994). A study of the aural-diagnostic and prescriptive skills
of preservice and expert instrumental music teachers (Doctoral disserta-
tion, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 55 (06), 1499A.
Duke, R. A. (1994). Bringing the art of rehearsing into focus: The rehearsal
frame as a model for prescriptive analysis of rehearsing conducting.
Journal of Band Research, 30, 78-95.
Duke, R. A. (1999/2000). Measures of instructional effectiveness in music
research. Bulletin of the Councilfor Researchin Music Education, no. 143, 1-48.
Duke, R. A., & Farra, V. (2002). SCRIBE:Simple ComputerRecordingInterfacefor
Behavioral Evaluation (Version 2.Ob 19) [Computer software]. Austin, TX:
Learning & Behavior Resources.
Francisco, J. M. (1994). Conductor communication in the ensemble
rehearsal: The relative effects of verbal communication, visual communi-
cation, and modeling on performance improvement of high school bands
(Doctoral dissertation: Indiana University, Bloomington, 1994). Disserta-
tion AbstractsInternational, 56 (08), 3045A.
Goolsby, T. W. (1996). Time use in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of
experienced, novice, and student teachers. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 44, 286-303.
Goolsby, T. W. (1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A com-
parison of three career levels and preservice teachers. Journal of Researchin
Music Education, 45, 21-40.
Goolsby, T. W. (1999). A comparison of expert and novice music teachers'
preparing identical band compositions: An operational replication.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 174-187.
Menchaca, L. A. (1988). A descriptive analysis of secondary instrumental
conductor rehearsal problem-solving approaches, addressed musical ele-
ments and relationship to student attitude (Doctoral dissertation, The

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
230 CAVITT

Ohio State University, Columbus, 1988). DissertationAbstractsInternational,

49 (09), 2575A.
Sheldon, D. A. (1998). Effects of contextual sight-singing and aural skills
training on error-detection abilities. Journal of Researchin Music Education
46, 384-395.
Siebenaler, D. (1992). Analysis of teacher-student interactions in the piano
lessons of children and adults (Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Texas at Austin). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 53 (08), 2730A.
Williams, T. N. (1984). Exploratory inventory of diagnostic aural skills: An
investigation of possible criteria for designing instruction and evaluation
for teaching diagnostic aural skills to instrumental conducting students,
with implications for future research (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida
State University, Tallahassee, 1984). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 46
(01), 96A.

Submitted October 28, 2002; accepted June 4, 2003.

This content downloaded from 132.234.251.230 on Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:12:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions