Undergraduate Ear Training: Teaching Aural Skills to a Classroom of Diverse Ears.
By: Emily Zwijack
Introduction
My research project on aural skills pedagogy focuses on the subskills involved with melodic dictation. Aural skills are a part of collegiate music curricula that require musicians to identify rhythms, intervals, pitches, and chords by hearing the music. The goal of aural skills training is to deepen the understanding of what you hear. With improved listening skills, musicians are able to learn music more rapidly and independently, critique the technical and expressive dimensions of their performances, and do the same when working with other musicians. Aural skills also encourage the development of a musicians inner ear, which allows musicians to hear a melody in their mind only by looking at the music. This helps musicians improve their sight-reading skills. Musicians will be better at identifying when a note or rhythm is played incorrectly. This is beneficial to music educators when teaching a class as well as performers when they are practicing and learning new music. Aural training helps teach important skills and strategies to connect your inner ear with the music on the page.
I became interested in the pedagogy behind aural skills when I entered my 1st year as an undergraduate music major and took my first college-level musicianship course. Prior to college, I had years of experience in written skills and highly enjoyed analyzing music with my eyes. I also had experience aurally identifying intervals and four measure rhythmic dictation. It wasn’t until I reached college that I began doing more advanced aural skills. Since I had never tried analyzing music solely with my ears before, I struggled significantly with melodic dictation and harmonic dictation. Rather than getting frustrated, I worked with my professor and our teaching assistant who gave me guidance on self-awareness in the aural skills process. Improving my dictation skills wasn’t a matter of my professor telling me what was wrong and me implementing an immediate correction. It was a process overtime that involved daily practice and deeper analysis of my inner ear thinking during the dictation process. I went headfirst into this challenge and began intensely focused work on my aural skills. Within a few weeks, I began helping my classmates who were struggling and pushed myself to try more advanced dictations with chromatic pitches and modulation before they were addressed in class. Throughout this experience, I became very curious about how we learn and teach melodic dictation. I was further intrigued at how professors teach aural skills to a classroom of musicians who come from unique musical backgrounds. I had many late night “theory talks” with my theory TA about this curiosity and she encouraged me to take this curiosity and turn it into a research project.
I began my research by familiarizing myself with various aural skills pedagogies by reading articles, books, and other research papers. The 3 pedagogies that stuck out to me were the Marcozzi method, Dalcroze C-C scales, and Game-playing. My goal was to learn more about these pedagogies applied to melodic dictation and discover how and why undergraduate musicians at the Musicianship II level react to these methods. I chose four students from Roosevelt University with contrasting musical backgrounds and experiences. I met individually with the students on zoom once a week for approximately 30 minutes per session. These meetings occurred for 4 weeks during March and April 2021. In each meeting, I played 3 melodic dictations for the students on my piano. Before each new melodic dictation, I gave students the clef, key signature, time signature, and the starting pitch. The students had 3 hearings for 8 measure melodies with diatonic and chromatic pitches. They received 30 seconds after the first hearing, 1 minute after the second hearing, and a minute and a half after the last hearing to notate the melody. They also took pictures of their papers in between hearings so I could later document their progress between hearings. After each meeting, the students received a free-response survey with questions about the session and the methods. In our first meeting, I simply collected control data of 3 melodic dictations without using any methods. In the second, third, and fourth meetings, we used the three methods, one on each of the three dictations.
The first method was the Marcozzi method featuring the 5 P Process. This method focuses on developing a solid process to melodic dictation. The 5 P’s are prepare, perceive, process, pencil, and proof. After preparing the student with the starting information, I asked them questions about what they could take-away from the starting information and what they expected going into the dictation. For example, if the melodic dictation is going to be in 3/4 and they are more comfortable doing melodies in 4/4, they will have to focus on counting in a solid 3/4 and not accidently going into 4/4 or writing the notes in the wrong beats. Before each hearing, I asked the student what their plan for the next hearing was and what they were listening for to encourage them to establish a solid process. I also reminded the student to proof their paper by checking for any possible notation errors before the final hearing.
The second method was the Dalcroze method with C-C scales. C-C scales are intended to improve an acute awareness of half and whole steps, sensitivity to scale degree function, increase knowledge of where you are in the scale, and a strong long-term memory for C. After giving the student their starting information, I played a recording of a harmonized C-C scale, ascending and descending, in the given key of the dictation. During the first hearing of the C-C scale, the student listened to the recording. During the second hearing, they sang the names of the notes, starting on C, with the scale. During the final hearing, they had the option to either sing the note names starting on C or just listen. On the last chord, the student had to sing the pitch they felt was Do on the syllable “La”. This method required the student to listen for where the chord was pulling them to Do and feel the relationship between notes. After the C-C scale, the student received 3 hearings for the melodic dictation in that same key.
The third method was the Game-playing method, which focused on improving memory. Game-playing is intended to avoid class dictation stress, encourage a positive interaction, improve long-term memory, improve concentration, and encourage improvisation skills. After giving the student their starting information, they set their notebook to the side. I improvised the first two beats of the melody singing only on “La”. The student had to sing it back and add the next two beats. This contained diatonic and chromatic pitches as well as a variety of rhythms. This interaction continued until the student forgot the melody and messed up. As soon as they made a mistake, I played the melody for them one last time on piano, and they had unlimited time to dictate the melody.
In my research paper, I will be discussing what method was superior/effective, if the methods built on what the students initially knew, if the methods add confusion or anxiety, how the methods relate to the student’s musical background, and if there is a correlation between familiarity and success vs anxiety and success in the methods. While responding to these questions, I provide free-response examples from the students’ written surveys and data charts to support my conclusions.
Is there one approach that is superior to other ear training approaches?
All four participants achieved their highest scores using the Game-playing method. Median scores for three trials ranged from 92 to 100; average of median scores is 97. [Chart 1]
Chart 1
Order of presentation seems to affect these results. Did the given order of the methods in our meetings affect the outcomes of each dictation? When Dalcroze was the first of the three dictations, the students scored significantly lower on those dictations than when it was presented second or third. [Chart 2]
Chart 2
Similarly, when Game-playing was the first of the three dictations, the students scored significantly lower than when this method was presented second or third. [Chart 3]
Chart 3
The Marcozzi method seems to have been affected oppositely: Marcozzi received higher scores when presented earlier on in the meetings and decreased when second or third. [Chart 4]
Chart 4
Test-anxiety is a contributing factor to this effect in the data. Dalcroze and Game-playing were unfamiliar methods to all four of the participants while Marcozzi closely replicated how students had been introduced to dictations prior to the experiment. Naturally, the students had a higher amount of anxiety early on in the meetings that diminished as the meeting went on. An example of this affect is seen in a free response by Student 2 after the second meeting. Student 2 writes, “Dictation 1 I was anxious because I didn’t know what to expect but after I settled in I was very comfortable with what I was doing.” In another session the same student similarly writes, “Getting into dictation 1 is always tough the first time around because somehow my brain gets scared and then after the first hearing it remembers how to do its job.” Another example of early test anxiety is written in Student 4’s free response after the third meeting. Student 4 writes, “Yes the first dictation was particularly challenging for me. I felt the fear towards the second hearing as I found it difficult to memorize the melody.” This anxiety is also seen in Student 1’s free response from the second meeting where the student writes, “When I listened to the first dictation, I tried to get the first few measures in my head but got easily thrown off when the rest of it was playing. I just tried to keep it in my head the best I could and listen for the same melody in the later measures.” A final example of this is provided by Student 3 after the first meeting: this student writes, “During the first one, I felt slightly overwhelmed, but as I got used to this process of the musical dictations, I didn’t feel anxious and knew what I needed to do to get it done.” This effect of early test anxiety affected all four participants at least once which impacted the data. It is important to recognize that the order of the methods being presented can also have an impact on their scores.
While the numerical data suggests that the game-playing strategy is the most successful method, the free responses written by the students lean more towards Dalcroze. When Student 1 describes their experience with Dalcroze over the 4 weeks of the experiment, they write, “For me, being able to recall “do” at any time is what made me feel confident in this dictation” and that Dalcroze “felt more natural to me. I could easily recall “do” and that was very helpful when I was stuck on a certain pitch – I just had to find out the interval.” Dalcroze instilled confidence in Student 1 by training their ears to listen for Do. Student 1’s comfort with intervals is supported by Dalcroze here, which helped them not only listen for Do in the dictations but connect the pitches to Do. This method allowed Student 1 to strengthen memory skills by always being able to recall Do. While Student 1 scored higher in the Game-playing method, they exhibited significant progress in Dalcroze as well. Student 3 also chose Dalcroze when writing about the method that felt more natural, and states, “I feel I performed best in the Dalcroze method, doing a C to C scale and finding “do” made it easier for me to hear the other notes and hear their relation to “do”.” When asked about which method felt most successful, Student 3 writes, “The first dictation where we used Dalcroze seemed to be the most successful to me, I think it helped to sing the scale and recognize where “Do” was in relation to the notes that weren’t in the scale, because it helped me recognize what chromatic notes those might have been.” Student 3 had a similar experience with Dalcroze as Student 1 when it came to having a strong memory for Do and connecting the other notes of the melody to Do. Student 4 writes in a survey about how Dalcroze supported their musical background and wrote, “Yes dictation 2 I could relate on how I hear music. Practicing singing do before I heard the dictation helped me a lot.” Student 2 related the Game-Playing method to their background in jazz, but their free responses showed that they benefitted from Dalcroze as well. Student 2 writes, “I found method 2 [Dalcroze] to be the most successful because it gave me a new perspective on how to look at dictations beyond my own way.” Although C-C scales in Dalcroze was new, Student 2 still benefited from the process by deepening their perspective towards listening for Do. In numerical terms, Dalcroze ranks as the second-best method, although, the response from the students shows incredible experiences from Dalcroze as well.
Do any of these methods build from or improve what students already know?
The method that was most familiar to all four participants was the Marcozzi method based on familiar pedagogy. All four participants have taken Musicianship I and were halfway through Musicianship II when they participated in this experiment. 3 of the participants were in the same classes and had the same professor as I. One participant had a different professor. I had a conversation with both professors to discuss their approach to melodic dictation in the classroom and they both shared a similar approach. One of the professors explained their approach to dictations in class and wrote, “I very frequently remind students of the process for approaching melodic dictation—memorize the melody (or a section of it) and repeat it to yourself to solidify it in your memory, then start working out the rhythms, find the tonic and other important notes/scale degrees/etc. When providing my answers, I often demonstrate this process myself as if I were working out the dictation so that the students can see and hear how to do this.” Another professor who taught the subject dictation, writes, “First, they should sing back in their head the part of the melody they remember several times so it is firmly in their memory. Then, I have them figure out the rhythm, then the solfege, then notate the melody on the page.” Both professors strongly reinforced a solid process when approaching melodic dictations. The Marcozzi method 5 P’s was very similar to how the students approached melodic dictations in class by being prompted with questions and establishing a solid process. Although the Marcozzi method was familiar to how the students were introduced to melodic dictations, this method had the lowest average compared to Dalcroze and Game-playing. The likely cause of this was because the familiarity was not as influential as newer methods. When writing about a Marcozzi method dictation, Student 1 states, “I tried my best to keep replaying it in my head but wasn’t certain if it was correct.” The following week, Student 1 wrote about another Marcozzi method dictation and states, “I was having a very hard time remembering the pitches.” Student 1 had already established a confident process from the time in theory class but needed better support with parts of the process, such as recalling pitches. The Marcozzi method built on familiarity from performing melodic dictations in the classroom setting but did not influence the students as strongly.
When explaining their approach to melodic dictations in the classroom, one of the professors wrote, “When they are figuring out the solfege, I tell them to listen if they hear “do” or sometimes “sol” as any of the pitches, and to figure out the remaining pitches in relation to these.” This familiar concept from the classroom influenced Student 1 with the Dalcroze method. Student 1 writes about Dalcroze, “The first dictation felt more natural to me. I could easily recall “do” and that was very helpful when I was stuck on a certain pitch – I just had to find out the interval.” Even though C-C scales were new, Student 1 had experience from their professor with determining intervals in relation to Do.
Two exceptions to the 2 participants who began melodic dictation with these two professors at the college level are Student 2 and Student 3. Student 2 wrote in the introduction survey that they took AP music theory his senior year of high school. In this course, they learned 2-4 measures of melodic dictation and contrapuntal dictations. Student 2 was never taught “how” to approach dictations with having a plan/process and experienced more of a self-discovery pace. Student 2 learned to keep their own process by notating what best stood out to them in each hearing. Student 3 took 1 year of theory courses, which included melodic dictation, prior to studying with these professors. Student 3 claims that their first professor “Pretty much had us do the same method as [the two professors] used, and had us make sure we had a good sense of where Do was.” Student 3’s experience highly resembles the other two participants. [Chart 5] [Chart 6]
Chart 5
Chart 6
Do any methods add confusion?
There was confusion in each of the three methods. Dalcroze C-C scales sparked confusion in the early weeks of the experiment. During the first week of using the methods, every student gave a confused stare when I was explaining the C-C scales and how to sing and find Do. When preparing the Dalcroze dictation the second week, Student 1 immediately announces, “I’m still confused” and chuckles before listening to the scale. Although this method took considerable time to explain and was met with confused stares at the beginning, it turned out to be the most well-liked and numerically ranked as the second-best approach. Once the students relaxed and focused on listening for Do, the confusion dissipated. Student 3 even finished dictating during the second week with the Dalcroze dictation 17 seconds early in the final hearing and 22 seconds early in the final hearing of the third week.
Game-playing caused some confusion for students who were unfamiliar with improv and became distracted from the goal to memorize the growing melody due to their concern to improv 2 beats. Without any background experience in improv, Student 1 writes, “I find it difficult trying to make up your own melody and memorize it quickly, on top of trying to memorize the other person’s melody as well.” The Game-playing strategy caused significant confusion for the students in terms of combining improv with memory skills. In the final survey, Student 1 concludes their thoughts on this method and writes, “I find it very difficult to make up random melodies on the spot, try to memorize it, and at the same time try to memorize the other persons melody while constantly adding on. I find it easier to memorize the prepared dictations.” The familiarity with prepared dictations encourages Student 1 to perform better on dictation exercises then this sporadic nature in the Game-playing strategy intended to improve memory skills. Student 3 similarly wrote in their final survey, “I struggled the most with the game playing method, mainly because it working my creativity at the same time as trying to memorize the memory we were making”. Although the Game-playing strategy caused some confusion regarding the combination of improv and memory, it numerically ranked as the best method and 3/4 students showed improvement in memory over the few weeks.
The Marcozzi method was the least confusing because the students were very familiar with placing their focus on a solid dictation process based on their previous dictation experience. One question that added slight confusion was, “With your key signature, starting pitch, time signature, and the rest of your starting information given to you, what do you already know going into the first hearing of this dictation?” This question took deeper reflection in the students’ own dictation abilities and knowledge about the starting information; therefore, it was confusing finding that deeper sense of self within this question. Reflecting on the dictation process and asking questions in Marcozzi was not an entirely new method to the students so this was not very confusing or unusual.
Do any of these methods increase anxiety and cause students to feel overwhelmed?
As addressed earlier, the students were more likely to be anxious during the first dictation of the meeting, regardless of the method. This factor may impact certain levels of anxiety. The following statements from the participants are examples of increased anxiety when the methods were not the first dictation in the meeting.
Marcozzi shows the highest ranked for anxiety based on tallied free responses from the participants. The orange bars next to each blue bar are the amount of times that the method was chosen as most anxiety-inducing when it was first in order. [Chart 7]
Chart 7
It was also mostly chosen when first in the meeting of dictations, which was likely the cause of the order rather than the method. When not chosen first, Student 1 consistently had trouble with memory and identifying chromatic pitches during the Marcozzi method. Student 3 also consistently had trouble with dictating the 3rd and 4th measure in the Marcozzi method dictations. In the introduction survey, Student 1 wrote that their biggest problem in melodic dictations was memory and leaps. Student 3 wrote that their biggest problem was dictating the 3rd and 4th measure. By focusing on the process, these participants consistently chose the dictations with the Marcozzi method as the most anxiety inducing as it increased their awareness of their struggles.
In the Game-playing strategy, instrumentalists were more worried about singing chromatic pitches than absorbing the melody and notating. During the first two weeks of incorporating the dictations with these methods, Student 2 wrote in their surveys, “I suck at singing so that’s kind of a buzz-kill” and “I can’t sing to save my life”. Students who are not voice majors and have low confidence in their singing abilities may feel overwhelmed in the Game-playing strategy. This will prevent them from focusing on the primary goal; to improve memory. In Student 1’s first experience with the Game-playing strategy, they wrote, “I couldn’t seem to keep a good memory of what we were singing, even stuff that I had come up with.” Student 4 shows a similar issue with being overwhelmed in his final survey and writes, “It was challenging to memorize for me”. The combination of singing, improv, and memorizing in this dictation for a student who is an instrumentalist without experience in improv are likely to feel overwhelmed during these dictations. The confusion in the Game-playing contributes to the increased anxiety in this method.
Dalcroze was chosen the least as the most anxiety inducing by the participants. There is a connection to this approach causing the least amount of anxiety determining it as the “chosen” method by 75% of the participants. As stated by Student 1, it made them “feel more confident” in the dictation and “felt more natural”.
Did the less anxiety inducing methods turn out to be the most successful?
In certain circumstances, anxiety inducing methods still promoted progress and success in students’ performance. Although Student 2 showed numerous times that they have low confidence attached with singing and wrote that they struggled most with memory in their introduction survey, they still showed improvement over the 3 weeks of increasing memory ability. Student 3, who initially stated that their biggest struggle was memory in the middle section of dictations, also showed anxiety related to the Game-playing strategy yet still improved their memory. In week 3, Student 3 states, “I struggled the most with dictation 2 where we used the game playing strategy. I think since that tests how long your memory goes, that’s why I struggled with it.” Student 4’s scores slowly increased over the 3 weeks. In their final survey, Student 4 writes, “I was feeling pretty anxious about it. I think mostly because it was challenging for me to memorize the melody”. Despite the anxiety, Student 4 still improved his memorization skills in the Game-playing strategy. Contrastingly, Student 1 announced in their introduction survey that their biggest struggle in melodic dictations was memory, which was one of the primary focuses of the game-playing strategy. She notes anxiety about this method in her last survey, writing, “I had a very hard time remembering the melody and only made it a little over one measure. I just tried to remember as much as I could but was finding it very difficult”. Student 1’s scores decreased over the 3 weeks, suggesting their anxiety hindered progress with this exercise. [Chart 8]
Chart 8
These results suggest that the correlation between anxiety and success of the exercise can be different for each student. Less anxiety-inducing methods generally work better in practice but methods that promote discomfort have significant benefits as well. These circumstances create the pedagogical dilemma of prioritizing test-scores or fun with dictations.
How do these methods support their musical backgrounds while training the ear?
By “supporting a musical background” I am addressing how the methods relate to the students’ experience with musical training on their primary instrument in music prior to melodic dictation. Student 4 favored the Dalcroze method and later explained in their survey how this relates to their experience as a percussionist. “When I generally practice ear training I do it on the timpani since that is one of the only musical instruments in the percussion world that you actually have to tune perfectly. So I am consistently singing intervals such as 4ths, 5ths, and 2nds which are the most common intervals on the timpani.” Because of their background as a percussionist, Student 4 has consistent experience singing intervals when tuning the timpani. This relates to the Dalcroze method as they sang the C-C scale using solfege and tried to find the connections between intervals towards Do.
Although Student 4’s musical background as a vocalist may support the Game-playing strategy, it significantly resonates with Dalcroze. “The Dalcroze method involved singing and solfege, and I use solfege frequently while singing to figure out which intervals are in my music.” When practicing their vocal music, Student 4 is frequently using solfege to determine intervals similar to Student 4’s experience singing intervals to tune their timpani. Student 3’s experience as a vocalist is relative to the Dalcroze method.
Student 2 has a history in jazz as a double bassist and lots of experience with improvisatory skills, which relate to the Game-playing strategy. When writing about the Game-playing strategy, Student 2 writes, “The making of the melody because as a jazz player, improvising in a key is very common” and “I always feel the creating your own melody is easy given a jazz background”. It is also interesting to note in Student 2’s first meeting with these methods, they asked if they could improvise more than 2 beats by increasing it to a measure or even two measures. Student 2’s history with a jazz background allows the game playing strategy to be quite exciting with their familiarity in improvisation.
Student 1 has been playing the violin for 12 years. Without frets, string players are constantly adjusting their fingers to be precisely in tune. They also commonly tune using double stops. Student 1 has been learning double-stops for 3 years. The 12 years they spent on their violin and 3 years of focus on double-stops relate to listening for the intervals and chords in Dalcroze that pull you towards Do. When talking about their experience with Dalcroze over the 4 weeks of the experiment, Student 1 writes, “For me, being able to recall “do” at any time is what made me feel confident in this dictation” and “…felt more natural to me. I could easily recall “do” and that was very helpful when I was stuck on a certain pitch – I just had to find out the interval.”
By adequately supporting a musician’s musical background and what they initially know how to do it is more likely, but not guaranteed, that they will learn the new aural skills that they don't naturally already know how to do.
Examples of this are seen in all 4 students. Student 2 was highly familiar with improv due to their background in jazz and improv. This led them to being excited for the Game-playing strategy dictations. Although Student 2 was familiar with the improv section, they were lacking confidence in their singing ability and needed to improve their memorization skills in dictations. This combination of fun/excitement and improving their memory for test scores was successful. [Chart 6] Student 3 is highly familiar with singing and using solfege as a vocalist. With this familiarity, their most challenging issue in melodic dictations was memory in the middle measures. The combination of familiarity in singing allowed Student 3 to improve their memory in the Game playing strategy. Student 3 made a memory mistake in the control data as well as in the 2nd and 3rd Marcozzi method dictations. The familiarity and comfort with the Game-playing strategy and Dalcroze presented them with higher scores in these methods and improvement with memory. Student 4 is highly familiar with singing and listening to intervals when tuning their timpani. This encouraged their comfort with the Dalcroze method and their improvement in the Game-playing method. Student 1’s experience with tuning double stops and listening for intervals related to the natural connection they experienced with the Dalcroze method and contributed to their score improvement.
How do the 3 methods relate to one another in terms of scoring and improvement?
These different skills, process, memory, and tonic retention, show a relationship to one another weekly in terms of increasing and decreasing. In Student 1, Student 2, and Student 3’s scores, Marcozzi and Game-playing more frequently increase or decrease during the same week and Dalcroze always moves in the opposite direction. It is also important to recognize that only 2 students show improvement in at least one method between the first and second week. Between the second and third week, the students all improve in at least one method.
Which method seemed most effective to the students and why?
Although Dalcroze did not numerically rank as the most superior method, it ranked the most effective based on the students’ free responses. Retaining Do, singing, the use of solfege, listening for intervals, and listening to/singing a scale related to the students’ musical backgrounds and in return felt more natural. Many of the students wrote that they used their high ability to recall Do to discover intervals in the melodic dictations. Memory was less of a concern in Dalcroze for Student 1 and Student 3 although they claimed it was their biggest issue in melodic dictations. This is likely due to the connection between the ability to remember Do and the ability to remember longer passages of melodic dictation. Even when the students still struggled with this method, they had positive feedback to give such as, “It was more natural”, “More confident”, and “It gave me a new perspective on how to look at dictations beyond my own way”.
Bibliography
Dave. “Teaching Aural Skills.” Wilktone, 11 July 2012, wilktone.com/?p=3663. Accessed 5 Jan. 2021.
Gordon, Edwin E. Learning Sequences in Music. 2012th ed., GIA Publications, Inc. Chicago, 2012.
Karpinski, Gary S. Aural Skills Acquisition: The Development of Listening, Reading, and Performing Skills in College-Level Musicians. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Krof, Tanya. “The Process of Musicking: An Alternative to Melodic Dictation and Other Activities Involved in the Undergraduate Music Program.” May 2014.
Marcozzi, Rudy T. Strategies and Patterns for Ear Training. 2016th ed., Pearson Education, Inc, 2009.
Rifkin, Deborah. “Developing Aural Skills: It’s Not Just A Game” Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, vol. 20, 2006, https://jmtp.appstate.edu/developing-aural-skills-its-not-just-game.
Rush, Toby. “Aural Skills Is a Funny Thing.” TobyRush.com, 19 Sept. 2008, tobyrush.blogspot.com/2008/09/aural-skills-is-funny-thing.html.
Urista, Diane, et al. “Dalcroze’s Approach to Solfège and Ear Training for the Undergraduate Aural Skills Curriculum” Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, vol. 28, 2014, https://jmtp.appstate.edu/dalcrozes-approach-solf%C3%A8ge-and-ear-training-undergraduate-aural-skills-curriculum.
Comments