by Andy Paney
Co-authored with Nathan Buonviri, Temple University. Research Poster Presentation at the National Conference of the National Association for Music Education (NAfME) in St. Louis, MO, March 2012.
AP Music Theory courses offered in high schools across the United States are intended to parallel introductory... more
AP Music Theory courses offered in high schools across the United States are intended to parallel introductory college-level work in written and aural aspects of music theory (The College Board, 2011). Although extensive general information and suggested approaches for preparing students for the exam are available online, most strategies for cultivating student skill development are ultimately left to individual teachers. Many researchers (e.g., Karpinski, 2000; Madsen & Staum, 1983; Mikumo, 1994; Thompson, 2004) have suggested that music students use a variety of strategies in taking melodic dictation. Some of these strategies may actually hinder their efforts (Pembrook, 1987). Teachers of dictation at any level benefit from knowledge of a wide range of pedagogical options. The purpose of this study was to investigate melodic dictation strategies taught by AP Music Theory instructors across the United States.
Participants (N=12) were music teachers from eight large urban and suburban public high school districts in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. Experience ranged from 1-20 years of teaching AP Music Theory (median=10.5). Structured interview questions focused on participants’ approaches to teaching melodic dictation and strategies they encourage their students to use. Interviews were piloted with two undergraduate theory instructors before formal data collection began.
All interview data were collected and recorded in person in May, 2011 and transcribed for analysis. Member checks were initiated to ensure transcripts matched the intentions of the participants. Corrections included spellings and clarifications of contexts that had not been evident in the transcripts. The researchers noted salient data independently for all transcripts, coded those observations as a team, and, finally, checked all the interviews independently again for missed or mislabeled codes. Coded data were then categorized, yielding four overarching themes: cognitive frameworks, processing strategies, rhythmic challenges, and approaches to course design.
Cognitive frameworks included use of common patterns, theory knowledge, and integrated sight-singing experience. Cultivating these frameworks may provide a working vocabulary for students to use during dictation tasks.
Processing strategies included grasping the big picture, using a “bookends” approach, and listening for scale degree function. Directed strategies such as these may provide dictation students with a plan of attack.
Rhythmic challenges included students’ poor rhythmic notation skills and participants’ lack of a systematic plan for counting rhythm. There may be a connection between students’ difficulty with rhythmic notation and instructors’ lack of a clear pedagogical approach to teaching it.
Approaches to course design included teaching to the AP exam, sequencing instruction systematically, using familiar melodies, and attending to the psychological side of dictation tasks. Although preparation for the AP exam was a priority, participants incorporated these aspects of course design based on students’ needs.
Allowing the AP Exam to influence curricular decisions appeared to be a positive trait for participants. Though “teaching to the test” has a reputation for limiting creativity in the classroom and focusing exclusively on practical concerns, it seems that participants believed the AP Exam and AP-provided materials strengthened their curriculum and reliably measured students’ ability to hear and write music. These materials appeared to call each instructor and student to the same high level of achievement.
In conclusion, participants taught mastery of dictation vocabulary through pattern practice, theory knowledge, and sight-singing. They encouraged students to grasp the big picture, use a “bookends” approach, and identify scale degree function during dictation tasks. They recognized students’ rhythmic notation challenges, but generally did not suggest use of a standard counting system. They designed their courses primarily around the AP exam and students’ needs. Future research could focus on rhythm pedagogy in aural skills, students’ psychological needs during dictation tasks, and the efficacy of dictation strategies described in these results and relevant literature.
References
Karpinski, G. (2000). Aural skills acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Madsen, C. K. & Staum, M. J. (1983). Discrimination and interference in the recall of
melodic stimuli. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31(1), 15-31.
Mikumo, M. (1994). Motor encoding strategy for pitches of melodies. Music
Perception, 12(2), 175-197.
Pembrook, R. G. (1987). The effect of vocalization on melodic memory conservation.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 35(3), 155-169.
The College Board (2011). AP Music Theory Course Home Page. Retrieved from
http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/courses/teachers_corner/2261.html
Thompson, K. A. (2004). Thinking in sound: A qualitative study of metaphors for pitch perception. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 18, 81-107.
Download (.pdf) 
