Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2014 The Role of Ensemble Competitions in Choral Music Education Erynn M. Millard Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MUSIC THE ROLE OF ENSEMBLE COMPETITIONS IN CHORAL MUSIC EDUCATION By ERYNN M. MILLARD A Dissertation submitted to the College of Music in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2014 Erynn M.
Millard defended this dissertation on June 9, 2014. The members of the supervisory committee were: Kimberly VanWeelden Professor Directing Dissertation Bruce Holzman University Representative André Thomas Committee Member Kevin Fenton Committee Member Alice-Ann Darrow Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii To my family and the people who clap for me. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank several people for the creation of this dissertation.
Especially, I wish to thank my major professor, Dr. Kimberly VanWeelden, for the guidance and perseverance required to direct me through this project. Additionally, I am thankful to my committee: Dr. André Thomas, Dr.
Kevin Fenton, Dr. Alice Ann Darrow, and Professor Bruce Holzman. I appreciate the many viewpoints from which this project was considered in order to arrive at the final product. I am further grateful to each of my professors who have been part of my education at Florida State University and Old Dominion University.
Each of them has contributed a portion of the education I have received, the whole of which was absolutely necessary to reach the completion of this dissertation. I would like to thank my parents, Don and Donna, and my brother, Nicholas. I am aware of the special upbringing I have had, one of the most special qualities of which was growing up in a musical family. I am both fortunate and grateful to have had the full support of my family in my pursuit of music as a profession, while I have witnessed many colleagues and students experience familial pressure to select a “real career.” I would like to thank my husband Justin for believing that I could be successful in this environment and for the endless edits his careful eyes and mind have so meticulously performed.
I am grateful for the support of all of my colleagues, specifically the “Fab Five,” Amy, Frances, Greg, and Lesley. Projects such as these are impossible to complete alone, and the encouragement and support of those people I have mentioned (and certainly many I have not) have played a substantial role in my success. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables. vii List of Figures.
2 Competition in Education. 3 Choral Ensemble Competitions. 10 Attitudes Regarding Music Ensemble Competitions. 15 Types of Competition.
27 REVIEW OF LITERATURE. 29 Competition in Education. 29 Competition in Music. 33 Fairness of Ensemble Competitions.
88 Competition Participation Practices. 88 Reasons for Participation. 90 Award Type Preferences. 91 Importance of Competition Participation.
92 v Differences Between Choir Types. 92 Implications for Music Education. 93 Limitations of the Study. 94 Areas for Future Research.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT. IRB APPROVAL MEMORANDUM. 115 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Model of Attribution Theory.
A General Music Competition/Festival Ratings System. Number of Participants from Each State. Demographic Information from All Educators. Average Number of Competitions Attended in the 2012-2013 School Year.
Average Competition Participation Budget for the 2012-2013 School Year. Average Number of Personnel Required for Competition Participation. Percentage of Rehearsal Time Dedicated to Competition Preparation. Degree of Influence of Competitions on Educators’ Repertoire Choices.
Influence of Competitions on Repertoire Choices by Choir Type. Reasons for Choral Educators’ Competition Participation. Choral Educators’ Reasons for Competition Participation by Choir Type. Educators’ Perceptions of Reasons for Choral Students’ Competition Participation.
Choral Educators’ Perceptions of Students’ Reasons for Competition Participation by Choir Type. Means and Standard Deviations of Educators’ Award Preferences. Means and Standard Deviations of Educators’ Award Preferences by Choir Type. Award Types by Educators’ Average Preferred Rank.
Means and Standard Deviations of Educators’ Perceptions of Students’ Award Preferences. Means and Standard Deviation of Educators’ Perceptions of Students’ Award Preferences. Award Types by Educators’ Perceptions of Students’ Average Preferred Rank. Perceived Importance of Competition Participation.
Perceived Importance of Competition Importance by Choir Type. 86 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Competition Budgets by Spending Bracket. Comparison of Average Personnel Required for Competition Attendance.
Comparison of Choral Educators' Reasons for Competition Participation by Choir Type. Comparison of Choral Educators' Perceptions of Students' Reasons for Competition Participation by Choir Type. Top Educator Reasons for Attending Competitions with Student Comparison. Top Student Reasons for Competition Participation with Educator Comparison 78 ix ABSTRACT This study examined the reasons choral directors take their ensembles to competitions.
Choral directors (N=183) in ten states were surveyed to determine the reasons they and their students participate in competitions; the importance of competition participation to themselves, their students, administrators, and parents; their preferences for award systems; their competition budget; the influence on their repertoire choices; and their required personnel for competition participation. Additionally, responses were compared by choir type (concert choir and show choir). Results indicated that educators participate in competitions in order to motivate students toward their musical achievement goals, while the educators’ perceived their students prefer to attend competitions to attain ratings and recognition. Show choirs were shown to spend substantially more time and money on competition participation and attend twice as many competitions.
Implications for choral music educators and areas for future research are addressed. x INTRODUCTION What is motivation? The answer is elusive, posing an extra challenge to music educators poised to instill it in their students. Identifying the motivational process with specificity is compounded because the humans to whom it applies vary so greatly; no set of circumstances pertains to all or even most because each situation varies by activity, age, personality, and numerous other factors. Beyond these specifics, modern music educators face the general trend of a routine and fading commitment to music as students grow older (Covington, 1983).
They are tasked to develop various methods of imparting motivation in musical study. As music educators work to develop activities to engage students having a variety of motivation levels, ensemble competitions have emerged as an appealing option. Given the human fascination with competitive activities, ensemble competitions appear as a reasonable solution. However, research regarding extrinsic motivation and token economies provide a context for concern as to the appropriate role of ensemble competitions in music education.
Competition Overview In the 1755 Dictionary of the English Language, Samuel Johnson defined competition as “the act of endeavoring to gain what another endeavors to gain at the same time; rivalry; contest” (p. Case (2008) asserts that since Johnson’s definition, lexicographers have done little to improve on its definition. Today, according to Merriam- Webster (n.), competition is defined in a general sense as the act of trying to win something, such as a prize or higher level of success that someone else is also trying to win. In a sociological sense, Kohn (1992) defines competition as a special arrangement in 1 which some participants must fail for others to succeed.
Competition is often used with specifically quantifiable, objective activities, because a clear-cut winner can be determined; however, competition is also found within subjective activities where a winner is determined by opinions or personal preferences. Case (2008) alleges that forms of competition originated as training exercises for war. He notes that all of the original Olympic events, with the exception of discus, have an obvious connection to useful skills in wartime. Harvey (1917) described two types of competition as deliberate and involuntary.
Deliberate competition describes situation where people strive to do better in some fashion, perhaps by obtaining more power or possessing more wealth. It is the intention to acquire more than others. Involuntary competition involves striving for something that cannot be possessed in common. Kohn (1992) similarly references two types of competition: structural competition and intentional competition.
Structural competition is characterized by an external win/lose framework and involves a mutually exclusive goal attainment (i., one person’s success requires another person’s failure). The essence of structural competition is that multiple individuals are trying to attain a goal that cannot be achieved by all of them. Conversely, intentional competition involves an internal framework. It is based an individual’s desire to be the best, even when no external parameters have been placed upon him or her.
The two types of competition can exist in a number of scenarios, appearing alone or together (Kohn, 1992). Competition Justifications Kohn (1992) believed competition is so prevalent in society he described it as the 2 “common denominator in American life” (p. Furthermore, competition is often justified and embraced by society to substantiate its constant presence. There are many reasons people give to justify competitions, but most can be grouped within four central categories: (1) expresses human nature, (2) increases productivity, (3) builds character, and (4) increases motivation (Kohn, 1992, p.
Contemplating the impact of competition on interpersonal relationships, Kohn (1992) offers the following: How can we do our best when we are spending our energies trying to make others lose—and fearing that they will make us lose? Can this sort of struggle really be the best way to have a good time? What happens to our self-esteem when it becomes dependent on how much better we do than the next person? Most striking of all is the impact of this arrangement on human relationships: a structural incentive to see other people lose cannot help but drive a wedge between us and invite hostility. 9) Ruben (1980), however, believes that while competition may be widely despised, anthropologists have yet to identify a society in which it does not exist. Indeed, some social Darwinists consider competition the lifeblood of self-preservation. Furthermore, Duina (2011) argues that within the context of competition, people in society are better able to find their place in the world.
Competition in Education Competitive activities are commonly employed in American classrooms as a means of encouraging students to try harder and work to their fullest potential. As a natural 3 consequence, students learn to strive to triumph over each other educationally and further regard their classmates as hindrances to their own success (Kohn, 1992). Of the three classroom goal structures, this approach describes competitive educational goals where students work against others. The other two approaches include working cooperatively (with others) and independently (without regard for each other) (Medway & Cafferty, 2013).
However, it is unclear of whether competitive goal structures tend to motivate students to achieve their best (Cameron, 2001) or if this type of competition only motivates the students to achieve the specific goal and not beyond it, which produces less creative work (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999a). Characteristics of Motivation The relationship between competition and motivation is complex since the results of a competitive event can have an effect on motivation (Salili & Hoosain, 2007). Educational psychology researcher Martin Maehr has investigated the definition of motivation, theorizing that motivation is essentially indicated by a person’s choices, a person’s persistence, and the difficulty of the activity (1983). In attempting to define a motivational cycle, Maehr makes several essential points.
First, he notes that personal investment is of primary importance in determining an individual’s effort (choice, persistence and activity level.) Effort is affected by its own results, including the resulting quality of the performance and any evaluation that might accompany it. Second, personal investment and effort do not directly translate to performance level.