Predicting Musical Progress? A Technique for Guidance
- Author:
Hazel M. Stanton
Director, Musical Talent Service, Psychological Service Center of New York During a period of twelve years in a university music school, the writer studied the achievement of some thousand or more high school graduates who came to the music school from all parts of the country to begin the four-year courses leading to the bachelor of music degree or a certificate. Their courses included practical music, theoretical music, and academic subjects. Most of these students were inspired with the highest ambitions, and many of them aspired to be no less than concert artists. To accomplish the four-year program leading to a bachelor of music degree was a difficult task for many of them even when curricular standards were low and poorly integrated.
Later in the development of this music school the curricular organization was greatly improved and it was possible for the first time to study the achievement of these students on a long time basis. Even with more care in the selection of music students many of them dropped by the wayside and failed to carry out the program they attempted. If one could select the students who could successfully complete the courses, thereby predicting musical progress, one could direct them happily on their way and at the same time put up the warning signals for those who could not successfully meet the requirements of a broad musical education. This prediction the writer attempted eight years ago and as a result the cumulative key for the prognosis of musical achievement1 is now organized, validated and ready to be used.
This article will consider, first, the main points of the development of the cumulative key, and second, the various angles from which the key has been validated.
Developing the Cumulative Key. The entrance program for music degree students included seven tests?six musical capacity tests and a comprehension test?also a questionnaire covering such 1 See No. 6 in the Bibliography of articles by the writer at the end of this article. usical factors as training, education, environment, expression, interests, et cetera. From the tests each student was given a letter classification for his musical talent profile of six Seashore Measures of Musical Talent and another letter classification for a comprehension test. These letter classifications, expressed in terms of a six letter scale of E, D, C?, C+, B, A, with A the highest, gave each student a test combination of two letters such as A, A or B, C-f- or C?, A, et cetera, as you observe in the Cumulative Key, Table 1. The first letter refers to the musical talent profile and the second refers to the comprehension test.
Table 1 Cumulative Key for the Prognosis of Musical Achievement N = 978 Discouraged Doubtful Possible Probable Safe C+,E C-,C+ C-, cC-, D C-, E B, E C+, CC+.D C-, A C-, B A, E B, CB, D C+, A C+, B C+, C+ A, CA, D B, B B,C+ A, A A, B A, C+ B, A
The five-fold classification of Safe, Probable, Possible, Doubtful and Discouraged was derived in this way. The ratings, marks and test scores received by several hundred music degree students for first semester work were tabulated for observation. These students were then classified on the basis of these data into the five groups of Safe, et cetera, referred to above. By such classification one student was predicted as Safe for the course, another as Probable, another Possible, or Doubtful, or should be Discouraged. The frequencies of test combinations for students thus classified determined the location of each possible test combination under the five-fold groups in the key. For example, since the majority of A, A students had been designated as Safe for the course on the basis of their first semester accomplishment, the A, A test combination was placed under Safe. Likewise, the B, C-f combination was located under Probable, the C+, B under Possible, and the C?, C+ under Discouraged, et cetera. This key has been stabilized with approximately a thousand entering music degree students who have been classified each successive year on the basis of first semester achievement.
Validating the Cumulative Key. Now the question is, to what extent does the key actually differentiate the groups as predicted? This question is answered for several groups of university music degree students from eight points of view, viz., the annual academic survivors; dismissals; scholarships and honors; participation in student recitals; ratio of hours to points earned for credit; representative talent profiles; range of median scores in each of seven tests; and percentages of students graduated from each group. These eight points of view are considered for one entering class of 164 students, including all five classified groups; for three successive entering classes in which the highest (Safe) and lowest (Doubtful-Discouraged, combined) were studied, a total of 83 Safe and 90 D.D. students; and for four successive entering classes, total 565 students.
Considering the five differential groups in the class of 164 students, we see in Table 2, first, that the annual academic survivors decrease, of course, for each of the five groups but the
Table 2 Validation of the Cumulative Key for Predicting Musical Progress Validation Factors Expressed in Percentages Five-fold Classification Discouraged Doubtful Possible Probable Safe 1. N = 164 Annual Continuity 1st year 2d year 3d year 4th year 2. N = 164 Dismissals over 3 Years… 3. N = 164 Scholarships and Honors. . 4. JV = 164 Students Appearing in Recitals over 3 Years 5. N = 122 Class of Highest Talent… 6. N = 135 Class of Lowest Talent 7. N = 565 Entrants Four Successive Classes Graduates in Each Group 100.0 18.1 0 0 63.6 0 18.1 0 11.9 17.0 100.0 57.1 42.8 19.1 52.4 0 23.8 9.9 16.3 23.0 100.0 65.1 52.3 39.5 17.5 19.0 33.0 29.5 29.6 33.0 100.0 67.5 50.0 37.5 14.6 17.0 43.9 26.2 27.4 42.0 100.0 89.6 72.4 55.1 3.5 42.8 57.1 34.4 14.8 60.0
percentages of decrease are much greater for the Discouraged than for the Safe group. In the fourth or last year none of the Discouraged group remained while 54 per cent of the Safe group remained. Second, over a three-year period 64 per cent of the Discouraged group had been dismissed as compared with less than 4 per cent of the Safe group. Third, none of the lowest group received scholarships or honors, but 43 per cent of the highest group held scholarships or received honors. Fourth, the percentages of students appearing in student recitals increased steadily from the lowest to the highest group.
Turning now to the 83 Safe students and the 90 D.D. students from three entering classes, we find a similar picture for each of the validation factors as shown in Table 3. A significant contrast is seen between the two extreme groups in all the items mentioned Table 3
Validation of the Cumulative Key for Predicting Musical Progress Validation Factors _ Expressed in Percentages 1. Annual Continuity 1st year…. 2d year 3d year 4th year…. 2. Dismissals 3. Scholarships and Honors 4. Students Appearing in Recitals 1st year…. 2d year 3d year 5. Ratio of Hours to Points for Credit Theoretical Music…. Practical Music Academic Subjects.. Lowest and Highest Groups of the Five-fold Classification The D.D. Group N = 90 100.0 44.4 24.2 12.5 46.6 7.7 12.2 34.4 11.1 0.86 1.34 1.29 The Safe Group N = 83 100.0 78.3 60.3 53.5 2.4 43.3 32.5 41.0 45.0 1.86 1.69 1.65 Validation Factors continued 6. Individual Talent Profiles 7. Range of Median Scores in 7 tests Pitch Intensity Time Consonance. Tonal Memory Rhythm Comprehen8. Graduates from 102 D.D.. 125 Safe . The D.D. Group continued All C- or C+ (average) C- (45) D (29) D (20) C+ (51) C+ (62) C+ (53) D (27) 20.0 The Safe Group continued All B or A (highest 30 per cent) B (87) A (92) B (83) A (97) A (96) A (94) A (95) 60.0
in Table 2 and in the additional items of ratio of hours to points, individual talent profiles and range of median scores in each of the seven tests. The Safe group is not only the highest in all these validation points of view and the D.D. group the lowest, but each of the five differential groups fall in line in proportion to their differentiation.
Finally, graduation data tell a story no less significant, especially in the light of the fact that one waited eight years for this information since it took that time for four successive entering classes of 565 students, to complete the courses necessary for graduation. In these four successive entering classes, the class of lowest talent had 12 per cent of its students in the Discouraged group and only 15 per cent in the Safe group; and the class of highest talent had no students in the Discouraged group and 34 per cent in the Safe group. From the class of lowest talent, only 34 per cent of the students were graduated in four years. From the class of highest talent, 57 per cent of its students were graduated in four years. It is noteworthy to mention that this class of highest talent began in 1928, so that it carried through three years of the depression with this highest per cent of graduation of all four classes.
For four successive classes combined of 565 students of which 125 are Safe students, 143 Probable, 195 Possible, 73 Doubtful, and 29 Discouraged, it was found that 60 per cent of the Safe students were graduated in 4 years, 42 per cent of the Probable, 33 per cent of the Possible, 23 per cent of the Doubtful, and only 17 per cent of the Discouraged were graduated. Note how the percentages decrease in proportionate steps from the highest group to the lowest. If about eighty per cent of the lowest groups fall by the wayside, the advisability of admitting these students is questionable, particularly with the present precarious condition of the music market. These students plan to make some form of music their vocation, they have reached the average age of 18 years wheo they begin their four-year music courses. To discontinue for various reasons at any time from one semester to three years means that they must, if they do not drop out of college entirely, start some other college program at the same time experiencing an inevitable set-back. The only excuse a university music school can have f?r admitting the lowest groups to certificate or degree courses is maintain its enrollment of students. There can be little or no conPREDICTING MUSICAL PROGRESS 275 sideration for the welfare of the students. The students in the lowest groups are poor risks for a music degree, for themselves as well as for the music schools; they should know these facts and not be deceived. For many of them music should be only an avocation.
It is to help remedy this situation that the cumulative key has been developed. When a student knows his own classification he has a definite psychological aid to help him decide his future concentration in music. Such knowledge can serve in preventing the disappointment of failure and at the same time stimulate the talented.
This cumulative key stabilized from about a thousand students and validated from some seven or eight points of view for various classes, single and combined, over an eight year period, is now ready to be used as a valuable psychological aid in predicting musical progress. Since classification into the five differential groups can be made for all students in music schools and college music departments, the use of the key can also serve as a comparable basis for a survey of musical talent, or to give an index of the annual status of the musical talent in a school, college or university. Bibliography of Various Articles by the Writer on Similar Subjects 1. The inheritance of specific musical capacities. Psychol. Monog., 1922, 31, 157-204. Carnegie Instit. Wash., Eug. Eec. Off., Bull. No. 22. 2. An experimental investigation of musical inheritance. Eugenics, Genetics and the Family, 1923, 1, 239-242; Plate 6. Heredity of Musical Ability. 3. Psychological tests of musical talent. Rochester, N. Y.: The University of Rochester, 1925. Pp. 48. 4. Measuring musical talent. Seashore tests as administrative aids. Person. J., 1928, 7, 286-292. 5. Seashore Measures of Musical Talent. Psychol. Monog., 1928, 39, 135-144. 6. Prognosis of musical achievement. Rochester, N. Y.: The University of Rochester, 1929. Pp. 89. 7. Psychological tests?a factor in admission to the Eastman School of Music. School Soc., 1929, 30, 889-891. 8. (In collaboration with Koertli, Wilhelmine) Musical capacity measures of adults repeated after music education. Univ. Iowa Stud., Ser. Aims Prog. Res., 1930, No. 31. Pp. 18. 9. Research in music: looking forward thirty years. Univ. Iowa Stud. Ser Aims Prog. Bes., 1931, No. 33, 136-138. 10. (In collaboration with Koerth, Wilhelmine) Musical capacity measures of children repeated after musical training. Univ. Iowa Stud., Ser. Aims Prog. Res., 1933, No. 42. Pp. 48. 11. Quantitative yard-stick for the measurement of musical capacities. Eugen. News, 1933, 18, 78-81. 12. Testing the cumulative key for prognosis of musical achievement. J. Educ Psychol., 1934, 25, 45-53. 13. Employment conditions in music. Person. J., 1934, 12, No. 5. Pp. 288. 14. Stability of the Seashore Measures of Musical Talent as shown by retests. Third Internat’l Congress of Eugenics, 1932. A Decade of Progress in Eugenics. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1934, 54-G6.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.