The Control And Experimental Group Performance In Choral Listening Case Study
Results and Discussion
Profile of the respondents
Table 1 Profile of the Respondents Profile Factor Frequency Percentage
________________________________________________________________________
A. Group Membership Choir 5 13.89 Drum and Lyre 4 11.11 Marching Band 4 11.11 None 23 63.89 Total 36 100
B. Musical Experiences Voice lesson …show more content…
This maybe the reason that deterred the respondents from undergoing music lessons.
Data on the control and experimental groups’ performance in choral singing before and after the training is presented in table 2.
The Control and Experimental Group’s Performance in Choral Singing Before and After the Training
Table 2. The Control and Experimental Groups’ Performance Before and After the Training Control Group Experimental Group Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Choral Elements WM VD MW VD WM VD WM VD
Pitch 1.56 F 2.37 F 1.87 F 2.78 G
Rhythm 2.33 F 2.83 G 2.43 F 2.89 G
Tonal Quality 1.90 F 2.91 G 2.37 F 3.00 G
Articulation and Phrasing 1.94 F 3.20 G 2.30 F 3.26 G AWM 1.94 F 2.83 G 2.24 F 2.98 G
Legend:
4.51 – 5.00 Outstanding Performance (OP) 3.51 - 4.50 Very Good Performance (VGP) 2.51 - 3.50 Good Performance (GP) 1.51 – 2.50 Fair Performance …show more content…
The pretest was the students’ first exposure to the musical piece. They learned their vocal parts by listening to a recorded melody. The same procedure was administered to the experimental group. Although they had higher weighted means. Along the elements as compared to the control group as shown by these results: pitch (1.87), rhythm (2.43), tonal quality (2.37) and articulation and phrasing (2.30) all of these were translated into the verbal description of fair. Therefore, both groups garnered the same verbal description. After the training, the posttest was given. This time the control group improved their performance along rhythm (2.83); tonal quality (2.91) and articulation and phrasing (3.20) all translated into a verbal description of good. However, they failed to improve along pitch wherein they retained their performance as fair, same as their pretest. The control groups’ average weighted mean for their posttest was
Profile of the respondents
Table 1 Profile of the Respondents Profile Factor Frequency Percentage
________________________________________________________________________
A. Group Membership Choir 5 13.89 Drum and Lyre 4 11.11 Marching Band 4 11.11 None 23 63.89 Total 36 100
B. Musical Experiences Voice lesson …show more content…
This maybe the reason that deterred the respondents from undergoing music lessons.
Data on the control and experimental groups’ performance in choral singing before and after the training is presented in table 2.
The Control and Experimental Group’s Performance in Choral Singing Before and After the Training
Table 2. The Control and Experimental Groups’ Performance Before and After the Training Control Group Experimental Group Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Choral Elements WM VD MW VD WM VD WM VD
Pitch 1.56 F 2.37 F 1.87 F 2.78 G
Rhythm 2.33 F 2.83 G 2.43 F 2.89 G
Tonal Quality 1.90 F 2.91 G 2.37 F 3.00 G
Articulation and Phrasing 1.94 F 3.20 G 2.30 F 3.26 G AWM 1.94 F 2.83 G 2.24 F 2.98 G
Legend:
4.51 – 5.00 Outstanding Performance (OP) 3.51 - 4.50 Very Good Performance (VGP) 2.51 - 3.50 Good Performance (GP) 1.51 – 2.50 Fair Performance …show more content…
The pretest was the students’ first exposure to the musical piece. They learned their vocal parts by listening to a recorded melody. The same procedure was administered to the experimental group. Although they had higher weighted means. Along the elements as compared to the control group as shown by these results: pitch (1.87), rhythm (2.43), tonal quality (2.37) and articulation and phrasing (2.30) all of these were translated into the verbal description of fair. Therefore, both groups garnered the same verbal description. After the training, the posttest was given. This time the control group improved their performance along rhythm (2.83); tonal quality (2.91) and articulation and phrasing (3.20) all translated into a verbal description of good. However, they failed to improve along pitch wherein they retained their performance as fair, same as their pretest. The control groups’ average weighted mean for their posttest was