Lissa May 2003

The primary purposes of this study were to identify factors underlying instrumental jazz
improvisation achievement and to examine the extent to which knowledge of jazz theory, aural
skills, aural imitation, and selected background variables predict achievement in instrumental
jazz improvisation. Subjects were 73 undergraduate wind players enrolled in college jazz
ensembles at five midwestern universities in the United States. Results indicated that objective
measurement of instrumental jazz improvisation is possible on expressive as well as technical
dimensions. Factor analysis revealed only one factor suggesting that instrumental jazz
improvisation is a single construct. Stepwise multiple regression revealed self-evaluation of
improvisation as the single best predictor of achievement in instrumental jazz improvisation with
aural imitation ability as the second best predictor.
During the past 40 years, jazz education has become an integral part of music education.
Improvisation, a central element to jazz, has often been viewed as a gift that does not lend itself
to instruction. This myth has been refuted by the success of a wealth of methods and pedagogical
tools developed for the teaching of jazz (Coker, 1989; Wither & Robbins, 1988). An underlying
assumption throughout these materials is that knowledge of jazz theory, aural skills, and aural
imitative ability are critical to achievement in jazz improvisation.
Despite this wealth of material and the acknowledged importance of improvisation to the art of
jazz, basic questions concerning jazz improvisation have only recently been explored. Much of
the research in jazz pedagogy, which has dealt with the development of musical skills and
deliberate practice, has produced mixed results. Several researchers have developed specific
instructional methods for jazz improvisation (Aitken, 1975; Bash, 1983; Burnsed, 1978; Carlson,
1980; Damron, 1973; Hores, 1977; Paulson, 1985). Although the results of these studies indicate
that improvisational achievement improves with instruction, little is known about the
comparative effectiveness of instructional techniques.
Aural imitation or ear-to-hand coordination has been examined in nonjazz settings by researchers
believing that aural awareness and acuity are basic to musical development. It was found to be an
effective predictor of music theory grades (Froseth, 1985) and highly correlated with aural music
theory skills (Wilder, 1988). Studies by Markovich (1985) and Wilder (1988) suggest that ear-tohand coordination can be improved through systematic training and practice. In an investigation
of the relationship between expertise on a subject's principal instrument and ear-to-hand
performance of aural melodic patterns, Gerber (1992) reported that expertise significantly aids
the performance of melodic patterns when the patterns approximate classical Western tonal
music; however, for randomly generated music patterns there was little difference between
experts and novices. These studies draw attention to the importance of aural imitation in musical
development and raise questions about the relationship of aural imitation to instrumental jazz
improvisation achievement.
Jazz improvisation achievement has been investigated in relation to a wide variety of variables
including age (Bash, 1983; Burnsed, 1978; Hores, 1977), performance medium (Hores, 1977),
piano experience (Madura, 1993, 1996), jazz listening (Greennagle, 1995; Hores, 1977; Madura,

1993, 1996; McDaniel, 1974), music aptitude (Bash, 1983; Briscuso, 1972; Hores, 1977),
musical achievement (Bash, 1983; Burnsed, 1978; McDaniel, 1974), sight-reading skills (Bash,
1983; Burnsed, 1978), attitudes toward band (Burnsed, 1978), gender, (Bash, 1983; Hores, 1977;
Madura, 1993, 1996), creativity (Greennagel, 1995), and self-evaluation (Bash, 1983;
Greennagel, 1995; McDaniel, 1974) with few notable results. The investigation of background
variables was peripheral rather than central to most of these studies, and few statistically
significant relationships were reported. Differences in operational definitions and methodology
across studies may account for conflicting results for variables such as self-evaluation, age, and
sight-reading. Variables found to be positively correlated with jazz improvisation achievement
were attitude toward band, creativity, jazz experience, jazz listening, and musical achievement.
Numerous researchers have designed and tested improvisation evaluation instruments (Bash,
1983; Bongiorno, 1990; Briscuso, 1972; Burnsed, 1978; Burnsed & Price, 1984; Damron, 1973;
Hores, 1977; Horowitz, 1995; Madura, 1993, 1996; Pfenninger, 1990; Partchey, 1973; Schilling,
1987). Twenty-two criteria were measured across 12 studies. Most of these criteria were selected
through analysis of previous literature (Burnsed, 1974; Madura, 1993, 1996; Schilling, 1987) or
by surveying jazz educators to identify criteria most frequently used for assessment within their
programs (Bongiorno, 1990; Burnsed & Price, 1984; Madura, 1993, 1996). Most authors
reported moderate to high interjudge reliability ranging from r = .44 to r = .96. In general, lower
interjudge reliability was reported for expressive elements.
Despite the growing body of research and the implicit assumption in much jazz research and
pedagogy that theoretical knowledge, perceptual and demonstrated aural skills, and background
variables are related to jazz improvisation achievement, there remains a need for further basic
research to investigate the nature of jazz improvisation and the relationships among the
aforementioned variables. The primary purposes of this study were to identify the musical skills
underlying instrumental jazz improvisation achievement and to examine the extent to which
knowledge of jazz theory, aural skills, aural imitation, and selected background variables predict
achievement in instrumental jazz improvisation. This study was designed to build on and clarify
issues raised in jazz improvisation research.
METHOD
Subjects were 85 wind players enrolled in college jazz ensembles. Complete data sets were
collected from 73 subjects, each of whom was an undergraduate music major from one of five
midwestern universities in the United States noted for outstanding jazz programs. Thirty were
freshmen, 22 were sophomores, and 20 were upperclassmen. Thirty woodwind players, 31
trumpet players, and 20 low brass players participated. Three were women, and 70 were men. To
help determine if the small ratio of women in the present study (4%) was representative of the
greater population in college jazz ensembles, a post hoc analysis was conducted. Responses from
22 randomly selected postsecondary schools indicated that 6% of college jazz band members
were women. The high male-to-female ratio seems to appropriately represent the predominately
male population in the field of jazz. In a random sample of 79 professional jazz improvising
musicians, Olson (1987) reported 72 men and seven women.

Three measures were designed by the researcher and revised through pilot studies for the present
study. The initial measures were constructed based on a survey of published jazz pedagogy
materials, analysis of measures used in research literature reviewed, and examination of
measures described in several collegiate jazz studies programs. A 70-item instrument, the
Measure of Jazz Theory Achievement (MJTA), was constructed to examine subjects' knowledge
of written jazz scales, jazz chords, chord substitutions, and harmonic function. The 48-item
Measure of Aural Skills (MAS) was constructed to measure subjects' ability to identify (by
naming) intervals, chords, scales, rhythmic motives, melodic motives, and chord patterns, given
three hearings for each item. The 40-item Measure of Aural Imitation (MAI) was designed to test
a subject's ability to imitate a musical item by playing it on his or her instrument after hearing a
tape-recorded example two times. On the recording, melodic intervals, scales, rhythmic motives,
and melodic motives were performed on trumpet, trombone, and saxophone on an alternating
basis. Harmonic intervals, chords, and chord progressions were performed on an Ensonic
keyboard. Subjects' responses were recorded for subsequent evaluation. The MAI consisted of
five subtests: ( 1) intervals, ( 2) rhythmic patterns, ( 3) melodic motives, ( 4) chords, and ( 5)
scales and modes. To increase content validity of the measures, jazz instructors at each
participating school were surveyed to determine the relevance and appropriateness of vocabulary
used in the test items.
To assess subjects' achievement in jazz improvisation, two improvisation tasks were designed to
be tape-recorded and subsequently evaluated. The first task consisted of the improvisation of two
choruses of "F Blues" (quarter note = 192) performed by each subject with a Jamey Aebersold
(1988) play-along recording. No written chord changes were provided. The second improvisation
task consisted of one chorus of "Satin Doll" (quarter note = 124), performed by each subject
accompanied by a Jamey Aebersold (1991) play-along recording. One chorus of the
accompaniment was heard prior to each improvisation task. A lead sheet with chord changes for
"Satin Doll" was provided.
The Instrumental Jazz Improvisation Evaluation Measure (IJIEM) was designed and refined
through a pilot study. The following criteria were adapted from the research of Burnsed and Price
(1984) for use in the present study: (a) technical facility, (b) melodic and rhythmic development,
(c) style, (d) use of harmonic material, and (e) expressiveness. Rhythmic/time feel and creativity
were added based on their inclusion in studies by Briscuso (1972), Partchey (1973), Hores
(1977), Bash (1983), Schilling (1987), and Bongiorno (1990). Descriptors followed each
category to help evaluators assess performances on 7-point Likert scales (1 low to 7 high).
The improvisation tasks were evaluated by three judges using the IJIEM. The judges, who
underwent a training session, were jazz educators with 5-20 years' experience teaching and
evaluating jazz improvisation. Before evaluating the data from the main study, each judge
listened to two "anchor" examples representing the weakest and strongest performances of
subjects on the "F Blues" and "Satin Doll" tasks as evaluated by three judges in the pilot study.
The "Blues" task was evaluated first. To ensure that ratings of each performance criterion were
independent, the judges listened to each subject's performance a total of seven times (e.g., once
each for technical facility, rhythmic/time feel, etc). When the evaluation of the "Blues" task was
completed for all subjects the judges repeated the process to evaluate the "Satin Doll" task.

Subjects were presented in a different order for the "Satin Doll" tasks to lessen the possibility of
a halo effect due to a judge recognizing a particular subject's performance.
The Subject Experience Survey (SES) was designed to collect background information including
year in school, instrument, piano experience, jazz listening, and improvisation class experience.
Subjects were also asked to rate themselves as improvisers on a 3-point scale: ( 1) beginner, ( 2)
moderate ability, and ( 3) advanced. Each subject underwent two-part testing that required a total
of 1.5 hours. The SES, MJTA, and MAS were administered in a group setting at each of the sites.
Subsequently, each subject met with the researcher for 30 minutes to complete the MAI and the
improvisation tasks.
RESULTS
Internal reliability of each of the measures was established and interjudge reliability was
calculated for the improvisation tasks. Internal reliability, computed using Cronbach's alpha,
was .84 for the MAS, .88 for the MAI, and .94 for the MJTA. Using the Cronbach's alpha
formula, interjudge reliability was computed for each of the dimensions of the jazz improvisation
tasks and for the two total improvisation scores. Interjudge reliability among the three judges for
both the total "Blues" scores and the total "Satin Doll" scores was .97. Interjudge reliability for
each of the subscales of the "Blues" and "Satin Doll" tasks ranged from .91 to .97.
Descriptive statistics were computed for the MJTA, the MAS, and the MAI. Means indicated that
the measures were of a difficulty level appropriate for the sample, and standard deviations
showed a fairly wide variability among subjects for each of the measures. The distributions for
the MJTA and the MAS were normal; however composite scores for the MAI formed a bimodal
distribution. Overall, the MAT was the most difficult of the three measures with some tasks,
particularly the imitation of melodic motives, proving challenging for many subjects. Descriptive
statistics for continuous background variables indicated that most subjects were beginning to
intermediate-level pianists, few had taken intermediate or advanced improvisation courses, and
most considered themselves intermediate to advanced improvisers. High variability existed for
jazz listening, likely due to the open-ended format of the question.
Descriptive statistics for each of the subscores and the total scores of the "Blues" and the "Satin
Doll" improvisation tasks, respectively, were computed and appear in Table 1. A composite
improvisation score for each subscore and a composite total score were obtained by combining
subscores on each dimension and the total score for the "Blues" and "Satin Doll" improvisation
tasks. Since interjudge reliability was high (.97) for both the "Blues" and "Satin Doll" total
scores and for each dimension of the "Blues" and "Satin Doll" tasks (ranging from .91 to .96),
one set of scores was used to represent the panel of three judges. Each subtest was evaluated on a
7-point scale, summing to a total possible score on each task of 49 and a composite total score of
98. Variability was moderate among subjects on all subtests of the "Blues" tasks and the "Satin
Doll" tasks and skewness on all dimensions was < 1, indicating a relatively normal
distribution. The kurtosis value for each of the composite dimensions and the composite total
score was > 1. An examination of the distribution of the composite total score revealed a
bimodal distribution with scores clustering around 35 and 70.

Pearson correlations were computed for all independent and dependent variables. Among the
subtests of the MAS all correlations were statistically significant at the .05 level and most at the .
001 level, and all subtests correlated with the total score at the .001 level. The weakest
correlation was between the melodic motive subtest and the rhythmic motive subtest (r= .22).
Because of the high positive correlations among the subtests of the MAS, the measure was
treated as a single variable in subsequent analysis. Most correlations among the subtests of the
MAI were significant at the .001 level and all but one were significant at the .05 level. The only
nonsignificant correlation was between the scale subtest and the rhythmic motive subtest. The
correlation between the rhythmic motive subtest and the total score was significant, but weak.
Due to the high correlations among the subtests, this measure was also treated as a single
variable in subsequent analysis. Correlations between the subtests of the MAS and the MAI were
computed, and most were significant at the .001 level. The correlation between the total scores of
the two measures was quite strong (r= .74). Nonsignificant relationships were found between the
rhythm subtest of the MAI and most of the subtests of the MAS. Since the mean scores for the
"Blues" subtests and the "Blues" total score were generally higher than those on the "Satin Doll"
subtests and the "Satin Doll" total score, a paired t-test was computed. The results indicated that
the difference in difficulty between the two tasks was statistically significant with the "Satin
Doll" task proving more difficult (t = 2.45, df = 72, p < .02).
All correlations among subtests of the "Blues" improvisation task were significant at the .001
level and were quite high, ranging from .71 to .96, suggesting a single construct. Although all
relationships were very strong, the weaker correlations involved the rhythmic/time feel
dimension. Relationships among the subtests of the "Satin Doll" task were even stronger than
among the subtests of the "Blues" task. All were significant at the .001 level, indicating a single
variable rather than separate dimensions. Again, the weaker relationships occurred between the
rhythmic/time feel subtest and other subtests. Strong statistically significant correlations (p < .
001) were revealed among all subtests of the "Blues" and "Satin Doll" tasks. The correlations
ranged from .59 to .83. Not surprisingly, given the correlations reported among subtests within
each measure, the weaker relationships existed between the rhythmic/time feel subtest of the
"Blues" task and the subtests of the "Satin Doll" task. Because of the high correlations among all
aspects of the "Blues" tasks and the "Satin Doll" tasks, the tasks were combined for all
subsequent analyses.
The correlations among the MJTA, the MAS, the MAI, improvisation tasks, and continuous
background variables are presented in Table 2. The three measures were correlated at the .001
level. Among the continuous background variables, self-evaluation of improvisation was
significantly correlated with all other variables except piano background. Piano background did
not correlate significantly with MAI or any of the other background variables, nor did it show a
significant correlation with the improvisation tasks. The strength of the correlations ranged from
r = -.09 for jazz listening and aural skills, to r = .80 for aural skills and jazz theory achievement.
The variables most highly correlated with the composite improvisation score in order of strength
are self-evaluation of improvisation, aural imitation, jazz theory achievement, improvisation
class experience, and aural skills.
A one-way analysis of variance was used to compare the performance of subjects by year in
school and by instrument on each of the measures and on the composite improvisation task. The

results showed significant differences among subjects by year in school on the composite
improvisation task (F= 4.04, df = 2, 70, p < .02) and by instrument group on the MAI (F= 3.66,
df= 2, 70, p < .03). Further examination of the differences between subjects by year in school on
the composite improvisation task using Tukey's test of paired comparisons revealed that
upperclassmen scored significantly higher than did freshmen and higher than sophomores,
though not at a statistically significant level. Follow-up analysis of the differences between
subjects by instrument group on the MAI, also using Tukey's test of paired comparisons,
indicated that trumpet players scored significantly higher than woodwind players. The mean
differences between year in school on the MJTA, the MAS, and the MMA, and between
instrument groups on the MJTA, the MAS, and the composite improvisation task, failed to reach
significance.
High correlations among all criteria across both improvisation tasks and the high correlation
between the total "Blues" score and the total "Satin Doll" score (.83) suggested that jazz
improvisation achievement might not be multidimensional. To further examine this finding, the 7
subtests of the composite improvisation task were submitted to factor analysis. A subject-tovariable ratio of approximately 10:1 was achieved given the 7 improvisation dimensions for 73
subjects. Using oblique rotation, only one factor was revealed that met the eigenvalue criterion of
one. This factor with an eigenvalue of 6.43 accounted for 92% of the variance in the composite
jazz improvisation task. Because there was clearly only one factor, the solution could not be
rotated. The factor loadings for the seven improvisation subtasks ranged from .916 for melodic
and rhythmic development to .984 for rhythmic/time feel.
To identify the best prediction model for instrumental jazz improvisation the five independent
variables that were most highly correlated with the composite improvisation scores were used in
stepwise multiple regression analyses. Jazz theory achievement, aural skills, aural imitation, selfevaluation of improvisation, and improvisation class experience served as predictor variables.
The results of these five stepwise regression analyses revealed the best prediction model as that
in which self-evaluation of improvisation, aural imitation, and improvisation class experience
explained a total of 66%o of the variance. Self-evaluation of improvisation was the strongest
predictor, contributing 53% of the variance. Aural imitation contributed an additional 8%.
Improvisation class experience was the third variable to enter the model, contributing 5% of the
variance. Jazz theory achievement and aural skills did not enter the prediction model.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The results of this study extend research in instrumental jazz improvisation beyond that of
previous studies, providing implications for educators in the areas of assessment of instrumental
jazz improvisation and instrumental jazz improvisation pedagogy. The exploratory nature of this
study and the lack of extensive previous research warrant caution with regard to practical
application and theoretical speculation.
High interjudge reliability (.97) for the total scores on the IJIEM and high interjudge reliability
on each of the subscores indicate that objective measurement of instrumental jazz improvisation
is feasible on expressive as well as technical criteria. One characteristic of the IJIEM that may
have contributed to the high interjudge reliability was the use of several short phrases to describe

each of the seven criteria on the measure. Expressiveness, for example, was further defined with
the following descriptors: (a) creates and maintains intensity, (b) shapes ideas, (c) uses dramatic
devices, and (d) tone color enhances improvisation. It seems that an evaluation rubric such as the
IJIEM might provide educators with a tool to reliably assess jazz improvisation achievement
even for the most subjective elements (i.e., style, creativity, and expression). The fact that judges
listened to each improvisation task seven times, once for each of the criteria, might also have
contributed to high interjudge reliability.
Two issues emerge that warrant further investigation. High correlations among criteria in this
study suggest that a global rating might be as reliable as rating multiple criteria. Similar findings
were reported by Burnsed and Price (1984); however, others (Pfenninger, 1990; Schilling, 1987)
have found global ratings to be less reliable. A second issue concerns the reliability of single
versus multiple hearings. Can judges reliably evaluate multiple criteria with a single hearing?
Research specifically addressing these issues will help further refine jazz improvisation
evaluation.
Stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed self-evaluation of improvisation as the best
predictor of achievement in instrumental jazz improvisation. This finding is of interest given the
mixed results with regard to jazz improvisation achievement and self-evaluation reported in other
studies (Bash, 1983; Greennagel, 1995; McDaniel, 1974). Differences in how self-evaluation was
defined in each of these studies likely contributed to the conflicting results. In the present study
subjects were asked to provide a general assessment of their improvisational ability on a threepoint scale (beginner, moderate ability, or advanced). Further research on self-evaluation as a
predictor of jazz improvisation achievement is needed. Such research might be designed so that
subjects evaluate their own tape-recorded improvisation tasks using the same assessment
instrument as the judges. The results of the present study indicate that improvisers have a good
sense of the level of their improvisational ability and suggest that educators should include selfevaluation in assessment models.
As to the rhythmic dimension, the evidence in the present study was inconclusive. Throughout
the study, rhythmic aspects seemed to be relatively discrete, though not at a statistically
significant level. The rhythm/time feel dimension was of particular interest in the "Blues" task.
Although all subscores were highly correlated, correlations between scores on the blues
rhythm/time feel dimension and all other blues subscores were the lowest. Results were similar
for the "Satin Doll" task, although correlations for the rhythm/time feel dimension were not as
noticeably low. These results might be accounted for in part by the faster tempo of the "Blues"
task, which possibly revealed subjects' cognitive and technical limitations. The faster tempo
likely placed greater demands on subjects' mental processing and physical performance.
Significant differences were not found in improvisation scores due to instrument or piano
experience. Upperclassmen scored significantly higher than did freshmen on the "Satin Doll"
task but no significant differences in scores occurred due to class level on the "Blues" task. The
greater difficulty of the "Satin Doll" task might explain these results.
Aural imitation was the second variable to enter the prediction model. Neither jazz theory
achievement nor aural skills entered into the prediction equation, though both were highly

correlated with the composite improvisation scores and with aural imitation. Correlations among
these three measures were very high, indicating that cognitive, aural, and imitative skills are
interrelated and likely measure many of the same skills. Since the MAI was also the most
difficult, it could be considered a reliable objective measure to predict jazz improvisation
achievement. Improvisation class experience was the third variable to enter the prediction model,
increasing the amount of variance explained by only 5%. The formal instruction provided in
improvisation class might include several other variables examined in this study, i.e. jazz
listening, knowledge of jazz theory, aural skills, and aural imitation; therefore, improvisation
class experience might have functioned as a global predictor of success.
Several findings indicate that instrumental jazz improvisation is a single construct, at least in this
study. The high correlations among the subtests of each of the measures, the high correlations
among the dimensions of jazz improvisation on both improvisation tasks, and the single factor
obtained through factor analysis all support a single construct model of instrumental jazz
improvisation. In contrast, Horowitz (1995) used factor analysis to construct a rating scale for
jazz guitar improvisation with results indicating three factors: musicianship, creativity, and
overall structure. Madura's (1993,1996) studies revealed three factors: rhythm, tonal, and
originality of musical ideas. The mixed results of these studies may be due to the different
performance mediums examined (i.e., wind players, guitar players, and vocalists), or perhaps the
contrasting results occurred due to the criteria selected at the onset of the studies.
The emergence of instrumental jazz improvisation as a single construct in this study has
important implications for jazz pedagogy. This finding suggests that the multiplicity of subskills
contributing to achievement in instrumental jazz improvisation should be developed
simultaneously rather than in a sequential fashion. Although it is often necessary pedagogically
to break a complex skill such as improvisation into manageable subskills, the interdependence of
these subskills as evidenced by the high correlations reported in the present study indicates that
they should be developed contiguously. Although the results of the present study are very
preliminary in nature, a theoretical model for instrumental jazz improvisation instruction drawn
from these results might include the following: (a) development of theoretical knowledge of jazz
scales and chords, aural skills, and aural imitative ability, (b) acquisition of idiomatic melodic
material through memorization of tunes, (c) experimentation with melodic and rhythmic
development, and (d) manipulation of expressive elements. These should be acquired in an
analogous fashion and in an atmosphere balanced between disciplined practice and creative
experimentation.
Researchers in future studies should investigate the nature of rhythm/time feel and rhythmic
development in jazz improvisation, the nature and complexity of improvisational tasks, the
relationship between instrumental and vocal jazz improvisation, and the relationship of selfevaluation to the development of jazz improvisers, as well as extending the current research into
the basic nature of jazz improvisation. As jazz education gains a more prominent position in
secondary and university curricula, systematic instructional techniques and valid assessment
tools that are research-based must be developed. The results of this study, together with those of
future research, can provide the basis for future pedagogical models in jazz.

This article is based on the author's doctoral dissertation, "Relationships among jazz Theory
Achievement, Jazz Aural Skills, Aural Imitation, and Achievement in Instrumental jazz
Improvisation," accepted in November 1998 by Indiana University, Bloomington.
Copyright 2003 by MENC: The National Association for Music Education.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Subtests and Total Scores of Improvisation Tasks (N = 73)
Legend for Chart:

A - Variable
B - Mean
C - SD
D - Skewness
E - Kurtosis

"F Blues"

Technical Facility

4.36

1.72

-0.36

-1.10

Rhythm/Time Feel

3.99

1.83

-0.02

-1.25

Melodic/Rhythmic Dev.

3.96

1.77

0.06

-1.21

Style

4.26

1.90

-0.01

-1.32

Harmony

3.70

1.90

0.14

-1.34

Expression

4.12

1.95

-0.10

-1.24

Creativity

3.85

1.89

0.08

-1.20

Total Score

28.19

12.07

-0.11

-1.30

Technical Facility

3.90

1.69

0.06

-0.96

Rhythm/Time Feel

3.74

1.70

0.01

-1.07

Melodic/Rhythmic Dev.

3.77

1.84

0.07

-1.14

Style

3.60

1.88

0.24

-1.03

Harmony

3.73

1.84

0.19

-1.18

Expression

3.92

1.90

0.09

-1.33

Creativity

3.68

2.02

0.10

-1.42

Total Score

26.15

12.14

0.10

-1.19

"Satin Doll"

Composite Improvisation

Technical Facility

8.26

3.24

-0.14

-1.12

Rhythmic/Time Feel

7.73

3.22

-0.05

-1.20

Melodic/Rhythmic Dev.

7.73

3.36

-0.14

-1.29

Style

7.86

3.56

0.03

-1.28

Harmony

7.42

3.55

0.11

-1.33

Expression

8.04

3.61

-0.05

-1.37

Creativity

7.53

3.67

-0.01

-1.38

Total Score

54.34

23.14

-0.09

-1.32

Table 2 Pearson Correlations among MJTA, MAS, MAI, Improvisation Tasks and Continuous
Background Variables (N = 73)
Legend for Chart:

B - MJTA
C - MAS
D - MAI
E - PNO
F - IMP
G - LIS

H - ICL

MAS

.80(***)

MAI

.66(***)

.74(***)

PNO

.27(*)

.25(*)

.09

IMP

.51(***)

.39(***)

.47(***)

LIS

ICL

-.05

.37(**)

-.09

.33(**)

F
H

.07

.07

-.02

32(**)

.34(**)

-.07

.39(***)

-.02

.73(***)

.13

IMC

.57(***)

.45(***)

.60(***)
.35(**)

.53(***)

Note. MJTA -Measure of Jazz Theory Achievement; MAS = Measure

of Aural Skills total score; MAI = Measure of Aural Imitation
total score; PNO -Piano background; IMP = Self- evaluation of
improvisation skill; LIS = Hours per week of jazz listening;
ICL = Level of for mal jazz improvisation training; IMC composite

score on "F Blues" and "Satin Doll" improvisation tasks

(*) p < .05; (**) p < .01; (***) p < .001.

REFERENCES
Aebersold, J. (1988). "F Blues." On Blues in all keys [CD]. New Albany, IN: Jamey Aebersold
jazz, Inc.
Aebersold, J. (1991). "Satin Doll." On Maiden voyage [CD]. New Albany, IN: Jamey Aebersold
Jazz, Inc.
Aitken, A. E. (1975). A self-instructional audio-imitation method designed to teach trumpet
students jazz improvisation in the major mode. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37 (01),
18A. (UMI No. 7615018)
Bash, L. (1983). The effectiveness of three instructional methods on the acquisition of jazz
improvisational skills. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44 (07), 2079A. (UMI No. 8325043)
Bongiorno, F. J. (1990). The construction and validation of an evaluation instrument for jazz
ensemble saxophone auditions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Briscuso, J. J. (1972). A study of ability in spontaneous and prepared jazz improvisation among
students who possess different levels of musical aptitudes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 3
(04), 1761A.
Burnsed, C. V. (1978). The development and evaluation of an introductory jazz improvisational
sequence for intermediate band students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39 (08), 4578A.
(UMI No. 790129)
Burnsed, C. V., & Price, H. E. (1984). Improvisation and evaluation. Research Proceedings of
the National Association of Jazz Educators, 6, 35-42.
Carlson, W. R. (1980). A procedure for teaching jazz improvisation based on an analysis of the
performance practices of three major trumpet players: Louis Armstrong, Dizzie Gillespie, and
Miles Davis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 (03), 1042A. (UMI No. 8118663)
Coker, J. (1989). The teaching of jazz. Rottenburg N., West Germany: Advanced Music.
Damron, B. L. (1973). The development and evaluation of a self-instructional sequence in jazz
improvisation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 35 (02), 1141A. (UMI No. 7418028)
Froseth, J. O. (1985). A longitudinal study of the relationship between melodic ear-to-hand
coordination and selected indices of musical achievement at the University of Michigan School
of Music. Research Report to the School of Music, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Gerber, M. (1992). An investigation of the relationship between performance expertise and

melodic ear-to-hand coordination of music patterns within various degrees of contextual
constraint. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Greennagel, D. (1995). A study of selected predictors of jazz vocal improvisation skills (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Miami). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55 (8), 2201A.
Hores, R. G. (1977). A comparative study of visual-and aural-oriented approaches to jazz
improvisation with implications for instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39 (04),
2121A. (UMI No. 7818637)
Horowitz, R. (1994). The development of a rating scale for jazz guitar improvisation
performance (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 55 (11), 3443A.
McDaniel, W. T. (1974). Differences in musical achievement, musical experience, and
background between jazz-improvising musicians and nonimprovising musicians at the freshman
and sophomore college levels (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1974). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 35 (12), 7948A.
Madura, P. D. (1993). Relationships among vocal jazz improvisation achievement, jazz theory
knowledge, imitative ability, previous musical experiences, general creativity, and gender
(Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53 (12),
4245A.
Madura, P. D. (1996). Relationships among vocal jazz improvisation achievement, jazz theory
knowledge, imitative ability, musical experience, creativity, and gender. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 44, 252-267.
Markovich, V. A. (1985). An investigation of the effects of matching timbre and training on
melodic ear-to-hand coordination of college music majors. Dissertation Abstracts International,
46(07), 1861A. (UMI No. 8520940)
Olson, R. D. (1987). Handedness patterns among professional musicians (Master's thesis,
California State University, Fullerton, 1987). Master's Abstracts International, 26 (02), 280.
Partchey, K. C. (1973). The effects of feedback, models and repetition on the ability to improvise
melodies. Dissertation Abstracts International, 35 (01), 240A. (UMI No. 7416058)
Paulson, J. C. (1985). The development of an imitative instructional approach to improvising
effective melodic statements in jazz solos. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (01), 2957A.
(UMI No. 9529920)
Pfenninger, R. C. (1990). The development and validation of three rating scales for the objective
measurement of jazz improvisation achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 (08),
2674A. (UMI No. 9100327)

Schilling, R. (1987). The feasibility of objective diagnostic measurement of jazz improvisation.

Research Proceedings of the National Association of Jazz Educators, 7, 161-170.
Wilder, M. D. (1988). An investigation of the relationship between melodic ear-to-hand
coordination and written and aural theory skills within an undergraduate music theory context
(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1988). UMI No. 8907167.
Witmer, R., & Robbins, J. (1988). A historical and critical survey of recent pedagogical
materials for the teaching and learning of jazz. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education, no. 96, 7-29.
Submitted August 28, 2002; accepted July 15, 2003.
~~~~~~~~
By Lissa F. May, Indiana University
Lissa F. May is an associate professor of music education in the School of Music, Indiana
University, Bloomington, IN 47405; e-mail: lamay@indiana.edu.