The text, and download links, for an unpublished academic paper:
Original Manuscript (scanned) | Transcribed/Formatted Paper: Word | PDF
Adolescents’ Perception of Musical
Instruments – An Exploratory Study
by
Trevor Shakeshaft and Jim Doherty
Faculty
of Education, University of Birmingham
Abstract
A group of 47 adolescents, aged
between 12 and 13 years of age, took part in this investigation. They were
presented with line drawings of ten musical instruments, and they were asked to
rate these on a set of 25 bi-polar scales, in the method devised by Osgood et alia (1957). The results indicated
that certain instruments were typically grouped together into one of two
general categories. The flute, for example, was seen as the most feminine,
agile, quiet, delicate, light, peaceful, smooth, gentle and calming. Other
instruments similarly perceived were the clarinet, the violin and the oboe. At
the other extreme, the drum was perceived as the most rough, exciting, harsh,
popular, threatening, masculine, unpleasant, easy to play, loud, strong,
robust, irritating, warlike, ugly and ‘pop’ (as opposed to ‘classical’). Other
instruments similarly perceived were the trombone and trumpet. A factor
analysis of the 25 ratings of all the instruments revealed three main factors,
labelled POTENCY, EVALUATION (NEGATIVE) and ‘POP’. The factor of potency was by
far the most important, accounting for almost two-thirds of the variance. The
results of this investigation are discussed in the context of the phenomenon of
animism and with reference to children’s preferences for musical instruments.
Introduction
This research focuses on how
adolescents perceive musical instruments. A group of secondary school pupils
were asked to rate certain instruments on a variety of bi-polar attributes,
some of which are generally used to describe human beings. It has long been
recognized that we tend to describe musical instruments, and particularly the
sounds that they produce, in terms of adjectives drawn from other fields of
experience, In this sense we are using a mode of analysis which might loosely
be described as metaphorical, often drawing on a network of epithets which have
been built up in social and personal life. But perhaps one might claim that
this tendency towards metaphorical analysis is part of a greater and more
general proclivity to ascribe to the inanimate qualities and characteristics
that are essentially human. At one level, this proclivity may be no more than a
tendency to use metaphors drawn from life to describe inanimate objects or
forces. At another level, the proclivity may be much more intense: objects or
forces are perceived as human. This
phenomenon is referred to as ‘animism’.
In more primitive times, animism seemed to be much more widespread than it is now. To Sir James Frazer, it was a universal characteristic of human thinking. In his book, The Golden Bough (1922), he provided examples of animism from many diverse cultures. “To the savage,” he wrote, “the world in general is animate, and the trees and plants are no exception to the rule. He thinks that they have souls like his own and treats them accordingly” (p35). So trees and plants (rice, corn, barley) have at various times and in various cultures been personified; but this personification could also include the winds, the rocks, mountains, lakes and seasons. Animism, it would seem, was an enduring trait in primitive man.
It would be easy to infer that modern man is more rational in his thinking, and that this tendency towards animism is no longer with us, but the evidence points to another conclusion. As Piaget has shown, animism is still a salient feature in the thinking of young children. Even among adults, there is evidence to prove that modern man is still failing to distinguish between the animate and the inanimate. Frude (1983), for example, describes how humans ‘interact” with computers: for some users these can take on living qualities. Quoting evidence from Weizenbaum (1979), Frude reveals that the use of computers in psychotherapy can have devastating effects on the reasoning of the clients. Weizenbaum, who created and used such a program (ELIZA) became so alarmed by its effect upon patients, that he abandoned this kind of approach, and began a crusade against the use of computers in counselling and psychotherapy. What alarmed Weizenbaum was that “[p]eople who knew very well that they were conversing with a machine soon forgot the fact, just as theatregoers, in the grip of suspended disbelief, soon forget that the action they are witnessing is not ‘real’ […] They would demand to be permitted to converse with the system in private and would, after conversing with it for a little time, insist (in spite of my explanations) that the machine really understood them” (p67).
We could conclude that man still has a tendency to ‘humanize’ that which is inanimate. It is this conclusion which underpins research into how we perceive musical instruments. The reasoning is that we do not merely perceive musical instruments as ‘things’, but customarily react to them in terms of a network of meanings, some of them drawn from human interaction and experience.
One such study has been reported by Abeles and Porter (1978). In the main, these investigators were concerned with children’s preference for musical instruments: they wanted to find out if boys preferred certain instruments and girls preferred others. They did find that there was a clear association between sex and preferred instrument, and that this began at a comparatively early age. But one aspect of their research is of particular interest here. Eight instruments (flute, violin, clarinet, cello, saxophone, trumpet, trombone and drum) were ranked for masculinity, using the method of paired comparisons. The respondents were 58 American college students, some specializing in music and others specializing in other disciplines. The results showed that the instruments which were rather most masculine were the drum, the trombone and the trumpet (in that order. The instruments that were rated as least masculine (and presumably most feminine) were the flute, the violin and the clarinet (in that order).
In a similar study, Griswald and Chroback (1981) examined the perceptions formed of certain musical instruments among a group of 89 college students, 40 of whom were specializing in music, the remainder in other disciplines. The investigators analyzed the perceptions formed by the group as a whole, and then compared the sexes. Griswald and Chroback studied responses to seven of the eight instruments that were included by Abeles and Porter (1978): they excluded the trombone. They added the harp, the piccolo, the glockenspiel, the piano, the French horn, the oboe, the guitar, the cymbals, the saxophone, the string bass and the tuba. Griswald and Chroback asked their subjects (50 females, 39 males) to rate each of the eighteen instruments on a 10-point Likert-type scale, anchored on the words MASCULINE and FEMININE. They found that undergraduates, irrespective of sex, rated as most masculine, the following instruments: tuba, string bass, drums and saxophone (in that order). The instruments that were rated most feminine were the harp, the flute, the piccolo, the glockenspiel, and the cello (in that order).
Both of these studies concentrated on one dimension, the masculine-feminine polarity. But there is no reason to doubt that musical instruments may be perceived in terms of other dimensions as meaningful to the individual. It is relevant in this context to refer to the research which was carried out by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957). Underpinning their attempts to chart what they called ‘semantic space’ was the belief that “most of the variance in human semantic judgements could be explained in terms of a relatively small number of orthogonal factors” (p71). In a variety of judgemental situations, Osgood et alia did find that three major factors – EVALUATION, POTENCY and ACTIVITY – kept emerging. Evaluation typically accounted for approximately double the variance due either to potency or activity. As we shall see, the research carried out by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum provided an invaluable frame of reference for the present study. Some of the adjectives that were analyzed by these researchers have been included in the rating scales used in the present project.
This research was initiated by a desire to extend the work reported by Abeles and Porter (1978) and Griswald and Chroback (1981). It will be recalled that in both of these studies the investigators used one scale only. In the present project, a wider network of bi-polar attributes has been used.
The Investigation
Two classes in the first year of a secondary school were selected for the study. There were 47 children in the sample, 21 of them boys, and 26 of them girls, all aged between 12 and 13. Since this investigation was concerned with their perceptions of certain selected musical instruments, it was important to ensure that the instruments were fairly familiar to the respondents. The investigator, a music teacher of many years’ experience, made the final choice. The musical instruments that were included are shown below. They were presented to the subjects in the same order:
1. Trombone
(Tbn)
2. Cello
(Vlc)
3. Drums
(Dr)
4. Oboe
(Ob)
5. Violin
(Vln)
6. Trumpet
(Tpt)
7. Clarinet
(Clt)
8. Guitar
(Gtr)
9. Flute
(Flt)
10. Piano
(Pft)
It was not possible to provide an aural example to the subjects. However, as an aide-memoire, a line-drawing of each instrument was provided for every subject.
Each instrument was rated on a set
of five-point bi-polar scales, in a manner similar to that employed by Osgood et alia (although these investigators
preferred a seven-point rather than a five-point scale). The adjectives used
for the 25 scales were partly drawn from Osgood’s lists (1957), and partly
selected on the basis of the investigator’s knowledge and understanding of the
children involved. The 25 bi-polar adjectives are shown below. A double
asterisk indicates that both polar adjectives are derived from Osgood; a single
asterisk denotes the fact that one adjective is so derived, and Osgood’s
original adjective is placed in brackets alongside. These changes to Osgood’s
original format were made because it was felt that the new form would be better
understood by this sample of British children.
1. feminine – masculine
2. rough – smooth**
3. agile – ponderous
4. pleasant – unpleasant
5. difficult
to play – easy to play
6. exciting – boring
7. sad – cheerful*
(happy)
8. harsh – gentle
9. quiet
(soft) – loud*
10. popular – unpopular
11. better
played on its own – better played as part of a larger group
12. weak – strong**
13. delicate – robust*
(rugged)
14. light – heavy**
15. soothing – irritating
16. peaceful – warlike*
(ferocious)
17. evil – good
18. beautiful – ugly**
19. ‘classical’ – ‘pop’
20. threatening – calm
21. ‘high
class’ – vulgar
22. squeaky – boomy
+
23. rumbling – screeching
+
24. majestic – frivolous
25. expressive – inexpressive
+ Note: Osgood employed the
adjectives high – low, and bass – treble. The scales numbers 22 and 23 were chosen
as being more easily understood by the subjects in the present experiment.
The scales were administered to the two classes separately, during a normal, forty-minute lesson. The pupils easily completed the responses within the time available, and a high level of interest and participation was noted.
Results
The results were analysed as
follows:
- (A) Ranking of the instruments on each of the 25 scales. On each of the 25 scales, the mean ranking of each instrument was calculated. The scales were laid out in such a way that the left-hand side of the polarity represents the lowest value (a rating of 1), and the right-hand side represents the highest value (a rating of 5). Table A reveals that for feminine/masculine scale, the instrument that was judged the most feminine was the flute, and the instrument that was rated the most masculine was the drum. The order is completely reversed when we come to the next rating scale, rough/smooth. In fact, the flute and the drum form the extremes in a significant number of scales. Thus the flute is rated as the most feminine, agile, quiet, delicate, light, peaceful, smooth, gentle, and calming. The drum is rated the most rough, exciting, harsh, popular, threatening, masculine, unpleasant, easy to play, loud, strong, robust, irritating, warlike, ugly, ‘pop’ (as opposed to ‘classical’), vulgar and boomy.
- (B) Ranking of the instruments on each of the 25 scales: sex differences. The mean ranking of each instrument on each of the 25 scales was calculated, for each sex separately. A sex-comparison revealed that in general there was little difference between the perceptions of the boys and the perceptions of the girls, so far as the musical instruments were concerned, Opinions appeared most unanimous in the case of the trombone (only five significant sex differences over the 25 scales), and most divergent in the case of the cello (eighteen significant sex differences over the 25 scales). In view of the small numbers in each sex group and the close similarity in the perceptions of the sexes, data for this aspect of the research has been omitted.
- (C) Factor analysis of the scales. The data was also subjected to factor analysis. The distinction between each instrument being set aside, the data was ‘pooled’: this gave 470 scores on each of the 25 scales (sample size was 47 and ten instruments were rated). The ‘pooled’ scores were factor-analysed, Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization being applied. Three factors with Eigen-values of more than 1 were extracted, and Table B presents the respective factor loadings on each of the 25 bi-polar scales. Factor I accounted for 59.8% of the variance, and Table B shows that if we accept a ‘cut-off’ point of 0.3 as the lowest acceptable level of factor loading, then eleven scales were significantly loaded on Factor I. Child (1970) advises that in trying to interpret and label factors, one should sample the ‘flavour’ of the most heavily loaded items, in an attempt to establish a semantic link. The list below sets out those scales that were most heavily loaded on Factor I. For the sake of clarity, only the stressed polarity of each scale is given.
Table A: Rankings of
instruments of each scale, for the whole sample
|
Left Polar Adjective |
Rankings of Instruments |
Right Polar Adjective |
|||||||||
1 |
feminine |
Flt |
Clt |
Vln |
Ob |
Pft |
Vlc |
Gtr |
Tbn |
Tpt |
Dr |
masculine |
2 |
rough |
Dr |
Tbn |
Tpt |
Vln |
Pft |
Clt |
Gtr |
Vlc |
Ob |
Flt |
smooth |
3 |
agile |
Flt |
Ob |
Gtr |
Vln |
Clt |
Vlc |
Pft |
Tbn |
Dr |
Tpt |
ponderous |
4 |
pleasant |
Pft |
Gtr |
Ob |
Flt |
Clt |
Vlc |
Tbn |
Tpt |
Vln |
Dr |
unpleasant |
5 |
difficult to play |
Tbn |
Ob |
Flt |
Vlc |
Clt |
Vln |
Gtr |
Tpt |
Pft |
Dr |
easy to play |
6 |
exciting |
Dr |
Gtr |
Pft |
Tpt |
Clt |
Flt |
Tnb |
Ob |
Vlc |
Vln |
boring |
7 |
sad |
Ob |
Vlc |
Vln |
Flt |
Tbn |
Clt |
Gtr |
Pft |
Tpt |
Dr |
cheerful |
8 |
harsh |
Dr |
Tpt |
Tnb |
Vln |
Vlc |
Clt |
Pft |
Gtr |
Ob |
Flt |
gentle |
9 |
quiet (soft) |
Flt |
Vln |
Gtr |
Ob |
Clt |
Vlc |
Pft |
Tpt |
Tnb |
Dr |
loud |
10 |
popular |
Dr |
Tpt |
Pft |
Gtr |
Clt |
Flt |
Vln |
Tbn |
Vlc |
Ob |
unpopular |
11 |
better on own |
Gtr |
Pft |
Flt |
Ob |
Clt |
Tpt |
Vlc |
Vln |
Dr |
Tbn |
better in a group |
12 |
weak |
Vln |
Flt |
Ob |
Vlc |
Clt |
Gtr |
Pft |
Tpt |
Tbn |
Dr |
strong |
13 |
delicate |
Flt |
Ob |
Vln |
Gtr |
Clt |
Vlc |
Pft |
Tbn |
Tpt |
Dr |
robust |
14 |
light |
Flt |
Vln |
Ob |
Clt |
Gtr |
Vlc |
Tpt |
Dr |
Pft |
Tbn |
heavy |
15 |
soothing |
Gtr |
Ob |
Flt |
Clt |
Pft |
Vlc |
Tpt |
Tbn |
Vln |
Dr |
irritating |
16 |
peaceful |
Flt |
Clt |
Ob |
Vln |
Gtr |
Pft |
Vlc |
Tpt |
Tbn |
Dr |
warlike |
17 |
evil |
Tbn |
Vln |
Tpt |
Vlc |
Dr |
Ob |
Clt |
Pft |
Flt |
Gtr |
good |
18 |
beautiful |
Gtr |
Vlc |
Flt |
Clt |
Ob |
Pft |
Vln |
Tpt |
Tbn |
Dr |
ugly |
19 |
‘classical’ |
Vln |
Vlc |
Tbn |
Ob |
Clt |
Flt |
Pft |
Tpt |
Gtr |
Dr |
‘pop’ |
20 |
Threatening |
Dr |
Tpt |
Tbn |
Vln |
Pft |
Vlc |
Clt |
Ftr |
Ob |
Flt |
calm |
21 |
‘high class’ |
Vlc |
Flt |
Pft |
Ob |
Vln |
Clt |
Tbn |
Gtr |
Tpt |
Dr |
vulgar |
22 |
squeaky |
Vln |
Vlc |
Ob |
Clt |
Flt |
Gtr |
Pft |
Tpt |
Tbn |
Dr |
boomy |
23 |
rumbling |
Dr |
Tbn |
Pft |
Tpt |
Gtr |
Flt |
Ob |
Clt |
Vlc |
Vln |
screeching |
24 |
majestic |
Clt |
Tbn |
Pft |
Vlc |
Flt |
Tpt |
Ob |
Gtr |
Dr |
Vln |
frivolous |
25 |
expressive |
Clt |
Tpt |
Pft |
Tbn |
Dr |
Vlc |
Ob |
Flt |
Gtr |
Vln |
inexpressive |
Tbn = Trombone
Vln = Violin
Flt = Flute
Vlc = Cello
Tpt = Trumpet
Pft = Piano
Dr = Drums
Clt = Clarinet
Ob = Oboe
Gtr = Guitar
Table B: Factor loadings on each scale:
Scale |
Factor I (Potency) |
Factor II
(Evaluative) |
Factor III |
||
1 |
feminine |
masculine |
0.645 |
0.189 |
0.232 |
2 |
rough |
smooth |
-0.337 |
-0.473 |
-0.158 |
3 |
agile |
ponderous |
0.344 |
0.141 |
-0.004 |
4 |
pleasant |
unpleasant |
0.042 |
0.613 |
-0.141 |
5 |
difficult to play |
easy to play |
0.123 |
0.116 |
0.208 |
6 |
exciting |
boring |
-0.105 |
0.415 |
-0.533 |
7 |
sad |
cheerful |
0.127 |
-0.134 |
0.451 |
8 |
harsh |
gentle |
-0.378 |
-0.468 |
-0.069 |
9 |
quiet (soft) |
loud |
0.612 |
0.184 |
0.143 |
10 |
popular |
unpopular |
-0.113 |
0.285 |
-0.520 |
11 |
on own |
in group |
0.166 |
0.373 |
-0.077 |
12 |
weak |
strong |
0.743 |
-0.028 |
-0.159 |
13 |
delicate |
robust |
0.643 |
0.127 |
0.015 |
14 |
light |
heavy |
0.608 |
0.111 |
0.102 |
15 |
soothing |
irritating |
0.221 |
0.590 |
-0.074 |
16 |
peaceful |
warlike |
0.524 |
0.493 |
0.086 |
17 |
evil |
good |
-0.092 |
-0.466 |
0.183 |
18 |
beautiful |
ugly |
0.108 |
0.600 |
-0.132 |
19 |
‘classical’ |
‘pop’ |
0.263 |
0.250 |
0.505 |
20 |
Threatening |
calm |
-0.299 |
-0.521 |
-0.125 |
21 |
‘high class’ |
vulgar |
0.146 |
0.425 |
0.062 |
22 |
squeaky |
boomy |
0.626 |
0.015 |
0.261 |
23 |
rumbling |
screeching |
-0.525 |
0.039 |
-0.221 |
24 |
majestic |
frivolous |
-0.142 |
0.393 |
0.057 |
25 |
expressive |
inexpressive |
-0.142 |
0.333 |
-0.211 |
- · MASCULINE
- · LOUD
- · STRONG
- · ROBUST
- · HEAVY
- · WARLIKE
- · BOOMY
- · RUMBLING
Clearly Factor I is very similar to
Osgood’s Potency factor, as a survey of the above list will show. But whereas
Osgood found that the factor of Evaluation typically accounted for double the
variance due to either Potency or Activity, in this case it is the factor of
Potency which is by far the most important, accounting for almost two-thirds
the common variance. Factor I has therefore been labelled POTENCY.
In the same way, we may set out a similar list for Factor II. Scales heavily loaded on Factor II:
- · UNPLEASANT
- · IRRITATING
- · UGLY
- · THREATENING
Obviously Factor II is very similar
to Osgood’s Evaluative factor, as a survey of the above list will show. But the
stressing reveals that the evaluation is decidedly negative, and Factor II has
therefore been labelled EVALUATION (NEGATIVE).
In the case of Factor III, the list of heavily loaded scales is as follows:
- · EXCITING
- · POPULAR
- · ‘POP’
Clearly Factor III differs from the
other two, in that it was not one originally elicited by Osgood. One would not necessarily
expect the same pattern to emerge in every judgemental situation, however. Each
of the two minor factors identified by Osgood (POTENCY and ACTIVITY) typically
explained only a small proportion of the variance; and in a variety of
judgemental cases, one would expect to find situation-specific factors playing
a minor role. That has happened in this investigation, where a ‘pop’ factor was
elicited. What is unusual here is the relative importance of POTENCY, compared
to EVALUATION, the reverse of what Osgood and his associates found.
Discussion
Several interesting points may be noted here. For one thing, it was clear that this sample of children did not perceive the musical instruments in a random way. There was a clear pattern in their responses, a pattern which ‘makes sense’ when one considers the instruments and the sounds that they emit. The correspondence between musical and semantic essence is highlighted by the ranking of the instruments on the 25 scales (see Table A). To perceive the flute as feminine, agile, delicate, light, peaceful, gentle and calming is to appreciate the very qualities that make it distinctive as an instrument. To see the drum as rough, exciting, threatening, strong, robust and warlike is to understand why it is so important in orchestra and band. What this study underlines is that we do not hear and appreciate musical instruments in a vacuum. We perceive and respond to them within a framework of meanings, some of them drawn from social and personal life.
But underlying these meanings there
seems to be some kind of organization, as the factor analysis revealed. The
‘orderly simplification’ which factor analysis brings revealed that the most
important element was POTENCY. Attributes like ‘masculine’, ‘loud’, ‘strong’,
and ‘warlike’ were all heavily weighted on this factor. And as Table A showed,
the instruments that were rated highly on these attributes were the drum, the
trombone, and the trumpet. Instruments that were typically regarded as
‘feminine’, ‘quiet’, ‘weak’ and ‘peaceful’ were the flute, violin, oboe and
clarinet. POTENCY was by far the most important factor, and accounted for the
major share of the common variance. Two other factors, EVALUATION (NEGATIVE)
and ‘POP’ were also elicited, but seemed to play a much less important role.
This paper started with the general
observation that man has a tendency to render animate those things which are
without life; and that this could range from the mere application of metaphor,
to the state where total personification of the object or force is achieved.
When we say that these children regarded the flute as more ‘feminine’ or the
drum as more ‘rough’, we are not implying that they were ‘humanizing’ these
instruments, or even that the associations they made with the instruments were
necessarily intense or important for them. One might even criticise this study
on the grounds that the respondents were forced to make an assessment on a set
of pre-selected scales. A more natural form of investigation would have
involved the elicitation of personal constructs, using the repertory grid technique
devised by Kelly (1955).
What we can claim is that certain aspects of the findings suggest that the ratings were valid. For one thing, there was a remarkable degree of uniformity in the way that the sample as a whole rated the instruments. For another, the pattern of these perceptions ‘made sense’ when one considered the instruments and sounds that were being reacted to: we, too, would have rated the flute as ‘delicate’ and ‘light’, the drum
as ‘rough’ and ‘threatening’.
Finally, the data that has emerged from this investigation does support the
findings of previous investigators in this field, like Abeles and Porter (1978)
and Griswald and Chroback (1981). So although the respondents were forced to
make ratings over a fixed and pre-defined set of scales, the validity of the
ratings seems to be high. Future research in this area should be more open, however,
and less exploratory. We have mentioned the possibility of using personal
constructs in the perception and assessment of musical instruments. Another
possibility is the use of projective tests. In an area which has been neglected
by psychologists, there is much scope for innovation and ingenuity. The way
ahead has been clearly sign-posted.
What light does this study throw on pupil attitudes to music, and to playing an instrument? It is well known that boys tend to lose interest in music in early adolescence, and it has been suggested that if schools specialized in certain musical instruments, they might attract more boys, and sustain their interest in playing. Brocklehurst (1962) attributed the growth in the formation of brass bands in secondary schools to ‘the appeal of brass instruments to adolescent boys’, and this has certainly been supported by the evidence from this study. Boys (and in some cases girls) perceived the trombone and trumpet as more masculine, robust, warlike, and expressive. Perhaps when local traditions combine with favourable perceptions, the music interest of boys can be caught and sustained. But the general decline of interest in music and music-playing among boys is probably due to what Gill (1981) referred to as “an inevitable part of the maturation process”. It is less easy to be specific about this process, but Shakeshaft (1983) is at present engaged in a longitudinal study which could indicate what factors are at work. His investigation could throw more light on the problem of why boys are more inclined to lose interest in music, and abandon music-playing, as they move into adolescence.
References
ABELES, H.F. and PORTER, S.Y. (1978), ‘The sex stereotyping of musical instruments’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 26, p65-75.
BROCKLEHURST, J.B. (1962), ‘Trends in music teaching’, Educational Review, 15, p1-14.
CHILD, D. (1970), The essentials of factor analysis London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
FRAZER, Sir James (1922), The Golden Bough (Abridged Version), London: Macmillan.
FRUDE, N. (1983), The intimate machine London: Century.
GILL, S.J. (1981), ‘An investigation into the attitudes towards class singing amongst primary and secondary aged pupils and their teachers’, Unpublished MEd thesis, University of Birmingham.
GRISWOLD, P.A. and CHROBACK, D.A. (1981), ‘Sex-role associations of music instruments and occupations by gender and major’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, p57-62.
KELLY, G.A. (1955), The psychology of personal constructs New York: Norton.
OSGOOD, C.E., SUCI, G.J. and TANNENBAUM, P.H. (1957), The measurement of meaning London: University of Illinois Press.
SHAKESHAFT, H.T. (1983) ‘A longitudinal investigation into factors influencing attitudes to music lessons’, Faculty of Education, University of Birmingham, PhD research in progress.
WEIZENBAUM, J. (1979), Computer Power and Human Reason San Francisco: Freeman.
No comments:
Post a Comment