Comparison of the changes in scores over time for the intervention and the control

Figures 4.1; 4.2; 4.3; 4.4; 4.5; 4.6 further illustrate comparisons of the performance on all six tests by the older and younger intervention and control groups over two periods of time. In all cases p = .0001.

97

In reading, as presented in Figure 4.1, both older groups performed at a similar standard with the difference in progression between the groups of -0.09. This number was calculated by subtracting the change in mean differences between the results pre- and post- intervention for control 1 from the change in mean differences over the same two periods of time for music 1. The younger intervention group not only started below the control group but also exceeded it by the end of the year. Their progression was 0.58. Output in bold indicates that the intervention groups outperformed the control groups.

Figure 4.1: Change in results in reading for the intervention and control groups over two periods of time

98

Figure 4.2 shows that in writing, both intervention and control groups of both ages progressed very similarly. For the older groups the level of progression was 0.04 and for the younger groups it was 0.1.

Figure 4.2: Change in results in writing for the intervention and control groups over two periods of time

99

In mathematics, the older intervention group started with much lower scores and over the period of the study reached a level similar to the control group with the progression equal 0.23, see Figure 4.3. Both younger groups had similar results at the beginning of the year and the intervention group progressed slightly better (0.09).

Figure 4.3: Change in results in mathematics for the intervention and control groups over two periods of time

100

Figure 4.4 shows that in the picture test, music 1 achieved lower scores than control 1 at the beginning of the year, whilst by the end of the year their scores were similar. The progression level was 1.71. Out of the younger children, music 2 was better to start with and continued to be better with a greater difference of 2.61 between groups at the end of the year. Figure 4.4: Change in results in the picture test for the intervention and control groups over two periods of time

101

As presented in Figure 4.5, in the memory test, both older groups change of scores was very similar over time with the control group progressing marginally greater – 0.2. In the younger groups, the control group started below the intervention group and progressed more rapidly achieving progression of - 0.47.

Figure 4.5: Change in results in the memory test for the intervention and control groups over two periods of time

102

Figure 4.6 shows differences in results between the groups in the puzzle test. Music 1 was slightly better at the beginning of the programme and that difference became greater towards the end by .012. Music 2 also had better scores than the control group at the beginning of the study and progressed only slightly better than their peers with the difference of .014. Figure 4.6: Change in results in the puzzle test for the intervention and control groups over two periods of time

4.4 Chapter summary

The theoretical framework underlying this study proposed that learning music would develop children’s spatial – temporal skills which might subsequently have an impact on their learning of mathematics. Children who participated in a music programme should therefore show higher levels of achievement than their peers in spatial – temporal tests and in mathematics, whilst their scores in a memory test should be similar to those in a control group. The exploration of these relationships using data collected during the pilot study was the aim of the analyses presented in this chapter.

103

There were several statistically significant findings:

 In mathematics, the older control group had significantly higher attainment prior to the start of the programme. At the end of the year they still performed better than the music group but the difference was no longer statistically significant. This suggests that during the period of the intervention the progress of the music group was greater than that of the control group although this difference was not statistically significant when assessed using a repeated measures analysis.

 Both music groups showed greater change in both spatial-temporal reasoning tests over the period of the intervention when compared with the control groups. These differences were statistically significant.

 In the memory test, both control groups showed greater change over the period of the intervention than the music groups. For the younger group this change was statistically significant suggesting that the findings relating to spatial-temporal reasoning were not the result of a Hawthorne effect or more general intellectual development.

 In reading, the younger control group initially had higher scores. Following the intervention, the music group outperformed the control group. Their change in scores was statistically significant. This confirms the findings of previous research that rhythmic music instruction has a positive influence on reading.

104

Table 4.5 shows which groups achieved the highest scores in pre- and post- intervention testing and in the change achieved over the period of the intervention. All statistically significant cases are marked in bold.

Table 4.5: Higher achieving groups in pre- and post- testing and the progression over the period of the intervention

Older groups music 1 and control 1

Younger groups music 2 and control 2

Pre- Post- Change Pre- Post- Change

Reading control 1 control 1 control 1 control 2

t(59) = -3.01 p = .004 music 2 t(59) = 2.13 p = .037 music 2  2 p  .208 p = .000

Writing music 1 music 1 music 1 control 2

t(59) = -2.03 p = .046 control 2 music 2 Mathematics control 1* t(57) = -2.06 p = .044

control 1 music 1 music 2 music 2 music 2

Picture test control 1 music 1 music 1



2

p

 .125 p = .006

music 1 music 2 music 2



2

p

 .126 p = .005

Memory test control1 control 1 control 1 music 1 control 2 control 2



2

p

 .064 p = .048

Puzzle test music 1 music 1 music 1

 2 p  .071 p = .041 music 1 music 2 t(59) = -2.7 p = .010 music 2  2 p  .081 p = .026

*groups highlighted in bold showed statistically significant result

These data revealed that in both spatial – temporal reasoning measurements children from the intervention groups outperformed the control groups. As no such relationships were observed in the memory test, this indicates that participation in the music programme had a strong impact on pupils’ spatial-temporal skills. This enhancement did not however facilitate the development of learning in mathematics strongly enough to show statistically significant progression. A thorough inspection of the relationships between the individual variables is described in chapter 8. This was undertaken to gain a deeper understanding of the possible influence of the music intervention. Chapter 5 sets out the findings from the main study.

105

Chapter 5: Relationships between groups: Analysis of data from the first year of