[Digite texto] [Digite texto] [Digite texto]
eISSN 2317-6377
Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study
Leitura musical e software de notação musical: um estudo de caso múltiplo
Mar Galera-Nuñez
University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain
mmgalera@us.es
SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
Section Editor: Fernando Chaib
Layout Editor: Fernando Chaib
License: "CC by 4.0"
Submitted date: 14 set 2023
Final approval date: 29 mar 2024
Publication date: 08 apr 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/2317-6377.2024.48079
ABSTRACT: A multiple-case study was conducted within the context of the subject “Musical Practices and Fundamentals” of the
Degree of Primary Education at the University of Seville. Five volunteers were subjected to an oral test in which they had to study
four music sheets of two different difficulty levels, using two different means. The main objective of this study was to understand
the differences between the perceptions of the participants toward the use of these two different means. The results show that
the software had greater acceptance for those participants who had lower knowledge and skills regarding the musical content of
the music sheets used in this study. Based on the results, it is understood that the introduction of this type of means could pose
an improvement in the performance of the students, thereby reducing the differences in previous musical knowledge and skills,
which, in turn, could enrich the methodology of the subject.
KEYWORDS: Music reading; Music notation software; Technological acceptance; Multiple-case study; College students.
RESUMO: Foi realizado um estudo de casos múltiplos no contexto da disciplina de Fundamentos e Práticas Musicais da
Licenciatura de Educação Primária da Universidade de Sevilha. Cinco voluntários foram submetidos a uma prova oral em que
tiveram que estudar quatro escores de dois níveis de dificuldade diferentes, auxiliados por dois meios distintos. O objetivo
principal foi compreender como as percepções dos participantes sobre o uso desses dois meios diferentes diferiam. Os resultados
mostraram que o editor foi mais aceito quando os participantes tinham menos conhecimento e habilidades sobre o conteúdo
musical das partituras. En base a los resultados, se entiende que la introducción de este tipo de medios podría suponer una mejora
en el rendimiento de los alumnos, consiguiendo salvar las diferencias en cuanto conocimientos y habilidades musicales previas y,
asimismo, podría suponer un enriquecimiento en la metodología de a assinatura.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Leitura musical; Software de notação musical; Aceitação tecnológica; Estudo de caso múltiplo; Estudantes
universitarios.
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25| General Topics | e242510 | 2024
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
2
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
1. Introduction and literature review
The present study aimed to address a problem framed within the University of Seville in the Degree of
Primary Education, in the specialty of Musical Education, specifically in the subject of “Musical Practices and
Fundamentals”. One of the main objectives of said subject is that the students learn to sight-sing written
musical code. The literature about musical reading is scarce; however, the few studies conducted in this
regard seem to indicate that this is a special type of musical perception (Sloboda, 2004). According to the
mentioned author, musical reading can be understood as a set of necessary processes and conditions that
enable the perception and interpretation of the encoded musical language. Decoding musical texts is a very
complex skill. In the first stages of the learning of this skill, the aforementioned processes do not take place
automatically or instantly (McPherson & Gabrielsson 2002). Depending on the type of output derived from
musical reading, the latter can be either silent or sonorous. In silent music reading, the coding/decoding
processes take place internally, whereas, in sonorous music reading, the response can be either vocal or
instrumental. Both responses require motor processes and orders that enable musical performance
(Merchán Sánchez-Jara 2016). In the musical reading processes aimed at singing performance, it is
fundamental to be able to associate the musical symbols with their sonorous correspondence, that is, with
the identification and recovery of different sonorous heights and relations (Shön & Besson 2002). Usually,
the lectures of the subject “Musical Practices and Fundamentals” are attended by very different students,
ranging from those with music studies to those with no music knowledge, including other students who have
some notions about music, and others who have learned to play an instrument by themselves. In general
lines, most of the students do not have the knowledge and skills required to read and sing a music sheet. To
face this difficulty, a musical instrument is used as a means to guide them in the melodic intonation or singing
performance of the music sheet. It is frequently observed that the learning process becomes slow and
tedious due to the double difficulty of having to play in the instrument the proposed exercise with the aim
of knowing how it must sound, and simultaneously practicing, with one’s voice, the sonorous model provided
by the means. This causes some frustration and discouragement among the students with lower expertise
level. Hasegawa et al. (2004) demonstrated that the mental processes generated from the visual information
of the music sheet were qualitatively different between expert and non-expert pianists. The former
associated the music code with motor sequences and sonorous images. Therefore, the reading and
performance of musical notes pose a series of motor skills, which are accompanied by visual-auditory-motor
transformation processes.
Technology, due to its special characteristics, seems to be a useful and effective tool to reinforce the practice
of this type of skill. Different studies have highlighted the effectiveness of technology to improve and develop
musical reading (Chan et al. 2006; Davis 2001; Goodwin 1991; Lemons 1985; Ozeas 1991; Parker 1979). In
these studies, although different technologies were used, they all shared the following common
characteristics: they enabled individualized practice for the students and offered a double visual-sonorous
stimulus that seemed to facilitate the association and memorization of the musical symbol-sound
relationship. Music notation software are computer programs that allow creating and editing music sheets.
These are similar to word processors, although the characters are musical notation symbols. Another
characteristic of these means is that they allow listening to the output of each of the notes that the user
introduces in the editor, as well as perceiving the sound of longer fragments. These editors are also found
as apps for mobile devices, such as Smartphones and Tablets. One of the main advantages of their use is that
they allow the user to access them anytime, anywhere (Palazón-Herrera, 2014). Different studies have
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
3
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
analyzed the impact of the use of music notation software on the development of music reading (Galera et
al. 2013; Jeremic et al., 2020; Prasso 1997). All these studies show that this type of means had a positive
impact on the development of music reading.
Despite the positive aspects offered by technology, it must be adapted to the learning contexts. The
perception of the students toward technology during learning is important in the educational contexts. This
attitude of the students has been considered key for the acceptance of certain technological means. The aim
of the present study was to explore the possibility of incorporating a music notation software within the
context of the subject “Musical Practices and Fundamentals”, in order to obtain data that help us to
determine the type of means that can be used and how to introduce it, following the guidelines of Hernández
and Navarro (2017). The perceptions toward the use of technology for learning have been mainly analyzed
within the framework of the models of technological acceptance for learning. These models are based on
psychosocial theories, which state that intention is what best predicts behavior (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh &
Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003). According to these models, the different factors that influence intention
include: a outcome expectations, which indicate the extent to which the user believes that the use of
technology will help her/him during the proposed task; b) effort expectancy, which is associated with the
degree of difficulty of using a certain technology; and c) usefulness, which refers to the positive aspect of
using the means for a certain task. However, these models do not consider the task itself as a component
within the acceptance and use of technology. Other models, such as Task-Technology Fit (TFF) (Goodhue &
Thompson, 1995), do consider the suitability between the nature of the task, the characteristics of the
technology and the individual characteristics of the user to determine the obtained results. The TFF model
shows that the interaction that takes place during the use of a technology between the characteristics of the
task, of the technology and of the individual has a direct impact on the performance results. Mulet et al.
(2019), in their systematic review on the use of technology in the educational scope, determined that most
of the studies based on the acceptance models used a quantitative approach. They concluded that, even
though qualitative studies do not offer generalizable results, they can provide a more detailed, sensitive and
contextualized understanding of the perceptions and conditions that affect these perceptions of the
students toward the use of technology. It is important to explore how, why and in what conditions it is
possible to combine technology, tasks and individual characteristics to improve the learning outcomes
(Nicholson et al., 2008).
2. Research aims and questions
The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of a group of volunteering students of the subject
“Musical Practices and Fundamentals” of the Degree of Primary Education at the University of Seville, who
participated in a small oral test in which they had to study four music sheets of two difficulty levels, using
two support means: a music notation software and their usual instrument.
The research questions addressed were:
• How do the students use the two means when studying music sheets of different difficulty
level?
• What is the perception of the participants toward the difficulty of use and the usefulness of the
two means?
• Which of the two means do they prefer?
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
4
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
• Are there differences in the valuations of the users about the strategy of use, usefulness and
preference as a function of the type of means they used and the difficulty of the music sheets?
3. Method
To address the questions and objectives of the study, a phenomenographic approach was used. This research
method allows identifying the qualitatively different ways in which individuals perceive, experience and/or
conceive a certain phenomenon (Marton, 1995). The research methodology applied was multiple-case study,
which allows the researcher to explore the differences within cases and between cases (Baxter & Jack, 2008).
3.1. Participants
The sample was constituted by five volunteers aged 18-21 years who were registered in the subject “Musical
Practices and Fundamentals” of the Degree of Primary Education within the specialty of Musical Education
at the University of Seville. A purposeful sampling was carried out, with the aim of obtaining a sample of five
students who represented the variety that exists in the group-class of the mentioned subject in terms of the
level of previous music studies and gender.
3.2. Music notation software
The program used as support for music sheet reading was MuseScore, which is a free and easy-to-use app
that works in the main operational systems of the market, and it can be installed in mobile devices. Different
studies have shown that it is useful for learning to read music, as it allows simultaneously perceiving the
notation and its sonorous correspondence (Buenaño Logroño, 2016; Larasati et. al., 2021; Watson, 2018).
3.3. Oral test
The participants were subjected to an oral test, in which they had to study four music sheets of two different
levels of difficulty, using two different support means: the habitual instrument they used to study and the
MuseScore music notation software. The level-1 music sheets corresponded to a difficulty level that was
considered easy within the program of the subject, whereas the level-2 music sheets corresponded to a more
difficult level. Figure 1 presents examples of both levels. This test was also recorded to analyze the singing
performance of the music sheets, as well as the strategies used during the study.
3.4. Interview
The data were gathered through an interview, which included different questions related to: the musical
experience of the participants; their perception toward the subject; the strategy used during the use of the
instrument and of the music notation software during the study of the music sheets of different difficulty
levels in the oral test; the difficulty they experienced when using the different means to study the different
music sheets in the oral test; the usefulness of each of the means; and the preference for one means or the
other when studying the different music sheets.
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
5
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
3.5. Procedure
The volunteers were contacted to establish a date and time for the individual realization of the oral test. In
this test, they had to study four different music sheets of two different difficulty levels, using both their
habitual instrument and the music notation software. Prior to the oral test, all participants were introduced
to the use of the music notation software using said test, where they learned basic aspects about its use.
During the test, we recorded the time that the participants needed to study the different music sheets before
being ready to read them vocally. Moreover, this singing performance was recorded to evaluate its quality
according to three criteria: rhythmic accuracy, melodic accuracy and number of mistakes. Once the test was
completed, a different date was set to interview each of the participants individually.
3.6. Data analysis
To analyze the results of the oral test, we designed a protocol that measured the time required to study the
music sheets, the number of mistakes made, and the rhythmic and melodic deviation of the participants”
interpretation with respect to the theoretical model using a phonetic analysis program (Boersma & Weenink,
2021), which allowed labelling and fragmenting the audio files into different intervals corresponding to the
different notes and silences. The data obtained from the interviews and video recordings were analyzed
using a system of categories and codes, thereby facilitating their understanding and organization (Miles &
Huberman, 1994).
3.7. Ethical aspects
All the information gathered during the study was treated respecting the confidentiality and anonymity of
the participants. Pseudonyms were used to refer to each of the cases. All participants signed an informed
consent form.
Figure 1 – Level I and Level II examples music scores
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
6
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
4. Results
María: “When I use the piano and I encounter a difficulty in a passage, I play it quickly and that’s it. With
MuseScore I would have to stop and write it, and so it would be more complex”.
María is an 18-year-old woman. She started her music studies when she was very young, and she was
studying in the conservatory when the present research was carried out. She had studied clarinet for 12
years. The contents of the class were easy for her, as she already worked on them in the conservatory when
she was 9 and 10 years old. Although her main instrument was the clarinet, she used the piano to help her
study sight-reading. She had taken piano lessons for several years. She also had previous knowledge before
the training session about the use of music sheet editing programs. María completed all the phases of the
oral test. In both levels, she spent less time studying with the instrument than with the editor; however, this
difference was proportionally lower with the level-2 music sheets. The vocal music reading quality was
practically the same using both means, for both level-1 and level-2 music sheets. In the level-1 music sheets,
she did not need any support means to know how the music sheet would sound; she only used her
instrument to get the pitch for tuning: "Well, I don’t need it […] I don’t need to use the keyboard […] it’s very
basic, they’re notes do, mi, sol, do. Since it is so basic, I don’t need it; I intonate it without using the
instrument. I would simply play C or A to have a reference sound and then that’s it".
In the level-2 music sheet she used her instrument to verify certain intervals or passages. For the level-2
music sheet, it was not difficult for her to use the editor, although she considered that it was not necessary:
“I didn’t find it difficult to use the editor, although I didn’t think it was necessary to use it. I could write it in
MuseScore, yes. I did write it and listened to it, but I didn’t need to listen to it to know how to sing it later”.
The means that she found the most useful was her instrument, as it was quicker and more direct for her:
“[…] if there’s a passage I don’t get, I just use my instrument for that passage, which is quicker”.
Regarding the editor, she thought that the main drawback was the time spent using it. In the two music
sheet levels, she would have preferred using her instrument over the score-writer software.
Oliver: “[…] here, I was a bit lost […] I’m telling you, fitting the 6/8, the alterations […] and paying attention
to my intonation, making sure that my intonation matches that of the piano, while ensuring that my hand
goes to the exact note I have to intonate […]”.
Oliver is a 20-year-old man. He completed the conservatory elemental grade at 14 years and, after two years,
he decided to change the specialty and take the test to enter the conservatory intermediate grade with the
trombone. He has prepared for this test for four years. The contents of the subject were easy for him, as he
stated that they were practically the same as those he had worked on all these years at the conservatory. In
the oral test, he used the keyboard as the habitual instrument to help him study the vocal reading of the
music sheets, despite the fact that he had never taken piano lessons. Before the training sessions, he had no
knowledge on the use of music notation software. Oliver went through the different phases of the oral test.
The time spent in level 1 was shorter using the score-writer; however, the opposite occurred in level 2. In
general, and for all music sheets, the vocal music reading quality was greater when the editor was used. The
difficulty he experienced in the use of the instrument for level 1 and level 2 was different. While in level-1
music sheets he only used the instrument for support in certain passages, in level 2, with the increase of
difficulty of the musical contents, the use of the instrument was not entirely fluid. On the other hand, he did
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
7
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
not find it difficult to use the score-writer in any of the two levels, and the use he made of it was the same.
The means he found most useful was the music notation software: “When I use the score-writer, I only have
to make sure that my intonation matches the correct intonation […] I just listen to it, save its sound in my
mind, and then reproduce it”.
In addition to the ease to focus on his own intonation, Oliver considered the accuracy of the model generated
by the program as an advantage. He found the instrument useful when the music sheets were easy, as he
made a fluid use of it and, by using it continuously, he related the written notes to the keys. However, when
the musical contents were more complex, the instrument did not offer a correct model that guided his
interpretation. In the level-1 music sheets, he did not prefer any of the two means. On the other hand, for
the level-2 music sheets, he preferred the score-writer over the instrument, as it allowed him to be more
focused on the quality of his sight-reading, and he also found it easier to use.
Violeta:
As I see it, if I always use the score-writer, hmm […] in the future it will be very difficult
to study the music sheet by myself… then, when I have to learn it on my own in an
exam, and I don’t have the base to get the melody out by myself because I studied
with the program [long pause] and […], well, no […] no […], it doesn’t really train
people.
Violeta is a 20-year-old woman. While in primary school, the music teacher encouraged her mother to enrol
her in a music school to learn to play the piano. She spent six years in the music school, and when she entered
high school, she quit music, as she did not have enough time for it. Since she left the music school, she barely
played the piano, and that was five years before the present study. During the time she spent in music school,
she learned musical language. The contents of the subject were not excessively difficult for her. However,
she found difficulties in sight-reading, especially in the rhythmic element. The instrument she used to help
her study in the test was the keyboard. Before being included in the present study, she did not have any
knowledge on music notation software. Violeta performed the vocal reading of all the music sheets
corresponding to level 1 and level 2 in the oral test. In level 1, the time spent with the instrument was slightly
shorter than that spent using the notation software. On the other hand, the time spent in level 2 was
drastically shorter with the program than with the instrument. The vocal music reading quality was similar
when both means were used for the music sheets of both levels. In level 1, Violeta played the entire music
sheet with the keyboard while she sang it. She stated that it was not difficult for her to use the instrument:
“[…] it was not difficult for me to use the instrument […] the notes are easy […] hmm […] also, it wasn’t fast,
it was a slow rhythm […] there are crotchets and minims and, I don’t know […] I didn’t find it difficult.”
The way in which she used the instrument in level 2 was different: “[…] I started playing the whole thing, but
I realized I couldn’t do it, so I took it by beats looking at the rhythm more carefully.”
Using the instrument in level 2 was more difficult for her, due to the greater complexity of the musical
contents, especially the rhythmic elements. She used the notation software similarly in both levels: “Firstly,
I copied it, and then I listened to it many times and sang it at the same time as the score-writer until I got
the melody.”
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
8
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
In both cases, it was not difficult for her to use it. Both means were useful to her, although she justified the
usefulness of each means differently. Regarding the instrument, she believed that, when she used to study
the scores, not only did it provide a sonorous model of the music sheet, but it also forced her to use strategies
to independently face the vocal music reading of the music-sheet, which she believed that the score-writer
could not do. According to Violeta, the main advantage of the program was its quickness, since it allowed
her to focus on memorizing the sonorous model and rehearsing it. In level 1, she preferred to use the
instrument, as she found it faster, and then in level 2 she preferred to use the notation software, stating the
same reason.
Zeus: “[…] I found the score-writer to be easier to use. You just click on it, write it there, click play, go back
as many times as you wish, and simply use those notes as reference to memorize […]”
Zeus is a 21-year-old man. He started learning to play the bass and the guitar when he was 14 years old with
his friends by imitation and by ear. He did not learn to read music, although he started researching on his
own about aspects of musical theory. The subject was quite difficult for him, especially musical reading and,
more specifically, the rhythmic element. The instrument he used to help him study the vocal music reading
of the music sheets was the guitar. Before starting with the training session, he already had some experience
in the use of music notation software. Zeus completed all the parts of the oral test. In all cases, he spent less
time studying with the program than with the instrument. The vocal music reading quality was greater when
he used the editor as the support means. In level 1, he used the guitar to know the tune of the notes he was
going to sing, although he did not interpret the music sheet in the guitar; he only used it to know how to
tune the notes that were written. He worked in this way by fragments, and then he used the guitar to do the
harmonic base. In this level, he did not find it difficult to use the guitar, as he was familiarized with it, and
the music sheet was not difficult for him: “[…] when playing the instrument, I have no problem. I do play. In
fact, I’m currently doing this in my free time. But […] when it comes to sight-reading, if there aren’t big
changes in the rhythm, if it’s about crotchets and minims, it’s fine.”
In level 2, despite the fact that he used the guitar in a similar manner, it was more difficult for him, as he was
not accustomed to accompanying during the singing reading of music sheets of certain complexity:
But here… especially because of the changes in rhythm, which already have some
spark, it has a natural sign here and… the silences, which require more concentration
and more…. skill at reading and playing at the same time… I found it so difficult,
because of the key signature.
The way in which he used the score-writer in the music sheets of both level 1 and level 2 was the same. He
stated that it was not difficult for him to use the program. The means he found most useful was the notation
software. He also highlighted the capacity of the program to generate a correct sonorous model and its ease
of use. Regarding the instrument, he pointed out the automatism generated when associating the written
notes with the position of these in the instrument and, therefore, their sonorous association: “You’re not
only singing… making music with your voice; you’re also making music with your hands. So, for example, if
I’m going to play a G, I already know how it sounds, because I’ve played a G many times.”
In the level-1 music sheet, he preferred using the instrument, as it was easy for him to sight-read music
sheets at that level, and he found it more comfortable and easier to use the guitar. However, in level 2, he
preferred using the notation software, as it was faster and allowed him to focus on the sonorous model.
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
9
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
Estela: “I’d always choose the program. It’s easier… because I can’t play the instrument properly, and the
score-writer is the only thing that allows me to know how this music sheet sounds.”
Estela is a 19-year-old woman. She is a music enthusiast and stated that she is always listening to music,
every time of the day, every day. However, she did not have any contact with the world of music outside
compulsory education. She found this subject to be difficult, claiming that the level was very high and that
the contents advanced very quickly. The instrument she usually employed to help her study was the
keyboard, despite the fact that she had very little knowledge on its use. Before the training session, she did
not have any contact with music notation software. Estela could not sing any of the level-1 or level-2 music
sheets when she used the instrument as a means of support. However, she was able to do it when she used
the notation software. In the level-1 music sheet, she used the instrument by memorizing the notes by
fragments, and then she located them in the keyboard and played them, in order to know how they sounded.
When she had memorised the tuning of a fragment, she moved on to the next fragment. Using the
instrument was very difficult for her. The main difficulty lied in the fact that she did not know how to identify
the written notes with the corresponding keys, and she had to count the keys. The process took her so much
time that she quit before memorising the intonation of the music sheet. In the level-2 music sheets, when
she had to use the instrument, she did not even try to read them: “[…]in the first level, I just couldn’t do it
well with the keyboard… and I told myself: “this is just impossible for me” … if it was hard for me with the
crotchets, which are supposed to be easier, imagine with the quavers, which are shorter.”
She used the notation software to study the level-1 and level-2 music sheets by copying the notes and then
listening to the reproduction of the music sheet in the program. She stated that it was not difficult to use it,
which she found to be the most useful means. The main advantage was the confidence it gave her, since the
sonorous model generated by the notation software accurately corresponded to the music sheet:
The score-writer reads the notes as they are, with the tempo and everything… it can’t
fail… well, I can fail if I get nervous […] the score-writer will tell me everything
correctly. If I fail, it’ll be me, not because the program made a mistake.
In both levels, she preferred using the notation software: “I would always choose the score-writer. It’s easier
[…] because I can’t play the instrument properly, and the score-writer is the only thing that allows me to
know how that music sheet sounds.”
Next, table 1 summarizes the different cases and the dimensions studied for each case, in order to provide
a panoramic and comparative view of the set of participants.
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
10
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
Tab. 1 – Different cases and analyzed dimensions
Participants
Musical
expertise
1
Means/time
2
Means/accuracy
3
Use of
means
4
Difficulty
5
Usefulness
6
Choice
7
María
12 years
clarinet
conservatory
studies
Instrument
Same for both
means
Same for
both means
and levels
Easy for
both means
Instrument:
quickness
Always
Instrument.
Oliver
4 years
conservatory
studies and 4
years
preparing
trombone
conservatory
admission
Instrument in
level I.
Notation
software
notation
software in
level II.
Notation
software
Different
for level I
and II with
instrument.
Same for
both levels
with
notation
software.
Easy for
level I and
difficult for
level II for
instrument.
Easy for
both levels
for notation
software.
Instrument:
quickness
and
automatic
responses.
Notation
software:
vocal
performance
and correct
sonorous
model.
Level I:
both
Level II:
notation
software.
Violeta
6 years
attending to
piano classes
in a Music
School
Instrument in
level I.
Notation
software in
level II.
Same for both
means
Different
for level I
and II with
instrument.
Same for
both levels
with
notation
software.
Easy for
level I and
difficult for
level II for
instrument.
Easy for
both levels
for notation
software.
Instrument:
develop self-
learning.
Notation
software:
correct
sonorous
model.
Level I:
instrument.
Level II:
notation
software.
Zeus
7 years
playing
guitar by
himself
Notation
software
Notation
software
Same for
both levels
with
instrument.
Same for
both levels
with
notation
software.
Easy for
level I and
difficult for
level II for
instrument.
Easy for
both levels
for notation
software.
Instrument:
quickness
and
automatic
responses.
Notation
software:
correct
sonorous
model and
easy to use.
Level I:
instrument.
Level II:
notation
software.
Estela
Music classes
at
compulsory
education.
Notation
software
Notation
software
Instrument:
Useless.
Notation
software:
same for
both levels.
Instr.: very
difficult.
Notation
software:
easy for
both levels.
Instrument:
Useless.
Notation
software:
correct
sonorous
model.
Always
notation
software
1
Musical experience prior to Bachelor Studies.
2
Means with which the participants spent less time during the study of the different music sheets.
3
Means which obtained better results during music sheet sight-reading.
4
Difference in the usage strategy applied for both means in the different music sheet levels.
5
Perceived difficulty of use of the means during the study of the different music sheet levels.
6
Advantages of the means.
7
Favorite means for support during the study of the different music sheet levels.
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
11
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
5. Discussion and conclusion
In view of the results, we can assert that the way in which the participants used the instrument was different.
This difference seems to be related to the degree of musical expertise and the difficulty of the music sheets.
Thus, there were two opposite cases: María and Estela. While María barely needed to use any means to
know how the music sheets sounded, due to her extensive musical background, Estela, who had very little
musical knowledge, could not use the instrument as a means to help her vocal reading. Between these two
cases, we found Oliver, Violeta and Zeus. Oliver and Violeta used the instrument qualitatively differently to
study the level-1 music sheets compared to the level-2 music sheets. It seems that, in order for the
instrument to be used as an efficient means of support to singing reading, it is necessary to have basic
technical-musical knowledge that allows associating the visual information of the music sheet with motor
sequences and sonorous images (Brodsky et al. 2008; Hasegawa et al. 2004). In any case, it is understood
that the efficient use of the instrument could be associated with a certain level of musical expertise and with
the complexity of the musical content (Sloboda 1974; 1977).
Regarding the music notation software, it appears that the way in which the participants used it was not
related to their previous musical knowledge or to the difficulty of the music sheets they had to read. In this
sense, we can infer that these means adapt more efficiently, thereby reducing the differences regarding
musical expertise and task difficulty (Jeremic et al. 2020). Moreover, this idea is confirmed by the fact that
the vocal music reading quality observed, for all cases, was similar or higher when the music notation
software was used as a means of support.
The difficulty in the use of the instrument, as well as in the strategy of use, varied as a function of the musical
expertise and the difficulty level of the music sheets. The results seem to indicate that, when the user has
enough technical and musical knowledge to address a certain music sheet, the difficulty to use the
instrument is not high. This was observed in the case of María for both difficulty levels and for the rest of
the cases, except for Estela, for the level-1 music sheets. However, when there was a lack of instrumental
technical skills or the musical contents were complex for the student or a combination of both aspects, the
use of the instrument became difficult. Nevertheless, this variability in the perception toward the difficulty
of use did not apply to the music notation software. As was observed, all students perceived that the music
notation software was easy to use, even for those who did not have prior to the training session previous
experience with this type of software, as was the case for Oliver, María and Estela. This indicates that, in
addition to their capacity to show the sound-symbol correspondence in a straightforward manner, music
notation software is easy to use and, therefore, can improve the user’s performance (Larasati & Sukmayadi
2021; Lituma 2015; Palazón-Herrera 2014; Watson 2018).
One of the positive aspects of the music notation software, highlighted by most of the participants, was its
capacity to provide a correct sonorous model that guided the sight-reading of the music sheet. This was a
determining factor during the study, since, based on the sonorous image of the music sheet, the participants
used the vocal resources and skills required to adapt the intonation to such image. The results of the oral
test show that the vocal music reading quality in three of the five cases Oliver, Zeus and Estela was higher
using the music notation software. In the other two cases María and Violeta, the vocal music reading quality
was similar to that obtained using the instrument. This suggests that the perceptions of the participants
toward the correction of this sonorous model were coherent with the results obtained in their singing
performance, and it seems that their perceptions were not influenced by their previous musical knowledge
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
12
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
or by the difficulty of the music sheets. One of the positive aspects highlighted for the instrument was
quickness, which is directly associated with the way in which the instrument was used during the study.
According to María and Oliver, who used the instrument only in certain passages in which they had doubts,
the instrument required less time to use when studying the music sheets compared to the music notation
software. Another positive aspect identified for the instrument was the capacity to generate automatisms
during its use, which developed the symbol-instrumental position-sound relationship (Drost et al., 2005;
Bangert et al., 2001; Shulz et al., 2003). This last positive aspect was mentioned by those students who had
some experience with the instrument Violeta and Oliver. After playing an instrument for many years, they
may have realized that they can imagine the sound of the corresponding fret or key without playing them.
In the case of Estela, no positive aspect was observed when considering the instrument as a means of support
to music reading. Therefore, we can assert that the perceived usefulness of the instrument for the five cases
analyzed seems to be mediated by the way of using it, which, in turn, is influenced by the degree of difficulty
of the music sheets.
The preference for one or another means also seems to be different in each participant and when addressing
different levels of difficulty in the music sheets. In the two opposites we found María and Estela. María
always preferred the instrument as a means of support. With it, she saved time when studying the music
sheets, and the quality of her vocal music reading did not decrease. On the other hand, Estela always
preferred the music notation software, as it allowed her to study the music sheets that she could not study
with the instrument, and it also increased her vocal music reading quality. Between these two cases we
found Oliver, Violeta and Zeus. Violeta and Zeus preferred the instrument as a support means to study the
level-1 music sheets, whereas Oliver had no preference for any means. This variability in terms of preference
was homogenized in level 2. In this level, the three mentioned participants preferred the music notation
software, with which they obtained better results in vocal music reading quality. Thus, we can conclude that
the degree of acceptance of one or another means was different in all cases. All this is in line with the
postulates of the models of technological acceptance mentioned in the literature review (Davis, 1989;
Goodhue & Thompson, 1995; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh, et al., 2003). We conclude that the
instrument is accepted when the students have basic technical-musical knowledge, whereas the music
notation software is preferred when the user lacks such technical-musical knowledge.
Figures 2 and 3 show the interpretation of the results based on the research questions proposed.
After addressing the research questions, and in view of the obtained results, we can conclude that,
considering the diversity of musical background and the different musical contents of the subject “Musical
Practices and Fundamentals” of the Degree of Primary Education at the University of Seville, the
incorporation of music notation software would be a highly useful tool to reduce the learning difficulties that
the students are exposed to. As was stated by Jeremic et al. (2020), the incorporation of this type of software
could provide alternative learning strategies, generate confidence and reduce differences among the
students, who have different musical experience regarding the content of the subject. Moreover, the
versatility of these programs and their ease of use not only allow the user to copy and reproduce music
sheets, but also to perform other types of activities, such as musical dictation and composition, which would
enrich and complement the reading learning of the students. Thus, and as was suggested by Savage (2010),
the program would be used not only to reinforce one type of content, but also to explore its wide range of
possibilities to enrich the contents and the methodological approach of the subject.
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
13
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
6. References
Bangert, Marc; Udo Haeusler and Eckart Altenmüller. 2001. “On practice: How the brain connects piano keys
and piano sounds”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 930: 425–428,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05760.x
Baxter, Pamela and Susan Jack. 2008. “Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers”, The Qualitative Report 13 (4): 544-559.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573
Boersma, Paul and David Weenink. 2021, “PRAAT” [Software]. University of Amsterdam,
https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
Figure 2 – Interpretation of the results of the interviews regarding the use, ease of use and usefulness of the instrument and music notation
software as means of support during the sight-reading of the music sheets
Figure 3 – Interpretation of the results of the interviews regarding the preference for one means or the other
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
14
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
Brodsky, Warren, Yoav Kessler, Bat.S. Rubinstein, Jane Ginsborg and Avishai Henik. 2008, “The mental
representation of music notation: Notational audiation”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance 34 (2): 427–445, https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.427
Buenaño Logroño, Édagar R. 2016, “Análisis de herramientas de software libre orientadas al aprendizaje del
lenguaje musical para mejorar el rendimiento académico en los estudiantes del primer año de
bachillerato de la unidad educativa “Juan Velasco” “. Master´s thesis, Chimborazo: Escuela Superior
Politécnica de Chimborazo. http://dspace.espoch.edu.ec/handle/123456789/4635
Chan, Liz, Ann C. Jones, Eileen Scanlon and Richard Joiner 2006, “The use of ITC to support the development
of practical music skills through acquiring keyboard skills: a classroom-based study”, Computer and
Education 46 (4): 391-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.007
Davis, Fred D. 1989, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly 13 (3): 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, Jane. 2001. “CAI: Does It Have an Effect on Aural Skills Performances?”. Paper presented at the Eighth
International Technological Directions in Music Education Conference, San Antonio, Texas.
Drost, Ulrich C, Martina Rieger, Marcel Brass, Thomas C. Gunter and Wolfgang Prinz. 2005, “When hearing
turns into playing: Movement induction by auditory stimuli in pianists”. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology 58 (8): 1376–1389.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000610
Galera-Núñez, Mar, Jesús Tejada and Eva Trigo. 2013. “Music notation software as a means to facilitate the
study of singing musical scores”. Electronic Journal of Research in Psychology Education 29: 215-237.
http://dx.doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v11i29.1564
Goodhue, Dale. L. and Ronald L. Thompson. 1995. “Task-technology fit and individual performance”. MIS
Quarterly 19 (2): 213–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/249689
Goodwin, Mary A. 1991. “The effectiveness of “Pitch Master” compared to traditional classroom methods in
teaching sight singing to college music students”. Master´s Thesis, South Florida University.
Hasegawa, Takehiro, Ken-Ichi Matsuki, Takashi Ueno, Yasuhiro Maeda, Yoshihiko Matsue, Yukuo Konishi and
Norihiro Sadato. 2004. “Learned audio-visual cross-modal associations in observed piano playing
activate the left planum temporale: An fMRI study”. Cognitive Brain Research 20 (3): 510–518.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.04.005
Hernández, Elena and María J. Navarro. 2017. “Percepciones de los estudiantes sobre el uso del ordenador
personal y otros recursos en el aula universitaria”. Píxel-Bit 50: 123-135.
https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/pixel/article/view/61767
Jeremic, Biljana, Rajko Pecanac, Emilija Stankovic and Tanja Durdevic. 2020. “Music Technology Software in
Adopting Music Teaching Contents”. Croatian Journal of Education 22 (1): 263- 286.
https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v22i1.3282
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
15
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
Lemons, Robert M. 1985. “The development and trial of micro-computer-assited techniques to supplement
traditional training in musical sightreading”. PhD diss., University of Colorado.
https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/development-trial-microcomputer-
assisted/docview/303292212/se-2
Larasati, Maria T. L. and Yudi Sukmayadi. 2021. “Mobile Learning Design for Sight Reading”. Proceedings of
the 3rd International Conference on Arts and Design Education, ICADE 2020: 70–73.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210203.015
Lituma, Julio A. 2015, “El Manejo de programas editores de partituras en el aprendizaje musical de los
estudiantes del 6to semestre nivel técnico del conservatorio de música ¨Salvador Bustamante Celi”“.
Master´s Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Loja.
https://dspace.unl.edu.ec/jspui/handle/123456789/21209
Marton, Ference. 1995. “Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings
of reality”, In Qualitative research in education: focus and methods, edited by Robert R. Sherman and
Rodman B. Webb, 141-161. London and New York: Routledge Falmer Press.
McPherson, Gary and Alf Gabrielsson 2002. “From sound to sign”, In The science and psychology of music
performance: Creatives strategies for teaching and learning, edited by Richard Parncutt and Gary
McPherson, 99-115. New York: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195138108.001.0001
Merchán Sánchez-Jara, Javier F. 2016. “Lectura Musical en el ámbito digital: aplicaciones para tablets”,
Education in the Knowledge Society 17 (1): 109-128. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks2016171109128
Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mulet, Julie, Cécile van de Leemput and Frank Amadieu. 2019. “A critical literature review of perceptions of
tablets for learning in primary and secondary schools”. Educational Psychology Review 31: 631–662.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09478-0
Nicholson, Jennifer, Darren B. Nicholson and Joseph Valacich. 2008. “Examining the effects of technology
attributes on learning: a contingency perspective”. Journal of Information Technology Education 7: 185-
204. https://doi.org/10.28945/185
Ozeas, Natalie L. 1991. “The effect of the use of a computer assisted drill program on the aural skill
development of students in beginning solfége”. PhD diss., University of Pittsburg.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/145605
Palazón-Herrera, José. 2014. “Software musical y sus posibilidades didácticas: una panorámica para los
estudiantes del Máster de Secundaria en la especialidad de Música”. In La era de las TT.II.CC. en la nueva
docencia, coordinated by José F. Durán Medina and Susana Durán Valero, 363-372. Madrid: McGraw-
Hill Interamericana de España.
Per Musi | Belo Horizonte | v.25 | General Topics | e242510 | 2024
16
Galera-Nuñez, Mar. “Music reading and music notation software: a multiple-case study”
Parker, Robert C. 1979. “The relative effectiveness of the TAP system in instruction in sight singing: An
experimental study”. PhD diss., University of Miami. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-
theses/relative-effectiveness-tap-system-instruction/docview/302924482/se-2
Prasso, Nina M. 1997. “An examination of the effect of writing melodies using a computer-based song-
writing program on high school students: Individual learning of sight-singing skills”. Ph.D. thesis,
Columbia University Teachers College. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/925246
Savage, Jonathan. 2010. “A survey of ICT usage across English secondary schools”. Music Education Research
12 (1): 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800903568288
Schön, Daniele and Besson, Mirelle. 2005. “Visually induced auditory expectancy in music reading: a
behavioural and electrophysiological study”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17(4): 694-705.
https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929053467532
Sloboda, John. 1974. “The eye-hand span: an approach to the study of sight reading”. Psychology of Music
2: 4-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/030573567422001
Sloboda, John. 1977. “Phrase units as determinants of visual processing in music reading. British Journal of
Psychology 68 (1): 117-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1977.tb01566.x
Sloboda, John. 2004. “Experimental studies of music reading: A review”. In Exploring the musical mind, edited
by John A. Sloboda, 27-42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198530121.003.0002
Schulz, Matthias, Bernhard Ross and Christo Pantev. 2003. “Evidence for training-induced crossmodal
reorganization of cortical functions in trumpet players”, Neuroreport 14 (1): 157–161.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200301200-00029
Venkatesh, Viswanath and Fred D. Davis. 2000. “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies”. Management Science 46 (2): 186-204.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, Viswanath, Michael Morris, Gordon B. Davis and Fred D. Davis 2003, “User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view”. MIS Quarterly 27 (3): 425–478.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Watson, Maike. 2018. “MuseScore”. Journal of the Musical Arts in Africa 15(1-2): 143-147.
https://doi.org/10.2989/18121004.2018.1534342.
