An Invitation to Continue the Journey

JOURNAL OF MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION

J.M.T.E.Spring 2006 Volume 15, Number 2

Society for Music Teacher Education Executive Committee

Chairperson

David Teachout

University of North Carolina–Greensboro

Eastern Representative

Susan Conkling

Eastman School of Music

Southwestern Representative

Robin Stein

Texas State University–San Marcos

North Central Representative

Linda Thompson

University of M innesota

Southern Representative

Janet Robbins

West Virginia University

Northwest Representative

Tina Bull

Oregon State University

Western Representative

Jeffrey E. Bush

Arizona State University

Member-at-Large

Sara Bidner

Southeastern Louisiana U niversity

Chair-Elect

Don Ester

Ball State University

Journal of Music Teacher Education Editorial Committee

William E. Fredrickson, Editor

University of M issouri–Kansas City

Barbara Brinson

State University of New York–Fredonia

Mitchell Robinson

Michigan State University

Alan Gumm

Central Michigan University

Kimberly W alls

Auburn University

Alice Hammel

James Madison University

Cecilia Wang

University of Kentucky

Debra Hedden

University of Kansas

Molly Weaver

West Virginia University

MENC Staff

MENC Executive Director

John J. Mahlmann

Deputy Executive Director

Michael Blakeslee

Director of Publications

Frances Ponick

Managing Editor

Teresa K. Preston

The Journal of Music Teacher Education (ISSN 1057-0837) is published twice yearly by MENC: The National Associationfor Music Education, 1806 Robert Fulton Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4348.

This material is copyrighted by MENC: The National Association for Music Education. You can read or download a single print of an MENConline journal exactly as if you had purchased a subscription to a journal in print form. You do not have any other rights or license to thismaterial. This material cannot be reproduced, retransmitted, or reprinted without permission from MENC. This means multiple copies forhandout or library reserve cannot be made. Placing on Web sites or school broadcast systems is prohibited, and printing in full or part inother documents is not permitted. To make use of an article or a journal in any of the afore mentioned circumstances, please send arequest to our editorial department ([email protected]), fax a request to Caroline Arlington at 703-860-9443, or call for more informationat 800-336-3768, x238.

JOURNAL OF MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION

J.M.T.E.Spring 2006 Volume 15, Number 2

CONTENTS

From the ChairAn Invitation to Continue the Journey

David Teachout3

CommentaryMusic Matters

William E. Fredrickson6

Developing the Professional Judgment of Preservice Music TeachersGrading as a Case in Point

Janet R. Barrett8

Description and Evaluation of Experiences at a New Early Field SiteMartin J. Bergee

21

Learning to InquireTeacher Research in Undergraduate Teacher Training

Katherine Strand29

Collaboration within the ArtsA Project Involving a Band Literature Course and Studio Arts

Frederick Burrack43

Transforming Music Teacher Preparation through the Lens of Video TechnologyGena R. Greher

59

PerspectivesIn Support of Intolerance

Richard K. Fiese61

Announcements65

JMTE, Spring 2006, 3

From the Chair

An Invitation to Continue the JourneyDavid Teachout

Chair, Society for Music Teacher Education

In his 2001 book, titled Good to Great, Jim Collins describes a phenomenon that he labels the

“flywheel effect.” He asks his readers to imagine a massive flywheel, mounted horizontally on its

axis and weighing about 5,000 pounds. The task is to get the wheel to rotate as fast and as long as

possible. He continues:

Pushing with great effort, you get the wheel to inch forward, almost imperceptiblyat first. You keep pushing and, after two or three hours of continual effort, you getthe flywheel to complete one entire turn. You keep pushing and the flywheelbegins to move a bit faster, and with continued great effort, you move it around asecond rotation. You keep pushing in a consistent direction. Three turns … four… five … six … nine … ten … it builds momentum … eleven … twelve …moving faster with each turn … twenty … thirty … fifty … a hundred. Then, atsome point—breakthrough! The momentum of the thing kicks in in your favor,hurling the flywheel forward, turn after turn, whoosh! ... its own heavy weightworking for you. You’re pushing no harder than during the first rotation, but theflywheel goes faster and faster. Each turn of the flywheel builds upon work doneearlier, compounding your investment of effort. A thousand times faster, then tenthousand, then a hundred thousand. The huge heavy disk flies forward with almostunstoppable momentum. Now suppose someone came along and asked, “Whatwas the one big push that caused this thing to go so fast?” You wouldn’t be ableto answer: it’s just a nonsensical question. Was it the first push? The second? Thefifth? The hundredth? No! It was all of them added together in an overallaccumulation of effort applied in a consistent direction. Some pushes may havebeen bigger than others, but any single heave—no matter how large—reflects asmall fraction of the entire cumulative effect upon the flywheel. (pp. 164–65)

Collins describes the flywheel image to help explain how some companies in the business world

make a leap from being good to being great. Breakthroughs happen most often only after the

quiet deliberate process of determining which ideas are important to be pursued and then

working on those ideas in a responsible and consistent manner. For the flywheel effect to occur

an environment must exist in which good ideas can be revisited and repeated actions on those

ideas can be pursued in a manner that is responsive to the results of the previous actions taken.

The flywheel effect is a simple principle and one from which we in the field of music teacher

education could benefit more often than we have in the past.

Throughout our profession, there are many wonderful, bright individuals who teach at

colleges and universities replete with vast arrays of resources, technological and otherwise. Yet,


we have typically tended to work on ideas of music teacher development within the isolation of

our respective institutions. Whenever we have gotten together to share those ideas, typically at

yearly or biennial meetings, the intention has been rarely to pool the multifaceted efforts of

several contributors so that specific issues, deemed to be of essential importance to the

profession, could be addressed strategically and deliberately. More often, we gather and attend

presentations that typically address the current topic de jour; we partake in wonderful “hallway

conversation” about the merits or challenges of the presented ideas; before going our separate

ways, a few of us may even be moved to continue work on a strand of the presented ideas in

some future efforts; but we have not developed a mechanism that has identified specific critical

issues of music teacher education nor have we facilitated a reflective and responsive approach to

addressing those issues … until now.

During three days in September 2005, SMTE held its first Symposium on Music Teacher

Education, titled Music Teacher Education: Rethinking, Researching, Revitalizing. The event

was a fabulous success, bringing together over 150 participants from 35 states as well as from

Canada and Germany to share ideas about recruiting, preparing, and supporting the professional

development of music teachers. A day and a half of research, position papers, and best practice

presentations was followed by reaction statements from the presidents of MENC, CMS, and

NASM as well as from Robert Werner, dean emeritus of the Cincinnati College Conservatory of

Music and a former president of CMS, NASM, and ISME. The event marked the first time that

those at the highest level of leadership from our professional flagship organizations were

gathered in one place to address issues specific to music teacher education.

The most important feature of the weekend, however, occurred on the final afternoon. All of

the attendees were invited to meet for two hours in one of eleven Special Action Groups (SAGs),

each formed to address a critical issue in music teacher education (identified as such by the

attendees earlier in the weekend) and each charged with naming two to three specific actions that

would be pursued beyond the closing of the Symposium. The topics of the eleven SAGs included

(a) Teacher Recruitment, (b) Admission, Assessment, and Alignment, (c) Preservice Teacher

Education, (d) Restructuring the Curriculum, (e) Cultural Diversity in Music Teacher Education,

(f) School/University Partnerships, (g) Policy and Association Partnerships, (h) Professional

Development for the Beginning Teacher, (i) Professional Development for the Experienced

Teacher, (j) Teacher Retention, and (k) Preparation of Music Teacher Educators/Supporting

Current Music Teacher Educators.

On Wednesday, April 19, 2006, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., SMTE will host the Teacher

Preparation Preconference Special Focus Session during the MENC Biennial Conference in Salt

Lake City. Anyone interested in music teacher education is encouraged to attend. At that session,

the SAGs will reconvene for the first of several ongoing opportunities to systematically revisit


the work that was identified at the 2005 Symposium. They will also chart the next steps to be

taken in anticipation of the 2007 Symposium on Music Teacher Education. If you were not able

to join one of the SAGs at the 2005 Symposium, the Teacher Preparation Preconference Special

Focus Session will provide a wonderful opportunity for you to become involved in the group

whose topic most interests you. In a related event, the SMTE Roundtable Session, titled

Mentoring Doctoral Students As Future Teacher Educators, will occur on Friday morning, April

21 at 8:30 a.m. The session will be presented by members of the “Preparation of Music Teacher

Educators/Supporting Current Music Teacher Educators” SAG in an effort to explore the

recruitment and retention of doctoral students with specific attention on how doctoral students

are guided through the completion of doctoral work as well as through the job search process. In

addition, the presenters will discuss the mentoring of junior faculty in the tenure process.

The Teacher Preparation Preconference Session and the SMTE Roundtable Session represent

the first opportunities to revisit ideas vetted as being critical to the profession in a manner that

will build upon prior efforts. Such a dynamic is one that must continue in the future.

I am honored to have served as chair during these past two years and I am fortunate to have

worked with such a fabulous group of colleagues on the SMTE Executive Committee. Further, I

am thrilled to report that Don Ester, the current chair-elect for SMTE, will be taking over the

reins as chair in July 2006. He brings a wealth of valuable experience as well as a vision for

music teacher education that is shared by the rest of the SMTE Executive Committee. The SMTE

leadership will continue to provide important opportunities to move the profession forward;

however, the ultimate success of those endeavors is dependent upon us, the membership, and our

commitment to stay active and involved. If we, as a profession, can make sustained progress in

the short term, I believe that it will not be long before the flywheel effect will take hold.


Commentary

Music MattersWilliam E. Fredrickson

Editor, Journal of Music Teacher Education

It was my pleasure recently to cooperate with one of our local school districts to set up an in-

service day program for their junior high and high school music faculty. The music supervisor

was very excited about the prospect of coming to our campus to learn more about our composers

in the schools program, attend theory and conducting classes, sit in on some rehearsals, and

receive a demonstration of our on-line music appreciation course. A dozen music teachers met

me in our main lobby to be greeted and sent off to their first session. They told me they were so

pleased to be able to get away from what they termed the usual “lame” in-service presentation to

do some things that actually had to do with music.

In many ways I think music teachers are the luckiest of education professionals. Teaching in

any subject matter area can be challenging, enjoyable, frustrating, and fulfilling. But being able to

be involved with music every day is probably one of the most rewarding things any educator

could do. I would guess that the vast majority of us who teach music do so because we first fell

in love with making music. The research tells us that most people enjoy listening to some kind of

music, and for those of us who got actively involved early in our lives the prospect of making

music our vocation would have to be attractive. Some of us fell in love with the idea of

perpetuating our experiences in successful school music programs, and others came to teaching

as a more realistic alternative to trying to scratch out a professional existence as a performing

musician. In any case, whether teaching little folks or big people, choosing a professional life that

includes teaching others about music is probably a bit different from choosing to teach almost

any other subject matter.

This brings us back to the issue of in-service education for music teachers, which is also

related to teacher retention. I would guess that many teachers in other subject areas also don’t

care for generic in-service presentations. I can understand that school districts with limited

resources cannot tailor in-service training for every possible subgroup in the K–12 academic

environment, and there may be some issues of real importance that need to be dealt with by all

the members of the academy. But, I do think that colleges and universities with music

departments could provide some assistance, for the good of the profession and the art, if we

could find the time to be proactive on this issue. If we all looked for opportunities to provide in-

service training to our local schools’ music teachers, the potential benefits (recruiting, public

relations, community service, etc.) stand to outweigh the time spent. Some of us may already be

doing that, but I would be interested to know how many and what we provide.

As I think about the reactions of the teachers who came to our campus, it seems to me that if


we are going to partner with school districts to provide in-service training we should always

remember the importance of music itself in the lives of the teachers. It would be very easy for

music education departments to set up some experiences that build on the methods classes we

teach our undergraduates or to simply pull topics and experiences from our graduate methods

courses. But I think we miss an opportunity, and risk being part of the problem rather than the

solution, when we do that. I think we can help keep teachers connected to the music, and maybe

connect some of our music department colleagues to school music programs, by involving parts

of our whole school or department. The newer public school teachers (those with one or two

years of experience) might benefit from some advanced methods work, and some of the more

experienced teachers might also. But I am coming to the conclusion that reintroducing teachers to

the things about the study of music that captivated them when they were students might be a

better way to reinvigorate those who are straining under the weight of the educational system.

And bringing our other music department colleagues into the process creates the potential for a

wider investment in the music teacher education enterprise.

My own research includes a series of studies that looked at daily journal entries for college

music field experience students, music student teachers, first-year music teachers, and

experienced music teachers. Positive comments related to the music (as opposed to job-related

issues, student interactions, or teaching competencies) made up 25–30% of the positive daily

comments for everyone except the experienced teachers. For experienced teachers, 52% of the

positive comments about their days were about the music! My guess is that the teachers who

remain in the profession are able to come back to the things that brought them to the profession

in the first place. As it relates to why people stay in the teaching profession, I’ve come to believe

that the title of David Elliot’s book illustrates the point. Music matters!


Developing the Professional Judgment of Preservice Music

Teachers: Grading as a Case in PointBy Janet R. Barrett

Janet R. Barrett is an associate professor of music education at Northwestern University inEvanston, Illinois. She can be reached at [email protected].

Integrity in teaching relies on the close alignment of teachers’ beliefs and actions. At the heart

of this integrity is the development of teachers’ professional judgment and the instances in which

that judgment is exercised in carrying out daily responsibilities. The principles that guide a

teacher’s actions are often articulated in the policies and procedures that govern important

decisions. They provide frameworks for meeting the challenging responsibilities of classroom

life. Although opportunities to exercise professional judgment occur on a minute-to-minute basis

in the music classroom, the task of assigning grades is a periodic challenge of particular weight,

especially for novice teachers. Grades not only represent a “pooled judgment” that a teacher

makes about students’ work (Eisner, 2002, p. 181), they also reflect the professional judgment of

the teacher. Students, parents, and administrators are less likely to challenge the grading policies

and practices of an experienced teacher, for instance, than those of a novice. Professional

judgment is honed through experience; trust in a teacher’s professional judgment builds over

time in supportive school communities and as a consequence of the teacher’s thoughtful,

reflective practices.

Music teacher educators are often asked by novice teachers for advice in establishing fair and

equitable grading policies in the music classroom. Sometimes these queries are prompted by

instances when novice teachers’ grading practices are called into question by students, parents,

administrators, or colleagues. Most school districts require teachers to assign grades, although

more individualized pupil progress reports have replaced grades in some elementary and

secondary schools. Thus, music teacher education programs appropriately include a discussion of

grading or pupil progress reporting as part of methods classes, student-teaching seminars, or

specialized courses in the assessment of music learning. Methods students are often assigned the

task of developing appropriate grading schemes for general music or ensemble settings or

designing handbooks for choirs, bands, and orchestras that include policies for the evaluation of

student work. However, in the overall preparation of preservice teachers to organize curriculum,

instruction, and assessment or to deepen understanding of school contexts and societal

expectations for education, grading receives a relatively minor emphasis (Interstate New Teacher

Assessment and Support Consortium [INTASC], 1992). Within teacher education, grading is a

small piece of an interlocking puzzle of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. A focused

examination of grading practices serves a dual purpose, though. It addresses a practical need that

mailto:[email protected]


may ease preservice teachers’ entry into the first years of teaching and provides a keen

opportunity to examine the assumptions and practices of assessment in music classrooms with a

critical eye. The second purpose, in particular, is consistent with a view of teachers as change

agents and a desire for teacher education programs that foster collaborative inquiry (Thiessen &

Barrett, 2002).

The purpose of this article is to address grading as an important but problematic topic in

music teacher education and to describe the search for principled solutions as an exercise of

professional judgment. I begin by articulating some of the reasons that grading poses a

particularly pressing dilemma for music teachers, even though rich evidence of student learning

in music is abundant. Next, I address perceptions of grading, regardless of the reasonable bases

upon which grades are assigned. These considerations preface the description of an exercise in

which preservice teachers engaged in the study of existing grading practices in music, the

alignment of those practices with curriculum and instruction, the adaptation of grading policies to

fit varying school contexts, and the articulation of principles to guide the construction of fair and

equitable grading policies. The exercise involved preservice teachers in problematizing typical

grading practices in music, which subsequently informed their design of revised policies. I

conclude with some observations about implementing new grading policies in music classrooms.

My interest in examining grading as a case of professional judgment was developed over

several years as I taught an Assessment of Music Learning course for undergraduate and graduate

students. The course was developed specifically to complement methods courses and field

experiences in general, choral, and instrumental music and as an elective option for master’s

students. It offered students a more discipline-specific alternative to a previously required

measurement and evaluation course taught by faculty in the College of Education. Themes of the

course included the alignment of assessment, curriculum, and instruction in music; discipline-

specific evaluation of musical performance, creation, analysis, and reflection; and the design of

strategies for assessment, such as rubrics, portfolios, and adjudication guidelines. Typical

measurement issues of reliability and validity were addressed, as was a review of state and

national assessment initiatives (such as state-based standards, Arts Propel, and the National

Assessment of Educational Progress in Music). The grading exercise was scheduled as the

penultimate assignment of the semester so that students could integrate what they had learned

about assessment in general with the project of designing grading policies. In the final summary

of the course, students related an informed, contextually appropriate, and principled stance

toward grading to broad concepts that pertain to the assessment of musical understanding.

Grading as a Conundrum for Music Teachers Grades are a persistent conundrum for music teachers. If music learning is rich and

multidimensional, a single letter grade is a weak vessel for conveying a nuanced and


comprehensive evaluation of student learning in music classrooms. Preservice teachers are well

acquainted with problematic aspects of grading through their own experiences as students. By

the time they enroll in methods classes, they most likely have received grades for their work in

music classes on the basis of ambiguous or sometimes inappropriate criteria. This likelihood is

supported by Lehman’s (1998) survey of music teachers’ grading practices in which he found

that most music teachers use traditional grading scales (A, B, C, D, F); are responsible for

grading many students; and base grades on a mix of performance-based criteria and extramusical

factors such as attendance, effort, behavior, and attitude. Extramusical factors may sometimes

constitute the only basis for assigning grades, a practice perhaps fueled by the extraordinary

demands of interacting with many students for relatively short periods of time. Gathering

individual data on musical achievement on which to base an individual grade in large classes can

be daunting. Basing grades solely on extramusical factors, however, erodes confidence in the

validity of grades as reflections of musical learning. Experience suggests that a large proportion

of students who have taken music classes have received a grade of A. Yet we might reasonably

surmise that there is not a particularly strong correlation between high grades in music and

correspondingly deep levels of musical understanding and skill. We might also suspect that

students who have received grades of B, C, D, or F in music may have been assigned that grade

for extramusical rather than musical reasons. The conundrum of validity must be addressed if

preservice teachers are to reconcile these typical problems with more principled solutions.

The conundrum deepens as preservice teachers become student teachers. In the field, they see

how music teachers observe vivid, variegated evidence of music learning on a daily basis and

come to know students’ musical capabilities and accomplishments in detailed, highly

individualized ways. A wealth of evidence builds up from music teachers’ efforts to expand the

scope of the curriculum by focusing on more avenues of musical experience (performance,

improvisation, composition, perception, and evaluation, for example). Music teachers also use

more finely grained tools for examining students’ work, such as rubrics, performance

examinations, and portfolios. As student teachers collect and review this impressive evidence of

learning, they grapple for the first time with the practical dilemmas of converting substantial

information about students’ work into assigned grades. The conundrum is one of reducing

evidence into a miniscule symbol—the grade. To use a cooking metaphor, grades, in their

abstracted form, are assigned from a process of boiling down rich and extensive knowledge of

students’ musical accomplishments into highly concentrated form (like reducing a stock). The

distilled form of the letter grade must be supported by documentation of students’ work so that

teachers can “reconstitute” the grade in order to answer questions from students, parents, and

administrators who want to know how grades were assigned. Pupil progress reports (in lieu of

grades or as a supplement to grades) are a far more representative overview of students’ musical


development because they ameliorate this problem of reduction. Progress reports are more

common in general music classes, perhaps as a reflection of developmentally oriented attitudes

toward children’s progress in elementary schools and perhaps a greater variety of individually

assessable (and thus gradable) assignments, projects, and demonstrations on which to base grades

than in ensemble classes. When school policies are flexible, teachers can supplement grades with

more informative portraits of what students know, or substitute pupil progress reports or their

equivalent for grades.

Establishing an appropriate pedagogy of grading may seem like a conundrum for music

teacher educators as well. There are few principled models specifically tailored to musical

contexts to examine, and many other areas of music teacher preparation seem more tangible,

immediate, and rewarding. Searching the literature offers only partial guidance, since grading

practices are rarely examined (the topic is not indexed in the 2002 New Handbook of Music

Teaching and Learning, for example). One reason may stem from skepticism about the

fundamental assumptions of grading. The conundrum here is one of purpose—why are teachers

required to give grades at all and whose purposes do they serve? In the reconceptualized

curriculum dialogue, grading is rarely addressed, perhaps because it is seen as a remnant of the

Tylerian tradition of curriculum planning. The postmodern curriculum theorist William Doll

(1993) dismisses grades as a “way of measuring the deficit between the canon presented and the

canon acquired” (p. 172) and recommends that a more appropriate approach to evaluation lies in

the iterative cycles of producing work and critiquing it (the formative nature of music assessment

often mirrors these cycles). Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, and Taubman (2002) describe how

contemporary curriculum scholars have advocated greater awareness of the political dimensions

of schooling and the role that grades play in inculcating societal values and reproducing stratified

roles: “Tracking and grading communicate to students their places within society” (p. 211).

Kohn (1993) is critical of the common assumption that the challenges of grading can be

solved by improving our grading techniques. Many useful tips for helping music teachers solve

their grading dilemmas fall into this category of tweaking the procedural aspects of grading.

Kohn suggests that we refocus the conversation about grading to questions of why grading is the

predominant form of student evaluation in schools. He advocates the elimination of grading

altogether, suggesting that “what grades offer is spurious precision, a subjective rating

masquerading as an objective assessment” (p. 201). If grades must be given, he recommends that

teachers mitigate their detrimental effects. Kohn proposes, for example, that teachers reduce the

possible number of grades to two—“A” and “Incomplete.”

Eisner (2002) asserts that assessment and evaluation in the arts often need not result in

grading; critical judgments of students’ work might more suitably take the form of a teacher-

student conference or detailed report of the work. He describes grading as a “data-reduction


process used to symbolize the merits of student work” (p. 181). The teacher and the student are

most appropriately situated to discuss and describe those merits. Eisner reminds us that

educational measurement, particularly in the arts, is partial and fraught with both technical and

substantive difficulties: “Not everything that matters can be measured, and not everything that is

measured matters” (p. 178).

Against this backdrop of scholarly critique of grading as an inadequate means of evaluating

multiple dimensions of student work, music teacher educators still confront the challenge of

preparing preservice teachers to meet typical school expectations of grading, while

acknowledging reservations about common practices of grading. The nature of assessment in

music and its relationship to curriculum and instruction require evaluative techniques that are a

good disciplinary fit for music and that are congruent with the culture of music classrooms.

Formative assessment—central to the ongoing shaping of musical growth—requires that teachers

develop refined sensibilities for “reading” the signs of progress for individuals and groups and

capturing this evidence in usable ways for later reflection. Common summative appraisals of

musical achievement such as adjudicated ratings, audition results, chair placements, and jury

results broaden to include evidence from descriptive rubrics, checklists, journal entries, and

student projects. An increasing emphasis on the social nature of the music classroom and the way

that music learning is mediated through peer interaction also provides avenues for evaluating

musical processes and products. New avenues for documenting and representing the breadth and

depth of student understanding align with proposals to reconceptualize the music curriculum

(Hanley & Montgomery, 2002, 2005). Within these initiatives, a critical stance toward current

practice is essential in confronting and rethinking possible avenues for change.

Perceptions of Grades in School Contexts Grading, although only a small part of the overall picture of teachers’ work, represents a

particularly visible and often vulnerable aspect of that work. Grades can loom large once you

consider how others view and interpret them. Music teacher educators may also realize that, even

if preservice teachers can more clearly articulate the bases on which they will assign grades, they

must also be mindful of how grades are perceived. It may be important to discuss some of these

perceptions and expectations in preservice courses. After a new teacher is hired, for example,

grades come up quickly on the radar screen as one of the first items on the agenda for necessary

communication with students, parents, and administrators. In the very first days of school, new

teachers provide students with a handbook or syllabus that outlines the grading policy for the

term, thinking that all bases have been covered if the policy is well substantiated. For students,

however, grades may be perceived not as reflections of achievement but as signs of validation by

the teacher. Cushman’s (2003) fascinating collection of high school students’ comments on their

educational experience, Fires in the Bathroom, offers this window to students’ views of grades:


By high school, teenagers see grades as a powerful and personal judgment on whothey are and what the future will hold. For most, grades play a large part informing their self-image. A bad grade can feel like a blow from which they can’trecover; a good grade can boost their energy and motivation. (p. 78)

Principals may view grades as a reflection of the instructor’s competence or rigor. Since

administrators have a schoolwide perspective on grading practices, they may be concerned with

equity across subjects and may exert influence on music teachers to base their grading policies on

clearly documented evidence of student achievement. McCoy (1991) compared principals’

expectations with ensemble directors’ practices in grading and found that principals assigned

more weight to psychomotor criteria (including performance technique, memorization, sight-

reading, etc.) than nonmusical criteria (attendance, behavior, and participation). Nonmusical

criteria, paradoxically, were weighted more heavily by the directors.

Parents may view grades as reflections of the teacher’s pedagogical ability rather than

students’ achievement. Parents compare and contrast grading policies as they move through the

succession of introductions to their child’s teachers during parents’ night early in the year. Many

articles on grading begin with the familiar “why did my child get a C?” scenario, a compelling

motivation for teachers to articulate clear policies and to provide justifiable evidence of the

student’s learning. If parents or students contest grades, administrators typically are the first to be

drawn into the process of resolving the conflict. Questioning a grade often leads to questioning

the teacher’s capabilities. It is no wonder that new music teachers feel especially vulnerable and

in great need of wise mentoring and solid advice. One longs for a “grade-o-matic” device that

would weigh the sum total of what a teacher knows about a student’s achievement, balance that

total with accumulated artifacts of learning, and turn the entire concoction into a fair and

equitable grade.

Experienced music teachers have alternate views of grading as well. Many experienced

teachers eventually reach a détente of sorts in their attitude toward grading, seeing it as a

necessary and periodic routine task. The scrutiny with which a teacher’s grades are examined

probably diminishes once the teacher’s implicit and explicit rules for grading become known

within the school community. One graduate student conveyed how grading becomes routine by

remarking that “grades are what I do for the front office; assessment is what I do in my

classroom.” Others may see grades as leverage for control, as an incentive for rewarding or

motivating students, or as a punishment for misbehavior. Although grading policies are only one

instance of how teachers’ practices align with beliefs, they do reflect in part what teachers value.

A Grading Project as an Exercise of Professional Judgment Designing courses for preservice teachers is always challenging as one considers just how to

balance time, energy, course content, and student engagement in projects and assignments.


Initially, I hoped to craft a grading policy as an example that could be adopted and adapted by

students in the assessment class. I soon realized that my quest for a “silver bullet” for this

seemingly intractable problem was misguided. Instead, I designed a process through which

preservice teachers could analyze, design, and reflect upon grading practices that would fit their

beliefs and contexts. As it evolved, it more aptly illustrated one very common instance of the

exercise of professional judgment for music teachers. The project had four phases, briefly

described here.

First, preservice teachers read widely on grading practices in order to derive principles by

which to design more learning-focused grading policies. Particularly valuable in this search was

the consideration of “pros and cons” regarding grading. One year, we staged a debate in order to

deepen our understanding of the benefits and perils of various grading systems. (Suggested

sources that debate the merits and pitfalls of various grading practices, their assumptions, and

their utility in various school contexts are provided at the end of this article.)

Next, a list of principles was derived from readings, student insights, and my cumulative notes

on the projects over several years’ time. These principles include the following:

! Clarity. Grading policies should be clearly and unambiguously stated. Students, parents,

and administrators should be able to examine the process for assigning grades and

understand how the process will be implemented.

! Fairness. Grading policies should reflect procedures that can be administered equally and

consistently for all students in the class. If the grading policy will be adapted for students

with special needs or in the case that exceptional circumstances make it difficult for

students to fulfill requirements, these modifications should be listed whenever possible.

! Emphasis on musical over extramusical factors. Grading policies should emphasize

musical achievement. If grading policies include extramusical factors such as concert

attendance and participation in assigning grades, however, a rationale for their inclusion

should be provided. How are musical and extramusical factors weighted within the

policy? Is there a justifiable rationale for including extramusical factors? Valid arguments

can be made for excluding extramusical factors from grading considerations altogether.

However, a balance of musical and extramusical factors may be justified on the premise

that student contributions to an ensemble are integral to its overall success, and therefore

require regular, active participation. Another valid strategy is to report any comments

about students’ approaches to their work separately from grades that represent musical

achievement.

! Comprehensiveness. Grading policies should reflect a comprehensive view of musical

learning. Does the grading policy reflect multiple means of assessing students’ musical

achievement for various kinds of musical skills, knowledge, and understanding? For


example, does the policy reflect local, state, and national standards for performing,

creating music, analyzing, and reflecting upon music?

! Relationship of student work to evidence collected. Grades should be earned and not just

awarded. Is achievement documented and informed by tangible evidence? Is it clear how

the forms of evidence (performance assessments, lesson evaluations, written assignments,

projects, etc.) will be factored into the grade, usually as some sort of point system? Are

the rules for converting the evidence of achievement into a grade clear?

! Ease of use. Grading policies should be realistic for teachers to implement and should not

be so onerous that they detract from other aspects of teaching and learning. In what ways

does the policy seem manageable for the music teacher to implement?

! General tone and style. Grading policies should be stated in a way that encourages

student engagement and responsibility for learning. What attitudes do policies convey

about students, their habits, and musicianship? What is the general tone of the policy as

stated?

Next, students searched for models of grading practices in music to analyze according to these

principles. Policies were obtained from a variety of sources, including (a) the Internet through

searching for band, choir, orchestra, or general music handbooks; (b) published articles that

outlined grading practices (such as Cofer, 2002; McCoy & Ellis, 1991; Scott, 1998); and (c)

examples of grading policies that cooperating teachers or graduate students in the class granted

permission for us to use. Some students, particularly those interested in general music, searched

for pupil progress reports in music, of which there are several published examples (Brophy,

2000; Brummett & Haywood, 1997; Stauffer, 1999). Obviously, some of the criteria must be

modified for a pupil progress reporting system. Since there is no need to reduce the descriptions

of students’ work to a single grade, for example, conversion rules are not necessary.

Finally, the preservice teachers submitted an analysis of three selected policies, described

them in relation to the principles we had outlined, and developed their own grading policies

based on a modification of this analysis. The criteria used to evaluate the preservice teachers’

work included (a) thoughtful analysis of three existing systems for grading or reporting pupil

progress; (b) practicality of the revised reporting or grading system; (c) depth of rationale for the

revised system, addressing the balance between musical and extramusical factors, if included,

and describing how the system will reflect student achievement; (d) clarity of the revised system

for parents, administrators, and students; (e) quality and quantity of references used to inform the

project; and (f) overall quality of writing.

Insights from the Project In the six years that I incorporated this project into the assessment course, I kept running notes

of themes that emerged from the analysis of available grading systems. Generally, the review of


available grading policies echoed many of Lehman’s findings (1998). Many available grading

policies in music weigh extramusical factors (class attendance and participation, concert

attendance) more heavily than musical factors (demonstrated achievement of musical skills and

understanding). The most common musical factor used in calculating quarter or semester grades

appears to be weekly lesson grades; it is less common to find specific descriptions of how the

grades are related to students’ demonstrations of musical capabilities within the lesson. Few

grading policies are linked directly to the achievement of state or local standards in music, but

there are signs of change on the horizon as more teachers are evaluating more forms of musical

engagement and progress, thus reflecting a more comprehensive view of music learning.

Qualitative judgments of musical performance or achievement are often converted into a point

system for calculating grades. The conversion rules for this transformation of judgments into

points are sometimes explicitly stated and sometimes vague.

Certain problem areas surfaced as themes, especially in regard to the weighting of musical and

extramusical factors for assigning grades in ensemble settings. Unlike subjects where individual

student achievement is the norm, music teachers often balance expectations for individual

achievement with equally valid goals for the overall music attainment of the ensemble. This may

provide a principled basis for incorporating concert attendance or participation as a factor in

grading individual students. Provisions for extra credit as factors in grading are common, but

these opportunities for raising grades provoked additional debate. As a component of grading

policies, extra credit options allow for flexibility in offering additional work to students who may

have exceptional circumstances that prevent them from completing required assignments.

Depending upon the type of work offered as extra credit, student creativity, initiative, or

leadership may be promoted. Extra credit policies can also encourage broad participation in

music. Attending community performances, for example, is a typical extension. On the other

hand, if the type of work that carries extra credit is not sufficiently rigorous or documented in

some way (carrying out service activities by performing clerical tasks, for example), the extra

credit provision dilutes the focus on musical achievement. If the extra credit work is musically

valuable, then perhaps it should be included in the requirements for the course. Of particular

concern was the awarding of points for musical pursuits outside of the school context, such as

private lessons or participation in youth choirs, orchestras, and wind ensembles. These

opportunities are invaluable for highly accomplished students, but awarding credit for these out-

of-school experiences raises concerns about equity, access, and the teacher’s ability to validate

student participation in settings outside of school with credibility.

The analytical aspects of this project strengthened the revised policies that preservice teachers

designed. The examination of a variety of grading examples underscored the range of choices and

variability in teachers’ practices and beliefs. Students in the assessment class were able to glean


many innovative strategies and perspectives from this review. One such example was the tiered

evaluation system of Scott (1998), which many of the students used to design strategies that

accounted for various levels of musical accomplishment within one ensemble. They used Scott’s

idea of graduated expectations for freshman through senior levels, for instance, to align more

sophisticated goals with more challenging demonstrations of musical advancement.

Another key insight from the project was the need for aligning grading policies with a more

comprehensive view of music learning. The assessment of performance skills is the most

frequently cited musical factor in grading policies. Broadening the curriculum to include

repertoire-based listening assessments and knowledge of related historical style periods and

genres was frequently used. Another expansion of work to be assessed was in the area of musical

creativity. Students considered how they would instruct students so that they could engage in

composition and arranging assignments and demonstrations of improvisatory ability. Other

frequently cited strategies included the use of student journals, portfolios, and student self-

assessments to probe the varied meanings that students construct from their musical experience.

Each of these expanded forms strengthened the essential relationships between curriculum,

instruction, and assessment.

Finally, the general tone of the revised policies provided particular insights into the kinds of

classroom communities the preservice teachers hope to establish. Grading policies are often seen

as one arena for controlling and managing students; the firm and nearly militaristic tone of

statements about grading in some syllabi and ensemble handbooks is no doubt intended to

convey an image of a confident, competent, and determined teacher. A very different message is

conveyed, however, when the tone of the policy focuses on music learning, the students’ progress

toward musical independence, and their capable demonstration of evolving abilities. Grading

policies, although only a part of the overall dimensions of student and teacher interaction, distill a

teacher’s priorities and transmit powerful images of work that is valued within the learning

community.

Implementing Grading Policies in School Contexts Students in the assessment class designed more thoughtful and comprehensive policies for

grading student work in music after analyzing multiple approaches and deriving principles to

guide the construction of policies. The implementation of the policy in a particular school context

calls for extending professional judgment to fit the particularities of school context. For example,

it is common for student teachers to assist cooperating teachers in carrying out grading

responsibilities. Often, student teachers gain valuable experience in assessing students’ musical

growth and relating that growth to the cooperating teacher’s grading practices. Student teachers

sometimes adopt the cooperating teacher’s system and transplant it to the setting of their first job.

Comparing their newly designed grading policy with that of their cooperating teacher will make


it clearer how the school community, a teacher’s beliefs, and expectations may differ from

district to district and may provide a more thoughtful basis from which to adapt or modify ideas.

Discussing the contextualization of grading practices may lead to the realization that new

policies, however well designed, can be seen as revolutionary when juxtaposed with past

practices. New teachers in new districts may be wise to “phase in” policies that are substantially

different from previous policies, in order to gradually build acceptance for and understanding of

these new expectations. If students are accustomed to receiving As for attendance and

participation, for instance, the switch to grading on the basis of achievement should be prepared

carefully. Hargreaves, Earl, Moore, and Manning (2001) described how teachers in a district

undergoing assessment reform confronted competing views of assessment and evaluation,

framing them as “acts of judgment, which involve the exercise and negotiation of power,

authority and competing interests among different groups” (p. 55).

Finally, even when clear guidelines are consistently applied and communicated, teachers who

deemphasize grades and stress the multiple benefits, satisfactions, and values of music study

make compelling arguments for keeping grading in healthy perspective. A focus on the work is

preferable to a focus on the proffered grade for the work. It seems wise for new teachers to be

sensitive to the way students perceive grading, no matter how clearly and fairly the policy has

been constructed. Grading is an aspect of teaching that is prone to conflict; the revised policies

should at least minimize those conflicts. Grades can serve a more powerful pedagogical role

when they focus students’ attention on their work in music and trigger conversations about the

criteria for quality that are captured in the grade. Music teachers strive for clear, elegant,

manageable, and principled practices for assigning grades based on a comprehensive view of

students’ musical achievements, knowing that these summative judgments are only snapshots of

students’ overall music growth.

Grades are but one example of a robust, common practice in schools that warrants critical

examination and transformation by teachers entering the field. There are many dimensions of

professional judgment that might be explored; grading appears to be one case that can be

examined quite successfully in preservice settings. Meaningful change in aligning curriculum,

instruction, and assessment is possible if preservice teachers are encouraged to question existing

practices, articulate alternate views, inform their search for solutions, understand the provisional

nature of life in classrooms, and hone their professional judgment as they enter the field and

establish their developing professional identities.

Categorized Bibliography for Examining Grading PracticesViewpoints critical of grading practices, policies, and fundamental assumptions of gradingHargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching

beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise,and other bribes. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Kohn, A. (1994). Grading: The issue is not how but why. Educational Leadership, 52(2), 38–41.Krumboltz, J. D., & Yeh, C. J. (1996). Competitive grading sabotages good teaching. Phi Delta

Kappan, 78(4), 324–326.

Varied approaches to grading to examineAzwell, T., & Schmar, E. (Eds.). (1995). Report card on report cards: Alternatives to consider.

Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.Guskey, T. R. (1994). Making the grade: What benefits students? Educational Leadership, 52(2),

14–20.Guskey, T. R. (Ed.). (1996). Communicating student learning: The ASCD yearbook. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for student

learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Haladyna, T. M. (1999). A complete guide to student grading. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of

testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve

student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grading strategies and policies specific to musicBoyle, J. D., & Radocy, R. F. (1987). Measurement and evaluation of musical experiences. New

York: Schirmer Books.Cofer, R. S. (2002). Developing a large-ensemble handbook. Teaching Music, 9(4), 36–39.Lehman, P. (1998). Grading practices in music (A report of the Music Educators National

Conference). Music Educators Journal, 84(5), 37–40.McCoy, C. W., & Ellis, M. C. (1991). Mapping a strategy for grading students in music classes.

Triad (September/October), 12–15.Scott, D. (1998). Tiered evaluation in large ensemble settings. Music Educators Journal, 85(3),

17–21, 47.

ReferencesBrophy, T. S. (2000). Assessing the developing child musician: A guide for general music

teachers. Chicago: GIA.Brummett, V. M., & Haywood, J. (1997). Authentic assessment in school music: Implementing a

framework. General Music Today, 11(1), 4–10.Cofer, R. S. (2002). Developing a large-ensemble handbook. Teaching Music, 9(4), 36–39.Cushman, K. (2003). Fires in the bathroom: Advice for teachers from high school students. New

York: New Press.Doll, W. E., Jr. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College

Press.Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.


Hanley, B., & Montgomery, J. (2002). Contemporary curriculum practices and their theoreticalbases. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), New handbook of research on musicteaching and learning (pp. 113–143). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hanley, B., & Montgomery, J. (2005). Challenges to music education: Curriculumreconceptualized. Music Educators Journal, 91(4), 17–20.

Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: Teachingbeyond subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). (1992). Modelstandards for beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for statedialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise,and other bribes. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Lehman, P. (1998). Grading practices in music (A report of the Music Educators NationalConference). Music Educators Journal, 84(5), 37–40.

McCoy, C. W. (1991). Grading students in performing groups: A comparison of principals’recommendations with directors’ practices. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39,181–190.

McCoy, C. W., & Ellis, M. C. (1991). Mapping a strategy for grading students in music classes.Triad (September/October), 12–15.

Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2002). Understandingcurriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculumdiscourses (Vol. 17). New York: Peter Lang.

Scott, D. (1998). Tiered evaluation in large ensemble settings. Music Educators Journal, 85(3),17–21, 47.

Stauffer, S. L. (1999). Beginning assessment in elementary general music. Music EducatorsJournal, 86(2), 25–30.

Thiessen, D., & Barrett, J. R. (2002). Reform-minded music teachers: A more comprehensiveimage of teaching for music teacher education. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.),New handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 759–785). New York:Oxford University Press.


Description and Evaluation of Experiences at a New Early Field SiteBy Martin J. Bergee

Martin J. Bergee is a professor of music education at the University of Missouri–Columbia.He can be reached at [email protected].

Most writers on teacher education view early field experiences (i.e., field experiences before

student teaching) as an unquestioned benefit to future educators. If programs are to succeed in

training teachers to deal with today’s classrooms, then early field experiences must be considered

critical components (Upitis, 1999). According to Ritschel (1985), field experiences in music

teacher education programs should begin early and continue into student teaching.

The early field experience research literature, however, suggests mixed outcomes. Drawing

on findings from several studies, Cruikshank (1990) summarized that early field experiences lead

to “cognitive gains in professional coursework and better pre-student teaching, but not

necessarily to better student teaching performance” (p. 128). Although preservice teacher

respondents in Aiken and Day’s (1999) study viewed early field experiences overwhelmingly

positively, these experiences led to inconsistent teaching outcomes, including no statistically

significant differences on scores on a statewide teacher appraisal instrument. McIntyre (1983,

cited in Freeland, 1988) has noted both advantages and disadvantages in reference to early field

experiences. Advantages are that they (a) allow students to discover early if they enjoy children

and want to teach, (b) permit universities to determine students’ potential, (c) enable students to

practice instructional skills, (d) develop students’ base of perceptions of classroom life, (e)

improve communication between universities and public schools, and (f) accelerate passage

through various stages from student to teacher. Disadvantages are that early field experiences (a)

socialize students negatively, that is, align their attitudes and behaviors with the less desirable

ones of some cooperating teachers, and (b) potentially encourage in future educators unfavorable

attitudes toward children, schooling, and teaching.

Recently, owing to some fortuitous changes of scheduling in the school music programs of

our community, an opportunity arose to establish a new early field experience relationship with a

veteran, highly regarded middle school instrumental music teacher. I took an opportunity to

examine this new set of experiences critically, especially in terms of the advantages and

disadvantages McIntyre (in Freeland, 1988) and others have cited. Such an examination may

initiate some needed discussion about early field experiences in music teacher education

programs, a topic with a limited literature base in spite of the importance of early field

experiences. As part of a complete education, students pursuing certification to teach music must

encounter a variety of environments in which music is taught successfully. Student teaching

alone cannot meet this need.



Background: The Teacher Development Program The university’s teacher development program is a relatively new enterprise. Each methods

course or block of courses has one or more field experience hours affiliated with it. These hours

remain only generally defined; therefore, instructors tend to use them in various ways. Some do

not link field experiences directly with courses, others do, while yet others request the

employment of persons to be responsible for field experiences and to serve as liaisons between

cooperating teachers and course instructors. For the band students, I chose to assume the field

experience directly as a part of my teaching responsibilities and to integrate the field experiences

fully into my methods course. I have made all contacts with teachers myself, using the

university’s field experiences office only as needed.

My course deals with teaching music in secondary schools. For the past few years, owing to

the support of the director of undergraduate teacher education (who received her baccalaureate

degree in music education), high school choral and strings teachers have been employed on an

adjunct basis to serve as field experience instructors for students in these areas. The wind and

percussion (band) students remain with me for field experiences. A high school with a high-

quality instrumental program has been available to us for field experiences for a number of years

now. The first two-thirds of the semester, however, is spent in area middle schools.

The Field Site The three middle schools in our community encompass sixth and seventh grades. Recently,

the school district discontinued its fifth-grade beginning bands and reconstituted beginning band

as a sixth-grade experience. This move has been successful, resulting in steeply increased

enrollments and a reduced dropout rate. Typically, about 150 seventh graders enroll in band in

Washington Middle School (a pseudonym), where our middle-level field experiences take place.

This district’s middle schools operate on a block schedule. In order to accommodate such a large

number of students, the band seventh graders at Washington are divided evenly into two groups,

with instrumentation the main consideration. As a result, a large ensemble with virtually

complete instrumentation meets every day of the week at the same time as our methods class.

Preliminary Meetings with the Cooperating Teacher Chad (a pseudonym) has served as band director at Washington since its opening. We have

known one another for years, and I have long respected his teaching. Scheduling had not

previously allowed us to work together on field experiences. Several weeks before the semester, I

met with Chad to discuss the possibility of Washington serving as a field site. Chad seemed

enthusiastic about establishing a collaboration. I shared with him my methods course and field

experience syllabi and asked for suggestions, discussing with him ways in which the college

students and I might be of help to his students. I indicated clearly that I would be there each time


my students were and that at no point would he have sole responsibility for them. Chad talked

about his program and what kinds of students we could expect to encounter. The two of us then

met with the building principal, who expressed support for the collaboration. Subsequently, I

drafted a field experience schedule, shared it with Chad, took input from him, and revised the

schedule accordingly.

We determined that the block schedule would work to the advantage of both his students and

mine. A band would be available every day of the week, allowing me an opportunity to schedule

field experiences consistently on Mondays and Wednesdays. Because I often have a relatively

large number of band students enrolled in my class (12 to 15 on average), the block scheduling

divided our somewhat heavy presence between the two ensembles.

Description August 23: First Day of University Classes. On the first day of class, I shared the field

experience schedule with the students. Reactions were positive; earlier, many of the students had

had a successful general music field experience at Washington. They expressed no initial

concerns over the schedule and clearly appreciated my organizing it over several weeks’ time.

September 13: First Day of Field Experience. On the first scheduled field experience day, all

of the students arrived before 8:00, dressed appropriately, with instruments, and seemingly ready

to go. They were anxious but eager. One of my students had worked extensively with some of the

Washington brass players in an on-campus music camp the previous summer. This appeared to

break the ice. I made a mental note to encourage first- and second-year students to involve

themselves in this camp as much as possible. While in field experiences, the college students

were instructed to sit with the group and play when they were not actually teaching. Today, this

proved quite helpful, as the band mostly sight-read at this rehearsal. Because the ensemble had

well over a dozen percussionists, it was of considerable help that one of my students, a

percussionist, was assigned to them. He unobtrusively dealt with a number of problems the

teacher would not have been able to take rehearsal time to address.

Surprisingly, the experience didn’t generate a great deal of discussion on campus the next day.

Students remarked mostly on the large size of the ensemble. One of our ground rules was that in

campus discussion individual teachers or students could not be commented on negatively. My

students showed no inclination to do this, however, and did not through the course of the

semester. They related that they were able to address many of the hand position and fingering

problems they observed by virtue of sitting with the students.

September 15. Today, the college students began working with small groups of students, as

many of the seventh graders were soon to audition for a community-wide honors band. When

Chad asked who would like to work with the college students, hands of almost all the potential

auditionees went up. I didn’t expect this; I thought we might have to pull teeth. When I asked


him about it later, Chad commented that his students miss the small-group instruction they had

received as sixth graders. On that day, we needed to find 11 spaces (two of my students were

absent) for small-group instruction. The band facility had only one such space, a storage room

that occasionally serves as a practice room. With Chad’s help, I found a number of nooks and

crannies. My students taught in the cafeteria, a back hallway, the kitchen (where four trombonists

played in the midst of lunch preparation), the concession room, a storage room for gymnasium

equipment, a porch outside the building, the loading dock, and several other places. Like most

secondary schools, Washington is built to accommodate masses of students; it has wide hallways,

large classrooms, and cavernous open spaces (“cafetorium,” gymnasium, etc.). Finding workable

spaces for independent small-group teaching was a challenge. With Chad’s help, though,

confusion and disarray were minimized, and after a short while all were at work in these various

niches. I spent the hour running, almost literally, to ensure that each of the 11 groups was on task.

I was pleased with what I saw; in fact, I needed to remind my students that the end of the period

was approaching.

During discussion the next day, one of my students, a hornist, commented that the seventh-

grade hornists had been assigned the same music as the trumpeters, which was too high and too

difficult for them. This led to impromptu but useful discussion on how to approach the teaching

of beginning and intermediate hornists and how such approaches could be appropriately

incorporated into middle-level band instruction.

September 20. A field experience day needed to be cancelled because of early release. At

Washington, early release days shorten every hour, resulting in 20-minute class periods. I knew

about the early release only a day in advance and was just able to alert my class. I realized, too

late, that I should have consulted the school district calendar in the summer before developing

my course’s field experience schedule.

In ongoing discussion on campus, I encouraged my students to think about issues beyond

rehearsing. What do the middle school students look like and how do they dress? Why are so

many of the middle schoolers in the room so early? How do their instructors deal with this and

prepare the room for rehearsal? How are instruments and materials organized? How do the

instructors deal with the lack of storage space for large instruments? How is percussion set up?

How is music distributed? My students appeared to be oblivious to much of this. The “real

world” of teaching did not yet seem real for them. I worried about how to help them make the

connection.

September 22. Chad and I kept the small groups the same to allow some rapport to build. The

two college students absent on the previous field experience day needed to be brought up to

speed. I desperately searched for two more spaces. Everything went smoothly, though, again

owing to Chad’s efforts.


In discussion the next day, my students pointed out some discrepancies between class content

and what they were observing in the field. I had anticipated this. We talked about variability in

teaching styles and how no one “best” way exists. I worried about how to resolve these

discrepancies: Will students reject all approaches but one, or will they somehow reconcile them?

What is my role in this?

Students have been taking the field experiences increasingly seriously. Lateness is a non-

issue; in fact, they arrive earlier and earlier. In the brief time they have worked with the small

groups, my students have built a successful rapport with the seventh graders. But they remained

anxious about their ability to maintain “discipline” in full-group rehearsals.

On campus, the time arrived to prepare for full-ensemble rehearsals, my students’ first full-

ensemble band rehearsals in the field. I took these initial experiences seriously, as they seem to

set a crucial pattern for much that follows. I have found that preliminary “mock” rehearsals, in

which the students and I play through the music to be rehearsed, are helpful. Students have a

chance to experience the music relatively risk-free and to smooth out conducting and rehearsing

wrinkles in advance.

I consulted with Chad about music and distributed study scores to the students about a week

before the mock rehearsals, urging them to prepare thoroughly. Earlier, I had arranged to use one

of the university’s rehearsal facilities for the mock rehearsals. I had considered instruments,

chairs, stands, scores, rehearsal order, and a myriad of other things, but I had neglected parts and

had to dash to Washington early in the morning to borrow a set.

September 27. Today was the final experience with the small groups. We increased the size of

the groups, and my students worked on passages from the music to be performed in an upcoming

assembly. Confident in my students’ abilities, I left them alone and remained in the rehearsal

room. In class discussion the following day, some students expressed strong dismay at the

apparent achievement disparity among players. This led to an extended discussion on how to deal

with such discrepancies and how to individualize instruction to the extent feasible. We talked

about ways to set aside feelings of frustration and deal dispassionately and professionally with

problems at hand.

September 29. Today, full-group teaching episodes began. I kept the initial episodes to five

minutes, essentially a reading of the piece followed by a two- to three-minute rehearsal. The

students had prepared well, and with the brief frame for rehearsing, there was minimal

opportunity to fail. The teaching went well. The students were nervous, but they exhibited

gratifyingly few errors of pattern, gesture, or cue. The rehearsal clinics my students had

completed earlier in their program seemed to have accomplished their purpose. The middle-

school students responded favorably, even after dealing with six consecutive novice teachers.

Afterward, we remained at the middle school for immediate debriefing on the rehearsals. My


students seemed pleased, expressing gratitude for how “well behaved” the band members had

been.

October 25. Over time, we subsequently extended the full-group rehearsals, ultimately to 15

minutes for each student. For the most part, my students continued to be successful. (There were

clear disparities in their achievement as well. I tried to practice what I had preached and set my

own feelings of frustration aside.) The overall quality of the conducting and rehearsing ranged

from satisfactory to excellent. For the most part, my students demonstrated good poise and

effective teaching within the confines of their limited experience. The middle schoolers have

been quite receptive and considerate, almost to a fault.

Evaluation Overall, these field experiences were positive and worthwhile for my students. Their

advantages were quite clear. There were equally clear disadvantages, however, although they

were not the same ones that had been expressed in the literature.

In terms of advantages, I noted the following:

1. Similar to the findings of Aiken and Day (1999), these field experiences clearly enhanced

students’ confidence in their ability to succeed. Concerns about classroom management

were at least addressed, if not allayed.

2. Consistent with McIntyre’s third advantage (i.e., enabling the practice of instructional

skills, as cited in Freeland, 1988), these experiences afforded students an opportunity to

practice in authentic situations the conducting and rehearsing skills they had learned in

earlier on-campus rehearsal clinics.

3. Chad’s supportiveness made a major difference. The time and energy I had invested into

this relationship paid off. Perhaps because of this successful relationship and our mutual

interest in students’ welfare, McIntyre’s concern about possible negative socialization did

not materialize. My continual presence may have helped, but the main factor appeared to

be Chad’s demonstrably positive attitude and enthusiasm for teaching.

4. These experiences helped acculturate my students to teacher norms of dress,

comportment, and so forth. But, in contrast with McIntyre’s concerns, the socialization

seemed to be entirely positive. In fact, students’ attitudes and sense of professionalism

seemed to mature through the course of the experiences.

I noted the following disadvantages as well:

1. In spite of significant efforts on my and the cooperating teachers’ part, the university

students experienced limited instructional opportunities, especially whole-class teaching.

One morning’s full-time teaching would double all of their experience thus far. Such brief

experiences do not allow students’ skills to develop beyond rudimentary levels (cf.

Cruikshank, 1990). A longer-term partnership, similar to what Henry (2001) has


advocated for music teacher education programs, might provide more stability and access,

thus allowing deeper relationships to build and encouraging more risk taking on the part

of students (and their methods class instructors!).

2. The experiences might have been too carefully controlled. Almost all of my students were

to student teach the following semester. Ideally, teaching episodes so close to student

teaching should allow students more opportunities to experiment with different teaching

approaches and determine which ones best suit them.

3. In order for these experiences to be integrated into the course in more than name only, I

devoted a considerable amount of class time to preparation, assignments, follow-up

discussion, evaluation, and so forth. Such a large time commitment encroaches on other

important topics (curriculum development, student assessment, administration and

budgeting, relationships with parents, etc.).

4. In spite of my efforts to reconcile them, clear disparities existed between the content of

the methods course and what students observed in the field. For example, they

encountered no teaching from an explicit set of standards (e.g., the National Standards for

Music Education), nor did the cooperating teachers appear to work from structured lesson

plans. Rehearsals were exclusively for the preparation of music for concert performance.

Perhaps resolution of these disparities is best left to the students. Yerian and Grossman’s

(1997) methods class students encountered significant dissonance between what

university instructors and teachers in the field emphasized, and students negotiated this

dissonance in highly individual ways.

Consistent with the existing literature, my students’ experiences built their confidence,

encouraged favorable attitudes, acquainted them with norms for teacher professionalism, and

provided opportunities for working directly with young students. But their experiences confirmed

the literature in another sense, too: actual teaching experiences were too brief and episodic to

effect clear improvements in my students’ skills.

Regardless, early field experiences in music teacher education programs deserve continued

study. Such experiences afford preservice teachers risk-controlled opportunities to become

acquainted with schools, students, and teaching, thereby setting the stage for success in student

teaching and in subsequent “real-world” experiences.

ReferencesAiken, I. P., & Day, B. (1999). Early field experiences in preservice teacher education: Research

and student perspective. Action in Teacher Education, 2(3), 7–12.Cruickshank, D. R. (1990). Research that informs teachers and teacher educators. Bloomington,

IN: Phi Delta Kappa.Freeland, K. (1988). A collaborative effort in field experiences. Teacher Educator, 24(2), 22–28.Henry, W. (2001). Music teacher education and the professional development school. Journal of


Music Teacher Education, 10(2), 23–28.Ritschel, R. E. (1985). The teacher preparation shell game: Rebuttal to Albert Leblanc’s

“Excellence in Music Teacher Education.” Music Educators Journal, 71(6), 43–46.Upitis, R. (1999). Teacher education reform: Putting experience first. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 26(2), 11–19.Yerian, S., & Grossman, P. L. (1997). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of their middle level

teacher education experience: A comparison of a traditional and a PDS model. TeacherEducation Quarterly, 24(4), 85–101.


Learning to Inquire:

Teacher Research in Undergraduate Teacher TrainingBy Katherine Strand

Katherine Strand is an assistant professor of music education at Indiana University inBloomington. She can be reached at [email protected].

Many teacher training programs place an emphasis on developing inquiry skills in preservice

teacher training (Schulz & Mandzuk, 2003). Concerns for the students’ critical-thinking skills

related to their teaching practice, their perceptions of themselves as teachers, and the

development of reflective skills have led to a number of initiatives in the preservice curriculum

(Fendler, 2003; Hollingsworth & Socket, 1994; McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996; Osguthorpe,

Harris, Harris, & Black, 1995, Schultz & Mandzuk, 2003; Zeichner & Gore, 1995). Tasks such

as peer and self-assessments, journaling, and teaching observations are assigned to students to

prepare them for their future careers. However, there may still be some concerns about whether

students leave undergraduate teacher preparation programs with sufficient professional

dispositions and inquiry skills (Regelski, 1994; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000;

Zeichner, 1992). It may be that our current instructional tasks are insufficient to develop the level

of inquiry, critical-thinking, and critical-reflection skills we hope students will acquire to ensure

successful professional lives.

Another option for teaching inquiry skills is to incorporate teacher research projects in the

undergraduate curriculum. In teacher research, teachers systematically and collaboratively

develop questions related to their practice, collect and analyze data, and make use of the findings

for the betterment of their teaching practice (Bresler, 1995; Cochran-Smith, 1994; Hollingsworth

& Sockett, 1994). Teacher research should be collaborative (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990) and

should gather, ideally, multiple perspectives from multiple data sources. The particular value of

this type of project lies in its ability to improve individual practice, to help teachers question their

assumptions about teaching and learning, and, potentially, to transform teaching practice on a

large scale (McKernan, 1996; Regelski, 1994).

To test the value of incorporating teacher research in an undergraduate curriculum, I made a

qualitative study of a curriculum incorporating teacher research projects. The following three

initial research questions guided the study:

1. Does engagement in teacher research projects encourage preservice undergraduate music

education majors to make use of educational theories and accepted practice in their own

teaching?

2. Does engagement in teacher research projects encourage the development of professional

dispositions?



3. Does engagement in teacher research projects encourage the development of reflective

skills?

Various types of teacher research, such as “disciplined inquiry” and “action research,” are

different in definition, focus, and design. A discussion of such differences is beyond the scope of

this report. A thorough discussion can be found in Anderson, Herr, and Singrid-Nihlen (1994).

For the purposes of the literature review presented here, the terms “action research” and “teacher

research” will be used interchangeably.

A rationale for incorporating teacher research in undergraduate training is presented below, in

order to explain the grounds for the curriculum adaptation. Next, a model study that was chosen

to help organize the curriculum is described, in order to provide background information on the

specifics of the curriculum designed for the study. Third, the methodology for the current study is

described, including the process of developing and implementing the curriculum and the results

related to the research questions. Finally, the discussion section presents thoughts on implications

for undergraduate curriculum and for future research.

Rationale Three issues led to the development of the curriculum examined below. The first issue related

to a recent change in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act (U. S. Department of Education,

2003) that calls for teachers to use strategies and instructional content that have been tested for

effectiveness. A second issue was the call to encourage professionalism in young teachers

(Regelski, 1994). The third issue was the problem of training future teachers to use reflection for

their own professional development (Zeichner, 1992).

No Child Left Behind

New laws enacted as part of the NCLB act remind teacher trainers that education programs

should now include training in reading and producing research. The NCLB “What Works” Web

site states the matter succinctly:

The Challenge: Ineffective teaching practices and unproven education theories areamong the chief reasons children fall behind and teachers get frustrated. The Solution: Demand that instructional practices be evidence-based, and directfunding so only the best ideas with proven results are introduced into theclassroom. (U.S. Department of Education, 2003)

Teacher research has been used to enable teachers to evaluate whether or not an action taken

in the classroom achieves expected goals, and the results of teacher research studies can serve as

a basis for curriculum planning (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). The goals of teacher research are to help

teachers develop instruction, modify their instructional content and teaching strategies, and

gather new insights about the nature of learning and teaching. All of these goals would address


the challenge raised by the NCLB statements.

Developing Professionalism

Professionalism is a term used in a variety of contexts to describe an array of dispositions and

behaviors that determine the quality of teachers’ work. Characteristics of professionalism, as

defined by Regelski (1994), include “competent use of past practices,” “decision-making

grounded in the articulation of philosophical principles or … in the explicit articulation of beliefs

or convictions,” “gaining appropriate technical expertise in bringing about goals,” and “being

sensitive to, deliberate about, and ultimately responsible for insuring practical and principled

results” (p. 72). Professionalism requires teachers to see themselves as active agents in student

learning (Cochran-Smith, 1994).

However, research on perceptions of student teachers about their teaching indicates that not

all preservice teachers adopt a valid professional disposition. For example, McIntyre, Bird, and

Foxx (1996) examined student teacher perceptions of the success or failure of their lessons. The

student teachers tended to base their evaluations on student interest in the lesson and

participation, on their personality, and the on uniqueness of the lesson rather than on the

efficiency and effectiveness of the instruction.

Kurt Lewin (1948) envisioned teacher research as a way for teachers to become collaborative

and critical partners in research for the purpose of transforming both individual and cultural

practice. Cochran-Smith (1994) argues that engaging preservice teachers in research could help

them develop a “stance” in their profession, stating that it is

a way of positioning themselves as prospective teachers (and eventually across theprofessional lifespan) in relation to knowledge (i.e., their positions as generatorsas well as users of knowledge for and about teaching), agency (i.e., their positionsas activists and agents for social change), and collaboration (i.e., their positions asprofessional colleagues in relation to other teachers, to administrators, and policymakers, and to their own students). (pp. 151–52)

Reflective Practice

Reflection is often considered a positive teacher behavior (Korthagen & Wubbles, 1995;

Zeichner, 1992), one that teacher trainers attempt to encourage through journaling, discussion,

and self-assessments. Unfortunately, not all preservice teachers reflect as much or as deeply as

teacher trainers hope (Collier, 1999; Yost et al., 2000). Some even seem to be “antireflective,”

intentionally hiding thinking processes (Fendler, 2003). Moreover, tasks promoting reflection can

be critiqued for giving preservice teachers the impression that reflective thinking will

automatically improve teaching abilities (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Zeichner, 1992; Zeichner &

Gore, 1995). Teacher trainers face a threefold dilemma in that some students do not know how to

reflect, some do not want to reflect, and not all reflection leads to improved practice.


Dewey (1933) argues that the purpose of reflective thinking is to replace one’s impulses with

scientifically rational choices and find grounds for one’s beliefs. Reflective thinking should

improve society by cultivating self-discipline and “exercising the imagination toward future

possibilities” (as cited in Fendler, 2003, p 18). Zeichner and Gore (1995) and Cochran-Smith and

Lytle (1990) argue that critical reflective skills developed through teacher research may help

students to integrate their experiences with emerging theories of teaching and learning in ways

that journaling and other reflective tools cannot accomplish.

In summary, engagement in teacher research projects may help undergraduate teachers

complete their training with more ability to question their own assumptions about teaching and

learning. New perspectives may be brought to their attention through literature review, data

collection, and analysis. Furthermore, by examining existing research and participating in a

research project of their own, future teachers may become more likely to use research as a

resource in their own practice.

A Curricular Model

Several university programs have begun to incorporate teacher research projects in masters

degree teacher training programs (Duffield & Townsend, 1999; Poetter, 1997; Schultz &

Mandzuk, 2003). A qualitative study of one such curricular innovation by Poetter (1997) is

presented in detail because the information provided about the successes and failures in the first

year’s efforts informed the curriculum development for the current study.

Poetter undertook a new program to incorporate teacher research projects into an existing

five-year Professional Development Partnership teacher training program. His book, Voices of

Inquiry in Teacher Education, documents the first year of the experience with the projects. The

rationale for the new curriculum is best described in his own words:

We truly believed conducting fieldwork that focused on interns’ own teaching,their own students’ learning, and their own classrooms and schools wouldenhance interns’ deeper conceptions of teaching and school life. We believed thatinterns would see things by doing disciplined inquiry in the field that theywouldn’t see if they were only teaching. We believed that interns could becomemore than technicians of teaching, more than builders of databases of activitiesand lessons. (p. 7)

Data collection included interviews with students and cooperating teachers, field notes,

written student reports, and students’ journal entries. The text of the report includes a narrative in

which Poetter chronicled his and the students’ experiences and learning, along with five

completed student reports.

Poetter noted several difficulties when he introduced the research projects at the start of his

first year at the university. Problems included student resistance to the workload, cooperating


teacher resistance to change, and concern that the projects would take valuable time away from

contact with children. All of the student teachers had problems initially with the triple roles of

student, teacher, and researcher. The students struggled over how much time to devote to each

role and complained about the difficulties of relating to a mentor who was at times an informant,

at times an instructor, and at times a colleague. As the year progressed, role difficulties lessened

as the student teachers gained comfort in the classroom. By the end of the year, students

expressed excitement over their work and extolled the projects for their relevance in their future

practice, and some of the collaborating teachers became excited about developing their own

teacher research projects.

The written reports were given favorable reviews according to Poetter’s criteria for

evaluation. However, one notable and consistent problem was that the literature reviews were

incomplete and not as well organized as Poetter would have liked. He reasoned that this failing

was not a serious problem because the goal was to introduce and encourage a first effort into

research rather than to produce professional researchers. Because the projects were not supposed

to dominate the internship but rather were meant to “share the stage with teaching so that theory

and practice can wed in an emerging conception of teaching for the prospective teacher” (p. 147),

he decided that it was worthwhile to have the students complete the projects, even with the

inadequacies.

Poetter noted that some of the problems encountered during the year could have been

ameliorated with communication and instruction. For example, conflicts with cooperating

teachers might have been averted by communicating earlier and including them in curricular

planning. Instruction that included modeling of the research process might have allayed student

fears about their own projects. These suggestions were noted and addressed in the development

of the curriculum under investigation for this study.

The Current Study The first goal of the yearlong project was to help students learn to design research questions

about music teaching and seek answers through literature during a fall semester general methods

course for which I was the instructor. The challenge here was that the existing course curricula

had little time for extracurricular content. The second goal was for the students to seek answers

through data collection and analysis during their spring semester student-teaching placements, for

which I was the university supervisor. The challenge here was that students would be focused on

learning to teach and live in the school community, with potentially little time to attend to

research.

The action research study on the curricular project was a qualitative inquiry into the process of

instruction, student progress, and final research reports. Data collection included written lesson

plans, written communications with students and cooperating teachers, field notes taken during


classes and seminars, student-teaching journal entries, interviews with student teachers and

collaborating teachers, written student drafts and final research papers.

Participants and Setting

There were four participating students, the total number of seniors in a small liberal arts

college with a relatively new music education program. Two students were choral/general

specialists, and two were band specialists. All were enrolled in a K–12 general music education

methods class in the fall semester and student-teaching practicum in the spring semester. The 70-

minute general methods class met twice a week for 15 weeks. The student teachers had dual field

placements during the spring semester, each spending the first eight weeks in a junior high

school and then eight weeks in a senior high school. The students attended weekly two-hour

seminars during the spring student-teaching semester.

Eight cooperating teachers would work with the students during the spring semester.

Permission to conduct research and cooperating teachers’ active participation were sought in

writing by means of a handbook that described the teacher research projects and the

responsibilities of the student teachers and provided information explaining how the findings

would be used. Included with the handbook was a letter to thank the cooperating teachers for

their mentoring efforts and to invite their participation. The letter informed the teachers that they

had the option to not allow their student teachers to conduct research in their schools if they or

their administrations were uncomfortable with having research conducted in the school. The

letter and handbook were sent out approximately two months before student-teaching placements

began and were followed by phone calls to discuss the student-teaching semester and the research

projects.

Introducing the Projects

The research projects were introduced early in the fall semester. I described an action research

project that had been recently completed to model the research process and products. I used this

model to explain how to choose a problem, design a research question, examine literature, design

and teach a curriculum based on educational theory, collect and analyze data, and revise

instruction in response to findings. At the end of the class, the students were asked to think of

five “wonderments,” questions or concerns they had as preservice teachers, and share these

during the following class. Once they had told each other their wonderments, they were asked to

choose the one that was the most intriguing and write this into a research question to examine

through literature review and data collection.

During the next two classes, I introduced research methodologies and designs, presenting

studies and showing how to access databases to find research through the topic of “teaching

children to match pitch.” Because research was presented as a way to learn about singing

instruction, both the elementary methods class content and instruction on the research process

were addressed, so valuable methods instructional time was not lost.


The student reaction to these first two classes was surprising. I was certain that the students

would rebel over the extra work of looking up studies and that they would prefer to read a

methods text. Instead, they expressed frustration because no one had shown them these resources

before. One student asked aloud, “Why didn’t anyone tell us this before? We’ve been here for

four years, taken educational psychology and music education courses, and no one has shown us

any of this!” They saw reading research as an important part of learning to teach.

In subsequent classes, students were given instruction on how to read prescriptive writing and

research studies, how to write a problem statement and research question, and how to develop a

literature review. The students were given three weeks to come to some understanding about

their topic and write up an initial draft of these sections. When the first drafts were completed,

the students shared their drafts and their experiences of examining the literature, including

comments about how the literature review helped or confused them. All students commented that

they found it difficult to organize the literature into a coherent discussion.

Similar to Poetter’s findings, the students’ literature reviews were incomplete. It appeared that

when the students found one study on a topic they ended their search and looked at another topic.

Several studies were reported in the drafts, but there was little attempt to synthesize the gleaned

information. This anticipated problem supported Poetter’s findings (1997), so the drafts were

edited and suggestions for improvement were given, but the incomplete literature reviews did not

affect student grades.

The Projects Come to Life: Collecting and Analyzing Data

In the week that preceded the student-teaching placement, I met with students individually to

discuss the projects and proposed research design to guide their decisions about data collection

and analysis tools. Of the four students, three chose to focus on activities in the classroom and

learning about their cooperating teachers’ experiences and knowledge. They decided upon

interviews, observations, field notes and journals, analysis through transcribing interviews and

observations, and coding for emergent categories. The fourth student chose to use a reflective

spiral action research design with a pretest, instruction, posttest, and then findings that would be

used to revise instruction for a second set of tests with a second group of students.

All eight cooperating teachers responded enthusiastically to research project work. They

helped the student teachers obtain camera equipment, gave advisory feedback, and assumed the

role of “expert informant” by giving interviews on their perspectives related to the research

questions. Their comments to me about the projects were uniformly positive. Unlike in Poetter’s

findings, neither the teachers nor the students in this study commented about having problems

with shifting roles.

After three weeks of field placement, the students expressed concerns over the workload.

They stated that they had not had time to think about the research because they needed the time

to become accustomed to the school culture. The problem was one of priorities; the students felt


that they needed to put the research on a back burner while they dealt with immediate issues of

learning to maintain discipline and to develop effective lesson plans. Students were given the full

eight weeks of the first placement to complete the data collection in order to accommodate their

needs and keep them on track. Data collection took place some four or five weeks into their

second placements. Data analysis and report writing were completed in the last three weeks of

the semester, with the exception of the reflective spiral design study. This student needed to

complete an analysis before starting his second placement, so I assisted with the first analysis,

and he altered instruction to begin his second placement. The students presented findings from

their completed research to each other in a final seminar session and handed in written reports.

Weekly discussions on the process of the projects revealed interesting developments in the

students’ thinking about their research. For example, the students were pleased to be able to draw

information from two different sets of schools and wanted to compare their findings, despite

differences in age group, teacher schedules, and school community. The students also began to

generalize their findings to all of their future teaching experiences. I learned, in these discussions,

that students needed more information on issues of validity and generalizability. The next week,

a “mini-lecture” prompted a lively discussion about music education research findings that have

been publicized in the media and the limitations of the students’ own research.

The students complained about workload once more during the last two weeks of student

teaching. The timing of the work-intensive analyses coincided with increased classroom

responsibilities and job search preparations. In addition, they expressed fear over the open-ended

nature of the analyses. To alleviate some fears and speed the process, students were given

individual assistance with their analyses.

Students wrote weekly journal entries throughout their student-teaching placements. The

journal entries described their feelings about teaching, the children, and their cooperating

teachers. One used the journal to describe each day’s activities. One used the journal to question

the school community and vent frustrations. Interestingly, there was no mention of the research

projects in the journals, nor of the journals as reflective data in the research reports. It appeared

that the students saw no connection between the two tasks.

The research projects were intended for classroom use only, so completed projects are not

presented in the current findings. However, summaries of each student’s research question and

findings are described to provide information about the perceptions and development of teaching

dispositions that took place as the students collected and analyzed their data.

Aural, Kinesthetic, and Visual Learners. This researcher used classroom observation and

interviews to examine how two teachers address the learning needs of visual, aural, and

kinesthetic learners and to examine whether the teachers are aware of which modalities they

address. She found both teachers regularly taught to all three modalities but for differing reasons.


One cooperating teacher stated that she observed her teaching failures over time and adapted

instruction for student success. The other teacher believed that there were developmental traits

and that learning modality changes with age: younger children learn kinesthetically, slightly older

children learn aurally, and the oldest children are visual learners. This researcher questioned the

developmental trend and proposed further research to test this hypothesis. She also reflected on

the importance of being aware of one’s own learning style as a teacher and using experience to

improve teaching.

Collaboration in the Schools. This researcher used observations, field notes, and interviews to

identify the kinds of collaboration that exist between the music teachers and other teachers. He

found that collaboration often took place in informal settings, more often at the junior high

placement than at the senior high placement, and he discussed the value of “positive and

constructive communication” between teachers. The junior high collaboration revolved around

curriculum, while the senior high collaboration revolved around communication about students.

He uncovered a tendency for central offices to use the music teachers as “extra secretaries” and

reflected on the need to establish a professional identity in the school community to avoid being

misused by administration and other teachers.

Mainstreaming. This researcher interviewed her cooperating teachers and made observations

in the classroom to learn how she could work with mainstreamed special education students in

the middle school general music classroom. She found a number of tools that the cooperating

teacher used to adapt instruction, including oral testing, having nondisabled students move into

groups around a student with a disability rather than forcing a child with mobility problems to

negotiate moving around the classroom, and utilizing the special education aides to help students

participate in music activities. The cooperating teacher in this project stated that her willingness

to adapt instruction was, in part, dependent on whether the student caused disruptions in the

classroom. The researcher reflected that more training on special education was needed in the

college music education curriculum to help preservice teachers deal with mainstreamed children.

Playing with Expression. This researcher used a reflective spiral action research design to

examine how instruction on musical characteristics using emotive and descriptive terms might

help his students to become more expressive performers. He found that the instruction could

affect his band students’ expressive playing abilities. His results indicated that one lecture on

musical characteristics was not enough to affect playing but that instruction consisting of

listening activities tied to performing and listening and opportunities for students to give verbal

responses did help the students’ abilities. This researcher recommended further research into the

relationship between listening skills and performance skills to develop effective instruction.

Evaluating the Reports

Final written reports were graded for improvements to the initial drafts, on the clarity and

completion of data collection and analysis, and on the coherence of findings. Overall, I was


impressed with the efforts and the growth in the student writing from the initial to the final drafts.

The students made more sense of the literature reviews after they had collected their own data,

and all students reported that they learned about their topic and listed specific applications for

their own future practice.

There were some problems with the analysis and the findings sections. First, none of the

students gathered child perspectives in their data collection process. This had not been made an

explicit goal, so it was not a surprise that they neglected their own students’ perspectives.

Second, the students all included interview transcripts and student tests in the text of their

findings. Raw data was not requested in the project guidelines, but the students reported that they

felt a need to provide evidence of their work. The unexpected benefit was that this allowed me to

check on the adequacy of data collection and analysis. In checking the analyses, I found several

issues that were not found by the student researchers. The limited analyses may have been a

result of the novelty of completing an analysis task, or the timing of the analysis phase. Finally,

despite instruction not to generalize, students displayed a tendency to generalize their findings.

Phrases such as “it is clearly shown that …” and “it is important for all music teachers” appeared

in each report. It was clear that these fledgling attempts at research were imperfect, and it was

determined that future instruction on research should include more examples of completed

projects and group practice with analysis tasks.

Results and Discussion Through this study, the value of the teacher research project work was examined in the

context of undergraduate teacher preparation. In answer to the first research question, there were

three types of evidence, which indicated that the new curriculum provided enhanced

opportunities for the students to learn about and apply knowledge about learning theories and

accepted practice. First, instruction on educational theories included an introduction to and

guided practice in reading and conducting research. The students expressed a desire to access

research databases and were able to differentiate between prescriptive and research writing.

However, the introduction to research was in no way exhaustive. It was clear that, in order to

become critical of teaching research and practice (as suggested by Cochran-Smith, 1994), the

students would need more training. Topics such as validity and generalizability would need more

instructional time for students to demonstrate a more appropriate level of rigor in their research

efforts. Second, the students’ research questions indicated that they were willing to question both

learning theories and accepted practice and that they applied classroom learning to questions

about their practice. Third, the “implications for practice” statements that ended their reports

indicated that the students made connections between the theories and accepted practice that they

learned about in class to their developing pedagogies.

The answer to the second research question was limited to examining the students’ short-term


demonstrations of professionalism. The results indicated that the students were capable of

examining questions in a professional manner with a minimal amount of instruction. They used

prescriptive and research literature, expert informants, and observations to answer research

questions specifically related to teaching concerns. They wrote about their responsibilities related

to student learning, connecting the teaching strategies in the research projects to the relative

success of the children in their classroom. The quality of insights and writing indicated that these

undergraduates were aware of and concerned about their agency in student learning, supporting

Regelski’s (1994) thesis that action research can lead to higher levels of professionalism. Each

question came from a genuine concern about how to best meet student needs and work in a

school community. The focus of the projects was not on their feelings about themselves or on

how students felt about them, but rather on how to be an effective teacher and citizen in the

school community.

The relationships that developed between the cooperating teachers and student teachers

relative to the projects were both interesting and informative. The students asked their

cooperating teachers to articulate beliefs and articulated their own beliefs in their reports.

Discussions with cooperating teachers revolved around teaching practice and student learning

and not simply around student teacher activities or “novel” lessons. The research projects gave

the student teachers and cooperating teachers a means to communicate professionally, a portal

through which specific issues could be examined and findings shared. All of these findings

indicated that the students were constructing positive professional identities (Cochran-Smith,

1994; Regelski, 1994).

The third research question was answered by comparing the students’ research process and

products to their weekly reflective journals. All of the students reflected on their practice in the

development of their wonderments, in the design of their research projects, and in their final

reports. In contrast, there was no evidence of such thinking in the journal entries. Similar to

findings by other researchers (Collier, 1999; Yost et al., 2000), student-teaching journal entries

included three types of information: reports on the week’s activities, discussions about feelings,

and frustrations. The research reports, on the other hand, more closely resembled Dewey’s (1933)

conception of reflection and Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1990) hopes for reflection through

teacher research. The comparison indicated that the students practiced two different types of

reflection in the two types of tasks.

Implications for the Future There were several issues related to the study with implications for a curriculum designed to

introduce teacher research project work in preservice teacher education. The results of the study

indicate that future research should examine the long-term effects of undergraduate teacher

research projects.


Future Consideration in the Curriculum

Several issues emerged that were related to a scarcity of instructional time. First, the project

introduction took precious time way from other content in the general methods class. The

problem was solved by marrying the methods content to information about music education

research. However, more instructional time would have been helpful to address research issues

such as validity and generalizability. If inquiry is to become part of teacher training, then research

methodology and information about how to read research should be introduced in the early years

of teacher training. Earlier contact with primary research sources and research methodology

would help the students make sense of their learning throughout teacher preparation.

The students struggled with the time needed for practicing their teaching skills and learning

about the school community and the time needed to collect and analyze the data. Although the

projects were completed, holes in the literature reviews and analyses indicated that the research

projects suffered as a result. In future curricula, early practice with data collection and analysis

might alleviate some of the student concerns over the process and provide valuable practice in

these skills.

The cooperating teachers, although enthusiastic about the research projects, were still

outsiders in the research process. They did not participate in question development, analyses, or

final report writing. If they had been collaborators in the research, they may have been more

likely to “push” their student teachers to work on the projects a little earlier during the

placements and may have been able to provide valuable insights on the students’ findings.

Additionally, such collaborations might help to develop effective partnerships to contribute to

school renewal and increased student learning (Osguthorpe et al., 1995).

Future Research

The results of this study indicate that there may be value in adding teacher research projects to

undergraduate preservice curriculum. Teacher research can become an avenue by which

preservice teachers learn to use the learning theories and the competent practices that they study

in methods classes. They can also practice critical thinking and reflection and improve their

teaching expertise, share findings with others, and develop a professional community within the

college classroom.

More research is needed to determine the long-term effects, if any, of such an adapted

undergraduate curriculum on teacher development. Studies can be designed to capture

longitudinal data by tracking undergraduate professional development through observations and

interviews with students from methods courses through in-service teaching.

Future studies should be developed to examine and compare the kind and depth of student

reflections in the various types of reflective tasks given during preservice teaching. Reflective

statements in journaling tasks should be compared to self-assessments of teaching and with

reflective statements in teacher research reports. Comparative studies of the reflective statements


written by undergraduates who engage in teacher research and counterparts who are not exposed

to research may uncover skills that are developed through each task and may help us to

understand the kinds of reflection that are engendered by different curricular tasks.

More research is needed to provide information about the development of professional

dispositions, critical thinking about practice, and reflective capabilities during undergraduate

preservice teaching programs. While it is true that adding teacher research projects to the great

number of topics and skills covered during undergraduate training is tantamount to adding one

more straw onto an overly loaded “camel’s back,” the value of the process and products may

make the effort worthwhile. Teacher research may be a powerful way to prepare students to

become expert practitioners and professionals in the world of education.

ReferencesAnderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Sigrid-Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own school. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Bresler, L. (1995). Ethnography, phenomenology, and action research in music education. The

Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 6(3), 4–16.Carr, R., & Kemmis, S., (1986). Becoming critical. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer PressCochran-Smith, M. (1994). The power of teacher research in teacher education. In S.

Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 142–65). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issuesthat divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2–11.

Collier, S. L. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teaching experience.Journal of Teacher Education, 50(3), 173–81.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to theeducational process. New York: D. C. Heath and Co.

Duffield, J. A., & Townsend, S. S. (1999). Developing teacher inquiry in partner schools throughpreservice teacher research. Action in Teacher Education, 21(3), 13–20.

Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and politicalreverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16–25.

Hollingsworth, S., & Socket, H. (1994). Positioning teacher research in educational reform: Anintroduction. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educationalreform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 1-20). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Korthagen, F. A. J., & Wubbles, T. (1995). Characteristics of reflective practitioners: Towards anoperationalization of the concept of reflection. Teachers and Testing: Theory andPractice, 1(1), 51–72.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Row.McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J.

Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 171–93). NewYork: Macmillan.

McKernan, J. (1996). Curriculum action research (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.


Osguthorpe, R. T., Harris, R. C., Harris, M. F., & Black, S. (Eds.). (1995). Partner schools:Centers for educational renewal (pp. 1–19). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Poetter, T. S. (1997) Voices of inquiry in teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Regelski, T. A. (1994). Action research and critical theory: empowering teachers toprofessionalize praxis. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 123,63–89.

Schultz, R., & Mandzuk, D. (2003, May). Learning to teach, learning to inquire: A three-yearstudy of teacher candidates’ experiences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

U. S. Department of Education (2003). No Child Left Behind “What Works” Web site. RetrievedMay 31, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/whatworks.html

Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct ofcritical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century.Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39–49.

Zeichner, K. M. (1992). Conceptions of reflective teaching in contemporary U.S. teachereducation program reforms. In L. Valli (Ed.), Reflective teachers education: Cases andcritiques (pp. 161–73). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. (1995). Using action research as a vehicle for student teacherreflection: A social Reconstructionist approach. In S. Noffke & R. Stevenson (Eds.),Educational action research: Becoming practically critical (pp. 13–30). New York:Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/whatworks.html


Collaboration within the Arts:

A Project Involving a Band Literature Course and Studio ArtsBy Frederick Burrack

Frederick Burrack is an assistant professor of music education at Kansas State University inManhattan. He can be reached at [email protected].

In a course studying band literature, students learn to analyze scores, determine qualities for

selection, and translate their understanding into instructional strategies. They develop an

understanding of various genres, find relevant relationships to enhance performance, and learn to

identify expressive possibilities inherent in the compositions. As students study scores, they learn

to transfer their newly established understandings into instructional plans (Garofalo, 1976).

These plans, or teaching units, expose the elements within the composition to enhance

understanding of and responsiveness to a musical piece.

Preparing students to select, study, and teach band literature is a challenge that can be

enhanced through collaboration with other arts: “The study of the music is informed by the other

disciplines and, in turn, the study of the other discipline is enhanced through association with

music” (Barrett, 2001, p. 27). Through collaboration, creative strategies to teach music concepts

can be developed.

In an attempt to encourage future teachers to consider musical elements that contribute to

understanding of a musical composition, a project was designed to collaborate between studio

artists and the band literature class to discover connections and commonalties between

instrumental music literature and visual arts. The intended outcome was a teaching unit to be

used with a high school or middle school band. Each unit focused on the conceptual connections

between these two art forms using studio artists as a resource.

The Process During the first year of this three-year collaboration, there were 37 music students involved in

collaboration with 7 studio artists. The second collaboration involved 9 music students and 16

studio artists. Each collaborative experience occurred during the final half of the semester. The

third year we matched 9 music students with 9 studio artists.

The project began with the band literature students selecting a band piece from their text,

Teaching Music through Performance in Band (Miles et al., 1996). This text was used because

the recordings and scores were available from the university band library. A list of the pieces

selected by the music education students from this text was provided to the studio artists, along

with a brief description and recording so they could identify which piece might fit best with their

expertise.

The band literature class members were instructed to study the score in detail and explore the



compositional elements of melodic shape, harmonic color, compositional form, rhythmic content,

expressive contour, historical background, and cultural relevance. The studio artists were

instructed to listen to the recording, consider the expressive representation, and identify similar

representations in art. Although art pieces from the same historical period may represent similar

expressive elements, it was made clear that elements beyond context and historical period should

be considered.

The initial meeting of the music students and artists included a descriptive analysis of the

piece presented to the studio artist and the artists’ representation of visual art shared with the

instrumental students. Together they explored connections of compositional elements, historical

relevance, conceptual connections, and expressive similarities that eventually led to instructional

possibilities.

All groups met several times to explore connections between the arts. The information shared

was included in the teaching units. Each unit developed included a full analysis of the

composition, instructional strategies for a music teacher who incorporated visual art to enhance

understanding of the compositional and expressive elements, strategies to assess student

understanding, and a packet of printable materials for students. The teaching units were presented

to the band literature class and shared with the studio artists to discuss the appropriateness and

usefulness of the developed strategies.

What Were the Students’ Reactions? The music students were asked to reflect upon the experience of collaboration and connection

with visual art. The first impression for most students was described as “excitement” about the

collaboration with artists to create a teaching unit. About a quarter of the students were

overwhelmingly enthused: “I was excited to collaborate with an art student. I thought it was a

good way to tie music to the other arts.”

The others were concerned about collaborating outside their comfort zone of the music

discipline. Connections with visual art appeared to be unexplored territory for most. A

discomfort was exhibited by a majority of students as the project began: “I don’t know enough

about art to have an educated view of how it fits into music.” In an attempt to provide some

guidance, students were provided with examples of how broad fine arts concepts are applied

across various arts. These examples offered direction for the music students, but anxiety in

communicating among the arts remained: “I like the idea, but I’m not sure how to communicate

with an artist.” Communication was an issue that initially challenged all groups.

Although all groups fulfilled the responsibility with commendable quality, improvement in

communication between those involved with cross-disciplinary collaboration deserves further

study. It would have been advantageous to stage the first meeting with both professors available

to assist discussion. The third application of this collaborative effort included this change. As a


result, communication was no longer an issue. When confusion occurred, examples of how visual

arts parallel music arts conceptually, expressively, and historically were provided. Group projects

are challenging within a discipline, but pursuing collaboration across disciplines requires guided,

predesignated meeting times to facilitate collaboration.

When we grouped the music students as a team in the first collaboration, nearly all the

students were concerned about working in a group. Many students were worried about whether

others would fulfill their responsibility: “I tend to enjoy working on my own rather than in

groups” or “I don’t like being held back by other students or having to do their work for them.”

The students’ aversion to working in groups ranged from “the only negative impression was the

group aspect” to “I greatly dislike working in groups.” There were no students who appeared

enthusiastic toward group work, even when the workload could be divided.

A small percentage of the music students were not sure of the project’s usefulness for learning

to teach: “I was a little unsure of this project. None of us had ever done anything like this before

and I never thought about how art relates to music.” Most of the concern was founded on their

lack of prior experience in conceptualizing music with connections outside of its field. There

appeared to be a need for more exposure in class to the conceptual connections: “I’ve never heard

of anyone teaching music using visual art.” The music students could not recall any prior

experience with cross-disciplinary connections among the arts.

The first connections made were based upon historical period or context. When conceptual

connections—such as blocks of sound compared to blocks of color or comparing the ternary form

with the visual flow of content in a painting—were offered as possibilities, the conceptual nature

of these comparisons appeared to enlighten the music students as if they had not previously

considered these connections. As instructional research shows, cross-disciplinary connections

may remain an overlooked element in schooling.

After the completion of the units, a shift toward acceptance of cross-disciplinary

collaboration, group work, and understanding fine arts connections was observed during the class

presentations. Many students who were initially skeptical were advocating integration of cross-

disciplinary concepts into their future teaching: “Art can help students understand feeling behind

music.” Of the 54 music education students, 50 saw great value in such collaboration and stated

that they would use the strategy as teachers: “The artwork would make an excellent visual aid

when teaching music” and “It allows a level of creativity that is difficult to achieve without those

kinds of connections.” Even the four students who remained skeptical said that they would

consider using other arts if a particular musical composition directly matched the programmatic

content of a piece: “I would consider art connections only if it logically fits with artwork.”

There were no students firmly against cross-disciplinary integration, although some were

skeptical of application in a music classroom: “I am distracted from the musical focus by trying


to find connections with art. My concern is that my students’ focus may be taken away from the

music.” This was a realistic concern if learning is not directly related back to understanding the

musical composition. Although in collaborative efforts students are informed about the other

discipline, the connections should be made by using the art object to better understand elements

in the musical composition that could remain hidden without the collaboration. Each connection

must not be contrived or forced (Burton, 2001) but should embrace authentic commonalities that

maintain the integrity of each discipline (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations,

1994). In class discussions, a consensus was formed that the purpose of using art pieces is to

enhance student understanding of the music and that they must be presented this way.

What Did We Learn from Collaboration? At the conclusion of this project, both music students and visual artists considered band

literature, visual art, and teaching in the fine arts more broadly than they did at the beginning of

the project. For instrumental music education students, the project addressed the eighth National

Standard for Music Education, which encourages exploration of music’s relationships with the

other arts (MENC, 1994). Some enhanced their concept of music education: “Relating the

expressive aspects of visual arts through instruction of band literature can enhance aesthetic

understanding of music. Not only will our students get aural representations of expression but an

alternative representation through art.” The experience of the collaboration appeared to be an

important aspect of the project: “The artist showed me new ways to think about music.”

All but two music students expressed enlightenment from their discussions with the studio

artists. These two dissenting students received the information from the artist too late for it to be

useful. On their own they found resources from Internet sites around which to base instructional

strategies for the teaching unit. Discussions with the artists revealed that some of the problems

originated with the music students either organizing a meeting too late to achieve the desired

results or being unprepared for their meeting with the artists, making it difficult for the artists to

quickly provide useful information. This suggests a need in future collaborations to provide

additional guidance for both groups of collaborators and to alleviate effects of procrastination by

formally organizing the first meeting between the groups. Facilitating communication between

the music students and the studio artists has already enhanced the process. The third

collaboration successfully included a formally scheduled early meeting, which enhanced the

entire experience as well as the final product.

Student reflections following the project supported continued use in future band literature

classes. Students’ suggestions to improve the process included providing a firm foundation of

conceptual connections between the arts to augment understanding by both groups of

collaborators. Examples of teaching strategies that expose common concepts improved initial

understanding at the onset of the third collaboration. A concern that presenting examples in


advance of the project would limit creativity appeared to be unwarranted. Although some units

used similar strategies as those provided during classroom demonstration, most units offered

unique instructional strategies that clearly exemplified conceptual connections between the arts

while maintaining the integrity of individual disciplines.

Web-based communication tools, such as discussion boards, virtual classrooms, chat rooms,

and e-mail, had been encouraged to facilitate communication between collaborators. These were

provided and encouraged for the second and third collaborations but not effectively used beyond

e-mail. The efficiency of electronic communication was evident but required clear instruction

and expectation. Future collaboration should include detailed descriptions of the communication

tools, stated usage requirements, and monitoring of student use of these tools.

The collaborative experience encouraged the studio artists to look at the visual art from

another perspective: “I certainly am now thinking [in] an entirely new way as to how music could

be presented and how art could be received.” The studio artists held initial apprehensions similar

to those of the music education students. Most knew nothing about band music and were not

associated with public schooling. Some did not understand the purpose of the project until the

units were presented at the end of the projects.

Other than the meetings, the artists were not involved with the creation of the teaching units.

Many were surprised by how the music students expanded upon the information presented:

“Although I was skeptical, I am impressed on how the units ended up.” It was not until they saw

the final products that the impact of the collaboration became evident: “I learned how mental

images of art and music can be very different and how we can learn from each other.” One of the

studio artists expressed a desire to be more involved throughout the process. Artists’

enfranchisement in the project could have been enhanced: “If we had more time and the students

would have met with me more, it could have been more interesting.” It will be essential in future

collaborations to describe the purpose of the teaching unit in more detail, organize more meeting

times, and respond to concerns as they arise.

Topical and historical comparison appeared to be the initial focus of the studio artists, but this

focus expanded conceptually during the collaboration meetings: “My first instinct was to match

paintings that depicted the titles. But on further reflection that would be too obvious. In the end I

feel as though I picked very palpable paintings that visually conveyed the mood and expression

of each musical section.” Collaboration between music and art exposed strong conceptual

connections, enhancing educational possibilities and understandings. An additional discovery

was the possibility of sharing understandings of art concepts beyond the studio and gallery to

area schools, particularly music classes.

The teaching units developed through collaboration demonstrated conceptual understanding

of connections between music and visual art. Both disciplines were informed through these


connections. Guidance was required early in the process to provide a foundational understanding

for students to make the educational connections. To enhance future collaborative efforts, studio

artists need to be presented with a more comprehensive background of the composition provided

in advance of the initial meetings with the music students. The biggest challenge remained

communication between students and artists. In a project like this, communication must be

arranged and monitored to assist the collaborative process. A reflective discussion of the

educational value of collaboration is crucial upon the conclusion of the project. Involvement of

the studio artists in class presentations of the units would also be a beneficial enhancement.

Collaboration between the arts encourages a broader view of each unique art form than when

studied independently (Drake, 1993). Each discipline can look at a musical composition from

different angles to learn the process of artistic expression. “Students grow in their capacity to

understand the nature of artistic expression and the tools necessary to generate artistic expression

in each discipline” (Wiggins & Wiggins, 1997, p. 39). Experiences through collaboration can

effect student learning, enabling them to “reach deeper levels of understanding through

connections to other disciplines” (Wiggins, 2001, p. 44). You can see student-developed teaching

units at http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~fburrack/teachingunits/index.htm.

ReferencesBarrett, Janet R. (2001). Interdisciplinary work and musical integrity. Music Educators Journal.

87(5), 27–31.Burton, Leon H. (2001). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Retrospect and prospect. Music Educators

Journal, 87(5), 17–21, 66.Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National Standards for Arts

Education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.Drake, Susan M. (1993). Planning integrated curriculum: The call to adventure. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Garofalo, Robert. (1976). Blueprint for Band. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Meredith Music Publications.MENC. (1994). The school music program: A new vision. Reston, VA: Music Educator’s

National Conference.Miles, Richard et al. (1996). Teaching Music through Performance in Band. Chicago, IL. GIA.Wiggins, Jackie, & Wiggins, Robert. (1997). Integrating through conceptual connections. Music

Educators Journal, 84(4), 38–41.Wiggins, Robert A. (2001). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Music educator concerns. Music

Educators Journal, 87(5), 40–44.

http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~fburrack/teachingunits/index.htm


Transforming Music Teacher Preparation through the Lens of

Video TechnologyBy Gena R. Greher

Gena R. Greher is an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts–Lowell. She canbe reached at [email protected].

If we as music educators take as our premise that music is essentially an ingrained component

of youth culture, how might we prepare music education majors to create school music

experiences that are relevant and meaningful to the adolescent learner? Many states have music

learning standards addressing the incorporation of technology into the curriculum, and

technology-rich projects have the potential to provide cross-disciplinary entry points for engaging

adolescents. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Education (Office of Educational

Research and Development, 1995), technology use should be structured around challenging tasks

that can prepare students for a technology-laden world. In their book about a ten-year project

with Apple Computers to incorporate technology into the school culture, Sandholtz, Ringstaff,

and Dwyer (1997) found that many teachers reported that several of their non-exceptional

students excelled when working with technology. The authors discovered that these successful

experiences encouraged students to concentrate more and apply themselves to their technology-

related projects in school. In studies conducted by Druin et al.(1999) students were enlisted in the

design and development of new technology. The researchers “saw technology as a bridge and

catalyst for children interacting with each other” (p. 62). Druin et al. note that “children generally

do not create in isolation: they want to share, show and use technology with others” (p. 62). In

the above-mentioned studies, the researchers were using technology to transform educational

practices toward a more hands-on, child-centered approach.

Music technology can be particularly appealing for adolescents, due to their interest in music,

movies, and interactive multimedia, such as video games (Greher, 2003). Though technology has

tremendous allure for students, it may have less appeal for their teachers. Whereas students today

are entering college with greater computer skills than in the past (Walls, 2000), studies involving

music technology use suggest that many teachers may be wary of using technology in the

classroom due to the complexity of working with computers (Barry, 2003; Berr, 2000; Feldstein,

2001; Manchester, 2002; Taylor, 2003; Taylor & Deal, 1999; Webster, 2003). As suggested by

the research, there are many obstacles to deal with. Chief among them is the fact that no matter

how well you plan your lessons and how knowledgeable you are regarding technology,

computers will crash. Without a plan B, many teachers may find themselves with a class of

distracted and bored students. In addition, there are often incompatibility issues concerning

software and hardware, not to mention the quirks inherent in the multiple operating systems that



may exist on the various computers in one classroom at any given time. The discomfort of not

always having all the answers can also cause trepidation among many teachers. This is

compounded by the fact that in many cases there will be several students who know more about

the technology than their teachers do. Even among teachers who rate themselves as intermediate

to advanced users of technology, Taylor’s (2003) findings indicate that many teachers have little

confidence in their ability to integrate technology into their lessons effectively.

While there is an extensive body of research indicating that an educational curriculum

inclusive of technology can enhance learning, most of the studies are conducted by people with a

great deal of expertise incorporating technology in the classroom. These people are generally

used to the unpredictability of working with and troubleshooting technology in a classroom

environment. Noxon (2003) likens many of the early adopters of music technology in education

to pioneers who are willing to withstand the many pitfalls inherent in doing something new. In

many instances these “pioneers” also provide their own tech support, since music technology

software and hardware is often beyond the technical expertise of a school’s technology expert

(Noxon, 2003). Where does this leave the average music teacher without extensive training in

technology or experience dealing with what Assey (1999) calls the “chaotic information that

exists” (p. 81) when employing technology in the classroom? Learning new programs and

working with unfamiliar operating systems and platforms can take a great deal of precious time,

something most beginning music teachers simply don’t have.

Add to this the fact that many music education majors, as well as experienced music

educators, are most oriented toward the development of performance-based musical skills. Based

on their journal entries and class discussions, the majority of my students envision themselves

teaching performance ensembles, with the expectation that they will also be called upon to teach

general music classes. Very few imagine themselves teaching technology classes or using

technology to any great extent in their teaching practice. This is in spite of the fact that many of

their peers in our music department are sound recording technology majors. Many of my music

education majors perceive technology use as a skill set to be taught in a separate class and one

that is better left to the technology “experts.” This sentiment was also expressed by music

teachers in a study conducted in the United Kingdom (MacDonald & Byrne, 2002). I suspect that

my students are not atypical of many music education majors in their aspirations and beliefs

concerning their roles as teachers (Bergee, Coffman, Demorest, Humphries, & Thornton, 2001).

Larry Cuban (2001) observed that most teachers’ use of computers is marginal and has little to

no impact on their teaching practices. His studies found that most teachers adopt technology to fit

standard teacher-centered practices rather than to transform their practice. In his research on

teaching practices in Silicon Valley, he surveyed classroom teachers as well as professors at

Stanford University and found that, in spite of the latest advances in technology, the lecture is


still the dominant means of transmitting content. Cuban’s surveys revealed that a large

percentage of professors used technology to prepare lessons and handouts and do research, while

a much smaller percentage actually integrated technology into their coursework.

Research regarding the use of technology by music educators is similar to Cuban’s findings in

that music teachers are more apt to use technology for administrative purposes than for teaching

and creating music (Barry, 2003; Noxon, 2003; Taylor, 2003). Webster (2003) suggests this

reluctance to embrace technology in the music classroom may be a function of several factors:

(1) the philosophical underpinnings of the software’s design may not match a teacher’s own

philosophy of teaching, (2) teachers may see technology as getting in the way of a child’s natural

music making, and (3) teachers may lack updated or sufficient technology in the classroom.

Technology Training for the Teacher As evidenced at the many music technology conferences such as those hosted by the

Technology Institute for Music Educators (TI:ME), the Association of Technology in Music

Instruction (ATMI), the Institute for Music Research (IMR), the National Symposium on Music

Instructional Technology (NSMIT), and MENC, many music educators are successfully

integrating technology into their practice in ways that promote creative music-making activities.

The focus of technology use is moving away from the drill-and-practice model of some of the

earlier software programs to a more interactive approach to computer-aided instruction, and more

software is being designed to foster creative thinking and the development of students’ problem-

solving skills (Assey, 1999; Feldstein, 2001; Walls, 2000). However, as Berr (2000) and Webster

(2003) point out, the cycle for experimentation and adoption is slow. In all likelihood the

presenters at these conferences may still be among the “early adopters.” Consequently, though

technology instruction is now becoming part of the curriculum for most music education majors,

the type of instruction being offered may vary from basic survey courses to a more

comprehensive approach to technology integration.

Many of the survey courses focus on how the computer works, how the software works, and

the terminology associated with technology. In this context, the subject is “Technology.” Assey

(1999) suggests that our focus on technology should involve combining the best learning theories

and instruction with digital methods. Woolley (1998) believes that teachers need to be trained to

use technology in a way that focuses the teachers on understanding how technology relates to

student learning, rather than merely learning how to operate a given piece of software. According

to Assey (1999), arts programs should be developing students’ potential for innovation in music,

animation, graphics, and multimedia.

For logistical reasons, many undergraduate music technology classes may take place in a

computer lab. However, by also integrating technology into our students’ coursework, we can

design these experiences to better reflect and model a more child-centered, developmental


approach to learning, as well as reveal the many areas of music instruction where technology can

be applied. This approach is consistent with research from other institutions of higher learning

regarding the inclusion of technology within the coursework in preservice training of music

educators (Assey, 1999; Hagen, 1999; Miller & Schmidt, 1999; Taylor & Deal, 1996). As

suggested by MacDonald & Byrne (2002), music educators now need to be technicians as well as

musicians.

In my own work as a teacher educator, it was becoming clear that we were not serving our

students’ needs when it came to helping them learn how to teach their future students to use

technology in a manner that was relevant to their needs and interests. Beyond learning about

what software programs were available and how to use these programs, our students weren’t

seeing how this particular knowledge set would have any relevance to their teaching. The class,

as it had been structured, helped to reinforce their assumption that only those music teachers who

teach in the music lab need to concern themselves with technology. The students were interested

in learning how technology could be applied in their classrooms or their ensembles. In addition,

it was becoming evident that the old technology model of demonstration and rote replication was

inconsistent with the more hands-on, constructivist philosophy these preservice teachers were

experiencing and responding favorably to in their other classes. As a result, in addition to

overhauling our one-semester Technology in Music Education class, we also began incorporating

technology projects into several of the methods classes.

The use of a Web discussion board is now integrated into many of the core music education

courses. In their class on world music, students are now developing Web sites as resources to

teach their hypothetical general education colleagues about the music of other cultures. These

sites include sound samples, visuals, and lesson plans the preservice teachers created for

integrating these cultures into other curricular areas. In our methods classes, students may have to

present a lesson on a musical form, musical genre, or the techniques of a music methodology

using PowerPoint to illustrate these concepts with visual and aural examples. There are small

arranging assignments requiring the use of sequencing and notation software, as well as

composition and improvisation assignments involving video technology. In our Technology in

Music Education class, all assignments are posted and turned in through the class Web site.

Throughout the semester, students are asked to view and review Web sites and software for their

educational effectiveness. Some other projects for the class involve working with an art class to

provide original music for a video the art students are working on, creating Orff arrangements of

TV Themes, using a spreadsheet to create a budget for a MIDI lab, creating an interactive

PowerPoint presentation to teach about an aspect of music literature, and a video project.

In rethinking the format of our Technology in Music Education course, as well as the projects

for the methods courses, there were several goals:


! Develop a project-based approach that would not only teach future teachers how to use

various software programs available for the classroom, but would also give them ideas

and strategies for applying technology with their own students across the spectrum of

courses they may someday teach.

! Introduce technology in a manner that supports a child-centered experiential approach to

education, allowing students multiple opportunities to solve problems, explore, and create

with technology.

! Create projects that encourage divergent thinking and promote divergent outcomes.

! Develop projects that support peer-to-peer collaboration and the social nature of

adolescents.

! Use software that is readily available, user-friendly, and inexpensive.

! Create a classroom environment that is reflective of student interests.

In the computer lab, my role is that of a facilitator. When I introduce new software to the

class, I demonstrate the basic concepts of the program to students and allow a great deal of time

for them to explore the program in class within the context of either a short problem to solve or a

project to complete. Since I spend very little time explaining the technology, one of my students

began to refer to this approach as my “sink or swim” method. Yet, oddly enough, no one sinks.

By the end of the semester, students gain hands-on experiences working with music notation and

sequencing software, digital audio and video editing software, and office productivity

applications. This is accomplished in a manner that gives students insight into how to use the

software and how to teach with technology that will support their students’ interests and ideas.

Broad concepts are explored for each type of software application we are learning, since it is

most likely that the specific software application we work with on our school computers will be

different from what will be available to them in the schools where they will be working.

Of all the projects the students work on during the semester, journal entries suggest that the

iMovie project is the one the students are most invested in and most proud of. What follows is an

account of how one particular project’s focus on the individual student can become a hands-on

vehicle for learning new technology, learning about the importance of self-expression for

adolescent students, and learning how technology can be applied in the classroom. Based on my

students’ self-reflections, what emerged from this specific project was an understanding of how

to engage students in their own learning.

The Premise of a Digital Video Project The advent of video technology has greatly shaped American culture. It can alter our

perceptions and inform our realities, not to mention influence youth culture. Growing up under

the influence of television, today’s youth have more role models than ever before by which they

can define themselves. While we can argue the pros and cons regarding the effects of the media


on our youth, their sense of who they are—and how they see themselves fitting in, or, in many

cases, not fitting in to the world around them—can be affected either negatively or positively by

the various images they are bombarded with on an almost daily basis. As suggested by Erickson

(1968) and Friedenberg (1964), the central focus of adolescence is self-definition. For many

students, schools can become the stages upon which they explore their evolving identities

through their dress, peer-group associations, and interactions with adults. In addition, when real-

life experiences don’t live up to one’s expectations, computer technology now allows adolescents

to turn to virtual communities to explore issues of identity (Turkle, 1996). According to Turkle,

part of the appeal of virtual communities is the ability to have more control over one’s outcome,

which is something that doesn’t often happen in real life.

How then do we create learning environments that address the complexity of adolescent life in

21st-century America in a manner that is respectful of the developmental issues confronting the

adolescent? How might we give students tools to function in the adult world while embracing the

adolescent’s interests and need for self-expression? How might we do all this while supporting

state-mandated learning standards? Using video technology, something most students can relate

to, as the hook, I developed a cross-disciplinary project that was designed to teach technology to

future teachers in a manner that could have relevance to them both personally—as members of

the upper sphere of the adolescent community—and in their own classrooms. What I discovered

from their resulting videos, as well as their journals, was how their ability to express themselves

was positively linked to their levels of engagement throughout the project and how they began to

rethink and embrace the role of technology in their own classrooms.

To immerse students in learning to use a simple digital video program, such as Apple’s

iMovie, I gave them a fairly open-ended project that I call “A Day in the Life…” This project

capitalizes on students’ interest in music and film and their need to let people know who they are

and what makes them tick. While tastes may vary with regard to music, movie, and video game

genres for adolescents, there is little doubt that these media are the “cultural currency” of

adolescence. In most cases, it is an adolescent’s music preferences that will determine which peer

group he or she identifies with (North & Hargreaves, 1999). Csikszentmihalyi and Larson (1984)

suggest that music is “part of the teenage metabolism” (p. 69). According to Csikszentmihalyi

and Larson, a teacher can capture the attention of adolescents and support a more efficient

cognitive state when adolescent students are intrinsically motivated. Their study also revealed

that subjects such as music had a higher incidence where students felt intrinsically motivated,

compared to many of their other classes.

I therefore decided to use students’ musical preferences as the starting point for this particular

technology project. The assignment asks the following:

! Using one or more preexisting pieces of music by either a performing group or composer


who holds a special place in your life and may have influenced you in profound or not so

profound ways, create an iMovie presentation that depicts the following:

" What it is about this music that is important to you." Why this music is a reflection of who you are and important information that lets

us know what makes you unique.! This need not be in an autobiographical documentary style.

! All material, ideas, and language presented need to be school appropriate.

A computer lab equipped with Apple’s iLife Suite includes a variety of digital software

programs to support multimedia creation. In PC-based labs, one could just as easily do this

project with the standard movie and photo programs included with Windows XP as well as

Sony’s Screenblast Acid or Super Duper Music Looper, which, like iLife’s GarageBand, are

loop-based digital audio recording programs. These are relatively simple, inexpensive programs

designed for novice users and therefore do not have steep learning curves. In an ideal world, the

complexity of the project should be borne out of the students’ ideas and not hindered by

technology that is too difficult to navigate.

Our students are able to borrow digital video cameras from our media lab. In one instance, a

student was unable to secure a digital video camera in time to complete the project. Through

some ingenuity and creative problem solving, he put together a very informative and entertaining

video using still photos, titles, and music. This suggests that such a project would be effective

even without digital video cameras.

The Lessons Learned All the video projects were well executed. By that I mean to suggest that all of the projects

exhibited each student’s burgeoning facility with the technology and showcased each student’s

unique identity and skill sets. There were certain technical parameters that needed to be met in

order to fulfill the assignment. These included requirements regarding the number of musical

selections used, demonstration of the ability to cross-fade the music and change volume levels,

the insertion of titles, the use of transitions between scenes, and the creation of a cohesive

narrative. Beyond that, students were free to tell their story in any manner they were comfortable

with. Some of the videos demonstrated a surprising degree of inventiveness and technical

expertise.

While this particular project was an individual project, the journal entries suggest that it

supports of one of the goals for the course in that there were many instances of peer-to-peer

collaboration while the students were exploring how to use the technology. One video in

particular stands out for the way in which it highlights the need for implementing these types of

projects with the adolescent learner and the way in which such a project supports multiple

learning styles. One student, whom I will refer to as Gregory, was a fairly average student who,


like most students in his age range, had been coming to grips with some identity issues. His

written work was often fraught with typos, incomplete thoughts, and a general lack of

organization. His video, on the other hand, showcased another side of Gregory the student—one

that might have been missed in a more traditional classroom setting, using tests and worksheets

for assessment. This suggests that even at the college level we need to approach the

dissemination of information and our method of assessment in a manner that supports multiple

learning styles.

Gregory’s video tackled the issue of identity head on in a clever, entertaining, and (most

significantly) a clearly presented, well-sequenced, and organized manner. His video was about a

dual identity, with each character being represented with its own music. One track was serious

and thoughtful, and the other was over the top and humorous. He even staged a scene where he

went into the shower as one identity but departed as the other. The soundtrack was the only clue

that something had changed. It took a detailed script and a great deal of planning, organization,

and collaboration with several classmates, to make his video idea work. Most of these attributes

had not been in evidence before his taking this class and working on this project.

Gregory’s journal entries discuss the difficulties and the rewards of this particular project as

well as his general thoughts on using technology in the classroom. While he discusses the

difficulty of the video project, it should be noted that his was the most complex. Oddly enough,

due to the nature of the story he decided to tell, the complexity was pretty much self-imposed.

Our final project involving the video was daunting, and so extremely hard that itstill boggles my mind how we’re supposed to tackle it. But behold, it does getdone, and it is done well. This creative process, of putting a lot of yourself intowhat you do, I find to be extremely important, and I feel that most of the classeswe go through at college, really misses that point.

The process of creative exploration is something that resonated with Gregory and was mentioned

as well by all the students in their journals. What I noticed over the course of the semester, and

culminating in the video project, was how Gregory began to blossom as a learner. It was as if a

switch had been turned on. Gregory touches on the idea of relevance when it comes to teaching.

He suggests,

I think the trick is to create an activity using technology that will make thestudents feel like they are not really learning something, but rather doingsomething fun, that they enjoy.

Because of Gregory’s interest in working with technology, he was sought out by the other

students to be a peer leader. As the semester progressed, he became more social. While there has

been some concern regarding computers promoting antisocial behavior, this project, as well as


some of the other class projects, suggests otherwise. The students’ journal entries discussed how

close everyone became throughout the semester as a result of the projects and learning unfamiliar

programs. The students spoke of how each person was able to work to his or her own strengths

and benefit from each other’s expertise. What I observed in my class is closer to the findings of

Druin (1999), where the undergrads in this case proved to have the same need to share their work

with their peers as Druin’s young computer designers did. The need for peer-to-peer

collaboration that is built into the technology projects, as a result of the differing skill levels of

each of the students, brought the class together rather than isolating them. They were each

completely invested in the work and consequently were all quite eager to share the work and let

us know who they were.

The importance for self-expression and self-definition is underscored by the comments of

another student, Adam. He states,

This allows students to look deeper into themselves as well as their fellowstudents. The open-ended nature of the project allows for any variety of results.These can range from sentimental to humorous, each reflecting the particularstudent that creates them.

According to Chuck,

Technology is a great way to get children involved in taking their own path ofeducation. It gets them to be assertive and self-judging. All of the computerprograms and projects that we have dealt with over the last couple months wouldbe excellent with almost any age group. They all require the students to workhard, do things on their own, work with people, and come up with creativesolutions to the tasks at hand. It almost seems like the perfect tool for education.

Dana’s summation of her thoughts on the course gets to the heart of why this course was

redesigned. She writes,

In general, I feel that if the technology is being taught to learn the technology,time is being wasted. Anyone can sit down and figure out a software program ifgiven a couple of hours to do so. The only way the learning will have any meaningis if the student can find some type of real life application for his newly acquiredknowledge. If technology is taught with specific goals related to practicalapplication, the learning takes on a new meaning.

It is worth noting that at the beginning of the semester Dana was resistant to group work at the

computers and felt as if she were definitely sinking. The group projects in this class also helped

her to recognize some of her own limitations. With an earlier project, this was her journal

reflection:


The most important lesson I learned is that I am a control freak and I have to stop.This project made it very difficult for me to be a control freak because most of thetechnology was way over my head. I had no choice but to listen to my groupmembers. This was good for me because I actually did learn from them.

It should be noted that at some point midsemester everything came together for her to the extent

that by the time this video project was assigned, she was helping other students. She is now

actively involved with technology in her graduate work and teaching.

Meeting My Goals Based on the goals I set for the redesign of the course and what transpired over the semester,

the approach proved to be an effective means of immersing students in learning through, and

teaching with, technology. As suggested by the students’ journal entries, there was a great deal of

experiential learning involving learning about technology, learning how students learn, and

learning how to apply technology in a classroom. The open-ended nature of the assignments

allowed for multiple outcomes. The variety of projects and the media used to work on the

projects were consistent with student interests. All of the software used is readily available and

relatively inexpensive.

Once students grasped the basic concepts behind each of the new software applications, their

sense of feeling overwhelmed began to diminish. The biggest problem encountered all semester

had to do with scheduling conflicts that students had with each other when working on group

projects. This was particularly acute in the one project where they were collaborating with a class

of art students. These experiences, however, underscored for my students the importance of

planning and communication, as well as the need for teachers to sometimes help facilitate these

issues when working on group projects. The other problem was that our computer lab was not

always open and manned when it was supposed to be. Since many of the music programs we

work with are not available on other campus computers, or on students’ own computers, I need to

be more flexible regarding some of the deadlines I set. In an ideal world, this would be a two-

semester course to allow more time and depth for each of the many projects. Unfortunately there

are just so many credits our students can carry, and since we are at the maximum limit allowed

for the program, the integration of technology projects throughout the course work has proved

critical in helping students develop a comfort level when working with technology.

Despite some of the logistical nightmares that were encountered, the music education students

involved in these projects learned a great deal more than just the “how-to” of music technology.

By narrowly focusing our curriculum on merely training students to memorize, replicate and

regurgitate, we deny them the richness of self-discovery, self-expression, creation, and

socialization necessary for adolescent development. In this very real school community, they get


to be the decision makers, a role not often presented to them as students. My students went from

relative novices in the area of music technology and multimedia production to knowing the basic

techniques of sequencing and notation, video creation and editing, and how to apply this

knowledge in their classrooms. This approach can provide a variety of open-ended learning

situations for students that address the learning standards in music, while providing music

teachers with a host of interdisciplinary, cooperative-learning, and assessment opportunities. This

type of project enabled these undergraduate preservice teachers to understand the role of a

teacher intrinsically, from the student’s perspective, as well as from the teacher’s perspective.

Most importantly, they underwent a transformation in their own thinking and learning.

ReferencesAssey, J. (1999, December). The future of technology in K-12 arts education. White paper

presented at the Forum on Technology in Education: Envisioning the Future, Washington,DC.

Barry, N. (2003). University music education student perceptions and attitudes aboutinstructional technology. Journal of Technology in Music Learning, 2(2), 2–20.

Bergee, M. J., Coffman D. D., Demorest, S. M., Humphries, J. T., Thornton, L. T. (2001).Influences on collegiate students’ decision to become a music educator. Retrieved fromhttp://www.menc.org/networks/rnc/Bergee-Report.html.

Berr, B. (2000). MTNA and music technology. The American Music Teacher, 49(6), 28–29.Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the

teenage years. New York: Basic Books.Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Druin, A., Bederson, B., Boltman, A., Miura, A., Knotts-Callahan, D., Platt, M. (1999). Children

as our technology design partners. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children’s technology(pp. 51–72). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.

Erickson, E. H. (1968). Identity youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Feldstein, S. (2001). Music education and technology: Past, present, and future. Teaching Music,

9(3), 26–30.Friedenberg, E. Z. (1964). The vanishing adolescent. Boston: Beacon Press.Greher, G. R. (2003). Multimedia in the classroom: Tapping into an adolescent’s cultural

literacy. Journal of Technology in Music Learning 2(2), 21–43.Hagen, S. L. (1999, January). Technology diffusion and innovations in music education in a

notebook computer environment. Presentation at the Society for Information Technologyand Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, Texas.

MacDonald, A. R., & Byrne, C. (2002). Teaching strategies in the music classroom: the impactof information and communication technologies. Music Education International, 1,44–56.

Manchester, K. A. (2002). A beginner’s guide: Computer composition in the elementary musicclass. General Music Today, 15(3), 8–12.

Miller, S. L., & Schmidt, M. (1999, January). Using technology to integrate pre-service musicteacher education: A work in progress. Presentation at the Institute for Music Research:

http://www.menc.org/networks/rnc/Bergee-Report.html


Sixth International Technological Directions in Music Learning Conference, SanAntonio, TX.

North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1999). Music and adolescent identity. Music EducationResearch, 1(1), 75–91.

Noxon, J. (2003). Music technology as a team sport. Journal of Technology in Music Learning,2(2), 56–61.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1995). Technology and education reform.Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creatingstudent centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Taylor, J. A. (2003). Proceedings from the Fourth National Symposium on Music InstructionTechnology: The status of technology in K–12 music education. Journal of Technology inMusic Learning, 2(2), 67–73.

Taylor, J. A., & Deal, J. (1996, February). Technology standards for music degrees: A model.Presentation at the Institute for Music Research: Third International TechnologicalDirections in Music Learning Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Taylor, J. A., & Deal, J. (1999). Integrating technology into the K–12 music curriculum: A pilotsurvey of music teachers. Presentation at the Institute for Music Research: 6thInternational Technological Directions in Music Learning Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Turkle, S. (1996). Virtuality and its discontents [Electronic version]. American Prospect, 7(24).Retrieved from http://www.prospect.org/print/v7/24/turkle-s.html.

Walls, K. C. (2000). Technology for future music educators. Journal of Music TeacherEducation, 9(2), 14–21.

Webster, P. R. (2003). Music technology and the young child. In L. Bresler & C. M. Thompson(Eds.). The arts in children’s lives: Context, culture, and curriculum (pp. 215–36).Dordrecht: Luwer Academic Publishers.

Woolley, G. (1998). Connecting technology and learning. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 62–65.


Perspectives

In Support of IntoleranceBy Richard K. Fiese

Richard K. Fiese is a professor in music education at Houston Baptist University in Texas. Hecan be reached at [email protected].

My mother was a youngster on our family ranch in south central Nebraska during the “dust

bowl days.” She can readily recall the erosion of the land by wind and drought that resulted in the

smothering dust storms that wreaked death, destruction, disorder, and despair across the plains.

Those days have long passed, and the herds, crops, and, most significantly, the people have since

risen like a phoenix from beneath the scarred landscape; and the people have not only endured,

but they have also prospered. They did so because their affirmations, their attitudes, and their

actions allowed them to persevere in the face of great adversity. Rather than tolerating their

circumstances, they altered them.

I submit that today, we are facing an analogous “threatening storm.” Our contemporary

culture is being eroded by the winds of corruption and a drought of responsibility. We, as

teachers, and especially as teachers of the art of music, are uniquely positioned to take action to

counter the damage before our children and our culture suffocate beneath the dust of death that so

characterizes our society. We can avoid the spoliation of another generation of America’s youth,

and as teachers, we must. This is the challenge for our beliefs, feelings, and behaviors.

We exist during a time when arguably well-intentioned people have promoted the idea that

absolutes, including absolute right and wrong, are considered insensitive, exclusionary, and

divisive. As such, one can find justification for virtually any action or belief based on individual

disposition and context. Being “wrong” is reduced to being “inappropriate,” and the “rightness”

of individual actions is determined by how these actions make each individual “feel.” There is no

evil or error in the world, only victims of circumstance. Empowered emotion rules over

weakened intellect, and attitude replaces achievement. We live in the “here and the now” and

how one feels is the critical metric of each individual life. If it feels good, it must be good.

In such a worldview, discrimination is no longer relevant. Since all things are equivalently

“correct,” or at least equally accepted, there are only distinctions without differences. Tolerance,

a worthy and noble attribute, has become so dominant as our cultural mindset that we tolerate

anything and everything. Actions have consequences only within the narrow confines of each

individual’s circumstances and experiences. Likewise, contrary ideas no longer are in

competition; they simply coexist. Achievement is irrelevant because there can be no absolute

standard against which to measure. The effect of this perspective on the art of music and music

education is incredibly powerful.



I believe this to be true because behavior cannot, and should not, be divorced from belief.

How we act operationalizes what we believe. Therefore, this “philosophy” of tolerance has

implications for what, how, and why we teach. With all ideas worthy of equivalent consideration,

logically there can be only the most perfunctory exposure, and, then, only if a student “feels” that

he or she needs to encounter the idea. Teachers tend to focus on “where students are” as opposed

to “where they need to be.” Rather than cultivating and correcting students, teaching is thus

reduced to attempts to accede to and appease the “student as educational consumer,” and,

concomitantly, the teacher is consigned to producing an ongoing stream of novel approaches to

make students feel better and better about inadequate performance and insufficient effort. Student

aspirations become increasingly focused on “getting by” rather than realizing potential or

achieving excellence.

Likewise, within this “tolerant” society, all artistic creation should be embraced with equal

acceptance, as all values, including artistic values, are situated in circumstance and dependent

upon individual perspective. Music becomes part of the muddled reality where the “what is good

to me may not be good to you, but it is all good” and “I know what I like” mentalities replace

critical differential merit. Excellence and beauty in music therefore become meaningless labels

that are too dogmatic, restrictive, and dependent on “archaic” absolutes to be considered as

metrics for music in our modern, informed, tolerant, pluralistic culture.

In the absence of enduring and absolute values, music exists relative to individual

interpretation within a matrix of arbitrary values. Hence, we must be tolerant of all music and, in

effect, become accepting of all musical offerings. There can be no genuine, absolute perspective

for music. When music is found to be confusing, inferior, or even offensive, the “problem” is

with the perceiver rather than the musical product. To judge some music as superior to other

music would be to inflict one set of values on another. We agree that “we are the world,” and we

concede all points of view. Therefore, there can be no leadership in the arts, as concession is, by

definition, the absence of leadership. To avoid a confrontation with the “chronically offended,”

we exercise no judgment at all, and the mantra of tolerance calms and sustains us. Great music

cannot exist within a society so grounded, and an education in, through, for, and about music

becomes largely irrelevant for its citizens.

It should not startle us, then, that we have created a brand of musical confusion for ourselves

and for our students from which we cannot readily extricate ourselves. We have adopted a

philosophy that has diminished the power, majesty, and wonder of music, and concomitantly we

have squandered music’s potential. Much of the trendy contemporary music is a disappointing

counterfeit of great music. Contemporary musicians often seem to be fascinated with the

flamboyant, the spectacular, and the aberrant, and the resulting music is based on

experimentation, speculation, and titillation. Consequently, music’s function in society seems to


vacillate between attempts to shock a consciousness increasingly dulled to offense and outrage

and attempts to serve as a tranquilizer of limited and temporary potency.

This, however, cannot be the same music to which we have dedicated our lives, with which

we have influenced the lives of children, and from which we have gleaned so much. We who

know and love music and musicians are convicted that music is more than just an environmental

enhancement through the manipulation of sound. Music is neither an accident nor the product of

an accident. Music is important, not because we as musicians simply want it to be, but because it

has always been a partial, yet unique, answer to the questions of “what is man?” and “why does

man exist?” I submit that these are the most fundamental and critical questions for any education

worthy of the title. Therefore, we should not direct our attention to “what our students need to

know and do” without first developing an understanding of our nature and our purpose.

I am certain that music is an intentional gift, with a calculated purpose, from a caring creator.

We seek out music and musicians to enrich the experience of our lives, and music becomes a

very real way to alter our lives. Music permits us to recognize and celebrate our joy and explore

a varied palette of pleasure. Music can illuminate the shadowed recesses of individual darkness

and pain so that it is not so frightening. Music and its unique relationship to our spirituality

allows us to express praise in a distinctive and powerful way. Music transcends our individual

experiences and the limits of our circumstances. Music can enable us to share in the experience

of humanity across the fabric of time and distance, and music can likewise unite us with the

intellects and emotions of men and women who no longer tread this dusty planet. Music provides

us with a genuine opportunity to glimpse and explore the boundaries of human emotion.

Additionally, technical achievement in music making can increase self-worth and provide an

avenue for one to encounter and achieve genuine success as an individual and with others.

Furthermore, music connects us all in a wonderful way that demonstrates our relational nature

rather than an “isolational” nature. Music can also be the flint that sparks our imagination of

what life can be. These are important values that music contributes to the quality and meaning of

human life. More than mere values, these are in fact the virtues of music and of music education.

If we believe that the experience of music and the teaching of music are worthy of our time,

our effort, and our aspirations to excellence and that our function as teachers is to equip our

students with the skills, knowledge, and values that are their inheritance and their future, we need

to act accordingly. We need to cultivate within our students discernment and discrimination. We

need to build critical acumen within our students so that they can detect sham music in the guise

of real music. We need to recognize that every individual has worth, not because of his or her

feelings of worthiness, but because everyone is a purposeful creation and that part of that purpose

includes music. We need courage to stand and face a culture wherein our senses and sensibilities

are assailed and assaulted by the cult of the ugly, the uninspired, and the mediocre. We must


stand together as a wall of intolerance. We need to be intolerant of error, lies, and laziness in our

lives and the lives of our students. We need to avoid being trapped in the cycle of excuses and

exceptions. We need to demonstrate the very real relationship between actions and consequences,

and we need to instill and enforce responsibility for ourselves and for our students. We need to

remember that, as teachers, our affirmations, attitudes, and actions resonate into eternity and that

there is an ultimate and inescapable accountability for what we do with our time and talent.

As you continue during this school year, search yourself and determine what you believe, and

let your considered beliefs chart the course for your actions. Think about these issues as you

select music and decide what you will teach about that music. Think about your values as you

develop criteria for evaluating student performance. Think about your beliefs when you make

decisions regarding the scope of the music program. Think about all these considerations as you

interact with students, parents, other teachers, and administrators. This is where “the rubber

meets the road.”

Remember that musical excellence is possible, important, and worthwhile. It begins with the

knowledge that there is a right and a wrong, but it is also more than that. Excellence is the result

of committing more effort than most are willing to render, exercising more care than most are

willing to contribute, accepting greater risk than most are willing to bear, developing a vision that

exceeds the merely pragmatic, and nurturing an expectation rooted in the assurance that greater

achievement is always possible. With these considerations in mind, I pray you will have an

excellent year, and I trust you will tolerate nothing less.


Call for Best Practice Ideas for Mentoring Doctoral Students as

Future Teacher Educators

A shortage of music teacher educators is affecting music education programs across the country.

When higher education faculty positions in music education are posted, the pool of applicants

often is shallow, and many of these music education faculty searches are unsuccessful, leaving

positions unfilled. Solutions to this problem are multi-faceted and include effective

identification, recruitment, and retention of doctoral students; successful guidance for students

through the completion of doctoral course work, examinations, and dissertation; guidance in

developing successful approaches to applying and interviewing for higher education faculty

positions; and effective mentorship of junior faculty members in the tenure process.

In light of the shortage described above, the Society for Music Teacher Education (SMTE) is

taking steps to study and address this problem. As a part of this process and as a result of

discussion at the 2005 Symposium on Music Teacher Education, SMTE is compiling best

practice ideas for mentoring doctoral students as future teacher educators and productive

members of the music education community in higher education. The compilation of these ideas

will be published. A list of contributors will be included in the publication, although contributors

will not be given credit for specific contributions. Ideas may be edited for publication.

Please send ideas for mentoring doctoral students to Cynthia Taggart ([email protected]) by

June 15, 2006. These ideas should be no longer than 300 words and can be sent in the body of an

e-mail or as a Microsoft Word attachment. They could include ideas for the identification,

recruitment, and retention of doctoral students; guidance of students through the completion of

doctoral degree requirements, and guidance for students in how to successfully seek positions in

higher education. Contributions are welcome from music education faculty members, doctoral

students, and interested members of the music education community. We hope that you will

contribute to this effort.



Florida Music Educators Association

2007 Research Poster Session

Call for Papers

Call for Papers: The Florida Music Educators Association will sponsor a research poster sessionat its conference in Tampa, Florida on Friday, January 12, 2007. We are accepting submissions ofcompleted and in-progress studies and works of a philosophical or historical nature, qualitative orquantitative in design.

Deadline for submissions: November 3, 2006.

Submission procedures: All submissions should not have been published prior to theconference, and meet the Code of Ethics published in the Journal of Research in MusicEducation. Electronic submissions are encouraged (in MS Word). Email the abstract andcomplete research report to Timothy S. Brophy, Ph.D., FMEA Research Chair, [email protected]. For those unable to send electronic copies, four copies of the report andabstract may be mailed to Timothy S. Brophy, Ph.D., FMEA Research Chair, University ofFlorida School of Music, PO Box 117900, Gainesville, Florida, 32611. Submissions arereviewed by the FMEA Research Committee as they are received.

Notification: Notifications are usually mailed or emailed within two weeks of submission, andno later than November 17, 2006. If accepted, the primary or a listed co-researcher must registerfor and attend the conference to present the poster. If accepted, presenters will be expected tobring 40 copies of their abstract and 10 copies of the completed report to the session.

Publication of papers: The Florida Music Educator’s Association extends an invitation for allsubmissions to be considered for publication in the 2007 edition of Research Perspectives inMusic Education, the annual Research publication of the Florida Music Educators Association.Authors wishing to have their submission considered should include the following statement onthe cover page: “I wish to have my paper considered for publication in Research Perspectives inMusic Education.”



Call for Research Poster Presentations

American Orff-Schulwerk Association National ConferenceOmaha, NE

November 8–11, 2006

The American Orff-Schulwerk Association (AOSA) will sponsor a research poster session todisseminate the results of innovative and thorough research at its 2006 AOSA NationalConference to be held in Omaha, NE, November 8–11, 2006. Research reports on music learningthrough movement, speech, playing instruments, singing, improvisation, or composition ingeneral music or music therapy settings are particularly appropriate.

Posters in accepted research reports will be displayed. The author(s) of each accepted paper mustbe present at the conference poster session to discuss the research project with interestedparticipants. The author(s) must also furnish 25 copies of a report summary as well as 10 copiesof the completed report.

The following guidelines will inform the paper selection process:

1. Please submit summary proposals (in English) via e-mail attachment [email protected] using Microsoft Word. If e-mail is not possible, pleasesubmit five paper copies of a summary not exceeding 1,000 words and excludingreferences. Authors must outline and report (a) objectives and purposes; (b) perspectivesor theoretical framework; (c) methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry; (d) data sourcesor evidence; (e) results; (f) conclusions/point of view; and (g) implications for andapplications to the profession.

2. The author’s name, institutional affiliation, and address (including e-mail) should appearonly on a separate cover page. The proposal should contain no clues to the author’sidentity.

3. Papers submitted for the conference must comply with the Code of Ethics published inthe fall issue of the Journal of Research in Music Education (and also available on theWorld Wide Web at www.menc.org/publication/articles/jrmeethics.htm).

4. Submissions should be sent to: Kathy M. Robinson, PhDDirector: Umculo! Kimberley330 Orchard Park Blvd.Rochester, NY 14609 USAE-mail: [email protected]

5. All submissions must be postmarked or e-mailed by June 30, 2006.6. A panel of qualified reviewers will read all submissions. Authors will be notified by

August 22, 2006, of the panel’s decisions. Summaries will not be returned.


http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/jrmeethics.htm


An Invitation to Continue the Journey

Documents

Transcript of An Invitation to Continue the Journey