RETHINKING MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION FOR THE

GREATER GOOD OF ALL LEARNERS:

PERSPECTIVES OF MUSIC TEACHERS

Linda Neelly, Mary E. Yakimowski, and Sarah D. NewtonPresentation at the annual meeting for the

Northeastern Educational Research AssociationRocky Hill, Connecticut

October 2011

Office of Assessment

Overview

PurposeReview of Literature

MethodologyResults

Implications of Results Future Avenues

Purpose of this Study

Gain perspectives on music teacher pre-service education for 21st century music learning and teaching.

Research QuestionsWhat are the perspectives of music teachers

about pre-service ed for the next 10 years?

Follow-up Questions:Are there differences in the perspectives of primarily-vocal versus

primarily-instrumental teachers on selected areas to focus?What are the most significant opportunities for the professional

development of music educators for the next 10 years?What offerings of your teacher preparation program were the

most valuable in your preparation for the next 10 years?

Literature Review Jones (2010): Teacher Education needs to consider that the

musical skills and talents of future students may not be evident in the same frameworks of 21st Century thinking

Mantie (2008): Possibilities exist to interact technologically with inner city students in order to facilitate their constructions as enhancements of their musical identities

Ahlestedt’s (2002): Surveyed 237 elementary school music teachers: 85% suggested more field experiences86% recommended increased pedagogical studies 27% urged more music-specific coursework16% advocated for learning with a practicing teacher

Methodology - Sampling

102 respondentsCT, RI, MA, NY, VT, and NH

National Association of Music Merchants, National Association for Music Education

graduate students University #1

graduates of the University #2

Instrumentation‣ Background Information

‣ Professional Characteristics‣ Professional Experience‣ Educational Viewpoints

Analyseso Descriptive Statisticso Analysis of Variance

o Post-hoc Testing (as necessary)

Participant Characteristics56.44% female

89.22% White

55% teach in elementary, 48% in

middle, 42% in high schools

69.69% work in suburban, 29.29% in

rural, 23.23% in urban

communities

Primary Teaching Area

Descriptive ResultsImportant Components of Music Teacher Preparation

For the Next 10 Years (Highest)Component Mean

w. Creating meaningful music learning experiences for students

4.86

d. Implementing classroom management skills 4.77a. Mastering content in your specialty area 4.76 y. Encouraging life-long learning 4.72 am. Challenging students to meet their fullest potential 4.67

al. Degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession

4.61

v. Challenging all students to meet their fullest music potential

4.60

x. Self-reflecting on practice 4.58c. Implementing classroom lesson plans 4.53s. Advocating for program 4.51

Important Components of Music Teacher Preparation

For the Next 10 Years (Lowest)Component Meanu. Preparing students for working in

the music profession 3.49

q. Participating in formal school partnerships

3.44

p. Supervising teachers 3.33z. Standardized assessment skills (e.g.,

norm-referenced tests)3.16

ANOVA Results

Did the importance of teacher preparation components vary as a function of respondents’ primary musical teaching areas (vocal, instrumental, or both)?

Standardized assessment skills [F (2, 75) = 3.32, p < 0.05].

Post-hoc analysis: Vocal (M = 3.54) > Instrumental (M = 2.76)

Music educator standards statements (Highest):

a. Ability to teach music at various levels to different age groups and in a variety of classroom and ensemble settings (M = 4.64)

f. Ability to accept, amend, or reject methods and materials based on personal assessment of specific teaching situations (M = 4.58)

4.64 4.26

Descriptive ResultsMusic educator standards statements (Lowest):

c. Ability to assess aptitudes, experiential backgrounds, orientations of individuals and groups of students, and the nature of subject matter, and to plan educational programs to meet assessed needs (M = 4.26)

4.64 4.26

Future Music Teacher Preparation Program Admissions Requirements (Highest)

Characteristic N Percentage

Drive and determination to become a teacher

57 95%

Excellent music skills (tonal, rhythmic, expressive elements)

50 83.3%

Personable, collaborative, and enthusiastic characteristics

49 81.7%

GPA for academic courses (general education)

47 78.3%

Future Music Teacher Preparation Program Admissions Requirements (Lowest)

Characteristic N Percentage

g. Prior experiences in music only collaborations (section leader, private teacher, music counselor)

20 33.3%

h. Prior experiences working with special populations

10 16.7%

i. Prior experiences working with "at risk" youth

8 13.3%

j. Prior experiences working in urban settings

8 13.3%

What offerings of your teacher preparation program were the most valuable in your preparation for the next 10 years?

Field experiences

Research

Diversity

Faculty experience

“The best experiences were

those that involved going into

schools and working with

actual students…Music education majors need to be in

the classroom early and often.”

Qualitative Results

Qualitative ResultsWhat are the most significant opportunities for the professional development of music educators for the next 10 years?

Incorporation of technology

Additional learning opportunities

Modernization of programs

Assessment

“Nobody knows more about teaching music than current music teachers.”

Despite general satisfaction with their respective music teacher education programs, those surveyed in this study indicate that present preparation of future music educators may not be adequate, in light of the changing needs of students and evolution of the field of music education.

Respondents’ ratings of their teacher preparation programs

Perceptions of this field’s ability to train future educators

Implications of Results

What does all of this mean for

music education?

Future AvenuesWhere do we go from here?

Areas for future research

Summary

PurposeReview of Literature

MethodologyResults

Implications of Results Future Avenues