TEACHING AND LEARNING STRATEGIES USED BY STUDENT-DIRECTED
TEACHERS OF MIDDLE SCHOOL BAND
by
DALE EDWARD BAZAN
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation Adviser: Dr. William I. Bauer
Department of Music Education
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
August, 2007
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
We hereby approve this dissertation of
Dale Edward Bazan candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy in Music Education degree *.
(signed) Dr. William I. Bauer (chair of the committee)
Dr. Kathleen A. Horvath
Dr. Lisa Huisman Koops
Dr. Jeffrey L. Longhofer
(date) July 3, 2007
* We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to family members whose help was appreciated during its completion. First, to my daughter Alexia Rayne Bazan who provided me with all the additional incentive necessary to complete this study. Secondly, to my sister
Deborah Lynn Bazan and brother Neil Frederick Bazan who would lend me moral support and faith whenever needed. Finally, to my parents Edward Frederick Bazan and
Olga Bazan; without your moral, spiritual, and financial support this research would have been far more difficult. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...... 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 6
ABSTRACT ...... 7
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 9
The Development of Instrumental Music Curriculum and Instruction in the United States ...... 10 Contemporary Trends in Curriculum and Instruction in General Education ...... 13 Instructional Practices in Instrumental Music Education ...... 15 Student-Directed Instruction in Music ...... 20 Need for the Study ...... 22 Purpose of the Study ...... 22 Research Questions ...... 22 Delimitations ...... 23 Assumptions ...... 23 Definitions of Terms ...... 24
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 28
Introduction ...... 28 Student-Directed Instruction ...... 28 Student-Directed Instruction in General Education ...... 29 Student-Directed Instruction and Constructivist Theory ...... 30 Student-Directed Instruction and Experiential Learning ...... 33 Student-Directed Instruction and Self-Regulation ...... 34 Student-Directed Instruction and Problem-Based Learning ...... 36 Summary ...... 37 Student-Directed Instruction in Music Education ...... 38 Music Education Research ...... 38 Pedagogical Literature ...... 44 Summary of Section ...... 52 Teaching Style Literature ...... 53 Teaching Styles in General Education ...... 53 Teaching Style ...... 53 Teaching Style Models ...... 55 Teaching Styles and Student Learning ...... 58 Summary ...... 60 Music Teaching Styles ...... 61 Music Teaching Style Theory ...... 61 Music Teaching Style Research ...... 63 Summary of Section ...... 67 2
Summary of the Chapter ...... 67
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ...... 69
Design ...... 69 Pilot Study ...... 70 Study Stage One: Survey of Music Teaching Styles ...... 72 Participants ...... 72 Measurement Instruments ...... 73 Questionnaire ...... 73 Music Teaching Style Inventory ...... 74 Procedure ...... 78 Data Analysis ...... 79 Study Stage Two: Rehearsal Observation ...... 81 Participants ...... 81 Procedure ...... 82 Data Analysis ...... 85 Validity and Reliability ...... 87
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ...... 89
Introduction ...... 89 Stage One Results ...... 90 Demographic Questionnaire ...... 91 Music Teaching Style Inventory ...... 94 Differences and Relationships in Teaching Styles ...... 95 Gender ...... 95 Experience ...... 97 School Location ...... 98 Level of Education ...... 99 Band Enrollment, Rehearsals, and Concerts ...... 99 School Demographics ...... 100 Teacher-Directed and Student-Directed Instruction ...... 100 Stage Two Results...... 101 Participant One ...... 103 Goals and Objectives ...... 105 Rehearsal Routines...... 106 Teaching and Learning Strategies ...... 107 Use of Student-Directed Instruction ...... 107 Participant Two ...... 119 Goals and Objectives ...... 121 Rehearsal Routines...... 123 Teaching and Learning Strategies ...... 123 Use of Student-Directed Instruction ...... 124 Participant Three ...... 134 Goals and Objectives ...... 136 3
Rehearsal Routines...... 137 Teaching and Learning Strategies ...... 137 Use of Student-Directed Instruction ...... 138 Summary of the Chapter ...... 145
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ...... 147
Introduction ...... 147 Discussion of Results ...... 148 Prevalence of Student Directed Instruction ...... 148 Differences and Relationships in Teaching Styles ...... 150 Relationship between TDI and SDI Scores ...... 154 Teaching and Learning Strategies Used by Participants ...... 158 Self-Regulation ...... 158 Questioning and Problem Solving ...... 159 Sectionals and Small Ensembles ...... 160 Creativity...... 160 Interdisciplinary Projects and Presentations ...... 161 Frequencies and Times for Teaching and Learning Strategies ...... 162 Band Rehearsal Strategies...... 163 The Teacher-Directed Band Rehearsal ...... 163 The Student-Directed Band Rehearsal ...... 165 The Balanced Band Rehearsal ...... 168 Summary ...... 173 Conclusions ...... 173 Limitations of the Study...... 173 Suggestions for Further Research ...... 174 Conclusion ...... 175
APPENDICES ...... 177
A. Music Teaching Style Inventory ...... 177 B. Consent to Use the Music Teaching Style Inventory ...... 181 C. Questionnaire ...... 183 D. Instrumental Music Teacher Consent Document for Survey Completion ... 187 E. Survey Invitation ...... 189 F. Second Survey Invitation ...... 191 G. Reminder Postcard ...... 193 H. Administrator Information Letter...... 194 I. Observational Field Notes Protocol ...... 195 J. Instrumental Music Teacher Information Letter/Script for Rehearsal Observation ...... 196 K. Instrumental Music Teacher Consent Document for Rehearsal Observation ...... 197 L. Parent and Student Information Letter ...... 199 M. Interview Protocol ...... 200 4
N. Interview Questions ...... 201 O. Coding Manual ...... 203 Rehearsal Observation Codes ...... 205 Interview Codes ...... 213
REFERENCES ...... 218
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Questions for Identifying Constructivist-Based Classrooms ………... 32
Table 2.2 Music Teaching Style Dimensions ………………………………….. 64
Table 3.1 Test-Retest Reliabilities for Gumm (1992) Teaching Style Dimensions ………………………………………………………...... 76
Table 3.2 Teaching Style Dimensions and Corresponding MTSI Items ………. 81
Table 4.1 Area of Emphasis of Masters Degrees …………………………...... 92
Table 4.2 Area of Emphasis of Doctoral Degrees ……………………………... 93
Table 4.3 Teaching Styles of Middle School Band Teachers …………………. 96
Table 4.4 Significant T-test Results for MTSI Items by Gender ……………… 97
Table 4.5 Teaching Style of Participant One ………………………………….. 104
Table 4.6 Frequency of Use of Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant One ……………………………………………………… 108
Table 4.7 Rehearsal Time Used for Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant One …………………………………………………….... 109
Table 4.8 Teaching Style of Participant Two ………………………………….. 120
Table 4.9 Frequency of Use of Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant Two ……………………………………………………... 125
Table 4.10 Rehearsal Time Used for Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant Two ……………………………………………………... 126
Table 4.11 Teaching Style of Participant Three ………………………………… 135
Table 4.12 Frequency of Use of Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant Three ……………………………………………………. 139
Table 4.13 Rehearsal Time Used for Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant Three ……………………………………………………. 140
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have provided support in the writing of this document to whom I am
indebted. First, to Dr. Alan Gumm for his leadership in music teaching style and for
supporting this study by permitting the use of the Music Teaching Style Inventory and
offering insight into music teaching styles. Second, to the Case Western Reserve
University Department of Music faculty for your profound abilities to motivate, inspire,
enlighten, and educate. Third, to my dissertation committee members whose efforts and
input improved this study. Finally, to my dissertation advisor Dr. William I. Bauer to
whom I am eternally grateful. Your faith in my abilities, commitment to your students,
motivation and support through each challenge a dissertation provides, and expert research guidance provided me with the ideal chemistry necessary for me to write a life-
changing document. You have consistently demonstrated what it is to be a great music
teacher educator and dissertation adviser.
7
Teaching and Learning Strategies Used by Student-Directed Teachers of Middle School Band
Abstract
by
DALE EDWARD BAZAN
The purpose of this study was to describe the teaching and learning strategies
demonstrated by middle school band teachers in Northeast Ohio who reported a student- directed teaching style. This study used a two-stage mixed methods design prioritizing
quantitative data and statistical analyses, but also employing qualitative data collection
methods in a second stage to enrich perspective and discussion on student-directed
teaching and learning strategies (Creswell, 2003). In the first stage, quantitative data was
gathered using a researcher-designed demographic questionnaire and Gumm’s Music
Teaching Style Inventory (MTSI) (Gumm, 2004b). These surveys were delivered online
to 120 middle school band teachers in Northeast Ohio, with hard copies administered to
two participants who requested them (N = 122). Forty-nine respondents returned
completed surveys, representing a return rate of 40.2%. In Stage One, data were analyzed
to determine participant teaching styles so that the most student-directed middle school
band teachers could be identified and observed during Stage Two. Relationships and
differences among selected demographics and MTSI scores were also analyzed, yielding
several significant results, including a significant, positive, moderate relationship (p =
.00; r = .52) between teacher- and student-directed MTSI scores. Stage One results also 8 revealed that teacher-directed instruction was more prevalent than student-directed instruction; middle school band teachers in Northeast Ohio seemed to prioritize a more teacher-directed rehearsal. In the second stage of the study, three of the most student- directed band teachers were observed and videotaped during five rehearsals, and interviewed following observation. Based on the analysis of videotapes, observational field notes, interview transcripts, and interview notes, quantitative computations and qualitative descriptions of student-directed band teachers were possible. The teachers observed and interviewed during Stage Two of the study utilized teacher-directed instruction most frequently. However, student-directed philosophies and strategies were discussed by Stage Two participants and information was gleaned that could inform future use of student-directed teaching and learning strategies in band programs. Stage
Two findings included documentation of the challenges band teachers may face when implementing student-directed instruction and potential student-directed band rehearsal strategies. A possible link between band instruction and the theory of adaptive expertise was also noted.
9
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Traditionally, instrumental music instruction in American public schools has been
performance oriented, with the music educator directing student actions during rehearsals
(Erbes, 1978). Instructional practice typically involves a sequence of student
performance, feedback by the teacher designed to improve the performance, followed by
another performance attempt by students (Price & Byo, 2002; Rosenshine, Froehlich, &
Fakhouri, 2002). Moreover, despite the National Standards for Music Education (MENC,
1994) and comprehensive musicianship initiatives (e.g., Garofalo, 1983; Labuta, 1997;
Miles, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004; Austin, 1998; O’Toole, 2003) emphasizing
improvisation, composition, and other musical understandings in addition to music
performance, instrumental music educators seemingly continue to utilize teacher-directed
instruction prioritizing performance mastery (Price, 1983, 1992; Goolsby, 1996, 1997,
1999; Blocher, Greenwood, & Shellahamer, 1997; Cavitt, 2003). Criticisms of traditional,
teacher-directed educational approaches such as those traditionally used during band
rehearsals have been raised by a number of researchers and authors in music and other
disciplines (Erbes, 1978; Lisk, 1991; Mackworth-Young, 1990; Block, 2001; Shapiro,
2003; Costa & Kallick, 2004; Glasersfeld, 2005).
In contrast, a growing trend in the use of student-directed, cognitive approaches to
instruction has been observed in general education (e.g., language arts, social studies)
(Shapiro, 2003). Teaching practices where the teacher serves as a facilitator of student- driven learning, rather than the director of teacher-selected activities or content, are advocated by a number of authors and researchers. Student-directed teaching styles are 10
grounded in several theories, including constructivism (Glasersfeld, 2005), self-
regulation (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001), experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), and
problem-based learning (Lambros, 2004).
There may be numerous reasons why student-directed instruction is not being
utilized more fully by instrumental music teachers, including the fact that student-
directed teaching and learning strategies are not commonly understood (Confer, 2001).
Alternative approaches to instrumental music education based on research should
continue to be explored (Schleuter, 1997). As there seems to be support for student-
directed instructional practices, those that can be used in the instrumental music program
should be studied in order to offer instructional options to help instrumental music
educators best meet the needs of band students.
The Development of Instrumental Music Curriculum and Instruction in the United States
Insights into the teacher-directed instructional style prevalent in instrumental
music education can be gained by examining the history and development of bands in
American public schools. Instrumental music educators belong to a long tradition
extending back to ancient Egypt and Greece (Whitwell, 1985). Throughout history, bands
have frequently served utilitarian, outdoor entertainment, or military functions. The
training of instrumentalists for these bands was usually through a master-apprentice
relationship where students followed the direction of master instrumentalists (Whitwell),
a tradition that can be noticed in private instrument lessons occurring today.
Another factor that may have had an influence on the current practices of teaching students instruments involves the relationship between school bands and military bands.
Military bands, due to their volume, timbre, and durability and portability of instruments, 11
provided drum cadences and music for soldiers to march to in formation, while also
boosting soldier morale and providing music for ceremonial functions (Whitwell, 1985).
Many early band directors in U. S. public schools began teaching careers following years
of performance and training in military bands. After World War I, many of the military
bandsmen returning from military service needed employment and became instrumental
music teachers in schools. The military style, which is authoritarian in nature, became the model used to develop many of the early school bands (Colwell & Goolsby, 2002). The military band influence is evident to this day in school band programs when considering both instructional approaches utilized and the types of performances in which school
bands engage (i.e., parades, football halftime pageantry, school ceremonies such as
commencement, etc.).
Many important composers and band directors from the military band tradition,
such as Patrick S. Gilmore and John Philip Sousa, were also involved in the evolution of
the professional concert bands during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
Professional bands traveled throughout the country and were a major source of
entertainment for the populace. These bands, and their directors, shaped the wind band
repertoire which included marches, transcriptions of orchestral works, novelty numbers,
works featuring virtuoso soloists, and, later, original compositions (Battisti, 2002;
Colwell & Goolsby, 2002). The entertainment role of the band continues to influence many school instrumental music programs, and the repertoire performed by school bands continues to include many pieces originating from the time of the great professional bands. 12
Around 1950, an important movement in the wind band world began. Significant
conductors came to believe that bands were capable of aesthetic, artistic music
performance on the level of great symphony orchestras and need not continue to be
relegated to simply utilitarian and entertainment functions (Battisti, 2002). Edwin Franko
Goldman, leader of the influential and famous Goldman Band, commissioned band
repertoire from major composers and Frederick Fennell formed the Eastman Wind
Ensemble in 1952. This group was an ensemble designed to perform quality music
written specifically for the ensemble by prominent composers. During this time,
distinguished composers, including Vincent Persichetti, Robert Russell Bennett, and
Darius Milhaud, contributed significant works to the wind band repertoire.
Commissioning by school bands also began and major works for high school band began
to grow in number (Colwell & Goolsby, 2002; Battisti, 2002). However, school bands
continued to march and serve traditional entertainment roles—as well as taught in a
teacher-directed fashion—a situation still in evidence today (Colwell & Goolsby).
Preparing music for performance has always been a key component of any band curriculum. Wind band repertoire and method books are the core materials for developing performance abilities of students in many public schools. Schleuter (1997) stated that band method books have traditionally emphasized: (a) fingerings and notation rather than sound, (b) the mathematics of note values, (c) note naming, and (d) a mixture of technical and melodic material. It was also noted that method books have not developed a sense of tonality, melodies have been primarily in major modes, and technical drill rather than musicality has been emphasized. Schleuter suggested that despite the thousands of 13
successful instrumental musicians trained with these materials there are likely many
possibilities for improving instruction.
Mark (1996) described attempts for change toward child-centered music curricula,
noting that such attempts are not new, occurring as early as the normal school movement
at the beginning of the Twentieth century. Yet for many reasons, including certain extrinsic demands on instrumental music educators, student-directed instruction has not proliferated in band rooms. At the same time, authors have noted that a regimented atmosphere often acts as a deterrent to effective and meaningful student learning (Erbes,
1978; Ormrod, 2004). Despite the history of instrumental ensembles trained for military and utilitarian functions, contemporary methods and approaches to instrumental music education incorporating comprehensive musicianship approaches, intended to develop complete and musical musicians, are being introduced and explored (Garofalo, 1983,
1995; Labuta, 1997; Miles, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004; Austin, 1998; O’Toole,
2003).
Contemporary Trends in Curriculum and Instruction in General Education
Teacher-directed instruction often emphasizes rote learning and does not attend to underlying, deeper meaning in the subject manner (Ormrod, 2004). A growing number of scientific reports on human learning indicate that students must construct their own meanings from materials and activities in order to comprehend (Block, 2001). Glasersfeld
(2005) suggested that educators should guide students to their own experiences with content rather than simply presenting it to students to passively receive in chunks. These experiences should involve students having control over the subject matter and class 14
routines, while creating their own knowledge through active, cognitively engaged
learning (Kolb, 1984; Turner, 1999; Stevens, 2003).
Changes toward student-directed instruction have been advocated and
implemented by entire school districts (Confer, 2001). Specifically, in this type of
instruction a focus on the student as the learner and central to the process of education has been made a priority in a growing number of schools. Howard and Ill (2004) detailed an instructional model developed in Michigan schools focusing on school-wide student-
directed teaching practices. In these schools the focus “is about teaching to the student,
not to the subject” (p. xvii). An overall priority and focus of such a model is to prepare
students—every day and every lesson—for a successful future. Howard and Ill (2004)
supported a link between student-directed instruction and more permanent, relevant, and
higher-order learning. Through immersion in student-directed learning environments,
students develop knowledge and skills necessary for future careers as determined by
student learning aptitudes and interests.
Without training, students rarely develop strategies that enable them to think,
solve problems, or self-regulate. Teachers can foster these cognitive processes through
activities focusing on students employing personal knowledge and skills (McPherson &
Zimmerman, 2002). Lambros (2004) stated that students need a set of skills not only for
managing transitions between academic levels and into the workforce, but for decision
making, problem solving, and self-direction as they have never needed them before this
century. It was suggested by Lambros that students in classrooms using traditional,
teacher-directed teaching and learning strategies may not be developing the self-
regulation skills necessary to thrive. 15
Instructional Practices in Instrumental Music Education
While student-directed instruction appears to be growing more prevalent in some
educational disciplines, this instructional approach does not seem to have gained a great
deal of acceptance by instrumental music educators. Although some authors and
educators have advocated approaches to instrumental music teaching and learning that
could be considered more student-directed (e.g., Labuta, 1997; Schleuter, 1997; O’Toole,
2003), there may be several reasons why band directors hesitate to change from teacher-
directed teaching styles, including: (a) historical precedents set by prior directors
(Jorgensen, 2003), (b) an established pedagogy based on historical precedent, research, and observation (Goolsby, 1996, 1997, 1999; Cavitt, 2003), (c) poor reception by some students or teachers (Kelly, 1972; Mackworth-Young, 1990), and (d) lack of awareness on how to implement student-directed instruction (Meyer, 2000; Confer, 2001) .
Researchers examining the teaching and learning strategies of instrumental music educators have identified a predominantly teacher-directed instructional style. Blocher,
Greenwood, and Shellahamer (1997) analyzed rehearsals of nine band directors who experts identified as exemplary teachers. From the categories of instruction identified, non-verbal directions from the teacher (27%), non-interactive listening (22%), and non- musical behaviors (8.47%) formed the majority of rehearsal time. Non-interactive listening was defined as when a director was conducting by merely beating time with no interaction, eye contact, or communicated instructions. Additionally, verbal directions from the teacher amounted to 31.45% of rehearsal time and conceptual teaching was not recorded. In a student-directed classroom there would likely be an increased amount of 16
discussion, student communication and input, and teaching of concepts with less
emphasis on either non-verbal or verbal directions from the teacher (Gumm, 2003b).
Goolsby conducted a series of studies (1996, 1997, 1999) on the teaching
strategies used by instrumental music directors by analyzing videotapes of participants’
rehearsals. One finding was that experienced teachers spent more time in warm-ups and
kept students playing instruments for a greater percentage of total rehearsal time than did
inexperienced teachers. Further, experienced teachers tended to stop rehearsing for shorter times, and although verbalizing less, seemed to verbalize more efficiently, addressing several performance issues at each stop when compared to inexperienced teachers. In Goolsby’s 1997 study, a cyclical pattern of instruction consisting of rehearsal frames was reported: (a) the director provided specific verbal instruction for performance or asked a question, (b) an individual or the ensemble as a whole performed teacher- chosen music or answered a question, and (c) the teacher provided specific feedback on student responses or performance. Teachers who ask students questions are taking steps toward student-directed environments (Allsup & Baxter, 2004), however, student self- assessments, student input, student choices in activities, and opportunities to be creative or apply critical thinking skills seem to be lacking from the rehearsals observed by
Goolsby.
Cavitt (2003) investigated the error correction processes of 10 directors as observed in videotapes of four consecutive rehearsals each. The researcher noted that the five middle school and five high school programs observed were highly competitive, ranking high in significant band competitions. The primary goal of these instrumental music educators was to effect daily positive change in music performance. Cavitt coded 17
teacher verbalizations and modeling as (a) directive, (b) information, (c) questions, (d)
positive feedback, (e) negative feedback, (f) positive modeling, (g) negative modeling,
and (h) off-task talking. After calculating number of occurrences, durations, and rates per
minute for these behaviors Cavitt found that 49% of rehearsal time was devoted to error
correction, and that teachers talked for 53% of this time. Dynamics (46%), intonation
(21.4% of all rehearsal frames), articulation (20.2%), and rhythm (14.8%) seemed the
primary objectives of error correction. Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of the
rehearsals seemed largely teacher-directed with rehearsal frames consisting of teacher feedback on errors followed by student performance.
It would seem, based on Goolsby’s (1996, 1997, 1999) and Cavitt’s (2003) data, that the focus of participants’ rehearsals was on student performance, not on teaching concepts or aspects of comprehensive musicianship. Teacher-directed teaching strategies,
not student-directed learning strategies, seemed to be preferred for attaining the primary
goal of quality music performance. Most instructional processes described relied on
students performing what educators chose, followed by students awaiting feedback and
directions from their band teacher. However, in Goolsby’s (1999) study, there were
indications that expert educators were more likely than novices to expect students to
figure out music independently and would teach students how to fix, for example,
rhythms for theirselves. Where and how directors expected these skills to begin and
develop was not reported.
Instrumental music teachers may also model their instruction on traditions in
other areas of music and from general education. For example, Mackworth-Young (1990)
stated that the typical piano lesson is highly teacher-directed with the student being seen 18 as a subordinate, dependent learner. Although student-directed trends may be beginning, traditional approaches to general education have also involved direct instruction where the student is a passive recipient of knowledge (Shapiro, 2003). Distressingly, traditional instruction has been noted to be the most suitable for the education of “disadvantaged kids, usually minorities, on the grounds that they: need more discipline; need more structure; need more basics; are slower developmentally—and any other excuse we can dredge up” (Shapiro, 2003, p. 337).
Besides instructional precedents set during the rehearsals conducted by expert, exemplary band teachers, the pedagogy presented in some instrumental music textbooks seems to advocate a teacher-directed approach to teaching music. Colwell and Goolsby
(2002) acknowledged that rehearsal time is a precious commodity to be used efficiently and that directors should plan adequately for each rehearsal and establish routines.
Procedures advocated include warm-ups, technical drill, working on concert music, sight reading, playing through previously prepared music, or listening activities. It seems that little time is appropriated for discussion, questioning, student creativity, or other student- directed learning activities. Kohut (1996) noted that performance alone does not necessarily provide the best opportunity for teaching students about music, yet described only two basic approaches to teaching instrumental music: (a) modeling to students and having them imitate the teacher, or (b) analytical teaching where the teacher analyzes performances and critiques results. It must be recognized that many fine bands, with excellent young musical performers, exist where instrumental music educators apply these practices. Fine bands, performing at similar levels and being developed through alternative, student-directed instruction are less identified or visible. 19
Instrumental music teachers may prefer teacher-directed rehearsals because of a
firm tradition of instrumental music educating and a well-developed pedagogy. However, students may not readily accept student-directed teaching approaches either. Such a style places onus upon students, causes students to become actively engaged in activities, and demands interaction with peers and the teacher. Some students may prefer student- directed learning environments while others prefer teacher-directed environments (Kelly,
1972; McMillin, 2000; Moehle, 2005). Students also become accustomed to certain teaching styles and may find student-directed activities unfamiliar.
Although teachers may appreciate constructivist philosophies and self-regulation theories underpinning student-directed instruction, they may not entirely understand how to connect theory with instruction, which may result in hesitancy to adopt related strategies (Meyer, 2000; Confer, 2001; Wehmeyer, Agran & Hughes, 2000). Confer
(2001) stated that student-directed instruction is not always implemented effectively by teachers increasing potential resistance by both students and teachers to this teaching style. Teachers require training and information about what truly is a student-directed
classroom—and what teaching and learning strategies can be implemented—in order for
such instruction to be fully appreciated by the students, the teacher, and the school.
Nevertheless, instructors and the strategies they employ directly affect the development
of self-directed learners (Zurcher, 1987; Nielsen, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 2004).
Researchers may be able to help develop a body of knowledge that can aid instrumental
music teachers in becoming aware of alternative, student-directed approaches to
instruction.
20
Student-Directed Instruction in Music
Researchers and authors have begun to address the lack of student-directed instruction in music. Mackworth-Young (1990) investigated the effects of student-
directed piano lessons as opposed to teacher-directed lessons using a modified version of
the Flanders Interaction Analysis Category (FIAC) system, along with objective analysis
of videotapes, pupils’ reports and questionnaires, teachers’ reports, and parents’ written
reports. The FIAC is a 10-category system designed to measure the interactions between
students and teachers including amount and types of teacher talk, student talk, and silence
or confusion (Flanders, 1970). The researcher conducted a study of 4 students (2 males, 2
females) between 11 and 14 years of age. The study employed an alternating
experimental model of teacher-directed weeks with student-directed weeks and focused
on the perceptions of students. In all cases, student-directed instruction resulted in better relationships between teacher and pupils. In three of the four cases, student-directed instruction resulted in increased enjoyment, interest, positive attitudes, motivation, and progress. Mackworth-Young did find that it was difficult, at first, for students to express
themselves, which may be a reflection of society and our treatment of children, but this
did not detract from the described positive results of student-directed instruction.
Philosophers have also discussed the need for a change from traditional music
education pedagogy to curriculum placing greater emphasis on student creativity. Small
(1996) suggested that there was a “destruction of the exploratory urge” (p. 212) occurring
in schools. When confidence in students’ own learning capacities, thoughts, and
creativity is countermanded by too much discipline, structure, and control, achievement is
decreased. Small stated that the destruction of the exploratory urge parallels lessening 21 success in school. Another related problem is students’ growing disinterest in classical music and classical music performance, which Small linked to the domination of music experts insisting students need to know about music before they are allowed to do or create music. An alternative is to respect the creative potential of students and foster their artistry by incorporating their ‘voice’ into the music performance classroom. Reimer
(2003) suggested a comprehensive musicianship approach to music educating that would include activities such as improvising, composing/arranging, analyzing/describing, and evaluating music, making students more responsible for musical decision making.
However, Regelski (1992) described student-directed learning as an extreme, instead advocating a balance which would include teacher direction, but not the historical teacher domination. Regelski recommended a student-focused, action-oriented approach to music educating, emphasizing students learning through experiences involving problem solving and musical experimentation in order to personalize learning.
Students lacking independence and supporting skills, having been heavily reliant on music teachers and expertly chosen music for performance, may not continue with lifelong music-making (Small, 1996; Gumm, 2003b). For example, Bergee and Cecconi-
Roberts (2002) found that, when studying undergraduate musicians, student self- assessment seemed to have received little attention in K-12 music classrooms, suggesting pervasive use of traditional teacher-directed assessments. If music educators prioritize a learning outcome of student music-making beyond high school and throughout life, a student-directed approach to teaching may be deemed appropriate and guide the development of skills, strategies, and standards necessary for functional, independent musicians (Gumm). Gumm suggested music educators turn from being the source of all 22
knowledge and feedback to facilitators of learning who assess how deeply students
understand, while putting students in a position to make their own decisions about music
and guide their own independent discovery of underlying musical meaning.
Need for the Study
Based on the literature, several reasons support a need for this study. First, student-directed approaches have been determined as valuable in the development of certain cognitive abilities and skills of students in other educational disciplines. Second, student-directed approaches do not seem to be a frequent part of contemporary instrumental music instruction. Third, it has not been determined what types of student- directed teaching and learning practices may be appropriate in middle school instrumental rehearsals. Finally, student-directed instructional practices need to be
identified in order to develop pedagogies for teachers motivated to pursue a student-
directed instrumental music curriculum.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to describe the teaching and learning strategies
demonstrated by directors of middle school band who reported a student-directed
teaching style.
Research Questions
Research Question 1. How many middle school band directors in Northeast Ohio report a student-directed teaching style?
Research Question 2. Is there a difference in teaching style based on selected demographic factors? 23
Research Question 3. What are the teaching and learning practices used by student-
directed instrumental music teachers?
Research Question 4. How many times is each student-directed teaching and learning strategy utilized by participants?
Research Question 5. What percentage of class time do participants devote to student-
directed teaching and learning strategies?
Delimitations
The quality and effectiveness of participants’ teaching and learning practices was
not assessed. Second, due to the case study nature of observations, data from observations
has limited generalizability to the population and did not establish causality. However,
due to the mixture of quantitative and qualitative data based on multisite observations,
transferability of results and findings to other band programs may be possible (Gay &
Airasian, 2000). Third, this study was not an analysis of conducting techniques and
gestures, but an analysis of instructional strategies. Fourth, the study of band student
behaviors was not the purpose of this study; rather, the instructions delivered by teachers
were the primary focus. Finally, this study was not designed as a validation study of
Gumm’s Music Teaching Style Inventory (2004b).
Assumptions
It was assumed that in a large, diverse geographic area involving over 100 middle school instrumental music teachers there would be some directors who prefer a student- directed teaching style and demonstrate associated teaching and learning strategies.
24
Definitions of Terms
Assessment. Assessment is the process of gathering data on student learning or the measurement of pre-determined criteria (Sherman, 2007).
Comprehensive Musicianship. O’Toole (2003) described comprehensive musicianship as an instructional concept discussed since 1965 emphasizing the interdisciplinary study of music. Beyond solely developing musical performance skills, comprehensive musicianship places value on students learning about music theory, music history, creativity, and other aspects of music as well as non-musical subject matter such as world history, geography, arts, and science.
Constructivism. Constructivism, as defined by Cates (2001), “is a view of learning that sees learners as active participants who construct their own understandings of the world around them. Using past experience and knowledge, learners make sense of the new information that they are receiving... In addition to the active nature of the learner, constructivism also asserts that meaningful learning occurs within an authentic situation with authentic learning tasks... In constructivist theory, learning is facilitated through social interaction, shared thought, and decision making” (p. 3-4).
Evaluation. Evaluation is a decision made about a student at some temporal point based on data accumulated during assessments. As Sherman (2007) stated, based on the information received from assessment tools such as rating scales or rubrics, “The teacher’s judgments are translated from assessment to evaluation, from a measurement to a letter grade” (p. 3).
Music Teaching Style. Gumm (2003a) defined music teaching style as “the stable focus, orientation, or intent underlying the entire pattern of teaching behaviors” (p. 13). 25
Based on theories of teaching styles and learning styles, music teaching style focuses on
the teaching styles of music educators as opposed to general educators.
Non-Instructional Behaviors. Many actions, activities, discussions, and directions
occurring in a classroom are important to the flow of the class, support of the school, and establishing an appropriate learning environment, yet are not instructional in nature and do not relate directly to subject matter. Examples include talking to students about their weekend activities to establish rapport, relaying information from the school office about school events, or telling jokes to start the class in a relaxed mood. These activities are intrinsically part of any class, yet do not directly further a curriculum.
Self-Directed Learning. This is the educational goal of self-regulation theories and is developed through student-directed instruction where students guide, and have input into, their own learning. “A self-directed person can be described as being self- managing … self-monitoring ... (and) self-modifying” (Costa & Kallick, 2004, p. 6).
Strategies designed to develop these skills of independence and provide experiences for students to practice these skills are frequently student-directed.
Self-Regulation. Self-regulation consists of the cognitive processes, behaviors, and strategies involved in monitoring and controlling oneself.
Student-Directed Instruction. Ormrod (2004) described student-centered instruction as instruction that “encourages students to construct their own knowledge and understandings… Discovery learning, whole-class and small-group discussions, cooperative learning, and group problem-solving activities are all examples of student- centered instruction” (p. 242). Following this definition, as all instruction focuses on students, Ormrod suggested that student-directed replace the misnomers student-centered, 26
child-centered, or learner-centered to properly describe instruction where students direct
their own learning and learning activities with the teacher as guide or facilitator.
Student-Directed Teachers. Student-directed teachers are educators who employ
student-directed instruction during classes or rehearsals more frequently than teacher-
directed instruction.
Student Self-Assessment. Student self-assessment is when students are asked to, or
independently, informally or formally gather data about their progress.
Teaching and Learning Strategies. Silver, Hanson, Strong, and Schwartz (1996)
defined teaching strategies as the “particular set of steps to evoke from learners a specific set of desired behaviors” (p. 8). Teaching and learning strategies include the activities used in the classroom through which students can learn. These activities are directly related to the subject and/or curriculum and may be traced to instructional objectives.
Whereas teaching strategies address what teachers do to cause learning, learning strategies are what students may do to cause their own learning. Synonyms used for teaching and learning strategies include: instructional strategies, instructional activities, teaching techniques, teaching practices, and learning activities.
Teacher-Directed Instruction. Ormrod (2004) described teacher-directed instruction as instruction “in which the instructor directly presents the material to be learned – for instance, through lectures, explanations, textbooks, and educational videos”
(p. 241). As all instruction centers on students, Ormrod suggested that teacher-directed replace the misnomer teacher-centered to properly describe instruction where teachers direct student learning and activities. 27
Teaching Style. Silver et. al. (1996) differentiated teaching style from teaching
strategies and defined teaching style as “a reflection of the individual’s value system…
and represents a conscious (or unconscious) enacting of the ways one prefers to learn and remembers being taught. It is exhibited in preferred or repeated behaviors” (p. 8) by the teacher within the learning environment. Teaching style is a long-term pattern of teaching strategies although “environmental, cultural, and inherited characteristics invariably modify an individual’s behavior” (p. 8).
28
CHAPTER TWO
Review of the Literature
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to describe the teaching and learning strategies demonstrated by directors of middle school band who reported a student-directed teaching style. This chapter is a summary and synthesis of the literature and published research related to student-directed instruction and teaching styles. The first section will discuss: (a) what student-directed instruction is and how it contributes to student learning, and (b) descriptions of music education research and pedagogical literature that support student-directed instruction in music classrooms. The second section will examine: (a) teaching styles in general education, and (b) music teaching style theory and research.
Student-Directed Instruction
Ormrod (2004) described student-directed instruction as instruction that
“encourages students to construct their own knowledge and understandings… Discovery learning, whole-class and small-group discussions, cooperative learning, and group problem-solving activities are all examples of student-centered instruction” (p. 242). The fundamental tenets of student-directed instruction are that students have unique interests, can communicate their needs to others, are able to teach themselves, can be trusted with opportunities to direct their own learning, and require relevant, meaningful learning resulting from active engagement in the learning process (Webb & Baird, 1968; Harmin,
1994; Harper, 1998; Morrow, 1998; Bruner, 1999; Agran, Blanchard, Wehmeyer &
Hughes, 2001; Block, 2001; Bukowiecki, 1999; Spurlock, 2002; Berv, 2002; Howard &
Ill, 2004). Instead of delivering material through teacher-directed approaches such as 29
lecturing, teachers relinquish control, allow students a voice into their instruction, and
facilitate opportunities for students to take ownership of their own learning. Student-
directed instruction involves teaching and learning strategies such as constructivist
activities, interdisciplinary projects, experiential learning activities, self-regulation, and
problem solving. In this section, learning theories and general educational approaches
related to student-directed instruction will be discussed, followed by related approaches
found in music education research and pedagogical literature.
Student-Directed Instruction in General Education
General education researchers have examined the effects of student-directed
instruction on student achievement in non-music subject areas (i.e., social studies,
language arts, science, etc.). Morrow (1998) conducted a study examining the differences
between teacher- and student-directed instruction in social studies classes. The researcher
administered a Survey of Teacher Instructional Methods to 67 fifth grade social studies
teachers. Participants were grouped into a control group (teacher-directed) and experimental group (student-directed). One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), Chi-
squares, and t-tests were computed to determine the effect of teaching style and other
variables on standardized social studies test scores. Based on the data, Morrow found that
there were no significant differences in student achievement based on level of teacher
education or years of experience. However, Morrow did find that there was a significant
difference (p < .05) in student achievement based on teaching methods, with students of
student-directed teachers being more likely to score higher on standardized tests. The
positive contributions of student-directed instruction are also supported by other 30
researchers (Webb & Baird, 1968; Harper, 1998; Bukowiecki, 1999; Agran, Blanchard,
Wehmeyer & Hughes, 2001; Spurlock, 2002; Berv, 2002; Gumm, 2003b).
Student-Directed Instruction and Constructivist Theory. Student-directed learning seems to have evolved out of constructivist principles. Ormrod’s (2004) definition, that student-directed instruction encourages students to construct their own knowledge and understandings, parallels Fosnot and Perry’s (2005) discussions of constructivism.
Constructivists value activities where learners create, construct, and control their own projects and learning activities. Fosnot and Perry suggested that instead of repetition of behaviors or memorizing bits of knowledge being the goal of instruction, cognitive development and deeper understanding should be a priority. Further, the authors articulated that learning is complex and non-linear in nature, rather than linear and systematic.
Constructivists believe students must actively engage and interact with subject matter in order to cause cognitive processing and reorganization of new knowledge with preexisting experiences. Fosnot and Perry (2005) made the important distinction that constructivism is a learning theory and not a prescription for teaching and learning strategies. However, the authors did note that there are certain principles of constructivism that can inform teachers’ choices of teaching and learning strategies including: (a) using challenging, open-ended investigations in realistic, meaningful contexts fostering exploration of concepts and skills, (b) allowing students opportunities for reflection as a principle activity in learning, and (c) making learners responsible for defending, proving, justifying, and communicating their ideas to the classroom 31
community. Through cooperative learning, problem solving activities, and other student-
directed instructional strategies these principles can be accommodated.
Assessing students is integral to teaching, and differences between the assessment
of constructivist-based learning and traditional approaches to learning are important to
note. Shapiro (2003) described constructivist assessment as the process of determining
what students learned as a result of activities driven by their needs, interests, and abilities.
Constructivist assessment is focused on the products of learning activities created by
students and the self-assessments of students. In activities using authentic assessment and
student self-assessment, the entire learning process, from start to assessment, is focused
on student inquiry.
To distinguish between constructivist and traditional classrooms, Shapiro (2003)
provided a number of useful questions which can be asked (see Table 2.1). For example,
if students are passively listening to the teacher lecture, never talk or interact with each
other, are not involved in educational decisions, and are rarely asked for their personal assessments of products or actions, a constructivist-based classroom is not being observed. It is also unlikely that students are being involved in student-directed learning.
Shapiro declared that in traditional direct instruction, there is little role for student activity. However, in the traditional band rehearsal, students are kept active by performing on instruments (e.g., Goolsby, 1996). The real difference in learning activities, according to Shapiro, is in the cognitive engagement of students. Although students may be actively playing instruments, in a learning environment where teachers provide all feedback and make all instructional choices, cognitive engagement by
students is limited. Problem-solving approaches, cooperative learning approaches, and 32
active learning approaches where students develop their own projects and have personal
responsibility for their learning are the keys to engaging students in Shapiro’s description
of constructivist classrooms.
Table 2.1
Questions for Identifying Constructivist-Based Classrooms
Question
Are the students engaged in active learning? Are they active or passive? Do they sit and listen, for the most part? What is the organizing vehicle of the class? Are groups the basis or do students interact openly with each other? Does the classroom make use of inquiry as a major vehicle? Do students have a voice in what and how they study? Do students have opportunities to make choices? Are different learning styles and approaches used? Are students’ views and thinking respected? Do students develop projects? Do students feel safe in the classroom and groups?
Note. Shapiro (2003), pp. 338-339.
Concepts and skills appropriate to one subject can be developed by facilitating
student-directed exploration of other subjects in constructivist-based integrated instructional units. “Integrated instructional units are units of instruction that combine
content from a variety of content areas, all of which are organized around a theme”
(Adams, 2001, p. 71). For example, an American Civil War unit could lead students
through personal exploration to understanding connections between history, poetry and 33
literature, hymns and spirituals of the period, political figures, and scientific advances.
Instead of presenting the thematic learning content exclusively through lectures or
teacher presentations, students are provided opportunities to discover their own content.
The contributions of integrated instructional units using a constructivist, student- directed approach include: (a) fostering overlaps between content areas instead of dividing into separate content areas, (b) fostering connections between content areas to
enhance transfer of knowledge, (c) connecting lesson content to the real world, (d) promoting collaboration among teachers, and (e) maintaining student needs and interests as central to learning activities (Adams, 2001). However, Adams cautioned that although integrated instructional units are not entirely difficult to implement, they do require thought and planning, making systematic development necessary. Careful planning by teachers ensures that the instructional unit is efficient, comprehensive, and effective, even though teachers will serve as facilitators of student learning and allow students choice and responsibility within a framework.
Student-Directed Instruction and Experiential Learning. As constructivism places value on active learning by students, experiential learning theory has evolved from the principle that learning occurs when students interact with their environment (Kolb,
1984). At the heart of Kolb’s theory is that learning is the creation of—not the passive receipt of—knowledge and skills. Experiential learning occurs in four stages: concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE). More specifically, learners:
… must be able to involve themselves fully, openly, and without bias in new
experiences (CE). They must be able to reflect on and observe their experiences 34
from many perspectives (RO). They must be able to create concepts that integrate
their observations into logically sound theories (AC), and they must be able to use
these theories to make decisions and solve problems (AE). (p. 30)
Learners first enter an experience and make sense of it (i.e., prehension) through either:
(a) conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation (i.e., comprehension), or (b) tangible, felt qualities of experiences (i.e., apprehension). The next, and most crucial, step for learning is to use new information through a process of transformation. Either the learner must: (a) internally reflect upon their experience (i.e., intention), or (b) actively interact with and manipulate the external world (i.e., extension).
People are constantly experiencing and sensing their surroundings while acting upon sensual information to conceptualize and comprehend new information (Kolb,
1984). Learning takes place when a learner has an experience and is transformed cognitively by that experience. Observing or perceiving an experience is insufficient; something must be done by the learner. Because student-directed instruction emphasizes students actively interacting with experiences in order to apply prior knowledge and construct new knowledge it seems intrinsically related to experiential learning theory.
Kolb explained that certain subjects promote different teaching methods and, therefore, may accommodate experiential learning in different ways. For example, Kolb suggested that music and other arts are reflective in nature and easily accommodate divergent learning which has the strengths of emphasizing concrete experience, reflective observation, imagination, multiple points of view, and the generation of ideas.
Student-Directed Instruction and Self-Regulation. Zimmerman and Schunk
(2001) described self-regulated learners as those able to generate their own thoughts, 35
identify feelings, control their actions or behaviors, select and apply skills or strategies, and otherwise function independently of others. According to Ormrod (2004) self- regulation entails at least four processes: (a) setting standards and goals, (b) self- observation, (c) self-judgment, and (d) self-reaction. Other authors have taken slightly different stances including Costa and Kallick (2004), who discussed student needs for self-regulation skills in: (a) self-management, (b) self-monitoring, and (c) self- modification. In general, to develop sophisticated learners capable of adaptation and autonomy, training students in a variety of skills to assess, evaluate, and correct themselves is recommended (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001; Brown, 2002; Ormrod, 2004;
Costa & Kallick, 2004). However, the level to which students develop self-regulation skills directly relates to how cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active students are in their own learning process (Zimmerman & Schunk).
Self-regulation skills may relate to preparation for college. In a study of 59 regular acceptance and remedial, conditionally accepted students, Ley and Young (1998) found that there was a relationship between self-regulation levels and college preparedness. The researchers suggested that remedial students have deficient self- regulation skills when compared to regular admission students. Ley and Young also suggested instructors consider including and supporting self-regulation strategies in courses. Other researchers have also found that self-regulation strategies contribute to student success (Harper, 1998; McCombs, 2001; Shinder, 2002).
It appears that there is a relationship between self-regulation theories and student- directed instruction. McCombs (2001) found that it was beneficial for students to practice skills that foster self-regulation through activities that require choice, responsibility, self- 36
assessment, higher-order thinking, and metacognition (i.e., awareness of and understanding one’s thought process). Self-regulation and student independence are integral to the development of successful learners and are fundamental goals of student- directed instruction (Agran, Blanchard, Wehmeyer, & Hughes, 2001) or learner-centered instruction (McCombs, 2001). Zimmerman (1994, 2001) declared that the development of self-regulation skills was only possible in learning environments offering students choice, control, and opportunities to exercise self-direction, key aspects of student- directed instruction.
Student-Directed Instruction and Problem-Based Learning. Problem-based
Learning (PBL) is another instructional approach that appears to relate to student-directed instruction. PBL fosters the development of self-directed learners by providing students with unstructured, real-world problems, to which they must apply independent thought and teamwork in order to solve (Lambros, 2004). Important aspects of PBL are that students are active in their own learning process, direct their own learning as driven by
the problem at hand, and must cooperate with others in the learning environment. PBL
enhances the relevancy of subject matter because students notice how the problem they
are solving fits into a vision of their future. It also places emphasis on conceptual
understanding and cognitive engagement rather than rote memorization or drills. Students involved with problem-based learning report increased excitement and interest due to its exploratory nature (Lambros) and are more capable of adapting to new learning situations
(Griffin, 2003).
Savin-Baden and Major (2004) suggested that PBL can foster a shift towards learner-centered instruction. It was stated that, “one of the most fundamental shifts that 37
occurs when moving towards learner-centered philosophies is in understanding how
students learn” (p. 82). Baden and Major suggested problem-solving teams where
learners fill specific roles within the team, providing them with specific tasks in solving
the problem or task assigned to them. When defining problems for students to solve, there
are three dimensions to consider: (a) the context, or the physical context of the problem
and the implied task; (b) the content, or the areas of knowledge and details of the
problem; and (c) the schema and deep structure, or the underlying principle of the
problem. The types of problem solving activities that could be assigned to students include (a) problems (e.g., explaining what is occurring in a scenario), (b) strategy tasks
(e.g., asking students to define what they would do given a scenario), (c) action tasks
(e.g., doing an activity or conducting research), (d) discussion tasks (e.g., tasks that focus
on students’ opinions on a theme), or (e) study tasks (e.g., tasks that can be done
individual and do not require group discussion).
Summary. Researchers examining the effects of student-directed instruction on
student achievement outside the realm of music have provided insights that may be
applicable to music teaching and learning (Webb & Baird, 1968; Harmin, 1994; Harper,
1998; Morrow, 1998; Bruner, 1999; Agran, Blanchard, Wehmeyer & Hughes, 2001;
Block, 2001; Bukowiecki, 1999; Spurlock, 2002; Berv, 2002; Howard & Ill, 2004). Of
particular note are developments in student-directed instructional approaches based on
constructivist theory, integrated instructional units, experiential learning theory, self-
regulated learning theory, and problem-based learning that seem to significantly affect
student learning. Suggestions from this body of literature should be considered as
student-directed research and pedagogy in music is limited. However, it is important to 38
consider related music specific research and writing that does exist and note developments that may provide insights in addition to those from general education.
Student-Directed Instruction in Music Education
As detailed in the prior section, there is a growing body of literature on student- directed instruction and related theories in general education. Music education literature devoted specifically to student-directed teaching and learning strategies remains relatively rare. However, music education researchers and authors have investigated and written about educational philosophies and instructional approaches that are closely related to the goals and theoretical underpinnings of student-directed instruction. The next section will summarize the (a) music education research, and (b) music education pedagogical literature that relates to student-directed teaching and learning.
Music Education Research. The development of independent musicians, capable of guiding their own musical development, involves the development of self-regulation skills. Noting that only a handful of studies have been undertaken on self-regulation in music, McPherson and Zimmerman (2002) suggested that self-regulation is as important
to music students as in any academic subject. Based on a thorough, comprehensive
review of self-regulation research the researchers suggested that to be successful
musicians, music students need: (a) self-set goals, self-reinforcement, and self-efficacy,
(b) self-initiated covert images and verbal strategies, (c) self-planned and self-managed
time use, (d) self-monitored and self-evaluated performance, (e) self-structured
environments, and (f) self-driven pursuit of help. It was suggested that these desirable
behaviors are the end result of socialization processes and the students’ environment.
Students are not usually capable of developing these skills alone and their environment 39
(e.g., teachers, parents, older siblings, school, home) must foster the development of self- regulating behaviors and personalities.
Nielsen (1999) studied two gifted organ students and suggested several educational implications for developing self-regulation skills. Specifically, Nielsen suggested that it is vital for teachers to assist their students in developing strategic competence in the following skills: (a) selecting relevant parts of learning material, (b) organizing and forming relations in the material to be learned, (c) relating the learning material to existing knowledge, (d) directing attention to the task at hand, (e) mastering achievement anxiety, and (f) securing efficient use of time. These skills emphasize a student cognitive and metacognitive thought process by placing ownership of the learning process in the hands of students. It has been reported by researchers that students who possess a greater amount of self-regulation strategies were more successful musically
(McPherson, 1997; Nielsen, 1999).
Student musicians appear to be more successful in independent practice and performance when they demonstrate a variety of self-regulatory abilities. During independent practice, students should be functioning on higher cognitive levels and must develop the abilities to analyze and evaluate their own performance, create solutions to problems they identify, and compare their performance to a model performance (Hewitt,
2001). Researchers have suggested several instructional strategies to music educators for fostering these abilities including: (a) active listening activities (Hewitt, 2001; Bergee &
Cecconi-Roberts, 2002); (b) modeling to create vivid mental and aural models in their students (Hewitt, 2001), (c) helping young musicians develop and discover proven practice strategies (McPherson, 1997; McPherson & Zimmerman, 2002), and (d) 40
providing students with self-reflection activities and self-assessment forms or procedures
(Rohwer, 1997; Costa & Kallick, 2004).
To develop strong self-regulation skills and independent musicianship, music
educators must train students in practice techniques and have them apply them
independently of the teacher. McPherson (1995, 1997) completed a three-year
longitudinal study with 53 high school instrumentalists based on interviews and tests
measuring abilities in five skill areas: (a) sight-reading, (b) playing by ear, (c) improvising, (d) performing rehearsed music, and (e) performing from memory.
McPherson found that the best musicians possessed a rich repertoire of strategies which they used during practice while weaker musicians displayed a poor understanding of how to transfer information obtained from notation or aurally into appropriate musical performance. The researcher reported that developing abilities to play from memory, play by ear, and improvise can occur informally, such as when students practice
independently. However, it falls upon music educators to ensure that students are
formally trained in a multitude of musical strategies they can use effectively. McPherson
suggested instrumental music educators re-evaluate teaching practices that are restricted
to refinement of performance skills and emphasize development of aural skills, creativity,
and cognitive strategies.
Student self-assessment is an integral aspect of student-directed instruction, is
developmentally appropriate for middle school level band students, and can foster self-
regulation skills. Zurcher (1987) conducted a four-phase study of 63 students to
investigate the effects of different types of feedback on music performance achievement.
Over 22 rehearsals students maintained self-assessment tally records daily during the first 41
and fourth phases. During the second phase students received no feedback and during the
third phase received teacher-issued letter grades. Analysis of correlated t-tests for a two-
tailed test indicated significant differences (p < .05) in musical performance achievement grades between self-assessment treatment periods and no-feedback or teacher-feedback phases. Those students who recorded their own daily numerical grades achieved significantly better performance grades than those who received no feedback or teacher- issued letter grades. Zurcher suggested that teacher-issued letter grades were not specific
enough to change achievement and that student self-assessment is a feasible method to
both enhance feedback to students and increase musical development. Based on the
study, the more specific and meaningful the feedback, and the more consistently feedback
is delivered, the greater the learning that occurs.
Essential music performance skills can be developed through student-directed
instruction. Della Pietra (1997) conducted an experimental study on the effects of a
constructivist instructional model for the teaching of musical rhythm to high school
students. The model was based on two principles: (a) that learning is actively constructed
by the individual, and (b) that learning is a product of socialization processes. There were
three phases to the model: (a) teachers presented rhythms to the class; (b) students were
asked to compose a piece in small ensembles where every student performed a different
rhythm, then improvised rhythms with other students continuing to perform their
respective rhythms; and (c) small ensembles performed their improvised compositions for
the class. Della Pietra noted how the learning environment became a class of active
learners, used open-ended instructions, and required students to engage in activities
building desired cognitive, affective, and motor skills related to the musical setting. 42
Based on a comparison of pre- and post-test data, it was reported that this instructional strategy was effective for improving perception of musical rhythm, but not the reproduction of notated rhythms or perception of tempo.
Social aspects of the music classroom may be important considerations when implementing a student-directed classroom that fosters interactions between students.
Adderley, Kennedy, and Berz (2003) conducted structured interviews with 60 students in a suburban high school and suggested that students place a significant degree of value on the social aspects of their ensembles. Music students spend a great deal of time with other music students, and form their own subculture within a school. The music classroom, therefore, has a strong influence on students musically, academically, psychologically and socially, and is important to students’ well-being and growth.
Student interaction, team-work, and a democratic environment can be fostered in instrumental ensembles. Allsup (2003) studied the music composition process and social interactions of nine high school band students in two small ensembles. The first group chose not to compose on their primary band instruments, instead composing on rhythm section instruments, while the second group composed music using their band instruments. Allsup found that mutual learning and democratic action may support a reconceptualization of school instrumental music education. Within small ensembles provided with the task of composing music, students discussed musical concepts and the compositional process. Decisions were made through dialogue which Allsup described as a condition of democracy. Because in any group there may be inequalities between students, inequities were a challenge for the growth of the first group which was described by the researcher as essentially a jam band. The second group chose not to 43 pursue popular music and chose a more conceptual, rather than exploratory, route to music composition utilizing classical and jazz musical forms. Based on these small group composition models, students mentioned advantages including learning from their peers.
Allsup suggested in such collaborative ensembles that students may discover hidden aptitudes or recognize the talents of others. The researcher concluded that, “when students are given space to explore freely, to work democratically, they will create … a context about which they are familiar, conversant, or curious… The materials that students choose to explore will represent a world that is theirs, a world they understand, a world that defines who they are” (p. 35). Such models may also present many real-world musical problem solving situations for students.
Problem solving in the instrumental music classroom may be different than problem solving in general education classrooms, yet is no less important a skill to develop in order to attain musical independence. Investigating the relationship of musical and non-musical variables to the performance of musical problem-solving tasks, Morgan
(1984) used the Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale to measure instrumental musical achievement and Colwell’s Music Achievement Test to measure conceptual knowledge and auditory recognition skills of 94 high school instrumental music students. Witkin,
Oltman, Raskin, and Karp’s Hidden Figures Test, and Davis and Rimm’s Group
Inventory for Finding Interests were used to measure non-musical variables. Scores on these instruments were related to student scores on a Musical Problems Test consisting of three problem solving tasks: (a) learning an unfamiliar piece, (b) transposing, and (c) creating an ending. These tasks were determined as reasonably representative of the real- world challenges a musician meets when becoming musically independent. After noting 44
that this study did not resolve whether problem solving in a musical context takes the
same form as problem solving in other areas, the investigator stated that problem solving
is an important factor in music learning, especially in the development of musical independence.
Pedagogical Literature. Authors have discussed approaches to music educating
that could be considered student-directed instruction. For example, the use of sectionals
or small ensembles, questioning techniques, problem solving activities, student self-
assessment, development of creativity, comprehensive musicianship, and learning centers have been described using student-directed approaches (e.g., Labuta, 1997; O’Toole,
2003). However, even with a few articles using the term ‘student-directed instruction’ or
its several synonyms (i.e., learner-centered, child-centered, student-centered, etc.),
suggestions for student-directed instruction are only discussed tangentially. To develop an idea of how student-directed instruction can be implemented in the middle school
band program, this section will summarize the student-directed approaches found in
pedagogical literature.
To build student autonomy it is suggested that the teacher try not to remain the
focal point of the classroom environment (Gumm, 2003b). Instead, students should be given responsibility for their own learning, both independently and in groups. Gumm described an instrumental music educator who attempted to rearrange her ensemble in circles, rather than rows, to build unified instrumental section tones. However, the teacher’s desire to have students work together was confounded by attempts to remain the central figure at the podium, thereby inhibiting opportunities of students to develop section unity on their own. The teacher remedied this problem in subsequent classes by 45
removing herself from the podium and through increasing attention to responsibility by students. This strategy allowed students to hear the results of their own efforts.
Sectional and small ensemble rehearsals run by students are recommended student-directed activities suitable to music performance programs. According to Gumm
(2003b), prior to sectionals or small ensemble rehearsals, teachers should: (a) instruct students to self-identify problematic areas in the music and mark them, (b) review and rehearse parts identified and worked on in prior rehearsals, (c) set a time limit for problem areas to be rehearsed during sectionals, (d) have students prioritize their
identified problem areas, (e) create solutions to each problem, and (f) work down the list
until each problem is solved. Gumm suggested that by using these suggestions, student-
led sectionals could occur simultaneously within the same room, and that discussion and
interaction between sections to help problem-solve each others’ musical dilemmas would
be fostered. Labuta (1997) also believed in the value of having students work together in
small instrumental groupings. Grouping students into chamber ensembles during the band
rehearsal was described by Labuta as a beneficial instructional strategy, particularly when
students are allowed to select their own music and develop music in creative ways.
The ways students interact with and enjoy music outside of school may not be the
same as the types of musical experiences that occur inside school. Green (2005) stated
that in many countries music educators have attempted to close the gap between students’
musical culture outside the school and the classroom, but that this gap has not yet been
bridged. In Western society, students are avid music listeners, placing great priority on
popular music (Zillmann & Gan, 1997; North, Hargreaves, & O’Neill, 2000), and popular
music ensembles are likely already taking place around many schools (e.g., garage or 46 rock bands). Green suggested taking advantage of popular musical ensembles by incorporating them into the music classroom and providing guidance for students, thereby enabling students to explore, choose, create, develop, and critique their own music. The music making in popular ensembles may be a more natural and student-directed musical process incorporating: (a) learning based on personal choice and enjoyment; (b) recorded music as the principal, aural means of musical transmission; (c) self-teaching and peer- directed learning; (d) assimilation of skills and knowledge in informal and unstructured ways according to musical preference; and (e) integration of listening, performing, improvising, and composing throughout the learning process.
Students should be provided with opportunities where they must apply knowledge and become responsible for their learning. Gumm (2003b) suggested individualized music listening and reading by having students independently, or in pairs, listen to a piece of music and track the notated music with a finger. Partners can then peer-evaluate each other while the music educator monitors students’ pointing to assess their reading and music listening skills. Gumm stated that in such activities the focus centers on individual students’ learning efforts and not the teacher. Students receive the opportunity to voice their opinions and thoughts and are guided to new knowledge; the teacher is provided with assessment data of what students understand cognitively.
Questioning techniques and problem solving activities appear to be effective instructional strategies promoting a student-directed learning environment, and helping students build deeper impressions of music while learning how to appropriately discuss and talk about music (Hickey, 2001; Allsup & Baxter, 2004). For example, listening to music is a regular activity for students, yet they frequently have a limited musical 47
vocabulary (Allsup & Baxter). Allsup and Baxter recommended using open and guided
questioning—as opposed to closed questioning, which elicits a single response—while
listening to music during class in order to guide students’ musical vocabulary development, and invite students to share various perspectives. Hickey suggested that questioning students engages them at a much higher level of musical thinking and can foster students to imagine and become more aware of the musical possibilities that sound provides. Hickey further declared that fostering creative musical thinking, through questioning and other creative opportunities, “is not possible through teacher-centered activities, which rarely elicit a personal music product” (p. 22).
Teachers can also assess whether students are grasping learning materials, skills, or concepts by questioning students. Casey (1993) interviewed respected college
conductors and expert school-aged band teachers, collecting their thoughts into a text
addressing many areas of instrumental music education. In a section focusing on the
benefits of asking questions to students during rehearsals, Casey noted Bedell as saying
that evaluating students’ degree of understanding through the use of questioning
techniques is an important step in teaching music for performance. When a question is
asked by a teacher, students share their understanding of concepts and methods. If
information is always presented by the teacher through lectures nothing is required to be
shared by the students, and teachers cannot be sure that students have learned. It is
possible that learning concepts can be discerned during musical performance, but
questioning and student articulation of learning outcomes can provide assessment data
while actively involving students in the learning environment. Beyond merely assessing 48 student learning, questioning may also change the outlook students have towards band rehearsals. Kirchoff told Casey:
There are two ways to rehearse: one is to give [students] the right answer and then
simply make them accept that because you’re supposed to know the answer. The
other way is to give them options and discover how they think about it. When you
start asking questions and you get them involved, their faces change. They
suddenly become terribly interested in what’s going on. (p. 239)
Kirchoff’s statements reveal that band teachers have instructional choices available to them and that questioning is one teaching strategy that can have dramatic effects on student learning.
Student self-assessment, peer assessment, and questioning techniques appear capable of helping students address a number of musical skills and concepts. For example, instead of teachers always attending to and personally correcting intonation, they can relinquish responsibility to students by teaching students to discriminate between in-tune and out-of-tune notes (Gumm, 2003b). A self-assessment checklist for improving intonation independently can be provided to students and help students learn how to remedy identified tuning problems. Lisk (1991) also suggested several series of self-assessment steps for students to use in developing tone quality, balance, blend, and intonation. For example, to develop balance between instruments, Lisk recommended a list of three steps focusing students’ attention on their own performance. Following this list, students decide whether they hear themselves above peers, and then follow three self-assessments to determine a solution to the musical problem (i.e., whether they are overblowing, playing with poor tone quality, or playing out of tune). This strategy 49 demands that students listen to their volume in contrast to surrounding instrumentalists, and use their own thought process to correct musical issues.
Developing students’ abilities to monitor and evaluate themselves promotes self- regulation and is a student-directed strategy. Student self-assessment and peer-assessment can also help provide assessment data and feedback in larger bands. Chiodo (2001) urged music educators to select assessment tools that are efficient, a necessity for music educators dealing with large numbers of students. However, Chiodo discussed primarily teacher-directed assessment through use of checklists, numerical scales, rubrics, and certain technological tools such as electronic gradebooks. Student-directed assessments such as student-self assessment or peer assessment may be equally appropriate choices
(Hewitt, 2001, 2002).
Creativity is an integral aspect of music directly related to constructivist principles. Priest suggested several activities for developing creative thinking in instrumental music students (Priest, 2002). Method books are often the principal material in middle school instrumental music programs, yet Priest suggested that music educators take a step back and consider how people learned instruments before the invention of notation. Priest answered that improvising, playing by ear, and composing are valuable experiences that have been somewhat lost in instrumental programs, yet drive much of the music-making that occurs elsewhere in the world without notation. The author believed that instrumental music teachers should offer opportunities to experiment with their instruments, and share improvisations and compositions. Teachers can guide students by providing listening examples and contexts for creative activities. Other suggested activities included having students create melodies and rhythms for others to 50
echo, group improvisations, and projects involving creative thinking or promoting problem solving.
Inherent in the National Standards for Music Education (MENC, 1994) are opportunities for students to create, express their own ideas, and actively direct their own
learning (Hickey, 2001; Cooper, 2005). Hickey stated, “it seems apparent that
encouraging students to apply their growing knowledge of music in creative ways should
be at the core of philosophy and practice” (p. 19). The author noted that research and
observations have recorded that students enjoy exploration of options and creating, but
that skill building on instruments is necessary prior to free exploration. However, by the
time students enter middle school band, creative activities become appropriate and should
be a part of skill building. Hickey suggested that improvisation, composition, and active
listening can then involve students in the application of new skills and reinforcement of
old ones.
Harkening back to interdisciplinary units in general education (Adams, 2001),
comprehensive musicianship holds many opportunities for student-directed instruction
and has been advocated by a number of authors for instrumental music programs
(Garofalo, 1995; Labuta, 1997; O’Toole, 2003). Austin (1998) suggested that
comprehensive musicianship focuses on: (a) students perception or conception of the
common elements of music; (b) interdisciplinary study of music theory, history, and
performance; (c) involvement of students in the varied roles of a musician (e.g.,
performer, composer, conductor, listener); (d) study and performance of quality music
representing diverse genres, cultures, and historical periods; and (e) ensemble classes that
function as both learning laboratories and rehearsal settings. In detailing a comprehensive 51
musicianship curriculum for bands, Labuta (1997) continued to emphasize performance and ensemble drills, admittedly teacher-centered instruction, but did describe student- directed activities that meet the objectives of comprehensive musicianship including student projects, group presentations, discussions, learning laboratories, and out-of-class assignments. Garofalo (1995) detailed a comprehensive unit design model, ensuring that teachers designed their lessons around a well-laid plan addressing a broad spectrum of musical aspects. Although quizzes, performance rehearsal, reading materials, and other teacher-directed approaches continued, Garofalo also incorporated composition and creative projects that could be performed in a concert.
Turner (1999, 2006) supported the need for student-directed instruction in music, declaring that the primary goals of child-centered learning in music should be to develop
skills and knowledge in students by providing students with choice, problem-solving
activities, and opportunities for cognitive work and divergent thinking. Referring to
implementing student-directed instruction in elementary and general music environments,
Turner (1999) described several types of centers that groups of students could circulate
through including: (a) game centers incorporating circle games, play parties, partner
games, or other music-related games; (b) listening centers; (c) dramatic play centers, for
example where students can practice conducting; (d) literacy centers with music-related books; and (e) exploration centers with materials or equipment (e.g., multicultural musical instruments or technological sound apparatus).
Although the student-directed instructional practices in general music classes can
provide ideas for band teachers, ideas need to be explored on how to implement student-
directed instruction within the structured band rehearsal. As one example, Labuta (1997) 52 described learning laboratories as an activity for developing comprehensive musicianship in high school bands. Labuta’s vision involved band students forming groups of performers, creators, listeners, and critics exploring and developing music they are interested in. A second example offered by Stevens (2003) supports the belief that children have a great propensity for teaching themselves concepts and skills and can learn through play, exploration, and informal learning activities. Stevens suggested mixing structured music lessons with occasional guided free-time periods incorporating creative opportunities to offer students opportunities to create music meaningful to them.
Summary of Section
Several important theories and approaches related to the general education of students lead to the implementation of student-directed instruction in the classroom. In particular, constructivist theories, teaching through interdisciplinary projects, experiential learning theories, self-regulated learning theories, and problem-based learning seem to promote student-directed instruction. When implementing instruction based on the principles of these instructional approaches, teachers facilitate student learning through activities that involve creativity, personal choice, learning through active experience, critical thinking, problem solving, and discovery. Researchers have suggested that student-directed instruction leads to more successful, independent students with greater capacity for adapting to new learning experiences. While little research specifically examining student-directed instruction in music education has been conducted, there have been related areas of inquiry including self-regulation, problem solving, questioning, collaborative learning, and interdisciplinary learning. Music pedagogy authors have suggested that through the use of small ensembles, questioning techniques, student self- 53 and peer assessment, comprehensive musicianship and creative projects, learning centers, and other student-directed instructional strategies, music teachers can remove themselves from being the focal point of the classroom and involve students in their learning.
Teaching Style Literature
Teaching style researchers have found value in examining teachers’ thinking, beliefs, and skills (Storm, 2004). Research has focused on the pattern of instructional practices employed by teachers, as well as how teachers’ unique approaches interact with learning styles, personalities, and other psychological or educational factors. In this section, theories of teaching styles will be described to lay a foundation for research design decisions to be discussed in Chapter Three. First, research on teaching styles in general education will be discussed. Second, music teaching style theory will be described, followed by discussion of research designed around music teaching style theory.
Teaching Styles in General Education
Teaching Style. Teaching styles have been defined as the range of practices by which a teacher can operate and accomplish objectives (Weng, 2002). Teaching style research has found that teachers demonstrate patterns of beliefs that guide their instructional choices (Storm, 2004). Grasha (1996) stated that teaching style was a particular pattern of needs, beliefs, and behaviors that teachers display in the classroom.
Although beliefs and resulting teaching practices may change over a teacher’s career— particularly from pre-service to expert levels—they tend to be long-term and cause identifiable differences between teachers. Nelson (1999) used the terms teaching style, teaching method, and teaching strategies equivalently, suggesting that the focus of 54
teaching style research is the long term approach to teaching as evident in the
instructional methods and strategies teachers choose for lessons.
Researchers have examined the relationship between the way educators teach and
the way they prefer to learn. Weng (2002) believed that teaching style was defined by the
instructional techniques and methods teachers preferred. The researcher had 161 college
physical education students and elementary education majors complete a Learning Style
Inventory, Trainer Type Inventory, and Teaching Style Inventory. Weng identified that
the teaching practices employed by these pre-service teachers had a direct relationship to
their preferred learning styles. However, based on a Learning Style Inventory and
Teaching Style Inventory administered to 63 secondary, rural school teachers Allen
(1989) found a limited relationship between the way a teacher teaches and the way they learn. When comparing learning styles with teaching styles, only three of 15
teaching/learning style subscales had significant relationships (p < .05): expressive
written (r = .241), independent learning (r = .375), and auditory-visual-kinesthetic
(r = .445).
Due to unique learning styles (i.e., how a person prefers to learn), personalities,
training, personal backgrounds, and expertise, teachers instruct classes in different ways.
Cano, Gaton and Raven (1992) conducted a study on the learning styles of 25 pre-service
agriculture education teachers. Participants with a field-dependent learning style (n = 11,
44%) were described as learner-centered, logical and sequential, perceived globally, were
extremely clear, provided positive feedback, and encouraged students to work
cooperatively; whereas, field-independent learners (n = 14, 56%) were subject-centered,
authoritative, guided students in impersonal teaching situations, perceived globally, 55
taught using a critical thinking approach, perceived analytically, and encouraged independent achievement and learning through trial and error. The researchers supported a link between teaching and learning styles stating that teachers preferred to teach how they learned. Cano et al. also noted personality as part of the equation in the development
of teaching styles.
Teaching Style Models. As there are multiple ways to teach based on a variety of
factors, there are several ways to consider and measure teaching styles. The Dunn and
Dunn Teaching Style Inventory has been employed in several studies (e.g., Pengiran-
Jadid, 1998; Mawhinney, 2002) and offers a practical approach for measuring teaching
styles in relation to individual learning styles (Dunn & Frazier, 1990). The model for the inventory is based on six major elements of teaching style: (a) instructional planning, (b) teaching methods, (c) teaching environment (including student groupings, room design, and other aspects of teaching environment such as resources), (d) evaluation techniques,
(e) teaching characteristics and classroom management, and (f) educational philosophy.
Teachers self-report on 5-level Likert-type scales the frequency they use techniques within each of the first five categories, and their attitude toward educational philosophies.
Based on results of the inventory, a teacher’s style in each of the six dimensions can be placed on a spectrum from individualized instructional styles to traditional teaching styles. Dunn and Frazier describe individualized, non-traditional teaching styles as those utilizing alternative approaches to teaching such as cooperative learning, social learning, information processing strategies, behavior analyses, and instruction that is personalized to meet the needs of individual students. Traditional teaching styles were described as those that employed recitation and drill or whole class approaches. 56
Mawhinney (2002) administered Dunn’s original Teaching Style Inventory to 253
secondary-school teachers and based on factor analysis developed a new instrument, the
Instructional Self-Assessment Survey – Revised (ISAS-R). After several steps to create
the revised instrument, six categories were found to be the most valid and reliable
solution for measuring teaching styles: (a) Teaching Methods and Materials (i.e., teaching
practices are associated with instructional techniques and materials), (b) Diagnosis and
Prescription (i.e., individualization of instruction based on assessment), (c) Grouping
Patterns (i.e., favor small group work), (d) Student Involvement (i.e., solicits student
input), and (e) Teaching Environment/Classroom Design (i.e., teachers’ behaviors are
associated with the organization of the classroom), (f) Facilitator/Coach (i.e., facilitates
student learning and allows students to work independently). The instrument includes 41
five-level Likert-type scales on which teachers rate how much they use and agree with
certain teaching activities or teaching concepts. Mawhinney administered the ISAS-R to
160 teachers, and then conducted a investigation of an experimental model where the
treatment group was prescribed a teaching-style profile based on ISAS-R results. In this
study, the research concluded that the longer one taught, the less individualized the
instructional practices. Mawhinney also found that teachers believed they delivered more
individualized instruction than their actual practice.
The Grasha Teaching Styles Inventory is based on a teaching style model which
considers not only teaching style, but integrates teaching style with learning styles of
students. Based on the Grasha-Riechmann Teaching Style Survey and Grasha-Riechmann
Student Learning Style Scales, it was found that five teaching styles (i.e., expert, formal
authority, model, facilitator, and delegator) and six learning styles (i.e., competitive, 57 collaborative, avoidant, participant, dependent, and independent) grouped into four teaching/learning style clusters. As Grasha (1996) stated, the Grasha Teaching Styles
Inventory illustrates the interdependencies between teachers’ personal qualities, the instructional processes employed to convey content, and the learning styles of students. It also illustrates ways teachers can use these aspects to enhance classroom instruction.
Based on a study of 761 college classrooms across disciplines, Grasha found that certain teaching styles were more prevalent than others. The four clusters in order of prevalence were: (a) Expert/Formal Authority (38%; e.g., exams, lectures, teacher-centered questioning and discussions), (b) Personal Model/Expert/Formal Authority (22%; e.g., coaching/guiding students, modeling by illustration, modeling by direct action), (c)
Facilitator/Personal Model/Expert (17%; e.g., guided readings, problem-based learning, group discussions), and (d) Delegator/Facilitator/Expert (15%; e.g., debates, journals, small group work, self-discovery activities, independent studies).
Silver, Hanson, Strong, and Schwartz (1996) suggested that teaching and learning occur based on a triangular relationship formed at the intersection between (a) the teacher, (b) the learner, and (c) the content. Although the teacher is the final decision- maker of what occurs in the classroom, there are multiple ways these three aspects can interact in the classroom. The authors suggested that there were four teaching styles: (a) mastery/sensing-thinkers (e.g., trainers, information givers, instructional managers), (b) understanding/intuitive-thinkers (e.g., theoreticians, inquirers, intellectual challengers),
(c) self-expressive/intuitive-feelers (facilitators, stimulators, creators), and (d) interpersonal/sensing-feelers (nurturers, supporters, empathizers). Silver et. al. suggested that teachers should become self-aware of their teaching and personal learning style 58 through self-assessment; no teaching style inventory was advocated. The authors advocated thoughtful education by teachers considering the strategies related to each teaching style. It was suggested that when teachers plan for instruction they should consider not only their teaching styles, but students’ learning styles, and related teaching and learning strategies.
Teaching Styles and Student Learning. Researchers have discussed benefits of teachers identifying and understanding their teaching style. Pengiran-Jadid (1998) administered Dunn and Dunn’s Learning Style Inventory and Milgram’s Tel Aviv
Inventory for creative performances to 1,228 primary and secondary students and Dunn and Dunn’s Teaching Style Inventory to teachers (n = 207) from performing (i.e., high academic success) and non-performing schools. It was found that the learning-style preferences of low academic achievers were not congruent with the school system in
Brunei and the teaching styles of educators. Pengiran-Jadid suggested that the practices employed by teachers can affect academic performance, particularly when not aligned with student learning styles. This is a significant incentive for teachers to understand their teaching styles and the learning styles of students. Pengiran-Jadid noted that teaching styles of teachers leaned towards “chalk and talk methods or lecture presentation that are considered traditional” (p. 234-235) and that if teachers expected students to achieve academically, they would need to attend to a closer match between their teaching styles and student learning styles. Specifically, there were more low academic achievers who were creative in music and drama than the high academic students, indicating that attention should be directed to the creative needs of students. 59
Psychological reactance is described as a person’s motivational drive to restore freedom, or prevent a loss of freedom, which contributes to behaviors and personality.
From a population of 2735 college students, McMillin (2000) had introduction to psychology students (n = 259) complete Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. Teaching Style
Vignettes, detailing scenarios for the first class related to four teaching styles based on the literature, were then provided students. After reading the scenarios, students completed a Student Evaluation of Educational Quality and the Hong Psychological
Reactance Scale. Support was found for the relationship between psychological reactance and teaching style, but not between teaching and learning styles or learning styles and psychological reactance. Psychological reactance was found to relate to a suitable match between students and their teacher’s instruction. McMillin also suggested that students with an external locus of control (i.e., perceive that others control their behavior) would be more comfortable in a teacher-directed class, while those with an internal locus of control (i.e., perceive that they are in control of their behaviors) may be more comfortable in a student-centered classroom.
Teaching style researchers have discussed results of teaching style research with student-directed and teacher-directed distinctions. Storm (2004) studied the beliefs and teaching of pre-service teachers (n = 30), student teachers (n = 30), Teach for America beginning teachers (n = 30), and experienced teachers (n = 30), finding that two participant groups, Arts and Sciences pre-service teachers and beginning teachers, described student-centered teaching in terms of educators forming caring relationships with students. Based on participants’ verbal statements, practicing teachers were more likely to discuss student-centered teaching, but spoke more frequently about their 60 activities as teachers, rather than practices that encouraged children to direct their own learning. Practicing teachers also reported beliefs that focused on the teacher as a director, prioritizing knowledge and skills, rather than a facilitator of student learning; whereas pre-service and beginning teachers focused on interpersonal relationships and the nurturing role of the educator.
Nelson (1999) supported Pengiran-Jadid’s (1998) belief in the value of teachers developing their knowledge of teaching and learning styles in order to help them understand how to facilitate student-centered learning. The researcher implemented a professional development seminar on teaching and learning styles, finding that training helped teachers accommodate student-centered learning that was positively received by students and schools. In the study, science teachers were reported as appreciating and benefitting from increased awareness of how instruction, teaching styles, and student learning styles relate. As in Pengiran-Jadid’s (1998) study, it was found that teachers had been teacher-centered rather than student-centered.
Summary. There has been considerable study of teaching styles in higher education and general education, which has increased the understanding of the relationships among how a teacher teaches, how students learn, and the teaching and learning strategies best suited to optimal learning in the classroom. Several models of teaching styles have resulted in the development of measurement instruments used to examine the triangular relationship (i.e., teacher, learner, content) that occurs in the classroom. However, the validity of using these measurement devices designed for general education within music education contexts is unclear.
61
Music Teaching Styles
Music Teaching Style Theory. Gumm (1992) stated that music teaching style was the stable, focus, orientation, or intent underpinning teaching practices paralleling teaching styles described in general education literature. Gumm’s theory of music teaching styles was designed based on a principle of triadicity, relationships formed between the teacher, the student, and the subject matter. The varying emphases of different teaching styles create unique relationships between these three dimensions of classroom instruction. For example, in a student-directed teaching style, students would be interacting with the subject matter directly, creating subject matter that would be assessed by students themselves and their peers, and the teacher would facilitate deepening interactions between the students and subject matter (Gumm).
It has been suggested that music teachers should adopt teaching practices best suited to their unique teaching styles (Kerley, 1996). Kerley studied the decision-making processes, leadership styles and behaviors, and musicality of two master elementary choral music teachers using interviews, video recording, and observations. Many similarities between the educators were identified including strong musicality, use of diverse teaching techniques, preparation of rehearsal plans, keen analysis of student performance, the ability to make split-second decisions, and reflective analysis of rehearsals. However, certain qualities were identified that made for unique teaching styles. The rehearsals of one teacher were described as technical, very intense, task- oriented, consistent, logically sequenced with new concepts presented only after pre- requisite skills were learned, positive, and people-oriented. The other teacher used modeling, student emulation, student identification of new components in new music, and 62
constant motion through the classroom while conducting. This style resulted in students with a rich, full vocal tone similar to their teacher and far beyond their years.
Kerley (1996) suggested that music teachers should not attempt to adopt the style
of another music teacher, particularly one diametrically opposed to their personality or
comfort level, but should recognize their uniqueness and emphasize their strengths
because multiple teaching styles can be equally effective. This seems to contradict the
suggestions of other teaching style researchers (e.g., Pengiran-Jadid, 1998; Nelson, 1999)
who have suggested a value for building awareness of, and implementing, other teaching
styles to best suit the learning styles of students. However, Kerley’s study also suggested
a need for schools and music education areas to understand, develop, and accommodate a
variety of teaching styles.
Borst (2003) conducted a qualitative study investigating the similarities and
differences between two exemplary choral teachers, including teaching styles.
Specifically, Borst sought to explore the link between teaching style, effective teaching,
and excellent performance. The researcher designed the study around teaching style
theories, including Gumm’s theory of music teaching style, as opposed to specific teacher
behaviors, teaching strategies, or teacher and student perceptions. Borst suggested that
although specific behaviors or techniques have been quantitatively researched, effective
teaching is complex and no single component is solely responsible for excellent teaching.
Based on interviews, observations, and informal interactions, Borst suggested that
aesthetic music performance can be a manifestation of teacher interpersonal skills with
students. Building a communal approach to teaching and including teacher-student
interaction to attain performance goals was noted as having a positive effect on learning 63
outcomes. By building a sense of community, Borst stated that students integrate their
sense of self with their peers, their teacher, and society with the music being performed.
An emphasis on respect for student individuality and personal freedom within the choral context and building a positive, open atmosphere of mutual respect were also noted as contributing to these exemplary programs.
Music Teaching Style Research. With the purpose of enabling the identification of
music educators’ teaching styles, Gumm designed a Music Teaching Style Inventory
(MTSI) (Gumm, 1992, 1993, 2003a, 2004a). Gumm suggested that how a teacher
prioritizes certain dimensions of teaching depends on many factors including: (a) their
personality; (b) the learning styles of students, particularly if the teacher is predisposed to
attend to and adapt instruction towards student learning styles; and (c) their perceptions
of effective teaching, in that, “any particular effective teaching behavior only has a
particular effect on a particular learning behavior in a particular learning situation”
(Gumm, 2003b, p. 8). Gumm’s intent was not to evaluate teaching styles, but instead
suggested that there was value in all teaching styles.
Based on a national study of 473 randomly selected music teachers, Gumm
(2003a) supported eight teaching style dimensions: Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal
Motivation, Time Efficiency, Positive Learning Environment, Group Dynamics, Music
Concept Learning, Artistic Music Performance, and Student Independence (see Table
2.2). Gumm found significant differences in teaching style dimensions based on music
teacher years of experience. For example, teachers with between eight and ten years of
experience were significantly more likely than other groups to focus on the Group
Dynamics dimension suggesting a transition to collaborative and self-directed learning in 64
Table 2.2
Music Teaching Style Dimensions
Music Teaching Style Dimension Definition
Assertive Teaching Ability to capture and maintain students’ attention to teacher-directed goals and activities through verbally controlling student behaviors.
Nonverbal Motivation Ability to motivate student attention to teacher- directed activities without any verbalizations through methods such as monitoring, training, eye contact, cues, or proximity.
Time Efficiency Use of clock time to motivate student attention to teacher-directed activities by prioritizing number of activities, goals, or tasks as well as pacing of instructional activities.
Positive Learning Environment Focus on careful learning by teacher use of empathy, humor, patience, sensitivity, accommodation, support, and care. Learning is promoted by students’ desire for approval and praise from their teacher and by teachers’ monitoring, feedback, accommodation, encouragement, and elaboration of learning.
Group Dynamics Represents focus on building interdependence between peers through collaborative learning and student self-responsibility within groups, sectional rehearsals, student presentations, student-led activities, discussions, and peer performances.
Music Concept Learning Maintaining a focus on developing students’ musical knowledge and ability to analyze while providing students opportunities to demonstrate understanding back to the teacher such as through questioning and critical thinking activities.
Artistic Music Performance Maintaining a focus on musical performance at an artistic level involving personal, human response by students.
Student Independence Represents a teacher’s focus on students’ abilities to think and create new knowledge on their own by emphasizing creativity. Note. Based on descriptions and definitions by Gumm (2003b). 65 the classroom environment. These findings seem to contrast with those by Storm (2004) who, based on experienced general education teachers’ statements of their teaching philosophy, found that age, number of years in their present school, and level of education did not predict teaching styles. Although there was evidence of developmental stages of teaching styles, Gumm determined that data supported a definition of music teaching style as, “the stable focus, orientation, or intent underlying the entire pattern of teaching behaviors” (p. 13). Gumm suggested that future research in teaching styles employ behavior observation techniques.
Specific teaching style dimensions have been reported as relating to higher-order teaching and learning levels (Gumm, 2004a). In a study investigating 273 middle- and high school choir students’ perceptions of their teachers’ teaching styles, Gumm suggested that Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal Motivation, Positive Learning
Environment and Time Efficiency were indicators of a teacher dependent learning environment. Alternately, Group Dynamics, Music Concept Learning, Artistic Music
Performance, and Student Independence were suggested as the four dimensions related to a learning environment that prioritized student-oriented, reflective, cognitive learning.
Based on the data, Gumm found that students reported their teachers as more frequently demonstrating teacher-directed, behavioral teaching styles as opposed to student-directed, cognitive-reflective teaching styles.
Tsai (2000) conducted a study of the teaching styles of 218 piano teachers in
Taiwanese universities. Using a version of Gumm’s MTSI, eight teaching style dimensions were identified: (a) Enlightened Instruction, (b) Potent Teaching, (c)
Aesthetics, (d) Performance Effect, (e) Responsive Learning Environment, (f) 66
Discriminatory Teaching and Learning, (g) Flexible Classroom Structure, and (h)
Sequential Instruction. Among Tsai’s findings were that 23% of respondents were
Enlightened and Student-Centered teachers. These teachers were described as placing
greater emphasis on a balance among teaching, student learning, and subject matter.
Thirty percent of participants preferred a Teacher-Centered teaching style. Tsai described
this style as focusing on both potent teaching and flexible classroom structure in piano
teaching lessons.
Brakel (1994) adapted Gumm’s (1992) Music Teaching Style Test (MTST) for
use in identifying instrumental music teaching styles. Brakel’s Instrumental Music
Teaching Style Test (ITMST) adapted the wording of several items from the original version of Gumm’s MTSI, as it was determined Gumm had included some verbiage
suiting teaching and learning activities used by choral teachers, not those by instrumental music teachers (n =184) studied by Brakel. Gumm’s instrument has since been revised
and deemed suitable for all music teaching context (Gumm, 2003b). The ten dimensions
identified by Brakel revealed a teacher-directed norm in participants (i.e., high Group
Efficiency, Teacher Authority, and Nonverbal Motivation contrasted with lower priority
placed on Student Independence, Flexible Classroom Structure, and Group Dynamics).
Music teaching styles have been studied in relation to instrumental music program
retention rates. Brakel (1998) examined the relationship between teaching styles, as
measured by the ITMST, to retention rates of the programs of 184 Midwestern high
school band directors. Based on measured two-way interactions in certain pairs of teaching style dimensions, Brakel reported that high band student dropout was related to
teacher-directed teaching styles involving low degrees of student independence and 67
greater teacher control. Brakel recommended an increased emphasis on aesthetic music
performance in order to increase student retention. Although Brakel reported that
individual teaching style dimensions may not relate to attrition, the combinations of
certain dimensions may.
Summary of Section
Researchers have noted that learning environments are a complex interaction of a
teacher’s overall approach to instruction (i.e., teaching style), the way a learner prefers to
learn (i.e., learning style), personality types, and other aspects of education. Among the
many individual teaching and learning styles, it seems that teaching and learning styles
gravitate on a scale between student-directed/alternative and teacher-directed/traditional.
It would also seem that an understanding of teaching styles may contribute to a more
effective classroom and positive learning environment. Due to the variety of teaching and
learning styles possible, a variety of instructional approaches may be necessary in order
to prevent mismatches of students and teachers and, perhaps, increase academic
achievement and retention in music programs.
Summary of the Chapter
Student-directed instruction seems to occur when teachers value principles related
to constructivist theory, experiential learning theory, self-regulation theory, and problem-
based learning approaches. Researchers have found many positive reasons to design
instruction around these principles. Educational outcomes may include independent students who are in greater control of their learning, resulting from their participation in
activities promoting personal choice, personal exploration, self- and peer-assessment,
cooperative learning, critical thinking, creative or interdisciplinary projects, and 68 questioning techniques or discussion. Several music education researchers have investigated teaching and learning strategies that are situated within a student-directed philosophy. In addition, authors of music education pedagogical literature espouse instructional methods that are inherently student-directed. Strengths of student-directed instruction continue to be discussed and pedagogies have been suggested that could be implemented in the band room.
Student-directed instruction and teacher-directed instruction are relatively opposite teaching styles and teachers seem to prefer one over the other. Teaching style researchers have suggested that teachers may teach through the manner they were taught or prefer to learn, and that teaching styles should align with the learning styles of students. There have been suggestions in music teaching style research, particularly those based on Gumm’s theory, that student-directed instruction should be explored by future music researchers and educators as it may relate to many aspects of music programs, including retention and greater involvement of students in their own learning.
69
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to describe the teaching and learning strategies
demonstrated by middle school instrumental music teachers who reported a student-
directed teaching style. First, a pilot study that informed the research design of the
present study will be described. Second, the present study will be detailed in two separate
stages. The discussion of each stage includes: (a) participant selection process, (b)
materials to be used, (c) procedures for data collection, and (d) data analysis. Finally, the
procedures used to ensure validity and reliability will be described.
Design
This study was a mixed methods study conducted in two stages. As Creswell
(2003) described, with the development, and perceived legitimacy, of both qualitative and
quantitative research within the social sciences, mixed methods research employs data
collection methods from both types of research. Mixed methods research designs are
relatively new but are expanding in use and, although more complicated, take advantage
of the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research. This study used a
sequential, quantitative first two-stage mixed methods design placing priority on
quantitative data and statistical analyses, but also employing qualitative data collection
methods in a second stage to enrich perspective on student-directed teaching and learning strategies. As Creswell (2003) stated mixed methods research designs can, “expand an
understanding from one method to another [and] converge or confirm findings from different data sources” (p. 210). 70
In the first stage, quantitative data was gathered by a researcher-designed demographic questionnaire and Gumm’s Music Teaching Style Inventory (MTSI)
(Gumm, 2004b). This measurement instrument was used to determine participant teaching styles so that the most student-directed middle school band teachers could be determined. In the second stage, the three participants identified by the MTSI as being the most student-directed were observed and videotaped during five rehearsals, and interviewed following observation. Based on the analysis of videotapes, field notes, and interview notes, quantitative analyses and qualitative descriptions of student-directed band teachers were possible.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was completed that informed the present methodology (Bazan,
2007). The purpose of the pilot study was to examine a model high school instrumental music educator’s use of instructional strategies identified in the literature as having the potential to foster self-directed learning. One volunteer teacher, chosen from a group of instrumental music educators recommended by collegiate music faculty, was observed and videotaped conducting three ensemble rehearsals. During the observations, the researcher concurrently wrote field notes using a defined protocol (see Appendix I). In addition, semi-formal interviews on student-directed teaching practices were conducted with the participant director and eight students after the completion of all observed rehearsals. The first rehearsal videotape was discarded to minimize the effect of camera and researcher presence. Remaining videotapes and all interviews were transcribed and coded for teaching and learning strategies. Codes derived from the literature on self- regulation and emerging during data analysis included: (a) listening activities, (b) 71
modeling, (c) training in practice strategies, (d) providing students with self-
reflection/self-assessment activities, (e) questioning techniques, (f) problem solving, (g)
teacher-directed instruction, (h) student-directed instruction, and (i) non-instructional
behaviors. Based on the frequency distribution of codes it was determined that the
participant utilized teaching and learning strategies that appeared to promote self-directed
learning during all rehearsals.
Upon reflection, the researcher identified three limitations to the pilot study. First,
the pilot study was a case study of one individual instrumental music teacher. A larger
sample size, chosen in a manner designed to identify teachers with the specific attributes
of interest, may have the potential for a greater diversity of observed teaching and learning strategies. Second, analysis of only two rehearsal videotapes may be insufficient to accurately reflect a director’s repertoire of teaching and learning strategies. A more longitudinal approach by observing several rehearsals may uncover a greater variety of teaching strategies due to inherent variability between rehearsals. In addition, the validity of the findings could improve if there was a longer duration of field work (Gay &
Airasian, 2000). Finally, the teaching styles of the entire population of music teachers are not typically known by either peers or referring professors of music. By utilizing a measurement instrument capable of identifying music teachers’ proclivity toward the use of specific teaching and learning strategies, participants most inclined to utilize particular instructional approaches may be more readily and accurately recruited to participate in a study.
72
Study Stage One: Survey of Music Teaching Styles
Participants
In the first stage of the study, middle school instrumental music educators’ teaching styles were identified and participants for the second stage of the study selected.
Teachers of instrumental music in public middle schools from six counties in Northeast
Ohio (i.e., Cuyahoga, Lorain, Medina, Summit, Geauga, and Lake counties) were sampled for participation in Stage One of the study (N = 131). Northeast Ohio was chosen so that (a) a census of middle school band programs for a moderate-sized region was possible, and (b) the researcher could travel to observe any participants identified for
Stage Two of the study.
Middle school band educators teaching in area public schools were determined through several steps. First, the Ohio Department of Education maintained an Ohio
Educational Directory (Ohio Department of Education, 2006) internet database of schools and school districts, as well as school report cards that identified school districts, schools, and certain demographic information including school population and descriptive statistics (Ohio Department of Education, 2007). These publicly available resources were consulted to develop an initial list of middle school addresses.
Second, middle school internet websites were consulted to determine any missing contact information and band teacher names. Third, those middle schools without websites, or with out-of-date or incomplete websites, were contacted by phone or e-mail in order to determine accurate contact information and the existence of a band program.
In several urban middle schools there was no band program. Mailings were addressed to
‘Head Middle School Band Director’ for any schools where individual teacher names 73
were not determined or could not be divulged by schools. Finally, in the case of schools
with multiple instrumental music teachers, only the designated department head, or
otherwise one randomly selected instrumental music teacher from the school, was invited
to participate in order to maintain balanced geographic representation. For random
selection of instrumental music teachers in a school, teachers responsible for 7th- and
8th-grade band were listed and numbered. The number selected by randomizer.org research randomizer (Urbaniak, Plous & Lestik, 2007) identified the teacher to be contacted. One school district did not consent for their teachers, staff, or administration to be contacted for participation in Stage One of the study and band teachers from this district were excluded from the population (n = 9). This resulted in a final sample of 122 teachers who were contacted for participation.
Measurement Instruments
Two measurement instruments were required for Stage One of the study, one to gather demographic information, and another to identify student-directed band teachers.
First, a researcher-designed questionnaire was created in order to gather demographic data. Second, Gumm’s MTSI was used to identify teachers with a proclivity for student- directed instruction. These two instruments will be described in the following sections.
Questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete a researcher-designed questionnaire to gather demographic and other information (see Appendix C). First, participants were asked to enter a 5-digit unique identifier code, provided by randomizer.org (Urbaniak, Plous & Lestik, 2007), for matching MTSI responses to contact information for potential follow-up. Second, participants were asked whether they would be willing to be contacted regarding participation in the second stage of the study. 74
Finally, demographic information was requested including: (a) gender, (b) years of
teaching experience, (c) highest level of education completed (i.e., bachelors only,
masters, or doctorate), (d) nature of education and teacher licensure, (e) band student
population per grade, (f) school setting (i.e., rural, suburban, or urban), (g) frequency of
rehearsal per week, (h) amount of time per rehearsal, and (i) number of performances per
year. Other information including school enrollments, racial demographics, number of
economically disadvantaged students, and number of students with disabilities was
gathered from Ohio Department of Education school report cards (Ohio Department of
Education, 2007). Resulting information was used in describing participants and for
statistical computations to be detailed in upcoming sections.
Music Teaching Style Inventory. The MTSI was selected to identify the teaching
styles of participants. Versions of Gumm’s music teaching style surveys have been used
in, or adapted for, several dissertations and studies including those by Brakel (1994,
1998) and Tsai (2000). The MTSI has also been used in various musical areas including
instrumental music teaching (Brakel, 1991, 1998), choral music teaching (Gumm, 1992,
1993, 2003, 2004a, 2004c), and piano instruction (Tsai, 2000). The present version
(2004b) was provided by Gumm, a leading expert in the measurement of music teaching
styles, and has been designed to be used by any music teacher, at any level, and in any
curricular area.
The MTSI has been revised and repeatedly tested for validity and reliability (e.g.,
Gumm, 1992, 1994, 2004a, 2004c). The current version (2004b) is the result of several stages of research and revisions designed to improve the validity and reliability of the instrument. The MTSI was developed through several stages: (a) an initial list of 237 75
teaching behaviors identified in the literature (Gumm, 1992); (b) 134 distinct teaching
behaviors based on face validity and consolidation of comparable items; (c) 50 items, the
five most salient items for each of ten dimensions of music teaching style identified
through common factor analysis; (d) the 35 salient items remaining out of eight
dimensions of music teaching style shown through confirmatory factor analysis to have strong construct validity; and (e) 56 items by adding and modifying items to confirm, clarify, and expand upon previous dichotomous patterns of music teaching behavior, or introduce dimensions not recognized in previous models in music education (Gumm,
2004a). For the initial design of the MTSI, significant (p < .05) test-retest reliabilities
were found for each of the eight dimensions, ranging from .296 to .768 (see Table 3.1).
Cronbach alpha reliabilities for the current MTSI (2004b) averaged .80 and were
higher than prior versions (Gumm, 2004c). By analyzing alpha reliabilities after
removing and adding specific items and subscales of the MTSI, Gumm (2004c)
determined that removing any of the seven items for the dimensions of Nonverbal
Motivation, Positive Learning Environment, Music Concept Learning, Artistic Music
Performance, and Student Independence resulted in lower scores. This supported the
present construction of 56 items, seven items for each of eight dimensions. A practice
item was added to the beginning of the MTSI, making for 57 items, but is not included in
scoring.
The researcher contacted Dr. A. Gumm about the MTSI and whether it could be
used for the purpose of identifying student-directed teachers for the current study. Dr.
Gumm suggested that it could, as specific dimensions measured by the MTSI were found
to be associated with teacher- or student-directed teaching, lower- or higher-order 76
Table 3.1
Test-Retest Reliabilities for Gumm (1992)Teaching Style Dimensions
Sample Alpha Reliabilities Test-Retest
Scale First Validation Retest Reliability
35 Items .886 .886 .907
Student Independence .828 .784 .742 .657***
Music Concept Learning .722 .722 .846 .726***
Positive Learning Environment .723 .713 .353 .381***
Aesthetic Music Performance .723 .682 .796 .768***
Group Dynamics .691 .642 .736 .624***
Teacher Authority .678 .691 .484 .637***
Nonverbal Motivation .604 .580 .503 .362**
Time Efficiency .530 .592 .382 .296*
Note. Table as printed in Gumm (1992, p. 94); n = 417, 193, and 50 listwise. * p < .05 **p < .01 *** p < .001.
instruction, and were derived from the literature (A. Gumm, personal communication,
October 24, 2006). Gumm’s 2004c study clearly groups the eight teaching style dimensions in two 4-dimension clusters or higher-order factors. Gumm described the
first higher-order factor as comprised of Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal Motivation,
Time Efficiency, and Positive Learning Environment, which focus on having students
pay attention to the teacher or accomplish teacher-directed learning tasks. The second higher-order factor is comprised of the remaining four dimensions, which focus on learning that is independent of the teacher or occurring deeply within students, such as 77
self-responsibility, shared leadership, critical thinking, musical imagery, creativity, and
affect (Gumm, 2004c). In another study Gumm suggested that the MTSI dimensions
Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal Motivation, Positive Learning Environment and Time
Efficiency were indicators of a “teacher dependent active behavioral learning” (Gumm,
2004a, p. 12) environment. Alternately, Group Dynamics, Music Concept Learning,
Artistic Music Performance, and Student Independence were suggested as the four
dimensions related to a learning environment that prioritized “student-oriented reflective
cognitive learning” (p. 12).
The MTSI was determined as valid and reliable for identifying student-directed middle school band teachers. In the book Music Teaching Style: Moving Beyond
Tradition (Gumm, 2003b), each teaching style dimension is discussed in detail based on
Gumm’s prior research, writing, and understanding of teaching styles. Teaching and learning strategies are specifically detailed and were determined by the present researcher
to be aligned with definitions of either student- or teacher-directed teaching. Further, the
teaching style dimensions were built on a foundation of confirmatory factor analysis and
statistical computations by Gumm (1992, 1993, 2004a, 2004c) linking the resulting
dimensions to prior literature on teaching behaviors and styles as discussed above.
Other researchers have also suggested the link of certain teaching style
dimensions, as measured by music teaching style surveys based on the MTSI, with either
student- or teacher directed teaching styles (Brakel, 1998; Tsai, 2000). Finally, the
resulting MTSI items are sufficiently general and do not use choir or instrumental music
specific verbs, supporting its use with instrumental music teachers (see Appendix A).
Prior to using the MTSI the researcher submitted a conditional use agreement to Gumm 78
(see Appendix A) and received a Consent to Use the Music Teaching Style Inventory completed by Gumm (see Appendix B).
Procedure
The first stage of the study was completed by internet with hard copies of the measurement instruments mailed to two participants who requested them. Two participants did request and were sent hard copies of the measurement instruments. An
Instrumental Music Teacher Informed Consent Document for Survey Completion (see
Appendix D) confirmed that participants were (a) voluntarily completing the MTSI, (b) aware of the procedures of the study, and (c) aware of their rights related to the research.
Participants needed to read and accept the Instrumental Music Teacher Informed Consent
Document for Survey Completion before proceeding to the questionnaire and MTSI. The
MTSI, accompanying questionnaire, and Instrumental Music Teacher Informed Consent
Document for Survey Completion were all created in a web-accessible format using
SurveyMonkey survey design software (SurveyMonkey.com, 2006).
Several textbooks on survey research were consulted in order to develop the questionnaire, survey invitations, and survey administration process including those by
Dillman (2000), Gay and Airasian (2000), and Creswell (2002). A Survey Invitation (see
Appendix E) was sent via U. S. mail to all identified teachers, with instructions detailing how to access and complete the online survey. In order to increase return rate, the cover letter provided the researcher’s contact information and methods for the participant to request a hard copy (i.e., paper) version of the survey, which was sent with an addressed, stamped, return envelope. A deadline of ten days for completion was noted in bold-faced type in the invitation. Immediately after this deadline had elapsed, a Second Survey 79
Invitation (see Appendix F) was sent to all candidates who had not submitted the MTSI.
Gay and Airasian (2000) noted that mailings beyond the second are not cost-effective, increasing return rates by 10% or less. However, a Reminder Postcard was sent to all candidates who had not submitted the MTSI 10 days after the second mailing because the target response rate was not met (see Appendix G). Finally, on two occasions e-mails with the contents of the Reminder Postcard were sent to those candidates whose e-mail addresses could be determined. In total, the population was contacted five times over 30 days.
To minimize the number of people viewing data and participant responses, all data was handled by the researcher. The addressed, stamped, return envelopes included with paper versions were addressed to the researcher’s home address, where mail was delivered into a locked mailbox to which only the researcher had a key. MTSI submissions were accessed online in a password-protected account and downloaded in a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to a password-protected user account on the researcher’s personal computer. Data was backed up daily to a secure folder on an external Western
Digital hard drive. All data was kept strictly confidential and protected by the researcher.
Data Analysis
From the original sample of 131 middle school band directors, 122 were eligible to be contacted due to one school district not granting the researcher permission to contact their teachers (n = 9). After all survey distribution procedures were completed, 57 surveys were returned representing a return rate of 46.7%. Six respondents began the survey, but selected “No, I do not wish to complete the survey and will now exit my browser” after reading the informed consent form and did not complete the survey; their 80 responses were excluded from data analysis. Two other participants did not complete their surveys. New invitations, with new identification numbers, were sent to these participants, but neither survey was completed and their responses were excluded from data analysis.
In order to enable participants most likely to use student-directed instruction to be contacted for the second stage of the study, each MTSI invitation included a unique numeric code that corresponded to a list of participant contact information. This identification code was input by participants into the online version of the survey. One participant input ‘band’ for their identification code. Although data from this survey could not be matched to contact information for Stage Two participation, data were used
Stage One data analysis. Therefore, the total number of surveys used in Stage One data analysis was 49, representing a final return rate of 40.2%.
To analyze the data from Stage One, participant responses to the MTSI were added together for each student-directed teaching style dimension. MTSI data resulted in eight sub-scores for: (a) Assertive Teaching, (b) Nonverbal Motivation, (c) Time
Efficiency, (d) Positive Learning Environment, (e) Group Dynamics, (f) Music Concept
Learning, (g) Artistic Music Performance, and (h) Student Independence (see Appendix
A). Seven, 5-level Likert-type items were included on the MTSI for each dimension. A composite SDI score was created for MTSI dimensions supported by the literature as indicating student-directed teaching styles (i.e., Group Dynamics, Music Concept
Learning, Artistic Music Performance, and Student Independence). Student-directed teaching style dimensions comprising the SDI score and their corresponding MTSI item numbers are shown in Table 3.2. 81
Table 3.2
Student-Directed Teaching Style Dimensions and Corresponding MTSI Items
Teaching Style Dimension MTSI Item Numbers
Group Dynamics 6, 14, 22, 30, 38, 46, 54
Music Concept Learning 7, 15, 23, 31, 39, 47, 55
Artistic Music Performance 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56
Student Independence 9, 17, 25, 33, 41, 49, 57
Note. Item numbers are based on the instructions in Gumm (2004b), as located in Appendix A.
Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions for survey responses were
computed in a Microsoft Excel 2007 spreadsheet. Relationships between selected
demographic factors and MTSI scores were examined using Pearson Product Moment
Correlations. Differences in respondents’ MTSI scores based on demographics were
examined using MANOVAs, ANOVAs, or t-tests depending on the number of groups and the nature of the data analysis. All statistics used to analyze relationships and differences were computed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 15.0 advanced statistical software (SPSS Inc., 2007).
Study Stage Two: Rehearsal Observation
Participants
Participants were ranked based upon their preference for student-directed instruction as found in the analysis of data during Stage One and teachers with the three
highest SDI scores were invited to participate in stage two of the study. Prior to
contacting individual teachers, an Administrator Information Letter was provided to
building administrators (see Appendix H) requesting formal written permission to 82 conduct research in their school. Any additional protocols required by the school district were followed by the researcher. Administrator consent letters were submitted as research protocol addendums to the Case Western Reserve University Institutional Review Board
(IRB). Upon receipt of formal written consent to conduct research from both school administrators and IRB, the researcher initiated contact by phone, letter, and email with participants, inviting them to participate in videotaping and observation of five 7th- or
8th-grade middle school band rehearsals. When a school or teacher declined participation in Stage Two of the study, or when the teacher could not be contacted after one week, the researcher began contact procedures for the teacher with the next highest SDI score. This process continued until three participants were secured for rehearsal observation and interviews. The final participants secured for Stage Two of this study reported the third, fourth, and sixth highest SDI scores (i.e., within the top 12.2% of SDI scores).
Procedure
Stage Two of the study involved the observation and videotaping of rehearsals, and participant interviews. Resulting video footage and field notes were coded for analysis of the instructional practices utilized throughout rehearsals. The researcher recorded field notes using an observational protocol. In the observational protocol, field note pages were divided into three columns with (a) clock time in the first column, (b) observations in a second column, and (c) researcher reflections or interpretations in a final column (Creswell, 2002, 2003) (see Appendix I).
A JVC GR-D350U Digital Video Camcorder using Sony LP-90 60 minute Mini-
DV cassettes was placed on a tripod at the periphery of the room and focused on the participating teacher for all video recording. During observations the video recorder was 83 turned on at the first instance of the students being brought to attention by the teacher, and turned off upon dismissal of students. The researcher sat at a station away from the camera, outside the recorder field of view, and remained stationary throughout the rehearsal in order to minimize observer effect, interactions with participants, and disruptions to instruction (Gay & Airasian, 2000). Whenever possible the video recorder was kept stationary at the periphery of the classroom. However, as student-directed activities comprised activities that utilized space and teacher proximity or movement in unexpected ways, the researcher moved the video recorder as necessary to maintain the teacher in the video field of view.
An Instrumental Music Teacher Information Letter/Script for Rehearsal
Observation and Instrumental Music Teacher Informed Consent Document for Rehearsal
Observation were distributed to the three student-directed teachers selected (see
Appendix J and K respectively). Five rehearsals for observation and videotaping were scheduled with participants. After the fifth rehearsal observation a semi-formal interview was conducted with each participant. When scheduling rehearsals for videotaping, the researcher confirmed with each participating teacher that videotaped classes would be typical rehearsals representative of other rehearsals during the year and occurring at least one week away from important concerts or contests, as the proximity of concerts could affect instructional choices. Prior to the first observed rehearsal the researcher distributed a Student and Parent Information Letter to students (see Appendix L). This letter included information about the study and instructions on how they could receive further information. 84
To determine student-directed instructional practices that occurred beyond the
classroom, or outside the period observation, semi-formal interviews soliciting
information about student-directed instructional practices were conducted with
participating teachers at the end of the school day following the fifth observation.
Interviews also allowed for participants to detail their own perspectives on observed
instructional practices. For all interviews, an interview protocol suggested by Creswell
(2002) was used (see Appendix M). As an interview was conducted, the researcher
recorded notes on a page divided into two columns, with participant responses in the first
column, and an area for researcher reflections in a second column. All interviews were
videotaped for later transcription, coding, evaluation, and reflection.
To conduct semi-formal interviews, a structured list of questions was provided to
participants after the final observation and brought to participant interviews (Creswell,
2002). Participants were provided time to read the questions and collect their thoughts.
Additional questions were added as appropriate during interviews, particularly to
investigate the development and use of repeated student-directed teaching practices
observed during field work. The review of literature and pilot study informed the
development of questions for the current study, including questions listed by Shapiro
(2003) for identifying constructivist classrooms. Texts on teaching frameworks were also
consulted, including Danielson (1996) and Tomlinson (1999) to determine areas of
teaching practices. For example, Danielson grouped teaching practices into four domains:
(a) Planning and Preparation, (b) The Classroom Environment, (c) Instruction, and (d)
Professional Responsibilities. Initial interview questions are listed in Appendix N and
address areas of teaching philosophy, assessment, student development, planning, 85 instruction, the learning environment, interaction with parents, and interaction with other teachers.
Data Analysis
To minimize the effects of camera and researcher presence in data analysis, the first rehearsal videotape and field notes for each participant were not coded or used
(Goolsby 1996, 1997; Gay & Airasian, 2000). Leedy and Ormrod (2001) stated the presence of tape recorders and video cameras can make participants uncomfortable and could change teacher and student behaviors affecting quantitative data analysis. To begin data analysis procedures, the video recorder was connected by firewire to an Alienware
Area-51 computer running Windows Vista Home Premium with an Nvidia Geforce 8800
GTS video card and Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS soundcard. Video recordings were captured and compiled for use by Transana 2.20 video analysis software (Woods &
Fassnacht, 2007) using Microsoft Windows Movie Maker 6.0 with maximum quality settings and compressed using Ashampoo Movie Shrink and Burn 2.0 into files useable by Transana. Resulting video footage was coded for teaching and learning strategies using Transana. Recordings were kept in a password protected administrator account on the researcher’s computer.
The examination of rehearsal video clips was informed by traditional content analysis procedures (Schwandt, 2001). The researcher began analysis by creating a set of codes through a two-step process. First, an a priori investigation of videotape content and field notes was conducted to develop an understanding of the instructional practices used by participants. Second, the literature on student-directed instruction was examined for terms related to this teaching style. A three category framework found in the pilot study 86 was also utilized: (a) teacher-directed instruction; (b) student-directed instruction; and (c) non-instructional behaviors.
The coding process relied primarily on manifest coding. Manifest coding is an objective approach to coding data by considering the visible, surface content and simply reporting the existence or non-existence of a code (e.g., either the participant asked questions of students or not). Manifest coding is reported as highly reliable because the code phrase or word is either present or not (Neuman, 2002). However, because manifest coding does not take into account the meaning or context of codes, latent coding was also utilized for some teaching practices. Latent coding, or semantic analysis, emerged during data analysis so that context and meaning in observations, video, and interviews could be considered when assigning codes (e.g., a question was asked by the participant but was not intended for a student-directed response, therefore would be coded under teacher- directed instruction). In these cases, the researcher’s previous experience as an instrumental music educator and familiarity with the literature provided the foundation for interpreting the data. A coding manual, including a list with definitions and examples of codes, is located in Appendix O.
In Transana coding software, video was input into the program and appeared in a user interface above a transcription and list of codes. A segment of video demonstrating a specific code was selected by designating a start and end point in a video timeline connecting it to a corresponding section of transcript. Next, codes were attached to each video clip/transcript selection. Video clips designated and coded in this manner thereby had both a time and associated code. The length of time for each video clip, length of time of each individual code, number of video clips, and frequency of each individual 87 code was measured by Transana and displayed in report screens. Lengths of times for individual video clips were input into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for computations.
Interview transcripts, interviewer notes, and field notes were coded using Weft
QDA 1.01 qualitative analysis software (Fenton, 2006). No names were used within transcriptions. In the transcripts, identification numbers were used to signify participants and the word ‘researcher’ to represent the researcher. All speech in videotapes was transcribed with any descriptions of behaviors appearing in parentheses. In Weft QDA, transcription sections were highlighted and attached to categories and codes. Next, report screens were sorted, analyzed, and frequencies of codes were computed. Reports were analyzed for any themes and information that could contribute to discussion of participants’ teaching and learning practices.
Validity and Reliability
Several steps were taken to ensure the validity and reliability of measurements and resulting discussion. Validity is how well a test or methodology measures what it is intended to measure and reliability is how consistently a test or methodology measures what it is designed to measure (Gay & Airasian, 2000). Triangulation is the use of multiple sources of data in order to create a more complete picture and to cross-check information (Gay & Airasian, 2000; Creswell, 2003; Leedy & Ormrod, 2001).
Validity and reliability were ensured by: (a) using a published measurement instrument (i.e., MTSI), that has reported content validity, construct validity, and reliability to identify teachers with a proclivity for student-directed instruction; (b) basing the study on a pilot study using the same observation protocol and coding process, thereby enabling practice of research methods to help ensure accuracy of observations 88
(Leedy & Ormrod, 2001); (c) checking questionnaires and interview questions for face
validity; (d) consulting experts to assess questionnaires and interview questions for face
validity; (e) determining interview questions and codes based on the literature to ensure
content validity, (f) using MTSI results, observational field notes, videotapes, and
interviews to triangulate data sources in order to justify themes and discussions; and (g)
emphasizing manifest coding when coding videotapes for quantitative analysis (Neuman,
2002).
Finally, member checking was used to ensure the accuracy of the researcher’s observations. Participants were provided with their section of Stage Two results (see
Chapter Four) and asked whether the researcher had accurately described their teaching and viewpoints. All three participants supported the reported results. Participant One and
Two did clarify one statement each and these statements were edited for the final report.
89
CHAPTER FOUR
Results
Introduction
Results of the study will be discussed in the order of the research questions, with
Stage One data being described first followed by Stage Two data. Quantitative data was
collected during Stage One using a researcher-designed demographic questionnaire and
Gumm’s (2004b) Music Teaching Style Inventory (MTSI). Selected demographics were
also collected from Ohio Department of Education school report cards (Ohio Department
of Education, 2007). Descriptive statistics were computed for the questionnaire, Ohio
Department of Education data, and MTSI items. Adding together scores from respective
MTSI dimensions resulted in teacher-directed instruction (TDI) and student-directed
instruction (SDI) scores. Specifically, Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal Motivation, Time
Efficiency, and Positive Learning Environment dimension scores were added together to calculate TDI scores, and Group Dynamics, Music Concept Learning, Artistic Music
Performance, and Student Independence dimension scores for SDI scores. Differences
between demographic groups by MTSI results were examined using MANOVAs,
ANOVAs, and t-tests depending on the number of groups and the nature of the data.
Relationships between selected demographic factors and MTSI results were examined
using Pearson Product-Moment Correlations.
Quantitative and qualitative data were collected during Stage Two of the study.
The three participants with the highest SDI scores who could be located were observed
and videotaped during five rehearsals. Data from the first rehearsal of each participant
was discarded in order to decrease researcher effect. Video footage was coded for 90
teaching and learning strategies using Transana 2.20 video analysis software (Woods &
Fassnacht, 2007). Frequencies of teaching and learning strategies and percentage of rehearsal time devoted to each strategy were computed. In addition to codes resulting
during video analysis, observational field notes, interview notes, and interview transcripts
were also collected. Resulting qualitative data were analyzed for themes and perspective
on the teaching and learning strategies used by middle school band teachers in Northeast
Ohio.
Stage One Results
From the original sample of 131 middle school band directors, 122 were eligible
to participate, as one school district did not grant the researcher permission to contact
teachers (n = 9). After all survey distribution procedures were completed, 57 surveys
were returned representing a return rate of 46.7%. Six respondents began the survey but
selected “No, I do not wish to complete the survey and will now exit my browser” after
reading the informed consent form and did not complete the survey; their responses were
excluded from data analysis. Two other participants started, but did not complete their
surveys. New invitations, with new identification numbers, were sent to these
participants, but neither survey was completed and their responses were excluded from
data analysis. Finally, one participant input ‘band’ for their identification code. Although
data from this survey could not be matched to contact information for Stage Two
participation, data were used for the results of Stage One. Therefore, the total number of
surveys used in Stage One data analysis was 49, representing a final return rate of 40.2%.
91
Demographic Questionnaire
The first item asked whether participants were willing to be contacted to
participate in observations, videotaping, and interviews for Stage Two of the study. Of
the 49 participants, 28 (57.1%) were willing to be contacted for follow-up, 21 (42.9%)
were not. Demographic information was gathered by the next five questions of the
survey. Results from Question 1 showed that a majority of participants were male (n =
32, 65.3%) and 17 (34.7%) were female. Participants had completed from 1 to 34 years
of teaching (M = 17.63 years, SD = 10.66) with a median of 18 years. Next, participants
were categorized based on their years of experience. Five (10.2%) participants were
novices (three or fewer years of experience), 11 (22.4%) had intermediate levels of
experience (four to ten years of experience), and 33 (67.3%) were experienced teachers
(more than ten years of experience).
Six questions were designed to investigate the level and nature of participants’
education; 26 (53.1%) had Masters degrees, 19 (38.8%) had only Bachelor degrees, and 4
(8.2%) had completed Doctoral degrees. Most participants had completed Bachelor
degrees emphasizing music education (n = 45, 91.8%), two (4.1%) participants had dual majors in music performance and music education, one (2.0%) participant had a major in music performance, and one (2.0%) participant reported an emphasis in music education, music performance, and jazz studies. Most participants had received their teaching license through traditional Bachelors programs (n = 46, 93.9%), with two (4.1%) participants receiving their license during their Masters degree, and one (2.0%) participant receiving a teaching license through a post-baccalaureate program. Most participants’ undergraduate area of emphasis was band (n = 45, 91.8%), while three 92
(6.1%) participants had an emphasis in other areas (i.e., ‘percussion’ or ‘all instruments’), and one (2.0%) had an emphasis in general music. The area of emphasis during the
Masters programs of participants with Masters (n = 30) is shown in Table 4.1 and the area of emphasis during participants’ doctoral programs (n = 4) in Table 4.2.
Table 4.1
Area of Emphasis of Masters Degrees
Type of Degree n %
Music Education 19 63.3
Music Performance 2 6.7
Education 2 6.7
Administration 2 6.7
Business Education 1 3.3
Counseling 1 3.3
Curriculum and Instruction 1 3.3
Conducting 1 3.3
Jazz Studies 1 3.3
Total 30 100.0
93
Table 4.2
Area of Emphasis of Doctoral Degrees
Type of Degree n %
Music Education 1 25.0
Urban Education 1 25.0
Arts Administration 1 25.0
Juris Doctorate 1 25.0
Total 4 100.0
Participants’ teaching environments, employment status, band enrollments,
rehearsal schedules, and frequency of performance were explored by several questionnaire items. The majority of teachers taught in suburban schools (n = 31, 63.3%) with 13 (26.5%) teaching in urban schools, and five (10.2%) in rural schools. Most teachers were employed full-time (n = 48, 98.0%), with only one participant being
employed part-time (2.0%). The enrollments in both 7th- and 8th-grade bands were
investigated with a reported range of 2 to 143 students in 7th-grade band (M = 46.10
students, SD = 29.04) and a range of 1 to 125 students in 8th-grade band (M = 42.00
students, SD = 26.05).
The number and length of band rehearsals held during each week were
investigated to provide information on amount of instructional time. The number of
rehearsals for 7th-grade bands ranged from 1 to 5 per week (M = 3.90, SD = 1.40) and 3
to 5 rehearsals for 8th-grade bands (M = 4.20, SD = 1.28). Length of rehearsals ranged
from 30 to 65 minutes for 7th-grade bands (M = 44.80, SD = 5.31) and 23 to 65 minutes 94
for 8th-grade bands (M = 44.77, SD = 6.12). Mean rehearsal time per week ranged from
34 to 260 minutes for 7th-grade bands (M = 174.97, SD = 65.99) and 45 to 260 minutes for 8th-grade bands (M = 187.65, SD = 61.39).
The final question of the demographic questionnaire examined the number of concerts presented by bands, which ranged from 1 to 8 concerts per scholastic year. On average, 7th-grade bands performed 3.10 concerts per year (SD = 1.23) and 8th-grade bands performed 3.47 concerts (SD = 1.36). Two participants did not have, or were not responsible for, 8th-grade band, so the data from these participants were not included in
8th-grade band statistics.
Music Teaching Style Inventory
The second component of the survey was Gumm’s (2004b) Music Teaching Style
Inventory (MTSI) (see Appendix A). The MTSI was used to determine the teaching styles of participants and rank them on a scale from least to most student-directed. An
SDI score was determined by adding the results from the 5-level Likert-type scales (1 =
Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, and 5 = Always) for those items related to student-directed dimensions: Group Dynamics, Student Independence, Artistic Music
Performance, and Music Concept Learning (see Table 3.2). There were seven items for each of the dimensions. Therefore, the minimum score a participant could report if never using any student-directed instruction was 28 and the maximum 140 if always using student-directed instruction. Final SDI scores ranged from 57 (i.e., rarely use student- directed items) to 119 (i.e., frequently use student-directed items). The mean SDI score was 86.37 (SD = 15.62; i.e., sometimes use student-directed instruction). Based on the 95
results, there was a wide range of teaching styles with some participants reporting that
they frequently used student-directed instruction.
The teacher-directed dimensions (TDI) of the MTSI were also calculated to gain
additional perspective on the teaching styles of band teachers. A TDI score was
determined by adding the results from the 5-level Likert-type scales (1 = Never, 2 =
Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, and 5 = Always) for those items related to teacher- directed dimensions: Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal Motivation, Time Efficiency, and
Positive Learning Environment. Final TDI scores ranged from 94 (i.e., sometimes use teacher-directed items) to 135 (i.e., frequently use teacher-directed items). The mean TDI score was 111.88 (SD = 9.97; i.e., always use teacher-directed instruction). Table 4.3
shows descriptive statistics for overall TDI scores, SDI scores, and individual
dimensions.
Differences and Relationships in Teaching Styles
Gender. T-tests for independent samples were computed for all 57 individual
items of the MTSI with participants grouped by gender. In all cases the first MTSI item
was not considered as it was designed as a practice item by Gumm. Significant
differences (p < .05) were found for several items as shown in Table 4.4. Males were
significantly more likely to: (a) verbally demand students’ attention to tasks, (b) help
students refine musical sound images in their memory, (c) require students to respond
quickly to directions, (d) keep a brisk pace of activities during rehearsals, (e) keep
students busy and active, and (f) give specific feedback as to how students respond to
directions. Females were more likely to have students rehearse music in small groups.
96
T-tests for independent samples based on gender were also computed for MTSI
dimension scores and TDI and SDI scores. Male respondents (M = 29.44, SD = 3.28)
were significantly more likely (t(47) = 2.171, p = .04) to prioritize the teacher-directed
dimension Time Efficiency than female respondents (M = 27.47, SD = 2.43). This
suggested that male teachers were more likely than female teachers to emphasize the
amount and pacing of instruction occurring during a rehearsal. There was no significant
difference between overall TDI and SDI scores based on gender.
Table 4.3
Teaching Styles of Middle School Band Teachers
Dimension M SD
TDI Total 111.88 9.97
Assertive Teaching 28.14 3.67
Nonverbal Motivation 25.90 3.81
Time Efficiency 28.76 3.13
Positive Learning Environment 29.08 3.17
SDI Total 86.37 15.62
Group Dynamics 19.98 4.37
Music Concept Learning 23.57 4.11
Artistic Music Performance 21.84 4.86
Student Independence 20.98 4.95
Note. Dimensions are presented in the order of the MTSI. For individual dimension means, 7-10 = Never, 11-17 = Rarely, 18-24 = Sometimes, 25-31 = Frequently, and 32-35 = Always. For TDI or SDI means, 28- 41 = Never, 42-69 = Rarely, 70-97 = Sometimes, 98-125 = Frequently, and 126-140 = Always. This is based on the MTSI individual item scoring.
97
Table 4.4
Significant t-test Results for MTSI Items by Gender
MTSI Item t p M M Female Male
2. (TD) Verbally demand sharp attention to 1.995 .01 3.76 4.28 tasks. 6. (SD) Have students rehearse music in -2.933 .01 3.71 2.81 separate small groups. 16. (SD) Help students refine the musical 2.123 .04 2.47 3.09 sound images in their memory. 20. (TD) Require students to act quickly to 2.267 .03 3.82 4.25 directions. 28. (TD) Keep a brisk pace of activities 2.818 .01 3.76 4.28 throughout the rehearsal.
36. (TD) Keep students busy and active as 2.742 .01 4.18 4.56 much as possible. 50. (TD) Give specific feedback as to how 2.586 .01 3.18 3.72 students respond to directions.
Note. Means as reported on a 5-level Likert-type scale with 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Frequently, and 5 = Always. TD signifies an item from a teacher-directed dimension; SD from a student- directed dimension. df = 47.
Experience. Relationships between participants’ years of teaching experience and individual MTSI dimensions and overall TDI and SDI scores were examined using
Pearson Product Moment Correlations. No significant relationships were found. Based on their years of experience, participants were then grouped into (a) novices (three or fewer years of experience), (b) intermediate (four to ten years of experience), and (c)
experienced teachers (more than ten years of experience). Multiple analyses of variance
(MANOVA) were computed to determine whether there were any significant differences
in MTSI items among experience groups. If MANOVAs yielded any significant 98
differences (p < .05), one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were computed on those specific items with least significant difference (LSD) post hoc tests and descriptive analyses calculated to determine the exact nature of the differences. One significant difference, F(2,46) = 6.89, p = .00, was identified in how frequently teachers help students rate and characterize how they feel about music. Resulting analysis revealed that novice participants (M = 3.60, SD = .55) were significantly more likely than either
intermediate (M = 2.36, SD = .81, p = .00) or experienced teachers (M = 2.30, SD = .73,
p = .00) to help students rate and characterize how they feel about music. No significant
differences were found between intermediate and experienced teachers. MANOVAs were
also computed with MTSI dimension scores (i.e., Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal
Motivation, Time Efficiency, Positive Learning Environment, Group Dynamics, Music
Concept Learning, Artistic Music Performance, and Student Independence) and overall
TDI and SDI scores yielding no significant differences found among experience groups.
School Location. Differences between participants’ teaching styles based on
where their school was located were examined. MANOVAs computed for individual
MTSI items with participants grouped by school location (i.e., rural, suburban, or urban)
yielded a significant difference (p = .01) for how frequently teachers praised students for
doing a good job. ANOVA results for this item revealed that teachers in urban schools
(M = 4.85, SD = .38) were significantly more likely, F(2,46) = 5.38, p = .00, than
suburban teachers (M = 4.19, SD = .65) to praise students when they did a good job.
There were no significant differences between teachers in rural and suburban schools, or
urban and rural schools. MANOVAs were also computed for individual MTSI 99
dimensions and overall TDI and SDI scores based on school locations with no significant
differences being found among school location groups.
Level of Education. The differences in teaching styles based on teachers’ level of education were investigated. MANOVAs were computed for individual MTSI items based on participants’ level of education (i.e., bachelors, masters, or doctorate), yielding no significant differences. MANOVAs were likewise computed for individual MTSI dimensions and overall TDI and SDI scores based on level of education. No significant differences were found.
Band Enrollment, Rehearsals, and Concerts. The relationship between band enrollments, rehearsal length, number of rehearsals per week, number of concerts per week, and teaching styles were examined by Pearson Product Moment Correlations.
Three significant relationships (p < .05) were found based on the number of students enrolled in bands. First, the enrollment levels of 7th-grade bands had a significant, positive, weak relationship (p = .03, r = .32) with the teacher-directed dimension
Assertive Teaching. Second, there was a significant, positive, weak relationship between
7th-grade band enrollment (p = .04, r = .30) and the teacher-directed dimension Time
Efficiency. Third, there was a significant, positive, weak relationship between 8th-grade
band enrollment (p = .02, r = .34) and the teacher-directed dimension Time Efficiency.
Analyzing the relationship between the average number of rehearsals bands had
during each week and teaching style dimension scores, and between number of rehearsals
and overall TDI and SDI scores, yielded one significant, negative, weak relationship (p =
.047, r = -.29) between the number of rehearsals and use of strategies within the
dimension Positive Learning Environment. Finally, two significant correlations were 100
found related to the number of concerts presented by 8th-grade bands during the scholastic year. First, there was a significant, positive, weak relationship (p = .02, r = .33) between number of concerts and proclivity for the teacher-directed dimension Nonverbal
Communication. Second, there was a significant, positive, weak relationship (p = .03,
r = .31) between the number of concerts performed by 8th-grade bands and proclivity for
the student-directed dimension Music Concept Learning.
School Demographics. Based on data found in Ohio Department of Education
school report cards (Ohio Department of Education, 2007), relationships between school-
wide standardized test performance indexes, school enrollment, percentage of
economically disadvantaged students, and percentage of students with disabilities and
teaching style dimension scores and overall TDI and SDI scores were computed by
Pearson Product Moment Correlations. Although this data was about the school and not
specifically generated from the band program, the data was analyzed to determine if there
were indications of school wide influences on either teacher- or student-directed instruction. A significant, negative, weak relationship (p = .02, r = -.34) was found
between school standardized test performance indices and teachers prioritizing the
student-directed dimension Group Dynamics. A significant, negative, weak relationship
(p = .02, r = -.33) was also found between school enrollment and teachers prioritizing the
student-directed dimension Student Independence.
Teacher-Directed and Student-Directed Instruction. The relationship between
teacher-directed instruction and student-directed instruction was investigated using a
Pearson Product Moment Correlation. As detailed above, Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal
Motivation, Time Efficiency, and Positive Learning Environment dimension scores were 101 added together to calculate TDI scores, and Group Dynamics, Music Concept Learning,
Artistic Music Performance, and Student Independence dimension scores for SDI scores.
This analysis yielded a significant, positive, moderate relationship (p = .00, r = .52) between TDI and SDI scores.
Stage Two Results
The second stage of the study was designed to answer Research Questions 3, 4, and 5. Research Question 3 questioned what the teaching and learning practices utilized by student-directed instrumental music teachers are. This question was answered by examining data generated from videotapes, field notes, and interviews. Research
Question 4 addressed the frequency with which each student-directed teaching and learning strategy was used by teachers, while Research Question 5 concerned the percentage of class time participants devoted to student-directed strategies. To answer these two questions codes were examined, and computations made for frequency distributions and percentages of overall rehearsal time of teaching and learning strategies during rehearsals. All statistical analyses were computed using Microsoft Excel
Professional 2007 running on the researcher’s password protected computer running
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.
The selection process for Stage One was designed to identify middle school band teachers most likely to use student-directed instruction in order to observe and document their teaching and learning practices. Contact protocols took place in order of SDI score, beginning with the teacher with the highest score. School principals were contacted first.
Written consent was received by principals, submitted to the Case Western Reserve
University Institutional Review Board, and permission to contact and coordinate 102 observations with band teachers obtained. Because the teachers with the first, second, and fifth highest SDI scores were unwilling to participate in observations or videotaping, the teachers with the third, fourth, and sixth highest SDI scores were secured as participants in Stage Two. Participants were not told what the researcher was studying, but were told what the researcher would be doing within the classroom and that the videotaping needed to take place at least one week prior to important state contests or concerts. Informed consent documents were distributed and signed by participants and letters of explanation were sent home with students to their parents. These materials detailed the research methods of the study and participant rights.
All observations, videotaping, and interviews took place between April 23, 2007 and May 4, 2007. The Ohio Music Education Association Junior High/Middle School
Large Group Adjudicated Event, which Participant Two and Three were preparing for, occurred on May 11-12, 2007. Other concerts were also planned after this event. During this period, a total of 7 hours, 43 minutes, and 1 second of video footage was recorded for analysis (i.e., 12 rehearsals). Video footage was transcribed and time codes inserted within Transana 2.20 video analysis software (Woods & Fassnacht, 2007) at each change of speaker (e.g., teacher to student or teacher to student performance) and between each teaching or learning strategy (e.g., between when a teacher provided feedback and when they followed with an instruction). Each statement or activity was then coded resulting in
3516 individual video clips with a corresponding teaching and learning practice code.
During the coding process, three categories were determined: (a) Non-Instructional, or those statements and activities not directly related to music curricular content or skills,
(b) Student-Directed Instruction, and (c) Teacher-Directed Instruction. Definitions and 103 examples of each category and related teaching and learning strategies are detailed in the coding manual (see Appendix O).
Analysis of videotapes, field notes, and interview transcripts revealed similarities and differences in participants’ teaching practices. Therefore, each participant will be described separately, as reporting overall means of teaching and learning strategies would not provide a valid perspective of what occurred during rehearsals. Descriptions will begin with demographic details, followed by specific data on the teaching and learning strategies used by each participant, and conclude with general statements made during interviews. Categories and codes will be listed in the same order within tables in order to facilitate comparisons between participants (i.e., not ranked by use).
Participant One
The first participant was in his 20th year of teaching, an experienced teacher teaching at the median level of experience for Stage One respondents (median = 20 years of experience; M = 17.63 years). He had completed a Bachelor’s degree emphasizing music education and band, and received his teaching license through a traditional undergraduate music teacher education program. This participant had also completed a
Masters of Education degree. The teacher’s SDI score was the third highest of all Stage
One respondents, but he also had the sixth highest TDI score. Cumulative scores in each teaching dimension, as well as TDI and SDI scores, are shown in Table 4.5. Nonverbal
Motivation, Positive Learning Environment, and Music Concept learning were the MTSI dimensions most prioritized by this participant, with Group Dynamics being the least prioritized.
104
Table 4.5
Teaching Style of Participant One
Dimension Score
TDI Total 127
Assertive Teaching 30
Nonverbal Motivation 33
Time Efficiency 31
Positive Learning Environment 33
SDI Total 118
Group Dynamics 21
Music Concept Learning 33
Artistic Music Performance 32
Student Independence 32
Note. Dimensions are presented in the order of the MTSI. For individual dimension means, 7-10 = Never, 11-17 = Rarely, 18-24 = Sometimes, 25-31 = Frequently, and 32-35 = Always. For TDI or SDI means, 28- 41 = Never, 42-69 = Rarely, 70-97 = Sometimes, 98-125 = Frequently, and 126-140 = Always. This is based on the MTSI individual item scoring.
This participant taught full-time in a suburban junior high school (i.e., grades
seven to nine) located in a middle to upper class neighborhood in Northeast Ohio. The
school had an enrollment of 630, consisting of primarily Caucasian students (95.8%) as
reported by the Ohio Department of Education (Ohio Department of Education, 2007).
The band observed was a 7th-grade band with an enrollment of 38 students. The
ensemble seemed well balanced in instrumentation with flute, clarinet, alto/tenor
saxophones, bass clarinet, trumpet, trombone, French horn, baritone, and percussion 105 represented. The band rehearsed every day after lunch in a 44 minute block and held 3 concerts each scholastic year.
Goals and Objectives. Participant One stated that his goals and objectives were to develop student musical performance skill on instruments, and to develop students’ knowledge of musical concepts and principles of musicianship. Theory, musical concepts, and connections to other disciplines were important to this participant. The teacher’s own words best reflect what he desired to develop in students:
Participant One: I want them to be thoroughly familiar with what you would
consider the theory, the basic theory of music, so that they are performing it and
knowing what they are performing. Not just doing it correctly, but doing it and
knowing why they are doing it correctly. I choose music that features … most of
their skill set and just slightly outside of that. Hopefully it will stretch everybody.
It’s not the same every time but I do have a core of about five pieces that every
band does, pretty much every year. They just do it at different times. If they’re in
an advanced group, they’ll do it in the fall, and if it’s normal we’ll get to it by the
end of the year.
Researcher: The skills that you want students most to develop in your band are....
Participant One: Are the ones that come from the music. I would say
fundamentals of good tone, they’re up there on the board, “Play the notes at the
right time, with good tone, in tune, and with a sense of technical mastery,” so that
there’s no doubt in my mind, or theirs, that they know what to do.
Musical performance seemed to be both the primary classroom activity and primary goal of the course. However, there is an important learning outcome that could lead to use of 106
student-directed instruction: “Not just doing it correctly, but doing it and knowing why
[emphasized by speaker] they are doing it correctly.” It would seem that technical mastery and accurate performance were not enough for this teacher; students knowing about music and being engaged in metacognition were also valued.
Rehearsal Routines. The rehearsals instructed by this participant followed a general routine of: (a) long tone scales, sometimes in a round; (b) teacher modeling followed by student echoes, (c) breathing exercises, and (d) rehearsal of concert music.
To begin each class and warm-up students, the teacher modeled on trumpet a scale pattern that would evolve in complexity and range with each subsequent modeling.
Students immediately echoed the pattern modeled by the teacher. Occasionally the teacher provided some feedback in between each echo, discussing such things as posture, technique, and musical concepts. A favorite phrase that the teacher used during echoing
(and at other points during rehearsals) was “Good music is never the same twice.” This seemed to be provided in order to have students attend to the frequent variations found in music and to support improvisation and personal expression.
Following echoing activities, the teacher directed students through a variety of breathing exercises. The teacher provided feedback and instruction on breathing and posture, and motivated students verbally during breathing exercises, encouraging them to sustain their air supply. Of the three participants observed, this teacher devoted the most class time to warm-ups (i.e., M = 15 minutes, 42 seconds for Participant One; M = 3 minutes, 2 seconds for Participant Two; and M = 9 minutes, 32 seconds for Participant
Three). Warm-up activities seemed to be used not only to prepare students for rehearsal 107
of concert pieces, but also to (a) integrate instruction of musical concepts, (b) develop
instrumental technique, and (c) develop aural skills.
Rehearsal of concert musical selections commenced immediately after the warm-
up stage. A run-through of a selection began each rehearsal frame followed by the teacher refining musical performance. The teacher seemed relaxed during this stage of rehearsal and would ask students questions about the music and explain the music and musical
elements in ‘real world’ terms. That is, music elements and concepts were frequently
related to life and other subjects. The teacher used a wireless headset amplifying his
voice for the occasional vocal cues or instructions he delivered while the band performed.
Teaching and Learning Strategies. Related to his goals and objectives, it was
evident after analyzing videotape and observational field notes that this teacher valued
student performance on instruments. Students performed on their instruments for over a
quarter of class time (26.7%) and much teacher-talk or organizational time seemed
devoted to developing musical performance. However, there was minimal drill and
practice or frequent repetition of isolated measures. Teacher-directed instruction
remained the most utilized instructional category (61.3% of class time). Between and
during student performances on instruments, there were many examples of (a) direct
teacher modeling on an instrument, (b) teacher explanations about music and technical
skills, (c) teacher instructions for students to do something, and (d) students performing
what the teacher chose. Total instances of codes by instructional category are shown in
Table 4.6 and time devoted to each code is shown in Table 4.7.
Use of Student-Directed Instruction. Participant One’s use of student-directed
instruction amounted to 14.0% of rehearsal time (12.6% of instructional instances). Of 108
Table 4.6
Frequency of Use of Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant One
Average Category or Code Total per % of Total Instances Rehearsal Codes NON-INSTRUCTIONAL 305 76.3 21.5% Administrative 16 4.0 1.1% Behavioral Cues/Feedback 90 22.5 6.3% Building Rapport 73 18.3 5.1% Non-Instruction Related Student Talk 14 3.5 1.0% Organizational 89 22.3 6.3% Other Teacher Talk 23 5.8 1.6% STUDENT-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 179 44.8 12.6% Creativity 3 0.8 0.2% Peer Assessment 16 4.0 1.1% Problem Solving 8 2.0 0.6% Questioning 45 11.3 3.2% Self-Assessment 32 8.0 2.3% Student Choice 12 3.0 0.8% Student Explanation 45 11.3 3.2% Student-Directed Rehearsal 3 0.8 0.2% Other Student-Directed Strategy 15 3.8 1.1% TEACHER-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 936 234.0 65.9% Organization for Performance 164 41.0 11.5% Teacher-Directed Performance 213 53.3 15.0% Teacher Assessment 0 0.0 0.0% Teacher Explanation 119 29.8 8.4% Teacher Feedback 79 19.8 5.6% Teacher Feedback During Performance 12 3.0 0.8% Teacher Instruction 53 13.3 3.7% Teacher Instruction During Performance 56 14.0 3.9% Teacher Modeling 76 19.0 5.4% Teacher Modeling During Performance 23 5.8 1.6% Teacher Directed Questioning 56 14.0 3.9% Teacher-Directed Student Talk/Recall 60 15.0 4.2% Vocal Cues During Performance 18 4.5 1.3% Other Teacher Vocal During Performance 7 1.8 0.5%
TOTAL OF CATEGORIES 1420 355 100.0%
109
Table 4.7
Rehearsal Time Used for Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant One
Average Total Time per % of Category or Code Time (s) Rehearsal Rehearsal (m:s) Time NON-INSTRUCTIONAL 2444.8 10:11 24.6% Administrative 276.0 1:09 2.8% Behavioral Cues/Feedback 474.8 1:59 4.8% Building Rapport 375.6 1:34 3.8% Non-Instruction Related Student Talk 33.9 0:08 0.3% Organizational 999.9 4:10 10.1% Other Teacher Talk 284.6 1:11 2.9% STUDENT-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 1395.3 5:49 14.0% Creativity 30.8 0:08 0.3% Peer Assessment 266.1 1:07 2.7% Problem Solving 361.3 1:30 3.6% Questioning 176.6 0:44 1.8% Self-Assessment 106.2 0:27 1.1% Student Choice 107.1 0:27 1.1% Student Explanation 120.6 0:30 1.2% Student-Directed Rehearsal 101.0 0:25 1.0% Other Student-Directed Strategy 125.6 0:31 1.3% TEACHER-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 6093.2 25:23 61.3% Organization for Performance 817.3 3:24 8.2% Teacher-Directed Performance 2060.8 8:35 20.7% Teacher Assessment 0 0:0 0.0% Teacher Explanation 1311.4 5:28 13.2% Teacher Feedback 302.0 1:15 3.0% Teacher Feedback During Performance 24.3 0:06 0.2% Teacher Instruction 338.0 1:24 3.4% Teacher Instruction During Performance 209.0 0:52 2.1% Teacher Modeling 354.8 1:29 3.6% Teacher Modeling During Performance 278.1 1:10 2.8% Teacher Directed Questioning 204.4 0:51 2.1% Teacher-Directed Student Talk/Recall 114.5 0:29 1.2% Vocal Cues During Performance 61.0 0:15 0.6% Other Teacher Vocal During Performance 17.6 0:04 0.5%
TOTAL OF CATEGORIES 9933.3 41:23 100.0%
110 the three participants in Stage Two, this teacher used the most student-directed instruction, which primarily involved asking students about the music or having students explain concepts or skills in their own words. Questioning students about musical concepts and skills and awaiting their responses or explanations were the most frequently utilized student-directed strategies. For example, the teacher asked students about the meaning behind a style marking (e.g., “What does Maestoso mean?”). Students would call out descriptive words such as “strong” or “attack” and the teacher would select one of the student descriptions and ask students to apply it to the next performance. This differed from teacher-directed questioning which elicited simple recall or analysis of music, for example, asking students “Are there any dynamic markings we need to worry about?”
Self-assessment was also used occasionally, with the teacher asking students to rate their performance and identify musical elements they had problems with. Typically students were asked to raise their hands to questions such as “How many are having trouble with the rhythm?” or “How many feel they played that the best they ever have?”
Although not a formal self-assessment form, these sorts of questions effectively made students reflect upon their performance, and they did seem engaged and always ready to offer their opinions. Peer assessment was only used, on average, four times per rehearsal and included having students assess other sections’ performances, instrument intonations, or evaluate a performance recorded using SmartMusic in a prior rehearsal. Creativity and problem solving were rarely used, but included asking students to write a song about their standardized testing experiences or providing students with a musical problem such as subdividing musical phrases. It should be noted that problem solving and peer assessment 111 activities were longer and more time was devoted to these strategies than other, more frequently used strategies such as questioning. Other student-directed strategies used included having the students perform without the teacher conducting and offering students practice strategies for developing student-independence.
How Participant One’s teaching style developed was explored during his interview, with particular focus on those factors that contributed to his student-directed philosophies. The teacher’s own learning was cited as contributing to his approach to band instruction:
Participant One: I was brought up in Cleveland schools at a very good time. We
had a wonderful program looking back. A great, great, great bunch of teachers.
But it was still a military model. We had to sit with the horn on the knee, and you
dare not even move or flex or you’d be swatted out in the hallway. Emotionally
that never set with me, although I love music. So, I’m not totally trying to correct
the past, but I’ll tell kids, I’m trying to make your reality different from mine.… I
saw some people get turned off of music…. Although they’d not been
professional musicians, they would have kept up with it and it would have made a
difference in their life after some rough times. “I would really much like for you
to leave my class having it been one of the best things that you can look back to
and a reason for maybe building a connection to the rest of your life….” That
thing about hand-raising, “Who are my future so and so’s [e.g., doctors], who are
my future this [e.g., teachers]?” I’m trying to relate music to the rest of their life.
That has to be student-directed because I don’t control their life. “I want to know
how to choose pieces so that it fits with the things you see yourself doing.” 112
From his evidently teacher-directed musical training, Participant One had developed a
more student-directed approach, yet instruction seemed embedded in the traditional
rehearsal framework focused on performance as a major activity for a band.
This teacher seemed to understand the value of student-directed instruction, and
expressed a desire to utilize it more frequently. However, there were certain pressures
preventing more prevalent use of associated teaching and learning strategies. The teacher
stated that there were certain things that students cannot know or understand before the teacher tells them:
Participant One: My reality is that a lot of students are here because they think
it’s an easy ‘A.’ Well, I try to facilitate high achievement, but the grade can’t be a
giveaway. My first semester, a lot of things are “I want you to own your
knowledge.” “I want you to be able to own your knowledge.”.... You were talking
about non-verbal stuff, I don’t know if you picked up on that, but the practice is
what people do by theirselves. So I always show my hands splayed like that
(teacher holds spread hand up), “You have to do this, this, this, this, and this by
yourself, but I’ll show you how to do that. Then in rehearsal there are some things
that you can’t possibly do unless you’re here together and we merge that.” [I’m]
separating practice issues from rehearsal issues and, of course, putting them
together.
As Participant One noted, when it comes to performance on a musical instrument, there
are certain things that must be explained, taught, or demonstrated by a ‘master.’ Once
these skills are learned to a level of independence by students, then students can be held
responsible for their personal development. Further, this teacher alluded to the social 113 atmosphere inherent to band; much of what is done as a band is not done independently, but as a group.
To develop personal responsibility for musical development, the teacher had a poster on the wall with, “Time It, Tone It, Tune It, Tame It, Team It.” This was a checklist of steps to improving performance. Referring to the checklist during rehearsals, students were reminded about their personal responsibility to develop their performance and strategies on how to self-assess and practice independently. The steps in this checklist refer to: (a) developing rhythm and tempo, (b) creating a nice tone, (c) playing the note in tune and with accurate pitches, (d) using practice strategies to improve a musical line or technique, and (e) performing accurately with others. One practice strategy explained, modeled, and practiced by students during observations was the
“Target Technique.” This strategy began with a goal note being performed, for example, the downbeat at a rehearsal marking. The students then added the measure prior and practiced this until it was accurate. Subsequent measures were added in a backward progression until the musical phrase was “Tamed.” This seems a drill and practice technique, but developing technical mastery may require behavioral training of muscles, fingers, and other physical elements. The key, however, was that a practice strategy was being taught to students, in a system designed to empower students to self-assess and develop music efficiently and effectively during practice sessions.
Self-assessment seemed to be a skill that the teacher strived to develop in students. However, other than a practice card where students recorded their practice amounts and submitted them to the teacher, there were no formal handouts or self- assessment forms related to practice. There were mnemonic devices or checklists (as 114 discussed above) and self-reflection activities, albeit, not regularly through the curriculum:
Participant One: [Students self-assess] at the year’s end, yes. Not along the way.
Ninth grade has more of those. The band you observed no. They have peer
assessments and those are simply the Ohio State Music Education Association’s
state contest sheet. Like when they go away to band contest and solo and
ensemble contest, they fill out those on each other. They’ll perform a little etude
or something, or a section of the music, and they’re peer evaluated and not self-
evaluated. The eighth graders … they fill in their comments on the grade sheet at
interims, but I give them their final grade. I want to know whether they think they
are trying or not. The 9th-grade [get] two self-assessments, or one a semester. But
I make it sound bigger than what it is. It’s just short, “What have you learned
technically; what have you learned about timing, toning, tuning, taming, teaming
it that you didn’t know before?” It’s short, what we’re calling it in Ohio, extended
response. [Extended response] means short, but complete sentences, and that has a
rubric and we have to use the school guidelines to grade those.
The valuable outcome of self-assessment strategies was noted as metacognition and understanding how one develops musically:
Participant One: They need to convince me that they know how to do it right and
do it wrong; a lot of comparison. “Yes I know how you do it right, but how did
we get there?” There’s a lot of metacognition. I don’t tell them metacognition, but
“How do you know that you know that that’s the right way to do it? Can you
explain it a different way, can you play it wrong and then right, and then wrong, 115
and then right? What did you do to get there?” In the early part of the year we do
a lot of that by brainstorming. I’ll write down their suggestions on the board, and
then I’ll have them write down the suggestions that they think would help them in
that kind of situation. We were supposed to be keeping a log of that, and it goes in
their file.
The teacher seemed to value student input into the class activities, and even stated
that student ideas were helpful in developing musical performance. As this participant
implied, sometimes a student explanation is clearer to peers than the teacher explanation.
In one instance, following a few attempts by the teacher to achieve an appropriate
Maestoso style, the teacher asked for student ideas. One student provided the word
“strong” to describe a majestic style. On the next performance the band performed their music in a more suitable style, garnering praise from their teacher.
This participant felt that students were capable of self-monitoring and guiding their own independent practice at a young age:
Participant One: They can [self-monitor and guide their musical development]
really well, and I want to do more at the 7th-grade. They can do it at the 6th-grade
level. We’re going to be switching to middle schools and I plan to incorporate a
lot of that at the 6th-grade level. With SmartMusic, that lets them record their
performance and evaluate. I’m going to have them grade the five things that we
always talk about in class, the tone, the tune (is it in tune, is it out of tune), is it in
time, “Did you hear any notes that sounded out of tune in a melodic sense, or
when you played in the harmony did you feel you needed to adjust the tone up
and down?” … We also do a lot of with the [SmartMusic] tuner. If the student is 116
out of tune everybody can see it. And we ask them, just verbally again, “If you’re
sharp what do you need to do?” … Hopefully I can fade the cues on that so that
… they become self-correcting by the 8th- or 9th-grade.
As implied by Participant One, a teacher has a certain responsibility to develop the self- regulation abilities of students. This participant felt that, with proper training by a teacher, students were capable of being musically self-monitoring by 8th- or 9th-grade.
Technology was purported as an important tool in implementing student-directed instruction in the band program.
Participant One: If I had a SmartBoard, I would use that instead of the TV. I
would use that a lot. And then we could print out the notes…. Like the day we did
the terms, “What is an accent?” “It’s forceful.” “It’s dynamic.” It kind of, what
did they say, “strike at it.” I want their words. It’s their emotional words. Then we
could write all that down, I could hit print, boom you’ve got it and take it home.
Or you can email to yourself, or we could make it available on the band website
and download it. They have much more access to recall of that thing without
physically doing it. They’re getting it done, but they wouldn’t have to pass the
paper. First semester, we pass the paper around, I have to collect it, I have to
grade it, I have to file it, turn it back. So I do less papers.
Other than efficiently distributing student ideas, technology was noted as an efficient tool for involving creativity in the band program:
Participant One: I find that with programs like Band in a Box, they will mix
styles. They will deliberately mix styles. They won’t ignore Baroque. That’s how
Ska was born. It’s a merging of two things. I tell my kids that all the time. When I 117
was your age, nobody had a Mexican pizza. That just wasn’t possible. But now,
you can layer in as many things [as you like]. Your own creativity is the only
limit. I’d love to see some things we could do. And second to that, in 7th-grade, if
they could, before eighth grade … compose an entire 100 measure piece where
everyone’s composed something. In the 7th-grade, if we could ever get it to where
they alter [music]. Instead of James Swearingen’s coda, “Let’s write our own
coda, and let’s send it to James, and see what he thinks about our recording.
Would you like to do that?” It would be nice. I think that would really captivate
[students].
Despite this teacher’s vision and desire to implement student-directed instruction and comprehensive musicianship, he stated that the financial resources limited his ability to explore and involve composition in the band rehearsal.
Participant One: I’d love to get Sibelius down in the lab, GarageBand all those
things, and to get the other teachers [involved]. It would be no problem, I could
train my students to be the master peer tutors, and if you wanted to do a
multiplication rock thing, you could take your little axiom from Pythagorean
theory or from the rock strata or famous things about world history. Create a
poem on it, set it to music and play it for your class or over the morning
announcements. Or have them all in a contest and pick a winner. That kind of
talent has yet to be harnessed. We’re nowhere near that. I say we could do that,
I’ll do it! 118
This participant seemed to feel that there was a potential being untapped in modern band
students that could be implemented into the band curriculum without subtracting from his
primary goals, if appropriate and efficient tools were available.
When the researcher explained the terms teacher-directed and student-directed at
the end of the interview and asked for any further viewpoints on student-directed
instruction, Participant One revealed a very different outcome between the two teaching
styles:
Participant One: One will do a crescendo and get great ratings at contest, but they
didn’t know what they did well. They had just done it so many times, repetition,
and it’s strictly a reflection of the director’s competence. I often tell parents this:
“I’m not raising professional musician performers; I’m raising an intelligent
audience.” You will know what you’ve done by the level of inquiry.… A parent
asked, “How do I know that this is the best for my kid?” A great question for a
parent, and I said by the level of questioning. The more you know about
something, the better questions you ask. So I often judge, this is a good piece,
“Look how many questions we didn’t get to answer. How would it have been to
change the coda? What do you think the composer rejected?”
Describing a project that used to be done in his classes, where students were asked to discuss different endings to musical pieces, the teacher noted how alternative musical exercises are capable of identifying hidden student talents:
Participant One: We used to do a project in the 9th-grade, again when everything
was working. I would play something at the end of the Arban’s book on the
trumpet, a famous melody by Mozart, or those Piccini things, Rossini stuff…. 119
[I would] play it almost, except the last two measures, something I don’t think
they would have heard, and then leave it blank, and give them two weeks to come
up with their own way they thought they would have answered it…. That was
neat. Just as a comparative thing.… Some of the people found out that they had a
real talent, and I found two kids with perfect pitch. They discovered their
talents.… Yeah you can get a trophy, but we get trophies. But they don’t own it,
and it’s not life-long; it’s not encoded and layered on the other stuff that they’re
learning. I don’t like partitioned learning. You have to separate it to master it …
but then there has to be a time when you reintegrate everything. “Gee, we played
that well. Who are my future animators, how would you animate that last thing
with the perfect crescendo and that triangle in there. Is that a Walt Disney ‘bling’
in the eye, or on the tooth or what? What would you do?” and that’s where Bloom
left off.
However, due to administrative pressures, changes in class scheduling, a recent budget crisis in the school, and state-mandated testing, the participant expressed how it was difficult to implement many alternative, student-directed strategies. Certainly, the teacher’s expressed viewpoints reveal a much more student-directed philosophy than do the quantified use of teaching and learning strategies within the observed rehearsals.
Participant Two
The second participant was in his third year of teaching, a novice teacher with the third least amount of experience for Stage One respondents. He had completed a
Bachelor’s degree emphasizing music education and band, and had received his teaching license through a traditional undergraduate program. This participant had also completed 120
a Masters of Music Performance degree. The teacher’s SDI score was the fifth highest of
all Stage One respondents, but he also had the seventh highest TDI score. Cumulative
scores in each teaching dimension as well as TDI and SDI scores are shown in Table 4.8.
Nonverbal Motivation and Time Efficiency were the MTSI dimensions most prioritized by this participant, and Group Dynamics the least prioritized.
Table 4.8
Teaching Style of Participant Two
Dimension Score
TDI Total 124
Assertive Teaching 26
Nonverbal Motivation 33
Time Efficiency 33
Positive Learning Environment 32
SDI Total 113
Group Dynamics 23
Music Concept Learning 29
Artistic Music Performance 29
Student Independence 32
Note. Dimensions are presented in the order of the MTSI. For individual dimension means, 7-10 = Never, 11-17 = Rarely, 18-24 = Sometimes, 25-31 = Frequently, and 32-35 = Always. For TDI or SDI means, 28- 41 = Never, 42-69 = Rarely, 70-97 = Sometimes, 98-125 = Frequently, and 126-140 = Always. This is based on the MTSI individual item scoring.
121
This participant taught full-time in a suburban middle school (i.e., grades five to eight) located in a middle to upper class neighborhood. The school had an enrollment of
384 as reported by the Ohio Department of Education (Ohio Department of Education,
2007). The school consisted of primarily Caucasian students (96.4%). The band observed was a 7th- and 8th-grade combined band with an enrollment of 52 students (28 seventh grade, 24 eighth grade). The ensemble seemed well balanced in instrumentation with flute, clarinet, oboe, alto/tenor/baritone saxophones, bass clarinet, trumpet, trombone,
French horn, baritone, tuba, and percussion represented. The band rehearsed Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday after lunch in a 40 minute block and held 5 formal concerts each scholastic year.
Goals and Objectives. When detailing his goals and objectives, Participant Two declared that (a) creating a fun learning experience, (b) developing a quality musical product, (c) developing music notation recognition skills, (d) developing characteristic instrument tones, and (e) other music fundamentals were his desired learning outcomes.
As the teacher stated:
Participant Two: We try to achieve a lot of different things. At this school it’s
very important to make band a fun learning experience. Along with that we try to
make a quality musical product. Students learn to read notes, they read dynamics,
and all those sorts of things. It’s very important that they get sound quality that’s
characteristic of their instrument. Those are the things that I’m working on at this
point. Solid fundamentals, absolutely. We start in the fifth grade, we take our time
and we get the job done there. Hopefully it pays dividends by the time they get to
the 7th- or 8th-grade band. We worry a lot at sixth grade on rhythmic acuity, 122
making sure that rhythms are correct. We work a lot again on solid fundamentals,
tone, and other things.
However, there were also indications of goals and objectives dedicated to developing complete, comprehensive musicians:
Participant Two: We’re developing them as an entire musician. Most of these
kids, well I shouldn’t say most, in the seventh and eighth grade which you saw,
we have five overlaps with choir, kids that do both band and choir. But otherwise,
this is the only music that they have in 7th- and 8th-grade, and the only music
teacher that they see is me. In the fifth and sixth grade, not only do they have the
opportunity to be in band and choir, but they’re required each year to be in a
quarter of general music, something else I teach. So in that regard, we can focus a
little bit more.
In this band setting, where they don’t have anything else, we’re trying to
accomplish a whole lot. It’s not just performance based. Obviously if it were more
performance based we’d be nit-picking a whole lot more to get everything
performance ready. Like I said, we talk extensively, probably more than we
should talk, in a forum about the Mt. St. Helens explosion [when the composition
Regenesis, based on the Mt. St. Helens eruption, was handed out]. We see the
pictures of the devastation of what it must have been like for those people. We do
dotted eighth sixteenth notes, it sounds pathetic, but we relate it to currency
sometimes. You know the dollar bill, quarters, and that. How many quarters does
it take to equal a dotted eighth or whatever it might be. So we’ll split it up that
way. We’ll do our math component. The historical perspective is huge, while a lot 123
of our music is recent, it does have ties to old things. We did a Dvorak New
World Symphony, so there was a lot to be talked about in that easy version, it’s
not a piece that we really delved into, but it was one that we read.
Although music performance outcomes were stated first and as primary goals, students
understanding musical concepts, the history of music, and the connections of music to
society and the world in general were also priorities.
Rehearsal Routines. Based on observations, the general rehearsal routine of
participant two was to: (a) begin with a short warm-up by playing whole note scales, sometimes in a round (i.e., M = 3 minutes, 2 seconds); then, (b) rehearsal of concert
music. The primary intent of this participant during observed rehearsals seemed to be to
prepare concert selections for upcoming performances. Feedback and instruction were
primarily delivered in between band performances, and conducting gestures and non-
verbal communication were the primary techniques used during band performance. Only
occasionally did this participant deliver verbal feedback or vocal cues during band
performance.
Teaching and Learning Strategies. Related to his goals and objectives, it was
evident when analyzing videotape or field notes that this teacher valued student
performance on instruments. Students performed on their instruments for a majority of
class time (62.7%) and teacher-talk was usually devoted to developing musical
performance. Feedback to students followed by instructions on how to improve
performance, as well as teacher explanations about musical concepts, were used
occasionally, primarily in between performances of musical sections. Teacher-directed
instruction remained the most utilized instructional category (84.3% of class time). Total 124
instances of codes by instructional category are shown in Table 4.9 and time devoted to
each code is shown in Table 4.10.
Use of Student-Directed Instruction. Participant Two’s use of student-directed
instruction during observed rehearsals was minimal, contrasting with his MTSI results
and expressed philosophies to be described later. Only 2.3% of instructional instances
were considered student-directed, amounting to only 0.8% of rehearsal time. Of the
student-directed strategies utilized, questioning and student self-assessments were the
most utilized. The teacher would ask reflective questions about the meaning of music and
ask students to evaluate their performance. However, student responses were not always
sought to these questions or assessments. They seemed intended to have students reflect
independently about the music or their performances. Other student-directed instructional
strategies included allowing students to choose the next piece of music or offering
practice strategies in order to develop student independence.
As with Participant One, this teacher discussed during interviews how his
teaching style was partially a reaction to a disciplined, controlling band program when he
was a student. However, there were extrinsic pressures, including from administration, to reach certain performance goals. As the teacher detailed at the end of his interview:
Participant Two: Right now there’s extreme pressure from the administration
especially in my third year of teaching, as we attain tenure, to turn out a truly
musical product. Now, that’s not to say that that’s not something I always strive
for, but I think there’s, let me go a different direction. When I was in high school,
when I was growing up through the primary and secondary band scene,
125
Table 4.9
Frequency of Use of Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant Two
Average Category or Code Total per % of Total Instances Rehearsal Codes NON-INSTRUCTIONAL 122 30.5 15.6% Administrative 5 1.3 0.6% Behavioral Cues/Feedback 64 16.0 8.2% Building Rapport 16 4.0 2.0% Non-Instruction Related Student Talk 1 0.3 0.1% Organizational 34 8.5 4.3% Other Teacher Talk 2 0.5 0.3% STUDENT-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 18 4.5 2.3% Creativity 0 0.0 0.0% Peer Assessment 0 0.0 0.0% Problem Solving 0 0 0.0% Questioning 2 0.5 0.3% Self-Assessment 5 1.3 0.6% Student Choice 3 0.8 0.4% Student Explanation 3 0.8 0.4% Student-Directed Rehearsal 0 0.0 0.0% Other Student-Directed Strategy 5 1.3 0.6% TEACHER-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 644 161 82.1% Organization for Performance 164 41 20.9% Teacher-Directed Performance 209 52.3 26.7% Teacher Assessment 0 0.0 0.0% Teacher Explanation 62 15.5 7.9% Teacher Feedback 64 16.0 8.2% Teacher Feedback During Performance 7 1.8 0.9% Teacher Instruction 40 10.0 5.1% Teacher Instruction During Performance 19 4.8 2.4% Teacher Modeling 29 7.3 3.7% Teacher Modeling During Performance 3 0.8 0.4% Teacher-Directed Questioning 7 1.8 0.9% Teacher-Directed Student Talk/Recall 8 2.0 1.0% Vocal Cues During Performance 18 4.5 2.3% Other Teacher Vocal During Performance 14 3.5 1.8%
TOTAL OF CATEGORIES 784 196.0 100.0%
126
Table 4.10
Rehearsal Time Used for Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant Two
Average Total Time per Category or Code Time (s) Rehearsal % of Total (m:s) Codes NON-INSTRUCTIONAL 1195.4 4:59 14.9% Administrative 125.3 0:31 1.6% Behavioral Cues/Feedback 388.7 1:37 4.8% Building Rapport 75.0 0:19 0.9% Non-Instruction Related Student Talk 5.2 0:01 0.1% Organizational 593.5 2:28 7.4% Other Teacher Talk 7.7 0:02 0.1% STUDENT-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 61.1 0:15 0.8% Creativity 0 0:0 0.0% Peer Assessment 0 0:0 0.0% Problem Solving 0 0:0 0.0% Questioning 10.0 0:02 0.1% Self-Assessment 7.4 0:02 0.1% Student Choice 5.1 0:01 0.1% Student Explanation 8.2 0:02 0.1% Student-Directed Rehearsal 0 0:0 0.0% Other Student-Directed Strategy 30.4 0:08 0.4% TEACHER-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 6758.4 28:10 84.3% Organization for Performance 698.5 2:55 8.7% Teacher-Directed Performance 4920.9 20:30 61.4% Teacher Assessment 0 0:0 0.0% Teacher Explanation 500.1 2:05 6.2% Teacher Feedback 254.8 1:04 3.2% Teacher Feedback During Performance 15.3 0:04 0.2% Teacher Instruction 152.8 0:38 1.9% Teacher Instruction During Performance 33.9 0:08 0.4% Teacher Modeling 100.1 0:25 1.2% Teacher Modeling During Performance 5.9 0:01 0.1% Teacher Directed Questioning 19.3 0:05 0.2% Teacher-Directed Student Talk/Recall 7.9 0:02 0.1% Vocal Cues During Performance 26.9 0:07 0.3% Other Teacher Vocal During Performance 22.0 0:05 0.3%
TOTAL OF CATEGORIES 8014.9 33:24 100.0%
127
everything was very controlled, it was very tight, it was very ... almost
claustrophobic. There was one way to do things, and there was never anything
where you could express yourself. It was always very rhythmic; it was always
very structured.... I always felt as a young musician that I was held back, I was
too controlled, I was never allowed to express myself. I was never allowed to take
the chance and make a mistake.
Now, of course, in the professional music world you’re allowed to take
chances to some degree, but not really because if you do you lose your job. One of the things that I really strive for in this group is, you probably heard a lot of
talking, and you heard a lot of students talking to each other, and I’m not sure how much your video picked up, but they were actually talking about (in most cases, not all) elements of the music. They were talking about things that we talked about before. It’s very important that I give them a relaxed atmosphere, that they can make mistakes.
You didn’t see me single too many people out. I think that’s in most cases, unless you’re preparing for a contest or something, I think that’s the wrong way to go about it, especially with these kids. I’m not out to hurt their mental set or how they feel about different things. I want them to feel relaxed, especially in 7th- and
8th-grade, when they come in. They can take a chance and they can make a mistake and at times, as I’m sure you heard, they can over-blow. It’s not confined to a small box.… In that case, and especially when we talk about the jazz band, they’ve seen huge, tremendous improvement based upon the pure fact that they’re 128
not hampered by being worried about me yelling at them. “You missed an E
natural, what are you doing?” “You need to do this. You need to do that.” They
are allowed to make mistakes. Will I have them mark it with their pencils, oh,
absolutely! But they’ll do it as a section and not only one student’s going to circle
a note, they’re all going to circle it that way we never make that mistake again. So
as much as at times I go back and forth and say maybe it’s too relaxed, I would
almost prefer it that way, so that the students do get a chance to take the chance
on making music and artistry.
Artistic music performance, with opportunities for self-expression seemed valued.
Notably, the development of a “relaxed atmosphere” where students are not intimidated
and are free to communicate seemed a trend among all three participants. None of the
participants could be described as disciplinarians.
During observations the researcher recorded rehearsals where the majority of rehearsal time was devoted to musical performance on instruments. Very little time was
devoted to any type of student-directed instruction. Organization was efficient, and
downtime seemed to be minimized. The class seemed well disciplined and used to the
routine, yet engaged and relaxed. The researcher investigated whether instructional
strategies changed during the year. After questions about self-assessment and developing
student independence and comprehensive musicianship, the researcher asked what the
researcher would have observed if field work was completed at another time of year. The
teacher replied:
Participant Two: Actually, a lot of that is what you didn’t see. You had come in
basically three weeks before the concert, so by that point in time we had already 129
discussed where the pieces came from. You saw Just a Closer Walk With Thee, I put together a PowerPoint. We do a lot with the projector and my computer. One of the things we did was we talked about different kinds of ragtime music. We went back to Joplin a little bit, we talked about New Orleans, which for these kids they really ate up because they thought it was great. Well, not great, but they enjoyed knowing about Hurricane Katrina, and things that happened a couple of
years ago. The other piece you heard, Regenesis, we did that also. We talked
about how it was written for Mt. St. Helens. And they saw pictures of the
destruction of Mt. St. Helens. But I do that pretty much.... We’ll hand out the
piece, go read it down, and usually it’ll be pretty bad, and then we’ll go back in
second rehearsal afterwards and we’ll talk about what it actually is….
We start off the year, we’re preparing for all sorts of different things, pep
rallies, we get a lot of work done in the first 2 or 3 months of the year and then
we’re very focused on a couple of set pieces for the holiday concert, and a
Grandparents’ Day concert that we have. After December we relax again. That’s
when we go into [small] ensembles and that’s when we really start talking about
aesthetic elements. We do listening at the beginning of class…. Of course I’d also
be standing outside the door and telling them, “You’re listening today, this is the
piece of music.” That didn’t happen while you were here.
We’re very strict at the beginning when we sight-read music, then I relax
on them. We get the bits and pieces, the bulk of the material, and then the last 2-3
weeks before the concert we really start to focus in on things. In terms of the
[state] contest, it’s even more so. Making sure that each note, we’ll sectionalize, 130
just flutes play these measures, just clarinets, to make sure everything kind of
works out in that regard. Then after the concert again, we’ll sight-read more
music, and some of it we’ll keep, and some of it (I haven’t been able to tell by the
score) might not be the highest quality of music. So we throw that out, we get
more pieces and we sight-read those. Then again, we go for the big bulk/big
picture ideas, and the last 2 or 3 weeks we really kind of focus in and get the
elements as best we can.
However, when asked whether it was the teacher bringing in musical content to present, or the students seeking out their own information and sharing it, the teacher replied, “It’s
always me bringing in the content.”
Interdisciplinary projects among other faculty were rare, occurring on a once per
semester basis and with “very few” student presentations of content. Creativity and
improvisation were also expressed as rare in the large group band, but occurring more in
jazz band. The teacher attributed reasons why this may be:
Participant Two: It’s mostly a time thing. It’s 50 people on one band director
scenario. Kind of one of those things, where when we start to do things I really
worry that we’ll get out of control and there would be no pulling them back in.
That, and to be honest, we have a lot of demands on us. We have demands to
cover all sorts of different material, not necessarily in the curriculum, but I have
expectations of my own. If we’re getting ready for the four concerts that we do
each year, in addition to the two pep rallies, we went off site this year. That’s
actually seven different performances. Not including solo and ensemble contest,
which we really do want to work for extensively. That’s eight different 131
performances, in essentially a little less than 9 months. Unfortunately, we see kids
3 days a week, and all the other things that they pull students out of band class
for, there’s just not a whole lot of time to be able to set that up. But it is
something I’d like to do in the future.
As with Participant One, there was a desire expressed to involve more elements of comprehensive musicianship and student-directed instruction, but performance demands, administrative expectations, scheduling and other extrinsic pressures were expressed as hindering instructional possibilities.
Small ensembles were used rarely during band class period, but students were expected to develop a solo or small ensemble for performance in a spring solo and ensemble concert. Some of the students performing in this concert were also selected to perform at a state solo and small group adjudicated event. As the teacher explained:
Participant Two: Well, in a class this size, we never have smaller groups. It’s
always the 52 members that you saw. Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
We don’t have any other directors to utilize in that capacity. Twice a year they’ll
go into the practice room throughout the year in fall and again winter, and they’ll
play for me and record tapes of band music I’ve given them. They’ll play a couple
of scales and I’ll go ahead, come later on, and listen to those tapes and assign
them a grade. The first one in fall they receive chair placement from, so there’s
that added incentive to practice over the summer. The one in winter pretty much
just counts for their final semester grade. They also receive two written
assessments, based on musical topics, key signatures, things that we’ve talked
about in class. Often there will be some sort of historical perspective if we’ve 132
played a piece [with a historical context]. So that test is constantly changing
depending on the music that we choose….
We have a small ensemble concert, a chamber concert as we call it, in
February, it’s where every single student in this room will work an ensemble, by
themselves, most often student-led, throughout the months after the holiday
concert, so January, February, and a little bit of March, before contest. We’ll split
them up. Some will go to the choir room, some will go in the auditorium, and I’ll
mingle between the different groups. Out of those, I have a heart to heart with the
kids, and we figure out which ones we’re actually going to take to contest and
which ones just play for the concert.
However, administrative and teacher requirements for student supervision were stated as a deterrent from more frequent use of small group work.
A democratically elected student band council was facilitated by this teacher. This group had the power to influence musical choices and activities to some extent:
Participant Two: One of things we have for seventh and eighth graders, and it’s
something I started two years ago, is we have what is called an elected band
council. They’re elected representatives, there’s four of them, varying roles,
president, vice president, secretary, and seventh grade rep. More often than not
the eighth graders are popular and get chosen. So we have those four people and
we’ll meet once a month. They’ll pretty much set the agenda on what they want to
talk about. If there’s a song that they want to do, or I’ll put to them, “Things
haven’t been going well; what do you think we can do better?” These are students
who really will go out during lunch and recess and classes and will find out, “So 133
and so is having a bad day” or “So and so is having trouble with this and he’s
failing math which is why he’s acting up in class.” Those kinds of things. It’s
really worthwhile. One of things that they’ve really done [is] … they’ve helped us
decide on concerts. There are two or three pieces on the concert that I’ll definitely
want to do, but I’ll always give them two or three other pieces that we’ve already
played through to say, “Well, how do you feel about these?” It’s that core group
of students, like a student council, that make the decisions.
However, it was not determined how much input the band population as a whole had in class activities. Preparing students for living in a democratic society seemed to be supported by the teacher.
Participant Two believed that the capabilities of students to self-monitor and guide their own musical development were highly dependent on the individual students.
When asked when students developed this capacity the teacher stated, somewhat sarcastically:
Participant Two: I really like that question. Because for some of my students, I’m
thinking of a number of drummers off of the top of my head, probably never. But,
more realistically, there are some sixth graders that I really trust with their
musical development. It really, to be honest, I can’t really pinpoint it down for
you; it really kind of runs the gamut. In the most part, I try to have them be
completely independent by the end of 5th-grade. So that they can, you know,
figure out the things that they need to when they have their first three months off
of vacation. 134
When it came to strategies that could foster self-regulation skills, such as asking
reflective questions, Participant Two suggested that a consistent approach among
teachers may help empower teachers to utilize alternative teaching strategies, or hinder
their implementation. Specifically, when asked why questioning was difficult with his
middle school band the teacher suggested that, “other teachers may not hold it in such
regard,” and, therefore, “the second I ask a question of the seventh and eighth graders,
they’re just out to lunch. They’re everywhere, and it takes a lot of work to bring them
back in.”
Participant Three
The third participant was in her 18th year of teaching, an experienced teacher with an average amount of experience when compared to Stage One respondents (i.e., M =
17.63 years of experience). She had completed a Bachelor’s degree emphasizing music
education and band, and received her teaching license through a traditional undergraduate
program. This participant had also completed a Master of Music Education degree. The
teacher’s SDI score was the sixth highest of all Stage One respondents, while having the
21st highest TDI score, average when compared to other respondents (i.e., M = 111.88).
Cumulative scores in each teaching dimension as well as TDI and SDI scores are shown in Table 4.11. Positive Learning Environment and Artistic Music Performance were the
MTSI dimensions most prioritized by this participant, and Time Efficiency the least prioritized.
135
Table 4.11
Teaching Style of Participant Three
Dimension Score
TDI Total 112
Assertive Teaching 29
Nonverbal Motivation 28
Time Efficiency 24
Positive Learning Environment 31
SDI Total 110
Group Dynamics 26
Music Concept Learning 28
Artistic Music Performance 31
Student Independence 25
Note. Dimensions are presented in the order of the MTSI. For individual dimension means, 7-10 = Never, 11-17 = Rarely, 18-24 = Sometimes, 25-31 = Frequently, and 32-35 = Always. For TDI or SDI means, 28- 41 = Never, 42-69 = Rarely, 70-97 = Sometimes, 98-125 = Frequently, and 126-140 = Always. This is based on the MTSI individual item scoring.
This participant taught full-time in a suburban middle school (i.e., grades seven to
eight) located in a middle to upper class neighborhood. The school had an enrollment of
685 as reported by the Ohio Department of Education (Ohio Department of Education,
2007). The school consisted of primarily Caucasian students (98.4%). The band observed
was a 7th-grade band with an enrollment of 40 students. The ensemble seemed well balanced in instrumentation with flute, clarinet, oboe, bassoon, alto/tenor/baritone
saxophones, bass clarinet, trumpet, trombone, French horn, baritone, tuba, and percussion 136
represented. The band rehearsed every day first thing in the morning in a 50 minute class
period and held five concerts each scholastic year.
Goals and Objectives. The goals and objectives for Participant Three were
reported as focusing on students’ ultimate experiences. A positive learning environment
and rewarding experience were valued, alongside developing character traits such as self- discipline and other elements necessary to succeed in life beyond music. However, musical performance skills were also prioritized:
Teacher: I think with each band the goals and objectives … change. For the most
part I want these kids to have a good experience working together, so that when
they look back at band they have good memories, but at the same time they’re
learning skills they use outside of my class. Discipline, self-discipline, long
term/short term goals, pride, teamwork, all kinds of things they need to succeed in
life, not necessarily to be band directors, but that will enhance everything that
they do…. Of course I want the bands to sound good, because when they play
well, they know they play well, and it really raises their level of expectation in
everything.
What skills [are most important]? I’d say some good listening skills, as far
as getting through the rehearsal, obviously I’d like their technique to improve as
well, but again, I’m a firm believer that band just goes hand in hand with life. I’m
not trying to make band directors out of the kids. I want them to just be better
people in general. So, their skills? I’d say mostly just self-discipline. That would
encompass going home and practicing, sitting quietly during rehearsal, sitting
through sectionals, that encompasses all of that. 137
This teacher suggested that band could serve as a platform to develop student skills that could be useful outside of music and throughout their lives.
Rehearsal Routines. The overall rehearsal routine of the third participant was to begin with a warm-up routine, averaging 9 minutes and 32 seconds, which included: (a) long tone and whole note scales, sometimes performed as a round; and (b) breathing
exercises. Following the warm-up the teacher would devote the rest of rehearsal to
developing the performance quality of concert repertoire selected for concerts and state
adjudicated event. Repertoire rehearsal would begin by a run-through of selected
repertoire, followed by frequent stoppages to improve individual sections of repertoire.
The teacher would provide feedback and instruction during each stoppage, followed by attempts for students to apply newly introduced concepts and techniques. As students were performing on instruments, this teacher would frequently call out instructions, vocal cues, and provide feedback to students. Comparing the three teachers, this participant’s rehearsals seemed to be the most intense from a subjective estimation, yet were still positive and free of any type of intimidation.
Teaching and Learning Strategies. Based on video analysis and observations, this teacher seemed to value student performance on instruments and used teacher-directed instruction as the primary method for developing musical performance. Students performed on their instruments for almost a third of class time (31.2%) and much teacher-talk or organizational time seemed devoted to developing musical performance.
There was frequent repetition of isolated measures or phrases within musical performance instances. With only 25 seconds less rehearsal time per class than
Participant One (who had the most rehearsal time), this participant provided the most 138 instructions and performance incidents. Students seemed to always be engaged and ready when the teacher expected them to be, yet students still seemed relaxed. The teacher seemed anxious to get things done, yet approached students in a positive way, always ready to provide constructive criticism or positive feedback.
Time spent detailing upcoming performance events was the greatest of Stage Two participants. This time was spent handing out information letters, describing events, and answering student questions. Teacher-directed instruction remained the most utilized strategy (68.9% of class time; 80.9% of all instructional instances). There were many examples of (a) teacher explanations about music and technical skills, (b) teacher instructions for students to do something, (c) teacher feedback on prior performances, and
(d) students performing what the teacher chose. Total instances of codes by instructional category are shown in Table 4.12 and time devoted to each code is shown in Table 4.13.
Use of Student-Directed Instruction. As with Participant Two, this teacher made minimal use of student-directed instruction during observed rehearsals. This contrasted with her MTSI results and with her philosophy and approach to teaching to be described.
Only 5.4% of instructional instances and 3.0% of instructional time were devoted to student-directed instruction. Primarily, student-directed instruction was devoted to questioning or asking students to reflect or assess their performance. In most cases these activities elicited student responses or explanations about the music or their performance.
Other student-directed strategies including practice suggestions in order to develop student independence.
139
Table 4.12
Frequency of Use of Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant Three
Average Category or Code Total per % of Total Instances Rehearsal Codes NON-INSTRUCTIONAL 180 45.0 13.7% Administrative 14 3.5 1.1% Behavioral Cues/Feedback 61 15.3 4.6% Building Rapport 9 2.3 0.7% Non-Instruction Related Student Talk 6 1.5 0.5% Organizational 79 19.8 6.0% Other Teacher Talk 11 2.8 0.8% STUDENT-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 71 17.8 5.4% Creativity 0 0.0 0.0% Peer Assessment 0 0.0 0.0% Problem Solving 0 0.0 0.0% Questioning 24 6.0 1.8% Self-Assessment 15 3.8 1.1% Student Choice 1 0.3 0.1% Student Explanation 28 7.0 2.1% Student-Directed Rehearsal 0 0.0 0.0% Other Student-Directed Strategy 3 0.8 0.2% TEACHER-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 1061 265.3 80.9% Organization for Performance 177 44.3 13.5% Teacher-Directed Performance 324 81.0 24.7% Teacher Assessment 9 2.3 0.7% Teacher Explanation 86 21.5 6.6% Teacher Feedback 116 29.0 8.8% Teacher Feedback During Performance 19 4.8 1.4% Teacher Instruction 119 29.8 9.1% Teacher Instruction During Performance 83 20.8 6.3% Teacher Modeling 47 11.8 3.6% Teacher Modeling During Performance 10 2.5 0.8% Teacher-Directed Questioning 14 3.5 1.1% Teacher-Directed Student Talk/Recall 16 4.0 1.2% Vocal Cues During Performance 23 5.8 1.8% Other Teacher Vocal During Performance 18 4.5 1.4%
TOTAL OF CATEGORIES 1312 328.0 100.0%
140
Table 4.13
Rehearsal Time Used for Teaching and Learning Strategies by Participant Three
Average Total Time per % of Category or Code Time (s) Rehearsal Rehearsal (m:s) Time NON-INSTRUCTIONAL 2763.5 11:31 28.1% Administrative 977.1 4:04 9.9% Behavioral Cues/Feedback 489.7 2:02 5.0% Building Rapport 58.3 0:15 0.6% Non-Instruction Related Student Talk 29.0 0:07 0.3% Organizational 1153.4 4:48 11.7% Other Teacher Talk 56.0 0:14 0.6% STUDENT-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 293.4 1:13 3.0% Creativity 0 0:0 0.0% Peer Assessment 0 0:0 0.0% Problem Solving 0 0:0 0.0% Questioning 116.5 0:29 1.2% Self-Assessment 53.7 0:13 0.5% Student Choice 14.4 0:04 0.1% Student Explanation 88.9 0:22 0.9% Student-Directed Rehearsal 0 0:0 0.0% Other Student-Directed Strategy 19.9 0:05 0.2% TEACHER-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION 6775.8 28:14 68.9% Organization for Performance 892.7 3:43 9.1% Teacher-Directed Performance 2524.2 10:31 25.7% Teacher Assessment 129.4 0:32 1.3% Teacher Explanation 905.3 3:46 9.2% Teacher Feedback 673.0 2:48 6.8% Teacher Feedback During Performance 66.4 0:17 0.7% Teacher Instruction 856.6 3:34 8.7% Teacher Instruction During Performance 277.4 1:09 2.8% Teacher Modeling 159.2 0:40 1.6% Teacher Modeling During Performance 80.8 0:20 0.8% Teacher-Directed Questioning 42.3 0:11 0.4% Teacher-Directed Student Talk/Recall 46.4 0:12 0.5% Vocal Cues During Performance 51.8 0:13 0.5% Other Teacher Vocal During Performance 70.3 0:18 0.7%
TOTAL OF CATEGORIES 9832.7 40:58 100.0%
141
Participant Three’s teaching style was stated as developing from her school-aged
band experiences. When asked about her ideal learning environment she responded:
Participant Three: I think back to what my band room looked like and why I
liked to be in the band room. What about the band room made me want to go
there when I didn’t need to be there? It’s, in my opinion, it’s a safe place. It’s a
place I have a lot of good memories, and so I felt good there. I think for the
kids…. When I first started here I thought, “Oh, I need to get plants, and make it
look aesthetically pleasing." I never acted upon it, but the kids seem to like
coming here, they want to come at times when they don’t need to be here. I’m
starting to realize that was probably not as big a deal as much as what goes on
here and how they feel about being in this room. I, of course, like to have a lot of
the listening stuff up, and inspirational stuff, plaques and trophies, of things
they’ve done in the past. It’s basically, I just want to generate a good feeling for
them in this room and that they feel good about how they play. It makes them
want to come back as this is a room they like to be in.
However, this teacher seemed to appreciate more of her adolescent band experiences than did the first two participants, who although learning from their experiences and appreciating musical growth, found a disciplined, military approach to band suppressing.
The importance of developing a positive, relaxed, safe, yet productive learning environment seemed a priority of Participant Three. This priority seemed to influence both her goals and her use of student-directed instruction. 142
Although student-directed instruction was limited within the rehearsals observed, this teacher did feel that there were positive aspects to such instruction. She discussed how during a teacher evaluation, her principal had suggested stations.
Participant Three: The principal once came down after an observation; we talked
about stations. Initially you think, “Well of course I can’t have stations in here,
you have percussion banging around over here, and low brass over here,” and
your first instinct as a band director is, “No, that’s not going to work.” … Then
you take a minute and you think, “Oh, right, they’re in administration; they’re an
administrator for a reason and then let’s give this a shot, because I’m not the
know all anyway. Let’s give it a shot.” So in jazz ensemble, about once a week
(and you didn’t see jazz ensemble), I let them do that. I have them break down,
and it’s chaos in here sometimes. It gets loud. I have the amps turned off though
and the drum set, of course, I ask them to play it as soft as possible. That’s kind of
funny. But we do a lot of that in there on a weekly basis. They’re practicing,
they’re helping each other, and I monitor it by walking around, making sure they
aren’t messing around.
At this point they’re still middle school kids. But I do give them a lot of
liberty to try and fix things themselves and talk to each other, and that’s a lot of
fun…. So, when initially I thought that was an awful idea, it actually turned out to
be really neat and the jazz ensemble, there’s 26 of them, and there is a mixture of
7th- and 8th-[grade]. That was neat too, to see the seventh and eighth graders
working together. So, a lot came out of that, and this was about three years ago,
when I had this observation and he told me to try that. Since then I’ve used that 143
with them. It’s a lot easier to do with that group, they’re smaller. So, I don’t do
that with the larger group because they are in the fifties and sixties.
This teacher described her experiment with a student-directed approach to instruction, using a sectional approach within the same room, as positive. However, within the larger concert band context, this participant stated that it was difficult to coordinate. As
Participant Two also suggested, the size of the band seems to have an influence on the perceived availability of strategies.
When the researcher asked this teacher how her strategies may change throughout the year, there were statements made that there may be an increase of student-directed instruction further from state contest. In particular, it would seem that student self- assessments, student reflections, and asking students reflective questions occur in greater amounts at other times of the scholastic year:
Participant Three: I didn’t give them much chance to talk about [the music]
because we have to fix things with contest next Friday. But I do let them, you
know, “How did we do?” “What can we improve on?” We’ll do run-throughs
before a concert, "What do we still need to work on?" I have actually done written
work, “Where we are in a piece, what can we improve on?” because some kids
don’t like to raise their hands and talk about it. The kids think “Oh they’re just
trying to get extra points.” So sometimes I’ll have them write down personal
things they need to improve upon, instead of what the group needs. “What do you
need personally?” [I’ll] have them just write a little quick blurb, and sometimes
verbally to give them feedback so it’s instant, instead of them having to go back
and read through things…. A lot of times too, we use “Write three things at the 144
top of the page you need to improve on this weekend, then take it home and
improve on them. If it’s tonguing, then clean up tonguing. If it’s tempo, right
notes.”
This teacher discussed how closer to concerts she, “directs them quicker as opposed to
letting them think a little more.” Again, as Participant Two discussed, leeway to instruct
at a slower, more relaxed pace without pending performances may facilitate the use of
student-directed instruction within this teacher’s rehearsals.
The researcher investigated Participant Three’s viewpoints on the self-regulation
capacity of students, and when they were capable of guiding their own musical development. Of the three participants, this teacher felt students were not capable of this
until later in their musical development:
Participant Three: I think at middle school is still a bit young there. Even mature
students here need to take private lessons, or they have a lot of feedback at home,
parents are musicians. But I think that that type of level happens at a higher level;
more at high schoolish. I mean, the kids can say, “Yeah, I played that fine,” but
they can’t tell you really what was fine all the time…. I don’t think they have that
musicianship yet, that mature level. Unless they’re doing what I said, they take
private lessons and they’re on a different level. Some of these kids audition for
the Cleveland Youth Wind Symphony. It’s either because brothers or sisters were
in it at a higher level; they get there a little faster. But I don’t think they’re ready
at, say, the majority of eighth graders cannot tell me exactly, musically, and in
musical terms what they need to do. 145
Believing that students are capable of self-regulation and student-directed learning may be tied with the prevalence of student-directed instruction. This teacher did concur with
Participant One that there is certain musical information that must be delivered by the teacher until students know enough about music.
When asked how she develops self-regulation skills and student independence, solos and small ensembles were cited as the primary activity for that purpose.
Participant Three: I think the key here is getting them to play a lot of solos with
piano, solo and ensemble, the ensembles (quartets, trios), and then you can
monitor them sometimes. Then you give them time alone to work on it theirselves
and see what they’ve come up with. But I find that right here in this band setting
it’s not as easy. I don’t think they can self-assess as easily sitting there, especially
with all the action going on around them. When you get them into the smaller
groups, or when they play with a piano, especially an accomplished pianist, it’s
really pushing them musically. I think that is when you start to see that happening.
Adding to the jazz band stations strategy, providing students with independent and small group opportunities to develop music on their own was declared a contributor to ultimate student independence.
Summary of the Chapter
This study was conducted in two stages. Stage One of the study was designed to:
(a) answer how pervasive student-directed instruction was in the geographic region of interest, (b) investigate factors that may influence teaching styles and the use of student- directed instruction, and (c) determine participants for Stage Two. By computing descriptive statistics for composite student-directed MTSI scores it was determined that 146 teacher-directed instruction was more prevalent than student-directed instruction.
Considering the higher means reported in teacher-directed dimensions and TDI scores, middle school band teachers in Northeast Ohio seemed to prioritize a more teacher- directed rehearsal. In addition, measures of variance (i.e., range and standard deviations) exhibited less variability in teacher-directed dimensions than did scores in student- directed dimensions. Statistical analyses of differences between demographic groups and
MTSI scores, and relationships between selected demographic factors and MTSI scores, yielded several significant results that will be discussed in Chapter Five.
The second stage of the study was designed to: (a) identify the teaching and learning strategies used by selected teachers who reported a proclivity for student- directed instructions, (b) analyze the frequency with which these strategies were used within rehearsals, and (c) examine the percentage of rehearsal time dedicated to each strategy. These items were investigated by analyzing codes generated from videotapes, field notes, and interviews, and by computing the frequency of use and percentages of overall rehearsal time for each teaching and learning strategy. As in Stage One, when three of the six most student-directed respondents were observed, video-taped, and interviewed it was found that teacher-directed instruction was the most utilized instructional category. However, student-directed philosophies and strategies were discussed by Stage Two participants during interviews, and information was gleaned that could inform future use of student-directed teaching and learning strategies in band programs. These findings will be discussed in Chapter Five. 147
CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to describe the teaching and learning strategies demonstrated by directors of middle school band who reported a student-directed teaching style. Several teaching and learning strategies were identified, but teacher- directed instruction and teacher-directed student performance on instruments were prevalent, forming the primary class activities. When coupled with Music Teaching Style
Inventory (MTSI) data from Stage One of the study, it seemed that teacher-directed instruction was the norm in the middle school band rooms of Northeast Ohio Schools.
However, this study identified literature and produced results that may inform band curricula, leading to further research and discussion on how student-directed instruction could be implemented by band teachers.
This chapter begins with a discussion of the results presented in Chapter Four. In particular, the student-directed instruction that was identified, along with possible reasons why teacher-directed instruction seemed prevalent in these band programs, will be discussed. Next, based on the results of this study and the related literature, student- directed rehearsal strategies that could enhance the traditional, teacher-directed band rehearsal will be detailed. Finally, limitations to the present study and suggestions for further research will be presented, followed by concluding thoughts.
148
Discussion of Results
Prevalence of Student-Directed Instruction
Research Question One was: “How many middle school band directors in
Northeast Ohio report a student-directed teaching style?” This question was answered by data from the MTSI and observations of three participants who reported a proclivity for student-directed instruction. It should be noted prior to further discussion that the words
priority or prioritize will be used when interpreting results. Although respondents were
asked to report their use of specific teaching and learning strategies on the MTSI (i.e.,
rate their use of MTSI items on a Likert-type scale), results indicated what level of
priority teachers placed on certain aspects of instruction. Gumm’s instructions for
interpreting MTSI results clearly state that “music teaching style is interpreted
subjectively by comparing the dimensions that coalesced to the top, middle, and bottom
to detect priorities [italics added] within the pattern toward the teacher, students, subject
matter, or a particular type or depth of music subject matter” (see Appendix A).
Based on mean scores of individual MTSI dimensions and overall TDI and SDI
scores reported during Stage One, respondents prioritized teacher-directed dimensions of
the MTSI (i.e., Assertive Teaching, Time Efficiency, Nonverbal Motivation, Positive
Learning Environment, or TDI score) more than student-directed dimensions (i.e., Group
Dynamics, Student Independence, Music Concept Learning, Artistic Music Performance,
or SDI score). Further, based on analyses of ranges and standard deviations, respondents
were more consistent in their prioritization of teacher-directed instruction. Even those
teachers who reported prioritizing student-directed instruction also placed more priority
on teacher-directed instruction at a significant, moderate rate. 149
As in Stage One, when analyzing the actual instruction delivered by three of the
most student-directed teachers in Stage Two of the study, teacher-directed teaching and
learning strategies formed the majority of instructions and rehearsal time. However,
participants made many statements indicating innate proclivity for some student-directed strategies. During interviews, several factors were discussed by participants that may relate to the more pervasive use of teacher-directed instruction in band programs. It should be noted, however, that the influences supporting teachers’ use of teacher-directed instruction were based on participants’ perceptions. Further investigation of these factors should occur. While the participants in this study were the most student-directed that
could be located, there may be other, more student-directed teachers who, if observed,
would yield other insights.
Participants stated that they used alternative, student-directed strategies (e.g.,
questioning students and incorporating small ensembles) to a greater degree at other
times of the year, particularly immediately following concerts. Administrative pressures,
school rules and guidelines, student expectations based on experiences in other classes,
numbers of students in band, financial resources, availability of technological tools,
school prioritization of standardized testing, and other reasons were discussed as
challenges to teachers’ innate philosophies toward student-directed instruction. Further,
there were indications that student-directed instruction was deemed more suitable in
grades or ensembles other than those observed. For example, Participant Two found
questioning easier to implement in fifth or sixth grade, and Participant Three found that
jazz band more readily facilitated sectionals, development of student creativity, and 150 student research presentations. Further discussion of the challenges to the use of student- directed instruction in band programs will occur later in this chapter.
Differences and Relationships in Teaching Styles
Research Question Two was: “Is there a difference in teaching style based on selected demographic factors?” To answer this question, demographic differences between band teachers’ preferences for certain music teaching style items were investigated. The small differences in means for ANOVAs and t-tests, and weak correlation coefficients of relationships (i.e., r < .40), make it difficult to judge the impact of these variables on teaching style with certainty. Nonetheless, identified significant relationships and differences do merit discussion.
On six of the 56 MTSI items, male participants were significantly more likely than females to: (a) demand student attention to tasks, (b) demand quick responses to instructions, (c) maintain a brisk pace to rehearsals, (d) keep students busy, (e) provide feedback on how students respond to directions, and (f) help students refine sound images in their heads. These six items were spread across the eight dimensions of the MTSI and include both student-directed and teacher- directed qualities. On the other hand, for one
MTSI item dealing with the proclivity to utilize small ensembles or sectionals as teaching strategies to develop group dynamics, a student-directed attribute, female mean scores were significantly higher. In addition, only a single overall MTSI dimension (Time
Efficiency) was significantly higher for males, and there were no significant differences by gender for the composite TDI or SDI scores. Therefore, the implications of these gender differences on teaching styles seem limited. It is unclear as to whether gender may impact one’s teaching style. 151
The level of experience teachers had was found to have some relationship to teaching styles. Novice band teachers prioritized helping students rate and characterize how they feel about music more than intermediate and experienced teachers. Novices, who are recent college graduates, may have experienced teacher education programs that included student-directed pedagogies as part of the curriculum, while those educators who have taught longer may have completed a more traditional teacher preparation program. The introduction of the National Standards for Music Education (MENC, 1994) and a greater emphasis on comprehensive musicianship, among other factors, may have resulted in modifications to music teacher education programs. Novice teachers may also be more willing to experiment with teaching and learning strategies as they develop their approach to instruction, while veteran teachers may have developed certain routines over time that they are reluctant to change. This possibility may relate to theories of adaptive expertise, to be discussed later in this chapter. However, the possible factors impacting these differences by level of experience were not investigated during the study. Further
research on these potential influences is needed. No other significant relationships or
differences were found for other MTSI items, teaching style dimensions, or overall TDI
or SDI categories based on experience. Likewise, the level of education teachers had was
found to have no relationship to teaching styles.
The influence of school demographics on teaching styles was explored. One
significant difference was found, identifying teachers in urban schools as more likely to
focus on building a positive learning environment by praising students when they do a
good job. Perhaps teachers in urban schools feel that getting students to feel positive
about their musical abilities helps with recruiting or with fostering positive student 152
feelings about band music. However, these factors, and other variables influencing this
finding were not examined during this study. Further investigation of the relationship
between school demographics and the use of student-directed instruction is necessary.
The relationship between school demographics and teaching styles was analyzed
yielding two significant correlations. The first relationship suggested that as a school’s
standardized test performance index increased, less priority was placed on developing
student interdependence and student self-responsibility. This could be an indication of
‘teaching to the test’ in certain schools and mandates from administration for all teachers
to follow certain guidelines. In the recent high-stakes testing movement, teacher-directed
instruction may be perceived as more effective in preparing students for fact-driven
standardized tests. Likewise, as school enrollment increased respondents placed less
priority on teaching in a manner where students must develop their own viewpoints on
music and make their own decisions. When dealing with larger student populations and
class sizes, teacher-directed instruction may be favored. For example, Participants in
Stage Two perceived that: (a) school-wide changes based on standardized testing, and (b)
the size of their bands influenced how they taught and minimized student-directed
instructional activities. However, because the conditions behind these findings were not
explored by the questionnaire, further research on these factors should be conducted.
Reflecting upon the relationship between standardized test performance indices and the priority placed on student independence, Ohio Achievement Tests (OAT) were being completed in the schools during the time frame of the observations. Discussions among students and statements by teachers did take place about OATs indicating that standardized tests were priorities in participants’ schools. As Participant One noted: 153
Participant One: If you’re not on the proficiencies, then you’re not on a team, and
that’s what’s happened. Music is not on the proficiency; therefore I have no
access to teaming. First semester, they can pull me from my band to cover for a
coach! It’s there; there’s nothing I can do about it. For two weeks there, I just had
to suck it up and do that. I used to be involved in the planning, but not the
execution. I was aware. They used to have monthly meetings, so you could see
the scope and sequence for all social studies, for all science. You could see, “Ooo,
we could do a unit where we … scrape the inside of our mouthpieces, when we’re
talking about cleaning horns, and let’s grow it in a culture,” and the science
teacher would go out and do that. But now she’s tracked into the Ohio testing, if
it’s not on the test, she doesn’t worry about it.
It seems that not only student-directed instruction, but interdisciplinary instruction may be diminished as schools place more priority on their standardized test scores.
Analyses of MTSI data based on band enrollment, number of rehearsals per week, and number of concerts identified several significant relationships. First, as band populations grow, teachers prioritized the teacher-directed MTSI dimensions Assertive
Teaching and Time Efficiency. It is logical that with more students in a classroom, discipline problems may increase. Keeping students performing on instruments, providing a quick pace to activities, being direct and quick with instructions or feedback, and minimizing downtime may be proactive strategies to maximize the productivity of rehearsals and decrease behavior problems. Second, as instruction time decreased, again, teacher-directed dimensions were prioritized. Specifically, with less instruction, teachers placed more priority on the dimension Positive Learning Environment by employing such 154
strategies as seeking student approval, focusing on the interaction between teachers and
students, praising/punishing students, or attending to student off-task behaviors.
Finally, as the number of performances increased, teachers placed more priority
on the MTSI dimensions Nonverbal Motivation and Music Concept Learning. Teachers
of bands that perform more frequently may believe that they should rely on conducting
gestures, physical cues, and routines to maintain productive rehearsals. Further, students
understanding the music they perform, and being able to apply their own musical
understanding to upcoming music, could cause more efficient concert preparation. Again, all relationships based on band demographics and activities were found to have weak correlation coefficients. The relationship between number of performances and teaching styles was limited, indicating a need for further investigation of influential factors.
Relationship between TDI and SDI Scores
A particularly noteworthy result from Stage One was the significant, positive relationship between the two MTSI higher-order factors (i.e., TDI and SDI). Gumm
(2004a) stated that: (a) Assertive Teaching, Nonverbal Motivation, Positive Learning
Environment and Time Efficiency were indicators of a teacher dependent learning
environment, and (b) Group Dynamics, Music Concept Learning, Artistic Music
Performance, and Student Independence were indicators of a learning environment that
was student-oriented, reflective, and where cognitive learning activities were prioritized.
To find that as one category increased, the other also increased at a significant, moderate
rate was puzzling. In the literature, teacher-directed or traditional instruction and student-
directed or alternative instruction seemed at odds. However, responding middle school
band directors in this study either prioritized the first group of teacher-directed MTSI 155 dimensions and had low scores in the second, or prioritized both teaching style categories. Several factors may explain this relationship.
As students become disciplined and musical performance quality is assured due to an efficient, effective rehearsal routine, teachers may find time freed up for alternative approaches to music educating. If the primary goal of instrumental music teachers is to affect daily positive change in music performance—and all Stage Two participants did note this as a primary goal—perhaps when teachers are confident that their band will perform well, they are more likely to relax discipline and incorporate questioning, problem solving, and small ensemble/sectional rehearsals. If, however, teachers do not trust that students will get back on task when required—or fear that subtracting from rehearsal time will negatively impact pending performances—they may hesitate to incorporate student-directed teaching strategies.
Participant Two noted during interviews that students in his younger bands were asked questions frequently because it facilitated their thought process, involved them in instruction, and developed interest in music, yet he could trust that students would quickly get back on task and perform on instruments. Conversely, he stated that with his
7th-grade band, observed by the researcher, he resisted questioning, despite first-hand experience with its value, because, “the second I ask a question of the seventh and eighth graders, they’re just out to lunch. They’re everywhere, and it takes a lot of work to bring them back in.” When asked why this may be, this participant suggested that developmental age and what students are used to in other classes influenced available strategies. 156
It is common sense that teachers will avoid strategies that lead to poor student
conduct or cause ineffective learning in their classes, even when such strategies are
suggested by researchers as ultimately positive. With 49 students in Participant Two’s
band, perhaps it is realistic that avoiding any strategy that could interfere with a
productive learning environment and attainment of primary goals should be avoided. All
three Stage Two participants discussed inherent problems with certain student-directed strategies (e.g., questioning, use of sectionals, research projects, creative activities) in
their large group bands; strategies that they seemed to support philosophically and used in their smaller groups (e.g., jazz bands) or in younger grades. As discussed earlier, the relationship between the size of band and teaching styles was analyzed in Stage One, and significant relationships were found suggesting that as the size of a band increases, teachers were more likely to emphasize being assertive in their teaching and efficient with their use of rehearsal time (i.e., teacher-directed approaches to instruction).
Expanding upon the noted difficulties of implementing student-directed strategies in large bands, Stage Two participants perceived that the number of students (e.g., 50) in the room at one time, mandates from administrators to supervise students at all times and prevent poor behavior, lack of teacher resources or technology, and requirements to perform at concerts prevented the use of certain strategies available to other educators.
This may relate to Stage One results in that TDI scores had a higher mean, with more consistent scores for all Stage One participants, while SDI scores were lower with a wider range. Those teachers who do realize the positive contributions student-directed instruction and comprehensive musicianship may make on music student learning may perceive that they are confined to a rehearsal framework that limits their options. 157
Therefore, how student-directed instruction can be successfully be implemented in bands with larger student populations should continue to be explored.
Finally, many instrumental music teachers may have completed music teacher education programs that emphasized traditional band rehearsal practices, with only limited exposure to student-directed instructional possibilities. However, despite only
five novices completing the survey for Stage One, it was found that these novices were
significantly more inclined to implement student-directed instruction. This may indicate
that recent changes in teacher education programs have begun to emphasize more
student-directed approaches. Still, there remains a certain expectation of what a band is,
and what a band does that is part of a long tradition (Colwell & Goolsby, 1992).
As participants noted, there was pressure from administrators for “a truly musical
product” (Participant Two) and that parents and other music educators influenced them to
some extent to have bands perform well, although performing well and student-directed
instruction may not be mutually exclusive. Additionally, participants had their own
agendas where musical performance skills, a disciplined band, and a positive learning
environment were priorities. However, Participant One and Two also discussed how their
own school band experiences when growing up were militaristic and creatively
suppressing. This was pointed out as “not sitting well” with Participant One, and “too
controlling … almost claustrophobic” by Participant Three. Therefore, within the
expected band rehearsal framework emphasizing quality musical performance,
interviewed participants seemed to supplement rehearsals with student-directed
instruction and comprehensive musicianship.
158
Teaching and Learning Strategies Used by Participants
Research Question Three was: “What are the teaching and learning practices used
by student-directed instrumental music teachers?” To answer this question videotapes,
observations, and interviews were analyzed specifically for teaching and learning strategies that were implemented by participants. In general, teacher-directed instructional strategies were predominant. Based on observations, students performing on instruments and receiving teacher feedback, teacher instructions, and teacher explanations of musical concepts or skills formed the majority of rehearsal activities.
Sections of music were performed by the band, with participants conducting, and problem areas identified for improvement based on direct teacher instructions for student practice or repetition during rehearsals. Despite the prevalence of teacher-directed instruction certain student-directed teaching and learning strategies were used by participants. These strategies relate to suggestions in prior literature and research supporting the value of student-directed instruction in classrooms.
Self-Regulation. Stage Two participants mandated student independent practice on instruments. All three spoke about how practice strategies were taught early in the year and how practice records were utilized to assess amounts of student practice.
However, simply having students go home—or enter practice rooms—and repeat musical excerpts or lines of method books, may not always be effective. As noted in the literature, developing a number of strategies and providing incentive for student independent practice would seem to be areas that instrumental music teachers should build into their curricula (e.g., McPherson, 1995, 1997; Nielsen, 1999). Participant One provided students with a mnemonic phrase or checklist to guide students to self-assess and self- 159
regulate their performance during rehearsals and practice. Participant Two provided
rubrics to students so that they could recognize the criteria for grades on playing tests and
monitor their development. Participant One and Three described how they would ask
students to identify musical areas they needed to address during independent practice and
write them down on paper. Implementing checklists and other student-self assessments
could be appropriate and help students develop effective practice habits (e.g., student
reflections, student-completed rubrics, or student-completed adjudication forms).
Questioning and Problem Solving. All three participants in Stage Two noted how
the use of questioning was valuable and could involve students more cognitively during
instruction. Participant One discussed how questioning provided a “liaison” between the
teacher and students. Further, through questioning, Participant One discussed how he
could guide students to figuring out “why they do something” or “how they do it.” There
was a noted value in “using their words,” in that a student explanation could help other
students understand a musical concept or skill. Participant Two, however, discussed that although questioning was very positive in younger grades, at the middle school level questioning interfered with the progress of the rehearsal due to increased off-task behavior and discipline issues. It was encouraging that the other participants did not note this issue with their students. Every group of students will have different requirements for maximizing learning, and some strategies may work to varying degrees with different sets of students. Questioning, particularly open-ended questioning (i.e., questioning that requires thought, inquiry, or discussion), could be a student-directed strategy easily accommodated in the traditional band rehearsal framework. 160
Sectionals and Small Ensembles. Opportunities for students to develop music independently, and in small groups, were provided by participants. However, all three
Stage Two participants discussed small groups as difficult to accommodate frequently during full concert band class periods. Only one participant made solo and ensemble work mandatory for students, and then only for a two month period leading to a state
contest and school solo and ensemble concert. Participant Three expressed how her
administrator had suggested “stations” to her, which she found a positive contribution to
her jazz band rehearsals both for the development of music and for student appreciation
of jazz band. Conversely, she expressed that in the large group band with 40 students,
small groups were difficult to accommodate. Participant One discussed how sometimes
he would break his band into “clusters” within the room for independent development of
a section technique, a strategy recommended by Gumm (2003b). This participant, and
Participant Two, expressed how it was difficult to send students into other rooms or practice rooms due to safety concerns regarding the need for direct supervision of
students. Activities that encourage small group discussions and musical development are
suggested in the literature (e.g., Allsup, 2003), yet may be difficult to implement in a
long-term manner within larger concert bands. However, such sectionals, particularly in
smaller bands or during study halls, are student-directed strategies that band teachers
should continue to explore.
Creativity. Creativity was discussed by Stage Two participants as a problematic
musical area to implement in the large group band. During observations, Participant One
informally assigned students to write songs based on their thoughts and experiences while completing standardized tests, suggesting that music could be a useful outlet for students 161
to express their feelings during difficult times. However, the time necessary to develop the concepts and skills necessary to compose, arrange, or improvise within the large group concert band, with frequent pending performances, was expressed as a dilemma.
Participants One and Two presented technology as a possible solution, offering tools capable of expediting the notation of student compositions. Nevertheless, sufficient resources were not available to these teachers for purchasing ample notation or sequencing software stations. Overall, student creativity seems directly linked to student- directed instructional literature, yet may be one of the more challenging learning outcomes to implement in a concert band rehearsal.
Interdisciplinary Projects and Presentations. All three participants supported the value of students knowing about music and provided examples of how they discussed musical elements such as music history and theory, or related music to other subjects or life in general. Collaborations with teachers of other subject areas, however, seemed difficult to establish. Music may not always be perceived as a core subject, and participants discussed that specialty disciplines such as music were not integrated into subject area teams. Planning time for these teachers was expressed as either not provided or inadequate to coordinate interdisciplinary projects. However, all three participants did express how they took advantage of opportunities to integrate other subjects with music learning, albeit sporadically and spontaneously.
Time taken from developing performance skills and preparing for concerts in the large group band was, again, expressed as a concern when considering the merits of student projects or presentations. Participant One was the teacher who most frequently discussed the relationship of music to other areas of life, yet did not have students 162
independently research and present interdisciplinary projects. Participant Two developed
his own PowerPoint presentations when presenting conceptual material to his band.
Participant Three discussed that her jazz band students presented a project that included
personal selection of a jazz musician along with a presentation involving reflection and
listening, yet with her large group band such projects were not implemented. It would
seem that assigning students to conduct research and present their projects, coupled with
class-time dedicated to students developing their interdisciplinary projects, would be a
suitable student-directed activity supported by the literature. Even so, this activity seemed
to be deemed as requiring too much time or resources, thereby interfering with the
primary performance-based goals of band teachers.
Frequencies and Times for Teaching and Learning Strategies
Research Question Four and Five were, “How many times is each student-
directed teaching and learning strategy utilized by participants?” and, “What percentage
of class time do participants devote to student-directed teaching and learning strategies?”
As shown in greater detail in Chapter Four, teacher-directed learning strategies were the
most frequent and amounted to the majority of rehearsal time. Non-instructional
strategies that did not seem to be related directly to curriculum goals and objectives, but
rather to organize the band, deliver administrative information, correct student behavior,
or develop rapport through non-musical methods were also used to a moderate extent
(e.g., 24.6% of rehearsal time for Participant One, 14.9% for Participant Two, and 28.1%
for Participant Three). In many cases, time spent on non-instructional activities seemed
necessary. Getting students in their place for performance, providing them with necessary
information, correcting behavior, and developing rapport seemed to be natural aspects of 163 rehearsals. Student-directed instruction was the least utilized category by participants with as little as 0.8% of rehearsal time devoted by Participant Two, and only as much as
14.0% of rehearsal time devoted by Participant One. The lack of student-directed instruction is disheartening given recommendations in the literature discussed in Chapter
Two, yet did not seem surprising given the teacher-directed tradition of instrumental music education.
Band Rehearsal Strategies
The Teacher-Directed Band Rehearsal
Based on the literature and data from this study, band rehearsals might be categorized in three ways: (a) traditional, teacher-directed, (b) alternative, student- directed, or (c) one supplementing the traditional, teacher-directed framework with student-directed instruction. As detailed in Chapter One, the traditional model for a band rehearsal is teacher-directed with the educator as director. This model, as described by
Goolsby (1996, 1997, 1999), Cavitt (2003), and Rosenshine et al. (2002) commences with a warm-up used to focus the attention of students, warm the metal of instruments, physically prepare students for musical performance, tune the band, and develop isolated technical or musical skills. Traditional warm-up activities may develop into a routine and include intonation strategies for matching pitches of instruments, chorales, scales in a few
‘band’ keys (e.g., F Major, B-flat Major, and E-Flat Major scales), and technical drills.
Following the warm-up stage, method book items or concert music are prepared using a rehearsal frame procedure. As Goolsby (1997) described: (a) the director provides specific verbal instruction for performance or asks a question, (b) an individual or the ensemble as a whole performs teacher-chosen music or answers a question, and (c) the 164
teacher provides specific feedback on the student response or performance. The musical
selection is performed again and the feedback-rehearsal procedure is repeated to affect
positive change in musical performance. The teacher is responsible for a majority of the
instructional choices, information, assessment, evaluation, feedback, and musical skill or
performance of pieces are mastered through a drill and practice routine. Finally, teacher
modeling and teacher-chosen listening activities, with students typically as passive
listeners, may be used. Overall, in the teacher-directed band rehearsal, the teacher serves
as a director of class activities and source of knowledge, assessment, and feedback with
the primary goal being refined musical performance.
As shown by participants’ greater prioritization of teacher-directed teaching and
learning strategies in both stages of this study, the teacher-directed band rehearsal seemed to be favored by these middle school band teachers. This may become increasingly true near the end of the scholastic year and important performances. The profession’s reward system for bands favors disciplined, organized bands with a high level of music performance skill and refined performance of state-selected classic works for band written by respected composers. Trophies and wall placards are presented to bands that perform their music at competitions or festival with excellent note accuracy, intonation, tone/timbre, technical skill, refinement, and discipline when compared to model performances by the ‘best’ bands. Other than during jazz band competitions, where student musicians may be rated on improvisation ability, band programs are not evaluated on student creativity, or what students know about music. As noted in interviews with participants, band directors themselves are respected by administrators and the public when they have bands that present a “truly musical product” (Participant Two) or when 165 their bands “play well” (Participant Three). Bands taught in an effective teacher-directed manner do garner high grades at competitions and perform skillfully during public concerts (e.g., Cavitt, 2003).
The Student-Directed Band Rehearsal
Despite the strengths of teacher-directed instruction in being efficient and producing quality musical performances, there may be deficiencies in student learning when exclusively using such procedures. The difference in student learning between teacher-directed instruction and student-directed instruction could be dramatic. For example, Participant One suggested one difference between teacher-directed and student- directed bands: “One will do a crescendo and get great ratings at contest, but they didn’t know what they did well. They had just done it so many times, repetition, and it’s strictly a reflection of the director’s competence.” The literature also reveals other student learning outcomes that may be lost when excluding student-directed instruction, including student self-regulation skills (McPherson, 1995, 1997), student independence
(Morgan, 1984), student creativity (Small, 1996), and higher-order thinking (Hickey,
2001; Ormrod, 2004).
A student-directed band rehearsal would follow a very different structure by using strategies described in Chapter Two, along with some of the student-directed instructional approaches observed in this study. Although musical performance skill can still be valued as a learning outcome, other elements of musicianship would receive greater emphasis than in the teacher-directed band rehearsal. Additionally, the large ensemble, with teacher as director, might be deemphasized. Smaller chamber ensembles (e.g., brass or woodwind quartets) and solo performances may become favored, as these have been noted to place 166
musical problem solving, musical choice, self-regulation, and assessment in the hands of students. As Labuta (1997) suggested, instead of expert composed repertoire or method books being the primary musical material for performances, student compositions could be used allowing for student choice and creative output. Further, Green (2005) suggested that popular music ensembles, as opposed to classical music ensembles, could be used because students may perceive the music as more relevant while also fostering student creativity.
In a student-directed rehearsal, musical concepts could be learned through student exploration during interdisciplinary group projects or presentations, and through open
questioning, or class discussion, rather than through lectures or teacher presentations
(e.g., Allsup & Baxter, 2004). Research and exploratory tasks would be assigned to
students as homework. Students could listen to music discovered through exploration and
reflect upon listening experiences while offering personal perspectives on music through
writing, discussion, or presentations. Student self-assessment and peer assessment
through evaluation forms, student reflections, and student portfolios would be favored
assessment and feedback strategies. In the student-directed rehearsal the teacher would be
a facilitator of student learning activities, providing frameworks for students to explore
music, their creativity, and develop independent musicianship with a comprehensive
understanding of music. The primary outcome of such student-directed strategies would
be to cause students to think about music and their performance, and to develop self-
regulatory abilities promoting musical independence.
Student-directed rehearsals seemed not to be used by Northeast Ohio band
teachers. As Stage One results revealed, TDI scores were higher than SDI scores, and 167
even when proclivity for student-directed instruction seemed to increase, so did teacher-
directed instruction at a significant rate. Reasons why teachers favor traditional band
rehearsal frameworks were explored in Chapter One, but were not investigated in this
study. However, while Stage Two observations and interviews with participants scoring
highest in student-directed teaching style dimensions did provide insight into student-
directed instruction, teacher-directed instruction and the traditional band rehearsal
framework were still prioritized and evident.
Despite the National Standards for Music Education (MENC, 1994),
comprehensive musicianship initiatives, and other state-wide arts standards, there are few
extrinsic rewards or pressures providing incentive for prevalent student-directed
instruction during band rehearsals. It may be that an increase in extrinsic rewards for
student composition and student understandings of musical concepts must first occur.
Increased public and professional value placed on solo and small ensemble performance, as opposed to large groups, could also support student-directed instruction. The number
of important large group performances that band directors and band students must
prepare for may also need to change. Finally, the teacher-to-student ratio may need to be
addressed so that band teachers are more capable of delivering individualized instruction
and accommodating student-directed learning activities.
Although there are many valuable reasons to use student-directed instruction (see
Chapter Two), with a yearly schedule that may include winter concerts, pops concerts,
spring music festivals or competitions, end of year concerts, and band tours, many band
directors may fear exploring such alternative activities. Further these activities remain
largely unexplored and untested in their relation to band programs, providing little 168
evidence of the effect on performance outcomes. Therefore, band teachers seem to adopt
traditional teacher-directed rehearsal models that are efficient, effective, advocated by
experts or mentors, and have provided a long history of evidence that consistently strong
performances can be conducted when using teacher-directed instruction.
The Balanced Band Rehearsal
Rather than dispense with student-directed instruction altogether, continuing
exclusively with the teacher-directed model, it may be valuable to first ask: (a) Are there reasons to deemphasize teacher-directed instruction in the band room and accommodate student-directed instruction? (b) Can merely adding some student-directed instruction have a positive impact on student learning in band programs? and (c) Are there student- directed strategies that could be efficiently and effectively delivered during rehearsals and balance teacher- and student-directed instruction within the band program, capitalizing on the strengths of both teaching styles?
Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, and Beckett (2005) discussed the theory of adaptive expertise. The authors described how teachers instruct within a balance of innovation and efficiency. Bransford et al. noted certain instructional strategies are designed for efficiency, and that efficiency-oriented practice is designed for problem elimination. Routine experts establish a routine utilizing efficient instructional strategies and “develop a core set of competencies that they apply throughout their lives with greater and greater efficiency” (p. 49). This may relate to Goolsby and Cavitt’s studies on expert band directors, which provided rich data on the teacher-directed, rehearsal frame procedure. Conversely, frustrated novices may tend to implement innovative instructional strategies that they may not have sufficient experience to be efficient with. In contrast 169
with these extremes, the adaptive expert is “much more likely to change their core
competencies and continually expand the breadth and depth of their expertise. This
restructuring of core ideas, beliefs, and competencies may reduce their efficiency in the short run but make them more flexible in the long run” (p. 49). Perhaps the significant relationship between Stage One respondents’ TDI and SDI scores (i.e., as one increased, so did the other) relates to the existence of adaptive expert band teachers.
Bransford et al. noted the value for educators to attend to both innovative
instructional strategies and efficient instruction:
For example, children who receive nothing but efficiency-oriented computation
training in mathematics may well become speedy at performing a specific routine,
but this kind of experience will lead to limited opportunities to learn with
understanding and develop students’ own mathematical conjectures as well as
become efficient at computation. Instruction that balances efficiency and
innovation should also include opportunities to experiment with ideas and, in the
process, experience the need to change them. (p. 51).
Extrapolating this scenario to band rehearsals, it may be that middle school band teachers’ preoccupation with efficiency or rehearsal routines could benefit from the implementation of alternative, student-directed strategies. As Bransford et al. noted, this benefit extends not only to the teachers themselves becoming adaptive experts, but in the learning outcomes of students. As Participant Three found when experimenting with stations during her jazz band, implementing innovations can result in positive learning, and yield teaching and learning strategies that will continue to be used. 170
Given the realities facing band teachers, as discussed by Stage Two participants, a purely student-directed instructional model may be an approach not presently realistic for band programs. Regelski (1992) noted that student-directed instruction may be an extreme, instead recommending student-focused music education. Based on Regelski’s statements, a balance between alternative teaching strategies and traditional, teacher- directed instruction may be more realistic. Regelski’s philosophy is based on the question, “Rather than trying to cover more than students could ever learn or use … of all that can be taught, what is most worth teaching?” (p. 107). It would seem that since the primary activity of bands involves playing instruments, band teachers have decided there is significant value in musical performance. However, as Regelski and authors of other literature have suggested, being musically literate requires other knowledge and skills beyond instrument performance. As Regelski stated:
Student-focused teaching is not a matter of stressing either the student or the
discipline but of effecting a dialectical synthesis of the two in order to gain the
best of both…. Student-focused instruction is teacher-directed but is not teacher-
or subject-dominated. The term ‘permissipline’ has been coined to refer to the
hybrid where instruction is both student-focused as to content and teacher-
directed as to organization and control. The … teacher cannot abdicate
responsibility for selecting and planning subject matter because it is dictated by
the real world in which the child must function…. The value of the content for
action—its action value as perceived by students—is thus what makes instruction
action-oriented and student-focused. (p. 115) 171
Therefore, a balance between musical concepts and musical performance, and between teacher- and student-directed instruction, seems pragmatic and realistic.
In a balanced band rehearsal the overall framework could be the traditional warm- up and rehearsal frame model described by Goolsby (1996, 1997, 1999) and Cavitt
(2003) and discussed above as “The Teacher-Directed Rehearsal.” The rehearsal would commence with a warm-up, but care would be taken to ensure that warm-ups were relevant to upcoming content and developed not only musical skill, but creativity and conceptual knowledge. Student-led improvisations or echoing could be one possible example of a warm-up activity. A teacher could model musical phrases with students following with variations of that phrase. Students could rotate in leading warm-ups and compose chorales or technical drills for the warm-up stage of rehearsal. With students assigned to write technical drills, they would first need to self-evaluate and peer-assess the band, identify problems, and apply prior knowledge and creativity to solve musical problems. Such strategies require students to think and reflect about music or their performance, rather than passively follow routines and the instructions of teachers.
During the rehearsal of concert selections, a modified rehearsal frame procedure would be followed. First, a musical excerpt would be performed or section reviewed. As soon as the performance is stopped, the band instructor naturally encounters a choice: (a) a teacher-directed teaching strategy, or (b) a student-directed learning strategy. For example, if intonation was a problem the band teacher could identify where the intonation problem is and provide direct feedback and instruction. Instead, in a balanced band rehearsal, the teacher would offer students opportunities to self-assess or offer their own solutions to musical problems whenever possible. 172
As demonstrated during the observation of participants, teachers can ask students to evaluate their intonation and have students offer suggestions to correct student- perceived problems. If students are unable to identify a problem, then the teacher could implement a mini-lesson on intonation focusing on developing self-assessment skills in students. As utilized by Participant One, SmartMusic provides a visual representation of intonation that students can use to evaluate intonation. However, teachers should endeavor to wean students from any tool or external feedback and develop students’ abilities to self-evaluate aurally. Ultimately, providing students with frequent opportunities to self-assess and correct musical problems could lead to less reliance on the director and heightened musical independence in students (e.g., providing students with rubrics or state adjudicator forms that they need to complete).
Those respondents who reported a proclivity for student-directed instruction on the MTSI may be attempting to balance their rehearsals with teacher- and student- directed instruction to some degree. However, as demonstrated by the three observed participants, actual application of student-directed instruction may be limited.
Maintaining an efficient rehearsal that effectively develops the performance level of concert repertoire seems valued by music teachers. Student-directed strategies such as those demonstrated, or suggested by participants, during Stage Two seem possible to implement without detracting from overall performance goals. Researchers and pedagogical authors strongly urge music educators to consider how to implement student- directed teaching and learning strategies. However, experimental research providing direct evidence of how these strategies would affect desired band learning outcomes 173
remains lacking and will likely be necessary before band teachers are encouraged to
explore student-directed instruction.
Summary. The primary intent behind a balanced band rehearsal is to ‘combine the
best of both worlds.’ There are undoubtedly reasons to continue prioritizing music
performance in the band room, and research on rehearsals conducted by experts has
found that the teacher-directed rehearsal frame model is successful in achieving quality
music performance (Cavitt, 2003). By utilizing some student-directed instruction within
that context, perhaps the quality of music education could be increased. As noted by
Branford et al. (2005) and Regelski (1992), a balance between innovation and efficiency,
or a student-focused band rehearsal utilizing both teacher- and student-directed strategies,
may be realistic. Despite the relatively limited use of student-directed instruction by the participants in this study, findings and the literature indicate that there are teaching and learning strategies ripe for implementation, worthy of exploration, and capable of establishing a balance between traditional, teacher-directed band rehearsals and alternative, student-directed band rehearsals.
Conclusions
Limitations of the Study
Student-directed instruction in band rooms seems not to be as prevalent as teacher-directed instruction. It was a challenge to find band teachers who devoted instructional time to student-directed teaching and learning strategies as opposed to traditional, teacher-directed band instruction. This could be a case where pedagogy needs to be developed and disseminated first and the present study could be a first step in this direction. Although the participants in this study reported a range of teaching styles, with 174
some reporting frequent use of student-directed instruction, the limited resulting number
of student-directed teachers available to contact for observation likely had an effect on
validity.
Validity could have been strengthened by studying a population from a larger
geographical region, in order to provide a larger pool of participants who measured high
in student-directed MTSI dimensions. Further, observing teachers with high scores in student-directed dimensions, but with corresponding low scores in teacher-directed dimensions, may also have enhanced validity and perspective. Finally, the observational stage of this study took place late in the scholastic year. It may be that student-directed instruction is more favored at other times of the year. Although interviews with
participants did probe this possibility, if the observations had been conducted at another point in the scholastic year, the results may have differed.
Suggestions for Further Research
Continued study on how music teachers develop the teaching and learning strategies they employ would be an important contribution to the literature. In particular, investigations should be conducted as to what specific factors may cause band teachers to favor teacher-directed rehearsal models. The content that could be introduced during music teacher education programs, music festivals or competitions, and professional development seminars to empower teachers to explore student-directed instruction also needs continued investigation. The relationships between other theories of teaching and the use of student-directed instruction in music education, such as those related to adaptive expertise (Bransford et al., 2005) should also be explored. 175
Whether band programs are appropriate environments for student-directed
instruction requires philosophical discussion and experimental investigation. Specifically, what is the difference in effect within the band program among the three types of rehearsals described? Do the learning outcomes of student-directed instrumental music programs outweigh the benefits of a curriculum dedicated to music performance? Despite the reported strengths of student-directed instruction, what effect it has on the primary
goal in instrumental music education of quality music performance remains an
unexplored problem. Further, a comprehensive inventory of student-directed strategies
that can be implemented in the band program should continue to be explored and
developed.
Conclusion
The results of this study revealed that teacher-directed instruction is prevalent
among middle school band directors in Northeast Ohio, with even those teachers
reporting the highest proclivity for student-directed instruction still prioritizing
performance and teacher-directed teaching and learning strategies. Such strategies
include drill and practice, teacher-directed rehearsal frames, teacher feedback, teacher
instruction, and teacher lectures. It seems that the requirement to have students perform
well at concerts and state adjudicated events may be the primary motivator for
conducting rehearsals emphasizing performance skills. There is a significant history and
abundant evidence that an efficient, teacher-directed rehearsal model will foster quality
performances.
Although teacher-directed instruction seemed the norm in this study, and
objective analysis of the data in this study does not provide abundant examples of 176 student-directed instruction taking place in middle school band rehearsals, Stage Two participants did provide valuable insight into the potential for student-directed band instruction. Coupled with suggestions from the literature, it appears that student-directed instruction may be able to be implemented to a greater degree by instrumental music educators. However, despite the values of such educational trends as comprehensive musicianship or student-directed instruction, further research and exploration of alternative student-directed teaching and learning strategies seem necessary before any widespread change may occur to the traditional, teacher-directed, performance-oriented band rehearsal.
177
Appendix A
Music Teaching Style Inventory 178 179 180 181
APPENDIX B
Consent to Use the Music Teaching Style Inventory
Dear Dr. Gumm:
I am a doctoral candidate at Case Western Reserve University in the process of completing my dissertation. The purpose of my study is to describe the teaching and learning practices demonstrated by teachers of middle school instrumental music who report a student-directed teaching style. In order to identify those educators most likely to employ student-directed teaching and learning strategies, who I will later observe teaching, I must administer an instrument that will measure teaching styles.
I believe that the Music Teaching Style Inventory (MTSI) is an appropriate tool to use for this purpose and I seek your permission to use it in my research. In order to increase the return rate of my study, I would also like to create an electronic version of the MTSI to be completed by participants. I will provide full copyright information and appropriate citations on the MTSI, as well as when reporting the results of the study.
If you have any concerns or questions you may contact me at (440) 821-9463 or [email protected] or my dissertation adviser, Dr. William I. Bauer, at (216) 368-2431 or [email protected]. Please return the attached Consent to Use document to me in the addressed, stamped, return envelope provided at your very earliest convenience so I may commence with my research.
Sincerely,
Dale E. Bazan Doctoral Candidate Case Western Reserve University
182 183
APPENDIX C
Questionnaire
Please input the identification code noted on your invitation to participate in the study.
Your unique code is a series of numbers found immediately after the internet address and survey password on your invitation. You are reminded that by entering this number you are acknowledging that your answers to the survey may be matched to your contact information for demographic reasons, regional representation, and possible contact for participation in the second stage of this study. Your name and any other identifiers will not be discussed in reporting data and will remain confidential.
______[type your identification code numbers]
Please inform the researcher about your willingness to participate in follow-up observations
and an interview during the second stage of this study. This would involve allowing the
researcher to observe and videotape 5 rehearsals. After the completion of all of the
observations there would be a follow-up interview that would be approximately one hour in
length. You are not consenting at this time to participate in the second phase of this study,
only indicating that the researcher may contact your school and yourself at a later date to
acquire consent and arrange convenient times. [mark an X on the appropriate statement]
YES, I would be willing to be contacted for follow up observations and interview. ______
NO, I do not want to be contacted for follow up observations and interview. ______184
Please provide the following information on your background and school environment.
Q1. What is your gender? [circle the number]
1. Male
2. Female
Q2. How many years will you have been teaching at the end of the current school year?
______year(s)
Q3. The school district in which I teach could best be described as
______. [circle the number]
1. Rural
2. Suburban
3. Urban
Q4. I currently am employed ______.
1. Full-time
2. Part-time
Q5. What is your highest earned degree? [circle the number]
1. Bachelor’s degree
2. Master’s degree
3. Doctorate
Q6. What was the area of emphasis for your bachelor’s degree? [select all that apply]
1. Music education
2. Music performance
3. Music theory/composition
4. Music history
5. Jazz studies
6. Other music (please specify) ______
7. Non-music (please specify) ______185
Q7. If you have a Master’s degree, what was its area of emphasis? [circle the number]
1. Music education
2. Music performance
3. Conducting
4. Music theory/composition
5. Music history
6. Jazz studies
7. Other music (please specify) ______
8. Non-music (please specify) ______
Q8. If you have a Doctoral degree, what was its area of emphasis? [circle the number]
1. Music education
2. Music performance
3. Conducting
4. Music theory/composition
5. Music history
6. Jazz studies
7. Other music (please specify) ______
8. Non-music (please specify) ______
Q9. Which best describes how you received your music teaching certificate/license? [circle
the number]
1. Traditional undergraduate teacher education program.
2. Completed during post-baccalaureate program (without an additional degree)
3. Completed during Masters degree program
4. Completed during Doctoral degree program
186
Q10. What was your primary area of emphasis during your certification/licensure program?
1. Band
2. Strings/Orchestra
3. Choral
4. General Music
5. Other (please specify) ______
Q11. What is the enrollment in each of your current 7th and 8th grade bands? [write a number]
______7th grade students
______8th grade students
Q12. How frequently do your bands rehearse per week? [write a number]
7th grade ______times per week
8th grade ______times per week
Q13. How long is each band rehearsal in minutes? [write a number]
______7th grade band
______8th grade band
Q14. How many concerts do your bands perform in each year? [write a number]
______7th grade band
______8th grade band 187
APPENDIX D
Instrumental Music Teacher Consent Document for Survey Completion
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC TEACHER INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT
FOR MUSIC TEACHING STYLE INVENTORY COMPLETION
Background Information This research study is designed to gather data on the variety of teaching practices used by middle school instrumental music educators. You were selected as a potential participant because you are a middle school teacher of instrumental music within the geographic region being studied. Please read this form and ask any questions that you may have before agreeing to participate in the study.
Dale E. Bazan, a doctoral student in Music Education at Case Western Reserve University, will be conducting this study.
A teaching style inventory is being administered in order to identify teaching styles preferred by instrumental music educators in Northeast Ohio. The teaching style inventory does not evaluate the effectiveness of instruction and it is acknowledged that a variety of teaching styles can be equally effective.
Procedures If you wish to be a participant in this research, you will complete a music teaching style inventory. This survey will take about ten (10) minutes of your time. The survey contains teaching scenarios and behaviors that you will rank on a scale from least used to most used. This survey is part one of a two stage study. An identifier code included in your survey, which can be matched to a master list available only to the researcher, is necessary so that you can be contacted for participation in possible follow-up observations or interviews at a later date. You are not consenting to the second, observation/interview phase of this study by completing this survey.
Risks and Benefits to Participating in the Study There are no foreseeable risks to the participants, either physically or psychologically. This study is not designed to evaluate or alter your teaching. There are no direct benefits from participating in the study. Secondary benefits of participation are that you may come to understand your instructional preferences.
Compensation There will be no compensation, payment, or reimbursement for participating in this study.
188
Confidentiality Confidentiality is assured and no names will be included in the reporting of this study. Contact information and names will not be discussed or shared with anyone other than Mr. Bazan’s advisory committee or Case Western Reserve University administration overseeing this study to ensure the safety of participants. All records of this study will be kept private and secure by the researcher. All records, data, materials, and identifiers will be destroyed within two (2) years after completion of the study. No names of the teacher, school, location, students, or other identifiers will be included in the reporting of this study.
Voluntary Nature of the Study Participation is voluntary. If you choose not to participate, it will not affect your current or future relations with your administration, your school, other teachers, the researcher, or Case Western Reserve University. There is no penalty or loss of benefits for not participating or discontinuing your participation.
Contacts and Questions Dale E. Bazan is the researcher conducting this study. At any time, if you have any concerns or questions, you may contact Mr. Dale E. Bazan at (440) 821-9463 or [email protected] or Mr. Bazan’s dissertation adviser Dr. William I. Bauer at (216) 368-2431 or [email protected]. You may also write to Dr. William I. Bauer at the Department of Music, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7105.
If the researcher cannot be reached, or if you would like to talk to someone other than Mr. Bazan or Dr. Bauer about (1) concerns regarding this study, (2) research participant rights, (3) research-related injuries, or (4) other human subjects issues, please contact Case Western Reserve University’s Institutional Review Board at (216) 368-6925 or write: Case Western Reserve University, Institutional Review Board, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44106-7230.
Statement of Consent Instrumental music educator consent is required of all potential participants, regardless of age. By clicking through to the survey, I confirm that I have read and understood the information regarding the electronic survey. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I understand that I may print this consent form, or may contact the researcher, Dale E. Bazan, for a printed copy of it. By clicking through this screen, I volunteer to take part in this study. I have the option of volunteering to participate further by agreeing to observations and interview about the topics of this survey at a later date.
189
APPENDIX E
Survey Invitation
March 2, 2007
Dear Fellow Music Educator,
Because of your experience and expertise I request your assistance. You are being contacted because your school was listed as a Northeast Ohio public middle school in the Ohio Educational Directory, and your website or office noted you as the instrumental music educator in the school. Middle school instrumental music educators utilize various teaching and learning strategies and possess a wide range of skills and knowledge appropriate to their unique chemistry of school environment, students, and personal experience. Please take about 10 minutes to complete a survey designed to identify the teaching styles of music educators. You may also contact me for a hard/paper copy of the survey. I will immediately send you a hard copy and addressed, stamped, return envelope.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and I assure that your responses will remain confidential. No individual information will be reported; only group data will be discussed. To participate in the study, simply type the following URL link into your web browser address bar:
bandresearch.webhop.net
You will be taken to a password protected website. Please enter the following information:
Password: band
Your Identification Number: ______
Informed consent information will appear on one page describing the study and your rights in participating in it. As detailed in the informed consent page by continuing to the survey you are voluntarily consenting for your answers to be used as described.
To complete the study, read all instructions and carefully select the answer by clicking on the radio button, checking boxes, or typing in the most suitable answer. On the final page of the survey be sure to click the “DONE” button to send your answers to me. By clicking the done button you are agreeing to allow your responses to be used in this study. Please complete the survey as soon as possible and no later than March 12, 2007.
(please read back of page)
190
This survey is part of a two-stage study requiring follow-up observations and interview of a few instrumental music teachers for the second stage study. You are not consenting for the second stage by completing the survey. If you give permission on the questionnaire, the researcher may contact your school, and yourself, at a later date to acquire consent and arrange convenient times.
Thank you in advance for your time in completing this questionnaire. If you have any technical difficulties or questions, please contact me at [email protected] or (440) 821-9463 or my dissertation adviser Dr. William I. Bauer at (216) 368-2431 or [email protected]. If you would like a copy of your responses and/or the final study please email me and I will send them to you, by email, upon completion of the study.
Sincerely,
Dale E. Bazan Ph.D. Student in Music Education Case Western Reserve University
191
APPENDIX F
Second Survey Invitation
March 13, 2007
Dear Fellow Music Educator,
Because of your experience and expertise I request your assistance. A couple of weeks ago I sent an invitation to complete a survey designed to gather data on the variety of teaching styles of middle school instrumental music teachers in Northeast Ohio. To date I have not received a response from you and I would welcome your input and time in completing this 10-15 minute survey. You may also contact me for a hard/paper copy of the survey. I will immediately send you a hard copy and addressed, stamped, return envelope. If your responses have crossed in the mail, thank-you for your participation and time. If you feel you have submitted an electronic survey or have any questions, please contact me using the contact information below.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and I assure that your responses will remain confidential. No individual information will be reported, only group data will be discussed. To participate in the study, simply copy the following URL link into your web browser address bar:
bandresearch.webhop.net
You will be taken to a password protected website. Please enter the following information:
Password: band
Your Identification Number: ______
Informed consent information will appear detailing the study and your rights in participating in it. As detailed in the informed consent pages by continuing to the survey you are voluntarily consenting for your answers to be used as described.
To complete the study, read all instructions and carefully select the answer by clicking on the radio button or typing in the most suitable answer. On the final page of the survey be sure to click the “submit” button to send your answers to me. By clicking the submit button you are agreeing to allow your responses to be used in this study. Please complete the study as soon as possible and no later than March 23, 2007
(please read back of page)
192
This survey is part of a two-stage study requiring follow-up observations and interview of a few instrumental music teachers for the second stage study. You are not consenting for the second stage by completing the survey. The researcher may contact your school, and yourself, at a later date to acquire consent and arrange convenient times.
Thank you in advance for your time in completing this questionnaire. If you have any technical difficulties or questions, please contact me at [email protected] or (440) 821-9463 or my dissertation adviser Dr. William I. Bauer at (216) 368-2431 or [email protected]. If you would like a copy of your responses and/or the final study please email me and I will send them to you, by email, upon completion of the study.
Sincerely,
Dale E. Bazan Ph.D. Student in Music Education Case Western Reserve University
193
APPENDIX G
Reminder Postcard
Dear Fellow Music Educator,
I need your help! A few weeks ago I sent you an invitation to complete a brief survey on music teaching styles for an important research project being conducted for Case Western Reserve University. Your experience as an instrumental music educator makes your contributions extremely valuable in this study. This study will help contribute to the knowledge on the teaching of instrumental music students.
I am sending this notice because I have not received your submission. If you have already sent it by mail, thank you for your participation. If you believe there is an error or need another copy, please contact me at (440) 368-9055 or by email [email protected].
To participate in the study, type the following URL link into your web browser address bar:
bandresearch.webhop.net
You will be taken to a password protected website. Please enter the following information:
Password: band
Your Identification Number: ______
Thank-you for your participation in this study.
Sincerely,
Dale E. Bazan Doctoral Candidate
194
APPENDIX H
Administrator Information Letter
Dear Administrator [Name if Available],
Music teachers and researchers are always considering new approaches to instruction in order to provide the best education to their students. Your band director [Instrumental Music Teacher Name] was invited to complete an online Music Teaching Style Inventory, and after data analysis, has been identified as emphasizing a teaching style of great interest to my research and worthy of follow-up observations. The hope is that this research study will discover teaching and learning practices associated with certain teaching styles that could help band students’ musical experiences.
I, Dale E. Bazan, a Ph.D. candidate in Music Education at Case Western Reserve University, am requesting formal, written permission to invite your band director to be observed by myself and videotaped during five (5) band classes and interviewed upon completion of all observations. I will not interact with students in any way as students are not the subjects of this study. The video recorder will be focused on your band director, not students. Your band director’s participation will be entirely voluntary and s/he will be asked to provide informed consent to participate. Confidentiality is assured and no names, identities, or other identifying statements will be made about the band director, students, or the school during the reporting of this study. Videotaped rehearsals will not be shared other than with Mr. Bazan’s dissertation advisory committee or Case Western Reserve University administration overseeing this study to ensure the safety of participants.
Those schools and band directors that participate in this study may make a valuable contribution to music education pedagogy. You have the right to express to the researcher or your band director, that you would not like your school to be involved in this study and this will not affect any relationships, including those with Case Western Reserve University. If you have any concerns or questions you may contact Mr. Dale E. Bazan at (440) 821-9463 or [email protected] or Mr. Bazan’s dissertation adviser Dr. William I. Bauer at (216) 368-2431 or [email protected].
If you would support my research taking place in your school, please write a letter on school letter head granting me permission to contact your band director and invite them to participate. You retain the right, at any point during my research, to revoke permission without explanation and without cost. Thank you for your support of my research.
Sincerely,
Dale E. Bazan Doctoral Candidate Case Western Reserve University 195
APPENDIX I
Observational Field Notes Protocol
Observational Fieldnotes – Teaching and Learning Strategies Used by Student-Directed Teachers of Middle School Band Setting: Observer: D. Bazan Role of Observer: Observer of rehearsal Time: Length of Observation:
TIME OBSERVED STRATEGY REFLECTIVE NOTES 196
APPENDIX J
Instrumental Music Teacher Information Letter/Script for Rehearsal Observation
Dear Fellow Music Educator:
Music teachers and researchers are always considering new approaches to instruction in order to provide the best education to their students. During the past few weeks you completed a survey on music teaching styles. Your approach to teaching was very positive and interesting, and describing your approach to other band directors could be useful. Observing and videotaping five of your 7th or 8th grade band rehearsals over the next few weeks could enhance other instrumental music educators’ teaching practices.
Your participation is entirely voluntary and no names or other identifying statements will be made about you, students, or your school during the reporting of this study. Videotaped rehearsals will not be shared other than with you, my dissertation advisory committee, or Case Western Reserve University administration overseeing this study to ensure the safety of participants.
Those instrumental music teachers who participate in this study could make a valuable contribution to music education pedagogy. If you are willing to allow me to observe your program, please complete and return the informed consent form that is enclosed. I will be contacting you to arrange times to observe your bands.
At any time, if you have any concerns or questions, you may contact Mr. Dale E. Bazan at (440) 821-9463 or [email protected] or Mr. Bazan’s dissertation adviser Dr. William I. Bauer at (216) 368-2431 or [email protected]. You may also write to Dr. William I. Bauer at the Department of Music, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7105. If I cannot be reached, or if you would like to talk to someone other than me or my advisor about (1) concerns regarding this study, (2) research participant rights, (3) research-related injuries, or (4) other human subjects issues, please contact Case Western Reserve University’s Institutional Review Board at (216) 368-6925 or write: Case Western Reserve University, Institutional Review Board, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44106-7230.
Thank you for assisting my research.
Sincerely,
Dale E. Bazan Doctoral Candidate Case Western Reserve University 197
APPENDIX K
Instrumental Music Teacher Consent Document for Rehearsal Observation
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC TEACHER INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT
FOR REHEARSAL OBSERVATION AND INTERVIEW
Background Information This research study is designed to gather data on the teaching practices of select middle school teachers of instrumental music. You were selected as a potential participant because you are a middle school instrumental music educator identified by self-report questionnaire to most prefer a selected teaching style. Please read this form and ask any questions that you may have before agreeing to participate in the study. By observing and videotaping five (5) rehearsals, and by interviewing you, data may be compiled that could expand the teaching and learning strategies available to music educators.
Dale E. Bazan, a doctoral student in Music Education at Case Western Reserve University will be conducting this study.
Procedures If you wish to be a participant in this research, you are granting permission for the researcher to observe and videotape five (5) of your 7th or 8th grade band rehearsals and conduct one semi-formal, one hour interview with you after all videotaping/observing is completed. The video recorder will be focused on you, the teacher, and not your students. Consent to conduct research in your school has been received from your administrator. Rehearsals within one (1) week of an important performance will be avoided. The observation and video recording of rehearsals is an integral part of the study. If you do not wish to be observed or videotaped you should not participate in the study.
Risks and Benefits to Participating in the Study No evaluation of the program, teacher, or students’ abilities are taking place. There are no foreseeable risks to the participants, either physically or psychologically. There are no direct benefits of participating in the study. Secondary benefits of participation may be that observed teaching and learning strategies could help music educators better adapt instruction to their students and better understand their own teaching styles. This study is not designed to change your instruction, but to observe and describe it, and should not affect any instruction in the foreseeable future.
Compensation
There will be no compensation, payment, or reimbursement for participating in this study.
198
Confidentiality Confidentiality is assured. No names or other identifiers will be included on the videotape and the videotape will not be observed by anyone other than you (the teacher), Mr. Bazan’s advisory committee, or Case Western Reserve University administration overseeing this study to ensure the safety of participants. All records of this study will be kept confidential, private and secure by the researcher. All records, data, videotapes, and other identifiers will be destroyed within two (2) years after completion of the study. No names of the teacher, school, location, or other identifiers will be included in the reporting of this study.
Voluntary Nature of the Study Participation is voluntary. If you choose not to participate, it will not affect your current or future relations with your administration, your school, other teachers, the researcher, or Case Western Reserve University. There is no penalty or loss of benefits for not participating or discontinuing your participation.
Contacts and Questions Dale E. Bazan is the researcher conducting this study. At any time, if you have any concerns or questions, you may contact Mr. Dale E. Bazan at (440) 821-9463 or [email protected] or Mr. Bazan’s dissertation adviser Dr. William I. Bauer at (216) 368-2431 or [email protected]. You may also write to Dr. William I. Bauer at the Department of Music, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7105.
If the researcher cannot be reached, or if you would like to talk to someone other than Mr. Bazan or Dr. Bauer about (1) concerns regarding this study, (2) research participant rights, (3) research-related injuries, or (4) other human subjects issues, please contact Case Western Reserve University’s Institutional Review Board at (216) 368-6925 or write: Case Western Reserve University, Institutional Review Board, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44106-7230. Keep the second copy of this form for your records.
Statement of Consent I have read the above information. I have received answers to the questions I have asked. I consent to participate in this research. I am at least 18 years of age. I also understand that I reserve the right to change my mind and withdraw at any time without giving a reason and without cost.
Print Name of Instrumental Music Educator: ______
Signature of Instrumental Music Educator: ______Date: ______199
APPENDIX L
Parent and Student Information Letter
Dear Parents, Guardians and Students:
Music teachers are always considering new approaches to instruction in order to provide the best education to their students. Your band director was measured by survey as having a particularly positive and interesting teaching style worthy of follow-up study. Over the next several weeks your band director [Instrumental Music Teacher Name] has expressed a willingness to participate in an observational study. The hope is that this research study will discover strategies that could help band students’ musical experiences.
Dale E. Bazan, a Ph.D. student in Music Education at Case Western Reserve University will be observing and videotaping your band director during rehearsals. Although the video recorder will be focused on the band director, it is possible students may enter the camera field-of-view. However, videotaped rehearsals will not be shared other than with Mr. Bazan’s dissertation advisory committee or Case Western Reserve University administration overseeing this study to ensure the safety of participants. Participation is entirely confidential and no names, identities, or other identifying statements will be made about your band director, students, or the school during the reporting of this research.
Participant band directors will make a valuable contribution to music education. If you have any concerns or questions you may contact Mr. Dale E. Bazan at (440) 821-9463 or [email protected], your band director [name and contact information of instrumental music teacher], or Mr. Bazan’s dissertation adviser Dr. William I. Bauer at (216) 368- 2431 or [email protected].
Thank you for your assistance in my research.
Sincerely,
Dale E. Bazan [Instrumental Music Educator Name] Doctoral Candidate Band Director Case Western Reserve University [School]
200
APPENDIX M
Interview Protocol
Interview Notes – Teaching and Learning Strategies Used by Student-Directed Teachers of Middle School Band Setting: Interviewer: D. Bazan Interviewee: Time: Length of Interview:
TRANSCRIPT REFLECTIVE NOTES
201
APPENDIX N
Interview Questions
The following questions will initiate the semi-formal interviews of participants:
(a) What are the primary goals and objectives of your teaching?
(b) What skills do you most want students to develop during band?
(c) What sort of assessments do you utilize?
(d) Please describe any formal handouts for self-evaluation or self-assessment you provide students.
(e) How do you provide students with feedback and input on their development?
(f) When do you feel, developmentally, that students are capable of monitoring, evaluating, and/or guiding their own musical development?
(g) How do you help students develop independence in music-making and/or musicianship?
(h) What sorts of choices do you allow students to make about learning activities?
(i) Beyond the rehearsals observed, how much do you involve students in the planning of activities and direction of instruction?
(j) What sort of projects or presentations do students do, if any?
(k) Do you have any small ensemble rehearsals, sectionals, or informal ensembles (e.g., popular music groups) taking place in the school? Are these run by you or the students?
(l) If they do, how do your teaching practices change throughout the school year?
(l) What do you do to set up your ideal learning environment, and please describe this learning environment?
(m) How do you involve parents in your program? 202
(n) How do you collaborate with other teachers, as in any interdisciplinary units?
Other questions may be added dependant on observations and answers to these questions.
203
APPENDIX O
Coding Manual
A coding manual was maintained based on recommendations by MacQueen,
McLelan, Kay, and Millstein (1998). The authors suggested that systematic coding is a key element in the analysis of qualitative data. Although a coding manual was specifically suggested in studies conducted by multiple researchers in order to increase inter-rater reliability, for the current study it was used to organize codes and increase validity. The structure of this coding manual has four components: a code category, the code, a definition, and examples of each code. The coding manual was maintained in
Microsoft Access. For convenience sake, the procedure for creating codes is detailed in this appendix.
The examination of rehearsal video clips was informed by traditional content analysis procedures (Schwandt, 2001). The researcher began analysis by creating a set of codes through a two-step process. First, an a priori investigation of videotape content and field notes was conducted to develop an understanding of the instructional practices used by participants. Second, the literature on student-directed instruction was examined for terms related to this teaching style including a three category framework found in the pilot study: (a) teacher-directed instruction; (b) student-directed instruction; and (c) non- instructional behaviors.
The coding process relied primarily on manifest coding. Manifest coding is an objective approach to coding data by considering the visible, surface content and simply reporting the existence or non-existence of a code (e.g., either the participant asks questions of students or not). Manifest coding is reported as highly reliable because the 204 code phrase or word is either present or not (Neuman, 2002). However, because manifest coding does not take into account the meaning or context of codes, latent coding was also utilized for some teaching practices. Latent coding, or semantic analysis, emerged during data analysis so that context and meaning in observations, video, and interviews could be considered when assigning codes (e.g., a question was asked by the participant but was not intended for a student-directed response, therefore would be coded under teacher- directed instruction). In these cases, the researcher’s previous experience as an instrumental music educator and familiarity with the literature provided the foundation for interpreting the data.
Video footage was transcribed and time codes inserted within Transana 2.20 video analysis software (Woods & Fassnacht, 2007) at each change of speaker (e.g., teacher to student or teacher to student performance) and between each teaching or learning strategy (e.g., between when a teacher provided feedback and when they followed with an instruction). Each statement or activity was then coded resulting in 3516 individual video clips with a corresponding teaching and learning practice code. During the coding process, three categories were determined: (a) Non-Instructional, or those statements and activities not directly related to music curricular content or skills, (b)
Student-Directed Instruction, and (c) Teacher-Directed Instruction. Definitions and examples of each category and related teaching and learning strategies are detailed in the following tables.
205
Rehearsal Observational Codes
CATEGORY CODE DEFINITION EXAMPLE OF USE
Non- Administrative Dealing with Participant Three Instructional administrative duties distributed a handout such as scheduling, about an upcoming field handouts, trip and discussed announcements, other important points in the information, or talking handout. to other teachers/teaching assistants who would come into the room.
Non- Behavioral Verbally bringing a Participants would Instructional Cues/Feedback student’s attention to frequently say “Shhhh” to their feedback and/or have students stop talking provide feedback on in order to listen to the that behavior. teacher or prepare for a performance.
Non- Building Rapport The use of humor, life Participant One would Instructional stories, interesting occasionally ask students news, or anecdotes to about their future careers add levity to the or what they had for classroom. These breakfast. incidents were not intertwined with a curriculum related instruction or feedback.
Non- Non-Instruction When students A student asked about Instructional Related Student talked/asked about what they needed to wear Talk administrative to a concert. announcements, or commented on other non-instructional comments. Further, this code was applied when students made a comment that did not relate to a curricular activity or comment. 206
Non- Organizational Any time spent Teachers occasionally Instructional organizing the helped fix an instrument classroom, students, or guided percussion to instruments, or the correct instrument for paperwork that was not a piece. immediately prior to a performance. Typically this was downtime to allow students to get organized for the next rehearsal frame or organizing percussion.
Non- Other Teacher Any comment made by Participant One provided Instructional Talk the teacher that was not feedback on a student curriculum related and speaking quietly by did not fit into one of saying, “Look at how the other non- many people didn’t hear. instructional codes. Now, ... what you’ve learned is when you are a teacher, you really have to project your voice. Raise your hand if you cannot hear me.” The students’ statement (coded under non-instructional student talk) was in relation to a prior non-instructional comment by the teacher, and the teacher response was determined as not related to the music curriculum.
Student- Creativity Any comments or time Participant One asked Directed related to an activity students to write a song Instruction that was creativity about their recent related. This could standardized test include composition or experiences. improvisation.
207
Student- Peer-Assessment Any formal request Participant One asked Directed made by the teacher, other band students to Instruction and the following watch the fingerings of student responses, the flutes and assess related to the whether they were assessment or keeping their fingers close evaluation of other to the keys while playing. instrumentalists in the room.
Student- Problem Solving An activity or comment Participant One handed Directed that involved students out a worksheet on Instruction in solving musical subdividing. Students problems. were provided time to create their own definition of subdivision and subdivide a rhythm. Students were to select their own excerpt from a rehearsal piece and rewrite it to reflect the subdivisions in that rhythm.
Student- Questioning Any question asked of Participant Three asked Directed students that required students while they were Instruction metacognition, thought, rehearsing in a circle, or reflection. rather than traditional arced rows, “What did you hear different that you’ve never heard before? Percussion could you hear a little more since some of them were actually facing you?” On another occasion she asked, “But, I can guarantee you that we’ll stop at 31. Tell me why. Why would I stop after I hear the chord at 31?
208
Student- Self-Assessment Any formal request Participant One asked Directed made by the teacher, students following their Instruction and the following performance, “How many student responses, feel that’s the best you’ve related to the ever played?” and had assessment of their own them raise their hands musical performance. after asking, “How many Self-assessments were of you have a few little fairly short and things you need to work informal when used by out?” participants in this study.
Student- Student Choice Any occasion where the Participant One allowed Directed teacher provided the entire band to Instruction students with the nominate and select which opportunity to influence drummer was to play class activities or drum set during each day procedures. of the upcoming week. A schedule was set based on student input.
Student- Student Frequently this was the Students responded after a Directed Explanation answer to a question period of thought or Instruction where students needed reflection to a teacher to explain their question that seemed thoughts, a procedure, intended to have them or a musical concept. think. For example, after This code was not used Participant Three asked for student assessments. them to reflect upon the Due to the position of different sounds they were the researcher, the hearing in a different directionality of the ensemble configuration, video recorder students described or microphone, and the identified different fact that students were melodies they suddenly not the subjects of the heard. study, student explanations were not always decipherable.
209
Student- Student-Directed Any rehearsal where Participant One had the Directed Rehearsal students were the band perform a piece Instruction conductors or when the without him conducting, teacher expressly cuing, or providing removed themselves feedback during from being the performance. While the conductor. If a teacher students performed, the was modeling, or teacher sat motionless performing, on an with his arms folded. instrument at the time this code was not used, teacher modeling was used. The teacher needed to be sitting motionless and simply monitoring students while they performed.
Student- Other Student- Any student-directed Practice suggestions were Directed Directed comment, suggestion, sometimes made by Instruction Strategy or Talk or strategy that did not teachers and were fit into one of the other incorporated into this codes. category. For example, Participant One explained, “Several of you are practicing together. That’s not really practicing. That’s like a mini- rehearsal or sectional. Practice is one or two little tiny notes, until you figure out a way so that they’ll never bother you again. Don’t practice the stuff you know over and over again.” This was perceived as helping develop student independence and instructing them on an activity they were to do independently of the class.
210
Teacher- Organization for The organizational In most cases, prior to the Directed Performance instructions and vocal bands performing, a Instruction cues immediately teacher would count off preceding musical “One, two, three, four” or performance. Although may say, for example, these we organizational, “Softly.” they were incidents of teacher talk that directly caused student performance to follow.
Teacher- Teacher Any formal time taken Participant Three had the Directed Assessment to test students. This trombone section test a Instruction included the teacher musical section, writing down grades individually, during class. on, for example, a The teacher wrote down a clipboard. The student grade on a clipboard. performance being assessed was code within one code instance, and was not included in “Teacher- Directed Performance” because the activity was an assessment. After the teacher wrote a grade, any feedback or further rehearsal was included in other appropriate codes.
Teacher- Teacher This code was applied Participant One stated Directed Explanation to lectures, mini- about instrument balance, Instruction lectures, or other “When I tell you that curriculum-related something is out of explanations about balance like a couple of music, musical these chords in Salute to concepts, or musical America, it means that techniques. one note is particularly louder than the other for
no particular reason. They are playing it high, so of course you hear it louder.”
211
Teacher- Teacher While the band was not Participant Two stated, Directed Feedback performing, but “That was good flutes, Instruction typically immediately nice intonation.” following a performance, the teacher would provide students with positive or negative evaluative information about the performance.
Teacher- Teacher While the band was Participant Two said, Directed Feedback During performing the teacher “Trombones you were Instruction Performance would provide students late!” with positive or negative evaluative information about the performance by shouting over the band.
Teacher- Teacher Any statement, Participant Three Directed Instruction typically followed instructed, “Clarinets, you Instruction immediately by student need to use your side E- performance, on what flat key.” students needed to do.
Teacher- Teacher Any statement made Participant One instructed Directed Instruction while students were saxes to blow with a more Instruction During performing on rounded embouchure by Performance instruments, typically saying, “Warm air saxes, shouted over the band, warm air.” on what students needed to do.
Teacher- Teacher Whenever the teacher Participant One used Directed Modeling used singing, clapping, echoing during every Instruction or played an instrument warm-up. The teacher to demonstrate a would play a musical musical technique, phrase, and students phrase, or concept would respond verbatim. when students were not No student choice or performing on variations were instruments. accommodated. Only the teacher demonstration was applied with this code. 212
Teacher- Teacher Whenever the teacher Participant One and Three Directed Modeling During used singing, clapping, occasionally played their Instruction Performance or played an instrument instrument with students. to demonstrate a The teacher would stop musical technique, conducting, but was still phrase, or concept influencing and when students were controlling the performing on performance while instruments. playing their instrument.
Teacher- Teacher- Any occasion where A band performed a Directed Directed students were section of music with the Instruction Performance performing on teacher conducting. instruments with the teacher conducting them. If the teacher made a comment or sang/performed on instrument other codes in this category were then applied.
Teacher- Teacher- Whenever the teacher Participant One asked Directed Directed asked a question that students, “What scale are Instruction Questioning was rhetorical, trivial, we doing?” and on or required simple another occasion, after analysis or recall by performing a call and students. response, “Have we made it to the top of scale yet? Yes or no?”
Teacher- Teacher- The answer or To Participant One’s Directed Directed Student statement provided by question about whether Instruction Talk/Simple students to follow a they had made it to the top Recall question. These scale degree, students responses were short responded, “No.” and seemed to lack any sort of higher-order thinking. Student questions or comments about a teacher instruction were also included in this code.
213
Teacher- Vocal Cues Whenever a teacher Occasionally teachers Directed During made a comment or would say, for example, Instruction Performance statement to point out “Two, three, and” before an upcoming musical an upcoming rehearsal event while students mark. Further, teachers were performing. would warn students about a tempo, dynamic, or style change.
Teacher- Other Teacher Due to videotape A teacher would lean over Directed Vocal During fidelity, proximity of to the front row and Instruction Performance the teacher to the evidently say something, students, and volume of but their back may have the band, the teacher’s been to the researcher or vocal statements were the video recorder. observed but could not be deciphered.
Interview Codes
CODE DEFINITION EXAMPLE OF USE
Goals and Any statement or Participant Two stated, “We try to Objectives discussion that revealed achieve a lot of different things. At what the desired learning this school it’s very important to make outcomes were of a band a fun learning experience. Along teacher’s curriculum with that we try to make a quality musical product. Students learn to read notes; they read dynamics, and all those sorts of things. It’s very important that they get sound quality that’s characteristic of their instrument. Those are the things that I’m working on at this point.”
214
Assessment Any explanation or Participant Two stated, “For the most description of how part, we talked about the recorded student progress was assessments, I have a grading rubric monitored and evaluated. that I use. I have a grading rubric that talks about things I look for in each of their selections. I’ll grade them on a number of different areas, everything from tone, to rhythm, to breath support, phrasing, musical phrasing, and a number of different areas. There’s five in total, and then they’ll get circles on a one to five scale, and then it’ll be out of 25 points for that exercise, and there’s four exercises, which there usually are, scale and three others, then it’ll be out of 100 points.”
Interdisciplinary or Any statement or Participant Three described a couple Comprehensive discussion that involved of instances where she made Musicianship the incorporation of other connections with other subjects. As subjects, other arts, she explained, “At one point the art society, or musical teacher was doing kaleidoscopes, and concepts beyond musical I noticed that on the wall, the kids’ performance. drawings. They were really neat, all the different shapes and things. So I
told her that the band was playing Cartoon Kaleidoscope, and I explained to the band that that was a montage of different songs, it’s a medley, and how it fit into the kaleidoscope. Some of the kids who had worked on the kaleidoscopes thought that was pretty neat. A lot have taken her art class.”
Support for Any statement or When referring to his own musical Student-Directed discussion that provided development, Participant One said, Instruction an example of why “We had a wonderful program looking student-directed back. A great, great, great bunch of instruction would be teachers. But it was still a military valuable to students. model. We had to sit with the horn on the knee, and you dare not even move or flex or you’d be swatted out in the hallway. Emotionally that never set with me, although I love music. So, I’m not totally trying to correct the 215
past, but I’ll tell kids, I’m trying to make your reality different from mine.”
Student-Directed Any statement or Participant One stated, “… it’s going Philosophy discussion that revealed to harness their creativity. I see the teacher as having a everything as … all we’re doing now student-directed ... the creativity has gone out of even philosophy. instructional delivery things. The science teachers are very demoralized because they have to teach this on this day, there’s even a day where you have to stop everything and teach the constitution day. Lockstep. Music is one of the last places where we can be creative.”
Student-Directed Any explanation or Participant Three described how Instructional description of a teaching student-directed instruction, freedom, Strategy or learning strategy that and creativity were explored in greater could be considered depth in jazz band. She stated, “A lot student-directed. of creativity, again, used in jazz ensemble because we meet every day. I’m in a very unique situation. We have a lot of time to work on improvisation and listening and allowing them to try to incorporate quoting and scales, modular type things, in their solos. Also they’re using other instruments, piano, and guitar, so they’re using a different ... they have a different outlet sitting down at a piano or sitting down at a drum set, instead of behind a concert snare drum. In that aspect, I think jazz ensemble is able to house a lot more freedom doing that kind of stuff.”
Reasons for Any statement or Participant Two explained the Teacher-Directed discussion that provided problems with using small groups as, Instruction evidence as to why “It really is because there’s nobody to teacher-directed watch them. I worry very much and instruction was used the principal doesn’t like it either instead of student- when they’re left unsupervised. Even directed instruction. when I do ensembles I’m constantly running from one different place to 216
another.”
Teacher-Directed Any statement or When describing how material was Philosophy discussion that revealed presented to students, Participant Two the teacher as having a stated, “It’s always me bringing in the teacher-directed content.” philosophy.
Teacher-Directed Any explanation or Participant Three described how Instructional description of a teaching method books were prioritized earlier Strategy or learning strategy that in the year: “I spend more time in the was determined as book, going through the book, trying teacher-directed. to strengthen their skills, chromatic scale, this minor key, and everything’s in unison, eighth grade is on a book three, Standard of Excellence. Seventh grade is on book two now. So we spend a lot of time trying to strengthen those scales, lip slurs. As we get a little closer to concerts I don’t spend as much time through a rehearsal working on those kinds of things at the beginning of rehearsal. It’s mostly rehearsing the pieces.”
Use of Technology Any discussion of the use Participant Two described the use of a of instructional projector and PowerPoint technology within the presentations to teach about band rehearsal. comprehensive musicianship.
Use of Parents Any discussion of how Participant Two stated, “Parents parents were used by the receive monthly newsletters, things teacher or how parents that I put out. They’re just influenced teaching and communications on things each of the learning strategies. bands has done, things I’d like to improve on, finding volunteers, that sort of thing. It keeps communication lines open. So even if there’s nothing really going on in any given month, which hasn’t happened yet, there’s still lots of communication open. We have band email list, something that goes out to all the band parents, and is regulated by myself as the director. We have a website that is constantly 217 being posted with new information. I do that almost weekly to make sure they have all up to date information. It also has our rehearsal lists ... the pieces that we’re working on. I shouldn’t say specific rehearsal things. Students always know what’s going to be on the upcoming concert and which areas they really need to work on.”
218
REFERENCES
Adams, A. (2001). Integrated instructional units: Teaching for the real world. In J. C.
Brown & A. Adams (Eds.), Constructivist teaching strategies: Projects in teacher
education (pp. 71-94). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Adderley, C., Kennedy, M., & Berz, W. (2003). “A home away from home”: The world
of the high school music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education,
51(3), 190-205.
Agran, M., Blanchard, C., Wehmeyer, M., & Hughes, C. (2001). Teaching students to
self-regulate their behavior: The differential effects of student- vs. teacher-
delivered reinforcement. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 319-332
Allen, R. F. (1989). The relationship between learning style and teaching style of
secondary teachers in south central Kansas. Dissertation Abstracts International,
49 (12), 3680A. (UMI No. 8905722)
Allsup, R. E. (2003). Mutual learning and democratic action in instrumental music
education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(1), pp. 24-37.
Allsup, R. E., & Baxter, M. (2004). Talking about music: Better questions? Better
discussions! Music Educators Journal, 91(2), 29-33.
Austin, J. R. (1998). Comprehensive musicianship research: Implications for addressing
the national standards in music ensemble classes. Update, 25, 25-32.
Battisti, F. L. (2002). The winds of change. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music
Publications.
219
Bazan, D. E. (2007). The development of self-directed learners: How a high school band
director fosters independent musicianship. Poster session presented at the 2007
Annual Conference of the Ohio Music Educators Association, Columbus, OH,
February 2007.
Bergee, M. J., & Cecconi-Roberts, L. (2002). Effects of small-group peer interaction on
self-evaluation of music performance. Journal of Research in Music Education,
50(3), 256-268.
Berv, J. A. (2002). Listening to the students: The three Rs of student-centered school
improvement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (06), 2188A. (UMI No.
3057737)
Blocher, L., Greenwood, R., & Shellahamer, B. (1997). Teaching behaviors of middle
school and high school band directors in the rehearsal setting. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 45(3), 457-469.
Block, C. C. (2001). Teaching the language arts: Expanding thinking through student-
centered instruction. Boston: Pearson.
Borst, J. D. (2003). The exploration and description of the teaching life of two exemplary
choral teachers: A comparative study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63
(09), 3141A. (UMI No. 3064204)
Brakel, T. D. (1994). An investigation of instrumental teaching styles. Southeastern
Journal of Music Education, 6, 73-87.
Brakel, T. D. (1998). Attrition of instrumental music students as a function of teaching
style and selected demographic variables. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58
(12), 4592A. (UMI No. 9816946) 220
Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & Beckett, K. L. (2005). Theories
of learning and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford
(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and
be able to do (pp. 40-87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, S. C. (2002). Developing self-regulated learning strategy use with urban middle
school physical education students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (07),
2499A. (UMI No. 3059211)
Bruner, J. (1999). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bukowiecki, E. S. (1999). The effect of student free-response and teacher-directed
question-response upon students’ comprehension of content area textbooks.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (05), 1498A. (UMI No. 9932799)
Cano, J., Gaton, B. L., & Raven, M. R. (1992). Learning styles, teaching styles, and
personality styles of preservice teachers of agricultural education. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 33, 46-52.
Casey, J. L. (1993) Teaching techniques and insights for instrumental music educators.
Chicago: GIA Publications.
Cates, B. (2001). Writing case studies: Constructing an understanding of student and
classroom. In J. C. Brown & A. Adams (Eds.), Constructivist teaching strategies:
Projects in teacher education (pp. 3-25). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Cavitt, M. E. (2003). A descriptive analysis of error correction in instrumental music
rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(3), 218-230.
Chiodo, P. (2001). Assessing a cast of thousands. Music Educators Journal, 87(6), 17-23. 221
Colwell, R. J., & Goolsby, T. (1992). The teaching of instrumental music (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Colwell, R. J., & Goolsby, T. (2002). The teaching of instrumental music (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Confer, C. S. (2001). Student participation in a process of teacher change: Toward
student-centered teaching and learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61
(07), 2573A. (UMI No. 9977586)
Cooper, S. (2005). Cultivating composition and creativity. General Music Today, 18(3),
6-12.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2004). Assessment strategies for self-directed learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Della Pietra, C. J. (1997). The effects of a three-phase constructivist instructional model
for improvisation on high school students’ perception and reproduction of musical
rhythm. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (06), 2125A. (UMI No.
9736258) 222
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.).
New York: Wiley and Sons.
Dunn, K. J., & Frazier, E. R. (1990). Teaching styles. Reston, VA: National Association
of Secondary School Principals.
Erbes, R. (1978). Until I learned about interaction analysis. Music Educators Journal,
65(2), 50-53.
Fenton, A. (2006). Weft QDA (Version 1.01). Retrieved April 2, 2007, from
http://www.pressure.to/qda/
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning.
In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd
ed., pp. 8-38). New York: Teachers College Press.
Garofalo, R. (1983). Blueprint for band. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Meredith Music
Publications.
Garofalo, R. (1995). Instructional designs: Guides to band masterworks (Vol. 2). Fort
Lauderdale, FL: Meredith Music Publications.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Glasersfeld, E. V. (2005). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.),
Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3-7). New York:
Teachers College Press. 223
Goolsby, T. W. (1996). Time use in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of
experienced, novice, and student teachers. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 44, 286-303.
Goolsby, T. W. (1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of
three career levels and preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 45, 21-40.
Goolsby, T. W. (1999). A comparison of expert and novice music teachers’ preparing
identical band compositions: An operational replication. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 47(2), 174-187.
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: The integration of teaching and learning styles
in the classroom. Essays on Teaching Excellence, 7(5). Retrieved April 2, 2007,
from http://cstl.syr.edu/CSTL3/Home/Resources/Subscriptions/POD/v7/
V7N5.HTM#return
Green, L. (2005). The music curriculum as lived experience: Children’s “natural” music-
learning processes. Music Educators Journal, 91(4), 27-32.
Griffin, T. A. (2003). Supporting students with low self-regulation through problem-
based learning techniques in online education. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 63 (11), 3917A. (UMI No. 3071159)
Gumm, A. J. (1992). The identification and measurement of music teaching styles.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (07), 2454A. (UMI No. 9201793)
Gumm, A. (1993). The development of a model and assessment instrument of choral
music teaching styles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(3), 181-199. 224
Gumm, A. (2003a). The effects of choral music teacher experience and background on
music teaching style. Visions of Research in Music Education, 3, 6-22.
Gumm, A. (2003b). Music teaching style: Moving beyond tradition. Galesville, MD:
Meredith Music Publication.
Gumm, A. (2004a). The effect of choral student learning style and motivation for music
on perception of music teaching style. Bulletin of the Council for Research in
Music Education, 159, 11-17.
Gumm, A. (2004b). Music Teaching Style Inventory. Mount Pleasant, MI: Alan Gumm.
Gumm, A. J. (2004c). Relationships between college student perception of music
teaching style and evaluations of choral ensemble teaching effectiveness. Paper
presented at the Music Educators National Conference national convention
Measurement and Evaluation SRIG meeting, Minneapolis, MN, April 17, 2004.
Harmin, M. (1994). Inspiring active learning: A handbook for teachers. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Harper, J. O. L. (1998). On wings of eagles: A look at self-regulation of how high school
students manage their learning with a student-centered curriculum. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 58 (08), 2999A. (UMI No. 9805459)
Hewitt, M. P. (2001). The effects of modeling, self-evaluation, and self-listening on
junior high instrumentalists’ music performance and practice attitude. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 49(4), 307-322.
Hewitt, M. P. (2002). Self-evaluation tendencies of junior high instrumentalists. Journal
of Research in Music Education, 50(3), 215-226. 225
Hickey, M. (2001). Creativity in the music classroom. Music Educators Journal, 88(1),
19-23.
Howard, E. M., & Ill, P. J. (2004). Career pathways: Preparing students for life.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Assessing students in groups: Promoting group
responsibility and individual accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jorgensen, E. R. (2003). Transforming music education. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Kelly, B. J. (1972). The effects of student-centered and teacher-centered climates on
certain aspects of student personality. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32
(11) 6619B. (UMI No. 7214464)
Kerley, M. A. (1996). An investigation of the decision-making processes, the leadership
style and behavior, and the musicality of two master teachers of elementary-aged
children’s choirs. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (11), 4359A. (UMI No.
NN01708).
Kohut, D. L. (1996). Instrumental music pedagogy: Teaching techniques for school band
and orchestra directors. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.
Kolb. D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the sources of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Labuta, J. A. (1997). Teaching musicianship in the high school band. Fort Lauderdale,
FL: Meredith Music Publications.
Lambros, A. (2004). Problem-based learning in middle and high school classrooms.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 226
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Ley, K., & Young, D. B. (1998). Self-regulation behaviors in underprepared
(developmental) and regular admission college students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 23, 42-64.
Lisk, E. S. (1991). The creative director: Alternative rehearsal techniques (3rd ed.). Fort
Lauderdale, FL: Meredith Music Publications.
Mackworth-Young, L. (1990). Pupil-centered learning in piano lessons: An evaluated
action-research programme focusing on the psychology of the individual.
Psychology of Music, 18, 73-86.
MacQueen, K. M., McLelan, E., Kay, K., & Millstein, B. (1998). Codebook development
for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10(2).
Mark, M. L. (1996). Contemporary music education (3rd ed.). New York: Schirmer
Books.
Mawhinney, T. S. (2002). Effects of teaching prescriptions on the self-assessed teaching
styles and beliefs of secondary school teachers. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 63 (01), 145A. (UMI No. 3041188)
McCombs, B. L. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A
phenomenological view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-
regulated learning and academic achievement (2nd ed., pp. 67-123). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 227
McMillin, W. (2000). Learning style and teaching style interaction and the effect on
psychological reactance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (08), 2800A.
(UMI No. 9942455)
McPherson, G. E. (1995). The assessment of musical performance: Development and
validation of five new measures. Psychology of Music, 23(2), 142-161.
McPherson, G. E. (1997). Cognitive strategies and skills acquisition in musical
performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 64-
71.
McPherson, G. E., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Self-regulation of musical learning: A
social cognitive perspective. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new
handbook of music teaching and learning, (pp. 327-347). New York: Oxford
University Press.
MENC. (1994). National standards for music education. Retrieved November, 6, 2006,
from http://www.menc.org/publication/books/standards.htm
Meyer, E. R. (2000). Reshaping student-centered reform: A focus on students and
teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (02), 445A. (UMI No. 9961928)
Miles, R. (1997). Teaching music through performance in band (Vol. 1). Chicago: GIA
Publications.
Miles, R. (1998). Teaching music through performance in band (Vol. 2). Chicago: GIA
Publications.
Miles, R. (2000). Teaching music through performance in band (Vol. 3). Chicago: GIA
Publications. 228
Miles, R. (2001). Teaching music through performance in beginning band. Chicago: GIA
Publications.
Miles, R. (2002). Teaching music through performance in band (Vol. 4). Chicago: GIA
Publications.
Miles, R. (2004). Teaching music through performance in band (Vol. 5). Chicago: GIA
Publications.
Moehle, M. (2005). Student perceptions of band: The missing component of curriculum
design. Unpublished masters thesis, Case Western Reserve University.
Morgan, S. G. (1984). Dimensions of musical problem solving by high school
instrumentalists: An exploratory investigation. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 46 (06), 1551A. (UMI No. 8500838)
Morrow, T. A. (1998). The effects on student achievement of two teacher instructional
methods. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (08), 2940A. (UMI No.
9803798)
Nelson, W. R. (1999). Enhancing teaching style variety in the middle school science
classrooms at the Pittsgrove Township School District. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59 (11), 4111A. (UMI No. 9913301)
Neuman, W. L. (2002). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Nielsen, S. G. (1999). Learning strategies in instrumental music practice. British Journal
of Music Education, 16(3), 275-291.
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & O’Neill, S. A. (2000). The importance of music to
adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 255-272. 229
Ohio Department of Education. (2006). Ohio educational directory. Columbus, OH: Ohio
Department of Education.
Ohio Department of Education. (2007). Interactive local report card home. Retrieved
April 14, 2007 from http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us/Default.asp
Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
O’Toole, P. (2003). Shaping sound musicians: An innovative approach to teaching
musicianship through performance. Chicago: GIA Publications.
Pengiran-Jadid, P. R. (1998). Analysis of the learning styles, gender, and creativity of
Bruneian performing and non-performing primary and elite and regular secondary
school students and their teachers’ teaching styles. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59 (06), 1893A. (UMI No. 9836613)
Price, H. E. (1983). The effect of conductor academic task presentation, conductor
reinforcement, and ensemble practice on performers’ musical achievement,
attentiveness, and attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31(4), 245-
257.
Price, H. E. (1992). Sequential patterns of music instruction and learning to use them.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 40(1), 14-29.
Price, H. E., & Byo, J. L. (2002). Rehearsing and conducting. In R. Parncutt & G. E.
McPherson, The Science and Psychology of Music Performance, (pp. 335- 351).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Priest, T. (2002). Creative thinking in instrumental classes. Music Educators Journal,
88(4), 47-51, 58. 230
Regelski, T. A. (1992). The action value of musical experience and learning. In J.
Paynter, T. Howell, R. Orton, & P. Seymour (Eds.), Companion to Contemporary
Thought (Vol. 1, pp. 105-127). New York: Routledge.
Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Rohwer, M. (1997). Choral students’ self-evaluation of musical performance. Journal of
Music Teacher Education¸ 6(2), 15-18.
Rosenshine, B., Froehlich, H., & Fakhouri, I. (2002). Systematic instruction. In R.
Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The New Handbook of Music Teaching and
Learning, (pp. 299-326). New York: Oxford University Press.
Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning. New
York: Open University Press.
Schleuter, S. L. (1997). A sound approach to teaching instrumentalists: An application of
content and learning sequences (2nd ed.). New York: Schirmer Books.
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Shapiro, A. (2003). Case studies in constructivist leadership and teaching. Lanham, MD:
The Scarecrow Press.
Sherman, C. P. (2007). A study of current strategies and practices in the assessment of
individuals in high school bands. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67 (10).
(UMI No. 3237098)
Shinder, T. D. (2002). Developing self-regulation in computer mediated instruction.
Unpublished masters thesis, The University of Houston, Clear Lake. 231
Silver, H. F., Hanson, J. R., Strong, R. W., & Schwartz, P. B. (1996). Teaching styles and
strategies (3rd ed.). Woodbridge, NJ: Thoughtful Education Press.
Small, C. (1996). Music, society, education. Hanover, NH: University Press of New
England.
Spurlock, H. L. (2002). The impact of student-centered pedagogy and students’ feelings
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness on motivation: Implications for test
motivation and test performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (01),
88A. (UMI No. 3040827)
SPSS, Inc. (2007). SPSS for Windows (Release 15.0). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Stevens, S. (2003). Creative experiences in free play. Music Educators Journal, 89(5),
44-47.
Storm, M. D. (2004). Beginning and experienced teachers’ beliefs about students,
teaching, and learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (04), 1255A.
(UMI No. 3131431)
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tsai, C. (2000) Teaching styles of piano faculty in Taiwanese universities and colleges.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (04), 1336A. (UMI No. 9967166)
Turner, M. E. (1999). Child-centered learning and music programs. Music Educators
Journal, 86(1), 31-33, 55.
Turner, M. E. (2006). Child-centered music strategies and the teachable moment. General
Music Today, 19(3), 17-20.
232
Urbaniak, G. C., Plous, S., & Lestik, M. (2007). randomizer.org. Retrieved February 12,
2007, from http://www.randomizer.org/
Webb, C., & Baird, H. (1968). Learning differences resulting from teacher- and student-
centered teaching methods. The Journal of Higher Education, 39(8), 456-460.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey of teachers’
promotion of self-determination and student-directed learning. The Journal of
Special Education, 34(2), 58-68.
Weng, C. (2002). The relationship between learning style preferences and teaching style
preferences in college students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (09),
2966A. (UMI No. 3025111)
Whitwell, D. (1985). A concise history of the wind band. St. Louis: Shattinger Music
Company.
Woods, D., & Fassnacht, C. (2007). Transana v2.20. http://www.transana.org. Madison,
WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual
framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-
regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp.
3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-
regulated learning and academic achievement (2nd ed., pp. 1-37). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 233
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zillmann, D., & Gan, S. (1997). Musical taste in adolescence. In D. J. Hargreaves & A.
C. North, (Eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 161-187). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Zurcher, W. (1987). The effect of three evaluation procedures on the rehearsal
achievement of eighth-grade band students. In C. K. Madsen & C. A. Prickett
(Eds.), Applications of research in music behavior (pp. 51-58). Tuscaloosa, AL:
University of Alabama Press.