EXPECTATIONS OF AUTOMATICITY IN BEGINNING INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC EDUCATORS by AMBER DAHLÉN PETERSON Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation Adviser: Dr. Kathleen Horvath Department of Music CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY May, 2012 AUTOMATICITY EXPECTATIONS ii CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES AUTOMATICITY EXPECTATIONS iii Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………….. vi LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………… viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………… ix ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………... x FORWARD………………………………………………..…………………….. xii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….. 1 Statement of the Problem…...………………………………………….... 5 The need for automaticity in memory…………………………... 11 Examples of automaticity………………………………………. 14 Automaticity research…………………………………………... 19 The need for automaticity in teaching…………………………... 21 Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………….. 24 Research Questions…………………………………………………….... 25 Definition of Terms……………………………………………………… 30 Delimitations…………………………………………………………….. 32 II. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………….. 35 Desired Results………………………………………………………….. 35 Expertise………………………………………………………… 35 Automaticity…………………………………………………….. 41 Characteristics and benefits of automatic skills………… 43 Limitations of automatic skills…………………………. 45 Choking…………………………………………. 46 Expert-induced amnesia………………………… 48 Adaptive expertise……………………………………………… 49 Expertise in teaching……………………………………………. 52 Experience………………………………………………. 56 Personal traits………………………………………….... 58 Knowledge of students………………………………….. 59 Schemata………………………………………………... 59 Teacher knowledge……………………………………... 61 Content knowledge……………………………... 62 Pedagogical knowledge……………………….... 66 Pedagogical content knowledge………………,... 67 Automaticity…………………………………………….. 69 AUTOMATICITY EXPECTATIONS iv Problem-solving skills…………………………………... 72 Flexibility………………………………………………... 73 Recognition of patterns………………………………….. 74 The Beginning music educator………………………………….. 76 Knowledge and skills……………………………………. 77 Challenges……………………………………………….. 80 Summary of section……………………………………………... 82 Evidence…………………………………………………………………. 83 Knowledge and skill acquisition………………………………... 83 Psychomotor skills………………………………………. 84 Cognitive skills………………………………………….. 85 Bloom’s revised taxonomy……………………………… 89 Neurological basis of automaticity…………………………….... 90 Assessment………………………………………………………. 94 Summary of section……………………………………………... 102 Undergraduate Music Teacher Education……………………………….. 104 Curriculum………………………………………………………. 104 Specialists versus generalists……………………………………. 106 NASM requirements…………………………………………….. 109 Opportunities for deliberate practice……………………………. 110 Student teaching…………………………………………. 114 Field experiences………………………………………... 116 Criticisms………………………………………… 118 Service learning…………………………………………. 121 Effectiveness……………………………………………………... 124 Preparation potential……………………………………... 127 Recommendations for improvement…………………….. 127 Summary of section……………………………………………… 132 Summary of Chapter……………………………………………………... 133 III. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………... 136 Participants……………………………………......................................... 137 Data Collection Instrument……………………………………………… 143 Pilot Study……………………………………………………………….. 146 Data Analysis Procedures………………………………………………... 147 Validity and Reliability………………………………………………….. 150 IV. RESULTS……………………………………………………………………. 152 Music Teacher Education Preparation…………………………………… 152 Coursework………………………………………………………. 152 Field experiences………………………………………………… 156 Student teaching and certification………………………………... 158 Music Teacher Education Evaluation……………………………………. 160 Evaluation across programs……………………………………… 163 AUTOMATICITY EXPECTATIONS v University supervision during student teaching…………………. 167 Automaticity Expectations of Music Educator Skills…………………… 168 Teaching skills…………………………………………………... 169 Performance skills………………………………………………. 173 Further analysis………………………………………………….. 178 Other categorizations……………………………………. 178 Correlations……………………………………………… 188 Summary of Results……………………………………………………... 193 V. DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………… 195 Summary of the Study…………………………………………………… 195 Findings………………………………………………………………….. 197 Music teacher education preparation……………………………. 197 Coursework……………………………………………… 197 Field experience.………………………………………… 200 Evaluation in music teacher education programs……………….. 201 Automaticity expectations………………………………………. 204 Correlations……………………………………………… 208 Further analyses…………………………………………. 211 Limitations of the Study………………………………………………… 211 Suggestions for Future Research………………………………………... 213 Conclusions and Implications…………………………………………… 215 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………… 219 A. Music Educator Skills and Categorizations and Key……………. 219 B. Informed Consent Document and Survey of Automaticity Expectations……………………………..……………………….. 234 C. Email of Invitation for Study Participation………………………. 248 D. Reminder Email for Study Participation…………………………. 249 E. Final Reminder Email for Study Participation………………….... 250 F. Analysis for Possible Correlations between Program Attributes and Music Teacher Educator Expectations……………………… 251 G. Patterns of Teaching Skill Expectations Across Categories……... 253 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………… 255 AUTOMATICITY EXPECTATIONS vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 A Comparison of Phases of Skill Learning……………………... 10 1.2 Examples of Potentially Automatic Skills…………………….... 15 1.3 NASM Curricular Structure for Undergraduate Music Education Degrees………………………………………………. 26 2.1 Types of Automaticity in the Triple Mode View…………..…… 42 2.2 Characteristics of Expert Music Teachers………………………. 65 3.1 Other PK-12 Teaching Experience by Participants……………… 140 3.2 Frequency of Instrumental Music Teacher Educator Degrees…... 142 3.3 Research Questions in the Survey Instrument…………………... 149 4.1 Course Requirements for Instrumental Music Education Programs…………………………………………………………. 153 4.2 Technique Class Requirements for Instrumental Music Education Programs……………………………………………... 154 4.3 Laboratory Ensemble Requirements……………………………... 155 4.4 Undergraduate Involvement in Other Types of Field Experiences……………………………………………………… 158 4.5 Evaluative Tools used across Music Teacher Education Programs........................................................................................ 164 4.6 Automaticity Expectations Scale………………………………... 170 4.7 Ranking of Automaticity Expectations for Teaching Skills…….. 171 4.8 Ranking of Automaticity Expectations for Performance Skills…. 174 4.9 Comparison of Expectations of Performance and Teaching Skill Categories………………………………………………….. 176 4.10 Significant Differences in Post Hoc Analyses of Automaticity Expectations…………………………………………………….. 177 AUTOMATICITY EXPECTATIONS vii 4.11 Ranking of Automaticity Expectations within NASM competencies……………………………………………………. 181 4.12 Significant Differences in Post Hoc Analyses of Automaticity Expectations within NASM competency rankings……………… 184 4.13 Significant Correlations between Coursework and Automaticity Expectations………………………………………. 190 4.14 Significant Correlations between Practice Activities and Automaticity Expectations………………………………………. 191 4.15 Significant Correlations between Evaluative Tools and Automaticity Expectations………………...………………...…… 192 A Music Educator Skills and Categorizations and Key…….………. 219 F Analysis for Possible Correlations between Program Attributes and Music Teacher Educator Expectations.................................... 251 G Patterns of Teaching Skill Expectations Across Categories…….. 253 AUTOMATICITY EXPECTATIONS viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure i Conceptualization of the Word “Skill”…………………………... xvi 2.1 A Depiction of Shulman’s Types of Teacher Knowledge…..…… 62 2.2 A Classification System for Evaluation of Learning Outcomes… 97 4.1 Frequency of Courses with Field Experience Teaching Components……………………………………………………… 156 4.2 Frequency of Evaluative Tools used in Music Teacher Education………………………………………………………… 161 4.3 Frequency of Evaluative Tools used in Music Teacher Education………………………………………………………… 162 AUTOMATICITY EXPECTATIONS ix Acknowledgements This dissertation would have been impossible without the support of many friends, family, and teachers. First of all, I would like to recognize the expertise, support, and guidance from several Case Western Reserve University faculty including Dr. Kathleen Horvath, Dr. William Bauer, Dr. Matthew Garrett, and Dr. Norah Feeny. All helped establish a strong foundation through many valuable courses and experiences. Thank you especially to my mentors in music education research – Dr. William Bauer and Dr. Lisa Koops. I would also like to thank Kimberly Meier- Sims at the Cleveland Institute of Music. It was while enrolled in her Suzuki pedagogy classes that I originally began contemplating the topic that would eventually become this dissertation. Fellow Case Western Reserve University students were also invaluable, not only in their professional support but also in their personal friendship. I would like to especially thank my doctoral colleagues: Dr. Megan Clay Constantine, Dr. Vanessa Bond, and Tammy Kuntz. It has certainly been an adventure. This undertaking would also have been impossible without the support of my husband and parents. Thank you for always being there on this journey. Your encouragement made all the difference in the many ups and downs over the last several years. Thank you, Sean, for always being there for me, even when we were nine hours apart. I couldn’t